Nice points. One more to add. The big idea is often the most obvious. To everyone. It is difficult to stake out your property during a land rush. Smaller chunks, focused tidbits leave more room to differentiate, find speed, establish territory.

Obvious up front. It's the “big ideas” that are big only in retrospect that reshape people, companies, technologies, industries and cultures.

Accurate distinction. But I think that may also make the point. Specially when you look at the history of world changing ideas that actually break through. Many seem to come from nowhere. Or comic books.

Yep, I'm agreeing with you :)

Interesting piece, but I'll make one counterpoint: Big ideas don't have to mean big executions. In the absence of big ideas, you often get small, unrelated ideas lacking necessary cohesion. It makes momentum difficult. Big ideas are the silk that hold the web of little ideas together. Granted, big ideas should be iterated in little, manageable chunks. Big ideas should be treated like real options, if you will.

@bonifer doesn't say the quest for big ideas = big execution. And he says explicitly “Focus on purpose and all your Little Ideas will align themselves with Big Themes. ”

Not to be overly anal about word choice, but it's more about how focusing on the Big Idea (the one big thing that changes everything, the Big Bang) often creates solutions that are sub-optimal to the Big Theme.

Yeah, Matthew, just because I didn't pick up the tab for your beer in Chicago, you come in here and cause trouble.

Next time I'm buying your beer.

Seriously, you and Taylor are both getting at the risk of 'chunking stuff out randomly' when it comes to execution, or, when it comes to finding the audience, too much fragmentation and/or focus on platform. I see that. As Taylor says, it's about behaving (in terms of creation) and and connecting (wheen it comes to distribution) in a way that is thematically consistent. The energetic exploration of the theme is what turns an idea Big.

A good way of seeing the robustness of an organization, I think, is by the # of small seedling projects and activities it's got in the works. The seedlings, if given room to breathe and fail repeatedly (learning not monetizing is the objective) will eventually grow and pattern themselves into innovations and/or fresh perspectives that drive can ROI within a reasonable window.

In a meeting at Disney today, I explained to a senior exec how Tim Burton, who is the big cashmaker for them today, cut his teeth at the studio in the early eighties on: a beach film musical parody shot on Super 8 starring this hot babe animator Sue Frankenberger and a cast of skinny geek animators; “Vincent” the short he did with Rick Heinrichs who today is an Acad. Award winning production designer; “Frankenweenie” (which is going to be Burton's next feature film for Disney, done in stop-motion animation); a Noh-theater version of “Hansel and Gretel” that is just awesome and was shown at at his MOCA exhibit in NYC…and also something like two Fairie Tale Theaters for Shelley Duvall. None of that stuff made any money to speak of. But it prepped Tim beautifully for “Pee Wee's Big Adventure” and “Batman,” and the money has been rolling in ever since.

Not everyone is a Burton or a John Lasseter (who also had his share of experimental stuff produced at Disney before he left to start Pixar ) who can produce those kinds of multiples on the seedling investments. But that's okay. The game is played for aggregate score.

; )

“You can only connect the dots in retrospect.” – S. Jobs

Trouble, hardly, you ain't see nothing yet. :)

I see your points as truer in organizational design problems (inclusive of portfolio management problems as you illustrated) than in creative ideas which was my POV. For OD, assuming there is an appropriate level of risk isolation and tolerance, I absolutely agree making lots of small bets makes plenty of sense.

On the creative ideas front, small bets make me nervous in the absence of a big idea. Small bets make sense in the sense of real options though. Now, admittedly, there is new terminology involved here known as big themes which is, I'm assuming, what I'd normally call a big idea.

I think the big theme necessity applies to both creative ideas and OD too. Even in companies that makes lots of little bets, the little bets are strategic insofar as their failure provides some sort of value for the rest of org (or campaign).

Your final point about aggregate score is a doozy. If only that were the case more often. Instead, in my exp at least, I see lots more local optimization than global optimization. But that's prolly just me – most biz is too rational for that I'm sure. :)

ok, I'm probably splitting hairs with the big idea v big theme thing.

Small bets without a unifying vision / purpose just don't work. Only if there is a unifying vision can small bets / small executions / tests create real options. Agreed.

All I mean to draw out is the obsession companies and people can have over the “big idea that changes everything”. 1) Big ideas don't work, 2) bureaucracies at large companies water down big ideas, and 3) the real gamechanging big ideas often come from small ideas that get big.

Yeah, Matthew, just because I didn’t pick up the tab for your beer in Chicago, you come in here and cause trouble. nnNext time I’m buying your beer.nnSeriously, you and Taylor are both getting at the risk of ‘chunking stuff out randomly’ when it comes to execution, or, when it comes to finding the audience, too much fragmentation and/or focus on platform. I see that. As Taylor says, it’s about behaving (in terms of creation) and and connecting (wheen it comes to distribution) in a way that is thematically consistent. The energetic exploration of the theme is what turns an idea Big.nnA good way of seeing the robustness of an organization, I think, is by the # of small seedling projects and activities it’s got in the works. The seedlings, if given room to breathe and fail repeatedly (learning not monetizing is the objective) will eventually grow and pattern themselves into innovations and/or fresh perspectives that drive can ROI within a reasonable window. nnIn a meeting at Disney today, I explained to a senior exec how Tim Burton, who is the big cashmaker for them today, cut his teeth at the studio in the early eighties on: a beach film musical parody shot on Super 8 starring this hot babe animator Sue Frankenberger and a cast of skinny geek animators; “Vincent” the short he did with Rick Heinrichs who today is an Acad. Award winning production designer; “Frankenweenie” (which is going to be Burton’s next feature film for Disney, done in stop-motion animation); a Noh-theater version of “Hansel and Gretel” that is just awesome and was shown at at his MOCA exhibit in NYC…and also something like two Fairie Tale Theaters for Shelley Duvall. None of that stuff made any money to speak of. But it prepped Tim beautifully for “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure” and “Batman,” and the money has been rolling in ever since.nnNot everyone is a Burton or a John Lasseter (who also had his share of experimental stuff produced at Disney before he left to start Pixar ) who can produce those kinds of multiples on the seedling investments. But that’s okay. The game is played for aggregate score.nn; )nn

“You can only connect the dots in retrospect.” – S. Jobs

Trouble, hardly, you ain’t see nothing yet. :)nnI see your points as truer in organizational design problems (inclusive of portfolio management problems as you illustrated) than in creative ideas which was my POV. For OD, assuming there is an appropriate level of risk isolation and tolerance, I absolutely agree making lots of small bets makes plenty of sense.nnOn the creative ideas front, small bets make me nervous in the absence of a big idea. Small bets make sense in the sense of real options though. Now, admittedly, there is new terminology involved here known as big themes which is, I’m assuming, what I’d normally call a big idea. nnI think the big theme necessity applies to both creative ideas and OD too. Even in companies that makes lots of little bets, the little bets are strategic insofar as their failure provides some sort of value for the rest of org (or campaign).nnYour final point about aggregate score is a doozy. If only that were the case more often. Instead, in my exp at least, I see lots more local optimization than global optimization. But that’s prolly just me – most biz is too rational for that I’m sure. :)

ok, I’m probably splitting hairs with the big idea v big theme thing.nnSmall bets without a unifying vision / purpose just don’t work. Only if there is a unifying vision can small bets / small executions / tests create real options. Agreed.nnAll I mean to draw out is the obsession companies and people can have over the “big idea that changes everything”. 1) Big ideas don’t work, 2) bureaucracies at large companies water down big ideas, and 3) the real gamechanging big ideas often come from small ideas that get big.