Some people might argue with the claim I made in my last post (that London is not a cutting edge city… in fact I hope people will argue) by calling attention to research being done at UWO, etc.
But there’s a difference between the presence of a few cutting edge elements vs cutting edge being a distinguising quality that sets London as a whole apart from other cities. Western is a large university — of course there’s going to be cutting edge research happening there. If we couldn’t name a bunch of important projects going on there I’d start to wonder if maybe we might as well shutter the place — or turn it into a heritage park, or a retirement village…
If we look more closely at Western, their strategy is to build competitive advantage as “Canada’s Best Student Experience” rather than distinguishing themselves as a leader in research and innovation — which isn’t to say that innovation and experience are mutually exclusive. It just means that while UWO also wants to thrive research-wise, their competitive advantage (what they beat everybody at) is student experience. This assures there will always be potential students who have Western first in mind and understand why – so their minds won’t be changed so easily when it’s time to choose schools. Other potential students might think of Waterloo as their first and only choice because of that school’s competitive advantage in computer science, which is fine.
My favourite book about looking at things this way is Blue Ocean Strategy [borrow it], which uses the metaphor of a “red ocean” to describe where most competition happens (“red” because it is shark-infested and bloody).
By trying to sell London as innovative, we’re diving straight into the red ocean. The mayors of Waterloo, Guelph, Hamilton, and St. Catherines could pretty well give the same speech as our mayor gave on Thursday (“We’re innovative… research at the university… ideally located… a bunch of companies are located here… great history and foundation… big dreams”).
The blue ocean is where we define our own market space, setting ourselves apart from the competition with lots of space to move around, not with rhetoric and salesmanship but by creating value that nobody else offers and would be very difficult for potential competitors to replicate. The book uses Cirque de Soleil as an example: Instead of competing directly with conventional circuses like Ringling Brothers, they incorporated more theatrical elements and increased the sophistication of their artistry and drama — intangible qualities that are tough to imitate — to create a whole new form of entertainment.
We can’t quite do that with a city — mainly because we can’t afford the trade-offs and risks that, say, a group of street entertainers, or even a startup airline can afford to try. The Blue Ocean Strategy approach (at least if you use the book as a manual) requires eliminating some sources of value altogether (like Cirque de Soleil eliminating the idea that a circus needs animals, or Southwest Airlines eliminating in-flight meals and reserved seating).
At first glance we would assume that the City of London can’t afford to eliminate any of the elements that cities take for granted. London doesn’t appear to be in a position to stop being or doing any of the things that we expect cities to be and do. But a lot of what is taken for granted in the sphere of municipal competition has only emerged fairly recently.
For example, innovation and the “creative cities” paradigm. I personally believe in the spirit of those ideals, but the precise forms they take are far from settled and trustworthy. They’ve only been around for a few years (maybe a couple of decades) and the underlying factors that make them work (i.e. big historical waves that are difficult to get a sense of while we’re still in the middle of them) could change seemingly without notice. Think of the economic upheavals happening right now. It’s not inconceivable that the hype about creative cities and the creative class has been tied-in with the series of economic booms (tech, real estate, finance) we’ve had since the 1990′s, and as our economies change, maybe the conditions for “creative cities” will change with them.
More importantly – and regardless of whether or not we’re individually moved by the spirit of creativity — it’s essential to recognize that when we’re talking about innovation and creativity, relying on other people’s models is the least creative thing we can ever do.
The first rule of creativity is don’t try to be “creative.” It’s the same as the first principle taught by pickup artists, zen gurus, and fishing guides: chasing what you want is the surest way to scare it off.
I’m all for being creative (remember I’ve made a lot of sacrifices for my own creative freedom) but it has to be effective — either effective or just plain fun for its own sake. We’ll start creating real competitive advantage when we stop talking about what creativity and innovation ”should” be and just do whatever it is that Londoners feel like doing together…
To be continued…
Pingback: The Hub Dream That is London | B Frank
Pingback: Best Of: Social Media in London | brianfrank.ca