One more thing about risk. It is true that developers take big risks, and the other actors need to acknowledge and appreciate that. BUT, if you want to understand developer behavior and how to interact in the development review process, you have to realize that [most] developers are trying to minimize risk. That is why so much of what we see coming over the counter is so formulaic. If it worked once, it will work again, right? Asking a developer to try something different because you thought it was cool when you saw it while on vacation or in a magazine is not a good way to have influence. You need the community behind you, so that developers can see that, yes, maybe there is a market.
Interesting, but I quibble on the risk-taking. There are plenty of public servants who are one wrong statement, or maybe two, away from looking for a new job. That may not be quite as much the case in larger cities with formal civil service protections, but I have watched this risk shape behavior, and usually not in a good way. Even when you are committed to enacting change (and even when that's what your employers want), you spend a lot of time thinking about exactly how to present things, which is to say, a lot of time understanding and managing risk.
Hi Lee-- great point. Maybe it makes sense to distinguish between risk and danger. Risk can be used to apply to a situation with potential upside or downside. Because of the developers skin in the game, they potentially benefit from success. But for planners, etc. I don't know that there is much (personal) upside to risk taking, so being entrepreneurial can be more like danger, where you're taking on personal downside risk (getting fired). Only in rare cases can you really make your careers on the back of a gutsy move in civil service. But you can totally be left holding the bag for something that goes sideways. And I agree, job markets for planners are not thick: so there is a lot of risk aversion.
One more thing about risk. It is true that developers take big risks, and the other actors need to acknowledge and appreciate that. BUT, if you want to understand developer behavior and how to interact in the development review process, you have to realize that [most] developers are trying to minimize risk. That is why so much of what we see coming over the counter is so formulaic. If it worked once, it will work again, right? Asking a developer to try something different because you thought it was cool when you saw it while on vacation or in a magazine is not a good way to have influence. You need the community behind you, so that developers can see that, yes, maybe there is a market.
Interesting, but I quibble on the risk-taking. There are plenty of public servants who are one wrong statement, or maybe two, away from looking for a new job. That may not be quite as much the case in larger cities with formal civil service protections, but I have watched this risk shape behavior, and usually not in a good way. Even when you are committed to enacting change (and even when that's what your employers want), you spend a lot of time thinking about exactly how to present things, which is to say, a lot of time understanding and managing risk.
Hi Lee-- great point. Maybe it makes sense to distinguish between risk and danger. Risk can be used to apply to a situation with potential upside or downside. Because of the developers skin in the game, they potentially benefit from success. But for planners, etc. I don't know that there is much (personal) upside to risk taking, so being entrepreneurial can be more like danger, where you're taking on personal downside risk (getting fired). Only in rare cases can you really make your careers on the back of a gutsy move in civil service. But you can totally be left holding the bag for something that goes sideways. And I agree, job markets for planners are not thick: so there is a lot of risk aversion.