Artful Making and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
  • List Price: $24.95
  • Save: $5.29 (21%)
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by
Gift-wrap available.
Add to Cart
Want it tomorrow, April 18? Order within and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. Details
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: Medium mark / wear on front cover. Small mark / wear on back cover.
Add to Cart
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more

Artful Making: What Managers Need to Know About How Artists Work Paperback

ISBN-13: 007-6092016328 ISBN-10: 0130086959 Edition: 1st

See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from Collectible from
"Please retry"
"Please retry"
$14.54 $4.78


Frequently Bought Together

Artful Making: What Managers Need to Know About How Artists Work + Orchestrating Collaboration at Work: Using Music, Improv, Storytelling, and Other Arts to Improve Teamwork + Artful Creation: Learning-Tales of Arts-in-Business
Price for all three: $118.55

Buy the selected items together


Sell Your Books
Get up to 75% back when you sell your books on Amazon. Ship your books for free and get Gift Cards. Learn more.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 201 pages
  • Publisher: Financial Times; 1 edition (May 8, 2003)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0130086959
  • ISBN-13: 978-0130086952
  • Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.4 x 0.9 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 12 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #302,253 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

From the Back Cover

IntroductionManaging When You Don’t Know Where You’re Going

If you don’t know where you’re going, any mapwill do.1 Thisconventional wisdom sounds right to many managers. It highlights the safety ofhaving a clear objective for your management actions. It implies that allmanagement actions are likely to be confused and inefficient if you don’thave a clear objective. If you don’t have a good fix on yourdestination—be it a product or service, a strategic or competitiveoutcome, or anything else—you may as well not start the journey.

For a lot of your work, though, this so-called wisdom iswrong. Why? For one thing, you can’t always know your destination inadvance. Whether you’re designing a new product, running a business involatile conditions, operating a process that might encounter unforeseeninputs, or just trying to figure out what to do with your life, the journeyusually involves exploration, adjustment, and improvisation. Situations inwhich you don’t or can’t know the results in advance are common andconsequential. All businesses face them.

If you’re not too narrow in what you’re willingto call “management,” you can manage these situations. You canenhance effectiveness and efficiency, and you can improve the likelihood ofvaluable outcomes. However, the methods you’ll use will differ from, andsometimes conflict with, methods that work when you do know where you’regoing.

There is an increasingly important category ofwork—knowledge work—that you can best manage by not enforcing adetailed, in-advance set of objectives, even if you could. Often in this kindof work, time spent planning what you want to do will be better spent actuallydoing (or letting others in your charge do), trying something you haven’tthought out in detail so you can quickly incorporate what you learn from theexperience in the next attempt. In appropriate conditions—only inappropriate conditions—you can gain more value from experience than fromup-front analysis. In certain kinds of work, even if you can figure out whereyou’re going and find a map to get you there, that may not be the bestthing to do.

Forging ahead without detailed specifications to guide youobviously requires innovation, new actions. We take this observation one stepfurther by suggesting that knowledge work, which adds value in large partbecause of its capacity for innovation, can and often should be structured asartists structure their work. Managers should look to collaborative artistsrather than to more traditional management models if they want to createeconomic value in this new century.

We call this approach artful making. “Artful,”because it derives from the theory and practice of collaborative art andrequires an artist-like attitude from managers and team members.“Making,” because it requires that you conceive of your work asaltering or combining materials into a form, for a purpose.2Materials thus treated become something new, something they would not becomewithout the intervention of a maker. This definition usually points to workthat changes physical materials, iron ore and charcoal into steel, forinstance. But the work and management we’re considering don’talways do that. Instead they mostly operate in imagination, in the realm ofknowledge and ideas. While artful making improves any thing that exhibitsinterdependency among its parts, we’re not primarily concerned withheating metal and beating it into shapes. We’re more concerned withstrategies, product designs, or software—new things that groups create bythinking, talking, and collaborating.

Artful Making

Any activity that involves creating something entirely newrequires artful making. Whenever you have no blueprint to tell you in detailwhat to do, you must work artfully. A successful response to an unexpected moveby a competitor requires artful activity; so does handling a sudden problemcaused by a supplier. An artful manager operates without the safety net of adetailed specification, guiding a team or organization when no one knowsexactly where it’s going.

In the 21st Century, it’s a simple fact that you oftendon’t know where you’re going when you start a journey. A managerwho needs to be handed a clear set of objectives or a process specification isonly half a manager (and not the most important half). To know whereyou’re going by the time you start, that’s an amazing luxury andyou probably can’t afford it. Anyway, if you think you know whereyou’re going, you’re probably wrong. The need to innovate, to makemidcourse corrections, and to adapt to changing conditions are the mainfeatures of a growing part of daily work.

Many people in business admit that parts of their work are“more art than science.” What they often mean, alas, is that theydon’t understand those parts. “Art” used in a businesscontext usually refers to something done by “talented” or“creative” people who are not quite trustworthy, who do work thatresists reasonable description. There’s often a disparaging implicationthat art-like processes are immature, that they have not yet evolved toincorporate the obviously superior methods of science. The premise thatunderlies this point of view equates progress with the development of reliable,rules-based procedures to replace flaky, unreliable, art-based processes. Wereject this premise.

Our close examination of art-based processes shows thatthey’re understandable and reliable, capable of sophisticated innovationat levels many “scientific” business processes can’t achieve.A theatre company, for instance, consistently delivers a valuable, innovativeproduct under the pressure of a very firm deadline (opening night, eighto’clock curtain). The product, a play, executes again and again withgreat precision, incorporating significant innovations every time, butfinishing within 30 seconds of the same length every time. And althoughart-based processes realize the full capabilities of talented workers and canbenefit from great worker talent, by no means do they require exceptional orespecially creative individuals. Nor does great individual talent ensure avaluable outcome. A company of exceptionally talented big stars can (and oftenwill) create a less effective play than one made up of ordinarily talentedartists who have, through hard work, learned how to collaborate. Businesshistory too provides numerous examples of underdog upstarts out-collaboratingand out-executing companies with much better resources; and few (if any)companies have ever worshiped more devoutly at the altar of raw individualtalent than Enron, one of the most spectacular corporate failures in history.3

As we will show, underlying structural similarities in costsmake theatre rehearsal and other collaborative art processes better models forknowledge work than more rules-based, scientific processes. The key tounderstanding these similarities is something we call cheap and rapiditeration.

How Cheap and Rapid Iteration Changes Everything

The cost of iteration—the cost of reconfiguring aprocess and then running it again—significantly impacts the way we work.Reconfiguring an auto assembly process can involve buying and installing newequipment, which can be pretty expensive. So, automakers usually do a lot ofplanning before they commit to a configuration. They don’t want to haveto reconfigure very often. They try to “Get it right the firsttime.”

On the other hand, some software development processes aredesigned nowadays so that they can be reconfigured cheaply and quickly.Developers generate new versions of a software system as often as needed.Technologies that allow new versions to be rebuilt easily keep the cost ofiteration low. When enabling technologies help keep the cost of iteration low,we don’t need to worry as much about getting it right the first time.Instead, we can try things, learn from them, then reconfigure and try again.Because it doesn’t cost much to iterate, the value of doing is greaterthan the value of thinking about how to do. Cheap and rapid iteration allows usto substitute experience for planning. Rather than “Get it right thefirst time,” our battle cry becomes “Make it great before thedeadline.”

Management researchers often talk about cheap and rapiditeration as cheap and rapid experimentation. The ability to run experimentscheaply and quickly is an important benefit when the cost of iteration is low.Simulation technologies, for example, allow automakers to run virtualcrash-testing experiments to determine the safety implications of many car bodystructures, more than they could afford to test with actual cars.4But experimentation, though important, is only part of what is achieved bycheap and rapid iteration. If you think and talk about iteration asexperimentation, low cost of iteration seems to make business more likescience. Its broader effect, though, is to make business more like art.

Here’s why: Before you can crash test virtual cars,you must create virtual cars. Cheap and rapid iteration lets you test cars morecheaply, but it also lets you create them more cheaply, and in many more forms.The creation of things to test—in scientific terms, the generation ofhypotheses—is a fundamentally creative act. In many business situations,the hypothesis, problem, or opportunity is not well-defined, nor does itpresent itself tidily formed; you must therefore create it. Even when a problemor opportunity appears well-defined, often you can benefit from conceiving itin a new form. The form you conceive for it—the idea of it youhave—will

determine how (and how well) you solve it. Cheap and rapidexperimentation lets you try new forms; cheap and rapid artful iteration helpsyou create new forms to try.

Artful making (which includes agile software development,theatre rehearsal, some business strategy creation, and much of other knowledgework) is a process for creating form out of disorganized materials.Collaborating artists, using the human brain as their principal technology andideas as their principal material, work with a very low cost of iteration. Theytry something and then try it again a different way, constantly reconceivingambiguous circumstances and variable materials into coherent and valuableoutputs.

Artful making differs from what we call industrial making,which emphasizes the importance of detailed planning, as well as tightlyspecified objectives, processes, and products. Its principles are familiar:Pull apart planning and production to specialize each; create a blueprint orspecification, then conform to it; don’t do anything before you know youcan do everything; “Get it right the first time.” When industrialmakers conform to plans and specifications, they say their products andprocesses have “quality.” The principles of industrial making areso embedded in business thinking that they’re transparent and wedon’t notice them. We apply them reflexively; they are “The way wedo things.” But, as we shall see, industrial methods can distort realityand smother innovation. Artful and industrial making are distinct approachesand each must be applied in the appropriate conditions.

It’s important to recognize that artful and industrialmaking are not mutually exclusive. Artful making doesn’t replaceindustrial making. Artful making should not be applied everywhere, nor shouldindustrial making. They complement each other and often can be used incombination. Complementary doesn’t mean interchangeable, though. Asopportunities for artful making multiply with the expansion of the knowledgework sector of business, managers and other workers must be careful not toattempt to solve artistic problems with industrial methods, and vice versa.

The History and Origins of this Book

The collaboration that led to this book began with atelephone call in 1998. Rob (a business professor) asked Lee (a theatreprofessor) to repeat a story he’d told when Rob was his student at Swarthmorein the early 1980s. The story was about different ways of controlling humanaction. When he called, Rob was trying to understand why control mechanismsthat work well for physical activities seem to work less well for knowledgework. Lee recognized some of the issues from conversations with his son, Sean(then an engineer/manager at Allied Signal); they had been casually wonderinghow to apply principles of theatre improvisation to the reluctance of engineersto look beyond the back of the book for solutions to new problems. A subsequentseries of increasingly energetic conversations between Rob and Lee turned tobroader issues of how highly skilled people engaged in creative activitiesmight be managed (or “directed,” as Lee put it).

We were surprised to discover common patterns and structuresin our separate domains. Rob talked about software development; Lee talkedabout play making. But the issues sounded oddly, and increasingly, similar.Some recent ideas and methods in software development, especially in theso-called “agile” community, seemed almost identical to theatremethods. As this became more obvious, an idea dawned on business professor Rob:These artists are much better at this than we are. Managers and managementstudents don’t understand how to create on cue, how to innovate reliablyon a deadline, something theatre companies do all the time.

We quickly noticed something else. As Rob tried tounderstand how theatre ensembles innovate in rehearsal, he kept missing thepoint; or so it seemed to Lee. Now, missing the point isn’t an entirelynew experience for Rob, but there was more to this problem than intellectualdensity. As Rob listened and tried to repeat back what he heard, Lee and theartists at the People’s Light and Theatre Company gradually took on anaspect of polite rather than interested attention. Eyes glazed and conversationgrew desultory. Rob’s management language didn’t accommodate thetheatre’s idea of work. An example will help illustrate what we mean.

Early in this research, thinking about cheap and rapiditeration as a way of working, we found ourselves talking about“failure.” Rob observed that an iterative work cycle must includemany failures on the way to success. Lee agreed, but resisted the term “failure.”Failure isn’t the right idea. In rehearsal, the iterations all interactwith each other. The current run-through provides the main material for thenext run-through. Each trial is a necessary step on the way to what’sgood and essential to the final success. To call an essential step towardsuccess a failure merely tortures language. What’s more, the word“failure” applied to routine work could poison the growth ofEnsemble, a quality of group work essential to rehearsal, and to artful making.“Fair enough,” thought Rob, “use some other word,”though it seemed at the time like a minor technical point.

Then we got to thinking about IDEO, a leading product designfirm that employs an iterative approach, and failure came up again.5We agreed that IDEO’s work process was an artful one, but they talk aboutfailure all the time, saying things like, “Fail often to succeedsooner.” When professors at the Harvard Business School (HBS) use IDEO asan example, it’s customary to note the difference between a“failure” and a “mistake.” In the HBS view, IDEOcherishes failure because it generates new information. But a failure thatdoesn’t generate useful new information is called a mistake. Touch a hotstove and burn your hand—that’s a failure; touch it again and burnyour hand again—that’s a mistake—same injury, no newinformation.

This resonates with many Master of Business Administration(MBA) students and even executives, but makes no sense to artists. Thedistinction between failure and mistake imposes an unreasonable limit onexploration. Though artful making is, as we have said, reliable and efficient,it has little use for the efficiency of rules like “Avoid touching a hotstove twice.” Touching the stove twice (or ten times) may be what’sneeded to break up a creative log jam. Just as an athlete may need to executethe same painful movements (lift the weight; run the interval) over and over onthe way to new levels of performance, so you may need to make the same mistakemany times on the way to an innovative leap. Burning your hand is a small priceto pay for a good idea.

We concluded from these discussions that we had to becareful about the fit between artful making ideas and management thinkingcategories. Describing theatre practice in Rob’s vocabulary, we risked missingthe point.

How to Read This Book

For the above reasons, we resolved in our study to describeand understand theatre in some detail as a way to describe and understand a bigchange in the way we think about work. We’ll rely on the persuasive powerof an extended analogy to combine with your experience and spark new ways ofthinking. Very little of what we discuss in this book is substantively new.Iterative product development processes, for instance, are well-documented inmanagement literature. What’s new here isn’t the raw content, butthe suggestion to use theatre art as a lens that can offer a new and productiveview of familiar, but rapidly changing territory.

In the chapters that follow, we will provide evidence of ourclaim that some successful business processes are becoming more and more likeart. We will also describe in detail the artful making framework, an enablingmetaphor to replace more traditional industrial metaphors that control how wemanage and do work. Early chapters will focus on explaining what we mean byartful making, and how it manifests in many different environments. Laterchapters will illustrate how companies, both business and theatre, makeartfully. In doing all this, we will sometimes take you quite deeply into the innerworkings of artists in a theatre ensemble. As you read the “artsy”sections of this book, we encourage you to consider our extended analogybetween theatre and business with an open mind. The analogy is not a perfectmap in all respects, but it may contain useful insights, including someparticular to your unique situation, unknown to us, that you must thereforediscover for yourself.


1.        ALICE:Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?

           CHESHIRECAT: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.

           ALICE:I don’t much care where—

           CHESHIRECAT: Then it doesn’t matter which way you go.

           ALICE:—aslong as I get somewhere.

           CHESHIRECAT: Oh, you’re sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.

Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland;Through the Looking Glass (New York: Collier Books, 1962) p. 82.

2.        Thisformulation was conceived first by Aristotle about 2500 years ago. He appliedit to unique products composed of interdependent parts: handmade, uniquethings, in other words. This way of looking at making fell out of favor asmaking more and more referred to vast numbers of things mass-produced.

3.        See,for example, Malcolm Gladwell, “The Talent Myth,” The New Yorker(July 22, 2002) pp. 26–33.

4.        MichaelSchrage has written about how simulation helps companies behave in ways that wewould call artful. Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulateto Innovate (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000).

5.        Formore information on IDEO, see Tom Kelley’s The Art of Innovation: Lessonsin Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm (New York: RandomHouse, 2001). Or, for a shorter summary, see Stefan Thomke and Ashok Nimgade,“IDEO Product Development” (Harvard Business School case no.600-143, 2000).

About the Author


Rob Austin is Professor of Technology and OperationsManagement at Harvard Business School where his research focuses on the changing nature of work. His experience includes a decade with Ford Motor Company; from 2000 to 2001, while on leave from Harvard, he served as a senior executive for a new division of a leading technology company, helping to establish a new organization and technology platform. He is author of Measuring and Managing Performance in Organizations, and co-author of Creating Business Advantage in the Information Age, and Corporate Information Strategy and Management. A Cutter Technology Council Fellow, Dr. Austin holds a Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon.


Lee Devin, Professor Emeritus at Swarthmore College and dramaturg for the People’s Light and Theatre Company, has more than 30 years of experience in the theater. He has won prizes and grants for play scripts, librettos, and translations that have been published or performed worldwide. As an Equity actor, his roles have ranged from Malvolio in Twelfth Night to Mitch in A Streetcar Named Desire. He has been a visiting consultant or artist in residence at Columbia University, the Folger Library, Ball State University, the Banff School of the Arts, University of California San Diego, Bucknell University, and the Minnesota Opera. Dr. Devin holds a Ph.D. from Indiana University.

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See all 13 customer reviews
I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to improve their organizations' innovative capabilities.
Peter Behrens
The principles that this book discusses: Release, Collaboration Ensemble and Play are extremely relevant to creating effective software teams.
Steve Berczuk
This book explores the true nature of thinking outside the box, without falling into the trap of lala-land.
Michael Balle

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful By Steve Berczuk VINE VOICE on July 15, 2003
Format: Paperback
The principles that this book discusses: Release, Collaboration Ensemble and Play are extremely relevant to creating effective software teams. The principles are inspired by observing how theatre companies work, but they also have a basis in lean manufacturing. If you work as a software developer or manager and have ever worked on a theatre production (community theatre or at school) a light will go on immediately. If you haven't The data that the authors provide about lean manufacturing practices and software development will convince you that there is a lot that we can learn from this metaphor. The theatre examples will be helpful in explaining how the principles work if you need to communicate them to a manager who does not understand software development. Buy this book and place it along side your books on agile software development; you will want to read it and refer back to it frequently.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful By Jim Highsmith on May 3, 2003
Format: Paperback
For those who need to innovate in a world of change, reduced cycle times, and demanding customers. Austin and Devin provide a management framework for delivering innovation reliably and effectively. Concepts in the book--Artful Making, Reconceiving, Low cost iteration, and working on the Edge--all resonate with my experiences in the Agile Software Development movement. "Artful Making" will go on my must read list!
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful By Kathryn B. Eil on November 11, 2003
Format: Paperback
"Artful Making" is a great book. Before reading it, and even into its first few chapters, I was under the impression the book was aimed mainly at midlevel management of medium-to-large corporations:a large group, to be sure, but one to which I do not happen to belong. But I was mistaken . . .
I soon realized that the key qualities of release-collaboration-ensemble-play can fit any setting where individuals or groups of people want to create something valuable. What Austin and Devin are talking about is developing a process and a result that unite in a never-ending productive cycle, where each "iteration" is different, but yet a necessary prelude to what follows. We can all benefit, because we all have the same need to stay away from the "staleness" and complacency that can be so deadly to personal and professional growth. "Artful Making" will help you find the way.
I recommend the book completely. Read it over and over and keep a pencil handy for special passages!
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful By "jroyo" on July 14, 2003
Format: Paperback
I have had the privilege of studying under Prof. Rob Austin, and I this book continues the dialogue that has always informed Rob's intellectual search--how do two seemingly disparate disciplines, in this case theater production and knowledge based business, converge to inform processes that are virtually identical thus providing a path where each can improve the results of the other.
Both he and Lee Devin have written a concise, powerfully convincing narrative that offers a new approach on how to manage complexity, embrace ambiguity and uncertainty and innovate reliably under strict deadlines. Managing "release", rapid iterative development, and creating the right "ensemble" are some of the key concepts explored in the book.
Highly recommended for anyone presented with the challenges of how to innovate and perform reliably under deadlines.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
In 2006 I met Kent Beck at a conference and asked him how XP could work at startups. He said read 'Artful Making' and I wasn't disappointed. Software delivery and creative endevors like putting on plays have a lot in common.

Both have hard deadlines.
Both have fixed budgets.
And both are highly dependendant on the actors they get.

This book is written for software managers to show how other industries manage the creative process, yet still deliver a great product within these constraints. This is one of my favorite Agile books, and the foreword by Eric Schmidt of Google alone is worth the read.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
I recommend this book to everyone involved in making both physical and things and especially knowledge-based work such as software engineering.

At the outset, I opened the book expecting some encouragement for software development managers like me to be a little more... theatrical in the way we approach projects. I was a little concerned that the single focus
on one theatre group would wear little thin. But the authors draw on a rich seam of of other sources, introduce well-reasoned arguments and examples, and show both the limitations of their approach and counter-arguments. I'm convinced, more.than ever, that we need to learn a lot about artful making as the knowledge revolution progresses. Just need to work on the rest of my team... or should I say "cast"?
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
this book made me really think about how things were being done at work. Every manager should read this book instead of those famous self-help-for-managers-book
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again