Mogic considers

Novelty, good views, and greenery

We are looking for a property for a new office for our subsidiary company.

We are looking for something in the Shakujii area, but for some reason nothing seems to fit the bill.

As I look at the properties, I think that it is at times like this that the images that lurk in the back of my mind come to the surface.

If you list the various points of concern, such as door knobs that are too round, the name of the property that just doesn't fit, the atmosphere of the rooms but not enough windows, or the different objects in the hallway, you will be able to focus on what you are looking for from the opposite perspective.

As a result, what we were looking for was novelty, a good view, and lots of greenery.

Generally speaking, an office is required to have convenient transportation, a branded location, space, and IT facilities, but it was different.

Looking back, Mogic's past offices have all been designer properties, which everyone calls "cool but cold in winter and hot in summer.

If we choose the same criteria as in the past, we are likely to be opposed by those around us as we accumulate knowledge (i.e., cold and hot), but we want to do well.

Why can't we create a successful "strategy"?

What is your vision and strategy for the future? I sometimes have trouble imagining what the future holds.

This is because although we have a direction of what we would like to see happen, we do not put it together in a presentation document or make a presentation.

There are many directions, such as "approach education first so that it can be useful around the middle of the 21st century," "make workers feel fulfilled in their work," and "give hope to those who are involved.

There is nothing more detailed than that, so there is nothing to talk about.

In general, KPIs, strategies, tactics, missions, and visions are required, but I've come this far wondering if I don't need any.

Some may argue that since the organization is not that large, that is fine.

However, I feel it is a little different because even if the organization is small, it will struggle and when things go wrong, it will go wrong.

I found a sentence that fits such a blur, so I will quote it.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Bodies Doing Math
h ttps:// www.shinchosha.co.jp/book/339651/

When humans design artifacts, they clearly decide in advance what constitutes resources and what constitutes noise.

In the example of this circuit, each individual logic block is a resource for solving the problem, but electromagnetic leakage and flux would be considered noise and would be eliminated as much as possible.

But that is only the designer's point of view.

In a bottom-up evolutionary process without designers, anything that can be used is used without regard.

As a result, resources are scattered across the body and environment, blurring the distinction from noise.

The extent to which the problem-solving entity is the problem-solving entity and the extent to which the environment is the problem-solving environment are mixed up without being clear.
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

There is another question that I am often asked and I have trouble with.

Why did you go for diversity, or diversity of different ages and nationalities?" It is.

The answer is "I didn't set out to do that," but as you can imagine, I'm going to be disappointed, so I'm going to give you a slightly dressed-up response.

This is what happens when you recruit people who are comfortable participating in a place like Shakujii, and it is the result of adaptation, not by design.

Are we watching the strategy we set up at a certain point in time become invalidated over time, or are we eliminating noise to justify the strategy, or is the strategy to keep changing the strategy in small increments?

It is somehow too big for me to hold on to on my own, and I can't seem to create a good "strategy" because of the variety of information flowing all over the place.

365 starting points

When I was working in my 20s, people around me told me that I had to start practicing management because I would reach my mid-30s, which would limit my ability to be active in the field as a player.

Somehow it didn't add up, and I wondered if it was really true. In my 30s, I started a company in a new field and worked in the field, and when I was in my 40s, the world was calling it the age of 100 years in life.

I think the base of the 100-year life era is to keep learning, explore new possibilities, and work for a long time.

From that point of view, it means that you can put aside the barriers to entry into different fields as a practical matter and try new industries and occupations, both in the field and in management, as many times as you want along the way.

In fact, if I were to focus solely on management from the age of 35, I would be a manager for 35 years, assuming my retirement age is 70, which I personally find rather constricting.

On the other hand, it may seem a bit burdensome to "keep learning all the time and keep trying new fields.

Some may say that life is not all about trying so much.

Therefore, there is one recommendation that we tell our interns.

For now, just start one new thing a day, and look back on the record after a year.

It's not a bad idea to try it, because it will give you a little moisture every day.

You don't have to do anything big; you can buy a sweet you've never had at a convenience store, grab a fork with your left hand, use a new service, or say a word you've never used before.

Still, for one year, that would be 365 lists.

After doing so, why not think about it again?

With 365 lists, at least one of them is a good starting point for something new.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

The three Rs required for a sustainable society are reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Reduce to reduce the amount of things that might become garbage from the beginning, reuse to use the same things over and over again, and recycle to make new materials from the collected materials.

It is easy to think in terms of tangible goods, but what happens with invisible assets?

Typical invisible assets in a company include brand and service, know-how and teamwork, management and culture.

We cannot move without first determining "how waste is generated in these things," so that is what we will consider.

Wasted brands and services, wasted know-how and teamwork, wasted management and culture.

In Mogic, it is simple: "Whether or not it is easy to satisfy the people who work for or are involved with it" determines whether it is wasteful or not.

We do not provide services that do not give workers satisfaction from their work, we do not have know-how that is efficient but does not allow workers to grow, and we do not need management that turns the heads of those involved.

An example that was once effective but now no longer contributes is the management of events in the office.

Gone are the events where everyone gathered to share fun in the Corona Disaster, replaced by a new expression based on online chat and video streaming.

When I could no longer see the future potential of a service I had launched in the past, I dismantled it and incorporated its findings into the next service.

One way to do this is to stop offering the service.

Being sustainable may feel static, but it is dynamic in the sense that we are constantly reassessing the value of our work.