I ran across this somewhere in my daily web visits. It is a story of how a small group of UCSC students (10) designed , planned and build a 4 story art pieces honoring the classic computer games Donkey Kong using nothing but some perspiration and a whole slew of post-it notes(~6,400). If you are not familiar with Donkey Kong, here is the Wikipedia link and here is the quick description form the UCSC page to put it’s place in gaming history in perspective.
“Donkey Kong (Miyamoto, et. al.,1981) was the first appearance of the Itallian plumber we now know as Mario. While this game’s early ’80s arcade popularity predates most of today’s engineering students, it represents the amazing results that a small development team can produce. Today Donkey Kong is ranked as the 3rd most popular arcade game of all time, selling over 65,000 units. Currently this work is visible at the E2 building at UCSC, it is scheduled to be removed on or before May 1.”
Check out the above website as it has a nice time-lapsed video and pictures.

So why is this important to innovation, creativity, or new ideas?
There are a couple of things hidden in here:
(1) It is pretty amazing what you can do with something so common as the post-it note, some planning, and an idea. So they took a piece of colored paper with a self-stick adhesive along one edge designed for leaving reminders for one’s self, and turned into a piece of art. Did you get the same amount of use of impact out of the last 6,400 post it notes that your organization used?
(2) Most of the students of this age group (I am making some assumptions here) probably didn’t grow up with Donkey Kong, but they still recognize it as a pivotal piece of computer game architecture design.
(3) It is also amazing what you can do with a small team that is dedicated. Let’s do a thought experiment. If you had asked a large corporation to do something like this, what would it have cost and how long would it have taken to implement? How does a small resource-limited groups get something done faster than a resource-rich one?
Some questions to ponder:
- So what operational differences that allow a small resource-limited group to out-perform what a larger resource-rich group?
- What tasks or programs in your organization would be more propertly suited by a small, nimble, and resource limited team?
- How do you approach a problem differently when you have few resources, or an extremely aggressive timeline?