Archive for 2.0 Design Thinking
by Paula Thornton
November 22, 2010 at 5:55 pm · Filed under
2.0 Business Model, 2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0
I’ve argued many times previously that technology does not create Enterprise 2.0, but enables it. I stumbled on a brilliant contextual example of this from George Lucas as he was explaining to Bill Moyers, in The Mythology of Star Wars, why the digital technology was critical to his capabilities as a director to bring his stories to the screen. He speaks of his struggle to bring an immaculate realism to a totally unreal fantasy world:
“It wasn’t until we created digital cinema that I was able to suddenly have my imagination go wild…it allows me to create sets that I could not have otherwise. Before digital technology…you couldn’t build a set big enough, you couldn’t create that reality.”
Effectively Lucas is pronouncing that technology enables the ability to embrace the myth. Suspend for a moment your alignment of meaning for myth as fantasy or unreal. While it is indeed those things, so is the realm of possibilities. You cannot have a conversation about innovation and not embrace the realm of the myth: an archetype for new realities…and existing ones.
Just prior to the interview, Bill Moyers mentions the influence of Joseph Campbell on Lucas’s understanding of the power of the myth. Campbell provides deep insight into the relevance of myth to the realm of possibilities:
“Myths…come from realizations of some kind that have to then find expression in symbolic form.”
From his own interview with Bill Moyers, Campbell says:
“All these different mythologies give us the same essential quest. You leave the world that you’re in and go into a depth or into a distance or up to a height. There you come to what was missing in your consciousness in the world you formerly inhabited. Then comes the problem either of staying with that, and letting the world drop off, or returning with that boon and trying to hold on to it as you move back into your social world again.”
On a related note Lucas says:
“The human race has always believed it’s known everything…that’s where mythology came from — constructing some kind of context for the unknown.”
But there are myths to represent the unknown and myths to serve as archetypes of the known. Every enterprise operates from its myths. The question is whether or not the operating myths are consistent across the organization and/or truly represent the ‘truth’ that all participants believe they are working toward. George Lucas spoke about his ability to create his own realities but that once he created a rule, he had to live with it — he couldn’t randomly abandon a fundamental rule (e.g. there is sound in space — which in reality, there is not) or his story would be unbelievable and would lose credibility. Loss of credibility undermines trust and fuels discontent and anarchy.
In an earlier reference, Joseph Campbell was speaking of the relevance of myth as a means by which to pursue a noble cause (in his case — earth). Through their research, the authors of Tribal Leadership seemingly discovered the power of a noble cause supported by a set of values (rules that cannot be compromised), which differentiate business cultures and behaviors. But 15 years earlier, Charles Handy had made a similar discovery through his own experiment, as referenced in The Age of Paradox:
“Logical, sensible, mature individuals were competing to the point of lunacy because I had kept them apart. By not allowing them to communicate, I had also prevented them from establishing an alliance, an agreed-on objective, and a means of proceeding. Only when I picked people who had had a chance to talk together were they able to achieve a common goal which benefited them both… A common cause, the willingness to deny oneself in the interest of that common cause, and trust that the other party will do the same –these are the essential of sensible organizational behavior. Much of the time this sensible behavior does not happen because people do not talk, do not trust, and have no common cause…
We instinctively work for our own immediate advantage unless there is an obvious common cause with people whom we can trust to that an initial sacrifice turns out in the end to be to our mutual advantage.”
George Lucas reflects on Star Wars:
“One of the main themes in the film is having organisms realize that they must live together, and that they must live together for mutual advantage. Not just humans, but all living things and everything in the galaxy is part of a greater whole.”
And yet how often inside of an organization are people making sacrifices based on myths which suggest “mutual advantage” but for which there is no intention or means of including them in the benefits? How many operating myths are created for the purpose of providing advantage to a few (a means by which a manager supposedly ‘incents’ his people in order that he might attain a bonus)?
How does a company and its people discover what the operating myths are and whether or not there are conflicts of credibility which might undermine the larger common good? Through open conversations aligned to observable work — fundamental attributes of any meaningful Enterprise 2.0 initiative.
….
Postscript: Perhaps an alternate title for this post could have been “E2.0: Archetypes and Axioms”
by Paula Thornton
October 25, 2010 at 3:54 pm · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0
I don’t own an iphone or an ipad. I nearly caused a familial meltdown years ago, rejecting my husband’s carefully selected birthday gift: a video ipod. Spending over 3 decades in the corporate world — particularly in IT where anything Apple has been (until more recently) an exception — I’ve just never had a desire to own anything Apple (I will admit to being turned into a ‘movie jukebox’ junkie by the AppleTV unit at my daughter’s house). This seems contradictory to my other purchasing decisions, which are mainly driven by good design criteria (especially cars). But I can and do respect the mind of Steve Jobs.
Reading through the transcript of an interview with former Apple CEO John Scully, I found many critical E2.0-relevant messages from Steve.
While understanding an individual is relevant to design, asking them what they want or think of something new might not be (circle back to the issues with requirements):
“How can I possibly ask somebody what a graphics-based computer ought to be when they have no idea what a graphic based computer is? No one has ever seen one before.”
Steve effectively suggests that the gap between where things are and where they need to be next is often too large for people to traverse in their minds. One of the challenges with E2.0 is that it presents a gap that too many cannot bridge. Until they are immersed in a context-relevant scenario, the value will never be evident. That doesn’t mean immersing them in just any scenario — it has to be ‘their’ scenario.
Scully noted that he and Steve found common ground not through technology but through industrial design — in the beauty and function of a thing.
“Here’s someone who starts with the user experience, who believes that industrial design shouldn’t be compared to what other people were doing with technology products but it should be compared to people were doing with jewelry.”
All those failing E2.0 projects, just how many UX resources were on those initiatives? There are some great E2.0 technologies out there. Most of them have major design issues. If the count of developers to design staff is not approaching 1to1, you may want to rethink your efforts. When you rely on technologists to design results, you miss adding the rich perspectives of other design disciplines — like jewelry, or commercial building, or landscaping.
Other quotes, taken out of context, reinforce this:
“you’re starting at the wrong end of the value chain. You are not starting with the components. You are starting with the user experience.
……The user experience is taken all the way from the experience of using the product, to the advertising of how it is presented, to the design of the product.”
I’d suggest that one of the biggest challenges for all IT output, not just E2.0, is that they’ve always started at the wrong end of the value chain. The problem is that they’ve been able to get away with it, until now. There was so much leeway that the error was tolerated. The gap has closed and the breadth of responsibility has widened — technology is only part of the solution.
“What Steve’s brilliance is, is his ability to see something and then understand it and then figure out how to put into the context of his design methodology — everything is design.
… as soon as the designers walked in the room, everyone stopped talking because the designers are the most respected people in the organization. Everyone knows the designers speak for Steve because they have direct reporting to him. It is only at Apple where design reports directly to the CEO.
[...in comparison at Microsoft] everybody was talking and then the meeting starts and no designers ever walk into the room. All the technical people are sitting there trying to add their ideas of what ought to be in the design. That’s a recipe for disaster.”
Does IT even have designers and/or are there designers that direct the work outside of IT? Are you seeing the issues here?
“What makes Steve’s methodology different from everyone else’s is that he always believed the most important decisions you make are not the things you do – but the things that you decide not to do. He’s a minimalist.”
Deciding what not to do is critical to E2.0. The methodology of pursuing requirements focuses mainly on determining what to do — that’s what makes the approach the antithesis of E2.0. The decision has to be a design one — but an informed decision. The first E2.0 function I ever designed was a rework of an existing function (the best place to look for candidate opportunities is with the stuff already happening). In this case it was a people directory built on LotusNotes. It worked, but the interaction to get to the results was cumbersome.
So I worked backwards. The individual profile page at the end of the application was great. I simply eliminated all the other parts before it (not literally, just virtually) and designed a new UI that capitalized on the most common scenarios: searching for first name or last name. The existing ponderous application was left in place for all the other special case scenarios, like searching for everyone in a department, etc. Yes, all of these could have been redesigned over time, but the initial goal is always to go for the high volume or high return activities. Using code from the Yahoo! patterns, a prototype was up in 4 hours and it was production in 2 weeks. While most of that time was spent grappling with issues getting the data exchange to work, there was also the scheduling for moving something into production — IT itself is a barrier to E2.0, from an operational perspective.
Steve Jobs has a no bozo policy; so does E2.0:
“The other thing about Steve was that he did not respect large organizations. He felt that they were bureaucratic and ineffective. He would basically call them ‘bozos.’ That was his term for organizations that he didn’t respect.”
One of the grand potentials of E2.0 is as a superhighway for bypassing bozos.
Another key Jobs attribute:
“When he knows something is going to be important he tries to absorb as much as he possibly can.”
This reflects the influence of John Lasseter at Pixar, which I’ve reported on before. That said, there’s a grand connection between Jobs and Lasseter which predates 1996 (see Charlie Rose interview).
One of the issues with E2.0 implementations is that it’s more about discovery than anything else. E2.0 projects fail because they’re not focused on discovery. Speaking of Jobs’ fascination with Edwin Land, who brought the instant camera to Poloroid:
“Both of them had this ability to not invent products, but discover products. Both of them said these products have always existed – it’s just that no one has ever seen them before. We were the ones who discovered them.”
“So when I think about different kinds of CEOs — CEOs who are great leaders, CEOs who are great turnaround artists, great deal negotiators, great people motivators — but the great skill that Steve has is he’s a great designer. Everything at Apple can be best understood through the lens of designing.”
Are your E2.0 efforts being understood through the lens of designing?
by Joe McKendrick
October 20, 2010 at 11:46 am · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, Social Computing, Social Media, Social Networking, User Revolution, Web 2.0
The Altimeter Group just wrapped up its “Rise of Social Commerce” event, and there’s no question that there is a groundswell of interest in adopting and adapting social networking to drive new business.
Altimeter partner Lora Cecere provided a four-stage continuum to assess where companies are at in their social business growth. The four key phases are as follows (by the way, she noted in her presentation, most companies are still in Stage 1):
- Stage 1 — “Let’s Be Social”: Companies “are using social technologies for the sake of being the social. The focus is on the brand, and building a community and its value.” Questions to be asked include: “What are the best tactics to use?” and “How do I influence
the most influential?”
- Stage 2 – “Enlightened Engagement”: Companies “recognize that customers seek to be informed during the shopping experience, and integrate an information layer onto the two-way dialog. This is done through external voices, from customers, prospects, subject matter experts, in the form of reviews or opinions, for example.” Questions to be asked include: “How do I make this easier for the shopper to engage?”, “How do I effectively connect the shopper to enterprise processes?”
and “How do I use social technologies to improve dialogue with the value chain?”
- Stage 3 — “Store of the Community”: Customers “help drive product selection, assortment, and merchandising. Few companies are ready for this phase, as it requires a complete rewiring of the organization.” Questions to be asked include: “How do I use shopper insights?”, “Which shopper input best reflects market opportunity?” and “How do I engage trading
partners to deliver against the store of the community?”
- Stage 4 — “Frictionless Commerce”: The buying experience “is completely redesigned to create a fully customer-centric experience. Companies will need to start with a blank slate to truly envision what this will look like.” Questions to be asked include: “How do I redesign the buying experience?”, “How do I enrich enlightened engagement processes without slowing buying cycles?”
I like Ted Rubin’s wrap-up of the discourse being heard through the conference, and he surfaces the ROR metric (Return on Relationship), which pairs nicely with the network-effect Return on Investment in Interaction that my colleague Jon Husband has discussed here at FastForward. Rubin talked about the relationship aspect of social business:
“The view/perspective I keep hearing is all about leveraging consumer’s social graph to sell more product. But when I hear the case studies, and see where true progress is being made, I hear more about interaction, engagement, and sharing… i.e. relationships. When I think about social commerce what seems to be the greatest opportunity is growing/nurturing the connection, participation and loyalty of a consumer, which in turn will build ROR… Return on Relationship. This is the first step required to make all this social integration sustainable and long lasting. Relationships are what will lead to the ability to sell more, not using customers to sell more product, but by facilitating/enabling feedback, sharing, reviews, and therefore build dynamic advocates who openly sell product they love and are passionate about.”
by Paula Thornton
October 1, 2010 at 3:46 pm · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, Work 2.0, Workplace
This morning @MrAlanCooper was on a roll with an anti-requirements theme of tweets. I replied that almost a decade ago I had given a conference presentation “Requirements Don’t Work”, which included many references from his books. Recognizing that I randomly perpetuate this conversation all over the place, I’ve gathered parts of it here, starting with one from today:
Requirements are a response to a design — they’re not the procuring cause of a design.
Let’s look at this realistically. If the current methods, which include requirements, worked then why is there a 68% failure rate in IT projects? Michael Krigsman (@mkrigsman) postulated:
The solution lies in recognizing that requirements definition is critical.
Been there. Thought that too. But it’s been debunked (sadly, pre-internet, reference to the study is gone). I replied to Michael’s post:
Back in 1990 or so I found a one-page ‘editorial’ that reshaped my career focus. It effectively reported a study to ‘debunk’ the “we didn’t get the requirements right” theory.
So they audited the process. Were all the requirements captured as intended? Check. Were all the requirements met by the solution? Check. Result: Fail!
And this is where my life changed…they brought anthropologists into the environment in which the system was being used — an emergency room. They added more requirements based on their observations…the system was a success.
Now let’s talk about having the wrong skills…
Attempts to share this same story with a group of Business Analysts, was met with opposition. There I commented:
In reality, requirements (especially the way in which they’re gathered and managed in most cases) serve only one purpose — facilitating testing. They are typically useless for ensuring the success of a solution….
Another valuable analogy to consider is the model employed by commercial building. In that model, assume that Requirements and ensuing Development are not part of the activities of the General Contractor, but are one of the responding trades. That means that a larger architectural/design effort has gone on prior to the ‘response’. In that prior effort, blueprints are already drawn up and specifications (not requirements) have been delivered. The ‘requirements’ are the responses by the individual trades as to how they plan to fulfill the specifications.
The fact that we have a huge phase missing in the discipline of the SDLC and that it starts with some ‘poof’ ["...and then a miracle happens"] of requirements has been a fallacy for decades.
The author of this blog post was unnerved by the dissonance that ensued in the path to common understanding (a deplorable practice often seen in requirements gathering sessions) and closed the comments. Shutting down the conversation is a symptom of the problem: behaviors indicative of and reinforced in cultures of command and control — the antithesis of a 2.0 era. Design inherently insists on embracing creative dissonance.
Clearly there are those who understand the difference — Alan Cooper’s comments today were retweeted by many. Some have traveled similar paths of discovery, such as @suredoc’s (Keith Anderson) “Prototyping Insights From a Guy Who Writes Requirements“, where he also takes direct aim at the classic Systems Development Lifecycle (SDLC).
The SDLC mindset is based on the fact requirements drive everything. By “requirements” I mean a document of some sort that can either be well-written or, as I’ve seen of late, an Excel spreadsheet wishlist.
I remember a custom 9 volume SDLC manual set. I was fascinated by the ‘whole’ of it all. Imagine, 9 volumes of detail as to how the floor of hundreds of developers were to do their jobs (manuals for which I was the most frequent user…to insert page corrections — the cost of which I shudder to consider). In ALL of those hundreds of pages there was a reference to “start with the requirements” and not a stitch of information on what they were or how you got them — in the SDLC, requirements just somehow magically appear.
To better inform myself, I sought out leaders in the requirements process and attended training. Aside from helping us look for ‘nouns’ (clearly a data-focused paradigm), the instructor attempted to give us tracking and auditing skills — again, circling back to the feloneous assumption that requirements are somehow ‘lost’ and that’s the cause of failure. There was nothing discussed about eliciting requirements or the issues to do so — including the also infamous lament from developers “but they keep changing their minds” — as if the changing landscape of business wasn’t a design reality that needed to be embraced.
Similar to my inspiration from the commercial building industry, in “The Obsolete Idea of Requirements” @smalltalk80 (Niklas Björnerstedt) was inspired by the advertising agency model:
In advertising, a customer typically does not write a contract for a single project. The contract is instead the foundation of an extended relation. The advertiser works with the customer, looking at what the customer does and what the customer wants to achieve in the future. The advertiser then formulates ideas that are elaborated on together with the customer. Some of these ideas result in “projects”, others are more open ended. Over time the customer uses a number of (imperfect) measures to assess how well the advertiser is helping it achieve its goals. Most of the goals a customer cares about are not related to a particular project, they are formulated in terms of the business itself.
Three things to add to great observations. First, Niklas is seeing the influences of design practices in the customer relationship. Second, advertising has a significant difference: creating need where none exists. Third, where he notes “They would describe what they were doing today and what their goals were for the future.” — this will lead to incremental improvements and often radically incremental improvements, but rarely innovative results (often also part of the “requirements”). But innovation isn’t always or even mostly desirable. There are many ’starving workers in the business landscape’ who would trade their paychecks for ‘good enough’. Many truly innovative solutions can be found in the amazing work-arounds that employees have created on their own, just to get their work done in spite of the euphemistic machine they’re forced to operate in.
The realm of Enterprise 2.0 insists on a more open, interative, collaborative and continuous means of making stuff happen than the methods of classic requirements can afford. In design, requirements are the collection of constraints that must be honored, or thoughtfully traversed. Requirements do not specify the results. But as my first quote embraced the classic definition of requirements — the things used to test results against — if everyone still needs to call those “requirements”, let it so remain.
Footnote: In re-reading a prior piece I’d written on Pixar, I was reminded of earlier ranting I’d done on requirements.
by Joe McKendrick
September 27, 2010 at 5:49 pm · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, FASTforward'09, Social Computing, Social Media, Social Networking, Web 2.0
An analysis issued earlier in the year looked at social network usage of employees at the largest corporations, resulting in what’s considered the first comprehensive look at social media activity among 100,000+ employees of these corporations.
The resulting NetProspex Social Report provides a “Social 50 Ranking” of the top 50 most social corporations in America, as well as “The Twitter 20″ of companies with the most employees on Twitter. In addition, a network breakdown looks at what social networks are most used by employees at the largest corporations, and even gender differences are discussed.
The top 10 social enterprises include 1) Microsoft; 2) eBay; 3) Amazon.com; 4) Walt Disney; 5) Google; 5) Electronic Arts; 7) Intuit; 8 ) Raytheon; 9) Best Buy; and 10) Apple.
The most popular social networking service was LinkedIn, used by 43 percent of employees of companies, followed by Facebook at 11 percent.
Reed Smith, however, made an interesting observation about the types of companies not appearing on this list. Namely, healthcare-related organizations. At a time when the entire country is in an upheaval over spiraling healthcare costs and concerns about quality of care, wouldn’t this be a good time for hospitals to be more socially networked?
This is not to say there is no social networking of any kind taking place in healthcare settings. Smith points to numbers compiled by Ed Bennett that at least 825 hospitals have active social network efforts underway, including 634 Twitter accounts, 631 Facebook pages, and 391 YouTube channels. Of course, this is only about 14 percent of the 5,815 functioning hospitals in the United States, as tracked by the American Hospital Association.
Low numbers, but at least a start. How could hospitals benefit from social media? A big, big area where social would make a difference right away is in nursing and allied health recruiting. Many healthcare establishments are struggling to find qualified, certified professionals to round out their patient care teams. Nursing shortages are legend, but there are far too few respiratory techs, radiology techs, cytotechnologists, and physical therapists. Being able to build and participate in online networks where HR and staffing specialists could engage with skilled professionals could go a long way in alleviating these critical shortages.
« Previous entries ·
Next entries »
