22 October 2006
A third component
When marketers talk about a product or services they typically focus on features, benefits, or both. That is simply not enough. There is a follow up component that I call “outcomes.” Outcomes are what fall outside of benefits, as they most often are not directly promised or measured. Great customer service and superior experience are the most obvious outcomes. Providing subtle gratification for the customer is likely the most powerful one. This is where brand loyalty comes from. It is also where referrals and lifetime value comes from. The more subtle the better, this is simply a matter of congratulating the customer for appreciating the value you and your product provides. The job is NOT over when you the customer pays.
Opportunity lost at our National Parks
We visited the Shenandoah Valley National Park this weekend. What an awesome place to take in some fall foliage. Aside from an almost overwhelming display of color, what struck me most was the absolute waste of an opportunity. Standing in the lodge/giftshop/food-stop watching people look over the horrible merchandise, badly displayed made me want to scream. Granted I was here at a peak weekend, but still it was a giant opportunity missed.
Bad merchandise, poorly displayed, long lines and marginally competent service all add up to lost revenue. Now I am not suggesting that we whore out our National Park and create a Disneyland or Starbuck experience, but there were a lot of people there looking to spend money. Many suffered through he lines for marginal value, but most decided they could better sped their money elsewhere. The potential revenues from these near geographic monopolies could go towards further pars services. Get innovative or at least catch up! Put some design, business, operations and service skills to work and lower the taxpayer burden of these parks. We need to be proactive to insure their longevity.
Bad merchandise, poorly displayed, long lines and marginally competent service all add up to lost revenue. Now I am not suggesting that we whore out our National Park and create a Disneyland or Starbuck experience, but there were a lot of people there looking to spend money. Many suffered through he lines for marginal value, but most decided they could better sped their money elsewhere. The potential revenues from these near geographic monopolies could go towards further pars services. Get innovative or at least catch up! Put some design, business, operations and service skills to work and lower the taxpayer burden of these parks. We need to be proactive to insure their longevity.
Opportunity lost at our National Parks
We visited the Shenandoah Valley National Park this weekend. What an awesome place to take in some fall foliage. Aside from an almost overwhelming display of color, what struck me most was the absolute waste of an opportunity. Standing in the lodge/giftshop/food-stop watching people look over the horrible merchandise, badly displayed made me want to scream. Granted I was here at a peak weekend, but still it was a giant opportunity missed.
Bad merchandise, poorly displayed, long lines and marginally competent service all add up to lost revenue. Now I am not suggesting that we whore out our National Park and create a Disneyland or Starbuck experience, but there were a lot of people there looking to spend money. Many suffered through he lines for marginal value, but most decided they could better sped their money elsewhere. The potential revenues from these near geographic monopolies could go towards further pars services. Get innovative or at least catch up! Put some design, business, operations and service skills to work and lower the taxpayer burden of these parks. We need to be proactive to insure their longevity.
Bad merchandise, poorly displayed, long lines and marginally competent service all add up to lost revenue. Now I am not suggesting that we whore out our National Park and create a Disneyland or Starbuck experience, but there were a lot of people there looking to spend money. Many suffered through he lines for marginal value, but most decided they could better sped their money elsewhere. The potential revenues from these near geographic monopolies could go towards further pars services. Get innovative or at least catch up! Put some design, business, operations and service skills to work and lower the taxpayer burden of these parks. We need to be proactive to insure their longevity.
Today's definition
The recent shift in titling from the design group at the Royal College of Arts, from interaction design to “design interactions” has created some interesting discourse on definitions. The gist of which is, how we define “interaction design” or what exactly does it encompass?
My view is that interaction design is a much broader classification than that taught at Carnegie Mellon for example, where the HCI folks claim interaction with computers and the interaction folks claim the territory of human interaction (presumably through technology devices.)
From the outside these seem more territorial than professional.
In the situational context, of which all designers need be aware, there are users, interfaces (I use this term broadly as well), environments, action and/or goals, and there is that with which the user is to interact. Each of these has an influence. Each pair of these has interdependencies. These influences and interdependencies constitute a broader group of interactions, which must be considered, understood and designed for.
Interaction design is NOT exclusive to the web, computer applications or mobile devices. These are the areas that are currently exploiting a growing knowledge, study and discipline. The early interaction designers where architects, product designers, and interior designers who consider, in their work, the context. They are the pioneers of interaction. We should all broaden our minds a bit beyond our navels.
My view is that interaction design is a much broader classification than that taught at Carnegie Mellon for example, where the HCI folks claim interaction with computers and the interaction folks claim the territory of human interaction (presumably through technology devices.)
From the outside these seem more territorial than professional.
In the situational context, of which all designers need be aware, there are users, interfaces (I use this term broadly as well), environments, action and/or goals, and there is that with which the user is to interact. Each of these has an influence. Each pair of these has interdependencies. These influences and interdependencies constitute a broader group of interactions, which must be considered, understood and designed for.
Interaction design is NOT exclusive to the web, computer applications or mobile devices. These are the areas that are currently exploiting a growing knowledge, study and discipline. The early interaction designers where architects, product designers, and interior designers who consider, in their work, the context. They are the pioneers of interaction. We should all broaden our minds a bit beyond our navels.
06 September 2006
After a 7 year nap…
I make a habit of reading the Wall Street Journal nearly every morning. And, almost every morning I read about some marketing exec or CEO making a grand announcement that the company is making a bold move into the future. They painted the picture of a vision that is optimistic, visionary and one that will bring grand ROI to the stockholders. Good Lord!
This morning’s headline was about Cisco. They have awoken from a deep slumber to determine that their technology could be marketable in the in home entertainment market. No kidding?
I am no rocket scientist, but I do recall some eight years ago, in a small company I built in Kansas… installing a Cisco router myself. Yes, I was head of the company and the IT guy as well as wearing many other hats. I was amazed at the elegance and cleverness of the installation and configuration process. The quality of the router was on par with what seemed a huge investment for our little company. I also remember thinking that these guys are going to be huge when high-speed networking merges with entertainment (music and video) in the home. Never really gave that much more thought until today.
My current employer is another example. Who was driving AOL for the last 10 years? The company was asleep while the market shifted. This, the company that invented chat, , that set the standard for online forums and made online advertisement tolerable. This company has done amazing things, yet is now a follower.
So what is my point? Companies that lose track of the market (what customers will want) and that do not aggressively invest in R&D are destined to fail – or at least fall into a long expensive slumber. How many times must we watch this corporate stupor unfold?
This morning’s headline was about Cisco. They have awoken from a deep slumber to determine that their technology could be marketable in the in home entertainment market. No kidding?
I am no rocket scientist, but I do recall some eight years ago, in a small company I built in Kansas… installing a Cisco router myself. Yes, I was head of the company and the IT guy as well as wearing many other hats. I was amazed at the elegance and cleverness of the installation and configuration process. The quality of the router was on par with what seemed a huge investment for our little company. I also remember thinking that these guys are going to be huge when high-speed networking merges with entertainment (music and video) in the home. Never really gave that much more thought until today.
My current employer is another example. Who was driving AOL for the last 10 years? The company was asleep while the market shifted. This, the company that invented chat, , that set the standard for online forums and made online advertisement tolerable. This company has done amazing things, yet is now a follower.
So what is my point? Companies that lose track of the market (what customers will want) and that do not aggressively invest in R&D are destined to fail – or at least fall into a long expensive slumber. How many times must we watch this corporate stupor unfold?
04 September 2006
Kill your babies, NOW!
We all get caught up in our own mini accomplishments… works or partial works that we obsess over and that meet and surpass what we had hoped to accomplish. If we are artist – that works out great. In fact is it one of the criteria. Egocentric creation is what separates artist from designers. It was a writer that first exposed me to the concept of “killing your babies,” those little very cool part that we create and can’t let go of.
A wordsmith may become infatuated with an elegant phrase, a musician with a riff, a designer with a graphic. We all do it. Something we create, that meets our sense of “wow,” within the process of a project, of which we cannot let go.
One of the best books I have read on writing is Howard S. Becker’s “Writing for Social Scientists.” He tells of a young graduate student that is trying so hard to write smart, that she looses track of the reader. This is the essence of user-centered work. Malcolm Gladwell is the master of converting complex issues into easy to understand works. He understands his subject matter, and the perspective of his reader. And he matches them simply and elegantly.
In my experience, young socially esteemed visual designers have the hardest time with this. They know not when to pick the right battle, and hang on to their pet “cool” for far to long, whether it fits with the project or satisfies the client’s objectives – they just will not let go. If you find your self stuck, designed into a corner. Try throwing out one of your favorite elements. It works wonders. It will help you to refocus on the true objective and move beyond your momentary obsession.
A wordsmith may become infatuated with an elegant phrase, a musician with a riff, a designer with a graphic. We all do it. Something we create, that meets our sense of “wow,” within the process of a project, of which we cannot let go.
One of the best books I have read on writing is Howard S. Becker’s “Writing for Social Scientists.” He tells of a young graduate student that is trying so hard to write smart, that she looses track of the reader. This is the essence of user-centered work. Malcolm Gladwell is the master of converting complex issues into easy to understand works. He understands his subject matter, and the perspective of his reader. And he matches them simply and elegantly.
In my experience, young socially esteemed visual designers have the hardest time with this. They know not when to pick the right battle, and hang on to their pet “cool” for far to long, whether it fits with the project or satisfies the client’s objectives – they just will not let go. If you find your self stuck, designed into a corner. Try throwing out one of your favorite elements. It works wonders. It will help you to refocus on the true objective and move beyond your momentary obsession.
29 August 2006
A good start.
Dan Saffer has written a book that documents the current state of practice in interaction design. The title, “Designing for Interaction: Creating Smart Applications and Clever Devices” is perfectly appropriate. I had been looking forward to the publication of this book and had opportunity to meet Dan at his book signing during Adaptive Path’s recent conference in Washington, DC.
Dan is a bright guy, has some impressive work under his belt, and a great education, I only wish that he had revealed a little more of it in his book. Don’t get me wrong – this is a nice collection of tools and processes. Dan is even a pretty good writer, but this book will not challenge or expand the thinking of most interaction or experience designers.
The goals Dan states for his book are to, “make you understanding of interaction design richer, deeper and broader.” For a design school undergraduate, or for a manager or businessperson unfamiliar with this content it is excellent, and in fact would be an excellent text for IX 101, but the schooled designer will have to look a bit further.
Chapter six could have been left out as it contains an abbreviated primer on basic design. The section on research is good (I agree with Dan that Focus Groups are pretty much worthless) but the coverage on converting research into actions and decisions in the design process was very vague.
I appreciate very much the dialog and sidebars with many of the pioneers of our profession.
Like recent works by Daniel Pink and Seth Godin, this book will serve all designers well by educating non-designers about design thinking, the process and the basics of interaction. I have been waiting a while for a book like this, but much like Brenda Laurel’s “Design Research,” it left me wanting more… much more.
Dan is a bright guy, has some impressive work under his belt, and a great education, I only wish that he had revealed a little more of it in his book. Don’t get me wrong – this is a nice collection of tools and processes. Dan is even a pretty good writer, but this book will not challenge or expand the thinking of most interaction or experience designers.
The goals Dan states for his book are to, “make you understanding of interaction design richer, deeper and broader.” For a design school undergraduate, or for a manager or businessperson unfamiliar with this content it is excellent, and in fact would be an excellent text for IX 101, but the schooled designer will have to look a bit further.
Chapter six could have been left out as it contains an abbreviated primer on basic design. The section on research is good (I agree with Dan that Focus Groups are pretty much worthless) but the coverage on converting research into actions and decisions in the design process was very vague.
I appreciate very much the dialog and sidebars with many of the pioneers of our profession.
Like recent works by Daniel Pink and Seth Godin, this book will serve all designers well by educating non-designers about design thinking, the process and the basics of interaction. I have been waiting a while for a book like this, but much like Brenda Laurel’s “Design Research,” it left me wanting more… much more.
13 August 2006
A quick guide to readings
I have spent a great deal of time reading in the last few years. Much of it wasted. It occurs to me that there are some patterns observed that may be worth sharing. One of my personal life principles is “I can always make more money, but not more time to live.” Time is a much more precious commodity. And wasting time is the greatest of all wastes. So for what is it worth… this may be worth the time to read, and save you some time down the road. Then again, it may be a further waste of your remaining hours…
Academic papers and publications.
Often to esoteric or theoretical to be applied (the PhD dissertation that was the foundation of Google being a recent exception), these are generally too specific or too theoretical to be of much direct use to practitioners. What they do well though, is provide food for thought, seed for expansion, and often a vision for what will be possible or commonplace down the road. Mined well, this can be a great place to spend you time.
Books by academics.
Some of the more productive professors in a field are those actively engaged in the practice. My personal opinion is that too many professors are well removed from the real world. At the same time, too many practitioners are so “heads down” they are unaware of current research. If you are lucky enough to live near IIT, CMU and Stanford, you likely know one of these cross breads (most often a lecturer, guest or associate professor) such as Dan Saffer who have taught, researched, worked and also write. My hat is off to these obsessively driven industry leaders. This is often very valuable stuff.
Books about our profession but that do not target us.
This may seem curios, but many books about business, design, interaction and marketing are not targeting that market. Dan Pink and Seth Godin are good examples of such authors. There is very little for the savvy marketing professional to learn from a Seth Godin. He is speaking to the CEO or manager that has never taken a marketing class. Dan Pink, by his own admission is not an expert in design… but he does recognize its value. Dan is a great advocate of our profession and deserves much credit for helping to bring design thinking to the attention of the press and business.
Barely worth the coffee table…
I have several books that are titled very topical and mean well, but fall well short of being helpful. They are often full of images, few words and nary a point. Most of my examples have come from professionals at major firms and leverage that firm’s reputation. I won’t name names, but you know who you are.
“In my experience” books.
I have also wasted time reading books by practitioners that are neither writers, visionaries or provide much in the way of vision. I can only guess that the intended audience is the lost entrepreneur or manager browsing the business or web section at Borders. Usually these are cleverly and seductively titled. Read the first chapter or the introduction while still in the store, only then make your decision.
Case studies… war stories and the picture of success.
Often sold as recipe books or chronicles of greatness, these books are fun to read, can provide insight, but are also very dangerous. As much as I respect and admire Jim Collins, and enjoy reading his books, way to many interpret these chapters as solutions for their particular problem. The story told is one perspective, after the fact. Evidence is missing and it is generally not the precise same situation that you, as the reader are facing. Be ware of no evidentiary solutions.
Techie manuals
Often great for getting up to speed late, but fast… the useful shelf life of these books is often very short. Maybe that is why they are so expensive. I don’t need to be on the bleeding edge, so I usually buy them after the fact, on the sale table at a fraction of the retail price. Some of these, however can be great! A recent example is Dan Cederholm’s “Bulletproof Web Design.”
The outside visionaries
Very often, the problems we as designers, marketers and innovators are facing are not specific to us. There are other sources of information that can provide great insight. Malcolm Gladwell comes to mind. I read nearly everything he writes. Well researched, complex and very relevant material, explained in such a manor that it is easy to understand. I could only dream of obtaining this skill as I am not nearly as obsessive as Mr. Gladwell about writing. Christopher Meyer and Stan Davis are another example of a writing team that present topics well beyond a specific practice, but that have huge implication to what we do.
Blogs
Understanding the nature of a particular bog is important. Mine for instance, started out as a venting mechanism while trying to figure out the relationship between my work and my graduate research. Later, it became a perfect positioning tool for the job hunt. Now, it is simply a nice form of expression that I enjoy assembling. If people read it great, if they don’t it is still fulfilling to me. Many blogs however are full of poorly researched advice (this one at times, I suppose as well) with a mission transparent to the reader. Some bloggers band together to optimize tagging and search optimization. This helps to raise their Digg ranking and eventually sell “the book.” Beware the huckster.
In summary
Three rules that may help in evaluating readings. First, be aware of what you know and where you are headed. Relevancy is critical. Second, try and understand the credibility and purpose of the author and the book. Third, know that there are very few new ideas… but many are repackaged, over and over. And fourth (OK, I lied) understand the Pareto Principle (also called the 80/20 rule or even as the “long tail”) as it applies to books. Most of the real content is presented in the first 2-4 chapters. The rest is reiteration and evidence. Often this is worth the effort, but there is no shame in abandoning a book prior to its finish and beyond its usefulness. Few authors (and no sane publisher) will allow the critical information be held until the final few chapters. Though summary chapters can be well worth the time.
Academic papers and publications.
Often to esoteric or theoretical to be applied (the PhD dissertation that was the foundation of Google being a recent exception), these are generally too specific or too theoretical to be of much direct use to practitioners. What they do well though, is provide food for thought, seed for expansion, and often a vision for what will be possible or commonplace down the road. Mined well, this can be a great place to spend you time.
Books by academics.
Some of the more productive professors in a field are those actively engaged in the practice. My personal opinion is that too many professors are well removed from the real world. At the same time, too many practitioners are so “heads down” they are unaware of current research. If you are lucky enough to live near IIT, CMU and Stanford, you likely know one of these cross breads (most often a lecturer, guest or associate professor) such as Dan Saffer who have taught, researched, worked and also write. My hat is off to these obsessively driven industry leaders. This is often very valuable stuff.
Books about our profession but that do not target us.
This may seem curios, but many books about business, design, interaction and marketing are not targeting that market. Dan Pink and Seth Godin are good examples of such authors. There is very little for the savvy marketing professional to learn from a Seth Godin. He is speaking to the CEO or manager that has never taken a marketing class. Dan Pink, by his own admission is not an expert in design… but he does recognize its value. Dan is a great advocate of our profession and deserves much credit for helping to bring design thinking to the attention of the press and business.
Barely worth the coffee table…
I have several books that are titled very topical and mean well, but fall well short of being helpful. They are often full of images, few words and nary a point. Most of my examples have come from professionals at major firms and leverage that firm’s reputation. I won’t name names, but you know who you are.
“In my experience” books.
I have also wasted time reading books by practitioners that are neither writers, visionaries or provide much in the way of vision. I can only guess that the intended audience is the lost entrepreneur or manager browsing the business or web section at Borders. Usually these are cleverly and seductively titled. Read the first chapter or the introduction while still in the store, only then make your decision.
Case studies… war stories and the picture of success.
Often sold as recipe books or chronicles of greatness, these books are fun to read, can provide insight, but are also very dangerous. As much as I respect and admire Jim Collins, and enjoy reading his books, way to many interpret these chapters as solutions for their particular problem. The story told is one perspective, after the fact. Evidence is missing and it is generally not the precise same situation that you, as the reader are facing. Be ware of no evidentiary solutions.
Techie manuals
Often great for getting up to speed late, but fast… the useful shelf life of these books is often very short. Maybe that is why they are so expensive. I don’t need to be on the bleeding edge, so I usually buy them after the fact, on the sale table at a fraction of the retail price. Some of these, however can be great! A recent example is Dan Cederholm’s “Bulletproof Web Design.”
The outside visionaries
Very often, the problems we as designers, marketers and innovators are facing are not specific to us. There are other sources of information that can provide great insight. Malcolm Gladwell comes to mind. I read nearly everything he writes. Well researched, complex and very relevant material, explained in such a manor that it is easy to understand. I could only dream of obtaining this skill as I am not nearly as obsessive as Mr. Gladwell about writing. Christopher Meyer and Stan Davis are another example of a writing team that present topics well beyond a specific practice, but that have huge implication to what we do.
Blogs
Understanding the nature of a particular bog is important. Mine for instance, started out as a venting mechanism while trying to figure out the relationship between my work and my graduate research. Later, it became a perfect positioning tool for the job hunt. Now, it is simply a nice form of expression that I enjoy assembling. If people read it great, if they don’t it is still fulfilling to me. Many blogs however are full of poorly researched advice (this one at times, I suppose as well) with a mission transparent to the reader. Some bloggers band together to optimize tagging and search optimization. This helps to raise their Digg ranking and eventually sell “the book.” Beware the huckster.
In summary
Three rules that may help in evaluating readings. First, be aware of what you know and where you are headed. Relevancy is critical. Second, try and understand the credibility and purpose of the author and the book. Third, know that there are very few new ideas… but many are repackaged, over and over. And fourth (OK, I lied) understand the Pareto Principle (also called the 80/20 rule or even as the “long tail”) as it applies to books. Most of the real content is presented in the first 2-4 chapters. The rest is reiteration and evidence. Often this is worth the effort, but there is no shame in abandoning a book prior to its finish and beyond its usefulness. Few authors (and no sane publisher) will allow the critical information be held until the final few chapters. Though summary chapters can be well worth the time.
04 August 2006
Design | Marketing | Advertising… is that it?
I was having a conversation this weekend with a friend and fellow professional, Scott Bower. Scott is an exceptionally bright person and a very talented interaction designer. He asked me if there was a book or place where he could research a user centric approach to marketing. It kind of stopped me cold.
Scott and I have had many long conversations about the divide in design schools between the “studio” or old school craft approach, and the more mature “design thinking” movement. We have also had in depth conversations about how the advertising agency model has long been broken. Hell, aside from that, they have been in five-year panic trying to figure out how to integrate interactive media. Most still see it as a department in the agency, or something they sub out to a specialty house.
Design has moved definitively towards user centric models, drawing on new forms of insight and market intelligence. Businesses such as Southwest Airlines and Proctor and Gamble are moving to customer centric models. But where is marketing? Are marketing professionals “getting it?” Did we not all read the “The Cluetrain Manifesto” like five years ago - and yet most marketing is still backwards facing. Still forcing industry jargon and internal formulated groupings of products and features into the market based on company agendas and available technology.
The customer is always right.
It seems a tired line from sales or customer service thinking of years ago. I don’t think managers that said it really meant it at a level beyond getting through the customer dissatisfaction of that particular moment.
The customer is always right.
In the beginning of the purchase process as people (not yet customers) are in the “problem recognition” phase they are only beginning to realize their needs. As they enter the “search for information” phase, they often find themselves making compromises based upon what is available. There is nearly always a gap – some level of disconnect between the customers needs and what is available. This is why some 80% of all products fail. Marketing needs to become customer facing. Allowing people to shop and buy in the same way the determine their needs will allow us as marketers to provide better information the those charged with developing new products. That is consumer faced marketing.
Scott and I have had many long conversations about the divide in design schools between the “studio” or old school craft approach, and the more mature “design thinking” movement. We have also had in depth conversations about how the advertising agency model has long been broken. Hell, aside from that, they have been in five-year panic trying to figure out how to integrate interactive media. Most still see it as a department in the agency, or something they sub out to a specialty house.
Design has moved definitively towards user centric models, drawing on new forms of insight and market intelligence. Businesses such as Southwest Airlines and Proctor and Gamble are moving to customer centric models. But where is marketing? Are marketing professionals “getting it?” Did we not all read the “The Cluetrain Manifesto” like five years ago - and yet most marketing is still backwards facing. Still forcing industry jargon and internal formulated groupings of products and features into the market based on company agendas and available technology.
The customer is always right.
It seems a tired line from sales or customer service thinking of years ago. I don’t think managers that said it really meant it at a level beyond getting through the customer dissatisfaction of that particular moment.
The customer is always right.
In the beginning of the purchase process as people (not yet customers) are in the “problem recognition” phase they are only beginning to realize their needs. As they enter the “search for information” phase, they often find themselves making compromises based upon what is available. There is nearly always a gap – some level of disconnect between the customers needs and what is available. This is why some 80% of all products fail. Marketing needs to become customer facing. Allowing people to shop and buy in the same way the determine their needs will allow us as marketers to provide better information the those charged with developing new products. That is consumer faced marketing.
30 July 2006
Liz, Dan and Interaction Design
I just read Liz Danzico’s interview with Dan Saffer. I have a lot of respect for Dan and his work. We have had conversations on line, but I have never met Dan. Maybe I will be lucky enough to cross his path at a conference sometime soon.
I agree with Dan’s take on a lot of things, but there is one small item in this interview that I take exception with. Dan represents the ATM has having one of the most beneficial interfaces on the planet. I think the ATM interface, particularly if you include the versions at the grocery and department stores, as one of the largest opportunities for improvement in interface design.
The switching from hardware operators to software buttons… from the keypad to the right hand buttons… they confuse many users after some twenty years in existence. Every time I go to a new bank or make a purchase at a different store I have to relearn the rules. It is even to the point where most have to be prompted by the cashier or we find little notes on the control pad. It reminds me very much of my first computer – with documentation that said “press Enter” though the key was labeled “return.” How was I to know?
The convenience of remote banking transactions and 24/7 availability is awesome and has made bank transactions immeasurably more useful. But as an example of excellence in interaction… I hardly think so.
I am very much looking forward to reading Dan’s new book.
I agree with Dan’s take on a lot of things, but there is one small item in this interview that I take exception with. Dan represents the ATM has having one of the most beneficial interfaces on the planet. I think the ATM interface, particularly if you include the versions at the grocery and department stores, as one of the largest opportunities for improvement in interface design.
The switching from hardware operators to software buttons… from the keypad to the right hand buttons… they confuse many users after some twenty years in existence. Every time I go to a new bank or make a purchase at a different store I have to relearn the rules. It is even to the point where most have to be prompted by the cashier or we find little notes on the control pad. It reminds me very much of my first computer – with documentation that said “press Enter” though the key was labeled “return.” How was I to know?
The convenience of remote banking transactions and 24/7 availability is awesome and has made bank transactions immeasurably more useful. But as an example of excellence in interaction… I hardly think so.
I am very much looking forward to reading Dan’s new book.
29 July 2006
The vision of the long tail
Book reviews are not the norm for me or for this blog, and you will not find this a comprehensive review of the book, but Chris Anderson was kind enough to extend a prerelease copy and it definitely struck a cord.
While Chris has termed a somewhat mundane and well-known phenomenon as the “Long Tail” (a variation of what has been taught in stats classes for years as the Pareto’s principle or the 80/20 rule in more laymen’s terms) he brings an evidentiary vision that has crucial implication to the digital world.
There have been many reviews that both rail on, and complement the book. I find it visionary and a must read for anyone in small business or in marketing.
Let me give you a quick example. I lived in Kansas for most my life. For some reason the laws in Kansas will not allow the ownership of more than one liquor store to a single person. This eliminates the chain stores very effectively. Score one for the entrepreneur. Further, only liquor stores can carry anything other than beer. This allows each storeowner to positions themselves and somewhat unique – or at least ale to accommodate the exact nature of their clientele. Just across the state line, this is not the case. The grocery stores and drug stores are all well stocked with wine, whiskeys and other so called “hard” liquors. Being a graduate student for the last few years I have developed an expertise in the under nine-dollar bottle of wine. In Missouri, I get a very limited choice – those titles that the chain store distribution channel deems worthy of the trouble of stocking. In Kansas, many liquor storeowners pride themselves on a unique and thoughtful selection of wines. This allows me to explore more than the mainstream.
I like a better selection. I like not being strictly in the mainstream. Sure, there are purchase decisions that I make with little thought and I tend to follow brands or even on brands (big fan of Target’s Archer Farms). Call me an elitist or a snob, but in some areas I like a broad selection that allows me to explore beyond the “short tail”. In my choice of music, movies, wine, beer, software and many other areas, I now have more choices. More are to come and I am ready!
While Chris has termed a somewhat mundane and well-known phenomenon as the “Long Tail” (a variation of what has been taught in stats classes for years as the Pareto’s principle or the 80/20 rule in more laymen’s terms) he brings an evidentiary vision that has crucial implication to the digital world.
There have been many reviews that both rail on, and complement the book. I find it visionary and a must read for anyone in small business or in marketing.
Let me give you a quick example. I lived in Kansas for most my life. For some reason the laws in Kansas will not allow the ownership of more than one liquor store to a single person. This eliminates the chain stores very effectively. Score one for the entrepreneur. Further, only liquor stores can carry anything other than beer. This allows each storeowner to positions themselves and somewhat unique – or at least ale to accommodate the exact nature of their clientele. Just across the state line, this is not the case. The grocery stores and drug stores are all well stocked with wine, whiskeys and other so called “hard” liquors. Being a graduate student for the last few years I have developed an expertise in the under nine-dollar bottle of wine. In Missouri, I get a very limited choice – those titles that the chain store distribution channel deems worthy of the trouble of stocking. In Kansas, many liquor storeowners pride themselves on a unique and thoughtful selection of wines. This allows me to explore more than the mainstream.
I like a better selection. I like not being strictly in the mainstream. Sure, there are purchase decisions that I make with little thought and I tend to follow brands or even on brands (big fan of Target’s Archer Farms). Call me an elitist or a snob, but in some areas I like a broad selection that allows me to explore beyond the “short tail”. In my choice of music, movies, wine, beer, software and many other areas, I now have more choices. More are to come and I am ready!
28 June 2006
In the long run, stay in the moment
The fellows on the Red Green Show are fond of saying, “if you can’t be handsome, be handy.” I like endurance sports and have adopted a parallel slogan, “if you can’t go fast, go long.” And so, not being a gifted or svelte athlete I have chosen half and full ironman distance events. If you are not into sports… don’t abandon yet… read on.
I have been inconsistent and sidetracked in my training over the last few years, while doing some graduate work. I am trying, in the heat of the Midwest summer, to get back into shape. And I have developed a technique that helps me a lot. So I thought I might share it.
It borrows from Dave Scott’s “live in the moment” philosophy, but with a slight difference. For those of us that are not racing to win, we hit a point when it is about finishing. The key to finishing is to keep moving forward. Momentum is your friend. So as I run, I set visual goals a quarter, half or even a mile out. I also think about each and every step I take. I hold back just a bit, so that when I feel that step coming that makes me want to stop and walk, I have a reserve to draw from. This accomplishes tow things. First, that step that makes me want to walk just does not come as quickly, second… when it does, I have a plan. I put some extra energy into that single step and it gets me through to the next, which is always easier. Even better, I find that I reach mile middle milestones easier, feel great about it, and often don’t even walk at that point. The gratification of momentum and reaching my small little goal keeps me moving forward.
This wonderful thing about this mental game is that it has applications outside of sports. When you are attacking a wicked problem from within the cubicle, try applying this principle. If you’re a salesperson making call after call, days full of “no” or “I’ll think about it” break it down. Break it down to small steps. Work in the moment for small victories with an eye on middle milestones and the long-term finish. I swear it works.
I have been inconsistent and sidetracked in my training over the last few years, while doing some graduate work. I am trying, in the heat of the Midwest summer, to get back into shape. And I have developed a technique that helps me a lot. So I thought I might share it.
It borrows from Dave Scott’s “live in the moment” philosophy, but with a slight difference. For those of us that are not racing to win, we hit a point when it is about finishing. The key to finishing is to keep moving forward. Momentum is your friend. So as I run, I set visual goals a quarter, half or even a mile out. I also think about each and every step I take. I hold back just a bit, so that when I feel that step coming that makes me want to stop and walk, I have a reserve to draw from. This accomplishes tow things. First, that step that makes me want to walk just does not come as quickly, second… when it does, I have a plan. I put some extra energy into that single step and it gets me through to the next, which is always easier. Even better, I find that I reach mile middle milestones easier, feel great about it, and often don’t even walk at that point. The gratification of momentum and reaching my small little goal keeps me moving forward.
This wonderful thing about this mental game is that it has applications outside of sports. When you are attacking a wicked problem from within the cubicle, try applying this principle. If you’re a salesperson making call after call, days full of “no” or “I’ll think about it” break it down. Break it down to small steps. Work in the moment for small victories with an eye on middle milestones and the long-term finish. I swear it works.
27 June 2006
What kinds of compensation are acceptable!
A recent debate between Bruce Nussbaum and Michael Bierut regarding the approach and compensation for the design of IN, the new publication from Businessweek was an interesting exchange between old school ‘graphic arts’ thinking and a more aggressive business and marketing approach.
There are many types of compensation that we as designers, marketers, researchers, etc., can take from a project. Money - the check we cash is just one. Most all of us have produced pro bono work for a good cause. In that case the return was in our hearts. For other projects we may just want our name and reputation attached to it. I have taken on projects that in early development looked like they had much more potential than the client envisioned. In those cases we would often invest extra resources so that we might achieve some sort of break through. In this sort of case we shared the extra dividends with the client (whether they were aware of it or not.) The compensation can be a great case study, return business, a portfolio piece, or in rare cases pushing the envelope of our discipline.
What the AIGA needs (in my humble opinion) is a lesson in value. When designers work on a project and compete on price regularly, they certainly devalue the perceived worth of there offering. That, in fact, positions them in the market place. Truth be told, most customers assess the quality of your work based upon price. They often do not have the insight (how could they) to know what really went into the creation of a gem in your portfolio. Discounting a project to get a foot in the door is sometimes a prudent move that allows you to show what you can do, establish a relationship, and show the client what it is like to work with you (the good and the bad.) It also sets a dangerous precedent. But why should the designer not have the prerogative to take that chance?
Price is measured by calculating the difference in our cost and the optimal charge we might demand. When we discount our rate, we share some of the price of a project with the client. The resulting number is the value of the project – both to the designer and the client. This is, by the way, a standard lesson n any business school – often called the CVP triangle.
So my suggestion is that we as business people (yes designers, that is what we are) open up our minds and think in terms of value, both as we purchase services and as we perform them. Our take away from a project is much more complex, and much more rewarding than the money. In the case of the IN magazine… a publication that promises to promote the worth of design and innovation, you would have to be crazy not to jump at that opportunity. Whether for free, or with the additional investment of time… the PR value alone is worth more than the likely price of such a project.
There are many types of compensation that we as designers, marketers, researchers, etc., can take from a project. Money - the check we cash is just one. Most all of us have produced pro bono work for a good cause. In that case the return was in our hearts. For other projects we may just want our name and reputation attached to it. I have taken on projects that in early development looked like they had much more potential than the client envisioned. In those cases we would often invest extra resources so that we might achieve some sort of break through. In this sort of case we shared the extra dividends with the client (whether they were aware of it or not.) The compensation can be a great case study, return business, a portfolio piece, or in rare cases pushing the envelope of our discipline.
What the AIGA needs (in my humble opinion) is a lesson in value. When designers work on a project and compete on price regularly, they certainly devalue the perceived worth of there offering. That, in fact, positions them in the market place. Truth be told, most customers assess the quality of your work based upon price. They often do not have the insight (how could they) to know what really went into the creation of a gem in your portfolio. Discounting a project to get a foot in the door is sometimes a prudent move that allows you to show what you can do, establish a relationship, and show the client what it is like to work with you (the good and the bad.) It also sets a dangerous precedent. But why should the designer not have the prerogative to take that chance?
Price is measured by calculating the difference in our cost and the optimal charge we might demand. When we discount our rate, we share some of the price of a project with the client. The resulting number is the value of the project – both to the designer and the client. This is, by the way, a standard lesson n any business school – often called the CVP triangle.
So my suggestion is that we as business people (yes designers, that is what we are) open up our minds and think in terms of value, both as we purchase services and as we perform them. Our take away from a project is much more complex, and much more rewarding than the money. In the case of the IN magazine… a publication that promises to promote the worth of design and innovation, you would have to be crazy not to jump at that opportunity. Whether for free, or with the additional investment of time… the PR value alone is worth more than the likely price of such a project.
23 June 2006
More evidence that advertising agencies don’t get it
This morning’s Wall Street Journal includes an article by David Kesmodel. It is yet another display that agencies do not have a clue what to do with the web. The great revelation here is that the scheduled time of a banner ad has significant impact on it influence. Wow… not exactly a revelation.
Advertising, and for that matter marketing is about context and permission. In the only Seth Godin book I recommend, “Permission Marketing”, he elaborates on this point quite well. [As with most of Seth’s writing, 90% of the message is covered in the first chapter or two.] Sending your marketing message when it is requested or desired will dramatically increase its effectiveness.
The advertising industry is hopelessly lost when it comes to the web. A few agencies (Crispin Porter, et al.) get it, but for the most part the industry is in a five-year spiral of panic that began with declining media revenues and culminates with a complete inability to integrate the new tools of the net into a holistic program that serves the clients best interest. Add to that what I see as an ethical issue – are you selling or advising? Doing both is problematic and short sited.
Advertising, and for that matter marketing is about context and permission. In the only Seth Godin book I recommend, “Permission Marketing”, he elaborates on this point quite well. [As with most of Seth’s writing, 90% of the message is covered in the first chapter or two.] Sending your marketing message when it is requested or desired will dramatically increase its effectiveness.
The advertising industry is hopelessly lost when it comes to the web. A few agencies (Crispin Porter, et al.) get it, but for the most part the industry is in a five-year spiral of panic that began with declining media revenues and culminates with a complete inability to integrate the new tools of the net into a holistic program that serves the clients best interest. Add to that what I see as an ethical issue – are you selling or advising? Doing both is problematic and short sited.
14 June 2006
Fuel, cars and where is my money sitting?
In my garage sits a very comfortable eight-year old German Sedan. The other vehicle, an American made SUV also spends less time on the road. As gas prices continue to rise, and I spend more of my working time in my home office I am guessing this trend will continue. My car is worth about 10% of the replacement purchase price. That amounts to several thousand dollars just sitting there and arguably not increasing my net worth. But if it were a newer car, I would have even more concern owning such an expensive dwindling asset given its limited use. It occurs to me that the rising gas prices will not only impact the type of car we buy, but how much we are willing to spend. Additionally, maybe I should think of it more in terms of an expense... and seek to have $0 in equity. Will I ever again want to fully payoff a car loan?
13 June 2006
MBA+Design - Brilliant, simply brilliant!
An MBA, along with an advanced design degree, it’s brilliant.
Those of you who know me will get that I am being a bit tongue in cheek here, having just spent three years obtaining an MBA and an MA in interaction design and design research. I am not brilliant, and did not have a grand vision of the next hot profession. I simply followed the path that made sense for me… I followed my personal vision. It happens that it coincides nicely with an emerging trend.
Talk at the IIT/ID strategy06 conference, the new publication by Business Week – IN, and the recent Email from IIT, all announcing the new combination MBA + Design degree is the topic of the day.
The vision and establishment of this program by Patrick Whitney may well be the legacy that punctuates the distinguished career of a design visionary. It is not that it is a revolutionary idea, but more that the timing is right and that IIT, and specifically Patrick, are capable of pulling it off. Patrick has long published counsel to designers regarding how to build skill sets that increase their value to business.
MIT and several other major universities have established relationships between the business and design school before. Even the University of Kansas is deep into the process of building a combination degree. But IIT has a unique reputation at the graduate level. For the motivated and insightful designer… this degree will easily pay for itself.
I am biased here. But, design thinking has much to offer the business world. And business acumen can lend tremendous clout to the designer. The toolbox of the educated design thinker is different from the typical MBA (who are graduating at an alarming rate, but not in the ridiculous numbers of design undergraduates.) As design thinkers we need to speak the language, learn the perspective, and work shoulder to shoulder at the executive level in order to chart our own path.
Side note: I have to commend Stanford for their recent announcement regarding their MBA program. Most programs are generalist degrees with a fairly rote schedule of core and elective courses. Stanford has opened their curriculum in order to create custom programs that take into account a student’s prior experience and future goals. This will not only be a differentiator for Stanford, but a real advantage for their students.
Those of you who know me will get that I am being a bit tongue in cheek here, having just spent three years obtaining an MBA and an MA in interaction design and design research. I am not brilliant, and did not have a grand vision of the next hot profession. I simply followed the path that made sense for me… I followed my personal vision. It happens that it coincides nicely with an emerging trend.
Talk at the IIT/ID strategy06 conference, the new publication by Business Week – IN, and the recent Email from IIT, all announcing the new combination MBA + Design degree is the topic of the day.
The vision and establishment of this program by Patrick Whitney may well be the legacy that punctuates the distinguished career of a design visionary. It is not that it is a revolutionary idea, but more that the timing is right and that IIT, and specifically Patrick, are capable of pulling it off. Patrick has long published counsel to designers regarding how to build skill sets that increase their value to business.
MIT and several other major universities have established relationships between the business and design school before. Even the University of Kansas is deep into the process of building a combination degree. But IIT has a unique reputation at the graduate level. For the motivated and insightful designer… this degree will easily pay for itself.
I am biased here. But, design thinking has much to offer the business world. And business acumen can lend tremendous clout to the designer. The toolbox of the educated design thinker is different from the typical MBA (who are graduating at an alarming rate, but not in the ridiculous numbers of design undergraduates.) As design thinkers we need to speak the language, learn the perspective, and work shoulder to shoulder at the executive level in order to chart our own path.
Side note: I have to commend Stanford for their recent announcement regarding their MBA program. Most programs are generalist degrees with a fairly rote schedule of core and elective courses. Stanford has opened their curriculum in order to create custom programs that take into account a student’s prior experience and future goals. This will not only be a differentiator for Stanford, but a real advantage for their students.
11 June 2006
A time of voice
I have never been a Bob Dylan fan. I have had very smart friends with great taste that revered the man, but for some reason I never really took the time to listen. This evening for completely random reasons I watched a two disc video chronicle of Dylan entitled “No Direction Home.” I am fascinated. The man at 20 years of age wrote such revealing and compelling words. Dylan’s true years of genius were relatively short lived. By his own admission, he has a much harder time writing material, much less material of social relevance.
I was raised deep in the art world, well, at least as close as you can come in the Midwest. I spent childhood afternoons in the basement of the Neslon Atkins Museum of Art. My grandmother worked there. Several of my aunts and uncles were schooled at the Kansas City Art Institute right across the street. Yet I never really understood art. I had nothing that I thought was relevant to say. Or maybe I was lacking confidence in my voice. That is primarily why I became a designer, because I had visual talent, but no real voice.
Some people are lucky enough (or some would say cursed) with a lifetime of voice. They live to reflect, project, comment and interpret. For me, it was in my thirties before I really felt like I either had something to say, or deserved to be heard. I am not sure if these are mutually exclusive. I now get it. I can contribute. I have the tools, the experience and the insight to be worthy of my voice. And, I am grateful that my voice was not in my twenties. I am grateful that I have a voice a bit later in life.
Many of my high school pals have peaked. They have had their day, made their money and are coasting. In a strange way I feel fortunate that I have my most productive years to look forward to.
I was raised deep in the art world, well, at least as close as you can come in the Midwest. I spent childhood afternoons in the basement of the Neslon Atkins Museum of Art. My grandmother worked there. Several of my aunts and uncles were schooled at the Kansas City Art Institute right across the street. Yet I never really understood art. I had nothing that I thought was relevant to say. Or maybe I was lacking confidence in my voice. That is primarily why I became a designer, because I had visual talent, but no real voice.
Some people are lucky enough (or some would say cursed) with a lifetime of voice. They live to reflect, project, comment and interpret. For me, it was in my thirties before I really felt like I either had something to say, or deserved to be heard. I am not sure if these are mutually exclusive. I now get it. I can contribute. I have the tools, the experience and the insight to be worthy of my voice. And, I am grateful that my voice was not in my twenties. I am grateful that I have a voice a bit later in life.
Many of my high school pals have peaked. They have had their day, made their money and are coasting. In a strange way I feel fortunate that I have my most productive years to look forward to.
05 June 2006
Way finding: “get (in and) out of Denver baby go, go”
For the last couple of weeks I have been taking a much-needed break in the front range mountains of Colorado. I love it here, hope to make this my home soon and have combined recreation with some prospecting and networking. Along the way I had the opportunity to be a frustrated “new user”, so I though it worth writing as that perspective is always relevant.
On a couple of occasions I drove to Denver International Airport to either pick up or drop someone off. In airport terminology these are referred to quite logically as “arrivals” and “departures”. Though I had been through this airport on a dozen or more connecting flights I had ever seen it from the outside.
Driving from west Denver it is simply a matter of following I-70 until you see the exit signs for the airport. And, as an added bonus, you can see the airport’s tent configuration from miles away. So what is the problem you might ask? Well, having never been to the airport before, I was prompted with some 7 potential exits miles before reaching the airport. At each one I wondered if I was passing “my” exit. At no time was short term or terminal parking even mention as an option. Not until I was 100 meters or so from the terminal itself did the first and only sign mention short-term parking. The signage never directed me the wrong way… nor did it ever confuse me… it just never gave me any reassurance that I was headed the right way. For at least 5 miles I found myself wondering if I should have already exited to reach the terminal.
Additionally, the signage on several occasions refers to the east and west terminals. In reality, they are two sides of one large terminal. Arriving on the wrong one seams of little consequence to some but not all travelers.
As I track back and think about the users that might have been identified by the airport signage authority (I am supposing there is one), there were likely four main groups of visitors aside from people that work there. 1) The layover passenger with no need for the directional signage. 2) The veteran user, who after a trip or two sharing my experience, or having taken direction from someone with more experience, has no problem navigating to the correct curb (more on this later). 3) The arrival passenger that is getting into his car (rented or otherwise). 4) The local departure passenger that will park in one of several long-term parking lost. And lastly there is me, the novice, dropping off or picking up a passenger for the first time. Granted, mine is likely the smaller of these groups, but new users are fundamental to any system. Getting me through my first experience with confidence and reassurance ought to be a priority - coming second only to satisfying existing customers.
As an aside, the trend appears to be that curb drop off and pick up is routine. I am accustomed to parking (short term) and accompanying my passenger into the airport. Even more traditional, is for me to great my guest at the gate when they arrive and come off the plane. In Denver, there is no short-term parking for arrivals. They are expected to find their bags and their way to the curb to be picked up. To me this seems a lot like pulling into the driveway and honking to pick up a date.
Directional signage is one of the best disciplines that graphic designers have available to them as a reference in architecting navigable web sites. The parallel of course is that while we don’t want to inundate the seasoned user with redundant or elementary instructions, there is a middle ground where both the new user and the experienced user can be addressed simultaneously. Maybe it was just a small thing, maybe it was just me, but I was certainly without reassurance until the last possible moment in my Denver Airport orientation.
On a couple of occasions I drove to Denver International Airport to either pick up or drop someone off. In airport terminology these are referred to quite logically as “arrivals” and “departures”. Though I had been through this airport on a dozen or more connecting flights I had ever seen it from the outside.
Driving from west Denver it is simply a matter of following I-70 until you see the exit signs for the airport. And, as an added bonus, you can see the airport’s tent configuration from miles away. So what is the problem you might ask? Well, having never been to the airport before, I was prompted with some 7 potential exits miles before reaching the airport. At each one I wondered if I was passing “my” exit. At no time was short term or terminal parking even mention as an option. Not until I was 100 meters or so from the terminal itself did the first and only sign mention short-term parking. The signage never directed me the wrong way… nor did it ever confuse me… it just never gave me any reassurance that I was headed the right way. For at least 5 miles I found myself wondering if I should have already exited to reach the terminal.
Additionally, the signage on several occasions refers to the east and west terminals. In reality, they are two sides of one large terminal. Arriving on the wrong one seams of little consequence to some but not all travelers.
As I track back and think about the users that might have been identified by the airport signage authority (I am supposing there is one), there were likely four main groups of visitors aside from people that work there. 1) The layover passenger with no need for the directional signage. 2) The veteran user, who after a trip or two sharing my experience, or having taken direction from someone with more experience, has no problem navigating to the correct curb (more on this later). 3) The arrival passenger that is getting into his car (rented or otherwise). 4) The local departure passenger that will park in one of several long-term parking lost. And lastly there is me, the novice, dropping off or picking up a passenger for the first time. Granted, mine is likely the smaller of these groups, but new users are fundamental to any system. Getting me through my first experience with confidence and reassurance ought to be a priority - coming second only to satisfying existing customers.
As an aside, the trend appears to be that curb drop off and pick up is routine. I am accustomed to parking (short term) and accompanying my passenger into the airport. Even more traditional, is for me to great my guest at the gate when they arrive and come off the plane. In Denver, there is no short-term parking for arrivals. They are expected to find their bags and their way to the curb to be picked up. To me this seems a lot like pulling into the driveway and honking to pick up a date.
Directional signage is one of the best disciplines that graphic designers have available to them as a reference in architecting navigable web sites. The parallel of course is that while we don’t want to inundate the seasoned user with redundant or elementary instructions, there is a middle ground where both the new user and the experienced user can be addressed simultaneously. Maybe it was just a small thing, maybe it was just me, but I was certainly without reassurance until the last possible moment in my Denver Airport orientation.
03 June 2006
The CEO needs to do what?
Having spent the last three years thinking a lot about the roll of the designer in the tech business hierarchy, it was with great interest that I read Bruce Nussbaum’s recent article in Business Week. His primary point is that CEO’s need to not only embrace technology, but needs to use it. I could not agree more. But I think it is just a small portion of what a CEO needs in order to be effective.
There is a triangulation necessary to bring vision to a company (and that is the primary role of the CEO – for the moment, we’ll leave the day to day running of the company to the president). First, he CEO must be cognizant of the customer’s needs, second, gauge the temperate of the industry and third, monitor the effects of macroeconomics on the company’s future. These are massively complex insights, none of which can be effectively condensed to an executive brief. These understandings must be comprehensive.
Knowledge tends to lead to either one of two outcomes for an individual. Either it provides vision, or it provides capabilities. At the upper end of the corporate hierarchy, if all you gain is capabilities (tactical skills), you have likely reached your potential.
Nussbaum’s point is absolutely correct if either the industry demand is tech oriented, or if the audience for its offerings is technically savvy. Otherwise it is a secondary consideration at best. There are plenty of CEO roles that are well executed by dispatchers of email and search tasks.
A troubling side note to all of this is the notion that companies should be run by (fill in your profession here). In a dated post by Diego Rodriguez’ metacool, Diego states, “I’m an engineer by training, so I’m biased, but I’ve long believed that product companies are best run by engineers/people who grok stuff at a deep level.” I think we all have a bit of that bias whether we come from engineering, accounting, operations or design. Our skill set, our perspectives, our insights are the most important. We tend to passionately believe that what we do plays a critical role in the company. [By the way, I have somewhat recently been convinced that designers and engineers deal with fundamentally the same issues.]
As I progressed deeper and deeper into school, finally immerging with both my share of knowledge and baggage (or as Diego puts it “bias”) I realized that the outcomes of this knowledge, vision or capabilities, would only take me so far. By far the most important skill I could have in a corporation is the ability to work along side, manage and communicate with the other humans in the organization. Very little is accomplished in the modern world as a solo effort.
So what does this mean to the CEO? If you are in the tech industry, by all means be technically adept. If your customer’s technical demands or your industry is being driven by new technology, brush up – immerse yourself and know that technology. Otherwise, keep to the triangulation above and focus on your ability to manage and work with humans. The higher up in the organization you go, the more important those human interdependencies become. Knowing by doing is great, knowing by seeing down the road is even better.
There is a triangulation necessary to bring vision to a company (and that is the primary role of the CEO – for the moment, we’ll leave the day to day running of the company to the president). First, he CEO must be cognizant of the customer’s needs, second, gauge the temperate of the industry and third, monitor the effects of macroeconomics on the company’s future. These are massively complex insights, none of which can be effectively condensed to an executive brief. These understandings must be comprehensive.
Knowledge tends to lead to either one of two outcomes for an individual. Either it provides vision, or it provides capabilities. At the upper end of the corporate hierarchy, if all you gain is capabilities (tactical skills), you have likely reached your potential.
Nussbaum’s point is absolutely correct if either the industry demand is tech oriented, or if the audience for its offerings is technically savvy. Otherwise it is a secondary consideration at best. There are plenty of CEO roles that are well executed by dispatchers of email and search tasks.
A troubling side note to all of this is the notion that companies should be run by (fill in your profession here). In a dated post by Diego Rodriguez’ metacool, Diego states, “I’m an engineer by training, so I’m biased, but I’ve long believed that product companies are best run by engineers/people who grok stuff at a deep level.” I think we all have a bit of that bias whether we come from engineering, accounting, operations or design. Our skill set, our perspectives, our insights are the most important. We tend to passionately believe that what we do plays a critical role in the company. [By the way, I have somewhat recently been convinced that designers and engineers deal with fundamentally the same issues.]
As I progressed deeper and deeper into school, finally immerging with both my share of knowledge and baggage (or as Diego puts it “bias”) I realized that the outcomes of this knowledge, vision or capabilities, would only take me so far. By far the most important skill I could have in a corporation is the ability to work along side, manage and communicate with the other humans in the organization. Very little is accomplished in the modern world as a solo effort.
So what does this mean to the CEO? If you are in the tech industry, by all means be technically adept. If your customer’s technical demands or your industry is being driven by new technology, brush up – immerse yourself and know that technology. Otherwise, keep to the triangulation above and focus on your ability to manage and work with humans. The higher up in the organization you go, the more important those human interdependencies become. Knowing by doing is great, knowing by seeing down the road is even better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)