The power of peripheral attention

In an old episode of the television show “Friends”, Jon Lovitz guest stars as a food critic. On the way over he gets stoned. Cannabis (I am told) has a tendency to increase focus to a near exclusive state. John’s character hears the word tartlet. He repeats, “tartlets, tartlets, tartlets… the word has lost all meaning.”

A couple of months after my daughter was born I was reading a book at a friends house. I wish I could remember and quote it precisely, but it basically said, “children are born the most aware beings on our planet, and we systematically take that away with them by teaching focus”.

The point of this writing is not to take issue with the power of focus, but to point out that it is not the only answer.

I was reading about Eric Johnson’s (virtuoso guitar player) lifelong quest for tone perfection. He mentioned that sometimes in order to get great tone, you have to stop thinking about tone. He has spent years practicing this. He is still learning.

For many years, I have managed the design process. I can’t tell you the number of times I have been eyeball deep in a project… wading in the muck of options and castaways only to find the perfect solution. As a design crew we would then assemble the client into a meeting room, make our dramatic and passionate presentation, and proclaim that “this, my dear client… is THE answer to your problem”. And, in that 18 minute build up… a 12 second unveiling… and the ensuing 17 minute discussion expect them to come to the same affirming conclusion that took our team 7 weeks.

So the client stares at the work… and then stares at it some more… looks us up and down and then stares back at the work. The pressure builds until they mutter, “umm, I’m not sure’. And we designers are astonished. How could they not see the brilliance?

At this moment, focus is not your friend. After repeating this scenario a couple dozen times I finally figured out why it does not work. The client must often, just like us, live with the solution for a bit.

And so here is the simple recipe. Next time you are struggling to make a decision, stop staring. Hang those three logo options, or variations of your web site, or anything else for that matter, in an area you work or live and go about your business. Give it 48 hours. I can almost guarantee you will come to an easy resolve.

So stop staring at the problem you are trying to solve. Live it. Be around it. Be part of it. Let your peripheral attention work for you.

Define the damn thing… redux

Discussions boards and group lists are wonderful tools for a profession. These virtual mechanisms for community lash together individuals without the barriers of geography, time zones and vertical markets. They also chronicle to some extent the cycles of conversation.

As I write this the ebb of discussion regarding defining Information Architecture seems to be subsiding (or maybe taking a breather). In the Information Architecture Institute’s list serve. But, not without the expected backlash from those uber productive goal oriented folks in the community.

These discussions, and their continual reoccurrence, are an indication of a healthy, growing and changing profession. This is exactly what many profession are lacking for, and frankly, would give their eyeteeth to have (my grandfather’s expression).

Introspection, redefinition, evaluation, forecasting and trajectory setting are all part of being a vital organization in a changing world. The problem to many within the IA community is the heads down end product orientation. Our vocation is obsessed with physical deliverables. Those deliverables tell the skeptical that we actually did work, they indicate some value, and they also milepost the billing cycle. But there is so much more value here.

You see, I believe that the process has outcomes beyond a final agreed upon official rubber stamped definition that we can parade around to the business world we serve. It is about growth, understanding and community building. It is about bringing young practitioners into the fold and having them be part of the conversation. It is about subtle iterative adjustments to our collective self image and value. Much like that design project you worked on where everyone collaborated, learned, and performed well… only to have it scrapped at the last minute… its not all about the deliverable. See… the conversation… that’s the thing.

Lesson on value from television

Admittedly I have never been much of a fan of television. Me sitting in front of the TV for more than an hour on any given day is a rarity (unless we are talking about Kansas basketball). So this whole argument may be biased… but her she goes…

As I tune in to evening prime time (is that redundant?) television I am struck by the prevalence of amateur hour. Televisions shows that highlight talent, drama and the shortcomings of those non-professional… maybe paid individuals of dubious talent. You might think that I am being harsh, but I grew up in the golden age of television. And, as a result I have expectations. I want quality and I want professionals.

At the same time, I love local stuff. Just not on television. Local theatre, local live music, local crafts festivals, local galleries… I love it. The same goes with bars, restaurants and lodging. I will take a gamble on an east side southwest grill everyday of the safety and consistency of a Bob Evans or even a Bonefish.

But what does this have to do with television programming. Well, it seems to me that the networks are following blindly, the popularity of cable shows born of economic. They were cheap to produce… they caught on… and the networks grabbed the idea. By this time some have probably even been badly managed or gone over-the-budget-top… but that’s really beside the point.

There is a huge difference between delivering a thrifty product with real value, and a cheap product. But I don’t know that most in commerce discern the difference. And I am fairly sure the majority of the buying public does not think too much about that (b-school) comparison.

In this age of dualistic black and white thinking… there is a surplus of quality at uber premium pricing… and a whole lot that is cheap. Does that mean the new disruptive market opportunity is in value? I certainly hope so.

Design – it must involve exploration

James Lowgren is one of my favorite thinkers when the topic turns to design and design thinking. He has a new column that frames design in this way:

(/from james)

~ Design work is about exploring possible futures, starting from a situation at hand.

~ It intends to change the situation for the better by developing and deploying some sort of product or service, i.e., the concrete outcome of the design process.

~ It considers instrumental and technical as well as aesthetic and ethical qualities throughout the design process.

~ Design work involves developing an understanding of the task – the "problem", or the goal of the design work – in parallel with an understanding of the space of possible solutions.

~ Finally, it entails thinking by sketching, building models, and expressing potential ideas in other tangible forms.

(/end from james)

By no means is this a comprehensive definition, but I doubt it is intended as such. One of the important take aways from this is that design requires… let me say that again, requires exploration. A be line to the obvious solution is almost never the best approach. All of us, typically when we are young and intimidated by the pressures of get it done soon, rather than get it done well, have committed this cardinal sin of design. Many non-designers don’t get this, and it is important that we help them to understand the importance of exploration.

http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/interaction_design.html

How important is empathy?

Lots of great innovations have happened with out it. Obviously, technology drives innovation right? Not so much. In an industry that few would call immerging, high tech or even innovation, A.G. Lafley of Proctor and Gamble goes to great length in his recent book to describe the virtues of field research and empathy. He constructs his arguments under a very appealing umbrella focused on driving revenue and profit growth, something that ought to get the attention of every executive no matter how mature their industry.

In the 40’s a innovation was derived from basic radio technology that allowed the musical notes from guitars to be electronically reproduced and amplified. The goal was to increase the volume so that the musician could engage a larger audience. The result was something completely different.

Neither Leo Fender nor Seth Lover were musicians. Leo was primarily responsible for the acceptance of electric guitars as a successful technology. Leo was a military trained radio repairman that recognized and opportunity and stretched his knowledge of technology into innovation. Seth, also military trained, took things a step further when he designed the Humbucker pickup that most all Gibson guitars sported. Many historians will tell you that the combination of Seth’s Humbucker and the high output Marshall amplifier created a magical combination of tone and energy that was largely responsible for the late 60’s and early 70’s explosion of guitar oriented rock and roll. Yes, more important than Clapton, Beck or even Hendrix’ genius in shaping the music. They could not have done what they did without that specific technology.

But curiously, both companies have had multiple encounters with corporate death since those pioneering days. The electrical guitar has largely stayed the same since the early fifties. Almost every guitar built today is based upon a half dozen designs developed by either Fender or Gibson in the fifties. Gibson has nearly gone under a couple of times. New ownership groups have had to reinvent the company and they still struggled in a thriving, growing market. Fender nearly collapsed in the 70’s when they were acquired by CBS. Their products were awful. Both companies had plenty of technology, cost management, good business strategies, state of the art manufacturing and huge product demand. Both companies ended up making huge and completely unintentional contributions to an emerging after-market product industry and aided many new competitors. How did this happen? These companies invented and dominated the industry.

Simple. They fell out of touch with the musicians. They fell out of touch with their customers. They let accountants and engineers and MBA’s run the company into the ground. They were not in touch with guitar players. They could not get a handle on what was coming around the bend. And they did not invest in research or empathy.

So how did P&G out pace their competitors? They invested in ethnography. They invested in and leveraged design. They put designers in key management roles (CEO and CMO for instance). And, designers want to know how the product is used, how it works and how it doesn’t work. It seems so simple in hindsight doesn’t it? Embrace and leverage design, be in touch with the customer.

How can business benefit from design? (2 of many)

The topic is going to turn to (design) process for the moment. I have on occasion expressed my disdain for rote process. You know, that stuff commonly associated with Henry Ford, TQM and Six Sigma. Design, plain and simple, does not work the same way as manufacturing. That is because design is about solving problems. And nearly every problem is slightly different. So it begs the question, how do we get reliably great results from design, if we don’t standardize the process? The answer is, we do this by assembling a structure. Let’s take a look at a simple step-by-step method that works really really well.

Step One. Establish the criteria by which the designer will work and the work will be judged. Artist thrive when given the freedom to create whatever their hearts desire. Not so much with the design process. Yes, artist and designers both draw, but that is about where the similarity ends. Expression of self take a much more subtle form for designers. Designers embrace the notion of having criteria to which they can design.

So how do you express this criteria? Simple, build a problem statement (sometimes called a situation statement), state your goals, objectives, policies (if you must), and constraints. We won’t labor on the specifics of these now, but suffice to say this takes some practice.

Step Two. Let the designer(s) work. I will save detailing the ‘magic’ of this (it is decidedly not magic btw) for another day.

Step Three. Evaluate the design against the criteria. How simple could this be? Talk through the weaknesses and strengths of each solution. Personally I think formal grading systems are a little stuffy, but for a tough crowd they can be helpful.

Step Four. Eliminate the lesser solutions and promote the best ones. You might even have a winner here. If you do, ask yourself, will this work? Is it great? Can we do better? If the answer t any of these is no, then it might be time to revisit your criteria. This is not the time to recommend a horizontal layout, or your favorite color blue. And ‘I like it’ or ‘I don’t like it’ statements are only worthwhile if they include part of the criteria. If the design satisfies the criteria, and still does not work, you need to rework the criteria, plain and simple.

Here is a huge tip… it helps tremendously to (and some would say ONLY works) if the same people holding final approval were included in the criteria process. If they understand the logic of this structure, and they subscribe to the process, the design team will be confident and things should go well. If you cannot get final approvers to review and bless the constraints, and they still want the final vote, then I suggest mutiny, a new job, or heavy drinking. Seriously, passionately caring about your work in this situation will be a constant frustration if not a living hell. You will be working with the roulette wheel of project success.

If you adopt these four steps and discipline yourself the majority of your frustration with design and design process will go away.

How can business benefit from design? (1 of many)

While many designers have a process, most have a philosophy or structure. Good designers often refine a process and use it over and over to produce reliable and competent results. Great designers think in terms of structure and a vast set of tools from which to draw. One of the most important concepts for the designer is that of divergence and convergence. Early in the design stage we must broaden our thoughts and think beyond the obvious. This is often poorly characterized as ‘outside of the box’ thinking. So often we face problems seemingly without the time or resources to appropriately analyze before we synthesize. We take a straight-line approach to a quick, known, and comfortable solution, but that is short sited. The more important the problem, the more we should consider stepping back and challenging assumptions. Working divergently will have us exploring things that at the time seem less than relevant, but very often open the door for exceptional solutions.

Bill Buxton (author, designer, business guy at microsoft) talks at length about the importance of sketching. It is absolutely crucial in the divergent stages of design that ideas are not yet formalized. One way to accomplish this is to stay away from the computer. Here, white boards, pencil and paper, and even sticky notes are your best weapons. These tools allow designers to convey important visual and functional concepts without being bothered by details - details that not only get in the way, but will narrow focus and restrict thinking. This is extraordinarily important for non-designers to understand.

When Pixar released ‘The Incredibles’ they packaged with it a second DVD disc. On that disk is a wonderful 30 minute video with great insight into the behind-the-scenes goings on. One of the most important take aways from this short story is learning what to look at. If you are working with designers it pays to understand the process and to be able ferret out the significant portion of the rough sketch or mocks. A good design presenter will often explain this upfront, but don’t count on it. If you have any question regarding what you are suppose to be looking at or paying attention to, just ask. Most designers will be delighted that you did.

Many project managers are quick to reduce design's chaotic wondering, but time should always be taken when the stakes are high. Delivering the solution on time is surely an important part of the job, but delivering a great solution is also. Great designers and design managers are cognizant of delivery schedules and exactly when enough explorations are, in fact, enough. Many designers will attempt to reopen (work divergently) an issue late in the game. This can be problematic for delivery. It's often a tough call, but it is where experience and discipline pay off.

In the convergent stages the entire atmosphere of the working environment changes. Schedules rule, pressure builds and the stress of delivery should be evident. But for most designers and especially the non-designers it can be a welcome change to the free flowing, and sometimes random wondering of early explorations. You will often hear, “now we are making some progress” or similar statements from management. That’s when you know that all this fuzzy design thinking is starting to turn into relevant results that they appreciate. This can seem like one of those few times when the business folks and the design folks are working stride for stride.

Design thinking and design discourse

A couple of interesting conversations about Design Thinking are currently ongoing. The first, is a rather provocative article in ID magazine by Rick Poyner. ID magazine has traditionally been a reputable showcase for all things industrial design. Rick quotes people that I know out of context and twists the conversation into a self-serving self-promotion. But, the result is some good passionate discourse on the topic.

The second, is a Bruce Nussbaum blog post on that same article on the BusinessWeek site.

These may in fact help to frame design thinking for you, as this blog will be breaking out useful chunks of that knowledgebase in the coming weeks.

Design and business… coming soon…

In the coming days you will find some commentary that is directed towards business people regarding design. I don’t have to pontificate too much about the benefits of design as an asset to business, there are plenty of very credible folks like Roger Martin, A.G Lafley, and Bruce Nussbaum already leading this charge. But I will likely call out some specific items that can help business.

Within the design community there is tension. Mention the term ‘design thinking’ and you will likely start interactions just short of a rumble. If you don’t know, ‘design thinking’ is the application of design methods, philosophies, and process to areas outside of design. Think about Agile development. On of the defining characteristics is rapid prototyping and iterative process, trial and error, if you will. Designers have been doing this forever. Frankly, most everyone does, well except for those diehards blinded by rigid waterfall or rational unified process. Fear of failure is a horrible thing in a place where progress and doing things better is important. Designers have little fear. They understand you have to fail to learn and they except iteration as a viable method.

Designers are cognizant of the benefits, the marginal return and competitive advantages they can bring to the table. They see Apple, at one point Motorola, Target, and others winning in the market place because they understand how to optimize the power in design. And, they want a seat at the table. They want to be involved earlier because the earlier they get to work, the better work they can accomplish. Designers want a say in the decision process. And they have earned it as a profession.

The problem is… not many business people understand how to use design to their advantage. Hell, most business people don’t really know what design is. When I was in business school, many a professor where dumb struck that I was a designer studying business. “They really have nothing to do with each other do they?”

Just a few years later, many of the important (and top rated) business schools in the country not only embrace design, but are racing to build collaborate programs with design departments. The MBA with an MA in design is becoming more commonplace (if only I had thought of that).

So back to that tension… many designers who misunderstand design thinking, believe that business want to make design decisions without being designers. Designers also don’t understand why they aren’t respected.

It is worth stating that defining design is an ongoing problem. The term is at once to vague, and very often to narrowly defined. Definitions vary, but one thing is for sure, if you think that design is merely moving visual elements around on the page – you don’t get it. Design is shaping how a web site should function. My definition even includes the early stages of the biz dev function… how will we design this product offering? Business models can be designed and re-designed. Process and procedures… also designed.

So look for more here in the coming days and weeks. I will try and bite off smaller chunks, be more focused and wander less. The upshot here will not be so much to evangelize, but to show how to embrace design as a strategic and competitive weapon.

Group think: where is your voice?

When I went back to graduate school, one of the things that most impressed me about my mentor (and the chair of my committee) was how much he emphasized that design students learn to have an opinion. He was often asking (at the top of his lungs), “what do YOU believe?”

This is not so much about ego, or the importance of the “you” portion. It is about having a perspective, the courage, and the respect to state that perspective. Those two principles of courage and respect are important to anyone that is on ‘the team.’

The importance of courage is that you are actually earning your keep. In today’s corporation, if you are paid to merely execute someone else’s marching orders you are generally failing to adequately contribute. Group think, or aggregate decisions kill companies quicker than either the economy or the competition. Be good at what you do - do the research and come with your assessment strong.

Further, display respect towards your peers and team members to offer that opinion. Waiting to hear the room and then weighting your perspective towards a safe and adjusted perspective does that team a disservice. You are paid to be good and bring it all to the table. Don’t be meek.

Hey CBS, just how lame are you? Nevermind.

So, I am sitting on the couch watching basketball. It is the third day of the first weekend of March Madness. The phone rings and it is a friend of mine on the other end. No “hello”, “How’s it going”, or “you watching the game”… just the truth, “CBS has their head up their a$$”.

In their infinite wisdom, at that moment, the networks have decided to show half times at various arenas and a few highlight clips. Mean while, there is that one game in process but why in the world would the East Coast want to watch the number one seed in the Midwest. It is not irrelevant, but also not crucial that you understand that is MY team. My friend is right, neither the network nor the NCAA has a grasp on their audience.

Adding to the bad attitude stew that is brewing in my head, I now must grab my shoes and coat and drive to the only local sports bar. This bar is a teenage strip mall cavern that does not serve a single acceptable beer. Sports without a good beer is just, well, sports.

If you ever wanted proof that the networks are wondering lost, you can find it this weekend in the CBS broadcast of NCAA men’s basketball.

There are (at least) two types of fans that this network is ignoring.

First, most of us did not go to Brown and upon graduation buy a little place on Slater Avenue. Most of us have moved away from our alma mater (wait, does Brown even have a basketball team?). And, by the way, it would be cool if we could see our team play an entire game. The regional broadcast of games based upon rank and metro area TV markets is sooo not customer centric.

Second, IMHO, this is the greatest sporting event in the world. Many of us, favorite teams aside, are fans of the event. And we would like to watch the event… the whole event. People take vacations days to watch this first weekend where sixty-four teams so of which we’ve never heard of compete. Let us see the ‘whole’ tournament.

Plain and simple, this event is too large for a single channel. And, it is to important for one that has their head, well, you know.

What I learned from Bill Buxton

I have never met the man, heard him talk in person or even attended a one of his many speaking events (that I know of) – though we have worked in the same industry and the same market.

Oddly, I read his book for all of the intangibles not noted in the title, namely his sense of where business and design overlap and influence each other.

Even more oddly, I avoided reading the book because of its title. The word sketch was an indicator of something aside my interests. Curiously, his take on sketching was a powerful take away, where all of the other stuff seemed common sense based on my years of experience.

I have learned the lesson of sketch many times in my career. At several intervals, while short on time, running out of budget, or overly confident… I have jumped to the computer to execute a design I was certain I had worked out. Always to frustration and sometimes failure. It is even a syndrome to which I frequently talk to young designers and students. Always sketch your ideas first. But for some reason I was never able to fully articulate why. Bill takes care to explain the malleable and unfinished qualities of a sketch that hit me over the head like a ton of bricks. That lack of finality has great value. It lets designers and others have a glimpse into your idea, and yet interpret those ‘yet to be determined’ attributes. It allows people to feel free to input, add to the idea, and take it in new directions. The lack of detail and finality actually serve the designer to great benefit.

I now read pretty much everything he writes as it comes along. I look forward to hearing him speak sometime very soon.

Work ethics – the 80-hour week.

There has been an interesting conversation of late regarding work ethics. The discussion began as a post by Jason Calacanis, viciously attacked by multiple bloggers, and defended Saturday by TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington. Specifically, what defines a work commitment? Is it by time spent - the number of hours at the office?

It has me thinking about how I spend time.

My father once told me, "if I could not do my job in 40 - 50 hours a week, then I was probably doing it wrong." I think he was right.

As a boss (in a start-up) I was a staunch advocate for having a life. I think we constantly draw on our outside lives during work ours for inspiration and for energy and motivation. I encourage employees to not only have a life and enjoy it, but to guard against the 80+ hour design workweek standard.

In the four years since leaving my company, I split time my time between various consulting projects and a full time graduate class and research schedule. I was doing just what I advised against… working well over 80, often over 100 hours a week.

I am now gainfully employed in the corporate sector. But if I think about my weekly routine, I am easily an 80-hour a week professional. But I think there is a difference. I spent a tremendous amount of time reading about design or business, writing about design and business, and discussing design and business. While I do lots of stuff, what I do for a living is such a huge component of my life I not only don’t mind… I love it. I keep my ‘productive’ time – that which is focused on projects for my employer, to under 50 hours a week. The rest is fun, and a great investment in my profession and my career. Does my employer benefit from that extra time spent? Absolutely. But I would be doing this stuff regardless.

For me, slightly separating my job (that 40 or so hour a week thing) and my profession (where I generate passion and a sense of accomplishment) helps. One generates the needed income. The other generates a tremendous amount of energy and momentum.

I think that passion and professional commitment are the gages that Calacanis and Arrington should really be thinking in terms of. Are those start-up employees working as a labor of love and passion? Are they committed to doing better than the best job they can? Or, are they putting in the time and logging the hours and counting the paychecks. If the later is true, then maybe they should be working in a lame corporation or better yet get a government job. Entrepreneurs, like charities and political movements, need passion and commitment from their work force... ‘cause the cause is the thing.

Dual spheres of influence

I wear a couple of hats when I am at work. The first hat, the one I am paid to wear, focuses primarily on how best to guide our portals towards the user’s needs. I am very comfortable playing that role. I regularly fight for the user experience above all else. But that is not my sole perspective.

When philosophers discuss things they often refer to spheres of ethics. A sphere of ethics is the range for that particular set of ethics. Most of us maintain multiple spheres. We have the set of ethics we use to live our own lives by. Likely there is a slightly different (and maybe multiple) sphere that we use to determine who we hang with, who we spend time with, and who are our closest of friends. You may have yet another sphere for your community, which you would likely vote with. It would drive what you feel is acceptable in your neighborhood and what is not. You may not feel that it is ethical to drive a Hummer day to day, but that may not mean you feel strong enough to try and keep them out of the neighborhood.

While I advocate for the user, that advocacy has a business rational. The user is critical to success. If we don’t pay attention to them, the rest of the what we do is just building a house of cards. I get the bigger picture, and frankly prefer to wear that hat… that larger sphere of user advocacy. I even find that my determination and a sometimes single-mindedness towards considering the user comes and goes. But that usually depends on who else is in the room. Often the user is well taken care of and I fall back to my better balance business hat. Other times I cannot. I think I have a stretchy user sphere.

Is Genius the point? A call for more design research.

Participating in a recent online discussion, a group of interaction practitioners were discussing the need to clarify or define three approaches to design. The approaches being discusses were User Centered Design (UCD), Activity Centered Design, and Genius design, a relatively new term coined by Dan Saffer in his book “Designing for Interaction”.

While I understand the urge to define and relate these as three different approaches, the discussion was ill fated from the beginning because the premise behind this effort was wrong.

The UCD movement is a reaction to a long history of products and services development from a technology or business perspective. Designing a product to be profitable, or designing a product to implement available technologies is an ill-fated pursuit. Neither considers the need for the product. Obviously, if there is not a need, and the technology has little utility, there will be no users. Likewise, if the customer is not engaged, there will be no profit. Focusing on the user is simply due diligence. Customers (or users) have grown sophisticated. They will seek the product that has the most value. That value is determined by a number of factors, but at the top of that list are: ease of use, ability to accomplish goals, and availability in context. Users will find the product that best matches their needs.

Stemming from research in Eastern Europe, Activity Theory has been utilized in forming the ACD approach to product development. The theory is that if you understand the activities (or tasks) can be subdivided into actions and operations. I for one subscribe to activity theory as a valuable analysis tool. It can also serve as a guide for synthesis. This makes it a promising design tool. The disconnect in many conversations surrounding ACD is that you cannot fully understand activity of the user in context, without the study of the user. It is for that reason that ACD should be considered a sub group of UCD. Use of activity theory without some research or insight into the user is the same as Genius design with the addition of an explicit process.

This brings us to Genius design. While I share many a practitioner’s discomfort with the name, it has gained some traction within the interaction design community. In my experience, egocentric or designer centric, would seem more apt names.

Here is how Dan Saffer describes Genius Design, “Genius design relies almost solely on the wisdom and experience of the designer to make the right decisions. Designers use their best judgment as to what users want and then design based on that judgment.”

Genius Design implies that the designer has all the knowledge (of the user) required to move forward and design the appropriate solution. In reality, this is rarely the case. More often, the designer has little regard, time, or budget for actually conducting research into the needs, goals and context of use. I understand that in many situations there is not the budget to do research. That there is not the time for research is simply a case of poor planning. Executives, project managers and product managers are simply putting a gun to the designer’s head in an effort to push forward. Long term goals and planning, the vision to anticipate market reaction and opportunities, are the domain and responsibility of those leading product development. There is no excuse for putting the design and development team in this situation. First to market is rarely a formula for success. Best to market has a significantly better chance.

James Leftwich, CXO for SeeqPod, is a seasoned designer and a passionate contributor to the interactive design community. James takes great exceptions to my ego-centric term as being “charged and offensive”. From a recent post by James, “I take exception only with unhelpful and inadequately descriptive labels such as ‘genius design’ and ‘ego-centric.’ And I favor the term Rapid Expert Design (ERD)”. He is not wrong about those terms being charged. And while my intent is not to offend, I find it as poor management direction to advise designers to skip research and follow only their own sense of what is needed. This level of self-direction and over confidence is pure arrogance. Designers absolutely need to bring leadership and vision to product design. But they must consider the user in doing so.

There are certainly cases when the designer’s process may not require research and those typically fall into one of two categories. In some cases the designer is the primary and targeted user. While this is rare, it certainly happens. In other cases the designer may have deep domain experience. Hopefully, this expertise was gained with some level of market immersion and exposure to the user in context.

During the hundred years history of the design profession, only in the last decade or so has there been a real understanding of the benefits of user centered design research. I get the path of least resistance, and the urge of designers to ‘get to work’, but we know that research can greatly assure the success of the solution. We have a professional obligation to direct the design process in a way that promises to optimize the opportunity. Designers need to educate clients and team members of the benefits of not only User Centered design, but of research to assure accuracy of that design. We need to push back with scheduling and budgets that allow us to do our best work. And, we need to stop letting poor planning and short budgets compromise our work.

Charles Owen and design thinking

Unless you have been under a rock lately you know that the collaboration between IIT/ID and the Rotman school of business has created a dynamic and ground breaking partnership that has aggressively advanced the worth and recognition of what we do as designers. In the latest issues of the Rotman magazine (Winter 2008) Charles writes a thoughtful piece and uses design thinking as the construct for processes and methods differentiating professional design work from the greater world-view of design.

One of the important facets of this piece is how Charles posits design thinking in contrast and as a complement to all things scientific. He goes on to call out the significant traits that make designers not only different but valuable. What I appreciate about how Charles has outlined these traits is how they cross the different design industries – an important perspective in consideration given our silo-ing of specific practices.

This article, along with Chris Connely’s Leveraging Design’s Core Competencies are must reads for anyone looking to hire designers to make a difference.

The entire issue (as usual) is really great stuff. If you are a design manager, this magazine is a must read.

http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/news/magazine.htm

Everyone wants to find the next iPod…

…but few will do what it takes. Though not simple, the formula is straight forward. Put the user first, implement design as a strategy, and take some risk (say it with me… risk/fail/learn – repeat until you reach success).

Re-reading Roger Martin’s Designing in Hostile Territory, I was struck by the irony of a reliability focused culture seeking leadership. Business schools teach, and most of business operates under the premise that proof or evidence are the only tools by which to make decisions. In practical terms, if you cannot show metrics that assure success, then your idea is likely rejected.

So how do you measure the likely success of innovation or original ideas? Is a leadership role gained without risk? In his book Sketching User Experiences, Bill Buxton has a great quote… well he actually calls it his rule: “In the long term, safe is far more dangerous than risk.” As a long time entrepreneur I am, of course, more comfortable managing risk than most MBA types. I am hardly reckless, but I understand the benefits of pushing the envelope at times in order to gain. I think I have been living by Bill’s rule for quite a while. I think it is time to start quoting him… liberally.

more about posers in techville

A cautionary note: this is a guest column penned by my alter ego.

So the lemming talk in techville for as long as I can remember (that should give you a good indication of my age) is social-community-personalization. Yeah... yawn. Yes, facebook is the great playground for those at an age where they need to learn to socialize or cannibalize with low risk (through the net). And yes, many a garage band have found an eager if not paying audience on myspace. Oh – and do not forget the underemployed or aspirationals that flock to linkedin (note: I am not entirely immune to any of these).

The big question seems to be, have we reached the potential of the social web. The answer is a resounding no. We have just seen the early and immature blossoming of a yet to be truly optimized feature. Much like your car’s GPS, which is only awaiting the resolve to bandwidth and mobile carrier silos challenges, to become a simple web map tool, social aps will not reach their true potential until they appropriately purposed. Uhhh what?

If you look at the history of technological innovations, a great many cool and expensive toys flounder in the marketplace as stand alone products until they become accepted and expected and role up into the larger product as a feature. And so it will be with social media. There are two reasons outside of the teenage training ground that have realistic applications for true social media. Those are commerce and uhm, commerce.

The voice of the satisfied or unsatisfied customer that shopped just prior to you is a huge help in resolving the cognizant dissonance you are experiencing with purchasing your new gas-guzzler – even though it is a hybrid. We feel, for some reason, more apt to trust the last idiot than we do the company working to increase our bloated debt (pardon the cynicism… I am on a role).

The other place that social media will continue to grow is towards fanaticism. Bodie Miller’s new site, despite the need for some any design talent, is an example of how to create excitement and commerce across an activity. When we share interests, we are much more likely to participate. When we are encourages and excited about our chared interest we are much more likley to purchase.

It would seem that the hardest task for those living in techville is to thoughtfully purpose technology. The lemmings of course, will continue to run around spouting the buzzword or the day, while others will actually be working to apply the technologies in ways that make sense.

Patent reform… but the right reform, PLEASE!

I have been on record for a few years saying that the current patent process, and in fact the entire intellectual property protection system is skewed and completely unfair. Beyond the fairness, it is structured in such away that we (consumers, business people, etc.) do not maximize the economic value of innovation.

Flat out… meaningful innovation, the kind that changes the game, generates new jobs, adds significant value, and super charges the economy does not come from the corporate world. It comes from entrepreneurs. It comes from Steve and Steve, Bill and Dave, Larry and Sergey… in the garage… making history. These are the folks that need protection. These are the folks that did NOT have a million dollars in the bank and a building full of lawyers, yet this is what it takes to protect the little guy’s idea.

In this past Sunday's New York Times, John Markoff writes an oped piece that bypasses the crucial issues and focuses on all the wrong issues regarding coming legislative changes. This conversation, and the coming legislation, should not be about big business vs. small start-ups. It should not be democrats vs. republicans… it should be about cultivating a fertile economy for new ideas, prosperity, jobs and innovation encouragement.

The current state of intellectual property protection for entrepreneurs is so hostile that scores of smart people with good ideas (this blogger included) have put those ideas on the shelf and are taking respite in corporations, academia or semi retirement waiting for a time when their bright new idea won’t get cannibalized by the patent trolls or squashed by the corporate giants.

The utility of iTunes

I have often written about measuring utility. In fact I still stand by my claim that the perfect product is one that provide utility while not requiring a change in behavior. Being able to measure the behavioral change hurdle and utility are vital towards increasing the rate of diffusion. Increasing the success of new product innovation will be a powerful tool towards reduction of waste and insuring a more robust economy.

The announcement of DRM free songs from becoming available on Amazon is an opportunity to measure the utility of the iTunes comprehensive music delivery system. Many industry experts point to iTunes as the key to the iPods domination of portable music players. While the system is proprietary, it is open to the extent that most users need. Amazon does on have the same sort of convenient, comprehensive delivery system, and this will be a great opportunity to measure it’s worth.

Similarly, any manufacturer that currently distributes through Wallmart and Target can gauge the utility of design. Utilizing online sale numbers we can extrapolate just how much it is worth to the average consumer to go across the street to Target and buy a much better looking toilet bowl brush (possibly even designed by Phillip Stark) for a measly dollar more. Sure, some folks don’t know they can do that, but that’s easy enough to isolate with a simple survey.

The road to accurately measuring utility and translating that measure to customer value is becoming pretty simple. Measuring the resistance to change (of behavior) is a more complex problem. Behaviorist… where are you?

How the DJ’s let us down.

This weekend I read a BusinessWeek article concerning the delivery of music and video from the interweb. There was a great quote from NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker. Apparently he told an audience at Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications that, "We know that Apple has destroyed the music business, in terms of pricing, and if we don't take control they'll do the same thing on the video side." I almost fell out of my chair laughing. The music industry is its own worst enemy.

First, the reason we all listened to the radio was to hear music. As DJ’s developed a higher profile, we grew to trust them and their guidance in music. But then things changes. Corporate radio took over and the DJ’s no longer choose the songs. The music became more mainstream. In the 80’s and 90’s the complaints about bad radio paralleled the homogenization of the airwaves. The stations and sounded the same as they seemed to play the same twenty songs over and over.

So what do people do? They find new methods and new experts to guide their musical interests. They sample on iTunes for instance and then program their own virtual radio stations. They use web sites like Pandora that help them find “more like this.”

What’s next? Information portals that are driven by advertisers are next. As ad dollars shrink, the portals will become more and more desperate. Soon they will all let the advertisers drive the content. See the problem? As the credibility of the content goes, so does the consumer. The future of portals is already weakening. Those who do not place the user experience in the forefront of their efforts will find that in the end users draw ad dollars… not the other way around.

Pen Spinning help needed

Not wanting to be a one-trick-pony, I have decided I need to add at least one more skill to my repertoire of already impressive abilities. I have chosen pen spinning. Here is my thinking, not only do I need something for social situations... you know, the tiny canned display of dazzle that I can pull out in dull moments to amaze my friends and on-lookers (either female and/or cool people), but I also need a source of corporate distraction. I need a small politically correct activity that I can perform in meetings and boardrooms while my adversaries and enemies are presenting either damaging reports or presentations that need undermining. This of course, is just on small building block in my overall plan for corporate ascension and power acquisition. If you have the skills and the patience I need you and your skills - this will be way better than the old tap dance, back flip or even brake dancing!

A process can be a problem (sic)

I’ve written often of my disdain for rigid process – I particularly think that a branded or institutionalized process is a poor approach. Those that stand to benefit most from a highly defined, differentiated and branded process are those that intend to write the books, offer the workshops and then the consulting that always seems to follow. A process is rarely the solution for correcting poor results.

Certainly and currently, Agile is amongst the most annoying and of these recent process trends. Side bar: I have also had my fill of the consultancy branded user centered design process as well. It is not that I have anything against user centered design – in fact I am a fan and practitioner. I don’t even have a problem with many of the various brands of Agile other than it once again puts the inmates squarely in charge of the asylum. My problem is with establishing or standardizing process itself.

If the problem in your organization is wildly varying results, in other words, you get stellar output one day and the next is just awful - then normalizing and standardizing the process may help in the short run. If the problem is that your current system never provides the desired results, then you likely need different people or different tools.

The thing about normalization and standardization is that they generally only reduce variability. They rarely address or raise overall success issues. With a standard process you will typically get standard results. That’s great for an assembly line, a factory or any other repetitive deliverable. But if your task is problem solving… if you are designing or creating, then you will likely solving the wrong problem with a non varying process.

Structures, clear goals, accurate problem definition, and a range of tools are better answers for most designers and developers. So often with each phase of a complex project, we are bounding into the unknown. The process must match the problem, the culture and the team. These are rarely the same for designs each and every time.

I would like to propose a new approach to design and development. I would like to call it SIC. Yes, it is a SIC approach. A SIC approach would require that multiple phases of the project be accomplished SIMULTANEOUSLY. And, that the project progress in, of course, ITERATIONS. And lastly, that we all work… wait for it… COLABORATIVELY. Will you be able to mindlessly step through this like a recipe? Doubtful. You will most certainly need to learn the strengths and weaknesses of your team members so that you can assemble the best team for the project. Oh – and add in some due diligence, research, hard work and what is that old clique… thinking outside of the box?

Missing in action

Sorry for the lack of output here. The summer break became an extended bit of laziness (can I blame this on the fact that Kansas can suddenly play football?). Do not think for one minute that I have lacked for something to say. I've just been spouting elsewhere. More to come...

I am a designer and you are not!

It started as a question in my mind. If you are throwing people into two buckets, designer and non designer, what is the criteria? Some 70 messages, 8 days and a few scoldings by notable authors later, there was still not an answer. Worse yet, those most upset by my assertion that everyone is a designer could not bring themselves to commit to answering that simple question. What makes you a designer and others not?

I am a relatively simple and grounded person. I was not born into aristocracy, I did no go to an elite school and I have as yet, not had a book signing. But I have been a successful designer, hired scores of designers, assembled some very successful design teams and founded a groundbreaking and successful design firm. Many of my clients have said very nice things about my design work. Surely I am qualified to know what makes a person a designer. I do not, but I know a designer when I see one.

Training, experience, title, attitude, image, vision, or the responsibility that comes with all that is being a designer implies. Is this the formula?

Tolerance is something I like to think I have in abundance, though my daughter would likely beg to differ. But when it comes to self-proclaimed design gods, and all of the arrogance, attitude, elitism and snobbery that they can muster, I must confess I fall shy of a reasonable attitude. Why? Because design is not fashion, art or style. It is not hocus pocus or a magic formula. It is not, ‘if you can’t figure it out, then you just don’t get it” stuff.

Good design… and especially great design should be judged by fulfilling objectives set forth prior to designing. That’s right, design is solving a predefined problem. It can be visual, organizational, functional or many other things but its success is defined by its goals and objectives – explicit or implicit.

So a more tactical call for this discussion is embodied by the group who’s forum this discussion occurred. Like most associations or professional groups, it is charged, in part with advancing the profession (I assume in the eyes of those who enlist designers, for the sake of larger fees).

In my experience, external forces are largely ineffective at enforcing respect. Surely the attorney’s Bar Association, the Doctors’ AMA, and other groups have their share of swagger. But I dare say that few peoples lives are on the line when a designer or design firm is chosen. Respect is gained in a couple of ways, intimidation (that would be where the boss says that Cindy will make all of the design decisions, and through performance. The later is when by doing good, you continue to be entrusted to do more good. While I make light of the former, there is a version that is very rational. It is perfectly reasonable to delcare roles and responsibilities for a project, prior to its start.

I believe, not unlike the association I referred to earlier does, that design is a powerful tool and a profession that is undervalued and under respected in the business world. I also believe that all designers owe it to themselves, if not their profession to work hard to raise that level of respect and professionalism. But doing so through snobbery and elitism is beneath me, and I would like to think most credible design talent. There is no magic to great design. Hard work, experience and careful insight all contribute to great design. There is rarely a short cut to great work, or respect.

Of men desperately mishandling mice

The press is again abuzz with news and expectations surrounding the release of Apple’s new iPhone. Reading a user experience discussion board I came across an astute observation that the iPhone was in such stark contrast to everything else about the cell phone industry. Apple’s iPhone is all about the user’s experience – anticipating the needs and multi-tasking wants of the consumer. Meanwhile – the cell phone industry barely notices such issues and is awash in complaints regarding reception, customer service, billing practices and other customer touchpoints.

I am reminded of Lennie Small the Steinbeck character in “Of Mice and Men”. If you recall Lennie tries so hard to keep his mouse… that his very effort was the mouse’s demise. The cell phone carriers in the US, much like long distance before it, work so hard to control, that there is barely enough attention or energy left to focus on the real value generator – the real potential barrier to switching – treating customers well. Back in the day - I often wondered if that very control hastened the rate of commoditization and along the way created so much of the ill will and low brand loyalty in that industry.

In business school we are all taught to optimize profit. And considerable amount of time is spent learning methods to accomplish just that. The phrase, “like printing money” is often used to describe a business that is immensely profitable. The digital world, with duplication and distribution costs at nearly zero – is the ultimate platform for optimizing monetization – even better than “printing” money. Of course the downside is that duplication has now been democratized. Nearly everybody can and will read-write-repeat. DRM has failed to eliminate shrinkage to this point and global cultural values regarding intellectual ownership will only increase “the problem.”

Clearly in the thirty or so years that we have been converting our products to the digital format we have learned to monetize some of them, but we have not learned to elegantly optimize them for sustainability. Maybe we should stop worrying about starving and herding customers, and figure out how to make more appetizing meals matched to their needs and wants. Maybe I will get in line at the Apple store early.

Book Review: Thoughts on Interaction Design

After having the book on my desk for a few months, I just finished Jon Kolko’s, Thoughts on Interaction Design and really enjoyed it.

I first encountered Jon on a discussion board. His posit that an interaction designer’s job is to change behavior irked me. I spend a lot of time encouraging designers to evaluate behavior and build interactions that accommodate them. As a product strategy, the best diffusion situation you could ask for is a product that adds value while NOT changing behavior. After hearing Jon’s side, I think he is a bit idealistic. Few designers ever have the chance to change behavior, much less hold the requisite skill.

That being said, Jon presents many viewpoints with solid research and experience. What I like most about this book is that Jon takes on subjects that are too mundane, too esoteric or too difficult. I found a lot of similarities between his topics and those that tend to consume my idle time. Topics, mind you that I rarely find discussed. Jon touches on process, management and tactical implementation such as fieldwork and politics.

Jon is a good solid writer, but not a great one - partly due to the complexity of his subject matter. He supplements his own material with several articles by other professionals in the design field. This makes for a nice cadence and breaks the reading up nicely. I particularly enjoyed the final chapter in the book, a chapter entitled, “Getting design done” by Ellen Beldner. Ellen is a designer at Google and does not mince works. She has a straightforward style, does not hold back and yet I had no choice but to smile in empathy at multiple points in the read.

This book is an important step for the continued dialog in interaction design.

The power of context in interaction

The business publications are still quite enamored with design in spite of what Bruce Nussbaum says… and the obsession will only continue to grow. So let me set the stage. In the minds of many, interaction and context (if they have heard of it) are the domain of designers working on web sites, web 2.0, and software applications. Experience is this fuzzy feel good thing that most businesses don’t really get (even thought they go on and on about it.) But everyone else that call themselves a designer… they just make stuff the way they know it should be.

About the time that applications find their place on mobile – and I mean in a workable and successful way – business will start to get it. They will see why their desktop aps do not work on a portable hand held device. They will get that the application is all about context and how the use interacts with it. It has little to do with features and capabilities - it has everything to do with leadership and flexibility.

Interaction (or experience) design is bursting from the seams of its genesis. Traditional definitions such as human factors, human computer interface, and information architecture no longer hold. Hr professionals and recruiters have no idea what to call us, what makes us qualified, and how to match us with a reasonable ob title. That is cool!

SIG-CHI, UPA, the ISDA, and AIGA are all fighting for a piece of the turf… but I would not bet on any of these groups. Even the IAI and IxDA are not looking likely to hold the ownership. The problem is that what currently separates IxD (interaction) designers form other designers is not the medium they work in. It is the added value of considering context, interactions and the user. I hope that every design out there is soon calling themselves and interaction designer whether they are working on a web site or a T-shirt graphic. Context and interaction should be ubiquitous concerns.

Memes, lemmings and the next big wave

When Richard Saul Wurman coined the phrase, “information anxiety”, I would guess he really had no idea how extreme it would become. The rush for success and the fever of money have put many of my friends into an overdrive state that simply cannot be sustained.

The outcome of this overwhelming access to information and the time it requires can suck the life out of a person – and a company. Balance is lost and we tire… it becomes so easy to follow in areas we deem less critical. So comes the one, big, giant wave. You know, that single provider that seems to take control. It just becomes easier to buy the iPod, drink Starbuck’s, wear Prada, and read TechCrunch. Rather than find a specialty search engine, we’ll all just use Google. From the undercurrent of cool and hip, to the real insiders, and then of course blogs and even the dinosaur press – we are all seeded with the early memes that aspire to become the singular choice.

Does it make sense to sit back and watch this from outside of Silicon Valley? Can an objective perspective be had, while immersed or drowning in the currents… mush less participating in the froth? Maybe if I dive below I can spot the undertow and the next potential hit? The longer I stay there…

Context beyond interaction

Any interaction designer worth their crust understands the important of context. An analysis of the situation, goals and identifying the user helps greatly in managing an interaction that is optimal.

Architects (as in building, not information) were early experts in context, but that seems so obvious. Most would not think of using residential materials or configurations for an office building or retail location. It just does not make sense. This sensitivity has been lost a bit.

Graphic designers need to understand context as well. Marketing materials must be crafted to work the sales process. They must be specific to the situation and audience. To many designers a brochure is just a brochure. Should the brand or company identity reflect the company and its mission, or should it specifically appeal to the clients and partners? The answer of course, is yes. Context needs to be talked about more by all designers.

The bigger picture

2006 seemed to be the year that a wide screen (950 or so pixels) has become near standard. In the high tech internet world of our nations capital, it would seem that we would be delivering content at the current spec.

The common argument is that a portion of our viewers, consumers, users, whatever you would like to call them, do not or can not set their displays to this size. And so, we should not present content that forces them so scroll. First, scrolling is really not, or ever has been an issue if the content is worthy of consuming. Second, if the consumer’s equipment is not up to the task, I dare say they are soon to upgrade. Lastly, can we not show a tiny bit of leadership and seek to accommodate the majority, while not being entirely insensitive to those lagging a bit behind?

I think the real reason is a campus with half a dozen buildings, several conference rooms on each of multiple floors, and yet not a single projection unit accommodates a size larger than 800 x 600. It could never be presented for umpteen executive approvals. Time to upgrade?

Sustainability and the elephant

There is a growing outcry, gaining momentum, and plenty of press regarding sustainability in design. I can’t give you a single reason why that movement should not move forward full steam ahead. I am a total fan and advocate. But there is an elephant in the room.

The American – OK the world economy, and subsequent prosperity is predicated on the very waste built into our current products and services that this effort seeks to eliminate. Say for instance you develop a longer lasting battery and they now last twice as long. What is the economic impact? Suppose we develop cars and slow the need to purchase and own the newest model. Suppose the developers in the US stop building the 25-year T111 plywood palaces and instead build houses that last for 50 or 100 years. The economic impact of all of this would be enormous.

So, you make the product longer lasting, more efficient and smarter… and the economy suffers. How do we counter act that? Innovation and design is an obvious resource to tap. But it is a double-edged sword. As design gets smarter and innovation increases, so does the value of that product or service. But at the same time, that innovation and design is (hopefully) a marked improvement that displaces and renders obsolete, the preceding product. Entrepreneurialism has been the primary source of job creation in the last 100 years. But again, the same issue arrives. Many of the new companies and jobs end up replacing a great number of those previously in place. There is usually a net sum gain… but it is certainly not pure solution.

If consumers and companies switched their thinking to a value economics we might be better prepared for the inevitable economic impact coming. Consumers tend towards purchasing the cheapest product that will do the job right now. Can we shift to a longer-term approach that reduces the liquidity of our pocketbooks? Companies tend to charge as much as is possible in the short run, knowing that if their product finds the tipping point it will most likely become a commodity. The result being a price based market and impossibly decreasing margins. That is some prize for success.

Hold on folks, the ride will likely get bumpy. We absolutely need to decrease the waste inherent in our lifestyle choices, but the trade offs will be huge. The change difficult and painfull. This may be the ultimate wicked problem.

Will the right voices speak up for design?

I love Bruce Nussbaum. He’s not always right, but he is a constant advocate for design. The problem is, he seems terribly bias. Having Bruce as our high visibility spokesperson is about like Apple’s having Walter Mossberg. Whether he actually is bias or not, is of little consequence… his rare criticism and constant enthusiasm render him dismissible. As for the next most visible mouthpiece Tom Peters, I am not sure who really listens to him but he seems to me to be riding the next fashion wave of business speak and oh by the way, is somehow on the right track.

So who should be speaking out about the benefits of design thinking in the business world? Two types of people should. First, high profile, highly regarded designers that can speak the language of business should take every opportunity available. Stop booking speaking engagements at design conferences where you are3 speaking to the choir and speak in business forums. The other are spokespeople we need are the business leaders benefiting from design thinking. There has to be more than just P&G folks to talk about this.

How do you interview for challenge and innovation?

Market demand for designers and managers that understand experience, interaction and usability is at an all time high. Fortune 500 companies in even desirable locations are having difficulty hiring talent. UI designers on average demand a 10-25% premium over visual designers. Over and over at SxSW I heard people say the “if you are a UI or Ux designer, and not passionate about what you are doing, there is no reason to stay.” But conversely it is hard to leave, and hard to know where to go.

Corporate managers and recruiters are not stupid, just ill-informed. Do not let the fact that they do not know what skills to ask for, and how to determine if you have them, fool you. They get it,they know what you want. You want to be paid, well, and most likely you are looking for a challenge. You want to be passionate about your work. They will work hard to promise all of this and more.

The reality is that very few companies really do innovative work. And unless you are a well-published or noted superstar, it will be a while before you are assigned such a project. Few companies are leaders and so most are followers. The standard follower strategy is to capitalize on the leaders R&D efforts and reduce the cost of keeping pace. The theoretical intent is to garner resources for a time when you can afford R&D and leapfrog the leaders. More likely, that optimized margin will instead go to the executives and shareholders – because that is where the power is. Pardon my cynicism... but that really is where it will go.

So how do you know from within the job interview if you will be challenged? I am not sure you can. Knowing a trusted insider can help. But it is fairly likely that within a few months you will be looking again, maybe moving. Can you say contractor?

Pattern Libraries - all things in moderation.

The obvious trend for the alert web site designer is the emergence of pattern libraries obscuring the use of style guides and design standards. The common thinking that these libraries help the designer to solve problems better - instead of setting rule is absolutely spot on. This is systems thinking and guidelines heading in a more intelligent direction. But here is the rub. As many businesses are obsessed with cost control and reducing variables, these libraries will become a stock catalog of interactions. This is unavoidable... must we, as designers, must not let it reduce risk, experimentation and the expansion of new thoughts regarding interactions. It would be easy to get lazy... there is still a long ways to go.

Mobile context

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to get that when you move web services to Mobile, you have the opportunity to tune that service to mobile context. But how you do that does require some work. Motorola for instance has been doing mobile contextual research for years. As a proactive research initiative, few technologies are more effective than situational studies.

Matt Mayhew's group of cross discipline investigators in Chicago has been deep working this way for a while. How I would love to have access to that insight, but they are wisely, not likely to publish it. Unfortunately, great work on the front end doesn't always translate into great products. In a large corporate structure, traditional business thinking still allows too much opportunity to kill great ideas.

The big downside here is that Motorola seems to be held back by a waterfall process and miles of bureaucracy. The lack of innovation in the days since the RAZR's introduction make me wonder how committed to new process and innovation the company really is. All that we have seen recently are degradations of the RAZR's form factor - that frankly pale in comparison.

Pick your target... please!

Everyday I am amazed at the angst in business. It is prevalent in so many of the companies I talk to. Business leaders are so afraid to lose the current marketshare they have that they can not embrace one critical strategy for success. In order to get the customers/clients that you really want, you must loosen your grip on those that don't quite fit. Set them free and the right ones will come.

For God's sake please pick a target market. When asked who is the primary customer, "everyone" is not an acceptable answer. Yet executives continue to repeat it. Countless case studies show the benefit of owning a market segement... and then replicating that system in another, and another. Do your homework, have a solid plan, don't try to be all things to all people.

Is Chicago the center of American Design Thinking?

Likely so. While the AIGA will want to tell you that it is New York, design has rapidly moved beyond fashion. The folks steering d.school at Stanford have some pretty high aspirations and they will likely get there, but boatloads of money and bunch of PhD's don't necessarily make you great. Carnagie Mellon is absolutely a player. But when it comes to pushing the envelope of design and design's practical applications - IIT/ID is at the forefront. This is not to say it is the best design school, that is a personal decision for each and every design student. But I think critical to what ID brings us is their lack of an undergraduate program. They have picked a specific area/market and doing extraordinary things. Last May's Strategy conference was possibly the best assemblies I have attended (and some say it was a down year). If you have not been to on, I highly recommend it.

The follower's dilemma

Working in a large corporations absolutely waters down your apparent effect on success. Yes, I can be a team player. Yes, I can be patient enough to manage the slow moving sloth like change, but can I exist for long in a company that is comfortable being the follower?

The standard text book strategy for market followers is: optimize the market leaders R&D investments through imitation, reduce overhead to increase margin, and hopefully you will gain enough market share that you can become a leader and then invest in R&D of your own. Hmmmm. I get this. And a dozen or so years ago this worked quite well in many situations.

There are several problems here. First, market leadership can be defined in by more than the single dimension of gross income. Product leadership and brand perception are two important categories that this strategy somewhat ignore. In fact there are plenty of examples that might imply those later measures have more long term significance than the current market share as measured by dollars.

On large question that looms for me is, how do you continue to motivate and attract top tier talent, when the follower's strategy appears to be here for the long term? I have to think that money is only a portion of the incentive picture here.

Independent photography in stock

To say I was disappointed last summer when Getty purchased iStockPhoto is a huge understatement. Getty owns nearly all of the stock photohouses and monopolies, frankly, are not good for anyone. So when I came across Lucky Oliver I was more than just a little happy. An independent stock house with a similar transaction model to iStockPhoto.

Lucky Oliver, or [ www.luckyoliver.com ] has a nice filtering system. When a search is executed, along with a bunch of images, you get a list of search terms pulled from the image library you are looking at. You can selectively turn any or all of these term on or off to narrow or broaden your search. This simple and elegant system works great. Additionally, you can click any of the terms directly and begin a new search.

So I find myself wondering... wondering if stock photography is the new yellow pages. Here is what I mean... if you and five of your other photographer freinds start a web stock house... say by chipping in 20 or 30 decent images each. Then you each contact say... 10 art directors and designers... you quickly have some traction. The each designer tells five others... well I'm sure you get it. Before long... we have a bunch of stock houses available on the net and Getty is no longer the only game around. Or, Getty buys all of us out and we can all retire. Either way... life is better.

Change

Nobody likes change... but too bad. It happens. I tried the new format - and I did not like it. I have gone back to a fairly plane design. Why? I am a designer... I should, after all design my blog right? Not so much. I obviously do not write this blog for money (note: no ads for google). I write to clear my head, share my thoughts and sometimes to vent. If anyone reads it great... if not, I am OK with that as well. But the point of this blog is not as a stepping stone to an online magazine or anything else. The point of this blog is pure and simple - words that express thoughts. It is a simple discipline and in this incarnation, I am not resorting to "cool, or to "images" or anything else. You get words. And if I can not communicate my ideas in this simple forum - then I will fail. And so it goes...

SxSW - a conflicting experience

So - I was asked to speak at this year's SxSW conference. I had always wanted to go, the topic was right and so I jumped in with both feet. I recently wondered if I made the right move, or if I should have gone to the AI Summit. I would choose Austin over Vegas any day. But when it came down to it - making a passionate plee for more user research and better research methodologies was the only logical choice.

And now that I am here - I (think) I made the best choice. As a presenter, I may have a chance to help, to influence and to teach. Ego and accolades aside... I think we accomplished that.

But a trip to a national conference includes some expectation (I am all about manageing and setting these accurately). in my mind, you don't travel a thousand plus miles and spend thousand of dollars (especially when it is someone elses) just for validation. I came here to learn and to hear new ideas. Day three and I am still waiting. I have resorted to setting in some sessions about mobile. Mobile is an area that I have been researching, but have yet to actively touch. Finally, I am coming away from an hour of listening with more than I sat down with.

At this point, what I know about SxSW, is that it is a younger and less experienced crown. It is a nice mix of entrepreneurs, designers and techies. The real opportunities here are to be heard, for netwrking, for face-to-face conversations with normally dispersed talent, and of course for the scene that defines Austin. Live music, parties and warm weather in early spring - not that there is anything wrong with that... more to come.

Beyond agile – where is the next manifesto?

I have been on a quest to research how our design and development team can be more responsive to the marketplace and change. This has lead me to Agile. Specifically, I have been monitoring and participating in an online forums with Agile as the topic. It is as strange a culture as any I have encountered.

The founders of this “Agile Manifesto” still cling to its genesis – now some ten years old. They also seem to get to decide what is agile – as well as what is “Agile”. It is rare to find such a pristine example of arrogance and self-rightousness.

I read an Agile expert’s criticism of design for being “trial and error”, while that seems to be the exact premis underlying everything Agile – try it quick and see if it works.

Apparently, there is nothing better or beyond Agile. This behavior is slightly reminiscent of oh say – the dinosaurs. I however, am not part of the club, so I cannot possibly understand.

For the record, there is plenty about Agile that I like. I like the idea of being more agile and I plan to continue to use many facets of the methodology. There is some really good stuff here. But not being a rote process guy, I do not buy it lock, stock and barrel.

Agile shows only a token look at the potential and power of design and design thinking. I think that is because designers do this better, and these developers need to run this show.

Additionally, I think the state of design (user) research is embryonic. We do not execute research nearly well enough… yet. I do look forward to a time when we have more if it figured out and can then, and only then, start abbreviating and condensing our processes.

I am not likely making agile friends here, but this has got to move forward – with, or without the dinosaurs. Maybe it could be the nimble manifesto. I think it should stay a lower case n.

Request for proposals (RFP's)

Greg Storey at airbag shared a couple of great examples. The real tragedy of RFP's is that they are all too common. I made a decision years ago to never, ever respond to these and I will tell you exactly why.

There are only three reasons to send out an RFP.

1) The company or person has no idea what they need and are looking for you to tell them. Lame.

2) They already have a firm in mind, but don't trust the bid so they would like you to spend a bunch of your time to help determine if it is a fare price. Totally lame.

3) They are going to make a decision based on price. Inexcusably lame.

Is there really any reason to respond to these?

…of metrics for design and innovation. A fool's errand.

“The purpose of business is to create a customer.”
~ Peter Drucker

A business invests in only two things, marketing and innovation. Every other expenditure is a cost – the price of being in business. Marketing and innovation are the two areas where a business has an opportunity to reap extraordinary rate of return. Metrics are absolutely necessary and typically well established for costs such as accounting, finance, operations, customer service and manufacturing. But metrics, as we know of them now, have no place in measuring the success of design and innovation.

Bill Breen’s recent column[1] in the February issue of Fast Company discusses the thinking behind Chuck Jones’ efforts to install a metric system to gauge the success of innovation at Whirlpool. I suppose it varies from company to company, but I think the notion of metrics specific to innovation is a fool’s errand. It represents the business world’s efforts to conform design thinking to the ideals of command and control management and the language of business. The true measure of innovation is success in the marketplace. Granted, there are a lot of steps along a process that can sour a potentially stellar product, and metrics are perfectly appropriate for many of those steps. (full paper)

Building a killer team for innovation part (7 of 6)

Firing. One last thing to add, don’t be afraid to fire a team member if it is not working. It is nearly always the best thing for them, you and the team. Typically the team knows well before you that this should and will be relieved when it is finally done. Setting employees free when they are incompatible is often the push they need to re-evaluate, find their true calling and move forward. It is a terribly difficult thing to do, but it is much easier than loosing clients, your best employees or ultimately laying god people off. Be definitive and do it quickly.

Spend most of your time with and for your best designers. Like focusing on your strengths, focusing on designers with the most talent and have the most potential, it is how you should best spend you resources. If you do this effectively, you will in fact loose more designer than if you coddle the low performers. But you team will ascend to greater heights and you will attract more talented people and higher quality clients. Set that bar high

Building a killer team for innovation part (6 of 6)

One more thing. Make your company, team or division attractive to talent. You do not have to be the constant self-promoter (hmmm, IDEO comes to mind here with more books and case studies than any of us will likely ever read.) But, showing off your best work, having a great website, and promoting your talented designers in the next phase of their careers are all effective measures. When talking to prospective talent be honest and set realistic expectations. I see many large firms in a constant hire mode. Most often this is a result of an inability to keep talent, not the exponential growth they claim.

Building a killer team for innovation part (5 of 6)

The work. Just as your company receives multiple forms of currency in exchange for your work, so do your employees. You want the people on your team to have a career plan. If they are not thinking strategically about their careers, they are likely not thinking strategically about their design work. Don’t count on them working for you forever. If you manage to keep a stellar team in tact, great – but it is rare and hard to do in this age of the “free agent nation.” Allow designers to build their portfolios. Personally, it is the last criteria I consider in hiring, but it is an important take away from any job. If an employee finds a better opportunity, let them go with your blessing. Your job as team leader is to make the job exciting, challenging and worth staying for. I have never resented an employee for accepting a better opportunity, more difficult challenge, or higher pay off – and I would not work for some one who would resent me for the same.

Building a killer team for innovation part (4 of 6)

Clients. Most every designer I have worked with wants to be in the meetings with clients. Every designer should have the tools necessary to do exactly that. Unfortunately many designers do not. A designer must embrace the client’s goals as criteria of the project, not a problem to work around. We are not artist and our vision as designers should always consider, if not come second to that of the client.

Designers must also be able to communicate their ideas. Presentation skill is critical. The designer must be able to communicate ideas to business people. Further, designers need to learn business speak. They do not have to be MBA’s, but they do need to command the respect of business people and I cannot stress enough the importance of speaking their language. This is a major omission of nearly every undergraduate design program in America.

Lastly, while designers must be passionate about their work, they must be able to separate themselves emotionally from their work – for a couple of reasons. First, a designer has to be able to “kill their babies”. We all get obsessed with a cool solution. Our obsessions can become a huge hurdle in moving forward to a better solution. When you come across an epiphany mark it and work through it. You will be surprised at how great the next idea or five may be. Another problem with our “babies” is that in critical evaluation they are not so much aligned with the client’s goals as they are with our own. Secondly, a good client will ruthlessly challenge you ideas and supporting rational. This can crush an emotionally attached designer. I have even encountered clients that do not want the designer n the presentation for just this reason.

I don't get the whole "anti" thing

I know that Apple fanatics can get a bit wearing. I also get that if you don't appreciate the "added" value of what Macs and iPods offer, you won't buy one. Similarly, if you don't get why people buy porsches - stick with the mustang. But where does the anti apple thing come from? I have been reading a lot iPhone reviews today and I see a lot of self proclaimed "anti-apple" people commenting. Why be anti anything? I think this is mental poison. We should all find more issues to advocate - am I anti-anti?

Yeah its a phone, but its not a phone

By now I don't even need to tell you what product I am referring to. The hype machine is in full-scale tidal wave mode and you have heard. I even heard the local evening news offering a "sneak preview" a full day after the product announcement (local news is such crap). But back to the point - this is not a phone. Apple could not call this a tablet, a pda or a pocket mac because the press would treat these as limited markets blah blah blah. Besides, Steve has eschewed these products in the past - not that he doesn’t have a history of contradictory statements, its just not the best marketing approach. Hyping this as a phone (a trojan horse in my opinion) is brilliant. The numbers are the sort that Wall Street loves, (note the stock rise of 6 bucks in a single day) and everybody is interested in a cool new phone.

Personally, I can't wait to get one. My current laptop is exactly three years old and just out of warrantee. This product promises to do everything my laptop needs to do and fits in my product. My current life allows me to sit at my desk when I need a mouse or a large display... and so be it. I am on the list. The only downside will be after 2-3 months of ownership and they announce the newer model that I REALLY want with even cooler new features.

Building a killer team for innovation part (3 of 6)

Workplace. I do not think that the specifics of the environment are terribly important. My personal preference is for warehouse space over cubicles… but it is just not that important. The right tools to do the job (hardware and software) are about not letting process get in the way. Yes they can help position you in front of clients but that is not about team management. I will say that a great chair is worth a lot in terms of endurance. Speaking of endurance… let go of that monster volume work ethic. Establish a maximum number of hours that you allow the team in the office. Why? Because burnout is a huge problem with self motivated people. Further, designers and innovators need a life. I don’t mean they appreciate a life, I mean they absolutely have to have a life. It is an essential source of inspiration, motivation and insight. Without a life a designer is crippled.

Make it business like, but make it fun. Give your people enough responsibility that they are challenged. Good people will not stay for long at a job they have already mastered. Don’t push innovation, make room for it. Many ideas that immediately seam worthless to me, or that I do not like, turn out to be pretty good. The resistance is often a result of challenging our preconceived notions. This is a good thing… don’t waste it.

Lastly, assign (or let them choose) each team member an area of expertise. Let them become the “go to” person regarding a particular discipline, tool or process. I like the notion that designers are “T shaped” people (borrowed from IDEO, Cooper?). Help them to deepen their vertical specialty.

A very basic observation regarding opportunity

It has always felt to me that whether looking for a job or scouting clients you have a choice. Find those in tune with what you do well and compete. Or find those that are not and educate. Neither is an easy course.

The chart was obviously inspired by the sharp observations at www.indexed.blogspot.com

Building a killer team for innovation part (2 of 6)

Hiring. I have found that hiring smart people is particularly beneficial. I have found that hiring good people is even more effective. I try to live my life by surrounding myself with people that I admire and want to be more like. It has served me well. Friendships that I put effort into are with people who reflect these attributes. The hiring process can benefit from the exact same criteria. Hire people you like to spend time with. Hire quality people with ethics and values that the entire team share. This absolutely does not mean that you consider political views or spiritual orientations. In fact, if you can not tolerate people on your team that do not share your specific views in that regard you are destined to fail as a manager.

Hire a mix of people who think about design and produce design. Design thinking is extremely powerful. Design as a craft is necessary, but a room full of design craftspeople is not a formula for success. If I thought it would be effective I would repeat this paragraph 12 times. It is that important to designers to THINK more than they DO.

Manage rules and projects… not people. And that last thing I spend time doing is supervising. If a team member requires management pressure to get the job done they should be set free. Management is about providing leadership and vision… not enforcement. A good manager mitigates enforcement through quality hiring.

Building a killer team for innovation (part 1 of 6)

You. One of the first couple of things you hear or read from management pundits is to hire people smarter than you, the other is to locate where there is a wealth of talent. Those are worthy ideas, but not always possible. The number one criteria in building a killer design team, is that you qualify as a potential member of the team. If you are in charge only because your dad owns the company… then you will struggle assembling a crack team. If you have no skill or experience in working on a great team… you probably won’t be able to build and lead a great team. If you lack moral fiber or leadership but have a big bank account, hire someone to build and run your team and stay out of the way. We could call this the Al Davis syndrome… but then, the NFL Raiders have had their moments inspite of Al.

To build and lead a team, you have to be “the guy” that you would hire. Sometimes it is hard to find people smarter than you, and sometimes it is hard to find talent outside of the “creative culture zones”, but there is in fact extraordinary talent everywhere. You can find it in the Midwest… deep in the mountains, in the desert and in Fort Wayne and Wichita. I know from experience. You just have to look a bit harder.

Amber waves of brand?

If you string the last few topics I have written her together, you might be able to project where I am going. The larger the company is, the less nimble it will be. The more focused on command and control, of people, property and ideas… the more difficult the ship will be to steer. As start ups progress – and eventually see profits, they tend to not want that to change. Systems like TQM and Six Sigma are installed to moderate volatility. Finance and operations executive are easy to pick on because they seek this stability at nearly all cost. The largest of cost, is of course the ability to take advantage of opportunity. That requires change, exactly what all this stability is working to minimize.

My question today is… how can brand affect this syndrome of staleness and complacency in the maturing (read stagnating) corporation? Will we be seeing constant waves of corporations alternating between stability and revitalization? What can brand do for this effort to maximize the value? And lastly, is stability in conflict with agility?

Ownership of ideas…

It frustrates me to no end that the path of the small innovator is extremely dangerous. Idea vultures - attorneys in wait for an innovation to hit the tipping point, threaten entrepreneurialism. It is in large part why I have moved into the corporate sector. The cost of defending an idea in a US court is too high. Pending legislation may change this soon, but in the long run a different strategy will be needed.

Globalization will affect intellectual property rights well beyond the projections of current economists. Just as nationalism is stronger than democracy, the western worlds ability to enforce rights management will ultimately fail. It is a cultural notion that can be disrupted by counterfeiting technologies, and even the most scrutinizing of ethical consumer cannot be assured of buying the “real” thing.

So when the complete lack of “idea protection” is global, the power will be in the ability to make use of an idea faster, better and in the right location. This will require a constant and tireless effort. The arrogant and complacent will certainly not be able to compete.

It’s micro for now…

I have been thinking a lot about the future of large corporations lately. I think that in many industries, companies are just too large – think Airlines, Telephony, and Automobiles. The largest seam to struggle and the mid size find ways to thrive.

While re-reading “In the Bubble” by John Thackara I came across one of his more interesting observations. That organizations and companies are compelled to own stuff. Buildings, equipment, ideas, just to name a few. John contends that this ownership reduces a company’s ability to change and be nimble. I would concur in theory. Then I applied the same to my household. I feel compelled to have cars that are paid for (a dwindling asset), a house that is secure or maybe even paid for… and a load of recreational stuff at my disposal. I am especially materialistic about books. If I borrow one and end up liking it… I buy it.

All of this materialism is a feeble attempt to secure some sort of stable environment and lifestyle. I wonder, if I put my efforts into person agility and resourcefulness if I would not be better off?

The macro factor in US economics

It pains me to see the daily results of governmental mis-prioritization. The artificial robustness of the housing industry is coming soon to haunt us. Interest rates are too low. And, the continued efforts to keep fuel prices low (even by today’s standards) are costing us trillions. The gulf war, continued deficit growth and the zillion pound gorilla that we are lying next to with our debts to China. The sky is not falling… but something is in the way of a power shift is certainly looming.

Disfunctionality is telephony’s forte

I understand that the long distance industry was the result of regulation. I also understand that the mobile phone companies are all renamed long distance companies. I also understand the problematic situation of a CEO when participating in an oligopoly. But it boggles my mind how this industry can consistently get it wrong.

Cingular might be the one possible exception… they tend to lead. Clearly, for consumers, the service must be nearly ubiquitous. And, we know by watching other industries that bigger is not necessarily better (airlines, autos, banking, etc).

It takes Sprint two years to catch on to the RAZR. Duh – people buy service based upon the hardware you offer. This industry is divided cleanly between fashion and function – with a light overlap (enter Venn diagram here).

Verizon takes the horrible software interface resident in most Motorola products and manages to replace it with one that is even worse.

And yet, this is the future of the internet, computing and information dissemination. And further… I keep working in that direction. I have found an industry with so much room for improvement it is hard to decide where to start.

Of course culture matters…

I love reading Grant. McCracken’s blog, This Blog Sits at the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics [www.cultureby.co,]. Grant nearly always has an opinion, and a strong one at that, but more importantly he never hesitates to call out and discuss the elephant in the room. He recently posted number three of a series entitled, “Culture Matters.” In this episode Grant takes to task some of the most influential and powerful methodologies in marketing, branding and innovation published recently. He picks them apart mercilessly. I respect that. And I think all literary works should have such scrutiny applied.

But I think that Grant’s expectations are naiveté. All of the books or authors mentioned are presenting a perspective or a method of measuring. None are the absolute, take it to the grave, perfect process, or solutions. A very smart group of people I worked with in grad school helped me to break my bias and habit of developing process.

Now I think in terms of assembling tools and methods - and finding where the can best be of benefit. Each has strengths, each has weaknesses, and none are appropriate all of the time. There is no truth, just a lot places to view from.