Foresight 20/20

Michael Mandel, chief economist at Business Week believes that innovation is "the only game in town."  In this time of financial meltdown and economic crisis, he believes that the only way we can pull out of this mess is for innovation to prevail in our culture.  

I agree with his intention, but most of his suggestions left me scratching my head.  Michael suggests that we need new economic policies (tax incentives, etc) to encourage companies to be more innovative.  He also suggests prizes, and encourages new technology development.  While these policies can't hurt, I find that a lack of incentives or ideas is not the problem.  While his suggestions won't hurt, and may help, I don't think they will have the deep, meaninful impact that is needed. 

In my experience, the problem lies in the fact that most companies don't know what to do to be more innovative.  They know that in order to grow or be more profitable they will need to innovate.  That is a great incentive.  There are also more than enough ideas to go around.  What is lacking is that most companies do not know how to guide innovation efforts in a way that will be valuable in the market.  They also have a difficult time managing innovation efforts within cultures that need to manage predictable processes and outcomes.  To be more innovative, companies need to find ways to reward behaviors that encourage innovation, without discouraging the maintenance of business.  To be more innovative, companies need to be encouraged to take on projects whose outcomes cannot be defined before the project is started.  To be more innovative, companies need to learn to identify problems before they search for technologies.  Otherwise we end up with solutions in search of problems.  These are difficult behaviors for organizations to manage from within organizations who need to reward reliable delivery of products and services.  

We are a community of innovators.  What would you suggest to Michael to answer the question:  What is necessary for America to become more innovative in the future?  How can we help him?

Mobile advertising, the availability of mobile web apps, and mobile phone services that allow you to know the location of others.  There is a lot of buzz going on about who is going to crack the "let me do everything on my mobile phone" code.  Who will come up with the killer app that will allow this to happen?  Who will define and own the market?  Michael Arrington of TechCrunch had a great post about one such app.

It appears that the introduction of the iPhone has everyone convinced that the iPhone will provide the technical platform upon which these ideas could work.  Makes me wonder.  Is this the only way?  So much of what I'm reading is about companies trying to find ways to port the current paradigm and experience onto the mobile platform.  The iPhone certainly does lend itself to doing that better than most phones out there.  But what would happen if we had no iPhone?  What if we had to find a way to "go mobile" without all the apps, ads, and services that were originally designed to be delivered via another medium?

I don't have an answer, but I will pose the problem.  How can people have access to information from wherever they are?  If I were to focus purely on this question would I say, "well, we have to start with a phone-like device, and apps like facebook..." 

I'm not sure I would.

Don't count on it.  I help companies to become more innovative.  One thing I have noticed is that the industry a company is in, or the market it serves, has very little influence over how innovative the company really is. 

Most people perceive that companies operating in digital industries are more innovative than companies operating in more traditional, tangible industries.  They must be, the logic goes, because they would not have existed 10 year ago.  Therefore they must be new and innovative.  And that may be true in some cases.

The reality is that in most cases, these companies are not innovative.  They exist because of innovations that have occurred in their industry, but very few that I have seen are operating in an innovative way.  Here two fundamental things innovative companies do that other companies do not do:

1)  They value consumers, and are always thinking about how they can improve a consumer's experience.  They not only talk about what a new technology can enable, they focus relentlessly on how their product or service fits into the consumer's lifestyle.  These companies learn about what consumers value.  As a result, the products and services they develop are valued.  Any company that only learns what consumers say they want will be sadly misguided, and will not be able to create a meaningful offering.  Really understanding consumers is different.

2)  They create opportunities to compete in new ways.  Once they understand what consumers value, a world of possiblities opens up to ways to provide value.  And value is something consumers are willing to pay for.  Innovative companies do not limit the ways in which they can offer value.  They develop new processes and capabilities to provide value, and figure out how to do things they've never done before.

Notice what is not on the list:  Streamlined processes.  Well-defined, detailed tasks before a new project begins.  These things are important for running a business; for delivering what you currently offer in an optimal way.  But they do not make a company innovative.  They only enable you to do more of what you already do.  And paradoxically, that's the operational focus of most digital firms.

 This is a great example of how the ultimate execution will make all the difference.  The Wall Street Journal today had a story about how new mobile phone services enable people to know where their friends are.  The video gives a good overview of the service, and acknowledges the balance between privacy concerns and convenience.

This balance is very delicate.  I'm not sure where I will fall on this one.  I'm all for convenience, and I can easily see the benefits this service could provide.  On the other hand, this certainly has the potential to be a bit too revealing for comfort.  What do you think?

One conclusion drawn in the article amused me.  They suspected that younger people would like the service.  Sure.  When it's their friends who can see them.  What if this becomes a prerequisite for any parents who pay the cell phone bill? 

ReadWriteWeb had an interesting post about Best Tools for Visualization.  While I found the post to be full of interesting information, there was an obvious omission that I feel compelled to point out.  No visualization tool, regardless of how technically clever or unique it is, can take the place of clear thinking.

Visualization is a term whose meaning in popular culture is beginning to stray from its original intent.  (Isn't that the fate of most words that become popular buzzwords?)  In the pure sense, visualization is the visual expression of an idea.  The information in that idea can take many forms.  It can be literal, like a picture of an object, or it can become abstracted, such as images that convey emotion.

Most frequently, the term visualization describes visual representation of how informational elements are connected.  In the offline world, this is usually called Information Design.  Two main skills are required to make Visualization useful.  First, the complexities of interrelated information must be untangled.  The causes, effects, and connections must be clearly understood.  The second step is to figure out how to represent this information visually so that it can be easily understood. 

The upshot is that these tools can be helpful aids in visually representing information.  It is up to the person who is trying to communicate their ideas to: a) understand what the information is, and how it is connected, and b)  choose the right visualization tool to best communicate that information.  No tool can do those two things for you. 

These tools are very good at making cool images of information.  Most people have a difficult time making compelling images, and they are often seduced into falling in love with these tools for the wrong reasons.  Please do not fall into the trap of confusing the quality of the content with the quality of the image.  Good Information Design will help to ease communication, and provide common understanding.  If you are using one of these tools, and your discussions still keep spinning, go back to the drawing board and start clearing up your thinking.  Then visualize it.

I saw this video  in a post on Seth Godin's blog.  As a person who studies consumer behavior, I found it analogous to the work I do.  Before you read on, you should watch at least the first half of the video. 

I did not miss the bear the first time.  Most likely, this is because it is my job to pay attention to what's going on behind what consumers are telling me when I interview them.  Most consumer interviews go exactly like the video.  Consumers go on and on about the game; how they played it, what they were thinking, etc.  They are so used to playing around the bear, they don't even think that he might have an impact on them.  And he IS having an impact on them.  They are careful not to hit him, and that impacts their choices.  So many companies are trying to learn to integrate consumer feedback into their processes.  It often goes wrong for several reasons. 

First, consumers are typically not overtly aware of what drives them.  You can talk to them, they can tell you what they like, but they cannot tell you what to do.  If you literally do what they say, you are doomed.

Second, the web makes it easy to get consumer feedback.  In terms of the video you just saw, getting self-reported, written feedback is like trying to understand what's going on in the video while wearing a blindfold and having someone describe it to you.  And most likely the person describing it does not see the bear.

Finally (for today at least), companies often have trouble translating what a consumer says, does, means, or needs into a viable product offering.  This is true whether they see the bear or not.

I'm interested in the human aspects of what's going on with technology and the web.  People get so carried away with the mechanics of what they are doing, they often lose the point behind it.  And losing sight of the main point is usually the reason for losing relevance in the market.

Find the bear, understand his impact, and keep your eye on him.

I had AIM several years ago.  I had to remove it from my computer because it was too distracting.  IM has a way of being intrusive and distracting, and I was not going to fall into that trap.

Now, my needs have changed, and I decided to try IM again.  I installed the new AIM, and it was a mess.  It messed up my computer's ability to find the right wireless networks, and just had too much distracting stuff going on.  I couldn't just do what I needed to do without a three-ring-circus of web pages opening, email messages for accounts I didn't want or know I had...YUCK!!

And then a colleague suggested that I try Pidgin.  It has just what I need, and is an inobtrusive as IM can be.  It also has a Babelfish quality to it that I love, but have not had the need to use.  It basically enables you to integrate all your IM accounts.  Ahhhh...Simplicity!!  I only need one solution.  As I said, I don't need that right now, but I love the idea of it.

Pidgin may not be the best solution out there, but my experience proves a couple of things.  Technology is best when it lets you do what you need to do, and gets out of the way.  The other thing is that people will try what their friends suggest, and those are the things that have an opportunity to become loved. 

I'm not an early adopter of technology.  What I mean by that is, I don't acquire technology for the sake of having new technology.  To be of value, technology has to enable me to do something that I would love to do, either because I couldn't do it well, or at all, before the new technology came along.  And the less I have to interact with the technology itself, the better. 

When I first heard of Twitter, I wondered why on earth I would ever want to use it?  I still don't use it, but I'm now compelled to try.  Why?  I will have to admit that all the hype about the Zuckerberg/Lacy interview at the SXSW conference is what started it.  As I was reading Jeff Jarvis' post, I realized that Twitter was allowing people to know the news in real time.  There was no waiting for tomorrow's paper, or tonight's blog.  In fact, if Lacy had used the medium to her advantage, she could have course corrected during the interview.  The fact that she didn't has been the topic of many other blogs and articles.

I was impressed by the power of a tool like Twitter in the media.  There is no wondering what individuals thought.  It was right there.  There was a swarm, so we knew something important was happening.  Yes, everyone has biases which cannot be filtered out.  But this real-time coverage was powerful.

It also raises a new issue to consider.  Instead of just considering personal biases, we now need to worry about Twitter's potential to foster group-think.  If the discussion wasn't public, would people answer differently?  Would you have the courage to stand out among your peers?

I'll let you know when I actually use Twitter.  I usually find myself too engrossed in what I'm doing to stop and Twitter about it.  But we'll see if that need changes.

Here's a newsflash.  Social Networking has been around since the dawn of humanity.  It's one of the things that makes us human.  There is an entire field devoted to the study of social connections, culture and society.  It's called Sociology.  I'm always caught off-guard when I hear someone refer to Social Networking as if it's a phenomenon that was invented by members of GenY.  And it is not only GenY members who refer to it this way.

To me, Social Networking simply means that people are connecting with each other.  It happens all the time, and you don't need the internet to do it.  It is especially popular with younger people.  They learn about relationships by making friends in school, and spend a lot of their time socializing, or "hanging out."  They may then move away from home, they have no friends, and they need to meet people.  This is not new. 

What is new is that the internet has provided a new channel for socializing to occur, for whatever the reason may be.  Initially the technology limited the use to a one way conversation.  You could look up information.  We could access it via a physical (wired) network.  New technology (dare I say Web 2.0 tools?) has allowed a two-way conversation.  Voila.  A social network can now exist in an arena where originally there was only a physical network.  Groups of teens used to "hang out" at the mall, and before that it was the local soda fountain.  Now they can "hang out" on MySpace, Facebook, or other Social Networking websites.  Due to the "hanging out" nature of the connections, younger generations have popularized the use of this new channel.

Why am I bothering to rant about this issue?  I was discussing a new website the other day with a coworker.  It was an information heavy site that allowed people to connect with experts for information.  When the words "allow people to connect" came up, it was thought that the site was Social Networking site, which in turn meant it must be about fun like MySpace.  They then questioned the credibility of the content.  An important distinction was made at that point.  There is a big difference between using Web-based Social Networking tools to create a website which allows access to expert content, and using those same tools to create a website whose sole purpose was about Social Networking on the web.

This is why I'm amused when I read about Social Networking with a purpose (other than hanging out online) being the next evolution on the web.  "Oh, you mean that people might want to connect with others for some reason other than hanging out?"  Brilliant!!  I'm sure it's never been done before.