Bruce MacVarish Notes

Social by Design: Design Thinking & Business

I came across another insightful presentation from David Armano (@armano) ... this time on Design Thinking & Business.

My favorite line:

"Design Thinking gets us thinking holistically and differently".

Social by Design: Design Thinking & Business

View more presentations from David Armano

Personal Media Memory Map

Kristina Loring at Frog Design does a nice job summarizing day 1 of PopTech 2011.

What caught my eye was the Personal Media Memory Map developed by the New York Time’s R&D Lab.

The app takes your basic personal info and creates a personalized map of media relevant to your lifetime by aggregating and curating articles, pictures, posts and other content. 

Check out this video of Alexis Lloyd talking about the challenge of creating these personalized media maps.

 

 

 

Cupcake Model of Product Strategy

Is your product strategy a "Cake" or "Cupcake"?  

From Brandon Shauer at Adaptive Path -

 

Creative Leaders

A Knowledge @ Wharton study on why creative people can lose out on leadership positions found that creativity is the single most important quality for success today.  

Yet, the study found that when it came to hiring and promoting practices, today's businesses consistently marked down the creative managers and bypassed them, selecting less creative types.

We are in the midst of transition from an industrial economy to a networked information economy.   As a result,  the sources of value creation and growth are also shifting from natural resources and industrial capital to information resources and creative networked capital.   I'm not the first to highlight this, but here are a few earlier posts on the topic if you're interested:

extracting new value from data,

the value of data 

strategy in the Edge Economy

the creative value of Data + Design

I believe this is a big deal as new companies are formed and incumbents look to redefine themselves in new growth markets.

Creative Leaders understand how value creation is shifting away from our industrial legacy resources toward business models and architectures optimizing resources found in networked information.  For more context, here's an excerpt from a recent Forbes article on "Why Steve Jobs Couldn't Find a Job Today"

"The argument goes that America was blessed with lots of fertile land and abundant water, giving the country a big advantage in the agrarian economy from the 1600s into the 1900s.  

During the Industrial economy of the 1900s America was again blessed with enormous natural resources (iron ore, minerals, gold, silver, oil, gas and water) as well as navigable rivers, the great lakes and natural low-cost transport routes.  A rapidly growing and hard working set of laborers, aided by immigration, provided more fuel for America’s growth as an industrial powerhouse.

But now we’re in the information economy.

Those natural resources aren’t the big advantage they once were. Foodstuffs require almost no people for production.  And manufacturing is shifting to offshore locations where cheap labor and limited regulations allow for cheaper production.  And it’s not clear America would benefit even if it tried maintaining these lower-skilled jobs.  

Today, value goes to those who know how to create, store, manipulate and use information.  And success in this economy has a lot more to do with innovation, and the creation of entirely new products, industries and very different kinds of jobs.

Unfortunately, however, we keep hiring for the last economy.  While we “get” the need for innovation, we don’t seem to understand much about how to “do it.”

Are you a Creative Leader?   Do you understand the new rules of value creation in the networked information economy?  

If you are hiring a leader, are you hiring an industrial-age leader or a networked information-age leader?  

Research would say your company's success or failure will depend on your answer.

Innovation is saying 'No' to 1,000 things

"People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on.  But that’s not what it means at all.

It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are.  You have to pick carefully.

I’m actually as proud of the things we haven’t done as the things we have done.

Innovation is saying ‘No’ to 1,000 things." - Steve Jobs

Here is a video of Nike CEO Mark Parker talking about "editing" at Nike.

 

check out Zurb's post on Jobs and Nike CEO Mark Parker - http://bit.ly/oI1vWh 

The Value of Average Influencers

Liz Gannes interviews Duncan Watts about a number of topics included in his new book "Everything is Obvious".

I found his perspective on the challenges, reality and research focused on "Influencers" very interesting (about 3:17).  

He suggests it is very difficult to identify the very few people that have strong influence in the network... and the results are often disappointing.

Instead, Watts sees research on influence moving toward finding the very many people that have "some" level of influence in the network.  

It would seem that Watts sees more value in finding the "average many" influencers instead of the "vital few".

 

 

Human Behavior as the start of Social Design

Jenn Webb interviewed Paul Adams in prep for Web 2.0 Expo scheduled for later this month.  

The interview is well worth a read. You should also keep an eye out for Paul's forth coming book titled "Social Circles" (I've already pre-ordered).   

One of many interesting quotes from Paul's interview includes: 

"Our (mobile) phone, or whatever we carry around with us, will probably be our primary source and producer of social media data, so it's important that when we use it, we're not burdened by its place in the ecosystem — for example, by seeing constant privacy controls or too many invasive alerts."

Paul Adams, Global Brand Experience Manager, Facebook

For me, it is interesting to think about his reference to "whatever we carry around with us will probably be our primary source of social media data".  

What about you?

 

Not all Graphs are the same

Chris Dixon, CEO of Hunch, recently presented at a GoogleTechTalk at the Google New York office.

Chris talked about the value of Graphs ... as in social, communications, intention, taste graphs ... the evolution toward Graph Wars ... and strategic choices important to developing graphs.

 

I was particularly interested in his question:

"How are Communication Graphs related to Social or Taste Graphs?"  

While there may be some overlap in "nodes" that appear across all 3 graphs, there are many "nodes" that are distinct.  As a result, we should expect to see the use of each graph as the source for distinctly different services for users.

Because not all Graphs are the same, the value of network analysis and new graph based services will continue to grow.

True Value to be found in Sensing Relevance

"Context, the weaving together of interrelated conditions that brings meaning to why a person is doing something, is the key to delivering relevance.  

The only thing of true value in a user-controlled medium is relevance." 

@jonathanmendez , Display's Matching Problem

 

I agree with Jonathan and like his vision for integrating the emerging "sensing wave" to deliver on the opportunity of relevance-aware advertising.  

If we distill Jonathan's statement of "weaving together inter-related conditions that brings meaning" down to the key technology or product elements, I think we have something like:

1. Sensors to capture a user's declarative and ambient actions, reactions, environment, intent, attention and sentiment data.
2. A Context Engine to aggregate sensor data
3. An Analytics layer to derive meaning from the Context Engine data stream
4. A Preference & Policy based Filtering Layer to deliver a real-time, relevance-aware stream of content based on a user's rules and context.

So you end up with something like:

 

Sensors + Context + Analytics + Filter => Relevance

 

It seems to me, there's been too much focus on "context" and not enough focus on the source of true value for users to be found in "relevance".

Games @ Work

I wanted to refresh my thinking on the Guiding Principles of Game Design @ Work from my earlier post. 

 

The Guiding Principles for Games @ Work were focused on making it easy for collaboration leaders and business users to:

1. Define clear boundaries, shared problem(s) and a community of collaborative business users

 

2. Assign satisfying tasks or roles that enable business users to excel and be part of something "Bigger"

 

3. Build nonmonetary incentives into a game economy to strongly motivate individuals to accomplish group aims.

 

4. Deliver hyper- transparency of information about users' skills and teams’ real-time performance 

 

5. Create a virtual economic marketplace for information and collaboration

 

6. Open multiple real-time sources of information and communication upon which to make decisions

 

7. Structure as a project-oriented organization that can easily be disbanded and reformed based on tasks and skills

 

8. Recognize individual, group and company achievements in a clear, specific way

 

9. Open visibility into all skills / project / social networks of communication across an organization

 

10. Adapt multiple, purpose-specific communications mediums to improve speed and efficiency of collaboration. 

 

With a little vision, strategy and design, it is not hard to see how game design principles will be shaping the future of communication and collaboration applications.