Design Thinking Digest

Why Orson Welles would love Twitter: The Fog of Social Media

A short mediation on current affairs. The events in Iran and with the recent passing of Michael Jackson have shown us that no matter how much the word changes it still stays the same.

With infinite complacency, men went to and fro about the globe, confident of our empire over this world. Yet across the gulf of space, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic regarded our planet with envious eyes and slowly, and surely, drew their plans against us.

One of Orson Wells early, among numerous, moments of genius was his serialized rendition of War of the Worlds, presented documentary style on October 30, 1938 on the CBS radio network. Because many did not hear the beginning of the broadcast it had the unintended (maybe?) impact of inciting a panic among millions.To whit.

Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'".^[1] While Welles and company were heard by a comparatively small audience (in the same period, NBC's audience was an estimated 30 million), the uproar was anything but minute: within a month, there were 12,500 newspaper articles about the broadcast or its impact, while Adolf Hitler cited the panic, as Hand writes, as "evidence of the decadence and corrupt condition of democracy."^[1]

A disturbing but inevitable trend with social media phenomena like Twitter is that the information we get from those mediums is no more reliable than we can get anywhere else (Such as Mr. Goldblum’s apparent demise) and is perhaps, currently, more susceptible to manipulation than we believe.

Imagine the utility and value of Twitter in a national disaster along the lines of Katrina or 9/11. Now image ‘envious’ parties that wanted to use tools like Twitter to sow confusion and paranoia through that channel.

When we look at Iran we see that tools like Twitter and internet can sow the seeds of the revolution while at the same enable the lockdown, manipulation and preservation of the status quo. See The Revolution Will Not Be Digitized: How the Internet Helps Iran Silence Activists for a more nuanced exploration by Farhad Manjoo and see Deep Packet Inspection to understand some of the implications of what we do online contain.

This is not to say that tools like Twitter or Facebook should not be trusted, they are merely technology that can be used for a ‘variety’ of ends and we should perhaps be thinking about the far broader implications that they bring to our world—at a pace that we don’t seem to be prepared to deal with.

We forget that things like fire and electricity are technologies and tools that we use that required literally centuries to integrate into our societies. We had the benefit of a more casual momentum of adoption with them that we don’t possess with many of the social media technologies that we’re already starting to take for granted. Do we need a ‘fire-department’ for Twitter? Do governments and citizens need plans and policies around social media? Are some of these issues even things we should think about from a National Security perspective? I’m going to place my bets now and say yes.

As the social media infrastructure becomes the medium for communication in our world we need to ensure that checks and balances are in place that allow it to be an open, creditable and verifiable mechanism for communication.

I would say in the realms of technology journalism that this is already a losing battle as a majority of content is simply an eco-chamber of unsubstantiated leaks, emails and punditry that has replaced the critical thinking and commentary that used to dominate the field.

Perhaps in the realms of technology or celebrity journalism these are not deal breakers, but when it comes to world events and the real time reporting of disasters or global crises it certainly is.

^[1] Hand, Richard J. (2006). Terror on the Air!: Horror Radio in America, 1931-1952. Jefferson, North Carolina: Macfarland & Company. p. 7. ISBN 0-786-42367-6.

Productivity: Business value in software development

My last post looked to the past to explain how productivity was a key to Microsoft’s initial success but that new business models and the ascent of the internet has changed that equation.

One simple way to illustrate this is to look at software development. Historically software development has had it’s roots in what is good for the IT organization. Is it cheaper, easier, manageable for technologists to do what they need to accomplish? This was pretty evident in the systems design and command and control structure of technology as it evolved in the 50s through the 80s.

The advent of the PC opened up a new opportunity. It made technology more accessible to folks outside the traditional groups that controlled technology. In effect, non-technology oriented folks in consumer and enterprise markets had a new say in how things could be done and if they didn’t like what the IT organization was saying or doing they could often take things into their own hands. This basically let to the birth of modern operating systems and productivity software as we know it.

But this phase held on to some of the patterns from the command and control days, de-facto standards were held by a few an interoperability was something people thought about begrudgingly or not at all. In fact the business models of all the competitors of the day were based on this thinking, in short the models worked—for a time.

But the internet caused a disruption to this way of thinking. In the enterprise folks had grown frustrated with established hegemony and the Web opened up a new way of thinking. One, it made it easier to write applications that anyone could use. Two, it simplified distribution. But compromises were made around ease of use and productivity often took a back seat to the utility that the internet provided.

In addition, as the utility of the internet spread to consumer focused applications created by a whole new general of developers abandoned the traditional practices of application development—in fact many were never exposed to classic development projects in the first place.

There were benefits to this for all of us. As consumers we could things online or get access to data that previously might have been very difficult, it might be difficult to use these new tools but difficult was better than impossible

This new models made life easier for developers too, they were a step down the path of ‘write-once, run everywhere.’

In the late 90’s however cracks began to appear in this revolution. The concept of being easier for developers did not necessarily mean cheaper. It wasn’t uncommon for early commerce sites for large scale efforts to cost anywhere from 15 million to 100 million US dollars—amounts that almost defy description today. Much of this was because IT in the late 90s was similar to automotive industry in the early parts of the 20th century where there were hundreds of car manufactures competing for consumer’s business, there was no standardization and no interoperability, this made things really hard.

Worse still is what happened when these cobbled together systems actually started generating revenue. It became increasingly difficult to modify or make changes to applications that were mission critical but that were so complex that every feature rollout was the IT equivalent to performing brain surgery where a single mistake could cost millions in lost revenue.

Two things happened that pulled this revolution back from the brink and both of them really boil down to productivity.

One is that developers and software makers started focusing on standards—regardless if the solutions they created were ‘free’ or ‘open’. Web developers demanded it and used technology that was exclusively standards-based and enterprises that required more than standards could provide at least wanted the flexibility to interoperate with these standards and other technology. It’s hard to find any standards-based or proprietary technology today that doesn’t think about interoperability.

The second is that the level of frustration with the usability of technology came to the forefront. It wasn’t just about did an application actually work but could a person actually figure out how to use it.

Both of these drivers have been a key part of the Web 2.0 phenomena with the popularity of AJAX and rich media experiences enabled with things like Flash, Silverlight, etc. It even extends to the power of client software, such as iTunes, WPF applications, AIR applications and other solutions that take advantage of client hardware versus a browser.

I think the next wave of productivity is starting now and it’s focused on productivity in application development and life cycle management and in total cost of investment and return on investment.

When we think about productivity in application development and life cycle management we are really talking about the concept of the ‘Inverted-T’. Which can be defined at the repeatable best practices that we can apply to every project versus re-inventing the wheel. For example why build a content management system when you can buy one or save money implementing an open source option? Why spend money designing a architectural work pattern for a manufacturing facility if you can license one? Why build an authentication system if you can leverage one as a service? This type of thinking represents the horizontal part of the ‘T’. This way of thinking allows us to go deep and focus the majority of our attentions on the parts of our business that allow for differentiation and innovation.

We can also think about life-cycle management. For example does our workflow allow asynchronous round tripping through of projects and assets from designers to developers. Very few workflows do this today, one does (I’ll be polite and not mention them by name). I suspect this type of workflow will become standard in many environments and that in some agile Web processes traditional design tools will be eclipsed by tools that work in the target delivery medium (Vectors versus bitmaps for example or HTML and CSS that don’t need to be factored from static visual designs).

The final dimension in the next wave of productivity is probably services. We already have a myriad of services available to us around commerce, community, identity, location, search but the next wave of services, commonly called ‘cloud’ services are going to go far beyond that. In the future Knowledge Management or email systems might make more sense for many companies if they exist outside of an enterprise’s data center and in a cloud—much like we host many of our Web sites today if we’re a small to mid-size business. These type of moves will start letting developers in the enterprise and smaller entities focus on the core strategies that allow their business to innovate.

We’re starting to see signs of this already in the market. For example look at the ability of a service-based site like Mint.com. Their ability to innovate and role out new features is far more capable that some of their more traditional peers.

Lesser known examples might be click-ones applications that can silently and quickly introduce new features without proactive user activity.

The next post in this topic will dive into services and show how once we’ve taken advantage of the productivity gains that can come in software development and services that we’re ready to set the table for real breakthrough innovation.

Productivity: Business value through efficiency

This post is adapted from a paper that appears in the Journal of Business Strategy entitled Cultural Innovation in Software Design: The New Impact of Innovation Planning Methods

Microsoft is a company that historically was guided by a simple premise, “A PC on every desk and in every home.” Microsoft’s role in that premise was simple, to be the creator of the software that would run on those computing platforms, creating every piece of software a consumer would need. As the Economist noted in a July 26^th, 2008 Microsoft’s success in this endeavor hinged on two important insights.

The first was that computing could be a high-volume, low-margin business. Until Microsoft came along, the big money was in maintaining a select family of very grand mainframes. Mr. Gates realised that falling hardware costs, combined with the negligible expense of making extra copies of standard software, would turn the computer business on its head…Profit would come from selling a lot of them cheaply, not servicing a few at a great price.”

“Mr. Gates also realised that making hardware and writing software could be stronger as separate businesses. Even as firms like Apple clung on to both the computer operating system and the hardware—just as mainframe companies had—Microsoft and Intel, which designed the PC’s microprocessors, blew computing’s business model apart.

Although it’s difficult to recognize how inspired and innovative this thinking was over 33 years ago it was augmented by another important and unique characteristic of Microsoft in its early days as the Economist continues to elaborate.

The technology industry likes to sneer at Microsoft as a follower. And it is true that the company has time and again bought in or imitated the technology of others…His (Bill Gate’s) genius was to understand what he needed and work out how to obtain it, however long it took. In an industry in which visionaries are often sniffy about anyone else’s ideas, the readiness to go elsewhere proved a devastating advantage.

In effect, Microsoft in its early days was a company that was focused on incremental technology innovation and product optimization. The combination of this one-two punch of innovation in business model and technology enhancement has enabled Microsoft to become one of the most successful and profitable companies in the world.

But as Microsoft prepares to enter the twilight of its fourth decade in existence it faces new challenges that require a fundamental reshaping of its core value offerings and how it will develop and innovate in the realms of software in the future. These challenges include emerging business models focused on advertising supported software, search, open source software, and services. The emergence of new computing form factors in the mobile space and among consumer devices focused on media and entertainment space also are having a dramatic impact on how businesses and consumers perceive and embrace computing in both established and emerging markets.

So…how does Microsoft consider to grow and thrive in this new market where open source and new business models are the disruptive innovation? My next post will look at some of the changes in Microsoft over the past few years that serve as ‘ingredients’ for innovation, and set the table in Microsoft for how to address these challenges.

---

Quotes from The Economist. (2008, June 26). The Meaning of Bill Gates. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from Economist.

Resetting Design Thinking Digest

It’s been some time since I’ve used Design Thinking Digest as much of a forum, for commentary or curation. Some of this is because I’ve found tools such as Linked In, Facebook and Twitter have replaced much of what I used Design Thinking Digest for—but some of it is probably also due to what I’d characterize as ‘social media fatigue’. After SxSW and MIX I wasn’t certain I was contributing much that was unique or that warranted a blog post.

Over the past three months a big part of my daily activities I’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about how the economic slowdown is impacting the digital marketing and digital agency ecosystem that I frequently work with.

Like any other segment of our economy it’s been hit hard by current events. But, perhaps not surprisingly to many readers, parts of these eco-system are also thriving as they never have before.

As I put a toe back in the blogosphere I see three trends that will impact designers greatly over the next 12 to 24 months.

Welcome to the new normal

Our new economic environment is not a downturn as much a  reset. The realities that we deal with today are marketing dynamics that we’re gong to have to deal with going forward. In fact this is a theme that Steve Ballmer has been touching on for some time in many public speeches. In Chicago recently he framed it this way at a luncheon at the Chicago Executive Club.

I want to talk a little bit about the economy, but really only to set up the thing that to me is probably more important to talk about, which is productivity and innovation. We are going through an unprecedented kind of economic (crisis) – I like to call it reset. I don't think we're in a recession; I think we are resetting. I think this is the new normal, and yesterday was the exception. And I think we got ourselves there in a lot of ways, but economic growth in general is fueled, GDP growth is fueled by productivity and innovation and debt, and over the last 10, 15, 20 years we've seen debt for businesses and consumers rise to almost 300 percent of GDP. It was 150 percent, by the way, before the Great Depression. And we were kind of borrowing our way to prosperity, and I'm afraid post-reset we're going to have to innovate and improve productivity to drive GDP growth.

It's clear debt will not be the economic growth driver of the next 10 years. After every major deleveraging of the world's economy in the last 200 years, people were slow to bring back debt.

Social media is the driver of innovation in marketing and mass media

Although I may have ‘fatigue’ from social media it’s perhaps more important now than it ever was. Social media is the glue of just about every advertising, marketing, communications or public relations scenario that you can think of. But most CTOs or CMOs misunderstand or are flat out terrified of the implications. There has never been a better opportunity for professionals and services that can enable the architecture of social media scenarios. But it’s still a nascent space requiring a hybrid of skills that is not the exclusive domain of social media pioneers that build great individual brands nor digital marketers focused more on digital, but traditional, push or destination marketing in the digital realm.

Productivity and innovation will drive economic growth

We we talk about an economic reset one pillar that companies use to fuel growth, debt, is effectively off the table for many folks. For fueling growth we need to turn to the other two pillars of innovation and productivity.

If you compare the capital costs of starting a business in 1999 to 2009 it’s a different world. The infrastructure to get phone service, office space, internet and office productivity tools is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago. A committed entrepreneur can have a digital shingle on a door in a matter of a few hours today because of the advent of services that we just not available and competitive in the world of Web 1.0.

But if you look at the way we build and implement business-both physically and digitally you might find that little has changed in many economic segments.

If you look at how companies measure or ‘sense’ what their actual business performance is many companies are lousy at it.

The successful companies of tomorrow will use technology and new business processes and workflows to increase productivity in areas they’ve yet been able to, or had incentive to address.

Productivity alone is now enough however, it’s a tide that raises all boats if we continue with metaphors. What does provide a competitive advantage is innovation. Innovation isn’t borne completely of technology, but is also a result of the application business strategy and the innovation planning process that a company can bring to bear. This where concepts like a thorough understanding of customer experience and platforms can allow a company to shine. It’s why the iPhone and the Application Store are such a success, it’s why Windows, with a global platform of one billion users and vast developer ecosystem is still incredibly powerful and valuable despite recent predictions about it’s demise.

Over the summer I’ll be focusing a bit on the things we can control as designers in our own profession practice and with our customers—namely how can we be more productive and how can we, as designers, be a key driver of innovation.