<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:25:18 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>Adam Richardson's Blog</title><subtitle>Blog</subtitle><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/atom.xml"/><updated>2012-02-09T06:40:31Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Do We Trust Our Future?</title><category term="Book Review"/><category term="Business"/><category term="Culture"/><category term="computer history"/><category term="economics"/><category term="economy"/><category term="global economy"/><category term="material culture"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2012/2/8/do-we-trust-our-future.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2012/2/8/do-we-trust-our-future.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2012-02-09T05:11:18Z</published><updated>2012-02-09T05:11:18Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>(This article originally appeared at <em><a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/01/crisis_of_faith_in_the_financial_system.html" target="_blank">Harvard Business Review</a></em>)</p>
<p><span>What happens when there is a mass loss of confidence in the financial system? This very contemporary question was put in unexpected historical context for me this Christmas by a book I was given,&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-World-100-Objects/dp/0670022705/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1326403906&amp;sr=8-1"><em>A History of the World in 100 Objects</em></a><span>&nbsp;by Neil MacGregor, Director of the British Museum. It is based on one hundred radio lectures given by MacGregor (which can be&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/">heard here</a><span>) about items from the Museum&#8217;s collection, each chapter discussing a specific artifact. Some of these are mundane, such as an arrowhead or a drum, while others are grand, such as the&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/awwjbIoORUaQXm9LmiTz8A">Rosetta Stone</a><span>&nbsp;or a&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/okZT5JiCTn6lYFR0Gs9Tbg">Welsh gold cape</a><span>. For someone like me who has spent his life designing products and thinking about how objects acquire personal and cultural meaning, it was a perfect gift.</span><br /><br /><span>One of the first artifacts I thumbed to, a 400-year-old&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tn9vg">Ming banknote</a><span>, has striking parallels to today&#8217;s world, where there is broad disillusionment with the financial system and a lack of confidence in its future.</span><br /><br /><span>The Ming note is an early example of paper money, something that today we take for granted. But if you step back and think about it, paper money represents a remarkable act of faith that we carry around with us every day. It&#8217;s an abstraction of coins made from precious metals, which are in turn an abstraction of goods such as crops and livestock. This pattern of abstracting further and further away from &#8220;real&#8221; things and &#8220;real&#8221; value has continued to the present day, giving us credit cards and collateralized debt obligations (not to mention casino chips).</span><br /><br /><span>MacGregor writes, &#8220;[The] ability to convince others to believe in something they can&#8217;t see but wish to be true is a trick that has been effective in all sorts of ways throughout history. Take the case of paper money: someone in China centuries ago printed a value on a piece of paper and asked everyone else to agree with them that the paper was actually&nbsp;</span><em>worth</em><span>&nbsp;what it said it was&#8230;The whole modern banking system of paper and credit is built on this one simple act of faith.&#8221;&nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span>Paper money is certainly more convenient than barter and gold coins, but the abstracted leap of faith requires something to back it up in order for sufficient quantities of people to buy into it. MacGregor quotes&nbsp;</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mervyn_King_%28economist%29">Mervyn King</a><span>, the Governor of the Bank of England, who jokes that &#8220;I think in some way the right aphorism is that &#8216;evil is the root of all money&#8217;!&#8221; since trust in whether the money would be properly backed was the key problem, leading the state to become the issuer of money. King continues, &#8220;And then the question is, can we trust the state? And in many ways that&#8217;s a question about whether we can trust ourselves in the future.&#8221;</span><br /><br /><span>The Ming note is printed with the statement that it is &#8220;To Circulate for Ever&#8221; &mdash; quite a vote of confidence from the treasury, and presumably one necessary for such an innovative approach to payment and livelihood. Paper money was part of a larger overhaul of the financial system by the first Ming emperor after the previous dynasty &mdash; the Mongol Empire &mdash; had collapsed. Similar to how fiscal innovations in recent years were justified by statements about economic growth and prosperity through home ownership, Ming&#8217;s new financial instruments were described as being for the social good (in their case, funding education for children).</span><br /><br /><span>But the new system didn&#8217;t work very smoothly and eventually the whole thing collapsed, though not without an early experiment in quantitative easing (i.e., printing more money) which led to devaluation of the currency. Mervyn King says, &#8220;Once people&nbsp;</span><em>realized</em><span>&nbsp;the link had broken down, then the question of how much it was worth was really a judgment about whether a future administration would issue even more, and devalue its real value in terms of purchasing power. In the end this money did become worthless.&#8221;</span><br /><br /><span>From Bernie Madoff to derivatives to the housing bubble to dubious AAA credit ratings, we continue to find new ways to encourage people to make financial leaps of faith. Have we reached a breaking point where the abstraction has gone too far, and is too complicated for 99% of people to understand what they&#8217;re signing up for, that we must backtrack to more conventional methods? And has the level of trust in private and state financial institutions sunk so low that most people now feel there is no accountability or responsibility for the promises made, or that sound decisions will be made to guarantee &#8220;circulation forever&#8221;?</span><br /><br /><span>I believe that we have. As the Ming dynasty shows us, a properly operating financial system is both symbolic and symbiotic. It doesn&#8217;t matter if the ones driving the system trust it and the artifacts representing it, if the majority of the public doesn&#8217;t, the system will crash. The well of trust is so poisoned today that it&#8217;s hard to see how we can continue forward as is, though unfortunately, relatively little has been done at a structural level to make the necessary changes.&nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span>Can we pull ourselves out of a Ming nosedive, or will we ignore history and repeat it?</span></p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Inventing the Collaborative Workspace</title><category term="Architecture"/><category term="Citrix Systems"/><category term="Culture"/><category term="Design"/><category term="Innovation"/><category term="Management"/><category term="Software"/><category term="Technology"/><category term="architecture"/><category term="building"/><category term="campus"/><category term="collaboration"/><category term="hbr"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/12/12/inventing-the-collaborative-workspace.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/12/12/inventing-the-collaborative-workspace.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2011-12-12T21:21:27Z</published><updated>2011-12-12T21:21:27Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>[This article originally appeared at <a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/11/inventing_the_collaborative_workspace.html" target="_blank">Harvard Business Review Online]</a></p>
<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/flatmm/Richardson%20Photo1.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1323724991101" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p>Most corporate buildings don&#8217;t do a good job of&nbsp;<a href="http://hbr.org/web/slideshows/wish-you-worked-here/1-slide">supporting collaboration, brainstorming, and innovative work methods</a>. They tend to be dominated by cubicles or offices which are suited for individual work, or by hard-to-book conference rooms that teams can use but only for short periods of time. What&#8217;s needed is a more flexible space that&nbsp;<a href="http://hbr.org/web/infographics/2011/07/designs-that-inspire-interaction">better supports teams and inspires more open thinking</a>. These are common at design firms such as frog where I work, but rare in corporate settings.</p>
<p>I recently saw one such space when I was invited to give a talk at&nbsp;<a href="http://www.citrix.com/">Citrix</a>, the Silicon Valley-based maker of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/">GoToMeeting</a>&nbsp;and virtualization and cloud software, as part of their Design Salon speaker series. The talk was held in the company&#8217;s recently completed design collaboration space, a large open area where multiple disciplines can come together to innovate. I asked Catherine Courage, VP of Product Design at Citrix, to talk more about how the space came about and how it&#8217;s working in practice:</p>
<p><strong>Why did you create the collaboration space?</strong><br />Citrix is a company with a unique mission: &#8220;Create a world where people can work and play from anywhere.&#8221; This means enabling remote collaboration and empowering people to work from any location. But it also means supporting the many different work styles of today&#8217;s workforce. Citrix is very serious about this mission for our customers as well as for how we work ourselves, so serious that we are adopting design thinking as a company-wide strategic imperative from our CEO, Mark Templeton. Opening the design collaboration space was a big milestone on our design thinking journey. It&#8217;s already played a key role in fostering a more collaborative culture that involves less over-the-wall processes, fewer silos, more and earlier collaboration, and better integration of design into the product development process.</p>
<p>We needed to create a shift in behaviors, and realized this would be best achieved by having people live the change, not just being told about it. The space facilitates this.</p>
<p><strong>Describe the space, and what are some of its special features?</strong></p>
<p>Physically, it&#8217;s a 2000 sq. ft. open and sunlit space with large windows that frame the beautiful mountain views. Everything in the space is on wheels and is configurable by teams as they need it. They can move tables and whiteboards around to create mini collaboration spaces. There are stacks of markers, Post-Its, and every &#8220;quick and dirty&#8221; prototype material under the sun&#8230;from construction paper to pipe cleaners. On the surface it might look like a child&#8217;s paradise&#8230;but in fact it&#8217;s heaven for designers.</p>
<p>Instead of being closed-off and secretive, it has all glass walls. We want passers-by to see the action happening and to see how we work. There&#8217;s total transparency, literally and figuratively! The space cannot be booked like a regular conference room, since having to make reservations kills the spontaneity. Anyone can drop in anytime and create their own working space.</p>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>The interior design is quite minimal. The &#8220;beauty&#8221; of the space comes from the work that happens inside it: sketches, flow charts, Post-Its full of blue-sky ideas, new product concepts from raw idea to real formation. The space was intentionally left not-too-perfect, so people are encouraged to manipulate it, not be precious about it. It&#8217;s intended to serve as a canvas for creative thinking. It&#8217;s also very flexible and can quickly change from working studio to lecture room.</p>
<p>The design space has been the ultimate tool in driving behavior change. Even the most analytical team members can&#8217;t help but sketch their thoughts and ideas on the table whiteboards while they sit and chat. The casualness of the space puts people in the right frame of mind to go outside of their traditional comfort zones and build stronger relationships with teammates. See the space (and design team members) in action as a part of our&nbsp;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/CitrixTV#p/u/4/wlibbWU7TDY">work better, live better video</a>.</p>
<p><strong>How did the space come about? How was the value proposition or ROI worked out for management approval?</strong><br />Citrix was eight months into its journey of building a design practice when three General Managers and I returned from Stanford University&#8217;s Customer Focused Innovation class. Much of the class was spent in the&nbsp;<a href="http://dschool.stanford.edu/">d.school</a>&nbsp;&mdash; a large, open, collaborative design space &mdash; and the benefits of this environment were immediately obvious.</p>
<p>Simultaneously, Citrix was creating floor plans for a newly acquired building. I thought, &#8220;We need this kind of space, and now is the time when we can actually get it.&#8221; It was indeed the right time to ask. Inspired by the design team&#8217;s newly released&nbsp;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJT340fooKA">design principles</a>, the Citrix facilities group had coined the new building initiative &#8220;Working Better by Design.&#8221; In my mind, crafting a custom design space fit perfectly with their mission to transform the existing building, turning it into a new, innovative workplace and conference center. Still, I worried that we might not be able to make it happen.</p>
<p>One Monday morning I went, together with one of our GMs, to chat with the facilities group. I had all the important points collected in my mind, was ready for the arguments and pushback, was expecting the typical corporate &#8220;no&#8221; to such a unconventional idea, with a dedicated 12x12 conference room for my team as a parting gift. Instead I was delighted to hear, &#8220;That sounds like a great idea!&#8221;</p>
<p>Our facilities team was fully on board with the idea of building the space, but it was totally different from anything they had done before. It sometimes took some explaining &mdash; and visiting similar spaces at other organizations like Stanford, Proctor &amp; Gamble, and Haworth &mdash; to make it clear why some &#8220;off the wall&#8221; requests, such as putting everything on wheels, made sense. The initial reaction of &#8220;people will take everything away&#8221; changed to an understanding of how the new flexibility would create new ways of collaborating.</p>
<p><strong>Who uses it? Do people use it the way you expected?</strong><br />When the studio space opened, the design team immediately took to it by forming project pods and using the full range of tools the space provides. Over the course of the past several months, I&#8217;ve noticed more and more non-design teams &mdash; such as human resources and engineering &mdash; using the space to brainstorm. It&#8217;s awesome to see these teams use the space and its tools. It&#8217;s even more awesome to see their desire to emulate the design &#8220;culture&#8221; of uninhibited brainstorming, quick stand-up meetings, and collaboration.</p>
<p>Design team members say their favorite moments are when people look at notes and sketches left on the whiteboard, then go to others to discuss them. It creates a real transparency in the work, sparking conversations and cross-pollination &mdash; exactly the results we wanted.</p>
<p>Like all good design, iteration is part of the process. We have discovered that we do need a better system for engaging remote participants and better ways for capturing brainstorming and meeting notes in real time, so that others can see them later. This is something we are investigating for our next &#8220;release&#8221; in 2012.</p>
<p><strong>What has been the reaction to it so far?&nbsp;</strong><br />People&nbsp;<em>love</em>&nbsp;the space. Other locations want to replicate the same kind of space, and I&#8217;m hoping we can make that happen. We get &#8220;tour groups&#8221; of visitors or Citrix employees from other locations walking by to take a look at it.</p>
<p>There have been some fun unexpected experiences. For example, parents are often seen bringing their kids to see the new space, and they love it. The daughter of one of our product managers stayed in the space while her mom was in a meeting and created a monster/alien dog using clay, sticks, crayons, and bunch of material in the design space. She told her mom when she returned, &#8220;I want to work here when I grow up. This is so cool!&#8221;</p>
<p>But it has pragmatic benefits, too &mdash; in helping us recruit great candidates, for example. Brian Moose, our Creative Director, says, &#8220;Seeing the difference a facility makes in the hiring process is phenomenal&#8230;Job candidates shift their attitude from &#8216;win me over&#8217; to &#8216;how can I win you over?&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p>The fact that Citrix was willing to take a leap of faith and invest in what at the time was considered a very unconventional space, demonstrates our company&#8217;s fiscal and strategic commitment to design thinking. The new design collaboration space is a great example of how a nontraditional workspace has fostered collaboration, enabled a different kind of communication, and is ultimately improving the quality of the products we produce for our customers.</p>
<p><em>Photo courtesy of Citrix</em></p>
</div>
<div id="articleFooter">
<div></div>
</div>
<div></div>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Netflix is Playing for the Endgame</title><category term="Clayton Christensen"/><category term="Innovation"/><category term="Qwikster"/><category term="Strategy"/><category term="Technology"/><category term="User Experience"/><category term="Wicked Problems"/><category term="disruptive innovation"/><category term="netflix"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/9/21/netflix-is-playing-for-the-endgame.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/9/21/netflix-is-playing-for-the-endgame.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2011-09-22T00:03:27Z</published><updated>2011-09-22T00:03:27Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><em>(This article originally appeared at <a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/09/netflix_bold_disruptive_innovation.html">Harvard Business Review</a>)</em></p>
<p>Every now and then, the business world presents us with a lab experiment that we can observe in realtime. Netflix&#8217;s announcement that it is splitting off its DVD-by-mail business from its streaming business is just such an experiment. The DVD business will now go by the name Qwikster, and the streaming business will stay under the Netflix brand. It is<a href="http://hbr.org/authors/christensen">Clayton Christensen</a>&#8217;s innovator&#8217;s dilemma incarnate, and Netflix is very publicly trying to solve it. Like its 60% price increase did earlier this year, this move is understandably causing consternation amongst some customers. It&#8217;s a bold move, one that will cost them in the near term, but Netflix I&#8217;m sure has done the calculus and is looking at the endgame 5-10 years out, not 5-10 months.</p>
<p>In his blog post about the split, Hastings says:</p>
<blockquote>&#8220;For the past five years, my greatest fear at Netflix has been that we wouldn&#8217;t make the leap from success in DVDs to success in streaming. Most companies that are great at something &mdash; like AOL dial-up or Borders bookstores &mdash; do not become great at new things people want (streaming for us) because they are afraid to hurt their initial business. Eventually these companies realize their error of not focusing enough on the new thing, and then the company fights desperately and hopelessly to recover. Companies rarely die from moving too fast, and they frequently die from moving too slowly.&#8221;</blockquote>
<p>Hastings goes on to acknowledge, &#8220;It is possible we are moving too fast &mdash; it is hard to say.&#8221; This is frank admission of the complexity of the strategic landscape. The media content and distribution business is in a period of massive flux, and while we can say with near certainty what the end state will be, near-term predictions are hard to make.</p>
<p>About five years ago I did this somewhat tongue-in-cheek &#8220;timeline&#8221; of pivot points for a client in the TV business:</p>
<p><span class="thumbnail-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2FTV_timeline.png%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1316650123038',250,793);"><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/thumbnails/412461-14275067-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1316650216156" alt="" /></a></span><span class="thumbnail-caption" style="width: 500px;">Click to Enlarge</span></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;Half-jokingly it made the point that there is a giant hairball of complexity, consolidation and confusion that the industry is going to have to go through, but if you can survive that, the obvious end state will be that any piece of media will be available whenever an individual wants, wherever they are, on any device they like. (We&#8217;re about half way through the hairball at this point with DVD Rental vs Video-on-Demand being the current pivot point. I over-estimated the speeds at which changes would settle out, but it was never meant to be a precise timeline, just directional.)</p>
<p>Now consider this: there are over 200 job openings at Netflix headquarters alone (compare this to 61 openings at competitor Hulu, at all its locations.) The vast, vast majority of these are for software development of one sort or another to support the streaming business. Netflix is building a platform for the streaming/cloud end game; it is not building for the near term, or DVDs by mail.</p>
<p>On top of the technical skills, Netflix is building an organization tuned to the needs of a disruptive environment.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664">This presentation on Slideshare</a>&nbsp;(embedded below) paints a fascinating picture of Netflix&#8217;s culture (the Slideshare account is under Reed Hastings&#8217; name, but I doubt it&#8217;s actually his).</p>
<p>Several things are worth pointing out from this lengthy document:</p>
<p>1. Netflix focuses on increasing &#8220;<strong>talent density</strong>&#8221; more rapidly than business complexity increases. This means demanding high performance standards of new hires, paying top dollar for them, and then giving them freedom to use their own judgment in a highly dynamic competitive and service environment.<br /><br />2. It notes, &#8220;<strong>Sometimes long-term simplicity is achieved only through bursts of complexity</strong> to rework current systems.&#8221; This is exactly what Netflix is going through at this point, introducing additional complexity for a period in order to bring longer-term simplicity (i.e., focus only on streaming).</p>
<p>3. Netflix&#8217;s focus is on &#8220;<strong>rapid recovery</strong>&#8221;: recognize problems when they occur and fix them quickly, rather than try to predict every outcome ahead of time. This mirrors Hastings&#8217;s statement about possibly moving too fast. The presentation goes on to say, &#8220;We&#8217;re in a creative-inventive market, not a safety-critical market like medicine or nuclear power. You may have heard preventing error is cheaper than fixing it &mdash; Yes, in manufacturing or medicine&#8230;but not so in creative environments.&#8221; Music to any innovator&#8217;s ears. Some will call this naive, and certainly there can be downsides if not handled well with customer service (and Netflix has stumbled in this recently, which Hastings admits, then proceeding to clumsily talk about business models and cost structures in his letter to subscribers). But overall it&#8217;s the right approach for this context.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s hard to know if this document reflects reality. But I give it the benefit of the doubt for a couple of reasons. First, it&#8217;s so thorough and consistent in its message. But more important, when it comes to execution Netflix is an outstanding company (the attention to detail put into its user experience is fanatical), that it is clearly getting the best and the brightest, even though it is not the sexiest of tech companies. Netflix has set itself up with just the right type of smart, nimble, curious, and fearless organization that it needs to thrive and outwit competitors in the challenging times ahead.</p>
<p>Netflix will be roundly criticized from many quarters for its bold move, and it will upset and probably lose many customers. But it&#8217;s the long-term endgame that Netflix is playing for. No one ever said self-cannibalization is painless.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div id="__ss_1798664" style="width: 425px;"><strong style="display: block; margin: 12px 0 4px;"><a title="Culture" href="http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664" target="_blank">Culture</a></strong> <iframe src="http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/1798664" width="425" height="355" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
<div style="padding: 5px 0 12px;">View more <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/" target="_blank">presentations</a> from <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001" target="_blank">Reed Hastings</a></div>
</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>The Four Technologies You Need to be Working With</title><category term="Automotive"/><category term="Innovation"/><category term="Software"/><category term="Technology"/><category term="ecosystems"/><category term="zipcar"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/9/12/the-four-technologies-you-need-to-be-working-with.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/9/12/the-four-technologies-you-need-to-be-working-with.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2011-09-13T06:09:08Z</published><updated>2011-09-13T06:09:08Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>What do Netflix, Zipcar, Mint.com, Nike+, Amazon, the Nintendo Wii, and the Apple iPhone all have in common? They all take advantage of four technologies that once were scarce and expensive but are now plentiful and cheap. These technologies can be combined in numerous ways, and we are just starting to see companies really taking advantage of the possibilities. These four technologies will have a disruptive impact on your business, almost regardless of which industry you&#8217;re in. The question is whether you will choose to adopt them before a competitor does.</p>
<p>What are they?<br />1. Microprocessors<br />2. Sensors<br />3. Wireless connectivity<br />4. Databases</p>
<p>Before we look at them in more detail, let&#8217;s look at Zipcar as an example of what can be done when you plug them all together.</p>
<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/zipcar_ecosystech.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1315894219274" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p><a href="http://zipcar.com/">Zipcar</a>&nbsp;is a car sharing service that allows people to rent vehicles for short trips around town. Members reserve a car via the website or their mobile phone. When they get to the car, they wave their membership card over a sensor on the windshield (the card and sensor communicate wirelessly), which triggers a wireless query back to the company&#8217;s database to make sure the user is OK to take the car. If everything checks out, the car&#8217;s doors are unlocked electronically and the member drives off.</p>
<p>As the member travels around, the car&#8217;s location is tracked via GPS. If an accident or breakdown were to occur, Zipcar knows where the stranded driver is. When the car is dropped off, the member&#8217;s account in the database is updated, and the car&#8217;s mileage is updated (triggering service if necessary).</p>
<p>Zipcar is a great example of how you can create a new type of business, enhance a user experience, and find cost and operational efficiencies by cleverly employing these technologies. Let&#8217;s look at each of them in more detail.</p>
<h3><span style="font-weight: normal;">Microprocessors</span></h3>
<p>We&#8217;ll start with the most familiar one: computer chips. Moore&#8217;s Law continues with full force, with the result that for many applications the necessary processing power is now radically cheap, on the order of pennies. Microprocessors can get built into just about anything with almost negligible cost. And it&#8217;s not just about &#8220;computing&#8221; capability. Cheap microprocessors are improving the experiences of everything from appliances to car dashboards.</p>
<p>When combined with cheap, plentiful bandwidth, you don&#8217;t even need to embed the processor into the device. You can &#8220;outsource&#8221; the computing to servers in the cloud. Those computers can be far more powerful than what you can stuff into a small cheap portable device. Google is pushing this approach to the maximum with its Chromebooks, laptops that have just screens and wireless broadband, relying entirely on cloud processing for functionality. While not fully practical today, they point to a possible future scenario of all computing happening &#8220;off device.&#8221;</p>
<h3><span style="font-weight: normal;">Sensors</span></h3>
<p>There has been a revolution in recent years with the quantity, variety, accuracy, and cost of sensors, and in how easy they are to integrate into devices. These measure a wide variety of attributes, such as:</p>
<p><strong>Motion and orientation</strong>: These range from accelerometers (such as those found in the Wii remote or the iPhone) to sensors for detecting if you are holding your digital camera on its side so that photos get imported into your PC the right way up. The cutting edge is represented by Microsoft Kinect, a gaming system that uses powerful sensors and processing to observe and interpret user&#8217;s body movements without requiring a physical device like the Wii remote. Nike+ and the fitness activity tracker device Fitbit both use sensors to measure body movement and then load that information into a cloud database for comparison with other users&#8217; workouts.</p>
<p><strong>Location</strong>: Typically achieved with GPS for mapping purposes, this can also be achieved less accurately by triangulation from cellular towers if a device has cellular capability.</p>
<p><strong>Image</strong>: Digital sensors for taking pictures and video are being built into more and more devices; they will be as ubiquitous as clocks. Webcams, fingerprint and retina scanners are just a few of other current uses.</p>
<p>Smartphones have become the testing ground for clever use of sensors. Innumerable apps on iPhones and Android phones take advantage of the motion, location, and image sensors built into those devices, often combining the outputs from the various sensors in highly imaginative ways for fun (Angry Birds) and utility (tape measure). Combine these with wireless bandwidth and databases and you have applications such as augmented reality.</p>
<h3><span style="font-weight: normal;">Wireless Connectivity</span></h3>
<p>We are all familiar with cell phones and WiFi, but there is an alphabet soup of wireless connectivity technologies here now or emerging that allow communication over long-, medium-, and short-range distances.</p>
<p><strong>Long-range wireless</strong>: 3G wireless is now fairly standard around the world (with emerging markets being ahead of the U.S. due to lack of legacy). 3G has become so inexpensive that Amazon bundles it into the Kindle, with payment combined into the book price (so no wireless plan required), and then uses its massive database to make further book recommendations. But 4G/LTE (Long Term Evolution) technology now being rolled out promises bandwidth and speeds similar to what we get from home broadband today.</p>
<p><strong>Mid-range wireless</strong>: This is the most mature and least dynamic area, based on the ubiquitous WiFi &mdash; high bandwidth but more limited range than cellular. But it&#8217;s the very stability of this standard that allows it to be a great platform for building new applications. More basic radio-frequency transmission methods also have their place for niche applications; for example, Belkin makes a series of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.belkin.com/conserve/">power strips and other accessories</a>&nbsp;that allow a user to hit one master button and turn off all attached devices (or turn them all on) in one go, using wireless to send the on/off signal. This cuts down electricity by avoiding&nbsp;<a href="http://awesome.good.is/transparency/008/trans008vampireenergy.html">vampire energy</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Near-range wireless</strong>: The familiar Bluetooth is joined by up-and-comers that combine very low power consumption with very short range for specialized functions: Zigbee, RFID (Radio Frequency Identification), and NFC (Near Field Communication). NFC is starting to get adopted in mobile phone payment systems (my colleague Jan Chipchase has looked at&nbsp;<a href="http://janchipchase.com/2011/02/mobile-money-afghanistan-2/">mobile money in Afghanistan</a>). Wal-mart is rolling out RFID for inventory tracking (in combination with databases), while tool-maker Snap-On is using it to help airplane factories&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ien.com/ienblog.aspx?id=163418">keep track of expensive equipment</a>. And&nbsp;<a href="http://www.poken.com/">Poken</a>&nbsp;has developed a platform that makes it easy to gather intelligence from surrounding people and objects, using RFID.</p>
<p>Cheap wireless connectivity is fueling a surge in machine-to-machine communications, where devices talk to one another without human intervention &mdash; electric utility smartmeters are one example.&nbsp;<a href="http://blogs.cisco.com/news/the-internet-of-things-infographic/">Cisco predicts</a>&nbsp;that by 2020 there will be 50 billion internet-connected devices (the number of connected devices already far surpasses the global human population).</p>
<p>Wireless connectivity is not just for phones (or voice). It is becoming a technology plugged into almost every conceivable object.</p>
<h3><span style="font-weight: normal;">Databases</span></h3>
<p>The least visible of the four technologies, databases are what bring meaning to all the individual actions occurring with each of the other three. There has been a revolution in how databases can be queried (or &#8220;mined&#8221;), and how nuggets of insights are extracted from mountains of data about transactions, behavioral trends, orders, inventory, and so on. Being clever about how database information is used is enabling many of today&#8217;s cutting edge businesses. Facebook is essentially a giant user-created database. Salesforce.com is a database that lives in the cloud and presumes availability of ubiquitous wireless connectivity so that roving sales staff can always access customer data. Netflix makes use of databases to manage inventory and user accounts. Netflix sees databases as so critical to its business that it held a&nbsp;<a href="http://blogs.cisco.com/news/the-internet-of-things-infographic/">competition to crowdsource finding better ways of making more accurate movie recommendations</a>. Amazon&#8217;s web services make it easy for anyone with some technical knowledge to have a highly scalable cloud-based database on a pay-as-you-go model.</p>
<p>Another change in recent years has been that databases have been made much more accessible and easier to use for everyday people to interpret. Mint.com (now owned by Intuit) uses database mining to synthesize spending trends for regions and &#8220;people like me,&#8221; which allows people to compare their spending habits with others&#8217;. At frog we do a lot of work on making healthcare data more understandable to so that people can better manage their own health, and often this also involves smartphones with their built-in sensors and connectivity so that the data input and visualizations are available on the go.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a very quick runthrough of these four technologies. I hope the examples mentioned here point to some of the possibilities that can open up when the ingredients are combined in various ways. If you&#8217;re not already looking at how these technologies are reshaping your business or industry, now would be a good time to start.</p>
<p><em>(This article originally appeared at <a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/09/the_four_technologies_you_need.html">Harvard Business Review</a>. Thanks to my colleague&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/#!/scottjenson">Scott Jenson</a>&nbsp;for his help in framing this article.)</em></p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Post-Rationalization is an Innovator's Best Friend</title><category term="Innovation"/><category term="Wicked Problems"/><category term="brainstorming"/><category term="creativity"/><category term="frog design"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/8/30/post-rationalization-is-an-innovators-best-friend.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/8/30/post-rationalization-is-an-innovators-best-friend.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2011-08-31T03:42:47Z</published><updated>2011-08-31T03:42:47Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p class="p1"><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/spock.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1314762676162" alt="" /></span></span>One of my favorite quotes is from fabled IBM engineer Howard Aiken:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1">&#8220;Don&#8217;t worry about other people stealing your ideas. If you&#8217;re ideas are any good, you&#8217;ll have to ram them down people&#8217;s throats.&#8221;</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1">Whenever I show this in a presentation it always elicits a wry smile, as we&#8217;ve all seen this happen. It&#8217;s easy to understand why - in their nascent stages, breakthrough ideas are rough, full of holes, easy to find fault with. The more radical an idea and the more it challenges conventional thinking, the harder it can be to see the value in it at first. Sometimes even the person who came up with the idea can&#8217;t say exactly why the idea seems compelling, so they fumble around for explanations and try to interest others.</p>
<p class="p1">But this pattern of having the idea before you understand why it&#8217;s great and before you can rationalize it logically is one of the most powerful tools in an innovator&#8217;s kit. We just have to give ourselves permission to use it.</p>
<h3>Go Non-Linear</h3>
<p class="p1">Our educations tend to emphasize a linear path to having new ideas: research, analyze, deduce, solve. Unfortunately, creativity is usually much messier than this simple model. The subconscious is a powerful tool for generating unexpected ideas - ideas which at first can be hard to explain. We have probably all had the &#8220;lightning bolt&#8221; experience of being distracted and relaxed, and having an idea or a solution come out of the blue. I commute by train to work, and I often find that my best ideas come while traveling home from work and reading a book or listening to music. That&#8217;s the subconscious helping along the creative process, working away in the background without feeling constrained by the same assumptions as your conscious mind.</p>
<p class="p1">It is one thing to have the idea, quite another to understand its possibilities and implications. Some lightning bolt inspirations are indeed junk, but some of them really strike at something valuable. It&#8217;s just not always clear what that value is.</p>
<h3>Solution Comes Before Understanding</h3>
<p class="p1">This is where post-rationalization comes in. Post-rationalization is simply working out if and why something is valuable after you&#8217;ve already come up with the solution. It&#8217;s a much-maligned approach, as it can be an excuse for laziness or sloppy technique. For example, a research study can be skewed to confirm a pre-existing hypothesis, cherry-picking the data to make it fit a desired outcome. When we read a horoscope, we rationalize its banal description to make it fit our current life (and ignore the parts of the reading that don&#8217;t fit.) This is the dark side of post-rationalization. And logic-minded people tend to look down on it, as it puts the cart (solution) before the horse (evidence).</p>
<p class="p1">But, don&#8217;t let that deter you from being open to the benefits of post-rationalization!</p>
<ul class="ul1">
<li class="li1">By freeing yourself from having to deduce a creative idea from existing data, moving step by step, you can open up whole new territories of opportunity. Many of the ideas may be wrong, but some of them won&#8217;t be, and chances are you wouldn&#8217;t have come up with those (or come up with them as quickly) with the traditional linear approach.</li>
<li class="li1">Trust your gut instincts - if an idea seems to have that spark that says &#8220;There&#8217;s something here, I just can&#8217;t put my finger on it&#8221;, then follow the thread. We all have better Spidey-sense than we tend to give ourselves credit for. (Education has a way of banishing Spidey-sense.) As Howard Aiken found, there will be many people who won&#8217;t get it right away, but if you see the value, keep going. (If you find yourself obsessively scribbling the idea all over your walls, however, it might be time to take a step back&#8230;every idea has its limits.)</li>
<li class="li1">With a promising idea in hand, you can start to investigate its merit. Obviously this should be done objectively, but with the idea already there you may be inspired to look at supporting data that you might not otherwise have thought of, or to re-cluster existing data in a new way that sheds a different light on your findings. A given set of data rarely points to a single conclusion, but it&#8217;s easy for us to get into a data rut.</li>
<li class="li1">Make a quick prototype or simulation of the idea - sketch, spreadsheet, cardboard model, whatever works - and start to gather feedback on it. Often people react differently to a material expression of something than they do with an abstract statement of an idea, which is why focus groups that use the common technique of visualizing and describing new product concepts on cards often throw away good ideas prematurely. And doing quick simulations has never in human history been easier or cheaper.</li>
</ul>
<p class="p1">At frog we use workshops (called&nbsp;<a href="http://www.frogdesign.com/services/capabilities/frogthink.html"><span class="s1">frogThinks</span></a>) with clients a lot, which involve various activities to stimulate non-linear thinking, and to provoke breakthrough thinking on solutions. Sometimes people get hung up in the workshops because they can&#8217;t trace a linear process from how they got from one of the stimuli or provocations to the resulting idea. You know what? That&#8217;s OK. It doesn&#8217;t matter where the idea comes from, the point is to have the idea. Once the idea is out in the wild, you can start to work on and evaluate it.</p>
<h3>If it Worked for Einstein&#8230;</h3>
<p class="p1">Post-rationalization is not as alien as it may appear at first. It&#8217;s like a looser version of the scientific method, which sets out to test hypotheses through iterative experimentation. You have some data, you develop a hypothesis which may or may not conform exactly to the data, then you test to see if the hypothesis holds up or not. If not, you either modify the hypothesis, or if you believe strongly enough in the hypothesis, you see if there&#8217;s some other data to help explain it. This is how Einstein arrived at E=MC&sup2;. He believed strongly in the counter-intuitive idea that energy and mass were interchangeable, so strongly that he spent a decade trying to find the mathematical rationale for it, with E=MC&sup2; being the result. Science is replete with anecdotes about intuition leading to empirical breakthroughs.</p>
<p class="p1">Post-rationalization is not a replacement for the deduction-based approach - they are complementary. But if you&#8217;re feeling stuck, or finding that relying on deduction is leading only to incremental, me-too, familiar ideas, post-rationalization may be just the ticket for helping find that next breakthrough. If you&#8217;re idea really is good, you&#8217;ll find the rationale to justify it to others.</p>
<p class="p1"><em>(My colleague Tanya Khakbaz&#8217;s two articles on being an MBA at frog reflect on this back and forth between bottom-up and top-down thinking -&nbsp;<a href="http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/from-the-trenches-musings-from-an-mba-at-an-innovation-firm.html"><span class="s1">Part One</span></a>,&nbsp;<a href="http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/musings-from-an-mba-part-ii.html"><span class="s1">Part Two</span></a>.)</em></p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Raising the Bar, Learning from Failure, and Other Lessons from Steve</title><category term="Apple"/><category term="Business"/><category term="Culture"/><category term="Design"/><category term="Innovation"/><category term="Technology"/><category term="User Experience"/><category term="apple"/><category term="frog design"/><category term="innovation"/><category term="ipad"/><category term="iphone"/><category term="ipod"/><category term="resignation"/><category term="steve jobs"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/8/25/raising-the-bar-learning-from-failure-and-other-lessons-from.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/8/25/raising-the-bar-learning-from-failure-and-other-lessons-from.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2011-08-26T00:38:31Z</published><updated>2011-08-26T00:38:31Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/2010-images/jobs_pirate.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1314319267180" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p>After a crazy couple of weeks in the consumer electronics/smartphone/computer/telecom mega-industry (it&#8217;s really all one now), another bombshell arrived yesterday with the news that&nbsp;Steve Jobs has resigned as CEO and is taking on role of chairman of the board. In reality, it probably means he will be in an advising capacity not unlike what he&#8217;s probably been doing for the last year while on medical leave. But still, a shock to the system.</p>
<p>The fact that he&#8217;s been able to carry on having any significant executive role at Apple is testament to how passionate and dedicated he is to the company. For quite a long time now he&#8217;s had another full-time job (and I&#8217;m not talking Pixar or being on the board of Disney): fighting cancer.&nbsp;Best wishes to you in that challenge, Steve.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a lot of speculation on how Apple will do now that Jobs is no longer at the helm. I for one think it will do just fine for quite a while - it&#8217;s got a very solid culture that will endure, huge momentum in the market,&nbsp;<a href="http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/debt_equity_ratio">no debt</a>, probably the strongest brand in the world, and the upper hand in almost every market it&#8217;s in.</p>
<p><strong>Setting the Bar Crazy High</strong></p>
<p>All of us in the design and innovation biz have a lot to thank Steve Jobs for. He opened up the play space for us by setting the bar so ridiculously high. This did several things:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>It set a standard for quality, invention, and consistency that inspired others</strong> (including us at frog), and allowed much greater latitude for pushing the boundaries of form, materials and interactions.&nbsp;A staple of client requests in the last decade has been &#8220;I want the iPod of [my category]&#8221; (which became &#8220;I want the iPhone of&#8230;&#8221; and then &#8220;iPad of&#8230;&#8221;). Meaning of course that they didn&#8217;t want a literal iPod, but they wanted the same kind of game-changing product, business opportunity, and user experience which these devices came to represent. Most companies, however, underestimate how difficult that is to do from a cultural, technical, organizational, and business perspective (especially if you want to do this repeatedly, not just a one-off).</li>
<li><strong>It changed people&#8217;s expectations for design, products and experiences</strong> even in categories far beyond the ones Apple plays in. A good example is the current trend of consumerization of IT, where expectations about ease of use, flexibility, and joy of use from consumer applications are now being forced onto staid IT systems. Why does the online expense-filing application my company pays a lot of money for have to suck so bad, when the free site I use for sharing photos handles so much more complexity so much more easily?</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Failure Can Make You Stronger</strong></p>
<p>In 1965, the Apollo 1 spacecraft caught fire while still on the launchpad, killing all three astronauts. It was a televised, very public failure for NASA as it desperately tried to overtake the Russians for the race to the moon. While it was tragic, it also prompted a critical reassessment of the program that ultimately made it better. Retired astronaut <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/27/tech/main2404641.shtml">John Young said</a>, &#8220;I can assure you if we had not had that fire and rebuilt the command module &#8230; we could not have done the Apollo program successfully. So we owe a lot to Gus, and Rog and Ed. They made it possible for the rest of us to do the almost-impossible.&#8221;</p>
<p>Jobs has been quite open about the fact that after he was fired from Apple, he went through a difficult period. But ultimately this made him a better leader, and he returned to the company after eleven years quite a different person than he had left it. I think it&#8217;s fair to say that Apple is a better and more successful company now than if he&#8217;d been at the helm for the entire time.</p>
<p>In his humble, inspiring speech to the graduating class at Stanford, he put it this way:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.&nbsp;[&#8230;]</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.&nbsp;[&#8230;]</p>
<p>I&#8217;m pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn&#8217;t been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don&#8217;t lose faith. I&#8217;m convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You&#8217;ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven&#8217;t found it yet, keep looking. Don&#8217;t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you&#8217;ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don&#8217;t settle.&#8221;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Spend a lunch break&nbsp;watching the whole thing&nbsp;if you haven&#8217;t, it&#8217;s worth your while:</p>
<p><iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UF8uR6Z6KLc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Google and Motorola: Will it Blend?</title><category term="Business"/><category term="Culture"/><category term="Innovation"/><category term="Innovation X"/><category term="Management"/><category term="Strategy"/><category term="Technology"/><category term="User Experience"/><category term="android"/><category term="apple"/><category term="google"/><category term="microsoft"/><category term="motorola"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/8/17/google-and-motorola-will-it-blend.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/8/17/google-and-motorola-will-it-blend.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2011-08-17T22:44:09Z</published><updated>2011-08-17T22:44:09Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;<span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/googlemotologo.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1313622381314" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p>The shockwaves of the recent announcement that Google is buying Motorola Mobility, the handset and device division that spun off from the Motorola mother ship not long ago, will continue to ripple far and wide. There are several reasons why this could be a great boost for Android, but also some major concerns about getting the two companies and their product lines to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_It_Blend%3F">blend well</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<p>There&rsquo;s much debate about the reasons behind the acquisition. Was Google looking to boost its patent portfolio to create a Mutually Assured Destruction/Mexican Stand-off scenario (pick your metaphor) in the midst of the tit-for-tat patent suits going on right now? There are arguments on both sides about how worthwhile this gambit is (<a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/08/15/google-motorola-its-all-about-the-patents/">Yes it is</a>! <a href="http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/first-reaction-to-googlemotorola.html">No it&rsquo;s not</a>!). There are also arguments that patents are only a piece of the puzzle, and that Moto&rsquo;s hardware business was also a major part of the logic. I fall into this camp.</p>
<p><strong>Blend the Ecosystem</strong></p>
<p>It seems like years ago that Google&rsquo;s first phone, the Nexus One, was launched, but it was only 18 months ago. I <a href="http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/google039s-smartphone-move.html">wrote at the time</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Google&#8217;s introduction of Nexus One, a phone to truly call its own, is a completely necessary move for the company. Only by taking ownership of the whole user experience will Google really be able to prove the value of its Android platform.&hellip; The lackluster success of the early Android phones has surely made Google realize that they need to take a much stronger role in order to bring all the pieces of the experience together. The catch-as-catch can approach they&#8217;ve had so far just isn&#8217;t going to cut it. Fragmentation is a death knell for a product like this at this stage of maturity. Google needs to lead the charge with an integrated platform until the experience gap is fully closed. Then it can afford to loosen the reins and let the handset manufacturers, carriers, and third party developers go do their own things independently, safe in the knowledge that they will all come together to create something interesting and valuable for customers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The underlying rationale here, as I described in that earlier article, is that early in a category&rsquo;s development (e.g. smartphones, tablets), complex devices, platforms, and ecosystems under-perform user expectations unless they are highly integrated. This creates a gap between the experiences that products can provide and what people want (see diagram). This gap can take time to close as the technologies and platforms improve, and instead of creating a finely blended smoothie, you get a lumpy concoction that&rsquo;s unpleasant.</p>
<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/experiencegap.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1313622411193" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p>Making the platform or ecosystem modular and open too early prolongs the time that a gap exists. Microsoft&rsquo;s phone OS always suffered from this until a sharp <a href="http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/windows-phone-7-marks-a-180-degree-about-face-for-microsoft.html">change of course with Phone 7</a>, and Apple quickly trounced them with its integrated offering. The Nexus One was Google&rsquo;s first step in rectifying its own initial misstep.</p>
<p>The Motorola Mobility acquisition is a huge step further along that progression. Google clearly still feels that the fragmentation and variability of third-party hardware makers (with the frequent intervention of carriers seeking special interfaces, additional apps, and in some cases removing Google&rsquo;s native apps and services altogether) is leaving money on the table. To be fair, some of the Android handsets have been very good&mdash;the Motorola Droids have consistently been strong players&mdash;but then there are <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars">other products</a> that just completely send the Android/Google brand into the toilet.</p>
<p>This is a cycle that gets repeated in many industries, and the integrated/proprietary vs. modular/open balancing act is one that many companies struggle with as they make strategic choices on investments, alliances, and how to deploy complex products and ecosystems. I devote a significant amount of time to this in my book, <a href="http://www.innovationxbook.com"><em>Innovation X</em></a>, as it&rsquo;s a fascinating area.</p>
<p>The Motorola acquisition also strengthens Google&rsquo;s position in the new diversity of digital ecosystem touchpoints: set-top boxes, broadband connected TVs, home networking, and phone-based payments (digital wallet). Motorola Mobility already plays in these (mostly immobile) areas, which is interesting to Google because the lines between these products and phones and tablets, in terms of services and content, are increasingly blurred. It&rsquo;s all about the multi-screen experience today, and making what happens in your home work seamlessly with your devices out on the move. Anybody&rsquo;s who&rsquo;s worked in the &ldquo;smart home&rdquo; market knows that it&rsquo;s more dumb than smart, as getting devices to talk together well is really difficult today. Google would love to solve that problem, and is one of the few companies that has the scope and clout to pull it off &ndash; even more so now that it has a major player in the hardware endpoints.</p>
<p><strong>Will the Cultures Blend?</strong></p>
<p>Google has said that it will keep Motorola Mobility as a separate company. No doubt this is partly to assuage fears of its other hardware partners that they will be kicked to the curb in favor of the in-house brand. (HTC in particular finds itself in a tough spot now, as both its OS providers now have favored hardware partners&mdash;Microsoft/Nokia and Google/Motorola. This latest merger may well push some companies back into the Windows camp as they hedge bets.)</p>
<p>Should Google merge Motorola more fully into its existing business units? In a word: No.</p>
<p>As Google discovered with its early stumbles with Nexus, designing and selling hardware is a really different business than online services, advertising, and software development. Google is amazing at many things, but this does not appear to be one of its talents. Better to keep it under a different brand, with a different team working with the processes it needs to. Which is not to say they should not seek to influence one another, and that there aren&rsquo;t things Motorola could learn from Google about innovation and development.</p>
<p>Michael Mace has a <a href="http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2011/08/google-and-motorola-what.html">jaundiced view of this combination</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The same business practices that made Google good in software will be a liability in hardware.&nbsp; Google&#8217;s engineers-first, research driven product management philosophy is effective in the development of web software, because you can run experiments and revise your web app every day in response to user feedback.&nbsp; But in hardware, you have to make feature decisions 18 months before you ship, and you have to live with those decisions for another 18 months while your product sells through.&nbsp; You can&#8217;t afford to wait for science.&nbsp; Instead, you need dictatorial product managers who operate on artistry and intuition.&nbsp; All of those concepts (dictatorship, artistry, intuition) are anathema to Google&#8217;s culture.&nbsp; Either Google&#8217;s worldview will dominate and ruin Motorola, or worse yet the Motorola worldview will infect Google.&nbsp; Google with Motorola inside it is like a python that swallowed a minivan.<br /> <br /> To put it another way, I think Google has about as much chance of successfully managing a device business as Nokia had of running an OS business.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I&rsquo;m not as skeptical as this, but in my view, assuming that Google is not just going to flip Motorola and spin it off again after it&rsquo;s got the patents, this brings up the biggest question: can the two cultures get along? Motorola is famously stodgy, slow to make decisions, conservative. How will this blend with the more freewheeling West Coast intensity of Google? Maybe the Mobility division was already the wild-and-crazy-guy of Motorola, but I still find it hard to believe that there won&rsquo;t be significant challenges here.</p>
<p>So far I haven&rsquo;t seen anyone mention this, which is odd since cultural fit is a) usually one of the first things brought up in large corporate mergers, and, b) the leading cause of them failing.</p>
<p>Things will become clearer in the next few months about what Google plans to do with this acquisition. I think there are some compelling benefits for both brands, but the culture blending question is going to be as big a challenge as anything.</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>The Next Smartphone Frontier: Prepaid</title><category term="Business"/><category term="Technology"/><category term="asymco"/><category term="iphone"/><category term="smartphone"/><category term="wireless trends"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/7/5/the-next-smartphone-frontier-prepaid.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/7/5/the-next-smartphone-frontier-prepaid.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2011-07-06T00:10:33Z</published><updated>2011-07-06T00:10:33Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>We live in a unique cell phone bubble in North America: We are the only region in the world where the majority of people get their cell phone service with a subscription. Here, prepaid phones are a fringe minority, relegated to lower-income populations, very infrequent users, and loaner phones. But in the rest of the world, prepaid phones vastly outnumber subscriptions, in some cases by 5-10x.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.asymco.com/2011/06/27/the-four-year-ol/" target="_blank">recent article by Asymco</a> makes this very clear. Here&#8217;s the overall breakdown globally (&#8220;post-paid&#8221; = subscription since you pay after each month&#8217;s service):</p>
<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><a href="http://www.asymco.com/2011/06/27/the-four-year-ol/"><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/asymco_prepaid1.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1309911544632" alt="" /></a></span><span class="thumbnail-caption" style="width: 247px;">Courtesy Asymco.com</span></span></p>
<p>The breakdown by region:</p>
<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><a href="http://www.asymco.com/2011/06/27/the-four-year-ol/"><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/asymco_prepaid2.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1309912940927" alt="" /></a></span><span class="thumbnail-caption" style="width: 550px;">Courtesy Asymco.com</span></span></p>
<p>However, smartphones have so far been largely limited to subscription plans. As Asymco notes (using the iPhone as an example):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The first chart shows the global split between pre-/post-paid subscribers as of 2010. Roughly 1.5 billion are post-paid and 3.7 billion are pre-paid. That means that nearly 70% of the world is not being addressed by the iPhone as it currently stands. Put another way, a shift in positioning might result in a 250% increase in addressable market&#8230;. You can visualize the iPhone having spent the last four years penetrating into the blue areas of the chart through the expansion of carrier agreements. With half the US &amp; Canada area being finally filled in this year, most of the blue is now more-or-less within reach.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, according Nielsen, the subscription market has <a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=28237" target="_blank">shifted dramatically to smartphones in the US</a>, with 38% of Americans owning them, and 55% of purchases in the last 3 months being smartphones. If this trends takes hold in other markets beyond their relatively small subscription customers, then smartphones will really take off in a whole new way with prepaid users.</p>
<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=28237" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/nielson_mobile_OS.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1309912925849" alt="" /></a></span><span class="thumbnail-caption" style="width: 550px;">Courtesy NielsenWire</span></span></p>
<h3>One Step Ahead</h3>
<p>Now consider this: in the next version of iOS, an iPhone (or iPad) won&#8217;t need to every be tethered to a PC. If expectations hold up, this means that an iPhone user won&#8217;t need to own a PC at all. Guess what? This matches up perfectly with the prepaid market in the rest of the world, where PC-ownership is far, far lower on average than it is in the US. The iPhone therefore can become the defacto communications/computing device for a vast population. Apple has already made a small move in this direction by making the iPhone 4 available unlocked, but in the US this is largely pointless since 3G bandwidth is only available on AT&amp;T&#8217;s network (the iPhone&#8217;s 3G radio is incompatible with T-Mobile&#8217;s network, the only other choice). But it&#8217;s clear Apple has its eye squarely on this next huge frontier of growth, one that could easily dwarf the impressive volumes it&#8217;s achieved so far.</p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>If You Want to Outsmart Competitors, Make it Policy for Employees to Use Their Products</title><category term="Business"/><category term="Culture"/><category term="Innovation"/><category term="Management"/><category term="User research"/><category term="design research"/><category term="ford"/><category term="gm"/><category term="innovation"/><category term="open innovation"/><category term="platform strategy"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/6/22/if-you-want-to-outsmart-competitors-make-it-policy-for-emplo.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/6/22/if-you-want-to-outsmart-competitors-make-it-policy-for-emplo.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2011-06-22T17:03:39Z</published><updated>2011-06-22T17:03:39Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/IMGP0353.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1308762914239" alt="" /></span></span></p>
<p>In a talk earlier this year to employees, Nokia CEO Stephen Elop asked a question that many were probably afraid to answer truthfully, given how Nokia is struggling to combat the iPhone. As&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_24/b4232056703101.htm">BusinessWeek described it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>When he asks how many people in the crowd use an iPhone or Android device, few hands go up. &#8220;That upsets me, not because some of you are using iPhones, but because only a small number of people are using iPhones. I&#8217;d rather people have the intellectual curiosity to understand what we&#8217;re up against.&#8221;</blockquote>
<p>This is refreshing statement;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U">many executives</a>&nbsp;would have berated their employees for not keeping the faith while a company faced its biggest crisis.</p>
<h3><span style="font-weight: normal;">Don&#8217;t Enforce a Monoculture</span></h3>
<p>One of the surest ways of losing touch with real customers&#8217; needs and getting outsmarted by competitors is to enforce a monoculture in your organization, where competitive products are banned and employees only come into contact with your own offerings.</p>
<p>My first job out of college was at Sun Microsystems, and in those days (early 90&#8217;s) it was forbidden to have any competitive products, whether they were from Microsoft, Silicon Graphics, Apple, or Dell. Since Sun made hardware and software, only Sun machines running the Sun operating system were allowed. (In the design group we did have a couple of Macs as the software we needed wasn&#8217;t available for Sun&#8217;s OS, but they had to be kept hidden away and bought and maintained clandestinely.)</p>
<p>As a result, every Sun employee lived in a Sun monoculture. This was unlike the environment most Sun customers inhabited, where there was a mix of hardware, software, and platforms from a variety of different vendors. Customers had to deal with integration issues that were never felt by Sun staff. Furthermore, Sun employees were &#8220;shielded&#8221; from understanding what competitive products could really do, or from gaining insights into how they might be falling short, or actually meeting customer needs better in some ways than Sun&#8217;s products.</p>
<p>I remember when we were starting a new project that we had to visit the nearby Oracle headquarters (ironically, now Sun&#8217;s owner) to get our hands on a wide variety of competitive hardware, as Oracle had to test its software on all platforms and manufacturers. We learned more in those few hours of hands-on tire-kicking than we would have been able to in weeks of desk research.</p>
<h3><span style="font-weight: normal;">Encourage Competitive Use, Don&#8217;t Punish It</span></h3>
<p>Too often, buying and trying competitive products is frowned upon and even seen as a moral weakness. As I wrote about in&nbsp;<a href="http://www.innovationxbook.com/">Innovation X</a>, when the team developing the second-generation Ford Taurus bought a Toyota Camry (with great difficulty) to try it out, it brought to light critical quality factors that significantly changed how the team approached its work.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Car-American-Workplace-Mary-Walton/dp/0393318613/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1307650892&amp;sr=1-8">In her exhaustive book about this project</a>, Mary Walton describes how buying competitive cars, especially Japanese ones, was seen as practically treasonous at Ford in the 1980&#8217;s.</p>
<p>This attitude is not healthy. You should encourage people at all levels &mdash; starting at the top &mdash; to be immersed in your competitors&#8217; offerings, just as they should be immersed in understanding your customers&#8217; lives. Without a clear-eyed, honest perspective about how you are superior and where you are falling short, you will fall into a falsely narrow view of the world.</p>
<p>Walton also noted how Ford executives (as is the case at most car companies) were regularly given new cars, and all servicing was handled by in-house technicians. They never had to deal with oil changes, indifferent dealerships, older cars starting to wear out (since they got replaced so frequently), or any of the other annoyances that can come from car ownership. They lived in a perfect bubble that hid the quality advances their Japanese competitors were making in strides.</p>
<h3><span style="font-weight: normal;">Go Further</span></h3>
<p>Don&#8217;t just encourage competitive usage, but make it policy. It&#8217;s not always easy to do in some B2B cases, but for almost any consumer product or service there&#8217;s really no reason why this can&#8217;t become a regular practice.</p>
<p><strong>Pay for products and services out of the company purse</strong>. Don&#8217;t rely on people to pay it for themselves (because many won&#8217;t, or will resent having to). Invest in paying for dummy or shadow service accounts, such as wireless or entertainment subscriptions, even insurance policies. Just because you may offer employees a discount on your own products or services doesn&#8217;t mean that they can&#8217;t also be encouraged to try out the competition.</p>
<p><strong>Think like a library</strong>&nbsp;and make sure competitive offerings get passed around to different employees, and aren&#8217;t just used by one person. Maximize the exposure and therefore the learning.</p>
<p><strong>Hire curious people</strong>&nbsp;who seek out competitors and venture to the edges of your business to find the potential disruptors, trying out products and services that you may not see as current competitors but who may become ones in the future.</p>
<p><strong>Have people formally or informally report</strong>&nbsp;on what they find so that others can gain the insights even if they didn&#8217;t use the competitors firsthand (this becomes a type of&nbsp;<a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/01/knowledge_management_below_the.html">pre-emptive knowledge management</a>).</p>
<p>Backed up by concrete actions such as these, you can establish a culture where trying competitive products is not seen as the height of treason, but as loyalty.</p>
<p><em>(This article originally appeared at <a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/06/dont_criminalize_test-driving.html">Harvard Business Review Online</a>, and was re-posted at <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-want-to-outsmart-competitors-make-it-policy-for-employees-to-use-their-products-2011-6">Business Insider</a>.)</em></p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Launch of Adam John Richardson Photography</title><category term="Photos"/><category term="photography"/><id>http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/6/20/launch-of-adam-john-richardson-photography.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.richardsona.com/main/2011/6/20/launch-of-adam-john-richardson-photography.html"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><published>2011-06-20T18:23:15Z</published><updated>2011-06-20T18:23:15Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><a href="http://www.adamjohnrichardson.com"><img src="http://www.richardsona.com/storage/ajrphoto.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1308594299604" alt="" /></a></span></span>I&#8217;m excited to announce the launch of <a href="http://www.adamjohnrichardson.com">Adam John Richardson Photography</a>!</p>
<p>Photography has long been a passion of mine, and after years of prompting by friends and family I&#8217;ve finally taken the plunge into treating it as a little more than a pure hobby. This site pulls together what I feel is my best work and allows you to purchase prints and, soon, digital downloads, in a variety of sizes and formats, with shipping for prints in the US and Europe.</p>
<p>It includes images of cities, landscapes, and details of everyday life, many of them from travels to various parts of the world including Paris, Barcelona, Taiwan, and various locations in the US.</p>
<p>Please take a minute to browse through, I hope you enjoy what you see.</p>
]]></content></entry></feed>
