Vote for Change

America and the world can’t live with another 4 years of right-wing conservative hypocrisy, divisiveness, lying, secretiveness, and disastrous economic and international policies. That’s why I endorse Obama for President. Get involved, or donate now.


About Me

I’m a product strategist and writer. In my day job, I’m Director of Product Strategy at frog design. I also write for Cnet on the Matter/Anti-Matter blog. This is my personal blog and does not represent the views of frog or Cnet. More details >

Recent Writing and Speaking

Interviewed by Jess McMullin of BplusD

Sustainable Design Seminar, Design Management Institute

Design Green Now, Bellingham, WA 

Panelist, UT Austin Sustainable Business Summit 

The System is the Product / Speaker at Inverge 2007 Conference

The System is the Product / Presentation to Silicon Valley PMA 

The Tragedy of the Commons, frog Design Mind

Entries from August 1, 2006 - September 1, 2006

Wednesday
30Aug

Co-Creation in Emerging Markets

Today, a guest post from my wife, Leslie Speer, who for the last few years has been doing work in emerging markets, rural Mexico in particular. She recently completed her Masters degree from Middlesex University in England which focused on product design in emerging markets. Leslie is the founding head of the Design for the Majority special interest section of the Industrial Designers Society of America, which will be holding its first workshop at the IDSA National Conference in September. This excerpt from her thesis deals with using the approach of co-creation with the customers in the product development process. (Leslie can be reached at lespeer at mindspring dot com)

cocreation.jpgFor companies considering entering emerging markets, co-creation is an essential step in the development of product. Trying to “insert” an existing product designed for Western markets is almost sure to fail for many reasons: price, materials, durability, repair-ability, distribution methods, financing models, ownership models, advertising. Almost no preconceptions can be carried over from the markets that Western companies are used to serving. Co-creation is a powerful method of developing products from scratch or adapting existing product types to the needs of the emerging market.

Co-creation, or the idea of it, was introduced by C.K. Prahalad and Venkatram Ramswamy in their book The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value With Customers , which presented different ways of engaging with customers in the product development process. I’m going to focus here on co-creation at the front-end of the process, where you’re defining the product to introduce into the emerging market.

First a couple of definitions are in order:

Emerging Market: There is no universally accepted definition of an emerging market, but the characteristics I’m using here position emerging markets between developed countries (United States, EU, Australia, Canada) and under-developed countries (many nations in Africa and South/Central America, and many in Asia). There must be an emerging level of economic development, a growth rate attractive to investors (most emerging markets have an annual GDP growth of 5-10%). Lastly there must be a system of market governance and stability in a free-market system, or a transition from a “command” economy to a free-market economy. There is a tendency, perhaps, to think of emerging markets as consisting of simplistic, uninformed consumers who want only basic goods. In fact, consumers in emerging markets are highly sophisticated and are informed by many of the same media and telecommunications mechanisms that exist in developed markets.

Co-creation: It is important that co-creation is not confused with the practice of consumer generated content, mass customization or other similar, but different methods. Co-creation, in its pure form, is just what it sounds like – making something together. The planning phase of projects is where the research and creative team can push the limits on how they get involved with researching their customer. Co-creation at this stage assumes that in a developing country the people there are not only different, but also very smart (as a result of their differences).

First, it requires a bit of rethinking how to structure and implement projects, and what methodologies and skills are brought to bear on the problem at hand. This is not new for industrial design, which in the past has collaborated with and made use of methods from multiple other disciplines. In recent years the use ethnographic methods, modified to fit fast-paced and low-budget projects, has been successful at introducing the user perspective to product teams.

Participatory design and empathic design are approaches to the front end of the process that were introduced back in the 90’s by computer software companies and have been adopted and applied to the greater product design process by various corporations and by design firms.

Prahalad’s ideas on co-creation go deeper still – as that is what is necessary in developing countries and emerging markets. Co-creation is empathic techniques plus ethnography plus participatory methods on steroids. It includes the user/customer as part of the team and affords them the same level of importance as any of the other members of the team. In developing countries, as was mentioned earlier, the consumer is smart, connected, intuitive, entrepreneurial and a consummate problem solver. With limited resources and many needs, many people in developing countries are this way. Without infrastructures and services to problem solve for them, they have learned how to do it themselves, and have for generations.

Thomas Mitchell points out that although involving users in the design process may seem simple and logical, it is in fact a fundamental challenge to the prevailing school of product development. He argues that despite a recent focus on “customer centricity”, few if any corporations have actually tried to involve customers directly in the process. Instead, designers, who set themselves apart from the masses, tend to make assumptions about what people will like, maybe ask them what their preferences are, or even present alternative solutions to them (prototypes) for review. However, the user is never given a true opportunity to be involved in the actual process of design.

We have been able in the past to integrate many disciplines into the product development and design process such as law, anthropology, human factors, psychology, engineering, and others. Integrating the user and customer fully into the process is the near to final step. I would argue that getting users and customers involved in the process is a necessity for any work and development in emerging markets.

Why? In the developing world, users and customers are smart. They must problem-solve on a daily basis, for a couple of reasons. First, they are economically challenged to the point where they do not have the luxury to go and hire someone to fix their car, their stove, their house – they fix it themselves with whatever they have on hand. Second, the infrastructure to do that, even if they had the funds, is not there, so locality breeds innovation and necessity breeds entrepreneurship. Additionally, since many of the people living in these developing countries are living closer to the land and to nature, they are inherently more connected to how what they do affects their environment. Now, they may not be able to do much about it, but they are aware of it.

The idea of co-creation, really getting customers and users to sit at the design table with us is the future. They bring a level of intrinsic knowledge of their culture, their environment, nature, problems they and their community face, connections to their system, and ways of thinking through and solving problems that are designed to work for them. For multi-national corporations it might require starting new businesses that can operate swiftly and flexibly, and that aren’t bogged down by the parent company herd mentality. For individual designers it will require embracing new modes of thinking that include collaboration with governments and other organizations, working with users and customers as co-designers, understanding more about sustainable product development, focusing on sustainable entrepreneurship, and also looking at new methods of innovation, production and distribution that more thoroughly incorporate the customer and user.


Monday
21Aug

Long Tail

longtail.jpg

 
I was delighted to find out recently that an article I wrote is cited in Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail. Specifically, on page 107:

The trend watchers at Frog Design [sic], a consultancy, see this as nothing less than an epochal shift:

“We are leaving the Information Age and entering the Recommendation Age. Today information is ridiculously easy to get; you practically trip over it on the street. Information gathering is no longer the issue - making smart decisions based on the information is now the trick… Recommendations serve as shortcuts through the thicket of information, just as my wine shop owner shortcuts me to obscure French wines to enjoy with pasta.”

This quote has been used in a number of articles writing about the book overall, so it’s obviously one that people  respond well to. For example, the Independent Newspaper in England pulls it out along with a dozen or so other quotes in an article entitled “The Power of Collective Intelligence” on July 6, 2006. (Sorry, no url for it, a colleague happened across it in Nexis, and thanks to the hopeless search function on the Independent’s website I can’t find it…)

OK, so I can live with not being mentioned by name and just being referred to as one of several “frog trend watchers”. But I thought, “Well surely my article must be mentioned in the footnotes or the bibliography?” Sadly, no. Despite this being a verbatim quote from a published article, no footnote is given. And no bibliography is provided either. I was shocked, actually, that there were only 3 pages of endnotes in a book of 250+ pages, especially given how long Anderson has been ruminating on this Long Tail idea, and doing so in public.

Hey, Chris, would it kill you (who’s near the head end of things) to throw a few scraps to those of us who are very much at the tail end?

Oh well, can’t complain too much as I did get my first citation in a well-known book… 


Monday
14Aug

Mac OS X 2006 = Sun OS 1993

spaces.jpgSorry, couldn’t resist on this one. Apple has announced “Spaces”, a virtual desktop capability in its new release of Leapord coming later this year. Finally! This was just about my favorite UI feature of the Sun Solaris OS back when I worked at Sun starting in 1992. While Expose is a cool effect I rarely use it for actual work. But virtual desktops (which allow you to have different apps set to run in different desktops which you can seamlessly switch between) are a real productivity gain. Instead of having all your running applications and files piled on top of one another, you can separate them into conceptually different, er, spaces. This is especially useful for what Alan Cooper calls “sovereign” applications, those which justifiably take up the entire screen.

 Apple’s implementation is characteristically elegant and well-thought out judging by the video, and takes advantage of graphics and processing capabilities not possible 13 years ago. Better late than never, though, eh?


Monday
14Aug

Missing the Breaking Point

I’ve posted a review over at CPH127 of Giles Slade’s recent book Made to Break. Unfortunately I felt the book missed an opportunity to critique the real drivers today of rapid product obsolescence. Check it out, and take some time to see the interesting stuff on CPH127.


Friday
04Aug

New French Museums

branly1.jpg
I’ve been really impressed with a couple of brand new museums here in Paris - the Musée de l’Orangerie which houses giant paintings by Monet, and the Musée du Quai Branly, President Jacques Chirac’s only cultural monument. They impress not just with their collections, but with the care, spirit and imagination with which the buildings themselves are done. But before talking about these a bit more, I want to touch on a couple of other museums here.

The Musée d’Orsay

This is probably my favorite museum I’ve been to anywhere. It’s been around for quite a few years now, and is a renovated train station. It has just the right mix of graneur and intimate scale, of new and old building materials, of moving you between light and shadow, and an imaginative way of partitioning spaces and creating flow that are characteristic of the newer museums also. This is what sets it above the Tate Modern in London, which is undoubtedly striking in concept (museum in an old brick power station) and in its lobby/atrium, but you soon realize that’s about all the tricks it has. It’s rather a one liner, whereas the Orsay keeps revealing new reads as you spend time in it. If you’re coming to Paris, definitely put this on your list.

The Louvre

OK, everybody knows this one and it’s been around for centuries, but there were a couple of things I appreciated this time that I thought were noteworthy. This was my first visit since the pyramid was built, so it’s been a long time. I quite like the look of the pyramid — particularly from the inside it has an intriguing effect of the old being framed by the new — but it is also used tremendously as an orienting device for the whole museum experience. The Louvre is famously sprawling and confusing, and the pyramid is effectively used throughout the museum to help you figure out where you are. I was also struck by the attention to detail of the exhibit vitrines and numbering, which so often are either bland or clear after-thoughts done as cheaply as possible. At the Louvre they are substantial looking, with just enough form expression that they interesting in themselves without being at all distracting. Lastly, if you go through the 17th/18th century French painting wing, make sure to look UP! They are housed in some of the most spectacularly decorated rooms in the whole place, yet almost no-one noticed the amazing paintings and tapestries and carving on the ceilings.

Musée de l’Orangerie

monet2.jpg 

This museum recently re-opened after a very extensive, six year long remodel that corrected some problems with earlier remodels. Sighted at the end of the Tuileries Gardens at the tip of the Champs-Elysées, the museum was specifically built to house very large scale water-lily paintings of Monet, who personally directed the conversion of the building from its previous use in the 1920’s. As you can see from the picture, these are panoramic in the extreme, and curve around to create a real sense of looking out onto the Giverny landscape where Monet had his gardens. They make Jackson Pollocks look small in comparison. The daylight pours in from the ceilings, and shifts and dapples depending on the cloud cover, giving a sense of dynamism from the paintings that is true to their creation. The museum limits the flow of people in at the door, so you have relatively empty rooms (certainly compared to the Louvre!) in which you can look at these giant paintings without too much visual interruption.

You can read more about the history of the building and the new renovation here.

The Musée du Quai Branly

branly2.jpg 

This is the new “statement” of President Jaques Chirac, his only significant cultural building. Jean Nouvel is the architect, who also designed the Institute du Monde Arabe (striking from the outside, mechanically unreliable, and a navigation disaster on the inside). The museum consolidates the anthropology and art collections of several smaller museums in Paris, and presentings a kaleidescopic and overwhelming vision of “non-European” art - arts of Africa, Oceania, Americas, and Asia. From the outside the building is similarly kaleidescopic and hard to grasp - it changes from every angle. Personally I liked it, and it avoids falling into any number of thematic traps that would have doomed it to being judged as paternalistic, symbolic of western colonization, or ignoring its internal subject matter entirely. (The NY Times has a good critique here.)

Inside you follow a roughly looping path that takes you through the different cultures and locations. The pieces are displayed along walls and in freestanding, 8’ high glass cabinets. The walls and ceiling are all in dark tones, and the lighting is superb, probably the most stunning I’ve ever seen in a museum. It manages to give an ambient glow at the same time it is pickout out objects with laser precision. There are also numerous cubbies and side rooms to wander into, making for an every changing experience. However, all these visual impediments do make it very difficult to keep track of even a small group! I also have my doubts about the durabiilty of some of the materials and finishes, some of which were looking worn a mere weeks after opening. Rubbing my hand against a nicely textured column, my palm came off covered in red dust.

While the loop aids in navigation, it also has the effect of blurring your sense of geography. You move seamlessly and without obvious distinction between the different cultures, one moment in Nigeria and the other in Tibet. As improbable as it may seem, the overall effect is one of consistency and commonality of cultures as expressed through colors, patterns and forms.

Is this a recanting of post-modernism? Not long ago the trend in museology was to reinforce the differences between cultures in a contextual manner, avoiding the “up with people” homogonization of classic (and popular) exhibits like the Family of Man. Branly appears to be pushing the pendulum back in the other direction and emphasizing common humanity, if not to the point of sameness. In a country recently rocked by riots by disenfranchised poor from France’s former black and muslim colonies, this is a significant message to be sending, particularly from a museum with the impramateur of the President himself.

But maybe this is what we need in our digital-binary world these days - a bit more sense of our common humanity and less emphasis on our differences, whether they be Democrat/Republican, Israeli or Palestinian.