I was fortunate this week to attend the World Innovation Forum in New York City. What an amazing experience. The speakers were great and the people I met were all so inspiring. Over the next few days I will share a few of my take-aways. Here is an outline fo the three days. I have so many things I want to write about.

Monday: The day before the event, I attended afield trip to Pfizer and Virgin US. The trip was let by !WhatIF!. It was interesting to observe the contrast between Pfizer and Virgin. The culture and their approach to innovation was so different. The folks at ?WhatIF! did a great job and provided some wonderful, thought provoking insights.

Tuesday: Speakers included Michael Porter,Andreas Weigend, Chip Heith, Buz Stone (co-founder of Twitter), and others. Chip Heith is a great speaker!

Wednesday: Seth Godin, Robert Burnner and others. I cannot say enough about Seth Godin. He also joined us for Lunch. This was a much smaller group and provided an opportunity for great insights.

It was amazing to hear from these great speakers and to compare notes with people in other industries. More to follow.

During my workout today, I listened to a recent DFJ Entrepreneurial Though Leaders Seminar. This is a podcast that is co-sponsored by BASES (a student entrepreneurship group), Standford Technology Ventures Program, and The Department of Management Science and Engineering (Standford University). The speaker for this session was John Seely Brown.  John has a technical background, having served as a Senior Scientist at Xerox. His bio is impressive, but I was far more interested in his discussion about the ‘Collaborative Innovation and a Pull Economy‘. I was so impressed by his remarks that I download his latest book,  “The Power of Pull: How Small Moves, Smartly Made, Can Set Big Things in Motion” (Sponsored link).   

In the space I have here, I cannot begin to discuss everything Mr. Brown discussed. His comments, contrasting the 20th century business model, to what will be required in the 21st century are insightful. In a couple of paragraphs I thought I would attempt to tie a couple of his comments back to education, and even ‘new media’.

First, an observation: The 20th century model is founded on principles taught by Alfred Chandler. Mr. Brown called it the ‘Push Economy’. This model is hierarchical, with a ‘center-out’ approach to business. The goal of business in this model is “Scalable Efficiency”. Mr. Brown noted that the infrastructure was key to creating this economy (roads, cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes .. etc). Organizational architecture were built around this infrastructure, leveraging it, generating scalable efficiency. The goals of this were (and largely still are):

- Predictability
- Hierarchy
- Control
- Organizational routines
- Minimizing variance (can you say Six Sigma).

He said, “Build a lot, use transportation mechanisms to distribute it, bah bah bah”.  What he said next ties back to my last post. He briefly contrast the 20th century education system to this model. He said:

Our K through 12 schools are built on scalable efficiency, a factory model. Basically, we can predict for you what things you’re going to need for ten to 15 years away, and we’re going to build you a stock of assets for you to learn, to acquire so that eventually, you get to use them, very much like how corporations work.

This reminded me of a chapter in Linchpin: Are You Indispensable? (sponsored link) by Seth Godin: “Indoctrination: How We Got Here”. The chapter starts with this quote:

We’ve been taught to be a replaceable cog in a giant machine. We’ve been taught to consume as a shortcut to hapiness. We’ve been taught not to care about our jobs or our customers. And we’ve been taught to fit in”

There has been a fundamental and long-term change that will ripple through the business world for the next few years. In the new economy, the Pull Economy, will be built around ‘digital infrastructure’ and collaborative innovation. What we call social media today is just one element of the pull economy. This change will require that we think differently about everything from intellectual property to education. Take a few minutes to watch the video and consider what he has to say. I know it made me think hard about many things. I look forward to reading Mr. Brown’s book.

Watch the video and let me know what you think.

Rick

I have been reading “Linchpin: Are You Indispensable?” by Seth Godin. This is an outstanding book. Today I came across the following comment. I apologize that I do not have a page reference, I am reading it on my Kindle. 

Wikipedia and the shared knowledge of the Internet make domain knowledge on its own worth significantly less than it use to be. Today, if all you have to offer is that you know a lot of reference book information, you lose, because the Internet knows more than you do.

Depth of Knowledge combined with good judgment is worth a lot. Depth of knowledge combined with diagnostic skills or nuanced insight is worth a lot, too. Knowledge alone, though, I’d rather get faster and cheaper from an expert I find online.

… Depth of knowledge is rarely sufficient, all by itself, to turn someone into a linchpin.

I hope this hits you between the eyes. It did me. Now, I would like you to do is to think of this in terms of how we educate our children. Get that really clear in your head. Got it? Now, hold that thought for a minute. 

Last week, I attended the 140 Character Conference in New York City. This was an amazing, wonderful event, put on by Jeff Pulver (@jeffpulver).  I should take a timeout to blog about how it. It had an impact on me that I can’t put into words. I will say this: If you have an opportunity to attend a #140conf, GO. Just do it. You will not regret it.

Now back to education. During the first day of the conference, Chris Lehmann of the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, PA gave the following presentation .. listen close: 

I am going to keep this short. Yes, children need to learn to locate information. Unfortunately, what we seem to do best, or at least what we seem to focus on, is training them to take test. Chris is right, we teach subjects instead of children. We train instead of teach. We need to teach them to use their minds and to create. The future can be bright, but we must change how we educate. I love the message. Get involved in your local schools or with our youth. This is important.

Rick

Check out this Web Browser market share data: From April 2009 until the end of February 2010, Internet Explorer lost 6 points. Market share for other Browsers was flat, with modest gains in a few cases. The biggest winner: Google Chrome which appears to have take share almost exclusively from Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.  

Chrome is relatively new, having been released in September of 2008. I am sure that most of us expected it to be successful. While 5.6% sounds small, the trend is significant. As for Firefox, it is not growing like it did early in the decade, but I would not write it off. Read the history of Firefox; it has been around for a while with version 1.0 coming out in ~2001.

Perhaps you are thinking, “Well, Micorsoft has this large position; 6 percent is nothing.”  Check out this July 2004 InfoWorld article which says IE had a share of greater than 95% early in the decade.  Now instead of a 6 point share loss, we are talking about 34 points in 7 years. Ouch.

What’s going on here and what can we learn? While there are many lessons, I want to comment on three: Innovation, Focus, Velocity and Risk Taking. 

- Innovation: Many (most?) of the Browser innovation we use today originated in smaller companies or as browser add-in’s. These innovations targeted user needs. It is not that big companies cannot innovate – they can and do, but small companies are usually faster, they are hungry and their culture promotes risk taking.  When the big guy becomes fat and happy, the smaller player usually moves in and eats his lunch (i.e. take market share). I am not saying Google is small, but they are behaving like a small company in how they develop new products.

Note: There are several Firefox add-on that I cannot live without and that could easily become standard features for a browser. (I guess that would be a good topic for a future post). 

- Focus: Big companies often become distracted. Management sees new ‘growth opportunities’, loosing focus on what really matters (Think of the recent problems at Toyota). Focus is often overlooked as a key to success in business and life. Project team will be more successful if they focus; business will be more successful if they are focused on what matters. It is possible to bring focus to teams inside large organization. 

- Product Development Velocity: Microsoft is not known for being fast to market. They have deep pockets and are wiling to be patient. This strategy has worked, but this data suggest that it may not be sustainable. Rapid prototyping and involving customers early works. Get something in the customers hands early! I live in a world where it takes far too long to develop products. Speed to market has has many benefits and is a competitive advantage.

Risk Taking: Remember this phrase: ‘Fail early and fail often’. Don’t be afraid to change directions. Be willing to take well considered risk. Will there be failures? Most certainly. Organizations that are not wiling to take risk spend most of their time in a state of paralysis which slows or even kills innovation.

Organizations that put these principles in place can increase their chance of success. Yes, it take talent, capital and other factors, but these four keys can make or break an organization.

What do you think?

Rick

Yesterday I attended the Crystal Classic Show Choir contest in Fairfield, Ohio.  (I had a great time, but that is another post). It was a 90 minute drive each way which allowed me time to listen to a few presentations from TED.   One that hit the mark for me was a recent presentation by James Cameron. It was excellent and had me scrambling to take notes:). Before I share a couple of my thoughts on this, I recommend you listen to this one:

- Far too many people do not accomplish their dreams. Perhaps the most significant barriers are self-imposed. Yes, society and those around you may tell you that ‘you can’t', but the reality is that we usually limit ourselves. Mr. Cameron’s curiosity lead him to live his dreams. He asked questions, then followed the path that ensued to live his passion.

This reminds me of Gary Vaynerchuk’s comments about ‘listen to your gut’ and that you ‘don’t have to settle.’ See his book: Crush It!: Why NOW Is the Time to Cash In on Your Passion (affiliate link).

- Speaking about not putting limits on yourself, he said that you should, “take risk”.  He spoke of NASA’s “Failure is not an option” philosophy and said that, “failure has to be an option” if we are going to take a “leap of faith”.  He said, “failure is an option, but fear is not.”

Failure is a great teacher; pick yourself up, dust yourself off and move on. Taking the approach that failure is not an option kills innovation. More on that in a future post.   

- Mr. Cameron talked about trying to ‘understand the world and the limits of possibilities’. Instead of looking for why you can’t, ask what you want to achieve and how you go about it. 

- I enjoyed his comments about creating technology to make his dream happen. He was speaking about the need for new technology to make his dream happen when exploring ‘the deep’.  Listen, you may not create ‘new technology’, but you may need to innovate and re-engineer how you go about your life and your business. Don’t be afraid to think outside of the walls of your current life in your effort to live your dream.

- He said, “Curiosity it he most powerful thing you own; imagination is a force that can actually manifest a reality. I love how he did this … you can too.

Perhaps technology has robbed us of ‘creativity’ and ‘dream’ time. Turn off the TV and find time to dream and consider goals and possibilities.

- On leadership, Mr Cameron said that he learned the importance of respecting your team. He said that this respect is more important than all of the laurels of the world. 

What did you take from his presentation? 

Rick

Remember when oil prices peaked out in 2008? Check out this chart:

Just looking at the prices in 2008 brings back all the angst of that summer. Today, prices seem to have stabilized. Credit a combination of reduced demands, driven down by the economic crisis, and a glut in supply. While I am not a global warming zealot, I think there are many strategic reasons to develop alternative energy sources. 

A good friend sent me a link to the following video. I wanted to share it because I think we are just begining to see the leading edge to significant innovation that will change the game.

If you want to get a better understand of this technology, check out this Fast Company article: “Bloom Energy Unveils Its Ultra-Secretive Bloom Box Fuel Cell.” It includes a clip from 60 minutes that is worth checking out.

This is only one area of technological wonder. Bill Gates spoke at TED 2010 about the world’s energy future. He talked about the need for a miracle technology (or technologies).  Check out his remarks, especially his comments about nuclear power: 

I have gone on a bit long here …. but the point is this: The world is about to see significant advances in alternative energy technology. This is a good time to be an entrepreneur. Keep watching the news – should be a great ride.

Rick
 

I wish I had coined that phrase. I ran across it earlier today in a BusinessWeek ‘special report’ that I received by email. It was written by Dave McClure (well done Dave). I agree with Dave and I am not going to rehash his comments. I  recommend that you read his article, along with the other articles referenced in ‘The Value of Design‘ by Helen Walters.

In my years in engineering and business I have observed some really good engineering. I have also seen some great design. It seems like it is more common to find poorly designed products, many of which are supported by good underlying engineering work.  You cannot simply engineer good design. Well-designed products are ‘addictive’. They elicited an emotional response, which is frequently not rational. (As a passionate designer and good friend often reminds me). 

Do you want an example? How about the iPod? When it launched, there were other mp3 players in the space. The functionality was not that different, but the iPod was very well designed. What really set it apart? It was the entire experienced .. an experience that was designed to generate an emotional response.  I remember when I purchased my first iPod. I recall how each element was expressed: The packaging, the well designed case and user interface. Heck, it even had white ear buds. Then, not much after the iPod hit the street, there was the iTune store. This changed the entire experience in purchasing music and other content.  And the best part … Apple was able to price the device at a premium. They quickly took market share from the competition and created a cult-like following, much like what they have enjoyed for years with the Mac. 

Contrary to common believe, the impact of ‘good design’ extends into the B2B space. Many B-2-B companies overlook the value of good design and make due with average products. Some of the most ‘design abused’ products live here. There is a real opportunity for good design firms and for companies with open minded, progressive management.  

So, while it takes more than well-designed product to win, a well-designed product can make a difference. 

What do you think? I welcome your comments.

Rick

Do you remember this Compaq Portable Computer? The term ‘portable’ may not have been the best description for the thing. It weighted near 30 pounds. It was a computer in a suit-case.  The one in the picture used 5.25″ floppy disk, an had a built in 9″ monitor (‘green’ monochrome, not color).  The one I frequently lugged around also had a built in hard drive, a powerhouse @ 20M bytes. And the memory – you could expand the memory from 128K to 640K bytes. Oh, and most importantly, a MODEM. Yes, I could ‘connect’ (at about 1200 baud, if I was lucky).  Where did I connect to? Maybe a Bulletin Board System (BBS), or to transfer files to a supplier (a novel idea at the time, but we did it frequently in some parts business). I remember connecting to a few large systems to run circuit analysis programs, later connecting to things like CompuServe.

This was the early days of personal computing. Operating these early IBM PC computers was not easy. Most computers of this generation used either MS-DOS (PC clones) or CP/M (Examples: Osborne or KayPro).  The Compaq used MD-DOS, a rather difficult operating system to use unless you were a computer geek. It was the poor, difficult to use interface on PC’s that made the early Macintosh such a beautiful machine. Of course, I am not going to get into the history of Apple computers here, although I am a MAC fan and now user:).

Applications? We used Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3 – two very popular apps. These two application change the way we did business. The promise of mobility was just an embryo of a thought – or was it? Even prior to the personal computer we were anxious to shrink technology and carry it around with us. I remember my early calculators and how excited I was when I could carry it around in my pocket.  And while we are talking about it, how about those early cell phones? My first cell phone was a ‘bag phone‘.

Today I carry my calculator (heck, an entire computer), and the phone in one device – my iPhone.  I also carry my Kindle, and frequently carry my Flip Video Recorder (amazing device). If you are going to carry all of this hardware, you also have to take along the various chargers, cables and other accessories. It is a bit excessive:).

I frequently joke about all the hardware, but the fact is that innovation and technology continue to advance. Looking to the future, devices will will continue to shrink as platforms and technology converge. The devices we use to consume ‘content’, to communicate and make more out of life will all ‘merge’ and shrink. And since we are mobile, we want mobile devices. A very exciting promise.

What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts.

Rick (Still hanging out in CA for one more day .. hope I can make it home thought the snow tomorrow).

Photo: wikipedia

As I mentioned in my last entry, I am attending the NAFEM Annual Meeting and Management Workshop in Somona, California this weekend. Saturday morning’s first session was outstanding. The speaker was Peter Sheahan. Peter is a dynamic, passionate speaker with insight beyond his years. He was captivating, and motivating. I walked away with many notes and a head full of ideas.  The difficulty in attending this type of presentation, where the speaker is so captivating, is that I cannot capture everything.  Peter was so ineteresting that I could not pick up my pen.

I want to comment on one line that he used during his presenation. I am going to read his book latest book, “Fl!P. How to Turn Everything You Know on its Head – and Succeed Beyond Your Wildest Imaginings“. I’ll reserve further comment until I finish the book.

Speaking of innovation in business, Peter said that, “Crowds don’t innovate. Someone has to lead the crowd.” Think about that … I’ll get back to in in a minute …

The word “crowdsourcing” was coined by Jeff Howe in a 2006 article in Wired Magazine. He followed that with his book, “Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business“.  If you have not read the book, you may want to read a summary by Peter Korchnak. An excerpt from his comments:

According to the crowdsourced Wikipedia, crowdsourcing is the “act of taking tasks traditionally performed by an employee or contractor and outsourcing [them] to a group of people or community”.

Thanks to the Internet, crowdsourcing democratizes knowledge by flattening the hierarchy of the expertise-based economy: everyone has expertise that businesses can tap into. Crowdsourcing allows companies to harness the collective intelligence of large numbers of diverse individuals making autonomous decisions in online communities self-organized into workforces.

In short, crowdsourcing is a perfect expression of the Japanese proverb, “None of us is as smart as all of us”.

The books gives a few good examples of crowdsourcing. My purpose here is not to recite or summarize the book. Buy the book and read it.

Back to Peter’s comments about crowds and innovation. I tend to agree with him. I have seen many time when the crowd was not capable of understanding or even conceiving the innovation. They could not see outside the  box of current thinking. I believe crowds still have a place. I think they can be used effectively but you have to understand that pleasing the crowd may block an opportunity for true, groundbreaking innovation. 

By the way, another book, which I have not read, is “The Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki. I read a summery of his book where I found what he suggest are the four ‘key qualities that make a crowd smart’ (this is a quote from the review):
 

- It needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table.
- It needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd’s answer.
- It needs a way of summarizing people’s opinions into one collective verdict.
- And the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks.

I am not sure how to rationalize these comments. I will withhold comment until I can read this book.

What do you think about crowdsouring? Comments welcome!

Rick

A recent msnbc article featured 8 gadgets that will be huge in 2010. The last gadget in the list: The iPhone 4G. No, you have not missed a new iPhone. This is one of many tech rumors that continues to circulate. It’s not going to go away until the new device is launched. Among the ‘updates’ rumored for this new device: a removable battery, video chat support, and so forth.

Now, before you get all excited about a long list of features, read this New York Times article about Steve Jobs and Apple.  One of the more interesting comments:

At Apple, there is a similar link between the ultimate design-team leader, Mr. Jobs, and the products. From computers to smartphones, Apple products are known for being stylish, powerful and pleasing to use. They are edited products that cut through complexity, by consciously leaving things out — not cramming every feature that came into an engineer’s head, an affliction known as “featuritis” that burdens so many technology products.

“A defining quality of Apple has been design restraint,” says Paul Saffo, a technology forecaster and consultant in Silicon Valley.

If you think Apple is about to get caught up in a ‘feature’ battle with Google, think again. I am certain that there will be new features in the next iPhone, but I don’t expect a lot of complexity. Expect simplicity, elegance, and consistency. I am sure this is why the iPhone does not support mult-tasking – it add complexity and instability. It also requires a lot of processor power.

Another example: Flash. Apple is taking a lot of flack for not including Flash in the new iPad. Why wouldn’t they include Flash? A recent report quoted Jobs as saying:

About Adobe: They are lazy, Jobs says. They have all this potential to do interesting things but they just refuse to do it. They don’t do anything with the approaches that Apple is taking, like Carbon. Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy, he says. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, he says. The world is moving to HTML5.

One more quote about Mr. Jobs design philosophy:

Great products, according to Mr. Jobs, are triumphs of “taste.” And taste, he explains, is a byproduct of study, observation and being steeped in the culture of the past and present, of “trying to expose yourself to the best things humans have done and then bring those things into what you are doing.”

Sometime we design in a box … we don’t look outside the industry in which we live and work. Regardless of what you do for a living, you can bring ‘the best things’ to your work. There is something to be said for the Apple ‘auteur model of innovation‘. No, it is not perfect, but there is something we can all learn from it.

Rick