Category: Uncategorized

Post-Ownership Society – Track That Meme!

I’ve been thinking about what I’ve termed, in my head at least, a “Post-Ownership Society.” This was spurred by an interview conducted of me on user experience trends 55 years into the future. One thing that’s clear is that the importance people associate with owning stuff will decrease. It will be supplanted by access, experiences, and the act of creation.

This is a meme I’m starting to track. Kevin Kelly wrote about how access is better than ownership in a post on his blog, “Better Than Owning”.

Kelly focuses much of his discussion on media, where it’s patently obvious that in 5-10 years we’ll all be subscribing to access to The Media Cloud, listening/watching/reading pretty much whatever we want when we want (with some exceptions, notably live events).

My key realization about post-ownership is something Kelly neglects to mention — carsharing. So I found it interesting that The New York Times published a lengthy feature last weekend on this emerging phenomenon. (I’ve had this post brewing for a while, so this struck me as serendipitous.)

A few weeks ago NPR’s Science Friday featured an interview with a quantitative psychologist who found that experiences, not things, lead to longer term happiness. (This was presented in the context of Valentine’s Day, and what you should give your honey.)

In early February BusinessWeek had an article on falling prices, though it turns out the prices that fell in 2008 for products; the price of services rose last year.

At the end of last year, futurist Paul Saffo spoke on KQED’s Forum about the emerging Creator Economy, which will push out the Consumer Economy.

I’m bummed I didn’t get to see Lane and Thor’s talk on “The End of Obsolescence: Engineering the Post-Consumer Economy,” as I’m sure it touches on this as well.

I’m excited about this development because I’ve long been an advocate of Less Stuff, and I think it provides a remarkable opportunity for those of us who work in the area of designing for services and experiences.

Why Siftables Excite Me

I first saw Siftables at TED 2009, where David Merrill demonstrated them. I immediately tweeted, “Omg. Siftables are awesome. Google it, watch videos. #ted.” Here’s the talk:

My reaction was not unique. David was quite popular for the remainder of the event. There’s something about Siftables that taps into the “Well, duh” reaction, when you see something new that seems so obvious, which feels so inevitable. We had a couple of the folks from Tacolab, the creators of Siftables, over to Adaptive Path a week ago, and since then I’ve been trying to figure out what makes them so special.

We’re in an exciting time in human-computer interaction. There’s a lot of movement to get beyond the keyboard + mouse and towards new methods of interaction and input, whether it’s Wii-motes, iPhone’s touchscreen, or the Microsoft Surface table of CNN’s Magic Wall. And while I’m intrigued by all those tools, Siftables actually opens up a whole new avenue of inquiry.

See, one thing we’re still really stuck on is the Single Screen Interface. All of this activity is still geared toward a single display, whether a TV, mobile device, a computer screen, or a wall. (Seeing Siftables made me only even more frustrated with iPhone, because there’s no reason iPhones shouldn’t be able to directly engage with one another (I mean, even the original Palm Pilots allowed infrared beaming!). Instead, iPhones are isolated, attention-greedy devices.)

Siftables begins to suggest what happens when your computers are small, fast, cheap, and out of control (I very much think of Rodney Brooks’ comments in Errol Morris’ superb film, Fast Cheap and Out of Control.) There’s a whole new opportunity for connection, interaction, swarming, meshing, and emergence.

Importantly, the form of Siftables also speaks to *fun*. They’re blocks, and, as kids know, blocks are fun. The immediate impulse of anyone interacting with Siftables is to *play* with them.

For some reason I can’t quite figure, when I began to think of applications for Siftables, my mind went back, way back, to 1984, and Rocky’s Boots, an educational software title for the Apple II that taught basic computer logic through graphic assemblage of logic circuits. It would be awesome to physically build such circuitry with Siftables, and take advantage of their interactive nature. I then mused on whether you could program Siftables with a visual programming language on the Siftables, and then my head went all recursive and I had to do a hard reboot, probably with alcohol.

Some thoughts on TED 2009

Last week I attended TED 2009, the world-renowned confab of the wealthy, smarty pants, Makers and Doers of Things, and ne’er-do-wells such as myself. I don’t have as much to say as I did last year, if only because the content wasn’t as dynamic (nothing matched the sublime heights of Jill Bolte Taylor’s talk), and the conversations between the sessions were more meaningful. Still, some things I’m thinking about:

  • Please please please keep the VC away from me

    • This very much seems like a legacy from an earlier TED time, when VCs would meet interesting technology folks at TED and fund ideas, etc. Now it just feels blandly mercenary. VCs add nothing to the texture of the conversation, and, really, their presence only detracts from the noble mission of the event. I wish Chris had the cojones to uninvite these folks.

  • New interaction design opportunities galore

    • Perhaps ironic given that Interaction09 was taking place at the same time, but some of the best-received talks were on work done at the Media Lab. My favorite was Siftables, a technology platform for little computer-chipped blocks with 128×128 screens and teeny speakers that interact with one another. What this technology affords very much reminded me of the Wand in the World work we did with mobile technologies last year.

    Also shown was SIXth Sense (or Wear Ur World), a system that involves the user wearing a camera, a small projector, and having a cell phone nearby to handle processing and communications. The projector beams images on anything, and, through the camera, the user can this interact on any surface. It’s very much proof-of-concept now, but suggests some interesting futures.

    And cannot forget Golan Levin, who is perhaps more a media artist than interaction designer.

  • Willie Smits is your new favorite hero

    • Dr. Smits told his story of protecting orangutans, and how his desire to do so lead him to regrow forests, develop new agricultural opportunities, and support impoverished local communities in Indonesia. It’s an amazing tale, and the TED talk most worth watching.

  • Challenge, don’t coddle me

    • By the end of the conference, I tweeted a realization: “Where are TED’s dangerous ideas? I want to be challenged, not validated.” There was pretty much nothing controversial presented, and much of what was discussed (oceans need saving! sustainable architecture! liberal arts education is important!) were subjects of easy back-patting on the audience’s part. I realized that I’m suspicious of this complacency, and, that I want to be made uncomfortable, to be challenged, because only then can our ideas progress.

The best design strategy conversation I’ve ever read online

This will seem self-serving, and I’m sure it is, but it’s also true. The best conversation I’ve read about design strategy has been posted to Adaptive Path’s blog, a discussion between Brandon and Henning from AP and David Butler, VP of Design at Coca-Cola. It’s broken up into two parts (Part 1, Part 2) and clearly gets at how design can be a force for change in business, even a ginormous multinational corporation.

Somehow, I’m a HarvardBusiness.org author

Read my inaugural post for my “Experience Matters” blog/column for the revamped HarvardBusiness.org. For the column, I’ll be writing about how to become a customer experience-driven organization. I accepted this assignment because I thought it would be an interesting challenge to attempt to communicate these ideas to a business/management audience. I can’t assume anything about what the audience knows about design or user experience. We’ll see how it goes!

“Live 2.0” – the value of live events

At TED University yesterday, Jim McCarthy talked about the phenomenon of the value of recorded media plunges whereas the value of live, in-person experiences increases. He refers to this as Live 2.0. He pointed out that in 1985, the cost of a CD and a concert ticket were roughly the same. Recorded media has lowered in price (if you think about buying whole albums on iTunes) whereas concerts have gone up and up. Considering he was saying this in a room of people who paid $6,000 to attend, even though all the talks can be seen free online, clearly, there’s something there.

When this trend is discussed, the typical explanation involves people wanting to be together, with one another, because we’re fundamentally social, etc. etc. That’s obviously correct, but insufficient — people in 1985 wanted that togetherness as much as we do today. Other forces at play must have dramatically shifted the value.

A couple ideas:

  • The decreasing price of recorded media means people have money left over, and are able to funnel that money into other things they love, such as concerts.
  • Information about live events is easier to come across, thanks to the internet (whether simply sharing of forwarded emails, or tools like Upcoming). So more people know about these events increasing demand, increasing prices, because supply is limited.

    Your thoughts?

    • Managing Experience Design Lessons from Top Chef‘s “Restaurant Wars”

    OK. So I actually have two shows of which I’m an utter fanboy — BSG and Top Chef. Last night’s Top Chef was every season’s most anticipated episode, “Restaurant Wars.” The set-up is that you have two teams of 4 chefs, and they have 24 hours to come up with a restaurant concept, menu (with two options for each course), interior design, and service. It’s an intense and grueling exercise, leaving contestants spent by the end.

    I couldn’t watch last night’s episode without realizing how much of it applied to experience design and management. There were three key elements that popped out at me. In order to explain, I have to reveal what transpired so…

    Spoiler alert!

    Communication. This arises in pretty much every team challenge on Top Chef, as it seems that chefs are terrible communicators. Early on in the service, the Sahana team, Jamie in particular, could see that Radhika, the team lead, was not focusing on the right things. Radhika should have been paying attention to front-of-house, making sure people felt attended to, and instead she kept drifting into the kitchen, where she was more comfortable. Someone, probably Jamie, should have said something to Radhika, but she didn’t. It’s as if she didn’t want to suggest that a teammate is not working up to par. Similarly, Radhika, as team lead, had almost nothing to say to her team, and they managed as little islands of activity. The Sunset Lounge team, for all their problems (and there were many) were in constant communication with each other. And they won.

    The lesson: communicate. When things aren’t going well, call them out. Don’t be afraid of offending or upsetting others, particularly in group work. Yes, you have to figure out tactful means of communicating, so that your message will be received, but you can’t not communicate.

    Experience matters. The judges all felt that Sahana’s team had the better food (if only by a slight margin), but they lost. Why? Because Fabio rocked the front of the house for Sunset Lounge. He made everyone feel welcome and attended to. He was gracious, even a little flirtatious. When things went wrong, like the undercooked black cod, he apologized and offered to replace it. He recognized that dining is not just about eating, and made the guests feel good about being there.

    The lesson: Attend to the complete person. Make them feel good. Recognize the role that emotion plays, and don’t assume a superior product will win out self-evidently.

    Finish strong. Even though the judges preferred Sahana’s food, the comment cards from the other eaters rated Sunset Lounge’s as better. I trust the judges’ palates here, so the disconnect is revealing. One reason the other eaters preferred Sunset Lounge was the experience, as explained above. More important, though, was that Sunset Lounge finished strong — even the judges said their desserts were the single best component served all night, across both restaurants. Sahana’s dessert was considered among the worst offerings from either team.

    Brandon introduced me to the “peak-end rule”, wherein people judge experiences based on either the most extreme aspect (the peak) or how they ended. So, even though the Sunset Lounge’s team’s food was weaker overall, it ended so strong that eaters felt the whole experience was that much stronger.

    The lesson: It’s obvious. I know if my practice, though, I have to always remind myself to finish strong, to put that extra effort in at the end.

    Book Review: Outliers

    I mentioned a while back that I was listening to the audiobook for Malcolm Gladwell’s latest, Outliers. Readers of this blog know I’ve been following Gladwell since before The Tipping Point, and I’ve always been quite critical. I’ve written about how TTP didn’t tie together, Blink had no legitimate argument, and his misunderstanding of the role of paper in the modern office.

    Outliers is much the same as his prior two books — a set of distinct, well-researched and engagingly told stories tied together by the barest wisp of connective tissue. The theme of his book seems to be: People become successful because a) they’re given remarkable opportunities others are not and b) they work really really hard. Actually, the theme of his book is “stop thinking that brilliance is inborn; all successful people worked hard at it.” Somehow, this is meant to tie together hockey players, Bill Gates, inner-city students, and airlines pilots who don’t crash planes when faced with trouble.

    Let me correct myself. Gladwell’s point is to insist on equality of opportunity, and for us to understand the systems and forces at play that lead to inequality. It might be Gladwell’s first book with an explicit social message, and, frankly, it’s one that I agree with. It’s also a realization that any systems-oriented thinker had some time by college if not sooner. You cannot, say, understand Darwinian evolution without realizing the role that opportunity plays in enabling success.

    Still, some good stories. Definitely worth checking out from the library.