Non-Contiguously Allocated Value

There seems to be a disconnect between what medical Doctors believe I should value them for and what I want to value them for. I value the experience I have at the Doctor - the whole thing from end to end, including all the other people involved and the facility, etc. Doctors seem to only want me to value their education and expertise. I take all that as a given. Is this a root challenge in Healthcare? The experience is contiguous in that it's all connected to the recipient of the "care" and it's non-contiguous for those rendering the service?

Recipients want to trust those rendering care because of their experience in the field AND the way their services are rendered. Doctors seem to want to have the most defendable (least litigious) medical trajectory. #tension

[Note: I am likely wrong.]

Makers

I recently completed Chris Anderson's new title Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. I think that if you're even 2% interested in things being created in this country and the impact of the Internet on things (The internet of things is different and for a different post) then you should read this book. 

To get started, consider checking my rif on the book and the subject as a introduction here. 

Download your coffee table

I've been a member at the mnmill.org for a few months now (BTW, check it out). There are a large and growing number of nifty tools there. There is also a much more important (in my opinion) and growing number of makers as members. But, back to the tools. 

There is a Shopbot. I've wondered what to make with it ever since seeing it and getting trained on it. I my pursuit I became aware of the folks at Filson-Rohrbacher and their AtFAB project. I became fascinated by the notion of dowloading furnature and decided to cut one of their projects. 

So, one morning last fall, I downloaded my coffee table, brought it to The Mill, worked up the tool path files, grabbed a hunk of plywood and cut it out. In 90 minutes from start, and a little sanding, the table was done. #awesome

Crowd Shamed

It's Winter. We're cooking more with the crock pot / slow cooker than we do in the Summer -- +1000% or more. It's a fact of life in Minnesota. Let your mouth water at the thought of stew-y-ness for dinner. Yum!

Friends of ours asked about our slow cooker. Do we like it? Would we buy it again? Was there another one that we thought of buying instead? You know, this is a typical friend asks friend for purchasing advice scenario. 

The truth is, we like our slow cooker. We said as much. Then we went home and were crowd shamed. We looked up our cooker online and found that it might just be the worse piece of trash slow cooker you can acquire for what apparently is also way more money than it should cost. 

We received our cooker as a gift. We never even looked at the reviews. It's always worked for us, so far. We liked it. Now, every time I pull that thing out I have noticed a tendency to think slightly less of it. I've wondered why. Why should I care that others don't like my cooker that has never let us down? This is odd to my mind.

The power of the crowd is creeping into most things. It's influence is strong on the buy side of a purchases. I think most people would agree with that. This is the first time the crowd (online) has influenced the ownership side of the equation for something I've owned.

So, where is this going? First, I don't think it's the last time this will happen (or the first in all of history). 

Second, it seems to me that, it's slowly becoming an imperative that unless your products/companies/services are built specifically to withstand the crisp honest fact that they are not high quality you'd be better off in the long run simply making high quality things.

And as I write the above I wonder if there no place for cheap today? Maybe there is if the audience never checks a review or simply does not care what others say? Does cheap equal low quality every time? Can you overcome part of the tension between cost and quality with authenticity (e.g. Etsy, Kickstarter, etc.)?

I usually check the negative reviews before I buy something. This was the first time I was crowd shamed after having already had something. May we all find effective ways to manage the changes the internet brings. Onward.

The red circles

I love the red circles. Most of my devices have them. There is a little number in them to indicate that something has happened. Someone texted. Someone wrote a post or emailed me. There is a direct message. There is a server event. A package arrived and on down the line. I love the little red circles with numbers.

I hate the red circles. I find that more times than not I get sidetracked by them. I go to my device to do something and then I notice that I forget why I opened it in the first place a few minutes down the line. Instead I find I was attending to the red circles! Red circles are awful for distinct trains of thought. They are horrible for a sense of continuity. The mess with my sense of calm. They jack with my mind and oddly they do the same with my heart. I hate the red circles with numbers in them.

I recently moved the mail apps (yes plural) off the main screens and bottom bars of my phone and tablet and on to the second screen. My sense of relief has been noticeable. I can open my phone and tablet and most of the time I don't see a red circle. Bliss. These devices are about more than simply responding to alerts. I get at more joy from them as tools for making. I want more to be made from them.

d.school after 3 months

October 2012- Consolidated d.school notes and reflections

I attended d.school boot camp at Stanford last July. It was very worth it. (I wondered at the time if it would be at the time. Now I know.) Every few months I want to step back on my notes and point at what I am learning and testing and finding impacting about the d.thinking process on my life and work. Check my previous post HERE or read on for recent reflections. 

Process

I continue to be astounded by the Design Thinking process working. It's a good coach. I am a good pragmatist. This stuff does not always seem like it's going to work at the beginning of a cycle. It has worked every time. Here are the modes: Empathize. Define. Ideate. Prototype. Test. Together, they work.

As I've practiced this with clients and in coaching contexts over the last three months I've become more and more committed to growing in the discipline of applying the process. It's energizing. It seems a bit magical at times. It works and now I know both cognitively and experientially a few times over. 

Empathy might be scary but it proves itself worth it every time.

We had the privilege of working through empathy sessions for a financial product after the team had a few weeks to form what I am not calling "pre-empathy" opinions and directions. After 2 hours of empathy sessions (read: "overcoming fear") both the approaches and target markets born of the team's experiences and time on the project to that point were tossed in favor of the stories of real folks they had met. Conversations are now continually injected with checks on whither [ X ] idea will work for Jane, Eric, Mike, or Beth -- real people they met. This is wildly powerful.

When you think it's not going to work… do it anyway

We were doing a crash course that had just 4 people signed up and thought strongly about canceling it ahead of time. Instead, we went forward, did the wallet project, and had the most deep and engaging crash course I've been apart of to date.  Cycles bring mastery, right? Do 'em. 

Just shut it already

As I've been facilitating I've also NOT been offering enough time for folks to sit with uncomfortable silence. It was pointed out to me from a coaching partner and already I am finding that I am now looking for ways to inject quite into sessions. There is something wonderfully productive about a pause that is uncomfortably long. What a nifty tool. I need more time to practice.  

Define

I absolutely love this step and find myself returning to it often to check and tweak and change the result and learn from it's constraints. It's the first time in the process that something of value springs forth to my mind that could not have been as easily made without following the process. Define is purely wonderful. 

Ideate away… 

Making new ideas is a function of the available raw materials to pull from plus the addition of time. Now, I know that if we really want to move fast and efficiently at making new and both plausible and crazy ways forward we simply add the raw materials of empathy sessions and a define sentence.  It's like rocket fuel for solutions to hairball problems. I no longer worry about coming up with radical new ideas and solutions… I worry about having the time and structure to follow the process to make many ideas before needing to have THE idea. 

Just start drawing already!

Maybe we need pre-prototypes. I've found that both myself and my team(s) have an inclination to work an idea out a few steps to far toward refined for whatever stage we're in. In a recent exchange I noticed that we were spinning our wheels on one part of a designed experience for a few days and that's when it occurred to me -- start drawing! One quick sketch and a volley later -- we had it solved. Pictures matter so much for our team. We need to draw more and more and more. We need to make many crappy things at low res before we add any gloss to a mix. 

The one with the prototype always wins

One of the projects I am on is a software sales project. I heard "the one with the prototype always wins" at d.school and now firmly believe it. We were talking way to much before messing with explaining stuff. Now, we come with a physical manifestation of our software and early indications have our conversion rates much higher. Yes please. More of that please. I am addicted to prototyping most everything now. 

Stop talking/planning. Start doing. 

I find myself thinking or saying "Stop planning. Start doing" a few times a day. I hope I don't get sick of it. It demands action and is at the very core of momentum.

Wrap… 

Ok… there you go. A few more ideas after both passively and actively engaging in the process of Design Thinking in my life and work in the last months. I am having more fun on projects and the product of the work is better when employing the d.thinking model. It seems the teams I am a part of do too. That's hard to argue with. 

[DRAFT] Stanford d.school bootcamp notes from July 2012 1

d.school

July 2012 - Expanded Notes
d.thinking Modes: Empathize. Define. Ideate. Prototype. Test. 

I attended d.school at Stanford for their July bootcamp. It was a fantastic experience because of the richness of the ideas that formed over such a short period of time as well as for an introduction to a really solid and approachable process, Design Thinking, for generating viable product and experience design opportunities.  

I'm writing this for my benefit. I want to catalogue some notes to my self and expound a bit on them so as to make it easier to reflect on the experience in the future and to build on ideas right now. It's been roughly 2 weeks and spontaneous new ideas as a result of the experience have stopped forming on their own. I thought it time to use writing to push the process a bit. Further, I figured I'd stick them on this blog because 1) I wanted to simply make them available as an act of openness and 2) I'd welcome the chance to chat through any of the following. I am freshman as it comes to this process and I welcome the chance to work with these ideas further because they've proved quite profitable thus far. Now I am intent on getting practice. 

The Design Thinking process includes the following "modes:" Empathize. Define. Ideate. Prototype. Test. I've sorted my notes from the "d.bootcamp" experience into these categories. I've added a +Plus bucket at the end for stuff not tailored to a specific step in my mind to this point. 

So… on with the show. I know that the three days did not all sink in. The following is some of what did. 

Design Thinking seems like a practice. It's something that is moving and changing and that you can get more effective at over time like a Doctor or Lawyer might. I look forward to that process. 

Empathize

I was struck by the contrast between the rigor of Stanford, an institution (e.g. brand) of the "mind," you might say, powerfully championing deep interest in other humans. This is about blatant curiosity well packaged and pointed at others. This mode, empathy, might seem like an obvious first step. I now know, done a d.way, it's a fantastic first step. Yet, I've noticed It's not a step I've often first thought to do. That'll change going forward. 

It's simple. Observe folks. Just what do you see… (not judge) the facts to be. Then, Engage with users… real live folks. The more fringe the folks the better it seems. And, finally, aim to Immerse or find ways to experience a something as your user experiences that something.

The tricky part about Empathize is that you have to take your face and your body and go meet a stranger and be genuinely curious in them and what they are doing and felling. After some practice it's easy to build some momentum and for this stage to not be crazy. Without the practice, I, and a large group of folks I've talked with regarding this stage, find this subtle fear to be just enough of a reason not to use the Empathize mode. After having done it… get to it… The reward and value of the process far offsets the tiny and short lived discomfort you might have just thinking about talking to a stranger.

"Bias toward action" is a phrase I saw written on boards and mentioned through to the d.bootcamp. I really like it. Here seems like a good place to mention it. While it applies to most everything about working in a d.way I think it defiantly applies to empathizing with others. It takes work and your decision to act to learn about other people to the point where you can put yourself in their shoes to any meaningful degree. 

And having a Bias toward action leads me to a brilliant phrase I heard and really dig… "Don't get ready. Get started." There is way way to much planning on a whole to my mind. Even more me… and I love starting things. What I want to embrace about this phrase is it's tight relationship to action. There is so much learning to be done by doing… get out there and do it. 

So… Empathizing… just do it. As a Marine might say "Get some."

Define

Is a process of packaging what was learned in the Empathize mode. I really dig the fill in the blank approach. Blank needs Blank Because Blank. Love it. It's simple. It also seems to open space for a whole problem to be Re-Framed. When something is seen or thought of in a different way it opens the way to magic. I love this mode. This is the core of what the remaining modes continue to return to. 

Ideate

Make ideas and log ideas. Go for volume and variation. The d.school has a number of methods for this mode. They were quite helpful in providing structure. The empathy map and the voting process were particularly efficient at wrangling our teams seemingly skitzo focus. We had fun. We made some real solid ideas.

The most interesting things I learned in this mode was not about a method but about me. I've been known to spin off ideas in rapid form. I really dig this mode. Ideate! The crazier the idea the better to my mind. The faster the better. I enjoy soaking up information from all over and learning about how things work. Not many days go by where I've not sought to learn something new or different. Partially because of this making ideas and making wild ones moves fairly quickly to my mind. What I learned is that I need to seek clarification regarding these crazy ideas. 

We had a set of ideas that quickly ran off the chart. Looking back… I assisted. What I know now is that tending to the quality of delivery and a recipients understanding of an idea might be more important than the craziness of an idea or even it's quality. Maybe. I'll need to test. 

Further, I know I need snips of time to digest and re-frame issues. What I learned is that if I take that time in a group setting it's easily perceived by a team as a lack of focus on my part. I often work physically alone but connected to a team via digital means. When I am working on an Idea I often get up and just go walking. That does not play as well in a physical team setting. I'll watch that in the future.

Space signals permission. This seems like a solid place to address space. There was an exchange between an academic perspective and a practitioner perspective that seemed to argue both sides of this debate. One says space has no meaningful impact on productivity or financial payback. The other said basically that space signals permission. It's not the space that's important but the behaviors a space promotes in a context as it relates to a participants regular work. Space can be a trigger to work differently, to be free with ideas… to make and do new things. 

Prototype

Make - The behavior of physical-izing ideas, whatever they are, is of rich value in rapid form. Ultimately we built a change for an experience as a team. So, there was nothing really physical about what we were making. However, The process of prototyping was abundantly helpful. As we started to roll play and act out experiences our ideas were morning and so also our solution. We'd "run it again" and find something new and change the solution or product all with in 5 minutes or so. We did this again and again and refined and refined the solution. When moving that quickly it was magic to prototype. More of this please. 

Test

Having to test builds pressure to get your prototype done. Go. It also provides the opportunity to iterate rapidly. We had the kernel of an idea. As we tested with new folks we kept tweaking after each test. We changed the product 5 or 6 times in a 45min window and all because of interacting with new folks and testing.

Aim to be re-interpreted. I like the serendipity of this disposition. As a Design Thinker stepping through the process you have a vague idea of what you're making. It's fantastic when others see the context and your test and re-interpret something. We made a couple nice discoveries by being mis-interpreted… and thus we needed to re-interpret. 

Cycles bring greatness. I heard this phrase and initially brushed it off. Yet, as we run the process in macro multiple times in three days and then in micro many times it became more and more clear to my mind that the doing and doing and doing is where some great thinking can come from.

+ PLUS

Learn by data. Learn by doing. Learn by teaching. These three ways to learn were all used. In many experiences I've only engaged in the Learn by data approach. The doing and the teaching mixed in made the whole process much more rich. 

This one is a bit side rail. Reasons are bullshit. People do things. When you ask them why they did certain things they can say just about anything and those can be nice reasons. The reality is there is a huge difference between what people say they do things for and why they actually do things. Many times, if not all the time, it's not a nice little package of an answer as to why anyone does anything. 

Trying is not nearly as important as intending. This connects with the point above. If you decided to do something then you don't have to try. Rather, that something will get done. 

Design is not good business. I found this return on investment (ROI) answer to be really curious so I asked Diego about it separately. Most of the arguments about Design and Business, to his mind - and I agree, miss the point. Using design to make good business is good business (operations). Using to design to simply effect the products of a business and not the business it's self misses a huge opportunity. 

Ideas worth building can come from any group or person provided there is a means to obtain them. Groups are inclined to assume that new has to come from outside the organization. This d.thinking process stands as a strong method for making and advancing new ideas from with any group.

As a member of a startup there is me, and my group… there is no organization. In day three there was a focus among the attendees about how to bring d.thinking back to each person's organization. Most of this talk seemed not to apply to startups. That's curious to me. A startup has individuals and small groups. There are not many "organizational" formalities to jack with a d.thinking process.

The Design Thinking process is a Sales process. This was a brighter moment from the three days to myself personally. In a debrief is was pointed out how quickly passionate folks can become for ideas generated via the d.thinking process. It is remarkable how invested one can get in a crazy short period of time. That's sales. I am still unpacking this insight for now… but I know there is something core here. 

A different work product comes from working differently. That seems obvious. This insight occurred to my as I described this d.thinking process to a top Planner in an agency context. I am really interested in how focusing on how work is being done and the context it's done in can easily alter work product. Focusing on the work does not seem to have the same impact. That's curious, really really curious. Maybe it's summed in a phrase like "the how commands the what," I am not sure at this point.

Those with the prototype wins. Making prototypes don't seem to be a common practice. I don't see them nor hear of many of them. Therefore, they stick out when you see them. Make them. See if you win and win quickly when you have a prototype vs not having one in a pitch or internal meeting. It's working for me. It worked for a client last week. I think it works.  

Wrap

Ok… there are a pile of notes and reflections above. I suspect that my progress on advancing these ideas and understanding them more fully is dependent on conversations and practice. If you're interested in either… shout. 

Onward,
Joseph Rueter

Not blogging much but I am rifing

Check out my rifs at http://josephrueter.rifr.com/tech

Consumer Confidence

I hear about the consumer confidence number on the radio and read about it in the paper. Maybe you do too? For the most part I glaze over it. What does it really mean on a practical level? Do you know? So... we have a number that represents... what?

I think I've found a metaphore that helps make some sense of it to my mind.

I live in the Twin Cities. Hwy 94 runs between Minneapolis and Saint Paul. The "powers" have been shutting down lanes and shifting lanes around all summer. It all makes for a nasty experience driving between both downtowns. Nearly every day something is different about the drive. You can have no confidence that your drive will go smoothly or awefully. I've had times where passing through the "zone" is no different than if there were no construction - better even. I've had other times where the bridge accross the Mississippi might as well have collapsed. I've had all the kinds of drives inbetween but never in a predictable fashion. There is no normal on the route. 

I often try to affoid driving the section, period. The office is on the other side so it makes this goal a bit difficult. So... now I've changed my behavior dramatically to accomidate for my lack of confidence in the ability for the Hwy to get me to where I want to be as I expect it to get me there, as it's performed in the past. I leave early. I leave late. I stay for a little bit of time. Or... i just don't drive it at all. 

My Hwy 94 confidence level is low and going lower. It's changed my behavior. On some level the consumer confidence level is the same way it seems. It's a reflection of changed behavior.

Data. People.

[Previously posted on a blog that has been deleted.]

It's not hard to argue that the beginning of the internet was focused on data. Google has championed this phase as the organizer of the world's information. Data is not going away. It'll stretch your mind to think of how cool all this data is when approached in certain ways. 

It's also not hard to claim that this current phase of the internet is about people. Facebook has championed our current phase as the social network. It's not going away. In-fact it's growing in reach, importance and function daily.

The next phase seems, to my mind, to have a lot to do with bringing data and people together. As companies go forward and others startup in this environment its interesting to note how many more of them seeming to prioritize data over people rather than the other way around. It seems they overwhelmingly want to figure out the data about the people rather than what the people think/say or do regarding the data.