Last night I attended a panel discussion on Smart Medical Devices, put on by the Biomedical Engineering Society.  There was a lot of discussion about the definition of Smart Devices, new technologies (which were very impressive), and ultimately the discussion found its way to pointing out the need for biomedical engineers to act as translators between the engineering and medical communities.

Sound familiar?  This is exactly the type of discussion that goes on in design thinking circles. Just as it's important for designers to understand human needs to design better products, the same is true for designers and engineers who need to understand clinical needs to develop better products and to guide technology development.  What I truly appreciated was the engineers' description of translation.  This is much less confusing than the thought process of a specific discipline.

This should not be surprising. What struck me, however, was the fact that this capability was discussed as something that was necessary, but the problem was in finding engineers who were interested in spending time in the field.  It was suggested that typical engineers would rather develop cool new technologies, and weren't as interested in solving problems in a low-tech way.

In my work, I have never encountered a designer, engineer, or marketing person who was unhappy that I was able to identify the problem that needed to be solved, and present it as criteria that was relevant to them.  However, I have often found that most designers, engineers, and marketing people who work in development processes are much more interested in solving problems than in identifying them.  My main takeaway from this event is that there is a burgeoning frustration with people trying to solve their way to problem identification.  It just doesn't work. 

As I've discussed in many previous posts, problem-solving and problem-posing are very different activities and require different skills.  It's unrealistic to expect a doctor to define the engineering challenge, just as it is to expect the consumer to define your new product breakthrough.  Problem-posers have developed the skill to discern the motivation behind what is said, regardless of what market you are in.  Last night's discussion was yet another highlight of the same issue.

Yesterday I was referred to a blog post written by Danah Boyd, an academic researcher at Microsoft and Harvard.  Her work focuses on the impacts of the internet and social networks on society.  She wrote about a horrible experience she had while presenting at the Web2.0 Expo.  The post is long but worth reading.  While Danah did take responsibililty for content or delivery problems with the talk, there were several lessons to be learned by those of us whose job it is to create thoughtful, intentional experiences.

First, Danah mentioned minor issues such as the fact that she was not allowed to have a laptop from with to present.  She then went on to describe that the podium she had to use was flat, which enabled the audience to see that she might be reading from notes.  This was exacerbated by the fact that the lights were so bright, she could not see anyone in the audience, making it hard to connect and establish a rapport with them.  And the final kicker, there was a running twitter stream that was displayed behind her, so that she could not see it, but the audience could.

What this created was an open invitation for the audience to carry on a conversation about the talk as it was happening. Not only was it distracting from the talk, it was happening literally behind the speaker's back.  This behavior is rude enough to begin with, and sadly, this audience devolved to the point of making rude comments and juvenile wisecracks.  It was like a bratty kid looking for attention in public.

New technology allows us to do many things we couldn't do before.  But the freedom to do these things comes with the responsibility to use the tools wisely.  I'm sure someone thought it was 'cool' to display a live twitter feed about the talk.  If handled responsibly and with a little more forethought, it could have served to engage the audience and allow Danah to better connect with them by seeing where their interests and energy were going.  Critical thought, active listening, and discussions that challenge existing ideas respectfully all help us to move further faster.  New technology can facilitate that type of interaction better than ever before.  However, when something like this happens people tend to shy away from the technology itself, which could actually set us all back.  It would be much better to stop and think about the experiences we want to create, and question whether what we are doing will actually help us to deliver them.

As you develop products and services at your company, how much thought is given to the actual experience a consumer will have when trying to learn about, purchase, and use your offering?  When developing a new technology, or launching a new product, are there unintended consequences that could result in the actual experience of use?  Obvoiusly there are no right answers to these questions, but it is important that someone is asking them.  Are they being asked at your company?

Chris Brogan had a great quote on Twitter yesterday.  It read "Technology is never the solution. It's the facilitator. Strategy aligned to goals is the solution." 

I would qualify the last sentence, but considering the 140 character limit on Twitter, I'd say he got the important part right.  Technology is a facilitator.  It's our job to figure out what, exactly, any technology would need to facilitate.  Consumers don't buy technology.  They buy solutions that make their lives better, and typically have little patience for interacting with technology directly.  The more invisible technology becomes, the more it will be embraced.

Last year I was reviewing a proposal with a client who was very concerned with predicting which technologies he should add to his products in the coming years.  It took a while to show him that once we identified the right consumer needs and benefits to deliver on those needs, we would probably find out that multiple technologies would be at his disposal to deliver them.  It's the technology piece that should remain flexible, as his strategy should be based on delivering consumer goals, not defining and protecting the enablers of any one set of solutions.

What is the role of technology in your company?  Does everyone know what goals the current technologies are enabling?  Or is the technology treated as if it is the benefit in and of itself?  You may need to shift a few perspectives to make sure that your strategy is based on delivering what it is that your consumers are actually wanting to buy.

Michael Mandel, chief economist at Business Week believes that innovation is "the only game in town."  In this time of financial meltdown and economic crisis, he believes that the only way we can pull out of this mess is for innovation to prevail in our culture.  

I agree with his intention, but most of his suggestions left me scratching my head.  Michael suggests that we need new economic policies (tax incentives, etc) to encourage companies to be more innovative.  He also suggests prizes, and encourages new technology development.  While these policies can't hurt, I find that a lack of incentives or ideas is not the problem.  While his suggestions won't hurt, and may help, I don't think they will have the deep, meaninful impact that is needed. 

In my experience, the problem lies in the fact that most companies don't know what to do to be more innovative.  They know that in order to grow or be more profitable they will need to innovate.  That is a great incentive.  There are also more than enough ideas to go around.  What is lacking is that most companies do not know how to guide innovation efforts in a way that will be valuable in the market.  They also have a difficult time managing innovation efforts within cultures that need to manage predictable processes and outcomes.  To be more innovative, companies need to find ways to reward behaviors that encourage innovation, without discouraging the maintenance of business.  To be more innovative, companies need to be encouraged to take on projects whose outcomes cannot be defined before the project is started.  To be more innovative, companies need to learn to identify problems before they search for technologies.  Otherwise we end up with solutions in search of problems.  These are difficult behaviors for organizations to manage from within organizations who need to reward reliable delivery of products and services.  

We are a community of innovators.  What would you suggest to Michael to answer the question:  What is necessary for America to become more innovative in the future?  How can we help him?

Mobile advertising, the availability of mobile web apps, and mobile phone services that allow you to know the location of others.  There is a lot of buzz going on about who is going to crack the "let me do everything on my mobile phone" code.  Who will come up with the killer app that will allow this to happen?  Who will define and own the market?  Michael Arrington of TechCrunch had a great post about one such app.

It appears that the introduction of the iPhone has everyone convinced that the iPhone will provide the technical platform upon which these ideas could work.  Makes me wonder.  Is this the only way?  So much of what I'm reading is about companies trying to find ways to port the current paradigm and experience onto the mobile platform.  The iPhone certainly does lend itself to doing that better than most phones out there.  But what would happen if we had no iPhone?  What if we had to find a way to "go mobile" without all the apps, ads, and services that were originally designed to be delivered via another medium?

I don't have an answer, but I will pose the problem.  How can people have access to information from wherever they are?  If I were to focus purely on this question would I say, "well, we have to start with a phone-like device, and apps like facebook..." 

I'm not sure I would.

Don't count on it.  I help companies to become more innovative.  One thing I have noticed is that the industry a company is in, or the market it serves, has very little influence over how innovative the company really is. 

Most people perceive that companies operating in digital industries are more innovative than companies operating in more traditional, tangible industries.  They must be, the logic goes, because they would not have existed 10 year ago.  Therefore they must be new and innovative.  And that may be true in some cases.

The reality is that in most cases, these companies are not innovative.  They exist because of innovations that have occurred in their industry, but very few that I have seen are operating in an innovative way.  Here two fundamental things innovative companies do that other companies do not do:

1)  They value consumers, and are always thinking about how they can improve a consumer's experience.  They not only talk about what a new technology can enable, they focus relentlessly on how their product or service fits into the consumer's lifestyle.  These companies learn about what consumers value.  As a result, the products and services they develop are valued.  Any company that only learns what consumers say they want will be sadly misguided, and will not be able to create a meaningful offering.  Really understanding consumers is different.

2)  They create opportunities to compete in new ways.  Once they understand what consumers value, a world of possiblities opens up to ways to provide value.  And value is something consumers are willing to pay for.  Innovative companies do not limit the ways in which they can offer value.  They develop new processes and capabilities to provide value, and figure out how to do things they've never done before.

Notice what is not on the list:  Streamlined processes.  Well-defined, detailed tasks before a new project begins.  These things are important for running a business; for delivering what you currently offer in an optimal way.  But they do not make a company innovative.  They only enable you to do more of what you already do.  And paradoxically, that's the operational focus of most digital firms.

 This is a great example of how the ultimate execution will make all the difference.  The Wall Street Journal today had a story about how new mobile phone services enable people to know where their friends are.  The video gives a good overview of the service, and acknowledges the balance between privacy concerns and convenience.

This balance is very delicate.  I'm not sure where I will fall on this one.  I'm all for convenience, and I can easily see the benefits this service could provide.  On the other hand, this certainly has the potential to be a bit too revealing for comfort.  What do you think?

One conclusion drawn in the article amused me.  They suspected that younger people would like the service.  Sure.  When it's their friends who can see them.  What if this becomes a prerequisite for any parents who pay the cell phone bill? 

ReadWriteWeb had an interesting post about Best Tools for Visualization.  While I found the post to be full of interesting information, there was an obvious omission that I feel compelled to point out.  No visualization tool, regardless of how technically clever or unique it is, can take the place of clear thinking.

Visualization is a term whose meaning in popular culture is beginning to stray from its original intent.  (Isn't that the fate of most words that become popular buzzwords?)  In the pure sense, visualization is the visual expression of an idea.  The information in that idea can take many forms.  It can be literal, like a picture of an object, or it can become abstracted, such as images that convey emotion.

Most frequently, the term visualization describes visual representation of how informational elements are connected.  In the offline world, this is usually called Information Design.  Two main skills are required to make Visualization useful.  First, the complexities of interrelated information must be untangled.  The causes, effects, and connections must be clearly understood.  The second step is to figure out how to represent this information visually so that it can be easily understood. 

The upshot is that these tools can be helpful aids in visually representing information.  It is up to the person who is trying to communicate their ideas to: a) understand what the information is, and how it is connected, and b)  choose the right visualization tool to best communicate that information.  No tool can do those two things for you. 

These tools are very good at making cool images of information.  Most people have a difficult time making compelling images, and they are often seduced into falling in love with these tools for the wrong reasons.  Please do not fall into the trap of confusing the quality of the content with the quality of the image.  Good Information Design will help to ease communication, and provide common understanding.  If you are using one of these tools, and your discussions still keep spinning, go back to the drawing board and start clearing up your thinking.  Then visualize it.

I saw this video  in a post on Seth Godin's blog.  As a person who studies consumer behavior, I found it analogous to the work I do.  Before you read on, you should watch at least the first half of the video. 

I did not miss the bear the first time.  Most likely, this is because it is my job to pay attention to what's going on behind what consumers are telling me when I interview them.  Most consumer interviews go exactly like the video.  Consumers go on and on about the game; how they played it, what they were thinking, etc.  They are so used to playing around the bear, they don't even think that he might have an impact on them.  And he IS having an impact on them.  They are careful not to hit him, and that impacts their choices.  So many companies are trying to learn to integrate consumer feedback into their processes.  It often goes wrong for several reasons. 

First, consumers are typically not overtly aware of what drives them.  You can talk to them, they can tell you what they like, but they cannot tell you what to do.  If you literally do what they say, you are doomed.

Second, the web makes it easy to get consumer feedback.  In terms of the video you just saw, getting self-reported, written feedback is like trying to understand what's going on in the video while wearing a blindfold and having someone describe it to you.  And most likely the person describing it does not see the bear.

Finally (for today at least), companies often have trouble translating what a consumer says, does, means, or needs into a viable product offering.  This is true whether they see the bear or not.

I'm interested in the human aspects of what's going on with technology and the web.  People get so carried away with the mechanics of what they are doing, they often lose the point behind it.  And losing sight of the main point is usually the reason for losing relevance in the market.

Find the bear, understand his impact, and keep your eye on him.

I had AIM several years ago.  I had to remove it from my computer because it was too distracting.  IM has a way of being intrusive and distracting, and I was not going to fall into that trap.

Now, my needs have changed, and I decided to try IM again.  I installed the new AIM, and it was a mess.  It messed up my computer's ability to find the right wireless networks, and just had too much distracting stuff going on.  I couldn't just do what I needed to do without a three-ring-circus of web pages opening, email messages for accounts I didn't want or know I had...YUCK!!

And then a colleague suggested that I try Pidgin.  It has just what I need, and is an inobtrusive as IM can be.  It also has a Babelfish quality to it that I love, but have not had the need to use.  It basically enables you to integrate all your IM accounts.  Ahhhh...Simplicity!!  I only need one solution.  As I said, I don't need that right now, but I love the idea of it.

Pidgin may not be the best solution out there, but my experience proves a couple of things.  Technology is best when it lets you do what you need to do, and gets out of the way.  The other thing is that people will try what their friends suggest, and those are the things that have an opportunity to become loved.