Posts Tagged ‘technology’

Social Rock Star Innovation 2.0 Space

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

Believe it or not this post actually consists of more than just jamming as many trendy tech buzz words into a single title as physically possible. It is about “Innovation”.

Every year seems to have its emerging, recurring themes. So far this year’s emergent theme has been “Innovation” in my world. Everyone and their mother seems to be talking about innovation and/or wants to foster innovation at their organization in the tech world.

This theme has got me thinking lately. What exactly is “innovation”?

I spent about an hour reading through the most popular dictionary sites, blogs, thought leaders, to see how they define innovation. The best definition I found was actually on wikipedia:

Innovation is a new way of doing something or “new stuff that is made useful”. It may refer to incremental and emergent or radical and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations

In my experience innovation does not apply to specific technologies or processes or people per se. It consists of a fundamental shift in thinking across all of these things.

Dead Poet Society
In order to truly innovate, or be innovative, it requires an organization (which is really just a big group of people) to seriously look long and hard at how they do things looking for better ways. They need to be willing to think differently and look at how they operate differently. Yes, this typically leads to new, better, processes and technologies 9 times out of 10 but it doesn’t HAVE to.

One of my favorite movie scenes of all time is from Dead Poets Society. In the scene Robin Williams the “Rebel” (innovative?) teacher at the stuffy prep school is trying to teach his class about how to think creatively (innovate?) and he states that sometimes you literally have to look at the same situation or same problem in a new way. To demonstrate this he has every student come up to the front of the class and stare back at the same class they have been in for years. However, this time they are to look at the class while standing on the desk in the front of the room. Same class, same people, same course – different vantage point.

This is how you foster innovation. You force the people that make up your organization to see things differently and come up with new, better ways of accomplishing existing goals or solving existing problems.

How Starting a Company is like Fighting Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)

Monday, June 14th, 2010

If you’ve ever been involved in a startup you know that it’s a different world. I have the advantage of having been on both sides of the corporate wall. I’ve been at the head of a successful startup, and I’ve been an executive at a 100-year old company. Startups are their own unique creatures.

Now, one of the sports I truly enjoy is Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). MMA is, in many ways, the perfect confluence of the fighting sports. Wrestling, Muay Thai, Jiu-Jitsu, Boxing and all of it meet in this environment.

The same is true with starting a company. It’s a wild ride, where every possible business variable comes into play. And starting a company is also a lot like MMA training in a number of ways:

Practice all you want, at some point you’ve got to perform.

At some point, you need to free your product from the confines of the startup environment. You’ve got to create a winning product. Your startup needs to put something out there that does its job, and does it well. Amazing and robust solutions that never leave the confines of the test environment are useless.

It’s all about survival of the fittest.

The startup world is one of heavy competition. Your opponents are out there, and they’re doing their damndest to get your customers. You need to not only perform, but to perform better than everyone else out there in the field. One weak link in your startup will cause the whole thing to fail. You need to be the best of the best.

No matter how strong your supporting cast, it falls on you alone to make things happen

Talented product development teams, spot-on marketers and a dynamic sales force are essential to the success of a startup. At the end of the day, however, it’s up to you to put those assets to work in a way that really impacts the market. The startup will rise and fall on your vision and leadership (or lack thereof).

Ideas don’t mean jack shit. Only execution matters.

You might think you’ve got the best moves, that your product is better than anyone else’s. You might even be right. But if you can’t successfully get that product to the market and then beat out the competition, having the better product doesn’t do much for you. If you don’t believe me, just remember the lesson of Betamax. An arguably superior technology was put to bed by VHS because the folks behind VHS were better at getting their product to the people.

Sometimes, the guy who can hold his breath the longest wins.

It isn’t always the company with the best idea that wins out. In many cases, startups aren’t going to beat their competition because they have a better product or even better tactics. Many battles are simply battles of attrition. The longer you can take a beating or hold your breath, the more likely you are to wind up in the victory circle.

The Rich History of Open Source and Education

Monday, June 7th, 2010

I’m proud to work in the education field. Being part of a 110-year old organization that has provided services to the education world is at once a humbling and daunting task. Being involved in the new media side of things is even more daunting, as sometimes it takes a lot of work to draw out the true potential of an established company in an established field.

Still, there is a sense in which the educational world has been at the fore when it comes to technology. There are few areas in which this is as obvious as the area of open source.

Educational institutions have, historically, been hotbeds of activity for incubating open source projects. Take, for example, Free BSD and Berkeley Unix, developed initially at Berkeley. Consider GNU and the Free Software Foundation, housed at MIT. Even FileZilla, the fifth most popular download of all time on SourceForge.net, was originally developed as a university class project by Tim Kosse and two of his classmates.

This connection between open source and education goes back a couple of decades. Universities began adopting open source software in the early 1990s. it was ideal for Universities, because it was low-cost software and it let the University tech staff make small changes and tweaks. It gave Universities the kind of agility and control they wanted and needed as the Internet and the World Wide Web began to take hold as part of the Universities’ suite of services.

Now, a lot of this early open-source activity met poor ends. Many Universities argued that development and changes they made to open-source software were valuable intellectual property, and might have commercial value. This meant that much of the software produced during that time was locally developed and not shared. Without the full community of developers, then, much of the development would wind up being just sort of barely good enough. Part of the point of open source is that there are literally thousands of developers waiting to improve your product, as opposed to the one or two a University might have on staff.

As time went on, however, more and more Universities could see the value in contributing to open source. In particular, some of the most popular suites of Learning Management Software (LMS) have been developed in universities for an open source environment.

Whether you’re talking about something like FileZilla, the various LMS or the Geographic Information Systems software MapWindow GIS, most of the open source apps developed in Universities were born of necessity. Faculty and students had a need to accomplish a specific educational task, and so they designed software to handle it. By doing it in an open-source environment, today we have robust, versatile and efficient apps to aid in the task of educating young minds. In that way, the world of education has both benefited from and contributed to the open source movement.

Even with the occasional bump in the road, you’d be hard-pressed to suggest that any other field has had the kind of positive impact on open source that education has had.

TechCrunch Disrupt

Saturday, May 22nd, 2010

I’ll be at TechCrunch Disrupt and Startup Alley next week (Tuesday and Wednesday).

Should be an awesome event!

TechCrunch Disrupt is the only conference that gathers both Web innovators disrupting media and technology and also executives successfully navigating disruption to talk about turning change into opportunity.  Disrupt is for innovators in new Internet-enabled industries: social Web. Mobile computing. Real-time data. Sentiment analysis. Web targeting. Smart devices. The app ecosystem. The rise of micro-celebrity. Gaming and virtual goods. And more.

Kinda funny – Lady Gaga’s worldwide manager and digital strategist, Troy Carter, will be there to discuss new realities in content creation and distribution.

Here are some of the other speakers that will be there

Here is the link to get tickets to attend

Why Speed Isn’t the Best Indicator of Safe Driving

Monday, May 10th, 2010

If you’ve never driven a supercharged Porsche, you really don’t know what you’re missing. A Porsche is the most beautiful piece of machinery ever to hit the road, and when you’re driving one you’re in a whole other world.

I can't drive 55!Needless to say, I drive a supercharged Porsche, and I drive it fast. I have the speeding tickets to show for it, too. And I don’t drive fast because I like the danger, or even because I’m necessarily in a hurry. I drive fast because my Porsche can handle it. When I’m doing 55 MPH, it handles like most cars do at 25 MPH.

So, it dawned on me one day, as the officer was getting back into her highway patrol car, how little sense the umbrella speed limit makes. Yes, driving 55 MPH is safer in many cars than driving 85 MPH. But every car handles differently. There are some cars that shouldn’t be driven at 45 MPH, much less 85 MPH.

What’s this all go to do with tech and tech business? I think it’s a good analogy for the mistake that many businesses make in developing their products and processes. They look for that one magic number, that single quantitative upper limit, and they won’t go any further. They impose speed limits that might make sense in some circumstances, but that are completely irrelevant in others.

To be successful as an individual or as a company, you have to put umbrella quantitative analysis on the back burner. Sure, there is sometimes a single quantitative silver bullet; cruising down the highway at 150 MPH isn’t safe, Porsche or no. But we need to start from a point that, for the most part, isn’t concerned about a single silver bullet but rather a good blend of quantitative and qualitative criteria for success.

So, how do we do that? Well, we need to start looking past just simple quantitative metrics and see them in context of qualitative metrics. For example, during the process of product development, I’ve used a variety of qualitative measurements, such as web traffic trends, successful new user registrations, click-through rates and referral rates. Alongside those numbers, I’ve also looked at the micro. I’ve watched new users using the app, and asked them questions. Do they like the app? What do they struggle with? Throw in some usability studies and user polls, and you begin to build a data pool that’s both qualitative and quantitative.

It is possible to go too far, of course. You can’t rely only on qualitative measurement. Qualitative measurement has its limitations. Often, it can’t be reproduced due to natural variations, whether that’s a variation in peoples’ buying practices or whether it’s a slight developmental variance, or even the proverbial fly in the ointment. That’s why the most effective methods of business decision making use a balanced blend of both quantitative and qualitative criteria.

There are, of course, risks. When you don’t put in hard and fast limits, sometimes you’re going to pay the price. You’re going to get speeding tickets. You’re going to step on someone’s toes. You’re going to face obstacles anytime you challenge the status quo. In the end, however, the payoff is so significant that you can’t just let it pass you by.

5 Reasons Open Sourcing of Projects Makes Sense

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

The open source model isn’t just hot because it’s trendy, it’s hot because it works. Whether you’re talking about the open sourcing of software or whether you’re talking about the open sourcing of app development for the iPhone, the model really is pervasive right now.
Open Source Image

Now, you’re probably asking yourself some of the same questions I’ve asked. Why is it that open sourcing is so popular? How is it that the benefits of open sourcing seem to outweigh the associated risks? Moreover, is open sourcing the right way to go for my own projects?

While open sourcing isn’t always the answer, I can suggest to you at least a few reasons why this phenomenon is catching on, and why it can often be the way to go:

Flexibility

Open sourcing projects gives you all sorts of options. It allows you to adopt the particular components and tools that most fit your business model. Further, because the components are standardized, they’re easy to merge into your solutions. You choose the exact solutions that fit your needs. You aren’t stuck with a large, unwieldy system that has plenty of bells and whistles that you really don’t need, which is what often happens with internal project development.

Price

Open sourcing not only opens up more options for your business, it helps you save money on your projects. You get immediate and real cost benefits with open sourcing. You can focus project funds on things like implementation, training or even marketing, rather on development. Open sourcing frees up some of your internal personnel to focus their energies on other business imperatives, as well.

Price, of course, isn’t your only consideration. Sadly, many businesses look only at the bottom line, and find themselves sorely disappointed.

Innovation

Open sourcing of your projects also means that improvements are always just around the corner. You don’t have to wait weeks or months for your internal department to get around to working on a bug fix. You simply put it out there to the open source community and someone will deal with it. Because it’s not only you that wants to improve the project, you’ll find that the project takes on a life of its own, becoming truly innovative and offering choices that, had the project stayed internal, would never have been offered.

The Strength of 1,000 Plus

When you open source a project, you have access to thousands upon thousands of sharp minds working to refactor, improve, debug and patch your project. Compare this with the average development team size of a dozen. The sheer number of developers is a huge asset across the board, and is the main reason why open sourcing works so well.

Risks are Few

Open sourcing allows you to bring in these outside assets while still holding that which is most important to you – your “secret sauce” or your hot intellectual property – close to your chest. Depending on how you approach the open sourcing of your project, you can reserve a portion of the IP to yourself, or you can keep those components completely separate and bring them in on an after-the-fact basis.

How to Spur Innovation at Your Organization

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

Some organizations thrive on innovation. Younger companies, and companies that deal with bleeding-edge technologies or trends tend to make innovation a core value.

Chances are pretty good that’s not your organization. Most organizations struggle with innovation. They want to move forward with new ideas, new technologies and new platforms, but an institutional history or structure holds them back. Other companies tend to squash innovation like it’s an annoying little bug.

I’ve experienced this first hand. I’m the Director of New Media for a big company with an established past. As in, 110 years of an established past. Lucky for me, the company does have a real desire to innovate in the area of technology. They’ve just had a hard time of it up to this point.

So, here’s what I did for my organization. I’m not saying this approach will work for yours. Heck, it might even get you fired. But if your organization is going to stay competitive it’s going to have to innovate, and this process may help.

  1. Identify the problem. This was as much for my benefit as for the organization’s. We were able to get buy-in for innovative ideas at the highest levels of the company. That means when we hit organizational roadblocks down the road, we were able to go back to those executive sponsors and garner support.
  2. Create a mechanism for change. Rather than proposing specific innovations, we developed a group that would solely be responsible for incubating new and innovative technologies, tools and ideas. This group’s purpose is to identify possible technological innovations and bring them back to the specific business units. The group operates outside of the existing corporate bureaucracy, giving it a greater degree of autonomy than any departmental group might have had.
  3. Implement a change process. We didn’t leave the innovative group alone to rule the world, however. We gave them a specific roadmap. We included methodologies, such as interacting with vendors, beta testing of new technologies and involvement with conferences and trade shows, that they would use to identify new technologies.
  4. Determine the vector of change. We also gave our innovation group a specific list of technology types from which they could work. We suggested things like “Web Technologies,” “Cloud Computing” and “Delivery Platforms.” This helps to insure that the group doesn’t go rogue into bleeding-edge technological innovations when we’re struggle to even keep current.
  5. Develop an intake process. Identifying technology innovations isn’t enough, of course. We needed a way for our innovation group to bring new tech to our business units. We developed specific processes for the group to use, including reaching out proactively to various business units, and being proactive rather than reactive.

The end result has been that we’ve seen some especially useful and innovative technology implementations across the company since we started this process. Not every innovation to come out of the group has been implemented or even fully considered, but our business units now have a pool of innovations to choose from going forward.

How to Keep your Freedom in Corporate America

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

If there’s one thing that big corporations tend to have it common it’s that they’re stifling. And I don’t mean just a little bit stifling, I mean a LOT stifling. Between meaningless management-speak and org charts that look like a work of string art, you can go mad if you don’t keep your wits about you.

What makes it worse is that corporations – or at least, the middle managers in corporations that determine the day-to-day life of a company – believe that this kind of processing, this kind of bureaucracy, is the right way to get things done.

So, what happens when you take someone who’s used to working autonomously and try to plug them into the corporate assembly line? Well, you get a mess. I’m living proof of that.

I’ve been an entrepreneur in the tech field for a long time. I took my startup and built it into a successful company in under five years. After I sold off the company, I was up for a challenge. I turned, in my naiveté, to the corporate world.

I was looking for something I could sink my teeth into. I was looking for something exciting that would challenge me. Little did I know I’d be challenged, not just in my creativity, but also in winding my way through the corporate bureaucracy in order to truly innovate.

I went from running my own new/small company, to selling it to a medium-sized company, to working for a monster-sized organization that’s over a century old. That means a century of bureaucracy, a century of entrenched systems, and a century of politics. Talk about culture shock.

The problem isn’t unique to my company, of course. In fact, my company has, at its heart, a desire to innovate and encourage creativity. Any company that’s been around that long presents some serious challenges in the way of bureaucracy.

But, I’m still here. I’m doing the work, day in and day out. How do I handle being the Director of New Media in a company that has so much entrenched bureaucracy, and doesn’t intrinsically foster freedom and initiative? – That’s easy. I change the company. Along the way, I use three guiding principles to help me maintain my freedom (and sanity) working within the bureaucracy:

1. I build on institutional strengths. It’s easy to see the limitations and the useless structures at work in a 110 year-old company. In fact, some days you can get so caught up in the restraints that you miss something: there’s a reason that company has been in business for 110 years. There is something there that’s kept them successful and in the market. Figure out what that is, and put it at the core of everything you do, and you’ll find your efforts will be rewarded even if they’re unconventional.

2.  When you get scolded for thinking outside the box, redefine the box. This isn’t always easy to do, of course. But you need to be able to demonstrate how innovation and creativity have paid off in other endeavors, especially ones internal to the company. Don’t think outside the box, make a bigger one.

3.  Produce demonstrable results. You can’t argue with success. If you want to be encouraged to be creative and free, then demonstrate that you’re able to produce results because of your creativity and freedom. For any given endeavor you want to propose, include some form of metric measure its success.