Tuesday, June 27, 2017

If innovation should be fun, this should be innovative

As Glastonbury lays fallow, I'm preparing for a very different kind of festival, a festival of innovation.
A quick jump around Google will show you (ironically) there is not a lot that is either new or novel about a festival of innovation.
However, what this particular one does is focus on a series of questions that are important to the sponsors and those taking part. And in applying Design Thinking they aim to have built things (at least Minimum Viable Products) within five days.
The Northumbrian Water Group Festival of Innovation runs on a dedicated site (at Newcastle Race Course) for the week of July 10-14, 2017.
It's taking on some pretty hefty challenges - with a wide range of thinking being brought to bear (from universities, consultancies, industry and beyond) in an agile framework;

  • Sprint 1 – ‘Rain, Hail or Shine’: How can we reduce flooding? 
  • Sprint 2 – ‘Keep it flowing’: What do we know about leakage from water pipes and how can we fix it? 
  • Sprint 3 – ‘Preparing for the Future’: How do we upgrade our infrastructure for the 21st Century effectively and affordably? 
  • Sprint 4 – ‘Tomorrow’s World’: What will living and working look like in 2030?
  • Sprint 5 – ‘How Green is Your City?’: What can businesses do to improve the environment in the North East? 
  • Sprint 6 – ’21st Century Reach’: How can we optimise a mobile workforce for a complex network business?
I'm planning on being there for Wednesday evening to witness the conclusions of the process on Thursday and Friday.
The festival vibe will be enhanced with a tented village, live comedy and music and inspirational talks.
The best innovation comes from fun - the most creative sparks from clashing ideas and approaches. The Play Ethic at play.
I've been invited to blog from the event - so watch out for more here and from my twitter account (@davidcushman).

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Transformation without innovation isn't enough

When we think about the great business tasks of our time Digital Transformation is the must-do. It is often heralded as some kind of future-proofing excercise. But without innovation as both its beating heart and foundational principal, it can be little more than a retro fit.

Digital Transformation is the widescale response to Digital Disruption - ie a disruption that has happened. That disruption is often to the way people behave: People, machines and information now connect in such a way that a human behaviour has changed - ie how people consume content has been disrupted by new connections between people, machines and information. That has created new needs. To meet them is to transform to meet the needs of digital disruption.

Each strategic goal in digital transformation is therefore a response to a need created by a digital disruption.

But if you take an innovation-first approach to digital transformation, you create the space to become the disruptor.

Consider the impact of the technologies we know of today. Prepare for them to impact faster and more broadly than the web ever did. Imagine and expect the improbable.

The opportunity, for those who will understand the potential of AI and who can imagine its possibilities, is not to be digital - but to be the disruptor.




Thursday, April 06, 2017

Why robots are essential to kick-start our next age of innovation

Yamaha's Robot rider could one day end the  chore
of riding fast motorbikes... er, ok it's not all good.
There is an argument - and a well made one at that - that our era is not an age of great technological change - but actually one that is quite stagnant.

Robert J Gordon made the case in his book 'The Rise and Fall of American Growth'. He points out that the Great Inventions that caused real change arrived between 1870 and 1970.

The internal combustion engine changed the way we travel (removing the growing threat of horse manure - which experts predicted would reach 9 feet deep on London's roads by 1950 if allowed to go unchecked). It changed the way we travel much more than any subsequent improvement in performance or styling.

Urban sanitation similarly had a greater impact on our health than medical inventions of more recent years. The invention of the telegraph versus the written message carried by ship, horse and hand which preceded it is a far bigger shift than fax to email or phone to mobile.

The impact was that we got to live (US childhood mortality tumbled from 1/3 in 1860 to 1/200 today), we got to live longer, and we got more time to do with as we pleased (being liberated from household tasks such as washing clothes and preparing meals which had taken 58 hours in 1900 - and 18 in 1970).

Jesse Frederick argues in his assessment of Gordon's ideas that our blindness to the comparative stagnation of the modern era can at least be partially attributed to the fact that the technology of the past mainly created time, whereas today’s technology fills it.

Gordon, published in 2016 - sees this stagnation as permanent. Mostly because the big wins for technology have already been won. But part of the problem is for all our technology we feel as though we have less time. And time is essential for the ideas that make real change.

Enter Robots. the AI revolution and the robotics it is driving are about to answer Jesse's criticism of today's inventions. They are certainly not a technology that fills time, they will create at least 18 hours for us (finishing up the last bits of housework our inventors have failed to resolve so far - ironing, dusting, food prep and cooking, physically moving the devices about etc). The internet of things completes the picture in shopping.

Ok, an 18 hour saving isn't as great as the 40 hour leap that got us here - but this one will come in 5-10 years. The last took 70.

And we haven't even considered the saving in time AI will bring to our working (and commuting) lives. Finally, the time technology promised to free for us will actually arrive.

And yet, even for the slam-dunk win our robot friends will provide, there's an even bigger opportunity for genuine life change: How we organise is changing.

How we organise is society and society is how we live.

As I have long argued; the web enables adhoc self-forming groups to get things done. That's a fundamentally different form of organisation than preferred by 1870-1970. That era was also an era of centralisation and mass production. The next 10 years is about decentralisation and personalisation; whether it be through micro factories in every home (3D printing), the move away from public transport (driverless cars, drones) medical technologies that self diagnose and repair (nanobots) or how we learn, get justice, make contracts and exchange value (blockchain).

We will have the opportunity to live entirely unique, separated lives. But all the evidence of the world since the web is that we will use it to become closer and better connected - without the need for central organisation.

A future without centralised or top-down direction is being enabled through the technologies of this decade and the next. 

Very soon we will have the collective time to carefully consider what our future should look like and imagining how we can reach it - kick-starting the next age of innovation.

And that, when we pause to reflect on the shift from 2010 to 2030, will, I believe, provide us with a case to say we really do live in a time of not just fast, but radical change.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Why we should embrace GDPR

The General Data Protection Regulation due to come into force next May should be regarded as the biggest hint yet for companies to reshape themselves for the digital world - aligning with The 10 Principles of Open Business.

Rather than fear at the number of sticking-plasters that need to be applied to support business as usual, forward-thinking companies will be taking the hint; data ownership is no substitute for genuine relationships.

That's the real message of GDPR - stop hoarding data to exploit customers.
In fact it's very difficult to see in a post GDPR-world why any customer would choose to allow a company to retain their data unless (and they have to be transparent about this) their is a genuine and positive partnership defined in their data notices.

Of course companies can (and many should) spend time, trouble and money ensuring compliance by (for example);

  • Appointing a Data Protection Officer
  • Reviewing each and every business process to ensure data protection is designed in
  • Ensuring default privacy settings are set to high at each and every touch point
  • Making it crystal clear exactly what data is being stored about whom, for how long and for what purpose - at every relevant interface
  • Providing complete data portability - enabling users to withdraw access to all of their data and take it with them, at any point they choose,
  • Devising Data Protection Impact Assessments
  • Developing new processes to respond to requests for data and complaints about use
  • Preparing to defend your use of logarithms for the decisions they deliver and offers they make or do not make
With up to 4% of last year's global revenue at stake as a sanction, there's much sense in taking this very seriously indeed. However, much of the data storage, privacy and permissions issues become much less onerous if you shift  the nature of your relationship with customers - and in doing so your relationship with their data.

Start to think of data as less a substitute for a relationship - and more an enabler for building one through genuine engagement. 



The start point requires three simple steps:
1. Understand the role of the customer in your business: (Hint - the passive consumer no longer exists, if they ever did).
  • Where are the benefits in partnering; how far into the centre of the organisation can customers be brought
  • How do you score for trust?
  • Set a new goal state, roadmap for organisational change and supporting technology architecture
2. Why do you want to know more about your customers - what is driving you to build engagement?
  • Is it to build trust?
  • Get direct insight?
  • Get help in decision making?
  • Find savvy co-creators?
  • Deliver a better experience, better serving need?
3. Now you should devise a customer data strategy;

  • What data could be available to you – what can you learn from customer interactions? 
  • What value for third parties and customers could that generate 
  • Consider role of Decisioning (NBA)
By now you have a handle on what you want to achieve with customer data and how you are going to 'sell' that to customers in a way they will see as a fair exchange.

And that's a far better place to start from when working towards compliance with GDPR.y 2017

*This is always the case with my writing - but given the legal complexities of the GDPR I want to make it even more clear than usual - these views are mine and mine only and should not be assumed to represent those of my employer.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Big tech vendors still failing a simple CX test

I put myself in the position of customer yesterday - trying to trade with some of the leading technology companies of our time.
I tried 20 in total.

Most of these companies would claim they would at a minimum help you understand your customer. Some would claim to be leaders in improving customer experience. Yet all but one failed a very simple test. To contact them I had to fill in an online web form.

I hate online web forms with a vengeance.
To me they say: "You customer, You must do things my way if you want to trade with me."

  • They force my compliance with your data fields,
  • They mean I have no record of the correspondence (you do), not even which email or phone number I have given you (that's my data that is). 
  • They tell me what I should tell you.
  • They won't accept the realities of unstructured data. 
  • They don't allow me to send attachments. 
  • They make me act in the way you want and say only what you'll allow. 
  • They cost me time in later clarifications an email and attachment could have resolved.

As I came across example after example yesterday I understood how so many have so far still to go on the journey to putting the customer first (not customer centric, but customer as partner). The door to their businesses had been designed to serve those on the inside better than those on the outside.

It put me in mind of a restaurant I once had lunch at where I saw half of the customers turn away because the door was designed to be pushed rather than pulled open. Embarrassed customers tried the door and when it didn't work the way they expected, they turned and walked. If the proprietors reversed the door they would double their trade.

Food for thought for CX and UX designers.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

The Internet of Experience - and the role of trust


With the rise of Virtual Reality the value of experience over things increases still further.

Kevin Kelly argues we are headed for a future beyond the internet of things which becomes the internet of experiences. He explains the shift in VR as taking (for example) a gaming experience and shifting it from something we watch to something that happens to us.

Perhaps in a similar way our social platforms will shift from things we contribute to and consume content from into social environments in which experiences happen to us - from a simple conversation with a friend as if they were in the room with us, to the sharing of an immersive experience with others as we try to solve a problem, fix a date for a trip or simply enertain each other with the stories of our experiences.

Given a world of always on tracking and recording - of behaviour and of experiences, we may be able to rely on replaying the actuality of a recent experience rather than retelling the story from our recollections - complete with an overlay of stimuli to share how we felt (who knows, it could even prompt your friends' heart rate and blood pressure to fluctuate as yours had - with suitable medical constraints).

This quickly takes us into the challenges of the Experiencing Self versus the Narrative Self discussed in my recent series of posts on the Four Dimensions of Customer Experience and illustrates once again how much we must catch up in our understanding of experience in order to improve it and select which of our 'selves' we should be designing experiences for.

Even online purchases will become an immersive experience happening to you, shaped specifically for you (probably for the decision-making Narrative Self).
That experience will be available anywhere anytime, just as e-commerce has become available everywhere through the miniaturization of computing to enable access on your mobile and tablet.

VR will follow the same route - starting out as helmets, suits and gloves in specially built rooms to deliver truly immersive experiences - the equivalent of the original warehouse-sized computers of the early 70s. In time VR could be delivered by any connection to the skin - a patch under your watch perhaps - so long as we figure out a way of fooling the body's systems of perception at brain level, who needs the bulky headgear?

Instead of granting an app access to our Facebook profile we may find ourselves being asked for access to our central nervous system. Anyone asking for that is going to have to build up one helluva legacy of trust.

Looks like the Trust-focused output of the 10 Principles of Open Business is going to be relevant for a long time to come...


Wednesday, January 04, 2017

Jobs expressing humanity are safe from AI

There is so much we still have to learn about the workings of our brains (let alone our minds) that I wonder how close we really are to creating a machine capable of learning in quite the way we do.

2017 seems very likely to be the year of AI (though more likely seeing implementations of its less 'intelligent' bed fellow Deep Learning, in platfoms of Cognitive Computing.

Robert Epstein (a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California). reminds us that throughout history we have tried to understand how we think in the metaphors of the latest technological understanding. The six major ones over the past 2000 years being; spirit, humors, automota, electricity, telecommunication and finally digital.

He argues this final construction, with its language of uploads and storage and informaation processing and retrieval has given rise to an unreal view.

Instead, he states:

"As we navigate through the world, we are changed by a variety of experiences. Of special note are experiences of three types:
(1) we observe what is happening around us (other people behaving, sounds of music, instructions directed at us, words on pages, images on screens);
(2) we are exposed to the pairing of unimportant stimuli (such as sirens) with important stimuli (such as the appearance of police cars);
 
(3) we are punished or rewarded for behaving in certain ways."We become more effective in our lives if we change in ways that are consistent with these experiences – if we can now recite a poem or sing a song, if we are able to follow the instructions we are given, if we respond to the unimportant stimuli more like we do to the important stimuli, if we refrain from behaving in ways that were punished, if we behave more frequently in ways that were rewarded. 
Misleading headlines notwithstanding, no one really has the slightest idea how the brain changes after we have learned to sing a song or recite a poem. But neither the song nor the poem has been ‘stored’ in it. The brain has simply changed in an orderly way that now allows us to sing the song or recite the poem under certain conditions. 
When called on to perform, neither the song nor the poem is in any sense ‘retrieved’ from anywhere in the brain, any more than my finger movements are ‘retrieved’ when I tap my finger on my desk. We simply sing or recite – no retrieval necessary
I am interested in this for two reasons;

1) Professionally. For its impact on the weighting we should give each of The 4 Dimensions of Experience I am working on for deployment in the development of improved Customer Experience.

If we can't be sure of how the brain works we certainly can't be sure of an algorithm gathering such a complete set of data about our preferences and needs that it could make better decisions for us than we could. I don't argue that a technical replication of the brain's functions is impossible but it remains improbable while we don't know what it is we are trying to replicate. We can approximate intelligence in this respect (quite literally developing proxies for it) but we can't create a copy of it functionally.

So what does this mean for the value of the Experiencing Self (The one behind the third of my four dimensions, Sensitivity).

We can argue it remains important because our Sensitivity has been shaped by the total of our experiences (gathered by our Experiencing Self and conceivably far better stored by digital rather than patchy human means).

That Sensitivity - whether we remember how it was derived or not - is our base setting against which our Narrative Self does it's peek-end rule calculations when we recall an experience.

Therefore striving to improve experiences for the Experiencing Self (ie at each step) will still have impact on the overall experience recalled by the Narrative Self - even if the impact may not be as great as changes made at the peek and end points of the experience.

2. Philosophically. I have, for example, argued that should an algorithm be better able to know what is best for us perhaps we should let it vote for us. Or even govern us?

We have to consider what measures should be applied to 'best for us'. Algorithms could manage our calorie intake to match our output and only ever suggest the 'right' thing to do for your safety, longevity and even your sanity, But here I am using right rather than best. What the algorithm can't know - because we don't know how we do this ourselves - is how we acquire tastes and proclivities. Why some love and some hate Marmite, what we find attractive, funny, challenging, boring. An algorithm can copy the outputs but it would struggle to innovate collection of concepts that make us uniquely human.

The algorithm could learn to approximate an understanding of us (eg at its most basic, presented with object A subject 1 did not purchase, therefore offer object B next time) but this is not knowing what is best for us - it's simply learning how we have behaved in the past.

So maybe this gives us a hint about the kind of fulfilling roles which will be left for us humans when the machines are running flat-out to make all the wealth; craft, artisinal manufacture - things with limited but genuine appeal to a few (the adhoc se;f-forming groups of interest the web allows to form globally serves this well, too), art and literature, film and drama, sport and sculpture, fashion,architecture (the interesting bits) and of course the most interesting, inspired and inspiring bits of science, maths, geography, history, economics, politics and more.

Everywhere the expression of what it is to be the human you are offers an advantage, that will remain safe from the algortihm - at least until we really understand how our brains work.

FasterFuture.blogspot.com

The rate of change is so rapid it's difficult for one person to keep up to speed. Let's pool our thoughts, share our reactions and, who knows, even reach some shared conclusions worth arriving at?