Dan Lockton’s blog post announcing his PhD, ‘Design with Intent: A design pattern toolkit for environmental & social behaviour change,” is super inspiring. 

My PhD involves developing a ‘design pattern’ toolkit, called Design with Intent, to help designers create products, services and environments which influence the way people use them. The toolkit brings together techniques for understanding and changing human behaviour from a number of psychological disciplines, illustrated with examples, to enable designers to explore and apply relevant strategies to problems.

I always love keeping an eye on thinkers whose work engages with academia and industry. Like Christina Dennaoui, Leila Takayama,  Danah Boyd, Barry Brown, Laura Watts, Paco Underhill, Nicholas Nova, Julian Bleeker, Lyn Jeffery, Jane Fulton Suri, Ian Bogost, Sam Ladner, John Battelle, and  James Landay. I try to learn from their work because they draw on academic research yet communicate their thoughts without the academic jargon. 

I now have to add Don Lockton to the list!

- - - - - - -

Lately, I have been dreaming up of a visual component to my dissertation when I write it up next year after I finish my fieldwork in China. I have a collection of small books, pamphlets, guides, and materials from organizations that give me inspiration for my creation.

One of my favorite examples is Laura Watt’s ethnographic work on Orkney Islands in Scotland. We were both guest lecturing at Irina Shklovski’s seminar at IT University in Copenhagen, and Laura gave an amazing presentation about her research. In addition to her talk, she passed around a fieldwork tool kit that  created to help clients understand her research. I remember that her research was one of the first and few times (to date) where I can hear the word “innovation” and not roll my eyes. She created a beautiful book of stories and poems about possible futures of Orkney Islands and a digital booklet about the future scenarios of infrastructure.

Oh and another super cool project coming out of academic research is Reframing Mexico City, an interactive website from University of North Carolina School of Journalism and Tecnologico de Monterrey. To create part one of the scenarios on the website, UNC & TM students used data collected from UCSD Center for Comparative Immigration Studies’ (CCIS) interviews with Mexican immigrants on how they crossed the border into the US (research led by Leah Muse-Orlinoff). Data from the interviews were used to convey the perils and experiences of clandestine border crossing in Tijuana, Tecate, and Sasabe. Then users on the website actually have the opportunity to experience the border crossing - they get to “make decisions about where they would like to cross, how much they want to pay a coyote, and what to do when confronted with certain obstacles such as apprehension by the border patrol, extreme climatic conditions, and injury.” This is an excellent example of how academic research can be turned into story-telling and creating empathetic experiences.

Well, now I get to add Lockton’s toolkit to my collection! He (and David Harrison, Neville A. Stanton) created a wiki for the toolkit where you can download the cards and purchase a set.

Reading his dissertation summary reminds me of all the educational toolkits that I created for workshop that I led before I started my PhD. (I created conferences and workshop for educators on how to incorporate popular culture like hip-hop into educational curricula, and how to use new media in after-school programs in low-income communities.)

While my dissertation is vastly different from Lockton’s and making a toolkit does not make sense (at least for now), it’s inspiring to see how it could be done. It makes me excited to figure out the appropriate tools to create when it comes to my dissertation!

- - - - - - -

Aside from creating a lovely tangible set of materials, Lockton’s dissertation has intellectual teeth.  His primary research questions is:

Can industrial designers use the Design with Intent toolkit to apply insights from other disciplines (psychology, ergonomics, architecture, human-computer interaction, behavioural economics) to generate novel, realistic design concepts, addressing briefs on influencing user behaviour, primarily to reduce the environmental impact of technology use, but also in other social benefit contexts?

One field to add to the disciplines that he’s mentioned is Sociology! While psychology helps you understand beliefs that influence user behavior from an individual’s point of view, sociology takes a more meta approach by situating beliefs that influence the user from a communal point of view.

Drawing on sociology would compliment Lockton’s last section that seeks to understand designers’ and users’ mental models about technological systems.  Sociological research on culture and group interaction can be incredibly useful to answering how mental models affect designers. Mental models are culturally grounded. As such, one has to understand the broader context of the society that that the designer AND user is embedded in to really get at this question.

Now I already anticipate some academic purists arguing that Lockton’s dissertation is super normative  - he’s explicitly trying to change user behavior, or that his work is too subjective - like creating his own index of measurement for his own products, or that it just isn’t academic to do a dissertation on something that one invented for industry use. But that’s really not fair to say this. Physicists, geneticists, or educators come up with their theories or ideas all the time and test it out with their dissertation. And just because research is normative form the get-go doesn’t mean that this isn’t legitimate academic research. Lockton is explicit in his research questions, and I think that is most important. Whereas many of academic research is hidden in super jargony language that is trying to prove something they already believe in, but hiding it under the cloak of reflexivity. Reflexivity is a mirage (according to Mike Lynch).

Thank you to Mark Vanderbeeken for tweeting & blogging about this!

Tesco’s Homeplus Virtual Subway Store in South Korea is a great example of how to create a service based on existing user practices, rituals, and needs.

Behind the accessible yet super advertising-agency language of this marketing video is an example of great ethnography! (ignore their subjective claims that South Koreans are the 2nd hardest working people in the world- forgive Chiel - they are a marketing agency!)

Tesco’s advertising company, Chiel, observed existing user interactions and feelings around grocery stores. They took into account that South Korea is one of the most digitally wired and smartphone saturated phones in the world. They also noted user’s everyday transportation experience.

Based on their observations and understanding of real world context, they came up with the virtual subway store that only requires the use of a smartphone. 

What I love about this innovative service is that it doesn’t introduce too many contingencies or new practices.

1. There aren’t any infrastructural contingencies around digital literacy or hardware issues - smartphone penetration is super high and mobile signal is consistent and widespread under- and above-ground.  

2. Homeplus is also being introduced into an existing ritual - the morning and post-work subway commute.

• Part of this is ritual physical- the action of going to the subway and waiting for the subway is familiar.
• Part of this ritual is digital - the continuous browsing on one’s mobile while waiting and riding the train.
• Another part of this ritual is mental - the accounting of daily tasks that need to get done like buying more toilet paper or eggs. Urban and working South Koreans already in these physical, digital, and mental activities.

3. There are already high levels of trust in online shopping in South Korea - so introducing this virtual service is something that complements beliefs about the internet.

A new contingency that comes to my mind is the delivery of the items - like people need to get used to the practice of arranging delivery. Like working out what time the products are delivered and how to time the delivery so that you get your items when you come home from your commute. But delivery issues can be solved relatively easily on the back end by working out database and coordination issues and building in flexibility for the user. Delivery is not a big cultural or mental contingency in this context.

The most difficult services/products to introduce are ones that require cultural or mental pivots along with new practices. If Tesco were to introduce the virtual service in a country with high bandwidth penetration but low trust in online shopping, then they are running up against a perception issue - that the internet is good for many activities, but not shopping.

Another outstanding aspect to note is that this service may not have been created if the designers didn’t take into account existing transportation patterns. If Chiel only did their observations inside the grocery store or inside a home, they wouldn’t have realized the potential for creating a service inside the subway - an everyday space. But now this everyday space has a new and exciting activity - shopping! This interaction in this space becomes more rich and complex. The subway space isn’t just a transportation, people watching, or casual gaming space, it is a consumption space now - thus introducing consumption desires into this activity.

The success of Homeplus fulfills the qualities that are critical for a seamless user experience - SUD: Simple, Usable, and Desirable

I want to comment a bit on desireability. Dan Lockton’s research on how architecture influences user behavior introduced me an urban planning concept of “desire paths,” that users create natural paths in their physical surroundings based on what works for them. Lockton points to Myhill (2004) who suggests that ““[a]n optimal way to design pathways in accordance with natural human behaviour, is to not design them at all.”

Myhill argues that companies who design products should allow for desire paths to emerge out of the user, not the designer. The company should them keep an eye on the desire paths and make adjustments or features based on these emergent paths. Myhill says that companies who do this will successfully fulfill the ‘Normanian Natural Selection,” a theory from Don Norman that people always interact naturally with objects and spaces in their everyday life.

Applying “desire paths” to Homeplus virtual grocery stores, could the appeal and success of it be partly based on that the system allows for users to create symbolic  “desire paths”? It would be so fascinating to do some ethnography to see how over the next few years, Homeplus calibrates their service to allow for users to create desire paths - because this keeps this service flexible for the user!  What kind of desire paths will emerge out of this service?

I ask these questions about desire paths with my fieldwork in China in mind - because I’m thinking about how youth and migrants are using social media to create symbolic desire paths to get to the information they need. But more on that in another post!

——-

I would bet Chiel included South Koreans on the design team. I know this may sound like the obvious - but MANY companies that hire design firms to create products/services for them DO NOT include local ethnographers/designers on the project. So while the design ideas they create may be amazing (or totally unimpressive), they may not be grounded in existing social practices. Or what happens is that companies will hire a local ethnographer or expert, but they don’t allow the local ethnographer to be in a position of power that is equal to other team members, so the local expert’s suggestions often get sidelined.

Thank you to Charlotte Yong San Gullach Büttrich for sharing this with me on Google+!

(video via Recklessnutter)

I met human-robotics interaction researcher, Leila Takayama, in Palo Alto over yummy Korean food when I was working with Nokia. She is truly awesome.  Leila is a prolific researcher who is truly committed to her furthering intellectual dialogue between private and academic sector.

And plus - we both think James Landay gives great advice : )

reblogged via Pasta & Vinegar:

“What are 5 things all designers should know?

1. People respond to many interactive technologies in ways that they respond to people, even when they won’t admit it or can’t recognize it. (See: The Media Equation)

2. There is often a gap between how people reflectively talk about an interactive product and what they actually do in the moment of interacting with that product. Know which of those matters to you.

3. What is perceived can be more important what is objectively true when it comes to how people embrace and engage with interactive objects.

4. It really does not take much for an interactive product to seem like it has its own agency and apparent intentions. (See: Heider & Simmel demonstrations) 5. Under promise and over deliver on user expectations.“

For a long time, I’ve wanted to understand how ethnographically driven research is different from market research.  While I intuitively understood the differences between the two, I didn’t take the time to fully sort it out.

I finally found someone who not only clearly explains the differences, but provides greater clarity and depth to my understanding of design research.

I love the way Panthea Lee of reBoot  contrasts market research and design research in, Design Research: What Is It and Why Do It? Panthea explains that the primary difference is that market research treats people as consumers - wage earners with an income to dispose on a product or service, while design research treats people as users  - humans who are trying to fulfill everyday needs through what means they see as possible.

“Market research identifies and acts upon optimal market and consumer leverage points to achieve success. Its definition of success is not absolute, though metrics are often financial. Design research, on the other hand, is founded in the belief that we already know the optimal market and consumer leverage points: human needs. Unearthing and satisfying those needs is thus the surest measure of success. Through this process, we earn people’s respect and loyalty.”

Panthea’s essay doesn’t put a value judgement on market research, rather it makes the boundaries between both types of research more explicit. This clarity allows researchers the space to be explicit about when they are wearing the market research or the design research hat. Sometimes a project needs to be considered from a market and a design perspective. So this is when this chart below becomes super useful!

Reading Panthea’s essay gave me an “AHA” moment - it’s a rare brain moment when you discover a new theory or a new thinker or a new perspective.  Before reading her essay, everything was messy in my head - it kinda looked like this below - lots of circles with appendages and overlapping fields:

These are all the fields that have influenced my research interests.

• Sociology - theory, community, intra-personal communication, class, power, digital divide, network society, mobility, cultural studies, geography, communication, new media, migration, cities, digital divide, class
• Ethnography - Anthropology, methods, follow the object, stories
• Human Computer Interaction (HCI) - Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Ubicomp, ethnomethdology, psychology,
• Design Thinking: Technology Usability, Business feasibility, Human Values, User Experience, products, services, design
• User Experience - professional work, testing, focus groups, design
• Market Research - consumers, trends, predictions, advertising, brands, personas

But something was missing. I couldn’t figure out how to connect my sociological and design interests to my previous work as a community organizer and digital media consultant with low-income communities. I came across public sociology and ICT4D, but those didn’t make things more clear.

But I get it now! I understood how my ethnographic skills, theoretical interests, and social passion intersect at the nexus of design research! I want to respond to people’s needs, not just a company’s needs or even intellectual/theoretical needs.  Design research doesn’t exclude market or intellectual research, it simply prioritizes the user’s needs first and foremost. As the co-founder, Zac Brisson says in Why Services?:

At Reboot, we like theory — sociopolitical, socioeconomic, you name it — as much as the next social enterprise. But we are also practitioners, working hand-in-hand with governments, international organizations, non-profits, and the private sector on realizing social change. We understand and support the role of advocacy and policy — some of us still bear battle scars from past lives in these arenas — but as an organization, we are more concerned with the moments where the rubber meets the road. With those tangible points where outcomes are made.

Hence our fixation on creating better services.

From what I’ve seen of reBoot’s projects, they involve technology, but they don’t seem to do this at the expense of the users. In my own research on social uses of technology, I am super critical of institutional or programmatic efforts that priortize the technology over users or that treat technology as the magical solution. Panthea also shares a similar view. In an article about ReBoot, ‘Iterate, iterate, iterate’: Reboot re-thinks social service delivery through design,” she says:

“There is greater power in citizens’ hands right now, as a result of changes in technology over the past couple of decades. I think the challenge is – you have one group who wants technology as the solution, as a silver bullet. One of the hardest parts about what we do is trying to talk people away from technology as a default. There’s a lot of talk around ICT4D – information and communications technology for development. Technology becomes central to programming. We’re trying to talk people away from that.”

I couldn’t agree with Panthea more on the point she made.

A common theme on Cultural Bytes is my critique of any ICT4D-like efforts because it doesn’t go far enough in prioritizing users’ culture or needs. There is a lot of money in programs that propose technological solutions and it is difficult to ask people to consider to step back when their mind is already set or when donors have already committed millions in funding. What’s sad is that so much money is wasted on developing technologies without the user in mind or with misleading assumptions about their needs. A thoroughly authentic implementation of design research approach would help prevent this from happening.

Some other reasons why I love design research:

1.) absolutely cares about users to the core with great compassion and working with them to develop real-world services to implement
2.) values research - deep research - qual and quant
3.) values spending time on analysing the data to develop insights
4.) creates concrete services to test out of research - output is actionable
5.) puts in time to builds testing into their process but doesn’t waste time in ongoing testing, create what Panthea calls “evidence-based decision-making
6.) projects are tied to evaluation that is based on user fulfillment
7.) prioritizes listening before doing

I’m really excited to think about how to use design research for my personal goals of

• wanting to work alongside  low-income/marginalized communities to create the lives they want to live
• bringing more compassion and awareness for their everyday lives

So design research is a new topic that I will be blogging about on Cultural Bytes! yahh to new ideas! And big thanks to David Sasaki for blogging about reBoot in his blogpost,  [Youth Unemployment] What Mexico and the USA Can Learn from Austria. I am beyond happiness to find such a smart, considerate, and compassionate organization.

You can read more about reBoot and follow the co-founders on twitter:  Panthea Lee, Zac Brisson

I love moleskin. I love its deep respect for user creativity.

The blank black leather cover whispers to the notebook owner,

“I trust you with this empty space to do what you need to do with it, just promise to carry me with you wherever you go. “

And its owners are loyal to Moleskin because of this message. Someone could put lots of stickers or someone could just tape their name on the cover or just leave it empty and allow time to wear its way in. It’s the tool for the mobile -  from wanderers to ponderers to thinkers to writers to programmers to storytellers and creators.

It’s not demanding or loud, but it’s not dull or passive. It sits there, comfortable in being opened or closed, knowing that eventually the idea from you will come. Its thick paper weight can bear the erasing, the constant revisions. The pen can scribble over words with great stress without burning onto the next page. This is the beauty of quality paper - the paper allows the ink to sink in without fading over the years. It holds ideas in process and it allows you to return to them. Ideas take years to work through, and the moleskin has been designed for this.

Moleskin has expanded into a new product line - bags, pencils, and book lights. (I must admit that I am excited to buy their book light even though I haven’t seen it yet! ) This new line speaks to their attentiveness to designing auxiliary supplements for the moleskin eco-system. The social life of a moleskin now has more texture than ever. Moleskins are no longer just limited to Muji writing tools; it can now have friends of its own kind.

Speaking about the new product line, Maria Sebregondi from Moleskin says:

“The idea has always been to put the notebook in the center of the galaxy, a system of nomadic objects related to contemporary lifestyle and technologies.”

She goes on to say that the

“Moleskine is a cultural icon. It is not a simple notebook, and it is not a commodity, but a free platform for creativity.”

If we look beyond the branding jargon - because let’s not kid ourselves, it’s a commodity and we don’t need to get Marxian now - what’s lovely about this statement is that it reminds us to see our daily objects as cultural.  The moleskin for creative and professional community signifies creativity - physically and symbolically.

So what digital tools are cultural icons now?  iphone and ipod, and very soon the ipad will become one if not already. The Apple design philosophy in many ways mirrors Moleskin’s design values: Anonymity, Simplicity, Desirability, and Usability.

So I’m wondering out loud - in our mobile society, cellphones are at the center of our entire social worlds. What kind of nomadic objects can be designed to support the cultural centrality of cellphones to our lives?

This question would be vastly different if instead of cultural centrality, I said practical centrality. If designing for practical centrality, I would think about mobile banking, distance education, digital health, battery longevity or e-governance. 

But if we’re designing for the cultural centrality, I think about games, the physical extensions of cellphones, its role in relationships, identity, social settings, physical places or creative uses.

Just thinking out loud for project ideas after 4 months of being offline and doing fieldwork in China (I’ve been blogging about it on Bytes of China). I’ve only been offline for 4 months and it feels like I will never catch up on all the news & blogs that I missed! How could I have just found out about Molekin’s new line!  I can’t wait to buy the Moleskin book light - I’m such a sucker for these kinds of commodities!

Trees are like people - we all need strong ties (non-sociology talk = friendships) wherever we are - it makes life easier. Digital tools & social media are one way we manage those ties.

The most practical thing that Graduate student Kevin Beiler can do now is create a social network for his douglas fir trees and call it FIRiendsters! HAHA YES I’m so funny!

kenyatta:

Research finds that Douglas fir trees are networked, communicate and share resources 

Graduate student Kevin Beiler has found that all trees in dry interior Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca) forests are interconnected, with the largest, oldest trees serving as hubs, much like the hub of a spoked wheel, where younger trees establish within the mycorrhizal network of the old trees.

Through careful experimentation, recent graduate Francois Teste determined that survival of these establishing trees was greatly enhanced when they were linked into the network of the old trees. Through the use of stable isotope tracers, he and Amanda Schoonmaker, a recent undergraduate student in Forestry, found that increased survival was associated with below ground transfer of carbon, nitrogen and water from the old trees. 

via Abject

Thoughts on Kevin Slavin’s Talk on how Algorithms are Shaping Culture: Quasi-Objects with Agency

I just watched my favorite TED talk of all time from Kevin Slavin on how algorithms are changing our world. His talk got me thinking about how algorithms created by humans infleunce tastes, desires, and consumption patterns. He argues that we’re creating algorithms to run machinese that even humans don’t understand.

So what happens next? What do we we do when we know that we’re designing stuff that is increasingly difficult to manage? How do we stop the algorithms from attacking! :)

I am not an algorithmic determinist and I don’t think Slavin is either, but what his story illustrates are the subtle but serious ways that our need for fast computation of data is changing what we build in order to fulfill this need.

And yes of course we’ve always been reshaping the world for our information needs from the postal system to the telegraph and the printing industry. But Kevin’s point is that the scale and speed of algorithmic effects on a grand and granular level is unprecedented.

Though, what we have to keep in mind is that algorithms are programmed by people. So with the example that Slavin gave in his talk of algorithms going rogue - my initial thoughts are that it’s not the algorithms themselves that are bad, but it’s the cultural assumptions that programmers make when creating algorithms to carry out a design or function that turns out to be bad. And even more so, it’s the actual culture in which the programmers are embedded in that allows such assumptions to be made in the first place.

One way to counter such a culture is a to bring more awareness in a specific industry that relies on algorithms. So if we work with the elevator example in Slavin’s talk, that means designers of algorithmically controlled elevators need to conduct user tests. User experience tests would show that elevator riders are freaked out without a “stop” button. With the stock market examples,  we need more expert oversight and analysis of the financial industry that depends on algorithmic trading. And this oversight needs to come from an organization or individual with power to act upon the financial industry.

Now I think many social scientists watching Kevin’s talk would claim that he is being a techno-critic, someone who only speaks of the dark horrors of technology. Or they would claim that he is being a techno-determinist, someone who overly atttributes power to technology instead of humans.   But I don’t think neither are the case. The heart of Slavin’s talk, to me, is story about the deep interdependence of objects and human beings. We create technology that we increasingly don’t understand and don’t always know how to stop. We see this happening throughout history.

• The nuclear bomb - we made it - but we still don’t know how to completely stop it now that the knowledge is in many hands.
• The cotton gin  - the cotton gin was seen as a technological feat at the time, but  it created a greater dependency on cotton exports and thus perpetuating slavery in the US.
• Guns - guns have killed millions of people and in America we still don’t know how to stop the use of it.
• Fire  - humans discovered how to make fires and til this day there are still human-made fire accidents that burn out of control.

This list could go on. The point is that Kevin’s talk speaks to the historical interaction that has been part and parcel to the existence of human beings - humans have created technology that ends up out of our control and now algorithms are the latest example.

And this new kind of nature, algorithms, stands outside of the subject-object binary. Slavin’s analysis of the how the entire algorithm trading industry is changing the layout of NYC city is a brilliant example of how algorithms are not a passive object without agency. This quote below from Bruno Latour illustrates this point:

“For the thing we are looking at is not a human thing, nor is it an inhuman thing. It offers, rather a continuous passage, a commerce, an interchange, between what humans inscribe in it and what it prescribes to humans […] What should it be called neither object nor subject. An instituted object, quasi-object, quasi-subject, a thing that possesses body and soul indissociably.”

So yes, algorithms do have agency on some level. In thinking about algorithms as quasi-objects, they are not purely logical formulas. They are built by humans, executed by humans, and interpreted by humans. What sets human beings apart from robots and animals is that we engage is symbolic behavior and thinking. Symbolic thinking is what makes us crazy but what also makes us human. So the beauty of Kevin’s talk is that he shows us that algorithms are the very cultural products of humans - there very existence speaks to what makes humans special - algorithms are symbolic if you can look beyond the logics of the formula. This makes algorithms very beautiful and scary. In a previous iteration of this talk, he said that

“algorithms feel like truth because they’re made out of math, but every one of them is just an idea that someone had, some hypothesis about the world.”

His talk speaks to the heart of why I created Cultural Bytes - to talk about how technology and culture are in an ongoing dance with each other.

“Algorithms are the physics of culture.” “and now there is a 3rd co-evolutionary force the algorithms, we’re going to have to understand them as nature, and in a way they are.” Kevin Slavin, TED, 2011

________________

And BTW Kevin’s talk and Bobby McFerris’s hacking of our brains with the pentatonic scale are now my most favoritists of all universal favorite TED talks. Both of them are able to cut through the stuffiness and at times entitled feeling that TED talks gives off. They both speak to their craft in the most sincere way that reaches out to you even if you’re not in the audience - Kevin’s is storytelling and Bobby’s is creating music.

___________________________

UPDATE: I jut found this really lovely quote on algorithms from one of my fave blogs, Modern and Im/MAterial Things by Christina  Dennaou. I’ve bolded the part that I think is relevant to Slavin’s talk.

 Algorithms are made to restrict the amount of information the user sees—that’s their raison d’être. By drawing on data about the world we live in, they end up reinforcing whatever societal values happen to be dominant, without our even noticing. They are normativity made into code—albeit a code that we barely understand, even as it shapes our lives.

We’re not going to stop using algorithms. They’re too useful. But we need to be more aware of the algorithmic perversity that’s creeping into our lives. The short-term fit of a dating match or a Web page doesn’t measure the long-term value it may hold. Statistically likely does not mean correct, or just, or fair. Google-generated kadosh is meretricious, offering a desiccated kind of choice. It’s when people deviate from what we predict they’ll do that they prove they are individuals, set apart from all others of the human type.

_______________________

UPDATE Sept. 15th, 2011 - Kevin and his TED talk star in Apple’s latest Ipad ad!

(Source: youtube.com)

We are living in a data obsessed period from open data movements to the data visualization craze.  There is a sense that if only we had access to more data, then we could analyze the data and then make rational deicisons. But we forget that data itself is never just pure or neutral data, nor is the representation or the interaction with it.

We are also living in a design renaissance. But there is discourse in the design community that good design alone can save people. Designers like Bruce Mau preach about the wonders of design methods in saving poor people in developing countries. I was at talk where Mau actually made the claim that design was going to save the country of Guatamala with his Guatemala project…no kidding.

I personally think there is a middle road to everything - we need solid data and we need thoughtful design, but we also need nuanced thinkers who can find the balance in these two in creating relevant services and products. James Landay is one of those thinkers who understands the need to have a balance of data and design.

In his latest post, Are we becoming too analytical? , he questions whether over-analysis of data gets in the way of designing a product that truly understands the needs of its users. He provides several examples of when the data needs trumped design and user needs, which then results in “Product Failure Due to Over Reliance on Self Data Analysis”

Jame’s article illustrates that the visions for data analysis and design can be complimentary:

A balance between analytical approaches to design (e.g., computer science, data mining, and quantitative HCI experimentation) and more design-oriented approaches that are good at creating products that make an emotional impact on people and create a desire to own them.

His article is worth reading in its entirety and he also provides good examples of projects that were led with well-thought out intentions but misleading assumptions about users.

From the beginning, IBM had a concept of itself as an institution, not just a technology company.

I read this quote by Rosabeth Moss Kanter in “1100100 and counting,” an article in The Economist about IBM’s success.

Kanter wrote SuperCorps, a book about successful companies.

I really love this quote because it reflects exactly what I love about the intersection of culture, technology, and business. How a company views themselves, their own identity and their own purpose, has RADICAL effects on how they build technology and build relationships with customers to sell the technology.

Kanter’s quote is essentially saying that culture matters - beliefs matter - and they matter because they determine your growth strategy and they contribute to how you innovate.

This is not to say that institutions are can be incredibly un-innovative and ingrained in irrelevant practices that the market no longer supports, but the larger point here is that longevity is part of IBM’s culture and by seeing itself as an institution it focused its resources on building out its legacy by staying relevant to the technology market.

The question now is which of the technology companies today will become institutions 100 years from now?