Posts Tagged corporate culture
The Thought Experiment and Imagination as a Tool
Posted by Jay Morgan in applied cognition on March 22nd, 2009
Summary
I realized how I use the Thought Experiment at work to solve problems. Celebrating the thought experiment as a tool of modern science and a way to use our imaginations. The basis of this argument: Thought experiments help us figure out the consequences before we make the mistake. Using our imaginations to ask better questions transforms our intellects. This is a case for using your imagination.
What I Learned in School Today
A long time ago, in some physics or chemistry class, I was presented some work based on “thought experiments“. I can tell it wasn’t a conceptual structure that much interested me – perhaps figuring it out was secondary to the challenge of figuring out the lesson at hand. I recall when the thought experiment finally became vivid to me: While reading a book on Einstein’s life and work, I remember reading that he conjured those world-changing ideas by way of thought experiment.
A Patent Advantage
As I recall, Einstein’s early career was spent working in a patent office. As it was probably described and as I loosely imagine it, one would see many examples of conceptual illustrations by reviewing patent applications. It follows that in evaluating them, a reviewer would simulate the concept by mashing together the written description and the illustration(s). Much practice at this – for the appropriate mind – would be a growth factor or accelerator for conceptual simulations.
A Foundation for Modern Physics
My college education gave me the impression that much of modern physics is based on thought experiments. After all, how else would Michelson and Morley test the aether? Well, this is one of those things that brought me to life in a way I hadn’t been before. On the personal side was my entire life history simulating – in some combination of memory and imagination – scenarios that I could learn from. On the intellectual and pedagogical side was the wonder of how brilliant a tool they had. Thought experiments proved wonderful at crashing through mythical fabrics of non-science. I viewed this as a new justice, since it seemed those myths had held back human progress from what it could achieve. And, they were so effective because they were both supported by mathematics and useful for extending mathematics as a platform for thinking.
A Punctuated Equilibrium is our Mental Evolution
Later in life, as I pursued a 10-year program towards my bachelors and masters degrees in cognitive science, I learned that tool-making in primates is a mark of cognitive evolution. As species were pressured to adapt to new settings, they could devise tools from materials in their surroundings. (The hairless apes I call my professional brethren now call this design.) For instance, non-human primate tools might be twigs used to extract insects from plants, or rocks to crack open mollusks. I think it’s a special type of perspective to look at how cognition evolves. And, I think it’s a special type of empowerment to see the thought experiment as a recent tool we’ve come up with. There are perhaps other punctuation marks in this equilibrated narrative of human evolution, but this one is dear to me because of its degree of abstraction.
Question-driven Imagination
While many of my fellow design-oriented hairless apes think science is evil, cold, and out-moded, I love it. I fell in love with it when I realized that its modern way was to use your imagination to craft bigger problems and to crack them open with simpler solutions. Problems are really questions. They are hard questions. Sometimes they glance off your mind, only to have shaken you in a way you didn’t expect. However, they can be so massive as to be seen as witchcraft or bloviation by those who don’t understand them.
The science teachers whom I saw connecting with their students would often say that the practice of science is asking better questions. This was beautiful and inspiring to me. Of course, when I’m stuck in traffic or feeling like I dont’ have enough money to support my family, it seems trivial. But, when I think of something to teach my children that would keep them inquisitive, it is this: Ask yourself questions. Figure them out. Ask yourself harder questions. Keep figuring them out. Keep asking harder questions.
I say harder questions to mean something like ‘more sophisticated’ questions. Those teachers who had become philosophers of their practice – as the PhD is intended to mark – would describe it as asking ‘better’ questions. Better means more elegant. It’s not just about asking complex questions, but asking the most appropriate questions. The question should be well-stated. This is where I challenge my designer colleagues who despise science as a cold practice. Science is about using your imagination to hone your ability to relate to and make sense of the world to the point that you achieve the elegance of a master craftsman.
Incremental enlightenment
In design-for-hire work, we frequently encounter a benefactor whose meddling so hinders the design process that you wonder how they are even employed at all. They tend to mettle in places they should not. They tend to issue edicts when they should ask questions. However, many of our wonderful benefactors have not worked in the type of design project they have just contracted out. So, how then, can we expect them to know they should ask or tell? I’ve come to think of this as us demanding that our clients achieve enlightenment on the spot. That helps, because it points out how absurd our demand is.
We in user experience make a practice of helping companies approach their business problems from an other’s perspective. If we’re fortunate, we help them ask better questions as we earn their trust. After reading a few books about enlightenment – and, dare I say, having striven for it myself a few times, only to have the wax in my wings melt – I realize that this is a state very few humans ever achieve. So, I returned to the thought experiment as a tool by seeing that it provides an incremental enlightenment. It allows you to simulate life experiences you might not have. It allows you to simulate the story of another with yourself in the first-person.
However, it demands rigor. That is, you’re not likely to get a patent approved for a money tree, because it’s rather straightforward that they don’t exist and will not be made. There is a Scientific Method that outlines how to apply and maintain rigor. Similarly, one must be rigorous in the thought experiment. But, rigor is strengthening when most people think it is stifling. In fact, many designers who dislike science can be found to apply and demand rigor in the practice and definition(s) of design.
Why do I ask? It’s all about Consequences…
The basis of this argument: Thought experiments help us figure out the consequences before we make the mistake. Using our imaginations to ask better questions transforms our intellects. Working in UX means seeing people make mistakes because they don’t figure out the consequences. Actually, just regular social interaction in the course of a day exposes you to people making mistakes because they don’t figure out the consequences. In fact, it seems that we have whole corporate institutions and fields of business meant to prevent us from common mistakes. (And, snake oil salesmen to relieve us the grief of those same common mistakes.) I see the people I want to be around are those who have sharpened their intellects such they will figure things out before they make mistakes. It’s not about being an actuary or a priest or a professor. It is about having the respect for your practice and yourself to be as good as you can be.
It’s also about Perspective…
You see, I believe that applying user experience – by imagining and designing for user’s and not for the designer – is an exercise in performing a thought experiment similar to the one Einstein used to describe his Theory of Relativity.
Among the consequences of his thought experiment are that one realizes there is no absolute frame of reference for measuring time or velocity. I see this as translating to: There is not absolute frame of reference for measuring quality, satisfaction, effectiveness, value, or usability. (Or, any other aspect of the user experience.) And, yet, a predictable occurrence in design-for-hire relationships is that the benefactor – ahem, stakeholder – presumes his/her frame of reference as absolute. This blasphemy is made worse by the fact that the benefactor will then justify their absolution with this modifier: “If I were the user, …” Oh, yes, my dear, but you are not. And, even if and when you are, there is a host of cognitive principles illustrating that you are too biased to honestly evaluate those situations. Perspective is humbling, and it is profitable. Understanding what others need will bring you rewarding relationships – whether you want monetary or karmic rewards. I would extend that to say that enlightenment is humbling and profitable. I just don’t think there’s a good model for corporate enlightenment yet. In fact, the tone of my profession’s discourse shows that there’s not really a good model for perspective in corporations. I expect there can be good models because corporations can be treated like individuals, and there are good models for individuals to achieve perspective.
It Takes Confidence to Imagine
On the better days of being a father and a friend, I hope that I encourage people to use their imaginations. After a little while of actually trying, I see that many people don’t trust their imaginations.
In one way, I suspect that we compartmentalize our more lustful imaginings away from work – if not away from others altogether. In fact, I suspect that many people only regard their imaginations as the places where their hidden desires live, and thus the realm of the id. In another way, I suspect that people don’t trust their own minds, their own intelligences, their own cognitive abilities, to be able to figure things out.
The days I’ve enjoyed the most at work are when I’ve taken on a new situation and crafted a solution spontaneously. If it’s at all frightening, that feeling is the same as the risk of falling while rock-climbing.
We’ve all seen John Lennon’s beckoning to imagine. And, sadly, that seems to have made it passe.
The Corporate Imagination
A professional goal of mine is to run a Labs or R&D group. You see, this is where I think corporations apply their imaginations.
When I started working in UX, I noticed that some of the best products were coming out of teams that called themselves “Labs”. Or else, they came from start-ups that conceived a new solution. It were as if those were the only two (financially sanctioned) ways to apply your imagination.
The Labs-model is what I see as the way corporations can learn to use their imaginations. When I was studying science, I fully expected to graduate with a PhD and then work my way into an R&D group who was coming up with new products, new tools, new ideas, but – most important – new questions to ask.
Just reminding myself of this sparks a flame that is inspiring. I hope that as we think some old single-celled organisms absorbed smaller things we now call Mitochondria as a way to generate energy, that corporations will absorb people who have a skill at using their imaginations to ask better questions. The corporations need fuel, and we always need new tools.
Work: The Game
Posted by Jay Morgan in corporate culture on March 8th, 2009
Figuring out the Basics
I was just reading “Poker for Dummies” and was delighted at how they distilled a section of “The Basics” for a game of seemingly infinite possibilities. I thought about the authors’ history and command of the game. For instance, at what point of experience do you have such command of the game that you can write down the rules? At what point are you able to describe – with clarity – the subtleties of a game? (Of course, describing with clarity is one trick in itself!)
The Rules of the Game
This got me thinking about the ‘rules’ at work. Let’s treat work like a game, and then think about it like we’ve got to write a book about it.
I work in User Experience (UX), so I’ll favor that example here. At what point can I (will I?) be able to distill “The Basics” of UX? Beyond The Basics of UX, at what point do I have such a command of UX that I can describe the subtleties of that game? At this point in the lifetime of UX as a field, it is even difficult for many of us to agree on what the basics are.
I have worked inside and now work with large F100 corporations, too, so at what point would I expect to distill “The Basics” of my company? Our vertical industry? Or, should I assume I will be able to? After all, there are whole fields of study devoted to vertical industries. So, a better question might be ‘what basics do I need to have command of in order to succeed?’
Seeing the Field like an Athlete
The commuting of these principles is to say that I believe they all have common structure. Of course, I might have gleaned this from some applied economics and game theory, but theres more to it – a certain subtlety. It’s having a certain command of the field that gives you the vision to see multiple perspectives simultaneously. I consider that enlightenment. You might think it’s a pedestrian version of enlightenment, but it’s the difference between truly appreciating what you do and just going to work*.
Just like I wrote in “Work: The Musical“, this is about detecting the level of subconscious commitment you – or your colleagues – have to the game. If they can recite the rules, then they know the game. If they can recite the lyrics, then they know the music. It’s about shared vision, a solid understanding, a stable agreement. This level of agreement is important for team cohesion as much as it is for advancing the level of competition.
Whenever I hear sportscasters talk about athletes who “see the field”, I wonder what that mental model would be. In most cases, it’s an athlete who knows where his players are, how to get to them, where the opponents are relative to him and his players, how to avoid them, what rule limits he and his players are pushing, what rule limits his opponents are pushing, how much time he has, where he is onl the field, and perhaps a few other aspects depending on the sport. Have you ever worked with someone like that? Someone who is just an absolute marvel when performing?
When you get into a company, you realize that talent isn’t always prized above loyalty or adherence to rules. And, I think in many cases the Official Rules give things like The Basics a bad name. Playing by the rules can mean you’re weak or manipulative. However, when I think of rules, I see the game – and the field of play – as ever-changing landscapes. I see the challenge always progressing. And, at some unique points in the game, a whole new dimension appears.
Seeing the Field like a Coach
It seems that in the championship game of the season, the team who wins is the one who makes the fewest makes. The team who wins is the one who nails the basics.
Coaches bring a system for teaching, instilling, practicing, and applying the basics. Games require athleticism for performance. Of course, there are coaches who can see the field but can’t play the game to the level they can coach it. Coaching the game requires experience, perspective, and the ability to simulate possibilities and decide what to do now and next.
Who are the coaches around you? Are there any around you? Who are the champions in your mind? Who made them what they are?
While studying cognitive science, I learned that ‘expertise’ is commonly regarded in the field as being attained at ten years’ experience. I wondered how broad this was – you know, is that ten years in a field? at a task? How broad is the domain?
I soon realized that expertise comes with what you practice. While this seems like a tautology, or just simple, the brilliance of it is that we can always practice something that’s never been done before. And, then, we can become the first expert at that.
Teaching Seeing the Field
I now evaluate the people I work with as to how well they see the field. I also evaluate myself on how well I see the field. I look for people who get the basics, people who practice the basics, and people who coach others.
Working in UX means the field is largely an abstraction. Allow me to amend that to illustrate the complexity: We work in helping businesses optimize how their customers interact with them through software and websites and devices other devices with interfaces. This means that the ‘field’ for that interface to be designed is abstract, insofar as our client typically not been in this situation before. And, that the ‘field’ of this relationship between business and other people via hyperspace and bits is abstract.
I find that I am often teaching others how to see the field – even if my vision is not (yet) expert. This is a philosophical and existential challenge: To help others take an allocentric perspective. That it is to be done under the pressures of deadlines, budgets, ignorance, expertise, business-meets-technology, and hyperspace is just that much more invigorating and stressful. I must challenge others – and myself – to stretch our imaginations so that we can sense nuance in what has become routine. The routine distorts the field, and work is full of routine. Routine makes it seem as if where we stand is where everyone stands, as if our perspective is the perspective.
I find that the positive pressures in the world force me to better see the field. Even is sometimes this means being aware of things I have seen before.
From this experience, I derived a goal that will be the basis of my career path: I want my work to be teaching organizations how to make better decisions, how to be (and get) better at problem-solving. At the heart of it is seeing the field, getting the basics, and saying them with clarity.
*An advanced topic: highlighting the double entendre here. A) appreciating what _you_ do = self-centered; going to work = enlightened humility. B) appreciating what you _do_ = enlightened perspective; going to work = surrender to ignorance or self-centeredness.
Work: The Musical
Posted by Jay Morgan in corporate culture on March 1st, 2009
The Morning Sing-A-Long
You know the lyrics to some songs, right? Maybe hundreds of songs. In fact, the weekend social scene shows us that many can be intoxicated near the point of unconsciousness and still recite the lyrics to a few songs at will. You and your friends could probably sing along to songs that define your common experiences. We’ve seen subcultures grow up around genres and subgenres of music. You ever seen The Cure fans who look like Robert Smith?
So, the other day I was riding the bus to work and it occurred to me how many people – like millions – listen to songs on their way to work. Also, that those people listen to these songs all the time. That they know these songs by heart. And so, they’re going in to this job every day, too. I wonder what parts of their job they could recite at will like they could those song lyrics?
You see, the success of our work depends on how well we understand what we’re doing in a start-to-finish sort of way, and how our effort contributes to that. When I look around at my colleagues at work, I realize that across the 140 or so of us in this department*, there’s not a lot of overlap in our work. We are, as they say, siloed. Yet, there is a lot in common across our experiences at work – the pressures, the climate, the politics, the personalities, the meetings, the process.
The other day on the bus, I realized they listen to that music for a qualitative sensory experience – that is, it makes them feel better to listen to it. As they listen to it, they learn it. They learn it so well, they can sing along with it while it’s on the radio and they’re working on an intense task. Wow. That means those lyrics are engrained in their heads.
For most people commuting, they have that music driven into their minds through headphones. It’s the only thing they can hear. Usually for hours a week. Think of that Nielsen-like survey (NNR, not NNg) where they ask ‘how many hours of tv do you watch in a week?’ Well, you spend more time at work that with your family. But, what of that dogma do you memorize?
The Soundtrack of a Job
If there were a soundtrack to our jobs, what would it be? That is, if we picked real songs by real musicians, what would would we pick. Now, a separate challenge: If you scored our jobs and made our work a musical, who could sing along well at the first rehearsal? Would it be a tragedy? A comedy? Modern or Baroque? Kabuki? Make sense?
I go to to work with the express goal of making the lives of the people I work with better. I want them to be happier when they go home from work as a result of working with me. I want to make their jobs better – our jobs better – by improving the environment we work in. Of course, that means having my colleagues understand why they’re at work and what would make them individually successful and us collectively successful.
I want to set it to music. No, not make work a musical. But, I want our work, our common goals, to be so compelling that they know it by heart. I think you call that a compelling vision.
Melodic Dogma
I believe we are all part of a corporate culture – a subculture that’s not visible to most people. Some companies or workgroups have layers of subcultures.
Cultures have rituals that define them. What rituals would you make to define your corporate culture? Which ones do you already go through? I think the most common ritual I’ve been a part of is a process for a project lifecycle. But, there are finer melodies and rituals that pervade our corporate cultural expeirence: team meetings, regular reports we generate or consume, seasonal programs, internal relationships, external relationships.
I have another goal: To document and describe the facets of corporate culture, because I think understanding helps us fit into it and to fit it to us.
In a previous post about cultural software, I argued that my field of practice is a software installed into this culture. I pursue the goal of documenting understanding corporate culture because I also believe it will help us improve our situations. You might say that we have to build plug-ins, extensions, and add-ons for work. Of course, we have to improve the hardware, operating system, and runtime environment too.
*This was first drafted when I was at Target on the Interactive Marketing Platform UX Team.
Prototyping is the Way of the Future, and Confluence+Balsamiq is bringin-it
Posted by Jay Morgan in Prototyping on March 1st, 2009
The other day I was putting together a review of community software platforms for a client, when I found something that sent a shockwave through my system: Atlassian‘s Confluence enterprise wiki has a plug-in for teams to do UI mock-ups with Balsamiq. http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/plugins/balsamiq.jsp or http://www.balsamiq.com/products/mockups/confluence describes it.
An Historical Aside
I believe prototyping is the way of the future for web and software design. I bet my practice on it by setting a goal to shift my team (and company’s) practice from static page-based design to prototyping. I did this at www.jcp.com by bringing in iRise. I repeated this effort at Target by bringing in iRise there, too. However, each time the effort generated heat along with light. Pointing out that many other mature design domains – construction, engineering, automotive and aerospace vehicle design, and others – practice prototyping doesn’t quite win over those who have the pressure of due dates on them.
I find that design teams struggle with the shift to prototyping. Yes, we who see ourselves as _the_ innovative edge of the festering, bloated corporation that sustains us suffer the same fate as any other group vying for validity, promotion, funding, and attention – we resist change, even when it improves our situation. It seems, from my experience, that taking on a new practice might show the cracks of our previous/current practices. God forbid that anyone improve things, huh?
While at Target, I had the pleasure of being the project lead who launched the Target Pattern Library. Or, as they later re-branded it, the Target Interactive Framework. We chose Confluence to be the platform for our Pattern Library, and I recall one advantage was the extensive plug-in set available for the open source tool. Need a Flash player? There are plug-ins to choose from. Need to integrate it with the MS Office Suite? There are plug-ins for that, too.
The Anecdotal Fitness of Prototyping
In two different projects this past month, UI designers I work with justified their designs in a way that shows they view their assignment as crafting stand-alone pages, rather than building steps in interactive sequences. The most glaring memory I have of this is when pointing out that we should make the primary call-to-action a button, and then demote the secondary actions to links or less visually prominent button styles. Their retort was that having all calls-to-actions as buttons “gave the page balance”, as if it were a canvas upon which they had delivered aesthetic justice. Ahem.
Back at work, where we were building websites and web applications for people to use not just look at. This art-versus-design struggle illustrates a need for designing in an interactive, inherently fluid, perhaps transitory context, one that mimics that actual end state of the work.
Prototyping puts a selection pressure on design ideas. That pressure forces designers to design for the context(s) of use, rather than for an idealized context of artistry. This selection pressure forces the full project team to deal with the implications and consequences of their proposed scope of work.
Prototyping also gives a forum for the visual – if not tangible – realization of the ideas that solve the problems businesses encounter as they venture into the digital and hyperspace.
The Art and Practice of Simulation
There was a special power to iRise characterized by this experience: While at Target, I used iRise to build a prototype for their attribute-based (or faceted) navigation system. I had a meeting with the two project champions, and they were wrestling with some scenarios that seemed too complex to verbalize.
iRise has a scenario whiteboard. I used the scenario whiteboard to sketch out the scenarios they were struggling with. It took about 10 minutes of a brief Q+A for them to describe and me to sketch that scenario. Their comment, “Wow. In the past, when you guys [IAs] used Visio, it takes so long to do things that I wouldn’t have even bothered telling you.” Ouch. But, scratch the surface of that and find a difficult truth: The struggle between business and design prevents some ideas from reaching market.*
iRise calls it simulation. When you use iRise, you’re simulating the behavior of an application. iRise lets you use plug in real data and achieve high-level functionality and logic.
Balsamiq calls it mock-ups. Balsamiq is a web-based, thus shareable, tool for just roughing out a UI concept or scenario. This marries the familiar hand-crafting approach to sketching on paper with a web-based tool you can show to distant teammates or clients.
The Original Topic: Prototyping in a Corporate Context
Designing is group problem-solving. The larger the company, the more complex the problem-solving effort. After all, it’s not just solving the design problem(s) for the interface, but establishing buy-in on the project team, getting funding, seeing your proposals through to the end so that the final delivery matches what you’ve established.
The Balsamiq-Confluence mash-up created a shockwave in me because I’ve seen groups use Confluence and I can imagine, or visualize, people using Balsamiq to build mock-ups as part of their in-Confluence interactions.
Imagine the power of this combination. Confluence is a platform for bringing working groups together, documenting and sharing knowledge, enabling discussion in a wiki-style environment. This plug-in is a significant milestone: A prototyping tool embedded in a community platform.
*Sure, some business ideas shouldn’t reach the market. But, making it harder for all ideas to reach the market doesn’t improve the quality of any ideas.