Autocatalysis is the last of the four themes comprising Conversation (the first concept of the Ontology Of Participation). Shared conversations become the fuel for further conversations, initiating a self-replicating process that ensures the preservation of the activity.

This idea of autocatalysis comes from biology, but is an interesting application in the context of participation. Stuart Kauffman explains it from a biological perspective:

In comparison, conversations with a product (artifact, service, system, environment) can grow to a point that they self-replicate, initiating a community.

For instance, Smart Mobs (similar to Flash Mobs, which I talked about in a previous post) exist when individuals gather in a specific place, typically a political rally or protest, and utilize mobile technology to coordinate efforts. When conflict arises during these events, individuals can use their mobile phones to share information about the movement of authorities to avoid capture. The situation in which these events occur, in combination with the available technology and the mindset of the people present, serve as catalysts for the Smart Mob behavior. The coexistence of all of these factors causes the behavior to replicate itself to the point that the actions of the technologically linked mob take on a life of its own, almost becoming a living organism.

[WTO protests 10 (Battle of Seattle) from djbones on flickr] For example, consider the Smart Mob example in Howard Rheingold's book by the same name. In 1999, demonstrators protesting the World Trade Organization (WTO), used mobile phones, text messaging, and websites to elude authorities in what came to be known as the "Battle of Seattle." According to the report Black Flag Over Seattle, by Paul de Armond (via Smart Mobs, 2003, by Howard Rheingold — page 161):

The report further states:

As you can see in this example, the coordinated efforts of the demonstrators led to a Smart Mob that fed on itself, taking on a life of it's own.

Force is the third of the four themes comprising Conversation (the first concept of the Ontology Of Participation). The force of Conversation happens when an increasing number of people involved in adaptive behaviors exert a force that may trigger a community (the primordial goo of adaptive enterprises).

For example, the introduction of blogging software enabled motivated individuals to share their thoughts with large audiences without any expertise in formatting content for publication on the web (previously a requirement). Content was easily produced, which ignited a trend and brought greater quantities of people into the activity. Like-minded bloggers soon connected with one another via comments on each others posts, trackback links, and the blogroll. Eventually, bloggers convened in the real world at blogger-specific conferences (BloggerCon, BlogHer, Wine Bloggers, etc.). Not only was the convergence of bloggers inevitable, but a tension with mainstream media emerged (e.g., Rathergate). While a battle between traditional and participative media wages on, the lines between the two are just beginning to blur. Today, 'the media' is enamored with tools like Facebook (see Rick Sanchez of CNN) and Twitter (as usual, the Daily Show nails it) as well as implementing their own (NYTimes blogs, CNN iReports).

[Apple Newton from brianmadden.com by Brian Madden] One of the most fascinating examples centers on an Apple product, but not one you might think. It's actually the Apple Newton (Apple's mid 1990s PDA). While the Newton was shelved in the late 90s, a small but vibrant group of individuals kept using the device. As support from the manufacturer dwindled, users began servicing the device on their own. Eventually, a community formed: enter NewtonTalk. This community has kept the Newton alive for nearly a decade. They've kept third party applications working, created replacement hardware components, and even developed an emulation that enables the Newton Operating system to run on different devices. I'll post more on NewtonTalk later as an example of Hard Hacking & Soft Hacking.

Expectation is the next of the four themes comprising Conversation (the first concept of the Ontology Of Participation). Certain functional qualities of a product allow for it to be used in a familiar way, but to achieve an unexpected outcome (the intended use of some products is broad enough to allow for flexibility in its use).

For instance, communication technology (telephone) has permeated our lives for several decades now. Its purpose is to allow us to communicate with people we know, or intend to know. The emergence of mobile phone technology has sparked fascinating behaviors in many societies. Specifically, I'm referring to the Flash Mob. I talked about this previously when I described Group Assembly. Individuals participating in FlashMobs utilize communication technologies the way they are intended — to communicate with other people — but what's different here is that the technology is used to communicate with people they don't know. It's this use that is unexpected.

[Macy's "love rug" Flash Mob in 2003 from Satan's Laundromat by Mike] For example, one of the first flash mobs occurred at a Macy's in Manhattan in June of 2003. The crowd was coordinated using text messages, email, and blogs. The expectation for using text messages and email is to communicate with people you know, but in this case the communication occurred among strangers (unexpected). Nearly 100 people gathered around a $10,000 rug. If asked by a store employee if they needed assistance, were instructed to say they all lived together in a 'free-love commune' and were looking to purchase a 'love rug' but they always shopped together as a group (see this great article on Flash Mobs, Flash! Mobs in the Age of Mobile Connectivity, by Judith A. Nicholson).

Again, this is an example of using a product (mobile phone and email) in an expected way (communication) to achieve an unexpected outcome (coordinate strangers to gather and act in a coordinated way).

Intention is the first of four themes comprising Conversation (the first concept of the Ontology Of Participation). During the design and creation of a product, certain considerations are made that influence its final outcome. Some are specifically related to the product itself (interface affordances, shapes of buttons, functionality, outcomes of a service, etc.), some are the enterprise's needs (cost break even, profit, governance, competitive advantage, etc.), and others processes from which the product is realized (ethnographic research findings, identified customer needs, flexibility of materials or technologies used, etc.). These considerations make up the characteristics of the product and define how it will be used once in the hands of the customer. As products (or services, systems, environments) are designed to solve problems, satisfy needs, or encourage behaviors, designers embody within the form of the product the intention for its use.

For example, consider the Apple iPod. (Note: I acknowledge that Apple examples can get tired. That being said, I'm using Apple here for two reasons. First, because I originally used this example back in 2003 before Apple examples were tired. Second, Apple is always an example because they get so many things right. Going forward, I'll do my best to use fewer Apple examples.)
[First Generation iPod from Engadget via iPod Republic]The first iPod was meant to be an MP3 digital music player. Songs were to be downloaded only from a Macintosh computer and the player would serve as a portable device to listen to music. While the original functionality was simple, its goals were also simple: store and play digital music. That's it. (Obviously, today's iPod is much more robust, but the first iPods were far more simple. Check out this history of iPod and iTunes functionality.) Of course, aesthetics and other sub-cultural attributes (i.e., die-hard Mac fans) play a significant role in how products are treated. It's all of these attributes that likely acted as a key motivator for individuals to choose the iPod as the hub for participative behavior on the part of the early adoopters.

From a functional standpoint, alternative uses were not Apple’s intention. Shortly after its release, some owners began to analyze how the device worked at the software level and envisioned other uses it might serve. Individually, people began to create their own applications for the device, such as a tool for synchronizing the iPod with a computer running Microsoft Windows. EphPod was one of the first applications launched that provided this functionality by tricking the iPod into thinking it was connected to a Macintosh mounted drive. Native Windows connectivity wouldn't come to the iPod until almost a year later (using Yahoo! MusicMatch) and a Windows version of iTunes wouldn't come until a year and a half after the original launch. The adapting enterprises brought the desired functionality long before Apple (originating enterprise).

The specific functionality that Apple planned to offer for the iPod was not initially clear. Regardless, nothing in their public placement and branding indicated that the iPod was to be used in this way. The adopters of this product took it upon themselves to enhance its functionality.

The possibilities of the first iPod, coupled with its aesthetics and cultural heritage, fostered intention for its owners to push its functionality into new design spaces.

The first concept of the Ontology Of Participation is Conversation: Individuals interact with things in a more meaningful way — they have a conversation with products — extending them beyond the utility for which they were created and into new design spaces.

Conversation with a product occurs when an individual uses it in a manner inconsistent with the specifications intended by the originating enterprise. Rather than the product being a completed part of the world, the world is becoming part of the product. As meaningful participation with the product begins, the conversation leads to the realization of new possibilities. And as a person’s interaction with the product breeches its predefined role in utility, it takes on human-like characteristics, almost exhibiting a life of its own. The interaction becomes more sophisticated, much like face-to-face communication. Conversation is the starting point of the adapting enterprise — many people may be engaged in conversation with a product, but those individuals haven't combined forces yet.

The following themes describe the characteristics of the conversational aspects of this elevated interaction.

[Conversation from Adoption, Participation, And The Propagation Of Design Continuities by Brian Haven]Intention: The functional characteristics and brand identity embodied in a product define how it will be used.

Expectation: Some functional qualities of a product let it to be used in a familiar way, but to achieve an unexpected outcome.

Force: An increasing number of people involved in adaptive behaviors exerts a force that may trigger a community (the primordial goo of adaptive enterprises).

Autocatalysis: Shared conversations become the fuel for further conversations, initiating a self-replicating process that ensures the preservation of the activity.

I'll break these themes down with examples over the next several days.

Members of adapting enterprises pursue engaging and meaningful interactions that embody a special kind of participation. As the behaviors of these communities continue to emerge and become more common, their impact on products, and on the design practice itself, will be significant. It’s critical for both the originating enterprises and the design discipline to be aware of the people who will engage in these activities. Both need to understand the underlying concepts that explain how this kind of participation exists in the world. To help open the discussion and facilitate further understanding of the behaviors of adapting enterprises, I’ve broken things down into a set of concepts that explain how participation happens — an ontology of participation. This ontology is based on my masters thesis at Carnegie Mellon completed back in 2004. So far, I feel this framework still applies, even though I created it back when blogs, social networks and other forms of social media were in their infancy.

[Ontology of Participation: Adoption, Participation, & The Propagation Of Design Discontinuities by Brian Haven]It’s based on analysis of the examples outlined in previous posts (hard-hacking & soft-hacking, group assembly, self-declaration, and systematic engagement). They address issues beyond the mere creation of products by an originating enterprise. Instead, they address the creative activities exerted on products that extend them beyond the utility for which they were originally created. Additionally, this ontology also addresses the creation of entirely new products by non-commercial entities. (Note: Please remember that when I refer to a 'product' I mean that it can be an artifact, service, system, environment, etc., it's not limited to a physical object.)

The five ontological concepts of participation are:

• Conversation: Individuals interact with things in a more meaningful way — they have a conversation with products — extending them beyond the utility for which they were created and into new design spaces.

  
  

• Community: Common behaviors among these individuals motivate them to come together, emerging as adapting enterprises with the purpose of sharing knowledge and resources.

  
  

• Accessibility: The collective activities and products of adapting enterprises extend beyond the communal borders and into the broader public, easily (and likely) accessible to anyone.

  
  

• Symmetry: The originating enterprises take notice of the adapting enterprises' efforts and are forced to respond (sometimes positively, often not).

  
  

• Phase Transition: New ways of thinking emerge to address the new behaviors and interactions between originating and adapting enterprises, blurring the lines between the two.
  

The fourth example of participation, systematic engagement, is supported by a platform designed to act as an organized system that accommodates or even encourages adaptive behaviors. This platform is comprised of a set of fundamental guiding principles established and structured to enable an individual to engage in creating or modifying a product. It allows for these types of changes to occur without the need for the time, money, or intellectual application typically required to develop a product by an originating enterprise. Platforms are the most sophisticated method for enabling the systematic engagement that has initiated the recent shift in the making process.

The OpenSource software development movement is the best example of systematic engagement involving modern technology. OpenSource is the creation of a base framework for an operating system or software application.
[The Linux Mascot from file-extensions.org] This framework is freely distributed to the public for the express purpose that other individuals develop enhancements and integrate them back into the source — anyone can write code for the application, and that code is available to anyone else to modify or enhance. Additionally, these software developers contribute to a larger community through collaboration in online discussion forums. This activity is unique because the majority of commercial software applications are under the centralized control of an originating enterprise and can only be developed by in-house employees.

OpenSource is an excellent example of systematic engagement because it blurs the lines between the adapting enterprise and the originating enterprise. One could argue that the success of several OpenSource initiatives, such as Linux and Firefox (Mozilla Project), are excellent examples of adapting enterprises undergoing a metamorphosis into originating enterprises. These are early signs of a possible shift to a platform-based approach to develop products for commercial endeavors. Some larger institutions, namely the tech industry, show the early signs of embracing this movement (such as IBM). But for most, the thought of placing a product entirely in the hands of its constituents is nauseating.

Until recently, the systems and media available for published self-expression have been reserved for professionals like writers and broadcasters. This chasm between the average person and the professional existed because of the significant costs involved with production and distribution. In the past several years, personal technology has enabled non-professional individuals to begin to bypass traditional outlets and to make their own self-declarations — the third example of participation.

In the early 1990s, a few individuals began creating frequent journal-like posts (in reverse chronological order) on websites that they called Web Logs. After several years, the behavior spread and the tools to publish became easier to use and more prevalent. Linking to posts by other bloggers became essential to the process.

The blog was born.

While several weblogs have existed since the early days of the World Wide Web, the real boom was ushered in with the creation of Blogger by Pyra Labs in late 1999.
[Graffiti on boxcar from traingeek.com by Steve Boyko] Blogger was, and still is, a very popular tool that allowed the mainstream public to publish their thoughts on the web on a recurring basis. One of the many characteristics of blogging software that contributed to its growth was its automation of web-publishing capabilities placed in the hands of non-experts. It didn’t require its users to code HTML, but rather provided pre-designed web page templates. It also automated the process of managing files and uploading them to a web server. Google’s acquisition of Blogger in 2003 helped legitimize the technology and spread the behavior. Today there are many tools that enable this self-declaration, from blogging tools like Movable Type (and TypePad), Word Press, and Tumblr to services likeFacebook, Twitter, Flickr, and YouTube.

The idea of self-declaration is not limited to digital technology, nor is it new. Graffiti is one example of public self-expression that has been present in our society for a very long time. These behaviors and principles are universally understood. These are rich cultures with traditions and rituals. Their expression is the adaptation of a medium (spray paint symbols and artwork on public buildings) that was not intended for this use. Additionally, the actions of the adapting enterprise, in this case graffiti artists, are covert and underground because their efforts are considered artistic by few and criminal by most.

The second example of participation is group assembly. Group assembly involves ad-hoc gatherings or coordinated actions by groups of people using technology originally intended to enable one-on-one communication with known individuals (such as text messaging or conversations on mobile phones). However, when the members of adapting enterprises use these technologies, the participants in the group often do not know each other. While this alternative use of technology is not explicitly impossible or prohibited by the originating enterprise, it is certainly unexpected. The motivations for such activities vary from entertainment and performance art to political protest.

When I originally did this research for my thesis work at CMU back in 2002-2003, flash mobs were just emerging. For those not familiar, a flash mob is a gathering of individuals coordinated online using technological tools such as email, mobile phones, or bulletin boards (back in the day).
[Pillow Fight Club from boston.com by Boston Globe] They agree to suddenly assemble at a specific location for a short period of time, typically just a few minutes, and then disperse immediately. Usually, there is an assigned task, like asking a humorous question of an employee or purchasing a random item at a store where the flash mob is occurring. I thought that flash mobs would be the quintessential example of group assembly, but then it mostly died out. Other than the occasional pillow fight, I guess I was wrong. That being said, other forms of group assembly did emerge — meet ups and social networks.

Howard Rheingold, author of Smart Mobs was on to this phenomenon early on:

Channeling the past’s masters of public pranks and ad hoc performance art like Merry Pranksters, Suicide Club, or Cacophony Society, whether or not flash mobs will regain popularity remains to be seen. The emergence, and recent dominance, of social networks like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter lend credence to the importance of group assembly. These tools mostly enable group assembly online, but the participants can be considered adapting enterprises. Social Networks utilize technology to enable behaviors that weren’t previously possible — connect, communicate, and collaborate with with a massive number of individuals. As I’ve said before, the core behaviors are part of human existence but the scale at which these action can occur is entirely new.

The power of these tools and behaviors is evident in the recent political protests in Iran. A culture once silenced and controlled by its own government is now
[Mousavi Protester from boston.com by Damir Sagolj/ Reuters] using Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to circumvent censorship and exert political force on its leaders. This is group assembly on a mass scale.

Services like Meetup facilitate physical interactions that were born online. As you can see, these new interactions are made possible by adapting enterprises (the creators of Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and MeetUp) as well as the members of these communities) were neither possible just a short time ago nor were they ever successfully enabled by originating enterprises.

In my previous post, I described the phenomenon of participatory culture and how institutions are no longer in control (see Making With People). There are several examples of how this participation manifests itself in the world, and the first examples I’d like to talk about are hard-hacking and soft-hacking.

HARD-HACKING
Hard-hacking is the tangible sibling to soft-hacking, which I’ll describe in a moment. Hard-hacking occurs when a person makes modifications to a physical object after it has been introduced into the world. It involves altering the physical nature of an artifact to add, enhance, or change the intended functionality of that product. Hard-hacking also occurs in a lesser form when a person obtains a hack created by another individual and applies it to their artifact — they weren’t the original hacker, but they imposed the change made by someone else. In either instance, they changed a product in a way that wasn’t intended by the original designer, stepping beyond the complacent consumption likely desired by the originating enterprise.
[Slammed Civic from corey m stover on flickr] For example, sub-cultures surrounding the modification of cars and motorcycles is rich with examples of functional enhancements to products and the social interactions that accompany these cultures. The hard-hacking of motorcycles, such as the Harley-Davidson, consists of ‘chopping’ up the bike — giving birth to the term Chopper — to alter both its performance and aesthetic. Similar behaviors exist among some young Asian-Americans in Southern California’s import car racing culture where members make performance and aesthetic modifications to import automobiles, developing rich social communities around their activities. Formerly, AOL chat groups existed for groups like the O.C. Racerz and Import Scene (see Victoria Namkung’s fantastic chapter, “Reinventing The Wheel: Import Car Racing in Southern California” in the book “Asian American Youth” by Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou).

SOFT-HACKING
Soft-hacking, on the other hand, involves the modification of digital objects after they’ve been introduced into the world. Modifications can include the writing or alteration of software as well as reforming digital images or video. Like hard-hacking, some people exhibit a lesser, yet still important form of soft-hacking. This occurs when a person doesn’t create their own soft-hack, but instead acquires someone else’s for their own personal use. In both instances, people are making changes to a product that wasn’t intended by the original designer.
[Original iPod from “Using An Original iPod In A Smart Car” at bioneural.net by Bruce McKenzie] For example, the early days of Apple’s iPod were inundated with soft-hacking. The device was originally intended only to store and play music files, but savvy owners of the product quickly discovered the alternative uses it afforded. People created their own software to extend the capabilities of the device in ways Apple had not, originally, intended. Many software applications existed (and still exist) that enable file and music transfers from the iPod to other iPods and computers that don’t use iTunes. This is not how Apple intended it’s product to be used, but these tools have been around since the iPod’s introduction. More recently, people have “jailbroken” Apple iPhones to use on carrier networks other than AT&T. A vibrant community exists at iPodHacks where these activities are tracked and announced to interested parties.

It’s important to note that the social communities that surround these activities are as interesting as the hacking behaviors themselves. It enables the individuals with common interest to share thoughts, ideas, and their passion for the activity. It also supports the addition of new members as well as the propagation of the activity.

I’ve talked about the four epochs of making over the past several weeks: Making By People, Making For People, and Making Without People. We’re now facing another epoch in making, a shift where institutions no longer completely control the means of production. People now take over the reigns of production, much like our past, but mass distribution is still a possibility. And in many cases the institution is still involved in the making, but as a facilitator rather than a controller. This is an epoch I call Making With People.

At the heart of this shift is participation. But this type of making is fundamentally different than what institutions are used to. It’s a special type of participative process where people modify things in ways that extend them into unintended design spaces. They adapt and merge things into entirely new possibilities, with or without consent from the original creator.
[So Cal 1970 Choppers by bcmacsac1 from flickr] These initial acts of change become widespread and groups of people formalize to support ongoing efforts. The groups eventually grow, and their efforts are exposed to much broader audiences, brining in new members that are often less savvy than the original members. Eventually, large institutions that are the original creators take notice and begin to respond (sometimes positively, but often negatively). This cyclical process ensures growth in the movement while fundamentally changing the process and actors who do the making.

There are two primary actors in this process.

• Originating Enterprises: Typically large institutions that possess the means of production, usually for commercial purposes.
   
  
• Adapting Enterprises: Groups of people that interact with, and adapt, the product of the originating enterprises by reshaping them for their own needs.
   
  

At this point, I’m describing the shift that’s been underway for several years now (more prominently now than in the past decade or two). The implications are significant, particularly for today’s businesses that only know control. The weak institution that are unable to adapt and embrace these new behaviors will perish, while those that can adapt will thrive.

What’s particularly interesting about this is that I’ve already addresses an important point that is likely a factor: Everything Old Is New Again. The behaviors driving this emergence of participation by the adapting enterprises are not simply a product of the rapid, technology fueled society in which we live today. Rather, they are ingrained behaviors long present in humanity only being made visible again in recent times.

In the coming weeks I’ll share examples of how this shift is hapening.

In this third epoch of making, making starts to look familiar to most of us. I initially described Making Without People as: mechanized manufacturing and the assembly line place the means of production into the hands of the enterprise, initiating the concept of "the consumer."

As these communities, cultures, and societies continued to advance, another significant shift in the process of making took place—a movement toward mass efficiency. When organizations emerged—the enterprise—they took over most making, further distancing people from the process.

This shift coincided with the Industrial Age (Toffler’s Second Wave), which stripped away the intimate interaction between the individual and the purpose of the object being made—essentially removing the individual from the process altogether.
[Women on Assembly Line Stamping Hams from Wisconsin Historical Society on flickr] Mechanized manufacturing processes displaced making from the community of use to centralized remote locations. This displaced making by known community members to unknown people and machines—from specialization and division of labor to the assembly line.

Industrialization changed the focus of making from the needs of individuals to the processes required to enable mass production and distribution. Efficiency increased dramatically and organizations grew significantly, initiating the displacement of the specialist in favor of the operationally superior enterprise. Mass production and distribution capabilities meant that industrial enterprises achieved a greater influence over individuals, resulting in a substantial increase in the standardization of usage. Over time, individuals saw their autonomy diminish as the enterprise achieved a position of control, dictating what was made and how it would be used. Dominant and encroaching for the past 100 years, this type of making turned us all into ‘consumers.’

We’ve lived quite a while with the industrialization of making and the autonomy of institution that control the making. It took the democratizing power of the Web and social technologies to initiate the fourth epoch, which is just beginning now. More on that in my next post.

I've been thinking about how the dialogue between institutions and constituents has changed quite a bit over time and how that relates to the concept of making. I think you can break the participants of making down into three categories (keep in mind that when I refer to things, products, or making, I'm referring to what is made--an artifact, service, system, environment, communication, etc., 'product' doesn't necessarily mean a physical object.):

The first type of participant, the individual, is a person who uses that which is made and in some cases is the maker of things (typically for themselves or close affiliates). The second participant, the specialist, is an artisan or craftsman with highly developed skills that yields products created on behalf of the individual. The third participant, the enterprise, is a formal or semi-formal group of people engaged in an organizational effort to make things.

These types of participants align with the shifts in ages of human history (hunter-gatherer to agrarian to industrial). But what's really interesting is how in today's information age, all three still apply. These shifts in the act of making fall into four distinct periods:

The 4 Epochs of Making

1. Making By People—No means of production, every individual must make and procure everything they need to survive.
    
   


2. Making For People—Division of labor, specialists emerge to focus on key skills, initiating the marketplace for trade.
    
   


3. Making Without People—Mechanized manufacturing and the assembly line place the mans of production into the hands of the enterprise, initiating the concept of "the consumer."
    
   


4. Making With People—Production is democratized, allowing any person to make (still in the early phase).
    
   

This leads me to the conclusion that what ever the next 'age' is (Collaboration? Social? Innovation?), it seems that this hierarchy of participants starts to reverse to the individual maker at the top, while still retaining all of the benefits and economies of scale that come from the enterprise model. When we get to a point where you can print 3D objects and circuit boards at home to make your own products, the dynamics and role of the enterprise will be radically different than the slight discomfort institutions feel today.

Today marks my last day at Forrester Research.

As many of my colleagues tell me, I have a very eclectic background. Music, politics, technology, design, business... it was all by design, and it will continue to grow and expand.

In September, my new phase will begin when I join Jeffrey Dachis, former co-founder of Razorfish, to help him build a new company focused on developing an enterprise social software platform. I'll also be joining my former Forrester colleague, Peter Kim. We'll be working closely to help Jeff build this company.

As for Forrester, it's as strong as ever. I've worked with brilliant people before, but Forrester is certainly the largest collection of intellectual firepower I've ever witnessed. I walk away a much smarter person than I came in, and for that I am grateful. There are exciting times ahead with the Jupiter acquisition. It's a group of very talented people that are a great addition for the Forrester team.

I've learned so much from my time there. I'm a much better writer, communicator, and thinker. I was able to push big ideas into the market place. My reports about Engagement was the theme of our 2008 Marketing Forum, I was its opening keynote speaker, and I eventually won me our Top Keynote award. I've gained a unique perspective on the marketplace, perched from a location very few get to experience. And that insight makes me stronger, and well equipped for this new venture.

Now I know it's the time to act and put my ideas into practice--the opportunity is too great.

This new job is ambiguous. I don't have a job title. The company doesn't have a name. At the moment, there are only three of us. We don't know what this will become, we only have a general direction. My office will be at my house... in Austin... and in cyberspace on IM, Twitter, Facebook... To many, this recipe might spell fear. To me, it's comfortable. I thrive in the unknown--no rules, no baggage, no momentum to pull us into mediocrity. We get to build this from scratch in a thoughtful and disciplined manner. It's my opportunity to bring my engagement ideas to life and the perfect time to leverage my background to apply a design thinking approach to the way we, and our clients, do business. And I'm excited to get to work, executing on Jeff's vision, learning from his experience and a brilliant entrepreneur--a path I see myself taking in the not too distant future.

Our goal is to help companies navigate and participate in this changing world, charged with social technologies and driven by people and employees who are in control. We're looking for companies that need help navigating these waters, we're looking for partners and developers to help us build this engine, and we're looking for smart people to help us realize this vision. If you're interested, contact Jeff at jdachis at austinventures dot com.

More to come...

UPDATE: Sorry I didn't clarify, I'm going to remain in Boston.

How should a company participate in social media?

It's one of the most perplexing issues facing companies today. The trends are clear: people increasingly interact with one another online, amplified by social technologies. But once a company steps in, bad things typically happen. The problem? Firms always place their own needs ahead of their own and they can only think about their product as the subject matter. It's this egoistic approach that turns people off.

We've all me this person. Self-absorbed, always talking about themselves, but never there to listen to what you have to say. They love to hang out with you when you're doing something they enjoy, regardless of your wishes. This is how companies behave. They want a community of people to talk about how the product is--no other subjects allowed. If you're Harley Davidson, Apple, a move studio, a video game maker, or a toy manufacturer, maybe it will happen. But people aren't going to join your social network because they're huge fans of mortgages or toilet paper. This approach diminishes your company's credibility, calls into question your intentions, and basically makes people think you're a prick — just like that person I mentioned above.

So how do you find that level of participation that's just right? It's all about the context of use. Context of use is the situation or scenario in which your product gets used. It's the overarching goal your customer is trying to achieve, of which your product is only a part. So the context is not the mortgage, it's home buying. And it's that context in which a brand can participate. The objective is to create, or facilitate the creation of, content that helps that customer achieve their goal. Don't assume or expect people to just talk about your product--it's the context that matters and it's the context where opportunity is ripe for the picking.

The design approach always begins here — identifying what people are trying to accomplish and then developing a solution that helps them do so. That's why designers use or conduct ethnographic research, participatory design, and eventually usability testing. This situation is no different. Companies need to take a few steps back and look at how they can help their customers. The responsibility lies on the company to identify the need, provide the solution, and then figure out how to make money — you have the resources to do that, not your customer. And when it comes to measurement, I've already talked a lot about how to do that (and I even have new research out that goes into more detail).

This is why a design thinking approach works around the inadequacies of most marketing organizations. It's about meeting customer needs — design will soon be the key differentiator.

We've seen the music industry suffer at the business end of disruptive services like P2P file sharing and the shattering of a business model at the hands of Apple's superior media experience and ecosystem. And, Apple recently took the mobile phone experience and turned it on it's head, leaving the device manufacturers left scratching their heads and the carriers' panties in a wod. The travel industry suffers from transparency thanks to a little site called TripAdvisor. To a lesser degree, the media business has seen some pain and been forced to think hard about their business models, operations, and relevancy. But financial services has gone largely untouched, until now.

I've been paying attention to a number of new players in the financial services space. What sets them apart is that they have little or no affiliation with big financial institutions. What's cool about them is that they use a lot of the new social media technologies and leverage emerging social behaviors — and in many cases they deliver a far superior experience to their elder brethren. There are a handful of them doing different things so I've lumped them into 5 categories.

1. Peer-To-Peer Lending. These services allow people to put up money for loans to other individuals--no banks involved. Default rates are apparently pretty low. Examples include Virgin Money (formerly Circle Lending), Zopa, Prosper, and Kiva
2. Peer-To-Peer Equity (Home). Similar to the P2P lending above, these services allow people to put up a share of the money required to purchase a home, and the actual home buyer borrows from the peer lenders. Examples include Home Equity Share and Shared Spaces (UK).
3. Aggregated Money Management. These bring a new twist to online banking. Essentially they pull in your account information from all of the financial institutions you work with — then they do smart things to help you understand where your money is going. It's very different that than the banking services that only look at the financial products you have from that institution — and the interface/interaction is significantly better in some cases. Examples include expensr, Buxfer, Wesabe, and Mint.
4. Social Investing. This category is a bit more diverse, but essentially they are leveraging social interactions online for investment research or they offer powerful interfaces to online investing &mdash making for a better experience. Examples include bullpoo and Zecco.
5. Micropayments. Last but not least, the ever ellusive micropayment. Financial institutions couldn't figure it out, PayPal didn't quite nail it. Those who have tried typically make the process far too clunky. And many who have tried were left in the wake of complexity. But one new service makes it simple — TipJoy (full disclosure, the founders are good friends of mine and I've been helping them out in a limited way).

I think the most compelling features here are that these services call into question everything we know about how to interact with Financial Services firms. Banks et. al. are used to maintaining control and exclusivity that is bound in complexity, inflexibility, and poor experience. The services I describe above are simple, open, institution agnostic, and delightful experiences. Financial institutions could learn a thing or two — if they're around long enough... ;-)

On Thursday I attended the MIT Enterprise Forum's Power, Drugs & Money Innovation Summit over at the Seaport World Trade Center. The event targeted New England entrepreneurs and focused on energy, medicine, and finance. The mid-morning panel session on the future of New England was pretty good. It consisted of a good mix of panelists including Doug Banks (Editor, Mass High Tech), Robert Buderi (Founder, CEO, Editor in Chief, Xconomy), Scott Kirsner (Innovation Economy columnist, Boston Globe), and Bob Krim (Executive Director, Boston History and Innovation Collaborative). I especially loved the pot shots at Harvard for failing to encourage innovation. The premise behind that debate was that Harvard typically discourages entrepreneurism as a cop out —[Innovation Nation by John Kao] if that's true, then I guess Harvard's desire to train business leaders ends at the Fortune 500 boardroom doors.

 

POST

DATE

Wednesday

23 Jan
2008

TITLE

New Year's Revolution #5

METADATA

by Brian Haven
@ 7:44 PM

TAGGED
Design, Design Thinking, New Product Development, New Year's Revolutions, Organization

CATEGORIES
» Design Thinking
» Thoughts

» respond (0)
» connect (0)

link

BODY

Bring on a designer at a senior level to change your perspective. Design thinking is where the real differentiation is going to be in a few years. If you don’t start taking steps now, you’re going to have a tough time catching up. You may even get scooped by your competitor, or even worse, a company from a completely different industry could come in and redefine your business—on it’s terms, not yours. Think I’m crazy? How did a little struggling computer manufacturer in Cupertino, California end up owning the digital music experience? Think you’re safe? Check out some of these amazing solutions in the financial services industry that aren’t part of financial institutions (Mint, Virgin Money, etc.). 

I'm suggesting that in order to leverage design to the company's advantage, you need to have someone at the top that can make sure design thinking permeates the organization. It really boils down to a DNA issue. Apple can keep churning out amazing products because the CEO has design in his blood, and he's damn sure to hire people at the top that also possess this passion and perspective. Design is infused within the DNA of the company, so essentially every decision is made with a design perspective. 

Obviously, no company can make this happen over night--which is why you'll never have an iPod. But bringing in someone at a senior level to impart the process and priorities (namely human centered design through focused research) will help make the gears start turning.

 

POST

DATE

Tuesday

15 Jan
2008

TITLE

New Year's Revolutions

METADATA

by Brian Haven
@ 12:16 AM

TAGGED
Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer, Design, Design Thinking, Engagement, Insight, Social Media

CATEGORIES
» Design Thinking
» Marketing
» Thoughts

» respond (0)
» connect (0)

link

BODY

Yes, that’s a ‘V’ not an ‘S’ in the title. We’ve got a fresh new year ahead of us here are a few things I hope to see happen in 2008. I know they won’t all happen, but I hope to see a few progressive companies set the tone and make some headway.

Get to know your customer’s better.
Measure engagement—the real engagement.
Be a little more fearless with social media.
Reconsider your business model.
Bring on a designer at a senior level.
Show some real corporate responsibility.

I used the word ‘revolution’ because even though these seem like fairly small steps, they are giant leaps for most companies. To really get anywhere, it requires a philosophical change within institutions, primarily at the top – yes, I’m talking to you CMOs!

So let’s all get off our collective asses and get to work, we're already two weeks into the new year and this time is going to fly by fast.

I’ll provide further detail for each of these over the next several days.

 

POST

DATE

Sunday

12 Aug
2007

TITLE

Design at a crossroads

METADATA

by Brian Haven
@ 11:14 PM

TAGGED
Design, Design Thinking, Organization

CATEGORIES
» Design Thinking

» respond (1)
» connect (0)

link

BODY

Bruce Nussbaum of Business Week had some interesting things to say about design and the role of the CEO several weeks ago. It really starts to touch on a point I've been struggling with in my head for some time now. Bruce makes some great points about the design discipline and the role it is playing (or should be playing) in the commercial world. As a Forrester Analyst, I'm exposed to many business ideas that exhibit how few people really get design. Everyone's focused on marketing products and services that fail to meet their customer's needs.

For me, this comes down to a 'design thinking' issue and it means that the design discipline is at a crossroads. Here's the problem: design doesn't know what it want's to be when it grows up. Most design work over the past several decades has focused on style and form. Now that's fine, we need that, and making an aesthetic connection between a person and that 'thingness' is part of design's DNA. However, in recent years, as Six Sigma dwindles, institutions are looking for a way to differentiate, and for an elite few that differentiation is design. Now I'll be the first to argue that human centered design should be at the root of all new products (when I say products I mean 'that which is produced' which includes artifacts, services, environments, etc.), but let's face it—business just isn't there yet. So, design has an opportunity to take things to the next level.

Design as a discipline needs to come to terms with it's role in the business world. Designers need to start thinking about the business models that surround their creations. They need to help determine what value their work brings both to the person that engages with the product, but also what value it brings to the entity that helped facilitate it's creation. That's a new kind of sustainability—not the green kind, but instead an approach that requires the designer to build into the process the mechanisms that enable an entity to sustain itself, and continue to create great things.

This means that design isn't just about making—it evolves to include the process, strategy, and approach. The new designers skilled in this approach can become the new MBAs. I still believe that we need to train and covet those that can make beautiful things, but making the right thing goes beyond just the craft of manufacture (industrial design, graphic design, interaction design, information design, etc.) to include the process for understanding what needs to be made, the needs of the person it's being made for, the alignment with the institution's core competencies, how that 'thing' will live and die in it's lifetime, and how that institution will survive to make another day.

Some business schools are altering curriculum to try to attempt to train this new designer, but I fear that that approach will be a business person in designer's clothing when what we need is a designer in business person's clothing. On the flip side, some graduate design programs struggle with their curriculum to meet these needs. Either way, it's given that this is a collaborative process and people from all roles should be involved in the definition and creation of products.

Design has an amazing opportunity sitting in front of it—so is it status quo, or carpe diem?