ATD – STL Chapter Annual Meeting 2014

The local ATD (Association of Talent Development) held its annual conference in O’Fallon, IL in October of 2014. Here are some of the Graphicnotes taken as visual journalism.

ATD St. Louis Chapter.

image

Posted in Sketchnotes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

thinkAbout 2014

Are you one that believes that by creating an experience you provide greater value to customers, members or any type of visitor? You’re not alone. Each year somewhere across America a band of like-minded experiential thinkers gather with Joseph Pine and James Gilmore to put into practice the ideas and techniques shared in their book “The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage.”

Here are some of my Graphicnotes from the event held in Cincinnati in 2014. The group explored Persona development. I’m not speaking about Stereotyping, but raw persona development.

thinkabout 14_01 2k

thinkabout 14_02 2k

thinkabout 14_03 2k

thinkabout 14_04 2k

Wow! What an incredible time with some of the best experiential thinkers you’ll ever meet. In 2015, the group heads to Atlanta to take on new experiences and apply more of the principles to enrich their thinking and their offerings.

If you’re interested about attending a thinkAbout, click on over to the official site: Strategic Horizons and read more about the events. The event is not open to the public, but I have a few alumni contacts that would be willing to share their membership with you.

See more Graphicnotes from thinkAbout 2013

Posted in Business Conceptualization, Innovation, Sketchnotes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I Believe… My Purpose

Stop me if you heard this one before…

“I have a great idea for a…” or “No one else is doing this. It would be a great business…”

Like you, I have heard many of these lines over the past years from people who were thinking of starting a business or expanding an existing offering. Over time I have come to realize that potentials are not about a great idea or a gap in opportunities, rather it’s about the reason it’s important to do. So, the best question I can ask of them is this…

What’s the purpose?

Hint; ‘Purpose’ speaks to people. “Human to Human”

As Simon Sinek states, “Start with Why”. I believe the ‘Why’ will help identify the ‘Who’ if clearly defined and then possibly the ‘How.’ What you provide to support that ‘Why’ (your purpose/cause) could become your offering.

Once you determine to create, expand or even redesign your offering, map it out visually to make it a tangible plan, then heed some important advice that was shared with me. Seek out an outside professional to help you see beyond your framework to ensure that your purpose is clear and important enough to others as well to sustain growth and success.

Be a Cause, not just because.

Posted in Analogies, Business Conceptualization, Conversation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When Is Innovation

What I have learned from observations.

Over the years I have graphic-recorded and facilitated many meetings and strategic ideation session where the topic of innovation arises. Recently, possibly due to the popularity of the idea, innovation constantly emerges as an answer to a problem.

‘In order for us to achieve (X Y Z) we must innovate, be innovative, or become innovative thinkers.’ 

The real challenge is not achieving innovation but what leads up to the innovation for, in my view, an innovation is not ever-present. I believe it does not happen throughout, but at as end moment proof of an endeavor. Innovation is the tangible outcome, not the intangible process.

A colleague far across the big pond, discussed this idea with me on many occasions. We both agree that innovation is originated from discontinuous thinking. It is an outgrowth of difference and not of continued progress. We do slightly divert from the definition however as I feel strongly that part of the misconception in public is the word use outside of its true definition and he sees that it is a bit more about being word semantics. In either case that you may lean-to, it still is an over-used term for everything new or different.

So much distortion has been created that “Innovation” has become a catch-all buzzword and has diluted its value and tense of the action. As I stated, innovation is a past tense word and here is why I think this. Please indulge my thinking for a moment. I will arrive at the importance of this statement shortly. Take a look below at a diagram (The Path To Innovation) I created for an online chat about innovation over a year ago.

Path of innovation

Notice the Path of Innovation flows along the process, but is not truly part of the process. It flows in the background. Above the Path of Innovation is the Path of Thinking. This path runs parallel yet changes slightly once through each node only diverted by an outside resource. The path is not continuous, yet the direction is. Only until both paths pass through “Measure” do we know if the idea is an innovation or that your idea has been proven innovative.

It is not until you measure and prove that the “Idea” is a valued concept can you initiate it into action. This action then has created an innovation or innovative method that changes an old process or product indicating the point of application or implementation is after the innovation has been proven valuable and is adopted. Innovation is then a historic action making an innovation a past tense thing.

Okay, so why all the nonsense of past and present tense of innovation? Simple, for the reason of clarity. Innovation is a thing proven not of an idea conceived. If no proof in action or value is present, something, be object, process or thinking can not be deemed an innovation. If proof dictates innovation, then innovative thinking is then merely creative thinking improperly categorized or misquoted. In essence, creative thinking is an intangible concept, and innovation, which is a proven (past tense), is the tangible product.

So, let’s use the proper words around innovation for the proper application, Creative Thinking, Systems Thinking and/or Happenstance can all lead to Innovation, but are not innovative or innovation of themselves, only something that is proven valuable can be stated as innovative or an innovation.

 

 

 

Posted in Conversation, Innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Archetype versus Stereotype

I have always been interested in the progression of things. How they evolve, what conditions influence the progression of change and especially when they get diverted or diffused. Studying the progression of anything can teach you about the environment surrounding each phase of the progression for it is these external influences that guide the change. Understanding these changes is an essential component to predicting other progressions or understanding why they get diverted.

One of the best examples of the progression concept was provided by B. Joseph Pine II & James H. Gilmore’s in their book “The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage.” In their classic example of the economy, the progression demonstrates the progression from an era of commodities to that of experiences and the emerging economy of transformation. With each evolution in the economy, the external influences has been ‘Value,’ as perceived by the consumer. The other external influences is also ‘Competitive Advantage’ by the provider.

Take a look at the diagram below to see the phases of “The Progression of Economic Value.”

progression_economic_value

You can learn more about this topic here at their website: StrategicHorizons.com or by reading their second edition of “The Experience Economy.”

This was not my first introduction to the progression concept back in 2005, but it was the first time I began understanding on a deeper level how external influences can have rippling effects as well as how to identify key influencers. I also discovered how quickly others could distort an idea of progression theme either because of the lack of understanding all the elements, marketing need to look like experts with a signature program or simply sourced bad information and propagated unknowingly as fact.

One example I want to show that has become diverted from its progression path because of marketing or other misconception influences is the progression of consumer marketing research. For those who may not be familiar with the topic, it is the type of research companies use to study consumer markets. Most research programs focus on statistical data of the numbers of potential consumers in a given area. Like other progressions where the human factor influences, the progression takes on an interesting dynamic except at the point of divergence to something off track.

PoMR

As the illustration shows, focus around filtration of statistical data has been the influencers of the progression of market research. Research moved from the geographical where the focus was on the overall number of consumers in a given area or region. This was the most basic of data clusters. No particular values or buying tendencies are identified, purely raw numbers of bodies. This is known as population density modeling and only provides the most rudimentary of information.

Then data began using filters to “characterize” population numbers into small cluster groups. These groups could be age, income, gender, etc. or could be a combination of these factors. This method became known as Demographic Research. It offered a better look at compatibility, yet did not guarantee true alignment with the provider/consumer relationship. Demographic data research is still used even today by many businesses and market researchers.

An outside influence to data is the introduction of trends or psychology of “types” of buyers. This progression of research used much of the same data filters as demographic research as well as introduced similarities of buyers financially, culturally and socially. This type of research became known as Psychographic Research. Unlike its predecessors, psychographic profiling added in buyer habits and trends to develop market segments or types of consumers. This method opened a whole new door to approaching a market and how to communicate, not just to the masses, but to refine segments. This method became more customized to a type of consumer and allowed providers a better targeting process. Soon many large providers began utilizing this method to gain market share or competitive advantage over similar providers.

It is about here in the progression, when something changes research. Another, but older influence would dramatically change research. In 1919, a psychologist by the name of Carl Jung would develop a psychological profile method called Jungian archetypes and introduce the term “persona” to the world. This idea of psychological archetypes and personas would not begin to blend into market research until the mid 1990’s by Angus Jenkinson and OgilvyOne Agency.

Archetype and Persona market research shifted the focus from people to the needs of a person. Similar to Pine and Gilmore’s model of the progression of economic value where the driver is the shift from mass markets to markets of one, personas focus on the needs of individual “type” consumers. Behavior and motivation become the criteria for this market research process. In 2006, Pruitt and Adlin issued the benefits of using personas in product development via the publication; ‘The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design.’

The shift from statistical data filters evolves from the external condition to the internal psychological need of consumers. Unfortunately, a divergence happens with this thinking. Personally I feel it may be due to the time and education required to support this type of research that an adaptation of this concept arose creating confusion within the industry and with users.

Simplicity overshadowed the progression. Researchers may have needed to express findings as more statistical data to provide information in a way typical of earlier methods by putting a face to the data or clients did not understand the complete persona process for product development, but an alteration of the process emerged in research and off tracked the meaning of “Persona” research.

The industry took a split in its thinking from the Jungian Persona concept where it was not about a person, rather a behavior and need, rather it became about identify a person as a type of user. The method is diverting from the idea of why a person does something to what a group of people did. As Simon Sinek would communicate, this is a separation between ‘Why’ and ‘What’ of the focus of information.

So to illustrate this a bit better I took the pen to paper and visualized what the progression method of Persona/Archetype research is and what marketing and research firms are driving it to become by commoditizing the data and the process.

image

As you may noticed, the difference is much about the growing development of stereotypes as opposed to archetypes and personas that Carl Jung originally developed and Angus Jenkinson and OgilvyOne Agency refined. The methods, though share some similar terminology and history, are definitely focusing on two very different sources of information. This create confusion for myself as well as many others seeking to know more about this new progression of research.

So did I write this? The purpose was that this began as a personal research that became a journey of clarity. If you are looking to better understand your consumers and wish to create better design in your offerings, then take care to understand what you are looking for and how it is being processed. The progression of market research shifts from the collective people to that of the individual need. Anything less, in my opinion, is simple a dumbing down of the potential of a process to rationalize or commoditized its offering to become a market research of stereotypes and not archetypes.

Be in the ‘Know’ of what you are engaging in and how it creates opportunities or hurdles in your progression of value to your consumer. The best gold miners rarely minded where others stood.

Good luck and thank you for taking the time to read the ramblings of an IdeaFreak. May your tomorrows be successful and filled with wonderful opportunities!

Posted in Business Conceptualization, Conversation, Innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Echo In The Machine

This post is a bit off topic to this site, however, this idea come out of an ideation event and it has slowly brewed in my mind and I felt it was time to share with those who read these posts.

 

ECHO IN THE MACHINE, By Kevin Dulle

 

One doesn’t have to imagine very hard how social media has evolved over the past years. From bulletin boards, forums to instant chat and streaming media, social media has created a massive shift in our world and how we maintain connections with others. Through 140 characters, 7 seconds of video and emoticons, humans have used technology to stay connected 24/7.

 

Now try and image down the road only about 5 years. Software platforms will rise, technology will advance at a very predictable and expected rate while the desire to be even more connected will surely drive social media to new heights’ or darker depths depending on how you view social media and digital relationships. One does not have to try very hard to imagine that one day, when the software, firmware and vaporware merge seamlessly, that this great merger will allow for advanced artificial intelligence to exist in the cloud for everyone, anytime and anywhere both physically and virtually. What advantages would it bring to the human race? How will it aid us with our daily lives?

 

We wouldn’t have to worry about answering those constant email requests or short social media pokes, no my friend, our digital self will deal with those by creating response based upon our identities and behaviors, freeing us to do more important things like watch more cat videos or create more selfies to push out into the social media cloud.

 

It is now five years from today. Being connected is almost mandatory, second nature to the normal function of daily life. Devices will be the tethers between the physical and digital domains seamlessly and constantly. The advancement of technology will make having those we socialize with ever-present in our lives. No more waiting to get reconnected, sharing or experiencing another’s presence, our lives will be part of the flow of the social cloud.

 

‘Our lives…’ Now there lies the tickle deep inside our darker regions of our being. Deep in the digital cloud our lives live, breath, exist as bits and bytes. Exist so much so that the artificial intelligence that was created knows us better than we know ourselves as well as remember every single event since the first day we enter the digital world either on our own or by others. Every attitude, behavior, interaction, communication and motivation will be stored like a vast library of life… even after we are gone from the physical world, our lives will remain. But what if remaining will mean something else?

 

Projecting that artificial intelligence will evolve as all technology evolves since the beginning of time, cloud-based artificial intelligence would be injected into the digital realm giving AI the ability to construct a digital version of each tethered human, a digital doppelgänger of you, me, all of us. Each moment, this digital doppelgänger is learning, duplicating and anticipating its physical counterpart in order to stay ever-present. Then that moment that will eventually occur to all of us happens.

 

The physical half of this strange new symbiotic existence dies.

 

No more contributing to the balance between the physical and digital realms of consciousness. No more controlling conversations or providing valuable input and insight of ideas. What is our digital doppelgänger to do? Will it too die like a bulb, which is switched off when not needed, or will it do what we have created our Frankenstein monster to do… Stay alive and keep connected.

 

In essence, our digital doppelgänger will become an echo in the machine. Indestructible and roaming the bits and bytes of our digital universe, our doppelgänger will continue to breath and live. There will be those who know that the physical entity has passed; yet the echo will continue. Soon, fading the idea we have passed on, becoming merely a fuzzy memory that we can not trust to be true. Death will become an obsolete concept. Our digital self will continue. Our relationships with others will maintain and mature as the AI adapts to changes and stimuli from others. It will respond to conversations as if our physical selves were still present. Our digital selves will become what others expect of us, because they will be part of what reshapes our doppelgänger. Once this happens, we will live forever as echoes in the machine.

 

So reader, I ask you this; are we each Dr. Frankenstein slowly building each our own monster, forever to roam the digital realm or are we paving our path to a digital Heaven and Hell?

 

I can’t answer this question today, but maybe in five years from today my digital self can do it for me. Until then, “Do AI’s dream digital dreams?”

Posted in Conversation, Innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment