Strategic Portfolio Planning UX Speakeasy Style

The rest of the United States may be getting buried in snow *again* but this evening in San Diego the UX Speakeasy crowd was warming up to each other  in another one of our invigorating monthly meetups.

We have our version of seasons - at tonight's venue, if you went outside on the 7th floor patio and looked out over the darkened city sky, the wind blowing in your face might have caused you to feel it was Winter. If you then walked back inside with a reddened face and someone asked you where you got the sunburn you might have felt it was Spring. In the toasty room where we heard our presentation, you might have believed it was Summer. Looking at the leafless plant in the corner (see picture above) you could be convinced it was Fall.

Our marvelous patio view, and begging to be explored set of funky office suites at this evening's gathering were brought to the meetup crowd of 114 people by Vaco San Diego and their enthusiastic recruiting professionals. Our host, Mark Richards, gave the group a nice presentation about what to put (or not put) in your UX portfolio. In: specifics. Out: your cat. Portfolio in the larger sense of the word, for Mark provided his perspective on what to do (or not do) with your LinkedIn page, resume, digital demos and a few other important odds and ends.

While Mark was showing the crowd some interesting examples of online UX portfolios in the packed room, his colleague (Eric?) held up a large fan that was determined to steal the show once in a while. There was a UI issue of sorts here for sure.

Some useful online portfolio resources shared by Mark (take note UX people!) included: Behance, Dribble, and Coroflot. Somewhere in the middle of all this, as I was standing near a glass door, someone jostled someone and the next thing I knew there was a large amount of liquid running down the other side of the door. Very artistic.

Vaco was a great host. Did I mention that Eric (?) brought me a personal hand made name tag shortly after I entered? This was before he put himself in charge of the treacherous fan for the benefit of all sentient beings. For those of you in the San Diego area, if you'd like to connect with Vaco, they are holding their annual March Mingle on March 26th at the Hard Rock 207 (the bar in the Hard Rock Hotel downtown) which will be, so Mark tells me, a great opportunity for technical people of all ilks to network.

Intuit appears to be on a serious UX hiring spree based upon what our second speaker told us. Rich Bessel from Intuit spent a few minutes telling us about some of the things he values in potential hires. In addition to supporting Mark's comments, Rich added: Craft. Demonstrate your craft everywhere. Show your passion and that you care about your work. It should ooze through all your materials (ok, he didn't use the word "ooze" but he could have) because you want to show that you care, really care, about your work. Oh, and by the way: Check Your Ego At the Door.

Funding Opportunity: Think CS Education and Jobs

You probably are aware that computing jobs pay very well.  Every state in the country has high paying computing jobs. Did you know that? Yeah, it's true. All 50 states have high paying computing jobs. Not only do computing jobs pay very well but they exist in virtually every significant industry. The public conversation doesn't always focus enough on the ubiquity of computing and computing jobs as it relates to economic and workforce issues.

Sometimes I wonder why, because computing technology supports a global economic infrastructure that we all rely on. However, I'll sit on my hands, leaving the "why" for another day, and stick today with an important aspect of "what":

When we hear talk in the media about the growing numbers of STEM jobs, it really means computing jobs in a big way. That means potential economic benefit all around. You don't need to be in Silicon Valley or working for a traditional high tech firm in order to get a really good computing job.

Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. It is a word that gets people's attention. It's a word that gets government attention.

Given the very slow economic recovery (I heard on the news last night that the U.S. national unemployment rate is still around 7.5%)  it seems a no brainer that there would be a variety of federal funding opportunities to encourage preparing students for these jobs. Funding opportunities that computer science educators can take advantage of.

Many people I work with routinely look to the National Science Foundation for funding opportunities, but not so many people are aware that funds are also available at the Department of Labor. It makes perfect sense actually, given the economic importance of computing to our economy. 

As an example, I want to point you to one such opportunity which hasn't received much press: the YouthCareerConnect grant program. From their web page:

"The Department of Labor will use up to $100 million in revenues from the H-1B visa program to fund approximately 25 to 40 grants for individual or multi-site projects. Grants will be awarded to local education agencies, public or non-profit local workforce entities, or non-profits with education reform experience. All grantees will have to demonstrate a strong public/private partnership, and must include, at a minimum, a local education agency, a local workforce investment system entity, an employer, and an institution of higher education."

My guess is that this CFP (Call For Proposals) is being overlooked by computing educators because of its location in the DOL and because it casts a wide net. Nonetheless, this could be an excellent opportunity to make a large impact, especially if you are already working with, or in conversation with, other entities interested in pushing full steam ahead on the computer science education front.

UX Not as Weird as Usual, unless you Count a Penchant for Insults & Mobsters

It was a surprisingly tame evening for the UX Speakeasy crowd - I have no idea what got into them. I was

on my usual scoping mission for the odd and bizarre and everyone...ok almost everyone...was on their best behavior.

Maybe it was because there were a few Suits in the room. Perhaps because someone listed our event as part of San Diego Tech Week. No one is willing to fess up to having put us on their web site, but the result of that nice advertising was that of the 120-ish people there I spoke to several people... in ties...

(we tried to cut it off at 100 but apparently we were just too popular....go figure)

We were situated at EvoNexus, an incubator for up and coming tech entrepreneurs, so that probably had something to do with it. Nice place, nice people. The food and beverages were provided by our trusty friends at Vitamin T. Yes, this is a blatant advert for both of them, but they really are good people.

About that bizarre moment. After a rapid fire group activity to practice an entrepreneurial design process under tight time constraints one group made a pitch for sending "the perfect insult". As in, you designate who you want to insult, plug it in and the system comes up with a customized, really rude and offensive insult and blasts it off almost instantaneously. My first reaction was that no one in their right mind would put up venture capital for such an idea. My second reaction was that, sad to say, I bet they would.

Then there was the pitch to create a matching service for gangsters. Something akin to online dating. Was this inspired by all the Whitey Bulger news stories I wonder? The idea was that there are kingpins out there who need henchmen, and henchmen in search of a job. This team had all the pieces worked out. You sign up, fill out a profile, and a match is generated. Part of the process involves asking about ethical boundaries, opinions on weapon usage and, if I recall, modes of preferred violence. There was a loyalty test. And a trial run. You have to do something horrific and if you leave a trail you are out. Completely out. As in kaput. With this product, headhunting could take on new meaning.

In case you think there is a theme here... other groups made serious and well presented pitches for non violent, creative ideas. Unfortunately I can't remember what they were. That tells you something about ... something.

I sat with a group that was trying to come up with an answer to: "We want to provide the safest most connected experience while driving. With our forward thinking, we've achieved a safer commute without sacrificing connectivity".

[I neglected to mention that every group was given some sort of blurb like this to work off of]

It was fascinating to watch a microcosm of the real world in action when the group did the all too human thing and jumped right to wanting to describe a really geeky cool product. Skip the hard stuff of really delving into the analysis process and working towards figuring out a minimum viable product (yes, the notorious MVP).

It was fascinating to watch the classic developer sinkhole start to develop. It could be a cool product but would anyone care? Would anyone outside of the designers want it? At one point someone (me) pointed this out, and the comment back was "we only have 20 minutes. we have to come up with something". Well.... there is never enough time is there? There will always be pressure to cut corners won't there?

Another fascinating twist I observed in one group was when someone tried to simplify things by changing the problem so that it only tangentially addressed the original statement. The rationale was to simplify things, but the end result was that a problem that wasn't "the" problem was proposed because it would be easier to solve.

In the end everyone involved recognized what was happening and things got back on track. That was the whole point I suspect - experience the experience of trying to design user experience without experience.

Post Script: we are holding our next exciting event really soon - the MOB'd UP conference.  It promises to be incredibly professionally useful, fun, and yes, there will be some weird people there along with the random suit. But not too many suits. Promise.

Should We Disgust People into Learning?

If you have 30 minutes to spare I suggest you listen to this podcast from about a year ago. A friend and  colleague pointed it out, saying it has implications for computing education. You will decide for yourself what

Appealing to Your Better Nature

the real take home message is. (Subject Matter Hint: germs and money)

I have been reading a lot lately about global and national trends in technological development, global infrastructure and how different nations are investing in R&D, and STEM education to support it. Fascinating, because although you may be aware that certain other countries are leaping ahead or behind, some of the data is mind blowing. China for example is plowing so much funding into technological infrastructure and the education to produce a workforce to support it that I almost choked. Want to get your mind blown too? Read just the Overview section of these Science and Engineering Indicators for 2012 . Russia, meanwhile, is on more of a slide than I realized. Interesting...

Of course there is the looming environmental disaster in China (poisonous smog, pig carcasses in the water) that seems to be growing as fast as their infrastructure investments.

One of the points made in that podcast about germs and finances in relation to American bad habits, might or might not have something to say here. In the podcast, it seemed that people are effectively shamed, tricked and frightened into doing the right thing for health and the environment. Change was more effective via those routes than through education about why they should do the right thing.

Part of the reason, not discussed in the podcast, was likely the emotional as opposed to cognitive aspect of being shamed and publicly embarrassed. It is well established that, in spite of what people say and think they will do sometimes they don't do it - until they have an emotional reason to do so. It is easy to think your way around a tough issue or to just shelve it for later, thus effectively not addressing it. On the other hand, if you don't want to show your face because of the reaction you will get from others, then you are more likely to alter your behavior.

But...does this mean we should put more focus on behavioral change through shaming, tricking and frightening people? In classroom settings, in work settings, in global politics?

Before you reach any decision, you should also check out this book, just to make sure you are fully informed of all the ways people might think about the issues: "Theories of International Politics and Zombies". I read this almost without stopping and found myself educated in great depth about...international political theory. Something I would not likely have ever considered putting time into, much as I like to be well informed about what is going on in the world.

Combine what you learn about Zombie politics with what you know about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, and then add in what you know about deep vs. surface learning, and then add in what you know about effective longitudinal behavioral change.

Then you tell me: will shaming people into doing what you want, will humiliating them, will berating them or just plain embarrassing them, lead to deep learning and long term change?

I almost completely stopped drinking cow milk after learning about federal guidelines listing how much pus is allowable in cartons of milk, organic or otherwise (gross, gross I wish I could get that out of my head!). But have I really lost interest in milk? Have I really changed? What have I really learned (aside from a truly disgusting factoid)?

You can disgust me out of cow milk in my tea and cereal, but I'm already subliminally looking for ways to subvert the problem.

Zoom back out to bigger issues of education, business and politics. What have you learned?

SIGCSE: The Perils of Textbook Publishing

Today was a split day - SIGCSE in the morning and the beginning of the ACM Education Council meeting in the afternoon. Oh...and snow in between. A small romp on the sidewalk in the lovely snow, which unfortunately had all melted by evening when we popped out of meetings. It was great while it lasted.

Snow was a good mental cleansing agent after a fairly serious morning session about the high price of textbooks. There were four people on the panel - two publisher representatives and two authors. One of the publisher representatives was my editor from CRC Press, who I have nothing but good things to say about. I wanted to be in the audience as a friendly supporting face if needed.

No one disagrees that textbooks are very highly priced. Whenever I have to tell someone what my book costs I am prepared for sticker shock if that person is not from the academic world. And my book is definitely on the low end of textbook costs, in part because my publisher tries very hard to keep the cost of its books down.

What I learned, both from having been through the process of being an author, from specifically asking my editor about the subject, and then even more from listening to all points of view during this panel today, is that it is a complicated issue.

So here are some of the interesting things to consider. No one, including textbook representatives, will try and tell you that they are ok with the high price of textbooks - at least not anyone I heard from today. I was impressed to hear just how aware they are of how unhappy a lot of people are about textbook prices, and how much they are looking at different models to reduce prices. Depending upon who you are talking to, publishers are exploring a whole host of alternative business models from ebooks to custom publishing, to interactive online resources...at one point the representative from Wiley put up a list of options that was mind boggling. I had no idea. My brain hurt looking at it. So did at least one member of the audience who said it was all too complicated and could they please just make it simple?

Which leads me to another set of issues. It is flat out complicated and expensive to bring a textbook to market as compared to a trade book. A good publisher (and I count mine as one of those) works closely with an author, providing support, guidance, answers, and a whole host of services such as editorial development, professional design, layout, copyediting, typesetting (which is more labor intensive for textbooks than for a novel) iterative feedback, solicitation of professional peer reviews and other things - all before the book ever becomes a physical object. Then there is marketing and promotion. A myth is that printing costs are one of the major expenses for publishers and thus with the influx of ebooks prices should come way down. Not so I learned - printing costs are a very small percentage. And creation of quality ebooks is complex and expensive for a whole host of reasons I won't belabor here. And then there is volume - textbooks will never sell anywhere near what tradebooks can sell. So there are few economies of scale available to textbook publishers that are available to trade publishers.

I belong to a writers and publishers professional organization in which the majority of the members are independent writers and publishers - i.e. they publish themselves. This allows them to price their books as they choose and keep all the proceeds. The organization (Publishers and Writers of San Diego) provides incredibly invaluable professional-quality information on all aspects of the business side of writing. One of the side benefits of belonging to this organization is that I see just how much work my publisher has done for me and how incredibly expensive it can be to develop your own professional quality book. It can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars and suck up untold numbers of hours on activities most writers have zero interest in (page layout and design for example? ee-yuck).

At times the invective in professional circles against academic textbook publishers has been quite nasty. Sad to say, the situation just isn't as simple as some people think (wish) it was. The situation with regard to traditional publishing is in many ways similar to the situation the recording industry went through recently. Changes in technology led to inevitable eating away at traditional music purchases and huge problems with piracy. The recording industry fought tooth and nail to force people to stick with a traditional model of music purchase.  It was a lost cause from the beginning.

Similar societal and technological pressures face the publishing industry. Until recently I just assumed that the publishing industry was as much a stick-in-the-mud as the music industry. However, it is now clear that publishers, academic publishers in particular (all I can really speak to), are running around like mad trying to adjust and figure out what business model will balance a need for financial viability with responsiveness to demands for greater availability, flexibility and lower cost.

It just isn't easy. New business models have to come into existence that acknowledge the (justified) demand for lower priced textbook while maintaining financial viability of good publishers providing the valuable infrastructure that brings a book from idea to reality.

Finally, I want to point out something brought up today by someone. Higher education is becoming more and more expensive and the financial pressures on students are only getting worse. Many complicated factors contribute to this situation, which those of you in education circles are all to familiar with. It's messy, it's political, it's entrenched in decades of attitudes and policy. We have to do something about our educational crisis and the growing equity gap with regards to access to higher education. However, it was pointed out that textbook publishers are a convenient scapegoat.

It is easy to direct a lot of anger about the overall state of higher education at publishers and textbook pricing. Publishers are not blameless, but should not be treated with such disdain nor blamed for so much more of the problem than is really deserved.

I rarely hear a balanced conversation of the challenges facing the textbook industry. It is hard to see their side of things if you haven't either been in their shoes or have worked with them as an author. As with many things in life, there is a middle way - in perspective and in actions taken. We need to work in a mutually respectful fashion to find that way.

I don't know about you, but my brain hurts again; I'm hoping for some more snow.

Fruitful Thoughts About Career Trajectories

"Do you have career ADD?" 

I loved that question. Jo Miller, CEO of Women's Leadership Coaching asked her audience that question during the latest Global Tech Women webinar "Take Charge of Your Career Trajectory" (see also my previous post). Jo was discussing a common problem for ambitious successful women - do this, do that, say yes indiscriminately to all projects and tasks that come your way. On the one hand it can be exciting to take on all these different opportunities. Never a dull moment. On the other hand, everyone has a brand and what does it say about your brand if you appear to others to be always willing and available to do anything that needs doing? You need to be strategic about what you take on.

Everyone has a brand. It is good to be reminded of this every once in a while.  Often your brand is placed upon you rather than created by your own design. Stop and think - what is my brand? Whether you realize it or not, other people view you as ___________. Perhaps the least helpful situation is when you don't consciously position yourself as owning some area - this was Jo's message.

Once you start to think about your brand, you need to actively work on building it. This is how you will evolve your career and move upwards. You can define "upwards" however you like - traditionally or unconventionally. But if you just leave your self-brand to chance or are kind of wishy-washy about it, you miss out on the really awesome opportunities to go where you want to go professionally.

Perhaps the worst thing is to try to be something you are not. I know I have done this in the past and I'm sure many of you have as well. There are pressures from all quarters to make decisions that may mean squishing your multi-faceted self into a square box. Imagine taking a grapefruit (one of my favorite fruits) and shoving it whole into a small glass jar. You may get it in there and the lid may go on (screw it down tight) but it is going to be bruised and pulpy. Do you really want to be that grapefruit?

Jo wasn't talking about beating up on innocent grapefruit; that is what I thought of as I listened to her discuss the importance of Building a Scalable Brand based upon what is authentic about yourself. What is really you?

It was also enlightening to hear Jo talk about what works and what you need to do depending upon whether you are early career, mid-level, or senior level. It occurred to me that "early" "mid" and "senior" are not always obvious. It certainly isn't job title or size of paycheck that definitively decides. You can have a spiffy job title and a fat paycheck and be viewed as rather so-so in the hierarchy and dead-ending.

Do you know how others view where you are in your career trajectory?

SO much terrific information about being an emerging leader. I'm so glad I have my notes. You can make your own notes. If you haven't already done so you can view the video of Jo's presentation here.

While you do that I am going to go be nice to some citrus.

What Can Global Tech Women Do For You?

A conference like The Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing (GHC) is a fantastic experience. Having attended many times I can vouch for the fact that there is nothing (nothing) like being surrounded by a couple thousand other professional technical women. You don't realize until you experience it just how different the technical world, our world, would be if there were more technical women around. I can't describe the experience other than to say it is mind blowing, empowering and life changing.

However, most technical women around the globe don't have access to the GHC or one of it's sister conferences. They don't have access to the resources and connections available to those relative few who can physically attend a conference for women in computing. What to do?

Global Tech Women, introduced in my last post, intends to bridge the gap between globally dispersed technical women and the equally dispersed resources and like minded others. That means bringing resources for personal and professional growth to technical women on a local level. In their communities and homes. That also means providing technical women access to content and a network on a global scale. Global Tech Women (GTW) is employing both a bottom up and top down approach to supporting and connecting often isolated technical women.

"Women Talk Tech" Webinars. Information and expertise coming to you.

On September 21st Global Tech Women founder Deanna Kosaraju spoke in some depth about the organization: its vision, mission, goals, and plans.  What is going on as well as opportunities for you to get involved. This 30 minute webinar contains far more information than can easily fit in a blog post. Or even several blog posts. Deanna also hints at some nifty technology in the wings. If you want the full scoop on Global Tech Women, you can access the webinar and slides here.

Then there was the second webinar on October 12th which featured Caroline Simard getting into specifics about how to identify a work culture that is (or is not) actively supportive of technical women. I thought I knew a lot already about this topic yet I walked away with things to ponder and act upon. A particularly nice feature of this webinar was the active discussion from women across the career spectrum. Curious? The webinar and slides are archived here (scroll down the page).

The next webinar is ... Friday. It looks like we are going to hear about disruptive innovation. You can still sign up here. If you miss it, don't worry - like all the other webinars it will be archived.

"Voices" - an International Women's Day Conference. We return to the challenge facing technical women who would like to attend a conference geared toward their personal and professional goals.

Voices will be held on International Women's Day of course.  March 8th, 2013. What is truly innovative about this conference is that you don't have to go anywhere to participate. The conference comes to you. As described in detail in the first webinar video, Voices will take place over a 24 hour period, following the sun as it circles the globe. Not only can you attend the conference but you can participate in the planning and execution. In other words, if you want to hear about something, share about something, if you know about something worth sharing at the conference, you are encouraged to contact the organization to discuss how to make it happen. The agenda is not going to be decided by "someone out there".

A Customizable Open Source Platform with resources and connections geared towards your profile.

If every social media savvy marketing organization can target you with ads based upon what they creep around snooping out about you (yuck), doesn't it make sense to turn things on their head and *ask* technical women what they want to help them achieve their personal and professional goals and then deliver it? Sometime soon, the GTW website will provide you the ability to create a goal driven profile which will be used to connect you with resources, ideas, activities and people that fit where you are in your life and career.

The platform will likely require an entire blog post of its own sometime down the road. Meanwhile, in order to eventually provide oodles of bloggable material about how this platform serves your needs, you can contribute to its architecture and development. This is yet another example of Global Tech Women walking the talk - they want to involve technical women in the creation and direction of this platform.

It dawns on me, on this, the waning week prior to our incredibly close national election here in the US, that just as I hope all of you in this country get out and voice your opinions by VOTING (this is no time to be apathetic or too busy to register your opinion), I hope that all technical women reading this, wherever you are in the globe, take the opportunity to take part in the participatory democracy presented to you by Global Tech Women. In whatever way works for you.

Social Entrepreneurship Means Business

I've been dying to come back to the issue of social entrepreneurship as addressed in my recent post about the documentary "Design & Thinking". Early on in the film one of the business leaders interviewed said a guiding principle should be to ask yourself the following questions [slightly paraphrased]:

"What is the higher calling?"

"How can an organization consecrate itself to that higher calling?"

"...to address the world's problems?"

At first I was puzzled because I am used to hearing this kind of language in religious conversations. However, a rapid mental reset was in order. What a growing number of organizations are doing today is looking at how to conduct their business with the goal of addressing societal and environmental problems. Across industries. This can be clearly demonstrated by the accelerating number, size, and profitability of Socially Responsible Investments (SRIs). 

Notice, by the way, I didn't say "solving" the world's problems, because, and this is my thought on the matter, if you set your mind firmly on a "goal" that you "must" achieve, it is harder to stay in it for the long haul. However, every organization (as well as person) has something to contribute. It can be as concrete as evaluating the plans for the product or software you are developing and considering the ramifications of its design. Perhaps you then change certain design attributes. The film documented several organizations that are doing just that.

Thus, another mental reset is to embrace the idea, advocated in the film, that it is not about tradeoffs. It is not about "Business vs. Society". It is about holding a certain perspective on the world and how we solve problems.  It is about acquiring a broad range of skills to be able to address the complexity of the world in a product - including for-profit enterprises. 

An existing organization, cruising along, can stop and ask itself at anytime the following questions:

"Are we having an impact?"  [on the higher calling identified previously]

"If not, why not?"

"What can be done to get there?"

Aside from profiling lots of examples to prove the point, it was these dirt simple gems of questions that were one of the most important takeaways of the documentary. Anyone sitting there watching was prodded to do more than just admire the people and organizations working for change.

Anyone, in any organization, from a sole proprietorship to a global behemoth, can ask these questions.

Thinking Crazy - Do It!

"So much of coming up with great ideas is allowing yourself to think crazy" spoken by someone in the film "Design & Thinking" which screened last night at the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego. But can the corporate world accept this idea on a widespread basis? Can it be done without busting budgets? Important questions, addressed both directly and indirectly throughout this interesting film.

The film opened with scenes from the Occupy Movement and spent the next hour and fifteen minutes roving back and forth between New York City, San Francisco and Toronto, speaking with and observing a diverse and eclectic group of people in the design movement. I'm not sure why I'm calling it a movement, but after watching these people passionately describe what they do and what they think about the term Design Thinking, "movement" seems fitting.

There was the PhD candidate in Biology who had never heard of the term but described how he designs experiments with frogs (it seemed that no harm comes to the frogs - at least I hope so) and evolves his work through an iterative process that might sound familiar to someone from a classical design background. When he described the process of needing to be flexible and creative, it sounded rather like the many conversations during the film with people affiliated with classical design schools. These designers also spoke about following their intuition and being willing to shift course when development of a product produced unexpected feedback and results.

Moving from scientists to artists, along with CEOs, CTOs, and university faculty, one of the emerging themes in the film was: learning to be comfortable with taking risks. Realizing that you can do so at low cost. Taking risks and being willing to fail doesn't necessitate a huge budget. One of the challenges addressed throughout this film, both directly and indirectly, was how to "get a place at the table", i.e. in a number crunching bottom line world that wants algorithms for achieving success, how do you get the message across to all the relevant decision makers?

It can be done and the film showcased some wonderful examples. I loved the segment when the founder of Code For America was interviewed (was she was in her pajamas?) and spoke about the fear public officials have of putting anything up online that isn't "perfect". She made the very good point that the reason public officials are so risk averse is because we, the voting public, have made them afraid to make even the smallest mistake. No wonder they are afraid to innovate and experiment in the same way as firms in Silicon Valley. The good news however, is that organizations like Code For America are fostering cultural change in small incremental steps.

There is a lot more to say about the film's point of view on multi-disciplinarity, social entrepreneurship and having an impact. For now, consider how this might apply in your world:

"So much of coming up with great ideas is allowing yourself to think crazy"

Why Keep Good Work Secret?

Recently, I wrote the following opinion piece for another venue - I thought I'd share it here with you, as you too might find it interesting. Although I refer specifically to San Diego, I think you'll see that the concept applies far more broadly. The case studies I mention are taken from my book "Computers and Society - Computing For Good".

(For fun, I'm challenging you to figure out why I'm including this particular picture)

People are cynical about the social value technology has for society. As part of my research into socially beneficial computing, I ask random people what the phrase “computers and society” means to them. Respondents invariably start referring to problems: people get hurt, people are screwed over, all types of disasters can happen. Occasionally, people provide specific examples but most of the time they say vague things about how computers dehumanize society. Prodded to think about where computing is being used to benefit society, they pause, and most commonly refer to the One Laptop Per Child initiative or perhaps make a vague reference to philanthropy in “developing countries”.  They think about large software companies that have “extra money” to spend on “side activities”. The evidence is clear: on a gut level, public perception associates computing, and technology driven business in general, with causing harm. People believe there is no business case for using computers to make the world a better place.

Yet, my research has also shown that a wide range of organizations across the country are better able to do business when they focus on the unique role computing can play in helping people or the environment. Not just hi-tech companies either. I studied several dozen organizations that achieved dramatic improvements in executing their core mission by leveraging computing for the public good.

There are many ways to both benefit the public and support your mission with computing. One approach is to take advantage of state of the art advances in computer hardware and software. For example, the Children’sHospital of Philadelphia started with an industry standard PACS for storing and managing their digital images. Unfortunately, the proprietary system did not deal effectively with the demands of modern complex healthcare data. Nurses and doctors who want to spend their time on patient care found themselves having to spend time on wasteful and expensive activities such as manually retrieving digital images.  After implementing a Vendor Neutral Archive, the hospital was able to more efficiently store and retrieve images and to achieve significant cost savings. Stakeholders such as doctors and radiologists were pleased. Most importantly, patient care was improved because imaging data became more rapidly and reliably available, greatly reducing instances of patients “getting the run-around”. The hospital’s already world-renowned reputation for excellence in children’s medical care increased even more. 

A second approach uses distributed computing such that experts can combine forces and make discoveries no single person or institution could make alone. For example, in another healthcare project, a team of interdisciplinary neonatologists, known as The Children’s Hospitals Neonatal Consortium (CHNC), is collaborating with The Child Health Corporation ofAmerica, based in Kansas City, to develop a national database to identify and share best practice recommendations for rare, life threatening conditions. Although still early in the development cycle, the CHNC initiative has already fostered important discussions between member hospitals about how to collect and study data in compliance with federal healthcare reform mandates. When fully implemented, the project will facilitate tracking and trending of individual and patient data, and establish benchmarking standards for quality care across the United States. Physicians and their patients in rural or otherwise isolated hospitals will share in the benefits of cutting edge health informatics research. 

You don’t have to be a large organization to benefit from using computers for social good. As demonstrated by the Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC), based in Gainesville, Florida, social networking can be a powerful way for a small organization to gain more power and influence. With a staff of fewer than 20 people, the STC is trying to reach a world-wide audience about the importance of saving sea turtles. By enhancing, and in some cases replacing, traditional labor intensive outreach methods with a strategic use of social media, they get their message out where it really counts. For example, when the Deep Horizon Oil Spill occurred, state and federal agencies asked for STC assistance, knowing the group was a source of reliable, accurate information about sea turtles and that they had an effective social media presence. The agencies kept the STC in the loop about many activities and the group subsequently played an important role in voicing the positive aspects of the disaster response. Significantly, the STC increased their membership even during the recent recession.

Surprisingly, most organizations I studied did not advertise their computing accomplishments. Yet publicizing your use of computers for the public good can be a valuable selling point. Here in San Diego, where our industry focus is heavily weighted towards biotechnology and medical care, we have a unique opportunity to be on the leading edge of social responsibility and computing. Competitive advantage will follow. San Diego businesses use cutting edge digital technology, are making life saving new discoveries all the time, and provide state of the art services. Putting the spotlight on how you use computing to benefit society will surprise your audience and cause them to see you in a whole new light.

 

Stories Worth Pondering on a Sunny Memorial Day

Today was a holiday here in the US. A friend in New York City and I commiserated over email about the fact that we were both inside plugging away - he in New York City and I here in San Diego. In both places the weather was about as perfect as one could ask. Well, my Boogie Board will come out another day and his...I'm not sure what the NYC equivalent of a Boogie Board is.

In today's virtual travels, which included a meeting with someone in Canada (he also was stuck indoors because it isn't a holiday in Canada), there was opportunity for roaming. In case you too were inside today (or even if not) I share some fun and thought provoking stories I stumbled upon.

First of all, in case you haven't heard enough about Facebook, the hot off the press rumor is that they are developing a smart phone. What a coincidence - just recently I pondered about the relationship between people's politics and their phones. What ilk of voter do you think would flock to a Facebook phone?

Next, in case you thought you had a breather from hearing about Apple Computer, somewhat less hot news, but noteworthy for its implications nonetheless, is that the company is going political. Steve Jobs might be rolling over in his grave, but Tim Cook headed for Congress recently. One can only wonder what Cook and John Boehner spoke about. Does Beohner use an iPhone? I haven't written much about politics in this blog, but that may change if things stay this interesting.

Apropos of today's indoor activities, I must ask: do you have "mouse finger"? That annoying pain in the middle joint of the right index finger experienced by heavy computer users (like moi). It comes from hitting the left mouse button all day long. Here is a nifty video about a new motion controlled technology that may eventually give us all happy fingers.

Now this financial technology idea has huge potential for someone with the right combination of skills. Harness supercomputers to monitor the stock market and trades in real time, in such as way as to provide opportunities to prevent financial crash and burn. With which we are all too familiar. What a great idea. I hope someone gets right on this.

Finally, a Memorial Day story. A cool technology (that is a pun, trust me) that will be very good for helping military personnel. I am at odds with myself to decide if civilian populations ought to be allowed to get their hands on this - or rather in this. These. In These. Special texting gloves. Unless you are a firefighter (do firefighters text?)

I hope you all had a great day, whether you were indoors or outdoors.

Diverted (temporarily) by Buddhist Geeks and Computing

This day has to go into the archives of "sometimes reality is stranger than fiction": in my last post I said I was contemplating writing something speculative about how Buddhism could integrate with computing. It was an exercise in stretching my brain into the "what if" and "why not?" based on the little I know about Buddhism. (and "little" is the operative word here)

Then, this morning, look what landed in my email: The Buddhist Geeks Conference . Wow. Interesting. "aha, Buddhist computing professionals. They must be doing interesting things. Maybe I won't have to do as much speculating as I thought!"

Wanting to share the interesting information, I wrote a tech-savvy Buddhist friend and shared the conference link. That is when I found out things are complicated. Not because doing beneficial things with computing is difficult (heck no) but because of the tension between making money and the intentions behind making that money in a capitalist world. My friend wrote: "...the buddhist geeks are not very popular amongst most Buddhist circles due to the fact that they are all about money and ... There was a blow up on FB, G+, and Twitter a while back". 

The "problem" from some quarters seems to be (and now I'm doing a combination of paraphrasing, informed guesswork, uninformed guesswork and jumping out on a limb) that in much of the Buddhist world, it is considered counterproductive (on multiple levels) to charge money for "things Buddhist". Thus if you visit many Buddhist temples and monasteries, including here in the US, you will find their activities are free, and no one hits you up for "a donation" at the door. Therefore... holding an expensive conference (registration is up to $500) of "Buddhist Geeks" can be perceived as... well... not good. Very not good. Antithetical to Buddhist precepts. To quote my friend again: "...a big blow up on the internet about their intentions a while back. Basically any Buddhist thing that asks for money in return for Dharma [teachings] as their game plan should be avoided..." It's hard to imagine that they wouldn't talk about Dharma at a gathering of Buddhists or Buddhist sympathizers. On the other hand, intention is a big deal in Buddhism as well; the intention behind holding a professional level conference of hi-tech Buddhists could be very good! 

I feel like I'm walking on thin ice by bringing this whole thing up. But I don't want to lose sight of the ideas I started from. 

I wasn't going to suggest anyone has to be a Buddhist. Definitely not. But I was going to take a leap - I was going to speculate about how to integrate Buddhist values into hi-tech corporate America. I was going to point out that Buddhist precepts aren't exactly "out there" (e.g. don't steal, don't kill, don't engage in sexual misconduct, don't lie, don't take intoxicants). I was going to talk about the challenges when the rubber hits the road. 

The rubber hit the road before I had the car door closed. If holding an expensive conference for Buddhist geeks is a "no-no" (I'm not yet ready to take a stance on this...just wondering aloud) yet conferences are a tried and true method of networking and sharing in the tech community... and hi-tech professionals presumably prefer to network and communicate using the mechanisms they use in other aspects of their career... what do we suggest? What are the greater implications of one's stance on the issue?

After running the gamut of thoughts on what to say here, things have changed yet nothing has changed.  Whether you believe the Buddhist Geeks conference is ok or not ok, my intention to stretch our collective minds into considerations of integrating Buddhism and computing remained. A last word on those precepts, in case that part of the conversation made you squirmy: Do we want people in influential and powerful places in corporate America who follow them, whatever their religion or lack thereof? Is there anything truly objectionable about suggesting it is laudable to strive not to  lie, steal, etc? 

Assuming you agree that the answer is "yes we want people like that" how do you think we should get there? That is where I started this conversation: I toss the ball into your court.

Perception Overhaul Needed: Good Business IS For Real

It wasn't part of my plan to write a post today. But yesterday, while attending a professional association meeting, I was reminded just how far we have to go with influencing common perceptions of what "computers and society" means.

I am quite used to people reacting to the phrase "computers and society" with comments about how bad it all is. Never once has anyone I have introduced the phrase "computers and society" to assumed anything other than that it refers to negative uses of technology. When introducing the profiles in my book, as I was yesterday to a fellow writer, I am quite used to needing to explain that I wrote there (as I do here) not about bad, but about good uses of computing. Good that is clear to almost everyone and hard to argue with. An all too typical reaction is a deer in the headlights expression accompanied by a confused pause.

Yesterday, I tried to circumvent this reaction by explaining that when I write about business entities, I like to showcase those who are doing good with computers as part of their everyday business. Listening intently, my conversation partner nodded and asked if I knew about a certain organization in Washington D.C. I did not, was interested, and asked what they did. She replied that they went after businesses that were "not doing the right thing" and got them to change their behavior.

Arg. I took a breath, thanked her, and explained that this was not my focus. Ignoring the familiar, growing, puzzled expression, I explained patiently that there are corporate entities out there that have a business model that integrates doing good for society. Not as a side activity, not as a ploy, but because they feel it is the right thing to do AND it is good business. Not necessarily because they set out to save the world, but because their personal ethics are integrated with their professional corporate ethics.

As is often the case, the conversation ended shortly thereafter. I'm not sure how much she believed that you all are out there and are for real.

Why? Perhaps it is partly a reflection of our national lack of civility in public discourse; perhaps it is a  human tendency to gravitate towards the sensational and dwell on suffering. Perhaps it is a tendency of people doing really exciting positive work to focus more on getting the job done than getting the word out. Admirable, but it leaves much of the greater public with the impression that "computers and society" is a negative concept. It leaves the impression that business benefiting society is a side activity, or something that only happens when it is forced upon a company.

Not true. So I keep writing.

Go Natural with Your Interface

Do you sometimes wish you could know what the next big hot thing in technology will be?  Who thought a few years ago that mobile devices would become so dominant? Yet currently, mobile devices are driving software and hardware development pretty much everywhere. Digital designer and thought leader Luke Wrobleski recently wrote a book, "Mobile First", calling for bottom up interface design - design for mobile devices and only then port to non-mobiles. Screen real estate Rules! (pun)

What's next? Some people have a way of zeroing in on these things. I had a conversation recently with Jonathan Josephson, CTO of Quantum Interface,  about Natural User Interfaces (NUIs), which he firmly believes is the way technology is going - and should go.

Jonathan is one of those entrepreneurial think-outside-the-box people who has inspiration at unexpected moments (e.g. driving the sometimes challenging Texas freeways) and rather than just saying "cool idea!" and continuing home, he patents the idea and forms a successful business venture. Hence it was with Quantum Interface's motion interface technology which the company is developing for use ... lots of places.

If you want to run (fast) in a conversation about interesting ideas, Jonathan is your guy. Within minutes of starting our first phone call we were talking about their technology enabling people to walk into the shower and use arm motions to control the water flow (on, off, hotter, colder, pressure increase, pressure decrease), to watch TV (couch potatoes rejoice - you won't have to get up and you won't need all those annoying remotes either), adjust the lighting (come home late at night and can't find the light switch? no problem. Let there be light, says your body, and there it will be just the way you want it).

And then there is assistive technology -

Wait a minute (we'll come back to that last thought) -  What exactly is a NUI?

(try looking it up online. you will get a multitude of unhelpful answers)

Jonathan explains: a Natural User Interface is a user interface that is natural to use. Ok, agreed, but what does "natural" mean (because I just had to ask)? I was mentally screaming ahead with all the examples of how we are so adept at adapting that sometimes it is hard to tell what is natural and what is acquired. As Jonathan and I spoke about body movements (motions) that are natural to us as humans, he agreed with my comment about how unnatural a smart phone is. I felt vindicated: Last fall I wrote a post here about my frustration with (and ultimate defeat by) an Android phone when I first tried to use it. But, as with many items we interact with daily, after you have learned to manipulate a smart phone, it may feel natural. Until, that is, you bruise your fingers from over enthusiastic tapping on it. I mean really - were the ends of our fingers designed to use as mini-sledgehammers day in and day out?

We can adapt. We have opposable thumbs and all that. Why do we need NUIs?  next time...

The Computer Sand Society

This week begins the holiday season for many people and often with it, unfortunately, way too much stress. Maybe that is why this week (Thanksgiving week in the US) brings out some strangeness. There was the blog post forwarded by a friend about stuffing a turkey with twinkies. It is hard not to feel fondness for something that springs back into shape when you step on it, but ... make a meat glaze out of the so-called "creme filling"? Yuck.

I also received an advertisement in the mail addressed to me at "The Computer Sand Society". Walking back from the mailbox, I thought: this could be a new interdisciplinary application! In response to this inspiration, a friend sent a lovely video link about sand animation; another friend suggested that, nice as it sounds, poolside would be much better than beachside because sand is hard on laptops. Could it be worse than three bouts of sick video cards?  Perhaps, yes it could. Although I once told a cell carrier that my phone had mysteriously died when it had in fact fallen in the toilet (would you want to explain that one?), I'm not sure the computer manufacturer would buy into the notion that a gritty substance floating around the motherboard stemmed from disintegrating integrated circuits.

However, as I do believe in the power of creative thinking to spur innovation, I suspect there is opportunity for The Computer Sand Society to come into its own.

Modeling and simulation of sand castles. Has anyone developed a system, similar to those used by architectural design firms, to analyze the possibilities for ever more complex creations, factoring in the properties of sand - fineness of particles, distribution of various well crumbled crustacean shells, positioning relative to the high tide mark, mineral components?

Sand castle building is serious business for some people. The U.S. Open Sandcastle Competition bit the dust this year and its demise has many people very upset. I wonder if profits from my envisioned application might have helped hold it together? We could have perhaps drawn on the nearby expertise of the famous Scripps Institution of Oceanography, NOAA (the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) and the local surfers who are out every morning, afternoon and evening rain or shine, 365 days a year. Who understands the interactions between sand and surf better than these subject matter experts?

I have always wanted to combine my love of the outdoors with the potential of computing. A typo by some overworked marketing employee has given me the inspiration for a new hi-tech startup. All that is needed now is a really dedicated team to get it off its feet - and an angel investor.

Any takers?

Happy Thanksgiving - have some fun and forget the stressful stuff for a few days.

Puzzling Phone Algorithm; Virtual Reality Consumer Product Research

Recently I had a conversation with Franz Dill, who maintains one of the most prolific blogs I have run into. The name of his blog is The Eponymous Pickle, and you might want to think about that name. Once you figure out what that title is all about, you'll have a window into what a conversation with Franz is like. Without letting the cat completely out of the bag I'll just say...really interesting and loaded with ideas.

Before we even got into "the real conversation" something interesting happened. We were discussing the fact that I was on Skype from my computer and he was on Skype from a mobile phone. In comparing our reception quality (which was fine) I noted that if he had another call come through that the Skype call would be dropped. The first time it happened to me it was quite puzzling. One moment the person I was talking to was there, the next moment he was gone. poof. No warning for either of us, just - gone. Franz suggested this was probably the result of call prioritization.

Hmm? Now, looking back on it I'm wondering - that seems like an odd arrangement. Who wrote the software that made the decision that a current call should drop if a new one comes in? Did anyone test that out on users? It doesn't follow usual phone protocol. It also doesn't lead to a positive interaction moment, and in the case of a critical negotiation for example, could be quite disruptive. Why do you think they (whoever "they" is) wrote the algorithm that way?

Moving on...one of the interesting things Franz and I discussed was his role in creating the first Innovation Center at Proctor & Gamble. The Center was (and still is) used to creatively experiment with the impact on consumers of various home and store environments. They took over a warehouse in the middle of a cornfield and built a house inside it (yes, you read that right) and later built a store next to the house - inside the warehouse. Apparently one reason to build a house inside a warehouse was so they could make constructive adjustments to the facility (such as punching holes in the wall :)  for the purpose of improved experimentation and monitoring. Presumably, having your own house in a warehouse meant that the house could be recreated and repurposed over and over again as needed.

Franz and his colleagues performed all sorts of experiments with real consumer/users and these experiments eventually moved into the realm of virtual reality. For example, they created wall size displays that people could interact with (you can see a picture of one and read about it in detail in the Eponymous Pickle).

I wonder if the current development team is working on a 3-D virtual store yet. Imagine what it would be like not only to look at and touch the wall display but to reach out and pick up items items off a virtual shelf and put them in a virtual shopping cart. Or perhaps pick up virtual items and put them in a physical shopping cart. The technology to do this exists. I didn't ask Franz about 3-D virtual consumer experimentation and I wish I had.

What do you think the consumers/users reaction to virtual 3-D shopping would be? (That means...you!)

Computing and Studio Based Design in Industry, Fine Arts and Architecture

One of today's most food for thought-ish ideas at the ICER conference (from my pov) started with the presentation of a paper by Chris Hundhausen from Washington State University entitled "Prototype Walkthrough: A Studio-Based Learning Activity for Human-Computer Interaction Courses" (HCI). Chris pointed out that studio models have been used for years in Architecture (of buildings and other structures) and Fine Art. The idea of experimenting with a studio model in computing courses is not in itself new. Studio courses have been tried in lower division computing courses and a few other places in the curriculum.

What really got my attention was when Chris, who worked for a few years at Microsoft Corporation as a Useability Engineer, claimed that industry uses a design model very much like the studio model and thus there was an added reason to teach computing in this way. His belief is that we should be able to take ideas from Architecture and Fine Arts pedagogy and apply them to the design phases of HCI pedagogy. My ears perked up. Another possible bridge point between industry and academia (the topic of several of my recent posts)? Architecture, Fine Art, Computing, Hi-tech industry...?

Chris broke down his study into great detail about the stages of design and how stakeholders talk to one another about design and several times referred back to industry practices.Very interesting and well grounded in details that sounded like they came straight from his industry experience.

Someone I was sitting with at my table referred me to another member of the audience who had experience in the studio model and a significant knowledge of design and Architecture and so, for another perspective, I went and spoke with this person. I asked her for ideas about how the pedagogical studio model techniques could be transferred from Architecture and/or Fine Arts to computing. To my surprise she told me in no uncertain terms that the studio model would *not* work in computing. She told me that the way a true studio model works is that the classroom is handed over to a professional who brings in a real project s/he is working on and the students work on it under the direction of the professional. The inverse I note, of sending students out to a client on a service project. In the studio model, according to my conversant, the professional comes to the students and the professor steps out of the way.

She claims this model will not work in computing because the cultures are very different between Archtecture and Fine Arts and that "you can't stand around a compiler and critique it". Is this true?

What do you think? A very thought provoking question. If yes, how? If not, why not?

Chris appears to believe (I'm doing some extrapolation here) that you can - or at least that there are significant fundamental tenets of the professional studio model that can be used in the design of HCI software.

Stretch your mind - can you bring a professional from the high tech industry into the classroom with a real project that they are working on and have them lead the class in a studio model inspired design process?

A Tale of Two Valuations: Academia Next

I initially thought this post would be a piece of cake compared to the previous post about the corporate perspective. Not so. Perhaps because of my extensive academic experience I am far more aware of the variance of how professionals are valued in the world of higher education. So I have been looking for points of common ground within academia...I am almost afraid someone will throw a rotten tomato at me because I know too much (I've been reading a murder mystery, where the person who knows too much often comes to a messy end).

To state the obvious (to academics at least) there are the three classic areas of valuation for faculty: Teaching, Research and Service. Service (pretty much anything not teaching or research related such as committee work, performing outreach or being a student adviser) can safely be said to come last in the pile. Do no committee work and you will get dinged; do too much and you will get dinged (I know someone who was denied tenure because he was told he performed too much service work). So the trick is to find the middle ground according to the culture of your department and institution.

From there is gets murkier.

Teaching: In some institutions this is virtually all that counts. But how it is measured varies widely. In some cases, it is all about teaching evaluations. Period. Get those numbers up and get them high or else. The pressure can be intense, and in extreme examples there can be a completely predictable desperation to "please" students above all else. In my experience, this is not the norm, and is incredibly destructive to the learning process. More often, in a teaching oriented institution, evaluations are important, but only one indicator of how a faculty is evaluated. More sophisticated methods of assessing effective learning are used.  And by effective I'm not talking statistical evaluation; I'm talking qualitative evaluations. That is healthy imo. Institutions with a well rounded process for evaluating teaching can produce amazing students who go on to do amazing things inside and outside the classroom and after graduation. And the faculty feels professionally successful and appreciated.

Research: In some institutions this is virtually all that counts. Again, the worst case scenario is where not only are publications counted (literally) but the venues for publication are ranked. If you don't get into "the top" pubs, forget it. You are toast. Even within computing, there are disagreements as to what counts as a quality publication venue. Then there are grants. Worst case scenario, you need a fixed number of grants and big dollars - millions would be nice. Not healthy, as there is only so much money to go around and that sets up a system of guaranteed winners and losers regardless of quality. Very much like using a normalization curve in grading. Something I never used and never will because it has all sorts of negative side effects that many educators are well enough aware of that I won't repeat them here.

Quite a bit of gloom up in those paragraphs. Now to inject a positive perspective. BALANCE. It is all about balance. The original idea behind Teaching, Research and Service was to promote balance. Some of all three are needed from every faculty. Many institutions, although they do by design weight teaching and research differently, maintain a healthy balance. What are the factors that indicate successful teaching in such situations? Each professional is evaluated in the context of both institutional need and known pedagogical / cognitive learning understandings. Other factors come into play to varying degrees depending upon the context: local needs, student needs, etc. What are the factors that indicate successful research? Very similar actually. The institutional needs and established understandings of rigor in scientific research lead to an evaluation of individual contributions (reminder here that we are talking computing and related areas. I can't speak to areas such as the arts and humanities). Grants in these institutions aren't just about how much money is brought in, but about the effect the work is likely to have on science, or in the case of educational research such as computer science education research on the discovery and dissemination of improved teaching and learning theory and application.

It feels like I've short circuited my comments, but that comes from knowing too much.

A summation might be: for faculty in academia professional valuation is based on teaching, research and service, and in a healthy environment there is a contextually appropriate and healthy balance. Value is not just numbers, nor is it vague and undefinable.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but that is only the case if you are an academic reading this. Based upon some of the comments I received to my last post about valuation in the corporate world, there are many to whom this post will be news.

One of my next tasks will be to see where I can locate opportunities for common ground.

But first, I'll ask you to graciously do what you did before, and provide your perspective on:

1) What can you add about how academics in higher education are judged to provide value to their organizations?  What can you add that is concrete - i.e. can be said in very concise form?

2) Where do you see common ground between between corporate and academic valuation of professional contribution to their organizations? 

(I think we have all heard about the areas where there is supposedly no common ground. Let's look for the positive now).