Geek Girl Tech Con - View into the Sharkette Tank

San Diego Geek Girl Tech Con took place on Saturday and as predicted I wished I'd had a clone so that I could be in half a dozen places at once. The scope of activities was impressive: 13 (yes, 13) simultaneous workshops, speakers and events going on most of the day from 9am-6pm. Energy was high and people seemed thrilled with the opportunity to dive into such a diverse and supportive environment. For those still standing at the end of the day (which many were) there was a lively outdoor reception. Minus a clone, I nonetheless had some amazing experiences; I decided to focus much of my time on entrepreneurial sessions. So in this first post about the Con, I'm sharing observations and insights of the Sharkette Tank.

Sharkette Tank Judges

There were three sessions of the Sharkette Tank, which was made up of a panel of 5-6 judges and 10 local start-up companies making their best pitches to promote their business. With my bird's-eye view from the audience, it was a fascinating opportunity to watch everyone. Some of the product and service ideas were brilliant. In addition, the Sharkette Tank provided a great learning opportunity for anyone thinking of jumping into the start-up world. With that in mind, here are some take home messages.

- Focus, focus, focus. The judges, always polite (unlike their counterparts on network television who can be scathing), suggested more than once that a company was trying to solve too many problems, or trying to solve a big problem before nailing down their core solution to a targeted customer pain point. This can be easier said than done of course, because having vision and a passion to scale impact is what gets entrepreneurs up in the morning. Lose that passion and you lose your reason for existence.

This pitch left no stone unturned

- Distribution Strategy? Quite a few companies received feedback that they had a great product or product idea, but didn't have a concrete, viable plan to get it out there to the people who would want it. In a related vein, had they done a solid test of their idea in the target market? This is another tough issue. It's easy to fall into a "build it and they will come" mentality. Especially when you think, you know, that your product or service is the next best thing since sliced bread. Besides, the leg work necessary to gain a foot hold in competitive markets isn't exciting (to most people).

Which brings me to my next observation:

- Who is missing from the team? A few teams were told that they were lacking a key principle person in some area (e.g. technical, marketing). Companies that want to make an impact, that want to scale, can't be companies of one. Now, here is something really cool I learned about later on when I was having a conversation with one of the judges: Founder Dating. Connecting entrepreneurs with other entrepreneurs. Kudos to the people who came up with this idea!

Bet you can guess what this company is about

- Presentation matters. The best presentations grabbed the judges in the first few seconds and kept them interested and engaged throughout. The bottom line message was "Show Me, Don't Tell Me". It is much more effective to demonstrate your product or service in some way, rather than simply talk about how wonderful it is. You could tell by watching the judges' facial expressions and body language if they were intrigued. Long before you got to the Q&A where the nature of their feedback removed all doubt. You could also get a second read on this by looking around at the audience. When a company was really kicking butt, no one was on their cell phone or chatting with their neighbor.

The judges' favorites included Packsack, a new twist on reusable bags, inspired by observations about plastic on the beach by the surfer founder. This is Southern California! Another favorite was Giftovus, an interesting way to crowd source gift buying and giving. They call it, appropriately, "friend sourcing".

The judges' (and my) hands down favorite was USKey*, who are prototyping an ingenious way to prevent laptop theft. As the two college student presenters noted in the first few seconds of their presentation: don't you just hate it when you get settled into a coffee shop or other public place, with all your stuff spread out and your computer set up, and only then discover you have to go to the bathroom? I think everyone in the auditorium, including the judges, could relate to that scenario. I'm rooting for these two women and their company big time.

From my pov, everyone won. Everyone who pitched in the Sharkette Tank received valuable feedback about the content and style of their presentation as well as about their product plan and trajectory. The audience had the chance to observe first hand what a pitch can look like and what works or doesn't work.

The judges generously donated their time and experience to the community through this event. It didn't stop there because they were accessible all day. I was not the only one who had enjoyable and professionally helpful conversations with them.

Meeting new people and learning new things was happening every where at Geek Girl Tech Con. In my next post, I'll share some of the other goings on at the Con.

Just a few of the Sharkette Tank Entrepreneurs

*As far as I can tell, they don't yet have a website.

What If a Student's MOOC Assignment POs Someone?

What would happen if something a MOOC student submitted for an assignment offended someone not involved in the course? It's bound to happen sooner or later. Considering the global reach of a MOOC there could be a lot of blow back. Wouldn't it be a great idea to take a pedagogically proactive approach to the possibility?

I had such a terrific time taking my first MOOC earlier this year ("How to Change the World" read about the experience here) that I signed up for another one. The MOOC I'm currently enrolled in is called "Beyond Silicon Valley : Growing Entrepreneurship in Transitioning Economies" led by Michael Goldberg at Case Western Reserve University. I am having as excellent an experience this time around. Beyond Silicon Valley is challenging, thought provoking, engaging and as with "How to Change the World" I'm learning incredibly useful information that has already paid off professionally in more ways than one.

One nice difference this time is that the course faculty are taking active part in the forum discussions. That provides an added sense of connection. On the down side, the assignments are assessed this time based solely upon word count and whether or not you submit the assignment on time. I found this out when I misread a due time (did "midnight" mean the start of the day or the end of the day?) and also when my assignments were scored instantaneously. I have to say that I miss the peer grading from my last MOOC; it wasn't always high quality, but it was interesting. And the opportunity to read and ponder other student assignments was enlightening and sometimes mind blowing.

As with my first MOOC, "Beyond Silicon Valley" asks the student to dig for answers and reflect on their implications for their own situation. But it goes beyond that with a midterm that asks the student to interview local entrepreneurs and write about their findings.

Herein approaches the sticky issue.

Some pretty sensitive stuff can come up when asking business owners about their company. Having interviewed people in a variety of professional settings for years, I know that even the most cautious interviewee let slip things they might prefer not be put in writing. A good interviewer can facilitate this happening. It then falls on the interviewer to employ wise judgement when writing up their story.

Having high journalistic standards (whether as a professional or student writer) is important. I suspect the vast majority of my peer students are not out to muck rake or hurt anyone. Hopefully they pay attention to how and what they write, and in sensitive situations perhaps run proposed text by the people they report on.

But do all students in a given class take such care? Perhaps more important for an educator to ask: Do students even know to think about this?

No, they all don't.

In a Coursera MOOC (both of my classes were by Coursera) the student signs an agreement not to distribute, copy, report or otherwise share anything written by another student without that student's express permission. This is good, and thus, should there be a leak of one student's material by another student, the source of responsibility and liability is pretty clear.

On the other hand, students also sign an agreement when they first sign up with Coursera  acknowledging they are aware that all their contributions will be readable by the university course staff and by Coursera personnel. In addition, the student agrees that Coursera may, at it's own discretion, use portions of student submissions. I can't remember the details, but basically the student agrees that Coursera has wide latitude in how it chooses to use student material. I have no problem with that. Coursera has the right to make that request in return for the educational service they are providing - for free. Until proven otherwise, I default to trusting Coursera not to abuse the situation.

Back to the stickiness.

Consider a scenario in which a student in a course such as "Beyond Silicon Valley"submits an assignment based upon an interview with a business entity. It's good. It's interesting. It's quality. As a result, someone on university or Coursera staff uses part or all of it for training or PR purposes. The business becomes offended for some unforeseeable reason.

The business may have assumed confidentiality, especially as this was a student assignment. The student may have not thought about the possibility that either a) what s/he wrote would bother anyone or that b) it would ever be seen outside the virtual course wall. The student may have not discussed the possibility of the the interview becoming public in whole or part. Yet Coursera has the right to use the student material. Everyone was acting in good faith. Nonetheless, the stuff hits the fan.

Who is responsible? Who is going to take the heat? Who is going to come out ok and who will be severely bruised?

It would be completely counterproductive for all concerned if this situation becomes bogged down in legal and bureaucratic wranglings. We're talking about education here folks; social change. Let's take the high road shall we and try to cut this off at the pass.

In a live or virtual classroom there is an opportunity for faculty to discuss issues of confidentiality, privacy, contractual agreements; implications of what you write, possible scenarios of how material can be used. Especially with regards to interviewing and how the material is written up. We shouldn't assume that intelligent well educated adults (as most MOOC students are) know all about this. Even if they do, the topic bears revisiting. It's good for faculty and students alike to remember that you can have all your facts and knowledge and entrepreneurial ducks in a row, yet if you step on the wrong person's toe you are toast.

Pedagogically, there is an important difference here between a traditional class and a MOOC class. The sense of distance inherent to a virtual environment can lead to increased complacency or denial of interpersonal communication landmines. Thus we have a challenge that needs to be addressed proactively.

Pedagogically we have a great opportunity.  MOOCs such as Coursera's want to change the face of education and benefit society by leveraging the power of the Internet. I'm all for it. In these early entrepreneurial stages of MOOC development, let's watch for these sticky issues and talk about them until we solve them.

2014: Historic Opportunities for Computer Science

Sun Set; Sun Rise

At the end of the year it is natural to think back about the past year and forward to the coming year. 2013 has been a huge year for computer science and 2014 looks like it could be even more important. After years of effort by many people, that seemed at times to fall on deaf ears, suddenly it seems everyone is talking about one important aspect of computing: coding. Who would have thought?

Coding is not all there is to Computer Science obviously, but it is central to a computing education and the fact that coding has become a subject of widespread conversation is nothing short of fantastic. Not only that, the conversations about coding are putting computer science into a very good light and people are getting enthusiastic about it.

What really excites me about that is the positive fallout of this enthusiasm. I am seeing more and more attention placed on what computing technology can do for people. For society. For the environment. As attention is paid to computing at the level of introductory coding, attention is also being paid to what people who persist in coding, then further computing studies, can do in the world with these skills. That is where the big picture rubber hits the road. Today you code a few lines; a few years from now you can... your imagination is your only limit. 

For example, "entrepreneurial thinking" has taken on the status of buzzword. Every other advertisement for something seems to find a way to toss in "entrepreneurial". As with commercials in general, some use of the word is more plausible than others. Such is the nature of the media. But you know, we have the opportunity to leverage the moment, and the media attention, to make the clearest connection possible between computer science education, computing workforce opportunities and the positive opportunities stemming from technology entrepreneurship.

In the past year we have begun to see widespread STEM education conversations more often recognizing the ubiquity of computing and the opportunities for mutual gain from working together across disciplines. More people have been talking about the goals shared by STEM educators. I have been reading more papers and proposals advocating for, and conducting, cross-disciplinary computing research. Systemic challenges in the K-12 and post-secondary arenas are being examined and we are increasing horizontal and vertical bridges within computing education. I am seeing more and more fascinating uses of computing in support of important issues such as disaster relief, disaster prevention, ecological prediction, and raising global standards of living.

Another area that is receiving (finally!) increased media attention, is the very real economic impact of computing jobs and the need for increasing the number of highly skilled computer science graduates. We are also starting to hear a lot more outside of traditional computing education communities about the need for students with deep knowledge of computing in all sorts of fields. These include the humanities, the arts, the social sciences. The conversations in the so-called "soft fields" about the role of computing are just starting to happen, but they are starting. This conversation is long overdue and it is exciting to see it begin.

Much of what I just touched on wasn't happening a year ago. We are on a roll.

2014 is going to be a critical year for computer science education and computing jobs. We have work to do in all arenas: K-12, community colleges, 4 year colleges and universities, broadening participation and addressing pervasive equity challenges. All is not roses and light. We have our work cut out for us.

In fact, one of the results of all the attention on computer science has been a resurgence of attention paid to some of the pervasive sexist behavior that takes place in areas of the technology industry. Some of what I have read is truly horrible and disgusting. It would be hard to believe that this stuff happens in the 21st Century, except that with social media providing instant and precise transcriptions of people's words, this stuff comes out in the open. The good news? More and more people are recognizing just how destructive, on all fronts (personal, professional, educational, economic, you name it), discriminatory words and behavior are. We have before us an unprecedented opportunity - and obligation - to institute cultural change where it is needed.

I am excited about the opportunities for computer science, and computing in general,  in 2014. We made giant leaps forward in 2013.  Enthusiasm is growing for computer science, computing, computational thinking. Many more people are sticking their toes in the waters of coding and discovering it can be fun! We are talking about curricular opportunities all through K-12 and up through graduate school. New connections and collaborations are being formed between academia and industry in support of increasing the numbers and diversity of highly successful, well prepared computer science graduates. People who never thought about computer science, or who didn't think they had a reason to think about computer science, are checking it out.

What are we going to do with all of this enthusiasm and opportunity? Big ideas are brewing; creative minds are pondering; entrepreneurial spirits are breaking new ground.The onus is on all of us to take part in this historic opportunity. There are so many ways you can help keep up, speed up, the roll we are racing along on, set the direction.

Whatever you are already doing to improve the planet through computing: 

keep at it in 2014. 

Whatever ideas you are percolating on to improve the planet through computing: 

resolve to put them into action in 2014. 

Have a Safe and Happy New Year

Entrepreneurial MOOCs at the ACM Ed Council Meeting

Pardon the sizzling neurons: I'm attending the ACM Education Council meeting this weekend. This afternoon we heard from a panel of 4 tech industry speakers who are innovating in the MOOC realm; all are teaching introductory programming. The 4 were from: Khan Academy, CodeHS, Tynker and Google. Thought provoking to say the least.

There were some striking similarities among the 4 although they had different visions and philosophies. They all shared huge enthusiasm - incredibly dynamic enthusiasm. They were passionate and excited about teaching coding to kids. They focused on engagement; thus there was a lot of talk about "fun" and "cool" and one of the speakers was almost hopping up and down as she spoke - that was Pamela Fox from Khan Academy. With her partially purple hair. I would love to put Pamela in front of a bunch of middle or high school girls - she was technical, personable, enthusiastic and would debunk the idea that coding was blah or anti-social. Pamela spoke of community building, mentioned a concern with working for gender neutrality and incorporating accessibility into online learning; all the while sprinkling the conversation with blurbs that make it clear she was a solid techie. In fact, most of Pamela's talk was detailed info on her approach to designing an effective coding learning platform for kids. Her biggest focus was with creating solid debugging environments. She clearly gets the notion that what happens when we make mistakes is critical - do we come back and want to keep coming back or do we bail in despair?

One thing in particular Krishna Vedati from Tynker said really stuck with me. Like many of the panelists, he talked about asking kids what interested them and then having them code around that thing. While discussing the finer points of their software and approach he mentioned that he has a son and a daughter and his daughter always wants to write stories and his son wants to create games; he doesn't want to make his daughter code to create games (and by implication: he doesn't want to make his son code to write stories). It was a passing comment, but it captured an important piece of messaging embraced by most of the speakers.

One of the founders of CodeHS was Jeremy Keeshin and he was interesting enough that several of us had a long involved conversation with him at dinner. Grilled him actually. Jeremy put up with us with good cheer. Not only because he was surrounded on all sides and would have had to crawl under the table between us to get away. As part of his work Jeremy travels around the country spending time in classrooms where the rubber hits the road - meeting teachers and learning about what they do, why they do it, what they think and feel. His company works hard to work with teachers and schools rather than going around them. I am going to talk to Jeremy again in the near future because I think he and his company would interest enough of you that I want to write more here. Stay tuned.

Of course there was controversy; members of the Ed Council asked all of the panelists some tough questions. One recurrent theme had to do with how they know what they are doing works. Evaluation (how? what kind? what makes sense? what is practical?) is an ongoing challenge in any pedagogical setting and when you are talking about a startup (as 3 out of the 4 companies on the panel were) in the fast paced world of high tech - it's tricky. Some panelists addressed this question better than others. Needless to say I spent quite a bit of time on this - it was one of the longer topics of discussion over dinner at my table.

Neil Fraser from Google's Blockly project said some things that were unquestionably controversial. The one that really got me was when he said (several times, and with followup detail) that one of the things they had learned was to ignore user feedback. I can't remember his exact words after that but the idea seemed to be that users didn't know what was best for them. Coming on the heels of earlier comments that were less than tactful about computing degree programs and their graduates ... I have to give Neil credit for having the guts to share his views.

My brain is fried, no doubt about it, after a long day of meetings - this panel was just one piece of the long day. Tonight's sharing with you was a blurping of thoughts onto the page and there is a lot I need to process. But I can say right away that I believe we can learn a lot from the panel presentation. There were lots of technical and pedagogical details that I didn't get into here. But it's not that. What we can learn has more to do with - something in the non technical realm that hasn't gelled for me yet. The dialog needs to continue.

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.

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.

Might "Silo-ing" Be a Good Thing for Interdisciplinary Computing?

Two questions about innovation and interdisciplinary computing are on my mind at the moment (continuing my conversation from the last 3 posts). One question is "what is innovation"/"how does one identify innovation" and the second is "How does one support innovation"?

I'm going to tackle the second question this time, and the first question in the next post. In a comment to my last post Jim L. spoke about the changes that have taken place at RIT over the last decade, and as I replied, I see a lot of innovation at work in the diversifying and splitting off of related computing degree programs.

The approach that RIT appears to have taken (not being privy to internal institutional decisions) in some ways fits with one of the primary tenets of how to nurture and succeed with truly innovative change (the book refers to these changes and technological advances as "disruptive"). The claim is that in order to succeed, an organization must branch off into a separate organization the process, resources and values needed to make the change fly. Sometimes the change is geographic but whether physically remote or not, there are firmly established boundaries drawn between existing institutional culture and the development of a new culture for the innovation to flourish. So when RIT (and I again emphasize that I am speculating here) broke off its computing programs into different areas run by different faculty, I would hazard to guess they were in effect creating new cultural structures. The fact that the programs were very successful, and "students are pouring in the door" reflects doing something seriously right - the Innovator's Dilemma (ID) book is littered with examples of organizations that attempted to create innovative change and failed because the prevailing cultural norms of doing business impeded the change.

Now, where I am particularly curious is Jim's comment that the groups are silo-ing - and that this is a problem. We traditionally view silo-ing as negative. However, from the theoretical stance of the ID book as I interpret it, this behavior may  be a positive. Research and case studies in the book point to example after example where initially separate organizational boundaries were initially successful but flopped when forced by external pressures to re-merge into a larger or pre-existing organizational structure.

Let me be heretical for a moment: Is "silo-ing" in fact a way to maintain healthy boundaries for innovation? 

BUT, and I just throw this out there - intended as a thought that applies well beyond any one school - can silo-ing be viewed as something different? What if we alter our assumptions of what is "good" and "bad"? Just as "traditional ways of doing business" sometimes fail at supporting innovation, and thus one has to re-evaluate what is "good management" in those contexts, is it possible that "silo-ing" or the separation of innovative interdisciplinary groups is a productive thing to maintain?

Following that thought, if successful separate organizations (in the academic departmental/major lingo this would mean degree programs) succeed because they split off and form their own values, processes, resources => culture, is maintaining that separation perhaps a positive event?

There is a wonderful table on page 177 of the ID book, that I don't dare scan in, for fear of copyright violation, but it lays out really nicely  the ways to fit the requirements of an innovation to an organization's capabilities (note: not the same as the people's capabilities who work in that organization). It is worth looking at, because there have been other educational institutions that have succeeded (and failed) in similar innovations and I found the insight gained from studying this table fascinating.

Before I leave off on this post, I want to point to two other educational organizations that are following the most important approach to supporting innovation laid out in The Innovator's Dilemma: creation of a separate protected organization.

One is well established, one is just getting off the ground.

The Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology created a separate entity called Rose-Hulman Ventures, a think tank and incubator of sorts that involves students and industry in collaborative efforts to spark innovation and entrepreneurship (disclosure: I used to work at Rose-Hulman). Ventures, as it is called locally, is in a physically separate location from the main campus, and operates on a very different model than the academic programs. They have had some noteworthy successes.

A very new venture, in the early stages of development is the creation of graduate studies in Wireless Health through the school of Engineering by Case Western Reserve. Case Western is located in Ohio. This program is being set-up in San Diego. You might say (devil's advocate speaking here): "what? a whole program in wireless health?". That would be a typical response from an establishment pov to a radical risky venture - according to the theories of why innovation sometimes gets shut down. On the other hand, they are creating a clear boundary (at least geographically) between the main campus and the location of this program. Now, whether this program succeeds will depend upon many other factors besides location - as we have been discussing. But it is a very interesting example to watch develop and see what happens.

Surviving the Challenges of Personal and Professional Volunteering

I volunteer for a few organizations, one of which allows me to get into the mountains on a regular basis. I am a weekend host at a mountain lodge. Absolutely lovely and worth the occasional hassle. This past weekend I had hassle in larger numbers than usual. Dead mice played a part as did several people who felt they did not have to pay to use the facilities. We are not talking big bucks here. In fact, "extremely inexpensive" would be most accurate.

Spending several days in the woods, even when unexpectedly called upon to become a plumber, electrician, random trouble shooter or occasional Tough Guy (Gal), leads to regular introspection. This weekend I found myself thinking about the process we use to choose to take on "extra" activities, and how we decide when we have achieved a good balance. Taking on innovative professional projects often starts off as "volunteer service". We come up with an idea we just can't put down and we run with it. Eventually, if all goes well, the project blossoms, and becomes part of our portfolio of acknowledged and rewarded activities.

Many of the interesting interdisciplinary computing projects I come across start off as an idea that pops into someone's head and they run with it. The projects I hear about are usually the successful ones - difficult people were dealt with, project goals were achieved, peers, subordinates and supervisors are enthusiastically on board, and academic or business objectives are aligned.

But there are great projects that never gain traction.  In several recent cases I heard about, a critical reason for failure was "volunteer overload and burnout".  You have probably noticed that some of the most creative people take on more than their share of projects - because they have the ideas and energy. There is a delicate balance needed between taking on many exciting projects and not being driven to pull your hair out all at once.

Successful entrepreneurial and adventuresome types know their personal limitations: physical and emotional. They know when enough is enough and how to say "no more".  They know how to deal with annoying people who want to suck the lifeblood out of them. They have patience and are able to emotionally let go of the annoying lifeblood sucking people. They know when to ask for help: we can't simultaneously be spontaneous plumbers, electricians, maintenance personnel, stackers of wood, and gatherers of litter. We know when to call in reinforcements, or at least someone who knows how to stop the mystery leak.

Sometimes we have to catch mice. I had to remove 4 dead mice upon my arrival in the mountains this weekend, and do it before the guests arrived. Then I had to listen to the "snap" in the middle of the night as the mousetraps caught more mice - which I had to get rid of before everyone got up in the morning. I'm not a big fan of killing mice. In fact I'd rather not. This weekend, with the large number of dead rodents to deal with, and the couple of people who were determined to take advantage of my being a "volunteer", I thought about the importance of setting scope, fixing boundaries, goal setting and knowing when to let go of what is not really that important for the sake of the bigger picture. Just like my professional projects. No different.

Computing and a Toothbrush?

I was hunting for something quite different (and far more serious) when I found this unusual toothbrush and it was just too intriguing to pass up. There exists this computer scientist and inventor who got into toothbrushes (among other things). I just had to read on. The CS inventor, Richard Trocino, lives in Austin, Texas one of my favorite cities and former home. That clinched it. My textbook writing project was temporarily diverted.

This toothbrush is pretty slick if you are into gadgets. A gift for the person who has it all (make a note on your holiday or birthday list). Called the OHSO, it is a refillable toothbrush with an oxygen intrusion prevention setup so that the toothpaste will never gum up (so go the marketing materials). You can put your favorite toothpaste in - I wonder if that includes a homeopathic paste made from baking soda and water."Suction technology" makes it easy to fill. That makes me want to see just how much sucking is done and what else could get sucked in.

It self dispenses in different ways depending upon if you twist the little knob or if you tilt it a certain way. There is a little window where you can peer in at the stuff to see how much paste is left. No leaking, airtight all around and with replaceable parts. I am dying to play with one of these.

I have read everything I can find and I don't see where computing technology comes into the OHSO. Unless there is a little microchip hidden in there somewhere. But you'd think they'd advertise it. I would like to take it apart and find out.

Maybe the computer science only comes in via the fact that they don't do formal advertising but rely on word of mouth and social media to generate sales.

Is this a socially useful device? There are testimonials on the site from business travelers to active duty military personnel and everyone in between swearing how much they love this toothbrush.  Clean teeth, the prevention of cavities and recessing gum lines are definitely a good thing. Keeping one's teeth is a good thing. There is something perhaps "green" in a toothbrush that might last for years. I can't tell if it is made primarily from plastic or metal. That would add or subtract from the beneficial environmental aspects. But you have to be the judge on this one.

What I really want is to approach it as a technological device and test it in every way possible, including taking it apart and putting it back together. I know I could put my research design skills to work on coming up with some very creative experiments.

Hopefully I would have better luck than the time back in my 20s when out of curiosity I took the front passenger door off my 1969 Dodge Dart and couldn't put it back on.  (the door was too heavy - those wonderful cars were tanks) I drove 20+ miles down the highway at full highway speeds without a door in order to find another pair of arms. But a toothbrush is a far cry from a solid steel car door. What could possibly go wrong? There is that suction aspect to consider I suppose. Unlike a garbage disposal however I wouldn't have to stick my hand into a dark place full of nasty sharp blades.

But really, the scientist in me hears about something this unusual and drives me to want to take an OHSO toothbrush and put it through some serious paces. Then I can find out or infer if computing plays a role in the device and if the device is socially beneficial.

If someone will provide me an OHSO I promise to take it traveling on business, into the mountains on retreat, to the dentist (just have to see what she'd say about this) and in fact I'd stick it in my pocket, take it everywhere, and brush at random intervals wherever I happened to be. I might even alternate between randomness and statistically planned brushing events.

In between taking it apart  and putting it back together.

I'll devote the full range of my assessment and evaluator experience to the task.

How about it OHSO - want to send me one? Consider it free product testing.

Cool Idea: Online Exchanges That Build Community

I'm not sure how often anyone aside from sociologists think about the negative effects of a society where people don't know their neighbors and aren't involved in their local community. That is us - we are often fractured. I'm sure the effects range from economic to psychological (this got me thinking....) I just read about a way that computing is being used in a really ingenious way to  engender and encourage community.

The idea is online gadget and service exchange, share, rental services. But not from some unknown entity that drops out of the virtual sky from who knows where. You sign up for something you'd like to borrow, or a service you'd like, and then you connect with someone local who has that to offer. For a small fee you get the object (or service) for a short period of time - to use, to test out. Then you return it (the object or the person :).  In the process you meet people who live near  you because you have to meet F2F to exchange the item or arrange for the service to take place. This nifty arrangement serves a need (obtain an item or service much cheaper than if you bought it outright) and in the process gets people to meet other people. There is incentive for everyone to be friendly - we both win.

I think that this is a very creative idea. It tackles a societal problem that many of us just take as "the way life is" because we are so busy. (Who lives downstairs? When was the last time I talked with people in my neighborhood?)

I'd love to have a Roomba for a day. Get this place clean and have fun at the same time. In fact I could use a Roomba, a Blackberry, an iPod, an iPhone, a newer model printer, a Kindle... I would love to check them out and play with them  to see how they  work real time. And who knows what fascinating people I'd meet! Much more fun and productive than reading a bunch of online reviews. Cool Idea!