The New Content

I am excited by the blurring of the lines between our digital and physical worlds that we are seeing the moment.

In a roundabout way, this has been coming for a while, with its roots in 'shared-ownership' of entertainment media. We have had book and movie/music libraries for quite a while of course; they are continually evolving in various forms – how about an Amazon eLibrary on the Kindle, free to the end user and paid for by local councils (BookLending.com in partnership maybe)? After all Spotify has successfully managed to build a business that (just about) delivers free music to consumers and provides revenues for the record labels.

This model is also present with the more tangible objects of our world. Street/Zip-car have long understood that consumers are adept at weighing up the value and cost of owning a high cost item vs. paying for it when you need it. While this does not mean downloadable cars (at least not yet) - it does mean that a new car is just a cheaper subscription fee away – and this mindset is showing itself cheaper, in-frequent use categories such as D.I.Y tools and fashion bags, with Fashion Bags for example. And of course, it has made entrepreneurs of us all, giving us the ability to unlock the potential of the physical assets we own. Airbnb the peer to peer accommodation service is the current high-flyer, but expect many more examples to follow soon.

What this adds up to is an evolving relationship between us, these items and the channels to using them. With ownership no longer a pre-requisite to use,  physical objects have effectively been 'positioned' alongside digital content, enabling people to choose the cheapest/most flexible/quickest/etc ... service to access this new 'content'. 

And for us (and our clients)? We will need to continually evaluate the decisions people make when looking to solve their needs. Knowing what people consider 'content' (therefore a commodity) and what they consider 'service' (therefore ownable) will be a key aspect how we shape future interactions with brands and organisations. It is this shifting relationship that will provide the most exciting opportunities ... 

Posted via email from rosstimms's posterous

Open source moves into the mainstream

It’s been great to see the idea of ‘open source’ gain ground. Although the nerd in me will always delight at platforms like Arduino and Ubuntu, it’s how the idea and it’s principles moves into the mainstream that’s really instructive.

There are the literal translations from sites like My Starbucks Idea to the more abstract shared ownership services like the Paris Velib and Zip car. And data is forming the basis of a new wave of services to hit our (touch) screens – services like Waze which are wholly driven by user contribution and mysociety.org which is making formally hidden data available to the public.

But where it gets really interesting is where the principles behind open source are applied to a brand. Currently this is most visible in the runaway success of App Stores – where the brands have provided the platform on which users can build their own services and the channels to sell them through. All of a sudden our experience of a brand has shifted from being defined solely by that brands’ outputs to being defined by the shared output of that brand and it’s consumers (prosumers?).

So what? Well what if you could ‘open source’ your HR department? What if the hiring processes was an opportunity for people to design their job roles? What if your job description was an opportunity for improvisation rather than a script? The best experiences of brands and services come through people who enjoy and are engaged with their role –  people who are able to put themselves into the company they work for, rather than having to conform a template.

Posted via email from rosstimms's posterous

What shape are designers?

There is a long and dearly held assumption in the part of the design industry in which I work, that being T-shaped is a prerequisite for long the long term success of individual practitioners. And why not? The idea of the ‘T-shaped designer’ makes a lot of sense. Here it is defined by IDEO CEO Tim Brown in an interview as:

“T-shaped people have two kinds of characteristics, hence the use of the letter “T” to describe them. The vertical stroke of the “T” is a depth of skill that allows them to contribute to the creative process. That can be from any number of different fields: an industrial designer, an architect, a social scientist, a business specialist or a mechanical engineer. The horizontal stroke of the “T” is the disposition for collaboration across disciplines. It is composed of two things. First, empathy. It’s important because it allows people to imagine the problem from another perspective- to stand in somebody else’s shoes. Second, they tend to get very enthusiastic about other people’s disciplines, to the point that they may actually start to practice them. T-shaped people have both depth and breadth in their skills.”

Sounds great and makes sense.

This does however leave the door open for a problem to arise. Specifically when a company, wilfully or otherwise, distorts the T-shape and starts to insist either through it’s hiring process, or it’s culture, that the depth of the T should be a design discipline. That a design education somehow denotes a superior breed of design thinkers.

My experiences over the last two years have shown me that large parts of the ‘design toolkit’ I gathered during my design education and on through the first few years of my career no longer satisfy the challenges I am being asked to solve. When tackling increasingly abstract and cultural questions, those tangible skills struggle to find a grounding from which they can start to build a solution.

And I am unconvinced that pure strategy has the answer either (think-tanks anyone?). As that method seems to start in the abstract and stay there – struggling to come out of the clouds except in the form of 'recommendations' – which notoriously hard to design against.

So, imagine if the vertical part of a designers T is strategic thinking.

Making strategy actionable is the most important vertical skill in any T these days and people who can translate between the clouds and the ground are becoming the key member of any design team these days.

Ross.

Posted via email from rosstimms's posterous

User led can mean users last.

So I have just finished possibly one of the hardest projects I have taken on so far. 

Phew ...

And it reinforced something I had been vaguely aware of for a while. Which is that sometimes it is easy to confuse the logistical version of user led design, with the philosophical version – with the result of delivering a well thought and soundly backed-up 'me too' run of the mill solution, rather than something truly different. 

In other words, it is sometimes better to speak to your users at the end of a piece of work, when you really understand the challenge and know what to ask them, rather than at the beginning, when you might be more likely to ask the wrong questions. 

The challenge of course is recognising when you are in that situation, and finding a way to get to the right set of questions (for example, in this case we spoke to sociologists to help us through the fog).

Posted via email from rosstimms's posterous

Just a thought ...

For a designer to be of benefit to his/her/their clients, getting paid is the most important element. Not just in the Maslow way ... but because it affords us the opportunity to 'practice'. Clients give us a focus, a problem to solve, that stops us becoming self indulgent, and projects give us the vehicle or channel to push our craft(s). Payment sets a value on our offer, gives us a tool to express that value when all else is intangibe, and defines the boundaries of the profession. Boundaries that we can then push, knowing that there will be the push back from others that shows us context and keeps us honest. 

In this context, the craft of design can be any tool that solves the problem at hand – talking & thinking, drawing & building – and it's the opportunity to practice these that seems most valuable to our clients. This opportunity has been afforded by people matching our valuation of the benefits we bring, which means that if people are willing to pay, we must be doing something right, right?

RT

Posted via email from rosstimms's posterous

Why door to door marketing is as bad as all the others ...

So a little rant today... :-)

I am wondering whether the x% of people companies reach through door to door marketing is worth the damage their image can suffer due to pushy and frankly crap sales people, and it's obvious opportunism. Now I assume that the recent increase of this I have experienced is due to measures to reduce that other incredibly annoying tactic - cold call telesales (in 2007, 14.8 Million numbers were registered exempt from cold calls). And, I guess one of the main reasons is that a company can be sure that they are reaching their target demographic directly, which much increase the percentage of success versus the effort they have to expend. 

In the last couple of months I have been door stepped by a couple of people from N-Power and EDF, both selling me identical services that apparently "... are only available today, on this street!" (their emphasis). Services identical to my current British Gas offer too, by the way. 

What really made me think about this though, was a visit from an Aviva salesman. Who's pitch for health insurance, was based around how bad the NHS is. Now this is an interesting departure. Never mind that I have absolutely no interest in talking about paying for my health on a cold Tuesday afternoon on my own doorstep, but to start your story by disparaging a competitor (which is what the NHS is) feels like a throwback to the pre-internet era. It feels incredibaly naive when you consider how available data and stories are today–and how much it could expose Aviva (or any other insurance provider) to extra scrutiny. 

Their attack on the failings of the NHS was based on data - as along with our schools, it is now one of the most analysed institutions around. It seems an unfair fight when Aviva are not currently subject to the same scrutiny, and are not judged by the same metrics. It also of course, opens a political debate - and I'm not too sure that the barely 20 year old lad who was selling this policy would have been ready for a heated public/private debate, had he stumbled across someone up for that fight.

Anyway - I walked away with the impression of a company attempting to profit on the (necessarily public) failings of one of our public services, and asking me to disengage from my interest in the success of that service to invest in my own private wellbeing, and ultimately, make their shareholders some more money. That does not seem a good deal to me, and it's not a good reflection on them either...

harumph!

Posted via email from rosstimms's posterous

wonderful storytelling - http://youtube.com/searchstories?x=R31ge09jaXw

if only the movies were as elegant...

R.

Posted via email from rosstimms's posterous