So, it would seem that my shoe repair utilizing "shoe goo" holds okay for a couple of days of normal walking/driving. So, as a long-term repair option, I would not rate this as a winner.
That being said, it is holding well enough until my new VFFs arrive, which they should do tomorrow. On another totally unexpected and pleasant note, I also got a note back from Vibram with regards to the comment I submitted on their site asking about the normal life of the shoes. They informed me that this was unusual and I provided them with the pictures of the wear. They are letting the designers know and are also shipping me a new pair, which was totally unexpected and is greatly appreciated. You simply must love good customer service :-)
Also, We can expect kids sizes in Q1... This will make a certain 6 year-old princess very happy :-)
So yeah, I am even more of a fanboy now.
Showing posts with label product design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label product design. Show all posts
18 August 2010
25 May 2010
Tell Me Mister Owl, How Many Tweets Does It Take?
Do you remember the old adage that everyone in the world was six phone calls away? It implied that you could, through your network of friends and acquaintances be put in touch with the famous person you wanted to chat with by being introduced to their friends and friends of friends. Well, with the growth of social media, and with my recent job loss, I got to thinking about ta concept after a phone conversation with an old friend of mine... How many tweets does it take to reach someone? In particular, how many people would have to retweet for you to get a new job?
Here is the premise, an individual sends out a tweet telling their friends they are unemployed, what kind of work they want, and a link to their resume or something like their linkedin profile. Friends retweet and friends of friends retweet (and so on)... I would be curious to see how many tweets it took for them to get a solid lead on a job.
Of course, this is the entire model that Linkedin likes to push for their jobs service (association via your network contacts), but I am thinking about it more from an active participation perspective, which I think has many implications for a variety of industries and channels. Think about selling a used motorcycle, for example. You could tweet that you have a bike for sale, with a link to the craigslist ad, your friends who share a love of motorcycles retweet (making it much more targeted, as we can assume their friends might have a propensity to like motorcycles as well) and so on. Eventually, someone might see that you have just the bike they were looking for...
I am sure this has been thought of elsewhere, but it has kept my mind occupied for a few minutes, which is always better than watching TV when you are unemployed.
How many tweets does it take, Mister Owl?
By the way, When I send out my "out of work" tweet, please retweet :-)
EDIT: If you aren't following me, I can be found @adownie...
Here is the premise, an individual sends out a tweet telling their friends they are unemployed, what kind of work they want, and a link to their resume or something like their linkedin profile. Friends retweet and friends of friends retweet (and so on)... I would be curious to see how many tweets it took for them to get a solid lead on a job.
Of course, this is the entire model that Linkedin likes to push for their jobs service (association via your network contacts), but I am thinking about it more from an active participation perspective, which I think has many implications for a variety of industries and channels. Think about selling a used motorcycle, for example. You could tweet that you have a bike for sale, with a link to the craigslist ad, your friends who share a love of motorcycles retweet (making it much more targeted, as we can assume their friends might have a propensity to like motorcycles as well) and so on. Eventually, someone might see that you have just the bike they were looking for...
I am sure this has been thought of elsewhere, but it has kept my mind occupied for a few minutes, which is always better than watching TV when you are unemployed.
How many tweets does it take, Mister Owl?
By the way, When I send out my "out of work" tweet, please retweet :-)
EDIT: If you aren't following me, I can be found @adownie...
23 May 2010
Innovation is Cool, Adoption is Essential
This is a repost from my now-defunct corporate blog...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the realm of product design and product management, we tend to talk a lot about innovation as a component of “The Next Big Thing” from our engineering shops. This is a good thing. Without innovation, nobody would buy our stuff and we would all be out of work, which would be a bad thing. So, while innovation is important, there is actually a component of product design that I don’t think people talk about enough… Adoption.
Oh sure, in sales we always talk about selling more stuff, or getting more customers, but we are more concerned with the transactions themselves rather than with the adoption of our product. I think it’s important to take a step back from the transactions and think about how people (and companies) adopt new products or technology.
To give us something to use as an example, let’s talk about my new shoes…
“Ummmmm, your shoes?,” you ask, suspiciously.
Yes, my shoes. I am talking about them because they represent innovation from a technological sense and an adoption challenge as well. I say this because I am talking about Vibram Fivefingers shoes:
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/products/products_footwear.cfm
Basically, they are a pair of toe socks with a really thin rubber sole. From a technological standpoint, they are pretty incredible. They mold to your feet and actually transfer the nuances of the ground to sole, so you actually feel what you are walking or running on. Wearing them is like going barefoot after a few steps as you don’t feel any weight and you have that sensitivity. Finally, they allow your legs to absorb impact, as they were designed to do.
So, from a technology perspective, pretty cool stuff. Innovative, even.
Which leaves one to wonder why there is an adoption challenge.
Well, the challenges I had to overcome before I was willing to try them were pretty clear:
1) Will they feel weird?
2) Man, they look dorky.
3) Will they fit? [I wear a size 14]
4) Cost
Of the four primary challenges, cost weighed in pretty heavily. List price on the version I wanted was $85, which is a lot for an untested (by me) technology. However, I have dropped more money on stuff I was less sure of in the past, so I was able to get around that, plus, I had a 20% off coupon.
To address the “feel”, I went online and read user reviews, the majority of which were very positive. I then went over the sizing chart multiple times and decided I had a decent chance that they would fit.
Which leaves one challenge. The dorky factor. Oh, it is totally there. These things are goofy looking but I am goofy looking too. So, it all balances out (not that my wife agrees with me).
So, what happened here? Well, I went through the standard buying process that we go through for every purchase, be it technology or a new pair of jeans. I identified the challenges, I researched my options and I came to a buying decision without the involvement of a single sales person, might I add. However, have I adopted the technology?
Not yet. I own the technology, but I am still deciding if I will be doing my daily regimen utilizing the technology. So, how can the manufacturer or reseller help me in my adoption of the technology so that they have a customer for life? That’s easy, follow-up. Unfortunately, I will lay odds it will not happen.
So, let’s imagine that a week from now, I were to get a call, email, facebook posting or a mention on twitter from Vibram (the manufacturer) or REI (the reseller) asking me how I like the shoes. They could offer suggestions as to different adoption techniques, they could offer a discount on a second pair or they could invite me to provide feedback to make changes to future versions. This would make me a happier customer and would incite me to keep working with the product in my daily life. It would enable them to engage me in conversation on a personal level...
What if I hated them? Could you imagine my loyalty and willingness to try again if they took them back and refunded my money (or offered me their value against another pair of shoes at REI)? I would be a total fanboy and I would certainly recommend them to friends. Even though I didn’t adopt the technology, I wouldn’t reject it out of hand if the opportunity arose again.
So, we must continue to think about innovation, we must continue to think of sales, but shouldn’t we also, and just as importantly, think about the adoption of our products? This is where we will see real innovation in our businesses and I think we will be able to accomplish it through the leveraging of our existing communications channels to better drive adoption.
Just something to think about. I will now put on my dorky shoes and take the dog for a walk (I can tell he is embarrassed to be seen with me).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the realm of product design and product management, we tend to talk a lot about innovation as a component of “The Next Big Thing” from our engineering shops. This is a good thing. Without innovation, nobody would buy our stuff and we would all be out of work, which would be a bad thing. So, while innovation is important, there is actually a component of product design that I don’t think people talk about enough… Adoption.
Oh sure, in sales we always talk about selling more stuff, or getting more customers, but we are more concerned with the transactions themselves rather than with the adoption of our product. I think it’s important to take a step back from the transactions and think about how people (and companies) adopt new products or technology.
To give us something to use as an example, let’s talk about my new shoes…
“Ummmmm, your shoes?,” you ask, suspiciously.
Yes, my shoes. I am talking about them because they represent innovation from a technological sense and an adoption challenge as well. I say this because I am talking about Vibram Fivefingers shoes:
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/products/products_footwear.cfm
Basically, they are a pair of toe socks with a really thin rubber sole. From a technological standpoint, they are pretty incredible. They mold to your feet and actually transfer the nuances of the ground to sole, so you actually feel what you are walking or running on. Wearing them is like going barefoot after a few steps as you don’t feel any weight and you have that sensitivity. Finally, they allow your legs to absorb impact, as they were designed to do.
So, from a technology perspective, pretty cool stuff. Innovative, even.
Which leaves one to wonder why there is an adoption challenge.
Well, the challenges I had to overcome before I was willing to try them were pretty clear:
1) Will they feel weird?
2) Man, they look dorky.
3) Will they fit? [I wear a size 14]
4) Cost
Of the four primary challenges, cost weighed in pretty heavily. List price on the version I wanted was $85, which is a lot for an untested (by me) technology. However, I have dropped more money on stuff I was less sure of in the past, so I was able to get around that, plus, I had a 20% off coupon.
To address the “feel”, I went online and read user reviews, the majority of which were very positive. I then went over the sizing chart multiple times and decided I had a decent chance that they would fit.
Which leaves one challenge. The dorky factor. Oh, it is totally there. These things are goofy looking but I am goofy looking too. So, it all balances out (not that my wife agrees with me).
So, what happened here? Well, I went through the standard buying process that we go through for every purchase, be it technology or a new pair of jeans. I identified the challenges, I researched my options and I came to a buying decision without the involvement of a single sales person, might I add. However, have I adopted the technology?
Not yet. I own the technology, but I am still deciding if I will be doing my daily regimen utilizing the technology. So, how can the manufacturer or reseller help me in my adoption of the technology so that they have a customer for life? That’s easy, follow-up. Unfortunately, I will lay odds it will not happen.
So, let’s imagine that a week from now, I were to get a call, email, facebook posting or a mention on twitter from Vibram (the manufacturer) or REI (the reseller) asking me how I like the shoes. They could offer suggestions as to different adoption techniques, they could offer a discount on a second pair or they could invite me to provide feedback to make changes to future versions. This would make me a happier customer and would incite me to keep working with the product in my daily life. It would enable them to engage me in conversation on a personal level...
What if I hated them? Could you imagine my loyalty and willingness to try again if they took them back and refunded my money (or offered me their value against another pair of shoes at REI)? I would be a total fanboy and I would certainly recommend them to friends. Even though I didn’t adopt the technology, I wouldn’t reject it out of hand if the opportunity arose again.
So, we must continue to think about innovation, we must continue to think of sales, but shouldn’t we also, and just as importantly, think about the adoption of our products? This is where we will see real innovation in our businesses and I think we will be able to accomplish it through the leveraging of our existing communications channels to better drive adoption.
Just something to think about. I will now put on my dorky shoes and take the dog for a walk (I can tell he is embarrassed to be seen with me).
29 April 2010
The Experience is the Reward... Part Deux
I have been considering my earlier post about the concept of the experience of performing a task well as being a major part of the overall reward of completing the task. I think there is certainly something there that needs to be applied to product design, in general.
In product design today, there are a variety of design methodologies which can come into play. In some organizations, people focus on experience-based design, but they are typically talking about the experience of interacting with the product, not the experience of accomplishing some derivative goal. Or, there are the schools centered around the concept of efficiency of design, or completing the task as quickly as possible so that you can move onto other tasks. Some folks like go with a minimalist approach so that you can stay focused on the task at hand, while others (this is particularly true in software) like to load up the "interface" with as much information or interaction points as possible so you can do the most work from the fewest locations.
All of these approaches have merit, to be sure, but what if we strip away a couple of layers and think about what lies beneath. Why do people use products in the first place?
I am sure there are several books on the psychology of product utilization, but I think we can easily sum it up into a couple broad concepts:
Even simpler? You either want to use it, or you have to use it.
That's pretty straightforward as a general concept, and yes, it is an oversimplification, but it can be applied to most anything. For example, televisions. You either have a top-of-the-line A/V system with high-definition and 7.1 surround sound which was professionally installed in your custom-designed home theater with stadium-style seating, or you have the TV that you could afford that sits in your family room in front of your off-the-shelf couch. How is this an example?
Well, in the first setup, you have the satisfaction of knowing you have the best audio/video experience your money could buy. Your friends envy your theater and on game day you invite them over and hold court like the king of TV land. In the second setup, you aren't "unhappy", but you see the new, super-think LED TVs at Costco and you sigh. Sure, your TV is okay, and your only other choice is to not watch the game at all (that would be the negative consequence).
Sure, maybe a nonsensical example, but the same concept could be applied to most any product. I am sure most of us wouldn't choose to use Microsoft Outlook for work, but we aren't given much of a choice if we want to keep our job. I use Google docs a lot because it does what I need it to do, and I don't have to pay for it. So, I get the double-whammy satisfaction of accomplishing a task using the tool and saving money over buying MS-Office.
So, we established why people use products (for some value of "established"), now, what if we were to go a little deeper and look at the root motivations that reside somewhere in the core of human psyche. Can we not say that people use products to either generate pleasure (emotional or physical) or to prevent pain (the "negative consequence")? If this theory holds true, couldn't we design products with those root motivations in mind?
What I am thinking is a concept of "Motivation-based Experience Design", which basically means an intelligent design which adapts to the current root motivation of the user. This could allow a system to support the goals it was designed to accomplish, but do so in such a manner as to make it enjoyable for the user.
In the software industry, people have been working on interface design for quite some time, and they have certainly improved. However, I think there is still something missing, and that something is adaptability, actually, motivation-driven adaptability. So, I use a Macbook Pro for most of my work, if you are unfamiliar with Apple products, it is a laptop with a 15" screen. Attached to this laptop, I also have an 24" external monitor, where I do the lion's share of my work. However, when I have an application open on the monitor, the menu bar is still over on the laptop screen, which is a hassle when I want to us it.
What if the operating system determined my focus and moved the menu bar to follow? Or, what if, when I opened two documents that were very similar, the application automatically put the windows side-by-side and highlighted the differences (maybe the second document could have been opened with a "open & compare" menu item). These are the kinds of things that take the daily tasks we have to do to avoid negative consequences and make them much more positive, therefore allowing us to get positive emotional benefit from completing the task. They could be done by establishing what my current motivation was ("Oh look, he is using a word processor on an external monitor...") and then adjusting the interface to adapt ("Hey, why don't I move the menu bar over there so he doesn't have to drag the pointer waaaaaay over there..."). Or, perhaps the system could change your startup applications based on time of day and network availability. Each of these things could make utilizing the operating system and applications much more agreeable, therefore tickling the pleasure centers of the brain instead of tripping up the emotional "pain" centers (like when you have to wait for all your applications to start, even though they don't have any network connectivity...).
I'm not trying to say that product design rooted in core motivations will change the world, what I am saying is that, as product designers, we should start really thinking about who we are designing for. It isn't us, because we aren't our customers. Also, to be honest, the people we think are our customers probably aren't our customers either. Know who you are building the product for, before you design it, and make your product so it adapts to their motivations. If you do that, and you manage to execute the product well, you will change your part of the world, that's for sure.
Just some food for thought.
In product design today, there are a variety of design methodologies which can come into play. In some organizations, people focus on experience-based design, but they are typically talking about the experience of interacting with the product, not the experience of accomplishing some derivative goal. Or, there are the schools centered around the concept of efficiency of design, or completing the task as quickly as possible so that you can move onto other tasks. Some folks like go with a minimalist approach so that you can stay focused on the task at hand, while others (this is particularly true in software) like to load up the "interface" with as much information or interaction points as possible so you can do the most work from the fewest locations.
All of these approaches have merit, to be sure, but what if we strip away a couple of layers and think about what lies beneath. Why do people use products in the first place?
I am sure there are several books on the psychology of product utilization, but I think we can easily sum it up into a couple broad concepts:
- The individual derives physical or emotional satisfaction (pleasure?) from the product or by using the product to complete some task.
- The individual is forced to use the product under penalty of some negative consequence.
Even simpler? You either want to use it, or you have to use it.
That's pretty straightforward as a general concept, and yes, it is an oversimplification, but it can be applied to most anything. For example, televisions. You either have a top-of-the-line A/V system with high-definition and 7.1 surround sound which was professionally installed in your custom-designed home theater with stadium-style seating, or you have the TV that you could afford that sits in your family room in front of your off-the-shelf couch. How is this an example?
Well, in the first setup, you have the satisfaction of knowing you have the best audio/video experience your money could buy. Your friends envy your theater and on game day you invite them over and hold court like the king of TV land. In the second setup, you aren't "unhappy", but you see the new, super-think LED TVs at Costco and you sigh. Sure, your TV is okay, and your only other choice is to not watch the game at all (that would be the negative consequence).
Sure, maybe a nonsensical example, but the same concept could be applied to most any product. I am sure most of us wouldn't choose to use Microsoft Outlook for work, but we aren't given much of a choice if we want to keep our job. I use Google docs a lot because it does what I need it to do, and I don't have to pay for it. So, I get the double-whammy satisfaction of accomplishing a task using the tool and saving money over buying MS-Office.
So, we established why people use products (for some value of "established"), now, what if we were to go a little deeper and look at the root motivations that reside somewhere in the core of human psyche. Can we not say that people use products to either generate pleasure (emotional or physical) or to prevent pain (the "negative consequence")? If this theory holds true, couldn't we design products with those root motivations in mind?
What I am thinking is a concept of "Motivation-based Experience Design", which basically means an intelligent design which adapts to the current root motivation of the user. This could allow a system to support the goals it was designed to accomplish, but do so in such a manner as to make it enjoyable for the user.
In the software industry, people have been working on interface design for quite some time, and they have certainly improved. However, I think there is still something missing, and that something is adaptability, actually, motivation-driven adaptability. So, I use a Macbook Pro for most of my work, if you are unfamiliar with Apple products, it is a laptop with a 15" screen. Attached to this laptop, I also have an 24" external monitor, where I do the lion's share of my work. However, when I have an application open on the monitor, the menu bar is still over on the laptop screen, which is a hassle when I want to us it.
What if the operating system determined my focus and moved the menu bar to follow? Or, what if, when I opened two documents that were very similar, the application automatically put the windows side-by-side and highlighted the differences (maybe the second document could have been opened with a "open & compare" menu item). These are the kinds of things that take the daily tasks we have to do to avoid negative consequences and make them much more positive, therefore allowing us to get positive emotional benefit from completing the task. They could be done by establishing what my current motivation was ("Oh look, he is using a word processor on an external monitor...") and then adjusting the interface to adapt ("Hey, why don't I move the menu bar over there so he doesn't have to drag the pointer waaaaaay over there..."). Or, perhaps the system could change your startup applications based on time of day and network availability. Each of these things could make utilizing the operating system and applications much more agreeable, therefore tickling the pleasure centers of the brain instead of tripping up the emotional "pain" centers (like when you have to wait for all your applications to start, even though they don't have any network connectivity...).
I'm not trying to say that product design rooted in core motivations will change the world, what I am saying is that, as product designers, we should start really thinking about who we are designing for. It isn't us, because we aren't our customers. Also, to be honest, the people we think are our customers probably aren't our customers either. Know who you are building the product for, before you design it, and make your product so it adapts to their motivations. If you do that, and you manage to execute the product well, you will change your part of the world, that's for sure.
Just some food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)