Projects & Relative Problems

{ August 25, 2010 @ 11:35 } · { Information Rambler }
{ Tags: , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

This seems very true some days:

(Picture from http://ninapaley.com/mimiandeunice/)
Whether at work or in one’s personal life, it seems to be that by default we want to prioritize our own problems, and view them as more important and difficult than those faced by others. Our needs are at the center of how we see everything else. We can look back later and put a crisis or breakdown in perspective, but in the moment it’s hard to have insight like that. But when it comes to the workplace, it can be costly to an organization for an individual to take this stance. In trying to mitigate projects and the inevitable conflicts that arise, this mentality is a particularly difficult challenge for someone like a business analyst or project manager.
Say, for example, I’m trying to get two different department heads to communicate with each other, and communicate to me, about priorities, problems they need fixed, and what their requirements are for a certain project. But if they can’t come up with supporting data/information about why their needs are more important, all that happens is a back and forth of “My needs are more important than theirs because… because” and reasonings that have no data to back them up. If I can’t get this information, I can’t validate any decisions I make in terms of the project direction, nor can I make much (if any) progress.
Anyone in an organization that is tasked with coming up with requirements or needs must be able to not only articulate those needs, but have validating data to back up the reasoning behind those needs. We can’t become personally attached to “having-our-way” when there’s no data to back up why our way is “better”, or why your problem is the most critical. We have to be able to tell someone or many someones why we choose to do something, and what value that decision adds to the project.
Getting that data can be tricky, full of politics and personal feelings, and sometimes it simply isn’t going to happen. Information is not a straightforward topic, and it is really the people that make it a challenge and “interesting” in both good ways and bad. But it is worth the effort when you can stand in front of a group and present a solid project with an information foundation you can rely upon.

Norman Strikes Again

{ August 18, 2010 @ 10:35 } · { Information Rambler }
{ Tags: , , } · { Leave a Comment }

You know it’s going to be interesting when one of the most well known names in HCI design write a blog post called “Design Thinking: A Useful Myth“.
Don Norman’s post this past June is well worth the read, not only because it is well written but because it has some interesting points that might make for good discussions amoung “designers”. Norman talks about the fact that the idea that designers somehow have mystical powers of intellect and perspective can be a useful myth, but that this idea of “design thinking” is simply a myth. He makes the point that it really isn’t a unique characteristic to this profession. Breakthroughs simply occur “when people find fresh insights, new points of view and propagate them”. Creative people are all around. But the design community, across all sectors, has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that designers somehow have the monopoly on design thinking, which is according to Norman really simply “a public relations term for good, old fashion creative thinking.
1) The myth helps fight against the confusion that “design” equals “making things pretty”. Design is so much more than that, and every little piece that might change the popular mind helps.
2) It helps get designers into the door at organizations. “Hire us, they say, and we will bring the magic of design companies to you, working wonders upon your dead, stilted, unproductive company.” Ultimately, Norman points out, the “design thinking” pitch is akin to claiming a secret weapon that has to power to solve big problems, and that is a valuable tool.
Norman wraps up the post with an interesting challenge to designers:
“So, long live the phrase ‘design thinking.’ It will help in the transformation of design from the world of form and style to that of function and structure. It will help spread the word that designers can add value to almost any problem, from healthcare to pollution, business strategy and company organization. When this transformation takes place, the term can be put away to die a natural death. Meanwhile exploit the myth. Act as if you believe it. Just don’t actually do so.”

Why Are We Still So Paper-Based?

{ August 10, 2010 @ 08:23 } · { Information Rambler }
{ Tags: , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }


It continually amazes me how much paper my last job produced – I was working as a database coordinator for an academic department at the UW. Sounds like a pretty electronic-centric position, right?

Wrong.
I had a brown paper bag I used to collect mixed paper for recycling. I think I emptied it every other week. That doesn’t seem too bad if you don’t think too much about that. A supposedly paperless position, filling up a Safeway brown paper bag every two weeks!! Reports and presentations and notes, printouts and event planning materials.
Currently I’m interning with the university’s information technology office, and it just baffles me. We print out so much electronically-based documents and artifacts. Everything from emails and reports and meeting handouts. While laptops are dominant, notes are still often taken with paper and pen. Though personally I’m thankful that what I’m doing now produces very little printed work, even though I find myself in the center of a paper-laden environment.
I think that this is partly a holdover of established working practices – it is only very relatively recently that we could make almost any document electronic. This is probably the core of the reason – people who have been working for the last 15 to 30 years are not likely to want to change how they’ve been doing things. In a world where technological innovations have ripped through our societies, radically changing and shifting established assumptions and practices, it is difficult to keep up with the latest anything, let alone quickly adapt.
This is not to say that there haven’t been successful moves to reduce paper use – as part of a university -wide initiative, the office is required by state law to use 100% recycled paper, reduce paper use by 30% beginning July 2010, and to recycle all office paper. It seems as if there is steady support for it, but it certainly takes more than throwing away paper in a different box. Moving towards paperless or paper-scarce environments requires a shift in attitude, behavior, and an acceptance that it won’t always be convenient or the same as it was before.

The End of Google Wave

{ August 6, 2010 @ 10:46 } · { Information Rambler }
{ Tags: , , , , , } · { Comments (4) }

A recent article by Maggie Shiels, a Technology reporter for the BBC News, proclaimed the news that “Google drops Wave because of lack of users”. Reading through this, it seems a little strange to me. But it seems as if that because “Wave has not seen the adoption we would have liked”, says Google, they are going to phase out the site and integrate some of the developed technology into other Google projects.
Honestly, giving up on Wave seems premature to me. I have been able to use Wave for a few different classes, both for note taking and project managing, and it has been a very interesting tool. Yes, I agree with the assessment that for it to be successful, many people need to be signed up and using it. I think pushing it within both corporate and education environments should have really taken it off. Wave has this awesome real-time communication and collaboration aspect, and it does it all within a browser. It has character-by-character live typing, and the ability to drag-and-drop files from the desktop, even “playback” the history of changes that users have made. It integrated other forms of communication and I’m really disappointed that Google is giving up on it. Perhaps it is because users required invitations, but that doesn’t seem to be the case – I still have a good number of invitations that are sitting unused in my account.
I think this is indicative of the core problem with many information technology initiatives. This great technology exists, but people lack either the incentive or knowledge for how to use it to its fullest potential. So I don’t think that the retirement of Wave is a technology failure, but an information one. If Google is going to “create innovations with the potential to advance technology” they’re going to have to innovate better user communication and education along the way.
***
On a side note, I’ve been thinking about something recently. I don’t read the news as much as I’d like to these days. During my undergraduate studies, I read the New York Times every morning, took the copy with me throughout the day because I would likely reference it at least once either in a class or in conversation. For the most part I focused on political and international news, and “digested” almost all the news articles through that lens.
Today, the way I get news it quite a bit different. I skim the international BBC headlines online when I get into work, briefly scan through my Twitter feed for local and technical news, and during my lunch break I’ll dive deeper into a handful of stories that catch my eye. These articles are almost always technology or information related, which makes sense considering my program. Seems to be the story of grad school so far – all this information I want to process and not enough time to do it.

Tim Brown TED Talk July 2009

{ July 30, 2010 @ 12:18 } · { Information Rambler }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Comments (1) }

This was one of the first videos I watched after discovering the wonderful resource of the fantastic “TED Talks”. A comment on the video by a Robert Chesley caught my eye, as he sought to sum up the core message of Brown’s talk. I’d try to paraphrase, but it sounds so right as it is:
“It’s about looking past the small “new and improved” versions of design and exploring possibilities. It’s not enough to strive for new and improved. That’s the old school approach. What we have needed and are now beginning to move toward is the integration of ideas based on human centered actual needs. The context of the use needs to be central to the design itself, not the other way around. This approach means you have to get away from the CAD station and actually talk to customers and watch them. Above all listen to what they are saying relative to the context that they alone can bring to the table. From this position you will gain insight into the real problems they face. Once you truly understand the problem you can begin the process of integrating related problems of other customers. This is where real design innovation begins. This is the start of the process for developing dynamic disruptive changes in the market.”

I think that this is the elusive goal every designer, regardless of what you’re designing: to try to genuinely understand the problem you’re designing to solve. One of my favorite quotes is from Zelda Harrison. She gets at the crux of the issues: “Never ask a designer to design a bridge. Ask a designer to design a way to cross the water”.

Video of Jesse Schell: “Designing Outside the Box” DICE 2010

{ July 28, 2010 @ 07:27 } · { Information Rambler }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

Last night I watched this 28 minute video of Carnegie Mellon University Professor Jesse Schell talking about “going beyond Facebook” and the emerging game development trends. I thought I’d share some of the key points that I took away from watching it – though it might make more sense to watch it first!
Some of the key takeaway points:
1) The unexpected force by which Facebook et al. stormed the world. The list of games (ClubPenguin, Wii, WiiFit, Guitar Hero) that were these huge hits that traditionally seem completely impossible. And I still don’t see the appeal of Farmville. Apparently I’m too traditional.
2) That these phenomenon are all breaking through into reality. The blending of virtual and reality are on the path to blurring together almost indistinguishably. Interesting psychological reasoning that because we’re cut off from nature and “we live in a bubble of fake bullshit” we’re seeking out the “real” relative to our experiences. Maybe it’s just because we’ve finally realize how artificial so many of our interactions have become.
3) Technology is going to continue to diverge in some respects, rather than unify into the happy box. Loved the idea of the iPhone as the Swiss Army knife.
4) Games are creeping into daily life more and more. I can totally see this, and I liked the examples he pointed out. These things have turned accepted and traditionally established processes and behaviors into something more.
  • Fantasy Football – Even your grandmother does it.
  • Geocashing – Because taking a walk is better when there is treasure at the end of it!
  • Fox & The Simpsons – Watching TV has become a game.
  • DARPA’s red weather balloons – We’ll do the work for them!
  • Weight Watchers – Points are like a game.
  • Ford Hybrid Car – Grow the plant leaves, save on gas. This has changed the way people drive!

5) Imagine if skilled game designers were involved in the development of these emerging “games”. It would really change things up. I think that the marketing department in the way of hiring designers for a while, because marketers seem to always think they know what is best. Strength of game designers is that interaction-design emphasis.

6) We’re heading towards a future where creepy sensors are always recording everything. Schell suggested that this potentially could be a huge behavior changer. A little big-brother-ish, but I think I like it in theory.
7) Disposable technology. I think we’re already a good ways there. Think about how quickly we go through things. Schell makes an interesting point – the technology in a Furbie is greater than the technology it took to put a man on the moon, though that is true for almost any electronic these days.
8) Huge danger for games to turn into serious commercialized schmuck. Penny-Arcade made a comment or two about this trend in the game “Alan Wake”. I haven’t played it, but it is reported to have some serious crazy ass product placement in the game, perhaps the most blatant yet. Anyways, I thought of that when he was talking about the REM cycle device for some reason.

The Information Rambler

{ July 21, 2010 @ 07:40 } · { Information Rambler }
{ Tags: , } · { Leave a Comment }

What do you do with information? How do you process it? What do you do with the overwhelming amount of it that bombards you almost every moment of every day.

Those are pretty serious questions. The implications of how a person, group, organization, society, nation answers that can have echoing answers with lasting repercussions.
Information can change national policy, the color you choose for your house window frames, or even what wine you chose to have for dinner.
I’m entering my second year of a master’s program in “Information Management” at the University of Washington in the beautiful . The meaning of that in itself is a challenge to unravel, and yet a fascinating journey.
I’d like to document a few pieces of this experience, and put into words some of the thoughts I’ve been having about information. Might as well put it out into the teeming mass that is the interwebs.

UW Grad School Geek

{ January 5, 2010 @ 19:36 } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Leave a Comment }

And so begins the second quarter of my first year as a graduate student in the Information School at the University of Washington.

The following courses are my next challenges.

Organization of Information Resources
Management of Information Organizations
**
HCI Design Foundations for Interactive Systems

We shall see where they lead me. Having a wonderful job, working FT 50% keeps me on my toes.

** The class that uses wordpress, and therefore why I’m here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.