A few thoughts about mobile

I was just asked a question about how we should be thinking about “mobile”. The question came with some assertions that made me think the person was thinking about mobile mostly as a content consumption device. This was my very very very quick answer.

[I’ll need to flesh these out later to get the quotes right.]

  • Most of the world will experience the Internet through a mobile device (via H. Rheingold, Smart Mobs, in 2002!!!)
  • Moore’s law and its cousins are pushing these devices towards INSANE amounts of speed/power/low cost. (Even if you think Moore’s law is plateauing)
  • “real time cloud-based intelligence delivered to mobile applications with algorithmic intelligence” is the 21st century data challenge, Tim O'Reilly, from keynote at 2010 MySQL conference
  • Think about the mobile device not as a content consumption device but as a sensor rich platform that knows where it is, temperature, altitude, tilt/rotate/yaw, high rez picture/video. See Cory Doctrow “would you rather be the barcode or the scanner” essay from Make magazine and elsewhere
  • “The odds that an event of historical [or scientific] significance will be witnessed by an individual with a high-rez camera on internet connected mobile device have gone from zero to almost certainty…” paraphrase Clay Shirky, Cognitive Surplus (I think)
  • Brand (or Institution)-to-consumer interactions matter less than consumer-to-consumer interactions, and these kinds of interactions are becoming ubiquitously mobile.

    Failure

    Quick release cycles and quick failure

    Notes to self:

    The Value of Failure (?)
    I’m never quite satisfied when I participate in discussions about the value of failure. I’m not sure why, but I think we’re missing something here. Not sure what it is. “Yeah, yeah, yeah. Fail quickly. You’ve got to fail to learn.” What does that really mean in practical terms?

    Failure and quick release cycles
    I think these people (in the video, above) are approaching quick/early failure in a very (literally) constructive way. They walk out onto a field with an airplane made out of foam core, toothpicks, and packing tape; they fly it and crash it and adjust it five or six times; and they leave the field with a much better plane than what they started with.

    Notice:
    a) Their plane is built to be hackable. It’s made out of foam core. At 4:00 the pilot says "maybe we should try getting rid of this forward sweep" of the wings and he gets out his knife and he cuts off the front of the wings and tapes them to the back. Earlier in the video he decides he needs a bigger vertical stabilizer on the back so he cuts a rough square of foam core, tapes it to the side of the old stabilizer, and pinches the leading edge to make it more aerodynamic. Then he launches it to see how it worked. 

    Says the pilot/engineer/hacker (at about 5:45): 

    “So, we came out and it was too tail heavy. so two crashes later we figured that out. Then we put a bigger battery on it. And then we figured out there wasn’t enough vertical stabilizer, and we fixed that. Then there was too much ‘magic carpet’ going on–too much flex–so we put some tape on it and fixed that. Then cut the front of the wing off and put it on the back of the wing, which got rid of the wing rock. Now, with model #1, we got probably five airplanes worth of test flights.

    b) This brings to mind Stuart Brand’s book “How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built” which (among other things) describes the benefits of building things in a way that makes them easier to improve and modify over time.

    c) Another thought: the people in the model airplane video are able to fail/improve quickly because their platform supports rapid releases and quick fixes. (Does my web publishing platform, writ large, allow/support this? Not really.) If their plane were “better” - -  if it were made out of fancier materials and looked more polished - - i’m guessing it would be a lot harder to modify and hack.

    d) Years ago I saw an article somewhere about designing high performance sailboats. The author said that phenomenal things could be done in the design phase with computer modeling, but that the models were never perfect. For $100k you could design a cutting edge boat with advanced hydrodynamic modeling, or for about the same amount of money you could skip all the hydrodynamic predictions and just build the actual boat and see how it sailed (which, after all, is the ultimate point of the exercise) - - if it wasn’t particularly fast (usually the case) you could sell the boat for cost and try again. 

    Faster, NASA, Faster, a 2009 NY Times Op-Ed by former astronaut and Google program manager Edward Lu, encourages NASA to adopt a space vehicle strategy that emphasizes smaller but more frequent launches- - as many as one a week, for reasons similar to those used by the model airplane enthusiasts in the video.

    The Russian Soyuz rocket demonstrates the value of frequent launching. Variants of this rocket have flown more than 1,700 times, averaging more than 30 launchings a year. As a result, the Soyuz is among the most reliable of all existing rockets. In fact, I flew into space aboard a Soyuz rocket in 2003 when NASA space shuttles had been grounded after the Columbia disaster.

    To meet its new goals for human spaceflight, NASA must be able to be creative and take risks, or else it will be unable to adapt to new technology and changing political realities. Grand plans stretching over decades will become irrelevant and eventually collapse.

     

    (Lu’s NY Times op-ed is also useful for .gov employees trying to understand how to operate with greater agility in a highly bureaucratic environment.)

    I’m also remembering a conversation I had with the CEO of a New Media/Technology design agency: he said that the big trick isn’t failing, that’s all too easy to do. The trick is building the skills you need to learn from those mistakes, and to recognize breakthroughs and progress when and where they do occur (which is usually when and where you’re not looking).

    Another good reference on the “failure” question is We Tried To Warn You, Part 2: Failure is a matter of timing by Peter Jones in Boxes and Arrows, 2008. 

    There’s also a Harvard Business Review article I’m looking for about how top performing businesses are better at exposing, discussing, and sharing lessons-learned from past failures than the also ran’s are.

    My paper Good Projects Gone Bad, an Introduction to Process Maturity from the American Association of Museums conference in 2008 might be helpful too. 

    And a search on Nina Simon’s Museum 2.0 blog for articles relating to “failure” yields some gems.

     

    A bit of a forward rush

    Every once in a while I get correspondence from someone chiding me for the way I write — in particular the informality. I received one the other day complaining about sentences that begin with “but” or “and”. There is, however, a reason I write this way. You see, the things I write about are very important; they affect lives and the destiny of nations. But despite that, economics can all too easily become dry and boring; it’s just the nature of the subject. And I have to find, every time I write, a way to get past that problem. One thing that helps, I’ve found, is to give the writing a bit of a forward rush, with a kind of sprung or syncopated rhythm, which often involves sentences that are deliberately off center.

    More broadly, the inherent stuffiness of the subject demands, almost as compensation, as conversational a tone as I can manage.
    Paul Krugman, But, And, Why - New York Times, October 22, 2011

    I Love this short piece and the turn of phrase “a bit of a forward rush” from Paul Krugman’s blog about why he uses elastic and informal language in his writing. I get flack for this too, as well as for using exclamation points and smiley faces in my emails.

    Standard business language is unnecessarily tedious. If I’m using a smiley face or an exclamation point in my correspondence it’s probably because I’m genuinely excited to be talking with you about whatever it is we’re talking about. 

    Reference also If you’re happy and you know it, must I know it too? from Sunday’s NY Times (October 21, 2011), which quotes a bunch of cranky people who don’t like smiley faces very much.

    Publish first, then curate

    This post by Tim O’Reilly initially caught my eye for two reasons,

    Tim is using Google+ as a micro blogging platform, somewhere in between Twitter and his O’Reilly Radar blog.

    In the post he riffs on YouTube as an economy

    Whoever it was who said that the internet model turns traditional media on its head, from curate then publish to publish first, then curate, surely got it right

    There’s a new advertising business model here too. With hundreds of millions of views, these bands are now media companies. It seems to me that the potential of YouTube to be a game changer in the media marketplace, a powerful new channel and business model for artists is still not widely understood. I bet there are as many people making a living on YouTube as in the iTunes app store, yet there’s far less buzz about it.

    I hadn’t heard that phrase about the change from “curate then publish” to “publish first, then curate” before, but it’s powerful.

    (I find myself thinking specifically about the presentation by SchoolTube that Darren Milligan facilitated a few weeks ago—there seems to be a huge demand for B-roll, stock footage of everything and anything that can be re-used by students and teachers. During the SchoolTube presentation we discussed the nuances between our reflexive approach to content creation (curation) with a B-roll approach. One statement by SchoolTube president Carl Arizpe stands out in my mind, (paraphrase) “We have students and teachers clamoring for B-roll footage of the Washington Monument. They can’t find anything that’s rights-free or licensed for re-use.”)

    How Web Video Powers Global Innovation

    Chris Anderson: How web video powers global innovation, recorded July 2010.

    There are a few ideas in this talk by TED founder Chris Anderson (not Wired Magazine editor Chris Anderson) that are, as the conference says, worth spreading.

    1) The concept of Crowd Accelerated Innovation (at 5:50)

    [QUOTE] And there are just three things you need for this [crowd accelerated innovation] thing to kick into gear. You can think of them as three dials on a giant wheel. You turn up the dials, the wheel starts to turn. And the first thing you need is … a crowd, a group of people who share a common interest. The bigger the crowd, the more potential innovators there are. That’s important, but actually most people in the crowd occupy these other roles. They’re creating the ecosystem from which innovation emerges. The second thing you need is light. You need clear, open visibility of what the best people in that crowd are capable of, because that is how you will learn how you will be empowered to participate. And third, you need desire. You know, innovation’s hard work. It’s based on hundreds of hours of research, of practice. Absent desire, not going to happen.

    2) Openness (6:55)

    This is how TED survives and thrives by GIVING EVERYTHING AWAY:

    [QUOTE] So, at TED, we’ve become a little obsessed with this idea of openness. In fact, my colleague, June Cohen, has taken to calling it “radical openness,” because it works for us each time. We opened up our talks to the world, and suddenly there are millions of people out there helping spread our speakers’ ideas, and thereby making it easier for us to recruit and motivate the next generation of speakers. By opening up our translation program, thousands of heroic volunteers – some of them watching online right now, and thank you! – have translated our talks into more than 70 languages, thereby tripling our viewership in non-English-speaking countries. By giving away our TEDx brand, we suddenly have a thousand-plus live experiments in the art of spreading ideas. And these organizers, they’re seeing each other, they’re learning from each other. We are learning from them. We’re getting great talks back from them. The wheel is turning.

    3) “Jove” (10:32) a video scientific journal to increase speed/efficiency of knowledge transfer between scientist

    This need/idea was entirely new to me and it knocked me off my feet:

    [QUOTE] Jove [http://www.jove.com/About.php?sectionid=1] is a website that was founded to encourage scientists to publish their peer-reviewed research on video. There’s a problem with a traditional scientific paper. It can take months for a scientist in another lab to figure out how to replicate the experiments that are described in print. Here’s one such frustrated scientist, Moshe Pritsker, the founder of Jove. He told me that the world is wasting billions of dollars on this. But look at this video. I mean, look: if you can show instead of just describing, that problem goes away. So it’s not far-fetched to say that, at some point, online video is going to dramatically accelerate scientific advance.

    4) Global, mobile, video-driven education (15:01)

    If you’re like me you’ll suffer, grinding your teeth through a bit of hyperbole at 15:01 - - but be patient, it’s a setup. You’ll be wowed by the Pakistan and Kenya example that follow:

    [QUOTE] Here’s a group of kids in a village in Pakistan near where I grew up. Within five years, each of these kids is going to have access to a cellphone capable of full-on web video and capable of uploading video to the web. I mean, is it crazy to think that this girl, in the back, at the right, in 15 years, might be sharing the idea that keeps the world beautiful for your grandchildren? It’s not crazy; it’s actually happening right now.

    I want to introduce you to a good friend of TED who just happens to live in Africa’s biggest shantytown.

    (Video) Christopher Makau: Hi. My name is Christopher Makau. I’m one of the organizers of TEDx Kibera. There are so many good things which are happening right here in Kibera. There’s a self-help group. They turned a trash place into a garden. The same spot, it was a crime spot where people were being robbed. They used the same trash to form green manure. The same trash site is feeding more than 30 families. We have our own film school. They are using Flip cameras to record, edit, and reporting to their own channel, Kibera TV. Because of a scarcity of land, we are using the sacks to grow vegetables, and also [we’re] able to save on the cost of living. Change happens when we see things in a different way. Today, I see Kibera in a different way. My message to TEDGlobal and the entire world is: Kibera is a hotbed of innovation and ideas.

     

    I think TED has been walking the talk with crowd accelerated innovation for years now and I’ve been fascinated watching its website evolve towards a sharing and collaboration platform even though its core product is video that you consume. I intend to steal the design patterns for embedding, favoriting, sharing, downloading, transcripts (including crowd created transcripts and translations), and rating for the Smithsonian Commons. These features didn’t appear overnight though, they seem to have accrued gradually over time. 

    Organizations that get > 1M hours/year of community effort

    I’m starting some research into organizations that might get > 1 million hours/year of volunteer effort through their websites (and, of course, mobile sites/apps). This comes directly from a conversation some colleagues and I had last week with new Smithsonian National Board member Dave Kidder, co-founder and CEO of clickable.com

    I think this - - directly or indirectly catalyzing large amount of effort towards Work That Matters - - should be one of the goals (link to project wiki) of the Smithsonian Commons project: 100 million items in the commons, 100 million user interactions a year, and a million hours of community effort a year - - all by the fifth year. Let’s set the bar high, shall we.

    I want to understand how they get it (whatever “it” is) to work, how it started, how to support and nurture it, and how to measure it. And a whole bunch of other questions I haven’t thought of yet…

    So far, with the help of some smarties on Twitter, I’ve got,

    Also of interest

    Who else?

    [frack! Gotta figure out how to enable commenting!]
    [Oh, got it. That was odd and not well documented! You should see a "comment” link below, but not on the mobile view, yet.]

    Update [November 22, 2011]

    Merete Sanderhoff has posted research on these efforts to the Smithsonian Web and New Media Strategy Wiki.

     

    Improv Everywhere

    The Mp3 Experiment Eight (by ImprovEverywhere)

    Boingboing says: “Charlie Todd says: “3,500 people downloaded the same mp3 from our website and pressed play simultaneously along the Hudson River in Lower Manhattan.  What resulted was a massive silent party with glow sticks, camera flashes, and flashlights.”

    One of the youtube comments says:

    ”I drove 600 miles from Cincinnati with 3 cars full of 5 people and we had the best day of our life! Thanks ImprovEverywhere!“

    A thermometer or a thermostat

    I’ll put it this way, brother: You’ve got to be a thermostat rather than a thermometer. A thermostat shapes the climate of opinion; a thermometer just reflects it. If you’re just going to reflect it and run by the polls, then you’re not going to be a transformative president. Lincoln was a thermostat. Johnson and F.D.R., too.
    — Cornell West, answering the question “How can Obama be the president you want him to be when he’s facing this Republican Congress?” From Talk - Cornel West - NYTimes.com, Sunday, July 24, 2011. (It also reminds me of “Are you the scanner or the barcode” by Cory Doctorow from Make volume 22 http://makezine.com/22/ — the article is not online.)

    Shirky, on institutional change

    Running an organization is difficult in and of itself, no matter what its goals. Every transaction it undertakes—every contract, every agreement, every meeting—requires it to expend some limited resource: time, attention, or money. Because of these transaction costs, some sources of value are too costly to take advantage of. As a result, no institution can put all its energies into pursuing its mission; it must expend considerable effort on maintaining discipline and structure, simply to keep itself viable. Self-preservation of the institution becomes job number one, while its stated goal is relegated to number two or lower, no matter what the mission statement says. The problems inherent in managing these transaction costs are one of the basic constraints shaping institutions of all kinds. [p29]

    …New social tools are altering this equation by lowering the costs of coordinating group action. The easiest place to see this change is in activities that are too difficult to be pursued with traditional management but that have become possible with new forms of coordination.” [p31]
    — Clay Shirky, from Here Comes Everybody
    Urgency is becoming increasingly important because change is shifting from episodic to continuous. With episodic change, there is no one big issue such as making and integrating the largest acquisition in a firm’s history. With continuous change, some combination of acquisitions, new strategies, big IT projects, reorganizations, and the like comes at you in an almost ceaseless flow…Put simply, a strong sense of urgency is moving from an essential element in big change programs to an essential asset in general
    — p. 82, Kotter, John P, A Sense of Urgency, Harvard Business Press, 2008.