Another technique I’ve been using to increase Agility in our production process is to be less patient with team members when a customer’s need is not met.  This has shifted the focus of the team directly on creating value to the customer. Agile has breathed new life into this classic management principal, from Peter Drucker (perhaps because Agile ties it directly to project management and a production process rather than remaining an overarching corporate philosophy).

Cultural boundaries have become less important using this approach. We operate in a culturally diverse environment. People have different definitions on what it means to put in a good day’s work. By rating performance directly against customer value, people’s perspectives have started to converge and cultural backgrounds matter less.  Problem solving becomes the focus. Each person brings their unique talent to the table. Constraints like cultural norms or a person’s title fade into the background.

We’ve been adding more Agility into our production process here at Vertabase.  As product manager, I’m leading this effort.  One of the techniques I’m using is to push-back at the development team when they ask me questions, particularly about features.

One of my favorite responses is “Do I need to make a decision on this now?”

The urge to make a decision now is strong, coming from a plan driven background. But it unduly locks-up the team, our customers and our product.

While it is comforting for the team to have me (or a customer, for that matter) make a decision, it makes them less nimble and responsive. It focuses them on meeting a set of requirements, as opposed to the customers’ needs. The responsibility for the feature is no longer in their hands. They can simply follow directions and meet a spec.

So far, the team has been empowered by seeing that a decision doesn’t have to be made nor a policy/spec adhered to, and re-focused instead,  on the simple art of the right feature implemented well.

Bret Victor has a nice piece on the future of interactive design. He exhorts us to dream big and not just extrapolate. Amen.

He then points to a direction for future dreaming, pushing designers to encompass everything hands can do.  This is a good starting point, but begs for further elaboration.

Like him, I love hands. I’d like to jump on board and give him a hand to push designers further.

Hands are not the central constraint in today’s interfaces (nor the future interfaces he describes).

The central constraint is peeking up at us at 9 seconds into the video he references.  It’s our eyes.

Interface is about navigation and way-finding.  Current device interfaces rely on sight for us to find our way through the digital maze. Good design clarifies the path and helps us recognize patterns that can point us to further capabilities. Hands help us move visual information – the pictures under glass Bret discusses.

Future interfaces will be driven by new methods of “display.”

For us to use our hands to navigate, to interface with capabilities (in the way we tie our shoes, for example) the information has to be “displayed/embedded/be one with” the objects we’re using as way-points and manipulating (in this case the lace has weight, dimensionality, material characteristics).

As a side note, this may be coming faster than we think, with information gaining ubiquity and intertwingling into the physical word.

We live in a period of continual disruption and competitive innovation. All too often, the processes we use to survive and win in this world, the tools employed to assess and develop the next generation product or service, are not well suited to the demands of the times.

Categorization, card sorts, trained responses and procedures are the world of defined systems.  Search, intuition, adaptation and theft (on a micro and wide scale) are central characteristics of the world of improvisation and innovation.

Progress and advancement, in fact survivability, in a world of continual disruption and a high volume of aggressive competition depends on getting “search” right.

To gain an advantage in the near term, we need to predict what the search results will be.  In the longer term, we need to predict what search itself will be.  Both of these, in an environment where perhaps the only defining constant is the user’s intent.

Recently, it seems there has been an overflow of devices and software with good, well designed interfaces.  These have put powerful capabilities in the hands of many people, unlocking creativity. But there is an interface beyond design and chaos beyond channeled creativity. Design is an organizing principle. It is a construct for accessing capabilities.  It provides an interface and a context.  Way beyond good, intuitive design there is the ugly. We are in the early stages of the ugly.

Intuitiveness is a function of how well an interface conforms to a person’s expectations. Great interfaces can be a step beyond the expectations, making design nearly invisible. A person’s expectations are often a function of the environment in which they operate or into which they have been acculturated. Interfaces have gone through various stages reflecting the environments which have surrounded people.  Earlier interfaces (user controls, manuals, processes and procedures) reflected a person being in a production line. They played a part in a larger, linear process.

After, interfaces reflected the hierarchy of functional organizations, adding dimensionality to the interface and the capacity to do more across multiple functions.  The sharpest designed interfaces of today are refinements of this approach, paring down the functions and assuming the dimensionality required for any particular person.  Where we are now, are task-based approaches mashed-up across multiple service capabilities. Interface definition is “me” centric rather than being oriented around tasks defined by the organization or functionality.  In some sense, this is a special case of personalizing the tasks.  But a powerful case. The tasks are user defined. The person is at the center of the definition and accesses the capability directly. The capabilities available are beyond the boundaries of the pre-definition of an organizational structure or design principle.

A testament to the power of the design is the extent to which the capabilities are in demand (see article on why we buy tools), which has allowed the creation of supply chains that make those capabilities affordable, available and easy to replenish.

“Me” centric design has opened a new frontier.  Where the frontier is once again open, constructs will be challenged.  There will be interfaces that are ugly, ineffective, un-intuitive and just plain hard.  There will be power unleashed in a chaotic fashion, without a “beautiful” or even discernable organizing principle. They will be so because the capabilities created will be beyond existing contexts.  The capabilities will define and create a new environment.

Then from there, the cycle will start with an organizing principle evolving to exploit those capabilities most effectively. Effectiveness will be defined, as in all human endeavors, in the marketplace and battlefield (in fact we are seeing it already with app developers, low-cost tablets and IEDs – capabilities beyond existing organizing principles).   Barriers will grow to those capabilities as their range and dimensionality are explored and organized into interfaces (processes, procedures, etc.).  Then again, good design will make them commodities and re-open them to creativity and innovation.

We are in the early stages of the ugly.

Good tools tend to sell well. They inspire creators, enable tinkerers and fill Sunday’s with the promise of accomplishment.

One of the reason’s tools sell well is that they are a unique category of goods. Tools can have currency-like characteristics. Their value is in the eye of the beholder.  Every goal is different. Everybody uses a tool differently.

Tools are boundary objects between the present and future. They represent a promise. Tools open us to the realm of improvement. With the right tool, we can achieve our goals.

If you want to create something people will buy, think about creating a tool. If you want to gain sponsorship for a new project, think about a project that will result in an expanded capability for the sponsoring organization. Every person or organization has a dream. Create a tool that will help them realize it.

The more flexible a tool, the easier to use and therefore the more easily we can see ourselves using it to achieve our goals, the better the tool will sell.

In a tip of the hat to Steve Jobs, a consummate tool maker, dream big and help others dream big. By building the right tools, tools that help others build tools,  we create a cycle of societal enablement for innovation and attaining big dreams.

Here are three mindsets that create non-productive project cultures. They reduce the probability of implementing change successfully and of your project really changing anything. I’ve seen them in different countries around the world, across national boundaries (though some regions tend to exhibit one or more to greater degrees).

1. Harmony Above All
2. I’m the Boss
3. Short-Term Grab

1. Harmony Above All. This mindset shuns conflict (and project truths). Harmony above all denies problems, preferring to report that everything is possible, everything is going great on a project and that everyone is happy. It stems from a belief that pleasing the project manager is dependent on words and deference, rather than results.

2. I’m the Boss. This mindset breeds conflict. It uses any interaction as a mechanism to assert one person’s control over the other. I’m the boss focuses excessively on interpersonal issues and a project’s politics. Truth and project metrics are used subjectively to illustrate the reporter’s point of view. It stems from a belief that a person’s relative position is more important than results and that the highest reward is to be in a good position relative to other people.

3. Short-Term Grab. This mindset is opportunistic and scheming. Participation in a project is viewed as a means to fulfill a short-term need. People take actions to fulfill those needs, regardless of their impact on the project. Interactions are used to attain those needs or position one’s self (or someone else) to attain those needs. It stems from a paucity of opportunities over the long term and an inability to forecast a consistent path to basic-needs fulfillment with any degree of certainty past today or tomorrow.

Creating Change.

These mindsets distort a project away from results. They share a common feature in that failure is viewed as bad and that a project’s result is secondary to the opportunities presented by simply being involved in a project. Only in a culture where failure is acceptable can change succeed. You can strip these mindsets of their power by rigorously focusing rewards on results and accepting failed outcomes (make sure to communicate the consequences of failure to your team, namely, that it’s a learning experience and not the end of their opportunities –of course, these needs to be handled delicately to reduce moral hazard).

Vertabase is re-releasing the Vertabase Timer v3.0 for free.

With over 12,000 downloads, the Vertabase Timer is a popular desktop Timer to track time on tasks or clients. It includes rates for tasks, task notes, time spent reports, graphing and exports to CSV and XML.  It works on both MAC and Windows machines.

You can read the full feature list on the Vertabase Timer website.

The change was made due to continued demand for the product and changes in Adobe’s support for the AIR marketplace.

As always, you can email suggestions for future features of the Timer to timer@vertabase.com.

I am speaking at this year’s IUE2011 Conference in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

IUE is a four day, international event on user experience design co-sponsored by the Michigan Chapter of CHI. If you are interested in ux designing, this conference is full of solid information, practical strategies and a good dose of future think.

My session (description below) is currently scheduled for 10 am on October 12th (in the “tough act to follow” slot right after Peter Morville’s morning keynote).

Closing the Communication Gap in a Virtual Environment
Fluid communication and user feedback are critical to effective design. Communication challenges are multiplied when working with a virtual team or non-collocated stakeholders. This session will provide participants with clear, actionable ways to improve communication and therefore produce more effective user experiences. Taking to heart the latest research on communication and how professionals learn, this will be an interactive, participant focused session, free of any PowerPoint slides.

Humility can very often be the most right thing you can do on a project.  Sometimes, the more important the work of the project, the greater the need for humility.

The CERN scientists bring this message home in the closing paragraph of their paper on the faster than light particle.

Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly.

Rather than touting their results, they are exposing them to further scrutiny -for the sake of finding the truth.

An inspiring statement in the tradition of noble scientists.

(Is there a model for the noble project manager?)