Archive for January 2009


Honda Fury Chopper.

January 26th, 2009 — 4:25pm
Honda Fury Bike

Honda Fury Bike

Honda has added a chopper to it’s line-up.  This isn’t a custom bike like some of it’s other offerings, and it isn’t a heavy looking wannabe chopper based on some cross over frame/engine they happened to have around.  It is a visually light weight bike done in the chopper style.  Whether it is a chopper or not is to be debated, as is if it is a decent bike.

Slice and dice.

What makes a chopper?  Well, getting a bike and chopping off all the unnecessary bits will do it for you.  A factory built chopper?  Making it look like all the bits were chopped off, but leaving enough to keep it certifiable and their lawyers happy.  So here is the Honda Fury, or Furry… It is a Honda after all so the soft fuzzy ‘you meet nicer people on a Honda’ theme is here…  It does look right… big open triangle bordered between the gas tank, top of the engine and the front down tube…. 21″ front tyre tied in with a small… ish… fender.  Slightly longer forks… forward controls and a decent reach to the bars combined with low seat give this bike the right look.  Given that it is a Honda, I would imagine, actually I don’t have to imagine, it will run every time you hit the start button, and will continue to do so with no fail.  It won’t shake it’s self to bits as you ride and you won’t scorch your tenders riding on hot days in traffic.

The good the bad and the not so ugly.

It has a 1312cc engine, or 1.3Litres!… I didn’t expect that looking at the pictures.  It also has a shaft drive and a tiny 200 series rear tyre. Shaft drives have a habit of lifting the rear of the bike under acceleration unlike chain or belt which hunker down.  My Goldwing was a nightmare for this.  Given Honda’s tradition of making motors with more horse power than torque, a 200 series tyre isn’t going to give you lots of room to play.  You are going to be spending lots of time feathering the throttle in rain or on cooler days or you might find yourself spinning around faster than a 78.  I’m also figuring that as a Honda this bike will weigh in the neighbourhood of 550lbs so don’t figure on the bikes weight helping to keep the wheel planted.  Another consideration, that front end is gong to wander… sure the first few months, year or so it will be fine, but give it 10,000km and things will start to soften up and with a 21″ front wheel get ready for walkabout.  The assumed light weight of the bike and given the aluminium rim up front you may not notice too much.

The design, as per Honda’s standard fare.  Clean, precise and penned to make everyone find something they like.  You can’t help but like this form, unless you are a a firm sport bike rider or Harley owner.  As part of the second group, and being a designer, I will say I like the bikes form but wouldn’t buy one.

After the rain.

What you won’t do is find loads of after market parts to help you differentiate yourself from every other Fury rider.  According to the web site, Honda does have a set of factory accessories but no link to them yet.  Given their penchant for doing things complete, they probably already have deals with some after market manufacturers as well so there is little if any overlap in offerings.  I’m sure like everything Honda, they will fit first time, come with all the parts and be weakly chromed or anodized just enough to get you out of the shop.

Cool as …

Just taking a look at their web site gives an interesting picture of their research for the release of this bike.  Right on the front page, they have a Share The Fury button which is an Add This link.  If you don’t know, Add This lets you add a web page with one click to friends through email, Facebook, digg, myspace del.icio.us etc.  They also have quick links to a Facebook group, youTube and flicker videos, myspace page and even a twitter link.  Big ups for marketing in the viral world of 2.0.

The end is nigh.

I would have liked this package, the bike, web site, 2.0 marketing much better had they made this a three bike lineup.  Entry, intermediate and showoff…  I really think that a 400cc entry version would have made a better option for the crowd they are targeting through the social networking.  There just aren’t enough cool looking, easy to ride and afford real bikes available to new riders.  A nice 900cc intermediate and then the 1300cc version.

Comment » | Designers, Designs, Manky or Spanky, Product Design, Strategy

The future of Beta… Iota

January 17th, 2009 — 2:05pm

Beta release.  It has been talked about over the last few years almost exclusively in relation to software.  A company designs a piece of software, sends out a ‘release candidate’, then later, releases a patch to finalize the product.  Or in the more modern case, they just never release the final product.  Only never ending patches, upgrades and versions.  This does offer them the ability to not have to have accountability for a faulty, unfinished product… “It’s a Beta.  It’s not finished yet.” or, “We are doing on going ‘in the wild testing’” all of which are well used terms.

We do find that there are two main kinds of Beta releases.  The first, has a set of features, which get subsequent upgrades with new features added and/or patches for the existing features.  The second, that has all the features included, but has certain features which have their abilities turned on at a later time.  We tend to see this type more often as a ‘trial version’ or ‘limited functionality trial’.   This you see in a basic version of Apple Quicktime, where ‘Pro’ upgrade is needed to access certain abilities.  Sometimes, these features are just hidden completely from the interface but if you could run them, they would work just fine.  This was the case with the ‘hidden’ flight simulator in Google Earth.  It was fully there, but you couldn’t access it’s functionality from the drop downs.

This Beta release business model has managed to quickly move from the confines of pure software to that grey area between software and hardware.  That place where the software which is Beta is responsible for the actual functionality of your hardware.  The drivers.  Firmware updates which increase, or expand, hardware’s features.  We see this all the time in computer hardware.  Mostly in processors, or graphic cards.  Through your computers BIOS you can overclock your CPU, make the hardware run faster.  You do tend to see it more overtly in graphic cards where the supplier actually releases an OC video card, or over clocked version.  In the hardware, there is nothing different between the OC video card and the regular version except that the instruction set tells it to run faster.

Now it is interesting to think what happens when we transpose this to mechanical products.  When we start to purposely under perform our offerings in order that we can boost performance later with a simple BIOS style upgrade.  I’m not talking about playing it safe and leaving room for wear and tear, or out of specification misuse from a safety stand point.  I’m talking about designing and building a product where we make it to perform at 110% but only allow it to perform at 90%, and then upgrade it to 100% later.  This psychologically goes to make the customer feel like they are getting something for free.  Makes them feel like the company is giving their old purchase a new lease on life.

Imagine if you buy a new car that has the actual ability to get 4L/100km and do 0~100km in 5.1 seconds with 250HP.   The thing is, they tell you that it only gets 5L/100km and does 0~100 in 6.1 seconds with 200HP.  So here you are with a detuned car and no clue that this is the case.  Now what if the company manufacturing the car releases a patch, or an upgrade that improves your vehicles fuel consumption and acceleration?  Well if you paid for the technology up front but didn’t know the real capabilities, then there is no cost to the manufacturer only a benefit of customer satisfaction.

This could become an interesting trend with lots of new questions to be asked.

Is it ethical for a company to do this?  What would be the backlash should one be found out?  Would it adversely effect a company’s brand image?  Do we as designers and strategists start to design overall solutions to this line of thinking?  Or, do we stand fast and oppose it should it be raised by other departments as a business model?  On one hand we could just play the Beta card.  “It was detuned to fit within ‘at the time engineering and testing parameters’, but after further testing, we found we could safely change the parameters within the current hardware configuration”.  On the other hand, as designers, we aim to make things usable and therefore beautiful, so retarding usefulness detracts from the beauty of our art.

Comment » | Administration, Graphic Design, Strategy, Thinkings, Uncategorized

Insulting the customer into opening their wallets.

January 13th, 2009 — 7:28pm

A trend has emerged over the last little while in television advertising. More and more I have noticed that commercials rely on showing a person who doesn’t use the product or service to be a loser, an idiot or pathetic. The trend is to make the male actor the one to be on the receiving end. Everything about the depicted person is undesirable, from receding hairline, to sloppy clothing to lack of respect from friends or family. Why do advertisers find it necessary to resort to this type of marketing? What prompted the shift from benefit driven education of a customer to belittling? Is is a symptom of society’s self image or the cause of it? How will it change now that web 2.0, 2.5 or even 3.0 are on the horizon?

At some point over the last 30 years men went from the bread winner and supposed decision maker within a family unit to the butt of jokes. Call it the Simpsonification of the family unit or some other term, either way, advertisers realized that women were the real purchase drivers. Women were the ones who needed to be convinced that the product or service was for them. I find it interesting that when you look at the differences in psychology between men and women, that they would have chosen to do their ads in such a way. I can see men liking the three stooges low brow comedy used today to sell a product, but not women. So why, if women are the ones being advertised to, are these base parodies used?

Both with men or women as the protagonist, we see this trend. Also interesting is that for the most part, the products or services are those which a man would be the most likely to initiate conversation about purchasing. Seldom do we see this type of tactic when the product is something a man would purchase on their own. Think sports cars, shampoo or ‘just for men’ products. This is not to say that it doesn’t occur. Take the Gillette mach 3 commercials where some one’s decision to use or purchase a product is affected by a famous athlete. Here we see the hero being physically pushed into purchasing the product. Or the Just for Men beard and moustache colour. Three famous football stars one of which is old and grey with no game.

We do occasionally see this intellectual simplifying in representations of women in commercials. Usually though, the simple personality is the one to pass information or educate someone else to the product benefits. Take for instance the commercial where a woman has a secret about the three cheese mix she uses. She asks her, simple, friend if she can keep it secret. She says yes and before even turning around passes along the information, breaking her promise. Intellectually we relate to the hero in the commercial, we can be her if we buy the product. But, even if we put ourselves in the shoes of the simple woman we don’t feel offended as she becomes an educator, a teacher of the product and therefore a secondary-hero if you will.

Is it a symptom of the society we live in, or are the products or services so lacking in quality, truth and ability to deliver that advertisers have to avoid mentioning these things? Do people really relate to these persona’s in commercials, or is there a subconscious sence of power over someone less than you? Is it all the result of the people coming up with the ideas having grown up in a Simpsons world with art directors too afraid to question the ‘new’ wisdom? What will happen in the future with web 2.x on? I can’t answer these questions but I can make decisions about what I will do to move forward, differentiate my self and reflect society and so can you.

[update 15 Jan 2009 from information published in Fast Company]

“Here’s one good reason: Women buy 57% of consumer electronics (to the tune of about $80B), but influence 90% of all CE purchases. Yes, fellas. If you really want that cool new 60 inch flat screen, you’ll have to get it by your house’s electronic major domo first.

But here’s a far more dispiriting number: the number of women who said they thought manufacturers had them in mind when developing products: 1%”

Comment » | Thinkings

Designing a resume and cover letter.

January 9th, 2009 — 6:40pm

Remember way back when in your English class, your teacher gave you a simple yet effective outline for writing a one page report.  Intro, body, summary.  Using a story to impart information creates a form which makes it more memorable, more impactful and clear.  Story telling requires the ability to explain and persuade not only with logic but with emotion as well.

Now, you’re wiser, more educated perhaps, even a bit older, but you forgot hat simple outline when crafting your cover letter.  Take a look at the cover letter that got you the position you hold now, I’ll wait.  How does it measure up?  Does it give a nice little three or four point intro?  Do you expand and example with titbits of personal experience for each in the body paragraphs?  Do you tie it together in your summary? If not, you may want to spend a bit of time each month doing one for practice.

This will give you a couple of great benefits.  One, you will have an up to date cover letter, and you never know when you may need it.  Two, you get practice writing in a style you probably don’t get to use in your career.  Third, by putting down what you do, and refining it, you may actually find out what you would like to do in the future.  Which areas do you enjoy talking about because you really like them?  Which ones do you constantly want to omit but only put in hesitantly because you know they look good on paper?

But wait you say.  A computer running some form of word scanning, term searching engineered algorithm, or worse yet, a Human resources specialist, is going to be the one to look at it.  So?  What should that matter?  If you’re a designer, design your cover letter and resume the same way you would design a product or an interface.  You have the technical specifications, the marketing materials and key messages so make them engaging, memorable and fun.  The computer or scanning eyes will still pick out the key words.  In order to effectively communicate meaningful stories, you need to manage the prioritization and relationship of visual elements.  In this case the elements are paragraphs composed of words.  When it does get to the “man”, or “woman” as the case may be, it floats to the top of the pile, stands out and in of it’s self shows your attention to detail and design skills in everything you do.

But where does this leave your resume?  Again, design it.  Use kerning.  Use formatting.  Treat blocks of text as form and balance them on the page.  Here you have so much room to play.  Treat your resume as free form poetry and make their eyes dance across the page to your tune.  Again, you have the technical specifications and textural requirement in the form of sections.  You have the marketing and public relations in the form of text.  You have a blank page to design your resume.

What is the worst that can happen?  They don’t call you… Would you want to work as a designer in a company that didn’t understand your resume?  That overlooked your work of design because it didn’t fit into the little box they provided as a template?  Would you really be able to grow in an environment like that?  It may take you longer to get an interview, but when you do, you will already be the front runner and at a place you might actually enjoy working because everyone from HR to the person you would be reporting to understands the value of design as more than just making things look good.

Spend a bit of time practicing your core design competancies at more than just form development and you may find a new world opens up to you.  Hope this helps.

Comment » | Designs, Graphic Design, Interface Design, Strategy, Thinkings

Strategy by Design : by Tim Brown, shamelessly reposted because it just has to be spread.

January 7th, 2009 — 6:03pm

Although it is not my writing, I think that in response to comments during a conversation recently, great benefit can be garnered from reading Tim Brown’s Strategy by Design.

Strategy by Design

By Tim Brown CEO Ideo

It’s remarkable how often business strategy, the purpose of which is to direct action toward a desired outcome, leads to just the opposite: stasis and confusion. Strategy should bring clarity to an organization; it should be a signpost for showing people where you, as their leader, are taking them — and what they need to do to get there. But the tools executives traditionally use to communicate strategy — spreadsheets and PowerPoint decks — are woefully inadequate for the task. You have to be a supremely engaging storyteller if you rely only on words, and there aren’t enough of those people out there. What’s more, words are highly open to interpretation — words mean different things to different people, especially when they’re sitting in different parts of the organization. The result: In an effort to be relevant to a large, complicated company, strategy often gets mired in abstractions.

People need to have a visceral understanding — an image in their minds — of why you’ve chosen a certain strategy and what you’re attempting to create with it. Design is ideally suited to this endeavor. It can’t help but create tangible, real outcomes.

Because it’s pictorial, design describes the world in a way that’s not open to many interpretations. Designers, by making a film, scenario, or prototype, can help people emotionally experience the thing that the strategy seeks to describe. If, say, Motorola unveils a plan to create products that have never existed before, everyone in the organization will have a different idea of what that means. But if Motorola creates a video so people can see those products, or makes prototypes so people can touch them, everyone has the same view.

Unfortunately, many people continue to think of design in very narrow terms. Industrial products and graphics are outcomes of the design process, but they do not begin to describe the boundaries of design’s playing field. Software is engineered, but it is also designed — someone must come up with the concept of what it is going to do. Logistics systems, the Internet, organizations, and yes, even strategy — all of these are tangible outcomes of design thinking. In fact, many people in many organizations are engaged in design thinking without being aware of it. The result is that we don’t focus very much on making it better.

If you dig into business history, you see that the same thing occurred with the quality movement. As business strategist Gary Hamel has pointed out, there was a time when people didn’t know what quality manufacturing was and therefore didn’t think about it. Nevertheless, they were engaged with quality — they created products of good or bad durability and reliability. Then thinkers such as W. Edwards Deming deconstructed quality — they figured out what it was and how to improve it. As soon as people became conscious of it, manufactured goods improved dramatically.

The same thing needs to happen with design. Organizations need to take design thinking seriously. We need to spend more time making people conscious of design thinking — not because design is wondrous or magical, but simply because by focusing on it, we’ll make it better. And that’s an imperative for any business, because design thinking is indisputably a catalyst for innovation productivity. That is, it can increase the rate at which you generate good ideas and bring them to market. Where you innovate, how you innovate, and what you innovate are design problems. When you bring design thinking into that strategic discussion, you join a powerful tool with the purpose of the entire endeavor, which is to grow. Here is Ideo’s five-point model for strategizing by design.

Hit the Streets

Any real-world strategy starts with having fresh, original insights about your market and your customers. Those insights come only when you observe directly what’s happening in your market. As Jane Fulton Suri, who directs our human-factors group, notes in her book Thoughtless Acts? (Chronicle Books, 2005), “Directly witnessing and experiencing aspects of behavior in the real world is a proven way of inspiring and informing [new] ideas. The insights that emerge from careful observation of people’s behavior . . . uncover all kinds of opportunities that were not previously evident.”

Very often, you can build an entire strategy based on the experiences your customers go through in their interactions with your organization. Service brands have a horrible habit of focusing on the one interaction where they think they make money. If you’re running an airline, there’s an awful temptation to focus all of your attention on what it’s like to fly a particular route on a particular aircraft. In fact, you can track backward and forward a whole series of interactions that consumers have with you that are very relevant. If you start to map out that entire journey, you begin to understand how you might innovate to create a much more robust customer experience.

Recruit T-Shaped People

Regardless of whether your goal is to innovate around a product, service, or business opportunity, you get good insights by having an observant and empathetic view of the world. You can’t just stand in your own shoes; you’ve got to be able to stand in the shoes of others. Empathy allows you to have original insights about the world. It also enables you to build better teams.

“We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they’re willing to try to do what you do.”

We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they’re willing to try to do what you do. We call them “T-shaped people.” They have a principal skill that describes the vertical leg of the T — they’re mechanical engineers or industrial designers. But they are so empathetic that they can branch out into other skills, such as anthropology, and do them as well. They are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns of behavior that point to a universal human need. That’s what you’re after at this point — patterns that yield ideas.

These teams operate in a highly experiential manner. You don’t put them in bland conference rooms and ask them to generate great ideas. You send them out into the world, and they return with many artifacts — notes, photos, maybe even recordings of what they’ve seen and heard. The walls of their project rooms are soon plastered with imagery, diagrams, flow charts, and other ephemera. The entire team is engaged in collective idea-making: They explore observations very quickly and build on one another’s insights. In this way, they generate richer, stronger ideas that are hardwired to the marketplace, because all of their observations come directly from the real world.

Build to Think

“Design thinking is inherently a prototyping process. Once you spot a promising idea, you build it. In a sense, we build to think.”

Design thinking is inherently a prototyping process. Once you spot a promising idea, you build it. The prototype is typically a drawing, model, or film that describes a product, system, or service. We build these models very quickly; they’re rough, ready, and not at all elegant, but they work. The goal isn’t to create a close approximation of the finished product or process; the goal is to elicit feedback that helps us work through the problem we’re trying to solve. In a sense, we build to think.

When you rapidly prototype, you’re actually beginning to build the strategy itself. And you’re doing so very early in the innovation cycle. This enables you to unlock one of your organization’s most valuable assets: people’s intuitions. When you sit down with your senior team and show them prototypes of the products and services you want to put out in two years’ time, you get their intuitive feel for whether you’re headed in the right direction. It’s a process of enlightened trial and error: Observe the world, identify patterns of behavior, generate ideas, get feedback, repeat the process, and keep refining until you’re ready to bring the thing to market.

Not long ago, we worked with a large food-processing company on the possibility of incorporating RFID technology into its supply chain. After many rounds of prototyping and getting feedback, we made a three-minute video that described a very complex interaction of suppliers, customers, logistics, weather, geography, and a host of other real-world conditions that showed how RFID might work. The video rapidly accelerated the development of a potential RFID-based strategy, because the company could instantly give us even sharper feedback and help us refine it. Rapid prototyping helps you test your progress in a very tangible way and ultimately makes your strategic thinking more powerful.

The Prototype Tells a Story

Prototyping is simultaneously an evaluative process — it generates feedback and enables you to make midflight corrections — and a storytelling process. It’s a way of visually and viscerally describing your strategy.

Some years ago, a startup called Vocera came to us with a new technology based on the Star Trek communicator — that “Beam me up, Scotty” device. They had worked out the technology — an elegant device the size of a cigarette lighter that you could wear around your neck and use to connect instantly with anyone on the network. But the team had no way to describe why people would need the thing. We made a five-minute film that played out a scenario where everyone in the company had these gadgets. The storyline followed how one person used the communicator to rapidly assemble a crisis team dispersed across an office campus. The film showed that while fixed communications and mobile phones are very good for expected interactions, this device was ideal for reacting to the unexpected.

The team used the film to tell their story; it helped them raise VC funding and it acted as the guiding framework for the development and marketing of the product, which is called the Vocera Communications Badge. But there’s an interesting twist to this tale. We thought the badge would work best on big office campuses. The market thought otherwise. Vocera’s two largest markets are hospitals and big-box retail stores.

In the end, it didn’t really matter that the market opportunity morphed into something different. Because you’re testing and refining your strategy early and often in the design process, the strategy continually evolves. When the market changes, as it did with Vocera, the strategy can change along with it. This gives you a big jump start over abstract, word-based forms of strategy, in which the first time you get to test the strategy’s outcome is when you actually roll it out. You can’t gauge the strategy’s effectiveness until you achieve the end result and do your postmortem. I don’t see why that’s useful. By building your strategy early on, in a sense you’re doing a premortem: You’re giving yourself a chance to uncover problems and fix them in real time, as the strategy unfolds.

Design Is Never Done

Even after you’ve rolled out your new product, service, or process, you’re just getting started. In almost every case, you move on to the next version, which is going to be better because you’ve had more time to think about it. The basic idea for the notebook computer came out of Ideo some 20 years ago: Ideo cofounder Bill Moggridge is listed on the patent for the design that lets you fold a screen over a keyboard. Since then, the laptop has been redesigned — and greatly improved — hundreds of times, because design is never done. The same goes for strategy. The market is always changing; your strategy needs to change with it. Since design thinking is inherently rooted in the world, it is ideally suited to helping your strategy evolve.

It all comes back to the fact that in order to really raise innovation productivity within organizations, at the strategic level and everywhere else, you have to increase the amount of design thinking inside organizations. Doing so helps you get to clarity faster, helps your organization understand where you’re taking it, helps you figure out whether you’re on the right track, and enables you to adapt quickly to change. Those are pretty valuable survival skills.

Some companies already understand this and are working design thinking into their organizations. It’s not such a hard thing to do. The toughest part is taking that first step — breaking away from your habitual way of working and getting out into the world.

Comment » | Uncategorized

Back to top