It’s now been a bit more than a month that I have relocated to London. Now that I have settled in, it’s time to participate more in the incredible UK ecosystem.
It starts tomorrow. I feel really honored to speak at Digital London, a new conference that has been hitting all the right notes in its organization. Just look at the speaker’s roaster and the various tracks [PDF]. I’m really looking forward to it.
Here’s Adam Malik and me talking a bit about the changes that digital is bringing to businesses. Think of it as a teaser to my talk on Wednesday, March 13, in which I’ll focus a bit more on why mobile is the gateway to the so-called ‘consumerization of IT’ trend, and more generally, on what I like to call the rise of context.
My colleague and friend, R “Ray” Wang will talk tomorrow morning about ‘The Future of Digital Solutions, Content & Services’. You will have to catch him for me as I will be chairing the Innovation, Technologies & Platform track at the same time with Matt Brittin from Google, Anastassia Lauterbach from Qualcomm, Dave Tansley from Deloitte and David King from Logica.
On Wednesday morning, I’ll be chairing the ‘Digital & Technology Futures’ track with Stephen Bates from RIM, Dr. Mike Short from IET, Niall Murphy from Evrythng, Benjamin Woo from IDC and two ExactTarget fellow, Phil Cool and Andrew Chothia.
In the afternoon, I’ll be speaking during the ‘Next Generation Innovation’ track. From digital commerce to mobility, I think I’ll feel at home in there.
The title of my presentation? ‘The Next Generation Customer Experience’.
You can still register if you want to see us.
When I was speaking at the European Union earlier this February, I insisted on how transformative mobile and social technologies were to the way its leaders should envision work. Not communication. Not IT. But the workplace as a whole.
The employees are customers requiring the same attention than “traditional” customers. Welcome to the new B2C. A business to constituent approach —your constituents being your workforce here.
A peer to peer workplace
What do you do when you’re unable to fix that crash you had with your computer at work? You call that guy. That person you know will fix the problem.
You’ve been doing it all along. You create nodes. You talk to people, not to title holders, not to org charts.
We’re in a nodal economy. We’ve always been there, whether in the workplace or not. A P2P economy, a peer-to-peer, person-to-person economy. Boosted by the use of the social web and the advancement/declining costs of hardware though, the tools are finally catching up to this reality.
My Constellation Research esteemed colleague Alan Lepofsky says it better than I ever could:
It’s undeniable that work is very different today than it was just two or three years ago. We’re interacting with larger audiences via social networks both inside and outside our companies. We’re more open about core business processes like trying to sign a new customer, hiring and on-boarding employees and rewarding our peers. We’re connected all the time via smart phone, tablets and even our cars. Work has changed. [source]
This is possibly the most important change companies are facing. Not the technologies and the processes per se. But those in the context of people —employees.
Am I talking human behavior? Yes. But let’s start with the technology part.
The consumerization of the workplace
You’ve probably heard this term a dozen times: the consumerization of IT. To some, it embodies changes that affect only some specific departments insides companies —IT, in short—, but it is actually much deeper.
To grasp it, think about that smartphone sitting in that table in front of you. It’s more powerful than your computer you had a decade ago. Think further. That computer from a decade ago was more powerful than your desktop at home. There you have it in a nutshell.
From top-down to bottom-up
It used to be that innovation went top-down, from the public sector —whether military or universities— to industries and corporations to finally reach the consumer.
The trend is now reversing. Your personal smartphone is more powerful than the one provided by your company. And there are chances that the laptop you possess is also more powerful than the one sitting on your work desk.
Research In Motion’s success with its BlackBerry lines of phones was clearly one of security and infrastructure, but it also embodied the top-down approach: the phone was given to you by your company, set accordingly. By simply putting it on that coffee table during lunch break, you created a “Blackberry-envy”, the traditional imbalance between the haves and the have-nots. Whether those were colleagues or friends, they suddenly wanted one, hence the subsequent success of RIM in the pure consumer-tech segment. From the top management to consumers. Top-down.
Besides RIM’s failings at maintaining its competitive edge, Apple’s iPhone is the poster-child of the opposite trend. That phone started as a pure consumer technology handset, no companies were seriously thinking about adopting it for a long time. Fast forward to 2012 and companies like Halliburton are getting it for their workforce. The debate about whether Apple is enterprise-class or not is almost moot. It didn’t have to proclaim itself “enterprise”, the market is doing it —for better or worse. The consumers are doing it. From the bottom to the top.
It is the exact same trend that we’re witnessing with companies enabling “bring your own device” (BYOD) policies. Want to use your Samsung Galaxy for work? And your MacBook Pro with that? Let us set it up for you. It’s an irresistible trend that is being adopted —or forced upon, depending to whom you talk to.
Am I simplifying the debate? Yes, of course. I’m not saying that Apple’s iCloud is to be compared with business solutions. But it is not the argument here. The argument is about how people perceive and use technology.
Processes and technologies in the workplace were always supposed to be made for people. To allow them to do their work more efficiently. And that’s the key: putting people in the center means thinking human behavior.
The Facebook standard
We all shape our behaviors according to our upbringing, to our culture(s), to our environment. We constantly adapt to our context, although with a pace of its own that doesn’t always match the technological one. Now, think about the amount of time you’ve actually owned a smartphone —for iPhone users, it can date back to 2007— and think about when you signed up on Facebook —yes, Facebook.
The iPhone and Facebook —to only quote the two most obvious choices— did shape your behavior. The foundation of your current software use skillset was impacted by that glass screen and the apps you play with. Your Facebook time did shape your vision of online interactions (e.g. the etiquette, the behaviors), but also the social experience through a screen (e.g. the UX/UI).
The consumerization of IT? People are asking to bring their iPhone to work. People are expecting to internally interact with a Facebook-like experience.
Have a look at many of the internal social communication tools on the market and you’ll see that almost all vendors are taking a page from the Facebook experience. I’m not saying it provides the best experience overall, but it’s a shared and lasting experience amongst people. If it understands people, it will be adopted by people. In this case, it almost becomes a de facto Facebook standard.
The mobile ignition
Mobile technologies are reshaping where and when we work —that’s pretty obvious—, but also how we work.
If you re-read the above, you’ll realize that I’ve been insisting on the smartphone. For a reason. The starting point of the consumerization of IT trend can be traced back when consumer smartphones became ubiquitous. The BYOD policies only gained traction when IT departments realized the staggering number of “rogue” devices accessing enterprise networks —rogue often meaning a smartphone.
And if Facebook shapes how people’s behaviors on networks, half of those interactions are made through a mobile phone.
The agent of change is the smartphone —and its cousin the tablet. It will continue to be one. It is shaping when people interact —24/7. Where people interact —blurring the line between the private and work persona. How people interact —in contextual nodes. And why they interact —that need to be social.
It’s always back to the people.
I’ll be discussing this further with my colleagues Yvette Cameron, Alan Lepofsky and R “Ray” Wang on March 19, 2012 in Miami, Fl. USA as part of SABA’s People Summit: From Concept to Reality: The Future of Work. We’d love to have you interacting with us there. Register here.
the implications are actually quite significant: these private message will make it much easier for brands to interact with fans and – critically – complainants, in a more direct and individual manner.
Private interaction, in order to cut on the noise but also be more specific and personal, is welcome. Pages should look more and more like personal profiles. Facebook also made a good UX choice by not allowing Pages to directly message users, only reply.
Pretty amazing impact to reach 1/10th of 1% of every Tweet generated around the world.
Indeed. This conference is an absolute must.
But Google+ has a feature that’s analogous to Facebook’s Friend Lists: Circles. And while Google has promoted Circles heavily, both in its marketing and on Google+ itself, it doesn’t do much in the way of automatically helping users sort their friends into Circles — there’s still a lot of legwork involved. Which Katango seems perfectly suited to help with.
As I hinted at recently, I don’t think algorithms can yet achieve the true fabric of human relationships.
Now, Facebook Smart Lists make a decent job of breaking it down for me, but only in the most obvious ways: location, occupation, school. The suggestions given to me are usually odd, but I’m also odd, having lived in so many cities, having no particular place I stayed too long in, having no family linked, being my lone wolf-self or something.
Google+ has nothing like that. Katango is thus a natural fit, but I don’t see yet making it a better experience than on Facebook.
Cross-contextual data is where those algorithms should look next.
Let’s stop complaining about the very US-centric tech coverage. Let’s make sure that Europe gets its coverage —and gets constantly at the top of TechMeme— by pushing ourselves like that kid.
My own rant about Europe’s fragmentation in languages —a natural given— and the need to adopt the de facto lingua franca, English, as the common denominator.
Inspired by Mike Butcher.
Mark Zuckerberg:
I think that humans have a capacity for different amounts of social relationships. And I think it varies from person to person but it’s also not about what you should do. You should use the product to keep in touch with whatever set of people you want to. And we try to build all kinds of products that make it so you can stay in touch with small groups.
This is the big challenge for all social network. The fabric of human relationships is vastly more complex than any algorithm can currently handle. Relationships vary over time, context, subtext. They are nonlinear, variable, uncertain.
Existing and not existing at the exact same time.
Will Facebook be the first to grasp the quantum superposition of the human ethos?
The map shows Iceland. I’m over the Atlantic on my flight to JFK, just a stop before Arizona and Connected Enterprise 2011.
When Ray called me a year ago to ask me if I’d be willing to join a new company he was setting up, I didn’t hesitate much. I actually didn’t hesitate at all. I felt like a total junior compared to him & some of the guys he was bringing along.
On November 10, we officially launched. And look where we are now. We’ve been gathering even more stars in our Constellation — losing some in the process, even though they’ll remain with us forever, as stars’ signature never really dissapear. We’ve gained lots of traction, clients, media coverage, mentors. And we’re organizing our first event, a TED meets LeWeb meets Web2.0 conference —pesposterous? You know what they say, shoot for the moon, you’ll end up in the stars. In Constellations.
And we’ve been named best New Analyst Firm of the year by IIAR. What more can you ask?
Well, I’ll ask more. I’ll ask that you keep bearing with us. You might think many call themselves disruptive just for branding reasons. Constellations’ shapes are disruptive by nature. They embrace new stars, leave others become brighter. Constellations like brightness, wherever it comes from. We all shine together.
Look at the sky tonight, you will see some new bright lights reflecting from Scottsdale.
Welcome to Connected Enterprise 2011.
When Steve called Apple TV a hobby, he meant that Apple is borrowing ideas because they don’t yet know how to steal the industry. The future is still up for grabs.
This is probably the best post I’ve read about that on-going debate on who stole what and who did what first. The gist of innovation.
Steve used to say to me a lot, ‘hey Jonny, here’s a dopey idea.’ sometimes they were truly dreadful. But sometimes they took the air from the room and left us both completely silent. Bold, crazy, magnificent ideas or quiet simple ones, which in their subtlety and detail were utterly profound. He understood ideas begin as fragile thoughts, so easily compromised.
— Jonathan Ive
Experience, discover, learn. Be enthusiastic.
The best experiences in life come unexpected. This was one. I wasn’t expecting that a conference in west-central Poland would be so key for my thirst in understanding innovation around the world. I’m still taking it all in.
The question about what is innovation is one that fascinates me. I remember this debate with my Constellation colleagues over what metric or set of data could be used to measure and value innovation. There was no definite answer. There will never be one. Innovation is as much an input than an output. And innovation takes as many forms as there would be definitions anyway.
But still, innovation is my focus. Just that I’m not trying to define innovation as a metric, but as a process.
My presentation itself was a process. I was putting some finishing touches to my e-nnovation talk when the news that Steve Jobs had passed away hit my screen. For an entire morning, I was not able to work. I was not able to focus. It touched me in ways that are too personal for me to share.
I never met my greatest mentor. I wanted so much to be like him. But, his message was the opposite. Be yourself, with passionate intensity.
Naval nailed it. I scrapped my presentation. Restarted one. It is not perfect. But it is what I wanted to do that day. Be myself.
The five lessons
I arbitrarily chose five lessons that we could derive from Steve Jobs’ legacy. Connect the dots. Never fear failure. Marry art & science. Possess a sense of vision. Create the future.
This is, for me, the essence of I2C, innovation-to-consumers.
——use Safari 5+ in order enjoy the fully-animated presentation.
Here’s the gist of my speech.
Connect the dots
You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something —your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
We’ve known videocassettes, we’ve known CDs and DVDs, we know hard drives. We’ve gone from analog to digital. We’ve gone from purely physical to bits. This is where you start when you want to innovate. You understand the trends. You pay homage to the past. Respect it. And then hack it.
By understanding it, I don’t mean looking at the past’s content, but by realizing that we’re witnessing the death of friction, the multiplication of screens & platforms and that many goods are becoming purely transient —in so far as their physical envelope is being taken away from them.
Never fear failure
This is one I’m constantly hearing when I work with the startup ecosystem. There’s a reason why. With fear of failure comes no breakthrough. No innovation.
Sometimes when you innovate, you make mistakes. It is best to admit them quickly, and get on with improving your other innovations.
That quote is not perfect, as Don Dodge would say in a talk unrelated to Jobs the following day: sometimes you just have to keep on making mistakes on the same idea. At one point, you’ll nail it. But, do hack your culture, be honest with yourself and the feedback provided by your peers —whether you want to dismiss it or embrace it.
Apple’s history is filled with failures, one pundits like to mock when they address fanboys. But still: the Newton, eWorld and the Pippin. We now have the iPad, iCloud and the iPhone, one of the most successful gaming platforms around.
Plus, what is the true meaning of a success —the evil twin of failure? As Benjamin Joffe brilliantly mentions in many of his talks, the meanings are culturally-sensitive. Just look at ‘Quality’. In the US, it means that something just works (as advertised I could add). In Japan however, it means perfection. In South Korea? New. And in China, quality is linked with the status it provides.
The status. Remember that one.
Marry art & science
I think part of what made the Macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians, poets, artists, zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world.
Be elegantly human. In an earlier article about the reactions to the proposed Netflix/Qwister businesses, I laid out some basics consumer behaviors traits. Human behaviors that shouldn’t be forgotten.
Apple was able to work upon those. By often staying close to what humans expect from products or services —an art—, it offered bridges. Bridges from the CDs to the hard drives world —the iPod. Bridges from digital to bits.
No, it was not the first company to offer a portable music player. Nor the first one to offer downloads. Nor even the first one to link the two. But it was the first one who understood that humans were on the other side of the machine. Be elegantly human.
In a nutshell, humans are loyal to their habits. We don’t want to lose the comfort. Especially because it’s our own comfort. We also tend to value this current comfort more than a later comfort. Innovation needs bridges.
Possess a sense of vision
You can’t just ask customers what they want and they try to give that to them.
It is important to understand that although rational, not all humans activities are rationalized. Meaning that we all do stuff according to habits, needs or enjoyment. And we’re not always aware of those divisions.
Innovation must take time as a factor to consider. Pietro Zuco touched this concept when he wrote about targeting iPhone applications for the right type of time. There’s busy time —usually work. There’s free time —where its allocation is freely determined by us. And there’s dead time —in a doctor’s waiting room for instance.
This is key. Key because the success —or failure— of every innovation is not due to pure circumstances, but by, again, looking at what consumers are doing. There is a competition for this time.
And the competition is more complex than it looks. It also evolves.
Angry Birds —and the whole “social” or “casual” gaming craze— is just a shot in the past. Remember those pinballs and arcade games? One penny, one game. One limited time span.
Let’s go further. Taking inspiration from both late talks with gaming industry expert Francesco Fondi in Tokyo and Michael E. Porter’s Five Forces, a famous theory related to business development, I’ve created a framework for the competitive rivalry in consumer-oriented innovation.
I’m proposing four threats in this rivalry:
- — The Threat of Time
- — The Threat of Substitute Entertainment
- — The Threat of Price
- — The Threat of New Entrants
Yes, there’s actually a more general threat than time and attention, one that the gaming industry has, for the major part, yet to grasp: The Threat of Substitute Entertainment, i.e Twitter is a direct competitor of Angry Birds. Having a beer with friends is a direct competitor with your XBox gaming time. All human activities are in competition —even if they can overlap. News reading can be pitched against listening to music. Window-shopping against updating your LinkedIn profile.
Let me stop here for now. My research is on-going, I need to brush the rough edges of this theory.
Create the future
Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking.
Once you have the start of the drawing —connecting the dots, once you have surpassed your fear of failure, once you’ve understood humanity as an art as much as a science —don’t be just a salesman and once you’ve risen above what the past teaches you —the vision, you can start imagining the future.
The future is virtual. And we already live in a virtual world.
You car is virtual. You, like the Chinese thinking “new”, are also buying for status. For the image it provides you. For the lifestyle it makes you feel part of. Or for the sentimental value it triggers. That’s virtual.
Look around you and think. How do you assess value to the things that surround you? How do you value your possessions?
Yes, you live in a virtual world. We all do. It’s there. Around you. All the time.
So, don’t discount those virtual items that are all the rage in Asia. I might not buy any, but I’m still from a generation that has known VHS tapes. I rationalized content as physical. It never actually was. It was always virtual, just with a physical box. The next generations will not have these stigmas from the past. Those dots we have a hard time connecting sometimes will just feel natural for them.
It will be their reality.
It’s my choice to make it mine.
I’m naked, I’ve got nothing to lose.
So do you.
I have my own theory about why the decline happens at companies like IBM or Microsoft. The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product becomes less important. The product starts valuing the great salesmen, because they’re the ones who can move the needle on revenues, not the product engineers and designers. So the salespeople end up running the company.
— Steve Jobs.
Enough said.
social media is more complex and less linear and more anarchic than the Web. There is no straight path for a message to get through
The business of interruption is becoming tougher. It has more to do with some in the advertising industry not being agile enough to start understanding technology. I will always remember this Dentsu executive at ad:tech Singapore 2010 who was puzzled at the reasons why I’d follow what startups were doing in that space.
A business that supports itself with advertising, that, effectively, has only one revenue stream—advertising—is almost entirely run by people who, effectively, want to cut out the advertising pros.
Exactly. Get real. The advertising industry should start to pay attention to the message and who sends it, not only delivering an outdated one.
At one point, he said: “Hey, do me a favor, will you? Don’t let what happened to the music business happen to yours — keep coming up with better ways to provide people with your content.”
Jim Gianopoulos tells a great story.
It’s hard to say if the video was fabricated or not, but the crux of the matter is: as humans, our senses are defined by what surrounds us.
Just try asking what is a VHS tape or a floppy disk to young kids. Or watch this other video —in French, but you’ll get it.
Touch screens are the new norm. Siri-like communications with devices might also become one. All of us will be old farts.
Bullshit
In a nutshell, yes.