azzurrissimo.ch

I recently remembered some interesting discussions a few years ago in R&D, when the business departments of the company complained that innovation was too strongly driven by new technologies rather than a real user need which in their eyes lead to products and services that nobody wanted. In some cases they were right.
But how can users know about their needs in context with unknown future technologies? If you just ask them, most probably they want the same services only much faster or the same products in better quality, etc. Of course, there are techniques like deep dives to find out what the pain of customers is to provide them with new offers that fit their needs. However, most people in user research are not familiar with the opportunities of future technologies and might not be able to come up with the best pain killers by themselves.
In my opinion innovation should be driven by both, technology and user needs. The lead can be taken by one or the other, depending on the case. A smart engineer might ask himself what new services could be offered through the almost seamless coverage of privately owned WLANs in cities, create some ideas and double-check them with customer researchers. On the other hand, a usability consultant could discover people’s difficulties with SMS-writing while driving and find possible solutions with engineers.
Technology-driven innovation is not wrong per se, there should be a good mix.

Again and again I read about studies that “prove” exciting facts in various magazines and journals. Just three of them:
1. “The risk of becoming fat increases with TV consumption”.
2. “Kids that do not sleep enough are less likely to get a high school degree”
3. “People in a lucky partnership are less likely to suffer from cancer”

The pattern is always similar: 2 variables (A and B) - depicted as cause and effect - are analyzed for correlation. If there is a relationship, for example:
“If A is higher, there is more B” or “If A is not given, then B is present” the fact that A leads to be is taken as proven.

In the first example - the one with the television - they asked people how much TV they watched and recorded the weight and height (most probably, just guessing). Then they drew a graph and saw that fat people watched more TV and vice versa. Until now, this was just a fact but with some interpretation there is a dependency of the weight and TV consumption, the latter being the cause. Maybe this is what should have been proven from the beginning and thus, further dependencies and causes are not analyzed.

What about this (alternative interpretation): There are more and less active people, determined by birth. The more active people move more, like to be outside and have natural eating habits. The less active don’t like to move and are staying inside more often. They don’t like organic food and don’t have natural eating habits. While the first type stays healthy and slim, the second type grows fat.

In the second example - the one with the kids - it could also well be (just interpretation as well) that socially poor families pay less attention to a decent education, their kids don’t have to follow many rules, they can go to bed when they like (or after the action movie that runs on TV) and do not have to make proper homework. Additionally, their parents don’t think that a high school degree is somehow important (they don’t have one either) and thus, their kids are less likely to go to high school.

I’m not saying that my explanations are more likely than the original ones. However, as long as not every possible cause has been examined or as long as there is a real proof (for example an observable connection of two events, including a blank test), it’s just two variables that correlate somehow.

I believe that in 2008 the last step of a digital shift has taken place. Why’s that?

1. Some of my most recent friends on facebook were never in to digital up to now
2. Even my mother considers using her credit card in the Internet
3. Some random people asked me, which NAS (network attached storage) they should buy
4. I joined twitter

The digital evolution just reflects some sociological facts. People have less time and thus, leisure has become rare and more valuable than ever. Whatever saves us time or makes life easier is very much appreciated. Online shopping, banking, planning, and organization become even more popular and recommendations of other users are an important factor in decision process when having multiple options for action.

People’s fear of online transactions is diminishing and the uncertainty of the consequences of online presence even turned into some kind of exhibitionism - at least with the not too old generation. My guess is that the online show off will continue and swap over to the mobile, like early adopters are already demonstrating.

The major concerns in the digital world are rising complexity, central storage, secure backup, managing identities and the protection of privacy. This is especially true for non-affine users and will drive the digital evolution one step further. In order to delegate complexity and responsibility, people will discover the benefits of virtualization. Important players are already deploying solutions in different domains like storage, office applications, and photo processing.

So here comes my guess about things to happen in 2009:
- Google will launch the first version of a virtual (remotely running) Operating System. Microsoft will try the same thing but too expensive and too late.
- Google or Amazon will launch some remote storage service, not too expensive. Streaming to home and mobile devices included
- Facebook’s saturation limit will be reached in autumn 2009.
- Some non-telco-provided open-standard non-DRM-protected Internet-browser-based TV Set Top Box will break into the digital TV market (maybe this is more like a wish). In addition, it will stream home network content to the TV screen easily.
- Steve Jobs will announce an Everest (or some other challenging) expedition to prove he’s completely fit and to stop forever the rumors about his bad state of health

Maybe you’re familiar with the “harmoS” proposal to harmonize the Swiss school system? The idea is about having the same goals, rules, education time and all-day care for primary schools in Switzerland from Kindergarten to the last obligatory grade. I’m asking myself why this doesn’t apply since Pestalozzi founded the modern school system. However, there are many fears and arguments against harmonization. Some amusing detail from the opposition:

Scary, isn’t it. Let’s see what will happen to Nina and Ben (on the above picture) in a few years (it’s so funny to play the same dirty tricks):

The main opponents are members from SVP who claim that parents best know what’s good for their children. Sure, there are many parents who do know, and I bet those are voting pro “harmoS”.

Here is my point of view on “what’s best for our children”, as simple as possible.
The future of Switzerland, Europe, the world and outer space is defined by all living and at least one dead generation. Most influence comes from the working part of the population because they actively create and maintain the economical system. Nina and Ben are so called Millennials, a generation growing up with computers, respecting the nature, etc. Hence, the really basic skills are already there. What skills will they need to be successful in this world to finally pay daddy’s rent?
Economy is basically Darwinism. Be faster, smarter, more attractive, more convincing, risk-taking, louder (in a constructive way), self conscious, etc. This hasn’t changed for the time mankind exists. However, some competences are becoming more important in the near future. They have to do with globalization (which happens anyway, dear opponent of harmoS) and most importantly these are good foreign language skills, openness to other people and systems, diplomatic skills, etc.
And now comes the bad part about Darwinism (not for all of us): Children of people who were successful in the past will be successful in the future with a higher chance than others - due to heredity, conditioning, education. This implies unequal preconditions: Kids growing up in socially poor families have smaller success rate than others. Maybe the opponents of harmoS even like this fact, because their privileged kids have less competition (or will take over daddy’s farm anyway). And somebody has to clean our dirty roads, anyway, right?

I really hope that some day we will have equal opportunities for everybody, independently of social origin.