Latitude

Today’s cartoon is inspired by our Latitude/ReadWriteWeb open innovation study on kids & Web technology. Click here to participate in the study—through this Friday, the 26th. (You can read more about Latitude’s open innovation privacy policy here.)

Cartoon by Jessica Reinis.

Jessica is an analyst for Latitude Research with proclivities for creative doodling and human-centric technology projections. She is the leading analyst on the current Latitude 42, an innovation study on Web technology featuring children ages 12 and under (read more on this study). Currently, her other focus areas include digital content access and new payment models, as well as next-gen advertising.

The Latitude team is currently on its way to the 2010 International CES in Las Vegas, where we’ll be launching an on-site, team-based idea generation contest to critique a selection of this year’s smartphone offerings.

Our CTO, Dan Hemmerly-Brown (dbrown@latd.com), breaks down the competition and the voting process (from Boston’s Logan Airport, en route to CES), and describes what the winners will get–aside from due credit for brilliant, outside-of-the-box thinking, of course.

Beat the Veep: Greetings! from latddotcom on Vimeo.

Given the steady success of iPhones and the recent Android explosion, how can Nokia and Blackberry plan to stay ahead?

We’re asking teams to collaborate on designated Facebook pages, propose concepts for improving upon the devices they review (with regard to hardware, software/UI, apps integration, or all of the above)–and to get creative in the process.

For more information, check out the full details here.

Current participants and those wishing to join the contest (only a couple spots left!) can email innovation@latd.com or text message Dan, on-site at CES, at 978-810-5034.

Team Pages on Facebook

Beat the Veep: Android

Beat the Veep: BlackBerry

Beat the Veep: Nokia

Header image courtesy of deapeajay’s flickr, (cc) some rights reserved.

Smarter Than Your Average Lego

A recent article in the WSJ showcased a new variety of children’s construction toys called Überstix. They don’t seem much different than traditional Legos, really. (Goodness, they’re certainly nothing like David Merrill’s Siftables–”toy blocks that think” from MIT’s Media Lab).

Überstix do exhibit the value of systems thinking, which is mirrored in some of the Web’s most successful developments today. (We like Überstix as an example because they’re so very tangible.)

Here’s what they look like:

Überstix can connect with… paper clips, cups, water bottles and popsicle sticks. When they are joined with these items, they can be transformed into boats that actually float, birds with wings that flap, and other play things.

“I wanted to design a system that was more functional, that worked after it was built and that was accessible to children of all backgrounds,” says [Überstix creator] Mr. Scarborough.

Wall Street Journal, “How I…Compete in a Legomaniac World”

Posterous: Malleable Innovation on the Web

Posterous is a blogging platform that allows users to publish via e-mail or Web. It’s made rapid developments this year, updating frequently about a plethora of features, including many ease-of-use integrations with other popular social sites (such as the ability to export data into Posterous for users who want to make a seamless switchover from alternate blogging platforms).

Earlier this year, Posterous co-founder Garry Tan told Latitude:

“There are 2 billion people on the Internet, but only 200 million of them blog–that statistic is incredible. I think it’s largely a failure of the services out there to cater to normal people; they cater to web-savvy, early adopters. We begin to solve this problem by being easier.“

In the way that “Überstix products are engineered to mate with all major build systems, i.e. Lego, KNeX, Erector, Zoobs, Zome, etc… so kids can integrate parts they may already have,” Posterous develops to work with users’ pre-existing service adoption and shared content needs.

This type of fluid integration with complimentary (and competitior) platforms renders services like Posterous insistently relevant and difficult for users not to adopt.

In recent studies on the nature of innovation, Latitude found that, of successful innovations across a variety of industries, more than 75% were not entirely new products or services–rather, these innovations recombined existing offerings in novel ways, or repurposed them creatively to reach new niche communities.

As digital connectivity increases, innovating apart–without “integrating parts [users] already have”–seems to present a much greater challenge to a variety of industries (not just Web technology), and for good reason.

Header image courtesy of kwl’s flickr, (cc) some rights reserved.

Innovation Research via Real-World Problem-Solving

To commemorate the Internet’s 40th anniversary, DARPA, the central research and development organization for the US Department of Defense, organized a network challenge in the spirit of serious games to study understand teams’ innovative use of social networking (and the spread of information within these networks), as well as the team-defined incentivisation schemes (monetary or otherwise) implemented to encourage network participation–in an actual problem-solving scenario.

The DARPA Network Challenge [is] a competition that will explore the roles the Internet and social networking play in the timely communication, wide-area team-building, and urgent mobilization required to solve broad-scope, time-critical problems.

The challenge is to be the first to submit the locations of 10 moored, 8-foot, red, weather balloons at 10 fixed locations in the continental United States. The balloons will be in readily accessible locations and visible from nearby roads.

MIT Wins in Record Little Time

The challenge began on Saturday, December 5th, and would end when the first participants correctly submitted the location of all 10 balloons). A team from MIT was proclaimed winner fewer than 9 hours after the start of the competition. (The team members were Professor Sandy Pentland, Manuel Cebrian, Anmol Madan, Galen Pickard, Riley Crane, Wei Pan; the final standings for all teams are available here).

MIT would clearly have a vast network to draw from–and, apparently, had been recruiting spotters for some time. They leveraged Twitter and Facebook for viral reporting of balloon sightings, but the difficulty came in “separating the good reports from bogus ones.” (ref: John Dodge’s coverage).

To this task, MIT obscurely replied (pre-challenge): “We will use sophisticated algorithms from the field of network science and complex systems theories along with machine learning algorithms to identify valid submissions.”

MIT’s Network Incentivisation Scheme

DARPA announced that they would award $40,000 to the winning team.

Using click-through tracking for personalized invite links (ex. http://balloon.media.mit.edu/latituderesearch), MIT devised that they’d give $2000 to each person who found a balloon, $1000 to the person who invited them, $500 to the person who invited that person, and $250 to the person who invited that person. (MIT donated the rest of the prize money–a minimum of $12,500 in this scenario–to charity.)

(Note that the graphic above doesn’t account for balloon findings that took fewer than 3–the maximum–network “iterations.” More importantly, it doesn’t depict the far-reaching effects of each individual who did not receive money in the end (“dead ends”), as a central node in his own network while the search was ongoing–i.e. individuals who received $0, and invited people who received $0, still took part in the balloon search to potential relevance.)

This is a particularly compelling monetary structure because one perceives his chances of receiving some prize money as exponentially increased with relation to the number of people he himself activates–and one’s chances are substantially increased, given how removed the each successful searcher can be from oneself. (i.e. I only need invite “Friend A”–who may then invite her “Friend B” who may then invite his Friend “C” who may find the balloon–to receive an award). Thus, the benefit of engaging more people is, well–that much more beneficial to me.

Motivation is such a fickle (and powerful thing). I’m curious what other schemes–from a psychological or engagement standpoint–might’ve occurred to others for use in this scenario. Any thoughts?

Header image courtesy of hajime7’s flickr, (cc) some rights reserved; image in network graphic courtesy of hector-lazo’s flickr, (cc) some rights reserved.

One Great Limitation, One Great Freedom–and a Wide Web.

“[The founders of the Internet] had one great limitation and one great freedom as they tried to conceive of a global network.

• The limitation was that they didn’t have any money.
• But they had an amazing freedom, which was they didn’t have to make any money from it. It’s folks getting together to do something for fun, rather than because they were told to, or because they were expecting to make a mint off of it.

That ethos led to a network architecture, a structure that was unlike other digital networks then or since.”

(Jonathan Zittrain, TED: “The Web as Random Acts of Kindness”)

World in the Web, & Web in the World

The good-will community “architecture” that the Internet arose from–and which the latter continues to affirm in new ways–mirrors the actual network architecture of the Internet.

“The system [of Internet addressing and routing actually] relies on kindness and trust… how packets move around the Internet, sometimes in as many as 25 or 30 hops, with the intervening entities that are passing the data around having no particular contractual or legal obligation to the original sender, or to the receiver.”

(Jonathan Zittrain, TED: “The Web as Random Acts of Kindness”)

Internet-Inspired Community “Architectures” in the Wider World

Recently, we wrote about the Stranger Exchange, a hyperlocal dropbox (in Cambridge, MA) located conceptually betwixt Craigslist/Freecycle and PostSecret (a community art project).

Rachel Botsman discussed the notion of “indirect reciprocity” with respect to how individuals were interacting with the Stranger Exchange–as well as collaborative networks and sharing communities at large.

Interestingly, the early “members” of the Stranger Exchange seem to be participating for similar intrinsic motivations that are fueling the open peer-to-peer movements such as Flickr, Wikipedia, BitTorrent, BePress and so on.

For these systems to keep flourishing, people need to “give before they get,” a dynamic that is built on a new kind of trust, trust in people you don’t know or are not even friends with.

Rachel Botsman, “The Stranger Exchange”

This seems to be the organic social system that grew up from Yochai Benkler’s apt accentuation of the social-psychological and intrinsic motivations of individuals comprising peer-to-peer networks–essentially, a new kind of social contract, ever-so-slightly colored “karma.”

What Will the Next Generation of Shared Service Platforms Look Like?

This psychology of sharing, of internalized accountability, and of “indirect reciprocity” underlies new systems of collaborating, innovating, and funding–as peer-based networks and crowdsourcing’s varied applications.

It encourages–first, it makes possible–home-grown, person-to-person shared service platforms. Netflix and Zipcar are superb, forward-thinking models, advocating sharing and anytime-accessibility over ownership–but one has to wonder if the next iteration of shared service models, enabled by new social-psychological understandings, won’t look something a little more like this:

Post inspired by Jonathan Zittrain’s TED Talk, “The Web as Random Acts of Kindness”

Header images courtesy of PostSecret community.

Below is a recent TED talk by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO (a global design consultancy).

“Design-thinking begins with the ability to exploit opposing ideas & opposing constraints to create new solutions.”

Mr. Brown describes the movement from “design” to “design-thinking”–and the importance of a more inclusive, participatory model where innovation is concerned. He emphasizes “getting the process out of the hands of designers, and getting the active participation of the community.”

He outlines 4 precepts in a progression towards more effective and impactful innovations for the modern world (e.g. systems design):

1. Human-centered design. Though design may integrate technology and economics, it is grounded first and foremost in human needs/desires: “What makes life easier? More enjoyable?” Culture and human context are integral to good design.
2. Learning by making. Designs are best informed by those who actually interact with them in practice.
3. Shift from consumption to participation. The future will place more emphasis on the design of participatory systems (rather than passive, producer –> consumer relationships), where the experiences of many are meaningful, productive, and profitable, and where non-monetary forms of value are both created and measured.
4. Design by all. Design has its greatest impact when executed not just by traditional designers, but by many–with collaboration/knowledge-sharing across communities.

Design-Thinking Discussion

In a feat of collaborative innovation (with a meta twist) at the close of his talk, Mr. Brown calls on his viewers to suggest the kinds of problems that design-thinking might be used to tackle. Click here for the archive of relevant tweet-responses, and here for some longer commentary on his query and design-thinking in general.

(We think that IDEO exemplifies forward-thinking, human-centered approaches to research and design. To follow us following them, check out our past IDEO entries here.)

Header image courtesy of buenosaurus’s flickr, (cc) some rights reserved.

Charles Leadbeater is a researcher and innovation consultant at the London think tank, Demos. He made a considerable splash with his 2004 essay, “The Pro-Am Revolution,” followed up by an increasingly relevant TED talk on “amateur” innovation in 2005.

“Traditionally, ‘the inventor knows what the invention is for…’”

In Leadbeater’s addition to the crowdsourcing/collective innovation dialogue, he posits that a very specific group of individuals – Pro-Ams – are a pronounced and powerful force for bottom-up innovation.

“Pro-Am” describes skilled enthusiasts who, though they derive little or no money from their avocations, apply professional standards (and effort) to their particular pastimes (whether mountain biking, software coding, or anything in between).

Below is Leadbetter’s compelling and thoughtful talk–though I was left wondering when (or if, or in which situations) Pro-Ams are more effective than a diverse crowd in the distributed innovation process.

“… but, more & more, this will be worked out, not in advance, but through use & collaboration.”

Header image courtesy of foxspain’s flickr, (cc) some rights reserved.

On Wednesday, we saw Bill Moggridge, Founder of IDEO (a global design consultancy) speak at MIT’s Emerging Technologies Conference. We’re big fans of IDEO’s holistic, people-centered approach, and Mr. Moggridge’s talk–”Expanding Contexts for Design in a Connected World”– was wonderfully insightful.

Mr. Moggridge emphasized the importance of people-centered research tactics in context– for example, many Americans have time to talk about their experiences with products and brands during their commute “down-time” but, culturally, it’s often considered impolite to be noisy on public transit in Asian countries–which may mean the difference between interviews, textual feedback, and various forms of user interface engagement or hands-on product manipulation to understand how people interact with objects and information.

Also salient was the notion that personal relevance and ease of use are necessary components of good design–innovative ideas must be constructed with people in mind–and well implemented in the details.

To illustrate the point, Mr. Moggridge demo’d a video where users of a particular cell phone service could purchase drinks from vending machines through bar codes displayed on their screens; when they actually gave it a go, the process took upwards of 30 minutes. In their own work, IDEO emphasizes end-user testing and idea-generation (and even invites children into their office on a weekly basis to glean relevant feedback on products designed for this demographic).

IDEO’s philosophy of human-centered design extends (inwardly) to the spaces in which their teams innovate, with designated “project” and “brainstorming” rooms.

Mr. Moggridge has the understated ability to reveal the significance of seemingly smaller things (the essence of individual-centric)–and to demonstrate the tangible effect that design and physical spaces can have on social dynamics and creative innovation. He’s a compelling speaker, and we recommend you catch him speak in video (or in 3space, if possible).

“Expanding Contexts for Design in a Connected World” (EmTech ‘09) has not yet been made available, but his talk on “Design as a Collaborative Process” is in a similar vein.

Bill Moggridge, Founder of IDEO: Design as a Collaborative Process

IDEO offers its free 27-page PDF, “Human Centered Design” for download here, where it outlines processes (a “toolkit”) for human-centered research. Very thoughtful and well-designed.

Header image courtesy of rickharris’ flickr.

Care what I do, not what I say.

Okay, sometimes what I say.

Social media has blown up the idea of “brand conversations” or, in a more general sense, naturalistic observation of people talking about practically anything you can conceive– which can reveal generative insights about more ideal experiences for individuals and niche communities.

For example, in passing, I can’t think how many times I’ve seen wistful musings about features people wish their iPhones had. Here’s one for the annals. (Maybe Apple was listening?)

In that spirit, I stumbled across an insightful post on The Art of Conversation raising two key issues about the “credibility” and value of qualitative research that seem worth mentioning in the current digitally-dominated climate:

1.    Should we all be incorporating more ethnographic methods, getting out there and listening to what real people really say (without their realizing we are listening in)? If we did this, though, how long would it take before we learned anything about [a brand]?

2.    Are only naturally occurring conversations ‘real conversations’? Can an ‘artificially created’ conversation (i.e. all focus groups and interviews) not contain real conversational elements and therefore valuable insights?

Point being that “natural conversations” are something to strive for in research, but effort, cost, and sheer feasibility can make these difficult to achieve.

The article suggests that there’s fuzziness around what even constitutes an ethnographic enquiry, but that qualitative methodologies are “a bit of a trend at the moment. More and more researchers are (apparently) offering clients consumer diaries, mobile phone texting of encounters with brands, on-street/in situ conversations, etc.”

“Managed online communities” for these purposes seem to encounter the oxymoronic trouble of needing to be both authentic and, well– managed. Focus groups, in essence, migrated to the online realm still retain the problems inherent in offline focus groups. The data they produce isn’t quantifiable. In many cases, it’s not representative or projectable either. (But that’s not to say it doesn’t have unique value to produce generative insights, such as next generation iPhone features, which more quantitative methods tend not to elicit.)

Especially in the arena of online communities, there’s an enlarging area of opportunity to “quantify” qualitative research via interactive user feedback, and to authenticate the conditions under which the research is conducted. As a company, we try to simulate or actually utilize and observe real environments to create the most natural “experimental” conditions possible. We’re hoping to see technology step in to facilitate these more unbiased qualitative approaches in big ways.

In studies that involve user-generated submissions, the content of the submissions themselves can serve as a valuable piece of the puzzle, and suggest generative themes that can be drawn out with creative, analytical thinking.

We have a feeling that factors which help to reveal more genuine insights are strong visual elements (images and video submitted by interactors), which can suggest themes (and sometimes serve in place of words), mobile and location-aware technologies, “real-timeness,” personal narratives and social interactivity, and novel, more research-friendly platforms for communication which combine these elements.

(We’re working on some internal initiatives ourselves–for now, check out our Pink Cocktail project, currently in progress, to see how we’re mixing individual attitudinal survey data with behavioral web data– it’s a first for us.)

Header image courtesy of afiler’s flickr, (cc) some rights reserved.