A number of years ago I decided I wanted to write a novel. After a long process of narrowing down over 30 story ideas, I chose the concept I was the most excited about and began some development.
I wanted the world to have genuine depth, so I decided every main character (there are 17) needed a detailed back story.
In the end I couldn't justify the time I was going to have to dedicate to finish the project while working full time and raising kids, so I <sigh/> put it in the incomplete pile.
But one thing I did get done was this story, and I've always really liked. Every now and then I stumble across it and re-read, and I always enjoy the experience. So for no particular reason other than I can, I have decided to publish it here.
The Crucible
Tuesday 20 March 2012
Friday 16 March 2012
Does Lady Gaga really want 20 million FOLLOWERS?
For the most popular Twitter users, the service is an important part of how they engage with the community they have created around themselves.
We know that labels are important. Language can define emotion. So what emotions does the label FOLLOWER impose upon the relationship that a Twitter user has with their community?
Should a user with a community of over 20 million, have to settle for someone else's definitions?
Maybe Lady Gaga would prefer...
If you think the power to define your own labels would be a valuable feature, please Tweet #idontfollow.
We know that labels are important. Language can define emotion. So what emotions does the label FOLLOWER impose upon the relationship that a Twitter user has with their community?
Should a user with a community of over 20 million, have to settle for someone else's definitions?
Maybe Lady Gaga would prefer...
If you think the power to define your own labels would be a valuable feature, please Tweet #idontfollow.
Wednesday 14 March 2012
No one wants to be a follower
Isn't it funny that one of the key functions, of one of the most popular applications ever, can create such a negative emotional response? Shouldn't we be talking about this?
No one wants to define themselves as a follower do they? Aren't there more positive ways this could be feature could be labelled?
Who wants to have followers anyway? It's a bit Pythonesque "I'm not the Messiah!". "He is the Messiah!".
I think the focus should be shifted away from the producer, and on to their content. If I like your output, I'll happily read it, watch it, accept it, prioritise it, learn from it, share it, or be inspired by it. But I don't want to follow you.
What if the owner could define the functions for their account? So Lady Gaga's page would tell you how many "Little Monsters" she has. I'm sure she would abandon the term follower in a heart beat.
If you like this idea, use #idontfollow to share your thoughts. Can Twitter be used to change Twitter?
Monday 12 March 2012
Be your own disruption
I've observed that a lot of companies tend to follow a familiar arc. In the beginning they are the Disruptor. They innovate aggressively and achieve success by disrupting an existing market. But if they achieve a dominant position, they become the Defender, trying to beat off the next generation of Disruptors with a progression of incremental improvements.
So if you find yourself in a dominant position, how do you maintain the level of innovation that got you there in the first place? By being your own disruption. Here is what I would suggest:
Encourage self-destructive ideas
You probably encourage new ideas, otherwise you wouldn't have achieved the success you have. But now you are there, the temptation might be to avoid new ideas that could potentially harm your own interests. You might look at a new concept and think "Great, but that will destroy the revenue stream of our flagship product. No way".
This may seem logical, but if you've just thought of it, the chances are somebody, somewhere is already putting finishing touches on their business plan, and your name is in it, under "Companies we will destroy".
If that idea is really a big threat, do you really want to leave it to someone else?
Apple weren't in the business of making phones, but they must have realised smart phones were a threat. The iPhone must have taken sales away from the iPod, which was their big profit product. If they had of defended instead, I'm sure we would still have a smart phone market now, but Apple wouldn't be part of it.
Make sure your vision is broad enough
Your vision should encompass any possible activity you might want to under take. If a destructive idea is a threat to your business, then it should be within the scope of your vision. If it's not you either need to review your vision, or prepare to be made extinct.
You also need to ensure that your planning activities encompass all of the space your vision defines. I'm sure Kodak didn't specifically define themselves as a "film company". They did make digital cameras. But perhaps film was so intrinsic to their self identity, that in practice they just couldn't see themselves in a market without film? Did a narrowing of their actual vision limit their ability to respond successfully to the threat that digital technology presented to their business?
Different teams for different reasons
If you've been on top for some time, the chances are your structures have subtlely changed over time to support an operational mindset. You might have more people testing and supporting than designing. This works for your existing product line, but you can't expect these teams to build you the next big thing, while they're busy keeping your current big thing running.
You may not have the right personalities either. If you haven't been able or willing to keep the creative geniuses on board that kicked off your winning product, then it might be that any brainstorming you do will only give you iterative improvements on what you already do.
Create your own skunk works. Devote a small proportion of your resources to separate creative teams that don't have to answer to the same strict requirements as the rest of the business. Applaud their failures. Celebrate their disasters. Manage them, but manage them differently. Keep an eye on top performers within the rest of the organisation, and give them a chance on an innovative team to see whether they have the right stuff.
I could spend a lot longer on this topic, but I hope this has given you some ideas for your organisation. If you have an idea, story, or feedback to share, please feel free to leave comments below.
So if you find yourself in a dominant position, how do you maintain the level of innovation that got you there in the first place? By being your own disruption. Here is what I would suggest:
Encourage self-destructive ideas
You probably encourage new ideas, otherwise you wouldn't have achieved the success you have. But now you are there, the temptation might be to avoid new ideas that could potentially harm your own interests. You might look at a new concept and think "Great, but that will destroy the revenue stream of our flagship product. No way".
This may seem logical, but if you've just thought of it, the chances are somebody, somewhere is already putting finishing touches on their business plan, and your name is in it, under "Companies we will destroy".
If that idea is really a big threat, do you really want to leave it to someone else?
Apple weren't in the business of making phones, but they must have realised smart phones were a threat. The iPhone must have taken sales away from the iPod, which was their big profit product. If they had of defended instead, I'm sure we would still have a smart phone market now, but Apple wouldn't be part of it.
Make sure your vision is broad enough
Your vision should encompass any possible activity you might want to under take. If a destructive idea is a threat to your business, then it should be within the scope of your vision. If it's not you either need to review your vision, or prepare to be made extinct.
You also need to ensure that your planning activities encompass all of the space your vision defines. I'm sure Kodak didn't specifically define themselves as a "film company". They did make digital cameras. But perhaps film was so intrinsic to their self identity, that in practice they just couldn't see themselves in a market without film? Did a narrowing of their actual vision limit their ability to respond successfully to the threat that digital technology presented to their business?
Different teams for different reasons
If you've been on top for some time, the chances are your structures have subtlely changed over time to support an operational mindset. You might have more people testing and supporting than designing. This works for your existing product line, but you can't expect these teams to build you the next big thing, while they're busy keeping your current big thing running.
You may not have the right personalities either. If you haven't been able or willing to keep the creative geniuses on board that kicked off your winning product, then it might be that any brainstorming you do will only give you iterative improvements on what you already do.
Create your own skunk works. Devote a small proportion of your resources to separate creative teams that don't have to answer to the same strict requirements as the rest of the business. Applaud their failures. Celebrate their disasters. Manage them, but manage them differently. Keep an eye on top performers within the rest of the organisation, and give them a chance on an innovative team to see whether they have the right stuff.
I could spend a lot longer on this topic, but I hope this has given you some ideas for your organisation. If you have an idea, story, or feedback to share, please feel free to leave comments below.
The Ghost of Fiction Past...and Future?
After reading about Fifty Shades of Grey, I wonder whether a device from fiction's past, the Serial, could also be it's future?
During the Victorian era, periodical publications discovered a successful business model based on serialising novels and delivering them in small chunks to their readers. The model worked due to changes in society and technology. Sound familiar?
I'm obviously not the only person thinking about this. As a business model the pattern of serial e-book, to e-book, to souvenir hard cover, to t-shirts and lunch boxes, makes a lot of sense in the current market place. But what really appeals to me is the democratisation of publishing. The same phenomenon has already occurred in other areas, such as music, with great impact.
Rather than a small number of "experts" guessing what we might like, and then investing millions of dollars in turning their guesses into predictions (Twighlight...I"m looking at you), readers vote by investing their time in a story on an ongoing basis. They have a direct relationship with the artist, and through feedback, probably a direct impact on the story itself.
As a result we should have more fiction published, with work more specifically targeted at a particular fan base, less money wasted on advertising, and more money in the hands of the author. Who loses? Oh that's right, all the middle men.
It's not a good century to be a middle man.
During the Victorian era, periodical publications discovered a successful business model based on serialising novels and delivering them in small chunks to their readers. The model worked due to changes in society and technology. Sound familiar?
I'm obviously not the only person thinking about this. As a business model the pattern of serial e-book, to e-book, to souvenir hard cover, to t-shirts and lunch boxes, makes a lot of sense in the current market place. But what really appeals to me is the democratisation of publishing. The same phenomenon has already occurred in other areas, such as music, with great impact.
Rather than a small number of "experts" guessing what we might like, and then investing millions of dollars in turning their guesses into predictions (Twighlight...I"m looking at you), readers vote by investing their time in a story on an ongoing basis. They have a direct relationship with the artist, and through feedback, probably a direct impact on the story itself.
As a result we should have more fiction published, with work more specifically targeted at a particular fan base, less money wasted on advertising, and more money in the hands of the author. Who loses? Oh that's right, all the middle men.
It's not a good century to be a middle man.
Welcome
This blog will most likely focus on making things, mostly software and services, and my ideas for how things can be made better, either the products themselves, or the lives of the users.
But I make no promises to restrict myself to a narrow subject range. My mind does wander, and so will this blog.
Thanks for taking a look. I will be making some design changes, hopefully improvements, in the near future, but in the meantime it's just about the words.
Enjoy.
But I make no promises to restrict myself to a narrow subject range. My mind does wander, and so will this blog.
Thanks for taking a look. I will be making some design changes, hopefully improvements, in the near future, but in the meantime it's just about the words.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)