Thursday, February 28, 2008
MIT Project: Assist Sketch
This video shows an example of what I have begun to call the Convergence Challenge. As computers are able to perform more complex tasks, how do we develop ways to communicate - or interface - with them more effectively? What strengths and weaknesses do these interfaces have in relation to the systems by which individual people process information? How do you leverage the capabilities of people, processes, and technology to create sustainable systems which can efficiently create value?
UDL and the Convergence Challenge
Executive Summary:
Businesses are systems in which people, processes, and technology interact to create value. I am interested in the "Convergence Challenge" and how to reduce the friction between these three components as their capabilities become more interchangeable.
I see UDL playing a critical role in finding ways to make it easier for all kinds of people to send and receive information to other "actors" in a business, such as coworkers, customers, suppliers, and information systems. In that sense, UDL is a tool for designing and evaluating human interfaces. And it is a useful tool in tackling the Convergence Challenge.
Detailed Discussion:
I am interested in systems. I am also interested in business. So I have come to see every business as a system of people, processes, and technologies that work together to create value.
Many businesses run into problems because one of those three parts of the system is not doing its job very well. To get things back on track the business can call on different kinds of mechanics to fix each one.
If your people aren't able to do the job, then you call a people mechanic. That may mean sending your people off to class, bringing a trainer in, or providing some form of coaching or counseling.
If your processes aren't working, then you call a process mechanic. This may be an accountant, a strategy consultant, or - the extreme - a specialist to whom you can outsource the process.
And if the technology doesn't do what it should, you call a technology mechanic. These people usually have the word "engineer" in their job title.
That seems simple enough, right? And it seems obvious that you would not want to call a coach in to fix a technology problem. Or call an engineer to fix a people problem. That would be silly!
In my experience, this problem is reinforced by organizational structure. Large businesses have separate C-level executives with separate hierarchies responsible for each of the components of the system. Each is specialized in pushing the limits of its capabilities, and has incentives to do just that.
But the very specialization that we develop in order to create a competitive advantage in one part of the business can end up creating real problems for the organization. The VP of operations may not even notice there's a problem when she sends an engineer out to fix a client's machine, when the real problem is that the client is using the machine incorrectly. The VP may even ignore the problem because broken machines are good for the operations department; they drive service revenues. The VP of sales may dismiss the importance of online ordering because as a seasoned sales professional he knows that "selling is all about personal relationships." Personal sales are good for the VP of sales because they generate high margins and sales commissions, and online sales don't. And the VP of finance may not realize that the revenues generated from that client whose machine we keep fixing are about to be lost because the client can buy a new machine that is better suited to their application from an online store for less than our cost of goods. Typically the finance department lags the trends because it tries to predict the future by having an accurate understanding of the past.
So by not understanding the interplay between people, processes, and technology you can end up with a business structure that is not aligned with the real environment.
Now let's add a small complication. Let's say that there is a job that could be easily done by more than one part of the system. Who decides which part of the system - people, process, or technology - is best-suited to do that job? And how do they make that decision?
This is a challenge that I see businesses facing more often as a result of technological evolution and globalization. I call this phenomenon the "Convergence Challenge."
For example, let's assume that we have correctly diagnosed that an employee is not able to do their job very well. We could use a "people" solution, and hire a trainer, assign a coach, or send the employee to a class. We could use a "technology" solution, and provide them with computer based learning programs or a simulation tool. Or we could develop a "process" solution such as a checklist, a quality assurance process, or a new sequencing for the functions they perform. Any or all of these solution might help, but none of them are free. And each of them may be more or less effective depending on the particular characteristics of the person and the job they perform.
I see potential to use UDL as a management tool for analyzing communication, and separating content from media. This is an important step in deciding whether people, process, or technology can provide the best value in dealing with a particular business need.
While we tend to talk about managers being good in a particular domain, my thesis is that in order to really understand business in today's environment, and to make sound long-term decisions, you cannot afford to specialize in only one area. You actually need to have an above average understanding of people, process, and technology. You need to recognize the dynamic effects of technological evolution and globalization. And you need to be prepared to navigate the Convergence Challenge using tools like UDL.
Businesses are systems in which people, processes, and technology interact to create value. I am interested in the "Convergence Challenge" and how to reduce the friction between these three components as their capabilities become more interchangeable.
I see UDL playing a critical role in finding ways to make it easier for all kinds of people to send and receive information to other "actors" in a business, such as coworkers, customers, suppliers, and information systems. In that sense, UDL is a tool for designing and evaluating human interfaces. And it is a useful tool in tackling the Convergence Challenge.
Detailed Discussion:
I am interested in systems. I am also interested in business. So I have come to see every business as a system of people, processes, and technologies that work together to create value.
Many businesses run into problems because one of those three parts of the system is not doing its job very well. To get things back on track the business can call on different kinds of mechanics to fix each one.
If your people aren't able to do the job, then you call a people mechanic. That may mean sending your people off to class, bringing a trainer in, or providing some form of coaching or counseling.
If your processes aren't working, then you call a process mechanic. This may be an accountant, a strategy consultant, or - the extreme - a specialist to whom you can outsource the process.
And if the technology doesn't do what it should, you call a technology mechanic. These people usually have the word "engineer" in their job title.
That seems simple enough, right? And it seems obvious that you would not want to call a coach in to fix a technology problem. Or call an engineer to fix a people problem. That would be silly!
In my experience, this problem is reinforced by organizational structure. Large businesses have separate C-level executives with separate hierarchies responsible for each of the components of the system. Each is specialized in pushing the limits of its capabilities, and has incentives to do just that.
But the very specialization that we develop in order to create a competitive advantage in one part of the business can end up creating real problems for the organization. The VP of operations may not even notice there's a problem when she sends an engineer out to fix a client's machine, when the real problem is that the client is using the machine incorrectly. The VP may even ignore the problem because broken machines are good for the operations department; they drive service revenues. The VP of sales may dismiss the importance of online ordering because as a seasoned sales professional he knows that "selling is all about personal relationships." Personal sales are good for the VP of sales because they generate high margins and sales commissions, and online sales don't. And the VP of finance may not realize that the revenues generated from that client whose machine we keep fixing are about to be lost because the client can buy a new machine that is better suited to their application from an online store for less than our cost of goods. Typically the finance department lags the trends because it tries to predict the future by having an accurate understanding of the past.
So by not understanding the interplay between people, processes, and technology you can end up with a business structure that is not aligned with the real environment.
Now let's add a small complication. Let's say that there is a job that could be easily done by more than one part of the system. Who decides which part of the system - people, process, or technology - is best-suited to do that job? And how do they make that decision?
This is a challenge that I see businesses facing more often as a result of technological evolution and globalization. I call this phenomenon the "Convergence Challenge."
For example, let's assume that we have correctly diagnosed that an employee is not able to do their job very well. We could use a "people" solution, and hire a trainer, assign a coach, or send the employee to a class. We could use a "technology" solution, and provide them with computer based learning programs or a simulation tool. Or we could develop a "process" solution such as a checklist, a quality assurance process, or a new sequencing for the functions they perform. Any or all of these solution might help, but none of them are free. And each of them may be more or less effective depending on the particular characteristics of the person and the job they perform.
I see potential to use UDL as a management tool for analyzing communication, and separating content from media. This is an important step in deciding whether people, process, or technology can provide the best value in dealing with a particular business need.
While we tend to talk about managers being good in a particular domain, my thesis is that in order to really understand business in today's environment, and to make sound long-term decisions, you cannot afford to specialize in only one area. You actually need to have an above average understanding of people, process, and technology. You need to recognize the dynamic effects of technological evolution and globalization. And you need to be prepared to navigate the Convergence Challenge using tools like UDL.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
