Today’s Endless Innovation points to Fortune Magazine’s series of Q and A’s from readers to various “cool thinkers”. The current Q and A article is with management guru Jim Collins, but the next one will be with Donald Trump. If you have any questions you’ve been dying to ask The Don (and we’re NOT talking “briefs or boxers” here, friends – but if that’s your burning question, then you’re stranger than I am -Â and may Heaven help you!), then now’s your chance!
Did you know Liz Strauss at Successful Blog hosts “open mic” night every Tuesday night? It’s a lot like a giant get together over coffee (or whatever else you might happen to have on hand) where everyone gets together and chats about whatever subject Liz initially selects (it was winter vacation spots this time). It’s pretty freewheeling, and lots of fun; it’s a chat without the chat room.
I know that sounds weird, but you should try it sometime. The advantage over chatrooms is you can keep track of every conversation and even participate easily, via comments. Every Tuesday night, 7 pm CST (-6 GMT).
The reason I brought it up is because of belly button lint. Yep, you heard me – belly button lint.
You see, it’s like this…
Monique Attinger challenged us last Tuesday to give her various topics, and she would then write a post on her insurance blog about how that topic is related to insurance. (Monique sells… well, you know.) Barely had I managed to think up a few but doggone if Liz didn’t beat me to it by suggesting “Euclidian Geometry and insurance”, “sequins and insurance”, and “thixotropic and insurance”. Pretty quick on the keys there, Liz!
Anyway, I suggested “lawn darts and insurance”, “the Roaming Gnome and insurance”, “sushi and insurance”… and “belly button lint and insurance”.
Well, a tip of the hat and an OOB (Out Of the Box) Award goes to Monique, because sure enough, she actually wrote a post titled “Belly button lint and insurance“. I gotta tell ya, Monique: Great Job!!
If you’re sitting there thinking to yourself, there’s no way belly button lint can have anything with insurance, then think again! Do yourself a favor and read it for yourself.
Excellent thinking outside the box, Monique!
In case you missed my post a few days ago (and shame on you if you did!), go back and check out Clive Johnson’s story in Fast Company featuring Gordon Bell, the Microsoft scientist who, among other things, is recording every moment of his life. Yes, every moment. Aside from the weirdness of the idea, there’s some pretty darned interesting implications, if you ask me.
However, in a follow-up post, Clive asks, “What would it be like to review your entire life in three minutes?” If I were you, I’d take a moment to think about the implications of this one, too. Especially since you’ll probably be doing it in the very near future.
“Imagine being 60 years old, and having one psychologically significant picture taken from each month of an entire life’s archive. That’s 720 photos. Scroll them by at the speed that Bill experienced — four per second — and your life would flash by in three minutes. What in god’s name would that feel like?”
If you didn’t read the comments, go back – you missed the best part. Especially the ones who say they might start doing this with their toddlers. Imagine presenting your daughter or son such an archive on their wedding day!
Makes me wish I had a time machine, to go back and capture those photos I no longer have, or missed. Now I have to rely on just plain ol’ carbon-based neurons; alas, they’re going fast.
No, I’m not talking about the latest GM recall, ya big galoot! (Oops, sorry – been watching John Wayne movies lately.) I’m talking about memory, and some new inroads into that Holy Grail of computer scientists everywhere: the ability to recall literally everything we’ve ever experienced. Wouldn’t that be… um, something.
A great article in Fast Company, written by Clive Johnson (I’ll warn you now, it’s a bit long but well worth your time), looks at some of the recent developments in this area, and it is worth pondering. Generally speaking, it focuses on Gordon Bell, a Microsoft computer scientist who’s been experimenting with “life storage” for some time now. A great story, and Clive’s lead-in is a grabber:
“Gordon Bell feeds every piece of his life into a surrogate brain, and soon the rest of us will be able to do the same. But does perfect memory make you smarter, or just drive you nuts?”
(NOTE: In order to process the rest of this post, you really should read the article. Sorry to require the extra effort on your part but, well, there it is. It’s OK, I’ll wait here.)
Most of us have probably wished at one time or another for the ability to remember things more accurately (or at all!), and this sounds like just the ticket. For example, even though most married men have only two really important things to remember (our anniversary date and, uh… what was that other one…?), on behalf of all men everywhere, I freely acknowledge the fact that we still need the help!
Of course, the technology would have to be a bit more unobtrusive before widespread acceptance would occur (no, that’s not a pimple, that’s my life-cam!) Actually, when you can download directly off the optic and aural nerves is when you’ll really be able to capture everything. Why not? It’s only a question of interface design.
If, as Ray Kurzweil recently predicted, computing power will increase a billion-fold within the next 25 years, this could well become a reality. But with all that information (talk about your information overload!) the next thing that has to be developed is a really useful way of searching all that accumulated information (but I imagine by then there’ll be a Google tool for that too – something like “GoogleBrain”, maybe).
“It gives his mind the chance, he [Gordon] says, to be more playful, to have more energy for creative thinking. But it is also a double-edged sword. Bell suspects MyLifeBits might be slowly degrading his real, carbon-based brain’s ability to remember clearly. When you have an outboard mind doing the scut work, you tend to get out of practice. “It’s like doing arithmetic,” he says. “Who does it anymore? You’ve got pocket calculators for that. I know I can do long division. But I haven’t done it for a long time.”
It’s a crazy experiment. But perhaps its craziest aspect is that soon you’ll be part of it too–whether you want to be or not. The way Bell sees it, computers and the Internet are now rapidly becoming capable of storing everything you do and see. Hard-drive space has exploded in size, and every day people are recording more and more of their lives: We blog about our thoughts, upload personal pictures to Flickr, save every email on our infinitely expanding Gmail accounts, shoot video on our cell phones, record phone calls straight to our hard drives when we use Skype.”
OK, assume for the moment that a perfect memory is actually possible by artificial means, just what would the ramifications be?
Imagine if you will the ability to recall exactly what was said in a conversation that occurred, say, six months ago (or six years, or 10 years). How would it change your behavior if everything was being recorded, all the time? Would it all end up as the biggest reality show ever? Well, maybe not. I mean, what’s the point? Why would you WANT to record every little bit of your life? (On the other hand, you won’t ever have an argument about what was really said or not said. Gee – could it change the face of politics as we know it? I don’t know about you, but it brings a certain former President to mind…)
I think along with the ability to do so would have to come the ability to consciously turn the storage function on or off at will. That way you can reduce the storage to what you might actually use. Perhaps even do like some security systems, storing images in a loop of several hours or days. When something important happens (assuming you actually have a life, and something does!), you can then store that memory in its permanent location, wherever that is.
That location will probably be internal – at the rate of increase in storage density, in thirty years or less, “infinite” storage should be possible in a size easily compatible with in vitro locations – and I have the perfect place in mind: why not use all that otherwise wasted space between the ears?
[Update: I fixed the link to Clive's story above. Sorry 'bout that!]
Hit the brakes! Stop the presses! Alert the media! You are about to enter a knowledge-enhancement zone. Do not pass Go; do not collect $200.Y’now, in my never-ending quest to find the one great contribution I can make to the world’s body of knowledge – that one thing that will make this world a better place; well, I may have finally found it. Yes, I know, I thought I had it once before, and even presented my thesis to you, my faithful readers. But alas, the Nobel committee never did call back. Can’t think why.However, I just may have it now. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, if (and only if) you are interested in elevating your consciousness to a higher level, please read on. But don’t say I didn’t warn you!
First some background.
BBC News UK reports that “scientists” have finally come up with a way to quantify the “beer-goggle effect” – that well-known phenomenon that enhances the attractiveness of someone (or something, for that matter) – at least until the morning after, that is. As it turns out, it’s not just the amount of alcohol, there are lots of other factors that may contribute to the effect.
“Researchers at Manchester University say while beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, the amount of alcohol consumed is not the only factor. Additional factors include the level of light in the pub or club, the drinker’s own eyesight and the room’s smokiness. The distance between two people is also a factor. They all add up to make the aesthetically-challenged more attractive, according to the formula.”
Yeah, right. I wonder how many alcohol units (see below) they had to drink before they thought this line of research was attractive?
Anyway, here’s the formula and its variables: 
OK, so far so good, right? But here’s where I make my contribution (strictly in the name of science, don’tcha know). After examining the equation, I believe it to be somewhat lacking in another very critical factor; something we’ll call the horniness factor (let’s designate it as “H”).
I would make a small change in the equation, thus: 
H1 and H2 are the horniness factors for the viewer and viewee, respectively. You have to remember that no matter how large a number H1 is, the product of H1 and H2 becomes progressively less significant as H2 gets smaller. And the smaller the product of H1 and H2, the smaller the overall score, β. (It’s also worth noting that initially, even though H2 is a complete unknown, it must be estimated accurately within a very narrow range, or the entire calculation implodes and the viewer goes home alone).So there you have it folks, my contribution to the body of knowledge. I guess I can just roll over and go back to sleep now, my work here is done.
Wake me when the Nobel committee calls; I have a spot on the mantle all picked out.
A very interesting Project Management read comes from NASA’s Ask Magazine (issue 25) in an article written by Kim Ess titled Managing a Critical, Fast-Turnaround Project. It describes some of the challenges Kim faced as Project Manager when developing and deploying the Orbital Boom Sensor System (OBSS) on the space shuttle in the wake of the Columbia disaster in September of 2003.
“After the Columbia accident, no shuttle was going to fly until we had the capability to examine it for damage after launch, so any significant delay in building the boom would keep the shuttle program and the work that depended on it — notably the completion of the International Space Station — on hold.”
There are a lot of challenges to managing this type of project, and most notable was its high visibility. After all, this was to be the solution to the problem, and literally everyone – the media, the public, congress, and practically the rest of the civilized world – knew something had to be done, and this was it. When you manage a project in such a “fish bowl” environment it’s easy to succumb to fear of failure or of making mistakes. (Nothing like a little pressure to add that certain zest, that zing, that je ne se qoi, eh?)
I definitely admire her style, though. Practically her first task was telling the Control Board their estimated cost and deadline of $40 million and six months were unrealistic. Her team’s assessment set the cost at $100 million, with completion expected to take 20 months (they were within 5 % of this estimate at completion). This is not an easy thing to do. But precisely because of that, it’s absolutely necessary for project success.
“I’ve sometimes said, jokingly, “We were working so hard we didn’t have time to do anything but tell the truth.” But the truth in that joke is that telling the Board anything less would have made the project much harder — depleting time, energy, and good will — when we inevitably would have had to go back to management to ask for more time and resources.”
The collaboration aspect, though, is what I find most exciting. The key to success, Kim found, was not only communication – they had plenty of that – but actual face-to-face time with contractors, clients, and team members. This is something I don’t think is emphasized enough when it comes to big-ticket, high-visibility, or mission-critical projects. When the chips are down, there is no good substitute for actual face time. It helps align team members and develop that trust in each other that is invaluable in achieving the goal. Managing from a distance is simply not as effective.
This was useful in breaking through the NASA culture of “having a solution before reporting a problem”. When the entire team was appraised of potential problems they were able to successfully bring more resources to address the challenge before it caused the inevitable domino effect on other activities down the line. That trust, developed during face time, was invaluable.
“As people got to know and trust each other and recognize that we were all working toward the same goal, information about problems became just data for the team to work with, not indications of failure.”
Another thing that really worked was having a central repository of information and links that could be shared rather than having to distribute actual documents. Call this one a best practice for sure – it saves time, money, and IT overhead by cutting bandwidth dramatically.
One final lesson learned came from the fact that due to unrelated issues, their deadline kept moving; in effect, giving them more time. But extra time is not always a good thing (we engineers love to tinker and make things better), and a good PM knows when to draw the line. I’ll never forget a sign I saw once in an auto assembly plant production manager’s office: “Sooner or later you have to shoot the engineers and start production.”
Overall a great article. Discovery launched in July of 2005, and the new OBSS worked as expected. What more can a PM ask? Kudos to Kim and her team for a job well done!
Serendipity.
I’d be willing to bet that no more than half of you out there can define the word adequately. If you are among the knowledgable, please raise your left hand. Now lift up your right foot and stick out your tongue. OK, now repeat after me: “I wook widicuwous.”
Perhaps the best summation I could find is this one: “finding something fortuitous when looking for something else“. When something is serendipitous we think of it as a “happy accident”.
The Guardian Unlimited, a UK technology reporting website, has a story by Michael Pollitt of how a serendipitous moment may have led to a genuine long-term solution to the problem of counterfeiting, well, just about anything (physical, that is). The solution has to do with laser surface imaging; in other words, making nano-scale images of the surface of practically anything, and using that as an authentication technique. As a security test, it turns out it’s virtually impossible to beat.
But the discovery came about quite by accident, since Professor Russell Cowburn was actually trying to laser image computer chips. It was only when the chip fell off the paper they discovered that the paper holder, and subsequently other surfaces, all had images that were unique at the nano-scale level. What that means is that every passport, every credit card, every document has a unique surface shape – you only had to be able to look close enough to see it!
The ramifications in security technology are immense, to say the least. What’s really awesome about this is that it’s actually unbeatable. So until we perfect Star Trek transporter technology, manufacturing two items exactly alike at that scale will remain virtually impossible.
I did a fast check on other widely-known and used, yet serendipitous discoveries, and here are a few others:
Silly Putty was created while the inventor (actually, it was independently discovered by TWO people – no one knows who was first) was searching for a new artificial rubber compound for use in the war effort (WWII, that is). No one had a use for the stuff, but everyone loved playing with it. (As marketers would say, “It sells itself!”) 4500 tons of the playful glop has been produced since 1949. Now that’s a whole lotta silly.
Teflon (PTFE), the slipperiest solid substance known, was discovered by Roy Plunkett at DuPont in 1938, while he was looking for a new type of gas to be used as a refrigerant (strange to find a solid when looking for a gas, but there it is). Now you find PTFE in practically everyplace you look, from inks to industrial applications. Maybe we should start coating automobiles in it to make the evening commute quicker – instead of getting stuck in traffic jams, cars would pop out of close quarters like watermelon seeds squeezed between your fingers.
Rayon, the first synthetic silk, was invented by Hilaire de Chardonnet, an assistant of Louis Pasteur. When he accidentally spilled a bottle of collodion that was later discovered to have properties that allowed the production of stable fibers, he immediately quit his day job (“I quit. I shall become ze millionaire!”). Or something like that.
Penicillin, Viagra, quinine, Aspirin, vaccination, pap smears, high-temperature superconductivity, radioactivity, Pluto’s moon Charon, metallic hydrogen, to name just a few, along with a host of other items, were all discovered, uncovered, or recovered as a result of a happy accident.
So what’s the moral of this story? Well, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few years, surely you’ve heard (yeah, yeah, I know – don’t call you Shirley) the latest mantra in business innovation is the idea that in many failures there will be some successes.
Remember, though, we’re not talking about just failures, but purposeful failures. It wasn’t just luck. These folks weren’t just sitting around waiting for the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate to strike. It was their ability to recognize the potential in what they saw that was the key to making them into success stories.
So the next time you experience that sudden wild hair up the fundamental aperture, maybe it’s time to break out the drawing board and see what develops.
But in the meantime – prepare, my friend, prepare.
Middle Zone Musings is a comfortable place to stop, have a cup of coffee, swap a few stories and share practical ideas for the real world. I don't ask for much, just a bit of your brain every now and then. Have a seat, take a load off, and relax...
