Déjà vu All Over Again

In the mid-1990's I worked in a military courseware development organization. It was fully networked with state-of-the-art Macs to handle the graphics and desktop publishing we did. By the time I left a couple of years later there were still a few Macs but Intel-based computers were the norm. As the power of the then x486 chips had grown and software previously available only on Macs came out for the PC the landscape changed. Much has been written about the controlled Mac environment or the open architecture of the PC and the impact that has had on sales. My preference for the PC over the years has been as much philosophical and emotional as it has been totally rational. I'm just an open kind of person.  I like the chaos of multiple companies trying lots of different concepts. The fact that some turn out badly is just the cost of creativity.  I don't like a gatekeeper whether Apple or the government or some other entity.

Wired Magazine has an interesting article about the Android operating system now predicted to dominate the mobile device market.  You can find it here.  What I find interesting is whether the corporate culture of control at Apple will again result in truly game changing innovation being overpowered by "me-too" products whose foundation is an open architecture vs. Apple's need for a controlled one. If you are an Apple fan, you are probably pleased that Google has alienated scores of Android developers by limiting the release of Android 3 commonly known as Honeycomb as reported in the Wired article. That limitation notwithstanding, the creativity and dynamics of the open Android arena bodes poorly for Apple even though Google seems to be trying to mess up its advantage.

I have an Android tablet. I use it nearly every day.  I can and have gotten apps from half a dozen "marketplaces" besides the Google market. One of the newest entrants to the field is Amazon. I don't need Google's approval and Google doesn't get to decide which apps I should be able to use.  I get to do that.  Does that provide some risk?  Yes it does. Do I care about that? Not so much. Even the Apple App Store has had some "stinkers." Recently Apple has decided to not carry or remove apps it decided weren't in the best interest of the Apple community -- read politically incorrect. That of course led the sponsoring organizations to send out email blasts to their constituencies urging them to email Apple or to boycott Apple or do whatever groups do when they get offended. Why set yourself up as the gatekeeper of propriety if your goal is to sell products?  Do you purposefully choose, by your actions, to surrender one group or another to the competition?  It would appear so.  And that is why despite introducing the game changer product in the IPad, Apple is likely to end up as the also ran.

It is early in the race.  The chaos in the Android Tablet marketplace will produce some winners and some losers just like it did in the PC markets of 15 years ago. Ultimately, though, the PC's open Intel-based architecture prevailed in all but some specialty domains. I'm betting Android will do the same.

As We Know It

Recently the big political fight has been over the budget and spending. One of the talking points has to be the phrase "as we know it" as it has appeared in numerous media reports and press releases. This post isn't about politics but rather the phrase. Is changing something "as we know it" the big, fearful thing that some would have us believe?  Is the use of the phrase just another technique to paralyze public opinion?  Let's take a look at some examples.

When you got up this morning did you spend the first few minutes of your day trimming the wick on your oil lamp to light your way into your bathroom to prepare for the day or did you simply flick on the light? Those who opposed electricity certainly could have said that it would change lighting "as we know it" and they would have been right.  But was it bad?

When you left for work this morning did you go out to the stable and saddle up your horse or hitch it to the buggy or did you get into your car and drive to work?  I know at my large office complex there aren't any hitching posts but there are a lot of parking spaces so I think I know the answer. Certainly many in 1908 might have said that Henry Ford's Model T would change ground transportation "as we know it." Do you wish for a horse to ride to work or do you kind of like whizzing along the highway with the heater or air conditioner keeping you comfortable and the stereo playing?

When you plan a trip by air, do you try to maximize your use of small propeller driven planes that fly low and in the weather and get you to your destination with multiple hops and an overnight stay or do you try for a large new jet that can whisk you across the country in one hop of just a couple of hours?  It can be rightly claimed that the Boeing 707 changed air travel "as we know it" in the late 1950's and for me, that was a good thing.

Last, when sick with an infection such as strep, do you wait it out or see your doctor for an antibiotic? Few would argue that an open petri dish, a particle of mold and an observant researcher did, in 1928, change medicine "as we know it" with the discovery and documentation of penicillin. Millions of lives saved and tens of millions of suffering people will attest to that.

I get a little curious when someone tries to make me afraid of changing something "as we know it." I have to ask myself what do they have to gain?  Do they lose power?  Do they lose income? Are they just timid souls? People who sold coal oil lost out to the electric light.  Saddle and tack makers suffered with the rise of the automobile. Manufacturers of large rotary engines used in propeller-driven planes lost out to the jet engine. Who loses what when we talk about virtual learning technologies? Who gets upset when the role of an instructor changes or the skill set changes? How is the daily routine of the classroom instructional designer upended when word processing skills are simply not enough technologically?

I admit to being an optimist. Some might say overly so.  I get excited when I see that something --whether tool or idea -- might change something "as we know it."  While the "something" as we know it might be fine, the new something could easily be so much better.

Process and Innovation

In my past I was a military pilot.  A lot of aviation is built around various procedures and processes.  For example, an instrument approach procedure is designed to transition my aircraft from enroute altitudes to the airport in an orderly way. A high altitude approach procedure would have me start at a specific place and altitude.  I would follow a specific ground track while descending to specific altitudes along the way. On final approach the aircraft would descend below the clouds and shazam!  There would be a runway right in front of me. If I followed the approach procedure the runway would always be there.

For the sake of this argument, I’m going to define a process as a grouping of procedures to ensure a predictable, reliable and quality outcome.  The question then, is how do we follow processes whose goal is a predetermined, reliable outcome with innovation which by definition has a significant component of the unknown associated with it? My sense is that the tension between the right-brained and left-brained among us or the orderly vs. the creative is all part of this. It seems crazy to say we need to establish a process by which we can be more innovative when in all likelihood it is processes are a significant drag on creativity and innovation. I can think of more than a couple of times someone has tried to discourage conversation on an interesting approach to some issue by saying, “Yes, but… that is not in line with our process.”

I’m a big fan of orderliness and efficiency.  I understand that having well defined processes and procedures help ensure reliable results.  I’m also a big fan of creative, innovative ideas—ideas that often clash with our processes. It takes leaders at all levels to understand that sometimes the process simply needs to be set aside for the next big advance to take place. When the innovation proves valuable, then define some processes to ensure a repeatable outcome, not before. I would say that if you can predefine the processes to define an innovation’s outcome, it really isn’t very innovative now, is it?