Archive for the 'Good to know' Category

TiECON East 2010 and Clean Tech

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

Another TiECON East is approaching.  As noted in earlier posts I find this entrepreneur’s conference to be the best value for the money.  This year I am on the organizing team helping to put together the Clean Tech track.  In particular, I’m the producer for the panel session on energy management. I am pleased to have assembled a very diverse panel that can cover many of the bases that fall under the “energy management” tent.

For regulatory matters I have Janet Gail Besser.  She was the top regulator in Massachusetts and is now the VP of Regulatory Strategy and Policy at National Grid USA.  She can also speak on the utility perspective and a global perspective since they are the largest utility in England

Gregg Dixon, the Senior VP of Marketing for EnerNOC, provides the perspective of an energy management company. He has certifications in energy management and demand side management and so can also speak for commercial customers of energy. His background includes work in co-generation as well.

I also have two entrepreneurs in the line up. Nachum Sadan, the CEO of Amperion, runs an established startup with over 100 patents and successful pilot operations underway. They provide communication over high voltage power lines that will allow utilities monitoring and control capabilities to the substation level opening up a whole new level energy management possibilities.

Roger Faulkner, the CEO of Electric Pipeline Company, is our early stage entrepreneur. EPC offers a new cost effective way of efficiently moving massive chunks of electricity over very long distances. That is gigawatt morsels over thousands of miles. This is the kind of technology that will make it possible for wind energy generated in the Midwest to be used on the East Coast. Nachum and Roger are the techies on the panel with degrees in electrical engineering and material science to handle the technical questions.

I invited John Quealy, a managing director in equity research at Canaccord Genuity. He is the head of their Sustainability sector and created their investment themes in Smart Grid, Water Technology and Clean Coal. As investment bankers in this sector they look at a lot of companies so have the big picture view. Moreover he’s been doing this over ten years so has seen the downs as well as the recent ups in the energy sector. I’m counting on him to provide the adult supervision.

You can see the details of our session here.

The panels on energy sources and storage look good as well. If clean tech and green energy are strong interests you should be well served by our track. As usual there will be other interesting things going on. For the first time they will have an entrepreneurship bootcamp, this being run by Babson College. I’m looking forward to another great event.

Product Camp Boston and “ignorant” customers

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

I went to my first Product Camp this month.  It was the second one held in Boston.  These are “unconferences” organized in the barcamp style.  That is a self organizing conference.  Anyone who wants to give a presentation puts a short description up on a board.  Everyone has a few colored dots to place on these proposals to vote their preferences.  The number of votes a presentation gets determines what room it’ll be held in and to some extent when it is scheduled.  Then everyone attends the presentations of their choice except when they are giving one.  There were a couple of invited presentations that all attended and then about 5 rooms running simultaneously.  There were 140-180 attendees.

I proposed a session titled “Ferreting out Customer Needs.”  It was more popular than I expected.  I anticipated leading a discussion with a dozen people around a table like the first session I attended.  Instead I found myself giving a podium presentation in the biggest room with 2 screens before about 70 people.  Good thing I decided to type my notes into Powerpoint instead of Word at the last minute.  Risk management, you know?

Still, I did go through the room asking everyone why they attended and what they hoped to learn.  My focus was on the importance of understanding your customers’ needs and how to do that.  Yet three people wanted help making their customers understand they don’t need features they were demanding.  I think all three were from software companies.

My bias is to assume in a case like this YOU are the one not listening to your customer.  I diplomatically hinted at that but did not provide the definitive and fair answer they deserved.  I might be right but it occurred to me later that one of the tools that I talked about could be used to address this question.

The concept is simple.  Customers have needs.  They buy products (and services) that offer certain benefits to meet those needs.  Features provide the product’s benefits.  Engineers design features.  Someone has to do a mapping between the customer needs and product features.  (Often that will be the product manager.)   This is how you insure the engineers are working on the right features.

Not doing so means you spend a lot of time and money on features the customer won’t value (i.e. pay for) because they don’t meet any need.  Moreover, you risk completely missing customer needs leaving an opening for the competition.  After all, the single largest reason for product failure is developing products that don’t meet real customer needs.

This concept is easily pictured.

CUSTOMER has        PRODUCT        ENGINEER designs
____Needs___==>   Benefits   <==___Features____
……..need 1                                         feature 1
……..need 2                                        feature 2
……..   …                                             feature 3
……..                                                  feature 4
……..                                                  feature 5
……..                                                   …

If you can’t map a feature to a need, that’s a sign it shouldn’t be there.  If you have needs not met by any feature, they have to get into the product requirements and you have work to do.  This is a good tool to help you focus on the features you should develop and to put off those you shouldn’t.

What if you think your customer is demanding features they don’t need making you waste time and money?  The first possibility is that you really don’t understand their needs.  You need to revisit your voice of the customer work to see what you missed.  The second possibility is that you are right.

My answer in either case is that you should sit down with your customer with the lists of needs and features and map the connections together.  The customer might put needs on the list that are supported by the features you thought were unnecessary.  Or you might be able to demonstrate to the customer that these features do not connect to any of their real needs.  Be aware that emotional needs may not be obvious yet can be more important than any functional need.  An unused feature may provide a feeling of security for example.  “It’s there just in case I need it.”

This is a good exercise in any case and is likely to lead to surprise learnings for both of you.  The process should also bring you closer to your customer and that can’t be bad.

Trends You Need to Know

Saturday, July 12th, 2008

The June 2008 PMI Network magazine lists 5 business trends we all need to know about … or else. Future survival gets my attention. The thing that stood out to me was how important the ability to understand needs will be for all 5 trends. To me that means increasing value for the kind of “voice of the customer” skills we practice going beyond customer research. Let’s take a look.

A technical skill shortage is developing across all regions and markets. Even the low cost talent pools in India and China are drying up. Looking forward that means companies need to get better at two things:
— recruiting top talent
— managing talent internally

Well, if you want to attract good people, you need to understand what makes them tick, what they need and want. Then to keep them you also need to understand and meet their needs. So VOC skills are an advantage coping with this trend.

Emerging markets are the part of globalization that is breaking growth records. Most companies don’t do a good job of understanding their domestic customer as it is. Then they hope to develop products for, and sell to, a different culture? Good voice of the customer work is even more important and more tricky in this context.

For example, Breakthrough NPD supports foreign clients but with a catch. Unlike the U.S. & Canadian markets where we will do everything if requested, we only do certain parts of VOC work overseas. We train our foreign clients in VOC methods and we will coach them, even being in the room as they conduct customer interviews. The key difference is that a native familiar with the language and culture must conduct or lead the customer interactions. They must ask the questions and interpret the answers. Keeping bias out of the process is hard enough and would be much harder with the filter of outsider bias in the way as well. We can provide a neutral and unique perspective that ads value to the interpretation but should not be driving the work.

This boils down to using Web 2.0 tools to incorporate customer needs into your business at every level. That is, from core business strategies and project goals to testing new product concepts and getting feedback on your existing products and services. Examples are having your own internet forums, blogs, social networks, on-line communities, customer advisory boards and so on to better understand customer needs. This essentially means expanding what we do now to define new products and their requirements to also help guide the business and improve operations.

This is taking responsibility for the impact of company actions on communities, stakeholders and society. Social responsibility is going from a “nice to have” PR stunt to standard operating procedure for good business reasons. This involves a wide range of things from labor practices, living wages, health and safety, civic infrastructure, environment, etc. I’ll admit that the link from VOC skills to this trend is weaker but they still will give you clearer vision of your impact on everyone else.

Globalization has pushed companies into 24/7 schedules and operations. With this comes the push for quicker returns on investments. Obviously this is about running faster. Less apparent, it is about being more clear on what you need to achieve. You can do more with less if your goals are clearly defined. That means continuously tracking the needs and goals of the end user, establishing methods that allow your teams to react to changing business needs, and prioritizing what can or should be done in view of the larger context. The best way is to involve customers, stakeholders, and advisors throughout your projects. Again, skills to acquire input and understand your customers will be invaluable.

A medical device case study in the article illustrates that this goes beyond getting the specs right. I think this quote from the company involved makes that case well, “customers jumped at the chance to participate once they saw we cared about their needs.”

Let me emphasize the “we cared about their needs.” The bottom line folks is that it is all eventually about the people. It is about the individuals whose lives are benefited or burdened by your offering.

Do you believe these trends are real and will affect your business? If so, you should also see that getting better at understanding the voice of the customer, (broadly defined), will be important to benefiting from rather than being buried by these trends.

For more on the trends:
“Pay Attention,” Sarah Fister Gale, PMI Network, June 2008 ps 35-41.

Hey, why not let everyone help develop your products?

Friday, June 27th, 2008

Another way companies are breaking down the barriers between themselves and their customers or other folks outside is via “crowdsourcing.” That is a way to get people on the outside to provide value to the organization on their own time. It is essentially the open source model applied to more than just software.

The best example I know is the Goldcorp story. Their president put all their proprietary geologic data for a mine on the web and held a contest. The winners with the best ideas of where to drill would share half a million dollars. The diversity and originality of ideas they received was far beyond anything they anticipated. Years later they were still drilling sites suggested by contestants. They were mining so much gold they were the only gold mining company that was stockpiling for better prices in the future. Furthermore, their stock price went up thirty fold. (See Taylor’s book referenced below.)

The internet and the decentralization of expertise has enabled crowd sourcing and it is typically used to develop solutions. That is at the back end of the product development process. Companies can gain key advantages via crowd sourcing.

achieving goals not possible with a limited fixed staff

This is the advantage of scale. For example, large companies experience many more customer demands for new products than they can keep up with. Some have formed external networks to act in an advisory role or even do project work directly (as in the Goldcorp example) to develop more new products. NASA has used volunteers to process enormous amounts of data making images available months earlier and freeing up researchers to concentrate on higher end work. Google essentially uses crowdsourcing in the way it ranks pages for its search engine.

access to a larger number and far more diverse range of ideas than possible in-house

I think William Taylor says it best in this chapter title from his book Mavericks at Work: Ideas Unlimited: Why Nobody is as Smart as Everybody.

Inviting people from other boxes to work on your problem is a pretty easy way to get real “out of the box” thinking.

I see parallels to the kind of work we do at the front end to understand the problems you should be working on in the first place. You can use crowdsourcing methods to find out what the most important problems are for you to solve, as well as to craft solutions. That is, from voice of the customer to voice of the collaborator. We have actually done both here.

For more,
“On the Edge,” by Tim Gilchrist, PMI Network, May 2007, p32.
Mavericks at Work, William C. Taylor and Polly LaBarre, Harper Collins, 2006. (See Chapter 4.)

TiECON East 2008

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

I’ve said before TiECON is one of the best values for the money I’ve found. It is focused on entrepreneurs and I am still impressed that the conference finds new ways to be innovative each year. It makes sense since the attendees are innovators on the cutting edge struggling to come up with the next big thing. That kind of thinking is contagious.

This year the new thing that stood out for me was an entrepreneurs’ forum. I enrolled and got three half hour sessions of face-to-face counseling about my business with venture capitalists and attorneys who specialize in startup businesses. It didn’t cost me anything extra. How would I normally even get access to people like this for a little bit of undivided attention to my business?

I contrast this with my experience working with the PDMA. Even though they preach innovation, it is very much from the large company perspective. That’s where most of their members and speakers are from. Having seen both I’d say slower, more cumbersome and less risk taking in comparison. I joined the board of the local PDMA chapter briefly this year to help them develop a schedule of speakers 6 months in advance instead of the month-to-month scrambling they’ve been doing.

Essentially, I was going to do a simple VOC exercise to find out what kind of speakers the membership wanted to hear from, prioritize, and then recruit speakers with that guidance. I’ve done the same thing with great success for other organizations in the past. I didn’t really want another volunteer activity but offered that I could do that for them. They liked the idea when they recruited me to join back in January

It seems like this project was too novel for someone. After 2 months they still couldn’t email my simple 5 question survey to the membership. Plenty of announcements went out in that time. Another month later there was still no response to my weekly email queries, no attempt to communicate any issues or resolve them. I’d only get a call when someone desperately hoped I would drop what I was doing to arrange sandwiches or name tags for a meeting that night.

I am sure there was nothing personal here as I saw the same thing happening to other initiatives. I’m still waiting for someone to respond and close the loop with me. For all I know I might still be a member of the board though I’ve given up. I’m not going to let this drag out until I’m stuck scrambling each month to get a speaker at the last minute. I only got involved to extricate them from that pathology, not participate in it. (I’ve become more careful how I invest my volunteer efforts over time.) The point I’m getting to is that this is very much how I felt working at a Fortune 200 sized company. Any innovation has a lot to overcome and is often filtered out in spite of the lip service paid to it. There are exceptional bright spots throughout large organizations so a generalization isn’t fair to everyone but I think it describes the norm. Let me know if you see it another way.

My recommendation to people working in the innovation space at large companies is to spend some time attending entrepreneurial events and mixing with people from much smaller companies. I think exposure to this faster innovation lane will help you innovate a little better than your large compatriots in the slower lane and gain you a competitive advantage.

Back to TiECON East I was also struck by how social responsibility was an underlying theme especially from some of the keynote speakers like Bob Compton (documentary “Two Million Minutes”), Alan Rosling (Executive Director of Tata Sons), and Craig Newmark (founder of Craig’s List). A lot of these business leaders are focused on more than just making money. Ironically, I think they will make (or have been making) more money as a result. I see this in contrast to the narrow focus on the numbers in the large companies, (looking beyond what they say, to what they do).

Understanding the big picture helps you avoid costly trouble in the future. The lesson here is that success really is about people one way or another. Be it how you treat your employees, the community you operate in, or your customers, it’s good business to know that you are touching lives.

Flexible Product Development

Friday, September 28th, 2007

This month a new book hit the market “Flexible Product Development, Building Agility for Changing Markets” by Preston Smith. Some of you might remember him from “Developing Products in Half the Time” which he co-authored with Donald Reinertsen in 1991. That was a seminal work in the time-to-market field. His new book could be another big step in thinking for product developers.

I probably should say at this point that I reviewed several chapters for Preston while he was writing the book. I am mentioned at the end of the book with the others that helped out. The small contributions I made show up mostly in the sections on customer needs and risk management. Even so, any bias you may detect here has more to do with how I see product development rather than any loyalty to the book.

To oversimplify, Preston takes concepts from Agile software development, translates them, and where necessary adapts them, for people developing other things besides software. Hence, many of the concepts aren’t new, but will be new to much of the audience. At it’s core the material revolves around how to deal with change in a development project. It is that familiar struggle — setting the plan and requirements and working to them versus changing things late in the process. Scope creep and changes late in a project can blow costs and schedule off the planet. On the other hand, when the world takes a sharp turn on you, proceeding as planned can make the entire effort futile.

This book is about working so you can make changes later in a development project without disrupting the work or costs. It’s about knowing when to preserve flexibility, how to preserve it, and when you must make hard decisions. For me all this boils down to risk management, particularly trading off the risks on either side of these decisions. An interesting part of this book is that Preston goes beyond the typical risk analysis to discuss what to do about the unknown risks or the “unknown, unknowns.” (Now who made that phrase famous a couple of years ago? Never mind.)

Preston thinks bringing flexibility to the product development process is increasingly important today. First, is due to an accelerating and increasingly chaotic world. Read that as shorter timelines, rapidly advancing technology, global competition and more knowledgeable customers (they use the internet). Second, is because current management processes reward rigidity, which then runs organizations into the buzz saw of his first reason.

To me this exposes an open secret known to many who have labored under rigid development processes in the past or still do. That is, smart developers circumvent their company process when it becomes an obstacle rather than a support. These troublemakers know you can’t steam ahead when a sudden change in the marketplace or regulatory environment, or competition just pushed an iceberg in front of you. They know that salvation will come from reworking the plan, rather than working the plan.

If Flexible Product Development helps codify that common sense for more general use Preston will have helped product developers take another big step forward.

It is an easy read and I like that he ends each chapter with a summary list of the key takeaway points to remember.


Does innovation have to be original?

Friday, July 6th, 2007

My new business cards have been flagged in a recent blog as innovative. See Business card innovation

While that is flattering, in all honesty this is just my incarnation of an idea I took from Marcus Wigan, a friend and colleague in Australia. He also includes his photo, which makes it easier for people to remember which of the dozens of faces they encountered that day correspond to his card. It nailed an unmet need of mine. Was this original to Marcus or was he prompted by an earlier influence?

I don’t think it matters. I think it is a mistake to be too proud to adopt someone else’s good idea if it is better than mine. So I created my own version sans headshot. Is it still an innovation?

(Why not the photo? I don’t know. Perhaps for the reason I was with the radio station rather than drama club in high school.)

Most dictionaries define innovation as “introducing something new.” I don’t think it has to be new to the world to count, just new to the context. That’s why I like cross-disciplinary work. Something old hat in one field can be innovative and revolutionary when finally brought into another. For example, I created a new kind of machine vision sensor for traffic detection based on something I saw in robotics. So for now, most people that notice the card think it is novel. I introduced something new to them, to our environment … though Marcus certainly had the more original idea and in my opinion is the real innovator here.

An invention has to be original, an innovation does not.
An innovation has to be useful, an invention does not.

Let me close with a quote from They Made America.

“An innovator’s essential contribution may be to realize the promise of the known.” — Harold Evans

A Tale of Two Conferences

Thursday, June 28th, 2007

Two very different innovation conferences: The Front-End of Innovation (by PDMA & IIR) and TiECON East (by TiE-Boston).

PDMA = Product Development Management Association
IIR = Institute for International Research
TiE = The Indus Entrepreneurs

I’ve attended the last few FEI conferences and have also helped organize the VOC conference for PDMA/IIR. After attending last year, I helped work on this year’s TiECON East. Since I have had the perspective of an attendee and an insider now of both I thought I might be able to make a useful comparison.

Both have been held in Boston for as many years as I’ve known about them.

Both have generally been in May or June.

No contest here. TiECON East was $300 compared to $2300 for FEI.

This is where it gets interesting. Both programs were essentially the same number of days, with special evening events and big name speakers. Cost did not correlate to quality in terms of the speakers. Whereas FEI had a VP from Google, TiECON East had a founding board member from Google. You can go down the list like that. FEI had a number of CEOs and VPs, some you’ve heard of some you haven’t. TiECON East had some very big names we all would know. For example, Reed Hunt, the FCC commissioner responsible for the deregulation that led to the telecom industry we have today. Or, Patrick Deval, the Governor of Massachusetts, though he had to speak via videotape at the last minute. In fact, Senator John Kerry, who was not even in the program, dropped in unannounced to speak to us for about 20 minutes! Even at the same price TiECON East would have been more attractive. At 7 times less expensive it is a real deal.

FEI had around 700 people, TiECON East had around 1200.

The most stark difference was here. IIR is a large conference organizing business that has a contract from PDMA to produce several of their conferences. My experience working with them on the VOC conference is that they are in it to make money. That colors their view of what is in the attendees’ interest. They also have a lot more say than volunteers on the PDMA side. So I saw them drop benefits to the attendees (like the book of slides) without the PDMA Chairman even knowing before we arrived at the conference. This is also the reason for the high cost. It was very hard to get innovative ideas into the conference because of the way IIR staff dominates what happens over the PDMA volunteers. There was a very large corporate feel to how they work. Not innovative (like what is preached at the conference) but what does happen is generally professional.

TiECON on the other hand was almost entirely done by volunteers from TiE-Boston. They had one group whose sole purpose was to come up with new and innovative ways to add value for the attendees (a very different mindset from IIR). At one point there were 8 separate initiatives being worked on. Some I’d never seen at other conferences. That fell to 5 due to the limited number of volunteers to work them. As in any volunteer effort, the quality varied, but the energy of the people involved was impressive. It should not be a surprise that working this had a feel that was more entrepreneurial. Not always efficient, occasional glitches, but great content and value for attendees.

Most of the attendees at FEI that I met are mid-level people working in large corporations. The next largest group may have been consultants and service providers. After that a few executives from smaller companies, academics, and press.

Most of the attendees that I met at TiECON East are entrepreneurs, wannabe entrepreneurs, officers in startups, venture capitalists, and service providers.

I just told you whom you’d meet at either. Both conferences scheduled time and events for people to meet and network, from breaks to dinners. Unique to TiECON East was music and dancing at the end of the dinner program.

Some of the innovations at TiECON East were to help the right people find each other. For example, at one event a number of entrepreneurs got to give short pitches or set up tables. This was for attendees, not exhibitors, to make their case and get noticed by the right people. The exhibitors had their usual arrangement nearby.

Speaking of exhibitors, at FEI they were almost entirely consultants, a few selling software and a business bookstore.

At TiECON East a lot of the exhibitors were VCs, bankers, and business service providers. There were some consultants as well.

First, you will learn a lot from both conferences. Neither is a waste of time.

FEI is a good conference if you’ve never been before and someone else (like your company) is paying the admission. Since I’ve seen speakers from the same big name places repeated year to year I don’t think it’s necessary to go every year (like I have been) especially if money is tight. It is expensive. It is particularly suited to you if you work for a large company. You’ll meet peers from other large to mid-sized companies and hear some very good speakers with experience relevant to you.

TiECON East is focused on a different market – entrepreneurs. This one is ideal for folks from small companies or anyone on a tight budget. Again, great speakers and interactive panel sessions but with a focus helping the little guy hit a homerun. (Read that as IPO.) They also seem to get bigger thinkers on the program.

On the topic of innovation, I’d probably recommend this for anyone. The cost is minimal. Moreover, the sheer energy of people excited with very new ideas is far greater. Folks from large enterprises won’t find as many peers but they will be exposed to new ideas and people for which innovation isn’t just their job.

The chairman of the FEI conference told me once that they studied small companies like the one I was with to “teach the big boys how to do it.” TiECON is a chance to mix directly with the little guys some of whom will change our world. The problem is you’ll have trouble telling who they are. Don’t feel bad. The VCs have the same trouble.

The conference links tend to go out of date so I’ll instead list the organizational links. You can look at their events to find these conferences.

Strategy Paradox Meetup

Monday, April 2nd, 2007

I met Michael Raynor at a book launching event that was notable for two reasons — first, the thesis of his book and second, the nature of the event.


The Strategy Paradox arose from Raynor’s observation that companies that dramatically succeed or fail have much more in common than mediocre companies that just get by. Spectacular success requires taking large risks and committing to your path. Unfortunately, if you commit to the wrong path you crash. The paradox is how can you ask people to commit and manage uncertainty at the same time? His solution is that you don’t. You separate these functions within the organization. The very top management should focus on managing uncertainty at the strategic level, leaving division heads to totally commit to their mission without fear of reprisal if they’ve been given a losing horse to ride. I’m probably not doing justice but to say more will spill out of the nutshell.

It was interesting to see the “revelation” of managing uncertainty to the executive business world when risk management has been a science in systems engineering since before I was born. Coming from a background in systems engineering I thought this was a place where some cross-fertilization would have been helpful to him. No matter, I agree with him that executives at the top should have more understanding of it and should take strategic responsibility. If his book helps that to happen it’s a contribution. I also think his observation about the tradeoff between the commitment to blast through barriers and the flexibility needed to lower risk is a keen insight.

Working for Deloitte, his experience has been with large enterprises and his book is directed at the leadership of the same. That’s great when you are large enough to have division heads below the corporate headquarters. His observation certainly applies no matter the size of the company. But, …how well does his solution translate to small companies? I asked him how small a company could be and still benefit from his prescription. He agreed that at some point you can’t separate those functions but didn’t know how far down you could go.

His take on startups was that they commit to their one big idea and then make it or crash, c’est la vie. Amusing but clearly a view from the enterprise world. We help startups dramatically improve their odds, most importantly by making sure they understand their customer and the problem they are solving before solving it, but also via standard risk management practices. Just because you are a startup doesn’t mean you can’t place more than one bet. Even with one big idea, you can have a “portfolio” of paths to do it, a “porfolio” of markets to try it on, etc. So though his prescription may only be suitable for large companies, his concept may very well translate into other presecriptions for startups. In fact, if someone were to study startups successes and failures they might see uncertainty management a vital part of the story already.

When I finish the book I’ll review it in more detail and there’s a good chance I’ll like it well enough to include on the resources page in our knowledge center. Knowledge Centerl


The event itself was even more unusual than the book. It was best summarized by two words, “new media.” For example, it’s the first time I’ve ever signed myself up via a wiki. Strategy Paradox wiki It was a new twist for me but an interesting one. It let’s you get familiar with many of the strangers you’ll meet before you even get there. (Though some don’t show.)

Most surprising was that three quarters of the people there were not close to the target audience of Fortune 1000 executives or even business people that I expected. In fact, most of us present from the business side run or work in businesses too small to employ his suggestions. The Deloitte employee that organized this innovative event is deep in the “new media” community so most of the attendees were creatures of the blogosphere. That is, his e-friends and their network, or in other words, people whose lives revolve around digital communication about digital communication. So most of the people there were more excited about the new media way the book was being promoted than the book itself.

At Breakthrough NPD we are trying to come to grips with Web2.0 and you can see on the wiki sign up one attendee is already tired of Web2.0 and ready to move on to the next thing. One man I met publishes 4 blogs and 2 podcasts a week on his multiple websites. For these folks it was much more about the buzz, and creating buzz, in this case buzz about the book, than actually reading or using it. The book and event is something they can blog about (as I too am doing) and link up their posts to each other to drive more traffic, get a higher Technoratti rating, and so on. It seemed like it’s about handling more buzz than what one is actually buzzing about. As an outsider to this new media world I’m sure I’m painting with a little too much black and white. The people I met were quite nice and very entertaining. Without a doubt I got a taste of the future.

Other blog posts on this event.

Posts about it beforehand
(Notice these talk more about the book.)

Leadership Now

Posts afterward.
(If you look at any of these notice how much talk is about the event rather than the book or its concepts.)

Paul Gillin
Pardon the Disruption

Up and accessible!

Friday, March 16th, 2007

Ok, the web site is finally up! It was a longer road than anticipated. Now for a first blog post. I guess I’ll start by talking about the site. One objective was to show that it is possible to make an attractive site that complies with the accessibility standards. That is, make a site that works well for the visually impaired as well as for everyone else. We weren’t purists about it but hope we came close. It wasn’t easy finding a good web designer who understood the accessibility and W3C requirements. Our thanks to David.

We focus on unmet needs because we care about people. Our mission is to create products and services that make lives better, that delight users. So an accessible website is one way for us to show our social responsibility. But, there is also a business side to this too. The more accessible our design, the wider browser compatibility we should have. We are in business so nothing should stand between our message and our clients, especially not any browser quirks. Hence, no dancing babies here. We are not in the media business so that stuff doesn’t help. If it messes up in someone’s browser then it hurts. The KISS principle is a good place to start.

Because of bugs in the browsers, particularly IE, some annoying tradeoffs had to be made to stay compliant. It turns out it is not possible to be perfect on all browsers without embedding many complicated browser-specific hacks. (For example, the IE 3-Pixel Float Bug.) That hurts robustness and maintainability. We went for the latter, so apologize for the minor quirks that will appear to some of you and hope those disappear with the newer browser versions. The benefit is that you should never have a problem getting the content.

If you want an accessible web site I can suggest the following links. We used them early in our research. Good luck with it.

~~ Alan

Introductory help on accessibility and browser compatibility:

Catalogs of resources:

Helpful advice:

V 1.0 Techniques
Core techniques
HTML techniques
CSS techniques

The view from England…

A site for testing your pages:

Update (May 20th)
Wordpress has a very good article on accessibilty. Though oriented toward blogs and gets into more detail than I wanted to see it has good explanation of the basics and ways to be accessible.