We're fast approaching a time when conversations facilitated by technology will incorporate emotion and other subliminal characteristics than what we see today. My favourite blogger (me) posted on Nielsen's application of a brainwave reading device back in March. I made the assertion that there were similar technologies on similar and different markets.
One such example is Emotiv. Emotiv also has the nifty headsets and can also read brainwaves (nifty and otherwise). The biggest difference I see at a glance is application. While the NeuroFocus version measured emotional response to products and advertising, Emotiv focuses on electronic gaming. So, if you actually fall in love with the Princess, there's a chance that one day with the help of Emotiv, she'll find out about it!
So once again, the range of applications remains relevant to collaboration. Gauging and displaying emotional response could one day offer a dimension of candor in meetings. Enhancing the reality of gaming experiences could also play into meeting based simulations, or could one day support virtual meetings with avatars that express emotion more intuitively.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Why Starving Participants is a Great Idea
I have to question the science behind this, but LiveScience posted an article recently about hunger resulting in a base chemical motivation to achieve. See here.
The article is based on a test conducted with mice, experimenting ghrelin levels; ghrelin being a hormone that our bodies excretes when we're hungry. Mice that are sensitive to ghrelin are the big heroes in the mazes and various other semi-cruel tests.
This could change everything. Every conference I go to aims to pump attendees full of food as some kind of reward. My goal at every conference I go to is to eat as much free crap as I can as well (don't judge me, I'm not alone and I'm a growing boy). If our aim should be to accomplish things in an efficient manner, is this counterproductive? I think the logic is to keep people content, which may be important to the psychology of an individual and dynamic of a group.
But if we're to approach meetings scientifically, it's time we start experimenting with food deprivation. Other unusual cruelties could follow, just in case.
The article is based on a test conducted with mice, experimenting ghrelin levels; ghrelin being a hormone that our bodies excretes when we're hungry. Mice that are sensitive to ghrelin are the big heroes in the mazes and various other semi-cruel tests.
This could change everything. Every conference I go to aims to pump attendees full of food as some kind of reward. My goal at every conference I go to is to eat as much free crap as I can as well (don't judge me, I'm not alone and I'm a growing boy). If our aim should be to accomplish things in an efficient manner, is this counterproductive? I think the logic is to keep people content, which may be important to the psychology of an individual and dynamic of a group.
But if we're to approach meetings scientifically, it's time we start experimenting with food deprivation. Other unusual cruelties could follow, just in case.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Digg This
There is an news/article sharing site called Digg, that's been growing for several years. Evidently, their growth has become a challenge. The site relies on feedback from users to assign ratings to articles, so that the proverbial cream rises to the top. As more and more people contribute articles, the number of articles becomes unmanageable for users to sort through and rate.
The new approach Digg will employ to address this challenge is the introduction of a recommendation system. Recommendation systems take what they know about a user, and customize the output to that user based on what it knows. In the case of Digg, it will only recommend articles contributed or approved by other users that have a history of compatibility with you. So if you like many of the same articles as John Smith, the system will provide you a short list of articles that John Smith likes, rather than the 15,000 new articles received that day.
MIT's Technology review scooped this story, and published under the heading "Digging a Smarter Crowd". Now, I'm all for recognizing patterns of similar interests and customizing accordingly. And farbeit from me to challenge an MIT source. Still I take issue with the reference to the Wisdom of Crowds in this context. Having a rating system like eBay, Sermo, kluster, or other social based platforms is definitely harnessing collective intelligence. But we also know that part of creating a Wise Crowd is having a diverse crowd. If this engine groups like opinions, then where's the diversity?
I'd argue that Digg is a cool service that has a good way to produce customized results, but isn't producing results that are truly the product of a "Smarter Crowd". They are the product of a "Similar Crowd".
The new approach Digg will employ to address this challenge is the introduction of a recommendation system. Recommendation systems take what they know about a user, and customize the output to that user based on what it knows. In the case of Digg, it will only recommend articles contributed or approved by other users that have a history of compatibility with you. So if you like many of the same articles as John Smith, the system will provide you a short list of articles that John Smith likes, rather than the 15,000 new articles received that day.
MIT's Technology review scooped this story, and published under the heading "Digging a Smarter Crowd". Now, I'm all for recognizing patterns of similar interests and customizing accordingly. And farbeit from me to challenge an MIT source. Still I take issue with the reference to the Wisdom of Crowds in this context. Having a rating system like eBay, Sermo, kluster, or other social based platforms is definitely harnessing collective intelligence. But we also know that part of creating a Wise Crowd is having a diverse crowd. If this engine groups like opinions, then where's the diversity?
I'd argue that Digg is a cool service that has a good way to produce customized results, but isn't producing results that are truly the product of a "Smarter Crowd". They are the product of a "Similar Crowd".
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Aimless Progress?
The of the G8 Summit's feebleness in the area of committing to goals has been well publicized internationally. Most scrutinized of this most recent summit was the lack of targets with regards to emission reductions. While there was a lot of back-patting and rejoicing about the suggestions made, there were no real, er, commitments made, to adhere to any particular measure.
In meetings that bring people together to achieve a purpose, it is often observed that without concrete metrics to pursue and format for reporting on accountabilities; plans die easily. Getting these plans together and mobilized doesn't always have to happen - sometimes the conversation that explores new ideas and kindles new relationships is an adequate start. But if there's a conceded expectation that a deliverable plan will be created (seems like something G8 should consider), then it approaches being mandatory.
It can become a difficult juggling act to create a plan in a meeting that has adequate depth to inspire and guide those who will execute on it, while still taking time to assign ownership of items. One way to do this is to remind the group of timelines and clarify the importance of doing both parts effectively and efficiently, thereby setting the stage. What makes this tricky is that it often means limiting discussion that is engaging and important, but demanding of too much time.
Another recently applied experiment with this is to assign ownership of portions of a plan very randomly, and set a meeting shortly following with the owners reporting back with a rationale on the scope of the assignment, and who should champion it thereafter.
In meetings that bring people together to achieve a purpose, it is often observed that without concrete metrics to pursue and format for reporting on accountabilities; plans die easily. Getting these plans together and mobilized doesn't always have to happen - sometimes the conversation that explores new ideas and kindles new relationships is an adequate start. But if there's a conceded expectation that a deliverable plan will be created (seems like something G8 should consider), then it approaches being mandatory.
It can become a difficult juggling act to create a plan in a meeting that has adequate depth to inspire and guide those who will execute on it, while still taking time to assign ownership of items. One way to do this is to remind the group of timelines and clarify the importance of doing both parts effectively and efficiently, thereby setting the stage. What makes this tricky is that it often means limiting discussion that is engaging and important, but demanding of too much time.
Another recently applied experiment with this is to assign ownership of portions of a plan very randomly, and set a meeting shortly following with the owners reporting back with a rationale on the scope of the assignment, and who should champion it thereafter.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Strategic Profanity
The use of language is a core consideration in learning intitiatives, meetings, and life. We all know that the best language is simple language. Phrase things so everyone can understand what you're phrasing.
I believe in an alternative to this rule. Language can be used to pique interest, and create an appeal for a message. To even further deviate from the accepted approach; very unexpected and perhaps offensive language can also create an interest. The occasional use of an explative, for example, can wake a group up and provide that meeting defribulator. Risky, no doubt.
Thinking of some good fiction wherein the unusual dialect adds to appeal:
I believe in an alternative to this rule. Language can be used to pique interest, and create an appeal for a message. To even further deviate from the accepted approach; very unexpected and perhaps offensive language can also create an interest. The occasional use of an explative, for example, can wake a group up and provide that meeting defribulator. Risky, no doubt.
Thinking of some good fiction wherein the unusual dialect adds to appeal:
- Trainspotting
- A Clockwork Orange
- Anything by James Joyce - although understanding what he's doing with that language is sometimes an infuriating challenge
Without offending, how else can language be effective in altering the meeting atmosphere?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
The Collaboration Paradox
Quintessential article from John Abele concerning collaboration now available, called "The Collaboration Paradox..." It examines the necessity for collaboration - no surprises there - and why it is, if we accept that collaboration is often a necessity, we can be so bad at it or resist it so much. A few reasons are that we are conditioned to excel independently, and that we don't afford collaborations enough foresight or strategy. John does a better job of explaining it than I can, so I'll leave the rest to the article.
The Kingbridge reason for being is founded on this need for improved approaches to collaborations. The Kingbridge philosophy is founded on the methods John has influenced and learned from over the years, which he references in this article.
The article is available through XConomy, an interesting study in collaboration unto itself. It's an exceptional blog with exceptional content, from a whole slew of guest authors. It's not totally opensourced or crowdsourced, as the articles are edited/policed, and the editors do contribute. A successful middle ground.
The Kingbridge reason for being is founded on this need for improved approaches to collaborations. The Kingbridge philosophy is founded on the methods John has influenced and learned from over the years, which he references in this article.
The article is available through XConomy, an interesting study in collaboration unto itself. It's an exceptional blog with exceptional content, from a whole slew of guest authors. It's not totally opensourced or crowdsourced, as the articles are edited/policed, and the editors do contribute. A successful middle ground.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Resurrected
Greetings my understanding and forgiving readers. Pardon the unprecedented break in posts. The Canadian wilderness (and isolated little Wallaceburg) are enjoyable places (Wallaceburg maybe less so, but given the right mix of beer and rowdy friends...), but offer less than ideal connectivity. While I'm sure there are hordes of loyal readers out there who have not slept this past week, you need fret no longer.
Time away from work for me usually isn't that... away. I usually stay connected with work and active on projects. This time was different because of circumstance more than inclination, but I found some value in the clean break. I've often laughed at the "work/life balance" proposition, figuring that only people that don't find real meaning in their work would employ this scape goat. After last week though, I believe differently. The escape will make me better at my work, and will better position me to achieve the things that I want to achieve... which are beginning to extend beyond professional accomplishment.
Meetings are a great microcosm for this bigger picture. "Balance" usually means "booze" in this context, though. What other inclusive options are there for balancing workload in a meeting?
Time away from work for me usually isn't that... away. I usually stay connected with work and active on projects. This time was different because of circumstance more than inclination, but I found some value in the clean break. I've often laughed at the "work/life balance" proposition, figuring that only people that don't find real meaning in their work would employ this scape goat. After last week though, I believe differently. The escape will make me better at my work, and will better position me to achieve the things that I want to achieve... which are beginning to extend beyond professional accomplishment.
Meetings are a great microcosm for this bigger picture. "Balance" usually means "booze" in this context, though. What other inclusive options are there for balancing workload in a meeting?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
