The Good blog has a video posted (below) of Peter Norvig talking about online learning at this year's Google I/O conference. Norvig is well known for his online course in computer science that attracted 160,000 students. He is also an AI expert who heads Google's search quality unit and a professor at Stanford.
About 13 minutes into the video, Norvig makes the comment that "the answer is easy" (...search on Google), "the interesting part is what was the question". My own variation on this is "the answer is easy, understanding the problem is the hard part". Many people define science as the determination of what we do not know. The pursuit of science is to answer the unanswered questions.
With the continuing increase in information and access to it, answers become less important. As I try to teach my students, what is interesting is what is currently outside the scope of human knowledge. Unfortunately most of us have been trained to focus on what is already known.
Norvig also has interesting comments on how to make online courses more effective and how to improve learning in general (minute 18). Norvig also comments on Nobel Prize winner Herb Simon and his thoughts on learning.
My thinking on the new business concept development process has changed over time. I now believe that the process has two parts:
the design process
the business model development
The two parts are really an integrated whole, but the design process starts with understanding the customer and their need and produces the product or service. The business model is the plan to commercialize the product or service. All of which is a hypothesis until tested in the market.
Design process probably dates back to the Romans, but it became formalized beginning around 2000. The concept of this process, called "design thinking", is perhaps most easily understood by this simple graphic below from the Stanford Design School. A full explanation of these concepts from Stanford is here.
Coincident with the emergence of design thinking as a formal process was the recognition that such an approach could be applied not only to products (physical objects) but also services (e.g. customer service) and customer experiences (e.g. user manuals). In fact I think formalized design thinking emerged in response to the increased scope of applications for design, perhaps motivated by the designers' recognition that their expertise had much wider application.. if they could only find a way to explain it or show its application.
The question I have been pondering is why formalized design thinking emerged when it did, around 2000. At that time the first Internet bubble was quickly approaching. That bubble demonstrated for the first time the wide spread acceptance and traction of the Internet. One of the things that the Internet made possible was a much closer relationship between the customer and the provider of a product or service. As the capabilities of the Internet grew (Twitter, FB, etc.) the potential relationship grew even closer. While historically the relationship was with the physical product, now the relationship was much wider due to the greater availability of information and the ease with which one could communicate a review or critique. These closer relationships demanded that companies have a much more developed understanding of the customer, what might be called empathy. Design was one of the few workable disciplines that incorporated such thinking about empathy..early in their process (Step 1 above). Therefore, design had the toolkit to assist companies to take a comprehensive look at the customer relationship that now included products, services and customer experience. This quote from Nelson Kunkel at Deloitte Consulting makes the point eloquently:
"The ultimate design is simple. It's the pursuit of transparency."
(If you are going to have genuine and comprehensive relationships, transparency is a requirement.)
Design thinking is a useful process in part because it has such wide application. I encourage the reader to better understand design thinking. If you prefer videos to reading, the video below from Cooper Hewitt is short and entertaining.
Note: After first publishing this post I found this article that shows even more explicitly how some people are thinking about the relationship between business model and design thinking, from Design Thinking Network.
I laughed at this story from The Chronicle of Higher Education, "Faculty Backlash Grows Against Online Courses". According to the story, philosophy professors at San Jose State rejected the administration's request to use an online course from a renown Harvard Professor. The SJS professors' argument was that this was the first step in a plan to reduce teaching positions in the Philosophy Department.
The President of the university is an advocate of reducing the time and cost to get a degree by increasing the use of online courses. Tuition has increased over 100% in the last 10 years for in-state students at public universities (such as SJS) and 60% for private universities, according to the College Board as reported by CNN. These increases are far in excess of inflation and suggest an "industry" likely to be disrupted. Looks like the President of SJS has a legitimate concern.
If we step back and look at the problem universities face, I conclude the following:
Few students benefit from lectures unless the professor is both brilliant and an excellent orator (George Polya comes to mind); this is a rare combination
Textbook reading is more efficient and effective than lectures for conveying basic facts and simple theories
Most students look to professors for help with applying the coursework in real world, practical ways
Problem solving and analytical techniques are the areas where students can most benefit from teacher involvement
Where I think MOOCs and online courses will end up at universities is as part of a two-tier tuition scheme:
Lower cost online courses with no live professor involvement
More expensive courses that combine in classroom time with a professor and online lectures
I know lots of motivated students who take Coursera courses in addition to their full-time class load. Given the choice, more students would opt for online courses without a live professor if the quality matched the best professors on Coursera or edX and the courses counted toward their degree. Maybe we should focus the problem on what the students prefer.
The views stated herein are my personal views and do not reflect the opinions of any organization, university or client with whom I am affiliated.
The number of professionally run venture capital firms in Miami can be counted on one hand with fingers left over. This is one of the major reasons that Miami is a city of SMEs and few high tech startups.
A new VC has emerged in Miami, Medina Capital, organized by local Manny Medina who sold his Terremark business to Verizon for $1.4 billion. The new firm will focus on disruptive technology principally in cyber security, cloud computing, big data and storage. The focus is on early stage software companies. Typical investment is $10-20 million over the life of the investment. The firm's focus is not surprising given Medina's background in data centers.
Much has been written about Google's decision to cancel Google Reader, their RSS feed reader. This decision troubled me for several reasons, not the least of which was that I had been using this free product for several years. However, something else troubled me about this as a strategic decision by Google but I could not figure out what it was. This morning Fast Company provided the answer in an article "The Danger of Free Google Software".
Google is one of the best examples of what Clayton Christensen calls disruptive innovation. Christensen correctly argues that a more limited feature set product at a lower price point can disrupt an incumbent market leader. For example, Gmail disrupted Microsoft Outlook. The power of Google's disruption strategy is in part that they have lowered the price to zero or free.
Google has used the same strategy with the new Google Drive, which is their competing product for online storage and backup. A certain amount of storage for free, which is perhaps a better price than market leader Dropbox, might encourage people to leave Dropbox...until now. Who wants to backup their whole life on Google Drive and in 3-5 years find out that Google is canceling the product like they did Google Reader.
For Google to make a decision that potentially undermines their whole disruptive innovation strategy strikes me as a very poor decision. No matter how bad the profitability of Google Reader, such a prominent product should not be cancelled when it it risks customer confidence in Google's other free products.
Many have reported that Dropbox bought Mailbox. Mailbox is a new iOS email app that has gotten a lot of press. Plans are to move Mailbox to other operating systems. Question one should ask is: why did Dropbox need to buy Mailbox?
On the surface Dropbox appears to be one of the most successful apps in recent years, right behind FB and Twitter. However, a great app does not make a successful company that can sustain double digit growth for several years after an IPO. Dropbox has added new features recently but those features look to me to be more related to competition and less related to growing revenue.
My view is that Dropbox needed an additional product to maintain attractive revenue growth rates. Adding another product is one way to move toward being a company and not just an app.
Edudemic has a great post today on entrepreneurship by university, captured in this infographic. Maybe there is something to this studying entrepreneurship in universities. Note the information is only for six universities and overlooks all the other college educated entrepreneurs.
In a recent video interview with Mark Suster here, Clayton Christensen, the renowned HBS professor, presented some additional thinking on his theory of disruptive innovation. What was new for me was Christensen's position that disruptive innovation only applies in industries with a technology core. What Christensen means is that if an industry/product is using technology and that technology is critical to the customer experience and value creation (for the customer), then there is the possibility for disruption.
Certain industries lack such a technology core. Christensen sites the hotel industry as an example. The hotel industry cannot be disrupted. A hotel chain can only emulate a competitotr with a richer feature set for the customer. Disruption through technology is not possible. Other "old" industries such as restaurants and construction probably are in the same situation as hotels.
Another group of industries which lack a technology core are probably heavily regulated industries such as healthcare and education. Until very recently neither industry used technology for a better customer experience and only relied on technology for improved administration or staff productivity (doctors).
Of course, the absence of a technology core does not prevent outsiders from introducing customer facing technology to "disrupt" the industry. Coursera, the online university, would be an example.
Christensen has a very gloomy outlook for the future of HBS and universities in general. He asks us to pray for HBS. If we are praying for HBS then we need constant prayer vigils for some other universities.
Christensen also believes that university education must be more focused on teaching the practical skills required by employers. For business and engineering schools I would agree. However, some of the best disciplines to develop critical thinking are philosophy, economics and history. Not sure that any of these disciplines would meet Christensen's standards for practical training.
One of many other posts referencing Christensen's thinking is here. The post references his theory of how to size a market.
Have not written anything on Excel in a while despite the continuing popularity of previous posts. For example, Googling "startup Excel model" brings up this post from SF as the first choice.
Today I received an introduction to PDFExcel, a product that converts PDF files to excel format. Very useful tool. Check it out here.
A collection of all my ever popular Excel posts is here.
Over the last few years I have come to believe the following statement: "not everybody who uses Macs is smart, but everybody who is smart uses Macs". Last week at CES in Las Vegas, of the hundreds of attendess I observed using laptops or tablets, I saw one person using a Windows laptop (although it could have been a Linux machine :)) . CES was like a "Windows free zone" except for the Intel booth. I am sure there were a few more Windows machines but I did not see them being used by attendees.
Another observation is that early adaptors of the iPad are switching to the MacBook Air for their daily computer and using the iPad less. I am in that group. I only use the iPad for book reading and presenting. See this post for why I present with a tablet.
I also think the iPhone may be declining in popularity amongst early users. Saw a lot of people at CES who had an iPad or MacBook and a Samsung Galaxy smart phone. I think the quality of integration with Google services is leading people to high end Android phones.
BTW--have not seen many Windows machines amongst MIT Sloan students this week. Apple all the way.
In August 2011 Google acquired Motorola for $12.5 billion. As reported here and by others, many speculated that the acquisition would cause many handset manufacturers to consider developing their own operating systems. There has been little news on the development of alternative operating systems until today's announcement in the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan's leading business newspaper. Yomiuri Daily reports that Docomo and Samsung are partnering to develop an operating system for cell phones. Docomo is the largest cell phone operator in Japan.
In addition to competing with Apple and Google in the smart phone market, the new OS will make it easier for carriers to offer their own services to subscribers. This feature of the OS may be attractive to cell phone carriers as they fight to avoid becoming just low value-added networks. However, an operating system built for the carriers rather than customers looks like a questionable strategy.
This article from IP Carrier describes the issues facing carriers.
Rangan.com is an excellent blog that deals with communications and public relations for businesses. In a recent article they had an infographic on why people use social media. Basically, usage of social media produces the same dopamins as sex and food. The article also states that people would rather give up sleep, alcohol, cigarettes and sex in order to keep their social media. Strikes me as bizarre that social media is more popular than sleep or sex. Maybe that's why the Y generation is not getting married:)
While the biology may explain the phenomenon, what triggers the behavior of social media? I think the explanation goes back to early child behavior. Children are able to teach at age two before they can read and do many other things. Social media is a form of teaching, perhaps through showing off. Why do so many people repeat the same quotes from Ghandi on Twitter? Everybody wants naturally to teach.
The second reason everybody uses social media is that it enhances self-esteem. Social media is the adult version of presenting a finger painting to a parent for approval. I believe that much of computer usage in general relates back to self-esteem. Computers make output very easy and creative and artistic output much easier, which increases the opportunity for self-esteem building outputs dramatically. This blog might be evidence. One might also cite Github, the open source coding forum, as another example.
I think more research is needed to show the relationship between self-esteem, computers and social media, but there is more to learn than just the biology.
Edudemics has an interesting post on integrating technology in the classroom. They offer a matrix developed at the Northern Arizona University to demonstrate the phases of integration, as shown below.
The matrix has two shortcomings.
The developers of the matrix assume that technology must be phased in. Overlooked is the natural adaptive abilities of children.
The most successful projects using technology in classrooms use a total immersion approach where the laptop or tablet is constantly used by every student from day 1 in all curriculum.
The matrix was developed for teachers and overlooks the objective--children learning. We will never learn the proper way to use technology in the classroom until the approach starts with a focus on the natural abilities of the child and how they learn.
The views expressed herein are my personal views and do not represent the views of any organization, client or university with whom I am affiliated.
Joi Ito, the Director of the MIT Media Lab, did a piece on Google Think about the four trends he sees for 2013, which are listed below:
Hardware as the new software "Supply chain provider companies are making
the cost of manufacturing [hardware] and risk really, really small.." There is much new hardware being developed, much of it open source. I expect that this will produce many appcessories. Appcessories are peripherals attached physically or through wifi to tablets to capture data (sensors) or to create new experiences. Very big opportunity.
Gene Printing "Bio-fabricating
genes using something called a 'CMOS' chip, which basically allows him to print
genes using machines instead of people". Biology is not my field but the idea of using CMOS chips is logical. CMOS chips are the special purpose chips that you find in your car for example.
Life Long Learning"It
has always been my [Ito] opinion that 'education' is something people do to you,
whereas 'learning' is something you do for yourself." My thoughts on life long learning are here. Lifelong learning is perhaps the most important lesson to learn from schooling.
Survival of the Quickest "You
want to have your peripherals wide open and adapt as quickly as you can. I
think that will be an important survival trait of people and companies in the
future." The abundance and speed of information has been a recurring theme here at SF.The implications for the management of organizations is an under appreciated point. A post I like on that theme is here.
If I do a post for the future of 2013 I may write about this relationship:
I saw on Google Reader today a previously overlooked feature--Trends. When I clicked on it I got analytics on my blog reading. The first statistic surprised me (and prompted this post), which is below:
"Since July 15, 2007 you have read a total of70,466 items."
Based on another statistic on Trends, I have seen 3.5 million blog posts since 2007. I read about 2% of the articles I see. What blogs provide the most information of interest to me are shown below:
3Quarks is the most eclectic. Hacker News is a must read. NYT Technology just a habit.
Last week I wrote a post--Corporate Performance Raises Questions-- that discussed the inverse relationship between corporate profits in the U.S. and wages earned. Corporate profits are at an all time high and wages earned as a percentage of the economy appear to be at an all time low.
Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate and NYT columnist, wrote an op-ed piece on December 9 citing the same statistics and making a point that IT technology is not only replacing low wage jobs but also more value added positions. My post on the disruption by IT of higher value positions appeared in this August 2010 post--The Future of Professional Services. Mr. Krugman's article-Robots and Robber Barons--is here.
I doubt Mr. Krugman reads this blog, but if you want to know what he will be writing about, read Sophisticated Finance :)
Thanks to my friend, Martin, for pointing me to the Krugman article.
Forbes has a story today on Mary Meeker's annual report (link to slide deck) on trends in the Internet. Meeker is a former star equity analyst at Morgan Stanley and now at the renown venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins. Three slides prompted some thoughts.
The increase in student loans in the last ten years is staggering. The increase in loans is in part explained by increased costs for higher education and increased enrollment. However, the shear scale of this debt concerns me and a marked contraction in such borrowing would have significant negative consequences for institutions of higher learning.
The growth in digital information will accelerate which reinforces the point that curation of data is a huge, unheralded business opportunity. I have talked about this point many times but there is still little effort to exploit it. LinkedIn News is a simple example but this approach just scratches the surface of the opportunity.
Tablets have caught on very quickly with children, as shown below, but the key question remains. Will parents pay the iPad/mini-iPad prices, especially for younger children. A rugged tablet built for a child at a better price point still looks like an undeveloped market.
Yesterday I went with some colleagues to visit a Microsoft kiosk for the Surface tablet. I was most interested to see the reaction of my principal tablet evaluator, who has evaluated every tablet I have received in the last two years. However, as shown in the picture below, he was not tall enough to reach the tablet without help.
This advisor quickly moved over to a cell phone kiosk where he could reach the phones and spent ten minutes evaluating a Blackberry smart phone. I think he had not used a Blackberry before.
Another valued advisor has the same problem, as shown below. (Note: a reader just wrote to tell me that Apple used to have a special table where children could use devices but they have discontinued the practice.)
Pre-school children have discovered tablets, in case you have been living in Siberia. They increasingly have a view on what products they want to work/play with. A 12" step in front of the tablets would probably help impromptu evaluation and might even increase sales to "short" customers who are also future customers.
Don't take this post too seriously, but one commentator I respect believes that tablets will dominate pre-school education but not for older children (because of the lack of a keyboard).
Recently I have had the need to learn about different processors in computing devices. Most of the analysis has been of ARM processors, which were originally developed by Motorola for cell phones and now power smart phones, tablets and a few laptops. ARM chips are a lower cost alternative to INTEL with historically lower energy consumption.
In learning about ARM processors I have had to understand their architecture, the different processor speeds, the multiple versions of ARM and the new manufacturing techniques being used. One can really learn a lot reading manufacturer specifications. In the course of this investigation I even came across a techy who was working on a whole new processor design to reflect that much of computing power is now really web-based and processor functionality could be reduced with coincident cost savings. Very interesting idea as one ponders how to reduce the cost of computing devices. After the screen, the processor is the next most expensive component (although in some tablets the battery can match the screen cost).
My preliminary conclusion is that the next battle ground in tablets will be at the processor level, as manufacturers look to offset increased screen cost with price/performance improvements in processors. Also, except for screen improvements, processors may be the only way to differentiate tablet hardware, This conclusion may very well be true for other computing devices.
Interesting to me that Apple is the only computer manufacturer that does its own chip design. The importance of chip design to Apple is shown in this story which shows that all chip design for all devices at Apple is for the first time under one executive. Designing your own chips enhances the integration and performance with the other components in a device and perhaps enhances a uniform user experience across multiple devices. This story from Bloomberg suggests Apple may switch from Intel chips to the same chips in the iPad and iPhone for its other computers as early as 2017 to achieve a more uniform user experience.
I am always interested in add-ons to Gmail. An article in AVC lead me to Gmail Meter. Gmail Meter analyzes your email behavior, but it is not a Google app or even an add-on. This services analyzes your email behavior in more detail than I have found elsewhere.
My report from Gmail Meter showed that in September:
I received 2839 emails, less than I thought but calendar invites and other types of email are stripped out
I sent 1075 emails to 188 people
My daily email traffic looks like this:
This chart suggests to me I should check email at 8 am, 1130 am and 430 pm and not as often as I apparently do. Also shows I have been sleeping in til 6am more than I thought.
As you might expect from the style of this blog my responses to emails are short.
Time to respond to emails surprised me. Don't expect quick responses. Urgent matters should be by text message.
Always interesting to look at data that gives one insights into oneself.
