Tag Archives: Research

Twitter Study Tracks When We Are :)

Posted on by

According to the article: Drawing on messages posted by more than two million people in 84 countries, researchers discovered that the emotional tone of people’s messages followed a similar pattern not only through the day but also through the week and the changing seasons. The new analysis suggests that our moods are driven in part by a shared underlying biological rhythm that transcends culture and environment.

Read about the study here: Moods on Twitter Follow Biological Rhythms, Study Finds – NYTimes.com.

The Long Road

Posted on by

It’s the middle of July and I just ended a 4  1/2 -week graduate course in computer science at Georgetown.  Why am I writing this in a blog post?  Because I wanted to share this experience.

Before I go into any detail, something you should know:

Would I recommend taking a condensed course in computer science over the summer? No.

Would I recommend taking a computer science course in general? Yes.

Like a lot of people, even when I was in high school and undergrad I felt I missed the boat to learn computer programming.  But I’m happy to say that now, as a graduate student, I’ve finally learned (accepted) that it’s never too late to learn anything — you never know how difficult something is until you try it.

That said, computer science isn’t something you can learn by osmosis. It requires practice. Lots of practice.  So, if you’re thinking about learning, don’t take a condensed course like I did— especially if you have a full-time job and are taking it at the graduate level (With all math and comp sci grads…)  You’ll thank yourself later when you realize you’ve taken a longer path that’s allowed you to absorb the material and learn more.

Despite the brief course, I’m grateful for the short and intense learning experience I had. I was forced to immerse myself in all things C++ and OOP — and true immersion isn’t something you can fake.  Like any foreign language, programming languages require you to spend a lot of time actually using them. There’s no easy way to pick it up other than using it. Learning a language is hard and it helps when you’re able to talk about it and learn from experts in a class environment.  Courses also help you budget your time and projects in a proven sequence. If it isn’t obvious, I’m a fan of courses because you gain the benefit of sharing and learning from experts and others in the class.

If you can’t afford to take a course, I know a lot of programmers who are self-taught who are great at what they do.  Whether you decide to take a course or not, my only advice is that you dedicate a lot of time to learning programming. It’s time-intensive, but it will pay off in the end. You can’t BS your way around it.

Why I’m writing this

This class I took was kind of the beginning of a major overhaul of the way I’ve gone about teaching myself web development and design techniques in the past.  Like a lot of people, I’ve learned a lot by dabbling in tutorials and teaching myself as I go. Even before this class, I wasn’t exactly a novice in web development, but this summer I’m trying to ‘step my game up’ — and in doing so, I’m going to share my projects and works in progress on this blog.

Why programming?

I’ve found learning web development and programming to be extremely rewarding in my work as a multimedia designer for news applications.  Having the ability to build and execute multimedia products from start to finish has been an extremely satisfying aspect of my job.  It used to be that web projects I wanted to do ended up taking forever for someone else to develop or wouldn’t get done at all because of the lack of expertise in my department.  Now, I’m able to create whole web pages on the fly. Knowledge is power.   And programming is problem solving. It teaches you not only how to literally build something, but also how to logically solve problems in ways most people aren’t used to.

I’m hoping to use this blog to keep track of my current and upcoming web design and development projects so you can see what I’m up to. I’ll also post a note about some things I’ve done in the last year or so, but this blog is really going to be about going forward. Please feel free to let me know know what you think and ask me questions!

Creative Tools for Innovation – Part II: The IDEO Method

Posted on by
This is Part II of my two-part series on creative tools for innovation.  In these posts, I will attempt to explain two methods used in creative brainstorming for product innovation. Click here to see the first post in this series.

The organization I work for, has been using the IDEO brainstorming approach for about a year in our audience research and R&D departments to brainstorm better ways to leverage our content and expand our reach.

The IDEO method, also called “design thinking,” is a problem-solving technique that “uses design methodologies to tap into a deep reservoir of opportunity” started by the IDEO firm. IDEO specializes in human-centered design and design-thinking product innovation. The IDEO approach includes inspiration, iteration and storytelling.  The audience team that works in my department focuses primarily on the first stage of the approach — observation and brainstorming.

The IDEO approach for observation is to observe extreme users and extreme non-users in order to see how people are currently using existing tools and how those tools might be improved. This approach looks for inconveniences and needs that aren’t being met in order to solve these design flaws in new innovations. IDEO’s approach also includes seven rules for brainstorming.  These seven rules are: defer judgment, encourage wild ideas, build on the ideas of others, stay focused on the topic, have one conversation at a time, be visual, and go for quantity.

Having had the opportunity to use the IDEO approach in brainstorming and hear about results from observation research, I can honestly say there are many things I like and don’t like about it. In many ways, I see the value in observing ‘extreme users’ because they often have the most to say about your products/tools. They know the ins and outs of the topics/tools you are researching and are the experts of what you are trying to improve.  For example, extreme users of  niche websites have a lot to say about what they do and don’t like about them, whereas those who are just passively browse some websites for information tend to not be so opinionated or well-versed on what our sites do and don’t offer. That being said, studying the extremes doesn’t necessarily serve the core group of users/potential users you are trying to reach.  Extremes may, alternatively, only provide insight for what only a few people are looking for.  For this reason, I think it would be beneficial for “average Joes” or non-extremes to also be observed using the IDEO method so that “normal” behaviors and needs are not ignored.

The seven brainstorming rules are also really effective in producing some great ideas in brainstorming sessions. I think that deferring judgment and being visual are especially effective. IDEO has this general rule not to play devil’s advocate while brainstorming in order to encourage (not discourage) all ideas.  I think this is important when trying to innovate because the best disruptive ideas often come about from ideas that previously seemed — or were deemed — impossible. Representing ideas visually is also effective when trying to innovate because showing (and not merely telling) allows others to gain another perspective on what you trying to say.

Conversely, some good ideas for other projects or other problems can come about during brainstorming sessions for a different problem.  I agree that it is important to stay on topic, but good ideas are dismissed or forgotten when they don’t pertain to the topic at hand. These ideas shouldn’t be missed and there should be a way to incorporate them into the overall flow of a company-wide innovation approach.

While the ‘going for quantity’ allows a lot of idea generating to occur — I’ve always been someone who emphasized quality over quantity.  Just blurting out ideas — no matter how bland or unrelated they may be — may actually be a waste of time and could potentially ‘lower the bar’ or change the course of the brainstorming session. I’m on the fence as to discourage potentially bad ideas from being suggested in a brainstorming session because what constitutes a bad or unrelated idea is very subjective.  For this reason, I don’t think quantity should be discouraged, but rather quality should be emphasized along with quantity. (Obviously) The IDEO brainstorming approach includes rapid brainstorming short sessions (of  up to five minutes) where participants write/draw and share ideas on post-its and post them on a board.  Here, wild ideas and quantity are encouraged but the five-minute deadline disallows ideas from entering the pool of possibilities after the fact.  I think it might be beneficial to include an open submission policy for on-going problem-solving in this approach. (Just because the brainstorming session is over, doesn’t mean the good ideas stop coming)

*DISCLAIMER: My views do not at all represent the views or opinions of the company I work for.

SOME MORE SOURCES ON THE IDEO METHOD:

IDEO Design Thinking Blog: http://designthinking.ideo.com/

IDEO’s Vimeo Channel: http://vimeo.com/ideo

The IDEO Approach. http://www.ideo.com/thinking/approach/

IDEO’s Extreme Customer Experiences: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/04/ideos_extreme_c.html

IDEO’s 7 Rules of Brainstorming: http://www.greenbusinessinnovators.com/7-rules-of-brainstorming-from-ideo

Creative Tools for Innovation – Part I: TRIZ

Posted on by
This is Part I of my two-part series on creative tools for innovation. In these posts, I will attempt to explain two methods used in creative brainstorming for product innovation. Click here to see the second post in this series.

If you’re at all interested or involved in product design, innovation, usability testing or research and development, you likely have a method or have researched methods for brainstorming techniques, testing and solutions.

Last year, my company decided to dedicate its R&D resources to the IDEO method, which I summarize in Part II of this series.  But I wanted to take a look and see what other kind of research tools are used out there.

I found a list out on the interwebs of interesting creative tools used by R&D departments for product development and design and I thought it might be fun to pick one and see what it’s all about.  Here’s the list:

1. Appreciative Inquiry
2. ARIZ (Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving)
3. Art streaming
4. BrainWriting
5. Direct Attention Thinking Tools (DATT)
6. Disney Creative Strategy (e.g., Robert Dilts, 1994)
7. Doodling
8. Dreams
9. Escape Thinking (e.g., Edward DeBono)
10. Excursions
11. Free Association
12. Gallery Method
13. Idea triggers
14. Mind Mapping
15. Napolean Technique
16. Pictures as Idea Triggers
17. Puzzles (e.g., Edward DeBono)
18. RoleStorming
19. Scenario Planning Tools
20. Six Thinking Hats (e.g., Edward DeBono)
21. SuperHeroes
22. Thunderbolt Thinking
23. TRIZ (e.g., Semyon Savransky)
24. Tug-of-War
25. Wishing Technique

Number 23, TRIZ, kind of stood out to me as a funny-sounding acronym I’ve never heard of before. I was intrigued, so I did some digging. Here’s what I found:

Romanized, TRIZ is an acronym in Russian, which translated means the “theory of solving inventor’s problems.”

Developed by Soviet engineer Genrich Altshuller, TRIZ is a human-oriented, knowledge-based systematic methodology for generating innovative ideas and solutions for problem solving. TRIZ specializes in methods for problem formulation, system analysis, failure analysis and system evolution.   Unique to other creative tools and techniques I’ve read about, TRIZ uses an algorithmic approach for inventing new systems and refining old ones. Kind of cool, right?

One of the fundamental TRIZ concepts identified by Altshuller was the idea of the ‘contradiction.’ According to Altshuller, inventive problems stemmed from ‘contradictions’ between one or more elements.

The general idea is that most people believe that solutions come at some cost — the increase in something desirable necessitates the increase of something undesirable.  By eliminating the contradictions inventors are able to innovate. From this idea, Altshuller developed a matrix of contradictions and a set of principles to guide inventors. The matrix is comprised of system features that typically need improvement (for example, speed) and a principle frequently used to solve that contradiction. TRIZ also includes ARIZ (another Russian algorithm, which translated means “Algorithm of Inventive Problems Solving” and includes a list of about 85 step-by-step procedures to solve complicated invention problems.

The TRIZ method appears to be most effective at helping engineers and inventors solve technological problems rather than more abstract ones.  It also appears to be less focused on the how and more focused on solving what the problem or solution is — which for many technological problems, may already be known, but the solution for actually creating the desired result remains unknown. The SU-Field analysis helps to search, select and analyze potential problems and solutions, but based on an algorithm of only a select features, technologies and solutions, the matrix is likely to leave out some possibilities.

Like many of the problems TRIZ aims to solve, it occurred to me while doing extensive research on the methodology of TRIZ, that the framework itself is quite complicated and therefore will take longer and may be more difficult to use than other simplified approaches. Another weakness of TRIZ is that it’s ‘matrix’  and list of methods are meant to be simplified enough so that they may apply to many problems, but may lack specificity enough to cause the inventor to be confused.  The right tool to use may be hard to find among the many generalized options available. Because it is so technical in nature, the TRIZ method would not be ideal for an organization outside of the science/tech/manufacturing fields to use.  A company attempting to reinvent itself, improve its existing non technical products, or focus on human needs is not likely to use TRIZ. But even some companies with generic technical issues may find that TRIZ does not provide specific enough solutions to meet their needs.

To sum TRIZ up, I think that it succeeds conceptually in allowing inventors to isolate their ‘contradicting’ elements in order to improve and reinvent.  However, TRIZ is limited to the matrix of features, systems and solutions provided and by its technical configuration and therefore is not a methodology that can be used by everyone, especially news organizations…

SOURCES ON TRIZ:

“TRIZ.” Wikipedia: 1.29.2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ

Savransky, Semyon D. Engineering of creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000. 22.

There’s also a whole journal on TRIZ I found here: http://www.triz-journal.com/

Augmented Reality Research & Resources

Posted on by

For my case study:  Augmented Reality & Social Interactions: A Case Study on the Effects of Location-based Augmented Reality Applications on Social Interactions, I conducted a lot of research. With a little help from my friends, we came up with a good list of books and resources on augmented reality. I thought I would share them should anyone ever need more background research related to augmented reality and social interactions:

Baron, Naomi.  Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Caudell, T. P.. Introduction to Augmented Reality. SPIE Proceedings Vol. 2351: Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies. 1994.

Feiner, S., H. Fuchs, et al. Mixed Reality: Where Real and Virtual Worlds Meet. Panel for ACM SIGGRAPH’99 Conference, Los Angeles, CA, 1999.

McLuhan, Marhsall. Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

McLuhan, Marshall.  The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man.  Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962.

Stoner, Mark and Sally Perkins.  Making Sense of Messages: A Critical Apprenticeship in Rhetorical Criticism.  New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2004.

Sutter, John.  “New phone apps seeks to ‘augment reality.’” <http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/24/tech.augmented.reality.apps/index.html>.

Tanneeru, Manav. “A new way of looking at the world.” <http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/02/data.viz/index.html>.

Veltman, Kim.  Understanding New Media. 2006.