Why Are We Suddenly So Bad At Predicting the Future?

Imagine that a monkey got into the control room of the universe and spent the year clicking random buttons. Imagine him hopping about on the ‘one musician less’ button, stomping on the ‘auto-destruct’ lever and gurgling while he thumped repeatedly on the ‘introduce chaos’ switch. Close your eyes and picture him dropping a giant poo on the bright red panel marked ‘do not touch under any circumstances’. That my friends is the only way to think about 2016 – after all, it was the year of the monkey in the Chinese zodiac. It was the year when rational thinking took a beating, when meritocracy became a bad word, when liberalism escaped from the battlefield to a cave in the mountains to lick its wounds. And not surprisingly, a year when projections, predictions and polls made as much sense in the real world as an episode of Game of Thrones on steroids.
monkey-prediction
Given much of our lives are spent in productively engaging with the future and making decisions based on big and small decisions about the possible future, this last point is more important than just the schadenfreude of laughing at pollsters and would be intellectuals. The present passes too quickly, so really every decision you’ve ever made in your life is counting on future events to turn out in ways that are favourable. Getting this wrong is therefore injurious to health, to put it mildly. And yet our ability to predict the future has never been under such a cloud in living memory. Why is this so?

Fundamentally, we’re wired to think linearly in time, space and even line of sight. We are taught compound interest but we get it intellectually rather than viscerally. When you first encounter the classic rice grains and chessboard problem, as a smart person, you know that it’ll be a big number, but hand on heart, can you say you got the order of magnitude right? i.e. the total amount of rice on the chessboard would be 10x the world’s rice production of 2010? Approximately 461,168,602,000 metric tons? This problem of compounding of effects is incredibly hard to truly appreciate, even before you start to factor in all the myriad issues that will bump the rate of change up or down, or when the curve hits a point of inflexion. The Bill Gates quote  – ‘we over-estimate the impact of technology in 2 years, and under-estimate the impact over 10’ – is a direct reframing of this inability to think in a compound manner.

Then there’s the matter of space and line of sight. The way the future unfolds is dramatically shaped by network effects. The progress of an idea depends on it’s cross fertilisation across fields, geographies and disciplines, across any number of people, networks and collaborations. These collaborations can be engineered to a point or are the result of fortuitous clustering of minds. In his book ‘Linked’ – Ablert-Lazlo Barabasi talks about the mathematician Erdos who spent his life nomadically, travelling from one associates’ home to another discussing mathematics and ironically, network theory. Not surprisingly, a lifestyle also practiced for many years by a young Bob Dylan, if you substitute mathematics for music. Or consider the story of the serial entrepreneur in Rhineland in the 1400s, as told by Steven Johnson, in ‘Where Good Ideas Come From’. Having failed with a business in mirrors, he was working in the wine industry, where the mechanical pressing of grapes had transformed the economics of winemaking. He took the wine press, and married it with a Chinese invention – movable type, to create the worlds first printing press. His name of course, was Johannes Gutenberg. This kind of leap is not easy to predict, not just for the kind of discontinuity they represent (more on that later), but also because of these networked effects. Our education system blinkers us into compartmentalised thinking which stays with us through our lives. Long ago, a student of my mothers once answered a question about the boiling point of water by saying “in Chemistry, it’s a 100 degrees Centigrade, but in Physics, I’m not sure”. We are trained to be specialists, becoming more and more narrow as we progress through our academic career, ending up more or less as stereotypes of our profession. Yet human progress is driven by thousands of these networked, collaborative, and often serendipitous examples. And we live in a world today with ever expanding connections, so it’s not surprising that we have fallen behind significantly in our ability to understand how the network effects play out.

If you want to study the way we typically make predictions, you should look no further than sport. In the UK, football is a year round sport, so there are games every weekend for 9 months and also mid week for half the year. And with gambling being legal, there is an entire industry around football gambling. Yet, the average punter, fan or journalist makes predictions which are at best wilfully lazy. There is an apocryphal story about our two favourite fictitious sardars – Santa Singh and Banta Singh, who decide to fly a plane. Santa, the pilot, asks Banta, the co-pilot to check if the indicators are working. Banta looks out over the wing and says “yes they are, no they aren’t, yes they are, no they aren’t…” – this is how a lot of predictions are made in the world of premier league football today. Any team that loses 3 games is immediately in a ‘crisis’ while a team that wins a couple of games are deemed to be on their way to glory. Alan Hansen, an otherwise insightful pundit and former great player, will always be remembered for his one comment “You can’t win anything with Kids” – which he made after watching a young Manchester United side lose to Aston Villa in the 1995-96 season. Manchester United of course went on to win the season and dominate the league for the next decade and a half. Nobody predicted a Leicester City win in 2016 of course, but win they did. The continuous and vertiginous increase in TV income for football clubs has led to a relatively more equal playing field when it comes to global scouting networks, so a great player can pop up in any team and surprise the league. Yet we find it hard to ignore all the underlying trends and often find ourselves guilty of treating incidents as trends.

The opposite, is amazingly, also true. We are so caught up with trends that we don’t factor in the kinks in the curve. Or to use Steve Jobs’ phrase – the ding in the universe. You can say that an iPhone like device was sure to come along sooner or later. But given the state of the market – with Nokia’s dominance and 40% global market share, you would have bet your house on Nokia producing the next breakthrough device eventually. Nobody saw the iPhone coming, but when it did it created a discontinuous change that rippled across almost every industry over the next decade. The thing is, we like trends. Trends are rational and they form a kind of reassuring continuity so that events can fit our narratives, which in turn reaffirm our world view. And unless we’re close to the event, or perennial change seekers and nomads ourselves, it’s hard to think of countercyclical events. It’s now easy to see how in 2016 we were so caught up in the narrative of progressive liberalisation and unstoppable path to globalisation, we failed to spot those counter-cyclical events and cues that were right there in our path.

In fact there are any number of cognitive biases we are guilty of – on an everyday basis. This article just lists a dozen of them. My favourites in this list are the confirmation bias and the negativity bias. Both of these are exacerbated by social media and digital media. While social media has led us to the echo-chambers – the hallmarks of 2016, our projection bias is also accentuated by our ability to choose any media we want to consume, in the digital world, where access is the easy part. Similarly, bad news spreads faster on social networks and digital media today than at any time before in history. Is it possible that despite knowing and guarding against these biases in the past, we’ve been caught out by the spikes in the impact and incidence of a couple of these, in the digital environment we live in today?
To be fair, not everybody got everything wrong. Plenty of people I know called the Donald Trump victory early in the game. And amongst others, John Batelle got more than his share of predictions right. There is no reason to believe that 2017 will be any less volatile or unpredictable than 2016, but will our ability to deal with that volatility improve? One of the more cynical tricks of the prediction game is to make lots of predictions at many different occasions. People won’t remember all your bad calls, but you can pick out the ones you got right, at leisure! This is your chance, then, to make your predictions for 2017. Be bold, be counter-cyclical. And shout it out! Don’t be demure. The monkey is history, after all. This is the year of the rooster!
Advertisements

2016/2017 Shifting Battlegrounds and Cautious Predictions for Digital

Innovation slows down in mobile devices but ramps up in bio-engineering. Voice goes mainstream as an interface. Smart environments and under the hood network and toolkit evolution continues apace.

For most people I know, 2016 has ranged between weird and disastrous. But how was it for the evolution of the digital market?

The iPhone lifecycle has arguably defined the current hypergrowth phase of the digital market. So it’s probably a good place to start. In the post Steve Jobs world, it was always going to be a question about how innovative and forward thinking Apple would be. So far, the answer is not very. 2016 was an underwhelming world for iPhone hardware (though Apple has tried harder with MacBooks). Meanwhile, Samsung which you suspect has flourished so far by steadfastly aping Apple, ironically finds itself rudderless after the passing of Steve Jobs. It’s initial attempts at leapfrogging Apple have been nothing short of disastrous with the catastrophic performance of the new inflammable Note phones/ batteries. Google’s Pixel Phone could hardly have been timed better. By all initial accounts (I’m yet to see the phone myself) it’s comparable but not superior to an iPhone 7, Google’s wider range of services and software could help it make inroads into the Apple market. Especially given the overwhelming dominance of Android in the global OS market. The market has also opened up for One Plus, Xaomi and others to challenge for market share even in the west. Overall, I expect the innovation battleground to move away from mobile devices in 2017.

While on digital devices, things have been quite on the Internet of things front. There have been no major IOT consumer grade apps which have taken the world by storm. There have been a few smart home products, but no individual app or product stands out for me. As you’ll see from this list – plenty if ‘interesting…’ but not enough ‘wow’. I was personally impressed by the platform capabilities of enabling IOT applications, form companies such as Salesforce, which allow easy stringing together of logic and events to create IOT experiences, using a low code environment.

AR and VR have collectively been in the news a lot, without actually having breakthrough moment. Thanks to the increasing sophistication of VR apps and interfaces, with Google Cardboard and the steady maturing of the space. But the most exciting and emotive part of AR / VR has been the hololens and holoportation concepts from Microsoft – these are potentially game changing applications if they can be provided at mass scale, at an affordable cost point and if they an enable open standards for 3rd parties to build on and integrate.

Wearables have had a quiet-ish year. Google Glass has been on a hiatus. The Apple Watch is very prominent at Apple stores but not ubiquitous yet. It’s key competitor – Pebble – shut shop this year. Fitbits are now commonplace but hardly revolutionary beyond the increasing levels of fitness consciousness in the world today. There are still no amazing smart t-shirts or trainers.

The most interesting digital device of 2016 though, has been the Amazon Echo. First, it’s a whole new category. It isn’t an adaptation or a next generation of an existing product. It’s a standalone device (or a set of them) that can perform a number of tasks. Second, it’s powered almost entirely by voice commands “Alexa, can you play Winter Wonderland by Bob Dylan?”, third, and interestingly it comes from Amazon, for whom this represents a new foray beyond commerce and content. Echo has the potential to become a very powerful platform for apps that power our lives, and voice may well be the interface of the future. I can see a time the voice recognition platform of Echo (or other similar devices) may be used for identity and security, replace phone conversations, or also become a powerful tool for healthcare and providing support for the elderly.

Behind the scenes through there have been plenty of action over the year. AI has been a steady winner in 2016. IBM’s Watson added a feather to it’s cap by creating a movie trailer. But away from the spotlight, it has been working on gene research, making cars safer, and even helping fight cancer. But equally, open source software and the stuff that goes behind the websites and services we use every day have grown in leaps and bounds. Containerisation and Docker may not be everybody’s cup of tea but ask any developer about Docker and watch them go misty eyed. The evolution of micro services architecture and the maturing of APIs are also contributing to the seamless service delivery that we take for granted when we connect disparate services and providers together to order Uber cabs via the Amazon Echo, or use clever service integrators like Zapier

All of this is held together by increasing focus on design thinking which ensures that technology for the sake of tech does not lead us down blind alleys. Design thinking is definitely enjoying its moment in the sun. But I was also impressed by this video by Erika Hall that urges us to go beyond just asking users or observing them, and being additionally driven by a goal and philosophy.

2016 has also seen the fall of a few icons. Marisa Meyers has had a year to forget, at Yahoo. Others who we wanted to succeed but who turned out to have feet of clay, included Elizabeth Holmes at Theranos, and the continued signs of systemic ethical failure at Volkswagen. I further see 2016 as the year when external hard drives will become pointless. As wifi gets better, and cloud services get more reliable, our need to have a local back up will vanish. Especially as most external drives tend to underperform over a 3-5 year period. Of course, 2016 was the year of the echo-chamber – a reminder that social media left to itself insulates us from reality. It was a year when we were our worst enemies. Even through it was the Russians who ‘Hacked’ the US elections and the encryption debate raged on.

One of the most interesting talks I attended this year was as the IIM Alumnus meeting in London, where a senior scientist from GSK talked about their alternative approach to tackling long term conditions. This research initiative is eschewing the traditional ‘chemical’ based approach which works on the basis that the whole body gets exposed to the medication but only the targeted organ responds. This is a ‘blunt instrument’. Instead, the new approach takes an ‘bio-electronic’ approach. Galvani Bioelectronics, set up in partnership with Alphabet will use an electronic approach to target individual nerves and control the impulses they send to the affected organ, say the pancreas, for diabetes patients. This will be done through nanotechnology and by inserting a ‘rice grain’ sized chip via keyhole surgery. A successful administration of this medicine will ensure that the patient no longer has to worry about taking pills on time, or even monitoring the insulin levels, as the nano-device will do both and send results to an external database.

Biotech apart, it was a year when Google continued to reorganise itself around Alphabet. When Twitter found itself with it’s back to the wall. When Apple pondered about life beyond Jobs. Microsoft emerged from it’s ashes, and when Amazon grew ever stronger. As we step into 2017, I find it amazing that there are driverless cars now driving about on the roads, in at least one city, albeit still in testing. That we are on the verge of re-engineering the human body and brain. I have been to any number of awesome conferences and the question that always strikes me is, why aren’t we focusing our best brains and keenest technology on the worlds greatest problems. And I’m hopeful that 2017 will see this come to fruition in ways we can’t even imagine yet.

Here are 5 predictions for 2017. (Or around this time next year, more egg on my face!)

  • Apple needs some magic – where will they find it from? They haven’t set the world alight with the watch or the phone in 2016. The new MacBook Pro has some interesting features, but not world beaters yet. There are rumblings about cars, but it feels like Apple’s innovation now comes from software rather than hardware. I’m not expecting a path breaking new product from Apple but I’m expecting them to become stronger on platforms – including HomeKit, HealthKit and to seeing much more of Apple in the workplace.
  • Microsoft has a potential diamond in LinkedIn, if it can get the platform reorganised to drive more value for its, beyond job searches. Multi-layered network management, publishing sophistication, and tighter integration with the digital workplace is an obvious starting point. Microsoft has a spotted history of acquisitions, but there’s real value here, and I’m hoping Microsoft can get this right. Talking about Microsoft, I expect more excitement around Hololens and VR based communication.
  • I definitely expect more from Amazon and for the industry to collectively start recognising Amazon as an Innovation leader and held in the same esteem as Apple and Google. Although, like Apple, Amazon will at some point need stars beyond Bezos and a succession plan.
  • Healthcare, biotechnology, genetics – I expect this broad area of human-technology to get a lot of focus in 2017 and I’m hoping to see a lot more news and breakthroughs in how we engineer ourselves.
  • As a recent convert, I’m probably guilty of a lot of bias when I pump for voice. Recency effect, self referencing, emotional response over rational – yes all of the above. Voice is definitely going to be a big part of the interface mix going forward. In 2017, I see voice becoming much more central to the interface and apps planning. How long before we can bank via Amazon Echo?

Happy 2017!

3 Easy Ways to Boost Your Mobile Strategy

mobile-app

 

It’s 2016 and almost a decade since Steve Jobs put a ding in the universe with the launch of the first iPhone. A significant part of my life in that time has been spent in delivering better business outcomes using mobile technologies. And as the iPhone 7 blinks it’s baby eyes at the world, here are some of the things I’ve learnt about mobile strategies. (If you’re wondering whether business should have a mobile strategy or just a business strategy, let me just suggest that you need to have a clear roadmap and strategy for how you’re going to exploit the mobile ecosystem. What you call it is up to you!). Assuming you are a progressive organisation, I would expect to see the following three things happening in your business:

It’s NOT a marketing problem: There has been a historical tendency to look towards the CMO when we think about mobile solutions. But people who make the investment of effort, time and attention, to download the your app are usually your existing customers, looking to make it easier to deal with you. These are the also committed customers who are self-selecting and need to be recognized and rewarded. This goes to the heart of your customer retention, cross & upsell and will directly impact your cost of servicing customers. When I was working for a major European airport we knew that the airport didn’t have a direct relationship with travellers, nor much data about the millions of people using the airport, yet there was a prevailing school of thought that the mobile website was good enough, and there was no business case for upgrading the mobile app. For any frequent user of a service, logging into a website every time is a nightmare. This is an operational and cost of servicing issue. Customer experience, after all, is a COO problem really. This is even more true as employee apps take centre stage. So if your COO and head of Channels aren’t involved and sponsoring your mobile strategy it might be time to rethink.

The New New Stack: A Whole New Architecture: In the last few years there have been a very quick turnover of the preferred ways for building mobile apps. You only have to look at the rate of change of Gartner terminology – from MCAP to MEAP to MADP as the flavour of the month. Cut to today and none of those are preferred options anymore. The axis has shifted again. Most apps are being built today on light-weight front-end tools involving some flavour of Angular with loose coupling to the back end via APIs. A word on API management is worthwhile here. As a manager, you don’t need to know about SOAP or REST but think about this as a much more modular setup, where the API layer simply pushes information out in a governed manner to whichever channel requires it – be it the mobile app, the website or a partner.

To get a sense of how valuable the API layer has become consider that Apigee have recently been bought by Google. Mashery, another API management platform was first bought by Intel and then acquired from Intel by Tibco. Other majors including IBM and CA have their own solutions in the space. APIs themselves are not new but the way they are written now and the platform through which they are managed and governed are relatively new and you’re missing a trick if your business lacks an API strategy.

There are also a number of low-code or no-code platforms. Fliplet, for example, allows you to build simple, and functional mobile apps with little or no coding. Of course, this doesn’t include scenarios where you need to connect to other systems or consume APIs. But even those can be added with relatively low effort. In the Business to Employee world which is defined by a number of micro-applications, this is a very good option.

Exploit New Behaviours: New Technologies often engender new behaviours. Probably one of the most salient in recent times is the swipe left/ swipe right behaviour that was made popular by dating apps like Tinder. Understanding these behaviour patterns and using them is key to reducing friction for your processes. Another new ‘behaviour’ is the mobile only customer behaviour – i.e. somebody who would rather transact only on the mobile device. Uber is a very good example of how massive this can be, but you will definitely see customers in future at both ends of the age spectrum, whose only device is a mobile device rather than a laptop.

What new behaviours will we become used to over the next 5 years? Will it be the invisible payment mode of Uber? The voice interface of Amazon Echo/ Alexa? Or will we find more ways of self-quantification for our personal and professional lives? The good news is that you don’t have to create new behaviours. You just need to keep abreast of them and ensure you’re able to exploit them.

Meet The New Consumer

New consumer

The word revolution is overused, but in the past five odd years, there has been a significant change in how customers engage with products and service providers. Thanks to a combination of technologies, the consumer of 2015 is vastly different from 2010.

Let’s look at 6 specific points of change, which will reshape how you need to engage with consumers today.


The Encyclopaedia Effect: The Consumer Knows More
When a customer walks into a TV showroom today, the smart money is on the probability that he or she knows more about the product than the person behind the counter. In part this is exacerbated by the high turnaround and relative inexperience of shop floor staff, but also because consumers today have all the means and have learnt to thoroughly research their purchase – including features, price comparisons, technologies, accessories and performance. Contributing to this is the ease of garnering information via social media.

How ready are you to deal with this consumer? If you’re a retailer, is this a nightmare scenario or are you able to use this to your advantage? Do you arm your shop floor staff with information? Do you enable consumers to do their own research in the store? Do you provide enough authentic information out there for consumers – so they can trust your information?

In many ways, this puts the onus back squarely on the product or service delivery. You can no longer paper over the inferiority of your products through better marketing or better sales. This is a wake up call for product development and service design people. Get it right or you will be found out.

BYOW: Bring Your Own Web

When I last bought an airline ticket from Pune to Chennai in India, I asked the question on facebook about whether I should fly Airline X who had recently had some bad press and I wanted to check if it was a good idea to fly with them. About twenty people responded. Eighteen said it was a really bad idea (one person was being ironic and one was professionally involved with the airline). I was able to make a decision based on a cumulative 5 minutes of research.

It’s the internet to go. It’s carrying wikipedia, amazon, google and the the world’s product databases in your pocket. Earlier, the physical world and the digital world were distinct. You did your comparison shopping on the web and then took a print out to the store. Now you take the web with you to the store. You scan items with your phone and price compare then and there. Or pull up reviews

and product comparisons. Or check calorific values and nutritional advice. This is not a small evolutionary change. It is game changing.

We know that the mobile phone has already in larger or smaller measures replaced wrist watches, calculators, sat-navs & maps, time-tables and a host of other products. Even a spirit level, if you’re into DIY. But it’s ability to tap into the www wherever and whenever you like is arguably its killer app.

And what about your consumer? What is she checking for while selecting your product? Are you making it easier to find that information? Are you enabling or constricting this behaviour? Does your sales process factor in the always addressable consumer?

Generation M: Beyond Millenials

You’ve probably become accustomed to classifying yourself as a digital immigrant or a digital native. Maybe your kidds are the natives in your household. The “digital generation” aren’t even a homogenous group any more. The internet generation is a different breed from the mobile generation.

The mobile generation, or as Tammy Erickson calls it in this HBR article, the Re-Generation, was born around 1995 or later, is the generation that wants to swipe every screen they come across, and expects to be on multiple screens at the same time. This generation is all about expectations of connectivity, and being willing participants in solving issues – digital activists or at least aware of their role and influence by the virtue of a simple “like”.

If we are to go with this classification, this generation is about to enter the work force, armed with the ability to touch-text like their parents could touch-type. This generation can start a flash mob or, unfortunately, a riot from their hand held devices.

If you’ve been thinking about the “mobile-first” mantra – this is probably the generation of users it is critical for. Expect your first point of contact with consumers from this generation to be on the mobile device. Maybe even a significant part of all your interactions will be on the device. 

Perhaps it’s time to start thinking beyond mobile-first, to mobile-only. How geared up for you for this mobile-only relationship?

The Shazam Effect: Telescoping AIDA

Back then (10 years ago), you heard a song, you tried to find out what it was, maybe you heard it again, then on the radio. Somebody told you what the song was if you were able to hum it. Or you searched the lyrics on the internet. You went to the music store / Amazon and bought the cd, if it was worth the £7.99, or whatever the arbitrary price point for the cd was.

Now you hear and like a song that you’ve never heard before, you “Shazam” it, and it tells you the song, artist, and offers you the chance to buy it with a single click off itunes. In 30 seconds, from never having heard the song, you now own it.

This telescoping of the traditional “AIDA” marketing and sales cycle is what the mobile world is accelerating. Real time is in. Waiting is out. Consumers are starting to expect this in more and more areas. Whether its your bank account or your energy bill, or an itemized break up of your estimate for fitting out a new nursery, there is an increased expectation to make it available now.

How real time is your business? How long do customers have to wait for information about your products and services? How much self service do you enable in the information buffet?


The Interface is Dead: Long Live The Interface

We’ve argued about multi-screens, second-screens and even third screens, but what is happening now, is much more amorphous. The screen is vanishing, yet it’s everywhere. On your watch, in your line of sight from a wearable frame, on your shoes and in your car. In fact, sometimes it’s not a screen at all, just a natural interface. Think of Nest, or Amazon Echo, and it’s not a screen that comes to mind, is it? And once we get into the internet of things, the environment will be one giant interface.

With both computing and interfaces becoming much more amorphous, you and your consumer will always be connected in multiple ways. Are you ready for this kind of commitment?

Federated Identities

The two biggest challenges historically, used to be creating a single view of consumer data and marketing to a segment of one. Today, both are addressable with current technology. This project from Metlife, US is a great example of the former, and Amazon, Apple and Google all do a good job of the latter. The conceptual battle ground has moved. What’s even more granular than the individual? Federated identities.

Your customer in her office and your customer at the park with her kids are not really the same persona. Her needs are different, different receptors are at work, her emotional states are different. How can you tailor the messaging to this kind of contextual personas which are segments of an individual? This is very relevant if we’re going to talk about real time and always connected consumers. You have to model the different personas within a single person, based on context. This is your next assignment, should you accept it.

In Conclusion

These categories are just useful labels to stick onto a wide set of complex and ongoing changes. The journey isn’t over yet, but already, not recognising and adapting to these changes could mean that you are out of step with the consumer of today.

Simplicity – A Very Complex Problem

The holy grail of almost every product and service is simplicity. After all, nobody sets out to create a complicated product. But with digital success so squarely predicated on  engagement and user experience, simplicity has evolved from being an unstated philosophy to a raucous war-cry, uttered often and fervently in board-rooms and product meetings, and KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) signs adorning complex project plans. 

Yet, simplicity remains a fiendishly complex challenge. 

Simplicity is a loaded term, it typically refers to things which are basic, or easy to use, or intuitive. It can be interpreted as doing things that bring calmness. In the Indian epic Mahabharata, Judhishtir was so named because he could be calm, in battle. We are usually able to point to examples of simplicity. Whether it’s a home-cooked meal, or the joy of a sunset, our favourite beverage consumed in our favourite chair. The consensus for simplicity in products, tends to be towards intuitiveness. Something that does not require education, training or a manual for example, the Nokia phones and an the iPhone, both in their way wonderfully intuitive. The power of simplicity is also obvious. Simplicity drives acceptance and adoption. It is the reason why soccer is the worlds favourite game, or why the world wide web is indeed world-wide. Simplicity for many people is a deeply held philosophy. For some it is typified by a child like state. 

One might argue that simplicity is born, not created. Some people have a great ability to make things appear incredibly simple. Listen to Alex Fergusson speak about football strategy and tactics, and it will seem like anybody could have done it. And yet, he stands ruthlessly alone in his decades-long and consistent success as a football manager. Closer to home, one of my closest friends from childhood, Kabir, is a well respected and successful leader in the retail industry in India. There are two things I will always remember about Kabir. Almost 20 years ago, when he was a middle manager, handling a menswear category, I asked him why he didn’t stock shoes in his store and he said there was too little return per square-foot of space, where space is the most expensive part of retail, in India. I used to tease him about his fascination about returns per square foot but he had already drilled down to the nub of the problem. The other vivid memory from about the same time, was walking into his office and seeing his desk, an expanse of table surface with nothing but a desk-phone. For somebody like me, who lives and works in perma-clutter, this has always been a utopean and other-worldly fantasy. We see examples of simplicity all around us – Steve Jobs famously had a home environment that embodied simplicity. Mark Zuckerberg’s wardrobe rationale is now well known. Living simple clearly has a contribution to make to your output. But those who can simplify effectively often are seemingly able to reach a higher plane of thinking about a problem. 

Some people naturally simplify, some don’t analyse it, but can go with the flow, for some it’s not desirable – simplicity isn’t a universal desire. It’s not a panacea. But clearly it only makes sense in context. Hence, like beauty, it depends on the eye of the beholder. It may be contextual – if you give a hunter-gatherer a plough, she may not know what to make of it. To a farmer, it may be intuitive. It stands to reason therefore that to design something simple you must be able to see it from the users frame of reference, and appreciate his or her skill and capability. It also means that a way of solving complex problems is to change the frame of reference. Not surprisingly, some of the quoted methods involve asking ‘what would a child do?’ or ‘what would granny do?’. Seen this way, simplicity implies a kind of innocence. A happy naïveté even. Einstein’s warning is probably relevant here. “You must make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Over-simplification is a trap to avoid – lest you bore the user. And of course, when your toddler son or daughter asks you how babies are made, you  are caught in the very vortex of the problem of simplification. 

There are probably tomes of scientific papers dealing with simplicity and complexity. Daniel Kahneman’s System 1 thinking is an obvious surrogate for simplicity. The purpose of this post is not to delve into the scientific understanding of how we deal with simplicity, although it would probably be a useful perspective to add. 

The problem is, while many of know how we would define it, and almost all of us would recognize it if we saw it, very few are able to find the path to it. And yet, simplicity is as much a journey as a destination. 

The next time, when you switch on your TV set at the end of a long week and settle in to watch a primetime show on Saturday night, maybe the next series of Breaking Bad, all you’ll need to do is switch on the TV, the set top box, and find the right channel. But for the broadcaster, the process may have started almost a year before. In fact considering the complexity of a broadcast operation – including all the scheduling, planning, program acquisition, ad-sales operations, the movement of physical and digital media, transcoding, automation and transmission, compliance and legal and other areas, it is an everyday miracle that you switch the TV on and there’s something there to watch. (And this is without even considering the effort and challenge of producing the show, manufacturing the TV set and getting the signal into your living room). 

Think of some of your other simple examples – withdrawing money from an ATM, receiving the newspaper at your door in the morning, turning the ignition key in your car; each of these and a hundred more simple tasks often mask an ocean of complexity that goes on unnoticed behind the scenes. This is the first lesson of simplicity. Often, to make something simple, especially for an end user of a product or process, you have to take on and resolve an enormous amount of complexity. Personally speaking, nothing annoys me more than managers who cut short a discussion around a problem by claiming the faux high-ground of simplicity. Complexity doesn’t vanish, it gets resolved, in great detail, by somebody else, and kept under the hood, so you can just turn a key or press a button to start a car. 

In the lives we live today, simplicity is often reductive – it involves removing the noise and complexity. Very rarely is our starting point for anything we’re trying to design, simple. We need to untangle, and even unlearn. And more often than not, it’s a journey. A sentiment echoed by a lot people who responded to my request for interpreting the term. Achieving simplicity is therefore, anything but simple. Especially so, for an organisation or a group, rather than an individual. It therefore involves the mastery of concepts such as minimalism, essentialism or lean. In each of these, we are trained to take Occam’s razor to a problem space. But it can take years of experience to arrive at a state where the eye can spot the waste and the extraneous. The second great lesson of simplicity therefore is the wisdom of spotting the signal in a sea of noise. Or conversely, identifying the waste from the core. This is as true of everyday life, as it is of product design. 

Identifying the waste is just a part of the problem. Sometimes, the far greater challenge is the choice making. To deliver the shiny elegance that is the iPhone, Steve Jobs & co had to make some pretty big choices. An obvious one amongst them being the complete inability of the user to add memory, or change the battery of the phone. Features as core to a phone, you might think, as a leg, to a table. And yet, this was the stark choice exercised by Apple. When was the last time you let go of something significant, to achieve simplicity? 

There are some very successful digital platforms and products out there who owe their success at least to a significant part to their simplicity. Off the top of my head, I can think of Dropbox, Evernote, Trello, and Spotify as some of the highly popular and simple products. The bar for simplicity can often be reset. Salesforce.com is a platform which has succeeded because it greatly simplified the sales management process, but today, if you look at tools like Pipedrive, they make salesforce look like the older, complex model. Remember Einstein’s wisdom about ’no simpler’ – and yet, this can be redefined and barriers can be broken. The journey is the point. 

You only have to look at some of the most successful products, apps and websites to understand how visually simplicity works. From fonts and colours, to choices and tasks, there is now as much science as art to creating the intuitive usability in products that we all crave. But of course, simplicity does not start and end on the screen, it needs to be carried through a range of interactions and experiences. Is it simple to speak with somebody on the phone? Is it simple to return goods? Pay a bill? Find information? Upgrade? Downgrade? And remember for each of these, the simpler you make it, the more complex it often is, behind the scenes. 

A part of the problem is that there is no formula. Most people tend to view simplification as decluttering, removal, or reduction to the basics or essentials. Yet, while this idea is by itself appealing, there are times when simplicity may come through synthesis. Remember the story about the blind men and the elephant. Or imagine trying to describe a car by it’s components. Sometimes simplicity comes from the whole, rather than the parts. Focusing on the whole provides clarity of thought. 

And then there’s the problem of time. What starts of as simple invariably grows complex. Just look at the number of sects of any major religion. Or consider Twitter – from the idea of creating a simple 140 character update, an entirely new language, syntax and ontology of acronyms has risen. Reading a tweet is anything but simple today. It is human nature to complicate, it seems, so the yin and yang of simplicity and complexity must coexist, over time. 

The bottom line is, whether you treat simplicity as a philosophical foundation of your life, or a professional preference, and whether it manifests in your relationships or your products, its clear that you may need to treat it as a series of simplifications and pay as much attention to the process as the outcome. And the journey may be far from easy, and paved with false results. After all, as HL Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”. 

5 Challenges for Marketing In the 21st Century

Attention Deficiency
 
 
First there were letters, then came emails, then text messages and twitter. Our patience for longer communication has dwindled both as senders and receivers. Newspapers and long opeds have given way to snappy blogs and bullet point memos. Videos have replaced text, and short videos have replaced the longer formats. You get the gist – we are increasingly in an attention starved economy. 
 
Attention is fragmented, fleeting, and in generally small supply. Hyperactivity has been known medical problem for ages, but it was in the 1980’s that the condition was prefixed with “attention”.  The double whammy here is that even as attention grows more precious, the volume of noise keeps going up, so finding the signal becomes even harder. So what little attention we have, we must guard zealously. 
 
This is marketings first big problem. Marketing and advertising, as we know it today, is a hundred years old. It is no longer fit for purpose. Creativity in capturing attention still gets headlines, and this won’t change, but the goalposts are shifting constantly and the new rules are yet to be written. 
 
Google adwords seemed to provide some answers, but I think that our general mistrust of marketing messages cripples the value of adwords. We have all become experts in tuning out ads. Banners on pages, full page spreads in magazines, spots on television (usually coinciding with tea-making or a trip to the toilet), or ebook ads in Kindle magazines which you flip through with barely a thought. 
 
As a marketer therefore, your first challenge is getting through the noise, the fragmentation and ephimerality of messages, and actually register on the audiences attention span, without spending a kings ransom in the process. Especially if you’re not an already established and known brand. 
 
Every once in a while I notice a piece of marketing communication for a product that I’ve never heard of. But it’s almost always in a category I’m already interested in, and often filtered via friends feeds (FB/ Twitter etc.). I signed up for Carbonite, the online data back up service after I heard their ‘ad’ on a podcast – it wasn’t a traditional ad but the host of the talk show talking through the benefits of the product in a related category to the ongoing discussion. This morning I watched an interesting and interactive Honda ad because somebody posted it on Facebook. The last time I was actually influenced by a TV ad was …  er… I don’t remember really. 
 
Wanted: Action
 
Let’s assume you’ve actually solved the first problem. So you have my attention – perhaps for 15 seconds. Perhaps even 30. The next challenge is getting to action. What are you going to motivate me to do?
 
Historically, advertising and marketing spends have fallen into clear categories – strategic or branding type communication, intended to create a longer term desire; and short term tactical spends, intended to create an immediate sales boost. The latter typically comprising offers, coupons, and other enticement to act now. 
 
The first problem here, is that in the attention deficiency model, everything is about NOW. It’s either now, or it’s gone. (I’m stretching the point here, but this is generally the trend). If I’m not in the market for a car, you’re wonderful car advert is not likely to register beyond a point. Because I know that when I do want to buy a car, all the information in the world will be available. 
 
I’ve written before about the telescoping of the AIDA cycle. Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action – the 4 stages of classic marketing & sales. I call it the “Shazaam” effect, after the app. From never having hear a song, we can now hear it, like it, identify it, want it and actually own and download it in about two minutes. This process in the past, woud require you to hearing the song on the radio, finding out the name, going to the store, deciding if you really wanted to spend money on the whole album, listening to the other tracks, and finally taking the plunge. On average that could be weeks if not months, with a high probability of dropping out of the process altogether. It’s not just digital goods, you could pass a shop window, like an item, check it out online with your phone and order it – again, the process would take a few minutes, if the retailer made it easy to do this. 
 
Most ads today do not have a compelling call to action. This doesn’t necessarily have to be an action to buy, it could be an action to save, highlight, wishlist or read later. Most digital publications allow you to do this with your content. Why not with your ads? Why can’t I click on a car ad and save it for later, because I do want to buy it next year, but this model looks interesting. Or tag the ad? All of this is for enabling future searchability. 
 
The other implication of this is that the secret sauce for advertising and marketing messages may well be getting your attention when you’re looking to buy the product. Not dissimilar to point of sale advertising, but more like point of time advertising. This is all about context. It involves being able to pick up on cues based on opt-in analytics that allow me to tell you about a cycle when you’re looking for a cycle. Sadly, what we have today is that when you search for a cycle, you are guaranteed to see cycle ads for the next 4-6 weeks, even though you bought the cycle in week 2. It’s a blunt weapon that needs a lot more finesse, though it’s probably heading in the right direction. The problem  is that I tell Google that I’m looking for a cycle, but I tend to tell Facebook about my adventures on the bike. May be sharing my ride pictures on Google plus is a good way of telling google to stop selling me cycles. 
 
Media vs The Message 
 
The media industry is probably the hardest hit by these technologies. Audience fragmentation, disintermediation and ever lower barriers to entry have caused havoc in the business. The television industry would have us believe that people still watch as much TV but I would suggest that the quality of viewing is dramatically lower, i.e. it shares your attention with your smartphone and your other chores, and in many instances has become a truly passive experience. Which is bad news for brands and advertisers looking to grab your attention. Newspapers have also down and out and the few who have successful digital editions are enjoying a new life, but advertising models continue to be experimental and much less lucrative. Google adwords have been a moderate success in terms of click throughs and paying for results, but it’s not the answer to all marketing problems. 
 
From a marketers’ perspective, the gravy train has vanished. There was a simple equation – you spent your money, you got onto the most popular TV shows or major newspapers’ front pages and you could launch a product nationally and get decent outcomes. Today’s marketing manager has to consider direct (website/ app) vs indirect channels; digital vs traditional media; multiple options within digital media including banners, innovative banners (with video, for example), ad-words, SEO, and a host of new options such as ambient screens, and digital point of sale. You also have to worry about attribution modelling and manage your spends in near real time. Agencies are starting to make money of trading desks, using algorithms not dissimilar to share trading. 
 
Increasingly the smarter brands have tried to make their message the story, rather than an interruption. Coke, Dove,  and Red Bull are brands that have tried to do this. 
 
 
Morphing Aspirations 
 
It’s also worth asking the question – how have our aspirations changed? In the increasingly global and multi-cultural world, there is a certain level of fragmentation of aspirations too. Only 44.9% of London’s population is white British. Even in 2007 there were apparently over 50 non-indegenous communities with over 10,000 population each. 
 
The implication of this is obvious – as populations go less homogenous, so their aspirations, needs, habits and buying cues. Everybody knows the story of the 2 elderly white men both rich, born in 1948 married twice, holiday in the alps and fond of dogs. One is Prince Charles, the other is Ozzy Osbourne. How then do you attract the housewife of Indian origin who loves popular psychology, with the rock climbing single hungarian girl who wants to work for the police? Both of them may be  24, female, living on in the same post code and searching for psychology in Google. 
 
The challenge is not just analysing and deciphering these ambitions, it’s the need to deal with such a vastly diverse array of ambitions. And ambitions that will themselves morph and blend in cultural melting pots. How do you sell an aspirational product when there is no consistency of aspirations, without boiling it down to economic ambition as a lowest common denominator?
 
 
Trust Erosion
 
Who do we trust? Not the government, not large enterprises, not banks or telcos, and not Google or Facebook. Yet. we trust the feedback of strangers on recommendation websites. However, you still wouldn’t trust a random stranger to provide you with broadband services, find stuff on the internet quickly, or hold your savings for you. Trust therefore has many facets. One of them is competence, another is ethical. In earlier (and perhaps more naive) times, we tended to combine them. Now, with the free flow of information we know better. 
 
Opinion may vary about the competence of banks, but you would still trust the bank with your money because they have demonstrable competence. Also because they are regulated. So while we don’t trust governments or banks, we may find that the combination provides us a trustworthy outcome. 
 
Why is this important to marketing? Well primarily because trust is the basic currency of all communication, and consequently, for brand creation. Without it, you may as well flush your money down the toilet. So the question then is do your customers trust you? And how do you establish and build this trust? And given that we live in a low-trust environment, this may be the first and most important bridge to build. 
 
 
A Quick Checklist 
  • Make the message the story. 
  • Be contextual in the positioning of your message 
  • Create actions in your messages – not just ‘buy’ actions 
  • Understand aspirations from a cross cultural perspective
  • Own your communication and include direct to customer channels 
  • Build a strong trust bridge before sending the marketing cavalry across it

Enterprise Mobility: 10 Lessons From The Last Three Years

From August 2011 to August 2014, I spent 3 years building up Cognizant’s mobile practice from scratch in Europe. Together with my colleagues we learnt a very large number of lessons, many of them the hard way – still have the scars to show for it! During this time, globally, we worked with an ever increasing array of clients, projects, partners, and challenges. From this collective gold-mine of experience, I’m distilling 10 key learnings. The number 10 here is arbitrary and could easily be 15 or 20. But here are my top 10. 

 

Worth mentioning, these learnings are not about how to build apps or solve technical issues, but about how Enterprises go about embracing mobility. 

 

1. The App Launch Is The Start, Not The End of the Journey 

 

Too many businesses bring out the champagne when the app hits the App Store, as though the job is done. This is a bit like an F1 team heading off to the pub after getting the car to the start line of the race. The real work may just be beginning. Especially if you’re focused on the actual business outcome and not just taking a narrow ‘IT approach’.  

 

Even if you just wanted to get the app launched, you would still be advised to wait for at least version 3. Invariably, the version 1.0 of the app will have a ton of assumptions or choices which will not withstand contact with reality. Often after a couple of iterations these have been weeded out, so you’re approaching stability by Version 3. 

 

In any case though, this is just getting to the races, as I mentioned earlier. You still have to do run the race – i.e. deliver the business outcome and program. Having a clear set of milestones around business objectives will enable you to think beyond the launch of the app. 

 

One of our clients had plenty of anectodal evidence about how the app was doing but it wasn’t something they were tracking any more. Consequently, they always found it hard to fund projects. Another client revised the application through the year continuously making changes and improving the user experience. Not only did the app do very well, but it created a tremendous business impact as well. 

 

 

2. Analytics Canot Be An Afterthought 

 

I once met a CIO who had to keep pointing to app-store ratings while presenting the mobile updates to his board, but still didn’t have analytics embedded in his app.

 

Everybody agrees the value of analytics and it’s role in the lifecycle of the mobile app. But all the head-nodding that goes on at the early stages of discussions doesn’t usually translate to actual investment of time, effort and money to baking in an analytics model into the early stages of the app. All too often, its treated as something that’s really important but ‘we’ll come back and fix this in the next version’. The next version never arrives, as you well know, for a lot of apps. 

 

The huge logical fallacy here is also, of course, that we will magically know what needs to be changed in version 2.0 or that we will be working off a frozen product roadmap, with no thought to what people are actually doing. 

 

The right way to do this is to think about the key assumptions that your app depends on (e.g. ‘users will check the app outside the home’) and build in data collection and analysis models that validate or disprove these assumptions. The latter is more critical to the improvement of the app obviously. 

 

 

3. Governance May Be More Urgent Than Strategy 

 

This is a very bold statement, but bear with me here. 

 

For many businesses there is a massive opportunity and innumerable opportunities to deploy mobile solutions. Trying to corral all of these into some sort of master-plan may be both unfeasible and counter-productive. And in most businesses, nobody is waiting for the strategy. As the saying goes, anybody in middle management with a budget is building a mobile app. 

 

There is a debate to be had about what exactly a mobile strategy implies. But given this situation, a more urgent need, usually, is to create a governance model around the dozens of apps being built right now, in your business, by big and small providers, and in very disparate environments. The governance process needs to define methodolgies, processes, gates and frameworks – around those aspects, such as security or middleware which will form the basis of your enteprise mobility strategy. 

 

The likely scenario is that all these apps will need to be integrated, maintained and enhanced. And the only way to do this with any control of costs and complexity is to ensure they follow published guidelines, no matter who builds them. 

 

I’ve met companies who have built over a hundred apps. They no longer have any control or even track of all the apps built, the amounts of money spent or what it is costing them to manage these apps, annually. There doesn’t seem to be any point taking about strategy in this situation. 

 

 

4. Structure Around MCOE To Get The Best of Biz & Tech  

 

The oldest truism in IT is that business and IT have to work hand in glove to ensure success. Yet, when it comes to Mobility, this is probably even more true, and very rarely followed.

 

The reason it’s more critical, is that mobility is a highly consumerised technology, in a nascent stage of maturity and lacks the standardized business case references of more mature technologies, with huge opportunities for specific innovations. A major airline we spoke with explained that converting a bunch of paper based manuals (which had to be mandatory carried on all flights) into iPads meant that the fuel savings across flights could more than pay for devices for the whole company. 

 

And the reason it’s rarely followed, is that there is also no clear standard for how mobility should be structured. In some businesses it’s a part of an omnichannel strategy. For others it’s driven by IT. For still others, it’s part of the innovations group. And others follow a bit of each. Often, Enterprise Mobility is owned by whoever has been brave enough to volunteer for the job. This is much more a marketing challenge than an tech problem. 

 

In the absence of a clear hierarchy, the MCOE is often a very good way to get the key people into the core thinking group. End user computing, IT and applications, security and compliance, marketing, line of business managers and HR and internal comms – all of these teams could potentially have a seat in the MCOE, in addition to architects and vendor managers. 

 

Analyst firms such as Gartner have argued that establishing the MCOE is the most important piece of your strategy. I would definitely agree that it’s a critical structure to put in place for the next 3 years, at least two of our global clients are well down the way towards establishing a Mobile COE. 

 

 

5. User Centred Engagement Redesign – It’s Harder Than It Sounds

 

There are two premises which put mobility projects completely outside the comfort zone of IT. They involve Engagement Redesign and User Centred Development. 

 

Traditional IT has usually put the application complexity front and centre. Large amounts of information being stored, retrieved and used by users who are themselves multi-tasking. The PC era has lasted for some twenty years and even on the web, much of the engagement has been PC led. Suddenly we are forced into a rethink. People aren’t coming to the website. They are engaging with you on social platforms, apps, or other new ways. The digital world is blending with the physical world. The problem is no longer about how to put all the information in front of the user, it’s actually how to get the user to stay engaged. Not just how, but why? And there is a great upheaval in progress that traditional IT has never had to deal with. 

 

The sharp end of this change, is the user centric development approach. The combination of consumer-grade technology and experiences, the shift towards engagement centric applications and focus on simplicity means that the entire development approach needs to be modelled around the user. This is not the black magic of ‘creative’ work, but the scientific application of service and product design principles, and ensuring that the user experience is what drives the features and app functionality. 

 

All of this makes it incredibly hard to reconcile this with traditional IT approaches. Be prepared to rethink a lot of stuff, if you’re invested in traditional IT processes. This is why so many businesses are still trying to work with digital agencies as well as systems integrators, to bring these worlds together. 

 

 

6. Mobile Strategy – Riding The Penny Farthing?  

 

All of this is not to say that strategy doesn’t count; it does. The question though, is: what exactly is strategic in this space? 

 

The biggest challenge that we’ve seen is what I would call the penny-farthing challenge. Your organisation is like the penny farthing cycle. The little wheel in front is the digital part of your business. Agile, fast moving, new features and releases every 6 weeks. The large wheel is the traditional part of your business. Slower, harder to move, locked into your traditional systems and ERPs. Nothing happens in 6 weeks. Yet, these two wheels have to move at the same speed, given that they’re part of the same entity. 

 

The answer lies in the gearing of course. The piece of the puzzle that ensures that these two wheels turn at their own speeds but the business as a whole moves forward in a cohesive manner. In your business, this is the all important middleware that allows these two wheels to turn at their own speeds. Getting this layer in, and getting it right is probably one of the most strategic decisions for enterprise mobility. Arguably, much more important than which apps to build. 

 

An energy company for whom we built a mobile strategy started with the idea of defining business cases but ultimately moved towards establishing a middleware platform as the defining area of the strategy. 

 

 

Penny farthing

 

 












7. Skills Shortage 

 

Certainly, one area of strategic importance is the skill mix. Given the speed of evolution of the technology, coupled with the surge in adoption, the team and skills you bring to the table can make all the difference between success and failure. Thus it is, that everybody is looking for those gilt edged developers, designers and architects who can build the path into the future. Customers, vendors and disruptors are all competing int he same skills market. 

 

You don’t need an army, but certainly the core team you put together is again, an extremely strategic success or failure factor. A number of disparate skill-sets are required for mobile success – from service design, to architecture, to device optimisation. 

 

As much as technical competence, the trick is in finding people who are comfortable dealing with the unknown, and capable of setting their own standards. 

 

 

8. Product Maturity Is Low. Plan for It 

 

Undoubtably, you will evaluate some off the shelf products – MEAP/ MCAP/ MADP or some variation of the theme. Cross platform tools, api managers, MBaaS layers – take your pick. Just remember that we’ve had 3 generations of products in the the last 3 years. And M&A activity abounds even in the nascent space. Feed Henry was just acquired by RedHat. Antenna was acquired last year by Pega. SAP and IBM have build up their product suites through acquisitions. There is therefore a risk that the product you choose may be acquired or merged/ morphed over the next 12-18 months. 

 

There is also therefore the high probability that you will discover in the course of your project that the product doesn’t exactly do what it ‘says on the tin’. This is not a pot-shot at product companies. It’s a reminder that you can’t get to the levels of maturity we expect in traditional products, because they simply haven’t had enough time yet, and the landscape keeps shifting. So planning for a few bumps in the project will help you save some sleepless nights. 

 

For one of our Nordic clients we faced a huge amount of trouble in trying to integrate an off-the-shelf middleware tool with an enterprise product which formed the back end. It almost came to the point where we were ready to walk away from the project to cut our losses, but fortunately the collective decision to stick with the project meant we stuck with it and it’s now a successful product. 

 

 

9. Over-Investing in Project Management Pays Heavy Dividends 

 

Taking the earlier point into consideration, along with the complexity of networks, devices, operating systems, business expectations, testing issues, and fast evolving user needs, you can not over invest in management of the early stages of your project. 

 

Project management is definitely more complex in many ways for mobile apps, than for traditional projects for the reasons above. I can certainly point to more than one excellent project which owes it’s success to the policy of over-investment in early stages. We hired a top notch project lead with specific product knowledge and his input helped reduce a significant component estimate by about 30%, in the course of a half hour call. This one incident itself made his involvement financially worthwhile and the early brought a lot of confidence from the stakeholders involved. The application in question is being rolled out across dozens of countries globally. 

 

 

10. Are You Ready to Di-Phy? 

 

Digital + Physical = Di-Phy (this is entirely my imaginative acronym)

 

Somebody defined the smart phone a while ago, as a remote control for the world. Increasingly, it is becoming the bridge between the digital and physical worlds. Traditionally, in the digital environment, you would be on a desktop/ laptop and in an information universe which was only loosely connected to the physical world. You might comparison shop for a TV for hours, but then you would take a printout to a real world store and struggle to match specific model names and numbers to the in-store variants. 

 

As everybody knows, the smart phone changes that and allows users to scan and compare from inside a physical store. Also, the point of search or sale is everywhere. Virtual and augmented reality models are blending the real world and the digital worlds. Add to this the presence of wearbles, sensors and the IOT and you have an emerging scenario where the line between physical and digital is increasingly blurry, and this opens up a white space for new business models and solutions that create entirely new value for users and customers. 

 

You need to be thinking about the physical aspects of your business – your products, your supply chain, or your distribution and retail, and look for ways in which the mobile phone can in fact become a point of access, management and control, of the physical environment. 

 

 

In Conclusion

 

As I said earlier, there are many more lessons we’ve learnt from the volume and diversity of the mobile projects we’ve undertaken. This is just my list of 10 that seem critical to me right now. I would love to hear your views on lessons learnt!