The Wisdom Of Crowdsourced Education

“Bear in mind that the wonderful things you learn in your schools are the work of many generations, produced by enthusiastic effort and infinite labor in every country of the world. All this is put into your hands as your inheritance in order that you may receive it, honor it, add to it, and one day faithfully hand it on to your children. Thus do we mortals achieve immortality in the permanent things which we create in common.”
- Albert Einstein, given as part of a talk to a group of children. Published in Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934.

As a junior in high school I remember sitting towards the back left corner of my Calculus class watching and listening to my teacher scribble integral equations on the chalk board up front. There were maybe just under 30 or so kids in the class, a majority of them high school seniors. One of them, sitting next to me on my left, was having a particularly hard time comprehending what our teacher was explaining. I was having a hard time staying awake.

This classmate looked a bit distraught. At some point I leaned over and began explaining the Calculus material directly to him. I was being as quiet as possible. But in a classroom filled with intent listeners, my prolonged talking, however discreet, caught the attention (or rather initial wrath) or our teacher. Ultimately he stopped lecturing and scribbling and called me out. He chastised me for what he thought was idle social chit-chat. With the entire class now turned looking at me I explained that I was actually helping my classmate better understand the material. At this point my teacher celebrated my effort and encouraged all around to do the same when need be.

It takes a village I suppose. But that was then. This is now. In today’s 2.0 world, it takes an online social network.

Such is the premise behind Sophia.org.



Sophia has been described as a mash up of Wikipedia, YouTube, and Facebook — focused solely on teaching and learning. According to the website “it’s where you can teach what you know and learn what you don’t.”

Sophia.org is pulling together a variety of different tools and techniques to accomplish its mission.
a) it’s an academic oriented site (versus the overall vastness of the internet),
b) it utilizes 2.0 techniques of organizing, tagging, filtering and sorting information,
c) it includes student evaluations/ratings,
d) it includes ratings of self-identified experts to determine the academic soundness of the content, and
e) it’s designed in an open architecture so others can build upon it.

If you haven’t looked closely at Sophia.org you might think it’s simply an information delivery system and not geared towards innovation and new knowledge production. I don’t think it’s a centralized institution though. And some day, in ways yet unimagined, this new online village of educators may just surprise you with something truly unbelievable.

And did I mention it’s free.

“Everyone knows something. Maybe it’s a mnemonic device for remembering the American presidents, and maybe it’s an advanced theory in quantum physics. Regardless, why can’t it be captured and shared with someone else in search of that knowledge? An oversimplification, yes. And I certainly don’t have all the answers. We created Sophia because we believe you do.” – Don Smithmier, Sophia.org CEO

Are Some Innovations Inevitable?

“You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?” – from the play Back To Methuselah by George Bernard Shaw

If George Bernard Shaw hadn’t written the play Back To Methuselah, what would have been Ted Kennedy’s final line in his brother Bobby’s eulogy? I have no idea. But it wouldn’t have likely been “Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not.”
___________________

I saw footage online yesterday of actor Eric Stolz in the lead role of Marty McFly from the 1985 movie “Back to the Future.” Apparently Stolz, unbeknownst to me until yesterday, was originally cast in the role, but was replaced five weeks into shooting because his comedic sensibilities weren’t quite right for the role.

For me “Back to the Future” is an iconic movie. As is Michael J. Fox in the role of Marty McFly. Watching snippets of footage with Eric Stolz in the lead role was odd at best and actually difficult to fully absorb. Michael J. Fox is Marty McFly. It has never occurred to me that it could ever have been anyone else. The footage made me start to wonder though. “Back to the Future” could easily have been something other than what it ultimately became. The principle characters in the story – of the movie itself and how the movie came to be – could easily have been different.

Gutenberg is credited with movable type.

Charles Darwin posited the theory of evolution and natural selection.

The Wright brothers began to fly.

Albert Einstein postulated the theory of relativity.

Steve Jobs orchestrated the development of the iPod.

Are some innovations inevitable?

If Johnny “The Caveman” Johnson hadn’t invented the wheel, would someone else have?

Is a cure for cancer inevitable and history has simply not yet recorded its discoverer?

What innovations are you dreaming up? Will they be the things that never were? Or perhaps might someone formulate the innovation before you and history credits someone else with its invention? Or maybe, just maybe, could you be the person in the right place at the right time when the inevitable occurs? Might not the innovation even occur without you?

Dream of things that never were, but know that the only things that come to dreamers are dreams.

Unbag The Innovation

Customers don’t always enjoy innovations, especially when they negatively impact the overall experience of a product or service. You can’t force customers to like (or buy) what you’re selling, no matter how good (or good for you and the planet) it might be.

Frito Lay’s 100% biodegradable packaging for Sun Chips for instance didn’t go over too well it seems. For anyone that’s eaten from a regular size bag of Sun Chips recently, you already know what I’m talking about. The bags are downright noisy. They’ve got more crunch than the actual chips.

Personally, I don’t really mind the crunchy bag. It actually makes the Sun Chips experience slightly more unique than eating other kinds of snack chips. Other chips just seem slightly boring to me now. But then again I’m not trying to eat chips during orchestral concerts, at the library, or during pressure-packed putting situations at the Ryder Cup. I also own a few bowls (normally used for cereal) into which I can pour the chips when it’s absolutely necessary to remain quiet. I know not everyone that buys a $3 bag of Sun Chips can afford to buy a three-pack of reusable plastic bowls from the dollar store.

Apparently enough people complained about the 100% biodegradable bags (or rather apparently stopped buying the product because of the bag and thus revenues declined) that Frito Lay (owned by PepsiCo) decided to return to the old, less noisy, plastic packaging for most Sun Chips varieties.

It’s sort of too bad that something relatively innovative and environmentally friendly couldn’t stay on store shelves. It’s not really surprising though. The color of money trumps green every day. Innovations need to cater to what’s wanted, not necessarily what’s needed.

I’m still waiting for less noisy packaging on my Dentyne Ice gum. The enclosed foil wrapper makes it difficult to be discrete at my kid’s school concerts. Despite the dirty looks I sometimes get at these events I haven’t complained to the manufacturer yet.

Garden Salsa Sun Chips are awesome by the way.

Chance Favors The Connected Mind

I think Louis Pasteur was right. “Chance favors the prepared mind” he said. It does seem a bit oxymoronic, but by and large I think the sentiment is generally accepted. We must prepare ourselves with knowledge, as well as prepare our minds to recognize, acknowledge, and act upon opportunities that arise. Innovation depends on it.

Being prepared is good.

But arguably being connected is even better.

Author Steven Johnson - whose previous books include The Ghost Map and Everything Bad Is Good For You – has adapted Pasteur’s famous quote.

“Chance favors the connected mind.” – Steven Johnson

I don’t normally plug books or products for others (and know that I have nothing to gain by doing so), but I’m making an exception today. Author Steven Johnson has a new book coming out called Where Good Ideas Come From (it’s not due out until October 5). I’ve not been given an advanced copy so I can’t attest to all that is in it. I did happen to see him present at FEI 2010 in May though where he essentially floated many of the ideas and stories put forth in this new book. I thought his stories and ideas concerning innovation interesting, entertaining, and useful.

Instead of attempting at this time to provide my own overview of the book I’ll simply let you watch this animated preview put together by the publisher. It’s pretty good.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU

http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2010/09/good-ideas-the-four-minute-version.html

Steven Johnson’s new book may not actually have much effect on your connectedness. I imagine it might help however with your preparedness.

Know Who You Are, And Act Like It

The closing address last week at FEI2010 was presented by Bert Jacobs, CEO (Chief Executive Optimist) for clothing company Life is good®. His presentation was an excellent finish to an outstanding conference. He was entertaining and inspirational. His down-to-earth, decidedly non-corporate style mixed together what I’d describe as a little bit Robert Fulghum, a little bit Confucianism, a little bit Ben & Jerry’s, and a tiny amount of foul-mouthed language for timely humorous effect. Like I said, it was entertaining and inspirational.

Like the clothing sold by Life is good® itself, Bert’s presentation was filled with little life-lesson sayings to help us on our organizational journeys.

“Whatever you are, be a good one.”

“Do what you like. Like what you do.”

“Not all who wander are lost.”

…and more.

From the perspective of those of us looking to innovate, the most intriguing saying for me was

“Know who you are, and act like it.”

I think often times, either as individuals or organizations, we find ourselves copying others or mimicking their actions. Taking the lead of others can be simpler and productive. Doing so isn’t necessarily inherently bad. There are certainly valid reasons for choosing this path. From an organizational perspective regarding innovation it might make perfect strategic sense. I don’t think Bert Jacobs is suggesting that taking the lead of others, or copying what they do, is inherently bad either. It becomes problematic however, both for individuals and organizations, if such mimicking defies your own inner nature and perspective. Copying and following others is problematic to the extent that mimicked actions do not represent who you or your organization really are. It’s okay to copy others unless it leads you down a path that goes against your own being.

Life is good® for instance, rather than following more traditional marketing approaches put forth by other successful clothing purveyors, decided its promotional roots lie in “festivals”. Rather than spend their dollars on traditional advertising, they took their message to the people on the street at festivals – pumpkin festivals, music festivals, etc., many of which are used to raise money to help kids with life-threatening illnesses. Life is good® has nothing against the promotional approaches used by more affluent or upscale imaged clothing brands. It’s just that these approaches and their subsequent image are contrary to what Life is good® is all about. You’ve got to remember that Bert and his brother John are two guys that drove around in a beat up van for five years, living off peanut butter and jelly sandwiches hocking t-shirts door-to-door in college dormitories.

Know who you are, and act like it.

Great Achievement

"Great achievement has no roadmap."

Dr. Dalton Millgate (played by Hector Elizondo)
from The West Wing, Season 3, Episode 16: Dead Irish Writers
Teleplay by Aaron Sorkin
Original air date 3/27/02

One-for-One Epiphany

After much contemplation, last weekend it finally occurred to me how I'll be able to effectively reprint Stumblebum while simultaneously implementing the fundamental philanthropic vision of Big E Toys. The journey is now underway. One for One. I am in it.

Flash of Genius: A Movie Review (sort of)

“For three-quarters of a century, the auto industry presented a compelling vision of the future. First Ford, then GM did a great job of persuading people that they knew what they were going to want next. And through technical advances and marketing artifice they made people think that the future was coming. But in the 1970s, they lost that ability to conjure up any vision of the future. Their energy went into fighting regulations and lying about what they could and couldn’t do. They couldn’t sweep the harmful aspects of cars under the rug, and they started to appear grumpy and sad rather than happy.”
- Jamie Kitman, Columnist for Automobile magazine

I can’t honestly say the book Flash of Genius was better than the movie. I never read the book. Flash of Genius (the movie) does take its name from the book. Yet it’s worth noting the book itself is actually a collection of “invention” essays (by John Seabrook), only one of which focuses on automobile wiper revolutionary Bob Kearn’s long fight with Ford Motors. But enough about the book.

For those not familiar with the movie, here’s a quick overview. It’s based on the true story of college professor and part-time inventor Robert Kearns (played by Greg Kinnear) and his long battle with the U.S. automobile industry. Bob Kearns invents a device that would eventually be used in every car in the world – an intermittent windshield wiper. Thinking he’s struck gold, these thoughts are dashed after the auto giants (Ford in particular), who originally embraced Bob’s creation unceremoniously, shunned the man who invented it. Kearns however is determined to receive recognition for his invention. He refuses to compromise his dignity and decides to take on the auto giants. The ensuing legal battle takes upwards of three decades, and along the way Kearns’ obsession drives away some of those who he held most dear. In the end, as expected, Kearns prevails. “But at what personal price?” we are left to contemplate.

The movie is essentially a David vs. Goliath story. I found it mildly entertaining yet fairly predictable. As a viewer, you expect he’ll win the court battle (it’s a Hollywood movie for goodness sake). And these expectations are fulfilled. Yet along the way we’re given a glimpse at the personal toll tenacity can take. The story is both inspirational and cautionary.

At times while watching the movie I couldn’t help get more than a bit perturbed at the depicted actions of Ford Motor Company. The cynic in me can’t help wonder sardonically whether the current state of the U.S. auto industry might have been avoided had the big three spent more time developing innovations rather than trying to steal them. Being a small business operator, and someone whose professional existence is largely predicated on developing great ideas and insights, the thought of someone stealing, profiting, and taking credit for someone else’s creation was unsettling. To its credit, Ford did offer to compensate Kearns for the intermittent windshield wiper invention. Yet they weren’t willing to give him credit, and thus in the movie the monetary offer is largely viewed as legal payoff or hush money of sorts.

I’m not naïve enough to think such things don’t actually happen on a regular basis in business (or other aspects of life). And to be honest I don’t really care much if corporations steal from other corporations. This, for better or worse, can simply be written off as “competitive intelligence.” Even Steve Jobs, whom I’ve written about regularly and hold in fairly high esteem for his innovation throughout the years, is unashamed by his (or rather his company’s) appropriation of others’ great ideas. He has oft quoted Pablo Picasso’s now relatively famous (or perhaps infamous) saying “Good artists copy. Great artists steal.” Here's an excerpt from the documentary film Triumph of the Nerds.



But I take issue when less than honorable actions become more personal and affect individuals. I’m sort of a sucker for the underdog. Is this a double standard? Probably. Fundamentally there really isn’t a difference. Stealing is stealing, right? But do I feel bad about having such a double standard? Probably about as much as the executives at Ford back in the day felt about stealing Bob Kearns’ idea. Which is to say, not really.

[this post originally appeared on the Front End of Innovation blog - 1/5/10)

Favre's Passion

"You can't fake the passion." - Brett Favre discussing his love of football with NFL commentator (and former pro wide receiver) Chris Collingsworth in an interview aired 12/6/09 before NBC's Sunday Night football game.

Gonzo Investment

I bought 1000 shares of The Rum Diary on hsx.com today.

Innovation is in the Eye of the Beholder

“When people have learned to love music for itself, when they listen with other ears, their enjoyment will be of a far higher and more potent order, and they will be able to judge it on a higher plane and realize its intrinsic value…” - Igor Stravinsky

A month or so ago, after partaking in a discussion with rock critics Jim DeRogatis of the Chicago Sun Times and Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune, I began exploring The Difference Between Innovative & Stupid. As part of this exploration, I identified two important elements for making this distinction – the necessity for passion in the innovation process and the infusion of what could be termed “amplified personality.” I’ll not rehash this discussion here, but if you’ve not read the original post, I’d encourage you to take a peek.

During the same discussion that prompted me to delineate between innovative and stupid, Greg Kot made an interesting point when he said “music is only as good as the person who listens to it.” He didn’t use these words to describe his statement, but his point was essentially that a person needs to be experienced enough, knowledgeable enough, and simply open to the music enough so that, as Stravinsky suggests, he or she is “able to judge it on a higher plane and realize its intrinsic value.” I contend that with innovation, as with music, you need an experienced, knowledgeable, open person to recognize the intrinsic value of the innovation. This person may be someone involved in the process to develop the innovation or perhaps someone who consumes the innovation. In either case, innovation is only as good as the person who experiences it. Without this insight, innovation may be lost.

In 1974, after recently seeing a now legendary performer in concert, rock critic Jon Landau, writing for the Boston alternative weekly newspaper The Real Paper, penned the prophetic statement “I saw rock ‘n’ roll future and its name is…”

[You didn’t honestly think I’d drop the name this early in the post, did you? Any guesses?]

So how does one go about gaining experience, and knowledge, or becoming open to innovation? Does wisdom come with age? Is it more important to be submersed in an occupation or industry for a significant duration, or are cross-functional talents and an eclectic mix of industry experience more beneficial? Is it possible to have an inherent gift for innovation? Is it innovation talent or skill that reigns supreme?

I don’t have easy answers. If you have thoughts, please share.

There are essentially two angles from which innovation is discovered and experienced. You might find yourself as part of the innovation development process, or you might be a consumer of an innovation. Although the developer might have more responsibility concerning the success of an innovation and the consumer may be the entity of on which the success relies, I don’t necessarily think the nature of the discovery or experiential process is intrinsically different between the two. You either “get it”, or you don’t. The question I keep asking myself is why do some get it, and others don’t?

As I sit here and ponder the role and responsibilities of the innovation developer and consumer, I can’t help wonder who at Xerox PARC decades ago decided it was okay to show their graphical user interface and mouse to Steve Jobs? Why didn’t they fully recognize the innovation in their midst?

On a personal level and as a consumer, I lament the fact that more people didn’t recognize the innovative nature of the lightly carbonated, citrus-flavored soft drink Rondo. If they had, perhaps I could still be enjoying the fabulous, innovative taste of this “thirst crusher.” I loved the stuff.

Jon Landau ultimately went on to manage and co-produce many albums for the subject of his prophetic 1974 statement. “I saw rock ‘n’ roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen.” How he saw the future I do not know.

[This post originally appeared in the Front End of Innovation Blog 06/23/09 http://frontendofinnovation.blogspot.com/2009/06/innovation-is-in-eye-of-beholder.html]

The Difference Between Innovative & Stupid

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” - Mark Twain

Hindsight is usually 20/20, unless of course you’re a perpetual drunk or a serious candidate for rehab. It’s relatively easy to look back with the wisdom of time and the help of modern day crowd-sourcing to identify great moments and products. Or specifically, innovative moments and products. But how, in the midst of the moment, can you identify true innovation? How do you know your idea isn’t simply stupid?

Of course there are different types of evaluations an organization can perform on new product ideas – Stage-Gate® scoring, customer feedback, test market campaigns, etc. But such evaluations are a reflection of, but do not necessarily pertain directly to innovation. They’re actually specifically geared towards determining market success, which may or may not actually be completely attributable to innovative ideas and practices.

Bob Dylan went electric at the Newport Folk Festival on July 25, 1965. He was booed aggressively when he did. Despite the negative crowd reaction, he continued to perform plugged-in throughout the formative years that followed. I imagine Bob Dylan didn’t care too much about what the crowd actually thought at the time. He would forge ahead with or without their approval. I wonder though if he realized the innovative impact his electric guitar would have on folk and rock ‘n’ roll music.

I recently had an opportunity to participate in a discussion with music critics Jim DeRogatis of the Chicago Sun Times and Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune. In addition to their respective writing duties, Jim and Greg also host the nationally syndicated radio program Sound Opinions (http://www.soundopinions.org/), the world’s only rock and roll talk show. It can be heard coast to coast on public radio stations throughout the United States.

At some point during the discussion I asked Jim and Greg the question, “How do you determine whether a new piece of music is innovative, rather than simply just stupid?” When I asked the question, I knew whatever their answer would be, it wouldn’t actually address the fundamental issue facing a musician in the midst of the creative process (or organizations attempting to develop innovative products). Jim and Greg were answering from the perspective of a listener (or in this case critic). For the most part, the music they listen to (like all of us) has already been recorded and released by the time they hear it. They’re not struggling to create innovative music themselves.

Their responses were enlightening and entertaining none-the-less and reinforced some of my own ideas on the matter.

Jim DeRogatis began by suggesting there’s a fundamental difference between Patti Smith laying down the track “Piss Factory” and some random person that, as he put it, “farts into a mic and posts it on MySpace”. Both might be entertaining. But the former is innovative. The later is just stupid.

For Jim, the primary differentiating factor between such dichotomous recordings is the sense of “passion” emanating from the effort. Passion is a key component to the innovation process and should be reflected in its outcomes. Listen to “Piss Factory” and you can hear the passion in the voice of Patti Smith. As for the MySpace posting, I imagine you’d hear something fundamentally different emanating from…well, you know.

Greg Kot introduced an interesting phrase I’d not heard before. He concurred with Jim regarding the necessity of passion, but also suggested an additional element he described as “amplified personality”. This is the extension of oneself as expressed through the music. It’s personal and what makes the music unique and different. Via the amplified personality, an artist is able to “transcend one’s basic combination of influences.” It’s as if the artist goes beyond the basic summation of his or her musical influences to create something truly innovative. From an idea and product development standpoint, amplified personality to me is akin to the expression of an organization’s values and beliefs.

Greg made another interesting point when he said “music is only as good as the person who listens to it.” But I’ll save my discussion and the applicability of this statement to product innovation for another time. For now let’s just say I concur with Jim’s basic assertion concerning passion and Greg’s concept of amplified personality. I’m of the opinion that a product should embody and be an extension of an organization’s values. And whether you’re assessing something after it’s introduced, or attempting to evaluate the innovative merits of an idea in development, both passion and expressed values are critical elements in discerning innovative from stupid. I’ll save this for another time as well, but passion and an expression of values are key components in what I term Gonzo Innovation.

Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone” was selected as the No. 1 song in Rolling Stone magazine’s list of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (Issue 963, December 9, 2004). “I wrote it. I didn’t fail. It was straight.” So said Bob Dylan shortly after he wrote and recorded “Like a Rolling Stone” in June 1965. I’m not sure how he knew the song was revolutionary in design and execution, but he knew it. Passion and amplified personality I guess.

As I try to finish my thoughts here in the wee hours of the morning, I can’t help wonder whether all the people that booed Dylan because he turned on his amp during the mid to late 60’s now recognize and are willing to acknowledge the innovative impact his electric songs and shows had on folk and rock ‘n’ roll. Do you think the guy that yelled “Judas” at Dylan during the Manchester Free Trade Hall concert in ’66 looks back and has had a change of heart concerning the innovative impact of that performance? I would hope so. It didn’t take Dylan more than forty years and hindsight to figure it out though. In response to the heckler, Dylan kicked in to an acidic version of “Like a Rolling Stone” and turned to his band and simply said “Play it f**cking loud!”

[this post originally appeared on the 05.12.09 Front End of Innovation blog http://frontendofinnovation.blogspot.com/2009/05/difference-between-innovative-stupid.html]