Posts Tagged ‘learning’

Scott Berkun reminds us of the value of learning from mistakes

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

You may remember my project The Mistake Bank. It’s on hiatus now (isn’t that what broken-up bands say?), and someday soon I’ll be putting up a post on what I learned from that project. (Thanking Cynthia Kurtz for that idea.)

In the meantime, people are still screwing up and, thankfully, learning from those experiences. Most recently there was this post from Scott Berkun: “My Biggest Mistakes.”

Scott, in addition to being a great speaker and blogger, is a first-class mistake learner. His post “How to Learn From Your Mistakes” was an early entry in the Mistake Bank. It’s gratifying to see that he still appreciates the value of reflecting on his past actions, and retains the sense of humor that allows him to do so.

Related post:
Scott Berkun on learning from mistakes

Top 5 HBR Breakthrough Ideas 2010

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Each year we’ve narrowed down the Harvard Business Review list of 20 Breakthrough Ideas to a manageable five. For 2010, the magazine has done half our work for us; in the Jan-Feb issue, they present only 10 ideas. Here are the best of them:

1. “What Really Motivates Workers,” Theresa Amabile & Steven Kramer. Amabile & Kramer continue their fascinating diary study (see this earlier post discussing Amabile & Kramer’s work on creativity) & discover a key hidden link to worker motiyvation: the desire to see & understand their own progress toward a goal. Perhaps feedback (see this related post, and be sure to read the comments) is important after all? (There’s a similar sentiment behind one of last year’s breakthrough ideas, “The Gamer Disposition” – gamers need to know where they stand in relation to their goal.)

2. “The Technology That Can Revolutionize Heath Care,” Ronald Dixon. Electronic Medical Records are fine, but how about enabling more virtual contact between doctor & patient? Increasing such contacts can reduce expensive office visits & nip potentially-serious problems in the bud.

3. “What The Financial Sector Should Borrow,” Lawrence Candell. The government employs nonprofit research centers like Lincoln Labs & MITRE to provide guidance on military innovations. A parallel effort focused on the financial market would yield better insight & decisionmaking when it comes to regulating markets & financial instruments.

4. “A Market Solution For Achieving ‘Green,’” Jack Hidary. Municipalities can tap the power of the bond markets to finance environmental building retrofits. Borrowers are assessed increased property taxes to pay off their loans. Developers & municipalities win: property values rise & reduced utility costs exceed the tax increases immediately.

5. “Hacking Work,” Bill Jensen & Josh Klein. Seek out the “benevolent” rule-breakers in your company, & instead of crucifying them, study what they do & determine whether their workarounds can improve your business. [I haven't worked with a company yet that is ready to take this one on.]

(Disclosure: Jack Hidary invested in a customer of my former employer and I met him once. I’d be stunned if he had any recollection of that meeting.)

A PC game-development environment for kids

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

koduMy wife pointed out this item from the Wall Street Journal today, announcing a project called Kodu from Microsoft Research. Kodu is a graphical programming framework that kids can use to create their own video games. I had spoken to her about Fred Wilson’s recent post bemoaning that school computer classes are teaching kids word processing and spreadsheeting rather than programming. We’ve also talked a lot about how limited the opportunities are for kids to use their creativity. Kodu seems to have the potential to help in both areas.

Our sons (8 and 6 years old) want to be video game designers when they grow up. We’ll download Kodu, and perhaps they can get a head start on that starting, like, tomorrow!

You can download the Kodu PC development platform from a link in this Kodu blog post.

More evidence of the power of learning from mistakes

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

As we head toward year-end, it’s good to be reminded of important things that may have been forgotten amid the turmoil of 2009. In my case, it’s the value of learning from mistakes. In this Newsweek NurtureShock post, Po Bronson references an experiment by Stanford researcher Carol Dweck – in my view the preeminent researcher looking at students’ views of achievement vs. learning.

Bronson effortlessly summarizes a complex set of experiments by Dweck and co-researcher Jennifer Mangels, and you should read the entire post, but the major point was this: “knowledge-hungry” (in Bronson’s terminology) students learned better from their mistakes than “grade-hungry” students. Knowledge-hungry students were interested in where they had made mistakes so they could learn the correct answer. Grade-hungry students were more concerned simply that they had made a mistake – the error itself obsessed them, not what they didn’t know. As a result, knowledge-hungry students did better on a retest: they learned better.

Even when we leave school and enter the work world, we often remain “grade-hungry.” Companies, frankly, enable and reward this focus with their HR management tools: promotions, numerical performance reviews, “merit” raises. Workers tend to be more concerned about the effect a mistake will have on these measures than on learning from what they did. This is bad for the company, of course. And bad for the worker.

Thanks for reading all year and best wishes for a healthy, less stressful, learning-filled 2010.

(Hat tip Roger Dooley, Neuromarketing)

Related posts:
Don’t try to fail, but try (work of Carol Dweck)

The tyranny of the dashboard

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

722346_speedingI frankly am beginning to feel that I’m shouting into a void here. Companies are spending more time and money equipping the CEO and team with information, while starving the thousands of ground-level employees who, frankly, can have more impact on the company’s success simply through their day-to-day actions.

One ray of hope: an article in the December Harvard Business Review (co-authored by Fred Reichheld, the creator of the Net Promoter Score – a simple metric that somehow captures the complexity of customer perception) entitled, “Closing The Customer Feedback Loop.”

As opposed to the conventional wisdom of gathering masses of data and trying to detect high-level patterns in them, Reichheld and his coauthors talk about getting more granular – gathering information at the customer transaction level, creating small rollups of the data, and sharing them where they can do the most good – with the front-line employees and first-level management who directly impact the customer experience.

I agree with their prescriptions, but it still leaves the problem of what to tell upper management. Is there anything wrong with high-level management dashboards? Well, yes. Something of the danger in this is described in today’s WSJ article on Simpson’s Paradox (”When Combined Data Reveal the Flaw of Averages“). The first example cited: while today’s overall unemployment rate is lower than the 1982 level, unemployment at each educational level is higher. (The overall rate is lower because there are more people at higher educational levels, which have lower unemployment, than there were in 1982.) The article states: “Compared with a similarly educated worker in 1983, ‘the worker today has higher unemployment at every educational level.’”

There’s always something lost in summarization. In the case of Simpson’s Paradox, the result of the loss is a flawed conclusion, or at minimum missing a greater point of the story. Overall unemployment today is lower than 1982, but people today have been hit harder than their 1982 counterparts.

Dashboards distort reality as well. Executives rely on machines crunching millions or billions of numbers to present them an easily readable story of what is happening in their businesses. Yet the farther the statistics are distanced from the on-the-ground reality, the more likely they are to lie.

What can be done? Let’s get back to “Closing the Customer Feedback Loop.” On-the-ground data gathering and interpretation by those close to it makes all the sense in the world. But in communicating with upper management, there needs to be less sharing of numbers, and more sharing of individual stories. You can’t get any more granular than that. You can read a vibrant story in a minute or two. And stories fall into patterns–something more subtle and nuanced than statistics–that help senior management understand what’s going on. And human experiences are more understandable than the simplest dashboard.

There are tools to do help you gather and use stories. Rakontu, an open-source story-sharing platform, is one. Enterprise 2.0 tools such as blogs would also work for this purpose. So what’s stopping us? Or am I still shouting into the void?

(Photo by awegedebe via stock.xchng)

Related posts:
GE uses “net promoter score” – one of my earliest posts!
On Rakontu
Time to listen to front-line employees
How B2B customers talk
“Enterprise 2.0″ review
Technology is great, and so is avoiding the acorns

Really need to learn? Conduct an interview

Monday, November 16th, 2009

headphonesI was inspired by Ford Harding’s post today on cross-selling, most of all by his suggestion of how to educate others in the company about one’s own services, including this idea:

Structure the session as an interview, rather than a presentation. Announce to the participants that they won’t learn anything about the featured practice, unless they ask about it. Then, don’t allow the person seeking to cross sell his service to say anything, except in response to his colleagues questions. If his colleagues aren’t interested or intelligent enough to ask good questions about the service, he is probably wasting his time anyway. This puts the responsibility on the listeners to extract the information they need, keeping them engaged in the conversation.

When I read this, I thought, “Eureka!” Like many, I would like to be a better listener than I am. I was on a call last week and caught myself preparing my next statement instead of listening to what my colleague was saying.

The idea of interviewing struck a chord because of some work I’ve done – twenty or so podcasts and a similar number of in-depth customer interviews. For those, I prepare questions in advance, and listen very carefully while the interview subject is speaking. Frequently, the answers inspire a different line of questioning or a surprising new direction. If I weren’t listening, I wouldn’t detect the change nor be able to adjust my questioning.

When an interview is done, I feel as if I’ve been immersed in the topic, more than engaging in a conversation. Moreover, I have the recording as a keepsake, to refer to again if I want to relive the interview. [My friend Laurie records conference calls and meetings - with prior approval - as a matter of course, so she can relisten later to pick up things she's missed. Another interesting idea.]

I learn far more from an interview than a standard call or presentation. I think Ford is onto something important here; interviewing as a way of learning. What do you think?

(Photo by Mulad via Flickr Creative Commons)

Related posts:
Shop Talk Podcasts
The art of the customer interview

Don’t worry about Lego Star Wars impairing kids’ creativity

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

The New York Times this weekend profiled the business revival at Lego Group (”Turning to Hollywood Tie-Ins, Lego Thinks Beyond the Brick“).

The numbers speak for themselves:

Amid a 5 percent drop in total United States toy sales last year and the industry’s worst holiday season in three decades, according to Sean McGowan, an analyst at Needham & Company, Lego’s sales surged 18.7 percent in 2008. And despite a worsening global recession, Lego powered through the first half of 2009, with a 23 percent sales increase over the period a year earlier. It earned $355 million before taxes last year, and $178 million in the first half of 2009.

But the article contained an ominous message:

In the United States, Lego’s biggest market and the biggest toy market in the world, games with themes like “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” were among the reasons Lego sales jumped 32 percent last year, well above the global pace. But experts like Dr. Jonathan Sinowitz, a New York psychologist who also runs a psychological services company, Diagnostics, wonders at what price these sales come.

“What Lego loses is what makes it so special,” he says. “When you have a less structured, less themed set, kids have the ability to start from scratch. When you have kids playing out Indiana Jones, they’re playing out Hollywood’s imagination, not their own.”

Even toy analysts who admire the company and its recent success acknowledge a broad shift. “I would like to see more open-ended play like when we were kids,” says Gerrick Johnson, a toy analyst at BMO Capital Markets in New York. “The vast majority is theme-based, and when you go into Toys “R” Us, you’d really be challenged to find a simple box of bricks.”

Um… these guys have never been to my house. My 8- and 6-year-old sons are big Lego fans. Last winter, when we were at Disney, my 6-year-old chose to spend his birthday at the Lego Imagination Center. They’ve gotten “theme-based” kits for the Hogwarts Castle, various Star Wars fighters and Indiana Jones.

But if you think that has inhibited my kids’ creativity, you are dead wrong. Once these kits are built (sometimes even before they’re built), the pieces are repurposed to fit whatever my kids want to make. The 8-year-old built a little Segway-like device for a Storm Trooper to battle in; the 6-year-old mashed up a character with Storm Trooper legs, Indiana Jones’ whip and Harry Potter’s friend Hagrid’s bushy brown beard. The minifigures, in particular, are ripe for innovation and storytelling. Which makes sense–people like stories with other people in them.

Legos when I was growing up were 2- 4- 6- and 8-dot bricks, the occasional wheel and window. My guys have innumerable pieces from which to create–and they do, without limits and with interesting, unique pop-culture references that weren’t possible in my day.

I think creativity among our young is alive and well, and movie tie-ins won’t bother it.

Related post:
Lego knows partnering

A company’s online, sharable, living window to the outside world

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

I interned for IBM in the summer of 1983. It was the best summer job imaginable–fun work, smart people, good pay, and of course better resume fodder than my prior work experience (the hardware store).

My first month, though, I didn’t have much to do. Everyone was busy, and it was hard to ask busy people to find me an assignment (this problem got solved, but that’s another story). So I read a lot. In particular, every week or so a packet of information came through the interoffice mail, consisting of pages and pages of photocopied newspaper and magazine articles relating to IBM and its business.

I looked forward to each packet and read every article. I may have been the only one in the office to do so. But I was really curious about the business and it was great to have all that information in one place. I kept that curiosity, about the company I worked for, its markets and the macro environment, after that, and that may be why I later gravitated to outward-facing roles like marketing, sales and strategy.

At any rate, it’s 25 years later, and there’s more information about a company, its markets, and the outside world than in 1,000,000 article packs available at the click of a mouse. Yet companies continue to act as if they have no idea what’s going on outside their walls.

Harvard Business School’s John Kotter, in his great 2008 book “A Sense of Urgency,” blames an insulated culture for companies’ inability to sustain their change initiatives–he urges companies to “bring the outside in.”

Here’s how Kotter describes the importance of sharing information that allows employees to experience a broad view of the company and its prospects:

I can still remember a visit I made to a company ten years ago as if it happened last week. The firm had been exceptionally successful in the middle part of the twentieth century. But by the time of my visit, market share had been steadily eroding for twenty years. The company was in a war, badly wounded, some would say bleeding to death. Yet when I opened the door to corporate headquarters, I entered a visual fantasy world.

Nowhere was there a single sign that the company was struggling, had been struggling for two decades, and was continuing to be beaten again and again in the marketplace. Nowhere was there a sign that the technology affecting its products was changing faster, offering it wonderful opportunities to leap ahead of competitors. The huge waiting room was pin-drop quiet and had the air of an antechamber outside the king’s throne room.

In total contrast, I once visited a successful firm that seemed to have its entire outside world hung on the walls of its waiting room. There were pictures of customers, of its own products, of its manufacturing plants, office buildings, competitor products, recent articles from industry publications, and comments (mostly good and some bad) from customers. There were a few prototype sketches of products to come. There were two big charts, one showing margins over the previous two years (which made the firm look good) and one that showed stock price (which made the firm look not so good). The entire effect was somewhat like a teenager’s room, especially the picture of a competing CEO with a mustache drawn on it!

The second company’s waiting room walls provided employees and visitors with a multimedia picture of the outside world every day. It reminds me of the article packs I read during my tenure at IBM.

Imagine the wall, virtualized, visible on every employees computer desktop via the intranet. Imagine that any employee can post items: news articles, blog posts, Tweets, rumors, video clips, etc. Other employees could vote on the items, comment on them, point out patterns.

In other words, a living, breathing, interactive, multimedia, ubiquitous version of those waiting room walls.

The technology to do this is ubiquitous and fairly cheap. Most companies have the basic plumbing to do it already. All they need is the framework, the processes, and, perhaps most challenging of all, the will and courage to do it.

Companies have to decide whether they want to be more like Kotter’s first example–the fantasy world, or the second–immersed in the real world, in all its messiness, complexity and contradiction.

(Photo by stevendamron via Flickr Creative Commons)

Learning from failures (and successes) requires different IT systems

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

I’ve been working recently with a colleague tasked with improving his company’s project management outcomes (I was going to say processes, but on thinking about it they’re asking him to improve the performance and results).

He’s focusing on lessons learned, as you might expect. The company has done lots of projects; surely there are many lessons within those projects that could help improve things going forward? And there are. But my colleague has found that the inability to effectively capture and share these lessons prevents the organization as a whole from getting much if any value out of their past experiences.

[This Harvard Business Review article emphasizes why project management, in particular, is prone to repeating the same mistakes over and over again.]

I was thinking about my colleague as I was reading this recent article in “Strategy + Business” entitled, “Are You Killing Enough Ideas?” by Zia Khan and Jon Katzenbach. The article discusses innovation, not project management, but this section in particular resonated with me and spurred my connection with project management lessons:

…When there is an ineffective balance between formal and informal structures, it often shows up as an inability to manage bad ideas effectively. After a formal decision has been made to advance some ideas but not to pursue others, the company expends considerable effort to plan the next steps for the winners. But no one thinks actively of planning next steps for the losing ideas, to put them to rest, free up their supporting resources, and (ideally) identify and share any lessons or insights gleaned from the experience.

One quibble with this otherwise excellent paper: why is identifying and sharing lessons and insights from experience an “ideal” situation?

Significant corporate initiatives, whether they are innovation ideas or IT projects, are expensive in capital, resources and opportunity cost. The experience, whether the project is ultimately a success or not, is hard won and valuable. It should be mandatory to capture and share these lessons and insights.

There are several barriers my colleague faces in trying to institutionalize the creation and use of lessons learned. “Let’s move on” is one of the most pernicious ones. After a difficult project, people are inclined to look ahead rather than backward, to forget difficult or painful experiences rather than mine them for lessons. (In many cases, as I’ve learned in nearly two years of working with The Mistake Bank, lessons sometimes emerge years after an experience.) Organizations, of course, in their eagerness to place blame, facilitate people’s instincts to hide or blur what happened in the case of a failed project.

My colleague’s company has a very open and positive culture; they are more equipped than most companies at overcoming the reluctance to share. Yet they still face a significant obstacle: their information systems are not up to the task of gathering, sharing, sorting and consuming lessons-learned material.

They capture lessons in Word forms and documents, and store them in file folders on a shared drive. And they are not surprised when no one can find anything. Dumping valuable lessons on a shared drive may have a slightly positive use for whoever writes the lessons down; at least that person learns a bit more from the retelling. But certainly it’s of no use to anyone else.

Lessons-learned need enterprise 2.0-type tools that capture narrative data, signifiers and tags; allow users to “like,” pass along, add to, and otherwise annotate original stories; and browse through, search and connect related stories. That’s what my colleague needs, and that’s what every organization that wants to “ideally” learn from both good and bad experiences needs as well.

From the Mistake Bank: NYT on “A Creature of Bad Habit: Why (Athletic) Mistakes Are Repeated”

Monday, July 20th, 2009

From The Mistake Bank:

This article in the Sunday Times takes up one of my favorite topics–repeating mistakes.

The situation described is not one of failing to learn (which we often talk about), but instead that narrow class of athletic mistakes seemingly caused by hyper-awareness, fear of failure, and its resulting tension, cov

ering well-known cases like Chuck Knoblauch’s inability to throw the ball accurately from second base to first (something my 8-yr-old son does easily). This season, Mets pitcher Mike Pelfrey committed a rare balk three times in one inning, and is the only major leaguer to commit six balks in a season since 2001.

The Times story was particularly timely given the unexpected appearance of 59-year-old Tom Watson on the British Open leaderboard over the weekend. Watson’s youthful brilliance (eight major championships) had given way to a middle-aged inconsistency, fueled by that demon of older golfers everywhere, the yips. Sadly, while Watson played like a 40-year-old and had magically avoided situations where the yips come on (notably, short putts), he couldn’t avoid an eight-foot putt on the 18th hole to win. As you might expect, he left the putt short–he yipped it.

It’s a bizarre and fascinating story to read about world-class athletes struggling with some of the easier parts of the game. However, there are situations where “getting in your own way” can have an effect on normal people like us. I’ll confess one. I have a very strong memory, but I am terrible at remembering people’s names when I first meet them.

Years ago during my single days I met a girl at a party. We talked and talked. She told me her name. I promptly forgot it. I said, “I’m so sorry, but I forgot your name, can you tell me it again?” And she did, and I forgot it again. Needless to say, I didn’t see her again after that party.

I’ve struggled with this over the years, puzzled on it, tried to fix it, to no avail. There’s no logical reason why, once I finally remember someone’s name, I can recall it 20 years later, but can’t remember the name of someone who has just introduced himself. Now it’s a gigantic mental block, in which I view meeting someone new a bit like Watson viewed that 8-foot putt.

Thank God for business cards!

[If anyone else would like to share their personal yips, please respond in the comments.]