Technology and Organizations

Last night this Slate article on whether to end a sentence with one or two spaces after the period appeared in the family Facebook stream. Good discussion ensued and I said I would look up the research in the morning. I was a little surprised by the scarcity of empirical work and opined, before my coffee, that my students could run the definitive study in a weekend. Then I started to think...

It occurs to me that it won’t take a weekend’s study to address this question. It will take years. We are starting with contaminated samples. I learned to read with two spaces. Younger readers are learning to read with one. Whether the human brain reads better with one or two may be a result of both the basics of brain mechanics and learning.

My post caffeine version of the study requires that we find a large sample of pre-school triplets. Randomly, the children will be assigned to one of single space, double space, or mixed spacing presentations for all their reading. At age eight we can examine the results.

Prior research on reading speed has not found significant differences across different inter-sentential spacing choices (you did want to know what the academics would call it, didn’t you?)

Yes, I jest. But many technology use questions have similar complexities. How much of the benefit or the burden is due to the technology, the technology’s use, or our brains? Hard to know and why it is so important for us to be proactive in how with think about and design our modern work.

Real research on the issue:

• Wikipedia Entry on Sentence Spacing Studies (be sure to look at the River Effect)
• Research proposal for psychology study (pdf)

What other new world order technology adjustments deserve our attention? 

The Management 2.0 Hackathon continues. The current "sprint" goal is to identify 100 companies that already use "principles of the Web to build organizations that are fit for the future." What are M2.0 principles? Based on our prior activities, we've identified 12 behaviors and philosophies that describe Management 2.0 organizations. Now we're looking for exemplar companies that live by these principles.

While the whole list sings to me -- Openness, Community, Meritocracy, Activism, Collaboration, Meaning, Autonomy, Serindipity, Decentralization, Trust, & Speed -- Activism​ will be getting special attention from me this year (see my 2012 New Year post). ...but that's for another day.

Today I'm reaching out to you for additional companies that demonstrate the use of these principles today. My starting thoughts for the hackathon include:

• Intuit: Openness, Community, Autonomy, Serendipity, Decentralization, & Experimentation (drawing from this post).
• Nucor: Openness, Meritocracy, Activism, Collaboration, Autonomy, Decentralization, Trust, and Speed (drawing from this post). 

What other companies are special exemplars of at least one of these 12 principles? 

From the MIX site you can see some starter examplars (click on each principle). Red Hat is perfect for openness by default. Zappos didn't make this initial list for meaning, but I bet it does by the end. Google is a perfect fit for experimentation. What other organizations can we all learn from in terms of how they've implemented these principles? Big or small, well known -- or ideally, not so well known -- let's practice some collaboration in building out this list.

This phase of the hackathon ends Monday, January 23, 2012. I'll be watching the comments here to see if you have add-ons for us -- or I'll be looking for new participants to the hackathon as you add your submissions directly. 

I’m feeling guilty. I like Phil Simon’s new book, The Age of the Platform: How Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google Have Redefined Business, because I agree with almost everything he says. The guilt comes from feeling like I should be looking for ideas that challenge my own, but with Phil Simon I think I’ve found an futurist/analyst who uses many of the same lenses I do. He shows how “each piece interacts with other parts of its ecosystem and the world at large" (Introduction). I feel less guilty for liking how the book shows the deep layers of platforms and how the four focal iconic organizations are building flexible business models. These ideas are likely to challenge all of us to critically think about new organizational forms.

Simon defines a platform as (p. 22):

..an extremely valuable and powerful ecosystem that quickly and easily scales, morphs, and incorporates new features (called planks in this book), users, customers, vendors, and partners....The most vibrant platforms embrace third-party collaboration. The companies behind these platforms seek to foster symbiotic and mutually beneficial relationships with users, customers, vendors, developers, and the community at large.

This is an extension of traditional platform thinking which he notes includes: physical and infrastructure platforms; technology platforms like landlines, cellphones and the Internet; and media platforms that spread information. In my world of technology and innovation management we’d also include product platforms like the chassis that serves for multiple models of a car, the particular platform for a family of computer chips, and the material that Swiffer uses in its broad set of cleaning tools. Simon’s view is an extension that I’ll be adding to the platform discussions in my classes.

The take away I hope my students will appreciate is that as platforms are built of “planks”:

Platforms comprise individual components, features, products, and services—collectively referred to in this book as planks. Put simply, without planks, there are no platforms (p. 24).

Planks create degrees of freedom that allow organizations to evolve in more logical ways than if they were monolithic (p. 133).

The writing is accessible. Simon manages to keep the descriptions of things like the Facebook "Like" button basic enough for non-users while also giving enough unique perspectives for experts to gain value as well. Connections to pop-culture, like the game of Risk, make for an engaging read about companies we all watch and business strategies we all should be considering.

If you’re in a rush and feel you understand how Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are building and leveraging their platforms, read Part I and then move to Part III. You’ll miss some great insights, but you’ll jump to models you can consider for your own business.

Take a look and share your thoughts here or on your favorite book review site. For more, please see The Age of the Platform's website.

On January 1, 2012 single-use plastic bags vanished from the San Jose, CA shopping scene. Your options are to bring your own bag, pay $.10 for a paper bag, or do without. Fines for noncomplying businesses can hit $1000/day after a warning. Such a simple technology - a plastic bag with a handle - such a complex set of issues.

The last time you saw an Underwood typewriter with its lovely round keys, did you want to take it home? Do you longingly play with your Picket slide rule? My lunch time conversation at the Kern Entrepreneurship Education Network (KEEN) Winter Conference taught me about two new tools to look for: A wire-based multi-sorter (and specially punched cards) and an electromechanical square root calculator (updated image to show the correct one - Thank you to Hermann Viets, President of the Milwaukee School of Engineering).

I think seeing the simplicity and the complexity of these two devices has value across many dimensions. The punch cards are a wonderful reminder of even how simple, but laborious, tasks had elegant solutions that look nothing like our behavior today. Think of how you sort your notes via Evernote or other tools. Would you have had the patience to do the work you do today with only these historic tools?

Prior post on Babbage Difference Engine