"If the past ten years have been about discovering post-institutional
social models on the web, then the next ten years will be about
applying them to the real world." Chris Anderson
In his 'Does
Journalism Exist?' lecture (which I wrote up in more detail here),
Alan Rusbridger noted how many of The Guardian's most interesting
experiments lay in "combining what we know, or believe, or think, or
have found out, with the experience, range, opinions, expertise and
passions of the people who read us, or visit us or want to participate
rather than passively receive". We are, he said, edging away from the
'binary sterility' of the debate about new replacing the old, and
towards a world characterised by mutualised contribution and interest.
What
has happened in media, so it now goes with industry. In 'What Would
Google Do?', Jeff Jarvis talks about what would happen if you applied
'Googlethink' to the car industry. Car customers, he noted, have no
good way to listen to customer's ideas, or allow them to openly affect
the product. It is anathema for big car manufacturers to truly open up
their design process and make it both transparent and collaborative
because of traditional, ingrained habits of secrecy. And yet, it is an
industry that could so do with an injection of humanity and personality:
"The
anticipation I remember about a new year's cars - like a new season's
TV shows - is gone. Cars have lost their season. They stay the same
year upon year. They all start to look alike. They rarely engender
excitement"
I can't help but agree. Design, says Jeff, if not a democracy can at least
be a conversation. Offering the opportunity of real customer
involvement, of participating in the process, of customisation from the
ground up, would make cars exciting again.
The good news is that
it is already happening. Local Motors in the US is turning the car
industry on it's head, re-engineering it with an open-source,
participative, distributed model. I've been following their story for a
while. And Chris Anderson has just penned a feature about
them in the latest issue of Wired. The first Local Motors model, the
Rally Fighter (pictured above), goes on sale in June. Its design was
crowdsourced from an actively engaged community of designers,
hobbyists and enthusiasts (the largest online design and development
community in the world) and released under a creative commons license.
Customers get involved with the selection and design of components, and
the final assembly will be done by the customers themselves in local
micro-factories.
But this is no kit-car company. The designs are
totally original. The community is well managed, well equipped (with 3D
design software), and well led, meaning that 3600 innovators have
submitted no less than 44,000 shared designs onto the website. But it's
a sensible approach to crowdsourcing. Whilst the community design the
body and many of the components, the company takes charge of the
chassis, engine and transmission (meaning that, as Chris Anderson says,
the pros are looking after the parts critical to performance, safety
and manufacturability whilst the community designs the parts that give
the car its style, shape and personality). Instead of allowing the design
to be crowdsourced into mediocrity, they encouraged the submission of
individual designs and the community then decided on the winner. Even
though there initially wasn't meant to be a prize for the winning
design, the winner was awarded $10,000 by the company anyway. And a
whole ecosystem was created around the development process, with
customers encouraged to enhance designs and produce their own
components that they can then sell on to other customers. The process,
from beginning to end, is part of a whole customer experience.
And
the result is a car that Detroit would never have built. John Rogers,
the CEO describes his business as the sand that fills the gaps between
the big pebbles in the auto-industry. Not only building better cars, but a
better process for building better cars. He says they make cars on a
cycle 5 times faster than the average car business, in a process that
is 100 times less capital intensive. And he already has a ready made,
highly engaged, community of brand advocates: "People say to me 'you've
been developing that car for a year and a half with your community,
when are you going to start marketing it?' And I say 'exactly'". Compare the googlejuice for General Motors:
...with that (albeit on a smaller scale) for Local Motors:
I agree with Alan
Moore, who left a comment the previous time I wrote about Local Motors
(and who wrote a good post on the subject that is worth a read) that
this business fundamentally changes the relationship to supply and
demand. The real insight is "not that this is the car that twitter
built, but that this company was built around a designed approach in
which it had specific criteria and values. The result is the blending
of old and new together."
This is not confined to the auto industry. With the development of 3D
printers, access to affordable prototyping and design technologies, and
open access factories in China, disruptive manufacturing models are going to start springing up everywhere. Traditional business processes are
nowhere near agile enough to compete with companies that can bring
(more exciting) products to market, in more inclusive ways, in a fraction of the time, and at a
fraction of the cost. Manufacturing is about to get remanufactured.
NB. You can still vote for Local Motors in David's Social Business Innovation vote over here.
So one of my on-off obsessions of late has been the evolution of the data visualisation space. I think I find it so interesting because data commands such power now. For one thing there's so much of it. According to some, 2009 could have generated more individual data than has been created in the entire history of mankind through 2008. The web is, as Russell Davies has said, moving beyond being a thing of sites and is becoming a
thing of APIs and services. Our data is rapidly escaping the boundaries of particular websites, and will soon escape the web itself ("and...all those glowing rectangles"), so that we move from representing the world on the web, to embedding the web in the world. Tim O'Reilly calls it the 'internet operating system', a system where the real world casts 'information shadows'.
So dataiseverywhere. Which means visualisation is not only hermeneutic and explanatory, but interpretive and allegorical. And developing not only commercial power, but political power. And, as we become more conscious of our own data, a tool to record, to tell stories, and to understand. Infographic designer Nicholas Felton even visualises the detail behind his life in an annual report (the 2009 report has just been released, and you can read an interview with Nicholas by Mike Arauz here).
But then I also love visualisation simply for its artfulness. Recently, Infosthetics pointed at Hint FM, representing the work of Fernanda Viegas and Martin Wattenberg and incorporating some quite beautiful visualisations like Flickr Flow (pictured above) which uses an algorithm to show the ebb and flow of seasonal colours from a large pool of Flickr images taken in each month of the year. And Web Seer, which uses data from Google Suggest (the drop down that anticipates your search as you type it in) to provide interesting juxtapositions between two different searches.
And Chromogram, a visualisation of activity on Wikipedia that maps words to colours.
This months vote was very much a two horse race between Sam Ismail's 'Changing Strategy' post, and Stu Eccles post on agile. But in the end the winner by a nose was Sam, who gets the props of his blogging peers and to enter the ThinkTank Hall Of Fame. Well done Sam. In fact, you might even say 'BOOM". Thanks again to everyone for taking part and don't forget to bookmark your good reads to nominate for next months vote.
Gosh. Lots of good reading has meant that I've ended up with quite a long starting list of nominations for the first Post Of The Month of the decade (or is it the second?). Anyhow, I've listed the nominations below, which includes one from Tim carried over from last month for Jim Stodgill's post. Please add your nominations in the comments below and I'll stick them all up for a vote. OK, so my starting six are:
Sendhil talks about the kind of cognitive illusions we all have a tendency to succumb to, before focusing on how to turn 'The Last Mile Problem' into 'The Last Mile Opportunity' - by applying scientific method to ensure that human related innovation completes the process began by technological innovation. Insightful and important.