The more interesting things I read, the more interesting thing I want to write.

“They depend on upon material culture to make their culture material.” from Grant McCracken in Culture and Consumption II.

Obligatory post to explain absence. However, it’s not why I wasn’t posting that’s worth talking about — it’s actually why I’m starting to post again (or at least have the desire to). The Black Swan, and Taleb’s love of thinking and writing, has sparked that (recently) latent desire. I want to write… but what about? I no longer spend my days in the world of innovation and web 2.0…. at least not so directly. I have, however, been reading quite a bit more and the blog could give me the discipline to work through analyzing and synthesizing it.

When the occassional Ftrain post appears in the feedreader I fill up the coffee mug and prepare for a wild ride.

Evidence: Real Empires the Ship

But already the mini, once the zenith of high design, is comically fat in comparison to its much smaller sibling. Its monochrome screen and broad curves consign it to the era of Marilyn Monroe in a Fiona, uh, Apple world. The new model looks like a cigarette lighter for nymphs and sprites, and we barely need pockets anymore. Yet as gadgets shrink we get collectively fatter, as if nature must maintain equilibrium between our toys and our bodies. Draw a chart: if this trend continues we will all turn into spheres of flesh, and our machines will be tiny golden threads woven into our 20XL shirts.

And I recommend Gary Benchley if you dig Paul Ford’s style.

I’m a little over a hundred pages into Marvin Minsky’s The Emotion Machine and came across this gem:

To understand how our thinking works, we must study each of those “very different things” and then ask what kinds of machinery could accomplish some or all of them. In other words, we must try to design — as opposed to define — machines that can do what humans do.

In my words, he’s taking about Designing to Define. I think that is an apt way to describe an interesting philosophy of doing to learn. In the software community the closest thing is rapid releases, rapid prototyping, etc. But what I’m talking about isn’t designing to improve — it’s designing to learn. That is something I’m not sure that product companies do intentionally. Maybe I’m wrong. But even if they’re not doing it now, they will (and those that are – you’re a step or two ahead).

Marketers, especially those of the direct variety, have always done this to some degree — if they do it right. On a very basic level they understand the values and motives of consumers through emergent design — the audience, the offer, the creative, endlessly reformulated in small increments, a plodding evolutionary approach. What makes that world complex, however, is 1) the spectrum of sophistication (or lack thereof) of other companies’ approaches and 2) the pure volume and breadth of direct marketing communication. Very few marketers actually take into account what else people are getting in their mail as a part of the audience, offer, creative equation. They don’t completely define context.

It is the proper atomization or disaggregation into component parts that is the difficult part of Designing to Define. I don’t have to understand all the workings and innards of a complex system, but rather I want to design a system that elicits the outcomes I desire in the appropriate contexts. Therefore:
1. I must be clear about my intended outcome(s)
2. I must understand the relevant components of context
3. I must be able to break the design features into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive parts

Doesn’t seem so easy when broken out that way. But the fourth element of DtoD is iteration. The outcomes, context, and design components must all be quantified and measured — then coupled in iterative ways that improve outcomes, are either specialized for specific contexts or rigorous enough for most contexts, and reduce time and cost of design and production.

I know. You’re thinking: this isn’t anything new. This is the scientific method. And I agree. But instead of designing experiments, just design products and services that are emergent and experimental while delivering value. Make the emergent qualities part of the value and assets of the company. You’ll get closer to actual “use contexts”, shorten the time to learn, reduce R&D costs in the long run, and make competively differentiated products and services that people use and will increasingly value.

I’ve been alternating between fiction and non the last couple of months, churning through more business and innovation books than I care too.

The current non-fiction book: The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. I’m generating my own take on all this business. Anderson makes some good points–but I think he’s omitting a big part of the story. But more on that later. I’m conducting some research to test my hypothesis–with some interesting results early on.

In the fiction world I’ve just finished The Geographer’s Library and have started in on David Mitchell’s latest, Black Swan Green: A Novel.

I’ve been lost… in the latest Murakami. I’ve been lost as a DEWNster. As well, I’ve found my time caught in Gary Benchley, Making Meaning, and The Shape of Time.

I’ve been in Lost Cities, Lost Towns, and Lost–the ARG.

Never fear. Fulminator will return. I’ve got the Intonation Festival June 24th and 25th and the Pitchfork Music Festival July 29th and 30th to look forward to. Both within a 5 minute walk from my home.