Atlantis Makes Refuelling Stop in San Antonio

Those of you following my tweets today know that I saw space shuttle Atlantis take off from Lackland Air Force Base after a two hour refuelling stop on its ferry flight back to Kennedy Space Center.  

My boss captured some awesome photos of the departure.

We call this the "money shot".

For more photos and information about Atlantis and its last mission, check out Damaris' "How I Am Becoming An Astronaut" blog.

Innovation In The News: Advice For Natali DelConte

I recently read a blog by Natali DelConte, a senior editor for CNET, about the role technology plays in the news.  Natali is working on a new format for a general news webcast and she is struggling--overwhelmed was actually the word she used--with how to make a news broadcast interactive without bombarding the viewer with gratuitous uses of technology that amount to little more than gimmicks.  Discussing the differences of "old media" versus "new media", she poses the following question: 

"Has the information evolved just because I can live stream myself blow drying my hair? Is social media a gimmick that gives the viewer the illusion of interaction with the news?" 

Her concerns are well-founded; we've certainly seen plenty of gimmicks in television news lately, perhaps most notably during last year's election coverage.  Saturday Night Live had a field day with anchors and their dreadful attempts to incorporate some cool new tech--interactive touch screen technology--into broadcasts.  

For the most part, the anchors skillfully demonstrated how out-of-their-league they were with the new technology, thus the technology was reduced to little more than a gimmick.  It wasn't the technology that failed them though, it was their sacrifice of the process for a result.  Rather than focus on how technology could enhance the delivery and timeliness of good information to draw in ratings, they tried to bring in the ratings with flash and glitz.  This was technology for technology's sake and it completely bypassed an important and often lost step in the process of improvement: innovation.  

As an Industrial Engineer and a lean practitioner, my biggest challenge is how to effect not just change, but innovative change. In business, change usually means better quality, lower cost, and improved schedule performance. Organizations are always falling into the trap of focusing on lowering cost and improving schedule and quality and they fall short and can't figure out why.  They skip the innovation, ignore the process, and instead focus on the desired result. Here's an example. 

Consider the attempt by so many corporations in America to replicate the success of the Toyota Production System.  In the mid 1900's, Taiichi Ohno developed the Toyota Production System as a disciplined way of improving manufacturing processes through the systematic elimination of waste.  Companies all over the world, including our own now defunct American car companies, benchmarked Toyota in an effort to replicate their success.  They failed.  Why?  Because rather than change behavior and truly innovate, they went after the result, not the process.  They went to Toyota factories and saw moving assembly lines and kitted parts and they duplicated what they saw as if pulling the techniques off the shelf at a supermarket.  What they failed to see is the theory behind the practice.  The process of eliminating waste, a pinnacle of the Toyota Production System, was sacrificed for the desired result, a buzzing production line. Nevermind that cost, quality, and schedule were not improved.  What better illustration than today's bankruptcy announcement by GM.  Last time I checked, Toyota is still in business.

Innovation, on the other hand, is an investment in the process, not the result.  Nobody wants a shiny car that won't perform well on the road or requires a ton of maintenance.  Likewise, nobody wants information delivered in a fancy "new media" way if it's stale or irrelevant.  Sometimes it's necessary to ignore the result you want and simply focus on the process.  That's when true innovation takes place.  Americans don't "buy American" for the sake of buying American.  They buy American because they want American to by synonymous with "better".  They want to be proud of something that says "American".  When you focus on the result--buying American--and you ignore the process--make it better--innovation is lost and you simply have a shiny car that doesn't run well and nobody wants.  But I really am not writing this to beat up on the car companies--they just happened to provide a very timely, very effective example. 

Let's try another one, something a bit more personal.  I recently attended an industry conference in California.  Consider the desired result if you are a conference organizer: engaged attendees. What good is a conference if nobody attends or those that attend don't pay attention?  As an organizer, you can either focus on the result or the process. 

Here's the result-oriented approach:

• You tell your keynote speakers you want an engaged audience.  
• You equate participation with engagement and you ask the speakers to incorporate questions and answers into their presentation. 
• The speakers focus on periodically cold-calling questions to various attendees to stimulate "participation".  
• The attendees are bored with the presentation (since no emphasis was placed on the quality of the content), fearful of being put on the spot, and maybe even a little resentful for being talked down to as if they were back in school.
  

Here's what the organizers at this particular conference actually did (a process-oriented approach):

• They told the keynote speakers they were incorporating an audience response system into their presentations.  
• Each attendee was given a credit card-sized RF "clicker" they could use to provide instant feedback to specific questions. Results were fed directly into the speaker's presentation slides. 
• Rather than focusing on the audience, the speakers focused on the content of their presentations and the audience feedback they would solicit about the presentation. 
• The result? Measurably engaged conference attendees willingly participating in every keynote presentation. Gratuitous use of technology or innovation?
  

So here's my advice for Natali, and anyone else who wants to effect change in whatever it is they do: 

1. Don't fear gimmicks; innovation is inherently risky and gratuitous technology, or any number of other tools or "gimmicks", can help if used properly.  As Henry Petroski says in The Evolution of Useful Things, "Our expectations for a technology rise with its advancement".  It can't advance if you don't use it.
   
2. Innovation isn't always successful--at first.  As a change agent, you don't always know where you are going when you start the journey.  Don't be afraid to take a risk on something that might not pan out.  A negative result is still a result--and a good one--provided you stay focused on the process. The desired result more often than not will naturally follow.
   
3. GM and Chrysler have demonstrated to the world that pouring money at a problem doesn't work if you're not willing to try something different.  Don't be afraid of change, innovation demands it.
   

Personally, I hope Natali incorporates every bit of new technology into the show that she can get her hands on.  Twitter, You Tube, Microsoft Surface--who cares if it seems gratuitous and trite (besides, if anyone can make blow drying hair exciting, she can) as long as she's still delivering good information people want.  If she does, a year from now other shows will be scrambling to incorporate {insert the great result here} and scratching their heads trying to figure out why they didn't think of it.  

Chances are they were too busy focusing on the result and totally forgot about the fundamental purpose of any good news organization: the process of delivering information.