My Graduate School Admissions Essay

My father is a professional musician. To this day, one of my favorite things to do is watch him play. I don't know how many of his gigs I've been to over the years, but it's easily in the hundreds. As much as I love the experience of live music performances, I am drawn to identify myself less as a member of the audience, and more with the creators of the music. True musicians can meet each other for the first time on a stage and make music like they've been playing together for years. The pure innovation and creativity that goes into a live performance is energizing, and I've always thought it would be a thrill to be able to pick up an instrument and just start jamming. I never learned to play a musical instrument, but I did inherit a passion for the creativity and innovation I see on stage.

I love technology, I always have. As a kid I was a tinkerer, a passion I inherited from my grandfather. He is a product of the Great Depression and a father of six, so tinkering was his way of giving things a second life and figuring out what made them tick at the same time. I used the same approach with my first computer and it became my muscle car. I bought it in high school and, before long, nearly every component inside had been removed, upgraded, or replaced. Our family was always on a tight budget, so I had to manage my upgrades carefully with money I earned from providing rudimentary computer services to neighbors and family members. My passion for tinkering and technology was clear, but it would be six years of college, a change of major, two internships and a lot of part time jobs before I would match that passion to the right instrument: Industrial Engineering.

Ironically, it was the mastery of another instrument that would ultimately lead me to Industrial Engineering. In 1999 I interned with a biomedical company performing "Y2K" testing in hospitals nationwide. The opportunity to travel the country was so exciting for me that I decided to write about it and share the experience with family and friends via email while "on the road". I discovered a talent for telling stories in a way that kept readers engaged and entertained. The following year, I orchestrated the "Year 2000 Road Trip Extravaganza", a 6,000 mile cross-country road trip that took me and a college buddy through 25 states in 24 days. Our goal was to hit the road with all the mobile technology we could get our hands on and document the experience "from the road" using that technology. The trip provided me a perfect stage to share my passions and connect with people. For an Industrial Engineer, being able to connect with people is like a musician knowing how to read music.

My professional work as an Industrial Engineer has been mostly with The Boeing Company and predominantly dealt with the maintenance, modification, and upgrade of military aircraft. In my nearly six years with the company, I have traveled to numerous sites domestically and abroad, in each place gaining perspective on how people work while supporting their journey to improve processes through "lean" manufacturing. The specific programs and geographic locations change, but my fundamental job remains the same: work with people and their processes to systematically reduce waste.

Lately I’ve been giving a lot of thought to technology and innovation. While many of the end products & services produced by The Boeing Company are truly on the cutting edge of science, technology, and industry, much of the technology involved in creating and supporting those products and services is not. When it comes to placing new technology in the hands of employees, large organizations--especially those dealing with sensitive information--tend to be sluggish to respond and overly protective. I believe that technology should be treated as a tool, not a threat. I believe it is an investment in a means to an end, not just another overhead cost. I believe there is tremendous opportunity for companies of all sizes to manage technology more effectively.

Once again I find myself in the audience. I know my passions and I want to jump on stage, grab the right instrument, and start to play. The Management of Technology degree seems to me the next “right instrument”. Learning how to stimulate technological innovation and creativity in an organization will transform me from the guy in the audience tapping his leg to the guy that can jump on stage and jam with the band. After years of sitting in the audience, I am ready to jam.

Who's Talkin' 'Bout My Generation

A few months ago I wrote about an industry conference I attended in Anaheim, California. One of the presentations was given by Dr. Marlene Law Graham, a senior manager at The Boeing Company in Long Beach, California. Dr. Graham's presentation, “Leveraging the Power of Cross-Generational Teams”, focused on four commonly accepted workplace generations, how their respective views toward “work” differ, and how to effectively deal with those differences to resolve conflict. Allow me to grossly oversimplify Dr. Graham’s presentation.

Traditionalists and baby boomers (born roughly between 1925 and 1960) tend to view work as an end in and of itself. They equate productivity with attendance and long hours and believe in “paying your dues”. Generation X and the so-called millennial generation (roughly born between 1961 and 2000) tend to equate productivity with results. They view work as merely a means to an end and are interested in getting the job done so they can move on with the rest of life. Obviously the divisions are not hard and fast, but when the two older and two younger generational definitions are paired, as I've done here, I think the demarcation is very evident. To illustrate, let's consider two companies as if they were generational members. I'll pick the companies.

The Boeing Company was born in 1916. It has survived the Great Depression, two world wars, the Civil Rights Movement, and 9/11. To say the company is seasoned is a dramatic understatement. Its generational attitude is certainly traditionalist; conformity to the rules and long hours are accepted as the norm. The value of something as benign as text messaging might be questioned in this environment (and a colleague recently wrote about how it was).

By contrast, Google was born in 1998, unquestionably making it a millennial child. As such the company’s culture tends to be more results-oriented. A visit to the Googleplex, Google's corporate headquarters, reveals a more relaxed, open attitude towards creativity and innovation. People bring their pets to work, ride Segway scooters up and down the halls, and use conference room projectors to watch the latest DVD movie releases. In a recent interview with CNET, Google CEO Eric Schmidt responded to a question about new technologies the company is developing by expressing their attitude as follows:

“Let’s not pre-judge what these things are best used for. Let’s build great technology…and our end users will ultimately judge”.

This sentiment is echoed in Google’s policy of 20% time, where engineers can spend one day a week working on a project of their choosing. It doesn’t matter if it looks like work or not, Google’s focus is on the result, and as long as the results keep coming, the process is largely left up to the employee.

Late in 2006, Businessweek ran a story about the aggressive transformation of Best Buy’s corporate headquarters to a Results Oriented Work Eenvironment (ROWE). The concept is that “people are free to work wherever they want, whenever they want, as long as they get their work done.” Three years later, Cali and Jody, the program’s founders, have spun ROWE off into its own subsidiary, bringing the philosophy to the world via their book, private consulting, and a blog. Recently they wrote about a company considering the addition of instant messaging because their younger generation workers are accustomed to it.

“What started out as a tool used by younger workers is being adopted by older workers. That’s what we like to hear: using technology to change the culture of a workplace so that people can have more power and freedom to do their jobs when and where they want.”

Changing the culture of a workplace is where many companies fall short—especially those of the “traditionalist” variety. Companies like the one Cali and Jody wrote about might think they can step into the digital age by simply adding a social networking tool to their workplace. But social networking tools cannot simply be deployed and expected to instantly integrate generational cultures within a company. I've written before about innovation, and the mistake companies often make by simply pulling innovative tools off the shelf without understanding or addressing the cultural and generational transformation necessary to achieve the desired results.

The more traditional generation tends to view technology as a threat rather than an opportunity. A change to how work is done is a change to how life is defined, and since work is not just a means to an end but more an end unto itself, this can be upsetting. Technology thus becomes an obstacle rather than a tool. But today's generation has figured out that just because you’re at work doesn’t mean you have to be working--and vice versa. They use technology to blur the traditional definition of "the office" and studies have shown they are typically more--not less--productive while doing it. It's somewhat of a paradox that the generation that values separation of work and play the most has most intertwined the two.

The ability to always be connected is not inherently good or bad, it's how that connection is managed and balanced with the rest of life that matters. In Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler writes,

“The overarching point is that social production is reshaping the market conditions under which businesses operate. Consumers are changing into users…reshaping the relationships necessary for business success..."

Regardless of whatever title I may have (Industrial Engineer, Lean Practitioner, Father, Writer, etc.) I am a change agent, it's just what I do. As such I must not only be aware of generational differences and the new relationships of a technologically connected business world, I must embrace those differences and offer effective ways to unify the talents and strengths of each generation. Sometimes that might mean text messaging the boss from Starbucks while checking Facebook. What's wrong with that?

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.

My Tivolution: Cash Cab

If you haven't already, set your favorite DVR (or tune in live if you absolutely must) to the Discovery Channel game show Cash Cab.  Hosted by comedian Ben Bailey, the show takes place inside a New York City taxi cab.  There are a couple of reasons I love the show.  

First, the technology required to overcome the logistical challenges of recording a game show live in a moving vehicle fascinates me.  As a former student of video production, I would jump at the opportunity to witness the show live from "behind the scenes".  Some of the secrets are revealed on the show's web site here.

Second, unlike any other game show I can think of, Cash Cab contestants don't have an agenda i.e., they aren't trying to get on a game show.  Statistically speaking, the show's concept seems to be a great way to get a random sampling of "the average Joe" contestant.  

Finally, Cash Cab contestants are constantly impressing me with their mastery of "general knowledge". The mainstream media tends to make me think we live in a nation of dunderheads, but watching regular people answer questions about current events, history, technology, etc.--and get them right--makes me feel a little better about how smart the American people really are.

So what's next, Discovery? Money Train on the subway? Cash Car in LA? Give me a call, I'll help you find the next concept. And if you need a host, I could make myself available.

Microsoft Surface In The Classroom

I've recently shared some articles about Microsoft Surface in the Check This Out section (on the right side of this blog).  Inside one of them is the video below, demonstrating an application of Microsoft Surface in the classroom.  The marriage between education and technology is a passion of mine, so this is pretty cool.

Zillow Releases iPhone App

I've been tracking real estate web site Zillow for a couple years now.  It uses property tax information, home sales data, user input, and other real estate information to display "Zestimate" home values on a Google-style satellite map.  When it first started, I looked up a few houses I knew the value of to check the site's accuracy.  It was good, but not great.  Over the years it's gotten better.  Recently, they just introduced an iPhone app that kicks the service up an extra notch.  I'm not going to abandon my cell provider just to join AT&T and get an iPhone, but still, this is pretty cool.