Make your own DVD commentary: Overcast Media

I don’t write about it often but I’m a huge film fan. For awhile now I’ve known about the works at Overcast Media, but they’ve been in stealth mode, under the radar.

Finally, with this coverage by the Seattle Times, I’m free to tell you: If you’ve ever wanted to create your own DVD commentary, or make commentaries for TV shows or other media, you’re in for a pleasant surprise.

Roger Ebert and others have talked about this idea for years, and finally it looks like someone is making it happen.

overcast.jpg

Their new beta release is invite only – but you can sign up for an invitation right now.

(Disclosure: Richard Stoakley, Overcast Media’s CEO, is an old friend. He had the office across the hall from mine at Microsoft on the Internet Explorer team, circa 1997)

In defense of brainstorming

I’m no brainstorming zealot – there are many ways idea generation techniques out there and they all have their place. However now and then brainstorming, as a concept, gets attacked, which is almost as ridiculous as a war on terror. Recently Marc Andresen had a short post called Brainstorming is a bad idea that deserves a response.

Rarely discussed factors that impact the value of brainstorming:

  1. What problem are you trying to solve?. If the goal is raw numbers of ideas you might be better off with other methods, which Andresen points out (via a quote from the excellent book The Medici Effect). However if you want people to share in the creative process, get buzzed by riffing off each others ideas, having them all in a room together is very useful. Brainstorming, as an occasional group activity has benefits beyond the ideas themselves. Some techniques are better for generating ideas early on in a project, and others are better for finding ideas for specific problems late in a project.
  2. Who is running the brainstorming session?. The facilitator who runs the room can make or kill any brainstorming session. It’s up to them to manage the room, keep things fun and fast, to make sure ideas are written down, and to prevent ratholes from happening, or blowhards taking over the room. It’s a role most people don’t perform well and the skill rarely has anything to do with seniority.
  3. Who is in the room? Even with a great facilitator, if the people in the room hate each other, are morons, are afraid to be creative, or simply have horrible chemistry, the session is bound to fail. In many situations it’s best to keep brainstorming meetings small – large groups have more complicated dynamics that groups of 4 or 5.
  4. Is anyone informed on the actual method?. The term brainstorming is often used as the sloppy label for any number of half-baked idea generation techniques. The actual term comes from Alex Osborn‘s 1953 book Applied Imagination. The technique, as he defined it, compensates for many of the complaints most people have about the ad-hoc group creativity attempts they’ve experienced.

I’ve yet to see a single study that controlled for, or even mentioned these factors – which is entirely unfair to evaluating brainstorming, or any creative thinking technique. If I’ve missed some research you know of, please leave a comment.

Further reading
:

  • How to run a brainstorming meeting. I’ve run a crazy number of brainstorming meetings in my life and made every mistake there is. This essay is my tip sheet for running them right.
  • The Myths of Innovation. My book goes in depth on various misnomers about creative thinking, innovation and the history of invention, including how epiphanies happen and the role of techniques like brainstorming.
  • COM597 Syllabus from University of Washington. This is the syllabus for the UW course I taught on creativity and ideas, and it shows one approach to exploring the many methods of creative thinking.
  • Applied Imagination, By Alex Osborn. I discuss this book in detail in The Myths of Innovation and highly recommend it to anyone who runs or participates in brainstorming sessions.

(Thanks to Gernot Ross for the tip)

Upcoming speaking: Seattle, Philadelphia and more

The book is still getting some great buzz, and I’m on the road much of the next few months talking about the book. Here are some upcoming gigs:

July 25, OSCON, Portland, OR
August 10, Amazon.com, Seattle
August 14, Whitepages.com, Seattle
August 24, Expedia.com, Seattle
Sept 21, Management Week, SpiderProject Inc, Kiev, Ukraine
Sept 25-29, Web Directions South, Sydney, Australia
Oct 21-23, Adaptive Path’s MX-East, Philadelphia, PA
Nov 5-8, User Interface 12, Cambridge MA

If you’re in Seattle and you have a possible venue for me to speak at, let me know.

Seattle area book tour – venues wanted!

Hi there. If you’ve noticed I’ve been running all over the place doing talks, interviews, and magic tricks to promote the new book. Well my plans for this summer are as follows: stay home!

Wanted: Venues for a lecture on the Myths of Innovation
When: This summer / early fall
Why: I’m a great speaker, it’s a great book and it’s good for you!
Where: Seattle, eastside, wherever you are

If you work somewhere that has an invited speaker series, or some other way of drawing a crowd, let me know. I can’t promise I’ll speak everywhere, but I’ll give it my best shot.

If you want a flavor of what my talks are like, here are sample videos of me in action.

More social software: Crowdvine + Pathable

FOO Camp saw the power combo of two different social software technologies: Crowdvine, a linked-in type system for pre & post conference connection making, and pathable (which I first saw at Bizjam) for guiding people in finding folks to meet.

Here’s a short review:

It works and its fun. Bravo! The premise is simple: weeks before the event log in, list some tags, and ping people you might know attending the event. It’s easy to find people who share your interests (via tags), read their bios, and ping them if you so desire. There’s a comment system so you can leave notes which was surprisingly active, and public: going to the home page for the site shows all activity, from blog posts made by an individual, to comments sent or received. Anyone can jump in on the threads which was interesting (and I wondered if it’d work for a 500 or 1000 person conference).

crowdvine.jpg

At a minimum crowdvine helped me match faces to names before the event which is a big deal for networking or meeting specific people. And it was voluntary – had I been annoyed or less social, I didn’t have to participate at all.

Pathable provided the event badges, fueled by their social matching system – based on tags and other magic they grouped individuals by interest (represented by the color of each badge and the color of the crowdvine profile, see photo above) and created the surprisingly popular matches/opposites lists for every person.

pathbadge.jpg

Much like at bizjam, the badges got people talking. It made introducing people to each other much easier as being someone’s opposite or match was an easy way to start a conversation.

Gripes:

Only problems were mild integration issues. There was a wiki for FOO that didn’t integrate with anything else, a photo wall, with tagish Q&A, at FOO that had different photos for people than crowdvine, little things like that that I’m not sure need to be fixed. Someone needs to do a user experience analysis on how many different places and systems ask for personal/social info and check that any redundancies are useful or fun in some way.

After the event I noticed it was possible for me to track what sessions I’d been to in Crowdvine, but wasn’t sure why it was worth the time – perhaps to follow up with people I’d met but didn’t grab their contact info? Not sure.

Summary:

Not sure how much these folks charge, but smart conference organizers should be hiring these folks. Conferences talk the talk about connecting people and building networks, but rarely do anything to facilitate it. Crowdvine and pathable are real tools to help make that stuff happen.

Reading the the U.S. Constitution

Watching fireworks last night, I wondered about the distance between modern July 4th celebrations and what we’re actually celebrating (more ranting on holidays here). In my lifetime I don’t remember any hint of recounting what happened or why at any July 4th event – it’s just a BBQ, beers and fireworks – that’s the entire substance of the day as far as I can recall. Which is great fun, for sure, but shallow in light of what happened and why.

I asked folks around me when the last time they read the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. No one could remember. Few knew they’re so short – 1300 and 7600 words long respectively (about 15 pages) and can be read easily in 15 minutes.

I woke up this morning and read them both. They’re easy reads and I wish somehow reading these things would be part of the July 4th tradition. Can you rally a nation in 1300 words, or define a government in 8000? Now that’s writing.

References:

Lessons from FOO Camp ’07

foo07-nobi.jpg
(Photo by Nobihaya)

No matter what my expectations are for O’Reilly’s annual FOO camp, an intense social/geek/intellectual weekend run by my publisher, O’Reilly Media, they’re always surpassed in amazing ways. Unlike any other conference type event, I leave with a head full of ideas to chase and renewed passion for hunting them down.

I waited a week to write something up to see what stood out after things had time to settle. This year my thoughts were about what other events might learn from the success of FOO – here’s my short list (including some hard to avoid for narrative clarity name-droppings):

  • Informality breeds conversation. There are some amazing and famous people running around at FOO. Founder of this, inventor of that – people I’d normally avoid in ego-fear or fanboy embarrassment. But having everyone camp outdoors with no “invited speakers” or “keynotes” neutralizes pretensions. Egos are left at home and everyone is willing to share, chat, laugh and listen. FOO is full of bullshit neutralizers and that enables fantastic experiences.
  • Level playing fields are more fun. I did a talk on my book the Myths of Innovation and noticed Ray Ozzie and other notables in the audience. Now at any normal conference I’d be (happily) in the seats, listening to them. But because anyone can do a session the dynamic is entirely non-hierarchical and self-motivated. New conversations happen. Experiments ensue. Comical mistakes are made. This is the spirit of unconferences: you never know who will show up, or what will happen, but the bet is if you get out of people’s way they’ll sort it out themselves. People go where they aren’t supposed to and discover things. It forces opinions and new conversations to rise which is what most organizers claim their conferences are for.
  • Soft skills rule. I went to two sessions on amazing topics, with awesome, world class level people in the room, but surprise! They sucked anyway. Why? The self-selected session organizers failed to work the room – they let rat-hole debates go on forever, chatterboxes hold the floor too long, or held the group captive with their extended rambles. The lesson: despite all the geniuses in a room, once you’re a group, it’s communication, more than intellectual talent, that make things work. FOO averages much higher quality sessions than most conferences, but Unconferences and regular conferences hinge on rewarding people with facilitation and public speaking skills. But sadly it’s still not cool to reward soft skills. I think every unconference should offer optional, but recommended, training on running good sessions. Regular conferences are just as bad: I don’t know of one that offers training, or mentoring, for speakers.

Memorable moments:

It was a thrill to be there again and I hope to be invited back.

Background on FOO:

More on asshole driven development

Hey folks – apologies if you’ve had problems accessing the site. The last blog post on asshole driven development was a hit. I’ve had more traffic on that then anything I’ve written in history.

If you want more commentary and painfully funny methodologies there are additional comment threads on the three major drivers of traffic: Digg & O’Reilly Radar, And Reddit.

Tiff Fehr has put together an analysis of the different methods and comments to date. Worth a look.

There are still about 120 comments in the queue (out of almost 400 total) – if yours doesn’t get posted, please don’t call me an asshole :) Many of them were redundant, bizarre or beyond my level of comprehension. They’ll all get read, but at 100+ comments I’ve got to filter some stuff out.

Not sure which of you got the run going, but thanks to all who passed my writing around.

Innovation history: the bouncing bomb

bomb.jpgOne highlight of my research in innovation history is the story of Barnes Wallis and the bouncing bomb of WWII.

In short: The Allies needed a way to destroy Nazi dams and no ordinance of the time was sufficient for the purpose. Barnes developed a way to drop a bomb, on water, several hundred yards from the dam, and have the bomb, weighing several tons, bounce (that’s right) it’s way on the surface until it reached the dam wall.

It’s an amazing story of technology, inspiration, frustration, politics, persistence and eventual success.
Bouncing bomb, from wikipedia

I watched it first on the PBS Special Secrets of the Dead, but you can watch parts of the Dangerous Missions series about the bomb on Google Video here. There’s also a feature film from 1954, and rumors (mostly dead) of a Peter Jackson produced remake.

How and Why To Write a Rude Q&A

One handy technique I learned years ago at Microsoft was the Rude Q&A (RQA). Whenever we had a major launch, we’d start preparing by writing a document that listed all of the difficult, unfair and perhaps rude, questions we’d rather not be asked, but might come up.

We’d work with PR to draft it and distribute it to anyone who was talking to the public or with journalists. It forced us to think through our message, improve our thinking and at times even realize ways to make the product better.

Why do this?

  1. Helps you prepare for criticism. If you do hear a tough question you want to be ready. A RQA runs you through the unpleasant things you might hear, and increases the odds you’ll handle that situation well. A good RQA raises confidence in tough meetings or presentations.
  2. Many people will not give you the benefit of the doubt. When you work on a project your optimism makes it hard to see what you’ve built objectively. A RQA forces you to see your blind spots of how the project will be received.
  3. Revision. If you have lots of good RQA questions, but don’t have good answers, it’s a red flag that your plan, design, or pitch needs more work.

When to do it

  • Before Launch. When I worked on software projects, we’d write RQA for our areas before any major launch. We’d share them and discuss, and then give them to anyone who had to represent the product to the public or the press.
  • Early in the project. Provided it’s treated as an exercise, rather than a product planning technique, making an RQA early can help sanity check the assumptions your team is making about the project. Doing it early makes it possible to discover a better plan or approach for the project itself.

How to create a RQA

  1. Ask friends who excel at giving tough feedback for their opinions. Some people are naturals at this task and enjoy coming up with the rudest, most confrontational questions the world has ever seen. You might be offended or hurt by what they come up with, but that’s okay – better to be offended/surprised now, in an RQA than in a demo, pitch meeting or public setting.
  2. Make sure to include questions that are unfair or based on erroneous, but popular, assumptions. Reporters, clients, and the public all have their share of unfair questions and erroneous information, and you want to be ready for them.
  3. Spend more time on the answers than the questions. The answers take more time because the responses need to be more polite and mature than the questions themselves. They also need to carefully refute assumptions in the questions without being dismissive.
  4. Write polite answers. Only the questions should be rude – your answers should be diplomatic. Technically it’s a Rude Q & Polite A (RQPA).
  5. Review them with your staff. You want everyone who speaks publicly about the project to have similar answers.

[revised and edited 8-16-16]

Asshole-driven development

[Since this was originally posted commenters have added 100+ addition methods – see the comments below. There’s more commentary on reddit]

The software industry might be the world’s greatest breeding ground for new systems of management. From Agile, to Extreme Programming , to Test Driven Development (TDD), the acronyms and frameworks keep piling up. Why?

Some say it’s immaturity: that software is still a young industry and all the change is the path to some true fundamentals. Others say it’s because software people like making things up and can’t help themselves. Well I say this: if we’re going to have dozens of models we may as well have some that are honest, however cynical, to what’s really going on much of the time. There is a happy list of these I’m sure, but this is the cynical one.

Asshole-Driven development (ADD) – Any team where the biggest jerk makes all the big decisions is asshole driven development. All wisdom, logic or process goes out the window when Mr. Asshole is in the room, doing whatever idiotic, selfish thing he thinks is best. There may rules and processes, but Mr. A breaks them and people follow anyway.

Cognitive Dissonance development (CDD)
– In any organization where there are two or more divergent beliefs on how software should be made. The tension between those beliefs, as it’s fought out in various meetings and individual decisions by players on both sides, defines the project more than any individual belief itself.

Cover Your Ass Engineering (CYAE) – The driving force behind most individual efforts is to make sure than when the shit hits the fan, they are not to blame.

Development By Denial (DBD) – Everybody pretends there is a method for what’s being done, and that things are going ok, when in reality, things are a mess and the process is on the floor. The worse things get, the more people depend on their denial of what’s really happening, or their isolation in their own small part of the project, to survive.

Get Me Promoted Methodology (GMPM) – People write code and design things to increase their visibility, satisfy their boss’s whims, and accelerate their path to a raise or the corner office no matter how far outside of stated goals their efforts go. This includes allowing disasters to happen so people can be heroes, writing hacks that look great in the short term but crumble after the individual has moved on, and focusing more on the surface of work than its value.

I’m sure you’ve seen other unspoken methods at work – what are they?

Please add to the over 200 reader suggested methods in the comments.

Management by fire: Bourdain on leadership

A great interview with Anthony Bourdain about managing and leadership. I mention Bourdain’s book, Kitchen confidential in The art of project management. But this interview goes all out on the similarities between how pro kitchens work and how teams work.

“Every kitchen has one evil genius who’s tolerated—someone you turn to when all else fails—a rule breaker, a scamp who’s willing to make a hard and sometimes unlovely decision for expediency. There’s actually a name for this person—the débrouillard, the person who gets you out of a jam.”

Management by Fire: A Conversation with Chef Anthony Bourdain