Customer Development

I am in the early stages of a new start-up idea so I am poking my head up to look around for the latest best practices before getting underway.   I was referred by some friends to Steve Blank’s  idea he calls Customer Development. It’s not brand new, but it is certainly far from mainstream yet.

Not only do I feel that Steve’s framework is right for my start-up, but I was also compelled to write a blog post.  During my research I found a post so well written that I knew it was better to link out rather than write a new one myself.  Therefore, I highly recommend Jussi Laakkonen’s post called “Customer Development or why 9/10 startups fail“

Please note: just talking to your customers (focus groups) about their needs is NOT customer development.  You need to actually try selling to them and see what happens.  Steve suggests that selling should be brought as far forward as possible in the process.

I have begun forming my customer hypotheses.

1. I will test my hypotheses by talking to a variety of customers (not too many)
2. Building simple iterations and seeing if early adopters will use/buy
3. updating my hypotheses and iterations based on what is learned from early adoption
4. Developing a larger marketing push once adoption/return is clearly good enough.

#KMers Chat Launch

The KMers.org site was ready for beta launch last week in time for the KMWorld09 conference.  Today we launched the weekly #KMers twitter chat.   I would guesstimate that we had about 15-20 people contributing to the Twitter Chat which means we probably had that number again of lurkers.   Lots of quality information was shared and I believe that it was considered a success by all.

For many on the chat it was their first ever.  Yet, despite a few small hiccups, everyone seemed to get the hang of it very quickly.

The topic (Best Ideas from KMWorld09) was not ideal for a Twitter Chat because it is more about sharing knowledge nuggets than having a conversation.  Also, we had far more people who hadn’t gone to the conference and were looking for info than we had people who had gone to the conference and were sharing it.  Future chats will be much more of a deeper dive into one facet of KM per chat.

Here is the summary of the chat from my perspective:

Introductions:

• we discovered that most of the chatters had not been to KMWorld09 and many were new to Twitter Chatting

Thoughts about KMers.org

• @Elsua: Member section should link in a Twitter List
• @lehawes: pointed out that archiving of chats will be a plus
• several indicated that KMers.org login and TweetChat login (double) was confusing
• @andreamayer pointed out that we had a glitch with a post being wrongly attributed
• There were a few other small problems encountered by a few people during the chat

Goals for attending #KMW09

• @swanwick indicated he was there 1) to network 2) to launch KMers.org
• @StanGarfield said he was there to speak, serve on a panel, learn, and interact
• Tone of session: @swanwick indicated that it seemed hopeful.  Hopeful that e2.0 would be the opp for KM and SM to work together.

Sub-discussions throughout the chat

• value of life-narration: balance between inane tweets and over polished ones.
• value of and how to measure KM value
• video as a knowledge sharing channel
• Neats vs. Scruffies http://bit.ly/7jf1WC

Best sessions at #KMW09:

• the consensus was that @BillIves provided the best blogging coverage of the event
• @forgingthfuture found discussion of Personal KM fascinating
• @forgingthefutur felt that @StanGarfield had one of the best presentations http://bit.ly/5aSTeH
• there was general appreciation for 2nd half of @vanderwal presentation http://bit.ly/7G4XVo
• @swanwick liked @nancymdixon doing High Impact Storytelling: http://bit.ly/4FzUHO
• @StanGarfield favs McAfee, Dixon, Li, Lambe, Gilmour, VanderWal. O’Dell
• @StanGarfield enjoyed extracurricular dinner with 30 SIKM Leader CoP members – great discussions and personal interactions.

Ways to improve KMWorld

• @VMaryAbraham felt it was too expensive
• Several wished there was an online attendance package available for those who can’t travel
• @Swanwick shared an open letter to KMWorld organizers http://bit.ly/6aL73q

Future #KMers Topics

• @elsua: deeper dives on 1) Personal KM and 2) storytelling
• @SethHorwitz: mind/concept mapping (comparisons, strategies)
• @SourcePOV: review topic by topic here would be awesome; maybe even invite a few orig speakers?

2-5-1 Storytelling

Lucky enough to arrive at KMWorld the night before the main portion of the conference, I had the pleasure of catching a Nancy Dixon session that evening called “High Impact Storytelling“.   Although it was not a competition, there was one story in that session that rose above all the others.  Although I doubt I will do the story full justice, I will try to re-tell it here

The original storyteller, Lt Col Karuna Ramanathan, lives in Singapore and has a pretty heavy accent when speaking English.  Although accents often create a communication gap, in this case I believe it helped because one had to concentrate throughout to pick up all the words.

As you can imagine from his title, Karuna is part of the military in Singapore.  He starts out by setting the scene and explaining that military personnel in Singapore are very reluctant to share their opinions due to their culture.  This can make for a very quiet after-action-review (AAR).  In order to maximize the value of the program, they need to coax out the tacit knowledge.  So, his team developed a framework they call 2-5-1.  It goes like this:

• 2
  • Who you are
  • Summary of your experience
• 5 fingers
  • Little finger – what parts of the effort did not get enough attention
  • Ring finger – What relationships were formed, what you learned about relationship building
  • Middle finger – what you disliked, what/who made you frustrated
  • Pointer finger – what you would do better next time around, what you want to tell those who were “in charge” about what they could do better
  • Thumb (up) – what went well.  What was good.
• 1 – the most important takeaway from the effort

This is a framework that everyone can relate to.  It is also a framework that is easily remembered and easily walked through while standing up in front of a group.  Those who are uncomfortable speaking in front of a group can use one hand to grasp the corresponding finger on the other hand for each section…adding to their comfort level by giving them a prop.

If you have a good storytelling framework, tell us about it in the comments.

Meeting Format – High Impact Storytelling

At the recent KMWorld09 conference in San Jose, CA; Nancy Dixon ran a session on the evening before the main conference began.  It was the true essence of “teaching-by-doing” rather than just “teaching-by-telling”.  She calls it, “High Impact Storytelling”.

In contrast, the majority of the sessions at KMWorld are traditional lectures with slides and a few questions at the end if there is time.  My open letter to the KMWorld organizers describes some ways to improve the conference.  I hope they will engage in a discussion to make KMWorld10 a better experience for KMer attendees.  One of my suggestions was to include more sessions like Nancy’s (eg. Buzz Sessions) and increase significant peer to peer interactions.

How the session goes:

After a brief intro, Nancy introduces herself and requests that people move into small groups (4-5 ppl).  Each group consists of chairs facing each other with no table in the middle.

• Nancy asks each person to take turns telling a story on particular topic.  Ours was what was your best experience ever with KM.
• Each person has 2 minutes to tell their story before a bell rings and you move onto the next person
• Once you have made it all the way around the circle, she asks everyone to get up and find a new group
• Everyone is asked to tell the same story again, but to a new set of people.  Of course, each of the other stories is new to you, even though it is the teller’s second time
• She repeats this one more time so that everyone moves to a new group and then tells their story a 3rd time

To close out the session:

• Nancy asks everyone to get up and put a hand on the shoulder of the person who they felt told the best story
• The person who garners the biggest crowd around them is asked to tell their story one more time for anyone who may not have heard it.  Our winner was “2-5-1 storytelling“
• Then Nancy asks everyone to form one large circle and she facilitates a discussion about what was gained from the exercise

Here are some of my takeaways

• Telling a story multiple times makes you significantly better at telling it
• Because you want to get better at telling your story, you are not only listening to the stories of others, but also to HOW they tell their story in order to use their best practices to improve your own
• There is a significant level of bonding that is gained from a participatory shared experience.  If one of your goals for a conference is to build relationships, this is a far superior format to sitting in a lecture.
• Tables are useful to put things on, but they are also a psychological barrier between people

If you have other high-impact conference session formats, please share them in the comments below.

An open letter to the organizers of KMWorld09

Thanks for creating the environment where I can catch up with some old friends and meet lots of interesting new ones.  We used KMWorld09 as a platform to launch the new http://KMers.org community and it was very successful in that regard.

As requested from our in-person discussion, here are some specific recommendations for conference improvement.

• Create an online environment where attendees can provide feedback about the conference.  Not a survey, but quick comments.  Use a tool that lets everyone see each other’s comments and vote on whether or not they agree.  Try crowdsound, uservoice, or ideascale.  All very cheap and probably free for KMWorld in return for the exposure they would get to KMers.   Your audience will help you improve if you give them the tools.
• Create a physical Q&A room where speakers go after they finish speaking so that people can continue asking questions.  Put the Q&A room on the schedule.  If you don’t want to pay for another room, designate a table in the lobby where the speaker will hold court for an additional 30mins or so.
• Create a track which has only collaborative type sessions.  Nancy Dixon’s session was a great example.  Here is a description of another good format called Buzz
• Make sure that every speaker, speaks for a maximum of 2/3rds of the time slot.  Too many sessions I attended just ended with zero chance to interact with the content.
• Simulcast the keynotes online.  This will create significantly more exposure and therefore likely more awareness for next year’s conference
• Provide a place online where people can rate speakers and sessions.  Not sure how you were vetting sessions this year, but it seemed that everyone came from a reputable source, but some were downright embarrasingly poor at communicating.  I used to work at WSB so I know that the presentation is as important as the content for whether people enjoy and retain.
• Kudos for being on Twitter and for pushing out blog content during the conference.  However, the hashtag should be a communal conversation.  The tweeters are people and should be connected with as people.  The way you used Twitter this time around is akin to walking into a cocktail party and just talking to everyone you walked up to, never listening, and never responding to their ideas.  The best conferences are listening to their hashtag streams and engaging wherever they see an opportunity.
• Get the hashtag buzz going before the conference.  This will help with registration.
• There are a variety of ways to use Twitter in sessions.  Here is an article that I wrote for MPI’s One+ magazine

There are some excellent meeting planners who have great ideas about how to make conferences better

• Jeff Hurt: http://jeffhurtblog.com/
• Julius Solaris et al: http://www.eventcoup.com/
• Samuel J Smith: http://interactivemtgtech.wordpress.com/

Please let me know if I can help.  We all want KM to thrive.  Conferences are an important part of maintaining a solid community.

All the best,
Swan

Lists and Waves

The fact that Twitter,  Twitter Lists and Google Wave exist warms my heart.  They are tools that generate their own innovation buzz eco-system and drive what this blog is all about: Future Business.  Foundational tools like these, along with open source projects, are the essence of the web2.0 innovation renaissance.  Think about how fast tools and processes can iterate today to match widescale and niche user needs compared to where we were 10 years ago.

At the moment it is the wild west for these innovation eco-systems.  Everyone thinks they have a good idea and they are running full-speed either with a little bit of money or completely bootstrapped.  Over time, we will start to settle on some valuable use cases and the real money will head in that direction.

As an innovator interested in new ways that business can operate, both tools’ potential fascinates me.  While Twitter lists is pretty much what I expected it would be, Wave did not live up to my initial expectations.  I’ll give both a fair shake over a period of time because, like Twitter itself, there is likely a path of use evolution.  The truly valuable use cases might not show themselves until 3rd party apps have been written that run on top.

For Twitter Lists I am starting to see

• Lists that you are in can be a crowd-sourced social descriptor of what you tweet about
• Curating a popular list gives you credibility as a networker in the space that list covers

For Wave I think we are going to need tools and agreed conventions which

• Help us collectively “garden” (manage) waves.  Waves have structure and are objects intended to grow over time.  Because they become more complex over time, they need constant management in order that they are accessible to newcomers and previous visitors/contributors alike.
• Help us find portions of waves that are relevant to our needs and re-use those elements in our own content spaces: other waves, blogs, etc…

Long live the companies that are thinking about how to start the next innovation eco-system.

Virtual is BETTER than in-person for events

Heh, OK…..After reading that title, I can imagine chips being installed on reader shoulders all around the world.  :)  I am not saying virtual is better in EVERY way, just in some ways.

Have you noticed that people who oppose virtual events often focus only on the ways that in-person events are irreplaceable?  I believe they are right, but that does not mean in-person is the ONLY solution to EVERY collaborative/networking need.  Just because A is better than B in some ways does not mean that B is not better than A in others.

This post examines all the ways that virtual events are better than in-person ones.

1. Multi-threading

In a virtual event or even in an in-person event with a virtual channel, there is the opportunity to multi-thread.  Think about it this way, verbally we can only watch/listen to one person at a time.  This is called single threading.  Everybody listens to that one thread.  In a virtual environment though, the technology allows for multiple people to communicate at the same time.  ”Listeners” can then jump from one thread to another as they find something interesting.  I am not talking about different presentations here, I am talking about different conversations about the SAME presentation.

Twitter Chats are a great example of this.   Each Twitter Chat normally has a moderator who announces the topic.  From there different people submit ideas and different people reply or build on those ideas.  It is a free for all.  The most interesting ideas/threads get the most interaction.  The less interesting ones drop off.

2. Ease of switching

If I am at a conference and I don’t like the session, I have to make a visible show of walking out.  Perhaps there are other sessions, perhaps not.  I may have to wander into the lobby and see if the other few people milling around might want to engage in a discussion.

Online, if I lose interest, there are a myriad of other information sources to which I can turn for more interesting, educational, stimulating content.

3. Greater volume of content

This is obviously related to switching, but the sheer amount of content that can be made available via a virtual environment vastly eclipses what can be brought together into one physical location.  This allow much more choice and much better match with time spent vs. information sought.

4. Greater geographical diversity

Travelling costs money and takes up time.  The further people have to travel, the more of both required.  Thus, US events tend to attract US participants, European events tend to attract Europeans, etc…   Having spent some time working abroad, I have experienced first hand the value of opinions from different cultural perspectives.

While there are still timezone issues even online, we are much more likely to get an international crowd to our meetings

5. Niche topics

In order to maximize attendance, conferences often create a very broad topic.  The sessions then need to appeal to a broad range of the different types of people who are attending. Thus, niche topics are challenging.  Online, attendee costs are lower and they are not need to spend travel time.  Thus, our attendee pool is significantly larger.  This economy of scale can make more niche sessions viable.

We should be seeking ways to combine in-person and virtual experiences to best meet the needs of our audiences.  It is not “either/or”.   In person events should not feel threatened, they should be excited about new ways that they can provide value to their attendees.

This post was inspired by reading a Jeff Hurt blog post called “Since When Did Virtual Not Become A Live Experience?“

Knowledge Management vs. Social Media

For a little while now I have been subconsciously irked by something, but only today did I realize why.  The trigger for this mild epiphany was a one year old blog post.  I will link you to it as soon as I explain my thoughts on the matter.

First of all, we all have our own biases.  Here is mine.  I came to KM from an IT/process background in 2000.  I came to SM from a KM background in 2004.

The irking I mentioned is being caused by the fact that I continue to practice both KM and SM and yet they don’t seem to be getting along.  KM has not embraced SM nor vice versa, despite their similar ideals: to support the sharing of information.

Many people have heard me espouse my theory that KM will never become more than an academic foundation because as each facet of KM gains a foothold, it breaks off into its own discipline.   However, I don’t believe that is what is happening with SM.  On the contrary, SM from its birth was very opposite to KM in so many ways.

• where KM seeks to provide structure/control, SM prefers chaos
• where KM tends towards large top-down systems, SM tends to be grass-roots
• where KM is often practiced by older professionals, SM has captured the imagination of a younger crowd
• where KM seeks to define the goal and then select appropriate tools, SM provides the tools and hopes that a common goal will emerge, but at the least everyone will individually find value

The triggering blog post I mentioned above is called Social Media vs. Knowledge Management: A Generational War by Venkatesh Rao.  Personally, I think he puts too much emphasis on age, but it is at the very least thought-provoking.

One of the parts I like best is where he talks about Generation X being in-between the Boomers who prefer KM and the Millenials who prefer SM.  By the very fact that Venkatesh wrote the post the way he did, it is clear he likes to seek out patterns and meaning which is more of a KM type trait.

This tension between KM control and SM freedom is typified by the discussion of taxonomy vs. tagging.  Only now, as I write this blog post, do I realize that my fervent advocacy of tagging over taxonomy beginning in 2005 was a sign of my shifting allegiance from KM to SM.  I have had many debates with KMers about taxonomy and I am perceiving in new light why we were not seeing eye to eye.

If there is to be a war (as Venkatesh terms it) between KM and SM, then Enterprise2.0 is going to be the battle ground.  In order to have successful E2.0 initiatives, I believe that we are going to need to borrow from both camps.  There may be compromises that make neither happy.  Keep your eye out for these clashes as your organization rolls out any web2.0 tools/programs company-wide.

Addition: Since writing this post, I found an excellent series of slideshare posts that discuss the relationship between KM and SM

Part 2, Part 3

Side Note: I am currently working on building a Twitter driven (SM) community for knowledge management professionals (KM) called KMers.org and launching end of 2009.  It will be very interesting to see what lessons we learn.

Prezi Presentation Tool

At first I thought I had finally found presentation nirvana.  Prezi is a relatively new entrant to the presentation tools market.  Their interface is revolutionary.  Rather than create my own elevator overview, here is one from Jay Ball,

In a nutshell, Prezi is a Flash-based presentation system that allows users to create incredibly dynamic presentations. Presentations where you can zoom in and out across a large area (no slides), create motion paths, embed images and video and do things that previously needed a pretty competent Flash developer and a whole chunk of time. It kicks traditional slideware way into touch.

I like to play with tools a bit before I lock in my initial opinion so play I did.  It was fairly quick to figure out how to use the completely novel admin interface.

Up to this weekend, I spent my whole career working out ways to present ideas in a clear linear fashion with sections, slides, pictures, bullets, and sub-bullets, tieing together my ideas, questions, and calls to action.  Now with Prezi, all of a sudden I am faced with a completely blank canvas and some tools to populate and navigate that canvas.  Of course, I could put up a series of slides, but that would defeat the purpose.  I was hungry for the full experience.

I used my December MPI online column as a test subject for building a presentation and learned a great deal about both the tool and myself in the process. (Note: can’t include prezi draft here because I am contractually bound to release my columns on MPI before they are shown elsewhere.  Once it is published, I will embed the prezi here).

The Good:

• Forces you to think about the relationship between the ideas you intend to present
• Very flexible in what/how you can present.  Good with both pre-planned paths, on-the-fly path changes, and even a combination of both
• End product presentation is sure to have WAY more of an impact than powerpoint or keynote

The Bad:

• Challenging learning curve to think differently
• New interface takes a little while to learn and even longer to become proficient
• Limited functionality
  • very little text manipulation: no fonts, no colors
  • line tools are very limited
  • no shape tools
• Takes a LONG time to get presentation set-up exactly the way you want it.
• Admin frames that help with zooming are displayed to the end user and so confuse the interface

The Bottom Line:

• Just practicing with Prezi will improve the way you use your current presentation tool
• Best for presentations where
  • spending significantly more time is a good trade-off in return for more impact
  • you are going to continuously re-use the same presentation with minor changes
• Needs a bit more work in order to have a good chance at mainstream adoption

Have you tried it?  What do you think?

Chats for Associations

There is already a meta-discussion on Twitter called #assnchat where association leaders collaborate.  How many of those associations are using a Twitter Chat (overview, tools) to create an additional collaboration avenue for THEIR members?  Judging from the Twitter Chat Schedule, the answer seems to be, “very few”.

It seems that social media savvy individuals rather than associations are the ones starting the chats.  Lara Mculloch-Carter (@ready2spark) started #eventprofs.  It could have been MPI.   Jeff DeCagna (@pinnovation) started #assnchat.  It could have been ASAE.

On the recent Oct 6 #assnchat (transcript), I moderated a discussion of how and whether associations should be creating Twitter Chats for their membership.  The chat included some good reasons for an association to run a Twitter Chat

1. It provides another avenue for collaboration
2. It’s free so it can be added as a benefit without driving up costs
3. Content tends to be very good on chats
4. Less intimidating than a conference call for those who are shy to speak out
5. Chat attracts attention from members and prospects due to its nature of tweets going out publicly

and some reasons why an association may not want to run a Twitter Chat

1. Discussion is 100% open.  There might be a privacy issues which necessitates more of a walled-garden
2. Participation may be low until more people are on twitter
3. Yet another channel might spread the activity even more so that it is hard to gain a tipping point of activity in any one channel
4. members may want a non-computer based collaboration since they are already on computer all day

In my personal opinion

• #1 – Certainly a good reason that you should watch out for
• #2 – Even with only 3 people in a Twitter Chat, you can learn a lot.  Get started.  Once word gets out, more will join
• #3 – when done well, channels feed each other rather than take away.  Tout your website during the chat and talk about the chat on your website.  Mention the chat during your f2f meeting and gain registrations for f2f from the chat
• #4 – I have found that most people who spend a lot of time on a computer, prefer additional means of communication that use the same device.  email, IM, and even Skype are often preferred over the telephone by heavy computer users.

A chat session is never going to replace face2face collaboration.  Due to human nature, we develop a significantly deeper/quicker bond when we can see and touch each other.  But, we should not consider the choice an either/or.  Chats can increase the demand for f2f and they can help with the hype.

There is a very different set of opinions based on the same chat session over on Memberclicks.  I hope you will chime in with some of your thoughts either here or there.