A Good Idea is Just an Idea, or Why You are Not Driving a Smart Car

You've probably seen, or if you don't live too close to a major urban area, have at least heard of a relatively new vehicle known as the Smart Car. The Smart Car, designed to be a highly fuel-efficient and easy to maneuver and park utility vehicle, (obviously important in many U.S. cities), debuted in America a few years ago, and reaching its sales peak in 2008, just as domestic gas prices were soaring.

The Smart Car is not just 'smart', but its also quite small. Almost incredibly, jarringly, and even disorienting small. To put the Smart Car in perspective, the length of a 2011 Honda Accord is about 195 inches , for the Smart Car you are looking at about 106 inches. Or for another frame of reference, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar stands at about 86 inches.

But from its peak in 2008, Smart Cars have in the last few years seen a gradual, yet steady decline in awareness, interest, and sales. The most recent annual estimate was about 6,000 Smart Cars were sold in 2010.

The parent company of Smart, Daimler, has recently announced that Smart Cars will be the beneficiary of a new national advertising campaign, and has also indicated the dealer network in the U.S. will expand from 75 to 100. While this is good news for fans and employees of Smart, only time will tell if these measures can turn around the flailing brand. 

Even for a truck driving, HR Mini scoffing, traditionalist like me the Smart Car seems like it would be kind of fun to drive. So why are sales in a free fall?

And why should you care about the (short) rise, fall, and uncertain future of the Smart Car?

Well to me, the story offers a few interesting angles, the foremost one a lesson about how an idea, even an idea that seems like it should succeed, often needs much more than its own cleverness to make any kind of a lasting impact. My most measures, the Smart Car really should be a success. It is extremely economical in purchase and in operating cost, its diminutive dimensions make it a perfect vehicle for urban settings, and its quirky uniqueness caters well to the 'look at me and what I'm driving' constituency among us.  The Smart Car website contains scores of pictures of happy Smart owners, (many with highly personalized modifications of the base vehicle that emphasize its flexibility and fun.

But even with all these attributes going for it, the Smart Car is in trouble. And the main reason is that the brand managers have allowed pre-perceptions, often inaccurate ones particularly about the vehicle's crash-worthiness, dominate potential customers and the public's views of the car. People look at the tiny car and often reflexively conclude there's no way I'd be safe in a car so small. 

And that is kind of too bad, because despite what really is a cool idea - economical, agile, quirky urban transportation, the Smart Car might soon become a footnote, albeit a small one, in automotive history.

The Smart Car was, and I suppose still is, a really good idea. Too bad for Smart, the company has not quite realized a good idea in only step one on the long march to success.

What's in it for me? The Space Junk Version

In case you are really unlucky, this is what might be coming for you

So have you heard about the large piece of space junk that is soon to come crashing down to earth?

It's actually an old, out-of-service satellite that is expected to fall to earth, in pieces, starting as soon as September 23rd. Ack! That's today!

Here's the essential information from Space.com:

NASA space junk experts have refined the forecast for the anticipated death plunge of a giant satellite, the U.S. space agency now predicting the 6 1/2 ton climate probe will plummet to earth around September 23rd, a day earlier than previously reported.

So what are the chances that a piece of this 'bus-sized' debris will actually strike a person? Well estimates vary some, but the figure is generally thought to be about 3,200/1. One in only thirty-two hundred? That doesn't sound good. In fact that sounds downright troubling. That doesn't really seem like that many people and when we see the descriptor 'bus-sized' along with it, well somehow it doesn't feel all that abstract and unlikely that a piece of debris might hit you or someone you care about and the entire issue might be something you need to think about.

Because we can quickly read those odds and interpret it quite differently, like 1 in every 3,200 people is likely to be hit, or in a town of 10,000 inhabitants chances are pretty good at least 3 people are going to have a rude introduction to a piece of space junk.

But of course if you interpreted the odds in that fashion you'd be seriously overstating your real chances of actually having your own version of a close encounter of the most unwelcome kind. Because while the chances of any person on earth getting hit with space junk might be only 3,200/1, the chances of you getting hit with a piece yourself are quite a bit higher, something on the order of 2 trillion to 1.

We (mostly), see and interpret the world around us via the prism of our own self-interest. And why not? It's actually really hard to let go or at least loosen our grip on the 'What's in it for me?' mindset.

Whether we are selling products, services, or even just advocating and recommending relatively minor changes in simple business practices or processes we are trained and encouraged to speak very clearly to the 'What's in it for me?' proposition for our audiences and constituents. If you don't have a good answer for that question, we are told, then you are quite likely to have a hard time making the sale, winning converts to your cause, or making any progess on your desired behavioral changes. No 'What's in it for me', then no joy my friend.

What's any of that have to do with giant out of service satellites plunging out of the sky? Not much I suppose. Besides we've just figured out that the likelihood of you getting plunked on the bean with a piece of mini-Skylab are really low, ridiculously low in fact. 

But the chances of a piece of debris hitting someone, while still pretty unlikely, are not at all out of the question. But if we all just focus on our own odds, all of us thinking about the 2 trillion to 1, the 'What's in it for me?' version of the space junk plummeting to earth scenario, then there's nothing to worry about.

Someone else can worry about the 3,200/1. 

Have a great weekend! And watch out for falling space junk!

What is the Future of Work? Good Question...

Tonight on the HR Happy Hour Show, I will be joined by Human Resources Technology legend Naomi Bloom to talk about work, the future of work, and have an open and participatory conversation about how the massive changes in the nature and notion of work will affect us in our careers, and certainly our children and grandchildren in the coming years.

You can listen to the show live tonight at 8:00 PM ET on the show page here, or by calling in to the listener/guest line - 646-378-1086. 

There has been no shortage of attention and energy spent in the last few years by various experts, authors, corporate leaders, and lowly bloggers attempting to make sense of the massive changes in work and industry brought on by worldwide recession, the emergence of high-speed internet connectivity, the prevalence of super-powered smartphones, and rise of social networks. While there might not be consensus among the experts and pundits about what the true 'future of work' will look like; one thing seems certain - it won't look or feel like anything we have known before.

No, with technology and robotics capable of automating and improving even more higher value functions and processes, with the rise of what is for many industries and professions a truly global competition for capital and opportunity, and the continuing 're-thinking' of the modern organization; it seems a given that work, the nature of 'employment', and the skills and capabilities required to remain relevant and successful simply have to change to meet these new challenges.

But while it is easy to say that work is changing,and the old 'employer contract' is long dead, it is quite a bit more challenging to determine what strategies and actions should be pursued by workers today, and the ones to follow, to best prepare and brace themselves for these changing conditions.

Is it the pursuit of entrepreneurship?

The willingness to embrace a series of consecutive or even simultaneous short-term gigs?

Acceptance of the fact that where you are now in your career is not at all likely to be a good predictor of where you will end up?

Or realization that in today's do-more-with-less-always-connected-smartphone-enabled world that you had better be prepared to work ridiculous hours, be always available, and give up what passes for your pathetic social life in order to not just get ahead, but to fend off the robot that wants your job?

Or something else entirely?

Tonight on the HR Happy Hour Show we plan to have an open and honest discussion about work, and what work might look like in the future, and talk about some ideas around how best to prepare for and survive.

Sure, we don't profess to have all the answers, but maybe you do, and I hope you will listen in and even consider offering some of your insight and advice as well.

It should be a fun and lively show, and I hope you can join us tonight!

Creative Destruction Coming Soon (or not so soon), To Your Mailbox

My suspicion is when email was invented some thirty-odd years ago I suspect its invetor didn't think to him or herself - 'Wow! This is fantastic! I imagine this will render the post office largely useless, and put hundreds of thousands of postal workers out on the street!'

Rather, once the usefulness of email began to be sensed, and it started to gain traction, eventually becoming the most incredible and powerful communications technology ever invented, its creators must have felt justifiably proud and encouraged by their brainchild. Email, and other web-powered technologies, have certainly helped to usher in the new, connected age. Email, as the first and still largest social network has enabled the type of connection, collaboration, and information sharing that would have been unfathomable only a few decades ago.

And for the better part of its trajectory as a tool, email has generally been seen as beneficial and certainly today, necessary for the successful conduct of commerce, education, and even in the Facebook age, socialization. Don't argue with me on that last point, how many of you get your Facebook notifications as email messages?

So while email has again generally been the 'killer app' of the last few decades, as I alluded to in the opening paragraph of this post, not all the changes brought about by email, (and more generally the connected, information age), have been so positive. And no, highly-paid professionals whining about the hundreds of unread messages in their Inbox is not what I'm talking about. If you're complainging about unopened emails to anyone, well then, you need to shut it. Talk to me when you have some real problems.

Like, by manner of transition, the problems soon to be encountered by potentially tens if not hundreds of thousands of US Postal Workers. Certainly you've heard about the financial troubles facing the US Postal Service? Massive deficit, declining demand for their services, and a public seemingly not all that sympathetic to their plight. As this piece on CNN.com point out, people are sending 22% fewer pieces of mail than just four years ago, and according to the author, this drop in volume is largely due to email and other forms of electronic communication replacing traditional mail.

The decrease in volume, (and for most of us customers), decline in importance of the traditional postal service is not all that surprising I guess. That's what 'progress' is after all, right? Smart men and women, (and in this modern age even kids), creating, combining, extending inventions and technologies that improve processes, create new and fantastic ways of generating value, and often, make our lives better, richer, and more fulfilling. And despite the whiny cries of spoiled adults, email has been one of those technologies. Most of us can't imagine a world without it. 

But the demise of the post office and the postal service, and the likely redundancies of many, many thousands of good people still to come at least to me is really kind of sad.

For untold millions of Americans, their connection to the world beyond their immediate neighborhoods and towns was solely facilitated by the postal service. Long before nervous parents could get an email or even a Skype call from a son or daughter away at college, or worse, off fighting in a war in some distant land, there was the letter home, and the anxious moments watching the postman approaching the door while thinking, 'Today's the day. I'm sure we'll hear something today'.

That anticipation, and the disappointment that often accompanied a delivery of nothing but bills or junk mail is largely a fading memory, (or a 'never-experienced' memory if there is such a thing), for most.

Soon, the postal service will stop Saturday delivery. Then maybe they will drop Fridays, and they'll consider raising the prices of first-class mail, and close lots of local offices and distribution centers - but some would say it is all, already too late. Email, and the nine million other ways people and organizations can communicate that usurp the postal service show no signs of loosening their collective death grip around the postal service's throat.

But it has been a pretty amazing run. For a few cents really, even still today, you can drop a card or letter in a small blue metal box, anywhere in the country, and someone in a blue uniform will pick it up for you and after some under-the-covers magic happens, someone else in a blue uniform will hand deliver it  anywhere in the United States. In just a couple of days. For just a few cents.

It is still, to me, a remarkable illustration of organization, process efficiency, and yes - even technology.

Better take advantage of it while you still can. And start explaining to Grandma how she might not to be able to send the Grandkids their Hallmark Cards with the $10 bill in them for very much longer.

Used as Delivered: Why Grandma's VCR was always blinking 12:00

One of the best features of most modern technologies, whether designed for use inside the enterprise, or for consumer or leisure time pursuits, is the flexibility, adaptability, and personalization capability of these solutions or devices.

Software programs are usually almost infinitely customizable - with a myriad of settings and options that users can manipulate and alter to suit their unique needs. Newer gadgets like smartphones and tablets are replete with their own sets of menu and option settings, and the applications and programs we load onto these devices typically come with their own options and opportunities for us the users to shape the behavior and functionality of these applications to meet our needs. Choice - and the ability to form, create, and adapt our computing and technological environments to our precise needs has never been more within our grasp.

In fact, particularly in software solutions designed for and sold to enterprise and corporate users, this ability to 'shape' or personalize the technology to meet company, work function, and even individual needs is quite often touted as one of the most attractive and beneficial features of the solution.

Certainly, enterprise software companies can't predict and thus design for all the potential differences and nuances in organizational processes, practices, and preferences; thus by building in the capability for end users to maintain some control of the operation and interface of said software solutions, they can offer the benefits of almost custom or bespoke applications, but still with the reliability, structure, and process discipline of good enterprise software.

But does all this flexibility and personalization capability in both enterprise and consumer technologies and devices really get exploited by the majority of end users to tailor their experiences, and be extension, improve the utility of these solutions and gadgets? Well chances are, not so much. Check some of the observations about software users and default settings from a study of Microsoft Word users on the User Interface Engineering blog:

We asked a ton of people to send us their settings file for Microsoft Word. At the time, MS Word stored all the settings in a file named something like config.ini, so we asked people to locate that file on their hard disk and email it to us. Several hundred folks did just that.

We then wrote a program to analyze the files, counting up how many people had changed the 150+ settings in the applications and which settings they had changed.

What we found was really interesting. Less than 5% of the users we surveyed had changed any settings at all. More than 95% had kept the settings in the exact configuration that the program installed in.

This was particularly curious because some of the program’s defaults were notable. For example, the program had a feature that would automatically save your work as edited a document, to prevent losing anything in case of a system or program failure. In the default settings for the version we analyzed, this feature was disabled. Users had to explicitly turn it on to make it work.

Of course, this mean that 95% of the users were running with autosave turned off. When we interviewed a sample of them, they all told us the same thing: They assumed Microsoft had delivered it turned off for a reason, therefore who were they to set it otherwise. “Microsoft must know what they are doing,” several of the participants told us.

I think there is some really useful advice in this little experiment with MS Word users, while building in flexibility and options and choice is certainly important in any modern software solution or new device, those of us involved in building or deploying these kinds of technologies should keep in mind it is likely only a very small minority will leverage the flexibility and personalization features we tout so stridently and spend so much time developing.

While choice, options, and freedom to adapt technology are all necessary components in the modern enterprise and consumer software age, let's not forget there is quite a lot to commend software and hardware solutions that simply work. Turn them on, activate them, answer a few questions in configuration sure - but the sooner solutions can start solving business problems and delivering positive impact to users, without asking users to morph into armchair software developers is really the hallmark of a great solution.

So I'll toss the question out to the readers - how important is flexibililty and personalization in your technologies and how important is it to you for them to simply work right away?