When the robots realize what they don't know

Warning in advance to the good folks that check out the blog here, I sense another 'robot' kick coming on.

So bail out now if indeed the tales from the robotics frontier are not really your thing.

Today's dispatch from the robot wars - Robots Learning Better Ways to Ask Clueless Humans for Help, is from the IEEE site. Scientists and robotics researchers at MIT, (it is always MIT it seems), have taken the 'clueless' robot that traditionally can do only what is specifically programmed to do, and enhanced it with the ability to interpret where and when it needs assistance to carry out an assigned task, and then to communicate that need for help to an equally clueless human counterpart.

In the research conducted at MIT, scientists have taught the robots to ask for help to complete the assembly of a piece of furniture. They can make requests for assistance like 'Please flip the white table top over' and 'Please hand the blue robot the black table leg'. check out the embedded video below to see how this process and technology work (email and RSS subscribers will need to click through)

If you watched the video all the way through (you deserve a medal for that), you might have caught the most interesting line of all - that this kind of robot technology would eventually allow humans to supervise larger and larger groups of robot workers.

Robots are great at completing the majority of most simple tasks, but eventually there are one or two steps in whatever you want a robot to do where it's much more likely to fail. Giving robots the ability to recognize these failure points and then intelligently ask for assistance could open up many more tasks to at least partial automation, and it's likely to have the most impact in variable, unstructured environments.

You know, like the kinds of environments and types of jobs that we keep thinking are going to be safe from the eventual robot uprising.

Have a great week!

If you want to understand work, you have to understand email

I don't care how much your enlightened company pushes cutting-edge social collaboration tools, uses an internal social network like Yammer or similar, or even has set up Facebook or LinkedIn Groups for internal company communication and collaboration - you are still sending and receiving ridiculous amounts of email every week.

Don't lie like you like to - you have a problem, a bad habit that manifests itself in endless email conversation threads, tapping out five word responses on your iPhone while waiting on line at Starbucks, and conversations that often include questions like 'Did you see my email?' 

Of course she saw your email. She 'sees' every email. She's just ignoring your email.

But that aside, for a technology, communications tool, and collaboration medium that we all use so much, we understand and attempt to analyze just how we use email. Sure, we might know how many unread messages are in our Inbox, and how often we need to delete stuff since we are always surpassing some nonsensical IT-imposed storage limit, but aside from that, we don't really think about email and how we use it to get work done all that often (if ever).

An aside before I get to the point. If you work someplace where you are always going over your email storage limit then you need to consider working someplace else, or if you have any influence over this kind of thing, finding some new IT people that will make that problem go away. No one should ever run out of space for storing work-related email. That's it. And I won't argue with anyone on that point because you are wrong.

Ok, back to the post.

If you are a user for Gmail for work or even for mainly personal reasons, a new project out the MIT Media Lab can help shed some light on how you actually use Gmail. The tool called Immersion, creates a really cool visualization of your email activity, and more importantly, it helps illuminate the sub-networks and collaborative teams within. An example of the network view that Immersion creates, from my Gmail activity, is below, (and some related stats are along the right side of the post).

Click image for an even larger view

Immersion uses color coding, network connection links, and size/distance of the nodes to help understand with whom you are most frequently emailing, who else is likely included in those conversations, how often they occur, and the topics or projects that are being worked on.

On my chart, I can see pretty clear delineation between messages about HRevolution, Fistful of Talent, HR Technology, as well as personal and fun stuff as well. But the key point is that the Immersion tool offers a little bit of a window into how I am actually using email - the one technology that I am still sad to say dominates many workdays.

You probably can't leverage the Immersion tool, (yet), if you are using a corporate, MS-based email backbone. But you can put some pressure on your IT pals to find some tools and methods to help you and your organization better understand how and when and in what manner the number one collaboration technology in your organization is being used.

They have time believe me. And make sure you tell them to quit with the 'Your mailbox is over the storage size limit emails.'

Everyone ignores them.

Email Chains and The Price is Right $1 Bid Strategy

I bid one dollar, Bob.

Email threads with more than three people Cc'ed remind me of the classic game show, The Price is Right.

No matter the subject, the email thread starts more or less in the same way. The writer poses a question, asks for feedback on the matter in question, and sits back and waits for responses. And the responses she gets are usually pretty predictable.

An Alpha dog type on the copy list chimes in immediately with their opinion. Sort of a strike first and strike quick kind of mentality that they hope frames the discussion. They want their opinion or position to be the default simply by virtue of being the first one that is revealed. This strategy can be successful - they have staked a claim to the high ground and need to be pushed off by anyone who responds after them.

Next, someone, let's call them Beta dog,  will either (gently) question Alpha dog or offer an alternative approach to try and take or re-take some territory and mindshare. 'What about this way?' they will ask. Alpha dog will immediately respond, (possibly with a 'Sent from iPhone' footer), re-stating their position and making sure that no one else gets a 'I agree with Beta dog' in the mix before they remind everyone they are running this conversation.

Then as the thread progresses, and depending on how many folks were included on the original message, you will get a few 'I agree with Alpha or Beta' messages. These add almost nothing to the conversation, save for reminding us that the senders are indeed still alive, and despite the fact they have nothing to say about the discussion, they want to be sure to be included on future, similar discussions that they will also contribute nothing useful towards.

Almost every time I get pulled in to one of these mass email threads I like to lay back and wait. I want to see what Alpha dog says. I wait to see if anyone wants to step up and challenge. I like to observe if any of the players on the edges want to get into the mix. 

I want the last word after everyone has had a chance to state their case, reveal their intentions and interests and show their cards. I like to jump in then.

It's like being the last bidder on The Price is Right. That spot, if you could get there and not run out of time, was the prime position to be in. You held the cards. You had the knowledge of everyone else's position.

If everyone bid too low, you'd drop in with the 'Highest bid on the board plus $1' bid.

If you thought everyone was too high, you'd drop a classic 'I bid one dollar, Bob', and wait for your shot at the Showcase.

Both strategies give you a great chance to win. But you have to be patient. You have to bide your time to let everyone else show what they are thinking. 

And once they do, you can drop the $1 bid on everyone, and more often than not, win the game.

The important thing is not the idea

A few days ago I re-watched the excellent documentary 'The Pixar Story', a 2007 film that chronicles the origins, the early struggles, and the eventual amazing successes of Pixar Studios.  While in 2012 it may seem obvious that computer generated animation can produce incredible images and lead to fantastic results, (like Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Cars, etc.),  that belief was not widely held when Pixar was starting out.  The film does a superb job of profiling the early visionaries and eventual leaders in the computer animation field, namely John Lasseter, Ed Catmull, and even everyone's favorite tech titan Steve Jobs, whose investments and belief in Pixar allowed it to survive some tough early years.

Watching the film again I was struck by the many simple, seemingly obvious yet hard to replicate, work practices and cultural influences that make creating great art and innovating more likely at Pixar than at the typical organization. The open, free-flowing office layout, the relentless focus on creating something even better than the last film, the self-awareness to know that they could not simply rely on their past reputation, that they had to continue to elevate their games in order to continue to succeed in the crowded entertainment space. All of this, combined with a really high talent level across the board, (the film gives the distinct impression that the best talent in computer animation is at Pixar, and thus continues to attract even more talent), help to at least attempt to offer reasons or explanations behind Pixar's story.

But probably the most telling point raised in the documentary was an observation made by Ed Catmull, who was Pixar's Chief Technology Officer and later became the President of both Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, on what he felt like was the key factor or 'secret' behind Pixar's success.  Here's the quote from Mr. Catmull:

"The important thing is not the idea, the important thing is the people its how they work together, who they are that matters most."

It's not the idea. Or, it's not enough anyway. Sure, someone has to come up with that initial bit of inspiration, like, 'What if the toys came to life when no one is in the room?', but then all you have is just that idea. Nothing, or at least not much else. And while having that great idea is essential, and everything in the process flows from there. Even in an ideas business like Pixar, the idea is never the end its just the beginning, and creating an environment where ideas can find capable, empowered, competitive, and motivated people is the only way you win.

Which is probably why there are so few companies like Pixar out in the wild - it's pretty easy to generate ideas, it's even easier to poke holes in other people's ideas, but the toughest nut to crack is to create the conditions where good ideas have a chance to emerge and have the potential to actually be improved upon when exposed to the larger community.

Catch 'The Pixar Story' sometime, I think you will be glad you did.

What a Year's Worth of Email Can Teach You

Email. A burden. A time-suck. An endless stream of incoming messages, some batted back, some ignored, some discarded, most forgotten. But still a necessary and important tool for getting work done today, two decades after its introduction into our working lives.

And despite dramatic and continuing popularity and value provided by alternate forms of electronic communication, (SMS, social networks, enterprise collaboration technologies), email, for most information workers, remains the dominant digital collaboration and discussion medium. We hate it but we can't live without it. Kind of like Reality TV or Facebook.

But for a tool that is so dominant in many of our professional endeavors, we often have little insight into how we use the tool, and how our usage might be effecting our success, productivity, and career prospects. We know we use email a lot, perhaps even all day long, and we can see how many unread messages we have in our Inbox, but after that, the level of understanding about a communication and work platform is typically extremely limited.

That's why a new service from ToutApp is so interesting, an 'Email Year in Review' report that provides, in a neat little infographic, a rich look into an entire year's worth of email traffic, messages, response rates and more. My full report of Gmail usage from 2011 is here, (a small sample of the full infographic is below).

 

Other sections of the report dig into most frequent correspondents, most commonly emailed 'circles' or groups of recipients, and some interesting chronilogical data around email usage. Did you find that last Spring's project missed its deadline by a few weeks? Could have had at least something to do with a spike in email traffic right around the critical Go-live? Or do you find yourself mainly pushing email all day long, forcing you to do 'real work' late at night or on weekends? If you are like me, you will probably be surprised by at least some of the data from a year's worth of email.

Currently the Email Year in Review is only available for Gmail accounts, so its usefulness for most corporate employees will be limited, but for frequent Gmail users the report is illuminating, and for all of us that are interested in improving performance and collaboration both personally and inside our organizations, the approach to analyzing the data is instructive.

Email is one of those tools and processes that is so familiar, so entrenched, so deeply immersed in our working lives that it can be really hard to look at its use dispassionately, with some perspective, and with an analytical eye. But understanding more about how email might be impacting your success is something many of us should spend some time considering.

If you are a heavy Gmail user, I'd encourage you to request your own custom email analysis report from ToutApp here. You might be surprised at the results.