The Nielsen Norman Group recently published a research paper “PM and UX Have Markedly Different Views of their Job Responsibilities”. Winding back the clock, sharing a podcast I published in 2007 for Boxes and Arrows, one can easily hear how the disciplines evolved and why current research supports what I view as an opportunity for both disciplines.
I recently had the pleasure of speaking with the CEO of Heitland Innovation, Jens Heitland. I share experiences as an employee, thought leader, pioneer in podcasting, and entrepreneur over the last 20 years.
Considering an artists’ perspective on how to forget the name of the product we’re working on may help teams consider the importance of innovation. Especially in a world seemingly obsessed with simply getting to a state of “good enough” and “done”.
Raising confidence can be accomplished in many ways. I suggest we start by understanding that which sparks curiosity in employees.
What if we focus on the ideas being shared instead of simply assuming the thought leader on stage has the irrefutable best answer? This was a question I posed throughout my career and one that I illustrate in this story, as an example. The patterns that emerged over time focused on the irrefutable individual; not on the critical thinking required to validate the value of the ideas themselves.
As we’ve built platforms that are tightly-coupled and complex it is more important than ever to focus on solving problems, not simply fixing issues. In this story I share one of many experiences where gaining alignment helped the organization step forward.
What if we considered disciplines like sociology to bridge the divide between customer experience and user experience? Imagine a space where the troubles of the customer are aligned with the issues facing users. Charles Wright Mills did just that … in 1959.
Intelligence is a toolbox we use to reach a given goal, but strictly speaking it doesn’t entail motives and goals by itself. The motivation of our AI’s will stem from the existing building blocks of our society.
What’s the level of psychological ownership in your organization today? What if the level of psychological ownership turns out not to be high enough to move ahead? In this story I share how I applied this theory in sharing research results with senior leaders, managers, and teams.
The information age has created somewhat of a paradox. While the world has access to the wisdom of several ages, we continue to work from a position of professional and individual absolutes.
Questioning and clarifying with the intent to understand is critical for success. Without such effort, how can we be certain we’re even asking the right questions?
I’ve learned over the years that holding tightly to one’s own beliefs around best practices, tools, and disciplines has been a fundamental source of failure in business. While it feels easier to simply argue against those with whom we don’t agree, it actually exhausts time limited resources required to be objective.
Many experiences over the course of our lives shape who we become and what we value. This story points out my own bias based on stereotypes of titles and roles with an organization. Ken had a great impact on my life and you’ll not likely guess their title or profession. Wait for it …
In a world that argues for best practices and processes within each profession, what if we considered the actual construct Aristotle proposed nearly 2400 years ago? The whole is not the same as the sum of its parts.
In 2018 the Nobel Prizer winner in Economics was Paul Romer. His “New Growth” theory suggests that we need more ideas as the world’s population continues to decrease. If we consider the quality of ideas that comes from a diverse group of people, we also need to consider getting more ideas on the table. We can only accomplish that by removing generational divides.
There was a point in time when individuals had to learn code, design, and understand the business in order to make things work. While this was more challenging than today, the benefits to me were immense. I learned early on that success wasn’t about how we got to the solution. It was how we always got to a better solution, together.