archive.Joe Lamantia.com

At least accord­ing to the Boston Globe arti­cle titled Don’t under­es­ti­mate the value of social skills, in which Pene­lope Trunk quotes an HBS fac­ulty mem­ber as fol­lows:
’In fact, across the board, in a wide vari­ety of busi­nesses, peo­ple would rather work with some­one who is lik­able and incom­pe­tent than with some­one who is skilled and obnox­ious, said Tiziana Cas­ciaro, a pro­fes­sor at Har­vard Busi­ness School. “How we value com­pe­tence changes depend­ing on whether we like some­one or not,” she says.‘
I guess this explains how we ended up with George W. Bush as President…

No related posts.

David Brooks Op-Ed column The Art of Intelligence in today’s NY Times is strongly relevant to questions of user research method, design philosophy, and understanding user experiences.
Brooks opens by asserting that that US Intelligence community shifted away from qualitative / interperative research and analysis methods to quantitative research and analysis methods during the 60’s in an attempt to legitimize conclusions in the fashion of the physical sciences. From this beginning, Brooks’ conclusion is that the basic epistemological shift in thought about what sorts of information are relevant to understanding the needs and views of groups of people (nations, societies, political leadership circles) yielded interpretations of their views and plans which were either useless or incorrect, models which then lead decision makers to a series of dramatic policy errors – examples of which we still see to this day.

Brooks contrasts the “unimaginative” quantitative interpretations assembled by statistical specialists with the broad mix of sources and perspectives which cultural and social thinkers in the 50’s used to understand American and other societies in narrative, qualitative ways.
According to Brooks, narrative, novelistic ways of understanding provided much better – more insightful, imaginative, accureate, and useful – advice on how Americans and others understood the world, opening the way to insight into strategic trends and opportunities. I’ve read many of the books he uses as examples – they’re some of the classics on social / cultural / historical reading lists – of the qualitative tradition, and taken away vivid pictures of the times and places they describe that I use to this day when called on to provide perspective on those environments.
Perhaps it’s implied, but what Brooks doesn’t mention is the obvious point that both approaches – qualitative and quantitative – are necessary to crafting fully-dimensioned pictures of people. Moving explicitly to the context of user research, qualitative analysis can tell us what people want or need or think or feel, but numbers give specific answers regarding things like what they’re willing or able to spend, how much time they will invest in trying to find a piece of information, or how many interruptions they will tolerate before quitting a task in frustration.
When a designer must choose between interaction patterns, navigation labels, product imagery, or task flows, they need both types of understanding to make an informed decision.
Some excerpts from Brooks’ column:
“They relied on their knowledge of history, literature, philosophy and theology to recognize social patterns and grasp emerging trends.”
This sounds like a strong synthetic approach to user research.
“I’ll believe the system has been reformed when policy makers are presented with competing reports, signed by individual thinkers, and are no longer presented with anonymous, bureaucratically homogenized, bulleted points that pretend to be the product of scientific consensus.”
“But the problem is not bureaucratic. It’s epistemological. Individuals are good at using intuition and imagination to understand other humans. We know from recent advances in neuroscience, popularized in Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink,” that the human mind can perform fantastically complicated feats of subconscious pattern recognition. There is a powerful backstage process we use to interpret the world and the people around us.”
“When you try to analyze human affairs using a process that is systematic, codified and bureaucratic, as the CIA does, you anesthetize all of these tools. You don’t produce reason – you produce what Irving Kristol called the elephantiasis of reason.”

Related posts:

A recent arti­cle from ZDNet — Researchers: Metcalfe’s Law over­shoots the mark — reports that two researchers at the Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota have released a pre­lim­i­nary study in which they con­clude that Metclafe’s law sig­nif­i­cantly over­es­ti­mates the rate at which the value of a net­work increases as its size increases. The study was pub­lished March 2, by Andrew Odlyzko and Ben­jamin Tilly of the university’s Dig­i­tal Tech­nol­ogy Cen­ter.
Here’s some snip­pets from the paper:
“The fun­da­men­tal fal­lacy under­ly­ing Metcalfe’s (Law) is in the assump­tion that all con­nec­tions or all groups are equally valu­able.“
I’m always happy to find a dec­la­ra­tion in sup­port of qual­ity as a dif­fer­en­tia­tor. Of course, qual­ity is a com­plex and sub­jec­tive mea­sure­ment, and so it is no sur­prise that Odlyzko and Tilly first recall it to rel­e­vance, and then con­tinue to say, “The gen­eral con­clu­sion is that accu­rate val­u­a­tion of net­works is com­pli­cated, and no sim­ple rule will apply uni­ver­sally.“
It makes me happy when I see smart peo­ple say­ing com­pli­cated things are com­pli­cated. Odlyzko and Tilly are aca­d­e­mics, and so it’s in their inter­est for mostly every­one else to believe the things they study are com­pli­cated, but I think that there’s less dan­ger in this than in bas­ing your busi­ness plan or your invest­ment deci­sions on a fal­la­cious assump­tion that a very clever entr­pre­neur trans­mo­gri­fied into an equa­tion — which some­how by exag­ger­a­tion became a ‘law’ — in a moment of self-serving mar­ket­ing genius. I know this from expe­ri­ence, because Im guilty of both of these mis­takes.
Mov­ing on, as an exam­ple, Odlyzko and Tilly declare,“Zipf’s Law is behind phe­nom­ena such as ‘con­tent is not king’ [21], and ‘long tails’ [1], which argue that it is the huge vol­umes of small items or inter­ac­tions, not the few huge hits, that pro­duce the most value. It even helps explain why both the pub­lic and deci­sion mak­ers so often are pre­oc­cu­pied with the ‘hits,’ since, espe­cially when the total num­ber of items avail­able is rel­a­tively small, they can dom­i­nate. By Zipf’s Law, if value fol­lows pop­u­lar­ity, then the value of a col­lec­tion of n items is pro­por­tional to log(n). If we have a bil­lion items, then the most pop­u­lar one thou­sand will con­tribute a third of the total value,
the next mil­lion another third, and the remain­ing almost a bil­lion the remain­ing third. But if we have online music stores such as Rhap­sody or iTunes that carry 735,000 titles while the tra­di­tional brick-and-mortar record store car­ries 20,000 titles, then the addi­tional value of the ‘long tails’ of the down­load ser­vices is only about 33% larger than that of record stores.” {cita­tions avail­able in the orig­i­nal report}
This last begs the ques­tion of value, but of course that’s also a com­plex and sub­jec­tive judge­ment…
And with this they’ve intro­duced con­text as another impor­tant cri­te­rion. Con­text of course can take many forms; they make most use of geo­graphic local­ity, and then extend their analy­sis by look­ing at how com­mon inter­est in con­tent on the part of aca­d­e­mics func­tions as another index of local­ity, say­ing, “Com­mu­ni­ca­tion net­works do not grow inde­pen­dently of social rela­tions. When peo­ple are added, they induce those close to them to join. There­fore in a mature net­work, those who are most impor­tant to peo­ple already in the net­work are likely to also be mem­bers. So addi­tional growth is likely to occur at the bound­aries of what exist­ing peo­ple care about.“
The ref­er­ences alone make this paper worth down­load­ing and scan­ning. Read more of Odlyzko’s work.

No related posts.