Archive for July, 2011

Changes We’d Like To See

// July 29th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

-   3D glasses that can turn 2D movies and TV shows into 3D all by themselves

-   Bureaucrats who are genetically modified to say “yes” as their first instinctive  reaction   rather than “No”

-   Large badges we can wear in stores, with our choice of message: “Just Looking”, “Could Be Tempted” or “Hot Prospect – Serve Me Now”

-   Pens with a programmable RFID chip embedded, so we can identify our missing pens on the desk of those light-fingered lads in sales

-   Captions on travel brochure photos that admit the photos were taken under controlled conditions that only occur every 500 years – and then brutally photoshopped

-   USB cords that come labelled with the name of the device to which they connect, to minimise subsequent chaos as we try desperately to find the one cord that plugs into that non-standard socket

-   Mandatory Hazmat gear and Toxic Environment warning systems to enable safe entry into the bedrooms of teenage boys

-   A better email grading system than just Junkmail/Not, so our messages are automatically sorted into categories such as “from people I like”, “career-threatening if I don’t action this now”, “bills but not yet final demands” and “this one is so juicy, what’s the name of that muckraking journalist again”

Mobile Persuader

// July 29th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

You’ve probably never thought about it in quite this context, but that device you carry everywhere with you (your mobile phone) has excellent credentials to serve as an omnipresent influencer, cajoler and all-around nag.

Why? Because today’s mobile phones are always with you — and they have the computing power necessary to provide automated reinforcement of most desired behaviours, along with an increasing ability to know exactly where you are and even what you should be doing.

An example:

Imagine a world where a device in your pocket would let you know if you are talking too much on a sales call, interrupting your colleagues too frequently, managing your time effectively, or getting enough sleep. Consider if that same device could alert a diabetic to take food or medication when needed—and even guide that person to the closest pharmacy that has their medication in stock at the best price.

Accenture Technology Labs have been working on a prototype they call the Personal Performance Coach, designed to help users improve their personal effectiveness both at work and at home. The software determines if your behaviour is aligned with goals you’ve established and provides coaching when needed.

Accenture sees massive potential in the mobile persuasion space. For example, a health care company might provide a service that would detect if a user was making too many fast-food stops, not frequenting the gym as often as needed or had higher blood pressure than normal, and then make real-time suggestions to help achieve a health-related goal.

Makes us look at our mobile phone in a whole new light …

What World of Warcraft Can Teach Us About Human Behaviour

// July 29th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

On September 13 2005, World of Warcraft (WoW) gamers discovered they faced a new threat: Corrupted Blood. The resulting epidemic has attracted widespread attention in surprising places.

The virtual plague began when WoW gamemakers Blizzard introduced a new dungeon Zul’Gurub and its end boss Hakkar, who when confronted and attacked would cast a point-draining and highly-contagious spell “Corrupted Blood”.

As reported by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupted_Blood_incident):

The spell, intended to last only seconds and function only within the new area of Zul’Gurub, soon spread across the virtual world when players discovered that the use of teleportation spells could take the affliction out of its intended confines. By both accidental and purposeful intent, a pandemic ensued that quickly killed lower-level characters and annoyed higher-leveled ones, drastically changing normal game play, as players did what they could to avoid infection. Despite measures such as programmer-imposed quarantines, the players’ abandoning densely populated cities (or even just not playing the game), the epidemic was only finally controlled with a combination of patches and resets of the virtual world.

The conditions and reactions of the event attracted the attention of epidemiologists for its implications of how human populations could react to a real-world epidemic. Anti-terrorism officials also took notice of the event noting the implications of some players planning and perpetuating the epidemic.

During the epidemic, normal gameplay was disrupted. Player responses varied but resembled real-world behaviours. Some characters with healing abilities volunteered their services, some lower-level characters who could not help would direct people away from infected areas, some characters would flee to uninfected areas, and some characters attempted to spread the disease to others – resembling behaviour attributed to early AIDS patient Gaëtan Dugas and Typhoid patient Mary Mallon.

As Reuters reported (http://reut.rs/158dBu):

What made Corrupted Blood so interesting was the way players responded — providing an insight into the psychological response to plague that most computer models can never hope to capture.

Some players selflessly rushed to help, using their healing powers and acting as first responders despite the risk.

“Their behaviour may have actually extended the course of the epidemic and altered its dynamics… keeping infected individuals alive long enough for them to continue spreading the disease, and by becoming infected themselves and being highly contagious when they rushed to another area,” according to a medical journal, The Lancet.

Others got infected on purpose and strolled around populated areas — leading some security analysts to say the incident may provide insight into how terrorists would exploit a pandemic.

Amongst the more compelling insights to be drawn from the WoW incident (as noted by Prof. Nina Fefferman, a medical epidemiologist at Rutgers University):

“Suddenly, there was [in WoW] an experimental framework to watch how people would behave during an epidemic. That’s exactly what we worry about in real-world epidemics — the little behaviours that we don’t tell people to do or not to do, because we have never seen this happen before.”

And then there was the “stupid factor”:

Professor Fefferman immediately recognised human behaviours she had not ever factored in when creating computer models of disease outbreaks. For instance, what she calls the “stupid factor”.

“Someone thinks, ‘I’ll just get close and get a quick look and it won’t affect me,’” she said.

Yeah, right.

Top Ten Mistakes In Behaviour Change

// July 29th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

BJ Fogg, Kara Chanasyk, Margarita Quihuis, Neema Moraveji, Jason Hreha and Mark Nelson at Stanford University’s Persuasive Tech Lab have put together a useful collection of the ten most common mistakes we make when attempting to change behaviour (whether our own or that of others). They include:

  1. Relying on willpower for long-term change
  2. Attempting big leaps instead of baby steps
  3. Ignoring the way that environment shapes behaviours
  4. Trying to stop old behaviours instead of creating new ones
  5. Blaming failures on lack of motivation
  6. Underestimating the power of triggers
  7. Believing that information leads to action
  8. Focusing on abstract goals more than concrete behaviours
  9. Seeking at the outset to change behaviour forever
  10. Believing that behaviour change is always difficult

To read more about those mistakes (and some ways you can fix them), head to http://www.slideshare.net/captology/stanford-6401325

Overcoming Product Paralysis

// July 29th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

Medtronic, the Minnesota-based medical device company that had largely created the pacemaker market, had a problem – and it’s one that will be very familiar to many of us.

After a decade or more of steady growth, the Medtronic organisation had become so large and complex that bureaucracy was getting in the way of decision-making. As a result, a number of executives from Medtronic and similarly-sized competitors, unhappy with the slow pace of change, were jumping ship to form smaller and more nimble competing companies. These newcomers were able to introduce rival products into the market more quickly.

The situation deteriorated to the point that (as detailed in the book “The Innovator’s Guide to Growth: Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work”, various authors, Harvard Business Press) Medtronic would be set to launch a new product when a more focused competitor would leapfrog ahead of it with a similar product that had a particular feature Medtronic hadn’t built into its new offering. The company’s sales force would then protest, saying “We can’t launch this product without this feature and that feature. Let’s go back and rescope our product development effort.”

When Medtronic was finally ready to launch their new, retooled product, another competitor would jump out in front with a similar product that had yet another new feature. And Medtronic’s sales force would once again demand that the company delay the release of its product until it could more effectively compete in the marketplace.

The result was product development paralysis. At one stage, Medtronic had launched no substantial new products in its pacemaker line for almost a decade. The company’s market share dropped from around 70 percent to 30 percent.

The solution was the development of a “train schedule” for innovation. This schedule mapped out a detailed timeframe for developing each of the company’s product lines over the next ten years, stipulating both the date on which Medtronic would begin development for each product and the date on which the company would ship the first generation of that product. Appropriate production capacity was allocated to each development milestone.

The schedule didn’t specify exactly what the innovation would be; it did, however, distinguish between types of innovation. Every few years, Medtronic would have to launch a major new platform, which would be followed by line extensions and derivative products.

The train schedule had a clarifying effect on the entire organisation. Everyone now knew the precise day on which the company was going to launch a new product or line extension, and all resources and processes had to be put in place to meet those delivery dates.

The effect on the sales force was particularly acute. When competitors unveiled a new feature and the sales force complained, senior managers could say “That train has left the station. But it’s alright – there’s another train leaving soon. We’re going to take that idea, write it on a sticky note and stick that note on the train schedule. That way we can be sure we consider the idea at the right time.”

A train schedule can help companies avoid the basic problem that confounded Medtronic: a lack of focus that results from having too many products running simultaneously in an undisciplined manner. Such a schedule helps companies manage resources and ensures that they start new products early enough to have the appropriate impact at the appropriate time.

It certainly worked for Medtronic: their planned, frequent release of new products and innovations threw competitors off balance. As a result Medtronic’s market share recovered to almost 60 percent.

Less is More (and easier too)

// July 29th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

In the course of day to day living, most of us have developed simple shortcuts to help us deal with what would otherwise be an overwhelming volume of decisions. We typically take the same route to the office, for example, or always order the same dish from our favourite restaurant.

But do these coping strategies translate across when we have to make more important decisions? A recent Columbia Business School study by Rom Schrift and Professors Oded Netzer and Ran Kivetz explored the topic — and found that we may be fooling ourselves and putting ourselves through unnecessary hoops on the bigger decisions. Often, according to the study, we make decisions quickly — but then over-deliberate about them, because we feel the stakes are higher. In fact, however, we’ve already made the decision.

Was all that deliberating mostly for show? Schrift based his doctoral dissertation on this question, and, together with his advisers Kivetz and Netzer, returned a good deal of evidence that, unlike small decisions, people do indeed make important decisions more difficult than they need to be — particularly if their decision initially strikes them as easier than they believe it should be.

As reported on Columbia’s Ideas At Work blog (http://bit.ly/iiLQST):

Strikingly, despite all of their effort, in most cases people end up selecting the option they would have — the clear winner — in the absence of these complicating strategies. The researchers conclude that when it comes to big decisions, people try to achieve a match between the expected effort of making a choice and the effort they feel they are putting into it. They term this the effort compatibility principle. “There’s a feeling of needing to do due diligence for important decisions,” Netzer says. “And if we don’t feel like we have done due diligence, we find ways to artificially create such a process.”

Netzer notes that in real life, most of these big decisions are made after a long process. “Deciding to get married is often a question of deliberating over the obvious. We know we will eventually make the decision,” he says. “We made the choice a long time ago but we still force ourselves to go through this process.”

Because many of these kinds of major, life-changing decisions are made infrequently, people opt for diligence, even if it puts making the best decision — or the opportunity of a lifetime — in jeopardy. “By the time we get to it, it may not be there anymore because we think we need to work hard,” Netzer says. “We want to see three or four more apartments, but by the time we see them, the first apartment, which really was the apartment of our dreams, has sold.”

The good news is that it may be possible to counteract this arguably non-optimal tendency simply by faking it. In a separate experiment, when the researchers presented subjects with a set of choices in a big, easy-to-read font and then on a tiny, warped, hard-to-read font, those reading the tiny font were far less likely to complicate their ultimate choices. The strain of reading the cramped font sufficed for diligence. Similarly, the researchers suggest that combing through consumer ratings or even driving to a far corner of town to make a major purchase can constitute enough effort to satisfy the need to be diligent.

Marketers might apply complicating behaviour not necessarily to clinch a sale so much as to help buyers believe they’ve done their due diligence. “Rather than show a buyer two very different alternatives and convince her that one is much better than all the others, it might be better to show two choices that are very similar, then prompt a conflict to make the buyer feel like she worked hard to arrive at her choice.”