Olympic Games

Tags

event, idea, Olympic Games

There are so many meanings to both words above that it no longer matters what our ancestors really meant in Greece when they started the movement (or event). Now the games may mean gambling – in form of investment and gain from it. Or political games – who will attend, or visit, and who will not and why. Or competition games, meaning who will get more medals and for what. Or somewhere down the list, the actual athletes – relatively small and forgotten in all the surrounding activities.

And Olympic? Well, how about proportions – the bigger, the better. Or the higher the better. Or whatever. During last games even members of the Olympic Charter have said themselves, that if it goes like this, next games will have to take place in paradise. And there is a lot of truth in those words.

I have an idea – a controversial one, for sure – as per how to fix it. It is really simple and not that complicated to set up. First, let the IOC decide what are values they really want to promote. I mean, really really REALLY. Money? OK, what is the minimum the games should cost? sportsmanship? OK, for professionals or for amateurs only (with clear distinction in between the two). Or something other, like human rights? Based on report of some organisation recognized for expertise in the area outside of the IOC itself would be good.

And then, just pick countries which would qualify as members based on those values. If the values are not upheld, good-bye. Immediately. No questions asked. No maybe’s or other whiny pleas. Once a year, review. Done.

Only the members of the Charter (for example for 4 years running) would be able to organize the games. You would be able to participate if you’d make a list year before the games and during the games. That would be all – with small caveat: IOC would help financially to organize the event. Give some, gain some.

We would then see if there would be anyone on this planet to be able to keep the tradition running…

Humility

Tags

creativity, development, idea, presentation, product

Yesterday evening I had my product idea shot down by a group of influential people in my organisation. The arguments were good and it was apparent that I didn’t do my homework and didn’t properly thought the idea through. A lesson in humility for me.

But the experience was not all bad. It was good to be able to actually discuss the idea, not be handed a note saying no. It was good to see people trying to make something out of it, add something on top of it, instead of ridiculing it. They had every opportunity to do so, but they didn’t. For that I am grateful.

I got my lesson and I hope that I will learn from it for the future. One more thing is important – the experience (although not easy) did not leave me angry or mad or anything. In short, it will not stop me from trying to come up with more. I hope that it will help me to do it better.

Secondly, I think it is almost impossible to come up with something good today on your merry own. The ideas need to be built from other ideas. Thinking fuels thinking (or maybe I should say, creativity fuels creativity). No matter – on your own, it is very difficult to get through the maze of possible scenarios, your own relation to your idea makes you blind to some twists and turns. I liked the team play, I think that it can work wonders.

I Think R&D Does It Wrong (Sometimes)

Tags

agile, idea, process, R&D, scrum

Current R&D practice based on agile way of doing things is that R&D accepts the project and passes it through various departments, such as Systems Analysis, Test, Release Management, Licensing, etc. At the end of that process there is a hand out of a seemingly ready project, which should involve a license (where and if needed), set of documents (such as manuals) and a training session for requester. During that process though, since obviously it takes time, the requester is not really involved, or at least her involvement is limited to planned reviews of various milestone related meetings. The more the project is complicated, the longer it takes to complete it and the wider spaced are the milestone meetings. If R&D is quick with delivery, then the requester is busy checking (working with) new releases and is kept happy with some tangible progress. But if not, or if the project is truly complicated, requester (or customer) is forced to make adjustments in the original request, in order to adapt it to needs evolving from passing time. This is a fact of life: things change when time passes and original ideas seldom fit new reality. It needs to be continuously adapted, leading sometimes to great changes which often make idea from the start of work completely irrelevant and different to what comes out at the end.

This leads to following issues, just to name the few:

• Projects are never finished. If they take long, they always are being adapted or adjusted. This adaptation and adjustment takes life on its own.
• Projects are abandoned after a lot of work was put into them. This because passing time made them obsolete. Here some organisations pursue those dead horses anyway, just because.
• Projects are way out of the budget. Time is money.
• Ready projects are never truly being handed over. Because of the time spent on the project the only people who really have an idea about the product are the ones who developed it, meaning the same people are the best suited to support it. Proper training session would have to be very long to make any sense, practically for a long time product is in fact supported by R&D, draining resources needed for other projects.

So what can be done? I think that R&D does it wrong and the whole project management needs to be rethought. I am sure that involvement of requester needs to be much greater than it is now. I would envision a project team where a representative(s) of technical support and/or sales are involved as of certain development stages in order to:

• Ensure a smooth hand out. Since technical support is involved in development, they are already trained and know the product.
• Ensure ease of licensing. Sales would know, that what they are getting is what they needed.
• Usability would be ensured. Sales would get not only what they want, but also how they want it. What developer considers to be good enough, market or users often find very difficult to use or at the extreme, completely useless.
• Involving requester in development work could also result in more understanding as per what development means and maybe result in less adaptations or better specifications in the future projects, saving time in the process.

I know that this is not yet mature. But it is a start and I am sure that the idea is worth pursuing further. If it hasn’t already been – I am not so sure that I am the first who thought of it… 🙂

Private Movie Viewing Business Idea

Tags

HBR, idea, movie, movie distribution, new idea, private screening, retail rights

Reading an article in current HBR issue I came up with a following idea: why movie powerhouses will not sell digital viewing rights to small theatres (up to 10 seats) at the same time as to big movie theatres? In other words, why Johnny Sixpack, who wants to show in his basement a movie which is now starting in theatres, cannot do this? This would be more of a retail than wholesale of rights, but I think it is an undetected revenue stream for movie producers, which could help in limiting illegal download.

I have not checked if such a model exists, but few things would need to be added to a stream:

• a digital invisible ID, to make sure that content provided (best if it would come from the cloud) is not used to produce illegal DVDs
• a limited number of viewing in limited time (hence cloud)
• different price to “wholesale” rights (higher when seen as per viewer cost)

Such a possibility would give birth to new market for movies: private screenings with all that entails, such as additional personal service, better seating (or even beds), open bar, dinner, discussion, safety… you name it. It could also provide newest movies in places where this so far is not possible, such as hospitals or retirement houses.

Just a thought…

Mobile Phones Innovation Idea

Tags

feature, idea, innovation, nokia, options, phone, smart phone

Everyone (or at least, almost everyone I know) has one – a smart phone. But at the same time most of the owners of such phones complain about that or other feature. Email client does not work properly, camera is not good enough, MP3 player or radio is missing, screen too small or too big. I personally think that phones today are not smart at all, those offer too many features and none of them works really exceptionally good. All of them are good enough, or acceptable. And that for me is not enough. Bunch of acceptable features is… mediocre. Humans can do better.

What I came up with as a new idea for smart phone manufacturer (such as Nokia for example) is to change its business model (at least in smart phones segment). Price it the same way – all of them should cost the same – but allow your customers to pick features they want in the phone themselves, of course in addition to few standard ones. In effect, Nokia should say: our newest model will have excellent display, calendar, clock, phone and text messaging as standard, the rest is for you free to choose. If you pick only four additional features, those will work exceptionally well. If eight, those will be average, like today. Of course number of features defined as standard or additional ones could change, I am using four and eight as an example.

But that way, I could have a nice phone with exceptional GPS (with maps), Email, MP3 and Radio. Rest – social networks, camera, photos, whatever – would not even be there. Advantages? Well, longer battery life, usability, etc.

But maybe it is only me who would like to have a phone which is actually very good in some things, not average in all things…