Will Your Health Business Model Survive?

Stress-testing your business for a new policy agenda

Since the election, US stocks are mostly up. Except hospital stocks. Public hospitals like HCA are worth looking at the stock charts to see how wrong we were about the election – rising high the day before, tanking the day after.

HCA Post Election Ticker

Then there are the health insurance companies like Aetna and Cigna are on the rise. United Healthcare is the best-performing stock of the year.

United Healthcare Ticker

The promised repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, a.k.a. Obamacare) is expected to impact hospitals more negatively than insurers. A recent Barrons survey of C-Suite executives in healthcare found that “MCO (Managed Care Organization) executives are more optimistic than acute-care hospital executives about the outlook for the respective fundamentals in their industries.”

But as of today, we only know which way the winds are blowing. We do not know exactly how the ACA will change, or when, or what it specifically means for any given company strategy.

Do the same trends play out if you are a startup? Were your pre-election business model assumptions correct? Does the recent shift in political stance change your trajectory?

In short, yes. No matter what your political views, it’s time to stress test your assumptions, and determine how dependent you are on policy-driven shifts in your future plan.

First, Re-Locate that North Star

Look up from your to-do list, your weekly calendar, your scrum, sprint, or annual operating plan. Why did you get into healthcare in the first place? Answer that question on a personal level. Convene a futuring session with your team.

Has the ACA been positive for your business or are you still struggling to implement technology and systems to manage and measure care? How should healthcare happen? What are your ideas for a better future?

For inspiration, The Institute for the Future published a Health Futures Map to help navigate the post-ACA decade. The Institute for Health Improvement recently partnered with five foundations to produce the Better Care Playbook to help accelerate system transformation. What questions do these future statements and best practices generate for your team?

IFTF Post ACA Care Models

Ask big questions to frame and reframe your company’s direction. What role do you have to play in healthcare transformation driven not by federal policy shifts, but through connections and partnerships with other companies in the healthcare industry, not-for-profit organizations, advocacy groups, and your local community?

Second, Check Your Customer Target Assumptions

Who are your core customer segments? Were you selling to hospitals? Insurance companies? Pharma? Should your priorities shift in preparation for what comes next?

Even if you’re up and running and executing against your defined plan, it’s worth re-engaging in customer discovery. Pick a selection of health systems leaders, clinicians, administrators, and ask everyone how they envision the shift. You may find that your question is the first time they have stopped to pause and think about what is to come.

Third, Re-Validate Your Core Business Model Hypotheses

It’s time to go back to your original business model assumptions. If you haven’t been tracking changes to your assumptions using a Business Model Canvas tool, now is a good time.

Value Proposition Design

List your target customer segments, in order, and based on your customer discovery findings, consider how your core value proposition may need to shift.

Take a hard look at your core resources, activities, and partners – do you need to think about what you do differently?

Lastly, your biggest and boldest question is to re-consider your costs and revenues and stress-test where you fall in the shift to value-based reimbursement.

Fourth: Take a Stand on Value-Based Reimbursement

The hardest element to predict is how and when we start to shift to value-based care, payment based on outcome, rather than traditional fee-for-service.

The shift to value-based payment and care will cause health providers and everyone delivering to the healthcare system to change the way they bill for care. Instead of being paid by the number of visits and tests they order, devices used, and pharmaceuticals prescribed (fee-for service), providers’ payments will start to be based on the value of care they deliver (value-based care).

This shift is happening, but not everywhere. A number of health systems, not-for-profits and health companies and startups have each chosen where to play; with a number of stakeholders claiming bold stakes and risks, and others avoiding the change for as long as they can.

A rollback of key elements of the ACA will affect the contours of this shift, but the “train has left the station” according to many health leaders. Payers are demanding value-based payment models, integrated hospital systems are taking on population risk, and startups are experimenting with pay-for-outcomes and pay-for-performance models. Will you be a leader? Or a follower?

Finally: Rinse, Repeat and Lead

To be sure, those that work inside of healthcare complain that the pace of change is slow and incremental, particularly in front line health delivery systems. Startups have had to play at the edges, selling solutions consumers who can afford to pay, to workplace wellness efforts where ROI can be proven, or are living off of a derivative data-selling business model. Incumbent technology and service vendors are deeply locked in and want to protect their market share and flows of revenue and profit.

But one thing is certain – there is no comfortable status quo in healthcare. Even in the heart of the most cynical, money-minded hospital administrator, there is an acknowledgment that patients matter. The US is an outlier in health, and “not in a good way:”

US Healthcare System

 

If you believe your initiative or technology innovation can bend this curve away from more cost/worse outcome, then it’s time to double down. Change will come from government, but progress will come from leaders in the patient communities, advocates, caregivers, healthcare systems, and innovative companies that can move beyond our current trend. We only have our health and our lives to improve.

Moving Beyond the Post-Election Confusion in Your Company

An exercise to re-engage and build the future you want to see

“I don’t care what you say about this election, our stock price is at an all time high so it can’t be that bad. This administration might be the best thing ever.” said Rogerio, who voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.

“How can you say that!!! That is so cold. Do you know what it’s like to be a person of color in America right now? I’m more afraid than ever for my family and friends. I am worried about the future.” said Collette, a Bernie supporter.

“Stop it with the election talk. We have work to do. We will all be fine. Let’s get down to business” said Marina, the manager of the group, who quietly voted Republican as she has done in every prior election. She is sick and tired of all of the election noise, and like many people, she justs wants to move on. But she knows she has to respond to recent events, the daily news gauntlet, and figure out how all of this affects the business.

We Were All Bad Predictors

Whether you see the new administration as a crisis, or opportunity, or both, take a moment with your team to think about the future productively. No matter which side you were on pre-election, we all have to admit, together, that we were wrong. The election results were a surprise, especially to the President-elect and the Republican leadership. All of our leading poll indicators, our think tanks, even our guiding hand of the stock market failed to predict the outcome.

We were all wrong.

Everyone except for Michael Moore. He was right. But Michael Moore likely can’t help you with your 2017 annual operating plan.

It’s critical that business leaders reflect on this main point: the entire world failed to predict the future. This means that your underlying assumptions about the economy, policy, culture, and reactions to technological innovation may also be wrong. So take a moment. Take stock. Work with your team to re-envision the future of your project, your plan, and your company based on shifting macro trends.

Polls didn’t work. Access to the biggest datasets we’ve ever seen didn’t help. The guiding hand of the market was surprised. Those of us who build predictive models (like me) received a wake-up call. Predictive models are based on assumptions. Our assumptions were flawed.

There was a strong desire to go deep into the spreadsheets just after the election. To run the “Trump scenario” that so few thought would happen. But more modeling and analysis won’t get us closer to a more certain future.

Instead, it’s time to get personal and connect with your team. Your fellow employees, peers, and partners are struggling through the same post-election confusion, and trying to make sense of what happened and what will it mean. Invite your team to a futuring session to generate scenarios of the future you want to build.

How to Co-Create a Future Vision:

The things you will need:

1 room that can fit multiple small tables (fitting 4-5 people each)

1 roll of brown “butcher” paper

1 roll of artist tape (sticks easily but comes off without tearing)

3 different colored Sharpie or thick markers for every participant

Rolling white boards + easels

Water, coffee, tea

At least 2 hours of time for your team – no cell phones or emails or disruptions

The recipe described below is adapted The World Café method which provides further resources and ideas for your futuring session.

1/ Invite the team

Look for a minimum 2 hour window that you can set aside without cellphones or laptops. Don’t organize on a critical day for sales or finance or during a big market launch. You want to be able to create space for presence and participation.

Let them know why you are inviting them to a futuring exercise, that your aim is to create a number of possible and preferable scenarios.

2/ Find trends that describe different versions of the future

In prep for your futuring workshop, evaluate and prepare to share trends that derive from different sources and diverse views. Focusing in on your sector can help uncover these ideas: The Future of Media, The Future of Health, The Future of Non-Profits. But there are overarching trends that affect every company and organization.

Here is a selection describing of posts and reports describing The Future of Work – the key here is to show a range of opinions:

Institute for the Future: Workable Futures, Ten Strategies for a Workable Future

The World Economic Forum: The Future of Jobs 2016, and Infographics

The American Enterprise Institute: 4 Possible Futures for US Workers in 2040, America’s Future + Robots

The International Labor Organization: Future of Work, Results-Based Management

McKinsey: The Four Fundamentals of Workplace Automation, The Future of Work in Advanced Economies

Look for compelling quotes, provocative infographics, and surprising visuals. Don’t look for ideas to confirm your thinking, rather look for trends that will challenge your thinking. Print out a selection to kickstart your team’s thought process.

The Future of Work

Institute for the Future

WEF Top 10 Skills of the Future

 

3/ Craft your initial questions

Why are you calling people together? To frame a future you want to see, collectively. You all work together – you have that in common. Choose to ask and explore a big question, a question that matters to the future of the organization. When you can frame your futures conversation as a question (vs. problems, concerns, gripes, or short-term expectations) you engage your team is learning something new together.

You can make it simple: “What is the future of x industry?” You can focus on the organization’s position. “What does it mean to be the world’s leading x?” Make sure your question is open-ended and invite inquiry and discovery. You’ll know you have a good question when is received with good energy encourage new questions, new ideas and new possibilities.

Prepare 3 key questions for the day that build on each other. You don’t have to be right in your question that you ask. Know that the deeper question-behind-the-question that you should be asking will emerge in your session.

4/ Prepare the room

Choose a venue or meeting room that can host several small conversations within one space. Your futuring exercise does not have to take place at a fancy off site – but you do have to set boundaries for no interruptions. You want to create a welcoming space, so pay attention to lighting and find ways to make a dull room more inviting.

You’ll want to have multiple small tables, café style, fitting 4-5 people per table. On the day of the event, cover each table with the brown butcher paper, taping down the edges underneath. Provide enough Sharpie pens for each table participant in each of the three colors on each table. Take your printed out featuring quotes, infographics, and images and distribute them among the tables for conversation fodder.

5/ Facilitate the day

Begin with a welcome and introduction and remind everyone why they are here, with the core questions visible on flip charts in the room. If you choose to follow World Café guidelines and etiquette, post them on flip charts or cards on each table. Create a safe space where participants are encouraged to be open and honest and connected to the people in the room.

If you have a number of people on your team who have expressed their post-election fear, personally or more generally, acknowledge their experiences. Ask everyone to bring their most creative energy to the work of defining the future.

Now comes the hard part: ask everyone to put their phones away for the full 2 hours.

Ask for volunteer hosts: The logistics are fairly self-organizing, but you do want to explain that you are looking for volunteer hosts to remain at each table throughout the 3 rounds of questions. Their job is to welcome people to each round, ask the core question, and review what occurred during the last round.

Ask participants to converse, reflect, capture, and sketch: The role of the participants is to join in the conversation, and use the pens to sketch, doodle, and capture the conversations at the table. Participants can choose to stay at their table, or to continue to circulate for each round.

As the facilitator, your role is to move around among the tables, encourage everyone to participate, and to remind people to sketch, draw, capture key ideas. Time each round with a smartphone timer set at 20 minutes, and gently move people onto the next round of conversation and the next table.

When you’ve completed three rounds of discussion, it’s time for the hosts to share and for the teams to circulate and review, reflect, and find patterns. Capture the notes and thoughts with cameras and ask everyone to reflect on their own – how will the insights generated today inform the work they do going forward.

The learning that occurs happens in the experience of the people in the room, forming connections and building their own inquiry-based strategic capability to think and explore. What do you do if your futuring exercise is successful? Replicate, and repeat.

6/ Replicate strategic conversations

You can choose to repeat these conversations when you find your team getting stuck, or responding to an unplanned crisis or event that sends all of your predictions off course. In a larger company, you can ask the participants to host their own futuring conversations with their teams.

In an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous times, we have to get used to the notion that we’ll be mostly wrong, most of the time, when we predict the future. Rather than clamp down and tell people to move on and “just get over it” – it’s time to open up the biggest questions that drive people to do great work every day. Through in person futuring conversations, we can restore trust, remind everyone of their humanity and humility, and become resilient together.

Designing for Climate Action

Join me and my students from SVA’s Products of Design Program at Design for Climate Action @svaPoD for an evening of open innovation. Inspire a group of students who have the skills we need to start pushing the right levers of change (systems thinking, design, programming, communications, everything that I should have learned in grad school). Wednesday, September 30th, in NYC.

DCA_LOGO

 

Get Tickets Here ($10)

Event Description: Designing Climate Action is an open-innovation forum for entrepreneurs, designers, scientists, and activists to collaborate to accelerate climate action. Through an iterative and participatory workshop hosted by the Products of Design community, the event will bring together industry leaders with activists to foster inter-disciplinary partnerships and seed endeavors. Select ideas generated during the event will be developed by Products of Design masters students throughout the fall semester, and publicly presented in December 2015 to align with with COP21 proceedings. Products of Design is a Masters degree program at the School of Visual Arts.

Who should attend: Designing Climate Action calls for participation from entrepreneurs and business leaders building new more sustainable economies, designers and communicators creating movements to mobilize consumer action on climate and social justice, scientists working to foster urgency on climate change, and community activists whose stories should be front and center in the climate conversion.

A call to action: For the workshop please bring your challenges, ideas, and opportunities which can only be achieved through collective action. By pulling together this network of experts and activists, the Products of Design community hopes to create a forum to collaborate with you and/or your organizations to realize projects with high potential to galvanize action on climate change, by incubating them throughout the fall before releasing them to the public.

Google’s Dominant-Logic Problem

Dominant Logic Monster

 

Google’s Dominant-Logic Problem

Google has announced that it will become Alphabet, a conglomerate—that old-fangled complex corporate structure popular in the 1970s.

Could the conglomerate structure, as Google is defining Alphabet, represent the boldest and most innovative move yet within the entire class of super-tech companies?

Google is not the first company to confront the dominant-logic problem, which can cause successful companies to self-destruct, but it is doing so in a way that both challenges and appeals to Wall Street.

The Catch-22 of doing what the Street wants a publicly traded company to do

Google just had its best quarter ever; the announcement led to the biggest stock gain in a day in history. When Google unveiled the new conglomerate structure, the stock bumped up yet again. In just one month the company’s market valuation has increased by more than $100 BILLION dollars (as of today). Take that, unicorns.

But prior to this breakout quarter, Google’s stock had suffered 18 months of flatlining.

GOOGL from Google Finance 3 Months

A flat stock was a real danger. Google’s senior management was being lured away to better performing companies, like Facebook, and newly formed private companies with mere billion-dollar valuations but more promise of upside.

What was going on during these 18 dismal months? It looked like Google was following the business-school playbook in organizing to capitalize on its core competency, but then got dinged in the process.

While Google has made a number of high-risk “moon-shot” bets—self-driving cars, autonomous drones, life-extension projects, and more—it had put most of its financial and human capital into the cash-generating part of the business. Even back in 2008, as it began making riskier bets, it acknowledged that “we don’t put many people on those things; 90% work on everything else. So that’s not a big risk.

But that wasn’t reassuring enough for Wall Street, which likes clean valuations and highly predictable revenue.

The Street was discounting Google’s core business because of the moon shots.

There is a reason that Silicon Valley suffers from IPO phobia.

Wall Street was telling Google to stick to its knitting—to keep doing what it was already good at, to stay with the “dominant logic.” But just doing what you are already good at can kill you in the long term.

The dominant-logic problem

Dominant logic is the disease that killed Kodak, Blockbuster, and Nokia, and it threatens every successful large-scale company facing disruption—which is all of them, including Google. The danger isn’t so much the disruption itself, a product of fierce new competition and shifts in the technology landscape; it’s the faulty mindset that hampers senior management when it’s preparing for and responding to non-linear change.

“Dominant logic consists of the mental maps developed through experience in the core business and sometimes applied inappropriately in other businesses.”—C.K. Prahalad, The Dominant Logic: a New Linkage Between Diversity and Performance (paywall).

Prahalad was researching the failure of diversified conglomerates in 1986, when voguing was in vogue and conglomerates were all the rage, when he reached that conclusion. He found that a top executive group’s ability to manage a diversified firm is limited by the dominant general-management logic it already knows.

If the companies in the conglomerate are similar in type and from the same industry, as, for example, at P&G, then this logic—applied to spending on R&D, product development, marketing, and organizing and incentivizing employees—can work to its advantage. But when the companies in the conglomerate are deeply diversified, the situation gets complicated.

As Prahalad observed, “Typically, the dominant logic in diversified firms tends to be influenced by the largest business or the ‘core business’ which was the historical basis for the firm’s growth. The characteristics of the core business, often the source of top managers in diversified firms, tend to cause managers to define problems in certain ways and develop familiarity with, and facility in the use of, those administrative tools and are particularly useful in accomplishing the critical tasks of the core business.”

When management’s mind-set favors the core business at the expense of preparing for technological, market, and social/cultural change, its dominant logic can undermine the company’s chances for survival.

Anyone working in the innovation department of a Fortune 1000 company knows in their bones that the dominant business model can kill breakthrough growth ideas.

The thinking goes like this: “You can tinker with our product, spend countless hours investigating corporate ethnography, or design thinking exercises, drum circles, and lean-start-up experiments. That’s fine. But as soon as you mess with the way we’ve been making money, you will be escorted swiftly out of the building.”

Prahalad also foresaw what had begun to happen at Google: the management team that grew up around search tended to favor product-development ideas that made the core business stronger.

Google X and the moon-shot wagers amounted to little more than rounding errors in the company’s financial results, mere experiments with uncertain outcomes or upsides for the employees involved.

This strategy was never enunciated outright by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who were in fact the biggest proponents of the moon-shot investments. But the very organizational design of housing these experiments within Google, where the dominant-logic problem reigned, made everything else pale in comparison.

Perhaps the founders simply weren’t satisfied with Wall Street’s definition of success: mastering the shift in advertising to web and mobile. The uppermost limit for Google was a larger share of the advertising pie.

“If you’re changing the world, you’re working on important things. You’re excited to get up in the morning.”—Larry Page

I can empathize with billionaires who find advertising limiting as a life’s pursuit. I can see why it would be hard to get up in the morning when that’s your only goal.

How Alphabet addresses the dominant-logic elephant in the room

Google’s newly hired CFO, Ruth Porat, likely had a heavy hand in creating the new structure, which separates YouTube, Android, and Google’s core search business from all the other riskier, less profitable companies. Wall Street is happier because now it can properly value the entire structure.

Dealbreaker said that splitting up these businesses “is akin to injecting steroids into Google’s P/E ratio.” (That’s price/earnings ratio, the prediction of a company’s future value based on its current earnings.) “It is A) The kind of thing that Silicon Valley doesn’t really do, and B) The kind of thing that Ruth Porat can think up in her sleep.”

Alphabet is the ultimate homage to pension managers and hedge funders. “We also like that it means alpha-bet (Alpha is investment return above benchmark), which we strive for!” Larry Page wrote on the Google Blog on August 10.

Google Glass, the drone-mounted wind turbines, and other experiments will no longer have to justify themselves as adding revenue to the core business. Hooray. The potential upside =for those working on the experiments, with a number of CEOs building quasi-independent companies, will makes it easier to attract and retain talent.

To be sure, this new structure might create more problems than it solves. There have been predictions of infighting among top talent as newly minted CEOs within Alphabet vie for their share of the investment pie.

The comparison to Berkshire Hathaway notwithstanding, Page and Brin now have to develop an operating style, financial controls, and rules for this new game board. Warren Buffett sets up financial filters for Berkshire Hathaway’s acquisitions, then stays completely out of the way and lets the companies run on their own. Will Alphabet adopt this approach?

Organizational design is a start, but it’s not enough. Google will have to address the investment criteria, structure, and valuation of its innovation portfolio. Its famous hiring processes and its HR management will be put to the test; so will the operational practices for which the company has become famous.

But by addressing the dominant-logic elephant in the room, Google may have pulled off the most pro-innovation bet that a leading tech company has ever played.

How about you? Are you inside a company struggling to innovate in the grip of a dominant logic? Are you in a start-up seeking to disrupt an industry ruled by dominant logic? How has dominant-logic thinking hampered your creativity or limited your success?

For more about dominant logic, the reasons that innovation is sometimes regarded as a dirty word, and business-model news, sign up for our newsletter at Reason Street.

Bodies and Buildings: Paradigms, Anti-Oedipus, and Passive House November 3 2014

Last class we did a quick tour of Paradigm Shifts, Deleuze and Guattari, and Passive House vs. LEED.

Anti-Oedipus: A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia.

We looked at Deleuze and Guattari as an exercise in mindset shift – there is nothing like Anti-Oedipus in the hands of a global group of makers who can manufacture their own means of communication and production.

It’s freeing to talk of Rhizomes and Assemblages vs. Arboreal thinking with students who naturally think and work this way, and who have no formal history with cirtical theory, Freud, Lacan, Marx, or even Oedipus, and how these concepts have shaped hierarchies of thought.

Haven’t heard of Delueze, Guttari? Skip it all, go to the French version of A Thousand Plateuas and play Marc Ngui’s images in the background as you sip Yerba Matte tea.

Paradigm shifts: always remember Dana Meadows’ wise counsel – the strongest leverage points are mindset and paradigm shifts. We spend our time tinkering with the measures, the metrics, the goals – but to see a better world we need to level up.

This lesson about mindshifts/paradigms is not yet learned in health, education, and building construction.

With architecture and buildings, we’ve recently witnessed the rise of LEED standards, with all of their metrics and platinum, gold and silver badges.

I shared what it was like to celebrate the very idea of the Bank of America tower which was supposed to generate more energy than it took from the grid. The tower won Platinum status, NYSERDA money back for energy savings, and praise from Al Gore. But in 2012, when asked to report their actual energy usage, The Bank of America tower was a mega fail. According to data released by New York City in 2012 (source NY Times partially restricted paywall), the Bank of America Tower produces more greenhouse gases and uses more energy per square foot than any comparably sized office building in Manhattan. It uses more than twice as much energy per square foot as the 80-year-old Empire State Building.

The USGBC, which operates LEED, similarly says it has no control over how the buildings it certifies are used. But LEED certifies new buildings before they are even occupied, basing its ratings on computer models that often end up overestimating a building’s performance. If you can model, you can’t necessarily manage.

The good news is the rapid rise of the Passive House movement, which shifts our mindset about the purpose of green construction. If the first wave of green was about bamboo flooring in giants homes with three car garages, then passive house is about economy in construction and operation, and the goal of the system: climate comfort for the humans inside.

When constructing a passive house, an architect and engineer can model the intended energy benefits. But it is not until the building is built and meets air and energy criteria that a building can be called Passive House. We are valuing measured energy (Passive House) over modeled energy (LEED).

We will take the advice of the late paradigm changing coach, Dana Meadows, paraphrasing Thomas Kuhn the paradigm historian:

You keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm, you keep speaking louder and with assurance from the new one, you insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power.

You don’t waste time with reactionaries; rather you work with active change agents and with the vast middle group of people who are open minded.

Homework next week:

1. Pick any one of the “Facsicles” from ArtFarm on architecture theory:
http://www.archfarm.org/en/ and build a system diagram about what you learn.

2. Start thinking about the final: What part of the system of how we make and maintain our buildings, interests you the most?
What are the anomalies and failures that irk you?
What possibilities do you see?

3. Extra credit: see a passive house this weekend somewhere in NY.

Bodies and Buildings Class 5: Ebola outbreak, the power to change the rules

The past two weeks in class we spent time first paying attention to the Ebola crisis, then trying to map out the system as we understand it.

While much of health technology has come to focus on in hospital systems, electronic health records, and chronic disease management, we wanted to see what we could envision for an acute and rapidly growing outbreak.

Students presented ideas for what to do about the crisis using their skills as creative technologists at ITP. It was a humbling reminder of how hard it is to be helpful when the core underlying technologies are not present – available internet, handheld devices.

Here are two sources students found that were hard to read and watch but gave more context than TV news sources:

VICE News: Monrovia in Chaos

WSJ: For Want of Gloves Doctors Die

We then shifted to talk about the power to change the rules in a system, and began the shift to “buildings” and how a much the less threatening but still pervasive problem of sick building syndrome was addressed through rule changes.

For midterms, students will write an OpEd – considering the format as if it were an interaction design to get you to do something, or change your mind.

 

 

 

Better by Measure Class at SVA’s Products of Design

Rebecca Silver and I are evolving our Products of Design experiment. From… teaching sustainable design as a silo… to teaching social, civic, and environmental design into startups and entrepreneurship.

Manifesto:

 

Syllabus below:

Better by Measure 

FALL 2014, SVA, PRODUCTS OF DESIGN

Shaping new business models to address environmental outcomes, social justice, and civil society

TEACHERS

  • Jen van der Meer: @jenvandermeer
  • Rebecca Silver: @rgsilver

Continue reading

Bodies and Buildings Class 1: Intro to Systems Thinking

Have we reached the limits of growth:

[slideshare id=38840063&doc=bodiesandbuildings1nyuitp982014-140908144525-phpapp01]

 

Bodies are in trouble right now – despite reaching the peak of productivity the US now leads the world in the rampant growth of chronic diseases that lower life expectancy, and reduce life quality.

“People are living longer than projected in 1990 — on average, 10.7 more years for men, and 12.6 more years for women. But for many of them, the quality of life during those years is not good. On average, people are plagued by illness or pain during the last 14 years of life.”

Buildings account for the largest source of both electricity consumption (68% of global use) and greenhouse gas emissions (48% of global emissions) in the world. –UNEP.

Purpose of this course:

You are better equipped than MBAs to envision and build our way out of this trap, but often lack an understanding of the mega forces of business, regulation, and bad cultural habits that keep us from saving ourselves.

What we will cover in this course:

  • Meta view
  • Focus on points of intervention
  • Conceptual scaffolding

“Folks who do systems analysis have a great belief in ‘leverage points.’ These are places within a complex system (a corporation, an economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem) where a small shift in one thing can produce big change in everything .”

Introduction to Donella Meadows, and learning about stocks, flows, and hands on the faucets.

 

 

 

NYC BigApps: For Profit or Non Profit?

A strange question started popping up in my classes at SVA PoD, NYU ITP, and in various apps and tech and data competitions:

Is my concept best suited to become a company? Or a non profit?

Strange, because when I graduated in the 90’s – this question might apply to one’s career path, but it was pretty clear that non profits were for those that wanted to do good, and for profits were for those that were ambitious, and wanted to make money.

Now there are multiple, myriad ways to form an entity, and “good” is not the provenance of the mission driven 501 (c) 3.

A better way to answer this question – follow the funding sources that accelerate scale.

I’ll be speaking Saturday, June 21, at the NYC BigApps Big Build

Lean Customer Discovery Needs Design Research

When you are in a startup, under the gun, trying to execute – how do you find time for empathy?

Lean launchpad simulates entrepreneurship by requiring founders to get out of the building…and into their customer’s world.

Teams succeed when they start talking to people, and find the magic in actually validating their hypotheses with customers, potential partners, and even fellow founders who may have tried to pursue the same dream. But it’s hard to get underneath.

What we heard:

“I think I only scratched the surface, and never really got to the core problems.”

“I don’t know if my customers really understand what they need enough to articulate it to me.”

“Customers said they would pay, but then they didn’t when it came time to pay.”

The truth is that when you are just TALKING – you fail to yield anything but the obvious facts, the surface level insights. For greater learning, Ajay Revels and I reviewed all of the design research literature. Not all of ethnography or design research is relevant for a startup founder – but there are critical skills and techniques that will radically accelerate your ability to understand the pain for which you are trying to solve.

In this slideshare, we highlight the core techniques we’ve curated from D-School, Steve Portigal’s great source, Interviewing Users, Universal Methods of Design, and Ajay herself from Polite Machines.

Have you used design research techniques have you used to get to the underlying needs of your customers?