- By Scott Berkun on March 10th, 2010
- 1 Comment »
- Design
Don’t be original, just be good
As another way of making the arguments I made in Good beast Innovative nearly every time, here’s design legend Paul Rand.
At about the 3:00 mark he says ‘don’t try to be original, just try to be good’
It’s also a fantastic introduction to visual design thinking: better than many textbooks I’ve seen.
- By Scott Berkun on March 10th, 2010
- 12 Comments »
- philosophy
How to convince anyone of anything
In a series of posts, called readers choice, I write on whatever topics people submit and vote for. If you dig this idea, let me know if the comments, and submit your ideas and votes.
This topic was requested with a slightly different title:Â How to make a convincing argument.
Right away it’s good to know most people do not like confrontation. The word argument itself tends to make people think of lawyers or divorce proceedings, unpleasant stressful things. It’s worth going for a more positive and less loaded word: convince. The goal is to persuade, to make them want to agree with you and feel happy, or smart, or right, when they do. This has higher odds of success than bludgeoning them with logic, or trying to pin them into a mental submission hold. If you use your brain power to wrap people’s mind into a pretzel, it’s likely once you turn your back they’ll squirm their way right back out to the shape they had before you got involved. And they’ll likely resent you for twisting them up too.
It’s good to know our species sucks at convincing others and being convinced, or acting on those new ideas. Check out the stories of Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Socrates… some of our greatest minds, perhaps our greatest people, tried to convince their followers of some pretty fucking simple ideas (e.g. do not kill, the golden rule), ideas which were often ignored or perverted by their followers in less than a generation. If this crowd couldn’t pull it off with the name of god, the threat of damnation, or the gift enlightenment behind them, the odds for the rest of us can’t be all that great. If you have ideas or a mission, no matter how persuasive you are, most people will not hear you. Most people will not change. The bet is that some will, and that’s enough reward for the effort. Or that your own thinking will sharpen through the process, and that’s valuable too.
The secret behind all the skills of pitching, persuading, selling or inspiring is the individual person you are talking to. There is no magic recipe for convincing large numbers of people of something all at the same time. That’s really hard to do. But if you are only trying to convince one person of something you can learn about them, study their interest and beliefs, and use that knowledge as a foothold for the ideas you want them to support or follow.
If you are in a meeting with 5 other people, identify the most influential people in that room. Those are the people your pitch needs to be aimed at.
The classic mistake people make is focusing on their own pitch. Their points. Their slides. Entirely forgetting who the audience is. This is shooting blind.
Work the opposite way. Understand their goals, their core beliefs, their prefered kind of thinking (data driven, story driven, principle driven, goal driven) – how do they argue for things? How do they convince others to do things? That’s the toolkit to work from. But most people find this boring. They can’t get their egos excited about studying other people, so they don’t. And then they fail. But if you can be generous of mind, and like a method actor put yourself inside their view of the world, you will understand them. And once you understand them you’ll see their perspective on you and your ideas.
I know if I can find a way to connect my idea to something they themselves argue and fight for, my chances improve dramatically. And if I can’t convince them, my studies of how they think, combined with their refutation for my ideas, will teach me something new about their view of things. At a minimum, their counterargument will give me new knowledge that will help me the next time I have to convince them, or someone else, of something. Or it might convince me they are unconvincable, and my time is best spent elsewhere.
I also know that i have to believe in the idea myself and for the right reasons. If I’m not entirely convinced, it’s very hard to naturally convey conviction. But if I can go into a conversation and state, honestly, “I believe so much in this idea I’d bet half this years salary on it” or “If I’m wrong all do all your chores this month”, there is an undeniable power and sincerity whoever is listening will feel. Sometimes this can work as a bluff, but that’s a bad habit to get into.
I think the entire philosophy of user experience design works well for convincing people (Which is ironic as many user experience folks are not very good at convincing people of their ideas). If you deeply understand who you are trying to convince, how their mind works, and why they are in the room listening to you, your ability to position an idea so they understand it, consider it and support it goes way up.
- By Scott Berkun on March 9th, 2010
- 20 Comments »
- Design
TurboTax Design FAIL
I’m so hopeful when I install the new version of something. Everyone is. An upgrade, the payment of cash for the new version, is an extremely hopefully act. I imagine they’ve fixed some things, made some nice improvements, and most of all, have taken into account the things I did with the old version.
And thinking like a designer, the best time to make me feel I chose wisely in upgrading, instead of buying a competing product, is in the first few minutes of use, known in the lingo as the OOBE (out of box experience).
So here it is, in 2010, that Intuit TurboTax fails me again.
As an aside, Yes, I know, I have not be failed by TurboTax in the same way the folks in Haiti have been failed by the universe at large. I won’t lose a limb or a family member or even, with the recession in mind, a job. I know. But still there is a corporation and a business and teams of engineers behind this thing and it’s mystifying.
Back to the story: one thing I’d expect TurboTax to know is to notice I already had TurboTax and used it last year. You know, a returning customer. I’d just assume it would notice last year’s return sitting there and bring it into the new version for me. I was wrong.
The opening screen shows no evidence I’ve ever used the product before. It’s just a mostly blank, empty, sad little screen.
I wondered, for a moment, if this new install somehow deleted all of my old tax returns? This would be quite disappointing. I mean, if TurboTax can’t find other TurboTax returns, it should be safe to assume no one can and that they’re disappeared from the universe forever.
Ever hopeful, I press on. I click on the “Find a Tax File” link, in the lower right, and get this File Open Dialog.
To my sadness, there’s yet another blank screen. Blank Screens are bad. It says “you are on your own – good luck”.
Why is this blank? Simple. The little filter box at the bottom. It is set to default to look for 2009 tax returns only. And since I just installed, it’s improbable there could be anything here with this setting. My previous year returns, despite being in this folder, despite this being the first time I’ve ever used the 2009 version, do not show.
Eventually I figure it out, flip the filter, and alas my old return is there. Sigh of Relief.
But when I click on it, ha ha, the Turbo Tax programmers have another curve ball for me. This is apparently the wrong way to load my old returns.
Let me translate. What this dialog really says is this:
We, the programmers were too lazy, or are too poorly managed, to implement a good solution. Namely, to make the software, at least for the first 5 minutes, follow the natural flow of what returning users will do in this sequence of screens (e.g. start by loading last years file), or doing what’s smart for ourselves, and acknowledge you are a returning customer and reward you for it in some way. Instead we have put up a obnoxious clinical, poorly written dialog that, in the first paragraph, suggests you are completely hosed, only to explain in the second paragraph you are merely partially hosed. Fundamentally, this dialog is a testament to the fact we resolved this bug as fixed by simply putting up a sign, sweeping your lousy experience with our work under the virtual rug.
This product has been around for 15 years. What a shame. I suppose it doesn’t say much for the quality of its competitors. Perhaps this is the best there is.
Now I know the programmers themselves might not be to blame – but whoever prioritizes bugs, makes feature decisions, or decides which part of the user experience gets invested in, and which don’t, certainly is.
I hope you’ll forward this to any Intuit employees, or friends of Intuit employees, or friends of friends of neighbors of Intuit employees ex-girlfriend’s cousins, who might know anyone on the TurboTax team who hopefully, when they see this missive, will hang their head in shame? and perhaps promise to get some low hanging but very tasty fruit like this right next time?
Thanks.
- By Scott Berkun on March 5th, 2010
- 49 Comments »
- Management
The 22 minute meeting
No one likes meetings and for good reason. In most meetings, most of the time, most people think most of what goes on is a waste of time.
So what if you took out all of the stupid, wasteful stuff and left only the useful parts?
Enter the 22 minute meeting. This is an idea from Nicole Steinbok, and she presented the idea at Seattle Ignite 9.� When I saw her present this concept at Microsoft a few months ago, she gave one of the best short talks I’ve ever seen.
Here’s the poster from her talk: 
I couldn’t find a write up of the core points, so here’s my take on her ideas from what I remember from her talk. All credit should go her way:
- Schedule a 22 minute meeting - Who decided meetings should be 30 or 60 minutes?� What data is this based on? None. 30 and 60 minute meetings leave no time to get between meetings, and assumes, on average, people need an hour to sort things out. Certainly not all meetings can be run in 22 minutes, but many can, so we’d all be better off if the default time were small, not large.
- Have a goal based agenda – Having an agenda at all would be a plus in most meetings. Writing it on the whiteboard, earns double pluses, since then everyone has a constant reminder of what the meeting is supposed to achieve.
- Send required readings 3 days beforehand – The burden is on the organizer to make this small enough that people actually do it. Never ever allow a meeting to be “lets all read the documents together and penalize anyone diligent enough to do their homework”. (note: I think 24 hours is plenty).
- Start on time – How often does this happen? Almost never. Part of the problem is Outlook and all schedule programs don’t have space between meetings. By 2pm there is a day’s worth of meeting time debt. 22 minutes ensures plenty of travel/buffer time between meetings.
- Stand up – Reminds everyone the goal isn’t to elaborate or be supplemental (See Scrum standing meetings). Make your point, make your requests, or keep quiet. If there is a disagreement, say so, but handle resolving it outside of the meeting.
- No laptops, but presenters and note takes. If you’re promised 22 minutes, and it’s all good stuff, you don’t need a secondary thing to be doing while you pretend to be listening. One person taking notes, and one person presenting if necessary.
- No phones, no exceptions – see above.
- Focus! Note off topic comments.� If you have an agenda, someone has to police it and this burden is on whoever called the meeting. Tangents are ok, provided they are short. The meeting organizer has to table tangents and arguments that go too far from the agenda.
- Send notes ASAP – With 22 minutes, there should be time, post meeting, for the organizer to send out notes and action items before the next meeting begins.
What do you think?
If you like the idea, help it spread. Nicole started a facebook group and a poster you can download (PDF).� Pass it on.
When/If they post her ignite talk online, I’ll post it here.
- By Scott Berkun on March 4th, 2010
- 8 Comments »
- Design
Problem Solving & Kobayashi Maru
Over on my post Do constraints help problem solving, Aaron asked:
I’m currently completing a dissertation titled ‘Development in Product Design is driven by a response to changing constraints rather than innovation’ for my 3rd year BA Product Design course. You have stated that constraints can be ‘eliminated on purpose’, I can understand how they can be created but not eliminated? have you got any example of this in practice?
The best attitude to have when trying to solve problems is that everything is negotiable. Just because someone says the car they want you to design must be red and ten feet tall, or done by Friday doesn’t mean it actually needs to be those things. Most constraints people give us are soft and vague: they haven’t been rigorously tested, pushed or probed to find the real boundaries.
Maybe instead of being ten feet tall, what they really want is a car they can fit comfortably in, given that the client is Cleavland Cavalier’s Shaquille Oneal.
And perhaps it’s not a red car they want, but just a car that looks cooler than their neighbors car.
Or instead of it all being done Friday, only one important part needs to be done, but the rest can be done by Monday.
People confuse being specific with being accurate. Having details and numbers doesn’t mean you understand why those things are the right choices.
The trick in creative work, especially with clients, is how to explore their constraints in such a way that you do not annoy them, but that you understand the problem sufficiently well that you get at core of the problems they need to solve. And then get them to happily acknowledge these are the true problems, rather than assuming their description of their problems is sufficiently well formed to be the true target. The reason why so many projects fail is the lack of this skill on all sides: clients, executives, designers, engineers and customers all stink at this process, and dismiss it as irrelevant.
The fancy word for this is requirements elicitation. But it really just means thinking hard and carefully about requirements, understanding they are a kind of design unto themselves. Someone has to diligently sort through those that contradict, that are poorly formed as well as those that are unnecessary. Prototyping and sketching helps sort this out, but that’s just part of the process.
The best book I’ve ever seen on this is Exploring Requirements, By Weinberg. It should be required reading for anyone who solves problems for anyone else.
But the big problem is, of the few phrases more boring in this world than project management, requirements gathering is definitely one of them. It needs a slicker name. I hate jargon but I’d be all for something snazzy that gets them to care more about this kind of thinking. (Require-magic? Constraint-O-Rama? Hmmm).
Sometimes you can find a way to make two different constraints reduce down to one, making the problem simpler to solve. A constraint (e.g. requirement) might not be eliminated, but can be bent, shifted, twisted, rephrased, or entirely manipulated (See Kobyiash Maru) to serve your purposes.
A favorite example: for decades the problem with bringing the internet into developing countries was the expense of digging tunnels to put in power, phone and cable lines. The advent of cell phones, where towers are built above ground and no wires are needed, eliminated the constraints around digging and cabling. For many people in the world today their first phones, and first web browsers, are cell phones. A constraint was entirely eliminated by design.
Good ideas can sometimes eliminate seemingly immovable constraints.
- By Scott Berkun on March 4th, 2010
- 7 Comments »
- pop culture
Funniest man on TV: Craig Ferguson
I don’t watch much TV, but one of my favorite things to watch is Craig Ferguson’s Late Late show on CBS.
He’s been on after Letterman there for years and despite how funny he is, and how good the show is, very people seem to have ever heard of the guy.
The LA Times just did a great piece about him and the show that captures much of why I like it so much:
“We have no promotion, we’ve got no money — it’s the cheapest budget of any of the late-night shows — probably Carson Daly’s too. We get nothing. But we do have a huge advantage in that they let us do what we want. And I would take that trade.”
The lack of autonomy always explains mediocrity. In companies, in teams, in movies and on TV. It’s often the corners, where fewer people are looking, that the good stuff is happening.
Given the freedom he clearly has, there is something wonderfully unhinged and real about his behavior on the show, something unlike anything else on major television. His monologues in particular are more like live stand-up comedy with an A-list comic working a B-list town, free to take risks, than the top tier late night shows where the star and the staff can’t hide the weight of national Nielsen ratings on every syllable. He’s something of an opposite of Jay Leno, who has always seemed so stiff and formulaic to me. Conan I always liked, but Ferguson is a bit darker, with a sharper blade, and it’s never quite clear what’s going to happen.
Read the full article here, or jump right in and check out his show.
SCOTT'S NEW BOOK
A provocative collection of behind-the-scenes tales from the life of a successful public speaker, bestselling business author Scott Berkun offers a unique insider's take on what public speakers do, how they do it, and how anyone can do it well. Book Details
OTHER BESTSELLERS
Don't miss anything - Free Newsletter
Receive short, near-monthly emails with new essays, most popular posts, and occasional big announcements. Not cheezy - it's good, funny and concise. (privacy policy here)
