For anyone new to the field, it is worth buying a book by Edward Tufte, considered the grandfather of data visualization.  Trained as a political scientist, Tufte began exploring data representation on his own as a side project, self-published a “little book” (The Visual Display of Quantitative Information) on the subject, and over a few years essentially became the father of a new discipline.   Next time you are around hackers, check out their bookshelf.  Positioned next to MySQL, PHP, and JSON books, you’ll often seen the oversized Tufte hardback.  A surprising number of serious hackers have been inspired by Tufte’s work.   I have also heard that Tufte’s one-day in person course is truly superb—and a great way to get a good price on the books.

The applications of Tufte are really exciting.  Consider Palantir, an amazing Silicon Valley company that is known to have recruited several hundred of the smartest engineers in the country.  Their primary product is a data analytics/visualization tool that empowers human analysts to analyze multiple, large sets of real time data.   Think about a military intelligence analyst trying to mash up phone call logs, bank records, and location.  Added onto this is a sophisticated way of controlling access to specific parts of data.  Essentially, it is the ultimate tool for large organizations with human analysts and lots of data… which is, well, all of the intelligence world, plus finance, government, and even industry (think about Walmart, Amazon, or Harrah’s).  To top it off, TechCrunch has speculated that Palantir will be the first billion dollar company (its current valuation is $735mm) that never had a sales force.  As founder Alex Karp said, “We are long on dealing with the most important problems we can find.  We are short on the near term.  So, we’re not hiring a sales or marketing team… and don’t plan to get any of them.”   Any project with Alex Karp, Peter Thiel, several hundred first class engineers, and no sales force or “MBA-types” is one to keep an eye on.

On the consumer side, fewer companies have experimented with creative visualization.   Digg and Twitter have experimented in-house and have seen neat experimentation using their APIs.   Digg Labs has created a few very interesting visualizations of dug articles.   Imagine one interaction display that shows the news content most important to you—colors, shapes, sizes, and motion all convey information about the content beneath.   A more conservative integration of this might be the New York Times “TimesSkimmer” – which offers a flash-based interaction with squares of content.  It is a beautiful way of surveying all the news quickly.

On the video front, Cooliris is a neat tool that improves the web experience for video and photos.  I’ve installed it and enjoy using it to browse albums on facebook and for their news TV channel.   Coincident.TV is a neat shop that is making the video experience social and interactive – imagine clicking on a cool car in a TV show you are watching to take a virtual test drive.  Apture is slightly less sexy but equally handy – it enables quick popups of relevant content (news/video) on top of a site, reducing the need to navigate off site.   Finally, Juice is a handy Firefox plugin that allows sidebar video watching; so, no more sitting on the same page just to keep the YouTube playing.  Apture and Juice are a far cry from Palantir, but are little steps in the right direction.

An exciting added layer to all of this visualization would be integrating Facebook’s open graph.  Imagine amazing video and news content displayedvisually but mapped onto your social graph.  So, you might see an article node slowly growing and then the faces of friends right around it who are discussing it.  Or as you see 30 live tv broadcasts you see which of your friends are also watching the same program and able to interact live.  The big picture is that the social graph that facebook is building can dramatically improve how we filter content—from news and TV to restaurants and travel.   The social graph and visualization together will make the web a much friendlier and exciting place.

]]> http://www.evanbaehr.com/?feed=rss2&p=98 0 http://www.evanbaehr.com/?p=58 http://www.evanbaehr.com/?p=58#comments Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:19:14 +0000 Evan http://www.evanbaehr.com/?p=58 The more time I spend observing men and women who are high achievers, the more I realize that while many have visionary leadership, keen intellect, and a passion for change, perhaps their most unappreciated yet impressive skill is their ability to get things done.  This sounds outrageously oversimplified.  To many people “getting things done” seems like a commodity skill set—sure there are tricks but at the end of the day all that matters is that people check off their task list.  From my study of a few outrageously impressive people, efficient task management is one of their key competitive advantages.  So if you are serious about making a difference in whatever sphere you work, spend a few hours exploring project management.  You’ll find that productive management results in more successful projects (e.g. that new non-profit finally gets off the ground), more free time (for your friends or family), more sleep (yielding more focus), and/or more time to explore your passions (to figure out how you actually want to spend your time).  Below are a few resources I have found helpful in my journey.  Please send your tricks and tips my way!

Knowledge:

Getting Things Done (buy here): the classic book on the subject.  I really believe this book can change your life.  Allen has consulted with hundreds of top executives.  What he finds is that after these executives implement a trusted system for task/project management, they unleash an inner-creativity.  They literally start coming up with all sorts of new ideas for their business or personal interests.  Allen argues that since the human mind is so inefficient in determining what to store in its short term “RAM,” once you clear that memory of lots of tasks and reminders (by writing them down in an organized fashion), you free up intellectual computing ability to devote to other processes (including brainstorming). You can find a summary of some of the book’s highlights here.

The Art of Project Management: kudos to my friend Joe Barillari for sending this great piece my way.  This piece is a chapter out of a book by the same title by Scott Berkun, a longtime project manager at Microsoft.

The summary points:

• Everything can be represented in an ordered list. Most of the work of project management is correctly prioritizing things and leading the team in carrying them out.
• The three most basic ordered lists are: project goals (vision), list of features, and list of work items. They should always be in sync with each other. Each work item contributes to a feature, and each feature contributes to a goal.
• There is a bright yellow line between priority 1 work and everything else.
• Things happen when you say no. If you can't say no, you effectively have no priorities.
• The PM has to keep the team honest and keep them close to reality.
• Knowing the critical path in engineering and team processes enables efficiency.
• You must be both relentless and savvy to make things happen.

Tools:

Paper Goods: GTD lays out an approach to task management.  But once you’ve developed this strategy, you must find the right tools to help you execute.   Some GTD aficionados have built software apps based on the book.  I have sampled many of these and find them to leave something to be desired.  Most of them suffer from a limiting user interface that does not allow you to see all of your projects at one time.  Despite my love of technology, I keep coming back to the old-fashioned paper solution from Levenger.  Their Pocket Briefcase makes use of stationery-quality 3x5 index cards.  (See Levenger’s “How To” on Pocket Briefcases and 3x5 Cards.)  I use these cards to implement my own version of the GTD strategy; for each project or workflow I create a new index card.  I write the title on the top and the list of tasks down the card.   For projects that involve multiple workflows, I create a separate card for each workflow.  This system allows me to keep track of dozens of projects and 50+ workflows, all in one place.  I even use 3x5 cards to take meeting notes; on one card I take “notes” (a short summary/major questions/etc.) and on my existing work-flow card I check off, change, or add tasks.

In a future post I’ll walk you through this in more detail.  For now, let me explain one key feature: the “tickler” list.  Every day I hear about a book, learn about someone I should meet, or come up with an idea; while these are great, they aren’t actionable today.  They may be important, but they aren’t urgent.  These tasks have two possible futures: (1) they are forgotten; or (2) they take up our RAM (your mind keeps pinging you saying “buy this book… don’t forget! Buy this book.”)  My “tickler list” is a list of non-actionable tasks, people, or ideas that I’m saving for the future.  I keep a tickler card for each project I’m involved in.  Organizationally, I have found the card bleachers really handy for sorting tasks on my desk, and the action folio great for carrying projects with me on the go.

Software: Of all of the web 2.0 / computer based programs, the two I like are Toodledo and Action Method.  Toodledo is a simple program for sorting, categorizing, and prioritizing tasks.  The iPhone UI is great, although the web-UI is pretty limiting.  Action Method has a beautiful, highly functional UI in all three media: web, desktop-based Adobe Air app, and iPhone.  It also brings advanced team-based functionality that gives it some functionality of Basecamp.  For MAC users, Things is the best one I’ve seen.  Another handy app is Rescue Time, which is as profound as it is simple.  Based on the insultingly simple premise that many of us waste time in front of our computer, it helps track how we spend time on our computers (by monitoring which application window is active) and provides helpful analytics and tools that equip us to spend that time more effectively.  Despite several attempts at setting up Basecamp and Microsoft’s Sharepoint, I remain unimpressed with the collaboration tools available.  Google Wave, which I’ve been playing with for a few weeks now, has made some major leaps in this area.  Given that I can’t invite any of my friends to join, however, it has been hard to fully explore.

Screen Shot of Action Method Desktop App

The Early Days

Marvin Olasky, John DiIulio, and Don Eberly were at the center of the brain trust of the “compassionate conservative” agenda introduced by President George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign.  It provided conservatives with a way to respond to accusations that they had a cold heart and were indifferent to suffering.  The concept—part political theory rooted in Tocqueville and Burke, part public branding effort—was promising.  After all, conservatives had been a party of “no” since the ’94 Gingrich revolution (cf. their intense and successful effort in the ‘96 welfare reform act).  Compassionate conservatism attempted to (rightly) make the case that conservatism is compassionate in that the domestic public policies it advocates result in Americans faring better—be better cared for, educated, and even paid.

The liberal argument has always been this (cf. Jim Wallis):

1. There are lots of poor people.
2. We are compassionate and ought to care for those less fortunate.
3. Therefore we should support massive federal government programs to care for these people.
4. Now even though there are still lots of poor people even with our massive federal programs, just imagine if we did not have them!  There would be even more!

Too often the conservative argument had been:

1. There are lots of poor people.  But they refused to work and probably deserve to be poor.
2. Big government programs cause waste and encourage welfare moms to have more babies, so we should not support such programs.

In response to this, the compassionate conservative agenda made this argument:

1. There are lots of poor people.
2. We are compassionate and ought to care for those less fortunate.
3. In order to care for poor people, we ought to pursue public policies that actually improve the lives of the poor.  Empirically, we know that policies that enable civil society to flourish actually promote human flourishing.  Moreover, the New Deal and Great Society are textbook cases that demonstrate that massive federal programs actually make the poor worse off.  Therefore, to actually “care for”—meaning, to improve the lives of—the poor, we ought to pull back the suffocating federal programs to allow civil society to (re)build.

The argument was based on a sound political theory, history of social policy, and American urban sociology.  The architects of these policies got it right.

The Three Strikes Against Compassionate Conservatism

Despite the soundness of the arguments, the message and agenda failed for three main reasons.

1. No support: It was never given adequate support from the White House. Although the “compassionate conservative” agenda made its way into many of Bush’s speeches (care of Mark Gerson), policy-wise it seems to have been located in the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI).  From the beginning, the decision to locate a major new domestic policy strategy in a new, small office not even in the White House or EEOB seems to signal it was a lower priority.  What’s worse, the administration expended essentially zero political capital to get congressional appropriations funding for OFBCI, further neutering that office.  Had this been a flagship agenda, it should have been housed in the Domestic Policy Council.

2. Flawed approach: The Faith Based Office employed a flawed approach (or, to be fair, perhaps never got to unveil its full approach). The OFBCI has(d) had a good premise: many faith-based organizations were effectively discriminated against in the federal grant making process (which awards billions of dollars annually) not explicitly because they were religious, but implicitly because these organizations were often too small and disorganized to compete in the onerous grant application process.  Through training and simplifying the grant application process, more faith-based organizations would receive federal funding to deliver social services such as tutoring, counseling, and shelter.  The premise was this: because local, faith-based organizations empirically provide much better services, the more the government delivers services through these organizations, the better services needy Americans actually receive.  This logic makes sense.

However, the original centerpiece to compassionate conservatism was civil society—not local organizations propped up by federal funding.  The most important distinction between the two is that the latter destroys the gift economy.  Tax dollars taken from income earners and given to a church to provide soup destroys the social capital that otherwise would accrue to both the philanthropist (the regular tither) and the recipient (who might greet volunteers or servers with a warm smile of appreciation).

3. No credibility or consistency: Two of Bush’s actions significantly undermined the agenda.  First, Bush undermined the “limited government” plank of compassionate conservatism by aggressive spending both domestically and internationally. Consider the $400 million prescription drug plan or the $1.5 billion for the Presidents Emergency Plan for Aids (which, as an aside, liberals will never give him credit for).  From ’01-07, the total increase in real, per capita human resource outlays of the federal government increased 17.58% (see source). Second, Bush undermined the compassionate element with inaction on Katrina: post-Katrina many Americans just couldn’t believe Bush cared about suffering. Setting aside the merits of Bush’s policies or (in)decisions on Katrina, these actions undermined the compassionate conservative agenda by inviting charges of hypocrisy.

The Future of Tocquevillian Public Policy

Given that the observations of Tocqueville and Burke (and their modern sociological defenders like Robert Bellah or Don Eberly) are correct about society and its members, we must find a way to revive and repackage this concept in a credible, compelling form.   How can we do this?

First: we have to recognize the difficulty in messaging: in effect, we are trying to come up with a persuasive way to communicate to voters that they ought to want “fewer free things.”  Obama says "I’ll give you free healthcare."  The Republicans say “you can’t have free healthcare because (droning on and on about taxes, waste, choice, etc.)”  So the compromise is half free healthcare.  The average voter sees the Democrats as the party that gives them things and the Republicans who do not. As long as income taxes are roughly stable and psychologically disconnected from government services, the burden on conservatives is to convince voters why free things are not free.  This is not easy.  And the difficulty is only compounded by the fact that conservatives have essentially zero talent or support from Madison Avenue or Hollywood, the global centers of messaging and advertising.

Second: we have to know our public policy, sociology, and history.  We need more books like Olasky’s the Tragedy of American Compassion that actually examine the usually-unasked question: are poor people better off when the government spends billions of dollars on programs to help them?  This question sounds rhetorical, but it’s not.   We also must study our sociology and civil society; we should read and reread Tocqueville’s observations about the uniqueness of the entrepreneurial, civic spirit he saw in America.  We should read Robert Putnam to learn about the fragmentation of American families and neighborhoods.  We need to ask counterfactual, historical questions around the New Deal and Great Society.  Had the government not stepped in, how would civil society have stepped up?   And we need to do more than pine for the lost era of the 1950s and think strategically about how to rebuild civil society.  We must examine: given that these massive expansions of government dealt a serious blow to civil society, would a similar contraction of the federal government cause a similar growth in civil society?

Third: we need to learn from and uphold private sector models.  Social entrepreneurs should not be liberal democrats.  Consider their modus operandi: they observe a condition in society not solved (or even exacerbated by) government.  They employ private sector capital, innovation, and management skills to build an organization or company to meet this need.  They deliver these goods and services at a lower cost, of higher quality, and with greater results than the government.  These people are classical liberals who recognize the power of the free market and strength of civil society; in effect, they are conservatives.  Conservatives ought to encourage and highlight this incredible social entrepreneurship and even innovative CSR models that effectively use private models to solve public problems.

So where can we turn? Consider this list of a few helpful people and resources.

• Don Eberly (See his Building a Healthy Culture or The Essential Civil Society Reader)
• Mark Rodgers / Jeff Hunt (The Clapham Group)
• Will Inboden / Ryan Streeter (The Legatum Institute)
• Marvin Olasky
• Jay Hein / Sagamore Institute
• Jim Skillen / Center for Public Justice
• Mike Gerson
• David Cameron / Speechwriter Johnny Kruger
• Janan Ganesh @ The Economist / Policy Exchange
• Robert Bellah
• John DiIulio

As you may notice, outside of the academic world, few have developed a cogent platform around or explanation of compassionate conservatism.  Conservatives ought to revisit these Tocquevillian truths, adapt them to modern public policies, and develop a powerful brand around them.  While the platform probably cannot be called "compassionate conservatism," it ought to be based on this set of truths, which are key to sustaining human flourishing.

Evan:  Coming from a former consultant - and one who left consulting because he didn't believe that in the long run he wanted his life to revolve around increasing the "shareholder value" or profits of businesses that already make plenty of money - the article/book you tweeted is really off-base, and you might not want to support such a clearly biased "piece of work.”

Perhaps Matthew Stewart has some interesting things to say about management philosophy (or management science, as it is sometimes called) and its moral (or amoral) implications. I don't know, I haven't read his book. But his bombastic statements about the uselessness of consultants are quite overblown. He writes that management consultants are "intelligent nut-jobs devoted to corporate in-fighting, client-gouging, psychological humiliation and sexual harassment", according to the article.

Management consultants, in my experience, and I must add that I worked for a firm that both was one of the most expensive in the world and that paid its constituents some of the highest salaries (which, if business means anything, suggests that it was also one of the best firms), do a great job of "increasing shareholder value" above and beyond that which can be accomplished by businesses alone. Management consultants are able to act on the big picture because they are less encumbered by the politics and day-to-day operations of the business for whom they are working. They are able to provide a more independent view than business managers, which is invaluable to an upper-level manager (or officer) who otherwise would (rightly) assume that the views of his or her upper-middle managers were biased toward their own ends. Consultants look with a critical, and less political, eye - one bolstered with the best practical economic quantitative methods available (as provided, oftentimes, by intelligent Ph.D's who otherwise would not be contributing practically to the world).

Additionally, consultants spread the best ideas around the best firms - that is to say, when one firm implements a good idea, consultants grab it, call it "best practice", and disseminate it throughout the ranks of the competition. In the same way that the 50 states are proving grounds, in a sense, for different laws and political ideas, so are businesses: and management consultants are the catalysts that move the best ideas to other companies, therefore incipiating constant innovation. They are the bees that pollinate the flowers, and they are the grease on the gears of American competition - what could be better for a free market system?

Consultants surely do not always take the best action morally, or even for business. But in general their job is to make their client happy by increasing their client's revenues/net income. The best consultancies do this well, and if the incentives of the people at the businesses for whom they work (the clients) are properly aligned, than competitive capitalism triumphs and is indeed bolstered by the catalyst consultants. (As an aside, I worked in 2007 directly for the CFO at a very large bank to implement a compensation system, i.e., an incentive system, that took both risk and net income into account. Such incentive systems were poignantly lacking over the past decade and this inadequacy surely contributed significantly to the current recession).

To speak specifically to Stewart, who has a problem with management science, consultants proliferate the methods that have been found (practically) to work best: if he has better ideas to put forth, he should start his own consultancy instead of complaining about current consultants. Just because he had negative experiences working for a few small consultancies and just because it's easy to throw stones at a system in which a guy out of college stays at the Ritz while traveling doesn't mean that the entire system is bad. Along that path, the analysts support the ideas and teachings of the much-more experienced directors and job managers, just like at any other firm - they aren't giving the advice, they're crunching the numbers and learning the ropes.

Could the system be improved? Surely. Maybe Stewart should improve it instead of taking the view that he is right while the world is wrong.

My 2 cents,
Adam Hopkins

A few recent events sent me on a more adventurous exploration of web 2.0 / social media tools.  I attended the Personal Democracy Forum, heard Tara Hunt (author of Whuffie Factor), read about six books on blogging and new media marketing (Robert Scoble, David Meerman Scott, and Charlene Li), added to my Google reader several web 2.0 / social media blogs, got the new iPhone, and have been exploring lots of iPhone applications.  I had hoped that through this adventure I would find some tools that would give me greater control over my daily life by integrating and synchronizing my data, giving me access to what I need when I need it. This exploration has felt more like a sprint around a giant hot foods buffet than a pleasant culinary experience; what initially seems remarkable--the choices, the cuisines--actually has made for a really unpleasant meal.  What I had hoped would be an integrated experience with natural segues, transitions, and integration has been more like one overflowing plate with BBQ chicken, sushi, pizza, Pad thai, asparagus, and a brownie--things that, when consumed alone, are delightful, yet when combined produce chaos.

For example: I’m a fan of twitter and enjoy using it to both read news and share ideas.  With my new iPhone, I can now more easily integrate photo sharing with twitter.  So I set out to find the right app for this rather basic function.  Little did I know that I was entering a mind-numbing 2-day process of trying out literally 11 twitter photo sharing options for my iPhone.  Mashable published an article reviewing the top twelve applications for sharing photos from the iPhone 3Gs on Twitter.  How can there be a top twelve of these?  What happened to reserving such distinctions for things that mattered?  Like the top 10 books of the century or top 10 places to visit in the world?  How can such a narrow category warrant so many “top” players?

After reading product reviews, installing all the apps, and demoing them, what did I realize?  That most are actually about the same.  And that tomorrow several more companies will create similar iPhone apps that do, well, basically the same thing. I concluded that it cannot be healthy to try to keep up with web 2.0 mavens like Pete Cashmore (Mashable) and Michael Arrington (Tech Crunch).  Their tweets read as if a major new innovation that will change your online experience occurs every hour.   Unless you are a software developer, are involved in VC in this space, or have a trust fund and no daily responsibilities, it is probably not wise to be a web 2.0 maven.

For now I’ve concluded two things: I am not personally suited to be a web 2.0 maven… and I need a maven in my life that is more discriminating than Cashmore and Arrington.

I’m open to suggestions about how to be a better consumer of these goods.  Ironically, one possibility is that books—yes, real actual books—might be a better way to learn about important technologies.  Both The Whuffie Factor and Groundswell offer some very helpful case studies of web 2.0 technologies, their impact, and how they are relevant for businesses.   Perhaps the publishing delay inherent in writing books—as opposed to blogs—gives the authors a bit more perspective on the actual relevance of new technologies.  Relying on books to navigate social media may produce more unified experiences that more resemble culinary experiences than hot food buffets.

Good places to start:

• The Whuffie Factor by Tara Hunt
• Groundswell by Charlene Li
• Naked Conversations by Robert Scoble
• The New Rules of Marketing and PR by David Meerman Scott
• The Cluetrain Manifesto by Christopher Locke

I read more. Have you seen anyone on the subway staring at their kindle totally oblivious to their surroundings?  That’s me.  I find that I am reading more often for a few reasons: 1. its easier to carry my kindle with me than a book... so I have good material always hand; 2. I can carry dozens of great books with me all the time and therefore always have access to something I'd like to read; 3. it’s easier to hold than a real book; 4. I can read on the treadmill or elliptical (you can increase the font size so it’s no problem to read while jogging); and 5. I read faster on my Kindle; by altering the spacing and font size, you can optimize your reading speed. And, not turning pages is also a big help.

I read better books. I pickup book suggestions all the time; sometimes from book reviews, from friends, or via Amazon’s suggestion engine.  I used to search for the book on Amazon and add it to my “wish list” or, even worse, my shopping cart.  Then I “splurge” and purchase a few books per month.  However, since I rarely do the due diligence on the book, I often find myself frustrated after the first chapter or two of reading it.  Then I place it on my shelf, only to be packed up by movers every 12 months or so.  The Kindle has totally changed this experience.  The Kindle lets you download (for free and in 10 seconds) the first chapter of any book.  Often these serve as a wonderful essay overview of the topic at hand and are worth reading in their own right; moreover, they always help me determine if I want to read the rest of the book. So now, I get a book recommendation, immediately go to Amazon, search for it, and click "send a preview to my Kindle." Then I read the first chapter of that book on my commute home.  Brilliant.

I get more out of my books and share them more easily. I love finding great content and sharing it with other people.  Previously, I used to physically highlight passages in books and then type them out and save them as a word file.  My kindle allows “clipping” passages to a virtual clipboard, which syncs with your computer.  So, when I read a great passage, I tag it and then can easily email the entire passage to a friend or incorporate into a blog post.  (However, it would be great if you could email/share directly from the Kindle instead of going through your PC.)

I read more non-book content. I love the long-form essay.  However, I often grow too impatient to read the entire 3,000-4,000 words on a bright computer screen.  Previously, I used to print them out and staple them, which was wasteful, annoying, and time consuming.  Now, I email the articles or word files to my evan@kindle.com account, and the docs are delivered wirelessly.  Instead of bookmarking or printing that long article on the future of the internet and never actually reading it, I simply send it to my kindle and store of real gems for my next subway ride or flight.

Complaints:

• My Kindle screen broke in week 2.  However, they overnighted me a new one.  Not bad.
• The keyboard isn’t great.  They recommend laying it flat and using your two index fingers.
• The Wikipedia and Internet browsing features don’t work.
• It’s slow. When you can buy a 2Ghz computer for the same price, seems silly that there is a 1.5-second delay when you click “next page.”
• Price.  Given that there are some great netbooks around $600, and even this cool prototype the CrunchPad, it makes $480 seem like a lot for an ebook.  To be fair, one doesn't read books on a Netbook; and you certainly can't hold it up on the subway.

All in all, I think the Kindle is a great device.  It has certainly resulted in my reading more content, finding higher quality content, and sharing that content with others.