Quantum vs Classical Consciousness: How our Metaphysical Existence drives Wave Function Collapse to form Personalized Versions of Reality
It is our consciousness that creates the environment in which pure quantum systems become classical. This suggests that it is our perceptions that represent the microscopic systems that irreversibly pinpoint boundless “pure quantum systems”. The Result: our reality is a direct result of Wave Function Collapse triggered by our inability to exist in an environment without irreversibly altering it. The irreversibility of our reality suggests entropy, which is essentially a transformation of order to chaos. It would seem fair to say then that: unique perceptions ensure unique realities.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Using Quantum Mechanics to Understand Social Media?
Eg. When we measure or otherwise observe the behavior of a crowd-based system for the sake of definition and positioning, do we inherently destroy the randomness, or destroy the probability of uncertain outcomes? Wave Function Collapse essentially tells us that if we define behavior at a point in time, we have restricted the possibilities of definition, although we may not have accurately defined with all probability the precise{sentimental] positioning of the crowd based system. It would seem, that despite our best efforts in defining[what we believe] to be accurate descriptions of crowd based behavior, that what our definitions tell us about people is not always correct. If it were correct, we should be able to simply predict or forecast with 100% accuracy, the next time/space location of the crowd. Are we able to do this? No.
Quantum decoherence suggests that when quantum systems[people] interact with their environment, we should be able to observe probabilistic, and therefore extrapolatable patterns. It appears however that what we really see, is simply the tangible manifestation of a fraction of the quantum system[people], while the vast majority of the information required to truly understand behavior remains obscured and otherwise undefined. What ends up happening is that our crowd-based system is observed through an environmental touch point which has been introduced to the environment, and has subsequently made a fundamental impact to the state of the system, in an arguably[and temporary] way. This is essential to understand in order to avoid mis-perception of behavior. When we observe our system in an environment, we are simply seeing an artificial snapshot of the system as it has been constrained to manifestation within the environment. Further, due to the constraints of any such manifestation, we are 1) artificially attempting to contain the system 2) we are incorrectly assuming that we have defined the system based on tiny[relative] amounts of information about the system. This does not in any way suggest that we should attempt to gather infinite amounts of information about the system from other mechanisms, because any observation or mechanism for measurement could at best be probabilistic, and crowd-systems are super chaotic mechanical system which are averse to being fully defined[largely due to the impossibility of having perfect information]. Where that leaves us, if we are to attempt to make meaningful use out of crowd-based system “personalities” for the sake of crafting tangible environments is this: we must understand that Decoherence will not yield precise measurements, but does help to explain the “environmental observations” that we are perceiving to be valid definitions of determinate behavior. If we consider the collective non-tangible elements of a crowd[sentiment, etc], and consider this collective to be a pure quantum system, what we can readily observe[via interactions of the pure state with the environment] is the dissipation of the pure state information across a universe of microscopic systems. Theoretically it would appear that the gathering up of information lost along a series of collisions of the macroscopic system with microscopic systems should complete our set of “perfect information” regarding the crowd-based system that we concerned with. However, these serialized collisions alter, irreversibly the state of our subject system such that information gathered from observations will no longer be able to completely define the continuously evolving state of our system.
The bottom line is: if we could gather perfect information regarding the pure state of a crowd, we could, with all certainty, predict precisely when/where[time/space] our system[of people] would converge in the future. If we could do this, we could with all certainty construct the next “most popular” social-media destination, or other means of crowd attraction and retention.
Quantum decoherence suggests that when quantum systems[people] interact with their environment, we should be able to observe probabilistic, and therefore extrapolatable patterns. It appears however that what we really see, is simply the tangible manifestation of a fraction of the quantum system[people], while the vast majority of the information required to truly understand behavior remains obscured and otherwise undefined. What ends up happening is that our crowd-based system is observed through an environmental touch point which has been introduced to the environment, and has subsequently made a fundamental impact to the state of the system, in an arguably[and temporary] way. This is essential to understand in order to avoid mis-perception of behavior. When we observe our system in an environment, we are simply seeing an artificial snapshot of the system as it has been constrained to manifestation within the environment. Further, due to the constraints of any such manifestation, we are 1) artificially attempting to contain the system 2) we are incorrectly assuming that we have defined the system based on tiny[relative] amounts of information about the system. This does not in any way suggest that we should attempt to gather infinite amounts of information about the system from other mechanisms, because any observation or mechanism for measurement could at best be probabilistic, and crowd-systems are super chaotic mechanical system which are averse to being fully defined[largely due to the impossibility of having perfect information]. Where that leaves us, if we are to attempt to make meaningful use out of crowd-based system “personalities” for the sake of crafting tangible environments is this: we must understand that Decoherence will not yield precise measurements, but does help to explain the “environmental observations” that we are perceiving to be valid definitions of determinate behavior. If we consider the collective non-tangible elements of a crowd[sentiment, etc], and consider this collective to be a pure quantum system, what we can readily observe[via interactions of the pure state with the environment] is the dissipation of the pure state information across a universe of microscopic systems. Theoretically it would appear that the gathering up of information lost along a series of collisions of the macroscopic system with microscopic systems should complete our set of “perfect information” regarding the crowd-based system that we concerned with. However, these serialized collisions alter, irreversibly the state of our subject system such that information gathered from observations will no longer be able to completely define the continuously evolving state of our system.
The bottom line is: if we could gather perfect information regarding the pure state of a crowd, we could, with all certainty, predict precisely when/where[time/space] our system[of people] would converge in the future. If we could do this, we could with all certainty construct the next “most popular” social-media destination, or other means of crowd attraction and retention.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
A Trojan Pig does/ not a Horse make. So sayeth/ “Trojan Horse Maker”
Yes that is a Haiku, but it also neatly articulates the wisdom of the Trojans. I think the folks at Monty Python picked up on the necessity of appealing to the wants/needs of the target audience, and then spoofed it with the Trojan Rabbit. Quite funny.
More to the point: serious applications of social media and social-gaming are possible, desirable, and potentially innovative. BUT, never forget the tastes of your target demographic. If your audience wants a horse, you must give them a horse before you can do anything else. Give them a rabbit first, and you may not get the desired uptake.
More to the point: serious applications of social media and social-gaming are possible, desirable, and potentially innovative. BUT, never forget the tastes of your target demographic. If your audience wants a horse, you must give them a horse before you can do anything else. Give them a rabbit first, and you may not get the desired uptake.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Virtual is not Real
It is easy to be seduced by the similarities between Virtual and Real economies. The idea of having perfect manufacturing and consumption data on which all types of economic models can be created is somewhat intoxicating i suppose to a theoretical economist. BUT, virtual economies are NOT "real"! and a guy playing Guiter Hero is not a "real" musician. and what I mean by "Real" is quite simple: I will argue that the first medium-based manifestation of an entity is the "real" version, and that when the entity becomes manifested in a second medium, it can no longer be described as "real" or even "the same as the first" manifestation. by "medium" I am referring to a "generalized platform definition". but this is not just a game of semantics. the importance is that just because 2 things appear quite similiar, it does not mean that we extrapolate on that to rationalize or validate all kinds of other observations. and we know this to be true of just about any entity we can think of..In Virual Economies, the only real laws that the site is bound by having nothing to do with money(ie. Pornography,etc). Rulers of VE's, can and do:1. revalue currencies at will2. discriminate3. subject4. create inflation, stagnation, etc5. create scarcity and excess in milliseconds6. create and destroy vast "wealth" in milliseconds
I do believe that as time goes by, Virtual Economies will have to trend towards rules, laws, and other conventions that keep "real" economies "trust worthy". but in the meantime, do not give in to a false sense of security that comes from working through "real" models that seem to apply well to virtual economies......it does make me think however, if you could limit a model to a single Virtual World/Economy, and define all of events that could occur in VW, that could not occur in Real LIfe, and you were able to assign a probability to each of these events, you could I suppose factor in the sum of these probabilities into your real model. think of it as a Virtualized Wiener Process....
the image that just popped into my head is the TV commercial that shows an office worker strolling the photocopier to get his copy. I can model that task pretty simply(basic modal model stuff). but in teh commercial, out of nowhere, at a fantastic speed, comes a fully padded football player and absolutely levels the officeworker. That is precisely the way we need to think about Virtual Economies. Until someone guarantees that Linebackers will not be loose in the offioe, we cannot trust in real world models to describe or forecast Virtual Economies
I do believe that as time goes by, Virtual Economies will have to trend towards rules, laws, and other conventions that keep "real" economies "trust worthy". but in the meantime, do not give in to a false sense of security that comes from working through "real" models that seem to apply well to virtual economies......it does make me think however, if you could limit a model to a single Virtual World/Economy, and define all of events that could occur in VW, that could not occur in Real LIfe, and you were able to assign a probability to each of these events, you could I suppose factor in the sum of these probabilities into your real model. think of it as a Virtualized Wiener Process....
the image that just popped into my head is the TV commercial that shows an office worker strolling the photocopier to get his copy. I can model that task pretty simply(basic modal model stuff). but in teh commercial, out of nowhere, at a fantastic speed, comes a fully padded football player and absolutely levels the officeworker. That is precisely the way we need to think about Virtual Economies. Until someone guarantees that Linebackers will not be loose in the offioe, we cannot trust in real world models to describe or forecast Virtual Economies
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
ShamWow vs Healthcare
I asked a Psychiatrist the other day 3 questions:1. How do you define reality?2. Can someone have more than one reality?3. What does it mean to have a Passion for something?
Questions 1 and 2 are relevant to other work that I do, but question 3 is relevant to the current topic in this forum
the conversation went something like this:Me: what does it mean to have a passion for something?her: Well, you could have a passion for dancing.Me: is it the act of dancing, or the way dancing makes you feel? Like dancing may make somenone feel good..Her: dancing would be your passion because it makes you feel good.Me: so its not really that you have a passion for dancing, its that you have a passion for feeling good, so dancing could just as easiliy be skiing, or surfing?Her: yes, that is correctMe: do most people just say "I have a possion fo dancing" and leave it that? or do they analyze to the core components like I do?Her: most people don't analyze.
ok. so. I just bought a ShamWow on QVC and I feel awesome. I don't really care about a yellow towel, but I got a rush from spending money with the skinny guy who wears a fake microphone. Hmmm, is there some other way I could get the same rush? maybe this is the key to Health and Wellness. How can we deliver to someone the same ShamWow feeling when they take their medication as directed? there is an anwser to this question, and its not silly. Our first mistake is to ever assume that we can reprogram people. Our first step towards success will be in understanding what motivates different sorts of people top act
Questions 1 and 2 are relevant to other work that I do, but question 3 is relevant to the current topic in this forum
the conversation went something like this:Me: what does it mean to have a passion for something?her: Well, you could have a passion for dancing.Me: is it the act of dancing, or the way dancing makes you feel? Like dancing may make somenone feel good..Her: dancing would be your passion because it makes you feel good.Me: so its not really that you have a passion for dancing, its that you have a passion for feeling good, so dancing could just as easiliy be skiing, or surfing?Her: yes, that is correctMe: do most people just say "I have a possion fo dancing" and leave it that? or do they analyze to the core components like I do?Her: most people don't analyze.
ok. so. I just bought a ShamWow on QVC and I feel awesome. I don't really care about a yellow towel, but I got a rush from spending money with the skinny guy who wears a fake microphone. Hmmm, is there some other way I could get the same rush? maybe this is the key to Health and Wellness. How can we deliver to someone the same ShamWow feeling when they take their medication as directed? there is an anwser to this question, and its not silly. Our first mistake is to ever assume that we can reprogram people. Our first step towards success will be in understanding what motivates different sorts of people top act
Monday, October 19, 2009
Can't Teach an old dog new tricks......
So, just checking the daily news alerts to see what's up. Found this:
"Essentially, the feds are asking EMRs to be social. And this is what the best one looks like:
Ha. Good luck. If Google can’t do it in a meaningful way, I guarantee the Health IT world won’t come close" http://blog.bradybouchard.ca/2009/10/when-it-starts-in-silos-it-will-never-go-social/
Fortunately the author has identified the certainty of failure for all those entering the space, saving everyone time, money and public humiliation.
For sure if "Google" can't do it, no one can. Maybe this is a satirical blog posting from that author, I'm just not sure.
It actually seems Google would be the least likely to succeed. Google has trouble seeing past their #1 ranking in Alexa. Google's entry into Health is based on a search engine foundation. Sure, many people need a good solid search engine, but many people also ride the subway. It should follow that a subway car is a fantastic place for health services: captive audience, in-line with daily life-flow, so what's the issue? Is a restroom a good place to sell shoes? How about reading the news in the shower. health services from a search engine? maybe we just need to be more patient, and open our minds to the essence of material things. Maybe Google isn't really a search engine. After all, can something really be defined based simply on how some people use it? I quite often use my cat as a doorstop. At what point is my cat more doorstop than cat? does it depend on how you look at it? what if I use my desk as a "ladder" to change a lightbulb? is it a desk, or a ladder? search engine or health services provider? when it matters is when you make assumptions about how many people will use their cat as a doorstop simply because you have marketed the idea....
"Essentially, the feds are asking EMRs to be social. And this is what the best one looks like:
Ha. Good luck. If Google can’t do it in a meaningful way, I guarantee the Health IT world won’t come close" http://blog.bradybouchard.ca/2009/10/when-it-starts-in-silos-it-will-never-go-social/
Fortunately the author has identified the certainty of failure for all those entering the space, saving everyone time, money and public humiliation.
For sure if "Google" can't do it, no one can. Maybe this is a satirical blog posting from that author, I'm just not sure.
It actually seems Google would be the least likely to succeed. Google has trouble seeing past their #1 ranking in Alexa. Google's entry into Health is based on a search engine foundation. Sure, many people need a good solid search engine, but many people also ride the subway. It should follow that a subway car is a fantastic place for health services: captive audience, in-line with daily life-flow, so what's the issue? Is a restroom a good place to sell shoes? How about reading the news in the shower. health services from a search engine? maybe we just need to be more patient, and open our minds to the essence of material things. Maybe Google isn't really a search engine. After all, can something really be defined based simply on how some people use it? I quite often use my cat as a doorstop. At what point is my cat more doorstop than cat? does it depend on how you look at it? what if I use my desk as a "ladder" to change a lightbulb? is it a desk, or a ladder? search engine or health services provider? when it matters is when you make assumptions about how many people will use their cat as a doorstop simply because you have marketed the idea....
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Popular Adherence: Long Haul Stickiness
Ok, so I've really been thinking alot about Adherence, which is case you aren't familiar, is really just a name for a combination of Compliance and Persistence. Adherence is a common word when we talk about medications, but what I thinbk alot of people don't consider is that Adherence is a process that is applicable to just about everything in our lives. And I don't mean obvious things like "adhering to a diet". I mean: teenage use of texting could be described in Adherence language. A drug addicts' use of drugs could be desrcibed as Adherence, taking the car for maintenance, getting your nails done. These all consist of protocols that are easily followed or not, and the length of time for which they are followed can be considered in terms of persistence. How about Religion? your job? same basic formula. There is a protocol that describes the methods that needs to be followed to maintain the prescription, and there is a length of time over which the protocol is followed. For almost every activity, adherence will wax and wane. This is true for drug addicts, teenage texters, religious folk, and everyone else. Which is interesting because when we talk about adherence, the conversation is almost always dominated by "negative adjustments" that must be adhered to. fine, we understand. people who don;t like to exercise, or who need to eat less junk food, need to make what they perceive as "negattive adjustments" to their lives. or in otherwords, they level of pleasurable activity they are accustomed to is being curtailed, and the perception of this requirement is "negative but necessary". But, lets now consider activities which are inherently pleasurable, and should not need to be curtailed(due to adverse effects) but demonstrate waxing and waning adherence. I just discovered Mafia Wars on Face Book. It failed to engage me, but it has succeeded with 5 million other people. These folks comply with the protocol: they press the buttons, do the jobs, make the money, etc. click, click, click. that site is stiiiiiiicky. And they persist. everyday, lots of times everyday....make the money, do the job, click, click. I could get into what motivates people to Adhere to this game, but that is a whole post on its own(extremely relevant and essential, but needs to wait). so now we have 5m people clicking away daily. all pleasure. they are not gaining weight, cholesterol is not going up, etc. but........after awhile.......game players stop playing. if this were not true, everyone today would still be obsessed with Pac Man. so what happens? why stop adhering to such an awesome protocol? boredom, popularity shift, competing games, who knows. What is important is tha even the most purely pleasurable activities see Adherence wax and wane. So, why should we be so shocked when negatively perceived activities have fluctuating adherence. Well you say, "health should always be the priority. for some its a matter of life and death. how can you not adhere to a protocol that will save your life?" I would wager that if you told a kid that me must follow a protocol daily that resulted in a daily ice cream cone, you would see adherence wane over time. How can this be? Well we need to know exactly why this is, in order to understand why Uncle Fred stopped taking his cholesterol meds(all things being equal such as ability to pay, negative sides, etc). Where we end up: Adherence Profiles. these can be constructed by gathering data that describes a patients lifelong performance in regards to a miriad of activities: from brushing teeth, to watching football, to mowing the lawn, religion, etc. The point is: we must accept that there are unique profiles that describe a persons track record to adhering to anything. Through the definition and analysis of this profile, we can then construct an Adherence program that will best suite the patient. In many ways, the programs can be exactly the same, BUT, we apply an "Engagement Skin", which is an overlay on top of a common infrastructure, designed to get all sort of people engaged in performing what is essentially exactly the same activity.(Ilearned this trick from the MafiaWars/Sorority Life folks). Stay stuned for more on Life Adherence Profiles
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Immersion: What we know about Casinos and Hypnotists
I think the formulas exist already, no need to reinvent them. We will use Contextual Innovation to derive our Immersion formulas. I present two examples: Casinos and Hypnosis.
Casinos are all about immersion, further, they are also very much interested in “Sticky Immersion”. So lets show a couple of casino formulas:
Casino Immersion = Multi-sensory environment + elimination of “outside world” reminders + attentive needs fulfillment + “make me feel important”
Casino Sticky Immersion = Casino Immersion + Effective ability to meet expectations + Surpassment of expectations in an impactful way + delivery of services better than the next-best provider
Hypnosis is a blunt form of demonstrating Federated Reality(your awareness/mind are detached, but still in partnership with your body). Hypnosis may have its own goals, but the first objective is to shift patient awareness away from physical stimulation.
Hypnotic Immersion = patient willingness + effective tool(i.e. therapist)
VR must deliver the best of a Casino, and the willingness of a Hypnosis patient
VR Immersion = Union of(Casino Immersion + Hypnotic Immersion)
VR Sticky Immersion = Union of(Casino Sticky Immersion + Hypnotic Immersion)
Casinos are all about immersion, further, they are also very much interested in “Sticky Immersion”. So lets show a couple of casino formulas:
Casino Immersion = Multi-sensory environment + elimination of “outside world” reminders + attentive needs fulfillment + “make me feel important”
Casino Sticky Immersion = Casino Immersion + Effective ability to meet expectations + Surpassment of expectations in an impactful way + delivery of services better than the next-best provider
Hypnosis is a blunt form of demonstrating Federated Reality(your awareness/mind are detached, but still in partnership with your body). Hypnosis may have its own goals, but the first objective is to shift patient awareness away from physical stimulation.
Hypnotic Immersion = patient willingness + effective tool(i.e. therapist)
VR must deliver the best of a Casino, and the willingness of a Hypnosis patient
VR Immersion = Union of(Casino Immersion + Hypnotic Immersion)
VR Sticky Immersion = Union of(Casino Sticky Immersion + Hypnotic Immersion)
Innovation in Education? Contradictory Terms?
In reading a post just now regarding the lackof innovation in education, there were a couple of examples provided, and this sparked a couple of my own observations from first hand experiences:
From the Article:
1. Great innovation coming out of universities is accomplished despite the university(Shawn Fanning/Napster is the example)
- I think this is a fair point, and we quite often see precisely the same thing happening in major corporations. A corporate employee who has a fantastic idea, will quite often leave the company to pursue the idea. Maybe this is for IP reasons, but it is also due to the lack of support within the organization for innovation. In many large companies, certain people on certain teams are the "designated innovators". If you are not part of that club, you are on your own.
2. Educators are focused on content, not mediums & methods
- I see this in universities as well as corporations. In each scenario, curriculum designers(sometimes overseen by compliance/audit) need to ensure that specific information is relayed to the student. Especially in corporations, the burden is to to ensure that you can document the fact that the student saw the content, and passed a quiz on the content. Sometimes as much as 80% of the educational effort is in tracking course completion, rather than ensuring the learner comprehended and can therefore deploy the knowledge
From my own Experience:
1. Education-lifers(those that studied to become teachers, and are currently teachers), tend to have a very different take on teaching methods then those current teachers who may have spent a career in Business, and then decided to become a professor.
- I will admit that almost all of my contact with educators is either at Universities or Corporations. I can generally tell almost immediately if an instructor was educated to teach, or whether the educator is teaching based on life/work experience. In my opinion, educators with a history of work experience inherently ensure that the information they are communicating is done so in such a way the learners are involved in understanding the implications for "knowledge execution". If you have lived/breathed knowledge-execution for 2 decades, you will almost certainly focus your teaching style on the end-objectives of having/using this knowledge. And in many cases, these educators will seek the best methods possible for communicating information. (don't get me started on the Pedagogy/Andragogy debate)
2. Quite often, education does not employ the same tools as business
- In my consulting practice it is not unusual to see a corporation using one set of tools to train employees, then see another set of tools given to the employees to do their job. We would not train car mechanics this way, why do we train corporate professionals this way?
3. Very often, educational software providers do not focus on what their customers(and the customers students) are asking for.
- This is my favorite so I saved it for last. I am presenting at an upcoming educational conference and the gist of what I am going to say is: we must educate the workforce of tomorrow(and today), using the tools that they will be using on the job. Now, depending on the industry, these tools will certainly be more innovative then asynchronous text messaging and powerpoint in a browser. I work with curriculum designers at Universities and corporations helping them understand what tools are available - and not just what their approved vendor has told them their product can do. There is a massive difference. I also have spoken to major LMS providers(for Universities and Corporate), and these folks have told me(and they believe what they say) that their customers only want what the vendor is currently providing. Hmmm, maybe the vendor only talks to procurement or IT? Because I get a very, very different message when I talk to professors and students. To the LMS vendor, the "customer" is the Payer. Who writes the checks? An LMS vendor must ensure that the check-writer is happy. And we should not assume that the check-writer is constantly communicating with the professor, or that the professor is always taking the pulse of student likes/dislikes. I suppose we could also argue that people won't want what they don't know exists. This however does not equal contentment. Students and Professors know what they like/dislike, regardless of whether they know about choices. Awareness of alternatives will however change how people respond to what they like/dislike(hope for improvement may spark action).
From the Article:
1. Great innovation coming out of universities is accomplished despite the university(Shawn Fanning/Napster is the example)
- I think this is a fair point, and we quite often see precisely the same thing happening in major corporations. A corporate employee who has a fantastic idea, will quite often leave the company to pursue the idea. Maybe this is for IP reasons, but it is also due to the lack of support within the organization for innovation. In many large companies, certain people on certain teams are the "designated innovators". If you are not part of that club, you are on your own.
2. Educators are focused on content, not mediums & methods
- I see this in universities as well as corporations. In each scenario, curriculum designers(sometimes overseen by compliance/audit) need to ensure that specific information is relayed to the student. Especially in corporations, the burden is to to ensure that you can document the fact that the student saw the content, and passed a quiz on the content. Sometimes as much as 80% of the educational effort is in tracking course completion, rather than ensuring the learner comprehended and can therefore deploy the knowledge
From my own Experience:
1. Education-lifers(those that studied to become teachers, and are currently teachers), tend to have a very different take on teaching methods then those current teachers who may have spent a career in Business, and then decided to become a professor.
- I will admit that almost all of my contact with educators is either at Universities or Corporations. I can generally tell almost immediately if an instructor was educated to teach, or whether the educator is teaching based on life/work experience. In my opinion, educators with a history of work experience inherently ensure that the information they are communicating is done so in such a way the learners are involved in understanding the implications for "knowledge execution". If you have lived/breathed knowledge-execution for 2 decades, you will almost certainly focus your teaching style on the end-objectives of having/using this knowledge. And in many cases, these educators will seek the best methods possible for communicating information. (don't get me started on the Pedagogy/Andragogy debate)
2. Quite often, education does not employ the same tools as business
- In my consulting practice it is not unusual to see a corporation using one set of tools to train employees, then see another set of tools given to the employees to do their job. We would not train car mechanics this way, why do we train corporate professionals this way?
3. Very often, educational software providers do not focus on what their customers(and the customers students) are asking for.
- This is my favorite so I saved it for last. I am presenting at an upcoming educational conference and the gist of what I am going to say is: we must educate the workforce of tomorrow(and today), using the tools that they will be using on the job. Now, depending on the industry, these tools will certainly be more innovative then asynchronous text messaging and powerpoint in a browser. I work with curriculum designers at Universities and corporations helping them understand what tools are available - and not just what their approved vendor has told them their product can do. There is a massive difference. I also have spoken to major LMS providers(for Universities and Corporate), and these folks have told me(and they believe what they say) that their customers only want what the vendor is currently providing. Hmmm, maybe the vendor only talks to procurement or IT? Because I get a very, very different message when I talk to professors and students. To the LMS vendor, the "customer" is the Payer. Who writes the checks? An LMS vendor must ensure that the check-writer is happy. And we should not assume that the check-writer is constantly communicating with the professor, or that the professor is always taking the pulse of student likes/dislikes. I suppose we could also argue that people won't want what they don't know exists. This however does not equal contentment. Students and Professors know what they like/dislike, regardless of whether they know about choices. Awareness of alternatives will however change how people respond to what they like/dislike(hope for improvement may spark action).
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Big Pharma must go Deep, and Maybe not so wide
Pharma has changed considerably in the last decade. The days of Star-drugs mass marketed with an eye on volume seem to have come and gone. The holy grail now are super-premium drugs that treat special-case illnesses. They are expensive for sure, but if they work, they will be purchased. Pharma has always cared about patient outcomes, but now they must care even more. Adherence is the new mantra. Adherence to a drug that is effective has no choice but to boost Outcomes. A drug with the highest ranking Outcomes, will be the winner. So, if Adherence = Compliance + Persistence, investment must be in not only Promotion, but Compliance as well..
VR has its place, and its place is not Everywhere
I was just checking out the following Survey conducted by Forbes Magazine. How frustrating.
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=65560894&gid=1391417&srchCat=WOTC&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E3dtlc%2Enet%2F2009%2F09%2Fforbes-survey-concludes-against-virtual-meetings%2Ehtml&urlhash=drEr
I really don't think that Forbes needed an elaborate study to demonstrate that executives prefer face-face meetings. I'm not sure that anyone with a solid understanding of business operations would even consider challeging this truism. I believe that Forbe's could have provided significantly more value to the tech industry by asking more informed questions, such as:1. when a face-face meeting is not possible due to time, money, etc. what do you feel would be the next best alternative?2. Of the face-face alternatives currently in your "Toolbox", which do prefer, and why> How could these tools be improved?3. We all understand that many people don't fully engage themselves on conference calls, webex's, etc. Assuming that face-face is not always viable, how could current state technologies be improved to increase participant engagement?
In my daily work, I have to handle "results" and objections that are consistent with the Forbes conclusion. I have been lecturing for the past year about a "Toolbox" approcah to business. In your Toolbox for example, would be: Telephone, Email, IM, Webex/Live Meeting, Video Conference, Virtual Reality, and Face-Face. Given all the variables in play when a task needs to be completed, the business user should select the most appropriate technology. "Appropriate" considers: time, money, priority, logistics, etc. We cannot/should not try to force a round peg into a square hole. Instead, we need users to understand the pros/cons of each tool in their Toolbox, and select the appropriate tool for the task. Its really a waste of everyone's time to talk about how "VR will replace Face-Face". The RIGHT word to use instead of replace, is "Augment". VR can Augment the business toolbox. A business user will likely select the tool that can best accomplish the task, assuming it is easy to use and stable. And just like we saw 10 years ago with the flight to the internet: the good ideas that have survived a decade are those that can accomplish a task better(faster, better, cheaper) than an exsiting tool, or can provide a service that is simply not possible in the real world. The same is tru of VR: it is a massive blunder to target uses of VR that are better accomplished using another means. The correct strategy is to focus on scenarios in which there is no "better alternative". leverage VR for its unique abilities: accomplish this task and you have become an essential tool, not just a nice to have tool
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=65560894&gid=1391417&srchCat=WOTC&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E3dtlc%2Enet%2F2009%2F09%2Fforbes-survey-concludes-against-virtual-meetings%2Ehtml&urlhash=drEr
I really don't think that Forbes needed an elaborate study to demonstrate that executives prefer face-face meetings. I'm not sure that anyone with a solid understanding of business operations would even consider challeging this truism. I believe that Forbe's could have provided significantly more value to the tech industry by asking more informed questions, such as:1. when a face-face meeting is not possible due to time, money, etc. what do you feel would be the next best alternative?2. Of the face-face alternatives currently in your "Toolbox", which do prefer, and why> How could these tools be improved?3. We all understand that many people don't fully engage themselves on conference calls, webex's, etc. Assuming that face-face is not always viable, how could current state technologies be improved to increase participant engagement?
In my daily work, I have to handle "results" and objections that are consistent with the Forbes conclusion. I have been lecturing for the past year about a "Toolbox" approcah to business. In your Toolbox for example, would be: Telephone, Email, IM, Webex/Live Meeting, Video Conference, Virtual Reality, and Face-Face. Given all the variables in play when a task needs to be completed, the business user should select the most appropriate technology. "Appropriate" considers: time, money, priority, logistics, etc. We cannot/should not try to force a round peg into a square hole. Instead, we need users to understand the pros/cons of each tool in their Toolbox, and select the appropriate tool for the task. Its really a waste of everyone's time to talk about how "VR will replace Face-Face". The RIGHT word to use instead of replace, is "Augment". VR can Augment the business toolbox. A business user will likely select the tool that can best accomplish the task, assuming it is easy to use and stable. And just like we saw 10 years ago with the flight to the internet: the good ideas that have survived a decade are those that can accomplish a task better(faster, better, cheaper) than an exsiting tool, or can provide a service that is simply not possible in the real world. The same is tru of VR: it is a massive blunder to target uses of VR that are better accomplished using another means. The correct strategy is to focus on scenarios in which there is no "better alternative". leverage VR for its unique abilities: accomplish this task and you have become an essential tool, not just a nice to have tool
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
What is Virtual Reality?
•According to Winifred Gallagher, author of the recently published “Rapt”, we constantly make decisions determining what we are going to pay attention to. Any events, experiences, and activities not within the scope of our chosen interest will not exist to us as we immerse ourselves in our selected targets of concentration and focus. What we choose to concentrate on defines our state of consciousness and becomes our Reality.
• The fact that our mind and body may be “in two different places at the same time” is not a unique characteristic of Virtual Reality, and does not therefore create the need to refer to this immersive technology as “Virtual Reality”
–If we are deep within our own thoughts, and no longer mindful of our physical surroundings, are we in “virtual reality” ?
–If we are reading a news article on a website, and are so engrossed that we forget that we are late for a meeting, do we say that “virtual reality” interfered with “physical reality”?
•The power of “Virtual Reality” software is in its ability to emancipate the mind from the body, making physical “reality” a minor element of our Federated Reality.
–Federated Reality has two parts:
•Consciousness
•Physical Existence
–For our purposes, we will always need to address the requirements of Physical Existence and Consciousness. However, it is our objective to relegate Physical Existence to nothing more than a set of requirements for accessing a medium that will manipulate the Consciousness away from Physical Existence
•In other words, people have bodies: eyes, hands, etc. We must build software that provides convenient physical access. But after t hat, the vast majority of our attention will be turned to capturing the full attention of the user
–We use “federated” to mean that the two parts of Reality have a partnership, but are not so close as to be synonymous. They are individualy self-sustaining.
•At Étape Partners we believe that there is only one relevant reality, and it is defined as:
– A context of stimulation that acutely focuses awareness and defines our state of consciousness.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Data Visualization
How do we use immersive, multisensory technology to create interactive representations of information that go beyond adding another dimension to a well established format of information display?
I agree that immersive 3D helps with visualization, but I believe that we have not yet cracked the code on how best to use VR to provide the human brain with the most efficient exposure to data/problem solving.
and to continue my thought, I see VR misused in many different ways: creating a conference room in which you display a powerpoint presentation, creating a library filled with books, allowing web searches that float the pages returns in space, etc. there are many examples of how the multi-sensory dimensionality possibilities of VR are not used,in favor of simply extending a well establish model(eg, adding a 3rd dimension to a chart).much of what we have established in 2D modeling was done so because there were no other variables to leverage(not including time).What I am puzzled by is what I refer to as the “can’t find my shoes dilemma”. When I am at home, and I cannot find my shoes, I do not visualize a spreadsheet with a line item for all the possible locations of my shoes. What I do, is visualize my entire house, with subconcsious prioritization of the the most likely locations. and look at that – my shoes are sitting right by the door where I left them. in this case, adding a 3rd dimension to a spreadsheet will not help me much. BUT, providing a 3D representation of the “universe” of possible outcomes, with some baked in prioritization, this is how my brain works, and this is possible in VR.
I agree that immersive 3D helps with visualization, but I believe that we have not yet cracked the code on how best to use VR to provide the human brain with the most efficient exposure to data/problem solving.
and to continue my thought, I see VR misused in many different ways: creating a conference room in which you display a powerpoint presentation, creating a library filled with books, allowing web searches that float the pages returns in space, etc. there are many examples of how the multi-sensory dimensionality possibilities of VR are not used,in favor of simply extending a well establish model(eg, adding a 3rd dimension to a chart).much of what we have established in 2D modeling was done so because there were no other variables to leverage(not including time).What I am puzzled by is what I refer to as the “can’t find my shoes dilemma”. When I am at home, and I cannot find my shoes, I do not visualize a spreadsheet with a line item for all the possible locations of my shoes. What I do, is visualize my entire house, with subconcsious prioritization of the the most likely locations. and look at that – my shoes are sitting right by the door where I left them. in this case, adding a 3rd dimension to a spreadsheet will not help me much. BUT, providing a 3D representation of the “universe” of possible outcomes, with some baked in prioritization, this is how my brain works, and this is possible in VR.
What makes a "game" a Game?
Yesterday I read an interesting conceptual description for an educational "game", however it seemed to be missing all of the gaming elements, and the reason why a game has been selected as the structure for the solution eluded me altogether. I believe however that the author had selected the game concept because they has heard about how gaming can be an effective communication tool for children. But, just because you want to solve your problem with a game, it doesn't mean that a game is the best solution to the problem. that lead me to consider, if we look at something that we will all agree is a game, what are the critical few identifying characteristics that make us all agree that yes, we are looking at a game? lets use Monopoly as a our case study. What can we say about it:
- it is perceived as fun
- it is often considered a source of entertainment
- at "play time" it gets presented as an option
- it involves a group of people
- there is an objective(*)
- there are rules(*)
- players are subject to risk that has consequences
- players are subject to chance encounters with rewards
- uncertainty creates excitement
- there is a winner and a loser
- players accumulate posessions(*)
- playes achieve public status(*)
- players receive micro-rewards(*)
there are probably more ways to describe the attributes of this game, but if we want to select just the essential "gaming elements", that could be universaly applied to any game, maybe they would be:
- there is an objective(*)
- there are rules(*)
and what has made this game successful?
- players accumulate posessions(*)
- playes achieve public status(*)
- players receive micro-rewards(*)
I know this is not exhaustive, but, I am after a rudimentary litmus test. Is it a game, or not?
- it is perceived as fun
- it is often considered a source of entertainment
- at "play time" it gets presented as an option
- it involves a group of people
- there is an objective(*)
- there are rules(*)
- players are subject to risk that has consequences
- players are subject to chance encounters with rewards
- uncertainty creates excitement
- there is a winner and a loser
- players accumulate posessions(*)
- playes achieve public status(*)
- players receive micro-rewards(*)
there are probably more ways to describe the attributes of this game, but if we want to select just the essential "gaming elements", that could be universaly applied to any game, maybe they would be:
- there is an objective(*)
- there are rules(*)
and what has made this game successful?
- players accumulate posessions(*)
- playes achieve public status(*)
- players receive micro-rewards(*)
I know this is not exhaustive, but, I am after a rudimentary litmus test. Is it a game, or not?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Making the Front door to Healthcare Bigger....
I just read a fantastic whitepaper produced by PwC on the measures being taken to, and the impact of, making healthcare more accessible. The basic gist of it is: the current state of healthcare in the US is not great, due to many variables including technology inefficiences, misuse of medical resources, and lack of patient accountability for their own medical well being. The nice thing about this wehitepaper is the density of statistics that have been provided. This is hard data that is "hard" to come by, but is certainly what everyone wants to see. the whitepaper describes a situation that will worsen with the advent of potential policy change that would open the door for Universal health coverage, BUT, also points to some meaningful statistics concerning patient willingness to try electronic forms of consultation, monitoring, and treatment. its an important whitepaper, I suggest you take a look.http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/survey-consumers-psyched-about-telemedical-remote-monitoring/2009-07-27
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Accessibility and Other HR issues in Virtual Environments
Lets consider the use of VR environments for education and business. Further, lets limit the scope of thos discussion to using VR for business or education tasks that are essential, not for entertainment. Lets also consider that employees and students are required to use the VR platform to perform tasks. Now that we have the basic discussion scoped...
In my opinion, it is essential that serious users of VR tools be represented in VR in a way that allows other users of the system to clearly identify that person to the extent that they feel a sense of presense with a colleague or fellow student. In most cases, VR is being presented as a tool to help reestablish co-worker intimacy that is lost as the workforce become disintermediated by physical distance. Buyers of these system want to create more engaging and effective communication, create deeper bonds among users, and finally use these enhanced relationships to help achieve business results. Therefore, it is essential that VR is a direct extension of everyday business operations, not a parallel universe that has no impact on real life. In some ways, its no different than email. I suppose that when email first came on the scene, many peopel felt it was a "false" communication because they did not use the phone. The same was likely said of the phone when it was first used(face to face is real, the phone is not). However, time as passed, and quite often email is accepted as a more indelible mode of communication because it is "permanent". surely we accept email as a tool of business, and life in general, and we would never say that "it was just an email, not real". Further, in business it is essential that we trust that when we receive an email from "Bob Jones" it is truly Bob Jones that sent the email. If we have any doubts, the business value of the communication is lost. Why would this be any different in VR? Now, we know that VR is multi-sensory. We See and Hear. So when I meet Bob Jones in VR, I must immediately trust that I am seeing and hearing Bob Jones. But, VR easily enables the altering of Bob Jones. Lets say the following:
1. Business communication should not be dilluted by questions of identity
2. VR creates a multitude of opportunities to "adjust" identity
3. Users may have a wide variety of reasons for wanted to adjust their identity
4. Typical corporate policies have guidelines on appearance and behavior
There is no way the questions of accessibility, equality, employee rights, etc will be answered with finality or clarity in the near future. these debates will continue for quite some time. Key questions become:
1. Just because something is possible in VR, do employee have the right or entitlement to leverage those possibilities?
2. In what cases should the possibilities of VR be leveraged to the benefit of employees?
3. Should there be two sets of rules in a company: one for VR, one for Physical?
Some use cases:
1. I work from home and dress in shorts and t-shirt. My avatar wears a suit. Is this a misrepresentation of who I am?
2. I am in a wheelchair. My avatar walks. Is this ok?
3. I am legally a man, but dress like a woman in the workplace. What should my avatar look like?
4. VR can alter your voice. Should "voice fonts" be permitted?
5. VR can make it look like I am in the virtual office while I am actually sleeping. is this ok?
to be continues
In my opinion, it is essential that serious users of VR tools be represented in VR in a way that allows other users of the system to clearly identify that person to the extent that they feel a sense of presense with a colleague or fellow student. In most cases, VR is being presented as a tool to help reestablish co-worker intimacy that is lost as the workforce become disintermediated by physical distance. Buyers of these system want to create more engaging and effective communication, create deeper bonds among users, and finally use these enhanced relationships to help achieve business results. Therefore, it is essential that VR is a direct extension of everyday business operations, not a parallel universe that has no impact on real life. In some ways, its no different than email. I suppose that when email first came on the scene, many peopel felt it was a "false" communication because they did not use the phone. The same was likely said of the phone when it was first used(face to face is real, the phone is not). However, time as passed, and quite often email is accepted as a more indelible mode of communication because it is "permanent". surely we accept email as a tool of business, and life in general, and we would never say that "it was just an email, not real". Further, in business it is essential that we trust that when we receive an email from "Bob Jones" it is truly Bob Jones that sent the email. If we have any doubts, the business value of the communication is lost. Why would this be any different in VR? Now, we know that VR is multi-sensory. We See and Hear. So when I meet Bob Jones in VR, I must immediately trust that I am seeing and hearing Bob Jones. But, VR easily enables the altering of Bob Jones. Lets say the following:
1. Business communication should not be dilluted by questions of identity
2. VR creates a multitude of opportunities to "adjust" identity
3. Users may have a wide variety of reasons for wanted to adjust their identity
4. Typical corporate policies have guidelines on appearance and behavior
There is no way the questions of accessibility, equality, employee rights, etc will be answered with finality or clarity in the near future. these debates will continue for quite some time. Key questions become:
1. Just because something is possible in VR, do employee have the right or entitlement to leverage those possibilities?
2. In what cases should the possibilities of VR be leveraged to the benefit of employees?
3. Should there be two sets of rules in a company: one for VR, one for Physical?
Some use cases:
1. I work from home and dress in shorts and t-shirt. My avatar wears a suit. Is this a misrepresentation of who I am?
2. I am in a wheelchair. My avatar walks. Is this ok?
3. I am legally a man, but dress like a woman in the workplace. What should my avatar look like?
4. VR can alter your voice. Should "voice fonts" be permitted?
5. VR can make it look like I am in the virtual office while I am actually sleeping. is this ok?
to be continues
Thursday, August 27, 2009
How fast is Glacial?
I've had SME's tell me that the speed of change in Healthcare is "glacial". And some environmentalists will tell you that our glaciers are melting "incredibly fast". So how fast is fast?
Great article in the WSJ today. so how fast is fast?
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2009/08/26/the-convergence-of-health-care-information-technology/
Great article in the WSJ today. so how fast is fast?
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2009/08/26/the-convergence-of-health-care-information-technology/
Roll-your-own, or buy Best-of-Breed?
lets suppose you are a software vendor and you've identified a niche in the market place for a new PC based application. Lets suppose then that you get some money together and some programmers, and set about creating a plan for the build. Maybe it looks something like this:
1. Get some money
2. Get some programmers
3. Sketch out your vision for the new software application
4. Reject the Windows operating system
5. Spend all the investor money on writing a new operating system
6. Spend what is leftover on end-user functionality
Sounds like a killer project plan, right? Many people would agree. In fact, in the VR space we see any number of providers doing exactly this. But the plan is slightly different:
1. Get some money
2. Get some programmers
3. Sketch out your vision for the new software application
4. Reject the best-of-breed gaming engines
5. Spend all the investor money on writing a new graphics/animation engine
6. Spend what is leftover on end-user functionality
Hmmm, maybe I will open an online store, and instead of using PayPal, I will try and raise $5m in VC money to write a new merchant payment system.
I was CTO for enough years to recognize the importance of spending money in non-glamorous ways. Without a solid infrastructure, the flashy stuff on the desktop won't operate properly. But, I also kept as my mantra: build vs buy? in my experience, generally the people who build, have too much money provided by people who don't really understand the alternatives. These same folks are quite often the ones who like to create fiefdoms of developers. IT headcount = power, right? in the high-tech software marketplace, it is no different.
I am open to debate. Please let me know why its a better strategy to roll-your-own VR engine as opposed to buying the best available SDK.
1. Get some money
2. Get some programmers
3. Sketch out your vision for the new software application
4. Reject the Windows operating system
5. Spend all the investor money on writing a new operating system
6. Spend what is leftover on end-user functionality
Sounds like a killer project plan, right? Many people would agree. In fact, in the VR space we see any number of providers doing exactly this. But the plan is slightly different:
1. Get some money
2. Get some programmers
3. Sketch out your vision for the new software application
4. Reject the best-of-breed gaming engines
5. Spend all the investor money on writing a new graphics/animation engine
6. Spend what is leftover on end-user functionality
Hmmm, maybe I will open an online store, and instead of using PayPal, I will try and raise $5m in VC money to write a new merchant payment system.
I was CTO for enough years to recognize the importance of spending money in non-glamorous ways. Without a solid infrastructure, the flashy stuff on the desktop won't operate properly. But, I also kept as my mantra: build vs buy? in my experience, generally the people who build, have too much money provided by people who don't really understand the alternatives. These same folks are quite often the ones who like to create fiefdoms of developers. IT headcount = power, right? in the high-tech software marketplace, it is no different.
I am open to debate. Please let me know why its a better strategy to roll-your-own VR engine as opposed to buying the best available SDK.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Out of the "Money Flow"
in the arena of virtual reality tools for serious business use, many(if not most) people are uncertain about how to implement VR as a business tool. Forward thinking business managers are beginning to recognize that it could be a valuable tool, but is it really necessary? think of daily operational life in any major corporation. I believe that the majority of employees perform corporate-neutral functions(i.e. the same function exists in every large company). The minority of employees perform corporate-identity functions(things that are specific to the company or specific industry). corporate-neutral workers perform "transactions" on all daily basis. a transaction may be part of Admin, finance, IT, marketing, etc. a business objective or complex task has a workflow lifecycle which consists of tasks. each task requires a tool. I will refer to the tools that are required to complete a task that is part of the business objective lifecycle as "Money Flow Tools"(MFT). Logically, any tool that is part of MFT suite will be considered a business requirement, and resources(time, money, people) will be assigned to the tool according to its MFT ranking. Tools that are "out of the money flow" are generally perceived as nice-to-have, or non-essential technology. As a tool provider, you will want your business tool to be part of the MFT suite. In the majority of corporations, Email and MS Office would be considered MFT. Webex or LiveOffice would be considered an MFT. The Telepohone and bberry are MFT. Then there is a body of software tools that may or may not be MFT: Visio, MS Project, Adobe Professional, etc. Apart from Adobe Pro, the other two products have easily accessible workarounds. I can make a flow-chart in powerpoint, I can create a project plan/gant chart in Excel. so are they MFT or not? maybe it varies by the individual user?
lets consider immersive technologies and the MFT concept: who cannot do their job without virtual reality tools? is there a task that cannot be performed with any other tool? is there a task that truly can be performed faster, better, cheaper using VR? if you cannot answer yes, you are not in the Money Flow. ok, so you are thinking now: a "business meeting" is a task that needs to be performed, the meeting needs a tool: telephone, conference room, webex, video conferencing. I suggest that the meeting is not a task. the meeting is a tool. the business objective of the meeting is the task. there is a big difference. task does not equal tool. this also makes it easier for us to talk about the criticality(or not) of VR as a tool. we must remember to target the business objective, not "tool replacement". to be continued.....
lets consider immersive technologies and the MFT concept: who cannot do their job without virtual reality tools? is there a task that cannot be performed with any other tool? is there a task that truly can be performed faster, better, cheaper using VR? if you cannot answer yes, you are not in the Money Flow. ok, so you are thinking now: a "business meeting" is a task that needs to be performed, the meeting needs a tool: telephone, conference room, webex, video conferencing. I suggest that the meeting is not a task. the meeting is a tool. the business objective of the meeting is the task. there is a big difference. task does not equal tool. this also makes it easier for us to talk about the criticality(or not) of VR as a tool. we must remember to target the business objective, not "tool replacement". to be continued.....
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Data visualization and the problem with a virtual "library"
here is something that has been bothering me for awhile. I met with a client a number of months ago and they had an idea for virtual resource room. The topic was relevant because we are building an enterprise Virtual Reality environment for them. The resource room is to be designed to allow users to find documents, educational courses, and other reference material. The client in this case got excited and started to describe how cool it would be for the user to "walk into a virtual library lined with book shelves" that would enable them to "look" for information. Now 200 years ago, or whenever the "dooey"-decimal system was created, it was revolutionary. Now think about how it really plays out for the user: walk into a library, think about what it is you need to find, locate a card catalogue, search until you find the reference piece and corresponding number, find a map of the library, follow the map, hunt for the book, hopefully its in the right and place and not checked out. Now why on earth would we want to recreate the same inefficient process in VR? I say inefficient because compared to what we can do in VR, a traditional library architecture makes about as much sense as hitching a horse to car(Borat anyone?). the best VR solutions(and internet as well) are those that take advantage of the possibilities of the medium to enable what is not possible in any other medium.(this also include faster, better, cheaper). So the question on the table is: if a library construct is not the best way to help users find what they are looking for, then what is? I do not know the answer to this question, but I need to figure it out. The best I can do at the moment is to think about how my brains performs recall. Here is an example: I am at home and I need to find my shoes. I am not immediately sure where they are. When I start to think about it, I DO NOT, visualize a spreadsheet that has a line item for each possible location for my shoes. What I actually do is pop a 3D rendering of my house into my head, and with a birds eye view, I "see" that my shoes are by the front-door where I left them. so in one quick thought, I know where my shoes are, and how best to go and get them. how did my brain do that? Now shoes are easy, but what if I am trying to find a document on my hard drive? I do not visualize my hard drive. I do think about what the document was for and when I wrote it. when I shop on zappos for shoes, they very conveniently lead me down a path of what is available. In the wide world of Text/Data Mining/Analytics, we call this Guided Navigation. Now imagine that we apply the science of guided navigation to an avatar in a 3D immersive world......now we are getting somewhere. now think about grocery shopping. I usually have list, but I never order online. I go to the grocery store and walk the isles. Why? because I like to be visually reminded of things I might be interested in, but were not on my list. Quite often however what I might be inspired to buy has no relevance to what's on my list. I will take irrelevance out of focus if I am in a hurry. If I am not, I will allow myself to "see" seemingly irrelevant things along my path to completing the list. We can do this digitally as well: "show me only what I asked for" or "show me things along the way". Lets call this a relevance filter option. So, Guided Navigation + Relevance Filter + 3D Immersion = Guided Visualization? Guided Information Immersion? every great idea needs a great acronym. but that aside, hopefully you see where I am going with this
Generation gap?
I had a chance yesterday to speak professionally with someone between the ages of 21-24. The topic of social networking came up, and I decided to ask her about what tools she used/did not use and why. very interesting feedback. It was just one person, but I think it is safe to say that there is not one definition of how people in this age bracket use digital comms.
Here is her take on some things:
Facebook: I don't use it. I think that people disclose too many personal details about their lives. Why would you put it all out there for everyone to see?
Twitter: What is the point? does anyone really care that I: just ate a sandwich, just went to the store, just rode my bike?
LinkedIn: I use this tool because it is helpful in networking.
Even more interesting I think was that she just graduated from college, and:
1. Never used books in the library. she feels that the books are still there so that it still looks like a "library"
2. people in the library are there to use the computers
3. all research is done online now
I felt like someone's grandfather talking about how the "young folks" these days have this new device called a "cell phone", and I am really not that old.
IMHO, cellphone, web, email, and txt are now all taken for granted and part of everyday life for this age bracket. However, we cannot/should not assume that other methods of communication are universally accepted or otherwise ubiquitous.
Here is her take on some things:
Facebook: I don't use it. I think that people disclose too many personal details about their lives. Why would you put it all out there for everyone to see?
Twitter: What is the point? does anyone really care that I: just ate a sandwich, just went to the store, just rode my bike?
LinkedIn: I use this tool because it is helpful in networking.
Even more interesting I think was that she just graduated from college, and:
1. Never used books in the library. she feels that the books are still there so that it still looks like a "library"
2. people in the library are there to use the computers
3. all research is done online now
I felt like someone's grandfather talking about how the "young folks" these days have this new device called a "cell phone", and I am really not that old.
IMHO, cellphone, web, email, and txt are now all taken for granted and part of everyday life for this age bracket. However, we cannot/should not assume that other methods of communication are universally accepted or otherwise ubiquitous.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Uptake of Virtual Reality in Ambulatory Medical Care
More doctors are going digital as a growing number of health insurers cover online medical consultations -- where patients get treated for minor ailments via online chats, video conferencing and interactive questionnaires.
"An increasing number of health insurers are either doing this on a more global basis or are conducting" pilot tests, as more doctors find the online approach useful for certain kinds of consultations, says Susan Picano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an association representing nearly 1,300 insurance companies.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124977187174117097.html?mg&mg=com-wsj
Now, however, the notion is becoming more mainstream, with major insurers even reimbursing for these services. Generally speaking, such visits tend to be less expensive than in-office visits, paying doctors $25 to $35 with an average $10 patient co-payment.
Read more: http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/health-plans-expanding-online-physician-connection-options/2009-08-16#ixzz0ORvPZdWD
First blog post and some thoughts
first and foremost, this blog will be used to share my thoughts on Virtual Reality, and how it is evolving into a useful technology in a variety of industries. As a producer of VR tools, as well as consultant, author, and speaker on the subject of VR, I am going to talking about a wide variety of things. I will do my best to publish thought provoking pieces. My main interest is dissecting the problem space that is targeted by the current wave of VR tools, with the goal being to determine if we are making up problems to solve, or if the technology is truly addressing existing problems in a manner that could not be replaced by something that is faster, better, cheaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
