Recently in Product Development Category

Not long ago, at the airport, I had a conversation with John - a business man in his early 40s. 

The "Intuitive Intelligence" conference I put together for HEC MBA - first business school in Europe per FT ranking over the past 5 years - has become one of the top global downloads for iTunes U.  

One of the latest ideas to hit the buzz circuit is the concept of "digital intuition" - introduced by my6sense, a company which has developed a tool that serves up the most relevant information for us. They've developed a recommendation engine which TechCrunch says "separates the signal from the noise and helps users shift their attention to the content they care about most."

The application learns what you like, then finds more.

The Independent describes it as follows:

It compiles RSS feeds, tweets, and online blog articles - intuitively ranking them according to your browsing habits. Within a few days (and without any explicit intervention on your behalf) the application optimizes the content to fit your specific tastes; the most relevant and interesting information is automatically displayed at the top.

In my view, m6sense is misleading when calling this type of assistance "Digital Intuition."  It's a recommendation engine, plain and simple. And it may be a very good one at that.  But let's not call this intuition.

Let's look at the difference more closely. 

A recommendation engine basically tells you what you want to know based on your past behavior.  So it learns by watching you, your clickstream, and creates inferences based on your habits. It learns your habitual preferences by predicting the "questions" you are likely to ask, and tracking a history of "answers" you deem sufficient.

Intuition is exactly the opposite.  We rely on intuition to make decisions in new, unfamiliar situations. No recommendation engine can do this for us, period. How can it?  In the case of intuition, we may not even know the right "questions" to ask, let alone the "answers."

Intuitive Intelligence, as we explain earlier: lies beyond the boundaries of science and analytics. It bridges the realms of reality and imagination, reason and instinct, material and spiritual dimensions of human existence. Intuitive Intelligence is non-linear, a key skill for success in the new economy, an economy driven by constant disruption and chaos.

Thus the phrase "digital intuition" is a misnomer.  A good marketing ploy, perhaps, but not intuition.

This leads me to a second point: Trust.  In this case, let's look at "digital trust."

Can you trust a recommendation engine maintained by a third-party (in this case in Israel) to track your online behavior, study your patterns, and feed you information it "selects" for you?  How will you know these recommendations are unbiased? How will you know that they're not marketing feeds from marketers anxious to understand your buying behavior?  How can you be assured of privacy?  Where will your behavioral data be stored? Who can access it?  Will it be sold?

These are the questions that need to be answered before a service like my6sense goes mainstream.  Incidentlly, these are the same questions all cloud based services are going to have to answer - from Google, to Microsoft, to Facebook, to my6sense.

And you will have to use some of that intuitive intelligence to answer the question: "can I trust them?"  

How does an analytic company like Google make its most important decisions?

 If we are to believe the Google myth, we learn, first and foremost, that they test everything:

We test everything at Google. While any company would prefer real-life data to hunches and guesses, Google is more focused than most (or any) on getting conclusive proof that a new feature or function improves the user experience. We release many of our products in beta on Google Labs to get this kind of feedback early in the process so that we can influence the design and iterate quickly.

The ability to test lots of products and features on hundreds of millions of users is enormously valuable. This test-bed of users (otherwise known as google.com) provides Google with an incredible advantage over enterprise-only search vendors. Bad ideas can be discarded quickly and great ideas can be implemented rapidly, because we have confidence and data to show that they'll improve the user experience.

Of course, when all decision-making is data-driven, it can lead to "madness."

 Here's how Douglas Bowman explains why he quit Google:

When a company is filled with engineers, it turns to engineering to solve problems. Reduce each decision to a simple logic problem. Remove all subjectivity and just look at the data. Data in your favor? Ok, launch it. Data shows negative effects? Back to the drawing board. And that data eventually becomes a crutch for every decision, paralyzing the company and preventing it from making any daring design decisions.

In the end, said Bowman, he "won't miss a design philosophy that lives or dies strictly by the sword of data."

The testing culture doesn't end there.  On the Google Testing blog, James Whittaker describes the testing frameworks he's observed among the job applicants he's looking to hire:

• Input Domain Framework
• Divide and Conquer Framework
• Fishbowl Framework
• Storybook Framework
• Pessimists Framework

Which one of these frameworks will be best for Google, asks Whittaker.

 Which leads us to the topic of this blog post: Just how do the executives at Google make decisions?

Do they base their decisions on the data?  Let's look at one well publicized executive decision and the executive decision-maker: Eric Schmidt and his decision to buy YouTube.

On October 9, 2006, in a deal valued at $1.65 billion, Google outbid a number of other competitors to snag YouTube, the online video site which was growing at a rate far outpacing Google's own Video site.

The official Google line was as follows:

The YouTube team has built an exciting and powerful media platform that complements Google's mission to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," said Eric Schmidt, Chief Executive Officer of Google.  "Our companies share similar values; we both always put our users first and are committed to innovating to improve their experience. Together, we are natural partners to offer a compelling media entertainment service to users, content owners and advertisers."

 So how did Eric Schmidt value Google?  Was he analytical, precise, objective?

By his own admission, Schmidt says, in a deposition by lawyers in the Viacom copyright lawsuit, that there was very little revenue coming into YouTube to justify the price his company paid.

Schmidt says that he told his company's board of that YouTube was worth $600 million to $700 million.

Via CNET, we get Schmidt's own words:

Viacom attorney Stuart Jay Baskin: And what was management's valuation?

Eric Schmidt: Much lower than we paid for it.

Baskin: And how was that communicated to the board?

Schmidt: I told them.

Baskin: So why don't you tell us what you remember telling the board in connection with the valuation?

Schmidt: I believe YouTube was worth somewhere around $600 million to $700 million.

...
Baskin: What methodology did you use to come up with that number?

John P. Mancini, an attorney working for Google, objects.

Schmidt: My judgment.

Baskin: Was it based on cash flow analysis? Comparable companies? What were you using as the basis for your judgment?

Mancini objects.

Schmidt: It's just my judgment. I've been doing this a long time.

...
Baskin: I'm not very good at math, but I think that would be $1 billion or so more than you thought the company was, in fact, worth.

Mancini objects.

Schmidt: That is correct.

Later...

Baskin: Can you tell us what reasoning you explained?

Schmidt: Sure, this is a company with very little revenue, growing quickly with user adoption, growing much faster than Google Video, which was the product that Google had. And they had indicated to us that they would be sold, and we believed that there would be a competing offer--because of who Google was--paying much more than they were worth. In the deal dynamics, the price, remember, is not set by my judgment or by financial model or discounted cash flow. It's set by what people are willing to pay. And we ultimately concluded that $1.65 billion included a premium for moving quickly and making sure that we could participate in the user success in YouTube.

What this tells us is that even in the most analytic company in the world, the big decisions are still made on intuition.

Here's why. Analytics can only tell us about the past. We have no data on the future.  So Eric Schmidt was making an intuitive decision about Google's own future through examining the intangibles.

For example:

1. YouTube's popularity was sky-rocketing, making it the runaway market leader among video-sharing sites.
2. It was crushing his company's own site, Google Video.
3. YouTube was up for auction and would be sold to a competitor unless Google jumped first.
4. Google overbid to ensure YouTube didn't fall into rival hands.

And that doesn't take into account two other points which made the deal a winner.  From the very beginning, the Google philosophy has been - get attention first, then monetize it.  And that is what this bet was all about.

Schmidt saw the attention trajectory in YouTube's growth, and he knew that if anyone could monetize that attention it would be Google.  To leave YouTube for Murdoch, Microsoft, or Yahoo was not an option.

In hindsight, it may have been a brilliant move.  Although the monetization has proved difficult, Google is breaking even today, which is far better than what has happened at MySpace, for example.

According to a recent report in the Wall Street Journal, L'Oréal SA, the world's largest cosmetics maker, reported flat sales for the first quarter of 2009 as consumers shied away from its luxury skin creams and shampoos in favor of its cheaper brands. The maker of products ranging from Giorgio Armani perfume to Lancôme skin cream and Maybelline eye shadows said sales increased 0.3% to €4.37 billion ($5.83 billion) in the first three months of 2009. Jean-Paul Agon, L'Oréal's chief executive, said that he would not offer specific guidance for the year but that results would "improve" during 2009.

After accounting for the effect of currency fluctuations, sales fell 9.3% in Western Europe and 5% in North America. This shortfall was partly offset by an increase in revenue in Asia.

Sales at L'Oréal's luxury cosmetics division fell, while sales of its consumer drugstore lines increased slightly.

This is an unfortunate turn for L'Oréal which has always been known for its commitment to scientific research and exceptional financial results.

In fact, you might say there is an unresolved tension in its culture between creativity and business results. This tension is visible even on its website. If you read about the "profiles they are looking for" under the marketing category, here's a description you'll find:

Creativity, imagination, openness to new ideas - coupled with the highest professionalism.
• Project-oriented, natural team player, at ease working with others in an environment of entrepreneurial challenge.
• Global-minded, flexible, able to juggle multiple priorities.
• Strong analytical thinker, excellent communicator.

You have a keen eye on the latest fashions, a finger on the pulse of emerging consumer and cultural trends. Highly developed interpersonal skills, a passion for results. The personality to make a difference.

Diagnosis: L'Oréal - When East dominates West...                

I just got back from delivering the keynote at the Fashion Institute of Technology's 2009 Capstone Presentations and Graduation Reception.

Over the past few weeks, I've seen how teams of students have used the ideas we discussed, both on creativity and applied intuitive intelligence, to learn more about the possibilities for exploring new avenues for growth. They are full of enthusiasm and passion for their work - and that is what true education is about. May they keep the fire with them always!


Thanks to everyone for such a wonderful evening: FIT's Dr. Joyce Brown and Professor Stephan Kanlian, our gracious hosts;  my industry colleagues: Karen Grant, Marc Gobe, Candace Corlett, and Mark Pritchard; and of course, Ellen Byron from the Wall Street Journal.

And most importantly, thank you to the students.  Yours is the task of building a tomorrow that keeps us alive, hopeful, and yes, sometimes, truly joyful!

My keynote presentation is available here >>

We know that innovation is more about people and culture than it is about process and structures. Yet many executives find themselves unable to inspire their teams and foster a culture of innovation. This is not a new theme in management thinking, but it is one that has never been more important.

Early on, as my work took me deep into this realm - the world of intuitive intelligence -  I struggled to build a model to explain why this was so.  And so it was by accident, and by now we know that there are no accidents, that the model of The Intuitive Compass™ took shape:



Oddly enough, I was using Cartesian coordinates to explain the flaws in our linear thinking. The two principal axes, Play-Results and Instinct-Reason, give us four quadrants (NE, SE, SW, NW). Each of these quadrants represents a function or even a mindset in an organization. Let's make a few generalizations to explain the framework:

The NE quadrant is the area where reason and results prevail. This is the realm of business administration and management. Most companies excel in this department, led by teh twin beacons of "maximizing shareholder value" and "cost management."

The SE quadrant is the area where instinct is at the core and results are the rule of the game. This is the mindset one finds in a sales department, or in an athlete.

The NW quadrant is the area where reason engages in a creative thinking process as in strategic planning or marketing (think of an architectural firm or engineering company).

Finally, the SW quadrant is the area where instincts are at the heart of the creative process to invent and create from the unknown and the depth of the unconscious. This is where creators, scientists, researchers, and inventors experience eureka moments. Most executives and almost all companies, even those engaged in creative fields, lack a way to connect this quadrant back into the rest of the business.

The Intuitive Compass™ becomes a tool we can apply to assess and chart progress as companies (and executives) learn to harness intuitive intelligence in four key areas:

Strategy: how to employ intuitive intelligence to create sustainable, innovative business models which deliver real value to customers in their local environment.

Leadership: the transformative power of intuitive intelligence energizes, and builds movements - with clarity of vision and purpose.

Work Culture: the ecosystem health of your business culture is reflected in your bottom line results. The Intuitive Compass™ helps create the open culture you need to succeed in the intelligent economy.

Consumer Needs: map your customers needs and wants using The Intuitive Compass™ - creating a value innovation agenda for your customers.

The bottom line is convergence - with customers, employees, management and leadership.

Going forward, we'll use The Intuitive Compass™ to chart how companies and leaders can use intuitive intelligence to shape the future - both in their industries and in the larger world.

How many times do we see a business leader make a decision without a lot of data, seemingly without deliberation, and make the right call?

Not very often, in the "western" world.

But every so often we encounter that rare leader who makes impossible decisions and, time and again, gets it right. This is not an accident, we tell ourselves, as we look for clues to try to understand this phenomenon we are witnessing.

What we are experiencing is Intuitive Intelligence in action.

Intuitive Intelligence lies beyond the boundaries of science and analytics. It bridges the realms of reality and imagination, reason and instinct, material and spiritual dimensions of human existence. Intuitive Intelligence is non-linear, a key skill for success in the new economy, an economy driven by constant disruption and chaos.

Intuitive Intelligence is defined as the combination of 4 abilities:

-  The ability to think holistically

-  The ability to think paradoxically

-  The ability to listen and connect to oneself and others

-  The ability to lead by influence rather than design