Tag Archives: OST

Design in Tech 2016

25 May

The 2016 Design in Tech Report has again been released by John Maeda of Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers. As a survey contributor, I was excited to see the evolution from 2015 to this year’s publication. Again this year, Maeda focuses on the integration of Design and Technology through experience as he sites three kinds of design that are in practice today; Classic Design (Craft), Design Thinking (Business) and Computation Design (Technology).
Below are a few themes from the report that we’ve seen firsthand at Visualhero.

It is never finished.
In the report Maeda states “The notion of making something perfect, as classical designers want to achieve, runs counter to how computational systems exist. The instinct and inclination to pursue perfection is a good one, but its definition has had to evolve.”

We see this play out in our work. The problems we tackle from one project to the next are complex and ever-evolving. While we love our craft and strive to make things look great, polished, and “ done”, often our engagements involve seeking incremental value through methods like sketching, research, and prototyping. While these deliverables move the greater objective forward, we know that there is always another release or phase of the project ahead.

Not classically trained.
The report outlines how start-ups and corporations are taking the place of education. Similar to many industries, traditional education is creating new designer graduates who are not as prepared for #DesigninTech as the professional field would like. We often find ourselves looking at candidates for their hunger and character first and shaping their knowledge for the first few years.

Just as recent graduates adapt, so have established designers who are now being utilized across multiple disciplines and types of design. We are no longer single crafts people, but contributors to brands, products, services and organizational strategies – a type of work that can take many different forms and practices. We work side by side with professionals of varied backgrounds, skill sets, training levels and perspectives.

Design for change
The pace of business and change has ignited investments in design. These investments are made to achieve a variety of business objectives including talent acquisition, a new service or profit center, executive representation, and to incorporate innovation and strategy throughout organizations.

Companies are now reorganizing around this idea. Our very own story in the past few months speaks not only to the opportunity to merge Design, Business and Technology, but to help others do so through our combined offerings.

Design for scale
Large systems bring complexity. A whole section devoted to trends in public companies signifies the desire for design to manage that complexity. For example, the way companies bring things to market is fundamentally different today given the ability to instantaneously deliver a product vs. weeks of creation and distribution, shifting the time needed to deploy digitally designed products. This speed and scale leverages methods of research, iteration, prototyping, and agile across the enterprise.

Design for people
Empathy is a fundamental part of the design process. But we are only scratching the surface here. Empathy is only being used for the most obvious users of an experience.

“If the purpose of smart systems is to make sophisticated subtle decisions so people don’t have to, it is pointless if people can’t trust them to do so. This means that crafting the relationship between people and the technology we use becomes as critical as building faster processors.” —Patrick Mankins, Fast Company. This quote from page 34 of the report eludes to design building the fundamentals of a relationship to inclusion, equality and disabilities. As we become more familiar with empathy as a driver, we can expect more purposeful considerations for universal design.

Many of these principles are not new but the pace of change is just now bringing them to the forefront. It is an exciting time to be practicing design.
If you have not already you can check out the #DesigninTech Report here.

 

Andy Van Solkema, OST Chief Designer

Andy Van Solkema, OST Chief Designer

Functional design systems, and visual storytelling have long been a passion for Andy Van Solkema. From boyhood days of designing a neighborhood baseball league complete with team logos to designing for local, regional, and national companies, his passion has grown and evolved to leading a 12 person studio that is using design for unique outcomes that span stories, systems, processes and experiences.

Andy is a graduate of Grand Valley State University with BFA in Graphic Design and a Master’s of Design from Kendall College of Art and Design. Following graduation, Andy worked as a design consultant in the printing industry, graphic designer and art director in brand communications, and as an interaction design director. He enjoyed the variety of experiences, but ultimately something was missing.

In 2004, he started his own design studio, Visualhero Design. Initially working as a one-person shop in a home office, Andy grew the business in a slow, steady and smart way through the down economy. To differentiate themselves and to offer the most to their clients, in 2006 Andy and his team formally adopted user-center design principles with a research and systems approach to creative problem solving. In 2016, Visualhero was acquired by OST where Andy now serves as Chief Designer.  His team focuses on form, function, and meaning. The scope of work has grown to include graphic recording, data visualization, brand identity, interface design, information architecture, user experience and customer experience. They design brand communication, applications, websites, and business systems and processes that aren’t just easy on the eyes.  More importantly, they are designed for the user today and tomorrow.

Van Solkema has combined a systems and process mind with craft of design and creativity. He spends his time as an advocate for design, creative lead for the team, and managing design vision for OST / Visualhero Design. Although most days are spent directing design, running the business or meeting with clients, he enjoys using his experience helping GVSU Design Thinking Initiative and various nonprofit organizations. He also enjoys leading design workshops at his alma mater and other design education opportunities. 

Andy has been published in design books and publications and received accolades and awards for branding and design. Design has changed and although he is firmly rooted in West Michigan, the clientele has grown to include Amazon, Nest, Apple, Chamberlain, Capitol Studios, GM and a host of local, regional and national corporate clients, a handful of local and Bay Area startups. Well beyond what Andy could have ever imagined back in 2004. 

The Data Doesn’t Lie

5 May

Data is funny.

We use it to tell us all sorts of things. We call it empirical. We talk about how the data doesn’t lie. We look at numbers, look at trends, and we draw conclusions – not just the data scientists in the crowd, but everybody. How much money did you make last year? How profitable is the latest Captain America movie? Who is the most successful batter of all time? The data will tell us.

 

But … will it?

 

Let’s look at a couple of baseball players and examine their batting averages. This is real data I’m using here, and the math is pretty easy. For the sake of conversation, let’s try to determine who was a better batter – Derek Jeter or David Justice. To make things simple let’s examine a data set of just two years, 1995 and 1996, and let’s talk about each player’s batting average – that’s the percentage of time, when a batter is at bat, he gets a hit.

Derek Jeter’s batting average for 1995 was .250 and for 1996 was .314

David Justice’s batting average for 1995 was .253 and for 1996 was .321

What does the data tell us? It’s pretty clear, right? If you’re gonna pick a better batter for 1995 and 1996, you’d choose David Justice. He was a more successful batter that Derek Jeter was. He hit the ball with more reliability. That’s not my opinion – The data says so!

Not so fast. Let’s combine the two years:

For the two-year period combined, Derek Jeter’s batting average was .310

For the same period, David Justice’s batting average was .270

Wait, what?

That’s not a typo, that’s Simpson’s Paradox in action. Edward Simpson first described his statistical finding this way: “Trends which appear in groups of data may disappear or reverse when the groups are combined.” Seem unbelievable, right? It’s not. It’s just math.

Let’s look at the raw data. I put the “winner” in bold in each data set.

 

1995:                           Hits                 At Bats            Average

Derek Jeter                 12                    48                    .250

David Justice              104                  411                  .253

 

1996:                           Hits                 At Bats            Average

Derek Jeter                 183                  582                  .314

David Justice              45                    140                  .321

 

Combined:                  Hits                 At Bats            Average

Derek Jeter                 195                  630                  .310

David Justice               149                  551                  .270

 

The data doesn’t lie. David Justice had a more successful percentage of at-bats in 1995 and a more successful percentage of at-bats in 1996 … and when you combine the two years, Derek Jeter is the better batter. Sorry, David; when you aggregate data, sometimes there’s just no justice.

I’m not saying data can’t be trusted – that’s not the point at all. Data can always be trusted. It’s empirical, remember. Data doesn’t lie. The paradox is that both cases are true. David Justice had a higher batting average than Derek Jeter in both 1995 and 1996. This is a fact. Derek Jeter’s 1995/1996 Combined batting average is higher. This is also true. It seems like these things can’t both be true, but they are.

And that’s the point.

The world isn’t binary. We think if A is true then B must be false, and that’s almost never the case. We think, if we’re right about something, then others must be wrong. We think if what the data tells us is true, then what the data doesn’t tell us is surely false.

All too often, we’re wrong.

Let’s talk about movies for a second. Which movie was more successful, The Avengers, or The Fast and Furious 7? Let me give you some data to help you figure this out:

 

Movie                          Worldwide Gross

The Avengers              $1,517,557,910

Furious 7                     $1,516,045,991

 

The answer is obvious. The Avengers was more successful, right? The data says so. The math is clear. The Avengers made $1.5 million more than Furious 7. Box office numbers don’t lie! But there’s more to the data than that. Dig a bit deeper and look at the movie’s cost:

 

Movie                          Budget

The Avengers              $220,000,000

Furious 7                     $85,000,000

 

So The Avengers cost $135 million more to make than Furious 7 did, and only made $1.5 million more than Furious 7 did. Doesn’t that mean Furious 7 was more successful?

I guess it depends on how you define successful. And that brings us closer to something you can take away and think about. If you define a movie’s success to be a measure of tickets sold (and dollars earned) at the box office, you are correct in asserting that The Avengers is more successful. If you define a movie’s success as the function of the movie’s box office receipts less the movie’s budget, you are correct in asserting that Furious 7 is more successful.

Despite your binary instincts, telling you only one or the other is true, the data confirms for us that both scenarios are true.

It’s all about how you look at it.

Consider this the next time you find yourself in a disagreement with someone about something. What if the fact that you’re right doesn’t mean the other person is also wrong? What if you’re facing Simpson’s Paradox? What if you’re both right?

It’s not always about who is right. Sometimes, everybody is.

Andrew J. Powell Principal- Application Development

Andrew J. Powell
Principal- Application Development

Andrew Powell serves the Application Development practice at OST , providing guidance, strategic support, and candy to more than fifty developers and consultants. Andrew has been a technology consultant for more than twenty years. In addition to consulting, Andrew is a frequent public speaker in technology circles, and loves to talk about the coming Robot Apocalypse and how application developers are positioned to defend the world against our future robot overlords. When not cowering in fear, Andrew makes his home in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

 

How to embrace the principles of Agile software development

13 Apr

Those who know me well know that I am obsessed with Alexander Hamilton. He’s the founding father you didn’t learn about in US History, mostly because he never became President. You probably know he was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr, you might even recognize him as the dude currently gracing your ten-dollar bill, but you probably don’t know that he was an orphan, an immigrant, and the guy who single-handedly created America’s financial system. (You should also thank him for the Constitution’s ratification – he wrote 51 of the 85 essays that make up the Federalist Papers.)

My obsession with Alexander Hamilton has taught me a number of things – about myself, about my work, and about how to simultaneously serve with humility and fight for what you believe in. More surprising, though, he’s also taught me something about embracing the principles of Agile software development.

 

“A well adjusted person is one who makes the same mistake twice without getting nervous.”

 

Think about that for a minute. It seems to run contrary to everything you were taught in school, doesn’t it? Making a mistake is bad enough, but making the same mistake twice, that’s unforgivable! We think of a mistake as the opposite of a success. We’re wrong.

Our software development delivery process at OST is based on the Agile Manifesto (www.agilemanifesto.org). The Agile Manifesto, and Agile software development in general exposes to us a core concept that iteration is a key to success. Responding to change wins out over following a plan every time.

In software development, this makes sense. Try something. If it doesn’t work, try something else. Do something. If it doesn’t match the user’s expectations, learn from it and do something else. Build something. If it doesn’t satisfy all of your needs, build more. This is how we do what we do. We start somewhere, and then we iterate. We test out ideas and approaches. We validate concepts and database constructs. We build, tear down, and build again. We iterate, iterate, iterate; each generation an improvement on the last.

It’s great! It’s a process that makes great solutions, and a framework that sets projects up to continually improve. At its core, continuous improvement requires that you have room to improve; embraces the notion that there is always opportunity to improve.

In life, though, that’s a hard concept to wrap our heads around. We don’t provide ourselves with a lot of grace to make mistakes. We tend not to look fondly on things that need improvement. And our lexicon is full of really awful words that we toss around at ourselves (and others) when things don’t go as well as we hoped. You failed. You blew it. You screwed up. You made a mess of things. You got it all wrong. You lost sight of the big picture. They’re terrible, soul-crushing words. Defeat. Collapse. Crash. Bomb. Die. They’re all words and phrases we employ to remind ourselves just how awful it is to fail.

Enough already!

Here’s what Alexander Hamilton taught me. It’s not awful to make a mistake. It’s essential. Let me say that again – it’s that important.

Failure is required for success.

It’s a foundational principle in practical Agile software development, and a foundational principle in life.

Fail. Make mistakes.

Then learn from them.

 

Andrew J. Powell Principal- Application Development

Andrew Powell serves the Application Development practice at OST , providing guidance, strategic support, and candy to more than fifty developers and consultants. Andrew has been a technology consultant for more than twenty years. In addition to consulting, Andrew is a frequent public speaker in technology circles, and loves to talk about the coming Robot Apocalypse and how application developers are positioned to defend the world against our future robot overlords. When not cowering in fear, Andrew makes his home in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

When work-life balance doesn’t come easily

6 Apr

One morning last week, I left Lambeau, our dog, outside.

Now, normally this wouldn’t be an especially notable incident – after all dogs are sort of built to be outside – however in this case I was not SUPPOSED to leave the dog outside. I was SUPPOSED to walk the dog, make sure he had some water and leave him to lounge around all day shuttling between the couch and the easy chair to await our arrival back home as a family that evening. This would be his regular and expected daily schedule – leaving him outside would certainly be considered as aberrant to the norm.

I did not realize I left the dog outside. Certainly, if I had realized, I would have taken steps to get him back inside into his preferred environment prior to departing for the office.

So, fast forward to around 10:15 am and I am having a discussion with coworkers, John and Andrew. It was a really good discussion, we were making great progress and finding lots of areas of agreement and alignment – and then my phone beeped. And then it beeped again. So I excused myself to check it and it was a text from my wife, with a picture of Lambeau and the following question:

“Problem with Lambeau this morning? Glad he was still here when I got home.”

vancil- work life balance

Uh-oh.

I shared the content of the message with the group, and Andrew commented something about what’s the big deal, it’s a dog. To which John responded “Lambeau is not the problem, Amy is the problem.”

And of course he was right! The dog had no issues with the situation, in fact as I understand it, he was excited and energized by the whole adventure. Amy, on the other hand, was not pleased. And rightfully so, I might add. I had a responsibility to my family and the dog to make sure I met my commitments and paid attention to the things which are important to us as a group. And I did not – I let myself get consumed by the day ahead of me, the meetings and discussions and the problems at hand waiting to be solved and I forgot about my responsibilities to my family.

So first off, I apologized to Amy and professed the probable need for a lobotomy – which I offered might be self-administered or if she preferred she could do it herself.

And then I started thinking about the situation, and examining why it happened. What could possibly cause me to forget these responsibilities?

You, dear reader, have most likely jumped to the conclusion already. The conclusion that I came to was that I had done a poor job of establishing and maintaining the boundaries of my work – life balance. I let my focus and attention move solely to what was ahead of me in my work day and allowed that to take over my conscious thoughts and intentions. In other words, I absent mindedly forgot the important things right in front of me for the other important things down the line.

It is easy to do, isn’t it? Our work life can be pervasive, and we carry it around with us all day and all night on our smart phones and tablets. I can grab my phone or my iPad and surf my email at any time – and I often do. I respond to emails at all hours and when I have an idea I will pick up the phone, capture it in an email and shoot it off to someone. I respond to texts as they come in and even when the phone isn’t in my hand, thoughts of work are not far from my mind. This is not singular to me either, I notice it all around me.

And guess what? Every time I send an email at 9:00 pm or give in to the 3:30 am idea I had when I couldn’t sleep and send it off to someone, what am I doing? I’m setting expectations for others! That is not good! “John does his email at 9:30 pm, I guess that is what is expected!” This is an expectation I don’t want to set and should not be setting. We want our OST team members to be able to go home and be there for their families and in the “life” side of their world. We want our OST team members to be able to shut things down and recharge – to have outside interests and hobbies and passions which relate in no way to OST and are allowed to get their full attention. We want our OST team members to be able to regulate their work-life balance, and the key word there is balance!

So… what to do? I’m not totally sure at this point – but for sure I have decided to be much more diligent about putting down the phone when I get home. I have decided to be purposeful about separating my thoughts from OST and focusing on my family and personal responsibilities and interests. I have decided to carefully evaluate the situation any time I am thinking about emailing or communicating outside of traditional work hours so that I do not send unintended messages to others.

How successful will I be? Time will tell… I know there will be times and circumstances where I will break my rules – and that will just have to be okay. There will be good reasons for it. But in the main, in the norm, in the day to day, my goal is to find that point where we have more equilibrium and set my fulcrum right there!

And if you have left the dog out lately, euphemistically of course, I think you should spend some time on your work –life balance too… just a thought.

 

Director of Professional Services

Director of Professional Services

John Vancil is a twenty-eight year veteran of the Information Technology field, currently holding the position of Director of Professional Services for Open Systems Technologies (OST) in Grand Rapids Michigan. During his career, John has held numerous development, support, management and staff level positions with companies ranging from enterprise (Electronic Data Systems, Baan) to the SMB space (Nucraft Furniture, OST). Today John is responsible for a $29 million dollar services operation which encompasses Data Center Solutions, Application Development, Data Analytics, Design, ERP and Advisory Services, Security, and Managed Services. John shares his life with wife Amy, daughter Catherine and Lambeau the world’s most exuberant Golden Retriever. When he is not serving the OST team, John likes to golf, fly-fish, compose and perform music and hang out with the family.