According to the factory representatives

When there is work to be done, some say there is only one way to get it done. Anything else is messing around, failing to pay attention, getting distracted and losing focus. Others say there are many ways to get the work done and which way to use depends on the people, timing, available resources and contextual situation. Getting work done is an act of creativity rather than compliance. It won't necessarily get done the same way as last time or the next time. When routine work becomes non-routine due to contextualized responsiveness, two or more heads are better than one. The work gets done collaboratively, co-creatively and communally. Imagine how cool it would be if we had handheld devices for soliciting advice, viewpoints, solutions and strategies from a network of followers while we were getting something done. It would look like we weren't paying attention when we are doing something better than that.

According to the factory representatives, school work is perfect preparation for slaving away in cubicles and assembly lines after dropping out or graduating from prep school. Sitting for long periods in classroom seats get us ready for the mindless experiences of laboring to get the same work done repeatedly. The class requirements and grading are sufficiently degrading to endure the subjugation from the hierarchy above the worker. The conformity of students' submittals, reading and tests gets students thinking work is matter of compliance. It's no wonder advocates of creativity find schooling eradicates our ability to innovate pretty thoroughly.

According to the factory representatives, multitasking with handheld devices is worthless and Wifi/G3 connectivity is a distraction. They sound like the skeptics of those new horseless carriages a century ago. The opponents of progress were convinced that autos didn't work like they should. Horseless carriages could not muck out the stalls in the livery stable, shoe or groom a horse, tidy up a tack room, pull the fire wagon or harvest a field of hay to feed the horses. They were a distraction from the work that had to get done as always.

According to the factory representatives, they are always right about what is the wrong way to get work done.

Is multitasking making us scatterbrained?

It's too easy to take potshots at changing brain functions from our cushy seats in the bygone era. The new ways our brains have begun to function appear deficient compared to the ways they have since ink showed up on paper. However, what appears on the surface as deficient, is actually efficient in ways we don't yet appreciate. In my view, multitasking is not making us scatterbrained. It's restoring our natural way to be alive.

Our brains go through phenomenal gyrations to follow a printed sentence on a page or screen. Our natural inclinations to scan the panorama get overridden by the need to focus our sight on the squiggles we're paying close attention to with effort. Our instinct to look that the sound we just heard or movement that caught our attention has to be suppressed. Then we're obligated to turn the squiggles of text into letters, words and sentences. Once we've figured out what it says, we work on what it means. Then there's another sentence after the one we've just devoted significant processing capacity to decoding.

Marshal McLuhan forewarned that our brains would alter how they process sensory data thanks to the hidden effects of electronics. A trend that started with the telegraph, phonograph and telephone is in full swing with ear buds and video screens on cellphones, PDA's, laptops and tablets. He suggested we would get a divorce after being wedded to mechanical technologies and remarry all things electrical. Our senses would return to immersive experiences of acoustic spaces and panoramic vision. We'd lose our isolated point of view and get back into oneness with what we see, hear, taste, smell and touch.

The word "multitasking" speaks in reference to factories, motors and mechanisms. It's a transition word like "horseless carriage" that clings to the past while describing the future. It imagines that multitaskers are getting jobs done, being productive and making progress by multitasking. It assumes that we are "human doings" that grow up to function like reliable printing presses, scheduled railroads and organized factories.

I've been wondering what word will replace the word "multitasking", like "automobile" replaced "horseless carriage". I've been toying with possibilities like "multi-queuing", "multi-attentions" or "multi-responsiveness". It's not that we're getting things done simultaneously when we "multitask". It's that we've got several windows open and several responses we're in the midst of formulating. We're paying attention to more than one follower from our network paying attention to us. We're immersed in the oneness of multiple streams of inputs. We're functioning just like our brains when were "letting it all in" from all five senses at once. We acting naturally once again. We're acting like human beings.

Internalizing evaluations

Having submitted my Executive Summary for the Penn/Milken business plan contest yesterday, I've moved on to the designing the system architecture I proposed. This morning I've been focused on the ways the contributions of participants get evaluated. One facet of that process I'm modeling explores where we take an evaluation when we internalize it. It's not lost on me that I'm using a spatial metaphor that's very amenable to exploring in a virtual immersive environment. Here's the framework I developed for visualizing the places in our psyche that we take evaluations that we receive from others:

When others tell us how well we worked in process (formative assessments) or how our final outcome rates (summative assessment), we've suddenly got a lot on our plate. First we need to discern if we understand what we are being told. Then we may determine whether we accept the feedback or not. We may then notice how we feel about it, whether it agrees with our own evaluation and how we might put the imposed feedback to good use. All those considerations influence our rejection or internalization of the evaluation.

If we choose (usually unconsciously) to let the evaluation in, there are four places we can go with it:

1. Upgrading our hindsight - If the evaluation yields a constructive effect, we can review some of our past incidents with a new frame of reference. We can begin to take more responsibility, admit our own mistakes and stop blaming others as much.We can learn from the past to make better predictions about the future and foresee better ways to react next time if presented with a similar challenge. However, if the evaluation produces a destructive effect on us internally, we will fortify our defensive rationalizations, blame others with more conviction, and refuse to admit our own mistakes. We will make the same old predictions, react routinely and suffer the same consequences of our mistaken outlook.
2. Making better progress - With a constructive effect, we can use what we've been told about our process and/or results to take different approaches. We can realize how to be more efficient, discerning, clever or productive. We can suddenly see how we were getting in our own way, making things more difficult for ourselves or passing up valuable shortcuts. With a destructive effect however, we will second guess ourselves, doubt our abilities and hesitate to take any risks. We will become less efficient, observant, ingenious and productive. We will get in our own way and make things more difficult for ourselves.
3. Expanding our horizons - If the effect on us is constructive, we can utilize the evaluation to understand where other people are coming from, to relate to their outlooks and value different lenses for looking at the same situation. Our own ability to diagnose problems, size up situations and judge opportunities will be upgraded by internalizing the additional frames of reference in the external evaluation. However, if the effect is destructive, our new familiarity with others' outlooks will breed contempt, intolerance and distance in relationships. We will misdiagnose, misperceive and misjudge more often.
4. Deepening our experience - When the effect of an evaluation is constructive, we can internalize it as a facet of our identity. We can be as good as that assessment, live up to that expectation and represent that quality in our choices. If the effect is destructive, we can internalize the evaluation as proof of our being a mistake or a real loser. We will argue for our limitations to control our options on the basis on being defective, deviant or deficient.

With so many places to take internalized evaluations, there's no predicting how people will take feedback and what they will make of it. However, this model defines lots of ways to be there for them, lend support for their changing their minds and helping them find relief from chronic problems.

Exploring conceptual space

While virtual immersive environments (VIE's) are in their infancy, we will continue to see familiar places recreated in the vastness of cyberspace. The majority of structures will expect our avatars to show up in human sized forms. The experiences will prepare us for replicas in the physical world. Those experiences can be much less expensive to recreate in virtual environments than physical reality - like crash sites and other critical incidents. They can be places that are difficult to gain access to, schedule time in or clean up after invasion of students. As the book Learning in 3D shows us, there will also be experiences where we crawl around a gigantic version of a tool, fly over the North American continent with all the air traffic displayed in real time or enter into human organs at the scale of a blood cell. VIE's will not be boring during their infancy unless they replicate lecture halls and reading material.

I'm looking forward to the phase that comes after infancy. I'm hoping it will be far more pleasurable than the "terrible twos" of human infancy. II'm foreseeing breakthroughs in our ability to visualize what we conceptualize. Where we currently draw diagrams and animate them sometimes, I expect we will be able to move around conceptual spaces in this next phase. Since that's not something we do in physical reality, it calls for more creativity than it takes to replicate familiar surroundings. Here's some of what we will need to get more creative about:

• Picturing what it's like to "go there" and "come from there" when we're identified with a conceptual framework, positional stance or theoretic model.
• Visualizing the process of moving from one idea to the next, once the first concept is well enough understood to build on it.
• Comparing two concepts while poised between them where their commonalities and differences can be observed clearly.
• Rearranging several concepts that make more sense when placed in a different sequence or juxtaposition.
• Exploring the intersection of two unrelated ideas that reveal some unforeseen possibilities when they overlap.
• Combining several concepts into a comprehensive design solution that responds effectively to a full range of use cases.
• Imagining what it will look like to unlearn something that only made partial sense and replacing it withl a better understanding.

Notice how we already use visual metaphors to speak of our conceptual acrobatics. It seems perfectly natural to me that we will be exploring conceptual spaces like these virtually before long.

Spaces surrounding higher ed

Most institutions of higher ed go to great lengths to improve the completion rate of its enrollment. The institutions are neither callous, cynical or indifferent. Here's a list of some of the ways they try to catch students before they fall out of college:

1. Remediate their reading and writing skills if they are below college level competencies
2. Provide freshman courses in study skills and other practices for success in college
3. Accommodate changing majors if their first choice proved to be too stressful, demanding or boring
4. Allow failing grades to be replaced by taking the course again with a different instructor
5. Make arrangements to change roommates or living quarters if the current accommodation is counter productive
6. Provide RA's, TA's, peer mentors and tutors to work with students on issues haunting them
7. Offer athletic facilities and other amenities for reducing stress and taking minds off of school work
8. Provide professional counseling if problems with anxiety, sleep loss, depression are getting worse
9. Offer financial aid if the burden of making tuition and fee payments becomes unmanageable
10. Allow changing to part time enrollment to lower the cost per semester and to provide additional income
11. Allow students to take more than the 2 or 4 years to complete the degree program
12. Permit students to go on academic leave to sort out what they really want and to gain a different perspective

In spite of all these efforts, 1.2 million students become new college dropouts each year. Perhaps it's not higher ed's problem. What-if the community around higher ed helped out here. The higher ed space is surrounded by other spaces that it dances with and feeds. The 1.2 million is an insignificant space compared to it's competition for attention, resources and responsive solutions. This picture has been a source of inspiration for my development of a model to give college dropouts a second chance.

Each of the surrounding spaces except the dropouts already give money to the higher ed space. Each benefits from the knowledge, skills and credentials that higher ed puts into their own spaces. Each could not do what they do without college educations un

der the current range of post secondary educational alternatives. All are in a position to get impacted by the college dropout problem directly or indirectly. If the dropouts were not stigmatized as "losers lacking in self discipline", each of the surrounding spaces could help alleviate the problem one way or another.

Viewed from an innovation space

I've spent most of today in the space of the innovation I'm currently developing to submit to the business plan contest next week. I've been finding it very enjoyable to get immersed in my imaginative exploration of this new possibility space. It's also fun to look back on current reality as if it's a bygone era from the vantage of the innovation space. The new found sense of freedom from all the problems we take for granted is exhilarating because it seems like a new adventure and an ongoing process of discovery.

In the future I've just returned from, it seems extremely weird to speak of learning, teaching, instructing or educating. Those words are still in use, but they are like saying "I'm hydrating myself" instead of "I'm drinking water". It was very necessary to speak of learning when the outcomes were so dicey, sporadic and difficult to achieve. We didn't see how all those efforts to teach, instruct and educate were inadvertently contributing to the erratic outcomes. We assumed there was no alternative but to deliver content and provide educational experiences. We insisted that the so-called "students" pay attention, face forward and show up on time. We acted as if so-called "learning" could be coerced successfully like the ways we force our minds to follow lines of ink on paper or text on screens.

In the future it will be absurd to expect people to pay exclusive attention to presentations, experts, broadcasts or printed pages. Minds adapted to audio visual immersion won't compute such singular focused inputs. Those that have already stopped paying singular attention are forerunners of the change in what makes sense, sinks in and proves to be significant.

Those who currently demand unilateral payment of attention will be labeled "extortionists". Meanwhile, phenomenal amounts of progress will be made by receiving attention from those who reciprocate with us. We will experience what is a fair amount of attention to receive and give in return. We will expect attention to be rewarded continually, rather than paid with no return on the investment.

Hopefully you got distracted while reading this or multitasked this input with several others :-)

Situations that call for innovations

Some situations call for productivity. We can keep things simple and do what needs to be done. There's no need to ask troubling questions or second guess our every move. We can rely on what's worked in the past and do what's been done before. If anybody asks, we can tell them to "mind their own business" while we mind our own. What's on their minds is none of our business. We've got a job to get done and that's that!

Other situations call for innovations. We've got to make things more complicated before we can get any more accomplished. We need to ask troubling questions about our past conduct, effects on situations and underlying premises that alter our perceptions. We cannot rely on whatever worked in the past because there is a bend in the road ahead, a change in the context or differences to be addressed since last time. If anybody asks, we need to dialogue with them. They probably see things we don't, look though different lenses or take an entirely different viewpoint from our own. What's on their minds may reveal to us what's missing, broken, misunderstood or overlooked. We've got an innovation to formulate and that's that!

When we're being productive, different ideas come to mind compared to when we're being innovative. A productive frame of mind shuts out distractions and remains focused on the task at hand. Some minds cannot be productive, remain focused or shut out distractions. They get diagnosed as ADHD or ADD. These minds thrive on multitasking and simultaneously exploring many inputs. A innovative frame of mind is somewhat like that. We have uses for distractions, divergent ideas and detours. Otherwise, we'll end up the same place we always come to with no innovation to show for our efforts. But distractions get combined with the focused exploration. We enjoy the benefits of a paradox.

When we're innovating, we're asking very different questions from "how do we get this done?" Here's some questions that breed innovations:

1. How can we take a different approach to this that seems like we're trying smarter, instead of our usual trying harder to make the same thing work like before?
2. How can we redefine the problem before we begin to solve it so we end up solving a different problem entirely or see the familiar problem in a whole new light?
3. How can we stop claiming this is a real problem and consider how it may be a partial solution, blessing in disguise or lesson we need to learn first?
4. How can we make a different difference on our situation, change the effect we're having or influence others to take a different approach with us?
5. How can we get turned around so we're no longer going against the current, fighting uphill battles and making things extra difficult for ourselves?
6. How can give to the situation before we get something from it to prime the pump of everyone looking out for each other as much as possible?
7. How can we find a way out of the same old story to rewrite our future, envision better possibilities and move toward goals we find appealing?

With questions like these in mind, innovations happen. We stay focused on the question until we get a new answer. We welcome distractions that may give us clues to the question we're exploring. It dawns on us to see things differently, consider unforeseen possibilities and explore new avenues. We let go of being productive for awhile and get into being innovative in the meantime.

Evaluating immersive learning

Two decades ago, I was playing Tetris on my computer. The game issued one block at a time for me to orient before it fell into place, filling in the growing pile without gaps. Because my movements were so limited, the game could learn my habitual reactions and then outsmart me. It would issue an unexpected block that was also turned in ways I was not ready for. A decade later, Macromedia offered add-ons to Flash and Dreamweaver software for so-called learning. The user's movements were limited to dragging objects within a frame and inserting text into fields. The accuracy and time taken could both be scored.

This week, I reviewed some SCORM compliant software that supports avatars moving around in virtual space and conversing with programmed characters. Once again, the accuracy of movements, object selections and text entries could be scored, as well as counting mistakes and the amount of time taken. In spite of all the maneuverability of each learner's avatar within the virtual environment, the learning was as confined as if Java scripted objects were sliding around on a web page.

In pondering this experience since, I've realized how spellbinding the measurement of learning must be. We assume that measurable learning is what counts at the expense of intrinsic, serendipitous and social modes of learning. This spell induces uses of immersive environments for learning to pass up the rich opportunities for locating learning in space.

I suspect this pattern will persist until we rely on synchronous encounters with peers and coaches who's avatars observe our avatars in action. "Learning to evaluate others" will become part of the instructional objectives. We will get practiced at noticing the conduct, choices, confusion, and repetitive movements we can see in other avatars. We can also interact with other avatars in conversation and collaborative efforts. This will give us impressions of comprehension, competencies and ongoing curiosity they bring to the issues or skills under development. Evaluation of others' learning can then involve 360 degree feedback models, instead of quantitative measures of accuracy and duration of efforts. Individual bias will get diluted and compared by the variety of viewpoints included in an assessment.

Innovating by changing our thinking

A few weeks ago, I read Roger Martin's new book: The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. It's stayed on my mind since in a way where I've realized what a great approach it offers to innovation. Here are the key ideas that stood out for me -- translated into my own way of conceptualizing creativity:

When we're making money, enjoying a success, or getting a job done, we're in a mode of exploitation. We're taking advantage of available resources, familiar situations and established routines to realize more of the same results. Improvements are within reach, but real innovations are not on the menu. To come up with breakthrough ideas, approaches and solutions, we need to switch modes from exploitation to exploration. We've got to move in the direction of unknowns and unfamiliar ground.

When we're exploiting a situation, we're either thinking deductively or inductively. We're moving from the general principle to the specific example or generalizing from the specific to the broader concept. In both cases we're dealing with truth, facts and proven approaches. We're on the safe ground of knowing what's what, what to expect and what happens after what. To innovate, our thinking shifts into abduction. We don't yet know what is true, factual or proven. We're thinking "I'll get back to you on that", "I'm finding out what works every time right now" or "I only know enough to look for the truth so far". We cannot move toward innovations by knowing what is true, only move toward what might be true which will be an innovation if it works.

When we're competing with rivals, we're improving what's already selling. We start from the premise of what's working and build on that. We come up with better ideas inside the box. We add new features and functionality to proven products and services. We don't have a better idea, we start from a different premise. We come at the entire business from a different angle and end up in a different place.

When we're good at producing results, we like to look over the metrics and identify improvement areas. We notice gaps in performance, inconsistencies in the data and trends to be turned around. When we're good at innovating, we like to stare a mystery in the face. We think like a kid again that does not know what this is or what to think about it. We are full of questions and enjoying being mystified by it. We sense there are secrets to be revealed by delving into it without jumping to conclusions before any clues are revealed to us.

Each of these ways of seeing the process of innovating and the adaptations to become more innovative invite us to change our thinking. We cannot be innovative with the thinking that proves to be productive.

Dislocated learning experiences

As it becomes the norm that learning experiences get located in space, we will develop new ways to critique educational offerings. The practice of finding where learning experiences are located and moving between locations will give us a difference sense of what to expect, what works and what could improve. Here's some possibilities I'm playing with for how learners will criticize locations when they become sophisticated consumers of immersive learning in space.

Too obvious a location: Delivered content will seem to be "plastered on billboards". When the thing needed to make progress is on the next page of text, it will lack challenge. If it can be found by simply following a link on a web page or in a pdf document, that will seem way too blatant. Locations can also err by being too hidden and difficult to find.

Too easy to find hidden locations: Learning experiences will get valued for how well hidden they are. Searching with difficulty will be part of the fun. Locations that are "hard to miss" will undermine the challenge and rewards for the learners. Hidden locations can also be so well hidden that no one finds them.

Too scattered a layout: The distribution of locations can lack "any rhyme or reason". If no pattern emerges for how the locations are spread out, it will seem like senseless busywork to the learners on the prowl. Distributed locations can also seem to be too centralized, contiguous or convenient.

Too straightforward a sequence: The order of locations can lack suspense, mystery and surprises. The sequence can come off like the predictable plot in a boring story. Sequenced locations can also seem too mysterious and incomprehensible to make sense of the order.

As we become accustomed to applying new criteria like these to learning experiences, conventional delivery of content and exercises through classrooms and online venues will seem increasingly antiquated. Just as the introduction of superior sound quality of FM stereo radio made AM radio sound tinny, well located learning experiences will make conventional education seem dislocated.

Locating learning in space

Virtual immersive environments (VIE's) provide lots of space for learners to move around within. Suddenly, designers of instruction are faced with a new issue: where to locate the learning experiences. It's no longer assumed to be found in front of seats in classrooms or at computer screens. The freedom of movement opens a whole new design opportunity. I had lots of fun contemplating this new "solution space" this morning. Here's some of the ideas that dawned on me.

Well defined path

We can locate learning experiences on a well defined path. Learners can then follow the path to come to the next experience. By following the path, they will get a sense of a sequence to their experiences. This may be a logical progression that builds from simple to complex or from a beginning to a conclusion. It might also provide a narrative sequence that sets up a payoff or builds to a climax through a sequence of scenes. 

Finding a path

We can create a challenge to finding which path to take. The learner can be moving through a maze or exploring a densely obstructed terrain. There may be paths that lead to dead ends, cliff edges or back to the beginning. The paths may include "forks in the road" which go off in different directions. By exploring these possible paths, the learners will get a sense of the difference between the right path and others as well as paths that lead where they want to go or and those that don't.

Random ordered stations

We can distribute the learning experiences at stations to be visited in any order. Those locations may provide information on the spot. However, they will be more captivating of the learners' imagination, curiosity and sense of adventure if the stations are portals. They may provide instant access to other spaces, tunnels that serve as shortcuts or entrances to higher vantage points which offer overviews of the terrain. By finding stations and exploring what they offer, learners may get a sense that there is a lot to be discovered in this space that offers more than meets the eye at first glance.

Hidden stations

We can hide the stations for learning experiences so they are difficult to find. The difficulties with locating them force the learners to get a better sense of the layout and to recognize where they have already explored. The adversity in locating stations increases the sense of satisfaction when one is located. After locating several, the learners may even get a sense of the pattern in how the places were hidden, the rationale in choosing where to hide them, or a hidden message in where or how the stations are hidden.

Sequenced stations

We can enforce a particular sequence to the stations by requiring key from the previous station to unlock the next one. Learners that find a station out of sequence can develop a sense of anticipation and urgency to find the intermediate stations. Their minds will formulate predictions about what to expect came before the one they found, as well as what may come after. This reasoning may deepen their comprehension of the components by assembling a big picture they fit into. 

Obstacle course

We can put obstacles in the path to the learning experiences that require the learners to find a way around, solve a problem or outsmart an adversary. Like the payoffs from hiding stations, an obstacle course can induce more confidence in the learner's approach to making progress and conquering adversity. Facing locked doors, washed out bridges, invisible walls, or many other obstacles -- require the learners to think strategically and creatively. Reacting by taking the evidence literally will get them nowhere. Learners will realize they are capable of being very resourceful when situations necessitate that level of response from them.

Distant destination

We can create a distant destination to be reached through a long ordeal. The learners may encounter previews of the coming attraction, promises of reward upon arrival, or excited visitors from the beneficial destination which all whet their appetites to arrive there. Access the destination may be achieved by a high or low road, a fast or slow road and an easy or challenging road. The choice of roads may self-select the level of difficulty for each learner or set up a reward schema where hard work pays more than easy work. Learners may get a sense of how rewarding it can become to be diligent and eager to take on challenges. 

Learning will be much more fun in VIE's judging from the fun I had imagining all these cool ways to locate learning in space :-)

Learning more from how we're treated

For decades, I've been captivated by the possibility that "we learn more from HOW we're treated than WHAT we're taught". This frames instructional design as a strategic intervention. It calls attention to the effects of how learners are set up to learn, be described and learned from. It exposes the impacts on learners of "actions speak louder than words". It works with the premise that we continually send signals from where we're coming from, how we say things and what we didn't see, say or do. It suggests we can seem congruent and credible to learners by doing as we say or we can function hypocritically. 

I've just returned to this possibility with a new frame of reference thanks to Karl Kapp, Tony O'Driscoll and their many contributors. Their book: Learning in 3D reveals the educational uses of virtual immersive environments (VIE') to be an ideal setting for "learning more from how we're treated than what we're taught".

There are several ways that "how we're treated" could be misinterpreted by "content delivery devotees":

• How many slides we're shown before the break
• How much of the required reading will be on the exams
• How much studying it takes to do well on tests
• How tough it is to get a good grade
• How many times we can skip before it affects our grade
• How much class participation counts in the total points accumulated
• How many times we have to meet with our group to complete the assigned project

I've been exploring very different dimensions of learner experience which are not formally instructed:

1. Experience of participation while making decisions (tradeoffs, evaluations, priorities, plans, etc) -- getting utilized or given lip service, having significant or negligible impact
2. Experience of self expression while contributing to others' learning -- getting nurtured or stifled, valued or downplayed
3. Experience of rights while learning -- being protected or violated, exercised or neglected
4. Experience of justice during conflicts -- being restored or corrupted, sought through a fair process or denied

Since these dimensions have not been taught, conventional instructors assume those experiences could not have been educational, much less done damage, turned students off or trashed the teacher's credibility. Yet all these experiences can be inherent in one's interactions, roles, explorations and conversations within VIE's. Negative experiences can become memorable lessons and opportunities to take corrective action. Unlike passive students sitting in chairs facing forward, avatars can make moves to see that learners' experiences get turned around, upgraded or resolved through collaborations. Those students would then confirm my premise, that we learn more from how we're treated than what we're taught.

Learning in 3D hits a home run

Welcome to the thirteenth Blog Tour stop for Learning in 3D: Adding a New Dimension to Enterprise Learning and Collaboration. With 22 more after this stop, I'll leave for others many topics I'm anxious to see explored from during this Blog Tour including: productive vs. generative learning, teachable moments, crossing the chasm and the "conceptual orienteering" archetype. Next stops after me are Janet Clarey followed by Cammy Bean. Meanwhile, I'll be focusing on the superb structure of this book from an Acquisitions Editor's viewpoint. What Karl Kapp and Tony O'Driscoll have included in this volume is going have wonderful effects on its readers. I can already speak from my own experience:

• I've been rereading Part One of the book since I realized I wanted to think like Karl and Tony about the challenges and sensibilities involved with designing Virtual Immersive Environments (VIE's) for learning.
• I've begun imagining how collaborative training departments could function better in 3D environments as I became inspired by the examples of roles plays and operating practice included in Part Two.
• I've been incorporating ideas from Part Three for handling resistance to technology adoption as I'm developing a business model for giving college dropouts a second chance.
• My imagination got so energized by the futuristic forecasts in Part Four that I've been envisioning avatars entering models of the cognitive states of people stuck delivering productive learning in classroom environments and changing their simulated minds with hands-on practices that induce generative learning.

Effects like these on readers is largely the result of a book's structure. What gets included between the covers and how it's sequenced can greatly impact what the readers think about, bring up in conversations and take action to make changes. Poorly structured books get very little response and often effect the readers negatively. It's obvious to me that the structure of Learning in 3D has hit a home run out of the park and paid a visit to all four bases.

When any book is purely academic, it's usually extremely conceptual, abstract and analytic. Readers find it to be boring, preachy and easily forgotten. However, when the academic competencies are combined with the pragmatic approaches, more value gets offered to the readers. The combination of knowledge and praxis enhances both approaches. The academic component defines the problems with the status quo, what's missing in current approaches and likely consequences of sticking with business as usual. The practical component then provides solutions to those problems, paths out of the mess that's been created and methods to face those similar problems effectively.

Karl and Tony originally conceived of their book answering a long series of questions. They then combined their conceptual prowess to define some very intriguing problems within conventional training functions and useful methods for solving them such as:

• What will happen if the training department in organizations does nothing differently from their proven practices while the world around conventional training changes dramatically?
• Why do some VIE's turn into ghost towns that offer no return on the initial investment?
• What's missing in the sensibilities of training professionals to support their making full and effective use of VIE's after a career in "Flatland"?

When any book is purely pragmatic, it's usually comprised of tedious instructions, intimidating guidelines and sidebars with shortcuts for advanced users. Most readers find a "how-to" cookbook to be overwhelming, out of reach and far from user friendly. However when methods are combined with practitioner experiences, the readers benefit immensely. It becomes possible to picture how the methods apply to actual situations. The difficulties with putting techniques into practice appear easily handled in the case studies. The added dimensions of context and narrative make the methods seem so much more doable and valuable that the book gets reread several times.

Karl and Tony have included nine case studies that show us how varied the uses of VIE's can be and how captivating they can be when immersed in them. The design principles and archetypes come alive when put to use by different designers meeting diverse learning objectives.

When a book is filled with contributions from pioneers in the field, it usually reveals the state of the art to be highly compromised, under developed and plagued by obstacles. The readers find it discourages their motivation to personally advance the discipline. However, when the current field work gets combined with strategies for making changes and with visionary forecasts, the readers' passions get revived. The current state of the art gets contextualized with learning curves and change models. It becomes clear there is necessary groundwork prior to making faster progress in the field to fulfill its lofty dream.

Karl and Tony have asked some "change agents" in this field to answer some very insightful questions about overcoming resistance to Learning in 3D such as:

• What are the most compelling ways to make the case for 3D learning within the enterprise? 
• What are the keys to success in moving from concept to execution to avoid falling in the chasm? 
• What are the most important issues to consider when you move from successful pilot to executing at scale?

Getting questions like these answered by experienced implementors move the reader from shaky to solid ground. Going in this "unpaved" direction looks more feasible by learning from the experiences and following the advice of the pioneers in this field.

Following the diagram I've included, the book's structure can come full circle back to home plate. An analytical framework can serve as the means to appreciate the changes as the book's message takes effect. As the future becomes reality, Learning in 3D will enable us to value the sensibilities taking hold, the design principles getting applied, and the design archetypes finding new forms and effects on immersive experiences.

Thus the structure of the entire book is designed to effect readers in very valuable ways. It remains to be seen how deeply these insights, methods and strategies enter into the dialogue and praxis of training professionals around the world. Promoting their book "on steroids" suggests their message will get spread far and wide. Besides these 35 blog tour stops, the authors are presenting at conferences, speaking in podcasts,  providing: a website, a Facebook page, and a wiki for case studies, posting on Twitter with the hashtag #lrn3d, and offering a sample immersive experience of the archetypes in Protosphere. With so much going in the book's favor, Learning in 3D should rock the entire world like it did mine!

Is blogging changing?

Awhile back, Virginia asked "Is blogging changing" on her blog: Connecting 2 the World. Her many insights attracted numerous comments which all gave me much to ponder. Harold Jarche then followed up on her post last week. This is the first chance I've had to share my thoughts, having been immersed in writing a first draft business plan, completing the series on Pitfalls in planning a new venture and reading the 416 page book: Learning in 3D that I'll be reviewing here on tomorrow.

When I started this blog back in 2006, the blogosphere seemed very conversational to me. The abundance of comments I was leaving for others and receiving here stimulated tons of new learning. That pattern continued throughout 2007 and well into 2008. Then I noticed two changes. More of the traffic to my own blog was reading my archive of previous posts than the most recent ones. Also, the comments left on the blogs I read were less thought provoking. There were fewer opportunities to jump in, to add something helpful or to provoke a different direction for the exploration.

I partially buy into the widely accepted theory that the conversations have moved out of the blogosphere onto Facebook and Twitter. However, the quality of conversations in "micro blogging" platforms do not resemble the glory days of 2007 in those countless blog comment boxes. Rather than a migration to other Web 2.0 tools, I'm seeing a diminishment of thought provoking conversations throughout the panorama of social networking platforms.

I really value what remains in the blogs I read. I'm now asking different questions from "how can I jump in to this conversation?" I read blogs with questions in mind like:

• What are you currently thinking about? 
• What have you recently read/watched/heard that got you thinking about that? 
• How has that changed what you were previously thinking along those lines? 
• What does that give you to explore further, question deeper or change direction?

I regard this evolution as very favorable and valuable. I now view blogging as transparent thought processes. We share what's on our minds and how that's changing. We make it possible for others to expand and refine their thinking by "thinking in public view". Blogging first seemed like democratized publishing that liberated citizen access to the reading public from the controls of assignment editors in print news media and acquisition editors in book publishing. I think the blogopshere has evolved into platforms for following thought leaders who follow other thought leaders. The network of connections between resourceful writers makes our collective exploratory thought evolve much faster and better.

A process for growing a new venture

The process for growing a new venture is not something I could have written off the top of my head prior to now. It has emerged from writing about pitfalls in planning a new venture over the past two weeks. I had to trust my process for exploring one pitfall a day to get inspired about creative strategies to avoid that pitfall. Once that series of blog posts was completed, I was capable of revisiting the issue from the opposite perspective of steps toward creating a success. I realized a better order to put these strategies in that follows a logical progression from a new idea to a venture operating one year out. I filled in more details where the strategies now seemed vague on the previous series of post. Here's the sequence of explorations to follow that has evolved by writing and refining:

What's our idea?

When we're planning a new venture, we need a new idea that will sell. A good place to begin includes:

• Starting with a user's pain, problematic situation or frustrated attempts to make progress. 
• Making a difference in the lives of other people who don't know they need an invention. 
• Serving users' abilities to get more out of what they are already buying. 
• Focusing on what good it does for those who do the buying.

When we get off to a bad start, we can fall for doing the wrong thing correctly.

What difference does it make?

Once we have an idea that will sell, we need to determine that's it's a good enough idea to get attention and to get favored over other ideas. When we consider the difference our idea makes, we can explore:

• Making a big enough difference to get noticed and to stand out from the crowd 
• Making a useful difference that will get valued and talked about by lots of varied users 
• Making an accessible difference that others can take advantage of without overcoming huge obstacles 
• Making an immediate difference that does not require lots of patience and trust to experience a payoff quickly 
• Making a long term difference that rewards deeper commitments and investments for buying into the difference 
• Making a range of differences to satisfy a variety of situations, expectations or limitations 
• Making predictable differences so the invention seems trustworthy, reliable and consistent to users

If we skip this step, we can inadvertently end up making the same difference as other ventures

What about copycat competitors?

With an idea that makes a big difference, we need to consider the possibility that our idea will get copied by other ventures. We can defy imitators by:

• Serving lots of different use cases that call for a variety of responses, functionalities and custom services. 
• Seeing that the idea works within an entire range of variations in traffic loads, weather, or other "environmental turbulence". 
• Accommodating lots of different, open-source combinations, mash-ups and pairings with our initial idea  
• Designing a "total solution" that appears we have "thought of everything" and "considered every angle".

If our venture's product/service mix remains too simplified, we may be assuming we have no imitators at our own peril.

How will it get better over time?

With so many issues to resolve for a successful venture, it can become an obsession that loses sight of the long range evolution of the enterprise. We can launch the venture with our sights on a continual stream of sustaining innovations by:

• Brainstorming a list of all possible improvements and prioritize the items to identify the next two upgrades to work on next. 
• Working enough iterations with the possible enhancements to identify difficult tradeoffs or forks in the development path where customers can provide valuable input. 
• Crowdsourcing suggestions for future upgrades and let the "most often submitted" and/or the "highest ranked submittals" establish which get implemented. 
• Creating part or full time positions to rapidly prototype new features, functionality and use cases to extend the life of the project.

If we get too caught up in refining everything for the launch of the start-up, we will fall for drop kicking our innovation.

Where will the customers come from?

When we're considering where the customers will come from, it's better to not steal them from incumbents who may retaliate. We can create new customers off the radar of sleeping giants by:

• Inventing new ideas to serve the non-consumers who can say the new offer is "better than nothing" which what they're getting so far. 
• Coming up with something simpler or easier to use for those consumers who feel over-served by too many features, too much sophistication and increasingly complex functionality in the incumbents' product/service mix. 
• Moving down market to offer new solutions to the customers current problems which are less expensive to purchase, less costly to maintain or cheaper to operate.  
• Remixing the strategy canvas so the new idea is playing by different rules and changing the quality standards which can be met as "good enough for starters".

If our new venture is so high profile that it steals customers away from rivals, we may suffer the consequences of provoking the incumbents to retaliate

How will adjustments get made in the original plan?
Once we've zeroed in on the idea, the difference it makes, the defeat of imitators and a safe source of customers, we commit to a trajectory. It may be a long shot, but we won't know until we "run it up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes it". Our chances of success are greatly improved if we continue to make midcourse corrections. We can learn what adjustments to make by:

• Listening to those who are close to the customers as if they are the fingertips that can feel what's going on outside the enterprise. 
• Asking oneself and others "what's missing?", "what's not working?" and "what's in need for more refinement?" 
• Learning from what happens to get better or different results by changing methods, processes and strategies. 
• Theorize the underlying reasons for surprising successes, approval ratings and growth.

If we stick to our guns in order to never veer off course, we are likely to end up too smart to succeed.

How will surges of growth get funded?
When a venture takes off, two different aspects get bigger in a hurry: revenue and expenses. If expenses get bigger faster, the venture will run short on cash to fund the next expansion of capacity. We can keep revenue and expenses growing together by:

• Limiting the funding of growth to retained earnings instead of debt. 
• Slowing the initial growth rate while building the infrastructure for exponential growth later. 
• Withholding a cash reserve for unforeseen expenditures in spite of it slowing expansion. 
• Maintaining exclusive or close knit ownership to control decisions about expansion and expenses.

 If we grow too fast or too soon, we will fall for underestimating the cost of growth.

How will prices get set?

When sales exceed our expectations, we begin to wonder how greedy we can get and what price the market will bear. We can find that optimum price for each paying client by:

• Developing a range of alternatives that offer different amounts of value at different prices so the customer can choose for themselves. 
• Helping the customer compare our prices to competitors with opposing considerations like "getting what you pay for" vs. "not getting more when you pay more". 
• Explaining the amount of work and expense that goes into the offering which deserves a fair price in return -- that customers can decide for themselves. 
• Factoring in the customers' ability to pay with a sliding scale of prices adjusted for different economic conditions.

If we try to get the price right by making stabs at it on our own, we apt to fall for undercharging the customer.

How will it survive the end of the honeymoon phase?
When the successful sales leads to press coverage and buzz in the marketplace, it's time to build a loyal following that will endure "after the thrill is gone" for what was the "next new thing". The long term commitment from customers can be cultivated by:

• Consciously dismissing the hype as seductive, misleading and distracting from appealing to the pragmatic early majority who want proof of specific features and benefits.
•  Cultivating relationships with early adopters as if they can provide feedback to develop the next upgrades and forewarn you of potential negative reactions to the current version.
•  Putting the ball back in the laps of the fans who are final arbiters of why they like it, want it and see uses for it - whenever we get asked to extoll the virtues of our "next new thing",
•  Giving a heads up to reporters about the long term development plan that could evolve into other stories for them to work with us on in the future.

If the bubble of enthusiasm seduces us into false confidence about the long term success of our venture, we're likely to fall for flaming out before catching fire.

How will the setbacks get handled?

Once sales begin to lag and instill fear of success slipping away, the enterprise needs to be better managed than ever. The team can endure the setbacks better when we:

• Regard employees as internal customers who will serve the real customers in turn -- as well as they are served, respected, listened to and supported. 
• Consider employees to be equally entrepreneurial, using the employment experience to advance their careers and refine their abilities to create value. 
• Show employees the respect of trusting their own judgement in defining their job description and appraising their performance with the help of their peers and internal customers. 
• Creating an internal marketplace for new ideas, process revisions, strategy refinements, and cost savings - where the best get rewarded and each gets acknowledged.

 If we allow our fears to dictate our reactions to the setbacks, we will turn up the heat and create jobs from hell for every member of our team.

Drop kicking our innovation

It's human nature to get ensnared in the perils of perfectionism when developing any new project or venture. There always seems to be room for more improvements if we give it a little more time. It's never seems realistic to say "good enough" and go with what we've got at that point. It becomes a major struggle to release version 1.0. We fear getting criticized for imperfections that we already know need more work. We postpone the inevitable reactions of envy, contempt, rivalry and dismissal by continuing to make our good idea better and better.

We fall into the last of the ten pitfalls I've explored here when we escape our perfectionistic tendencies. We drop kick our innovation and and let the market run with it. We give up on refining the project for many years to come. We introduce our innovation with no upgrade path in the works. We flip flop from relentless refinement to abandoning the improvement process out of frustration. We have no plans to grow enhancements slowly with insights realized from users and their varied uses. We assume we're no longer in possession of our innovation's process of evolving and maturing.

Here are some ways to run with the ball for many more generations:

• Brainstorm a list of all possible improvements and prioritize the items to identify the next two upgrades to work on next.
• Work enough iterations with the possible enhancements to identify difficult tradeoffs or forks in the development path where customers can provide valuable input.
• Crowdsource suggestions for future upgrades and let the "most often submitted" and/or the "highest ranked submittals" establish which get implemented.
• Create part or full time positions to rapidly prototype new features, functionality and use cases to extend the life of the project.

When product development becomes an ongoing process, the sustainability of the enterprise improves. The longevity of relationships with customers becomes more likely.  The market values the obvious commitment of the enterprise to find better ways to serve the customers and create valuable experiences for them.

Too smart to succeed

A new idea, project or venture usually seems like a long shot at first. It cannot be a sure thing without copying what already exists, stepping on the toes of giants or getting a "ho-hum" response from the market. Being innovative involves taking risks, exploring new territory and venturing into unproven possibilities. It's not for the tentative, fainted hearted or overly-cautious. Succeeding with a new venture calls for turning up one's determination and fortifying one's resolve.

We're headed for a pitfall when we lock into an unwavering trajectory toward our long shot at success. We've become too smart to succeed. Our conviction has become conceited and selfish. Our optimism appears arrogant and pig headed. Our determination seems insensitive and unresponsive.  We're making the wrong impression on others and failing to correct our trajectory in the process.

Success also calls for midcourse corrections. The trajectory needs to waver off the initial course. There's much to be learned in the process of launching a venture from the early reactions to it. The customers, rivals and industry analysts can all teach lessons and suggest upgrades. Changes in the context can call for adjustments or revisions. New developments may require new solutions. There will be many occasions of throwing out the bath water while taking care not to discard the baby. 

Here are a few strategies for ensuring the long shot trajectory gets revised insightfully:

1. Listen to those who are close to the customers as if they are the fingertips that can feel what's going on outside the enterprise.
2. Ask oneself and others "what's missing?", "what's not working?" and "what's in need for more refinement?"
3. Learn from what happens to get better or different results by changing methods, processes and strategies.
4. Theorize the underlying reasons for surprising successes, approval ratings and growth. 

Each of these transforms the long shot trajectory into a learning organization. The enterprise is continually in a process of discovering, exploring and coming to new realizations. The conventional emphasis on delivering reliably and consistently gets counterbalanced by seeking out the unforeseen and unsettling evidence. The way to success combines being very smart with being "not too smart" to continue learning.

Creating jobs from hell

Lots of us, including myself, have started businesses to get out of "jobs from hell". We assume we can work for ourselves better than working for someone who has "perfected the art of mismanagement". We believe we understand ourselves better than we will ever get understood by another. We also think we are far more insightful into the customers, their unmet needs and their unanswered complaints. We launch an enterprise with a value proposition that we've designed to be exceptional and far more responsive than the employer's package deal we've left behind. 

We fall into another pitfall when customers are not buying what we're selling. For unknown reasons, our superior value proposition has become a tough sell. The customers appear to need a lot of convincing, educating and enticing to get them to say "yes". We morph the sales responsibilities into a pressure cooker that sales leads find repulsive and sales people dread each day of work. We have fallen into the pitfall of creating jobs from hell. We believe the sales effort has to be pushy and insistent in spite of evidence that customers are full of excuses and giving sales the runaround. We're convinced the solution lies in "trying harder to make sales" since there is no obvious alternative for trying smarter or backing off to succeed. 

When sales responsibilities resemble jobs from hell, so do most other jobs in the fledgling enterprise. The nightmare of mismanagement we sought to escape by launching a startup haunts us still. Sales support becomes non existent. Quality assurance, cost controls and productivity fall apart. Employees fail to take responsibility for problems or initiative to prevent problems from occurring. There is a noticeable lack of cooperation, coordination, communication and commitment. Relationships have turned adversarial, distant and manipulative. A groundswell of backbiting, gossip mongering and office politics rears its ugly head. The problems with sales are merely the symptoms of much more pervasive, dysfunctional systems.

This pitfall can be avoided by using management approaches that:

• Regard employees as internal customers who will serve the real customers in turn -- as well as they are served, respected, listened to and supported.
• Consider employees to be equally entrepreneurial, using the employment experience to advance their careers and refine their abilities to create value.
• Show employees the respect of trusting their own judgement in defining their job description and appraising their performance with the help of their peers and internal customers.
• Creating an internal marketplace for new ideas, process revisions, strategy refinements, and cost savings - where the best get rewarded and each gets acknowledged.

Each of these sends an unmistakable message to each employee of understanding, validation and gratitude for their contribution. Each employee gets under the impression they can make a difference and get recognition for their initiatives. Each gets much more value out of the working for and working together with others than in jobs where they simply "do their job".

Flaming out before catching fire

Hollywood has found they need to score big on the opening weekend of a new film. Slowly building an audience over several weekends underperforms "bursting out of the starting gate". The promoters of new movies have mastered the art of generating buzz. They care much more about how high the buzz goes at first than how long it lasts in the coming weeks. They fuel this fire with paid advertising, guest appearances on TV talk shows and reviews by entertainment news reporters. 

Hollywood's strategy can be applied to any perishable good or service with a short window of opportunity to make sales. For any enterprise "in it for the long haul", this skyrocket to fame and glory is the road to yet another pitfall: flaming out before catching fire. The enterprise passes up slowly building a following of loyal customers, repeat purchases and long term relationships. It opts for generating a furry of press coverage. It appeals to early adopters as the next new thing without any clear use, benefit or outcome offered. It's extremely fashionable like the latest "it" boy, girl or thing. The hype is very seductive. It looks like the startup is going to scale until the flameout comes along. Suddenly the future looks like the end of hype cycle or the chasm between the early adopters and the early majority. 

Once again there are several strategies to avoid this pitfall:

1. Consciously dismiss the hype as seductive, misleading and distracting from appealing to the pragmatic early majority who want proof of specific features and benefits.
2. Cultivate relationships with early adopters as if they can provide feedback to develop the next upgrades and forewarn you of potential negative reactions to the current version.
3. When asked to extoll the virtues of your "next new thing", put the ball back in the laps of the fans who are final arbiters of why they like it, want it and see uses for it.
4. Give a heads up to reporters about the long term development plan that could evolve into other stories for them to work with you on in the future.

Each of these strategies ground the flighty excursions of early adopters with long term relationships. They present a humble, grateful and unassuming face to the public. They turn off the desperate approval seeking of insecure product introductions. They turn on intentional collaborations with fans and reporters to improve on the initial launch. 

Provoking the incumbents to retaliate

When we've developed a great idea, project or venture, we need some people to use it, buy it and tell their friends about it. If our idea is nothing like anything they've seen before, we don't have to tear them away from what they're currently using. However, it will take a lot of explaining, demonstrations and selling to get the concept conveyed as useful, valuable and easy to adopt. 

It may seem easier to stick to ideas the customers already know what it is, how to use it and where to apply it. That usually puts us very near a pitfall of provoking the incumbents to retaliate. Our idea competes directly with giants in the market space. We've invaded their turf and threatened to steal some of their customers. Our success could easily decrease their revenue, market share and profitability. We look an enemy on their radar that they will want to shoot out of the water before we make any further progress. 

There are several strategies to steer clear of this perilous pitfall:

• Invent new ideas to serve the non-consumers who can say your offer is "better than nothing" which what they're getting so far.
• Come up with something simpler or easier to use for those consumers who feel over-served by too many features, too much sophistication and increasingly complex functionality in the incumbents' product/service mix.
• Move down market to offer new solutions to the customers current problems which are less expensive to purchase, less costly to maintain or cheaper to operate. 
• Remix the strategy canvas so your idea is playing by different rules and changing the quality standards which you can meet as "good enough for starters". 

Each of these approaches let "sleeping dogs lie still". The incumbents will not get upset or aroused by innovations that pose no immediate threat. Considerable momentum and customer loyalty can get built up initially while remaining off their radar. 

Undercharging the customer

Whenever we're deciding what to charge for our new product or service, it's easier to get the price wrong than right. When we dwell on how much work we've put into our innovative offering, we're inclined to charge more than the market will bear. We try to amortize our initial investment on too short a schedule. We flip-flop from a slow development process to a "get rich quick" scheme. Our minds have fallen into an "I - it" mode that dehumanizes the paying customer while we do the wrong thing correctly. We let our greed lead us away from our better judgement. We assume those who can afford our high price are our preferred clientele and those who cannot are unworthy.

When we're cautious about going into excessive greed, we fall for under-charging the customer. Our minds are functioning in an "I - Thou" mode that humanizes the customer with our empathy, compassion and perceptions of common interests. We feel their pain from previous rip-offs and anticipate their apprehensions about getting their money's worth from this added expense.

There are several ways to avoid this pitfall without going to the opposite extreme of overcharging the customer:

1. Developing a range of alternatives that offer different amounts of value at different prices so the customer can choose for themselves.
2. Helping the customer compare your prices to competitors with opposing considerations like "getting what you pay for" vs. "not getting more when you pay more".
3. Explaining the amount of work and expense that goes into the offering which deserves a fair price in return -- that customers can decide for themselves.
4. Factoring in the customers' "ability to pay" with a sliding scale of prices adjusted for different economic conditions.

In each case, we avoid setting a firm price and hoping we get it right on our own. We create a transparent process which customers find useful for trusting us more than before. Rather than prices becoming a sticking point or source of misunderstanding, the process of finding a price together deepens the basis for future collaborations.

Underestimating the cost of growth

There are two ways to finance the costs of growing a business: retained earnings and increased debt. I play these two different approaches a few times a year in my Railroad Tycoon 3 game. When I play the scenario that prevents me from borrowing any money, the growth of my empire is very slow and incremental at first but eventually expands with multiplier effects. I've found that debt-free scenario has tempered my tendency toward runaway borrowing in the scenarios that allow it. I borrow more slowly and judiciously now. Expanding a business on retained earnings is called "solid growth". The enterprise does not get "ahead of itself" or "too big for its britches". The revenue, and the capacity to serve the revenue providers, grow together. 

It's very tempting to fall into the pitfall of underestimating the cost of growth. The mistake then requires borrowing heavily, committing future revenue to debt service. It sets up needing to give up some ownership to get cash infusions from investors. The bigger the enterprise becomes, the deeper the hole it digs for itself. Rather than climb out of debt with surges of new revenue, it sinks too lower into obligations. This is one of the big reasons the vast majority of startups fail in the first few years. 

The way around this pitfall is to start out strapped for cash and grow only from retained earnings. The growth is slow and solid. The delightful jumps in revenue can fund a little expansion or deepened reserves. The occasional shortfalls in expected revenue can be weathered without a cash crisis or flurry of desperate borrowing. There are no short sighted and selfish investors, lenders or creditors demanding faster growth to protect their interests. The decision making about expansion can be calm and clear headed. 

Assuming we have no imitators

Once we've fallen in love with our idea for a new project or venture, we're usually scared to death that someone will steal our idea. We wish everyone would sign a non-disclosure agreement before we reveal any of our ingenious plans. We want no one to find out about it while also hoping the idea will take the world by storm. If we entertain these fears for long, we incapacitate our mental resources. Creative thinking is cancelled until further notice. We can conceive of acts of desperation and little else.

To avoid this state of mind, we fall into the pitfall of assuming we have no imitators. No one will copy our idea or surpass the improvements we're making. We imagine that we are so far ahead of others and superior to their approaches -- that they could not catch up to us or catch on to what we're doing. We're usually in for a big surprise when we become this arrogant in our estimation of others' capabilities, motivations and determination.

When we discover that someone has actually imitated our approach or stolen our idea, we typically become devastated. We perceive a certain danger, obvious threat and established enemy. There's no way to argue with those facts or change what has already happened. It's only a "valuable opportunity" or a "useful lesson" if we're kidding ourselves. What we presume to be "facing reality" fills our minds with panic, anxiety and nightmare scenarios.

We actually "face reality" when realize that ideas can be copied, but ecologies cannot be cloned. Imitators can only replicate simple facets of complex systems. Many portable MP3 players imitated Apple's iPod -- but none copied the deals with the music industry, the online iTunes store or the digital rights management encoding in downloaded files. If all we're offering is something that can be copied, it's a mere package, trinket or commodity. The value proposition is flawed. The benefits realized by users is superficial and easily substituted. 

The threat of imitators is an opportunity to grow our own complex ecology. The offer needs to serve lots of different use cases. The situations where our idea works need to include a range of variations. The kinds of combinations, mash-ups and pairings with our initial idea need to boggle our minds. The newcomer to our "total solution" will awed by how we "thought of everything" and "considered every angle". The value proposition has evolved into a robust and potentially viral complex ecology. 

Making the same difference

When we've got a great idea for a new project or venture, we're aiming to make a difference in the world. It has already made a difference to us to have a new idea to develop further. We're typically excited, energized and optimistic to have escaped our mundane world old ideas. We naturally assume the effects the new idea has on our outlook and mood will effect many others the same way.

Most inventors fail to steer clear of the pitfall of making the same difference as other innovations. They fail to take stock of what else is being done, changed and refined. They assume their idea is so new and clever it has no rivals. They may even be afraid to study the market and assess their competition due to the negative impact on their own outlook and mood. This anti-pattern is comprised of over-optimism at all cost with a perilous lack of humility and realism.

Whenever we want to make a difference, it's not enough to simply be different. There's the question of:

1. making a big enough difference to get noticed and to stand out from the crowd
2. making a useful difference that will get valued and talked about by lots of varied users
3. making an accessible difference that others can take advantage of without overcoming huge obstacles
4. making an immediate difference that does not require lots of patience and trust to experience a payoff quickly
5. making a long term difference that rewards deeper commitments and investments for buying into the difference
6. making a range of differences to satisfy a variety of situations, expectations or limitations
7. making predictable differences so the invention seems trustworthy, reliable and consistent to users

These seven criteria for making a difference can be satisfied many different ways which avoid the pitfall of making the same difference. The combinations of these attributes can create a significant difference that could be called a "game changer", "revolutionary breakthrough" or a "disruptive innovation". The combinations can also create an incremental difference that could be called an "upgrade to version 2.0", "added features and functionality" or a "sustaining innovation". In either case, the combinations avoid the pitfall of making the same difference as every other new entrant and incumbent provider. 

Doing the wrong thing correctly

When we're creating something new, we have a lot on our minds. It can be as small as a new web page or as comprehensive as launching a new start-up. Our minds naturally fixate on solving the immediate problems. There's a lot to consider to avoid making mistakes, looking bad and failing to perform as promised. We become obsessed with "doing the thing right" while hoping we've chosen to "do the right thing" with the particular new thing we're creating. 

Most inventors fall into a pitfall of doing the wrong thing correctly. They end up serving themselves accurately instead of serving the customers functionally. They rely on the features and specs, not the use cases and other purposes the thing can enhance. The invention becomes a good idea in itself that took lots of work to make it right. It becomes "the inventor's baby" that is adored, clung to and admired without question. The new thing comes across to others as too new to accept, too strange to comprehend, too difficult to use or too complicated to think through how to apply it.

We get seduced by this pitfall, in part, due to the way our minds function. When we're being productive, we take others for granted. We close our minds to distractions and focus on the task at hand. We cannot relate to others, consider their feelings, empathize with their situations or tune into their outlooks. We function in an "I - it" mode of  dehumanizing and de-contextualizing others. This enables us to get the job done and solve the obvious problems. But we lose sight of making sense to others from their own frames of reference. Our invention shows up in their worlds as nothing they'd want to buy, use or look into further.

Entrepreneurs utilize several heuristics to successfully avoid this pitfall. Here's a few of them:

• Don't start with an idea, start with a user's pain, problematic situation or frustrated attempts to make progress.
• Don't make an invention, make a difference in the lives of other people who don't know they need an invention.
• Don't deliver something for customers to buy, serve their ability to get more out of what they buy.
• Don't dwell on what is getting bought, focus on what good it does for those who do the buying.

When we get trapped by this pitfall, the value of our inventions are extrinsic. It's in the item and presumed to be the same for everyone who buys it. When we steer clear of this pitfall, the value is intrinsic. It's in the eye of the beholders, in the strength of the rapport with their outlooks and in the trust established with them. We practice an "I - thou" mode of humanizing and contextualizing others. We get where others are coming from and meet them there. We discover ways to give them what they are looking for. We ease their pain, solve some of their problems and facilitate their own process of making progress. We appear to be on their side or in their corner. They feel understood by where we appear to be coming from. The invention now looks very useful, valuable and alluring to their outlooks. We've done the right thing correctly.

Pitfalls in planning a new venture

I'm currently writing a business plan to give an affordable second chance to college dropouts. As I develop the details of the plan, I am also critiquing it. There are many ways for a business plan to be inadequate, ineffective or simply flawed. I intend to write up these pitfalls over the next two weeks, to clarify my own thinking about them and make sure I hold my evolving business plan to these standards. I hope you'll find them useful in any new ventures or projects you're considering.

Here are the design pitfalls I have in mind and will explore here:

1. Inventing a new product/service that buyers see no use for that's worth the trouble of adjusting to it - see Doing the Wrong Thing Correctly
2. Lacking feature/benefit differentiation that makes the new business compare unfavorably to established enterprises with more experience and customers - see Making the Same Difference
3. Assuming the rivals won't copy or surpass every improvement which then results in getting ambushed by the imitators - see Assuming we have no imitators
4. Over-estimating increasing revenue and under-estimating soaring costs which yield shortages of cash and loss of ownership control - see Underestimating the cost of growth
5. Pricing the offer beyond what the market will pay or so low it fails to cover costs which makes customers wary of being manipulated - see Undercharging the customer
6. Attacking incumbent positions that provoke their retaliatory strikes and wars of attrition to quickly eliminate the start-up from the market space - see Provoking the incumbents to retaliate
7. Getting a bubble of press coverage that quickly fades without generating customer loyalty and  a steady stream of repeat business - see Flaming out before catching fire
8. Resorting to pressure sales tactics which results in seller reluctance, buyer remorse and negative reputations - see Creating jobs from hell
9. Locking into a long shot trajectory that fails to make adjustments to hit the moving target and steer clear of unforeseen obstacles - see Too smart to succeed
10. Introducing a single innovation with no upgrade path which has the effect of destroying the long term sustainability - see Drop kicking our innovation

After writing up all these pitfalls, I took the opposite approach of developing a framework of success strategies - see A process of growing a new venture.

Getting a degree and an education

The two times I've been a college student, I walked away with a degree AND an education. Both my B.Arch. and M.B.A. programs gave me opportunities to instruct others and prove to myself that the best way to learn something is to teach it to another. Both degree programs involved working together with peers on projects with lots of meetings outside of class time. I learned as much from fellow students as from the formal instructors. Because there was so much action and interaction involved in the learning processes, I got a clearer sense of my own aptitudes, passions and values. I discovered how much I differed and how much I had in common with others I found compatible with me, interesting to me and understanding of me. 

Since then, I taught college courses for a dozen years. I did my best to ensure that the students enrolled in my courses got lots of takeaway value from my instructional designs. I could not, in good conscience, merely cover the material, test students on the assigned reading, or give lectures that were as boring to give as to receive. But I saw the results of other classes they endured and heard some of their horror stories. Many students were getting a degree without getting an education. The only thing they would have to show for their 4+ years of academic credits was their diploma and transcript -- all credential with no credibility! 

I suspect the increasing number of college dropouts is partly the result of this failure to provide an education. It becomes evident to enrolled students that they are getting no value beyond the piece of paper at the end of the line. It no longer appears worth the phenomenal expense, long term debt and anxiety while attending college. I believe many of those dropouts who dropped out to minimize the rip-off still desire a real education. If they cannot get both a degree and an education, they will settle for a useful, customized and experiential education.

This morning I notified the Penn/Milken contest administrators of my intention to submit an executive summary and business plan to "provide an affordable second chance to the growing number of college dropouts". I have in mind a social learning system that will provide a very valuable and enduring education without the credentials they've already lost hope of attaining. I will argue this is a far better bargain than those college graduates who walk away with the reverse result: the diploma without an education.

Conflicts with collaborative endeavors

The model I've been developing for the past month has evolved into three phases. There are conflicts with collaborative endeavors before they get started, in the midst of getting underway and once fully established. Each presents a unique set of challenges for those striving to keep the collaborations from falling apart and fading away. 

1. Getting started: Those who will be collaborating have much to gain by abandoning their isolated or competing efforts. At the same time, those not directly involved get threatened with significant losses from the introduction of collaborative endeavors in their midst. 
2. Getting fully underway: Collaborative endeavors can get caught in a limbo state between past and future practices. There are habits to be broken, tasks to be revised, routines to be reorganized and patterns to get introduced. It will often seem easier to go back to business as usual rather than maintain the strain of new practices. It takes participants being on the lookout for that limbo state to resolve the dilemmas posed by past before they induce stagnation.
3. Getting back on track: A successful series of collaborative endeavors can be derailed by individuals regressing back to authoritative or argumentative behavior patterns. A culture of success can make those on the margins feel excluded, inferior or inadequate to participate fully. They may seek to get attention or get even for not feeling understood, accepted and included. 

In exploring different audiences that could benefit from this model, I've settled on the target population for my forthcoming peer learning enterprise. The educating by those participants are collaborative endeavors which are vulnerable to debilitating conflicts. The peers need this model presented as a troubleshooting guide to watch for warning signs, to nip problems in the bud and to discover ways to prevent future breakdowns.  That's the approach I'm taking to my full length presentation of this model.