Explore Thomas Cole was nominated an Official Honoree in the 14th Annual Webby Awards in the ART category.  According to the Webby Awards committee, with nearly 10,000 entries received from all 50 states and over 60 countries, this is pretty exciting.

We were lucky to have worked with such an inspired and talented team of scholars, art historians and developers in the creation of Explore Thomas Cole.  Thanks to Betsy Jacks, Karen Lucic, Charles Forcey and Matthew Latkiewicz.

This suffering manifests itself in a site design which is busy and confusing; as a user we don't know where to look, we don't the priorities for the website (often in great part because the company can't decide other). Or the site content competes with itself for marque billing; the equivalent to everyone shouting, so the user tunes everyone out. 

When an organization has too many goals or loses site of its goal for the website, chaos occurs in the design. And therein lies the problem (without getting into a big commentary of our cultural issues), goals are arbitrary. Goals are internal but not about the user experience. Yet, most website development processes are based on goals (i.e. "We need to launch a new homepage design next month").  But focusing a development process purely on goals is comparable to having a fundraiser when you don't know how much money you need or what you plan to buy in the future.  First we must ask "Why?".

From this idea emerged a new development approach I call the Question Driven Process (QDP), which focuses on creating a good process and resulting in better products.

About the Question Drive Process (QDP)

The Question Driven Process (QDP) approaches development by asking questions to determine a direction for each stage of development, instead of setting goals.  In keeping with the Lean idea of "Just in time" the QDP only solves problems it needs to address in the moment and as they emerge.  The typical "Big Build" or Waterfall Process of solving all problems upfront is expensive and ineffective; too many features are created without knowing what the user wants, which results in an overbuilt site.  

Instead, the Question Driven Process focuses on minimizing expense for the entire team, improving efficiency, and learning quickly by framing each release around on one or two core questions.  Here are some examples of the QDP in action...

1. When developing a new website, the first most critical question to ask is "what's the least amount of work we can do to launch this site and see if people get the idea?"  This alone will save you months of work and endless expense.

2. For existing websites try and test a few smalls elements at a time with a specific question for each test, such as "Can we increase traffic on our site by changing the link color?". 

Implementing a Question Driven Process 

To improve something on your website, or when creating a new site, begin from the choosing the basic starting point. Take one tiny step.  Start with a question that will drive all the choices for that first step.  In the example above: "What's the least amount of work we can do to launch this site and see if people get the idea?" Using something like Squarespace or Wordpress, create a simple site in a few hours (minimal expense), then test with an informal audience to see if they get the idea?  Or even better, sketch out the idea on a napkin and give it to a few friends. Be willing to throw the idea away.

Once you have your answer, either abandon, run another test with a different strategy, or move to the next step and create a new question.  For example, "How much money will this website make if we use an affiliate program?"  And so on, until you reach your goal (whatever that might be, or become).

The hardest part in applying the Question Driven Process is not the complexity (its a simply process), the hard part will be restraining the natural desire to diverge or brainstorm and become attached to ideas or oversolve. But once attachment happens, ideas harden, and flexibility can be lost.  Maintain a "healthy sense of detachment" using the Question Driven Process and let development inform the evolution.

As I worked on the transitions in the timeline first I made the fades random, simply staging transitions when I thought it would be interesting.  The result was chaos, images appeared out of sequence and the flow was erratic.  So I decided to try an animation pattern with fades occurring every 5 frames, starting at 0%, fading up to 100% (repeat 3 times).  And staggered each segment to begin 5 frames after the next. The results, a nice animation pace with enough variation in the pattern to keep it interesting. 

When I compared the animation timelines I noticed a huge visual difference in patterns.  Fascinating!  You guessed it, the timeline on the chaotic animation lacked order. The timeline on the pleasant animation had a lovely pattern and flow.  I further analyzed my reaction to the timelines, and observed when looking at the chaotic timeline I felt discomfort and agitation. The dots are random and my eye doesn't know where to start or stop.   With the pleasant animation, my eye can follow the flow of dots naturally and comfortably because the position and space between the dots has a logical pattern, and this pattern makes me feel relaxed.

My emotional reaction to the different timelines was especially interesting -- without music or graphics, just dots -- one timeline is much more appealing than the other. Imagine the physical reaction to the actual live animation? It makes sense that the animation without order was unpleasant.

This experience reminds me that a beautiful product is inherently based on a beautiful process.  If we are struggling to create a beautiful product but its not working (our instinct tells us it feels wrong) perhaps the process needs examining. We need to ask:  Where are the patterns? Has the process been unpleasant or uncomfortable?  And if unpleasant, how can we make it pleasurable?

My first exposure to the idea behind low-risk development was working at iVillage.com in early 2000 (when it was a comScore top 25 website). Through the amazing leadership of Paul Schrynemakers, Creative Director at the time, we were constantly adjusting and refreshing parts of the website incrementally and quickly. We rarely tossed pages out and started over from scratch.  Small incremental changes were the only way to strategically change such a complex system without destroying our traffic or making our audience angry.

At one point, I was given the task of redesigning the iVillage global navigation header.  The development team had a short window of time between projects and said we could Refresh the design if we left the header navigation structure in the exact pixel position, and only changed the Cosmetic design details and copy.  We had to design a cosmetic top layer that would work within the underling structure, which had its challenges but was infinitely faster than starting from scratch.

The design change was low-impact for the developers which meant the new header could go live quickly.  And speed means staying competitive in the market.  If we had followed a traditional "Waterfall Process" the header would have taken three months of discussion, team decision-making, design iterations and development which would have been a risky and expensive change.  

By using a low-risk process we were able to launch the new iVillage global header quickly, at minimal expense. 

Congratulations to the Betsy Jacks, Director of the Thomas Cole Museum, for her vision in bringing the website to life.

"Fryeburg Maine"

"Three Wedding Birches"

Friend and artist, Rebecca Fricke, has a unique approach to quilting which opened my eyes to a craft I rarely thought much about. Her quilts are part impressionist painting, part modern illustration.

Rebecca uses negative space and blocky cuttings to create organic nature scenes and landscapes.  The patterns and colors lend texture and create depth of field, in a traditionally one-dimensional quilt space.  

I find a certain whimsey in her work, using the highly structured craft of quilting to capture the organic flowing shapes of nature. Rebecca's quilts are wall-hanging works of art that inspire conversation.

We are proud to announce our latest project. The website design refresh for Cedar Grove The Thomas Cole National Historic Site in Catskill NY.  Thanks to museum director, Elizabeth Jacks, for such a fun and inspiring project, and for her great vision for the website design.

For the Cedar Grove project we developed the website in Squarespace, a beautiful, intuitive content management system (CMS) which enables us to apply a more effective development approach.  We were able to quickly migrate the old website content and Refresh the Cosmetic design without restructuring the website architecture which means less risk for the team, faster development timeline and overall savings.

Through Squarespace, the staff at Cedar Grove now has complete control of their website which means they can easily update their site content, and Refresh the Cosmetic design in the future.

Order our special 8-page report The Firehaus Method: How to Save Time and Money through a Strategic Website Design Refresh to learn difference between a Redesign and a Refresh, and a new development process that could save you time and money, reduce risk for your team, and help your company keep a competitive edge. If you save twenty minutes of development time the report will have paid for itself. Read more...

Imagine your future self has amnesia and it's your job to write him/her a clear task list with specific actions.

Rather than write a vague instruction which has virtually no meaning to my future self, such as:

"Do color corrections"

Instead I write my future self a specific instruction, such as:

"Do color corrections for museum. Images 45, 47, 79, 93 found on the clients FTP server (see email for login info). Image 45 has too much green and cyan (see reference image from Karen). Image 93 could be a total loss so only do what is needed and then contact client. Time Estimate: 2 hours."

I am especially nice to my future self by including a time estimate for this task. As a result, when my future self returns to the task list later, I will know exactly what to do next, which means work gets done faster and easier.  My future self will be so happy.

Perhaps because we enjoy brainstorming, or because of all the great technology available it's really easy to overbuild and over think; creating features or getting stuck on an idea that doesn't always help the audience. My inner creative demon is always thinking up new ideas and features, pulling me off course in pursuit of solving complex problems (JBIC).

The latest JBIC lesson came after launching our first solo project, BringIt. We struggled to find a good way to add people/guests to a signup sheet. Once it was live and we could test it we realized the "people" part was clunky and confusing. To solve the issue satisfactorily for the user, it actually created huge development and design challenges (which is the first clue that the problem is deep). After weeks of prototyping and discussion we had just about solved "people management". Hurray for us! We were really excited. It would have taken a lot of development and functionality, but we had finally cracked it, and were about to embark on a month or so of work to solve the issue.

Then we realized we were over-solving. We took a step back and asked what was really important to BringIt as a signup sheet tool? The signing-up part and quickly sharing signup sheets with other people. And with that clarity, we realized there was a very simple solution to our problem that would take only a two days to implement. The solution: remove the entire branch of the product. This would save tons of time and money, and actually make a better product for our audience.

It was great lesson. Building our own tools, as well as being able to test and learn makes us better at our jobs. So this was a huge step forward, and a great reflection emerged...How do we keep from overbuilding "Just Because I Can..."? Matthew had a great suggestion:

Website functionality should pass the "Removing Legs from a Chair" test.

Imagine a chair that has 10 legs (exactly, a chair only needs one perfect leg, or a few strategically placed legs but it definitely doesn't need 10 legs to stand). So we have our chair, and we start removing legs to see if the chair still stands up. If we can remove a leg, or in the case of functionality we can remove a feature, then the leg wasn't needed. And the chair becomes more beautiful and usable when it has exactly what it needs.

On the verge of over-solving our problem with BringIt (which we were totally committed to doing) luckily we stepped back at the right time, removed legs from the chair, and saved a lot of time and money..

It was another sleepless night thinking about 2x2 grids; this time the subject was repeatable versus non-repeatable processes and how these relate to success.

Is success a process which can be recreated or is success a happy accident like winning the lottery? Did Steven Spielberg, Henry Ford, or Oprah Winfrey follow an existing a process to create their empires or did they create a new process which would then define future successful companies?

To understand process, we must first look at the opposite of Process, which is a simple Task, like doing the dishes, photocopying papers, or calling the vet to make appointment for kitty. Whenever I mow the lawn I am reminded it is a Repeatable Task that could be delegated (money permitting). It feels good to do it or (more accurately) it feels good to be done with it. Apart from the physical work, mowing the lawn or photocopying papers are easy tasks that are almost Zen-like in their simplicity. Tasks are easy to enjoy and easy to check off the to-do list which is satisfying, but they don't require much thinking or build toward anything bigger (mowing the lawn just makes the house look better which is great by itself).

Process on the other hand is divided into two parts; Repeatable and Non-Repeatable. Repeatable Process being something like an assembly line where there are many steps and stages of development that theoretically could be written as a how-to manual for anyone to follow.

Non-repeatable process involves creating something totally unique; like David Allen developing the revolutionary method Getting Things Done. This was a new idea, not based on a preexisting process, which he developed over many years with a great amount of thought and energy. I suspect it was hard. Was his success an accident? How did he a create a Non-Repeatable Process, and how is that different from a Repeatable Process? I suspect this relates to a previous blog post on Skill versus Philosophy which identifies how Skill leads to success, but Skill combined with Philosophy leads to wild success through a non-repeatable process.

In the case of Oprah, Stephen Spielberg, and David Allen, they combined Skill & Philosophy to achieve a Non-Repeatable Process. So you might ask why is this Non-Repeatable? Philosophy and Skill are unique to each person which means the combinations are infinite. So while we can't recreate someone else's Non-Repeatable process, we can create our own.

So I am curious to know where do you spend time in the 2x2 grid? Do you spend equal time in all four quads or do you spend more time in one quadrant? Are you spending time in the best quad for you? Who out there is building a Non-Repeatable process combining Skill and Philosophy?

Where are you in the grid...

1. Pick good cofounders

2. Launch fast

3. Let your idea evolve

4. Understand your user

5. Better to make a few users love you than a lot ambivalent

6. Offer surprisingly good customer service

7. You make what you measure

8. Spend little

9. Get ramen profitable

10. Avoid distractions

11. Don't get demoralized

12. Don't give up

13. Deals fall through

Read the whole post

Divergence: The act of moving away in a different direction from a common point

Convergence: The occurrence of two or more things coming together

So how does this relate to product development? The creative process, of course, starts with brainstorming -- divergence -- as we open our minds to new ideas.  While this is a critical step, the development process usually ends here. And with enough time, money and resources all kinds of bad ideas can be executed (like Un-bouncy ping-pong balls, a water proof tea strainer, or a 6 foot bonsai tree.)

Brainstorming is the first half of the journey. The second critical step is editing -- or convergence. And while its necessary to brainstorm big, it's equally necessary to edit those ideas ruthlessly. But that's hard, right? As soon as an idea is out there we own it, we want to see it come to life, we love it. And that's probably when to catch ourselves -- if your idea has a "pet name," its time to start editing. So how to keep the divergence/convergence process in balance?

Here is an experiment... think of a project (or the next project you work on) allow yourself to brainstorm big (divergence). Then move to convergence and think about how to execute the idea with minimal time (a week or two at most) and no money (or a budget of say less than $100 or $500). And see how it affects the choices you make. Were you able to boil the idea down into its purest form and still keep the essence or function in tact?

Or is there an example of a big project you started but, either through choice or necessity, decided to scale back? And how did you do it while still keeping the integrity of the idea?

Come back and share your experiments... 

This is the result of my insomnia last night, a 2 x 2 grid on Skill and Philosophy.  If you've ever watched American Idol (sorry, no, I can't say why I was thinking about American Idol at 2 a.m.) the judges talk about artistry vs. plain old skill.  Some of the kids on the show clearly have true artistry, while others just have solid skill.   

Co-incidentally this week my yoga teacher, Katie, was talking about the exact same idea.  (BTW - if you find yourself in Amherst or Northampton it's totally worth it to check out her class, post here for details.) Anyway, Katie said that yoga can be a mechanical practice (and as a result pretty dry) if you don't have a deeper understanding of why you do it.  She herself noted that her strength is the mechanical/skill side and she needed to focus more on the philosophy side.  Being the kind of person who can focus entirely on process and forget about the philosophy I could totally related to Katie's message.   

So this all got me to thinking...

"How do you know if you just have good solid skills, or if you are a true creator/visionary?"  

And what is the difference? This is where Philosophy came into the grid. And how do we chart these differences? Here's how it breaks down:

Skill and Philosophy = A true creator, someone who asks "Why?" and uses their skill to create something new. (On American Idol, these are the people who will become cultural icons, you can actually see the difference).

Skill, No Philosophy = A good practitioner, someone who is mechanical and relies on their skill to get by.  They are probably solid at their job and reliable but won't take your breath away. On American Idol, these are the performer who will end up in Las Vegas, probably doing pretty darn well, thank you.  But still, not cultural icons.

No Skill, Philosophy = Poet on a rock, okay poets have skill so I am not bashing poets.  But this someone who is cerebral and more interested in ideas than goals. 

No Skill, No Philopshopy = A child, an amateur, future is wide open.

Okay, well, that's it for now. I am off to find a rock.