“The biggest obstacle to business model innovation is not technology: it is we humans and the institutions we live in. Both are stubbornly resistant to experimentation and change.” Saul Kaplan

Current success prevents companies from asking themselves how their business model could be innovated. Organizational structures are not typically designed for new business models to emerge.

Business model innovation combines creativity with a structured approach. The best of both worlds.

One of my students at ComDig is writing a paper about the multiple personalities we have and how we are using those personalities in the digital world. Researching on the subject I found this interesting blog post by Marc Fenigstein where he talks about the importance of this movement, from a digital age to a virtual age.

“From a Digital Age to a Virtual Age”

It’s not a new concept that just as we moved from an analog age to a digital age, we are now moving from a digital age to a virtual age. Cloud services, social networks, and VOIP are all facilitating the virtualization of our world and our selves. Interestingly, we are not virtualizing ourselves as a single entity. We are creating multiple personae for individual contexts. These are not characters we play, like Second Life; these are each intended as accurate but distinct representations of our true selves. We may, for example, maintain very different personae for Linked-In, Facebook, and our personal blog (sometimes several personal blogs). I call this phenomenon “segmented virtualization.”

Internet age has made our lives more and more public: the information is out there and we have limited control over its proliferation. We hear very much about identity theft, but there is little formal commentary on the social implications. We create multiple personae as a reaction against this loss of control – much like a media blitz or propaganda, this is a proactive effort to shape our public image before the internet does it for us. Again, unlike Second Life, the goal isn’t anonymity; it is public relations – each of these personae are supposed to be you, the person you wish to be in a given context. And you want to keep it very separate from the other yous.

Currently, the internet facilitates this segmentation of our virtual selves, as each of these communities are walled gardens; because they are competitive, they are not interoperable. However, our lives are interoperable; work acquaintances become friends and suddenly want access to your Burning Man photos, friends find you on Linked-in and are shocked to discover you’re “totally corporate and, like, tuck in your shirt and s***.”

The implications are significant, both for our personal lives, and for the market battleground of social networks. If social networks fail to maintain these walls, or worse facilitate their destruction, the personal-social costs begin to outweigh the benefits and there are two possible reactions once that scale tips: moderate your stream of information to the lowest common denominator to ensure it is inoffensive to any of your audiences, or withdraw completely by shutting down your accounts and proactively removing any publicly available information. It is a rebuttal of Metcalfe’s law –there comes a point where the utility of a network begins to decline with more nodes. Linked-In understands this, and has been extremely strict about maintaining the professionalism of the network, resisting the temptation to expand into clearly available social functionalities. This will serve them well in the long term.

Facebook, on the other hand, wants to own it all; they want every node (person) on earth. Fueled by, and now beholden to the promise of, extremely rapid growth they have taken several distinct steps to break down social walls in return for more nodes and connections. This has been thus far tolerated by most, but if they don’t take specific steps to protect desired walls between our circles, they will eventually self-destruct.

By Andrian Kreye*

There are few places oozing tradition like Oxford’s Randolph Hotel. During the TEDGlobal conference you would pass the restaurant where tea sandwiches are served on ornate étagères and enter a thickly carpeted room full of shelves filled with the works of progressive thinkers. The local bookshop had set up a satellite store for the event. Right there against the wall, a futuristic gadget was on display in a fancy jewel case. It looked like a military-grade USB stick made of brushed metal. A friendly gentleman from Boston explained that this was the Genome Key, made by his company, Knome. For a handsome fee, they would decipher your complete genome and deliver it on this small stick. Your biological present stored for a “gentech” future.

The Genome Key had all the markings of a great design object: the metallic sheen, the shiny box, the futuristic lines. But it wasn’t the look that made the Genome Key such a great example of intriguing design. It was the system surrounding and supporting this storage device; the aesthetic allure was just an afterthought. The Genome Key can record one’s complete genome, not just the part that is usable today. This avoids making it a soon-to-be-obsolete technology. Also, all of your genetic data is exclusively stored on this device only, so customers don’t have to worry that their most intimate information will be hacked from an institution’s database. The Genome Key, albeit far from a mass consumer product, embodied the new role of design that had become evident during the TED talks.

It has always been hard to explain what effect TED has on global trends. Each conference can be something like a high-voltage engine that gives ideas a velocity that propels them into the public mind with the impact of a Tesla Roadster on the shoulder of a clogged freeway. People take notice. Revolutionary ideas about design might not have originated at TED, but they did get the necessary exposure to gain further thrust.

Seismic shifts in thinking never happen as suddenly as an earthquake. The first tremors can be felt years or even decades before. As usual, a few threads materialized at this year’s TEDGlobal conference under the topic “The Substance of Things Not Seen.” None exemplified the essence of TED better than the paradigmatic shift in thinking about design.

This change of perspective might not be perceived as such a seismic shift in the design world itself, a world that has never been monolithic. Still, ask most people about design, and they will tell you that it belongs in the realm of aesthetics. And who could blame them for having this perception? Even basic texts, from Martin Heidegger to Walter Benjamin to Theodor Adorno, say the same thing: Art and design will change how the world looks, not how the world is.

There are exceptions. In 1980, at the “Forum Design”“ exhibition in the Austrian city of Linz, the Swiss art historian and sociologist Lucius Burckhart introduced his essay “Design is Invisible.” He didn’t accept design as an art form. He explained how design can only function if put in the context of a real-life situation. A city. An intersection. A workplace. Burckhart wasn’t just ahead of his time. He embodied the zeitgeist of the day. In 1980, design had just started to make inroads into general society. Chain stores such as IKEA and Habitat introduced design to the suburban home. Later, magazines such as Wallpaper turned the refined knowledge of design experts into mass-market values, just as Julia Child transformed the elitist art of French cooking into an everyday skill.

What design seemed to never lose, despite its populist efforts — from Bauhaus to Design Within Reach— was the stigma of being either a luxury or a means of seduction by industries trying to sell electronic gadgets or housewares. Marx’s essay on commodity fetishism kept the public’s perception of design hostage. This ideological struggle is as apparent as ever in the fight over the future of New York’s Ground Zero between the architects Daniel Libeskind and David Childs. Libeskind had an artistic vision with symbolist grandeur. Childs just wanted to make the site a working part of the city.

What had been a contradiction in New York has become a new way of thinking that unites two formerly antagonistic ways of viewing design. What has emerged at TED conferences through the years is a vision of design that does not limit itself to the parameters of form and function. Design has become the engine of innovation, giving mere ideas shape and substance. It has evolved into the highest form of communication, turning ideas into solutions. In fact, giving the TED Prize to the architect Cameron Sinclair in 2006 was a milestone event. Here was a young man with a vision of creating a network for open-source architecture to solve problems in emergency situations such as disasters and wars.

The work Sinclair has done with Architecture for Humanity has eased the suffering of thousands in the areas affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami, in the hurricane zone of Katrina, and in refugee centers around the world. He still embodies what many of this year’s TEDGlobal speakers put forth in Oxford.Ross Lovegrove defined his design as inspired by evolution. Janine Benyus discussed biomimicry, a theory of design in which man-made objects imitate the lessons of nature. Mathieu Lehanneur told us he had been designing this way without ever having heard about Benyus’ concepts.

Design has become a way of finding solutions. Aesthetics is just a part of this process. Maybe in a few decades we will look back at TEDGlobal and remember that shiny stick next to the bookshelves. For future generations, the Genome Key might very well become for the genetic age what the Walkman was for today’s digital age: the forefather of a revolution of omnipresent information permeating every part of our lives.

*Andrian Kreye edits the Arts and Essays section of the Süddeutsche Zeitung daily in Germany and was one of a handful of international journalists invited to attend TEDGlobal.

This article was originaly posted on design mind

by Bradley Hebdon.

We’ve come a long way on the web today. Or have we?  While we’ve innovated in many areas, we’ve also continued to disregard pre-existing issues. And in some cases, we have also created new ones. Here is my list of the top 65 most annoying things about the web today. They’re in no particular order, but I have organized them into what I consider core groups.

Poor Design

1. Illegible text. I can’t read that, it’s too small. And what on earth is that font called?
2. Busy backgrounds.  Oh MySpace, why do you allow users to create profiles like that? My eyes hurt.
3. Obscure links. I’m confused, can I click on that or not? Oh I get it, you don’t want me to view other pages.
4. Flyouts that are too large. Holy crap Yahoo!  This is a page within a flyout!
5. Drop-down menu navigation too many levels deep. OK, if I slowly move my mouse this way first… dammit Jim, I’m a doctor not a magician!
6. Complicated navigation. I just want to get to that page, the one over there! Oh I see, you want me to complete the maze first.
7. Abused centerpieces. Aren’t centerpieces supposed to serve as mechanisms for promotion, rather than areas to cram an entire page’s worth of content into itself? Call me an idealist, I guess.
8. Poor navigation labels. Give me a clue and use labels that make sense!
9. Clutter & chaos. With no emphasis or information hierarchy, it’s difficult for me to know what to look at, and what to do next.
10. Ugly WAPs. Many companies treat their WAP sites like a deformed step-child they keep in the basement.
11. Splash screens. Nice, a road block between your user and your home page.

Unfindable Information

1. Dysfunctional site search. (Sigh) Why didn’t this site just use Google?
2. Too many blog categories. Isn’t this what tags were meant for?
3. Contact info. I just want to speak to them on the phone! And when I say “them” i mean a human.
4. Invisible sign in. OK, so I registered, but how do I sign in?
5. Hidden account closure. I guess I’m a member for life now?
6. Unscannable info. I want to quickly know if this article is relevant. But alas, huge paragraphs, long headlines and no subheadings make for an unscannable chunk of data, and an indigestible piece of gristle.

No Content Strategy

1. No focus. Yada, yada, yada. Get to the point, what’s your message and what do you offer?
2. Spelling & grammar. Spelling mistakes are hard to forgive and really hurt credibility.
3. Ineffective product pages: What am I buying? Why should I buy this? Help me understand, and I’ll move down the purchase funnel!
4. Outdated. There’s nothing more thrilling than seeing a blog frozen in time. At some point, a landfill for websites is going to be needed.
5. Small photos. Why would I buy something I cannot see?

Auto-Behavior

1. Auto-playing home page video. Take note ESPN.com: the first thing I do when coming to your site is scramble to find the video pause button. And that’s when I’m surfing from home.
2. Auto browser resizing. And you did that because?
3. Customer service nags. Ironic really. Chat pop-ups appear like genies out of a lamp when I don’t need them.
4. Theme tunes. Got to love that auto-play music, especially when it cycles over and over and over, and over.
5. Auto opt-ins. It seems like an automatic opt-in is a contradiction in terms to me. No I don’t want your newsletter, and if I did, I’d opt-in.

Evil Forms

1. Unreadable captchas. Pure Evil. If I had a brick, why I would…
2. Too many fields. This is utterly exhausting. Oh forget it, I’m going to abandon this form.
3. Cryptic error messaging. OK, so I made a mistake. If you used English, I might be able to fix it.
4. No confirmation. Was I successful or not? I’m looking for anything here, a “thank-you”, a “job well done”, a “good boy”… anything that confirms the form was indeed a submitted form.
5. Too many constraints. I want to add my Canadian zip code, but you’re validating against the US format only!
6. Too small fields. How I’m supposed to enter my street address in that state-sized field?
7. The reset button. Do we really need this? I especially love it when I accidentally press “reset” instead of “submit”. It’s especially satisfying when it’s a long form.

Intrusive Advertising

1. Pop-ups. And that includes those fancy, flashy, moving, hard-to-close ones. Are you serious? This is 2009.
2. Interstitials. Thanks for adding another click and creating a barrier between me and your content! Give me a reason to leave, I dare you.
3. Flyouts via links in content. Oh darn, I didn’t know that was an ad! Thanks for punishing me.
4. Too many Google ads. I know there’s some content around here….
5. Long video pre-rolls. Is this ad ever going to end? Hang on; I forgot what video I clicked on.
6. The bus stop. Home pages that resemble bus stops — flyers, posters, graffiti all shouting at me. Sometimes, I swear I can even smell urine.

Accounts

1. Remembering user names and passwords. Seriously, how many do I need to keep track of? Just give me Facebook connect already!
2. Being forced to register for purchases. I just want to buy it, OK? Forget it, I’m going elsewhere.
3. Forced password reset. I just want to know my password! The one I chose but have forgotten. I know you know.
4. Getting locked out. I get the three-attempts-and-you’re-out idea, but it would be nice to know the rules before hand!
5. Password sent by “snail mail”. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. Should I expect a scroll to be delivered and read by a messenger?

Abuse

1. Spam. We still cannot cure this disease?
2. Viruses. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d say the anti-virus companies were creating these. You know, supply and demand and all.
3. Phishing. Particularly sneaky; and definitely a step beyond annoying.
4. Trolls on messageboards/blogs. Oh well, that’s life I guess – art imitating life and all.
5. Fake profiles. Am I following the real Steven Hawking on Twitter? It says here he went bowling last night.
6. Facebook app invitations. For the thousandth time, no I do not want to play Mob Wars, and no I don’t want a “pet in an egg” either.

Technology

1. Explorer 6. I speak for all developers here, if there’s a plug attached, please pull it. RIP Explorer 6.
2. Plug-ins. Not only do I have to download another plug-in, I have to keep these things current!
3. Entire sites built in flash. I don’t get it, why?
4. PDF overuse. Why couldn’t this PDF just be a web page?
5. Dell’s Netbook trackpad. Designed to be web browsing device, Dell’s Mini 10 trackpad has a trillion bells and whistles, but cannot fulfill basic tasks like moving the cursor from point A to point B without going to C first.
6. Small netbook screens. While mobile devices have optimized views for their screens, Netbooks and their 9 and 10 inch screens are caught in a weird place.
7. Inconsistent colors. Optimizing colors and contrast across both Macs and PCs is a designers nightmare.
8. Charging for Wi-Fi. Provide it free of charge, and the patrons will come!

Waiting

1. Slow page load. OK that’s it, I’ve been patient and their 3 seconds are up.
2. Comment approval. I thought, I articulated, I commented, I waited. Nothing.  That will teach me to contribute.
3. Black-hole between ordering and shipping. I took me 5 minutes to order this laptop, why isn’t it getting shipped? Should I place my order again? Should I cancel this order? What’s the order status?
4. Twitter is down again. I’m starting to think this is a feature. One akin to a long line outside a trendy night club.
5. Customer service. Since I cannot get a human on the phone, a 24 hour response time to my e-mail is not acceptable. Well look at that, I guess you just quantified the value of my business.
6. Submission timers. I saw this really great article! I know, I’ll post it on Reddit. And there’s another one, I’ll post that on Reddit too. What, I have to wait 10 minutes to post another article? That will  teach me to contribute.