The Visualisation Imperative

One of the most satisfying things in life is serendipity - the act of "lucking in".  This blog is itself a beautiful example of serendipity as it has its origins in a converation over a buisness lunch with a friend (who will be remaining nameless).  We were both getting very animated (no pun intended) on the subject of data visualisation when I suggested that he write up his thoughts and that I'd publish it in this blog.  He did.  I did. Serendipity.  Hope you enjoy and many thanks to my mystery friend.

A picture tells a thousand words, but a bar chart isn’t going to win any prizes.

This was the nugget I took away from a recent conversation highlighting the bland and inefficient nature of the current suite of visualisation frameworks we have at our disposal when presenting data sets. On further reflection I was struck by how limiting the common stock of available tools are in helping us understand the inherent complexity within data sets. Rarely is animation possible, and including additional dimensions is tricky. This doesn’t bode well in a data rich world where investment budgets are rife with data and information initiatives. Houston we have a problem

The challenge of understanding the relationship between data sets is constrained by the frameworks we apply. With the exception of a few classes of individual, most of us have been under the thrall of the cosy Microsoft world of visualisation; the handy little icon at the top of the screen which turns a row of numbers into something marginally more engaging.  But that’s it. Go beyond the a la carte menu of offerings, and we quickly run out of conceptual frameworks for visualising data.  This can only lead to complacency when presenting data sets – it’s simply too difficult - which in turn inhibits developing and presenting a deeper understanding of the problem across the organisation and externally.

The effort (and skill) required to translate complex sets of data in to a work of art which people "get" quickly is a massive limitation, and an injustice to the hardware and software available to capture and orchestrate the data sets themselves. Our diet of spreadsheets and PowerPoint is very bad for our stakeholders and bad for the brain! So, assuming the case is made, what do we do about it?

Exploring the Web yields something – Edward Tufte strikes me as a good starting point showing some of the beautiful possibilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte ; but I’ve yet to hear his name mentioned in any Finance departments I’ve visited. There’s also a very helpful Periodic Table of Visualisation http://www.visual-literacy.org/periodic_table/periodic_table.html which is a useful starter for 10 when thinking about alternatives to powerpoint.  But, for my own part, I am delighted to see a specialist discipline emerging to support the data architects in translating the data sets into something meaningful (and beautiful) which could one day end up in the gallery of 21^st century innovations. I’m keen to hear what you think (via Rick) – and don’t hesitate to send me picture

PS from Rick - In another act of synchronicity I met a lovely niche supplier yesterday who showed me the fascinating potential for presenting data sets in 3D.  Wow.  The future is already here... let me know if you want to play

Fast Follower: Are you having a laugh?

It’s been a while since I delivered a full on ranty blog but after a couple of weeks interviewing executives about innovation I’m now fully in the mood for a good old, eye rolling, eyebrow raising hissy fit.  Why?

Because I am sick to the back teeth of people who are so far behind the game when it comes to Innovation justifying their piteous position with the use of the phrase “strategically we see ourselves as fast followers”.   Aaargh!

Since the mid 00’s the concept of fast followership has slowly percolated its way into the lexicon of business language.  Today, it has managed to migrate so far away from its original meaning and purpose that we can award it full membership of the business “bullshit bingo” Hall of Fame.    Originally it was used in relation to those who were actually carrying out innovation and alluded to a well thought out strategy of how to bring “new cutting edge products” to market at a speed that afforded most of the benefits of first mover advantage but avoided some of the costs.  The clue to the purpose of the phrase lay in the words themselves, FAST (as in actually happening, rapidly, at pace with meaning and intent) and FOLLOWER (as in actually moving closely enough to be associated with the leader).  Those firms who truly adhered to the fast follower philosophy and strategy designed and built organisations that were designed to deliver new products to a mass market by a) copying almost exactly someone else’s intellectual property or b) enhancing some prototype development and using the strength of their global distribution networks to drive sales.

Today the term fast follower is confidently offered up by myriads of executives as a Pilate like excuse to exonerate themselves and their organisations recurrent failure to deliver innovation (which in their organisation’s case usually means really old stuff that everybody else now does) at the speed of a laconic glacier.  

Come on people – let’s get with it.  I have yet to meet more than the tiniest handful of organisations that actually do have a thought through and structured fast follower strategy (and they are mostly in pharmaceuticals).  Instead I have met many organisations and executives who claim immunity from the charge of “you and your organisation are actually pretty crap at innovation” with a wistful look, an apathetic shrug of the shoulder, a beatific smile and a gentle utterance of the “but we’ve chosen to be a fast follower” mantra.  You haven’t – you’re just bad at innovation.

I could go on, but I won’t.  I should know better, I’m 45 for God’s sake.  Ranting over for now.