More from Guy Kawasaki

Original post:  June 4, 2015

Mr. Kawasaki also provided his personal tips on presentations.

In his opinion, the optimal presentation has 10 slides. While he cheekily admitted that his presentation to us had more than 10 slides, he also added that his expertise gave him the right!

He also said the optimal presentation lasts for about 20 minutes. He said that was because the average meeting was an hour, and most Windows-based laptops took about 40 minutes to boot up and connect to the projector.

His last presentation point was to use 30 point font or greater. This would make the slides easy to read--even for a large audience. When you are speaking to a crowd of over 1,200 people, that makes sense to me!

He ended with a couple of quick asides about recent trends in social media. He said that an excellent test of your website (here he was speaking to the retailers in the audience) would be to try to pin a page and see which photo came up. He predicted great things for Pinterest--which just announced this week that they would allow users to add a "buy it" button:  Pinterest attempts to lure shoppers with 'Buy It' button - CNET

His last bit of advice to someone starting up in social media was to use what he called the NPR model. All year, NPR focuses on high quality content. Occasionally, they pause to run a pledge drive to support themselves. In the same way, he added that if you provide something useful, people will gravitate to your posts and/or site. That will then allow you the opportunity to pitch them from time to time. You can't pitch them all the time or they will stop coming by. I think this is very useful advice.

Chicken and the egg

Original post: May 21, 2015

There is a natural tension that often accompanies any attempt to bring innovation into the world. There will always be defenders of the status quo. Many of those people make their living by supporting the way things are. It is also much easier to keep something new from happening than it is to start something fresh. Finally, there are costs to innovation. In order for someone to make the leap towards something unfamiliar, they have to feel that there is enough of a benefit.

There are many situations where we might find ourselves in a standoff. It's like the answer to the perennial question:  which came first, the chicken or the egg? For many innovative ideas, you need to recruit willing participants. However, it can be difficult to recruit these participants without promising them some kind of defined benefit. Of course, you can't prove the defined benefit unless you have the test data from the willing participants!

Something similar to this is going on in California. Residents there are struggling to comply with water restrictions due to a severe drought which has stretched on for four years. Ironically, the farmers were able to avoid the most serious restrictions despite the fact that they currently use up to 90% of the water in the state! Of course, they also realize that this drought threatens their long-term survival.

One of the best ways to save water is to irrigate fields using more efficient methods. Instead of the familiar sprinklers in crop circles, drip tape can help water get down to the roots much more effectively. Less water ends up wasted because it's blown away by winds or evaporating uselessly on stems and leaves. Unfortunately, it's really tough work to lay down drip tape (see the photo above). It is also quite costly to invest in the initial outlay of equipment and labor to install this system. It's much cheaper to drill deeper to try to bring up more groundwater. Of course, the cheaper method also has the drawback of using up a finite resource. It also has the additional handicap of making it far less likely that the groundwater will ever be replaced (even if the rains return). There are some instances of such drastic over-use of groundwater that resulted in the ground sinking several feet because so much water was taken from the aquifer!

There are no easy solutions. Standing outside the situation, it's easy to say that the farmers should invest in drip technology. That doesn't account for the fact that they may not have the capital available to invest. If the weather does not improve, it will certainly force harder choices in the days ahead.

Here is an article describing some of the challenges facing the farmers:  Why California Farmers Are Conflicted About Using Less Water : All Tech Considered : NPR

Something you probably say everyday

Original post:  Apr 7, 2015

Language can sometimes spread like wildfire. There are certain phrases and catchwords that seem to catch the imagination in just the right way and explode onto the scene. Many of them will fade over time. Some will become mainstays in human communication.

I heard a radio broadcast that talked about one such word. It may have started in the Boston area. It's actually one of the few words that can actually be understood nearly universally. It seems people on every continent can use and understand exactly what it means (even if they don't speak your language)!

According to this story from WGBH, in the 1830s, Boston newspapers decided that they really liked abbreviations. With our texting culture (LOL), we may be familiar with the desire to communicate swiftly and efficiently. All of this abbreviation then came to its most famous achievement:

Amidst this abbreviation fad, on March 23, 1839, came a humorous article on the second page of the Boston Morning Post where writer and editor Charles Gordon Greene abbreviated the phrase “all correct” with two letters - OK.

"And of course readers were expected to join in the humorous notion or acknowledgement that OK is an abbreviation for all correct that is not correct, since 'all' does not begin with 'O' and 'correct' does not begin with 'K.'"

It was a little bit of wordplay that would take the world by storm.

"It happened because of newspapers," Metcalf said. "And one of the things that newspapers would do, they picked up things from other newspapers and that spread throughout the country quickly enough thanks to the newspaper exchange."

The term also got a surge in exposure during the 1940 Presidential election, when Martin Van Buren — also known as Old Kinderhook — running for the presidency, incorporated it in his campaign slogan: "Old Kinderhook is OK."

It seems that presidential election helped the story go national. While there were other potential origin stories, none of them seem as compelling.

As the 20th century dawned, the word continued to surge — and morph. People began spelling it “okay” to make it more word-like, created superlatives like A-OK, and variations like Okey Dokey, mmmkay, or the text-friendly, “K.” Today OK is regularly cited by linguists and writers as the world’s single most recognized word.

"If you’re talking with somebody and you don’t know that persons language, if that person knows 'OK,' which is rather likely, you can usually get a whole message across with nothing but 'OK' and various inflections of your voice and gestures," Metcalf said.

Metcalf is so enamored with this little expression that could, that he’s dubbed it America’s greatest word – in part, because he believes those two simple letters are an elegant expression of who we are.

"If something is OK for Americans then it’s working," he said. "You’ve succeeded with it. You can of course refine it, but it's good enough. OK allows you to say something positive for something that is less than perfect. I’m not a philosopher, but I argue that’s the American philosophy in two letters."

OK. Seems to work for me!

Here is the link to the full story:  How Boston Created 'The American Philosophy In 2 Letters' — OK? | WGBH News

Teachers as performers

Original post:  Nov 20, 2014

Earlier this week, I heard a radio story talking about how some teachers are incorporating performance into their routines. They are trying to move away from the standard lecture format into more of an active, theatrical style.

My wife is a teacher and she agrees with the basic idea. Teaching is a difficult job even when you have engaged, willing students. This often thankless task becomes even more challenging when you layer complicated subject matter on top of disinterested pupils. If you can find different ways to make your material come alive for your target audience, I think you can surprise them with how much they can absorb!

There are many situations in our own work lives where we will have to teach others. It may be centered on a specific role or job. It might be informing a larger team about our role in a project. It might include a briefing to a steering committee or your sponsoring executive. Whatever the case, there is something to be learned by adopting the tactics in this article and "channeling your inner Springsteen". Of course, you can always substitute your preferred role model!

We may not all reach the heights of the fictional teacher Robin Williams plays in "Dead Poets Society." That doesn't mean we can't be inspiring in our own way.

Here is the link to the full radio story:  Channeling Springsteen: Teachers As Performers : NPR Ed : NPR

OK, but how much is it?

Original post:  Nov 19, 2014

One remedy that is often proposed in healthcare is to make it more responsive to market forces. In theory, the customer (i.e., the patient) should make informed choices and select the most cost-effective care. Setting aside the situations where you have a complete inability to choose (e.g., an emergency like a heart attack or broken leg), you should select the lowest cost provider for your procedure. That's the theory. The practice is much more uneven.

KQED in San Francisco recently collaborated with a startup called ClearHealthCosts.com. The idea was to crowdsource the prices that people paid for specific medical procedures. Hundreds of people have shared their experiences. Here is a sample from the article:

We thought we would find variation, and indeed we did. In California, commercial insurers paid from $128 to $694 for a screening mammogram. In Los Angeles,one woman's insurer paid $600 more than the lowest-cost screening mammogram reported in the area. "I'm sure every woman who's had a mammogram had the exact same experience I did," this woman said. "It was a friendly technician, but I don't think that's worth maybe 600 extra dollars."

In lower-back MRIs, we found that for CPT code 72148, insurers paid from $467 to $1,567. But when we looked beyond commercial insurers, we found even greater variation — from a low of $255 to a self-pay price of $6,221 at an academic medical center. That $255 MRI was paid by Medicare, and was just a fraction of the facility's charge of $2,450.

But the variation doesn't stop there. Yet another person went to the same facility and was charged $603 for the same procedure, same CPT code. This patient had commercial insurance but paid the entire amount out of pocket, the patient wrote, since "I had not yet met my deductible."

While price is certainly a major factor in the equation, quality is also a key component. You won't save any money if the procedure that you have is ineffective and you have to have a return visit to fix the original work! Unfortunately, it's really difficult to compare and little data exists.

Here is the link to the full article:  In California, That MRI Will Cost You $255 — Or Maybe $6,221 : Shots - Health News : NPR

For more on this topic, here is a link to the Masachusetts law that went into effect January 1, 2014 which mandates that hospitals must reveal their costs up front:

Price shopping....for healthcare?

Here is a link to a WSJ article comparing prices in Southern California:  How much will that be?

The myth of multitasking

Original post:  Jun 10, 2014

We are all guilty of it at one time or another. We've attempted to get that last e-mail in or send a final text in the middle of a busy meeting. We rationalize it away by saying that we can effectively perform multiple tasks at once. The reality is much less sanguine.

In "The Power of Prime" from Psychology Today, Dr. Jim Taylor explains the truth:

Multitasking involves engaging in two tasks simultaneously. But here's the catch. It's only possible if two conditions are met: 1) at least one of the tasks is so well learned as to be automatic, meaning no focus or thought is necessary to engage in the task (e.g., walking or eating) and 2) they involve different types of brainprocessing. For example, you can read effectively while listening to classical music because reading comprehension and processing instrumental music engage different parts of the brain. However, your ability to retain information while reading and listening to music with lyrics declines significantly because both tasks activate the language center of the brain.

What does this mean for all of you self-proclaimed multitaskers out there? Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it means that what you do isn't really multitasking. Despite appearances, you simply can't talk on the phone, read e-mail, send an instant message, and watch YouTube videos all at the same time. In fact, when you think you're cruising along the information highway, you're actually stepping on the gas then hitting the brakes, over and over.

He goes on to cite research to back his claims:

A summary of research examining multitasking on the American Psychological Association's web site describes how so-called multitasking is neither effective nor efficient. These findings have demonstrated that when you shift focus from one task to another, that transition is neither fast nor smooth. Instead, there is a lag time during which your brain must yank itself from the initial task and then glom onto the new task. This shift, though it feels instantaneous, takes time. In fact, up to 40 percent more time than single tasking - especially for complex tasks.

A recent article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by three Stanford University researchers offers perhaps the most surprising result: those who consider themselves to be great multitaskers are in fact the worst multitaskers. Those who rated themselves as chronic multitaskers made more mistakes, could remember fewer items, and took longer to complete a variety of focusing tasks analogous to multitasking than those self-rated as infrequent multitaskers. In a recent interview with NPR, a co-author of the PNAS study, Clifford Nass, states, "The shocking discovery of this research is that [high multitaskers] are lousy at everything that's necessary for multitasking." Nass concluded that this difference appears to be due to an inability to filter past and no-longer-relevant information from the previous task.

I suppose this means I have to shut that laptop and put away the smartphone, doesn't it?

Product of its environment

Original post:  Jun 4, 2014

I personally love sushi and sashimi. The incredibly smooth texture of fine raw fish is a wonderful dining experience. Have you ever wondered how this could be possible?

In order to survive, all species must adapt to their environment. At the same time, most of us prefer to eat our meat cooked. That is certainly true for animals that live on the land. But it isn't true for many sea creatures. This excerpt helps explain why:

"Fish are so soft. You can stick your finger through their muscles," he says. "Try doing that with a chicken or cow. Fish muscle is very different than that in land animals."

Why? Because fish can afford to be lazier than terrestrial animals. Fish essentially float all the time. So their muscles don't work constantly to fight gravity. (The buoyancy force in water counteracts the gravitational force, which makes fish virtually weightless.)

"Fish don't have to support their body weight," Mouritsen says, "so their muscle fibers are shorter and less tough than those in land animals." The same goes for the connective tissue holding the muscle fibers together: It's delicate and weak.

The result? Fish has a silky, smooth texture when it's raw, and a flaky, light texture when it's cooked.

Land animals must fight the constant pull of gravity and develop much more tough, fibrous muscle that needs to be cooked to break down that connective tissue.

Even among fish, there is a wide diversity in color.

"Fish that are constantly on the move — say, a tuna — have muscles that are always working and burning carbohydrates aerobically," Mouritsen says.

The muscles need oxygen to make energy. And the molecule that carries oxygen to muscle contains iron. Guess what color iron is in the fish? Red.

In contrast, fish that mostly hang out in one place or on the bottom of the ocean — say, for instance, flounder — have muscles that don't rely on oxygen to create energy. No oxygen means no iron to carry it, which means the muscles tend to be white. (Of course, most fish have a mixture of these two type of muscles and thus can look red, white or pink.)

Here is a link to the full article:  Sushi's Secret: Why We Get Hooked On Raw Fish : The Salt : NPR

Twinkle, twinkle--no more

Original post:  Jun 25, 2013

The Hubble Space Telescope was remarkable because it was the first time humans could see the universe without the obstruction of Earth's atmosphere. The protective blanket shields us from cosmic radiation. It also obscures light and causes the familiar twinkle we associate with stars. While that effect has made life as we know it possible, it also makes it difficult to see stars and other celestial objects clearly.

Recent developments have changed that forever. A new field called "adaptive optics" has emerged. Here is a brief explanation from the article:

Adaptive optics systems use computers to analyze the light coming from a star, and then compensate for changes wrought by the atmosphere, using mirrors that can change their shapes up to 1,000 times per second. The result: To anyone on Earth peering through the telescope, the star looks like the single point of light it really is.

The reason the atmosphere blurs light is that there are tiny changes in temperature as you go from the Earth's surface up into space. The degree to which air bends light depends on the air's temperature.

With adaptive optics systems, telescopes on Earth can see nearly as clearly as those in space. What's more, you can than can be sent into orbit. The bigger the telescope, the smaller and fainter the objects it can see.

The results are stunning. The images below represent the difference adaptive optics make to a shot of the Galactic Center of the Milky Way.

The use of adaptive optics has allowed for all kinds of new discoveries in astronomy that were unthinkable just a few years ago. In a similar way, what are the new possibilities that we could open up if we could look at our problems in new ways and come up with innovative solutions?

Here is the link to the full article:  http://www.npr.org/2013/06/24/190986008/for-sharpest-views-scope-the-sky-with-quick-change-mirrors