My 20 slides from Bettakultcha at Temple Works, Holbeck…
… on which more later, but meanwhile you can also read the original blogpost: How to get ahead in business the Boulton and Watt way.
My 20 slides from Bettakultcha at Temple Works, Holbeck…
… on which more later, but meanwhile you can also read the original blogpost: How to get ahead in business the Boulton and Watt way.
Dirty tricks among high-tech businesses? I recently came across the original Machiavellian play book for start-ups, and it’s more than 200 years old.
Two of my 1794 heroes were the steam pioneer James Watt and Holbeck engineer Matthew Murray. Both made engines for the textile mills of northern England – in effect the processing power to transform raw wool, flax and cotton into finished cloth. Later, their inventions went mobile to haul the first railway trains.
But the villain of this piece is Watt’s son, also called James, who in 1794 joined his father’s partnership with Matthew Boulton. Within a few years the upstart Leeds foundry of Fenton, Murray and Wood proved a serious competitor to Boulton & Watt’s more famous Soho works in Birmingham.
The stories of Watt’s feud with Murray are the stuff of Leeds legend, but to understand just how blatant it was you have to revisit the original sources, the letters and newspaper advertisements of the protagonists themselves.
Here, in his own words and those of his contemporaries, we can piece together the business wisdom of James Watt Junior.
Chris Heathcote’s abstract pointillist Powerpoint toolkit once again reinforces the received wisdom that Microsoft’s near-ubiquitous presentation software presages the end of civilisation.
Unlike the army of total Powerpoint rejecters, Chris’ solution is to fight pixel with pixel, subject to three strictures:
POINT ONE: Presentations are about IDEAS, not TEXT.
POINT TWO: READING from SLIDES is a heinous crime.
POINT THREE: PEOPLE cannot COPE without some kind of visual STIMULATION.
I love the abstract toolkit and hope one day to try this parlour-game in a work context (but not, I promise, at the forthcoming Mobile Internet Portal Strategies conference for which I’m preparing this week.)
However, it set me wondering: if Powerpoint sucks so badly, how come so many people use it? And how come they use it the way they do – densely textual, reading from slides, as a substitute for eye-contact between presenter and audience? It’s not like Steve Ballmer has issued a decree forcing people to do it this way – in fact it’s the reverse: our sucky cut-and-paste Powerpoint culture is the ultimate product of co-creation.
So rather (or at least as well as) decrying rubbish slideware, how about we spend some time trying to understand the deep needs that drive people to it in the first place, and how they might be met better some other way. I don’t have all the answers, but here at least are a few of the forces at work:
In new product development, we often look for “workarounds” – the sub-optimal things that people do as a way of achieving their goals, then we think about how we might help them achieve these goals more elegantly, with less effort. Where are the innovations that meet the subtle communications needs of the Powerpoint-challenged? They must be out there somewhere, but they probably don’t look like presentation software at all.