ux strategy, architecture & design

Is the digital public library just around the corner? The ability to “lend” an ebook has so far been missing from ebook readers, but the Nook from Barnes & Noble may finally pave the way for this concept to become a reality.

Last year I wrote a blog post (”What I want from an ebook reader“) in which I described the features I’d like to see included in an ebook reader before I’d consider buying one. At the time I wrote that post the Kindle was going gangbusters and rumours had started circulating about a possible device from Apple.

There were a number of features identified in that post, but one of the key ones for me was the ability to lend an ebook to someone else. You see, I own quite a few books – maybe 500 or so. And one of the real pleasures I derive from owning them comes from laoning a book to a friend, colleague or family member.

There are several reasons for this enjoyment. For one, most of the time a book – once purchased and read – will sit idle on the shelf; lending it to someone costs nothing and gives so much.There is also the enjoyment that comes from a shared experience – talking about the storline, the characters, the writing. And then there’s the pleasure of introducing someone else to new ideas that I myself find interesting.

For all of these reasons I found the lack of a lend function in the current crop of ebook readers, and the associated digital rights management and distribution models very disappointing.

The Nook

It was therefore with a great deal of surprise and delight that I read of the inclusion of a lend facility in the newly-released Nook from Barnes & Noble. I haven’t seen on of these devices yet – and since they’re not available for sale outside the US I’m not likely to see one any time soon. So this isn’t a review of the Nook itself; but I would like to talk about its Lend function, and what that might mean for the take up and use of ebooks.

The Nook allows you to “lend” your copy of an ebook to another Nook owner for 14 days. It’s not clear what happens at the end of those 14 days, but it seems that the book is no longer available to the person to whom the book was loaned.

Now, I love the fact that Barnes & Noble have introduced this feature into the Nook. By doing so they’ve opened up whole new avenues of use for ebooks and ebook readers, and moved much closer to reflecting the way printed books are used.

The model they’ve chosen to implement mirrors the operating model of all public libraries. Books are ‘checked out’ for a fixed period and then ‘returned’. This is a nice, neat model which is easy to implement. And the feature seems well suited to a formal library, and provides opportunity for the creation of digital public libraries.

You can easily see a scenario in which the library owns several copies of the book, and due to the lower costs of an ebook versus its printed counterpart, owning multiple copies of a title becomes more economic (not to mention the reduction in the physical space required). The library would loan its copies to readers and, after 14 days, the book would be automatically returned. This alone would save libraries a great deal of effort and money in retrieving and replacing overdue books.

You can see the opportunity for additional sales arising as a result. The borrowed copy – whether from a friend or a library – may be returned to the owner, but the borrower may be given the option to purchase a copy of their own directly from the ‘ghost’ left behind. If Barnes & Noble wanted to get smart about it, they might offer a commission to the owner of the original copy for their help in generating the sale, thus encouraging more people to lend books; and providing a potential source of revenue to the libraries.

Short-comings

When I lend a book to a friend I don’t tell them they have to return it in a fixed timeframe. And I certainly don’t take it off them before they’re done with it. I much prefer for them to take their time enjoying the book and return it to me when they’ve had a chance to read it. Sometimes that may take a week; or it might take a year. The choice seems more driven by technical considerations than user experience ones.

I’d be happy with the idea of my copy of the book being locked and unavailable while it was on loan. If they were smart they would let me buy a 2nd copy and give it away; or let the person who borrowed my copy buy their own copy and return the original to me (as described in the previous section). In this way Barnes & Noble could have facilitated a more effective viral channel for their book sales. More importantly, they could have provided an experience that was much more closely aligned with the way printed books are owned and shared.

A more flexible lending feature woul have also provided a decent platform for the widespread use of ebook readers in schools to replace the collection of heavy textbooks carried by millions of students every day. ebooks could be provided to students on loan and then either returned to the college or purchased at the end of term.

The current implementation makes this impossible, or administratively impractical – another missed opportunity.

Summary

The lend feature in the Nook is a good addition to the standard repertoire of an ebook reader. The lack of this feature to date has, to my mind, reflected a failure – accidental or deliberate – on the part of manufacturers to match the experience of a traditional book in a way that detracts from the experience.

The design of this feature, as it appears today, still falls well short if the potential offered by the digital format to match, or even enhance, the real world experience of sharing a book with somebody else, but Barnes & Noble have taken a significant step forward in the design of the digital book reading experience, and may have paved the way for a public digital library.

The major projects I’ve been working on over the past year have highlighted the difficulties organizations have coordinating the efforts of multiple business units in delivering a service to the same customer audience. And it has struck me that large organizations are a little like a group of musicians – capable, talented, experienced, and with a desire to play well. And yet, when it comes down to it, the result is a cacophony.

To the customer this noise makes itself known in the form of inconsistent or conflicting information coming from different sources; two different units offering what is ostensibly the same service – but with different rules; poor transitions as you’re passed from one unit to the next – “for security purposes, may I have your date of birth?” (Again?!); or gaps in the service where fairly obvious needs are going unmet. Worse, service requests that “fall through the cracks” because of unclear lines of responsibility.

Internally, these issues look like communication failures; siloing; internal politics; empire building; demarcation; resource issues; or poor understanding of the customers’ needs.

A common response to these issues is to ‘improve communication’. Various tactics come into play: cross-functional teams; inter-project briefings; new lines of management and reporting; perhaps a complete corporate restructure. To our musicians, we make them aware of one another, and give them the environment and channels in which they can communicate. Perhaps, like jazz musicians improvising, we hope that something wonderful and coherent will coalesce from the noise. But like musicians tuning up before a performance, they begin by warming up – playing anything they feel like to get the air flowing, or the strings loosened, and although small groups of two or three might come together and play something harmonic, out in the audience the effect is still unstructured and chaotic.

Enter the Conductor

Having seen a number of organizations attempt to address this issue, I’ve seen a recognition dawn that the problem is one of coordination. Our ‘players’ are out of time; out of sync; and out of tune. So organizations hire in a ‘conductor’ – someone whose sole responsibility is to coordinate the efforts of different business units when delivering a service to a particular audience. This role is a proto-service management function, but often the focus is on communication instead of an holistic view.

Our conductor expends a great deal of effort getting different units to talk with one another, and plan joint activities. Projects collaborate, but two different collaborations are still working at cross-purposes. Communication involves more and more groups, but still something’s missing.

The Score

If you’ve caught on to the whole music metaphor, what’s missing is the score. You know – the music. Without music the musicians and conductor are essentially lost. Yes, with communication and time you’ll get snatches of music – maybe even beautiful music – but it won’t be the sustained sweeping grandeur of a symphony; nor the free-flowing groove of a jazz quartet.

And now that I’ve mentioned jazz you’re probably thinking “Ha! Jazz musicians don’t use music!” and you’d be wrong. They do; and they practice and practice and practice. Chord progressions, improvizations, chorus and verse. They practice transitions, solos, changes in tempo and key. And when they’ve got it so down that they can feel it in their bones, well yes: then they play it without the music.

But let me ask you this: is your organization practicing as hard as that jazz quartet at playing together, seamlessly, melodiously? Or are you still at the stage where having a score would help ensure everyone knows their part. And there’s nothing wrong with that – most symphony orchestras have sheet music in front of them.

So, what’s the score? What’s the design equivalent of the sheet music that helps your organization play in sync, in tune and in harmony? It’s your experience strategy, of course.

As some of you will already know, my wife & I are expecting twins later this year. I know nothing of parenting; or of babies. I have three nieces and two nephews, but I’ve never changed a nappy. To say that I’m in for a shock would be an understatement (and I can see the parents out there laughing at me), but at least I recognize the fact

To help avoid some of the more avoidable mistakes I thought I’d ask the question of the parents in my Twitter stream: what’s the one parenting lesson you’ve learned, but wish you could have done so without making the mistake first?

Here are the responses I received, published here for my own reference; for our discussion; and for everyone’s benefit.

Renai Lemay: “I’m not a parent, but my tip is, remember they already have a personality and purpose when they are born” – which I take to mean that they’re already their own person, and not some (sometimes inconvenient) extension of you. So you should try and treat them as such.

Donna Spencer: “saying ’stop fucking around’. Just once. Repeated in the supermarket queue” – I’ve observed this in my eldest nephew, although not exactly this. His ability to remember and repeat things he’s heard is quite remarkable, and sometime embarassing! Peter Boersma seconded this thought: “Don’t assume they’ll forget because they’re so young. Kids remember the things you want them to forget (and vice versa).”

Ricky Onsmann: “Bluffing.” – I believe Ricky is talking about following through with discipline, and only giving warnings that you will follow through on. The kids get the message otherwise that you don’t really mean what you say, and (a separate piece of advice) that can be a hard belief to change. Martin Polley put this as: “Kids need boundaries. Within the boundaries, let em do what they want. But the boundaries must stay rock solid.”

Todd Zaki Warfel: “If you’re breast feeding, don’t supplement with formula. Screws up their digestive system and the kid will get nipple confusion. It took 3 days to get 5-6 supplemental feedings out of our kid’s system. Either breast feed or use formula, but don’t mix.” – this is interesting in that I’ve heard other parents say that they’ve found formula to be a lifesaver at times, but this could mean simply that, under the circumstances, it was the better option.

Janna DeVylder: “You are the best ‘toy’ your child could have. Put the work down and play. All the other ‘important’ stuff really can wait.” – I know Janna practices this advice daily, switching off completely for a few hours to play with her two sons – Gus & Eli.

Dave Malouf: “Breathe & have fun! This is the best adventure. Don’t sweat the logistics & don’t worry about what other parents do.” – A lot of people have said that being a parent is a wonderful experience, often while lamenting the latest “pooptastrophe”. I can’t argue, and I hope they’re right!

Leisa Reichelt: “One thing I’d do differently is to not get the first immunisation shot so young, it’s not necessary and we were v traumatised.” – have others had the same experience? We intend to immunise our kids, but thought the timing was fairly set. (In response to my follow-up question) “8 weeks. *way* too early to break that bond of trust by holding them whilst they get jabbed. (for me if not for him!)”

Lori Cavallucci: “Make sure to strap baby in carrier before lifting it up. (I’m very serious about this).” – seems like a good idea. (I hope no-one got hurt in learning this lesson.)

Angela Zaki Warfel: “First 2 weeks are tough.. have food prepared for you… also you’ll need to be a slave to your wife and babies.” – I’d like to write this off as female overstatement, but I’m fairly certain Angela is being earnest I can do ’slave’. (Not really, but I’ll try) Donna also seconded this advice: “That’s hugely important advice. Lots of easy to reheat stuff in freezer. no time to cook.”

Dan Brown: “Be self-reflective. Your children tune into who you are not what you do. Help them be better people by being a better person yourself” – this got a +1 from Leisa as well, and I’m a big fan of self-reflection.

Martin Polley: “TV is bad. If I had it to do over, I’d've gotten rid of the damn TV on day 1.” – I’m unlikely to take this advice, but it’s good to be aware of it. Dave Malouf backed this up: “100% agree w/ the TV thing. It is amazing how kids are sucked right into it. Scary!”

Iain Lowe: “Take every moment you can with them when they’re little, because it doesn’t last long” – self-explanatory, really. I hope this is something I just naturally want to do, but otherwise I’ll have to work at doing it – for my sake as well as theirs.

Russ Unger: “Don’t force a way on your kids; always give them choices so they can get in the habit of seeing options, not single paths.” – this advice feels like it would really help kids develop problem-solving skills as well as self-reliance and independence. Looks like a tight balance between options and boundaries, though.

Lori Cavallucci: “Sleep when the babies sleep.” – I’m going to have so much trouble with this, I just know it. I’m already planning how long there will be between feeds/sleep cycles and whether I can get solid pieces of work done.

Martin Polley: “Related — kids need your attention. If all they can get is bad attention, they’ll do what they have to to get that.” – This is (one of the reasons) why Janna switches off her phone & laptop during daily playtime with Gus & Eli: no distractions; she can just focus on, and enjoy the time she gets to spend with them. And they get her full attention: they don’t have to fight for attention.

A big thanks to these folks for responding and sharing their wisdom. I know I’m going to need it in the coming months (and years!). If you’ve got a parenting tip: that one parenting lesson you wish you hadn’t had to learn the hard way – please, add it to the comments below.

Update

Since initially asking the question I’ve received a few more responses through Twitter.

Andrew Mitchell: “re: immunisation – get it done, and do it on time – it’s not worth the risk (eg whooping cough kills 1 in 200)” – which offers a counter perspective to Leisa’s earlier advice.

Gregg Tomlinson: “Every kid has a meltdown tantrum in public, don’t be embarrassed by it. Every parent has been there.” – that’s gonna be hard to remember at the time, but it’ll hopefully be a comfort at some point. Also from Gregg: “Kids LOVE to feel responsible. Even if you have to eat with 3 spoons, let them set the table & praise them up & down for doing it.”

Bruce Nussbaum poses the conjecture that engineers, scientists and mathematicians are not good at innovation. Good at invention: yes; innovation: not so much. From Bruce’s article:

Innovation is about social applications of inventions, not about the inventions themselves. Engineers, scientists and mathematicians don’t get this. It’s not part of their culture. We see time and again, engineeering-driven corporate cultures failing because they don’t address the social needs of their customers and they don’t address the social ramifications of invention.

I recently put forward the opinion that a scientific mindset is good at solving particular types of problems. Those solutions can even be quite creative and, yes, innovative. Those are the types of problems engineers, scientists and mathematicians apply themselves to day after day.

But they’re less well suited to solving the sorts of problems we face when the ground falls out from under our feet. When the market crumbles and the economy sheds jobs. When a new technology or material opens up completely new opportunities for the way we do things as well as what we do. The discontinuous, big, disruptive changes that we’re facing at the moment. In fact, the sort of disruption we seem to face every 5-10 years.

In between those times, that scientific mindset and the linear, incrementalist approach to solving problems is perfectly suited to the task at-hand; but that’s not where we’re at right now. But we’ll be back in that zone in a year or two, and we’ll be needing the sort of mindset that tends to reside in our sciencey folks.

In the meantime, the problems we face need a different approach, and on that point I agree with Bruce.