# data[].attributes.headline
9 Ways Great Companies Organize Their Teams For Success

# data[].attributes.subject
9 Ways Great Companies Organize Their Teams For Success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Businesses exist for one simple reason: to solve a big problem. At the core of every great product or service is an unfulfilled need that reaches a big enough market. But it's not enough to have a great idea that solves a big problem; behind each successful company stands a flexible team that can efficiently turn a vision into a growing business. The 9 tips below will help you organize your team for success.

Management Type: Market Trumps Functional Trumps Matrix.
All organizational structures are evil; but when you have to, align your organization around markets. Aligning employees around markets with a flattened organizational structure increases efficiency, removes gridlock, eliminates conflicting priorities and speeds up the decision-making process in an industry where you're constantly racing against the clock. (A great example of matrix-style management can be seen when Peter Gibbons messes up his TPS reports in Office Space.)

Empower People to Make Decisions.
Too often, decisions move up the management chain to people who have the least amount of knowledge to make the best decision. Big decisions shouldn't always be made by management. If you have a smart team, you should empower each person to make decisions that apply to their own groups and roles. In addition to speeding up decisions and helping shape current team members into future managers, this will also instill a sense of ownership throughout your entire team.

Strategic Planning Should Focus on Solutions.
After co-founding several companies, I realized that "strategic planning"-when the management team sits down to figure out where the company should be going-is often a major waste of time and takes the focus away from where your energy should be spent-building a great product. You should be strategically thinking about what problems to solve, not about revenue projections, profits or other forecasts. If you build a great product that solves a big problem, the numbers will follow.

Build Consensus and A Sense of Ownership Through BPT.
The quickest and most efficient way to solve a problem and come up with the best solution is through what I call the Brainstorm Prioritization Technique (BPT). If you have a smart team, they'll be able to come up with the right answers. BPT will draw out all possible answers, weed out any bad or unfeasible options, build consensus within your team and save time. So how does BPT work? Just follow these five steps:

1. Figure out which team-members should be involved in the brainstorming process based on the problem you're trying to solve. Try to limit the group to 10; groups that are too big can be difficult to manage.

2. After you've assembled the right group of people, clearly state the specific problem you're trying to solve and allow everyone to shout out possible solutions without taking the time to analyze each option. Write down all the ideas for everyone to see.

3. When you have come up with a good number of possible solutions-anywhere from twenty to 100 ideas-divide the number of possible solutions by three. That will be the number of votes each team-member has.

4. Once everyone has had a chance to analyze the options, the BPT leader should read each idea out loud, take a vote and write the number of votes next to the corresponding ideas. Typically, only a few ideas will receive the most overwhelming number of votes. If more than three or four options garner a lot of votes, eliminate the low scoring options and repeat the BPT.

5. When you have three to four good solutions, research and test each option to figure out which one is most feasible and effective.

Once you've completed the BPT, you'll have achieved the Nirvana of management: knowing which top one or two things to focus on, and consensus around those ideas.

Embrace Self Interest.
In the end, people will always do what's in their self-interest; rather than fight it, help your employees align their own self-interest with organizational-interests. Allow your team-members to move into new groups and to align themselves with their own self-interests within the company, and reward managers for moving great people out of their groups when they see a better fit.

Forget About Skills When Hiring.
You can always teach skills, but you can't teach smart. Don't hire someone based on their current skills; hire people who have raw intelligence and are competitive athletes who will learn quickly on the job. Some of the smartest people I've hired have come from schools that don't show up at the top of any college-ratings list. At the end of the day, the most interesting problems are the ones that nobody's ever faced before-especially in a startup-so you need to hire people who can think outside the box and come up with unique solutions to complex problems.

Seniority Is Evil.
Hires, fires and promotions should never be determined by seniority; instead, these decisions should only be based on merit. A lot of times you'll see people who have a sense of entitlement just because they've worked somewhere the longest, even though newer members of a team might be the ones coming up with the best ideas or working the hardest. I always tell my team at FindTheBest that I have to earn my job as CEO everyday; if they show that they're better than me as CEO, then they can have my job.

Don't Let Customers Dictate the Solution.
When you organize around your market, hence your customer, you'll be in a better position to see their pain points. Let your customers dictate the problem, but never the solution. Customers sometimes see problems that you don't because you're oftentimes too ingrained in the product. When it comes to the solution, however, there's nobody better (or at least there shouldn't be anyone better) than your own team to come up with the best answer.

The Most Obvious Solution is Often Overlooked.
As I mention in my book, The Map of Innovation: Creating Something Out of Nothing, it's the obvious answers that are frequently overlooked. Too often, people aren't satisfied with obvious solutions, or think that simple solutions can't be good ones, when in fact they can be the least costly and most effective.
-Kevin O'Connor, cofounder of DoubleClick, is the founder and CEO of FindTheBest, an unbiased data-driven comparison engine.

[ Image: Flickr user Jerich Abon]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9 Ways Great Companies Organize Their Teams For Success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Businesses exist for one simple reason: to solve a big problem. At the core of every great product or service is an unfulfilled need that reaches a big enough market. But it's not enough to have a great idea that solves a big problem; behind each successful company stands a flexible team that can efficiently turn a vision into a growing business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For 10 years now, I've been focused on building and nurturing effective design teams. And while everyone has their own definition of success for a design team, in my experience, some elements must be in place for the team to truly be effective.

With that in mind, here's how I set up design teams, the tools we use, and the essential processes that ensure success.

Team structure

Structure can make or break a team, and the one I've seen work time and again is the "agency" model. (That may not be the ideal name, but how it works is more important than what it's called.)

The agency model is pyramidal, with a few directors at the top, a larger group of senior designers leading teams in the middle, and junior designers forming the foundation.

Here's how I see each role, its responsibilities, and its criteria for success.

Design directors

An effective director asks, "Why?" Not to put designers on the defensive, but to encourage them to clearly and effectively articulate their ideas and rationale. It's a powerful question, because it forces designers to view their solutions from different perspectives and truly understand the user stories that underpin a successful design. Plus, it helps grow more senior designers.

The best directors never take credit for the final design. Instead, they're facilitators. They succeed when they push designers to craft more meaningful stories-both directly, through individual feedback, and indirectly, through building the right team culture.

Senior designers

Designers become senior when they understand why their designs work. They've developed a deep understanding of how to design experiences that matter-and how to help other designers do it too.

Senior designers should also be skilled in explaining and defending their work. Their positions are founded in facts, not opinions. They fight for the right solution, not the trending one.

Junior designers

To repeat, the distinction between junior and senior is not a question of talent. It's all about the ability to sell a design. Once a designer can form a defensible point of view, present with conviction, and not fold under pressure, they're well on their way to becoming senior.

Credit: Photo by Juhan Sonin on Flickr

Design reviews

Effective design reviews are critical to any team's success, but they can be harder than you might think. The right review process builds the team culture and can have some very real results, such as:

Improved productivity: Timelines are priceless. Without them, even the best and most productive designers can let work slide. Knowing you need to show up with a solution keeps you on the ball.

More solidarity: Getting your team together to talk is critical. When you see what your teammates are working on-and get to weigh in on it-it builds a sense of community, of being part of something bigger than you.

Stronger communication skills: Remember all that stuff I said about learning to sell your solutions being a big part of growing as a designer? Presenting, getting feedback, and giving feedback can all help grow your communication skills-and your design skills.

Better work: Once your team gets into the cadence of regularly scheduled reviews, you'll see the quality of work improve. Presenting your work forces you to step back from the problem and use a different part of your brain. Plus, it'll be easier to spot deviations from existing patterns-not to mention superior solutions you can use in your own work.

Now, knowing the impact and necessity of design reviews, there are a few practical things to keep in mind.

Do not skip the review: When the production schedule's full and everyone's cranking, it's tempting to blow by a scheduled design review. Don't do it! Sometimes, you'll have no choice, but don't make a habit of canceling. Your team needs to feel the gentle push of a looming deadline. Contrary to popular belief, deadlines are a designer's best friend.

Everyone gets a turn: Every team is blessed with a chatty designer. They always have something to say about every design and take up most of the review time. Moderate this. The team needs to hear from everyone, and the shy designers need a turn to practice presenting, questioning, and defending work.

Cover all the things: Design reviews have a bad habit of running to overtime. When starting the review, set the presentation order and give each person a set amount of time. When their time is up, move on. Here's my rule of thumb: if it takes more than 15-20 minutes to review a design, it either isn't working or it's big enough to warrant its own meeting.

Credit: Photo by Juhan Sonin on Flickr

Tools of the trade

Team communication

You may be picking up on a theme here. Communication is key. Designers are passionate about what they do, so they tend to talk about it. A lot. They share work in progress, links to amazing things, and ... a lot of hilarious animated GIFs.

Here's some things to keep in mind when setting up how your team will communicate.

Build in focus: If you create great team culture, there may be "too much" communication happening. So create ways to help people focus. This can range from "library time"-periods of required silence-to "caves"-spaces where people can be alone and concentrate.

Talk, don't walk: Sometimes, there's no replacement for face time. But a walk down the hall can be a real time sink. A team chat application, like Slack, can help people distinguish between what can be typed and what just can't.

Be open to feedback: People tend to bend the rules to their liking. So instead of being prescriptive, be open to feedback and adjustment. Work to build in a few ways to keep the team communicating, while also keeping them focused and productive.

Sharing assets and designs

This one is simple but critical. Set up a place for the easy sharing of assets, pattern libraries, corporate styles, and project files. There are multiple options, but Dropbox for Teams is still my go-to.

Once you've set this up, you'll need some information architecture. Find your most detail-focused, task-oriented designer-or your content strategist-and ask them to develop a filing system. It may seem annoying or a waste of time, but with proper organization, you'll save hours. You have no idea how quickly an unorganized Dropbox can sprawl out of control. Well, maybe you do.

Here's an example of my Dropbox setup for teams:

Putting it all into practice

At the end of the day, the most important thing is that you establish some level of process and guidelines for your team. Even if you've got a small team-eventually, you won't be so small.

In the absence of structure, people introduce their own rules. The best teams function freely within the rails of a carefully considered processes.

If you have anything to add, or questions, I'd love to hear from you. This is a fascinating topic for me that I love talking with designers about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to design your design team - InVision Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For 10 years now, I've been focused on building and nurturing effective design teams. And while everyone has their own definition of success for a design team, in my experience, some elements must be in place for the team to truly be effective.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Hire a Designer & Build a Design Team

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Hire a Designer & Build a Design Team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Joshua Sortino - VP of Design, Photographer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's illustration design, brand design, visual design, interaction design, UX design, and even design engineers. "Product designers" have multiple skills and many companies assume a product designer will cover everything. However, every designer has their strengths. Some will be better at visual design while others might excel at designing flows and funnels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kevin Warwick - the cost of becoming a cyborg - Truthloader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sam went along to meet Professor Kevin Warwick, a world leader in cyborgs, to ask him some questions from our viewers about the world of cybernetics. Here's one of the highlights of the full livestream where Kevin answered just how much it could cost to become a cyborg.

# data[].attributes.body
Inspiration gällande navigering.

# data[].attributes.body
Grovt filtrerad prototyp över navigeringsvyn med sagda linser. Lägger en overlay på den verkliga världen istället för att enbart visa en transperant GPS i mitten av din vy.

# data[].attributes.body
Tillåten navigering till männniskor är redan accepterad av massorna.

# data[].attributes.body
Alla nya teknolgoier går att utnyttjas men det går inte att stå emot vår utveckling.

BCI låter oss kontrollera digitala ting med våra tankar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The present and future of brain-computer interfaces: Avi Goldberg at TEDxAsheville

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The present and future of brain-computer interfaces: Avi Goldberg at TEDxAsheville

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Samsung has virtual reality covered with the Gear VR, but the Korean giant might have also plans to enter the world of augmented reality. However, based on a patent, it won't be with a headset or even a pair of glasses. It could very well be a smart contact lens.

The patent, titled "Smart contact lens for augmented reality and methods of manufacturing and operating," was filed in South Korea in 2014 and was published recently. It's a contact lens that consists of a small display, camera, RF antenna, and sensors to detect eye movement. The lens would connect to a smartphone, presumably a Galaxy phone, and the user would control certain inputs by blinking.
Related Offer: Virtual reality just got real. See the Samsung Gear VR here
Augmented reality differs from virtual reality in that the user can see the displayed image and the real world at the same time. With virtual reality, the user is totally immersed into another world because all that is visible is the display in the headset.

While a headset is okay for virtual reality, Samsung thinks a smart lens is the way to go for augmented reality. The patent states the need for a smart contact lens because the image quality that is projected suffers when using glasses. In fact, the patent specifically mentions "Google Glass" by name when referring to current heads-up displays. Incidentally, Google is rumored to be developing its own smart contact lens as well.

Samsung's patent is mostly about the design of the lens, not what it can do. However, one example explained how blinking your eye would instruct the camera in the lens to take pictures. The patent never mentions receiving notifications from your phone, but we presume you would be able to.

As to what Samsung might call this smart lens, a Gear Blink trademark from 2014 might be our best clue. This trademark was filed in both South Korea and the U.S., and it was rumored to be associated with a Google Glass-type of product. However, a smart contact lens that detects eye blinking seems to make the most sense.

We do need to point out that just because a device is patented, it doesn't mean that it will definitely come to market. It takes a lot of research and development to bring a product to market, and a company's focus can turn on a dime. With that said, we won't be surprised if Samsung does offer something like this in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Samsung's next wearable could be a smart contact lens called Gear Blink

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Samsung has virtual reality covered with the Gear VR, but the Korean giant might have also plans to enter the world of augmented reality. However, based on a patent, it won't be with a headset or even a pair of glasses. It could very well be a smart contact lens.

# data[].attributes.body
Samsung arbetar med att ta fram linser som skulle kunna stödja AR.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Samsung has virtual reality covered with the Gear VR, but the Korean giant might have also plans to enter the world of augmented reality. However, based on a patent, it won't be with a headset or even a pair of glasses. It could very well be a smart contact lens.

The patent, titled "Smart contact lens for augmented reality and methods of manufacturing and operating," was filed in South Korea in 2014 and was published recently. It's a contact lens that consists of a small display, camera, RF antenna, and sensors to detect eye movement. The lens would connect to a smartphone, presumably a Galaxy phone, and the user would control certain inputs by blinking.
Related Offer: Virtual reality just got real. See the Samsung Gear VR here
Augmented reality differs from virtual reality in that the user can see the displayed image and the real world at the same time. With virtual reality, the user is totally immersed into another world because all that is visible is the display in the headset.

While a headset is okay for virtual reality, Samsung thinks a smart lens is the way to go for augmented reality. The patent states the need for a smart contact lens because the image quality that is projected suffers when using glasses. In fact, the patent specifically mentions "Google Glass" by name when referring to current heads-up displays. Incidentally, Google is rumored to be developing its own smart contact lens as well.

Samsung's patent is mostly about the design of the lens, not what it can do. However, one example explained how blinking your eye would instruct the camera in the lens to take pictures. The patent never mentions receiving notifications from your phone, but we presume you would be able to.

As to what Samsung might call this smart lens, a Gear Blink trademark from 2014 might be our best clue. This trademark was filed in both South Korea and the U.S., and it was rumored to be associated with a Google Glass-type of product. However, a smart contact lens that detects eye blinking seems to make the most sense.

We do need to point out that just because a device is patented, it doesn't mean that it will definitely come to market. It takes a lot of research and development to bring a product to market, and a company's focus can turn on a dime. With that said, we won't be surprised if Samsung does offer something like this in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Samsung's next wearable could be a smart contact lens called Gear Blink

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Samsung has virtual reality covered with the Gear VR, but the Korean giant might have also plans to enter the world of augmented reality. However, based on a patent, it won't be with a headset or even a pair of glasses. It could very well be a smart contact lens.

# data[].attributes.body
Tidigare metodik i samband med analys av tidigare koncept relaterat till DP1 relaterade mer till nöjesresande. Dessa observationer handlade mer om praktiskt resande där transportering skulle uppfylla ett syfte som var närmare relaterat till arbete än fritid. I detta fall skulle vi köra till en ny vän som vi inte visste vart han bodde mer än själva adressen. Trotts att detta boende befann sig i samma stad som vi alla bott i hela våra liv så upplevdes problematik i samband med färden dit. Vi ville alltså inte uppleva omgivningen under resans gång, vi ville bara ta oss från punkt A till punkt B men vår bristande kunskap om detta område (trotts vår bekantskap med dess geografi). I detta fall hade det tidigare konceptet varit mycket passande och underlättand. Problematiken är att det blir en konflikt mellan nöjesresande och praktiskt resande. Det som skulle behövas är att användaren kan filtrera dessa kunskaper efter sitt eget behag.

# data[].attributes.body
För att få en förståelse för hur eventuella brukare skulle förhålla sig till olika aspekter som detta koncept bygger på så användes laddering (Martin and Hanington, 2012; 110f). Detta för att komma på ett så kvalitativt djup som möjligt. Annan designmetodik som tidigare beskrivits uppmärksammade ett par relaterade frågor som på ett väldigt bra sätt summerade hur hela konceptet har stigit fram och gjort sig uppmärksammade och det är just dessa aspekter och tillhörande uppenbarelser som kommer tas upp i detta fall tillsammans med reflektioner kring nyttjandet av själva metoden i sig. De som var de intervjuade i samband med denna metod var alla ungdomar då det är dessa individer som är närmast anspråkar framtiden och det var även dessa individer som var mest medvetna och öppensinniga kring konceptet av digitala implantat (PelegrínBorondo, Reinares-Lara and Olarte-Pascual, 2017).

Utöver de grundläggande aspekter som jag ville undersöka i fröhållande till denna metodik så gjordes väldigt få förberedelser. Detta för att frågor inte direkt kunde förberedas eftersom att varje fråga förutom den första baseras på den intervjuades senaste svar. Detta kan därför inte vara en av de faktorer för problematiken som nu kommer beskrivas. Problemet som uppstod var det att trotts det faktum att denna metod är menad ett gå ner på djupet av ett ämne, som att klättra ner för en stege (därav namnet) så kändes det som att mina frågeställningar ledde till mer utbreddande svar kontra de önskade djupgående. Jag har utifrån detta felsteg kommit fram till två olika hypoteser som skulle kunna besvara denna problematik. Den första och mest troliga hypotesen bygger på min egen bristande erfarenhet i förhållande till denna typ av metodik. Kanske är detta en metod som drastiskt stiger i effektivitet efterhand som man vänjer sig att på plats precisera sina frågor på ett sådant sätt att de leder till mer djupgående svar. Den andra hypotesen är att denna metod användes för explorativt trotts dess etablerade möjligheter inom just detta imråde (Martin and Hanington, 2012; 110). Anledningen för att jag säger detta är att när något är explorativt som förknippar jag personligen det med något som är divergent, något som just breddar och utökar sin rymd. Denna metod känns mer konvergent då den utifrån en del (av den intervjuades perspektiv) redan uppfattad information försöka hitta källan av en åsikt eller annat. Den exakta anledningen är inte menad att utforskas mer i detta fall med tanke på de begränsade resuserna. Trotts detta kommer dessa hypoteser och upplevelser noteras och bäras med i fortsatta arbeten. Det är även värt att notera att trotts det faktum att denna metod inte formades perfekt efter den mall som är mallen laddering så anser jag ändå att värdefulla uppenbarelser som är starkt kopplade till arbete med tidigare nämnd metodik har gjorts.

Den första frågeställningen som togs upp var relaterad till de avslutande tankarna av bodystormen kombinerad med wizard of oz. Vad krävs det för att nya platser ska sluta vara intressanta och varför är det vi besöker nya platser? Det verkar som att en stor del av att resa utanför det man känner till är att ta med sig det man vill och lämna allt annat förutfattat bakom sig, om än bara för stunden. Några korta citat som kom upp i förhållande till just detta ämne var "Annan miljö", "Förändring och upplevelser", "Inga plikter", "Inga påminnelser" etc. Det verkade som att individen och de eller det som bars med placerades i ett vakum i förhållande till det vetande som redan var etablerat. På detta vis kunde man fördjupa sig i det eller de man valde att bära med sig och hitta ytterligare saker att uppskatta då världen omkring inte var full av stimuli. Beroende på hur de utökade sinnena givna av det tidigare beskrivna konceptet skulle upplevas (vilket ännu inte går att svara på) så skulle dessa nya platser alltid kunna ligga i individens undermedvetna och då samtidigt vara kopplade till redan etablerade stimuli och därför motverka hela upplevelsen som konceptet först var menat att främja.

Den andra delen var gällande att få en mer kvalitativ överblick av vad de tidigare studierna svarat kring digitala implantat på ett mer kvantitativt vis. Även om många liknelser kom fram i samband med detta ämne så blev min slutliga summering väldigt konkret: "Ingen vill sticka ut eller göra uppoffringar". Exempel som gavs var hur man tog vissa visuella attribut från olika etnisiteter för att forma sig själv efter dessa nya ideal. Detta gör människor gärna trotts att det innebär att de skulle förändra sig själva (något som jag först trodde var en stor faktor gällande rädslan för implantat). Något som ansågs ligga närmare frågan om implantat var veganism. Veganism, även om det må vara bra för individen och världen omkring så kräver det personliga uppoffringar och ibland utanförskap. Du måste läsa på vad veganism innebär och konstant vara medveten om vad du förtär och förbrukar så att det stämmer överens med de begränsningar du nu satt på dig själv. Just dessa begränsningar är även en del av uppoffringarna då många av de ting du fann nöje eller njutning kommer individen inte längre ha möjligheten att uppleva skuldfritt. Även om uppoffringarna i samband med det digitala implantatet inte följer samma tråd som de gällande veganism så är det ändå en form av uppoffring. Du måste nämligen inte enbart vara medveten om teknologin och helst veta vad det innebär utan även vara med om en operation där din egen kropp justeras, något som väldigt få skulle vilja göra för nöjets skull. Även om du efter denna operation skulle finna att teknologin är väldigt användbar så skulle det även resultera i ett visst utanförskap då du nu är en form av cyborg och är annorlunda från resten av världen. Detta bygger dock helt och hållet på de värderingar som vi har idag och det faktum att dessa implantat inte är populära eller ens talas om överhuvudtaget på en civil nivå. Alltså behöver inte detta vara någon problematik då så fort något känd figur tar steget till att skaffa ett sådant, eller liknande implantat så skulle dess populäritet stiga. Stigandet skulle öka drastiskt ju fler som skaffade ett sådant implantat och tillslut skulle det mer likna det första exemplet där man påverkade sig själv för att passa in då dessa implantat möjligen skulle kunna brukas av en majoritet av befolkningen.

# data[].attributes.body
De två första metoderna av de som nämndes ovan kombinerades för att tillsammans skapa en enda undersökning. Den delen av verkligheten som var menad att testat mot konceptet i denna del var själva brukandet. För att simulera det faktiska användandet av produkten så utfördes en bodystorm (Martin and Hanington, 2012; 20f) med en ickeformell betoning i en stad där andra ärenden utfördes paralellt så att simuleringen blev så nära den faktiska användningen som möjligt. Att skapa en fysisk prototyp för detta koncept skulle vara väldigt problematiskt med tanke på dess affordances och constraints som skulle ha bundit produkten till dess brukare på ett sett som gjort den i stort sätt omöjlig att upptäcka förutom de utökade sinnen som enbart individen med implantatet skulle märka. Därför användes wizard of oz metoden (Martin and Hanington, 2012; 204f) där en designer spelade rollen av dessa utökade sinnen och gav den menade brukaren den information som ges av dessa utökade sinnen genom andra ordinära, yttre stimulin så som att berätta berätta om optimal navigering runt om i staden och vara med och guida denna individ med gester så som pekningar vid användadet av olika automater.

En viss problematik som snabbt framkom i denna undersökning var att den individ som agerade som produkten inte var medveten om vad den menade användaren redan kunde sedan tidigare i många fall eller hur specifka och mångfaldiga beskrivningarna borde vara. Detta orsakade i vissa fall viss irritation hos den som agerade som brukare. Detta är inget som reflekterar en problematik hos konceptet utan är enabrt en bieffekt som framkom i samband med denna metods utförande. I vanliga fall så tar denna information formen av undermedvetet vetande som vi alltid besitter och skulle därför inte påvekra oss externt på detta vis. P.g.a. detta kommer denna faktor inte räknas med i evalueringen av produkten utan noteras enabart för att man ska vara medveten om detta vid eventuell nästkommande användning av liknande metodik.

En av motivationerna för detta koncept var att föra oss närmare världen. Vi är väldigt beroende av att kunna kommunicera med teknologier förgrund; att vid navigering göra det genom att föra oss som en virituel pil längst en digital karta. P.g.a. detta var vi ofta tvugna att filtrera bort omvärlden och enbart titta på skärmen för att med säkerhet navigera oss genom nya områden. Genom att ge brukaren möjligheten att undermedvetet navigera sig genom nya områden skulle individen inte behöva titta på skärmen för att nyttja sin GPS och istället ta del av den fysiska världen som du nu kommit närmare. När en användare är så bekväm och informerad om ett område att denna individ inte behöver GPS som märktes det att individen inte tar del av omvärlden i vilket fall som helst. Brukaren spenderar istället samma tid genom att titta på en skärm istället för omvärlden, skillnaden är bara den att skärmen visar olika sociala medier istälelt för en GPS. Detta tog fram nya aspekter med konceptet som jag inte tänkt på tidigare. Denna undermedvetna kunskap som ges till brukaren digitalt har ingen av oss någon kunskap gällande hur den faktiskt skulle kännas. Skulle det bli så att vi automatiskt blir så bekanta med alla olika miljöer att vi inte längre finner någon av dem intressanta? Detta är tankar som bars med och utvecklades i samband med annan metodik.

# data[].attributes.body
I delprov 2 ska ett koncept stå ut och arbetas med så att det konkretiseras och bär på bättre motiveringar än tidigare. I detta delprov kommer jag lägga visst fokus på att svara på de fårgor som var suddigt, eller inte alls besvarade i slutet av "The True - Person to the Machine". Detta eftersom att det slutliga som vi designers bör designa för är The Ultimate Particular. Det specifika när alla delar faller på plats och skapar ett helt unikt scenario där konceptet eller produkten därav nyttjas. Anledningen till att jag gör detta är just för att The Ultimate Particular främst befinner sig i the real (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012; 34). Därför blir det känner jag det viktigt att utföra egne efterforskningar för att öva min designmetodi, samt komplettera det kvantitativa använd i en tidigare literature review med ny kvalitativ data. Detta kommer delvis utföras med hjälp av intervju som kommer fyllas i under rubriken "Intervju med en Cyborg" i denna padlet.

Nelson, H. and Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Prospects of Whole Brain Emulation within the next Half- Century

# data[].attributes.subject
The Prospects of Whole Brain Emulation within the next Half- Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
[Journal of Artificial General Intelligence] The Prospects of Whole Brain Emulation within the next Half- Century

# data[].attributes.headline
The Prospects of Whole Brain Emulation within the next Half- Century

# data[].attributes.subject
The Prospects of Whole Brain Emulation within the next Half- Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
[Journal of Artificial General Intelligence] The Prospects of Whole Brain Emulation within the next Half- Century

# data[].attributes.body
(Interviews: Method 48)
(Har ännu inte ägt rum. Uppdateras snart)

Varför gjorde du detta implantat?

Var det du som letade efter möjligheten eller gav någon dig erbjudandet? Vad var dina tankar?

Hur reagerar människor när de får veta om detta implantat? Oro? nyfikenhet?

Hur var ditt intryck gällande implantatet när du precis fick det och hur är det nu när du haft det ett tag? Är det redan användbart? Om inte, är det teknologin i sig som behöver utvecklas eller världen runt den?

Tror du att denna teknologi eller olika typer av implantat är en stor del av mänskligheten framtid? Hur hoppas och tror du vi kommer förhålla oss till dessa teknologier och hur kommer denna framtid att se ut?

När varje ny form av teknologi börjar närma sig marknaden så finns det alltid många människor som är väldigt skeptiska eller rent av rädda för dess implementering i samhället. Vad tycker du om dessa tankar i förhållande till dessa implantat? Hur bör man förhålla sig till dem?

# data[].attributes.headline
Assessing the acceptance of technological implants (the cyborg):Evidences and challenges

# data[].attributes.subject
Assessing the acceptance of technological implants (the cyborg):Evidences and challenges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessing the acceptance of technological implants

# data[].attributes.headline
Evolution and Acceptability of Medical Applications of RFID Implants Among Early Users of Technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Evolution and Acceptability of Medical Applications of RFID Implants Among Early Users of Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evolution and Acceptability of Medical Applications of RFID Implants Among Early Users of Technology

# data[].attributes.body
Literature Reviews
(Method 53)

I detta fall utgick jag ifrån the real. Hur villiga är människor att faktiskt skaffa dessa implantat? Den ena artiklen kommer från 2008 (vänster) medans den andra kommer från 2017 (höger). Redan under dessa år ser man att villigheten ökat till stor del under denna period. Speciellt gällande de yngre generationerna. Nu är det enbart två artiklar som jämförs men eftersom att denna typen av framgångar inom teknologi och samhälle brukar öka exponentiellt snarare än linjärt kan man reatlivt säkert säga att skillnaden kommer vara allt mer drastisk mellan 2017 och framtidens 2025.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the world's first human brain to brain interface

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the dawn of brain-to-brain communication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The World's First Human Brain-to-Brain Interface

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rajesh Rao and Andrea Stocco test the first human brain-to-brain interface, allowing the brain to be controlled over the internet. When Rajesh plays a video game and thinks about firing at a target, the EEG picks up the signal and sends it across the internet, the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation or TMS stimulates the region of Andrea's brain that controls hand movement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Geeky Science! Do Humans have a built in GPS?

# data[].attributes.subject
Geeky Science! Do Humans have a built in GPS?

# data[].attributes.body
Det har visat sig mycket troligt att människor har en typ av inbyggd GPS, likt många andra djur. Då det är möjligt att påverka individers hjärnor skulle det med ett implantat vara möjligt att påverka denna inbyggda GPS hos människor för att t.ex. underlätta navigering i nya områden.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Geeky Science! Do Humans have a built in GPS?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forget mapbooks and expensive GPS systems - it turns out we could be saving a lot of money - but using our brains for directions instead! What does new research suggest about the possibility of a neurological GPS system in humans?

# data[].attributes.body
I denna artikel påvisas det hur det är möjligt att påverka och kontrollera organismers hjärnor. Denna artikel används som referens för att påvisa att denna mentala påverkan är möjlig.

# data[].attributes.body
Med utökad tillgång till hjärnan kommer det även bli möjligt att ge individen information om området utöver navigeringen.

# data[].attributes.body
Typer av Cyborgs som existerar i nuläget. Ett chip som kopplats in i en människans nervsystem låter t.ex. en individ manuvrera objekt med sina tankar ifrån långa avstånd.

# data[].attributes.headline
A BIM-Oriented Model for supporting indoor navigation requirements

# data[].attributes.subject
A BIM-Oriented Model for supporting indoor navigation requirements

# data[].attributes.body
Denna navigering skulle även fungera för navigering inomhus om dessa BIM modeller var del av samma GPS som individens hjärna (Linser i dp2)kopplas till. Alltså skulle alla individer alltid veta exakt hur de skulle ta sig från punkt A till punkt B instinktivt så länge det finns tillgängligt nätverk. Detta skulle även fungera för att navigera sig till deras vänner om man var kopplad till deras implantat/mobil eller liknande.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A BIM-Oriented Model for supporting indoor navigation requirements

# data[].attributes.body
Mind mapping & Secondary research
(Method 56 & 74)

# data[].attributes.body
I denna metod började jag med att samla en mindre grupp för att utföra black design (att göra ett koncept så dåligt som möjligt) kring en mer konkretiserad version av min designrymd.

Detta fungerade mycket bra. Då dessa individer var närmare intressenter än designers så blev det lättare för dem att prestera då att göra något bra är mer ångestframkallande än att bara göra något dåligt. Förutom att göra det så dåligt som möjligt så började deltagare även att skriva ner ting som var närmare rädslor kring konceptet. Jag lät detta fortsätta då det inte tog över hela design metoden, samtidigt som det gav mig insikt i vad som skulle kunna bli "the real" då min syn på the real är att det ofta definieras efter människors vanor, bekvämlighet och rädslor.

Dessa "dåliga idéer" skrevs under metodens gång ner på lappar. Dessa lappar användes sedan för att utföra "Card Sorting (Universal Methods of Design: Method 10)". Detta innebär att deltagarna nu pratade om de olika lapparna och försökte katigorisera dem i grupper. Detta gav en inblick i vilka överliggande aspekter som ansågs väldigt viktiga för konceptet i sig och tankar om de esnkilda lapparna. Detta kan bli en mycket bra grund för "the ideal".

# data[].attributes.headline
Assessing the acceptance of technological implants (the cyborg):Evidences and challenges

# data[].attributes.subject
Assessing the acceptance of technological implants (the cyborg):Evidences and challenges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessing the acceptance of technological implants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Hive Mind in the Real World (Because Science w/ Kyle Hill)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch Kyle Hill in The S.P.A.A.C.E. Program, only on Alpha! Free 30 day trial: https://goo.gl/QPP3AU Subscribe for more Because Science: http://nerdi.st/subscribe Watch the last episode: http://nerdi.st/1KBPBhK With the release of Nerdist Presents: The Hive, we have to wonder are there any NON-evil Hive minds in real life??

# data[].attributes.headline
The Mind-Controlled Bionic Arm With a Sense of Touch

# data[].attributes.subject
The Mind-Controlled Bionic Arm With a Sense of Touch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Mind-Controlled Bionic Arm With a Sense of Touch

# data[].attributes.body
Funktion på snapchat som låter dig se vart dina vänner befinner sig.

# data[].attributes.body
Upd. 170925

# data[].attributes.headline
Evolution and Acceptability of Medical Applications of RFID Implants Among Early Users of Technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Evolution and Acceptability of Medical Applications of RFID Implants Among Early Users of Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evolution and Acceptability of Medical Applications of RFID Implants Among Early Users of Technology

# data[].attributes.headline
A BIM-Oriented Model for supporting indoor navigation requirements

# data[].attributes.subject
A BIM-Oriented Model for supporting indoor navigation requirements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A BIM-Oriented Model for supporting indoor navigation requirements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sixth Sense was a student project developed at the Institute of Media Informatics, Ulm Universtiy, Germany, as part of the Ubiquitous Computing course 2014/15.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Google’s self-driving cars detect and avoid obstacles

# data[].attributes.subject
How Google’s self-driving cars detect and avoid obstacles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Google is the first company to do serious testing on a consumer-oriented driverless car platform, but it's still a long way from viability. Part of that is acceptance of the technology, but cost is at least as much of a problem. Google's car uses a lot of very advanced hardware. Simply knowing where the roads are isn't enough for a robotic car - it needs to be able to detect and avoid obstacles like other cars and the significantly less impact-resistant pedestrians and cyclists. The details of the detection system are, unsurprisingly, every bit as fascinating as you might imagine.

Google's driverless car tech uses an array of detection technologies including sonar devices, stereo cameras, lasers, and radar. All these components have different ranges and fields of view, but each serves a particular purpose according to the patent filings Google has made on its driverless cars. Anyone who has ever seen an image of Google's self-driving Prius has probably noticed one of these systems poking up above the vehicle - the LIDAR laser remote sensing system. According to Google engineers, this is at the heart of object detection.

The LIDAR system bolted to the top of Google's self-driving car is crucially important for several reasons. First, it's highly accurate up to a range of 100 meters. There are a few detection technologies on the car that work at greater distances, but not with the kind of accuracy you get from a laser. It simply bounces a beam off surfaces and measures the reflection to determine distance. The device used by Google - a Velodyne 64-beam laser - can also rotate 360-degrees and take up to 1.3 million readings per second, making it the most versatile sensor on the car. Mounting it on top of the car ensures its view isn't obstructed.

Google mounts regular cameras around the exterior of the car in pairs with a small separation between them. The overlapping fields of view create a parallax not unlike your own eyes that allow the system to track an object's distance in real time. As long as it has been spotted by more than one camera, the car knows where it is. These stereo cameras have a 50-degree field of view, but they're only accurate up to about 30 meters.

Google's LIDAR system is great for generating an accurate map of the car's surroundings, but it's not ideal for monitoring the speed of other cars in real time. That's why the front and back bumper of the driverless car includes radar. This is one of the few technologies Google employs in its driverless car that you can already get in mainstream vehicles. Conventional vehicles use radar to warn you of an impending impact or even apply the brakes to prevent one, but the Google car uses radar to adjust the throttle and brakes continuously. It's essentially adaptive cruise control that always takes into account the movement of cars around you.

The radar system is probably paired with sonar in at least some of Google's test cars. While radar works up to 200 meters away, sonar is only good for 6 meters. They both have a narrow field of view, so the car knows things are about to get messy if another vehicle crosses the radar and sonar beams. This signal could be used to swerve, apply the brakes, or pre-tension the seatbelts.

Google's software integrates all the data from these remote sensing systems (as much as 1GB per second) to build a map of the car's position. Other cars are rendered as rough blocks with shifting, amorphous edges. It doesn't have to be perfect - it's not like the Google car needs to get close enough to test the accuracy of the borders. GPS is only accurate to within a few meters, so it's remarkable the car can even stay in the right lane, let alone avoid collisions. Combine such an obstacle detection system with millions of miles driven in a Matrix-like simulation of California, and you have a very advanced autonomous driving system that's getting more advanced all the time. That's the power of data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Google's self-driving cars detect and avoid obstacles - ExtremeTech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use. Google is the first company to do serious testing on a consumer-oriented driverless car platform, but it's still a long way from viability. Part of that is acceptance of the technology, but cost is at least as much of a problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cyborgs: A Personal Story | Kevin Warwick | TEDxCoventryUniversity

# data[].attributes.subject
Cyborgs: A Personal Story | Kevin Warwick | TEDxCoventryUniversity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cyborgs: A Personal Story | Kevin Warwick | TEDxCoventryUniversity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this talk, Kevin Warwick ask "Is everybody happy been human?" , he goes ahead to outline through numerous experiments how he has designed systems that connects with the human nervous system that improve his feeling and monitors his vitals. Kevin Warwick is Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research) at Coventry University.

# data[].attributes.headline
Geeky Science! Do Humans have a built in GPS?

# data[].attributes.subject
Geeky Science! Do Humans have a built in GPS?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Geeky Science! Do Humans have a built in GPS?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forget mapbooks and expensive GPS systems - it turns out we could be saving a lot of money - but using our brains for directions instead! What does new research suggest about the possibility of a neurological GPS system in humans?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Researchers at Harvard University have created the first noninvasive brain-to-brain interface (BBI) between a human... and a rat. Simply by thinking the appropriate thought, the BBI allows the human to control the rat's tail. This is one of the most important steps towards BBIs that allow for telepathic links between two or more humans - which is a good thing in the case of friends and family, but terrifying if you stop to think about the nefarious possibilities of a fascist dictatorship with mind control tech.

In recent years there have been huge advances in the field of brain-computer interfaces, where your thoughts are detected and "understood" by a sensor attached to a computer, but relatively little work has been done in the opposite direction (computer-brain interfaces). This is because it's one thing for a computer to work out what a human is thinking (by asking or observing their actions), but another thing entirely to inject new thoughts into a human brain. To put it bluntly, we have almost no idea of how thoughts are encoded by neurons in the brain. For now, the best we can do is create a computer-brain interface that stimulates a region of the brain that's known to create a certain reaction - such as the specific part of the motor cortex that's in charge of your fingers. We don't have the power to move your fingers in a specific way - that would require knowing the brain's encoding scheme - but we can make them jerk around.

Which brings us neatly onto Harvard's human-mouse brain-to-brain interface. The human wears a run-of-the-mill EEG-based BCI, while the mouse is equipped with a focused ultrasound (FUS) computer-brain interface (CBI). FUS is a relatively new technology that allows the researchers to excite a very specific region of neurons in the rat's brain using an ultrasound signal. The main advantage of FUS is that, unlike most brain-stimulation techniques, such as DBS, it isn't invasive. For now it looks like the FUS equipment is fairly bulky, but future versions might be small enough for use in everyday human CBIs. (See: Real-life Avatar: The first mind-controlled robot surrogate.)

With the EEG equipped, the BCI detects whenever the human looks at a specific pattern on a computer screen. The BCI then fires off a command to rat's CBI, which causes ultrasound to be beamed into the region of the rat's motor cortex that deals with tail movement. As you can see in the video above, this causes the rat's tail to move. The researchers report that the human BCI has an accuracy of 94%, and that it generally takes around 1.5 seconds for the entire process - from the human deciding to look at the screen, through to the movement of the rat's tail. In theory, the human could trigger a rodent tail-wag by simply thinking about it, rather than having to look at a specific pattern - but presumably, for the sake of this experiment, the researchers wanted to focus on the FUS CBI, rather than the BCI.

Moving forward, the researchers now need to work on the transmitting of more complex ideas, such as hunger or sexual arousal, from human to rat. At some point, they'll also have to put the FUS CBI on a human, to see if thoughts can be transferred in the opposite direction. Finally, we'll need to combine an EEG and FUS into a single unit, to allow for bidirectional sharing of thoughts and ideas. Human-to-human telepathy is the most obvious use, but what if the same bidirectional technology also allows us to really communicate with animals, such as dogs? There would be huge ethical concerns, of course, especially if a dictatorial tyrant uses the tech to control our thoughts - but the same can be said of almost every futuristic, transhumanist technology.

Now read: Hackers backdoor the human brain, successfully extract sensitive data

Research paper: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060410 - "Non-Invasive Brain-to-Brain Interface (BBI): Establishing Functional Links between Two Brains" (Open-access)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone - ExtremeTech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers at Harvard University have created the first noninvasive brain-to-brain interface (BBI) between a human... and a rat. Simply by thinking the appropriate thought, the BBI allows the human to control the rat's tail.

# data[].attributes.body
En ras av Cyborgs med ett kollektivs "hive-mind" där tankar   och erfarenheter delas.