Visual Frameworks Deck



Been working on this off and on, and figure it's time to get it out there for feedback.

Visual frameworks are for exploring, organizing and communicating information. They help clarify thinking and generate new ideas. This prototype "deck" aims to capture, categorize and explain what the core visual frameworks are, and how they're used. It's a work in progress... feedback welcomed!

The Set on Flickr

The categories:

Groupings
Affinities, categories, comparisons
Nodes and other nodes - Nodes without explicit connections, order or sequence. Meaning derived from their individual properties and spatial relationship to each other.

Structures
Networks, hierarchies, systems.
Nodes with explicit connections and relationships, where flow is absent, secondary or implied. Meaning is derived from connections.

Flows
Processes, progressions, sequences
Nodes connected in flows of varying complexity. Meaning is derived from order.

Metaphors
Common visual archetypes

Elevator Pitch Workshop

Note: Cross-posted on knowledgegames.net, where Dave Gray, Sunni Brown and I are doing a little collaboration. More of these to come, as there is a book in the works.

This approach is meant to be pretty flexible- other idea generating and prioritizing techniques may be substituted within the flow to suit the circumstances. Would like to hear how others approach this challenge. -James

Object of Play: What has been a time-proven exercise in product development applies equally well in developing any concept: writing the elevator pitch. Whether developing a service, a company-wide initiative, or just a good idea that merits spreading, a group will benefit from collaborating on what is- and isn't- in the pitch.

Often this is the hardest thing to do in developing a new idea. An elevator pitch should be short and compelling description of the problem you’re solving, who you solve it for, and one key benefit that distinguishes it from its competitors. It must be unique, believable and important. The better and bigger the idea, the harder the pitch is to write.

Number of Players: Works as well individually as with a small working group

Duration of Play: Long- save at least 90 minutes for the entire exercise, and consider a short break after the initial idea generation is complete, before prioritizing and shaping the pitch itself. Small working groups will have an easier time coming to a final pitch; in some cases it may be necessary to assign one person follow-up accountability for the final wording after the large decisions have been made in the exercise.

How to Play:

Going through the exercise involves both a generating and forming phase. To setup the generating phase, write these questions in sequence on flipcharts:

  1. Who is the target customer?
  2. What is the customer need?
  3. What is the product name?
  4. What is its market category?
  5. What is its key benefit?
  6. Who or what is the competition?
  7. What is the product’s unique differentiator?

These will become the elements of the pitch. They are in a sequence that follows the formula: For (target customer) who has (customer need), (product name) is a (market category) that (one key benefit). Unlike (competition), the product (unique differentiator).

To finish the setup, explain the elements and their connection to each other.

The target customer and customer need are deceptively simple- any relatively good idea or product will likely have many potential customers and address a greater number of needs. In the generative phase, all of these are welcome ideas.

It is helpful to fix the product name in advance—this will help contain the scope of the conversation and focus the participants on “what” the pitch is about. It is not outside the realm of possibility, however, that there will be useful ideas generated in the course of exercise that relate to the product name, so it may be left open to interpretation.

The market category should be an easily understood description of the type of idea or product. It may sound like “employee portal” or “training program” or “peer-to-peer community.” The category gives an important frame of reference for the target customer, from which they will base comparisons and perceive value.

The key benefit will be one of the hardest areas for the group to shape in the final pitch. This is the single most compelling reason a target customer would buy into the idea. In an elevator pitch, there is no time to confuse the matter with multiple benefits- there can only be one memorable reason “why to buy.” However, in the generative phase, all ideas are welcome.

The competition and unique differentiator put the final punctuation on the pitch. Who or what will the target customer compare this idea to, and what’s unique to this idea? In some cases, the competition may literally be another firm or product. In other cases, it may be “the existing training program” or “the last time we tried a big change initiative.” The unique differentiator should be just that- unique to this idea or approach, in a way that distinguishes it in comparisons to the competition.

Step One: The Generating Phase

Once the elements are understood, participants brainstorm ideas on sticky notes that fit under each of the headers. At first, they should generate freely, without discussion or analysis, any ideas that fit into any of the categories. Using the Post-up technique, participants put their notes onto the flipcharts and share their ideas.

Next, the group may discuss areas where they have the most trouble on their current pitch. Do we know enough about the competition to claim a unique differentiator? Do we agree on a target customer? Is our market category defined, or are we trying to define something new? Where do we need to focus?

Before stepping into the formative phase, the group may use dot voting, affinity mapping or other method to prioritize and cull their ideas in each category.

Step Two: The Forming Phase

Following a discussion and reflection on the possible elements of a pitch, the group then has the task of “trying out” some possibilities.

This may be done by breaking into small groups, pairs, or as individuals, depending on the size of the larger group. Each given the task of writing out an elevator pitch, based on the ideas on the flipcharts.

After a set amount of time (15 minutes may be sufficient) the groups then reconvene and present their draft versions of the pitch. The group may choose to role play as a target customer while listening to the pitch, and comment or ask questions of the presenters.

The exercise is complete when there is a strong direction among the group on what the pitch should and should not contain. One potential outcome is the crafting of distinct pitches for different target customers; you may direct the groups to focus in this manner during the formative stage.

Strategy:

Don’t aim for final wording with a large group. It’s an achievement if you can get to that level of finish, but it’s not critical and can be shaped after the exercise. What is important is that the group decides on what is and is not a part of the pitch.

Role play is the fastest way to test a pitch. Assuming the role of a customer (or getting some real ones to participate in the exercise) will help filter out the jargon and empty terms that may interfere with a clear pitch. If the pitch is truly believable and compelling, participants should have no problem making it real with customers.

What a line can do

Draw a line and do something meaningful around it. This is all you have to do.

Visual thinking doesn't have to be complex to be valuable. You can start with a line, and use it as a lens into something richer. Take this simple exercise:

Draw a line that connects any two points on a page. The line can be as straight or as wavy as you like. It's your line, do what you want with it.
Label one point "Start" and one point "The End." You have now created the timeline of your life. Wherever you think is appropriate, put a hash on the line and label it "today."

The rest of the exercise is two-fold. First, go backward on the line and mark down the important things that came before today. It could be milestones, like your first job or when you learned to ride a bike. It could be decisions, like when you decided not to eat meat, or that you didn't really care about calculus. Mark down what was important.

The second part of the exercise is also simple: Fill in the rest of the line. What do you hope to encounter before "the end?" What will be important after today?

Draw a line and doing something meaningful around it. If it sounds like a cheap exercise, it's not. It's an honest but quick way of taking stock at a very high altitude. I found it in a great book called The Pathfinder about 10 years ago, and do it regularly to keep pulse with where I'm headed.

For the experimental, there are other variations on a timeline worth exploring. Here are some other structures:



Branching futures: Because there's no sense in pretending there is only one possibility.


Branching pasts: A family-tree of activities and influences that add up to this moment.


Lifecycle: Because there is something in the past- a right or a wrong- that you may be seeking.






The Problem with Chunks




We're all familiar with the problem of the rising tide of information.

But how do you wrestle with that wave? The growing magnitude and complexity of information is not going away, and yet by most accounts the bandwidth we possess to process that information is going to remain fairly constant (barring any long-overdue cybernetic enhancements.) How do you parse that wave into a channel fit for human consumption?

There are plenty of ways, but I'm only going to focus on one theory here. I'm also going to have some problems with it.

What is a chunk?
As someone who designs information, I'm interested in understanding how the brain receives, processes and remembers stuff. One trusted explanation goes by a more-or-less scientific term: chunking.

A chunk is any meaningful piece of information. It can be as simple as a digit in a phone number or a word in a sentence. The chunking theory comes from George A. Miller's 1956 article on information, memory and the brain. Miller delivered the studies and data behind what by now seems like common knowledge: That at any given time, we can focus on 7 chunks of information, plus or minus two.

It makes sense, it's backed by science, and as a rule of thumb it's useful: when working with any information you want people to understand, try to break it down to 7 chunks, plus or minus two.

That's just a rule of thumb. I'd invite anybody interested in chunking theory to read Miller's article and explore some of the dilemmas it presents.

The Problem with Chunks
Chunks are not definitive or discrete, and their boundaries are relative. Unlike a binary bit, which is absolute and measurable, a chunk is made so by its context. A sentence is chunked into words, but words are chunked into letters, and the typographically inclined will further chunk a single letter into its shapes, lines, and marks. But it seems ridiculous to chunk a sentence into its letterforms; it's an interesting exercise but it's not how (most) people carve understanding out of it.

Where a chunk begins and end depends in large part on its context, and the person who processes it. They can't be crafted in isolation. There's no such thing as a singular, well-made "chunk" of information. Chunks are fractals, and they change when you look at them from different angles.

This is especially relevant in pictures. A substantial part of Miller's article includes "multidimensional stimuli" and I put pictures in this category. In the picture of a human face, how many chunks of information are presented? And why do we find faces so easy to remember, when we find it so easy to forget the names?



My best guess here is that pictures are about something else. They are about chunks for sure, but maybe more so, pictures are about relationships. Just as a sentence's meaning is in the relationship between its words, a picture's meaning is in the relationship between its parts.

This might seem like a pedestrian conclusion, but I think it's worth exploring. Couple assertions I'm trying on for size:

1. All pictures define relationships, but a picture that is about relationships is more meaningful (and more likely to get through and be remembered) than any isolated imagery. A simple diagram is better than any orphaned, lonely icons (chunks.)

2. The number of possible relationships in a picture is far greater than you probably anticipate. It's potentially powerful and dangerous work. If you have a picture to make, make it good.

3. We would all be better if we understood how the brain parses visual relationships. We should unearth the studies that have been done and take them for a spin. We should make newer and better ones. We need more collective mental energy focused on what's already working on us- the language of visuals - and how we can work on it.

Chunks are a good start. What's next?

Picture Designers, Nonsense, and Being Old


So a friend came over tonight. We hadn't talked in a while, and he wanted to meet the baby, and so we talked and ate and some small and great things were exchanged, including two books. For the baby there was The Monster at the End of this Book, and he took our copy of Vonnegut's Bluebeard.

How this is relevant to visual thinking involves a couple hops, but it seems natural to me:

Kurt Vonnegut wrote. He wrote 14 or so novels, an equal number of collections, and some plays. He was good enough at it to make it his profession. And of course he left a lasting mark on the pliable morality of many teenagers who were lucky enough to have his books on their summer reading lists. He did this with words.

But he also drew stuff. Although I struggled tonight to remember the plot of Bluebeard (what was the fate of Rabo Karabekian's secret?) what will forever be burned in my brain is Vonnegut's glyphic resampling of the asterisk. I remember meeting it at the bottom half of a right-facing page in the early pages of a paperback book, and it's been in my head ever since.

And so on— it turns out that KV made just as much with pictures as he did with words. For evidence, go look for his screenprints. And then there's this video of him talking about his pictures.

Many things about this video have truth in them, to me, as someone who is making my profession in visual thinking. Among other things, there is "picture designer", "nonsense", and being old. Here's some relevant bits:

"Picture designer"
Perhaps because "artist" is too loaded or pretentious of a word. Or maybe because being able to draw- to really DRAW- isn't the point. Some people can do that, and it's amazing, and they were probably born with it. But it's not required for visual thinking. We all design things in our head, and they're often in pictures. We're all picture designers.

"...it was easy for [Faulkner and Fitzgerald] to go to Hollywood, because it was nonsense. It was not what they really did."
This is the part about nonsense. It's a perfectly reasonable to fret over your profession. It's expected that your chosen path should be difficult, that there will be great meaning in the journey. But what tiny doors have you left unopened? There may be joy behind them.

Being old:
KV didn't talk about this, but it was the biggest bit for me. He was an old man in the video. When he was alive, he drew plenty of tombstones, for his characters and himself.

I don't see these as macabre, but as play. I would imagine that play gets easier when you get older. Consequences start to come into perspective, or disappear. There is something in this, but I probably won't get it for a while.

The visual thinking field is young and old at the same time. What goes on our tombstone?

Visual Thinking in Practice

One of the most difficult things to explain, for me, has been what visual thinking IS, and what it's good for, at the elevator-speech level. I'd imagine that many practitioners have this dilemma; afterall, what worthwhile discipline can be summed up so readily? The difficulty here is compounded by the fact that visual thinking is, to me, a horizontal practice that "goes well with" and overlaps with so many others.

The good news is that the conversation out there is evolving. There is vizthink, an effort sponsored by XPLANE and others to find a common center of gravity in the visual thinking community. The field is diverse- drawing in the likes of designers, strategists, educators, artists, technologists and data geeks from the tops and the fringes of their organizations and industries.

With this blog, I can only offer my point of view. And maybe some useful tips and tricks.

For now, I'm good with borrowing Justice Stewart's take on obscenity for describing visual thinking:

"I know it when I see it."

True on many levels. More to unpack later.