211231
Today:
- Walked on the beach.
- Weeknotes #283.
- Retro for December.
- Delivery plan for January.
- Annual review.
- Website updates.
- Watched Cryptopia
Tomorrow:
- Swimming in the sea.
- Planning for system-shifting product management.
Today:
Tomorrow:
Photo of the week:
Did this week:
Sent the tenth edition of the Irregular Ideas email. Kpaxs launched a ‘three ideas email newsletter’ with a different approach of getting ideas out of books, but with the very clear value proposition that it will ‘make you wiser’. I don’t really have a value proposition for Irregular Ideas but it led me to rephrase what I say about it as, ‘won’t make you wealthier, healthier or wiser… but it might make you think’.
It occurred to me that if I’d been writing three ideas a week but only sending one then right now I’d have the next twenty editions lined up. The subscribers wouldn’t get any less value, they’d just get it over a longer time period, and I’d have less pressure (not that I find it stressful, I quite enjoy writing about random things). This has made me think differently about content creation and look for opportunities to get ahead (although I haven’t found any yet as the newsletter is the only thing that has a schedule that could be got ahead of).
I finished the sixth Future Skills email and wrote a bit about system-shifting product management, and also completed another module in my British Sign Language course, so all projects progressing as usual.
I wrote about NFT’s as metamodern art form to try to express my thoughts about why NFT’s are important for art and more interesting than the mainstream lovers and haters give them credit for. I think they, and all emerging tech, signal a shift in art parallel to movements like Impressionism and Cubism.
I spent some time on my annual review. In an attempt to create better feedback loops I have plan-do-review cycles happening at different cadences. My life goals are the highest level and pretty much stay the same. Within those goals I have annual objectives and use quarterly OKR’s to monitor progress and maintain direction. Each month I write a retro of what I did, learned and might be able to do better, and set out in my delivery plan what I want to focus on next month. I use weeknotes as a reflective look at the work I’ve done that week, and then I use daynotes at the end of each day as a means of reminding myself what tasks I did today and giving myself a head start tomorrow. This might seem like a lot of different methods and different cadences, but that’s kind of the point. One of the things I want to do this year is refine this whole process, figure out which method and cadence works best for me, and find better ways of using feedback mechanisms to guide future direction and action.
I wrote my retro for December and updated my delivery plan for January.
I’ve set up a spreadsheet to manage my project tasks and track progress against my OKR’s. This means I can compare the reporting from both approaches as I try to figure out the optimum working processes for myself.
I also gave some thought to my Twitter goals (apparently there is such a thing) for 2022 and decided that it is to not grow my audience. I’ve been torn between the creator economy rhetoric around audience building with the benefits it brings in being able to validate ideas, and the ethics of the attention economy. I also know that I’m fundamentally anti-social and don’t want to spend time replying to replies and managing all that overhead that comes with a larger number of followers.
Read:
Jon Cutler’s post about the messiness of ‘product’ perfectly captures the state of product in 2021. Accepting it’s messy rather than trying to create a framework or model to organise and explain it. There cannot and should not be a ‘theory of everything’ for product but instead a wide and diverse pool of theories, practices and ideas to draw upon, experiment with, adapt and use. The best product practice is one that figures out how to make the models fit together, not choose one over another (which just leads to arguments on the internet).
I’ve been thinking a bit about systems this week and the Systems Practice Workbook, which defines Systems Practice as “both a specific methodology and a more general approach to grappling with adaptive problems in complex environments”, is really useful. It’s aimed at bringing systems thinking practices into organisations but it’s also useful even if that isn’t your aim (which it probably should be, even if you don’t know it).
Being ‘digital’ means understanding how things work on the internet. It’s interesting to see the same trends on the internet between charity fundraising and the creator economy. Although they use different terminology, the same behaviours get the same results. Brand/building in public builds trust, recognition, connection. Meet their supporters where they are/audience building on public platforms makes it easier to get the message in front of people. Charitable giving will exceed $1T by 2030/currently worth over $100bn and expected to grow considerably.
The Creative Elements podcast with Todd Henry had some fantastic advice on creative process which I sum up as ‘’Having a process (including pruning) = managing your energy = bringing your full emotional being to the work = producing something valuable.” The main takeaway is that creative work requires managing your energy more than managing your time.
Thought about:
There are more people on the internet today than there were on planet earth in the year I was born. Today there are 4.6 billion internet users and in 1975 there were just over 4 billion people. There are lots of ways of looking at this: population growth of the human species over such a short time period, opportunity for internet businesses given how many potential customers there are online, or, Roger must be really old.
Perhaps because I’ve been planning what I want to work on for 2022 I’ve also been thinking about how to organise work to create the right kinds of feedback loops, which might include how much work can be done in a given time but are mostly about whether the work being done is going to achieve the goal. Whether it’s the right goal or not is another question. I’ve thought about different cadences (5 years, annual, quarterly, monthly, weekly, daily) and how they might match to the generalities or specifics of the work, so the shorter the time period for work the more task-orientated the work is and the longer the time period the more goal focused. But this connection between completing tasks and achieving goals is based on the assumption that they connect in a causal way, which can only be the case if you know what will achieve the goal ahead of defining the work. If it’s an uncertain goal, then the only course of action is to define the feedback loop, take a step that might vaguely be in the right direction, and then assess whether you are closer to the goal or not (which is the Fire Control Problem approach). So much to think about.
The main story we tell ourselves about evolution is of one thing replacing another, and usually that the thing doing the replacing is better. But we seem to miss all the coexistence that is going on at the same time. Maybe that’s where the better better is happening. I wonder if this competitive evolutionary thinking is part of the underpinning rationality of modern society, and so it informs every revolutionary movement that attempts to overthrow the current dominant way society is organised. We can’t build an inclusive society by saying that some ways of thinking, being or doing aren’t allowed. That’s exclusionary. And then who gets to choose what should and shouldn’t be allowed? If something is excluded, then I think the underlying pattern of that rationality will re-assert itself and lead a different group with a different ideology to dominate other minorities. So, perhaps a better way is that of the underpinning rationality of future society to be about co-existence. I think I might try to explore this idea a bit more in a future edition of Irregular Ideas.
This month’s lesson was that I like exploring. This leaves me torn between trying to have more focus on fewer things (product management) and having the freedom to do new things. Perhaps I can find a way to divide my time between the two ways but I’ll need to be disciplined as otherwise the exciting new stuff will always take over the more long-term stuff.
I had my first week at RNID. I’m excited by the work, the ways of working, the team, the charity’s mission. I’m really looking forward to getting into the work and figuring out where I can contribute the most.
I’ve been considering whether to try digital volunteering. I haven’t looked into it much yet as I want to more certain about the time I have available and where I want to focus my energy, but it’s on the list.
I received a Distinction for my MSc, so that’s nice. Reflecting back on the two years I really enjoyed the learning and writing the essays, and especially my dissertation, which improved my critical thinking, but Birkbeck University was really badly organised and provided a poor student experience. Given that I decided to do the course for the experience of doing it rather than for any benefit having the qualification might bring, I’d say I’m definitely glad I did it.
Started the British Sign Language online course and completed a few modules from Microsoft Learn. I’m finding the sign language easier to remember than I thought I would but expect the course to get harder as we get into sentences and it become harder to remember over time. The Microsoft courses are basic introductions particular products and I’ve been focusing on Dynamics 365 CRM and customer service stuff at the moment.
Wrote a few more emails for FutureSkills.info. I have fourteen more to write, and although it’s taking much longer to write them than I thought I’m still enjoying getting into each topic. Although it’s a product that doesn’t really align with where I think I want to be exploring it feels like it’s one I can complete and launch and learn from.
I’m up to ten Irregular Ideas emails. I need to decide whether to continue with it next year or focus on product management stuff and other platforms. I enjoy writing the little essays but I don’t really have an plan in mind for the newsletter so need to consider whether it’s really where I should be focusing my energy.
I wrote weeknotes on schedule every week.
My nomadic life along the coastline continued and I visited lots of cool places. My financial measures are doing well but I need a strong concerted effort on improving my physical health. That should be my focus.
Embodied my philosophy of what good product management looks like in charities using my interface, integrate, iterate thing. Launched a new product at the Prince’s Trust, supported colleagues to do good work and improve their practice, and learned a lot about the use of digital in charities.
I did some voluntary product work for a few organisations in the charity sector. I really enjoyed being a kind of critical friend/opinion provider, even if at times I felt like I didn’t have a clear offer to provide.
Joined the RNID digital and innovation team to build products that make life more inclusive for deaf people and the those with hearing loss or tinnitus.
Got into web3 a bit, learned about NFT’s and created some of my own. Of all the divisive opinions on Twitter, anything related to Blockchain, crypto and NFT’s seems even more divisive. I think everyone is right, and emerging trends need all opinions to help reach the dominant design in order to become mainstream. My opinion, in general, is that what people miss most about web3 stuff is that it isn’t for the humans, it’s for the machines. For example, an NFT isn’t about art, it offers a way for a computer to understand ownership, and a DAO isn’t about running a business, its about providing a means for a computer to understand contractual conditions. These things become clearer when you look with a post-human point-of-view (which is another trend that interested me in 2021).
I became interested in the creator economy and the use of nocode tools. I think it shows the trend of diversified income and micro-businesses that will extend the long tail of companies even further, and we’ll know that creators and solopreneurs have jumped the curve when one disrupts an industry in the way we’ve come to expect startups to. I made my first £ on the internet (as a creator, I’ve selling stuff on the internet for over a decade) which is considered a bit of a threshold point in the creator community. Started ultimatedigital.tools and futureskills.info as nocode info products.
I finished my masters in Business Innovation with a distinction. My dissertation was about innovation and new product development practices in charities and was lots of fun to write. I felt a little lost for a while after finishing it because I’d been so focused on it.
Took a Service Design course and started learning British Sign Language.
And I read lots on Twitter and on other websites, and listened to quite a few podcasts, and even tried to read a couple of books.
I learned to write better, to think more critically, and to accept a wider range of opinions.
Learning is one of my three lifelong goals, and I divide it into three sections; formal learning and qualifications, practical project-based learning, and reading and reflective practice. This gives me a useful balance, keeps me engaged and makes tracking progress towards the goal easier.
Between the end of the lockdown in May and the end of the year I traveled around the coast of England and Wales between Southampton and Pembroke. Along the way I visited 230 amazing and beautiful places, swam in the sea, even with a seal once, and saw dolphins.
The digital nomad lifestyle suits me perfectly. I can work remotely during the day, and go for walks and work on various projects in the evening. The simplicity of the physical life makes room for the complexity of the mental life.
Today:
Tomorrow:
Today
Tomorrow
Today:
Tomorrow:
NFTs are a divisive subject. They currently divide the world population into four. The vast majority of people who don’t care or have never even heard of NFT’s, a very small percentage who think NFT’s are revolutionizing the art world, another very small percentage who think NFT’s are pointless and wasteful, and an extremely small percentage of artists who are exploring this new artistic frontier. New art has always been divisive (Impressionism, Cubism, etc.). And the scale of the division about NFT’s is itself extremely interesting, and one that is only possible because of the modern information communication technologies like Twitter. It is no longer possible to separate art and technology, either as an artist, a collector, or a viewer. Technology is an unavoidable, undeniable aspect of creating and experiencing art. NFT’s are part of that, for better or worse.
NFT’s mean lots of different things to lots of different people, and tendency of those in either of the small populations mentioned above is to always defend their position. Fine. Uninteresting, but fine. So before we get into the real art of NFT’s, let’s quickly cover the uninteresting (from an artistic perspective) mainstream aspects; commercialisation, motivation and aesthetics, for those two small percentages.
The commercialisation of works of art through the use of blockchain technology plays out in the same way as any market economy. It’s subject to the same underlying principles with the few rich getting richer and the majority poor getting poorer. That’s the same no matter what technology underpins the market. NFT’s as a means to buy, trade and demonstrate ownership of works of art/fairly-mundane-imagery-with-lots-of-hype-associated-with-it doesn’t and cannot change that.
The motivations for buying art, whether at an auction house or on an NFT marketplace, haven’t changed either. It continues to be about status (owning art) and money (investing in art) whether bidding on a Monet painting or Bored Ape jpg. This also will not change because of new technology.
The aesthetics of mainstream collectible NFTs have already reached a dominant design pattern. They are used as profile pictures to indicate identity with a certain group of others, often referencing other cultural aesthetics such as comic books or computer games, and often visually unique within a given set of parameters. Whether this aesthetic is your aesthetic isn’t really the point. If you like a certain aesthetic and enjoy looking at that kind of art, you can do so with or without NFT’s.
This side of NFT’s, the mainstream as it were, is where most of the attention goes, but it is far less interesting than the creative and artistic exploration that they provide for artists.
NFT’s provide the perfect expression of a metamodern art form and subject of artistic exploration. Not just each individual NFT recorded on a blockchain, but NFT’s as a subject, a form, a cultural artifact, as a metamodern artistic sensibility that…
… oscillates between a modern enthusiasm and a postmodern irony, between hope and melancholy, between naiveté and knowingness, empathy and apathy, unity and plurality, totality and fragmentation, purity and ambiguity.
-Vermeulen and van den Akker.
The division of opinion that NFT’s create is in itself a postmodern stance, but for metamodern artists it becomes an expression of oscillation. The role NFT’s play in the cultural zeitgeist swings from extreme to extreme depending on who you talk to. The NFT isn’t the art, the art is the NFT. Art and technology cannot be separated and so for this art, technology provides form and function, context and content, subject and situation.
Even mainstream NFT artwork has already demonstrated a cultural stake in many of Greg Dember’s metamoden methods:
Hyper-self-reflexivity – the idea that people’s identities are constructed quite self-consciously through a narrative lens. NFT’s as status symbol and profile picture demonstrate that knowing identity construction done both unironically and connectively. As unique images, these NFT profile pictures reference the individuality of the owner, whilst at the same claiming their belonging to a group of holders of similar images and in reinforcing their self-claimed identity as early adopters of the trend.
Double-framing – the temporary trapping of the viewer between an outer frame of the “real world” and an inner frame of the narrative of the artwork. The viewer is in a space where they are able to engage unironically with the hype and of the “NFT world” whilst still remaining grounded in the reality of the realisation that NFT’s are purely virtual. This double-framing of the opinions those two small percentages held in opposition of each other is particularly of interest to artists, because it creates a space where both can exist together and boundaries can be explored through double-framing.
Constructive Pastiche – the potentially constructive juxtaposing of seemingly disparate elements, from historically separated genres and/or cultures. The jpg’s we see in mainstream NFT art often combines disparate elements from various cultural and historic reference points. Intentionally or not, they create a space for cultural iconography that doesn’t fit into it’s originating culture or history but instead combines to become a different experience.
Oscillation – a way of engaging two oppositional factors without them cancelling each other out, nor landing in the average zone between them. In fact never landing, always moving. Art that explores any kind of emerging technology such as NFT’s could never land on a single position for the landscape shifts too quickly and suddenly.
Perhaps the confusion and division around NFT’s comes from looking at this most metamodern art form from a modernist or postmodernist perspective.
My own exploration into the constantly oscillating world of onchain art has been via stiles, of all things. My work constructively pastiches genres – British landscape art, conceptual art, art/life movement – and oscillates between the physical and digital worlds. It tries to explore the relationship between, and understand a world made up of, all of these things, and usually through decidedly uncultural objects.
Before stiles, there were other works of a similar theme. #FloorsIveWalkedOn created abstract patterns through photographs of floors I had walked on. This work explored presence and place, bridging the physical place and the lasting presence in the digital world. This work isn’t on the blockchain, it exists only on Instagram. At the time, that was enough. Had I been interested in displaying art in the physical world I might have printed lino floor coverings of all the floors I had walked on for others to walk on. But instead my work went the other way, becoming more virtual.
Stiles.style collects images of stiles from the British landscape into a unique collection of unique objects. Stiles are one of the few objects left in the modern world that are hand-made by different people all across the country but following a similar design pattern. Each stile is unique. And they are gradually disappearing form the British countryside. To photograph stiles is one way to preserve them in virtual form. To create a token on the blockchain that represents the photo of the stile creates an even more virtual, more abstract, preservation of a stile. And doing so asks questions. Is uniqueness tied to physical form? How much of a real object is lost when it becomes a digital photo or a string of numbers? What happens when there are no more of those real objects left in the real world and they only exist in virtual form? What effect does it have on our culture to digitise everything from the real world?
NFT’s are more than jpgs on the blockchain. They open up an entirely new cultural space for artists to explore. NFT’s are, at once, the form, subject, context and environment of art, through which artists can explore themes around ownership, the physical and digital worlds, the hype of new technology, and so many more. So, the small percentages can continue to argue from their mainstream positions, and meanwhile the artists will explore the breadth and depth of the virtual, blockchain and NFT landscapes.
Today
Tomorrow