Toys-to-life refers to a relatively new category of games and related toys that was born as recently as 2011 with the release of Skylanders: Spyro’s Adventure. It has been a spectacularly successful category, with the Skylanders franchise alone surpassing $3 billion in sales.
As of late, there have been many new entrants to the competition, so it is a good time to take a look at what toys-to-life games are all about, what kinds of offerings there are on the market, and where the market may be headed.
Stowe Boyd recently blogged about what he calls the failed promise of social collaboration, where social collaboration tools in fact reduce productivity and do not enhance it.
However, what he considers social collaboration is a concept that seems utterly alien to me and contrary to all the design principles I have applied when designing social collaboration. Yet, perhaps his take is what social collaboration means in most companies? This is an intriguing subject, so in this post, I will delve deeper into what social collaboration is all about, or should be all about.
Teaching children computing is all the hype nowadays. The forerunners, such as the UK and Estonia, have already started, with other countries, such as Finland and South Korea, not far behind.
The public discussion in Finland has mainly focused on how children will be taught coding. However, this is a fundamental misunderstanding on what this future subject is about according to its most vehement proponents.
In this post, I will examine what exactly we want to teach children via computing, and whether teaching computing is a good way to accomplish this goal.
There is an intriguing paradox going on in Finland. The country is hoping to become a key data center location in the digital world (and not without merit), but at the same time the infrastructure needed to access that digital world by the end users is in many places being demolished. Is this a viable path?
Change management is hard. As a general rule, change adoption rarely, if ever, happens overnight by simply adding a new process or technology and holding a few training sessions.
In a recent blog post (in Finnish only, sorry), Marko Suomi argued that people in organizations in general act according to the technology adoption lifecycle: some are very enthusiastic about new changes whereas others are much slower to adopt them. It is important to note that the enthusiasm of individuals varies between changes too: even a person who is generally an innovator usually does not adopt all changes first.
In this post, I wish to delve a bit deeper into how changes are adopted in organizations and what the management can do about it.
The world is changing at an increasing pace. There is even some evidence pointing to that, such as the 2012 Innosight study that discovered that the lifespans of top companies have shrunk considerably over the years.
What has been most alarming for many managers is that plenty of companies have not been able to rebound after the Great Recession. With the Great Recession as a convenient cover story for years, it has been easy to miss that some companies are able to succeed regardless, and all poor performance does not result from the recession. Yet, companies can suffer from poor performance even if they have not become any worse. How is that possible?
You can’t afford to be honest with your customers, you will surely run out of business if you are.
I am currently taking Kevin Werbach’s course on gamification on Coursera and in one of the lectures there he presented a real gem of continuous improvement: LinkedIn’s profile completeness meter.
So, this is it. The company I have worked for the past 8 years, Fastems, is restructuring, and as my job has been to innovate, develop, and improve instead of leading daily operations, my position is being cut. Thus, I am free to join another company at short notice.
In this post, I will tell you a little about what I have done and what I would like to do next. If this piques your interest, please call me or drop me a line via LinkedIn or email!
Most Lean implementations fail. We can look into this from many points of view, but in general I find the reason to be rather simple. Most companies, and most individuals within them, do not have the drive to strive for perfection.
The fundamental building block of Lean is perfection: perfection of the product, the process, and the individual. If this is not a purpose shared by everyone, or at least most people, then a vital building block of the motivation to be Lean is missing.
Is there something we can do? I think there is. It is often easier to make a leap rather than a step, and that is the key here as well. Let me elaborate.