Archive for the ‘Innovation Games’ Category

Agile 2006 Conference Feedback

Monday, January 15th, 2007

Here is the feedback I received from the Agile 2006 Conference. This is the entire email I received.

—————————————————————

Dear Luke,

Please find below the feedback on your tutorial at Agile2006. We hope you consider proposing a session for Agile2007 in Washington DC.

Our call for participation can be found here:
http://www.agile2007.org/index.php?page=submissions/tutorial/tutorial
and the deadline for submissions is January 26th.

Best regards,
Rachel Davies

Agile2006 Session Feedback

Title: Innovation Games Session id: TU8 Leader: Luke Hohmann
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
1. The presenter/leader was well prepared 26 3      
2. The presenter/leader was knowledgeable on the subject 28 1      
3. The session held your interest 21 5      
4. The session abstract was accurate 18 9      
5. The A/V materials were appropriate and legible 21 8      
6. Overall this session was well worthwhile 22 7      
Comments:
Outstanding – best session so far, no doubt.
Great contribution of an often glossed-over part of agile in a whole new way.
I was surprised by the granularity and the pragmatism of the preparation steps. Most process descriptions leave out the “obvious stuff”, but of course obvious is subjective.
I felt rushed and wanted to play more games.
Would have liked to explore/play more games first hand.
Thanks for sharing your great ideas Luke, really appreciate it.
Good ideas
Very good session
Great content, technique, presentation and audience involvement
Luke has great energy!
Can’t wit to try to do some of these
Awesome!
Excellent ideas and presentation
Best presentation so far!
You’ve written a book?!!
Very helpful session
Thanks
Very fun!
Presenter didn’t know the session was as long as it was and so he filled in with more presenting and less interactive.
Let’s try more games!

QRCA 2006 Conference Feedback

Monday, January 15th, 2007

A few posts ago I advocated open evaluation of conference speakers. Since then, I’ve received more evaluation forms from conferences where I’ve been a speaker. Here is the first, from the QRCA Conference. I had a great time at this conference, and really do hope that I can attend and speak again in 2007.

I received the evaluation in the mail and scanned the entire document here.

Open Evaluation of Conference Speakers

Monday, October 16th, 2006

I speak at a lot of conferences. Part of my job. For quite some time I’ve been promoting the idea that conferences should provide open rating systems of the speakers. This way you could have the prior feedback of other conference participants to help you decide if you should listen to someone speak. Of course, the idea isn’t perfect or foolproof. It is more an attempt to share information.

In this spirit of sharing, I offer the complete text of the email I just received from the organizers of the Software Development Best Practices conference, which contains my evaluation. I’m pleased to learn that my session beat the conference average but that not all of the people who attended my session completed feedback forms (I had more than 14 people). I think that this is because my presentations rely a lot on “learning by doing”.

—————

Dear Luke Hohmann,

I’d like to extend my sincerest appreciation for all of your hard work in preparing and presenting for SD Best Practices 2006. I hope you enjoyed your experience.

Below is a link that will allow you to access your session evaluation results and the compiled comments that were collected. We rely heavily on attendee feedback to help us determine which topics best met the needs of the attendees and where we can make modifications to better meet expectations for next year.

https://www.cmpevents.com/?M=7I3QW2VGMEjoZwelCQJDMpKPWm532XRGCE1eewP2pA==

Please note: Birds-of-a-Feather Sessions will not have evaluation results.

We’ve received some really positive feedback regarding the conference.

On behalf of the Dr. Dobb’s SD Events Group I want to thank you for your part in that success. Without your commitment, we could not have done it.

We’ve transcribed the notes as they were written–complete with spelling and grammatical errors, along with the occasionally profound and or profane comment. Also, take note that comments do not always accurately reflect the overall rating of your course. Unfortunately, many attendees who rate courses highly do not make any comments, sometimes making the tenor of the comments seem overly critical. In any case, I hope you find the feedback valuable.

Below is some information that you might find helpful in order to compare your results with the conference average.

1.) Average Overall Rating: 7.94

This would be an average of question #6 on the evaluation form “Overall rating of the presentation” This rating was determined by the attendees.

2.) Average Rating: 8.10

This is an average rating of questions 1-6. This rating is located at the top of the evaluation summary, next to the headcount.

3.) Average Headcount: 65

Thanks again for all of your hard work and dedication to the event. I enjoyed working with you and hope to do so, on future events.

Save the date: SD West 2007 will be held March 19-23, 2007 at the Santa Clara Convention Center.

Sincerely,

Michelle Ruettinger

Conference Specialist

Dr. Dobb’s SD Events Group

CMP Media

600 Harrison St., 5th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94107

www.sdexpo.com

QRCA 2006 Conference

Thursday, October 5th, 2006

I attended the annual QRCA conference last week. I was referred to the QRCA by Susan Abbott, an earlier reviewer of Innovation Games and a member of the QRCA. She suggested that I submit a talk. I did, and it was accepted. I was both thrilled, and frankly, a little anxious. After all, these people are the first-rate pros of Qualitative Market Research — how would they react to someone with my pedigree (a Masters in Science in Computer Science and Engineering from Michigan) talking about qualitative market research? As it turns out, they embraced both me and Innovation Games.

Before going there, I should discuss why it is important that product managers engage in qualitative market research. The simple answer is that if you’re not engaging with your customers you’re not going to know that what they need. If you don’t know what they need, you’re going to eventually miss the mark and fail to create compelling product and service offerings. This may take a long time (20 years or more if you’ve played your patent cards just right) but eventually you do need to talk with your customers. You say “Requirements Gathering” and I’ll say “market research”. You say “Usability” and I’ll say “Qualitative Research”. And we’ll both be happy, so let’s get on to the conference.

Right off the bat this conference was different from other conferences I’ve attended. The first item on their schedule was a “First-timers & Ambassadors meeting” in which they put the first-time attendees (people like me) into the main room and welcomed us to the conference. Ambassadors were present to help us network and talk with us about our interests and how we could make the most of the conference. This was a great idea, and it really set the right tone for the conference.

I speak at a lot of conferences, and my travel/work schedule is such that I don’t often get the chance to attend many of the great sessions that exist. I was fortunate, however, that I had time on Wed Sep 27th to attend Dr. Sharon Livingston’s presentation Projective Techniques: Discover The Magic Of Waking Dreams For Ground Breaking Qualitative Insight. Dr. Livingston is President of The Livingston Group, a qualitative research, brand equity and positioning, and new product development consultancy. I was especially motivated to attend Sharon’s talk, as she had helped me tailor my Innovation Games talk to better meet the QRCA professional.

I found her talk to be a fascinating experience. My favorite exercise was the use of a psychodrama structure designed to get access to what people are really thinking. Check out the following picture, which explains the technique. The “drama” part comes when you have people act out the various boxes and thought bubbles. This really brings the technique to life.

Sharon’s talk helped reinforce the many ways in which qualitative market research is used. She had stories of work her firm has done ranging from helping doctors talk to their patients about chronic constipation, to testing actors for believability when selling soap (shifty eyes? people don’t buy), to determining which photos tell the right “story” for an advertising campaign. Since I’m a software-enabled product person, these ideas tend not to occur for me. I don’t don’t think Innovation Games would be particularly useful in getting answers to these questions, which reinforces why QRCA is such a great resource.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend any sessions on Thu the 28th as I had a work-related engagement with an Enthiosys customer who is based in Atlanta.

On Friday, I attended Steve August’s talk on Immersive Research. Steve is a principal at KDA Research here in San Francisco. They use a variety of technology based tools to help them conduct their research. I liked the different approach that these tools provide when compared to Innovation Games, and of course it left me wondering how other qualitative techniques can be adapted to the web.

My own talk was on Friday afternoon. The room was packed, which I like. My goal was to skip the slide deck and give the participants a taste for as many games as possible. In the end, we played Prune the Product Tree, Remember the Future, Buy a Feature, Spider Web, and 20/20 Vision.

It was a little chaotic, but the overall event was a lot of fun. But you really should attend a conference because you’re going to get something out of it, not just because it is another boondoggle. In the case of the QRCA, you should consider attending if your a product manager because you’ll gain some ideas on how you can better understand your customers and therefore drive your innovation strategy.

Get Your Team in the Room

Thursday, October 5th, 2006

One of the debates that people engaging in market research have is whether or not the research team should be in the room with customers during the research or behind the glass in a specially designed focus group facility. This is one of the classic cases of “it depends”. It depends on the team, the question that you’re trying to answer, and the relationship that you have with your customer.

You’ll find that in Innovation Games I advocate having the research team being present in the room. I think this create a stronger connection to the customers participating in the event (on many levels — cognitive, social, emotional, to name a few) and therefore a stronger commitment to take action on the results.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that everyone should be present at all times. If you have a member of the team that can’t be a good Observer (key skill? shut up and listen) then you may have to ask them to leave the room.