During my time at SxSW, a common theme throughout the conference was the need for two things – innovation and good design. Innovation is needed to create unique solutions to longstanding, complicated problems. Good design (be it for web sites, products, or software) is essential for the user adoption of any new tool. People generally are hesitant to adopt things that are hard to use. When we do use products that are onerous, the result is generally a high number of complaints and a low amount of productivity. Indeed – the ability for us to solve of many of the problems we face in the future is dependent on innovative minds and good design. With that in mind, it occurred to me that there is one group who should be particularly well-equipped to come up with innovative solutions that are expressed with well-thought out design – Christians. Now I know most people don’t associate a religion that goes back more than two millennia with cutting edge solutions. This is especially true with fact that many believe that to be a Christian requires a person to be anti-science or anti-technology. Let me explain…

New innovations, like a work of art, reflect the mindset of the person (or people) who created it. To be innovative and to produce well-designed products, it is necessary for the creator to have a certain perspective of the world around him. A certain mindset is required. In order to be a person who is innovative, one must be able to see unique connections between disparate things. One must also be able to understand how different things work, not so much on a technical level, but moreso in the sense of cause and effect. While a technical solution may not be transferable from one problem to another, the cause and effect relationship between things is frequently transferable from across many types of problems, regardless of the technology. While these skills are critical to innovation, I would propose that there is a perspective that is more important than both of these skills to having an innovative mindset. That perspective is optimism. Without optimism, I would argue that it is impossible to be innovative. One has to believe that the problems they are facing are solvable. In addition, they have to believe that THEY are capable of solving these problems. One must have an optimistic (not unrealistic) outlook towards mankind and the future. Without this, few concepts would every get off the drawing board. The Christian faith is hardwired for an optimistic outlook towards the future. It is key to the Christian outlook that we live in a fallen world, separated from God, and that mankind is incapable of rescuing himself from his condition. It is also fundamental to the Christian understanding that through Christ’s death on the cross, we are not bound by sin and salvation is available. In addition to salvation, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit means that God is actively building His kingdom on earth today. This is a cause for great optimism that should shape the world-view of every Christian.

Just as an optimistic mind is necessary for innovation, empathy is necessary for good design. A good design can be generally described as the successful solution to a problem face by an end user or group. In order to come up with a solution for someone, a designer needs to understand the problem. This is what the area of design research is all about. Taking the time find out as much as possible about the all factors associated with problem you design is trying to solve. In addition, design research should also focus on the end user. It should identify the problems, concerns, and priorities of the people who will be using the product or service being designed. While a solid understanding of both the design problem at hand and the end user are critical to good design, I would argue that empathy is the most important factor. Hours upon hours of field research mean little if the designer does not care about the end-users’ plight. There must be a genuine concern for the end-user, born out of an effort to see the world from their point of view. This kind of compassion for others is fundamental to the tenants of Christianity. This is clear in Scripture from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew Chapter 5 (“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven…”) to the many examples of Jesus healing people, such as his encounter with the possessed man in Mark, Chapter 5 (“Jesus did not let him, but sad, ‘Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you’” – Mark 5:19).

So why isn’t the Church a hotbed of innovation?  Or are there key examples of innovation within the Christian community? Share your thoughts in the comments…

One of the biggest brain-busters when it comes to Christianity is the concept of free will. Do we make our own choices or are we simply following a script that God created for us? Put differently – if God created us, and controls all of the individual factors that determine our preferences, do individuals really have the freedom to make their own decisions?

Don’t worry – I won’t try to answer those age-old questions in this brief blog post. I do, however, think it is worth spending a few minutes discussing the ongoing recording and digitization of our lives and it’s impact on our ability to make our own choices.

As we’ve discussed in earlier posts (link), one of the most important developments in the past 5-7 years has been the mass collection of data about every aspect of our lives. From where we are, what we buy, and what we look at online, to who we talk to and what we say. Increasingly, someone somewhere is recording that data. While it can be argued that this development is either helpful or harmful, the fact that this data is being collected isn’t in dispute.

Given that fact, it’s reasonable to ask, what the heck are they using all this data for?

The answer to this question is fairly simple. The personal data collected is being used to create algorithms. An algorithm is a formula (or group of formulas) that are used to predict the outcome of something. By collecting and analyzing raw data (like your buying habits, what you view online, or how and when you talk to others), it is possible to identify patterns that can be predicted by algorithms. The more personal data these organizations can collect and analyze, the more accurate they will be. Algorithms can be used to t predict group behavior on both a large and small scale. And they’re getting pretty good at it. A February 12^th article in the New York Times reported that Target’s algorithms for predicting shopper behavior are so accurate that they can determine not only if a woman is pregnant, but how far along she is in her pregnancy. In one particular example, a father became alarmed when his teenage daughter began receiving mailers from Target for baby products. Only after complaining to his local Target store and then having an extended discussion with his daughter did he learn that she was actually pregnant. In a separate article, the New York Times also reported that Netflix used similar algorithms when putting together their new TV series “House of Cards”. The online video rental company analyzed the movies and shows their subscribers streamed most often. What they found was:

1. A large percentage of their subscribers streamed movies by the director David Fincher.
2. The original British version of the series “House of Cards” was also streamed in large numbers.
3. Viewers of both of the above also tended to stream films featuring Kevin Spacey.

With this information, Netflix constructed an online series consisting of exactly these three elements. The analytics were right on the money. Netflix’s “House of Cards” went on to be the most streamed piece of content in the US, along with 40 other countries.

Indeed – the science of web analytics is advancing to the point where it can be used to predict the outcome of anything.

That brings us back to our discussion of free will.

As more aspects of our personal lives are recorded and analyzed, those collecting this data will develop algorithms that are more and more accurate to better predict our behavior. As years and years of data accumulate and good algorithms are proven correct over time, it is reasonable to assume that the decision makers who use these algorithms will begin to look at the predictions with increasing certainty.

Given that these algorithms will increasingly have direct control over what we see, hear, learn, and buy, they will directly impact on our lives. Even before we’re born (see: Target Baby), these algorithms will alter the life options we see based on the choices of people demographically similar to us. As we move through life, this digital characterization of who we are will become more detailed, further editing the options available to us.

Just as religious scholars have long questioned man’s relationship with God, we must ask ourselves about the impact of an algorithm driven world and our ability to make choices.

Specifically – will it be possible for individuals to make independent choices, to make choices based on their own desires, in a world where algorithms control all the options that are available?

Or, is it possible that with well-constructed algorithms, we can produce a new, better world where what we want can be mathematically determined before we know we want it?

One thing is for sure – given the pace that data is being collected and the improving accuracy of algorithms, we will all learn the answer soon enough…

Share your thoughts in the comments…

In the time of Jesus’ birth, the structure of worship was pretty straightforward. There was one channel through which the people of Israel worshipped God. The high priests were the sole path to get to God. Sacrificial offerings made for forgiveness of sin had to be done through the high priest. Prayer requests went through him. Worship couldn’t occur without him. If a person wished to have right relationship with God, it could not happen without a relationship with the high priest. The life, death, and resurrection of Christ turned this all on its head. By offering salvation to all through His sacrifice on the cross, Christ allowed direct access to God for all who believed. The veil was torn (Luke 23:44-46), and the middle-man role of the high priest was made irrelevant. Worshipers were freed from a dependency on the high priest to make sacrifices to God for forgiveness of sin. By being the perfect sacrifice, Jesus’ death on the cross paid that debt forever.

Needless to say – this was kind of a big deal. Calling it a revolution would be an understatement. It changed the religious power structure. Before Christ sacrifice on the cross, the priestly class had control the eternal lives of their followers. And with that power, they could dictate the behavior of their followers in this life. That type of centralized power in any human hands will lead to abuse. Not only did Christ free us from sin, He also freed us from this type of oppression on earth.

Fast forward to another revolution. The creation of the personal computer in late 1970s brought an entire new set of capabilities into the world. Personal computers took the ability to perform complex and specialized tasks and put it in the hands of average people. This was indeed one of the goals behind the creation of the PC. Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer and father of the personal computer once said:

“At our computer club, we talked about it being a revolution. Computers were going to belong to everyone, and give us power, and free us from the people who owned computers and all that stuff.”

Through computer software, such as word processors, spreadsheets, and databases, individuals could now perform complex tasks with professional looking results. Before PCs, large companies or individuals with specialized training were the only ones capable of doing these tasks. Imaging trying to design and print stationary, or trying to re-touch and develop photos in the early 1970s. For the average person at that time, the only way to do this would be to hire expensive specialists. Now, one person can do all these things independently, with limited experience and cost. As computers became more sophisticated, the ability of the individual increased, and more specialized fields and professions were disrupted.

This brings us to where we are today, with the advent of cloud computing. Cloud computing, to describe it simply, is the storage of data, software, and processing power in centrally located server farms. Put another way, the cloud is computing power held in centralized locations. Individuals gain access to this computing power via simple, low power systems via the Internet. The computers used by individuals to access this power aren’t capable of doing much without being connected to the Cloud. Conversely, the ability for an individual to do anything sophisticated would be dependent on his or her status with the Cloud. For example, both Microsoft and Adobe have transformed their bread and butter software offerings (Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite, including Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) into cloud-based apps. Access to these programs is available through a monthly service fee. Additionally, everything you create with these programs is by default stored on their remote servers. While both companies still offer full, “ownable” versions of their software, Microsoft and Adobe have made it clear that this is not the future of their business. They are not alone in this view. Companies such as Google, Amazon, and Apple all are re-orienting the direction of their companies towards cloud based products and services, including data storage and software.

The rise of cloud computing, when juxtaposed with these two previous revolutions, raises some interesting questions that are worth considering. What does it mean for the people when increasingly everything they create begins its life online? What does it mean for the people where increasingly all the digital tools they need to earn a living are only available through cloud-based services? What does it mean for the people where increasingly all of the artifacts of their lives (things they’ve made, photos of family and friends, cherished written memories) exist only in a digital cloud?

An argument can be made that we will have installed a digital high priest – a middleman through whom we must go through to accomplish much of the needed things of everyday life. While that may not make much sense now (“Hey – I can walk away from Instagram. It’s not that big a deal…”), walking away might not be so easy in the not-to-distant future, as more and more of our lives move online. Prior to the life of Jesus Christ, the high priests could use eternal damnation to control the earthly behavior of the Israelites. In a future where much of what we are and do will be dependent on cloud-based data systems, wouldn’t the owners of the cloud have that same type of power?

What’s your opinion? Share it in the comments!!!

“Gmail reads all my email. Why should I care?”
“Facebook tracks what I do online. So what?”
“My iPhone tracks my location – big deal. I don’t have anything to hide.”

These are typical responses that people give when they are told that their privacy is at risk when they are online. This might indeed be the attitude of many reading this post. People have a hard time seeing what the big deal is when it comes to sharing (what seems like) insignificant details of their lives with corporations. These corporations are providing them a valuable service for free, so its seems like a fair trade, right?

Worst case – I’m forced to sit through advertisements that are selected “just for me”. 

This new article on Scientific American’s site “The Rich See a Different Internet Than the Poor” gives the most clear, succinct explanation I’ve ever seen of what is at stake when it comes to internet privacy. In layman’s terms, they explain how the massive amounts of data that’s being collected by these services is being used to shape everything we (and don’t see) in both the virtual world and real world. I can go on about it, but I doubt if I could explain it as clearly.

Regardless of where you sit on the issue of internet privacy, we all need a clear understanding of what’s at stake. This article is a must-read.

Want to talk more about it? Sound off in the comments!

I was talking to a software engineer at an industry event a couple of weeks ago. The conversation drifted to what happens to a product after it’s released. I asked:

“Do you ever think about how the products we create will impact the people who use it?”
“Definitely. At (fill in company name here), our top priority is meeting our customer’s needs. We have whole departments who focus on that.”
“Okay – I hear you, but do you think about it personally? I mean, as engineers, it is our hands that do the work, so aren’t we ultimately responsible for what we design and the effect it has on others?”
“Well, you could say that. It’s just that at (fill in company name here), we are always trying to out-innovate our competitors. That’s what we hear from management, so that’s what we focus on.”

That last statement stuck with me well beyond the end of the event. I know (from first hand experience) that the continual message any engineer receives from his employer is “Innovate!”. “Add new features.” “Make it bigger/smaller, faster/lighter/cheaper.” “Beat the competitor.”. Even in college, engineers are regularly pitted against their classmates to design a better solution. The pressure can be pretty intense. On top of that, engineers tend to judge themselves by their ability to come up with the “best” solution. There is an innate drive among many engineers to one-up each other. The combination of the external pressure to outdo other companies and internal pressure to outdo each other tends to leave many engineers with a sense of short-sightedness. We frequently don’t do in-depth thinking about what happens to our creations beyond the final release date. Knowing this, I think its fair to ask:
What impact does all this “innovation” have on the end-user?
On communities?
On societies?
How will my creation impact the relationships between the people who use it?
Within families?

Keep in mind – I’m not talking about meeting regulatory, environmental, or safety requirements. I’m talking about other factors that are just as important, but harder to quantify.

Are today’s software engineers, hardware engineers, product designers, and computer scientists responsible for what they create?

From a Christian standpoint, the answer to this question can be found in Scripture. While there are multiple relevant passages, a key example for this discussion is Jeremiah 18:1-10. Here, God sends His prophet Jeremiah to a pottery workshop, and tells him to await His message. While at the workshop, Jeremiah observes the potter shaping and re-shaping clay on the pottery wheel (v. 1-5). At this point God, speaks to Jeremiah:

(v.6) He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel.”

Ever since Genesis 12:1-3 when God first spoke to Abraham, the descendants of Abraham have been known as God’s Chosen People. From Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob (Israel), He was continually involved in their lives. God did not start the ball rolling with Abraham and walk away. In verse 6, God reminds Jeremiah that the future of the people of Israel is still in His capable hands. He is still actively involved in He started with Abraham.

God’s actions here are very instructive for engineers. We cannot simply stop paying attention to the products we create after the project ends. As people who bring ideas into reality, we must stay informed about the impact of our creations are having on the world.

The lesson continues in the remaining verses:

(v.7) If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

In verses 7-10, God explains to Jeremiah how He evaluates and responds to a nation He has created. If a sinful nation repents of its evil, God will not dispense punishment on it. Conversely, God states that He will reconsider the good planned for a nation if the people sin and do not obey Him. Here – God shows that He does not simply stay informed about the things he creates. He acts based on what He sees. If His creation is not fulfilling its intended purpose, He responds. In the same way, we engineers must not only know the impact our creations are having on the world. We must act on what we learn. If we see that the products we create are having a negative impact on society, we must act.

This leads to what I call the Creator’s Burden. With both the advanced tools and intellectual gifts we have been given, we designers, engineers, and programmers are free to create anything our minds can conceive. And as a result of this freedom, there has been an explosion of new technologies, devices, and services in the past 20 years that has literally changed the world. But with that freedom, we must also accept the burden of keeping watch over our creations and their impact on the world around us. And if we learn that something we have created is having a negative impact on the world, then it’s our job to fix it.

It’s not Marketing’s job.
It’s not the job of the Sales Department.
It’s not your boss’s job.
The responsibility rests with us – the creators.

Let me know if you agree (or disagree) in the comments!!!

Growing up, I always had a deep connection with cars. In addition to living in the Midwest, my Dad was a reformed street racer and Corvette fanatic (“All Corvettes are red. The rest are just mistakes”). With all of those things going for me, I didn’t have much of a choice in the matter.

When I was about nine years old, I was lucky enough to receive an electric slot car race set as a gift. In a world before computer gaming, this was the best thing since sliced bread. I, along with my sisters, spent hours racing these small cars around the electrified plastic track. Competitions were intense, and every racer looked for any opportunity to get an advantage. Cleaning the rubber tires for better grip. Wiping the electric contacts for better connections. Learning how to sling-shot out of a turn. Over time, these lessons not only helped us win races, but they indirectly taught us how things like friction, heat, and electricity impact us in the physical world. In a small way, they also helped us build a personal relationship with our surroundings.

Most kids today who have a similar “racing” experience will do so through  computer simulations (racing games). Video game franchises like Gran Turismo and Need for Speed offer incredible simulations of high performance racing, featuring exotic sports cars and Formula 1 racers. The games provide players with as much enjoyment (if not more) as I experienced playing with my slot car set in the basement of my family’s home.

While neither experience will teach a nine year old how to actually drive a race car, there is an important difference between the two experiences. The kid playing a racing simulation video game will undoubtedly have a lot of fun, and will likely get a better understanding of what it’s really like to sit inside a Ferrari. The gamer will not, however get the same object lesson of how elements of the physical world behave. He or she will experience a SIMULATION of it. A theoretical take on how the natural world behaves. This is a simulation in which the game developer has “tweaked” real world physics to enhance the excitement of the game. As exciting and fun as these games are, they do not fully replicate the physics of the real world.

As a result, the gamer’s understanding of the physical world, and his relationship with it, may be more distant and less personal. And if people learn from personal experience, the computer gamer (when it comes to understanding the world around him) will come away from the experience poorer than the kid with the physical world, slot car track. While this is a small point today, more and more of our children’s’ lives are experienced online. Assuming that trend continues, the time children spend experimenting with their surroundings will decrease. Where will they develop their relationship with the physical world? When the virtual world provides a more enjoyable experience than the physical, what will motivate that child to have those critical physical experiences?

And isn’t our connection to the natural world around us part of what makes us human? It’s also part of what helps us define our relationship with God. Many of Jesus’ parables are based on elements in physical world. How relevant will the parable of the Three Soils be if your only understanding of earth and growing things comes from playing Farmville?

Please share your thoughts in the comments…