SpoolCast: Creating a Culture of Innovation with Scott Berkun http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2008/08/12/spoolcast-culture-of-innovation-with-scott-berkun/ Brian Christiansen: Scott Berkun interviewed by Jared Spool Recorded July 23rd, 2008 [intro music] Welcome, I’m Brian Christiansen, Producer of UIE Podcasts. In this week’s episode, Jared speaks with Scott Berkun, an expert author and dynamic speaker on the topic of innovation, management and user experience. You can find out more about Scott and check out his blog at ScottBerkun.com Scott will be presenting his full-day seminar “The Myths of Innovation: How to Lead Breakthrough Projects” at our User Interface 13 conference which will take place this October 13th-16th 2008 in historic Cambridge, Massachusetts. You won’t want to miss it. And now, here’s Jared. [segue music] Jared Spool: OK. I am here at Top Pot Doughnuts in Seattle. We are at a place where they make incredible doughnuts. I am here with Scott Berkun who is the author of the "Myths of Innovation". He is also a top speaker on this topic. He will be speaking at the user interface conference in October. Scott, welcome. Scott Berkun: Thank you. Jared: And thanks for suggesting this doughnut place. This is an awesome little shop. The doughnuts here are really quite incredible. Scott: Yeah, they are dangerous. I am about to pass out from my sugar high at the moment. Jared: So, I want to talk about, while we are sitting here enjoying our coffee and our doughnuts, I want to talk a little bit about this idea of innovation. In particular, we are seeing innovation as like a big topic at Business Week. It is a topic at the Harvard Business School. Everybody is talking about it at the executive level. And so people are like "We have to be more innovative! We have to be more innovative!" It reminds me of having a gym teacher who has been told to teach a class on meditation. She gets the class together and he goes "OK class. We are going to meditate. One, two, three, meditate!" It sort of just comes down the pike. Are you seeing that, this sort of handed down demand to be innovative? And how do the people who receive that demand actually start to work with it? Scott: I think, a lot of people are following your gym instructor's model. The word is thrown around as this signifier of something good or something important without anyone ever asking what it means or how it is different from what things people have already been doing. It is a very fatty, trashy word that people throw around without ever trying to break down "Wait. Are we innovating already? Are we doing good work already? Why is it that we must do this new thing that we are told from on high we must do?" And unfortunately, the people who don't ask those questions when they come to someone like me, or they pick up a book that I have written or other good books on innovation, they are confronted with all these basic questions, these fundamental questions that are very different than they thought innovation is. Innovation mostly, unfortunately, I don't want to depress anybody who is listening to this, but it is mostly hard work. The fact that you are being told to do it and you are being told to find out about it doesn't make it any easier. Unfortunately, when people are directed to do something, they want to look for the quickest, easiest, shortest pathway to do it. When we are talking about innovation, which truly means finding big new ideas that are going to change things for the better, those are really hard to find. Jared: And so, if you are handed down something that says "OK. Starting Monday, our company is going to be more innovative." What does that break down to in terms of a task list? Is it attitude? Is it culture? Is it actual activities? Scott: Well, the most important thing is risk. This really all comes down to risk. Most people who are listening to this, most people who know about you and your conferences, or who are in the design world, the usability world, they are smart. They are skilled, and they know the basics of what my idea is. But, the hard part of innovation is when you have an idea and you have what you have done before, how you decide to abandon what you have done before and do the new thing. This is a big philosophical question. Socrates and Aristotle and those guys debated all the things about this for a long time, and there is no easy answer to that question. So, a large part of the innovation game or being good at managing innovation is managing risk; coming up with ways to convince other people to take risks that they are afraid of. Coming up with ways to develop ideas that seem less risky even though they are risky is a lot to do with understanding people's nature around risk. And if you look at the big innovative companies, those are cultures like Google, Apple, and Pixar. They are cultures where they made risk OK; where it is acceptable to take risks. In fact, you are rewarded for taking risks, even if sometimes you fail. So, a large part of the blueprint, the playbook, is understand risk, understanding fear, and becoming skilled at working with other people when you are dealing with those feelings. Jared: Now, is understand risk meaning that it is OK to do sloppy work? Scott: Yes! Sloppy work! That is chapter three of my book "How to Be Sloppy at Work." No. It is a good point though. People hear the work mistake or they hear failure and they get locked up because they have been taught there whole lives that those are things you are not supposed to do. You are supposed to take pride in your work and do precision work. The whole idea is that you have to find a safe place in your work process, team, or company for those mistakes to happen; for those necessary mistakes that you learn from so that you make the great thing. That could be a research development lab, a user interface that is prototyping, wire framing, all of the stuff that is a cheap way to discover the flaws in your ideas. So, you have to find ways to do that. And the larger the innovations you are talking about, the more resources you need to spend at stuff that you are going to throw away. On paper, that is simple. In practice in a business environment, it is very difficult. How do you convince your manager to give you a million dollars to throw away? Not easy. You were never put in that language. But, if you talk to Steve Jobs, Brad Bird at Pixar, any manager in the nation, they will admit that part of what you are doing is building capital that they know that, on its own, is not going to be fruitful, but will lead to the thing that does lead to fruition. Jared: So, one of the questions that we got on our blog recently had to do with measuring risk, or measuring innovation. I think, they asked something like, "How do I track how innovative we are?" I hear that on a quarter to quarter basis. Scott: [laughs] Which is terrifying to me! I was terrified of this person. Just imagine, right? Think of all the great innovators. Think of Da Vinci, Edison, Picasso, Van Gough. Could you imagine someone sitting over their shoulder saying "So Vincent, how innovative have you been in the last hour? Five? OK, great. I will come back in an hour and I will ask you how innovative you have been." It just doesn't make any sense. Jared: Exactly. Just like the idea of Leonardo Da Vinci filing quarterly innovation assessment reports. Scott: Exactly. Yes. Da Vinci, you know, your innovation ratio is down this month. With your performance evaluation, sorry, you are not going to get that bonus. Give us another Mona Lisa. Can you give us another Mona Lisa please? Jared: Except this time, can you make the logo a little bigger? Scott: Right, a little bigger. A little bit more blue. Can you get more blue in there? I understand where the question comes from. You have this rational business view. You have accounting for everything and are putting everything in numbers and spreadsheets so you can measure it so you can make rational decisions about it. In the abstract that is fine. In the large that is fine. You do want to say "You know what? We can afford to put this much money into research and development assuming that five percent of that money is actually going to manifest into ideas that become products." So, you can have some kind of mathematics for that in the large. But, you don't want to have the same kind of mathematics in the small. You never want the team of people that are supposed to be inventing or creating to feel that much scrutiny over every single expenditure or everything they do. They are never going to be comfortable if they are scrutinized at that level. So, you have this dichotomy. In the abstract at large you want there to be some accounting for how much money you are spending on the future, but in the small, you want there to be a safe environment where people feel they can take risks without being worried about the consequences. The solution, really, is middle management. There is some guy who is in the middle of the tree who understand the higher level executive view that they are spending millions of dollars, and is able to shield the people beneath him, the lower level managers, the individual engineers and designers, able to shield them from the pressure that the executives feel about how the money is being spent. And if you look at most creative environments, like Xerox Park or Apple, you always find someone who is in that middle role who managed to appease the executives while providing a safe environment for the individuals doing the creative work. Jared: That is interesting. Google has this idea of 20% time, right? Where you are supposed to spend 20% of your time doing something that isn't your job, but is innovative. They didn't actually originate that. Hewlett Packard had that going back 40 or 50 years. Scott: 3M had it too. Jared: 3M had it too, yeah. In fact, that is where things like the post-it note came from. The personal computer work at HP came out of that time. Google Maps came out of 20% time. So, here we are seeing innovations come out of this. But, it is not like people say "OK. During our 20% time, you are expected to be innovative. And if you can't tell us how innovative you have been, we are not going to let you have the time anymore." What is it about the 20% time that you think works? I am assuming you think it works. Scott: I do. I think, it is a reflection of culture. A perfect example and a good story to follow up the measuring innovations story with, because I get asked about this a lot; what percentage of my team's time is spent innovating? As if there is an hour by hour accounting of this at Google. Jared: I like the idea that there is a sum percentage that they are not allowed to innovate. Scott: Exactly. "That's too much. Stop now. You are over your innovation quota." Jared: "Hey! You already innovated three times this week!" Scott: "Come on..." Jared: "Leave it for somebody else!" Scott: For somebody else, yeah. I have never worked at Google. I have visited there a few times. I know people who work there. And my best understanding of how the system works is it's a point of reference. Jared: It is. Scott: People don't track. First of all, they're not hourly employees, so their 80-percent time is not tracked. So, no one knows exactly how much time you're spending on the side projects anyway. It's much more of a spirit - the spirit being, "Look, you're an individual. You're smart. We hired you. If you have an idea that you don't feel is getting supported that you think you're right about, follow it anyway. Follow it anyway. And you'll get some support from your manager and some support from Google. You can use our computers and our resources. This important idea that you believe in. Purely because you believe in it." And that spirit is a maverick spirit. You're saying, "You think you may have a better idea than the rest of us. Follow it." Jared: One of the interesting things about the 20-percent time that I've discovered in talking to Google employees is that I originally imagined it is that, OK, so one day a week I'd spend on my stuff. But, that's not how people execute it. People will do things like save up - as if they're somehow keeping track... Scott: [laughs] There's a piggy bank. There's an innovation piggy bank. Jared: Yeah. Right. They save up their 20-percent time, and they'll take six weeks out of the year and they'll work on a project from start to finish. And not only that, what I've been learning is a whole bunch of people are teaming together, so that you have these people who don't normally work together who come together, save up all their 20-percent time to work together on a project that they thought of like on the bus as they're going back and forth to San Francisco from Google master headquarters - from the secret cave. Scott: [laughs] Jared: And so, they'll be sitting on the bus, and they'll be sort of saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we tried this?" and "Hey, let's save up our 20-percent time, and we'll do a project like in April, and we'll spend six weeks and we'll do that." And that's how some of these things are coming up now. Scott: Yeah. And that sounds great. You're creating a culture there where people are basically entrepreneurs. Jared: Mm-hmm. Scott: They find an idea. They don't need their parents or their bosses to completely support it. They find an idea, and they're following it, and they feel like they are supported by the organization to follow it, which is the opposite of the historical command-and-control, hierarchical-driven, American business culture that says the boss is the boss; they're the creative leader of the division. Jared: Oh! Scott: It's the exact opposite. And so the point I'm trying to make related to measuring innovation and 20-percent time is that Google has created a culture where, these things, that's the norm. You're weird if you don't have a side project. You're strange if there's not something you're passionate about to dedicate your hours to do. And they reward that in the culture. And that's really the goal of anyone who wants to make innovation happen: "How do I create a culture where people feel safe to do these things?" Jared: Is the Google model the only way? Scott: The 20-percent moniker is not the only way, but the spirit of it is. You do want to provide a way to reward people for doing things - this sounds counterintuitive - but a way to reward people for doings they're not officially supposed to do. Jared: Mm-hmm. Right. Scott: And that's the story of 3M. In fact, a lot of the stories of entrepreneurship in the tech sector come from people who were at companies who had ideas that their companies didn't support. Jared: Right. Scott: And they left because they believed more in their idea than they did in their company. Jared: That's right. Yeah, that's right. Steve... Scott: Steve Wozniak, yeah. Jared: Steve Wozniak left HP... Scott: He proposed a personal-computer project at HP. They said no. He left. There are plenty of other stories of the same thing. So, you're thinking, as a manager, "How do I take this person's idea, these people with ideas, and provide a funnel so some of their ideas stay inside, so these creative people, who might have enough chutzpa to go and start their own company, are basically starting their own mini-companies inside your company?" Jared: Maybe you measure how innovative your company is by all the people who leave and make billions of dollars without you. Scott: [laughing] Right. [laughter] Scott: That's a way to measure how much you've lost, I guess. Yeah. Jared: [laughs] Scott: But I think, culture is really the key factor. It's that you look for any creative person, any hero in any field, and how they did what they did, especially in the business world or tech-sector world, and how they repeat that success is because they have a culture where certain behaviors are rewarded. And those behaviors are not rewarded in most companies. And that explains the difference. Jared: Right. Scott: So, rewards are easy. Rewards can be financial. You reward people who compose ideas and pitch them. Rewards can be status that your promotions are given to people who take the biggest risks or take the most interesting risks that are not afraid of failure. There are many different systems of reward that any manager can employ. And in fact, Google uses some of them, too. They have entrepreneurship grants. They may have stopped this at this point, but for a while they had these foundation grants. If you had an idea for a company, they would actually give you $100,000. You'd still be part of Google, but you would start your own company inside of Google. Try to think, "How do we retain these people with ideas, passionate about their ideas, even though we're becoming a larger, more bureaucratic company?" That's really the MO, that's really the model that any manager or executive should be thinking about: "How do I make it so these people with ideas that don't fit the ideas we already have, that they're still part of the system, that we're making enough change happen and they're still happy here?" And that's not easy if you're in a big organization, like a Microsoft or an IBM. There's so much of the past that it's banking on - again, we used the word "risk" before and "change" before - it becomes very difficult to make change happen. You become risk- averse. Jared: Is innovation only the purview of large companies, or are small companies in a place to be innovative? And does it change? Scott: So, the easy answer is that innovation happens in small companies. That's the easy story. And there's a truth to that story. Google started as a small company. Yahoo started as a small company. Microsoft started as a small company. Apple. And the reason for that is that people who are invested in small companies, they don't have to convince anybody else. Jared: Yeah. Scott: They need a small amount of funding. And that's less and less funding - these days, if you're a web company, a very small amount of funding. You need to get that funding. Once you have that fund, you don't need to commit to anybody. You should just start finding customers. That's who you have to convince. That's a different game than convincing an executive or a bureaucracy or a venture- capitalist firm. So, there's a lot to be said for small companies, because the number of people who can say no to you is small. Jared: Right. Scott: I'm not a programmer, but if I was and I had a great idea and it used AJAX and the web, I wouldn't need very much money to make my idea real. Jared: Right. Scott: But at the same time, big companies have a lot of resources. They have a lot of resources. There are some kinds of innovation that only happen when you have a lot of money. I mean, look at Pixar. Pixar is an expensive company. Their projects are expensive. Jared: That's right. It takes a couple hundred people two or three years to create a "WALL-E" or a "Cars." Scott: Yes. Yes. And so all the innovations that they deserve credit for are fantastic. But, those are innovations that scale, that you could not do if you were not Pixar, who's owned by Disney, et cetera, et cetera. So, there are some kinds of innovation. The Prius is another good example. It's pretty expensive to make a new kind of engine, at all. Jared: Right. Scott: It's pretty expensive to make a new kind of engine that uses a prototype technology. You need a lot of money to put behind that to make that work. Jared: Right. Not to mention having to re-gear your manufacturing line... Scott: There's a whole chain of events. You're absolutely right. So, innovation can happen anywhere. It's just a different scale of innovation that's going to take place, depending on how small or large you are. Jared: Got it. So, now, what about people who are tucked inside of traditionally un-innovative organizations? "You know, I work on the website, and I'm in a large insurance company. And my company, because we're an insurance company, risk aversion is the business that we grew up with." Scott: Everything, yeah. Jared: Yeah. I had somebody the other day tell me, "You know, my business was founded in 1835. And we don't do things a whole lot differently than we did then." [laughter] Scott: Run! Run for the hills! Jared: "And even though we have all these computers and stuff, we still think in the ways that the founders thought in 1835." How do you have innovation in that space? Scott: Well, there are two answers. So, I'll give the difficult, sad, depressing answer first. The first is you've got to know where you are. I mean, you've got to know where you are. You're never going to have radical, reinvented change in an organization led by people that base everything on tradition. You're not. You're not. Unless you find an executive who decides that it's time to break with tradition - which can happen, but it's unlikely. So, you need to know your environment. You need to think like a ninja or a marine and know your landscape, and know what kinds of battles are worth fighting and what kinds aren't. So, that's the depressing answer. The more uplifting answer is you need to think about Ying-Yang, Jujitsu. You need to think, "How can I position my innovation as a tradition? How can I spin this idea that I have so that I don't call it innovation, I don't call it change - somehow I tie it back to tradition and I sell it based on its connection to tradition?" And maybe it's about customer focus, that you can say that the company, in 1835, that it was founded on excellent customer service. So, you have some idea that you can make a good argument it provides amazing customer service. But, you're talking about customer service; you don't talk about innovation. Jared: Right. Scott: So, you have to find a way to position what you think is: "Oh!" It's a breakthrough!" Don't call it a breakthrough. "Oh! It's innovation!" Don't call it innovation. Use the language and use the leverage, whatever the rallying cries are in your organization. Jared: Getting back to our roots. Scott: Getting back... [laughs] There you go. There you go. That's your story. And although you may want to talk about how radical and innovative you are, at that point it becomes about ego. Who cares what you call it, as long as you get it done? And then it separates the people who really want to be innovators from people who want to be known as innovators. Jared: So, in the world of user experience, where I come from, right? We're always collecting information from customers, then trying to take that information and use that to make decisions about the things we're designing. Does that process change when we're working on being more innovative? Scott: No. I think, the process is the same. It comes back around to how much change or risk you're willing to take on. So, with the same set of data, you could say, you come back and you have these five design ideas you'd get from that data. And those five design ideas, you could distribute them on a spectrum of how risky they are - how much potential they are but how risky they are - from most conservative to most risky, and how do you decide when to go with the riskier ideas? Jared: Right. Scott: That's a question of strategy. It's not a question of user- experience design. So, you have to decide, "OK. Is this really risky idea promising enough that we're going to invest a lot of effort into developing it even though we have these more conservative ideas here?" And that question has nothing to do with the data. It has nothing to do with being user-centered. It has to do with: what is your strategy, and how much risk are you willing to take? Jared: That makes sense. One of the questions that keeps coming up, though, is there are people who promote the idea that activities like usability testing are basically just sanding the piece of wood... Scott: The rough edges. Jared: The rough edges out. That, for example, if you take the sanding metaphor, if you sand a chair, you'll get an improved chair. But, it'll never be a coffee table, right? You'll never get something radically different. And maybe what you need is something radically different. So, is it the case that some of this data collection gets in the way of innovation, that we get so mired in small, incremental improvements that we don't take the step back that we need to take? Scott: Yeah, I think, so. I want to be very clear here. I do agree with that complaint, but I want to be very careful. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with usability methods. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with heuristic evaluation or whatever method you'd like to use. It's a question of how that data gets used, or what kinds of questions you're trying to use the data to answer. And the thing is, to make a big improvement or radical improvement, it's never going to come from focusing your attention on what you've already done. Jared: Right. Scott: You're trying to work the opposite way. You don't want to work solely from data. You want to work from exploration, experimentation. You want to do things that don't make sense, because you'll ask questions as a result of doing things that don't make sense, and you'll go in directions you could not possibly have gone if you started purely from what you've already done. I don't see them as polar opposites. If you're smart and you're taking advantage of every opportunity you have, you're doing experiments, you're getting data, and you're sorting out the best way to make use of both. But, there's nothing risky about running a usability study, because it's analysis, and analysis is documenting what you already have. And that may provide you keys as to what you're going to change, but you're going to have to make changes. Jared: Right. Scott: And to make those changes, data only provides you so much information. A lot of what I've seen - and I'm stereotyping and being cynical - people just usability-design to death. That's like the only hammer they have: "Let's run another study. Let's run another study. Let's run another study." And that means like you're boxing with just one hand, [laughs] your one hand tied. You need the other hand, which is to be creative, to take a risk. Do something you can't prove but you believe in. And I think, a good user-centered design team balances both. They say, "You know what? This time, we need more analysis here. This time, we need more imagination here. And imagination means you don't need to prove it. We trust your intuition. Go make that prototype." Google 20-percent time - again, just because you think it's worth making. Jared: Now, there's an old saying, right? Which is that good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgments. Right? Scott: [laughs] Jared: You've heard that? Scott: No. But, I like that. I like it. Jared: So that sort of implies that, in order to get to the point where you can start making good judgments about things, you have to have gone out there and tried a whole bunch of stuff and screwed it up. Right? Made the bad judgments, learned from those judgments, had the experiences and go. I'm wondering if the same sort of thing happens with intuition and imagination - if, by going out and doing the user research and learning all this stuff, but experimenting a little and trying things out and discovering that it doesn't work, you get more success on each successive attempt at taking risk, because each successive attempt at taking risk is, in essence, more informed, and you've got more background. Do you think that there's some truth to that? Scott: Yeah, I do. I have to just make a bad joke. I keep thinking about the person who [laughs] makes a mistake, doesn't learn from it, repeats a mistake, doesn't learn from it - repeats a mistake forever. [laughs] I mean, we often forget that those people do exist. [laughs] Jared: Yeah. Scott: They are there. Some of them are in the user-experience community. I won't name names, but they are there. Jared: [laughs] Scott: OK. But, to answer your question, yeah. Jared: I'm wondering who that is. Scott: Yeah. Well, there's probably more than one. But, anyway... Jared: [laughs] Scott: I didn't want to be too scandalous in this podcast. Jared: [laughs] Scott: One of the themes that comes up, in writing the "Myths of Innovation" book, I did a lot of research into innovation stories: legendary stories, stories that we've heard, coffee-table stories about Teflon being invented by accident, or Velcro. There are tons and tons of these stories. And there are a fair number of these stories that something that was an accident or a mistake led an inventor or a scientist to ask questions that they would never have asked before. And you can look at an accident as a kind of risk-taking. They did some experiment that had 20 different chemistry compositions, and one of them was really weird and made this thing that was really ugly, but it drew their attention to a new way to think about the problem. And there's no analytical way to get at those things. So yeah, you make a mistake, but those mistakes force you to ask new questions, which give you new ideas, which then lead you to new mistakes, and eventually put you on a path where you have something that's much better than you can possibly ever have gotten. So, I guess my short answer is: yes, I agree with you. [laughter] Jared: Wow. Scott: Yeah. I studied philosophy, so I can wander for 15 minutes... Jared: [laughs] Well, good. Then maybe you can answer this question for me. Scott: All right. Jared: So, I remember, when Teflon first came out, they were promoting it as the miracle surface that nothing stuck to. But, I always wondered: how did they get it to stick to the pan? [laughter] Scott: [laughing] I don't know. Jared: OK. Scott: I think, actually, I do know that until it has set, it does not have all the properties that it does when it is stable. Jared: I see. I see. Scott: Yeah. That's a not-educated guess. But, it sounded good, didn't it? Jared: That does sound good. That sounds good. Well, we'll have to experiment. Scott: [laughs] Jared: Well, thank you, Scott. Now, you're going to be talking about innovation at the 2008 User Interface 13 Conference that's going to be, coincidentally, October 13th through 16th in Cambridge, Massachusetts... Scott: Fantastic. Jared: Which is where you're going to be at the same time? Isn't that a good coincidence? [laughs] Scott: Wow. We'll be there, I guess, huh? OK. Jared: So, can you just give us a quick outline as to the high points of what you're going to talk about? Scott: Sure. So, the seminar is called "How to Lead Breakthrough Projects." And it's based on the book, but it's a much more practical version of some of the material in the book. And the idea of the seminar is three or four things. One, what does a breakthrough even mean? How do we put that into a context where people can go back to their jobs and say, "Wait. This idea has the potential to be a breakthrough. This idea does not." What does it even mean? And to demystify all these words that get thrown around: innovation, creating thinking, and breakthrough, radical. The first section of the course is demystifying that and giving people grounding for how to talk about this stuff. The second is training from the history of great innovations. What did the people at Xerox PARC know? What did the people at Apple know? What does it mean to lead a team where you are trying to make breakthroughs happen? What's the playbook for that? Then the third part of the course is about all the jargon and the stuff that gets thrown around the business world: S curves. There's all these different terms and jargon that gets thrown around a lot in business circles around innovation, and I feel it's important to provide people an inoculation against these things. So, they are destructive forces. And often, when you're presenting an innovative idea to an executive, these jargon and these things come up. You want to be prepared for them. And the fourth part of the course is actually about creative thinking. Now, what does it mean to be creative? What's the role of a leader in creative thinking? What's the role of an individual contributor? And most of the course, probably about a third of the course is exercises and games around creative thinking. So it's really a course designed for people who work on a team that's chartered with innovation, manage a team where you think being more creative is important, or you hope to be one of those two things. Jared: Excellent. Well, thank you, Scott. We're here talking with Scott Berkun. He is the author of "The Myths of Innovation." And he also will be presenting at the User Interface Conference in October. His seminar last year, at last year's User Interface Conference, was one of these highest-rated seminars at the show, and we're very pleased to have him back. So, you should check that out. You can find information about that at our conference website: uiconf.com. And maybe we'll see you there. Thank you very much for listening and encouraging our behavior. [segue music] Brian Christiansen: Don’t forget, if you’d like to hear more from Scott Berkun, be sure to sign up for our User Interface Conference, this October 2008 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Learn more at uiconf.com That's U-I-C-O-N-F dot COM That's all for this week. Thanks for listening. Goodbye. [outro music]