Content is king, as they say. While that may be true in terms of helping establish raw importance or ranking, that factor quickly slides down the ranks when the content soon swells beyond fathomable volumes. Making sense of it (or rather, determining if there is even sense to be made) is where the real value lies when having tons of content.
I’m going to explain what I mean by way of analogy, so stay with me.
Ever since I can remember, there have been traffic reports via helicopter on the radio. In Massachusetts (USA), there is a local AM radio station that touts ‘traffic on the threes’, meaning every ten minutes, at the ’3′ mark, a 60-second traffic report is given. It’s structured in the same general sequence every time: routes north of the major cities, then south, then west and east. If you tune in late, or don’t pay full attention, you miss your route, and have to wait another ten minutes. Back when this was introduced, this was likely heralded as a huge improvement or innovation to what was in place before (nothing) because it gave drivers a sense of the road conditions. But the sequential reporting nature of it and the ‘wait every ten minutes’ meant that if you were absent-minded, or at a junction where you needed to make a decision, you were out of luck.
A few years ago, the State Department of Transportation (again, in Massachusetts) began delivering quasi-on-demand traffic reports to end-users (versus broadcast). The premise: call 511 from a mobile phone, and enter a route number to get the traffic conditions for a particular route. This was a huge improvement over the helicopter system for many reasons. Firstly, no longer did one need to wait for the ‘threes’ to get a report. Secondly, the notion of sequence is dismissed – one could enter mostly any route one wanted to, and the report was delivered. Thirdly, this is a demand-generated system. The DOT could see which travel routes garnered the most (or fewest) traffic condition requests, since this was a pull technology versus a push technology.
“Grand!” one might say. But, this, too, has its shortcomings. For me, I take two major highways to and from work. Hearing the traffic report on one route as being free and clear is great, except if the traffic on the other route is jammed solid. At that point, it almost doesn’t matter if the first route is wide open – I’ll be delayed. If I don’t check each leg, I don’t get the complete picture. Yes, you might say – check each, and then decide. And I do. But it still lacks that something to pull it all together.
Enter the notion of traffic maps, some even color-coded a handy green/yellow/red (to align with a common US traffic signal color-coding system). These are served up on websites (some are even the same as the parent company of the traffic helicopter reports!), and many are available via mobile/smart phone – the largest innovation in this field, in my opinion. Why? Now, at one’s fingertips, one is presented with a complete view of the road conditions. One can make a much more informed decision about travel routes when accessing data that is relevant from point A to point B, in whichever digestible sequence one desires, on the user’s demand (and not on the threes), and likely more accurate (the data can be pushed out to an application almost real-time).
In each case, relatively speaking, the same data is core to each solution, but the presentation and the manner in which it is accessed radically changes the value of that information. When one has the complete context of the traffic on the roadway system, one can make a much better informed travel decision. One can decide which routes to take or not take, where to detour, and understand the cumulative impact ahead of time, rather than real-time.
—
Context, among content, is king. I might have three terabytes of data on traffic volume and queue theory, but knowing how the saturation flow rate and platoon factor/type relates to traffic signal timing is important to me. Simple search (or even complex search) will highlight the number of occurrences of a given value or phrase in a document or library, but parsing and understanding the context of that – how one item relates to another, and how the relevant importance of those two factors change – is far more valuable than the content itself.
—
If you like what you’re reading here, consider subscribing to the RSS feed to be alerted when more new posts are added.
image sources: Google search screen capture; How Do I Use 511 Massachusetts; iPhone capture of an INRIX Traffic report
{ 9 comments }
Context is the next king. As the content bucket fillithover there needs to be better ways to find things. Imagine your work inbox and the things you are working on, say presentations and excel files. Well wouldn’t it be useful if the email messages knew which files they were about? I think so! And imagine if those lists of tasks your manager has for you and those lists of issues the team is track also knew what files they were about. Imagine if you could open a file and see all notes, discussions, tasks and issues that were related to the file. Imagine if every file also had a Facebook page (well not really a page on Facebook) where you could see everything going on with that file. If your imagination is now fillithover with joy then you need to look at http://www.Vuuch.com.
Hi Alan,
This is a great article. Would you be willing to do a follow up with tips you have for a) business communications that could use better context and b) effective ways to provide that context. It’s always so much easier when someone else will think for me
Barbara, thanks for the comment. This wasn’t a ‘tools’ post, per se, but more of a philosophical one. With respect to better business communications and context, I suggest putting yourself in the customers’ shoes. “What’s in it for me?’ This is a parallel to the classic ‘features vs. benefits’ argument. Give *context* as to why something is important. *Tell me why* you;re showing me what you’re showing me.
I agree that context is important – good context can make or break content.
Here are two examples of context:
1. http://bit.ly/aAZlbm
2. http://bit.ly/bRHeQf
The first one was designed to show complexity, and the second one was designed by someone who waded through this first presentation and attempted to make it easier for people to understand.
Out of these two examples I would use the first one to scare or position people against the healthcare plan and in the second I would use it in a presentation to educate or position people in support of the plan.
As you state in your article: “Context, among content, is king”; however, as @Alan Belniak refers to in his comment – it is all about presenting the content to the audience and swaying their opinion your way.
John
@JxA
Reference articles for context examples:
1. http://bit.ly/cRvw00
2. http://bit.ly/ceoQRa
John,
Thanks for the comment. This is one of many great examples where the content is so deep that it needs the author to help navigate the reader – by way of context.
Last Tuesday (5/24/10), there was tractor-trailer that rolled over on 128 North at Route 20 in Waltham. The road was closed for almost an hour, and traffic was backed up into Dedham, and the new automated 511 system WAS NOT REPORTING IT! At our office we fielded scores of phone calls with people complaining about the new system, and how they would have went around it, had they known of the incident. Not a very good debut, and with the Summer driving season here, there is no telling what type of major incidents that are on the horizon that have the potential to adversely impact the morning and afternoon commutes.
Matt, thanks for the comment. [1] I think you may have meant to comment on this post instead? http://www.subjectivelyspeaking.net/2010/04/19/the-role-of-innovation-in-an-as-is-business/ [2] What office is your office (when you mention ‘our office’)? I agree that when there’s a major disruption like this, all reporting services need to be on their toes. I’ll withhold judgment for now, because I suspect that the system needs to be fine-tuned (just as ‘your office’ was not flawless on day one, I suspect). However, once the honeymoon is over, if the service isn’t good, I’ll be sure to complain about it. In the end, I don’t care how I get the information (computers, humans, magic, etc.) – I just want it to be timely and accurate. The old system wasn’t working. We’ll see if the new system is any better.
My apologies for commenting on the wrong link, and I also apologize for not explaining what I meant when I said “our office”. I meant to say our office at the 511 Operations Center in Boston, the ones that WERE REPORTING on a truck rollover that had all the lanes of Route 128 shut down, and traffic backed up for miles. Also, the sentiment from the riding public that are now subjected to this system is not good at all. The volume of complaints was so high that the highway department has already dismantled the public input line so now, not only are people getting an inferior system, there is no way for the users of the system (whose tax money pays for) to give information on incidents that they see during their commute.
I also must point out that you are clearly in the minority when you state that the old system “was not working”. So, in your estimation, the new automated system “was working”, when it had no information, whatsoever on a truck rollover, in which the road was shut down? It is safe to say, judging by people that called our office (the 511 system in Boston, the ones who WERE reporting on the truck accident that had traffic backed for almost 22 miles) that they new automated 511 may have lost more users in its second day of existence, then it could have hoped to gain. Also, there will be no “fine tuning” because any enhancements will require money being spent on actual humans to collect and disperse data, and this new system was designed to save money.
No apologies necessary – just thought you might want to keep the conversation threaded. With respect to, “Also, the sentiment from the riding public that are now subjected to this system is not good at all.” – can you point to that data? I don’t disagree (or agree) with you, but from where are you getting that? Can others see that? Also, with respect to, “So, in your estimation, the new automated system “was working”, when it had no information, whatsoever on a truck rollover, in which the road was shut down? ” – wow, no – not at all. Re-read all prior posts, including the original on this very topic. I’ve stated very clearly before (and I’ll do so again): I’m not pro-”the new system”. I’m not anti-”the old system”. All I want is good data, fast, and accurate. The old system (sorry if you were part of it) was often not accurate and not fast. The new system – so far – isn’t all that great. I’m giving it some time for the kinks to work out. You’re telling me that they won’t work out. Part of me believes you because you are closer to this issue than I am, but to be objective, I’ll wait a bit. Again – in the end, all I want is accurate, timely data. I don’t care how I get it. I’m sorry for those who might lose their jobs over it.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 4 trackbacks }