Removing the middleman to make health insurance more transparent & Agile

Health insurance is health care financing. 

It's not health care. It pays for health care. If anything, an insurance company is nothing more than a financial corporation that cares about reducing its risk – it's own gambling risk. 

Every month you make a payment to an insurance company, betting that you will get sick and need that money to help pay for your medical costs. And every month, the insurance company accepts that payment, betting that you WILL NOT get sick and won't have to pay you.

Gamblers are all about probability and math. I remember my grandfather doing a bunch of calculations to determine if one dog was a better "bet" than the other based on track record. So for health insurance, actuaries use past data to determine the probability of this or that, or what is a risky "bet" for a health issue. Then the administrators take these facts and create rules around coverage, determining what will and will not be covered. And the rules change – depending on how the risks calculate each year (factored with costs and profit) to be more or less or just off the table. 

I haven't even reached claims processing yet, and already you can see why health insurance can be expensive. Just to create a plan, there is a large amount of staff and work involved. Now add the paperwork for claims – which is ridiculous (I've worked on systems to automate that process and there is a lot to it) – and a profit margin. Welcome to our current health insurance mess!

How does this relate to Agile? Or UX? or CX?

There is a company, Collective Health, and they are cutting out the middleman health insurance companies, and allowing companies to pick and choose what will be covered for employees. It's a self-funded plan – rather than an employer going off to an insurance company to have them manage it, the company could work with Collective Health to manage it online. So much simpler!

“While insurance is supposed to be a risk­-sharing business, health insurance has increasingly become a middleman business devised to generate profit for the health insurers above all else. As a result, there is a fundamental disconnect between the incentives of traditional health insurance companies and people’s and organizations’ health insurance needs,” says Diab. 

From Collective Health Wants To Replace The Health Insurance Industry With A Software Program, TechCrunch

This new approach will eliminate a lot of the rule books that guide insurance and make claims almost impossible to understand – especially when an insurance company changes its mind about how much risk it wants to assume to make a specific profit margin.

The current health insurance system is like a waterfall system, but the similarity isn't in the paperwork or requirements, although that is a factor. It's about the silos and lack of transparency. Health insurance companies just aren't transparent.

“Patients are often left to advocate for themselves and trying to get a clear answer from your health insurance company about what’s driving costs is impossible,” says Dr. Batniji.

From Collective Health Wants To Replace The Health Insurance Industry With A Software Program, TechCrunch

With that said, creating a Web site for companies to select and manage their own plans for employees is revolutionary. The company and employees will better understand what is covered and there is less rule changing to cover profits/reduce "risk."

And if there is a software product to manage it, the managing is based on rules that someone programmed. That means any question can be answered pretty easily. 

To boot, you can get answers to your questions easily and simply on your computer or device. How great is that?

Agile methodologies haven't only benefited software creation, but is starting to influence how people think about business in general – less paperwork, fewer silos, more streamlined direct communication, and greater transparency. It is shaking up a lot of middleman industries, influencing them to be more transparent and easier to understand, making them obsolete. Health insurance seems to be one of the next targets.

 

Removing the middleman to make health insurance more transparent & Agile

How do your customers define value? Price isn’t always it….

What is value?

A better question: How do your customers define value for themselves?

At the Agile 2014 conference this week, "value" was a buzzword – which is great. Customers should be the focus of what we work on.

  • First, because they give us money.
  • Second, because they can be our salespeople for us.
  • Third, they are good at figuring out what is useful – and give us feedback based on what they choose to use.

I notice companies spend a lot of time thinking that only low-cost gives value to customers. They talk about low-costs to the point where it makes a product a commodity, rather than focusing on how their features benefit users. The airline industry did this, making the flight experience a mode of transportation like a car or bus, rather than what it was in the early days – a stylish way to travel.

I flew on Spirit Airlines (a low-cost airline) on Sunday. The value they offer is in the cost and how basic you can travel.

I didn't realize how many aspects of a flight could be monetized:

  • carry-on bags
  • checked-in bags
  • telling Spirit about your bag count at booking vs check-in vs at the counter
  • printing tickets at a kiosk
  • just going to a counter at the airport

– and the list goes on.

They even do some things that are non-standard amongst airlines, such as defining overweight bags as being over 40 pounds rather than 50 pounds (of course, there is a fee for an overweight bag). Ironically, the fee in that case is less than other airlines. 

I was exhausted being nickeled and dimed by the time I got on the plane. Luckily, I didn't want a beverage (another $2 each) or a snack. Given the lines and the planning you need to do to save money, I found it to be more of a hassle than worth it for me. 

I read a blog about why Spirit fits the bill for some people. And it made sense – a group of 4 could fit in another vacation trip during the year by sharing luggage and having no carry-ons. It's awesome for families who are on a budget.

Those of us who do business travel by ourselves don't really benefit from Spirit's cost structure. You have to take at least one bag anyway, and after a long day in a meeting, the last thing you want to do is wait in a line to maybe save a couple of dollars that you can expense anyway.

So Spirit has it's place. And I realized during the experience that I was not in their customer set who valued what they were offering.

Virgin America's flights offer value in the experience you have during your trip. The flight attendants don't hassle you. The food is pretty good. There's a lot of space – even in coach. And you can upgrade easily. The value is comfort and ease. They don't charge a bunch – more than Spirit, but it is worth it. Then again, I value that that I'm not hassled and am willing to pay more money so I can be left alone to enjoy the flight. 

Other airlines offer great point programs for frequent flyers – as well as lots of locations for those frequent flyers to use their points. That's another customer value. I'm not traveling as much as I used to these days, so those benefits don't attract me and I don't see value in it.

And it's ok that I don't see value in it – others do! And those customers fly those airlines faithfully, while I choose to fly Virgin America faithfully. I share Virgin's values for their product – why I am a customer.

Companies need to think more about what they offer and how they are providing value to their customers. Customers who share that value will find them and use the product. Sure, low-cost can be a factor, especially for a commodity product, but it is not the only factor. You can help customers in other ways – not always the most obvious ways – but those other ways may be ways that make your customers your salespeople to get more customers.

You need to make it clear to customers what you are offering for value. Sometimes companies find that difficult – because it is – so they resort to cost. A shame! No one wins in a price war.

 

How do your customers define value? Price isn’t always it….

Informal research: Does anyone use Yahoo anymore? (Or has Google simply won?)

I'm being serious – does anyone use Yahoo anymore? I just read how Melissa Meyer is disappointed in her company's ad revenue. But I don't know anyone who really goes to Yahoo – except to get sports stats. Even 2 years ago, all signs pointed to its death. 

So I'd like to do some casual/informal research:

  • Do you use Yahoo? Why?
  • If you aren't a fan of Yahoo, what made you switch?
  • Do you use Google? Why? 

Feel free to provide your responses in the comments section.

Thanks! I look forward to the conversation!

Informal research: Does anyone use Yahoo anymore? (Or has Google simply won?)

Apple and IBM – a partnership to benefit the users!

This morning I woke up to TechCrunch's article about this partnership between Apple and IBM.

Personally, I think this is fantastic! It's about time that Apple will officially be brought into the workplace. People have been unofficially bringing Apple into the workplace for years through BYOD. They were the outlaw/bandit technologies. In some places, there would be an option for people to choose to work with a Mac or a PC; but those working with a Mac were either developers or creatives. Business people have a hard time adopting them for work. 

I find this ironic because I remember when an office would have BOTH Macs and PCs and there would be races on complex calculations in Excel to see which computer system would win (hint: Mac always did). The Mac was always the superior computer – even for the business team.

Apple is like the pretty girl at a party – no one expects her to be smart, good at math or science, and actually be able to hold a conversation. Unfortunately in our society, the qualities of being efficient and effective doesn't include beauty. Or fun. Or entertainment. 

More irony –  to run entertainment "products" and projects you need some seriously hard core systems due to the extremely large file sizes and the need for granular processing (at the pixel level). Audio and video files are massive! Dreamworks buys high-end HP servers to support their animations, which have amazing levels of detail. Detailed photographs require amazing pixel level control to mirror what happens on traditional film – and it requires amazing amounts of computer power to process that. Art/entertainment is really big IT business…but some conservative IT professionals sadly just don't see it.

Consumers are behaving differently than in the past. 10 years ago, people used the devices they were assigned at work. Today, they see how these devices are easy to use and bring them to work to use their. The division between work and personal life is fast deteriorating. Technology needs to helping people do more in their lives so they can enjoy living rather than only optimize the workplace. Apple and IBM seem to have caught on to that. And hey – if you can't beat 'em (I think the whole BYOD movement has demonstrated that), join 'em.

Little known fact – Apple was in the enterprise market with their servers (they recently pulled to the small business market). Again, the speed of the Apple OS makes it superior, but there were some key components missing – they fixed the multi-user management, but integrating with other proprietary systems proved challenging. Apple's OS is REALLY Unix – it is from NeXT (and I know most hard core Unix fans believe that they had a superior system). This is why Apple's OS performs so much better than Windows. But this proprietary nature of Apple made it hard to be enterprise class.

Windows run on any type of PC, just like Microsoft server software. And Bill Gates gave away a lot of enterprise software for free to get customers "hooked." As a strategy to get marketshare, Microsoft SQL was given away for free when it first came out. It worked! I remember a number of IT directors telling me that we wouldn't use the better Oracle database for a project because the Microsoft license was free. Sure, they got stuck with a Microsoft database, but at the time, $30K vs free was an easy decision. 

Today, more IT decisions are being made from users than it is from the directors making the decisions. Why this partnership between Apple and IBM makes sense.

In some ways, we all should have seen this partnership coming. IBM got out of the hardware business, but it is still working with businesses, so what was it going to sell to them? I doubt Dell products. 

Apple will get further into the enterprise business, and IBM showed that it is listening to its customers with this BYOD problem. Sure, some companies will have a hard time accepting iPhones, iPad and Macs in a workplace, in the same way that some labs can't accept the pretty girl finding a cure for cancer. But the companies' employees will be thrilled that they can use 1 device – not one at home and one at work – do their job anywhere.

We will have more blurred lines between work and leisure, but more opportunities for living.

Apple and IBM – a partnership to benefit the users!

Let your mind use devices

This morning I was reading about Emotiv – they are using brain waves to make devices take action. Someone could wear a headset and "will" a car, wheelchair or a number of other items to move forward. No levers, no knobs. It's thought waves interpreted by software that enables an inanimate object to take action.

There are a number of uses for this listed on TechCrunch and at the Emotiv site. It could be used in video games, to help paraplegics and the disabled, to help individuals who have seizures to relax and focus. Those uses would be industry game changers. However, there are some uses of this technology I personally find a little devious such as market research and interrogations. It's just invasive. And those uses are based on the notion of people not telling the truth and making this into some type of lie-detector test. That's not using technology to enhance society.

However, what if there was a way to use brain waves to use your mobile phone? Maybe you enter a security code using your own brain waves – some emotional response combination? What if you could do that for your bank account? Talk about a security feature!

This still has a way to go before it is mainstream, but will there still be room for gestures and voice technology? I think those will always be available. The challenge with brain waves is that it could be misused and become an intrusive technology in the "wrong hands." Personally, I would prefer to use gestures and voice commands when interacting with a device. I wouldn't want a device to have access to all of my thoughts and feelings (especially with all of this NSA/Snowden business going on). However, for those who cannot use their voice or hands – this is a great solution to give them the life they deserve. Maybe it will develop so those who cannot communicate today (mute, speech impediment, etc.) could do so tomorrow? What a great advancement! 

Let your mind use devices

Disruptive innovation – the case to unite hardware and software again

Google just had their conference and presented Material Design. It's a solid design approach and bumps-up their OS design game. However, after learning more about it, and thinking about Apple's approach to OS, I'm wondering if hardware and software are more united than we really thought.

What made the iPhone innovative is that it was a unique approach for combining a camera, email, book reader, text message reader, etc. into a phone, creating a mini computer. Rather than having a separate keyboard that takes up space, there was a flat screen, redefining how someone interacts and communicates with the device. The icons may change, the animations may change – but the core innovation was creating a new approach to interacting with a device using hardware and software to incorporate touch technology.

The Andriod OS was pretty much a copy of touch interaction – why Steve Jobs was so annoyed at Google. And Google was more open to installing this OS on other company's devices (also why Stevie was also upset at Samsung).

The Andriod OS is being perfected. Materials is beautiful and really brings a new game to devices. However, I wonder if the device OS trend is to just perfect what is available rather than to think about new ways humans can interact with devices.

What I often think about:

  • Better voice command tools . Why do we need to press a button for that to work? Why can't we call the device's name and just have it go? If this exists – let me know. It will help me be more hands-free while I drive.
  • Do we really need a keyboard? There weren't a lot of keyboards in Star Trek or Star Wars. Typing should be going away – especially if we have more voice command capabilities or gestures. Is a keyboard the way of the future?
  • Do we really need a mouse? Couldn't we draw with a stylus on the screen or point to what we want? This brings me to my next point…
  • When will laptop/desktop screens have touch capabilities? Or could we get the tablets powered up to get rid of the laptop/desktop and create a real notebook? HP and some other computers have this. It's great! 
  • Why do we keep relying on metaphors from daily life that require us to have a manual to operate? If we are truly evolving usability, shouldn't we rethink how we use our devices? Maybe a knob isn't the right way to operate a stove. Maybe a lever isn't the right way to flush a toilet – there are button mechanisms in place now, which is more intuitive. Just something to think about.
  • Why are technology implants considered an option at all? Do we really need technology in our bodies to get results? Isn't the brain a master biological computer? 

How we get there is to allow users, designers, technologists and researchers the ability to collaborate to create a product. Users are quickly getting to know what they want in a mobile product. They use them more than we think – and they have very clear thoughts about how we sometimes over-complicate a simple device. For example, some think that a phone should be more of a phone while some people (like me) can see the need for a phone on a tablet (video conferencing ability). If there is more dialog between everyone, we will create more interesting devices and interactions.

And this brings me back to combining software and hardware to create better experiences with devices. Now that we are perfecting what we have, maybe it is time for a disruption to appear that will make us rethink technology and what it can do in our lives.

Disruptive innovation – the case to unite hardware and software again

RoamTouch’s GestureKit: Gestures for the people, by the people

Mobile gestures are all the rage and at the same time, its almost like no one cares. Don Norman wrote a post about them on LinkedIn: Gestural Control: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

He pointed out that patenting gestures is causing a significant amount of problems. We can’t standardize across operating systems and platforms because everything is proprietary and users have to learn too many things. So what do users do? They don’t learn anything and do what is familiar and comes naturally.

He also pointed out:

Well, gestures are the new form of command-line interfaces. They have to be memorized. Worse, they lack the power of the old command lines. We went from far too many alternatives and commands of menu-based systems to the highly oversimplified capabilities of today’s gesture systems.
And it is true. Gestures aren’t intuitive or easy to use. 
 
But this brings up the discussion around intuitive interfaces being more familiar interfaces that Jef Raskin addressed long ago:

From this and other observations, and a reluctance to accept paranormal claims without repeatable demonstrations thereof, it is clear that a user interface feature is “intuitive” insofar as it resembles or is identical to something the user has already learned. In short, “intuitive” in this context is an almost exact synonym of “familiar.” – Jef Raskin http://www.asktog.com/papers/raskinintuit.html

And I agree with Raskin. Most of what we consider intuitive is designed based on what we know and understand – what is familiar.

Are menu systems intuitive? They are today because they have been in use for over 30 years – and heck, they beat memorizing command lines. Using user-centric design, would we have chosen to use a menu system? That’s the million dollar question.

Minority Report creates a fantastic dramatic moment when Tom Cruise flips through screens and video at the police station. It was like watching him dance – just great drama. But I had to wonder – is this intuitive?

Swiping is intuitive because it resembles how we turn a page (flip a corner and push it to the left). Tap is familiar because we do that with a mouse when we select something onscreen.

Are we literally using a finger to replicate what we do with a mouse? Yes.

Do we know what types of gestures would make sense for users? I don’t think so. There needs to be research about gestures and what makes sense. We have been told by software companies and engineers which gestures we should use to complete certain actions – the gesture language is being defined for us rather than by us.

But this trend is changing…

I met with RoamTouch a couple of weeks ago, and they make GestureKit.

GestureKit is a tool for a designer or developer to quickly create new gestures and implement them outside of an operating system. 

What’s wonderful about the tool is that it is breaking through conventions to allow people to create  gestures with just an easy to use GUI. Once the gesture is created with fingers onscreen, the system then creates code for the developer to include in an app or site. Once the code is integrated, the gestures are available for immediate use.

Here’s a video that gives you more details and a demo:

In many ways, RoamTouch’s approach is revolutionary in computing – about as revolutionary as Linus Torvalds’s approach with Linux. It is also similar to what social media is doing to publishing. They are moving gesture creation out of a dictatorial model (the engineers/technology companies) into a social model (for the users, by the users).

According to their blog (by Nico and Ning), 

We therefore believe that gestureKit has the potential to drive this change that is much needed in the industry, not by imposing a set of standards, but rather by creating and nurturing the perfect environment where these can emerge and grow into widely adopted and recognized patterns.

During our meeting, we discussed how gestures are like a language – and languages are not created by individuals or organizations but organically within a group of people. And then language becomes intuitive because it is integrated within that group’s experiences and culture. I’ll go into this more in another post because it really is its own discussion.

So let’s say you create new gestures in your app or site. This raises the questions:

  • How would users know what the new new gestures are?
  • How would users know that they exist?

RoamTouch is aware of this challenge and has a few ideas/suggestions to solve the issue – help areas, etc. However, as we all know, the more someone uses a tool and learns the new gestures, the more likely he will use them. The challenge is how the gestures are introduced to users, where additional work is needed. 

I find this product so exciting because it can help designers evolve the use of mobile devices in daily life in a more organic, social way rather than being defined by a business and engineers (as our technologies have been).

  • We can now more easily test gestures – creating a gesture doesn’t require an incredible amount of mathematical programming that may be discarded after a single round of testing. It’s easy to experiment.
  • We can make adjustments and enhancements more easily on the fly and be more iterative in gesture creation. A full-release isn’t needed to fix something that clearly isn’t working and creating a difficult user experience.
  • Gestures can be more easily shared between apps – determine as a larger group/society about what works and what doesn’t, leveraging the success of others (and avoiding self-inflicted failure).

Social approaches are redefining how we look at business, communication and computing. We are moving away from a world where we use products that are defined for us, into a world where products are defined by us. The more involved we are in creating products, the more likely we are use to them. RoamTouch’s GestureKit is on the way to do this – involving the user in creating gestures that they will use and understand on their own without a manual.

RoamTouch’s GestureKit: Gestures for the people, by the people

The Human Scale, Agile and UX

Last night, I saw the movie The Human Scale outside, in a park in downtown Dallas. It is about cities and how they were designed for cars and not people. Well, not entirely true and I take that back. Early cities (up through the 1950s) were designed for people; cities in the 50's and beyond were designed for cars. And that design is clearly not working well for cities or the happiness of people in the cities. Most people now live in the suburbs and work in the cities; and people who live in the cities don't usually associate with their neighbors because they are disconnected from life and don't socialize with them.

Jan Gehl, founder of Gehl Architects in Denmark, is the innovative force of this movement to design cities for people. He has influenced countless leaders and urban planners to change the focus of a city to make it more social and friendly to people – not a place for cars.

He got his start: 

As a "young architect working in the suburbs," Gehl married a psychologist and "had many discussions about why the human side of architecture was not more carefully looked after by the architects, landscape architects, and planners… My wife and I set out to study the borderland between sociology, psychology, architecture, and planning."[1]

His team has done great research about people in cities, watching how they move, what they like and don't like, and have influenced other activists and researchers to do the same. It was truly inspiring.

And the changes that can be made to a city to make it more people-friendly don't have to be huge, sweeping changes. They can be small things, like adding a square with tables and chairs for people to sit, socialize and have impromptu exchanges. Or by creating larger walkways quickly, by creating artifical boundaries that uses some street space for pedestrian sidewalks. Change comes in smaller iterations rather than big projects.

For the Agile and UX practioners out there – this should all sound familiar. 

I think what I liked best about the movie was seeing how the Agile movement of small changes quickly in iterations is expanding into other fields, as well as a focus on the user/customer/people rather than machines and systems. 

Computer systems have always been designed by engineers for engineers. They are designed to do what is easy for the system – not reflect how people think or work. We have been taught to think a certain way by using these devices – and one has to wonder if this is the best way. This is why the UX world is changing the focus of technologists to think more about the people using devices rather than the technology to create the devices. 

Change is more effective in small doses. A new feature here or there can make a system more usable. Add up those changes over time, and you have a new system that is better for the user all around. If a feature doesn't work for people, then just remove it and continue with trying new things until you get it right.

I felt hopeful for the future watching this movie about cities, change and the focus being on people and their needs. We are the ones living in cities (or suburbs) and using devices and applications – we should be the ones dictating how they should work to help us in our daily lives be happier and healthier.

The Human Scale, Agile and UX

Weekend unplugging and breaking for creativity

I'm guilty of "taking my weekend" to re-cooperate from the week. I try to stay offline and not work – ok, maybe I will respond to some personal emails or read some articles, but I'm not producing anything new. I'm taking a break. 

By Friday afternoon, I'm either:

  • Overstimulated and just can't think rationally anymore.
  • Overwhelmed and can't organize my desk – nevermind a thought.
  • Stir crazy (looking at the same 4 walls for 4-5 days solid can be a little much).

When I look at the computer screen and all I see are pretty pictures, I know I need a change of pace.

That's when I know it is time to unplug, walk away from the computer and do something else. Anything else.
 
I do love my work. But to keep being creative, I need space to experience inspiration. Sometimes I can escape on a weeknight; often, I can’t. That’s what weekends are for.

I used to work faithfully all weekend and now that I look back, it didn't do me any favors. I was a freelancer working by the hour and it made me a lot of money, but I wasn’t working smarter because I never rested. It was hard to always be innovative because I wasn't making time to get new input or let myself be inspired – I was constantly pushing out thoughts and solutions. 

It wasn’t until I moved to Dallas that I started to unplug during the weekends and give myself time for inspiration. It was the best thing I ever did. I opened up to new experiences, got offline, experienced life, and lived at a slower pace. 
 
Recently at the Dallas Digital Conference, I heard a talk by Randi Zuckerberg where she noted that unplugging during the weekend was going to be a trend. She swears by it. And is working with an organization to encourage it. 
 
She does admit that one of the challenges with unplugging is how people respond to that. Many do expect that all responses should be immediate. That’s just not realistic – nor should it be expected. And when we keep doing it, frankly, we are allowing others to keep expecting that behavior from us, and the cycle continues. Life doesn't need to be at the pace others set for you.  
 
To experience the world, sometimes it is better to be offline anyway.
But I sensed it one night in November when I saw a photo of a beautiful Seattle sunset on Twitter, and realized I could have seen it myself that evening, if I had just bothered to look around. (Do you unplug? Making the case for ‘No-Tech Sundays, Monica Guzman)
That line “just bothered to look around” haunted me. So often we will shift our focus away from the present to look at people’s pictures, tag who is in them, and read about what others are doing that we are missing life around us. How many people have you observed so engaged in their phones and oblivious to the present life that they bump into poles? Or miss a curiosity around them? They lose touch with real life and start to devalue it. It's great to read about your friend's past and present, but your own present should also be treasured. 
 
And then there is the creativity factor. It's pretty well known that to be creative at work, you need to take a break. Even Forbes has an article about it – 8 Ways Goofing Off Can Make You More Productive. And there is a line in the article about why I unplug on the weekends:
Many of our most creative, productive thoughts come not while we’re trying to force them during long sessions at our desks, but at odd moments outside the office.
On the weekends, I make space to create and let my mind wander, which I can't do during the week because I'm either in meetings or on deadlines. But on a Saturday, even running errands has a leisurely, wandering quality to it. I may decide to change my routine and explore a new part of Dallas on a whim. I may explore a store that is new to me, take a walk in a park, or visit a museum I have wanted to go to but never found the time to visit before. There are plans but no plans at the same time. There is no clock telling me where to be or what to do. 
 
Being plugged in changes that because I feel that I need to respond to people's requests or be accountable to share what I'm doing ("document" as a friend of mine said). There are times where I just want to use my memory to record the experience and just enjoy it. Why do I need to share my experiences with others? It sounds selfish, but I wonder if the social media sharing is subconscious bragging or real sharing with the world? What’s my motive? And then I ask myself the larger question – Why do I care about what others think about my life?
 
On the weekends, I stay offline to experience life on my own and be open to new adventures.
Bottom line, no-tech Sundays are helping me notice all the things that connected tech is changing about the ways we behave. It’s not about rejecting tech, or recovering a life without it. It’s about taking this power that’s appeared in our world and slowing it down just enough to look at it, understand it, and maybe, just maybe, take control. (Do you unplug? Making the case for ‘No-Tech Sundays, Monica Guzman)
I couldn't have said that better than Monica. She's right.
 
So if anyone thinks I'm ignoring them on a Saturday or Sunday, I probably am. I'm unplugging and being slightly irresponsible, refusing to live on a schedule, and taking a break from work and life to be open to new ideas and experiences. I'll be a better person for it on Monday, 
Weekend unplugging and breaking for creativity

Size doesn’t matter in this just-in-time world

You can get online anywhere. Anywhere. From a coffee house to a bar to a plane. You can check your email from your phone or tablet – not just your computer. Sometimes it's free; sometimes there is a charge. But there are times that you can't get online and you need to BYOW – Bring Your Own WiFi. Or rather, get a hotspot device.

A few years ago before WiFi was ubiquitous, I got a little hotspot device for my computer. I could just plug it in and ta-da! I'm online and running, enabling my online addiction to continue.

This indulgence cost me $80/month for 10GB of data through Verizon. Later it cost me $50/month for 5GB. Expensive, especially when you use maybe 10% of what you pre-pay for that doesn't rollover into the next month, but when traveling to places with sketchy service, it was worth it. It saved me many times in business emergencies so I could have the flexibility to work where I wanted and maintain my freedom.

Then I learned about Karma. Karma is a just-in-time WiFi solution. You only pay for what you use. And multiple people can use your device in WiFi challenged places by getting an account and pre-paying for service. Rather than wasting $50/month for something I barely use, I can pay for what I do use and add on as needed. More economical and efficient.

No more overestimating to prevent overage fees. No more paying for something I don't use. Verizon still uses the model of estimating how much they need to support by having their customers estimate usage when choosing a plan. Karma doesn't make people work to figure out what they need – they just offer service at a fee. Verizon is focused on their own needs; Karma is focused on the customer's needs. 

Needless to say – I got Karma.

And I went to cancel my service with Verizon. 

I was thrilled to offload this $50/month bill for technically nothing. Of course, they tried to save my account. I told them that I was moving to Karma and didn't need the $50/month hotspot. Here is where I think they went wrong during the call:

  • They don't know their competitors. They never heard of Karma. To me, that's a huge problem for Verizon. They should know their competitors – even the tiny startups. Startups are deadly to a big corporation because they are nimble, agile and are willing to take a risk to gain market share. Big companies are typically complacent and believe that they will always have market share (just not true). Startups have nothing to lose, which makes them a true wildcard.
  • They don't have a just-in-time option. How can you compete with pay-as-you-go with a plan that's about estimating your worst case scenario where you don't keep overages? You can't. 
  • They aren't aware of the customer's needs and what they are experiencing. Arguments about coverage quality don't matter anymore when it comes to WiFi. 90% of the airports I have been in have WiFi. Cafes and bars have WiFi. Some hotels now have free WiFi. And the quality is pretty good for general business use. These arguments about quality and access become pointless. WiFi is becoming a requirement to offer anywhere – it's no longer an indulgence. Why charge indulgent prices for something so common?

I'm sure I'm not the only person leaving Verizon these reasons. They just aren't staying current.

To stay competitive, you have to keep up with what's going on in the world. Obviously, Verizon has lost touch with the ubiquitous nature of WiFi access. It's everywhere. And we are now in a just-in-time world – we don't overplan and overestimate anymore for anything. People have different needs than before for WiFi. Selling access to a "quality network" won't help you win; selling convenience and ease will.

Being the big company that's everywhere doesn't mean you will win. Winning today is about being agile and flexible to change and open to explore new models of business. 

Size doesn’t matter in this just-in-time world