Article link is at
http://www.innovapedia.org/home/innova-tech/rfid-and-sensors-illustrate-arts-impact-on-people/
The article discusses a type of Innovation; our topic last night. As we do our interviews and try and find the "meaning" in our value propositions, this article speaks of the technology to get that information.
I think today's technology is incredible. The amount of data we can collect, store and organize to help us make decisions is certainly a Game-Changer. We're sure to see Radical Innovation in our future as these Innovations and Technologies advance.
RF ID as presented in this article is quite fascinating and intriguing. One would wonder if the artists would have been appreciative of the data collected on the emotions of the subjects. I question the usefulness of this data and what would they do with the data collected - replicate the art if it generated positive emotions and sell it for a cheaper price than the original? One thing that I noticed in the article is that the subjects that wore the RF ID were all volunteers. While this innovation has great potential in data collection, recognition, etc., I believe that government regulations such as the privacy act will constrain its advancement, even in Switzerland where the right to privacy is practiced as well.
ReplyDeleteInnovative use of RFID technology, but to what end? It is interesting to gather data about how museum patrons respond to specific pieces in the exhibit but why, and for what purpose will the data be used? Do you put in storage the pieces with which patrons connect least often? Do you plan exhibits around genres or pieces one knows elicits patron satisfaction, or do you curate an exhibit as a means to educate the patrons?
ReplyDeleteJust because we CAN know things does not mean that they are worth knowing. I am sure that there will be many applications of RFID technology that I can’t even imagine today. I hope that those uses will be directed toward knowledge that will improve people’s lives. The use of technology, in my humble opinion, should not be technology for its own sake, but to make or enhance meaning in people’s lives.
Ignoring the ethical and philosophical "what is art?" discussions we could have about this article, I think an interesting conversation would be about how this kind of research relates to the "normal" curve of customers and who we are trying to reach.
ReplyDeleteWe often discuss in class how truly successful ideas reach the far ends of the normal curve - how would you reach those with the RFID technology? Unless you can track ALL individuals one would still have to seek out those niches on either end creatively. I am not sure this technology would help us better understand the outliers than the methods currently in use, unless, of course, everyone has one implanted in their ear.
RFID technology is interesting, but somewhat scary. I wonder about how it will be used in the future and how it will affect mankind. We can assume that its use will be voluntary, but there is no guarantee of that. And how accurate is it? Lie detectors are inaccurate and inconclusive, but they are still used, and if a person refuses one, that person appears to be trying to hide important information.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I prefer the old-fashioned technique of a sales person who is familiar with me and knows what I like. That savvy salesperson knows when a product that I will likely be interested in becomes available and contacts me. That salesperson makes me feel special and unique. She cannot be replaced by cold technology.
It is rather difficult to determine the worthiness of data collection. I suppose from a marketing stand point, I would use the space to place art pieces that are more stimulating to the patrons. This way will increase the experience from of the visitors if they feel in some ways more 'connected' to the displayed pieces. However, the participants are volunteers as Maria has pointed out. I would argue that by wearing the device has positively affected my emotions to 'connect' the the arts - hence the Hawthorne Effect. Winnie Nie
ReplyDeleteWinnie, I looked up Hawthorne effect and it is the perfect example of your point. Very interesting. I think that since they are volunteers it obviously is not a privacy issue; however, since they are volunteers, it also makes one question the validity of this experiment. I remember reading a book a long time ago about the future and having implants put in the arm, it was mandatory and everyone had to have one--I am trying hard to find the title because it reminds me so much of this. Has anybody read that book? It is not the Issac Asimov book. Thanks Jake for posting such and interesting topic!
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to read about new applications to the RFID technology. It is a good reminder that as managers we must continually monitor the environment for competitive threats as well as new opportunities.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically commenting on the use of the RFID in a museum setting, I too question the validity of it's use. For example, if I placed the RFID wrist band on my 10 year old, the reading would likely show about 2 seconds spent per art piece due to his age and level of interest. I also wonder how the readings would be affected by the level of a person's sobriety, interest in art, or even being on a date with someone that really makes their heart skip a beat? It seems to me that the readings could be susceptible to many variables and the data could therefore be invalid.
All I can say is “wow!”, and I honestly wonder how they can measure cognitive stimulation through ones hand, but whatever, I’m not a scientist, so I’m sure they have their ways. Another immediate thought I had was, “I wish they would have had this technology when I was at the Seattle Art Museum viewing the Picasso exhibit.” I would have been up for volunteering, but I wonder how accurate the RFID sensors really are. All I could think while viewing Picasso was that there were far too many people in one place, which was slightly suffocating and warm from all the bodies. Fun Stuff! But I did really enjoy it! I wonder what the RFID would have sensed from my emotions?? Very interesting and innovative technology though!
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, I do understand how initially the researcher where trying to see how the perception of art can be measured, but for what purpose? I find it interesting that the curators, who have little insight on how visitors experience the artwork, don't just ask them, or even give out a survey, as opposed to relying on RFID software to help answer those questions.
I noticed at the bottom of the article, there is a link to read the full story, which had more detail. It does mention that the participants were asked a series of questions before they were set free to roam the museum, e.g., have you had coffee today? a cigarette? How old are you? level of interest in art? So reading about RFID in more detail gave me a better idea of how their research is conducted, but I still think a good old fashion customer service interaction is far more valuable than wearing a sweaty glove around a museum just so the curators might have a better idea of my experience at their museum.
This technology is amazing. It would be fun to be part of an experience like this, but not more than once or twice. I can only envision from this a future of humans walking around with wires and probes linked to every facet of our body to monitor everything. Kind of scary. We've all been reduced to "consumers" as is. I understand what they are trying to find, it's really about what makes us tick. What would have to be triggered for us to actually purchase? We often can't define that ourselves, so researchers are hoping this will. It's another way of mapping trends, I believe they feel they will just be more accurate ones. It's just a very intrusive way.
ReplyDelete