观众与国家情报局的凯瑟琳·托宾一起推动政府创新

www.hchb688.com/雷竞技raybet提现trainings/data-storytelling-training

成绩单

该集发电支持来自Untold内容和数据+ Science的数据讲故事培训。雷竞技电竞竞猜雷竞技raybet提现通过学习数据可视化和技术讲故事的最佳实践，将数据转换为强大的视觉故事。无论您是PowerBi还是Tableau的人 - 或者只是想更好地传达您的数据 - 这次研讨会将激励您查看数据中的故事。了解更多https://undoldcontent.com/dataStoryTelling雷竞技raybet提现Trining/。

凯蒂:(00:00:04)欢迎来到创新的不陈述故事，在那里我们扩大了洞察力，影响和创新的解开故事。由未结块内容提供支持。雷竞技电竞竞猜我是你的主人，Katie Trauth Taylor。我们今天的客人是凯瑟琳·托宾。她是国家情报署署长办公室的横向创新司主任。她是美国情报社区内部的创新领导者，在那里她带来了构建强大的创新环境的文化和过程变化。凯瑟琳，我很荣幸今天让你在播客。

凯思莲:[00:00:39]谢谢你！我很高兴来到这里。

凯蒂:(00:00:41)是什么让你进入了创新领域?如你所知，在你的职业道路上是什么样的指引?

凯思莲:[00:00:48]我一直是个有创造力的人，但正如你所知，创造力和创新之间有很大的区别创造力是一种新的和不寻常的东西，但要成为创新，它必须是有用的。所以对我来说，心态上的巨大转变是在几年前，当我上设计思考的课程时，你知道，我一直试图在我做的每一份工作中混合一些东西，有时有用，有时没用。这太令人沮丧了，你知道，为什么它没起作用?为什么人们不像我一样喜欢这些想法呢?当我上设计思维这门课的时候第一个练习是:老师说，“大家早上好。我想让你为我设计一个钱包。还有什么问题吗?”

凯思莲:[00:01:30]当然，每个人都很“我搞定了”。这是惊人的。这将是有史以来最好的钱包。”所以我们开始工作，开始画出所有这些新特征，你知道，思想，图片，钥匙或其他东西。我很兴奋，因为我想买这个钱包，为什么没人想到呢?我们的时间到了。我们急切地走向老师，等着老师表扬我们的好主意。他说:“你们都失败了。”然后我们就想"等等，什么?为什么?” And he said, “you were supposed to design a wallet for me. And no one asked me a question. No one asked what I need a wallet to do. No one asked, what’s wrong with my current wallet? No one really cared about me. And I was the hopeless customer.” And it just really hit home that that’s what I’ve been doing wrong all along. You know, it’s not. It wasn’t really innovation. It was just creativity that got lucky. So the real key to innovation is to know who you are designing for and their struggles and what they really need and then empathizing with them and knowing their story almost as well as they do and trying to build for them. And that was just the key to all of it. And I’ve been fusing that into my career ever since. And I’ve been unfortunate to find a group of people in the intelligence community who are also working that way.

凯蒂:(00:02:52)我喜欢这个故事,因为我认为我们所有的人都能体会的感觉有一个伟大的想法或认为是有效的陷入自己的头,如果你愿意,忘记用户体验和合作和获得反馈和构建这些循环过程。我认为讲故事可以给我们一个有趣的开端，让我们能够相互同情，理解我们的利益相关者或消费者的问题或挑战，并针对这些问题进行创新。你能告诉我一些关于讲故事的想法吗，作为一个创新者，你讲故事的方式这些年发生了哪些变化?

凯思莲:(00:03:35)嗯，讲故事，从专业的角度来说，还是很新鲜的。我是说，人类讲故事已经很古老了。我们从一开始就在这么做。作为孩子，我们喜欢故事。下班后，我们读书。我们看电影。我们沉浸在故事中，除了朝九晚五的生活。在很大程度上，这似乎是反故事的沙漠。

凯蒂:(00:03:59)是的。

凯思莲:(00:04:00)因此，当我们接近他们时，不是用事实、数字和流程图，而是用一个故事，这让人们感到惊讶。但它是如此的有效。一个例子是：我的团队运行一个名为情报、科学和技术伙伴关系（ISTA）的项目。其目标是帮助将初创企业和小型非传统企业的真正创新能力与情报界的任务需求联系起来。而且，你知道，我的团队负责这个项目。我们认为它非常棒。但我们想确保它实际上是为我们的客户服务的。所以我们想，他们能找到它吗？我们沟通得好吗？因此，我们要求不熟悉该项目的实习生假装自己是初创企业创始人，并希望与情报团队开展业务。所以我们让他们记录下来，基本上写下了他们试图与ISTA做生意的历程。而且，你知道，我们认为这将是一个爱情故事，他们做了一些研究，发现了我们，并不是很好，之后很开心。事实证明，这更像是一个恐怖故事，比如，你知道，当你在看那部电影时，你想对角色大喊大叫，“不要开门！”就是这样。我们在读他们的故事，他们所寻找的是错误的，他们所阅读的资源不是正确的。他们不明白事情是如何运作的。阅读对我们来说只是一种情感，因为我们知道它应该是怎样的。对他们来说，这是一种情感，因为他们如此沮丧，如此渴望，这真是令人心碎。所以我们想，你知道，我们知道这个故事是因为我们问了他们（不清楚的措辞）。想想那些只是跑步的人。因此，它是如此有影响力，它完全改变了我们对向人们宣传该节目的想法。我们分享了这个。我们按原样打包，发送给其他运行类似项目的政府机构，并说，“嘿，伙计们，这就是实际发生的事情（措辞不明确）。”然后大家都坐了起来，全神贯注。这正好说明，如果我们发送了“与初创企业沟通的最佳实践”，呃，你知道，这些是有帮助的，但它不会像故事那样真正吸引人们。

凯蒂:(00:06:26)绝对的。你决定给那份报告起什么标题?你还记得吗?

凯思莲:[00:06:32]这是在我们有朗朗上口的标题之前。我们一直在努力创造吸引人的游戏。我认为这是关于，你知道的，客户寻找情报机构或什么的旅程。

凯蒂:(00:06:46)好的好的。当然。这是不可思议的。我喜欢那个。那些实习生必须感觉到他们在那个过程中非常重要的声音。

凯思莲:(00:06:55)绝对的。

凯蒂:[00:06:57]那么，你能告诉我们一些你和你的团队在中情局工作中最喜欢的创新故事吗？

凯思莲:(00:07:05)我已经不在中情局了。我在那里待了几年，现在在ODNI。我的意思是，这是一个情报机构，我们都在密切合作。

凯蒂:(00:07:14)如果你真的可以，你能告诉我们一些不熟悉情报界结构的人，你能告诉我们你的办公室，中情局和其他一些你经常合作的主要参与者之间的关系吗?

凯思莲:(00:07:30)当然。智能社区包括17个要素，一些您已经听过的一些元素，并从电视中了解，例如CIA或NSA或FBI。有些是较小的，并且通常被发现作为其他内阁级机构的一部分。例如，国务院智力与研究办公室，部分情报界。但它也是国家部门的一部分。因此，如果您包含16个元素加ODNI，则获得17.和ODNI，它扮演了一个协调角色。因此，协调，监督，召开，基本上，而原子能机构的独立IC [情报社区]元素本身，如CIA或NSA，是建造卫星并分析图像和写入智能产品的人。odni反而正在代表整个情报界工作，并确实确保我们努力共同努力，并为支持政策制定者提供统一的声音。所以我想一个很好的例子，有助于说明是人们熟悉总统的日常简报。人们可能无法意识到的是，这是ODNI的产品。 It includes pieces from all over the intelligence community based on the topic at hand. And people go on rotation from whatever their home agency is to ODNI for a few years and are part of the president’s daily brief team to compile the book and brief it downtown. So it’s kind of that all-star team of people going on rotation from different IC elements to do something on behalf of the community. And then how that works for me and my team is lateral innovation is here to amplify and accelerate innovation and innovators across the intelligence community. So our role is to work with innovators across the community, either advocate. So we often produce training materials such as playbooks on the best way to run a hackathon or how to do a pitch event, working with startups, or how to do storytelling, things like that. These [unclear wording] materials and guidebooks, we also are working on incentives. And so how might we reward people for being innovative? Whether that is an award for great innovations or [unclear wording]. Or also how might we shape the incentive structure to get people to think in terms of balancing innovation and moving quickly with also our security [unclear wording] and incentivizing the lawyers to focus on: “Yes, if” as opposed to “no, because.” That’s kind of the incentive side. And then the implementation side is we’ve noticed that innovation is happening all across the IC. Has been for years and it’s great, but it’s not often carrying across to the different agencies and elements as quickly as it could. So, for example, if the NSA has figured out how to do something, they want to use that product. Right? They want to use it for missions, which is wonderful. But who at NSA would want to share it with the CIA or FBI? So we’ll work with NSA, package up what we can, document the lessons learned, and then make it more of a franchise opportunity for other agencies to pick up and adjust and implement it as meets their mission needs rather than starting from scratch.

凯蒂:(00:11:24)太棒了。非常感谢。这为协作和创新的所有形式，以及跨越整个社区的方式，增加了很多背景。谢谢你！这是完美的。这是我们团队非常兴奋的事情。大约一年前，你和一些同事一起创建了一个小组，名为“寻求真相，说出真相:间谍讲故事的指南”。你能跟我们多说一点吗?

凯思莲:(00:11:51)这是美妙的。这是一次非常棒的经历。这是2019年3月西南偏南互动大会上的一个小组讨论。如果你还没有机会参加，我强烈推荐你参加。来自世界各地的人们齐聚一堂，为期一周，专注于创新、设计和技术。大家分享了很多新的想法，也听到了来自业界、政府和学术界的声音。有很多有趣的混搭和合作，还有免费的食物，这很好。因此，我和其他几名来自国家情报总监办公室和中央情报局的官员参加了一个小组讨论。我们都对讲故事和我们的角色有不同的看法。有一个人曾经是几位高级领导人的演讲稿撰写人，还有一个人是IC的平等机会和多样性负责人，还有一个人是我们ODNI的副透明度官，然后是我。 And so we each talked about how storytelling is useful for our role. So the speechwriter talked about how storytelling can help paint a really compelling picture and the importance and the balance of not using emotion to manipulate. So what… how do you use enough emotion that the audience understands what you’re trying to do without going overboard and really not playing fair? So he talked about how he does that. The head of equal opportunity and diversity talked about, from her perspective, storytelling helps us bring our whole selves to work. And that is so key to diversity and inclusion. And how the IC really values, diversity and inclusion. That’s one of our core values. And so how we are really highlighting the stories of our vast diversity of officers and understanding not just their work selves, but full selves. And that way we can appreciate each other. And of course, for me, picking right up on that diversity is so important [unclear wording] because all of those perspectives and solutions from very different places and metaphors and analogous worlds. So we need people who bring their full selves and their full array of experiences to work. And so the transparency officer was talking about how storytelling helps bring transparency and it really opens the black box. The intelligence community is secretive for a reason, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a duty to explain what we do and to show what we can with the American public. And so he talked about how rather than just sending out declassified information in structure format and letting people do what they want. How do you tell the stories of what the intelligence community is doing so that it’s actually a compelling and understandable package for the public? And so he shared, for example, some videos from the wonderful website, intelligence.gov, I highly recommend people check that out, which features stories of current and historical intelligence officers. And then from my perspective, I was talking about storytelling and innovation and how we use storytelling, whether that to get buy in from leadership when we’re seeking resources to pursue a project or to get audiences and customers or would be customers to understand their need to change their behavior and also how we’re teaching storytelling as a part of the core curriculum for innovators across the community.

凯蒂:[00:15:49]这是美妙的。我认为你实际上还在中央情报局内部举办过一次活动，你基本上是在培训人们，我们称之为Untold，“创新讲故事”，对吧?

凯思莲:(00:16:00)我们所做的。我们所做的。这是几年前的事了。这是一个很好的例子，说明情报机构的思路非常广泛。所以，这是一个广泛的人，不仅仅是一个指定的创新办公室，而是整个机构的志愿者，他们举办了这个活动，它包括真实的故事，以及教人们如何磨练手艺。所以人们谈论不同的故事原型，所以你有英雄的旅程。你有爱情故事。你有复仇的故事。以及什么时候使用，以及如何构思你的故事，如何练习你的故事……我们分发了这些练习册，人们可以用这些练习册来开始一些简单的事情，比如发布你名字的故事。这是一个很好的打破僵局的方法，能让人们养成讲故事的习惯，因为讲故事可能会很可怕。 And also some great infographics about why stories are important and how they work. And we were able to release those to the public at South by Southwest and share those with you for the show notes as well.

凯蒂:(00:17:03)是的，我会把它联系起来，这真的很不可思议。它本质上是一本叫做“创新故事工艺”的手册。这让我想起了我们在创新故事培训中提到的一些元素。雷竞技raybet提现所以我认为这是一个非常好的资源。我很感激你能澄清这一点，这样我们就可以和听众分享了。但我肯定会链接那个练习本。还有一个非常棒的，本质上，它们叫什么?就像一个互动的文字泡泡图像?

凯思莲:[00:17:33]是的，它就像一幅纸格式的图形笔记壁画。

凯蒂:(00:17:35)是的。是的。是的。我猜这也是那次谈话的结果。

凯思莲:[00:17:41]是 啊我的一位非常有才华的同事把它放在了一起，我们用它作为一种非常好的讲义，在这样的研讨会上进行教学。人们对这个话题非常感兴趣，关于这个话题的研讨会一年四季都会来来去去去。

凯蒂:(00:17:58)我太喜欢了。这些都是很棒的资源，一定要去看看。我认为。让我们更深入一点，因为思考一种文化是如此迷人。你知道，创新社区实际上是建立了一种文化，就像你说的，保密，隐私，试图尽可能地保密，你知道，保护美国人民，当然，也保护他们自己。请告诉我们，情报界对这个创新故事培训的反应。雷竞技raybet提现

凯思莲:(00:18:31)这对人们来说绝对是一个警钟，因为它与我们所接受的训练截然不同。你知道，文化真的重视真理和事实。在中情局总部大楼的墙上有一句话。它说，“你会看到真相，真相会让你自由。”这一切都是关于理解真相。当分析师加入时，不管他们在哪个机构，他们都要经过几个月的培训，学习如何进行适当的研究，如何引用你的信息来源，如何发现错误信息，如何进行结构化分析技术，如何，你知道，从根本上消除分析中的情绪。现在我们来讲故事。因此，这对人们来说无疑是令人惊讶的，有时我们会有一点怀疑，有些人是创新者，往往是多面手，他们非常有创造力，在各种（不清楚的措辞）中工作过。所以我们不是一个花了20年时间研究某个话题的分析师。所以，当我们进来尝试与专家合作时，我们有时会遇到这样的问题，比如，你怎么知道得更好？你已经20年没做这项工作了。我有。这就是为什么故事如此重要的部分原因[通过与人们的访谈，真正培养同理心，理解人们的斗争是什么，我们能够令人信服地传达正在发生的挑战，并看到正在发生的系统和整个生态系统。所以我们可以向某人解释，你知道，这是雷竞技raybet提现一位分析师的名字，并说这是他们的日常工作。这就是为什么它既昂贵又困难又有风险，而且可能不会给出最佳答案，并真正让人们思考，哦，我还没有经历过。我不是那样看的。但你是对的。这是一个真正的问题[措辞不明确。因此，我们用故事作为行动号召和建立信誉的一种方式，因为尽管创新者可能在某个主题上没有20年的经验，但我们确实知道如何进行采访，并了解围绕该主题的整个系统。所以我们有数据来支持我们正在做的一切。

凯蒂:(00:20:54)是的。我很喜欢你壁画里的一句话是罗伯特·麦基说的。你说"发生的都是事实"我们对它的看法就是真理。”当你被要求讲一个故事的时候，这是一个很大的挑战，所以我们中的很多人有点像回到了我们的童年时代，当我们，你知道，如果我们讲故事，被指责说谎，你知道，“你只是在讲故事。”所以我认为当我们在追求真理和试图总是表示数据和信息尽可能正确地、准确地和道德,但也引发行动或创造变化的信息或帮助决策者决定如何行动。你知道，在把事实作为事实呈现和那些事实，然后形成一个故事之间，有一条很微妙的界限。因此，这是情报界内部如此复杂的行动，这是有道理的。我认为这对所有创新者来说都是一个挑战，尤其是在那个世界里，被称为讲故事的人可能是一个非常负面的指责。

凯思莲:[00:22:10]这是一个非常好的观点。我没有那样想过。所以幸运的是，人们很容易接受。你知道，我们喜欢解释，我们有很多故事被反复使用。所以如果人们对创新持怀疑态度，对创新的过程持怀疑态度，他们会说，我们的财政已经非常非常拮据了。我们没多少时间了。我们没有很多人。明明知道可能会失败，为什么还要花更多的时间和资源来做得更好呢?我们可以点的故事的例子,这就是仅用了几个星期和几个采访和一些快速勘探和几个很快失败能够想出一个解决方案,明显更便宜、更快和更安全。现在我们这样做。 And it’s only because of taking the risk with the innovative process, that we’re able to do things better. And that usually wins people over.

凯蒂:(00:23:19)哦，绝对。

凯思莲:(00:23:19)所以我认为，是的，你知道，我们的价值观是为了真相，为了事实，为了专业知识。但也总会有这样一个问题:这值得我们花时间吗?因为时间等于纳税人的钱。对吧?所以这不是利润率的问题。这不是季度收益报告的问题。而是:这是对纳税人的钱的合理使用吗?所以，通过讲述这些故事，我认为我们可以帮助人们理解，我们是在解决人类的问题。这不仅仅是一个闪亮的技术问题。我认为人们对创新有两大误解，认为创新是有趣、古怪、有创意的东西，是不做日常工作的借口。 Or that it’s very technical and the realm of science and technology and therefore opaque and so not meaningful to someone. And so…

凯蒂:[00:24:16]我想问你，我想问你，如果你的专业圈外的人听到你的工作，然后问，“所以你有点像詹姆斯·邦德电影里的M ?”

凯思莲:(00:24:27)有时,有时。或者他们会说，你是Q吗?这就是科学和技术。

凯蒂:(00:24:31)这是正确的。

凯思莲:[00:24:32]我喜欢吃。是的。

凯蒂:(00:24:34)你知道的，就是那个让你见识到真正敏锐，老练的人。

凯思莲:(00:24:38)是的。

凯蒂:(00:24:39)技术。

凯思莲:(00:24:41)对，就是这样。所以这是科学和技术的导演。我所看到的科学技术总监实际上是我旁边的办公室，这是有趣的。但是，所以，我们是不同的。我的办公室里没有詹姆斯债券等价物，这是一个耻辱。他们应该对此工作。但是，你知道，我们喜欢展示我们如何不仅仅是建筑技术导致它很有趣。事实上，创新的许多次数不是技术。他们是过程创新。有政策创新。 They are a physical space innovation. And they’re doing it for a purpose. And that’s to help people. A lot of our innovations are focused on our internal workforce and helping us do our jobs better as opposed to, unlike with the [unclear wording] example I gave earlier where our customers were external to the public. Mostly what we’re doing is trying to improve the business of intelligence.

凯蒂:(00:25:38)绝对的。这是不可思议的。您还确定了几个我们称为创新故事模式的东西，并且您正在使用这些模式来培训您的员工，使他们开始思考如何获得有助于改善社区的想法的支持。所以我看到你已经找到了创新者的旅程，你知道，这就是为什么我要做这件事，为什么我是做这件事的合适人选，或者为什么我的团队是合适的团队，以这种方式建立可信度或个人关系。我喜欢你提到的另一个，用户旅程。所以要想清楚这将会影响到谁并画出一幅图画，让你的利益相关者了解这将如何改变工作流程或员工的生活或将会被这项创新所触动的人的生活。你还提到了品牌的历程，以及它的制作过程。我认为那个很有趣。我们在Untold做了很多关于不同创新故事类型和模式的分析。我可能适合很多我们的品牌识别为这一类旅行故事或者创新之旅的故事,因为它似乎是那些得到最支持的说,“我们尝试或到目前为止我们已经试过。 Here are the challenges, the technical challenges or the implementation challenges or the personnel challenges that we know or we think we know we’re going to face. And here’s our plan for getting through those challenges” and the clearer you can build the stakes around those challenges and the impact of overcoming them and the more that you can create credibility for the team that’s going to get through those challenges. It just seems to create the best kind of buy-in. So I was wondering, could you tell us a little bit more about your views on other story patterns or the ones that you share inside of your storytelling training?

凯思莲:(00:27:30)我喜欢你说的那些。绝对的。当你在经历不同类型的故事时，我说，是的，叫那个，告诉那个。是的。这就像是过去几年的精彩片段。我们也——这真的取决于我们处在旅程的哪个阶段。

凯蒂:(00:27:48)是的。

凯思莲:(00:27:48)因为一开始。问题是，嘿，我们觉得有问题。我们不知道解决方案是什么。但我们需要一些资源，也许是钱。我们能去拿吗?这就是顾客挣扎的故事。你知道，我们要在这个故事中寻找一个英雄。你可以通过给一些钱而成为英雄，为之努力，然后他们就完成了一半。和英勇奋斗的人。我们有一个好的解。 We have an OK idea of what the solution is. It’s not fully baked yet, but we definitely know what we want, some wonderful future life. That’s kind of a mystery story. Like, how do you get through the sticky part? And so that’s usually around the point where we’re trying to get the organizational buy-in, figure out that bureaucratic viability for the solution. We need that trifecta. You need the user desirability. The technical feasibility. You need the bureaucratic, the organizational viability. So when we’re working on the viability, then it’s a matter of presenting it as the story of the problem and get them really invested. “Oh, yeah. We need to solve that.” And what the shared vision of the future is. “Yeah, I get it. I want to go there” and then we can talk about the solution a bit. But it’s locked up and it’s sticky. There’s a problem to be solved that is caught in this contract trap. Can you, the contract office, help us get it unstuck? And how do we sort through this? And really, the goal for that type of story is to get them in Problem-Solving mode rather than approval mode. Because if you present it as: here are the specs of the solution, if a personal comes like an infomercial and those are difficult to do, and also if they find one thing wrong with it, they’ll say no. It’s like watching an infomercial. You’re like “oh, machine washable, no thanks.” So they – it changes the role a bit. And so instead, if you presented as: this is a mystery and you need to help us unlock the mystery, then they’ll work with you. Because I think a big misconception is that people view the lawyers or the contract specialists or security relationship as adversarial. “Oh, they’re going to say no. They won’t let us have nice things,” etc. But really, we’re all on the same team. We are all being paid by the same people. We have the same mission. It’s just we need to figure out better ways to work together. And so that’s why I like to present it, as: they are part of the story with us. And it’s kind of like a “choose your own adventure” and very active. And so they can help us get to the other side. And those have been really helpful. And in fact, something that we’re working on right now, a team, is we’re interviewing those key stakeholders in the organizational viability side, so the lawyers, the security people, the contract specialists, and asking them, “how can we better tell stories? What questions would you want answered in a story?

凯蒂:(00:31:09)我喜欢它。是的。

凯思莲:(00:31:09)这样我们就可以培训那些和律师一起工作的人。他们希望你的故事包括以下内容。还有合同人员有什么问题，等等。显然，我们会像创新者一样，用这些指南进行测试和迭代。

凯蒂:[00:31:29]我认为你刚才坏了我们的播客是如此重要,我想重申它本质上就说你说一次,因为我认为它很重要:当你试图让内部的支持其他部门、其他单位,其他地方你都仍然朝着相同的任务。但是你的日常生活或者你的路线图，你知道的，重点可能会非常不同。关键是要以对话的方式定位这个机会，并尽可能让这个故事成为一个合作故事。邀请他们和你一起写故事。不要像你说的，给他们一份需求清单或者在非政府机构，这通常是，你知道的，一份推销演讲稿。对吧?你要向一个特定的群体做演讲。

凯思莲:(00:32:23)正确的。

凯蒂:(00:32:23)相反，让他们和你一起写技术概要。让他们和你一起写RFP。这种角色的转变本身就能创造各种各样的创新。所以我想暂停一下，因为我觉得你说的关于获得内部认同的观点非常重要，这真的是关于一起玩得好。

凯思莲:(00:32:44)绝对的。

凯蒂:(00:32:46)我喜欢你做的一切。我想回到你做的这个练习册，因为我喜欢-你之前在播客中说过这对没有受过训练的人来说是一个令人生畏的练习。我想我们所有人，你知道，我们还记得在小学早期的日子，我们学习了故事的弧线，角色的发展，高潮和解决等等。在某种程度上，它本身就能让故事看起来很基础，或者不需要评论。但当我们谈论技术信息或系统改变时，要讲出有力而清晰的故事就变得相当复杂，你知道，涉及多个参与者，并考虑不同的预算和风险。在这种情况下，情况是非常不同的。但我认为，有时故事可能会被认为不那么重要，因为我们把它与我们生活中的孩子般的教训联系在一起。但我也认为，最基本的是，它们的重要性永远不会消失。

凯思莲:(00:33:50)绝对的。

凯蒂:(00:33:52)所以我很好奇，当你在创新团队中以你现在的方式工作时。什么时候你会发现证据太多或者数据太多？或者，你有没有发现一些讲故事的技巧会让观众不会贬低讲故事的人，而是将这种机会与一些非证据性的东西联系起来？如果都是关于故事的，比如你如何找到故事之间的平衡，以我们定义故事的那种传统方式，以及数据和我们定义的传统方式，如子弹头或统计数据？

凯思莲:[00:34:33]这是一个很好的问题。这总是一种平衡，对吧?多少研究才算过度研究?研究多少才算足够?我记得有一本书叫只是足够的研究。正确的。所以这显然是我们所有思想的主题。因此，我们喜欢从最少的八次面试开始。而且我小心地说面试，因为我提到的是，我们总是在考虑纳税人资源以及我们如何在我们的时间最有效。因此，我们实际上没有去调查路线或焦点组路线。即使您可能会说，那些更高效，您也可以覆盖更多人并从中获取更多数据。我们通常会采访的原因是因为我们可以提出后续问题。你可以看到人们的面部表情，真的了解情绪更好，知道何时适合按下更多信息。当有人可能会显示或发出信令时，我们想重新上个问题，等等。所以我们试图在一次面试中做到这一点，即使他们没有像调查一样生产尽可能多的数据点。 And so we’ll do an initial ballpark goal of eight and see how the data shakes out from there. So if we’re starting to get a lot of really similar answers, a pattern. OK. So probably we’ve covered it. If after about eight interviews. We find that the answers are contradictory. They’re all over the place. Then we regroup and think, well, maybe we’re misunderstanding the users. Maybe there’s a wider variety of use cases or personas than we’re originally anticipating. Maybe we solved the problem wrong. And so it’s good to know that after eight interviews and not after two months of interviews, right? So we try to work really quickly and iterate. And the way we’ll capture that data is we’ll work in pairs to do the interviews. One person will be doing talking and one person will be doing the note-taking. Unlike with a lot of people in the real world, as we like to say, our techniques for doing interviews and recording data has to be a bit different. We work in secure facilities where we’re not allowed to bring our personal electronic devices. Whereas right now we’re recording this just through our phones. And we can take pictures of if you were to do a sticky note exercise and conference rooms, take pictures, record it. We can’t do that. So we have to take our notes longhand and type them up. And then when we go over the notes, we anonymized the name and in with our current projects. We’re using names from the game of “Clue” to encode the data because A) it shows to people that it’s clearly fake names. So don’t try to read too much into it. And it also gives us a fun sense of whimsy as we do it. So we have the “Clue” names and then we record all of it, go through the data and we’ll cluster things. So we like to do the Rosethorn/bud techniques, which is where you look at all of the positive things that people have to say about a certain topic. For example, we did one a couple last year about how we might improve our recruitment of people with subject matter expertise in science, STEM recruitment in the intelligence community. So we had some interviews with people who were recent hires or graduate students or potential hires and coded the information. So what’s going well, what’s not going well, those were the “thorns.” And then the “buds” are what are the areas [unclear wording]. So kind of cluster them thematically and look for patterns. And at this point, you would normally take pictures of the other sticky notes and record them all. And I just have boxes of sticky notes in my office from past projects because you don’t want to get rid of it. You always want to go back to the data, right? [Unclear wording.] And so we do the data. We might create personas based on the interviewees we’ve done. So Persona is basically a fictional amalgamation of the types of people that you interview. And so it’s a really good way to explain to people who are not present for the interviews, such as your project sponsor, who you are solving for and their needs, their fears, the capabilities they have, and you can also do a double check for any solution against the personas. Would this really help Sam? Would this really help Professor Plum? And so we have our data and we’ll do the questions. And then from there, we’ll really figure out what is our problem? What is our root problem? Right? Ask the question, “why?” Five times to really make sure we’re solving the right problem. And at that point, it is often different from the problem we were asked to solve. And if the person, if the product sponsor is not in the room at that point, we need to find them ASAP because there is nothing worse than surprising your project sponsor at the end and saying, “guess what, you were wrong. That wasn’t the problem at all, but don’t worry, we figured out the right problem, which is these other things.” They don’t like that. So it’s really important to go back and say and keep them posted on the data and what you’re learning, because if our data is showing something different from what they asked us to solve and they still want to solve the original problem, then we need to understand their needs. And what they’re trying to do is to talk to different people, that maybe we missed the first time. So that is a really, really important status check. So once we’ve deconstructed the problem, we will then do any number of techniques to generate a lot of solutions. Always go big before you go small. And so we’ll bring in creative people, we’ll transpose the problem lots of different ways to try to come up with as many solutions as possible. [Unclear wording] then find a couple of favorites and then figure out how to really quickly test and iterate on them. And for that, we are also trying to be good about documentation. And if you’ve ever seen – there’s a template, a free template, called “Strategyzer,” strategyzer cards. Or if you’ve ever graduated from elementary school and have had elementary school science, you know the scientific method. So Strategyzer cards are basically the same as the worksheet you got in fifth grade when you were learning the scientific method. It’s so accessible. It’s great. And so it’s asking you, you know, what are you trying to learn? What do you think? You know what? And how will you test it? What do you think you’ll see when this happens? For example, if we wanted to test the hypothesis that. You know, if we. And this is a complete, complete hypothetical. If we allowed people to apply to multiple IC elements at once, a common application, then applications to some of the lesser known elements would go up. And so then we might test that with people and see if that happens. And if it doesn’t happen, well, now we learned, right? So the reason why those cards are so important is it forces us in advance to think about: what are we testing, what are we looking for? What does a, you know, quote unquote success look like? And not. Because that way we’re documenting when it doesn’t work. And we can easily share that with others. Thought a common application would increase applications to this agency. It did not. Please, guys, don’t go down that road again. And if we’re right, then it also shows that we didn’t just cherry pick evidence. No P hacking. As is sometimes a problem in the science world. That really builds up credibility with people when we’re trying to explain it to them. And, you know, show your work, show the process. But how does that come out with storytelling? Right. Like, I just give you a very detailed description of the steps we take. Our audience doesn’t necessarily need to know that, but we need to have done the work so that we can choose the right elements. It’s all about picking, understanding the story that the audience needs to hear as opposed to the story that you want to tell.

凯蒂:(00:42:54)是的!是的。

凯思莲:(00:42:54)这意味着我们可能需要结合一些部分，以得到一些部分，始终保持真正的信息，而不是挑选。你知道,改变它或无论你是谁,你还做了工作,因为问题是如果你起床,你告诉你的用户和他们的斗争的故事和我们如何创建这个伟大的新事物的过程,你不喜欢它吗?他们说，你知道的，你为他们建立的分析师他们的老板怎么说?你会说，哦，我不知道。我没跟老板谈过。对吧?然后你就失去了你的可信度。所以你需要做所有的研究并且能够指出。你采访过这些人。这就是他们说的。 Or if they ask you on the fly. “Well, you know, you told me the story of the analysts, how they’ll use their tools to write their report. Well what happens to the report after that? How does it fit into the ecosystem?” And so if we are doing our jobs well, we can say, “well, we have also talked to the policymakers who will use the product. And here’s their story of how they’ll use it.” And so, you know, it’s part of the storytelling curriculum. We also do a lot of improv because it is a story. That presentation never goes off exactly as you think it will. And so you need to be ready for questions from the audience. For what about or push back or whatever and be able to respond with an equally polished answer and try to keep that storytelling still alive and not just revert back to, “well, 54 percent…” Or whatever it is.

凯蒂:(00:44:36)难以置信的是的。是的。你在那个例子中给出了很多建议，我觉得听你的过程很有帮助。当然，作为一名定性研究人员，我的心在这里飙升。这就是我的背景，你知道，收集以人为基础的研究，并试图分析和找到其中的趋势。所以，你知道，你这样做是为了引出正确的创新故事，我认为这是非常重要的。而且,你知道,我认为我们看到的主要挑战之一,我们正在与行业或政府是否创新的团队,是我们,我们喜欢……创新者收集所有这些信息和所有的数据,如你所说,我们得到接近它,你知道,这是我们的孩子,如果你愿意。这是一项充满爱的工作，我们很难提取自己，并决定什么是最重要的信息，应该分享哪些幻灯片。但要躲起来，做好准备，当有人问这个问题的时候，你知道，这个问题会让你对你得出的结论产生质疑。 So I love that. And I’m so grateful that you’ve walked us through the process. I think a lot of – I’m hopeful that listeners are taking that process into account and thinking through, you know, are you paying attention to the story as you go about doing the innovation work? I think we need more visibility for the role that story plays in the innovation process and especially for internal purposes. The way that you’re describing, I think the majority of innovation storytelling, especially after conducting 100 interviews with innovation leaders like yourself, at this point, we’re just seeing it is kind of surprising, I guess, from the outside, if you haven’t thought of it this way. But innovation, storytelling is far more critical internally to an organization, typically, than it is externally. And so, yes, it’s important that consumers or your communities see the ways in which you’re innovating and that they understand what it is that you’re doing to make your organization stronger and better. But if those projects can’t get internal buy-in and get momentum through the power of story internally, we never even get to get to that point of being external-facing. So that’s kind of a surprise finding, I think, at Untold when we first started this research question of “where does story live inside the innovation world?” More powerfully than not, I would say most people really talk about its critical importance to internal buy-in. And so I’m really grateful to hear you talk through your process and your ways of, you know, thinking through how to pull different stakeholders in, get their reactions to stories, get their feedback, and then refine the way that you tell it and deciding which data you present based on their preferences, priorities, concerns. So I think there’s so much to that. And if I were a listener, I would just go back five minutes and listen to that whole section again. I’m so grateful for the time we’ve had together, and I’d love for you to leave us with some key pieces of advice that you’d like to give to innovators as they continue to share their great ideas.

凯思莲:[00:47:54]绝对的。我给每个人的一个建议就是爱上这个问题。没有任何特解。我想举个约会的例子。对吧?首先，你需要弄清楚你是谁，你需要什么，什么能让你快乐。当你第一次约会的时候。不要马上预定婚礼场地。只是可能会感到兴奋。但也许你可以试几次。 Try meeting different people. And if it doesn’t work out, that’s OK, right? Think of it as: you’re the quirky heroine in the rom-com. And this is all part of the process. This is the point. We try multiple solutions and eventually you will have your happily ever after.

凯蒂:[00:48:40]是的。

凯思莲:[00:48:40]关键是要了解自己，欣赏自己，知道自己值得拥有这个权利。

凯蒂:[00:48:46]凯瑟琳，我喜欢这个建议。太好了。谢谢你给我们留下这个比喻。太棒了。我认为我们都可以联系到，你知道，无论是讲故事、写作还是内容创作，无论这是作为个体自然产生的，我们都是人类。因此，我们是讲故事的人。因此，你知道，找到对你有意义的东西，在你代表你正在做的工作时，忠于你自己是非常重要的。我认为你的比喻很好地说明了这一点。

凯思莲:(00:49:16)谢谢!

凯蒂:(00:49:16)凯瑟琳，人们在哪里可以了解更多关于你和你的团队的信息？他们在哪里可以在网上找到你？

凯思莲:[00:49:24]要了解更多关于这个主题的信息，或者了解我在情报界和创新方面的工作，我建议您访问intelligence.gov。dni.gov网站上有我一年前的个人资料和一次采访。您可以找到其他新闻查询的电子邮件地址。

凯蒂:[00:49:44]太棒了。凯瑟琳，我会在节目笔记中链接到你在intelligence.gov上的文章。再次感谢大家抽出时间来和我们讨论创新故事。

凯思莲:[00:49:56]谢谢你！这真的很有趣。

凯蒂:(00:49:58)感谢收听本周的节目。一定要在社交媒体上关注我们，并在对话中加入你的声音。你可以在@untoldcontent找到我们。

你可以听更多的剧集不为人知的创新故事播客。

*采访不是对个人或企业的认可。