The Bottom Line by Rip Empson

02:11 pm | 1 recommendation | Be the first to comment

Innovation and the Obama Presidency

During his presidential campaign, President-elect Obama was quoted as saying, “America risks being left behind in the global economy: Revolutionary advances in information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other fields are reshaping the global economy. Without renewed efforts, the United States risks losing leadership in science, technology, and innovation.” Unfortunately, the numbers corroborate words; American Federal investment in Science and engineering research has been cut in half since 1970.

Clearly President-elect Obama is aware of the dwindling level of federal money that is ending up in venues that are likely to help fuel innovation. His record in the Senate shows his awareness of technology and science-related issues, and the type of reform he is likely to enact governmentally and technologically will hopefully be a platform for innovation.

To this effect, President-elect Obama seems to be set on encouraging a degree of openness and transparency which he seems to feel the Bush Administration has lacked: “The Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history. Our nation’s progress has been stifled by a system corrupted by millions of lobbying dollars contributed to political campaigns, the revolving door between government and industry, and privileged access to inside information -- all of which have led to policies that favor the few against the public interest.”  Obama claims that he will be able to use technology to reverse this destructive trend, improving the exchange of information between government and citizen.

President-elect Obama and Senator Tom Coburn paired up in 2006 to make a stand for openness and equality in Washington’s technology policy (they also worked closely with McCain). The law they attempted to pass (the heralded S. 2590) hoped to “lift the veil of secrecy in Washington,” by creating a Google-like SE that would allow “ordinary Americans” to track “federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans.”

Obama has also said that he will create America’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO), as well as hatching schemes to invest tons of money in renewable energy research, stem cell research, and others. He hopes – by investing in tech, energy, and biomedical research – to create the grounds for innovation in these fields and eventually the ability to save money on healthcare, green technology, and the other sectors that will play important roles in our nation’s future.

The President-elect is bent on reforming the Bush Administration’s reputation as being one that has aggressively avoided investment in science and technology qua innovation, “Changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology.”

With the struggling economy and two foreign wars, it will be difficult for Obama to live up to his claims –at first. But I think we can be confident that behind the Obama Administration’s policy will be a philosophy that promotes (and relative to administrations past, evangelizes) research and innovation in the fields of science and technology, which we all know is integral to international competition and national welfare and progress.

10:22 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Google Brings Voice to the iPhone

The New York Times reported Friday that Google will be launching a new application for Apple’s iPhone that will allow the phone to understand the human voice. Finally catching up with the likes of Yahoo and Microsoft (who already offer voice services for cellphones), Google has taken another step toward becoming a serious player in the smartphone and advertising industries.

The Google voice-recognition software is reportedly very accurate – much more so than that of its competitors – part of the reason for this being the vast collection of data Google is able to draw upon. (It is speculated that Google employs up to 450,000 servers, which of course are home to an enormous diversity of information.)

Users of the application will be able to ask the iPhone a wide variety of questions, from “where’s the closest Thai restaurant?” to “What’s the 7th planet from the sun?” In an interesting move, Google has brought this technology to the iPhone before its own phone, the G1. But don’t worry, users can probably expect that to change before too long.

How does the voice application work?

Apparently, the sound of your voice is converted into a digital file by the voice-recognition application, which then sends the recorded file to Google’s servers. These magical servers then decode your question before passing it along to the Google Search Engine. Presto, the SE gives you the results.

Apple is expected to add the application to its iTunes store early this week.

Is there anything Google can’t do?

03:10 pm | 3 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Real Change in Washington: Obama Announces Plan to Update Fireside Chats

Reports that Obama plans to bring the President’s weekly “fireside chat” into the new century surfaced this weekend. The president elect plans to not just offer the chats on the radio, but on YouTube as well.

Every week, Obama will address the public in a four-minute-long video that will be posted on his transition site, Change.gov. Expected to accompany these videos are online Q&As and video interviews with White House staff. And in the coming weeks, members of the transition team, policy experts, and his selections for the Cabinet will record videos that will be uploaded to the site. The administration also expects to launch a White House YouTube channel once it takes office.

I imagine that this news will make a lot of people in younger generations thoroughly “amped”. Imagine if the administration uses sites like TubeMogul (as ReadWriteWeb suggests) to cross-post videos across the Internet, uses Hulu and YouTube more consistently, and creates live broadcasts, podcasts, and RSS Feeds. Obama could surpass the technological efforts of the Bush Administration in a matter of months.

First of all, the simple fact that our President shows an interest in, and knowledge of, something that younger Americans spend a lot of their time employing (even if they don’t think about it that way), means a lot. And secondly, what’s even better is that this holds great potential for participatory democracy and representative government. People will be encouraged to actually watch Obama’s weekly State of the Unions, especially given the opportunity to post video responses to what they see and hear.

Sure, posting videos to YouTube is easy and yes, for those paying attention, Obama’s account on Twitter has been silent since the election. But even if this effort at transparency is superficial, it’s a step in the right direction.

Ellen Miller, who works for a D.C. based nonprofit that advocates for government transparency said it best: "We're living, after all, in the Internet era. This is an individualized version of the 'fireside chats.' It's not delivered between 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. but whenever anyone wants to see it. I don't know if it necessarily creates transparency -- it's still a controlled, one-way message. But it creates the aura of a much more accessible presidency."

In addition, the announcement that Obama will create the first Chief Technology Officer in United States history goes a long way towards convincing Silicon Valley and the giants of the Technology Industry that it is serious about progressive tech policy. When the transition team made this announcement, the blogosphere practically shook with geeky enthusiasm. And considering the hot new topic in Silicon Valley is green investing, the Obama Administration stands to win from any effort to make the Tech Industry feel that it has a stake in the administration’s decisions.

11:32 am | 2 recommendations | Be the first to comment

How Do We Boost Those Much Needed R&D Dollars?

I just read a blog on WashingtonPost.com that essentially says that a business is doomed to failure if it cannot be on the cutting edge of innovation. And there is no bigger source of innovation than the ideas, products, and designs that come out of those valuable R&D dollars. But R&D will experience a squeeze on a widespread scale in the coming year. Why? Well, for one, offshore outsourcing has become an ingrained practice for the U.S. Another reason is that when it comes to R&D macro-investment, our colossal federal deficit makes any investment that does actually take place likely to occur outside the R&D sector. For the foreseeable future, the Fed has other priorities, like steering us out of this financial quagmire.

So, what can businesses that are experiencing their own R&D budgetary constraints do to stay on the progressive edge? One simple solution might be to invest in cheap, under-the-radar experiments. I don’t mean basement cloning, but business might benefit from testing certain products or practices without a lot of publicity or advertising. Think about the NASA scientists who were forced to find innovative solutions to bring Apollo 13 back to Planet Earth safely – using only what resources were available inside the powered-down module. Hey, if Ed Harris and Tom Hanks can do it, I think we can find a way to innovate using the bear minimum, with scaled-down budgetary restrictions.

Any suggestions?

01:32 pm | 1 recommendation | Be the first to comment

Reflections on a Depression: I’ve Got All This Blame, Where do I Put it?

Wherever he is, Chicken Little is probably grinning. For many Americans these days, it feels like the sky is falling, and financially speaking, the evidence supports Mr. Little’s claim. The consensus around here is that we are experiencing the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Dow succeeded in halving itself last week, banks are taking more dives than Italian soccer players, and the bailout bill hasn’t yet found its legs. In times like these, when few are exempt from feeling the squeeze, people demand answers. And the most sought-after answer seems to chase this question: “So who’s to blame?”

Unfortunately for those looking for a place to direct their angry mob, the answer to this question is not as sound-bite-ready as you might hope. Nor is it accessible to groupthink. Who is to blame, like the problem itself, is deep and diverse.

I walked along Wall Street just after closing on Friday and, at first glance, I thought I’d discovered the culprit (or at least who the world wants the culprit to be) without much effort. No shortage of rubber-necking to be found, the steps and sidewalks of the buildings adjacent to the NYSE were filled with spectators. There were frequent flashes as tourists captured the scene for their travel blogs and Flickr albums. On Friday, the schadenfreude on Wall Street was thick.

But how excessive is this delight in Wall Street’s misery? Some of it is summarily warranted, absolutely. Over the last few years especially, in the long-term bull market, Wall Street became accustomed to making very, very risky investments -- greedy investments that never should have been sanctioned. And of course, as investors saw their portfolios rising due to these risky investments, few asked questions and few bought insurance to protect against the inevitable bubble-burst and subsequent market collapse.

What’s more, many players on Wall Street embraced the misguided view that U.S. housing prices would remain high and that cheap short-term money (i.e. loans and credit) would always be available. They created, bought, and sold securities for huge profits that no one (not even they) really understood. Not to mention the biggest flaw in Wall Street’s business plan: its massive leverage. To finance their risky investments and bets on securities, firms were borrowing extensively against little capital. And when portfolios are highly leveraged, a firm’s capital can vanish overnight when the debt market becomes unstable, which it inexorably did. Wall Street showed a horrendous lack of foresight and a penchant for greed that played an integral role in the economic downturn, so yes, Wall Street certainly shares some of the blame.

Unhappily, however, this situation was not created solely by speculators or miscreants on Wall Street; this is the result of a deep, multifold, complex problem -- and maybe system. The fact of the matter is that it's easy to pile on Wall Street NOW, but where have these finger pointers been for the past five years -- the past ten?

Once upon a time, Adam Smith told us that, in a free-market economy, there is an Invisible Hand that provides the potential for private vices to become public benefits. Individuals pursuing their own self-interest can sometimes benefit the system and the community at large. The key word here being “sometimes.” In a de-regulated, free market, laissez faire economy, greed plays an important role in the functionality of the system. So, to me, it seems perhaps a bit ridiculous for those who benefit from American free-market capitalism -- even if they did not adopt it rote or necessarily ascribe to it themselves -- to pretend they didn't know that greed plays a role AND that this can have serious potential to backfire and wreak even more serious havoc on the system at large.

When the U.S. government helped to create Fannie Mae during the Great Depression, there was a consensus that low-income Americans should be able to buy houses, to afford mortgages. Fannie Mae was established to ensure liquidity in the mortgage markets by ensuring banks and the various institutions that lent (and lend) money to homebuyers. Along the way, Fannie Mae began to buy riskier “subprime” mortgages. Here, one might be able to blame the ratings agencies that labeled these mortgages salable and provided Fannie Mae with the incentive to buy. Or perhaps the blame could also be put on Fannie Mae for the securitization of these mortgages, the chopping of them into little pieces to be sold to investors. Or the proliferation of credit default swaps -- a practice that became a staple of business practice around the globe.

There is some truth to the claim that this problem began on Wall Street, but we are all now responsible for letting it get so out of hand.

Which is why, at this point, I also offer a lack of governmental oversight as a prime cause of this economic calamity. It is absolutely the government’s responsibility to keep up with the markets it has the duty to regulate, and clearly, it has failed to do so. The U.S. is badly in need of oversight and governance, and it is negligent of a government to undertake the responsibility of oversight--to represent that it is fulfilling that function--and then to fail to fulfill this.

The market requires individual actors to move in their own self-interest. Should they have ethics, and think about the greater good? Absolutely--but they are required by law to act in the best economic interest of their shareholders, and that mandates greed. So can we blame financiers who made highly leveraged bets that housing prices would continue to go up, without the cash to pay those debts off were they to lose? Sure--but it seems that the executive branch of the Federal Government should hold some responsibility for this crisis as well as -- for being in a sense, in collusion with the markets.

There are a lot of places to direct blame, so allocate as you see fit. This is a complicated problem, as are the solutions. So before we decide to nail one group, institution, or idea to the cross, let’s make sure we have a full understanding of the problem and the consequences. Only then can we have a good idea of where to send the angry mob, and how to clean up this mess.

But this just one man’s opinion. What do you think?

03:23 pm | 1 recommendation | Be the first to comment

Thinking Creatively: Making Coal into Diamonds

In the October edition of Fast Company Magazine, Gregory Berns wrote an article entitled “Neuroscience Sheds New Light on Creativity”, which I think is fascinating. Read it here.

The article essentially explains that our brains, beautiful and complex as they may be, are fundamentally lazy. Or rather, they are efficient streamliners. When our brains process new information for the first time, it may take an entire section of the brain to process all of the incoming stimuli, but by the 5th or 6th time the brain reacts to that same set of stimuli, only a small set of neurons are needed to process the incoming information. The more we experience the same information, the more facile the connection becomes in our brain, the less the brain works, and the harder it becomes for us to experience spontaneity or creativity.

Berns tells us that creativity and innovation happen when the brain has a hard time predicting what is going to happen next; new experience and new stimuli require new ways of thinking, literally, and as such call for neural adaptation and improvisation in order to sort out and understand. This “sorting out” is, by nature, the biological and procedural root of that ineffable thing called creativity: “Novel experiences are so effective at unleashing the imagination because they force the perceptual system out of categorization, the tendency of the brain to take shortcuts,” Berns says.

So what do we do to encourage creative and innovative thinking? Change our surroundings, talk to new people, do things we might normally do in a different place or different environment. Besides being mind-meltingly interesting, Berns’s suggestion is a fairly simple yet genius prescription for fostering innovative thought. “Innovation” itself is nothing more than the process of inventing or introducing something new, right? So it makes perfect sense that in order to innovate, we must encourage innovative patterns in our behavior and in our thought-processes…and doing this is no more complicated than taking your team for a brainstorming session at Dunkin Donuts, or in the park, or if you’re feeling charitable, to laser tag.

We are now living in a time when some of the greats of innovation (like Bill Gates) are talking about an innovation gap between America and the rest of the world, and we’ve been told that the U.S. seems to be losing the motivation necessary to foster the next innovative workforce of the future. To have a culture of innovation, one needs leadership, policy, funding, and a culture that embraces creativity and novel thinking. Many argue that the forecast, at present, is grim. Perhaps we’ve gotten lazy. Perhaps we don’t care enough.

Governmental funding for scientific research is paltry, corporate research is dwindling, and students are opting out of engineering or programming degrees for other avenues.  Clearly, innovation is not aided at all by the current financial crisis and credit squeeze. Innovative organizations rely on financial institutions for funding, and clearly in this economic climate, it’s hard to borrow a buck, let alone stir up the kind of funding that will lead to an innovative revolution.

We know that the current economic decline is precipitous and may last well into the future, so we need to take novel ideas like those proposed by Berns and turn them into innovative capital. Green building, renewable energy, and sustainable solutions could be areas with potential for a whole mess of innovating even in the midst of this financial hullabaloo. We need to combat the problem with creative solutions. And I think that economic depression can provide the stimulus for creative thought. Credit is tight, budgets are tight, so your business is going to have to find creative solutions to actualize that next project. So take the team to laser tag, get out of a psychology of humbuggery, of anxiety, and get that brain to cough up the creativity that you know is in there. But I’m still working on finding a new way to put on my pants, so I’m looking to you for help. Any suggestions?

01:26 pm | 2 recommendations | 3 comments

Creative Thinking: Making Diamonds from Coal

In the October edition of Fast Company Magazine, Gregory Berns wrote an article entitled “Neuroscience Sheds New Light on Creativity”, which I think is fascinating.  Read it here.

The article essentially explains that our brains, beautiful and complex as they may be, are fundamentally lazy. Or rather, they are efficient streamliners. When our brains process new information for the first time, it may take an entire section of the brain to process all of the incoming stimuli, but by the 5th or 6th time the brain reacts to that same set of stimuli, only a small set of neurons are needed to process the incoming information. The more we experience the same information, the more facile the connection becomes in our brain, the less the brain works, and the harder it becomes for us to experience spontaneity or creativity.

Berns tells us that creativity and innovation happen when the brain has a hard time predicting what is going to happen next; new experience and new stimuli require new ways of thinking, literally, and as such call for neural adaptation and improvisation in order to sort out and understand. This “sorting out” is, by nature, the biological and procedural root of that ineffable thing called creativity: “Novel experiences are so effective at unleashing the imagination because they force the perceptual system out of categorization, the tendency of the brain to take shortcuts,” Berns says.

So what do we do to encourage creative and innovative thinking? Change our surroundings, talk to new people, do things we might normally do in a different place or different environment. Besides being mind-meltingly interesting, Berns’s suggestion is a fairly simple yet genius prescription for fostering innovative thought. “Innovation” itself is nothing more than the process of inventing or introducing something new, right? So it makes perfect sense that in order to innovate, we must encourage innovative patterns in our behavior and in our thought-processes…and doing this is no more complicated than taking your team for a brainstorming session at Dunkin Donuts, or in the park, or if you’re feeling charitable, to laser tag.

We are now living in a time when some of the greats of innovation (like Bill Gates) are talking about an innovation gap between America and the rest of the world, and we’ve been told that the U.S. seems to be losing the motivation necessary to foster the next innovative workforce of the future. To have a culture of innovation, one needs leadership, policy, funding, and a culture that embraces creativity and novel thinking. Many argue that the forecast, at present, is grim. Perhaps we’ve gotten lazy. Perhaps we don’t care enough.

Governmental funding for scientific research is paltry, corporate research is dwindling, and students are opting out of engineering or programming degrees for other avenues.  Clearly, innovation is not aided at all by the current financial crisis and credit squeeze. Innovative organizations rely on financial institutions for funding, and clearly in this economic climate, it’s hard to borrow a buck, let alone stir up the kind of funding that will lead to an innovative revolution.

We know that the current economic decline is precipitous and may last well into the future, so we need to take novel ideas like those proposed by Berns and turn them into innovative capital. Green building, renewable energy, and sustainable solutions could be areas with potential for a whole mess of innovating even in the midst of this financial hullabaloo. We need to combat the problem with creative solutions. And I think that economic depression can provide the stimulus for creative thought. Credit is tight, budgets are tight, so your business is going to have to find creative solutions to actualize that next project. So take the team to laser tag, get out of a psychology of humbuggery, of anxiety, and get that brain to cough up the creativity that you know is in there. But I’m still working on finding a new way to put on my pants, so I’m looking to you for help. Any suggestions -- pants or otherwise?

10:12 pm | 3 recommendations | 4 comments

Who The Blogosphere Says Is The Most Sustainable

According to J.D. Power and Associates’ 2008 Environmental Sustainability Report, four brands—Toyota, General Motors, Honda, and Whole Foods—have received the most positive attention in the blogosphere regarding eco-sustainability.

The report analyzed 40 million blog posts in the past six months in six major industries—automotive, retail, oil and gas, food and beverage, household products, and utilities. It is one of the first reports to consider consumer conversations in the blogosphere about sustainability, global warming, and purchase trends, and to categorize brands within these fields according to the amount of positive press they get from bloggers.

The best news to come from this study is that consumers appear to be displaying an unprecedented concern about environmental sustainability and are increasingly holding companies responsible for not offering eco-friendly products. And importantly, for the major brands, when consumers are uncomfortable with how to react on a personal level to sustainability, they look to the major brands to offer information, direction, and leadership.

According to Janet Eden-Harris, VP of the Web Intelligence Division at J.D. Power, “As more companies launch ‘green’ initiatives, consumers are becoming more skeptical and confused as to what’s real, what’s not, and where they should focus their energy.”

Consumers have cited habit, convenience, price, and perceived loss of functionality as hindrances to living and consuming more sustainably, but with the guidance of major brands, consumers are now more willing to pay the price than ever before.

According to the study, 62% of bloggers are now discussing action pertaining to environmental problems, a discernible shift from 18 months ago, “when many were debating whether or not some of these environmental issues even existed,” according to the study.

Clearly, brands that provide comprehensible demonstrations of how their products or services are “green-friendly”  and how their customers can differentiate between “green” and “not-so-green” will both benefit their bottom line and help consumer culture take a sustainable leap forward.

02:59 pm | 3 recommendations | 1 comment

Talkin' Political Leadership Blues

I want to talk about leadership. I want to talk about a facet of the present American political climate, and I ask you to weigh in on this issue.

We have always elected leaders who we believe in, who we feel we can relate to. But as understandable as these criterion are for electing the President, at what point did “We the People” become so selfish as to expect our elected leaders to reflect our own individual life stories? At what point did their simply empathizing with us become not good enough for us? What does it mean for leadership when we want our President to be just like us?

Of course, this is a representative democracy, where I can supposedly elect the person who best represents my beliefs to a public office where he or she will see that my best interests are served. Sure, we can expect representation, but only if we know what is best represented. Unfortunately, in a country of 300 million plus, in a country where individuality is sanctified, perfect representation is an ideal, if not unreasonable. And considering that we proselytize democracy around the world as the ideal form of governance, if not the perfect manifestation, it is time to start electing candidates based on our ideals and not our personal reflections.

Oftentimes, those best suited to lead are truly different from us -- they often rise above the fold (which by definition includes us) in order to encourage the throngs to do things we wouldn’t do otherwise, to transform things for the better and develop this potential in us. Just because a leader stands apart does not mean they do not empathize with the People, the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Look at FDR. Few could relate to his patrician background, but his ability to connect with people negated any talk of elitism. Was he such a bad leader?

So, if a leader is someone we choose to follow, then it is still possible for us to elect the “better angels of our nature” and not the lowest, right? Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural address, which contains these words, is an inspiring example of the aptitude of an intellectual and political leader. Americans today seem to badly want the democracy of today to be like the democracy of the Founding Fathers, but I fear that if Lincoln’s speech were given today it would be dismissed as complicated, didactic, and elitist. Not to mention that I suspect few would be able to understand the speech in its entirety, with its rhetorical flourishes, penetrating rationality, and talk of “organic laws”. Instead, we have let the detritus of our nature and our culture be elevated, we’ve let it consume, and influence our political landscape and government, to the detriment of our national reputation—and dignity. But maybe that’s just me.

American politics today panders to the lowest common denominator. Politics has become a game of demagoguery, and I think this is a reflection of what we’ve let ourselves become. It’s no longer enough for a politician to exhibit likability, to exhibit rationality or prudence, today it’s about the game, it’s about vitriol and thunder. And as a result, Politics have become a reflection of our fears and insecurities more than our ideals. And We the People, We the Media, have been a crappy watchdog.

So we might pause today to think about what kind of leader we truly want steering the nation through the next four years. For me, I would like to gain a leader who is going to do what’s best for this country, not one who’s going to give me some temporary feeling of personal justification. Though I’ve played hockey for fifteen years, I’m not going to vote for a hockey mom just because she’s like my mom, or vote for a leader who drops the “g’s” off the end of words in order to seem more colloquial, more pastoral. These people are all highly educated, and none of them are really like us, so why should we pretend? Our pretending got us people like Abramoff. A great leader lifts us all up and makes us the better for it, even if it means some book larnin’ along the way.

I’m voting for the candidate who’s least like me.

But clearly I’m an elitist. What do you think?

12:12 pm | 1 recommendation | Be the first to comment

Colours in Motion: Innovation and Moving Forward

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are nearly 50 million people currently living with disabilities in the United States. See the data here. Considering the size of the country’s disabled community, the lack of media coverage in the area of innovation for the disabled is troubling to say the least. Not to mention that over 30,000 people have been wounded in the ongoing conflict in Iraq, and many of those soldiers return home having sustained life-altering physical and mental injuries. The number of disabled in the U.S. is growing every day, and needless to say, this is creating an emerging market of considerable magnitude. A multitude of companies have sprung up that are manufacturing diverse and innovative products to meet the needs of this growing population.

One such company is Colours Wheelchair, a manufacturer of ultra-light, athletic wheelchairs for active, physical wheelchair users. While there are a host of companies creating innovative products for the disabled, Colours Wheelchair has set itself above the fray. Not only does Colours seek to be progressive in their product design, but by collaborating with the motivated and creative individuals that inspire their work, they hope to advocate a hopeful, motivated lifestyle as well.

Colours manufactures stylish and hip wheelchairs for those who wish to be active, those who seek to go beyond the typical limits of mobility. According to Wheelchair’s founder and president, John Box, Colours Wheelchair is “in the business of selling self-esteem, self-confidence, and a unique lifestyle to each person who purchases a Colours wheelchair.”

Colours dedicates its resources to meeting the changing needs and capabilities of the consumer and is able to stay on the cutting edge of design by privileging interaction with its customers. After all, they are the inspiration. Wanting to make a wheelchair that kids would find appealing, Box began making his wheelchairs adjustable, more flexible, and lightweight, offering a variety of accessories in order to make his product more individualized. Many of Colours’ chairs go by names like “Spazz” and “Hammer”—Colours isn’t afraid of trying to be cool. It’s this difference that sets them apart—this openness to the individual, to customizing, that has led Colours to become an industry leader, selling over 2000 units each year in 25 different countries.

What’s more, the company has created an interactive web portal that allows customers to post feedback, pictures, and commentary for all to see. On the homepage, a photo gallery of disabled women in provocative poses has been uploaded. Colours presents itself as more than a simple company, it is a movement, hoping to empower its customers and give them the means to surmount the countless obstacles they face on a daily basis.

On YouTube, I found a video of Aaron Fotherinham, a 16 year-old Extreme wheelchair athlete, becoming the first person to successfully complete a wheel-chair-powered backflip. Watch it here. Aaron’s backflip was enabled by a Colours wheelchair, which is both lightweight and features four-wheel suspension. Aaron is featured on Colours’ homepage, along with other disabled, boundary-defying athletes.

It is through interaction with Aaron and other athletes that Colours has learned that its product can help expose wheelchair users around the country to activities once thought impossible for the disabled. Colours has recently designed a manual wheelchair using a hybrid wheel-design that gives its users access to the beach! Its products are enhancing the lives of Extreme-minded and not-so-extreme-minded people alike, helping them to overcome the insurmountable: “If you look good, you feel good; and if you feel good, you are in a position to succeed, despite your challenges,” said Mr. Box.