Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Thoughts just left lying around...

The perfect lesson...

"What you want to learn is how to learn." - Alice Snell, Vice President, Taleo

Uncertain outcomes...

“I wanted a perfect ending. Now I’ve learned, the hard way, that some poems don’t rhyme, and some stories don’t have a clear beginning, middle, and end. Life is about not knowing, having to change, taking the moment and making the best of it, without knowing what’s going to happen next. Delicious Ambiguity” - Gilda Radner

A no-numbers game...

"Off-shoring is a zero-sum game." - Marcus Courtney, President, WashTech/CWA

Physical Graffiti...

“We are the first generation bombarded with so many stories from so many authorities, none of which are our own. The parable of the post-modern mind is the person surrounded by a media center: three television screens in front of them giving three sets of stories; fax machines bringing in other stories; newspapers providing still more stories. In a sense, we are saturated with stories; we’re saturated with points of view. But the effect of being bombarded with all of these points of view is that we don’t have a point of view and we don’t have a story. We lose the continuity of our experiences; we become people who are written on from the outside...” - Sam Keen


More at Group Partners WIKI: http://www.en.grouppartners.net
More at: Main Group Partners Site: http://www.grouppartners.net
More at Group Partners Blog: http://www.grouppartners.net/community/blog/
More at: John Caswell website http://web.mac.com/johncaswell/iWeb









Monday, August 07, 2006

Line of Sight...












Just a musing...

Getting clarity is tough enough but keeping it in the hallowed halls of the board room or letting it wallow in a consultants document is either elitist, arrogant or plain dumb. Getting out there and corralling the managers and the workforce is now the real game in town - getting them truly bought in - on the bus.

OK, so knowing this is one thing, doing something quite another. Whilst there may well be nothing wrong with the strategy, the ability to communicate and execute is the true test of success or failure. Getting the message through and understood and then operational is the yardstick by which a strategy should be measured. When strategy and culture are at odds strategy always wins. And an awful lot can get lost in the translation!

To win these days organizations need to get to grips with, visualise and then transform the ‘line of sight’ between how things look and how things are...

Telepresence...

Interesting to see Cisco announcing big plans in this space. There is a new event "TelePresenceWorld 2007" at University of San Diego next June. CISCO is going to drive this market... I'm told that TelePresence is going to change everything. You can preview the website at http://www.telepresenceworld.com and click on the John Chambers link under "Quick Links" also visit http://www.humanproductivitylab.com... Interested to hear views on this... Clearly many opportunities to apply 4D and SVT to this/(via this) media

The Science of learning & thinking?..

So we get told that our clients value most a subtle mix of structure, thought and visualization. The structure sorts the chaos and enables us to crisply rank and order thinking. With visualization our clients can understand more and feel more in control. 4D™ and SVT™ means we can communicate at a higher order this is vital to rise above today’s noise. But what's behind all that?... What do we feel about the following...

The research of Mayer and Moreno (2002) propose that multi media learning involves three cognitive processes.

Selecting: Where verbal information is processed as a text base and visual information is processed as an image base.
Organizing: Where the verbal base and the image base are applied to the yet to be learned concept.
Integrating: Where the learner builds connections between the two.

Their research into the effectiveness of using layers of media types yielded the following major principles.

Multiple Representation Principle – “It is better to present an explanation in words and pictures than solely in words.”
Contiguity Principle – “Words and pictures are to be presented simultaneously rather than separate.”
Split Attention principle – “Present words as auditory narration rather than as visual on screen text.”
Coherence Principle – “Use few rather than many extraneous words and pictures.”
Modality Principle – “Students learn more effectively from animation and narration than from animation and text.”
Personalization Principle – “Students learn more effectively from animation and narration when the narration is conversational rather than formal style.”
Redundancy Principle – “Students learn more effectively from animation and narration than from animation, narration and text.”

Interesting.

Signpost to an intelligent future...

The Mobile PA service from Sirenic highlights a growing trend towards personalisation of content delivery on mobile devices - an area where artificial intelligence could in time come into its own.

by Rebeca Cliffe, Associate

The age of artificial intelligence (AI) may be a long way off, but nonetheless there are already early signs of how its application could change the way we access and use information.  One of these is provided by Sirenic, a small software company whose Mobile PA service gives access to email and other business applications from existing mobile phones, smartphones, PDAs and via any web browser.  Users can use Mobile PA to organise personal calendar, contacts and tasks information.  News information is also available through the application, and enterprise customers can request additional business applications, CRM systems and data feeds to be integrated too.  However, the feature that makes this service most interesting is its ability to 'learn' what information the user requires on the move.

The company's key selling point is its "Relevance Server", which according to Sirenic, "analyses all the available content, and compares it to each individual's interests and needs, dynamically adjusted according to their use of the system and their current context".  This enables features such as personalisation, prioritisation, summarising and cross-referencing items to be included in the Mobile PA application.  By analysing the user's interests, previous usage and current context, the tool claims to be able to categorise and prioritise data to meet their needs.  It can identify related information and offers a contextual search facility to help individuals deal with the problems of 'information overload'.  While Sirenic is by no means the only information company seeking to provide intelligent personalisation tools - one has only to think of search engines suggesting results based on analysing a user's past search history - its use in the mobile context is indicative of a general trend and highlights some interesting potential applications.

AI technology seems especially suited to serving information on the move, when users are likely to want information even more quickly and with less investment of time and effort than when they are sitting at their desks. For example, when combined with location-based technologies such as GPS or RFID tags, technology that can learn both from past usage by the user and their immediate local context could provide a compelling level of personalised data support in the area of local information and mapping services.  With the major search engines investing considerable efforts in
the area of providing local information and mapping services on mobile phones, such technologies are an area they will need to watch.  There are already examples of how the combination of location-based and intelligent technology can deliver benefits in the business context.  With applications in the learning and training space, Giunti Labs is developing context-aware systems that understand where someone is and what their competencies are in order to send relevant content - for example its eXact Mobile product uses ambient technology and location based technologies to adapt the delivery of content according to both context (eg light / dark) and location.

While many of the 'personalised' services that are currently available could be more accurately classified as customised - where the user has some active involvement in the tailoring of information to their preferences - companies such as Sirenic are symptomatic of the trend towards the automatic analysis and prioritisation of information for individual users.  As technology companies and information providers work together to develop services offering true personalisation, the need for relevance and accuracy will be paramount - users will only befriend smart computers if they can improve their speed and ease of consuming information.


Jump to http://www.grouppartners.net


Response to Food For Thought...

Thanks John - this has been one of my favourite questions for ages.

One of the big problems with the whole AI 'debate' is the perception of intelligence. When we measure intelligence, we tend to use IQ. But the mental mental of AI goes much much further than this. When we think of the Kurzweilian AI, we think of 'machines as man' - ie, as per Alan Turin's famous test where we can't tell the difference between the responses a computer gives to questions and the responses a human gives.

But this infers an emotional component, not measured (or perhaps even measurable) by IQ. In short, we don't really know what it means to be intelligent. Is someone/thing intelligent because it knows lots of stuff, or has reads lots, or knows more than me about lots of things? Or because they can judge situations rapidly, can put knowledge into context, can see many different angles on the same problem? Or is someone intelligent (in the AI sense) when they know by gut feel the answer to complex problems. Or is someone intelligent when they seemingly act irrationally in the present, but in doing so secures a safe, longer-term future.

In many of these situations, it seems hard to imagine how a machine might act like a human. Philosophically I tend to prefer not to believe that one day machines will think as humans because it takes away the notion of free will and consigns the imagination to a puzzle with a final solution that we haven't solved yet. What it means is that we, as humans, are totally understandable and ultimately programmable, and that given enough time and rational analysis, we will be able to understand 'the brain circuitry'. I prefer to believe there is more to us than that. I don't want to wait for some 'intelligent' scientist to work out how I work.

However, cutting things horizontally, we might find a definition of intelligence that machines can help us with. What I would call 'utility thinking' cries out for machine intervention. Utility thinking at work includes all of the mundane, repetitive, mind-numbing stuff we all have to deal with: expense reporting, finding out who does what for whom, escalating problems, some strategic financial decisions etc. Having machines take care of these things frees us up to spend more time thinking creatively, pondering the unknown, moving up the 'value chain of imaginative thought'. Machines aren't really intelligent in this case, but perhaps they allow us to become more so.

I very much agree with point 2 - if you don't believe we are eminently understandable and in fact that the human spirit has boundary-less possibilities then you will believe that we will still explore and leap into the unknown which means making mistakes. Whatever we get machines to do for us, we will fill the new spare time created with more creative things, discovering new 'knowledge', creating new 'intelligence',  learning from new errors.

So in summary, I think that if we don't really know what intelligence is,  it's going to be difficult to know when we've created an artificial version (how will we know/measure it?!) and if we believe in the boundary less human spirit, we'll always be fallible and make mistakes.

Cliff
www.visitcliff.com

Food for thought...

Both ideas are true. But what is more likely?...

"Strong" AI (Artificial Intelligence) to be here within 25 years” - Ray Kurzweil Futurist.  “Even if one accepts Kurzweil's predictions, the availability of brilliant artificial intelligence says nothing about whether humans will have the wisdom to avail themselves of such knowledge.. Human faults will remain undiminished. In 25 years, we will still be making the same mistakes.” -Thomas Claburn, Editor-at-Large. Information Week

Road Trip: What We Need...

By John Caswell

“An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense 'intuitive linear' view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century—it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate).” Ray Kurzweil, inventor and futurist, ‘The Law of Accelerating Returns’ Does this letter seem different because I wrote it on the back of a motion sickness bag as I flew to my annual holiday? Does it? I eventually input and uploaded my words from my Mac to my website.

Alternatively, I could have called in the text to our Studio like the reporters in those 1930’s movies who rush to the phone booths with the big ‘scoop’. Uh. Dramatic but unlikely. I don’t own a fedora nor do we see those booths so much anymore. It is amazing that in fact I have written much of what appears on this site on a Blackberry. I’ve written on my little black books of course.

I’ve even sent myself SMS texts of thoughts and that is now on my BB too!!! “Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity—technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history.” Ray Kurzweil, inventor and futurist, ‘The Law of Accelerating Returns’ I have to fess up to being something of a fan of gadgets. Well some of them. The ones that just ooze relevance to me. The ones that combine intelligence with design or purpose with sensitivity.

I do not own a Game Boy or an X-Box. I do own several I Pods of course and I have the newer Blackberry. I love the technology that assists me to improve my life. I hate Sat Nav in the wrong hands (As you may already have read). I actually want a Tablet Mac! They only make a Tablet PC. I don’t like PC’s. I also like smart powerboats. You can have an I Pod wired directly into a powerboat. And you can wear a fedora too. I’m certain, and I think Kurzweil gets this completely right, that in the future we will live forever. If we choose. Our minds and our souls being re-created in some way technologically and we lose the body. With all of our senses giving us every experience, our joy and our value put to work in ways currently beyond our ken.

Our Minds are already an utter marvel of ‘technological’ might and why can’t we use that mind to such purpose so as to improve and replace the inefficiencies of our world. After all that is what we all say we are trying to do. For me the future is still a blank canvas of opportunity. I love the blank canvas. Even a motion sickness bag. I’m just not afraid of the empty space or the blank page. In fact I just need a decent size room with good light, a whiteboard or just some flat walls – and a client with a problem to solve. We bring in the pens, even the white wall now in a little box. We bring in the energy, the thrill and the electricity.

Actually no technology in sight. But when it catches up I will try all the technology I can if it improves the outcome of what we do. I’ve always been curious, I’ve always scribbled, drawings and notes everywhere. Our Studio, of course, has state-of-the-art technology to transmute the outcome of the work I do. We’ve built the client’s collective intelligence into online systems, workbooks, brochures, posters or whatever it takes. ‘Pictures’ isn’t our end product. ‘Cool toys’ isn’t our goal.

A few weeks ago, for example, we helped a global IT outsourcer re-examine their relationship with a major account. As a result of what the group learned about its customer in our sessions, the outsourcer halted and redesigned an upcoming product launch. The enterprise improved performance through improved thinking. We didn’t use technology, just brainpower. But I'm certain that in a few decades technology will be able to do this too. It was a great outcome and that’s the outcome I want to offer. Technology or no technology.

That’s what I want to get out of that scribble on the air sickness bag. I felt good that technology was in its rightful place to. “I took a test in Existentialism. I left all the answers blank and got 100.” Woody Allen, film director and author Our client engagements tell me a lot about individuals, organizations and tools. I certainly see technology becoming more human, rather than the other way around.

Online services for connecting people are booming. Linkedin has 5.5 million users now. Plaxo adds 20,000 subscribers every day. eBay reports 193 million confirmed registrants and recently bought Craigslist, a self-organizing entity if ever there was one. Demand for visualization capability increases all the time. e-Bay buyers expect to see a picture of the product before they commit. The ability to create e-Cards for your contacts on Plaxo makes perfect sense.

So I’m not too worried about the future of the human. Just the future of fedoras. Sorry if you travelled after me and got sick too. Some thoughts on technology, people and the future: “When you take technology and mix it with art, you always come up with something innovative”. Robert Rodriguez, filmmaker, ‘Sin City’ etal “Control is an illusion”. Avram Miller, VP of Business Development, Intel “There's nothing more flexible than a human being”. Alan VanDeMoere, Manufacturing Manager, Eastman Kodak “The best way to predict the future is to invent it”. Alan Kay, co-Founder, PARC Xerox “Simplicity changes the world”. Jonathan Schwartz, COO, SunFrom the Minds Eye...

External Trends in Strategy

By Ram Charam

Lord John Browne, chief executive of BP (née British Petroleum), is perhaps best known for the gamble he and his company took in 1997. At that time, Lord Browne began to reposition the company in a more environmentally conscious direction, after famously arguing that “the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is…when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point.” At first the stock price fell, but did the company suffer in the end? Hardly.

In 2004, BP passed both ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch/Shell Group in gross revenues, to reach No. 2 on the Fortune Global 500 list (after Wal-Mart): It is the largest energy company in the world by this measure. A similarly prescient corporate leader is Richard Harrington, CEO of the Thomson Corporation, a media company based in Toronto. When Mr. Harrington took office in 1997, the company was best known for its 55 daily newspapers in seven states.

Business was good, but Mr. Harrington — with the full support of his board — began to divest Thomson’s newspapers and its travel and leisure business, steering the company instead toward delivering information and services online to professionals in law, education, health care, and finance. Today, the company is thriving, while major newspaper companies, like Knight Ridder, are struggling.

This is the art of business acumen: linking an insightful assessment of the external business landscape with the keen awareness of how money can be made — and then executing the strategy to deliver the desired results. The word acumen means “keenness and depth of perception, especially in practical matters.” Leaders like Lord Browne and Mr. Harrington apply a high level of acumen to business matters. They have the usual skills of successful executives, including the ability to deliver high performance. But they are distinguished by their ability to position their companies advantageously while operating within the same external landscape as their competitors. This is the source of their ability to achieve returns above the risk-adjusted cost of capital.

No single aspect of managerial skill is more important. If the company’s assessment of the external landscape — how patterns of converging and diverging trends fit together — is inaccurate, the company’s strategic positioning will likely be wrong. Decision makers will be tempted to develop the wrong capabilities, hire the wrong people, or enter the wrong markets. Business acumen demands intense mental activity. Seeing how the landscape is evolving requires a high caliber of qualitative logic and the ability to frame, assess, discard, and adopt many assumptions at once. Because that landscape is continuously changing, the task is doubly difficult and always worth revisiting.

To be sure, change in the external landscape is nothing new, but it can be linear and continuous, or it can be exponential and abrupt. From the mid-1980s through much of the 1990s, change was relatively linear. Competition was fierce, but most businesspeople had a good idea who their competitors were and how to survive. Whether they could execute was a different matter. Then, in the late 1990s, heavy investment in Internet-related technologies and companies began to create deep discontinuities in some industries. At the same time, the economies of China and India were stirring to life.

China’s efforts to join the globalizing world accelerated after the country signed a trade agreement with the U.S. in 2000; the process led to its historic agreement to join the World Trade Organization in 2001. And momentum for India’s economic liberalization was spurred by recovery from the fiscal crisis it had experienced in 1991. These trends built up until, as happens every few decades, they reached a tipping point, and the rate and depth of change accelerated abruptly. The effect can be seen, for example, in the U.S. current account balance, which was roughly in equilibrium in the early 1990s, but dropped to a $668 billion deficit in 2004; in the global glut of manufacturing capacity that is pressuring many industries; and in the new geopolitical realities that became tragically evident on September 11, 2001.

When such forces combine, they can uproot the competitive landscape of a worldwide industry. Suddenly, the moneymaking approach of that industry can be in jeopardy. Success depends on a leader’s ability to recognize such moments of disequilibrium in advance — and to have the courage and business acumen to chart a new course in the face of them, as Lord Browne and Mr. Harrington did.

John Kotter writes...

Helping Change Happen. (Within an Organisation)

Steps in the Process

Step One Increase urgency
Step Two Build the Guiding Team
Step Three Get the Vision Right
Step Four Communicate for Buy-in
Step Five Empower Action
Step Six Create Short-Term Wins
Step Seven Don’t Let Up
Step Eight Make Change Stick

Stage One: Increase Urgency - Raise a feeling of urgency so that people say “let’s go” making a change effort well positioned for launch.

What Works:

Showing others the need for change with a compelling object that they can actually see, touch, and feel.
Showing people valid and dramatic evidence from outside the organisation that demonstrates that change is required.
Looking for cheap and easy ways to reduce complacency.
Never underestimating how much complacency and anger exists, even in good organisations.

What Doesn’t Work:

Focussing exclusively on building a “rational business case, getting top management approval and racing ahead while mostly ignoring all the feelings that are blocking change.
Ignoring a lack of urgency and jumping immediately to creating a vision and strategy.
Believing that without a crisis or burning platform you can go nowhere.
Thinking that you can do little if you are not the head person.

Stage Two: Build the Guiding Team - Help form a group that has the capability - in membership and method of operating - to guide a very difficult change process.

What Works:

Showing enthusiasm and commitment (or helping someone do so) to help draw the right people into the group.
Modelling the trust and teamwork needed in the group (or helping someone else to do that)
Structuring meeting formats for the guiding team so as to minimise frustration and increase trust.
Putting your energy into Step One (Raising Urgency) if you cannot take on the Step Two challenge and if the right people will not.

What Doesn’t Work:

Guiding change with weak task forces, single individuals, complex governance structures, or fragmented top teams.
Not confronting the situation when momentum and entrenched power centres undermine the creation of the right group.
Trying to leave out or work around the head of the unit to be changed because he or she “is hopeless”.

Stage Three: Get the Vision Right - Create the right vision and strategies to guide action in all the remaining stages of change.

What Works:

Trying to see - literally - futures Visions that are so clear that they can be articulated in one minute or written up on one page.
Visions that are moving - such as commitment to serving people.
Strategies that are bold enough to make bold visions a reality.
Paying careful attention to the strategic question of how quickly to introduce change.

What Doesn’t Work:

Assuming that linear or logical plans and budgets alone adequately guide behaviour when you are trying to leap into the future.
Overly analytic, financially based vision exercises.
Visions of slashing costs, which can be emotionally depressing and anxiety creating.
Giving people fifty four logical reasons why they need to create strategies that are bolder than they have ever created before.

Stage Four: Communicate for Buy-in - Communicate change visions and strategies effectively so as to create both understanding and a gut-level buy-in.

What Works:

Keeping communications simple and heartfelt, not complex and technocratic.
Doing your homework before communicating, especially to understand what people are feeling.
Speaking to anxieties, confusion, anger, and distrust.
Ridding communication channels of junk so that important messages can go through.
Using new technologies to help people see the vision (intranet, satellites, etc)

What Doesn’t Work:


Under communicating, which happens all the time.
Speaking as if you are only transferring information.
Accidentally fostering cynicism by not walking the talk.

Stage Five: Empower Action - Deal effectively with obstacles that block action, especially disempowering bosses, lack of information, the wrong performance measurement and reward systems, and lack of self-confidence.

What Works:

Finding individuals with change experience who can bolster people’s self-confidence with we-won-you-can-too anecdotes.
Recognition and reward systems that inspire, promote optimism, and build self-confidence.
Feedback that can help people make better vision-related decisions.
“Retooling” disempowering managers by giving them new jobs that clearly show the need for change.
Ignoring bosses who seriously disempower their subordinates.

What Doesn’t Work:

Solving the bosses problem by taking away their power (making them mad and scared) and giving it to their subordinates.
Trying to remove all the barriers at once.
Giving in to your own pessimism and fears.

Stage Six: Create Short-Term Wins - Produce sufficient short-term wins , sufficiently fast, to energise the change helpers, enlighten the pessimists, and defuse the cynics, and build momentum for the effort.

What Works:

Early wins that come fast.
Wins that are as visible as possible to as many people as possible.
Wins that penetrate emotional defences by being unambiguous.
Wins that are meaningful to others - the more deeply meaningful the better.
Early wins that speak to powerful players whose support you need and do not yet have.
Wins that can be achieved cheaply and easily, even if they seem small compared with the grand vision.

What Doesn’t Work:

Launching fifty projects at once.
Providing the first win too slowly.
Stretching the truth.

Stage Seven: Don’t Let Up - Continue with wave after wave of change, not stopping until the vision is a reality, despite seemingly intractable problems.

What Works:

Aggressively ridding yourself of work that wears you down - tasks that were relevant in the past but not now, tasks that can be delegated.
Looking constantly for ways to keep urgency up.
Using new situations opportunistically to launch the next wave of change.
As always - show ‘em - show ‘em - show ’em.

What Doesn’t Work:

Developing a rigid four year plan (be more opportunistic).
Convincing yourself that you are done when you aren’t.
Convincing yourself that you can get the job done without confronting some of the more embedded bureaucratic and political behaviours.
Working so hard that you physically and emotionally collapse (or sacrifice off-the-job life).

Stage Eight: Make Change Stick - Be sure the changes are embedded in the very culture of the enterprise so that the new way of operating will stick.

What Works:

Not stopping at Stage Seven - it isn’t over until the changes have roots.
Using new employee orientation to compellingly show recruits what the organisation really cares about.
Using the promotions process to place people who act according to the new norms into influential and visible positions.
Telling vivid stories over and over about the new organisation, what it does, and why it succeeds.
Making absolutely sure you have the continuity of behaviour and results that help a new culture grow.

What Doesn’t Work:

Relying on a boss or a compensation scheme, or anything but culture, to hold a big change in place.
Trying to change culture as the first step in the transformation process.

Source: John Kotter