Engineers without Fears

The Rise of the Hedgehogs

2011-08-21T19:33:00.000-07:00

Remember the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall? No? Well, here it is:

"Boy, if life were only like this". We rarely get the chance to call people on their opinions. Especially when it comes to opinions about the future. Rather than pulling out Marshall McLuhan from behind the scenery, I sometimes want to pull out a younger version of the person speaking. "Three years ago, you said x would happen but it didn't. Care to justify yourself to yourself?"

One man has got close to doing just this. Philip Tetlock is a US social scientist who asked experts (academics, journalists, policy makers) to make political, social and economic predictions about the future as part of an experiment. What would happen in the Soviet Union? In Europe? In South Africa? And then he waited to see if they were right. He began doing this in the mid-1980s and the results were published in Expert Political Judgment.

He noted a few interesting things:

Experts are not that good at predicting complex phenomena. On average, they did better than chance. They did better than university undergraduates. They did not do as well as formal statistical models.
Some factors that you might expect would make people better at prediction did not. It didn't matter whether they had a PhD or not. It didn't matter how many years of experience they had. Whether you were male or female didn't matter. It didn't matter whether they had access to classified information. It didn't matter whether they were left wing or right wing ideologically speaking.
There was a slight negative correlation between the amount that an expert appeared in the media vs. their predictive performance. So the more that you see someone on TV, the less you should trust them. However this was a weak relationship.

So what did matter then? What makes someone a better predictor of the future than someone else?

So it turns out that it matters how you think about things. Tetlock distinguishes between "foxes" and "hedgehogs". Hedgehogs are:

Thinkers who know "one big thing", aggressively extend the exploratory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who "do not get it", and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters.

In contrast, foxes are:

Thinkers know many small things..., are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible "ad hocery" that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess...

Who does better at prediction? Well, the foxes win here. Not only do the foxes do better at prediction but they were more likely to change their minds when events did not occur as expected and they less likely to engage in hindsight bias - i.e. misremembering both their own predictions and those of their rivals in a self-serving way.

Some hedgehogs do not view this apparent failure as a bad thing. One think tank resident told Tetlock:

"You play a publish-or-perish game run by the rules of social science... You are under the misapprehension that I play the same game. I don't. I fight to preserve my reputation in a cutthroat adversarial culture. I woo dumb-ass reporters who want glib sound bites."

These findings depress me. They don't depress me because I don't approve of fox-style thinking. I do. They depress me because fox-style thinking feels like it is out of fashion at the moment. Hedgehogs seems to rule the world. The recent behaviour within the US Congress and space given to Trollumnists in the Australian press are two examples. Of course, as a fox, I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong. What do you think? Are things that bleak? How do we make the world a foxier place?

Source: scpetrel

Hell

2011-08-15T03:44:00.000-07:00

For me, hell is a 90s indie disco in an English provincial town, at about 00:30 in the morning on a Thursday. Someone has just spit cider and black on my jacket and I can't find my friends. There's a leering face a few inches from mine yelling the lyrics to "Breakfast at Tiffanys" by Deep Blue Something*. Or it could be a mirror. I don't know any more.

*No, I am not linking to this.

Party Hard

2011-08-14T05:25:00.000-07:00

The missus bought us tickets to see Pulp at the Horden Pavilion a couple of weeks ago. We only seem to see bands from the 90s these days. Admittedly she goes out to see a wider range of artists but I just can't be arsed. An insufficient number of rock venues offer table service. Middle-aged griping aside, Pulp soundtracked my early adulthood and their songs generate an range of responses in me as emotionally conflicted as the songs themselves.

My first exposure to them was back in the summer of 1993 when I saw them perform a trio of sweaty-palmed ditties on the telly. They were odd bunch. The guitarist and bass player were duking it out in some kind of "sexycool rock perv" competition under the careful gazes of the drummer and keyboardist. The guitarist with his flicky hair and occasional violining and Travolta-esque stances. The bass player grinding away at his instrument like he's just been released from solitary confinement and it's the first welcoming thing his groin has encountered. In most other bands, either would have been within groping distance of victory. However, both were doomed to runner-up status in the "sexycool rock perv" stakes by the antics of their singer.

Jarvis Cocker's stage presence was/is unique. Simultaneously warm and confronting. One minute cracking jokes with the audience (entertaining us, charming us, seducing us, the minx) and the next, ludicrously enacting his songs with high kicks, poses and the witchy waggling of his fingers. His whole, lanky body seems to consist of joints. Lyrically, he's obsessed with sex and relationships - with a preference for the grubby, dysfunctional and ill-fitting. It's a mark of his skill that he can fashion memorable stories from such a limited palate. And two of Pulp's most memorable songs (the two highlights of the evening for me) are not about sex so much.

Common People did include the offer of sex but it's a vitriolic anthem about the rich slumming it, about class, about getting it wrong and about being an outsider. Everyone in this song ends up an outsider: the girl from Greece who fails to fit in, the common people who watch their lives slide out of view, and the narrator himself - who may be called "common people" but doesn't relish that trajectory at all. And yet in indie discos across the land it became a communal anthem, feted by exactly the kinds of people that it mocked.

Sorted for E's and Wizz was another song narrated by someone on the edge of things, another outsider. This time it was the 80s/90s rave scene that gets pulled apart in story. The communal myth of the party ends and the narrator is left in field, alone and ****ed up. It's not an anthem, it's a queasy come down of a song.

Pulp's sound and Cocker's lyrics are consistently and deliberately "ill-fitting". Not quite right. This put them apart from their Britpop peers. Pulp could never write an anthem as vacant as Wonderwall or as calculating as Girls and Boys. For me this makes them all the more loveable.

I have no idea why the UK riots happened

2011-08-13T19:54:00.000-07:00

Let me start off by saying that beating people up and/or robbing them is bad. Burning down other people's property and businesses is also bad. Are we agreed on that? Excellent.

I spent the first 28 years of my life living in the UK and 4 of those years were in London. So it was depressing to see parts of that city going up in flames. However events such as this rarely trigger just one emotion and after the depression faded, it was replaced by curiosity. How and why did the riots happen the way they did? And what does this mean for preventing a repeat of them?

I'm not a newspaper columnist, so I don't claim to have all the answers at my fingertips. Instead I have a whole bunch of questions:

Who were the rioters and the looters?
What prompted them to start acting up?
How did they communicate with and influence each other?
Did the actions of the police hinder or help the situation?
What role did on-lookers play?
What led people to stop rioting and looting?

As tempting as it might be to blame one cause ("criminality", "cuts") that fits a particular view of the world, events like this tend to have overlapping causes (whys) and mechanisms (hows). If you have a ready-made answer then please keep it to yourself. If you have an interesting question then please add it via the comments.

Ellsberg

2011-01-30T03:13:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, this documentary on Daniel Ellsberg was shown on Australian TV. Two moments stuck in my mind.

1. The first is this warning that Ellsberg gave to Henry Kissinger when the latter went to work at the White House. The behaviour that Ellsberg describes is a kind of intellectual arrogance based on access to privileged information. This might be possible to paraphrase (in the manner of Lord Acton) as: All secrecy tends to corrupt and absolute secrecy corrupts absolutely. This does not mean that we can abolish secrecy (any more than we can abolish power), rather that we have to put in place safeguards against its power at both the personal and institutional levels. Easier said than done.

2. Later on in the documentary, after Ellsberg has gone public and faces trial, he expresses dismay that the newspaper and TV journalists were not talking about the documents that he had brought into the public domain but rather the "Ellsberg saga". He had ended up becoming the news, which is the last thing that he wanted. The soap opera of capture and trial was easier to write than the murky history of American involvement in Vietnam. Of course, that would never happen today.

Hiding in Plain Sight

2011-01-16T20:57:00.000-08:00

The internet geeks among you may have heard of this web site called "Wikileaks". I only heard about it the other day through my hair stylist. The things the kidz* get up to these days.

Everyone seems to have become very excited about it. Julian Assange holed up in an English mansion, Bradley Manning losing what's left of his mind, various American politicians calling for the assassination of a foreign national**, web commentators saying why Wikileaks is either brilliant or terrible. The contents of the cables themselves seem to have faded from view and we are left with the soap opera - which, let's face it, is so much more exciting than trying to understand geopolitics.

I tend to come to things a bit late. I'm a bit slow, a bit "special needs". However it now seems to me that Wikileaks is a red herring. A massive and spectacular red herring - more of a red whale in fact - but a distraction none the less.

It's generally assumed that governments hide stuff from their citizens. And this assumption is correct. Governments hide stuff because: some information might allow other states (or commercial entities) to take advantage of them; their citizens have a right to privacy; it might make senior officials and politicians look bad; it's simply what they've done for hundreds of years. Some of these reasons are more justifiable than others. We should have a long conversation about that sometime but not here, now.

What is interesting to me right now is that governments aren't always very good at hiding stuff. In fact, most democratic governments have to make copious amounts of information available by law. You don't even have to trudge to a dusty library these days, it's there on teh interweb. It may not be in an accessible format (*cough* Marrickville Council) but it is there. Now there is still plenty of important stuff kept locked away but we should begin with the information that is publicly available.

In contrast, the media has an obsession with hidden information. This obsession is akin to lazy students who want to break into the filing cabinet that contains the answers to the exam. The answers must be hidden away somewhere, written in a document entitled "Our plans for world domination and public deception", probably formatted in comic sans. And if they aren't, well it just sounds like too much work. Better still, governments could tie us to a nuclear weapon and then recite their evil plans at length, before a minion's ineptitude*** allows us to escape and foil their dastardly plan. And then we can get laid to the soundtrack of Shirley Bassey****. I blame Watergate but what do I know.

For me, the work of Open Australia and Planning Alerts is more important than Wikileaks*****. What can we do with what is hiding in plain sight?

*And by "kidz", I mean men in their late thirties.

**Julian Assange seems to be a fairly extreme anarchist/libertarian. As such he is profoundly anti-government. He probably has more in common with those on the US hard right, the very people who are calling for his death, than they realise.
***An inept public servant? The very idea...
****I have no idea if that would work in practice.
*****Perhaps we should call Open Australia terrorists. With their "Apache" servers and their "HTML".

cold case rondel

2010-05-10T03:52:00.000-07:00

The signs are better set in stone
Than memories that fizz in glass.
First as tragedy, then as farce -
A light laugh cut into a groan.

A single moult of hair, not mown,
Found in among the buds and grass.
The signs are better set in stone
Than memories that fizz in glass.

I broke each tooth but lost a bone.
Send me to the back of the class.
Because of you, sharpeye smartarse,
I'll end my days in dark alone.
The signs are better set in stone
Than memories that fizz in glass.

What is a rondel?

not dead yet

2010-05-04T07:42:00.000-07:00

Wonderers Heart is a blog that doesn't shy away from dark stuff. Depression. Suicide. Grief.

And to top it all, it's a little awkward. It tackles topics that evade comprehension and easy answers and Anne does not present neatly wrapped insights into pain, loss and occasional act of inadvertent arson. It is someone thinking/feeling in public. Reflecting in a muddy mirror.

If you ever get sick of blogs with lists of the seven things for blah blah blah then please pay her a visit.

the hunt of the unicorn

2010-05-03T23:47:00.000-07:00

They clattered down the high street in their chain mail, spitting forth hoarse cries like rotten teeth. Everyone was looking for a myth, not a toy.

random numbers

2010-04-01T00:59:00.000-07:00

Random Numbers, darkmatter

The dice have wings. They are little insects of chance, scared away by a sudden movement, a wreckless decision. I see gamblers running around with oversized nets, distended surfaces of hope whose holes gape as they scythe the air.

The dice rest on the flat of my hand and for a moment they are still. Then I cup them between my palms and they start to buzz. To shake and sting. Little stabbing pains in my skin. I let them go.

There is a swarm of dice now, stripping the pleasant green certainties of leaves. A probable desert is all that remains on this land. I hide somewhere between and one and thirty-six.

live and direct

2010-03-18T18:51:00.000-07:00

Tim "Mumbrella" Burrowes is over live blogging (or tweeting) and Katie "GetShouty" Chatfield is feeling the same way.

It's important to note that this kind of activity is still limited to certain events full of "webby" people. Many of the events I go to have no live blogging nor tweeting (and varying proportions of live attendees). So this is a bit of a minority issue but let's assume these behaviours will spread over time.

Rather than seeing tweeting and blogging as potentially distracting activities and so a disaster, I think they may be an opportunity to improve the event experience - if used with a bit of thought by the savvy presenter.

I am not really a fan of straight "presenting". My short attention span means that I'm getting bored of my own voice just after the first slide. I would much rather have others play with and critique or extend my ideas rather than have them received as so much cognitive junk mail - and these new whizz-bang "Web 0.2" technologies allow this to happen. If you build twitter-based activities into your session or offer 3 questions you want to invite the audience to blog about at the end, then you are creating a space for this interaction. At other times, you can invite participants to put down their devices and briefly give you their full attention.

This does require those with a "speaking" role to act more like facilitators than presenters. It means that you probably have to learn improv as well as voice projection, posture, storytelling and visual design to be good at this. It also means that speakers have to accept a more humble but ultimately more powerful role than "the sage on the stage". The only justifiable reason to get on a stage is to change the world a little bit, everything else is ego. And if you want to change the world, that means that the action is out there in the audience - they are the future and you, as a speaker, are the past. You have to go where the action is and tools like twitter can light up the action for you like a flare.

So what else can we do to make events better?

books offer

2010-02-23T14:31:00.000-08:00

Who wants a copy of the following?

American Gods by Neil Gaiman
The Iliad (Robert Fagles translation)
A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari
Rip It Up & Start Again by Simon Reynolds
I Wouldn't Start From Here by Andrew Mueller
The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge

For pick-up only in the Sydney area.

michael sampson in canberra & melbourne

2010-01-27T19:07:00.000-08:00

Michael Sampson will be bringing his world of Sharepoint sanity to Melbourne & Canberra in February. Catch him while you can!

the guy in the polo shirt

2010-01-13T21:19:00.001-08:00

When you're at a business IT-related conference or an exhibition, each vendor stand will have a bunch of guys (& maybe a chick or two) in expensive-looking suits. There will also be a guy (maybe slightly overweight) in a polo shirt, fiddling with the demo. I always go for the guy in the polo shirt because most of the stand personnel will be sales people (with the occasional marketing manager thrown in). The guy in the polo shirt is generally the pre-sales guy. Sales teams hunt deals. Pre-sales exists because most sales staff don't have the deep product technical knowledge and can't run anything but the simplest of demos.

Generally I am not interested in the sales pitch. I want to know what the actual strengths & limitations of the product are. Pre-sales guys are far from unbiased but their pride in their technical knowledge means that you tend to get a slightly more realistic view of the product.

kissin' babies - trying to get to boston for enterprise 2.0

2010-01-09T13:54:00.000-08:00

The Enterprise 2.0 Conference running in Boston this June has decided to allow an open submission & voting process. I have three submissions entered & I'm focusing my efforts on this one relating to RoI getting through. So if you could register on the site & vote for me before 20 January, I'd be much obliged.

I also thought I'd give you information about the other papers that stood out for me:

In terms of "voting for your mates", I like Patti Anklam & think her 3 efforts could be most interesting: NetWork, KM & Leadership (Doug Cornelius & Jack Vinson are also involved).
In terms of "full disclosure": I may well be on the panel for Ephraim Freed's learning culture session if it goes through.
I have also liked the look of sessions by Jon Ingham, Paula Thornton & MITRE.

There are 463 proposals - vote for mine & I will kiss your baby!

book review: finding the sweet spot

2010-01-05T22:20:00.000-08:00

Dave Pollard is a crazy-intense writer - one of the best writers on the web. One might even say that Dave thinks too much. Which is handy for the rest of us because he has written his first book - Finding the Sweet Spot. Dave brings his own mix of idealism and deep, detailed consideration to the topic of a creating a sustainable business. I used Dave's Gifts/Passions/Purpose 3 circle model when I started plotting Innotecture (I don't think I'm there yet BTW).

If you want to think about business in a different way then this book comes recommended.

book review: streetlights & shadows

2010-01-04T20:43:00.000-08:00

As you may know, I have a lot of time for Gary Klein. So when I found out by chance on Amazon that he had a new book coming out at the end of last year, I ordered my copy straight away. Those of you that have read previous GK books will not be surprised by the contents but it takes these same ideas deeper. Sources of Power was 20 years of reseach condensed into a single book. The Power of Intuition and Working Minds were more how-to guides for the lay manager & cognitive specialist respectively.

In "Streetlights & Shadows", you get the impression that GK has had a lot of debates with people who disagree with him. GK strikes me as the kinda guy who will go off and ponder unsatisfactory discussions, sometimes for years, until he gets an answer that he's happy with.

This is an immensely rich book but it's not for those seeking easy answers or quick tips & tricks. With luck, it may even make you think as deeply as Gary Klein.

book review: information ecology

2010-01-04T20:34:00.000-08:00

Tom Davenport's Information Ecology was published in 1997 and yet I've only just read it. This discovery came about because of some client work. We're trying get a handle on their information environment. Standard information architecture approaches felt inadequate to the task and I was left thinking "What we really need here is some kind of ecological approach to their information. If only someone had written a book on that. Wait a minute..."

So I got my copy and it pretty much lived up to expectations. It should be compulsory reading for all knowledge and information managers. It hasn't really dated, the issues it describes have if anything gotten more severe and its proffered solutions provide food for thought (whether you go with them or not). Plus second-hand copies are stupidly cheap.

When I start my own KM degree, it will form part of the core reading list.

i only have 2 problems with the term "design thinking"...

2010-01-02T18:08:00.000-08:00

...And those are the words "design" and "thinking".

It's the New. Hot. Thing. Over the Christmas break, I read Change by Design and The Design of Business (having consumed The Ten Faces of Innovation a couple of years ago) - and there are several other books on the topic available.

So what is design thinking?

Well, according to Roger Martin, it's abduction - which is all very clever but not especially helpful. More helpful is the chapter in TDOB devoted to P&G's attempts to become an innovative organisation.

So is "design thinking" just a another phrase for "innovation" then? It will probably be used that way. Expect organizations that want to look good in their annual reports without actually doing anything new to create "Head of Design Thinking" roles and then axe them 18 months later.

For those of us who wish to take this opportunity more seriously, design thinking seems to be made up of the following:

A human-centred (rather than technology-centred) approach to innovation & improvement.
A systemic concern with the total user experience rather than a narrow focus on a particular product or service.
A focus on unarticulated needs rather than articulated wants requiring immersive research techniques.
A willingness to visualise & prototype solutions rather than relying on words alone.
A willingness to iterate solutions rather than expecting them to be immediately fully-formed.
An appreciation of the power of storytelling, theatre and emotional communication in general.

Now designers do not have a monopoly on these attitudes and skills (in fact some famous designers exhibited them quite poorly) and this is primarily about doing, about practice, rather than thinking*. But we now seem to be saddled with this term so let's make the best of it.

*Of course it is thinking but in a Damasio style not a Cartesian one.

enterprise 2.0 book review: is an andrew mcafee a communist?

2010-01-01T17:38:00.000-08:00

I've just finished Andrew McAfee's Enterprise 2.0 book*.

There are two good things to say about the book and one criticism:

Good thing 1: Having a Harvard (now MIT) academic talk about the use of social software in the enterprise (plus a handy label) gave it respectability. The book continues that process of maturation. it doesn't hurt that from the opening sentence, it's well-written.

Good thing 2: Although much of the book seems to pull together the thinking & comments of others, AM does have something to contribute - the bull's eye model of strong/weak/potential/no ties. This provides an important perspective on how different social software tools work in different contexts.

Criticism: The last chapter in the book is entitled "Looking Ahead" and draws on Model 1 / Model 2 of Chris Argyris**. Although AM states: It is critical to stress that Enterprise 2.0 alone will not move people and organizations from Model 1 to Model 2 theories-in-use, he believes that they have a major role to play.

In this, he reminds me a lot of Karl Marx. Marx believed that human beings were corrupted by the economic system in which they operated (i.e. capitalism). Remove them from the bad system and everything would be OK. The thing is that environments & institutions can make human beings better or worse but hierarchy & social gaming are built into human nature. We are constantly in competition and co-operation at the same time.

So I personally think that Enterprise 2.0 technologies will have a comparatively small impact (but nonetheless one worth paying attention to) in how organizations work and workers collaborate. I think their combined historical impact will be less than email and other forces will actually drive more corporate openness (or indeed closure).

Of course, the thing about technology & social change is that you never can tell. Enterprise 2.0 is worth putting in the risky end of a barbell strategy.

*I wanted to link to the HBSP info but their site is screwed.
**This morning I was rereading chapter of 6 of Changing the Conversation in Organizations, where Patricia Shaw very carefully takes apart the tradition that Argyis comes from.

facing the swarm: the coming obsolescence of the big idea

2009-12-26T12:29:00.000-08:00

Educated people in business love The Big Idea. Generally this is a heroic idea that will change everything. I am falling out of love with the Idea of The Big Idea. I think the problems were face as a species are so complex, are so wicked that just a few Big Ideas won't do.

We need a swarm of lots of ~~Small Ideas~~ small ideas. Micronotions that propogate across the memescape. Like any small, fast-breeding creatures, many are poorly adapted for their environment and doomed to die but many will reproduce and mutate and colonise.

Of course, careers are not built on small ideas nor are awards won. But the world is changed by small ideas.

I call for a profligacy of conceptulets.

Think small!

muhammad yunus - strategic doer

2009-12-26T12:17:00.000-08:00

MY: See making money is an exciting thing. You can find a lot of pleasure in making money. Changing the world is the most exciting thing in the world. We have to make a decision that I will not live my life in a way that will take away the enjoyment of life for another person - that simple decision, that's all.

AD: It's a powerful thing that you are talking about. I mean I am just thinking probably one of the most popular shows on television round the world is called "Who Wants to be a Millionaire", it's about the desire for money.

MY: There should be another show, "Who wants to change the world?" But that show you are not promoting, because those who made the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" makes million out of it.
I absolutely love this interview with Muhammad Yunus. A high-point of my year. As I read it, tears of joy are streaming out of my eyes.

There are many smart people in the world. But very few genuinely strategic doers. People who not only see the fine grains of detail but the big picture, the whole globe floating in space. And who not only see it but choose to act in a positive way to change it. Whatever your feelings about Grameen Bank, Yunus counts as one of those strategic doers.

PEITSD

2009-12-17T14:54:00.000-08:00

Have you ever met a victim of Post ERP Implementation Traumatic Stress Disorder?

How can you tell if someone has PEITSD? Here are the signs:

A belief that IT salespeople are liars and only want to get as much money out of you as possible.
A belief that all IT consultants are sadists and only want to get as much money out of you as possible.
A disbelief in RoI figures based on headcount reduction through efficiency gains.
A morbid fear of consipulation*.
An overwhelming sense of process-based persecution.

What other symptoms have you noted?

*consipulation = consultation + manipulation

book review: sharepoint roadmap for collaboration

2009-12-11T13:30:00.000-08:00

I have been recommending Michael Sampson's book Sharepoint Roadmap for Collaboration to everyone I know who is working with Sharepoint (and that's a lot of people). It's a down-to-earth, practical guide to using Sharepoint to support (rather than hinder collaboration). I prefer it to Seamless Teamwork because that book was mostly aimed at end-users of Sharepoint rather than us ~~poor bastards~~ collaboration experts who have to manage the overall implementation*. This second book is much more for us.

One gripe: No pictures. Not a single one. Something for the visual thinkers in the next book please Michael.

*Apparently SP 2010 will solve all the problems that have bedevilled previous releases. My advice: Trust but verify.

blokes n babies

2009-12-11T02:03:00.000-08:00

We have an ergobaby carrier and at the moment it's not only handy for supporting the young chap in strolls & promenades, but also strapping him to my torso seems to be the one thing that settles him down from hardcore tantrum mode.

However the marketing to men for the ergobaby is wetter than the contents of a straining nappy. Pictures like this with effete male models really aren't winning me over. More meatless SNAGs than a vegan sausage sizzle.

May I offer up this alternative aspirational image instead?

master chefs or drama queens?

2009-12-10T04:52:00.000-08:00

The TV sen-sa-shun of 2009 has been Masterchef. And to begin with, I was a fan. I like food (as even a cursory glance at my waistline will evidence). And I like the notion of the Australian public being turned on to food. The three grumpy, chubby judges seemed OK as well. N.B. The one thing that annoyed me was the music. They might was well have had signs saying "applause" or "cheer" or "boo". It had all the subtlety of a chicken vindaloo. Try too hard to be dramatic.

So Masterchef begat Celebrity Masterchef and a few weeks ago I was watching the celebs ham it up in some kitchen somewhere. One of the grumpy, chubby judges was exhorting the contests: "This is the most important day of your life!!!"

And I thought: Hang on. Some of these people have had kids. Some of these people have buried loved ones. They've hit sporting heights or wowwed tens of thousands of people in a stadium somewhere. And this is the most important day of their lives? What drugs are you on chubby, grumpy man?

And then it struck me that Maserchef might actually be harming our appreciation of food. Because food should be enjoyed in a context. The best meals have a culinary component but they also have a big human aspect too. Banter + Grub = Awesome. Grub on its own = Food wanker. The music had infected the rest of the programme.

And in focusing too much on the grub, Masterchef is in real danger of making cooking a bit stressy & tedious. So you can't make a ****ing Croche en Bouche? Who cares? Can you slap down a nice cake & tell us a funny story & make us feel loved? Yes? Then we'll come back to your table.

Preparing food should be a pleasure. It should not be stressful. Unfortunately the currency of a TV show like Masterchef is drama & stress. Fine in its place. Just don't mistake it for culinary reality.

book review: opening up - remain in light?

2009-12-10T03:49:00.000-08:00

I read Opening Up by Andrew Rixon (words) & Simon Kneebone (pictures). about a month ago. It's an immensely charming book that applies the world of fairy tales to organisational life & personal development. I have a lot of time for both author & cartoonist but I also have a challenge for them.

Fairy tales are not all nice. Many pre-modern fairy tales are dark & shocking affairs to modern eyes & ears. People die horribly. People do terrible things to each other. Virtue is not always rewarded. Evil is not always punished. Life lessons are not always learned with a happy smile.

As uplifting as Opening Up is, I was left feeling as though I had been told a version of the world that was not quite true. The world is full of chiaroscuro and we cannot always remain in the light.

I would suggest Neil Gaiman as a contemporary writer who understands the power of fairy tales. And I would challenge Andrew & Simon to encompass both the light and the dark in their work.

finian

2009-12-10T03:45:00.000-08:00

pay for play

2009-08-31T14:58:00.000-07:00

Some of these discussions around "earned media" vs "paid-for media" remind me of sex (I'm a man, everything reminds me of sex).

Earned media is presented as inherently better than the paid-for kind at a moral level (as opposed to just a financial one) in much the same way that "earned" sex is inherently better than the paid-for kind*.
Men who pay for sex do not necessarily do so out of desperation. They may want sex but not a relationship. Is deceiving someone that you want a relationship with them when really all you are after is the sex more moral than paying some for it? Isn't a honest transaction better than a fraudulent relationship?
A lot of earned media seems to consist of stressed journos recycling press releases - like a relationship where one partner trades security for sexually satisfying the other?
As the cliche goes "You always pay for sex". What are your actual costs with with not seeking paid-for advertising?

*I don't particularly want to get into arguments about the morality (or otherwise) of prostitution but it exists in many cultures and it seems to fulfill a basic human need. However it doesn't seem like an appealing career choice.

has marketing eaten social software?

2009-08-31T13:34:00.000-07:00

First off, let me say some nice things about the people that put on the Social Media Club in Sydney. They volunteer their time. They put on very professional events that attract a lot of people. They are kind to animals and help old ladies across the road. The first session was especially good because they had a bloke from a marketing agency and they also had Leslie Nasser - who is not a marketing guy but did something cool online.

Now I am not a marketing guy. But I am interested in social software (blogs, wikis, Twitter, etc) and I am interested in people who are doing cool stuff online (regardless of who they work for). And I don't feel there's anything at the Social Media Club for people who aren't in PR or marketing agencies. Now that may be who its intended audience, in which case they ought to change the name to make that clear - the "Social Media for Marketers Club" is nicely unambiguous.

However if it does go down that path then it risks being less interesting as a result. It's like a "Television Club" that only discusses ads or a "Telephone Club" that focuses on call centres. There is a whole world out there and there are plenty of people in it who aren't after a "social media expert" title.

So I'd encourage the organisers to broaden the kind of presentations they have and possibly experiment with the format as well. One or two people on stage separated from everyone else feels very traditional, very old media (as another Gavin mentioned). How could it be done differently?

intelligent design?

2009-08-23T19:19:00.000-07:00

Intelligent Design is best understood as a failure of the imagination. We look at the world and see something with order. Jungles with thousands of species existing in equilibrium. Coral reefs, polar icecaps, rolling hills. The idea that is could have been shaped by forces without intention is ridiculous to us. Someone must have built it. Someone like us but bigger.

Because order only comes from intention, doesn't it? The world is a machine, fashioned by the Great Engineer.

Could the tents of Organizational Design be a similar failure of the imagination? Are our organizations more like machines or jungles?

social software measurement as asymmetric warfare

2009-08-10T15:25:00.001-07:00

A couple of weeks ago, I was at the Sydney Social Media Club where there was much discussion of measurement by Paull, Jye & Matt.

After the event, I was pondering this well-known story:

Two campers are walking through the forest when they suddenly encounter a grizzly bear. The bear rears up on his hind legs and lets out a terrifying roar. Both campers are frozen in their tracks. The first camper whispers, "I'm sure glad I wore my running shoes today." "It doesn't matter what kind of shoes you're wearing, you're not gonna outrun that bear," replies the second. "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun YOU," he answers.

When you are asked to demonstrate the ROI of social software, all you have to do is prove that SM delivers the benefits of traditional media at a lower cost - because it seems that most marketing is a cost of doing business rather than a generator of sustainable growth.

There's a problem here however: What if it doesn't? If you compare Twitter to TV using TV's metrics then TV is probably going to win. TV's metrics have coevolved with the medium over decades. It's a fixed match. TV is wearing the running shoes and you're looking like a tasty snack for a Mr Grizzly. Julian does some very interesting crunching of Twitter reach numbers and concludes: Knowing this is great for planning but who is going to take back a reduced number when traditional media agencies are still talking inflated reach into the 100,000s?

In making this move, I would suggest that the SM crowd risk doing a Mullah Nasrudin:

Nasrudin found a weary falcon sitting one day on his window-sill. He had never seen a bird like this before. "You poor thing", he said, "how ever were you allowed to get into this state?" He clipped the falcon’s talons and cut its beak straight, and trimmed its feathers. "Now you look more like a bird", said Nasrudin.*

Even by calling it "social media", we clip its talons. As this article by Malcolm Gladwell explains, if you are a David and you play by Goliath's rules then you then he will squash you. If you are engaged in an asymmetric struggle then you need to choose your turf and your weapons - not let them be chosen for you.

Some hypotheses (which may well be wrong because I don't work in marketing):

Social software is that it allows you to do multiple things at once - customer service AND promotion AND sales AND research. Organisation with a combined approach to selling, marketing & service would be more open to social software plays that offer an integrated approach to the customer (not that are necessarily many of those about).
Social software is speed. Measures around "time-to-market" and "response time" become critical here (which are more associated with new product development & customer service than advertising).
Social software is cheap (unless someone is greedy) - "cost per message" anyone? This means that you can run multiple experiments in a short period of time at low cost. Iterating TV spots is not cheap.
Social software is interactive - you'd expect that cross-selling/up-selling metrics might be relevant here.

Of course, these measures don't help you persuade people that Twitter is better at TV's job than TV is - but should you be trying to do that in the first place?

There are two other riffs in my head:

Marketing & media as ecology (with prey, predators, parasites, symbionts).
Measurement as social proof.

But those will be other blog posts.

*Thanks to Dave for introducing me to this story.

Story Week Tuesday: Little Triggers

2009-07-17T23:22:00.000-07:00

So we looked at how people responded to a story told by Obama back in StoryWeek. What did people think about Tuesday's story? Here's a quick recap:

... we organised a workshop, it was really high pressure and done at very short notice. It ended up being a success, but the CEO was there, and I thought it was one of those things where the team had all sort of pulled together, and it could of fallen over, but it didn't. At the end of the workshop, it had all gone well, there was a perfect window there for the CEO to come up to the team and say "Good job". I don't know the CEO at all, but it was a perfect opportunity for him to go and get some easy PR, or even at least say good stuff, and pass it on. But he just left. I mean, he may have had a thousand other things to do, but it was one of those things.

So how did this score?

Well overall it wasn't as memorable as the Obama story - although people did find it more believable. However as with Obama, there was a definite split in terms of who found this story memorable. For Obama it was country of origin. For this story is was around gender.

The ratings given by men (n=27) & women (n = 24) are almost mirror images of each other. Which is interesting because we know that the CEO is a man but we don't know the gender of the storyteller or any of the other characters. For women this story is far more memorable. Why*? Is it because women have been in this situation more often? Is it because they empathize with the characters more? What do you think?

BTW the Wordle clouds are here and here if you are interested.

*More women gave the Obama story 6 out of 6 for memorability but the other pattern of responses wasn't as stark as this.

gigadread

2009-07-12T23:27:00.000-07:00

Katie Chatfield recently asked Where did the future go?

She was following up on Bruce Sterling's closing speech at Reboot 11 - Sterling also runs a blog on related topics courtesy of Wired.

Some reflections & responses:

The talk was a half-digested stream of ideas - some awesome, some dumb, some both.
Many of themes that BS touches upon mirror the obsessions of early 90s CCRU (incl. Mark K-punk Fisher & Steve Hyperdub Goodman). Cybergothic, inhuman technology, undead capitalism, the swarm. CCRU's ideas were heavily influenced by Deluze & Guattari, Jungle and the writings of... cyberpunk authors such as Bruce Sterling.
"High-Tech Gothic" is a great phrase but it applies more to system than to individuals. Zombie banks. The financial system as out-of-control Frankenstein's monster. Financiers as parasitic vampires. Capitalism has reached its Gothic phase. It is epitomised not by Steve Jobs but by Dow Jones Index or a CDO contract sitting in someone's email - something that may once have had its origins in human behaviour & needs but no longer "human" or "alive" in any meaningful sense.
"Dark euphoria" is another great phrase but it feels wrong. We're not entering a period of euphoria or depression but dysphoria. You can try to cushion the dread rush with shopping at the endless sales ("For a limitless time only") or alcohol or religion (Islamic, Christian, Environmental) but it just won't go away.
Gen X are not goths - but I can see how we may look that way to Baby Boomers who salved their dread of nuclear war with the bounty of consumer culture. What happens when the cure becomes the new disease?
"Favela Chic"is a great way of both celebrating & critiquing "open source" culture. Everybody code before the police come! No civil rights. No protection.
The "great grandfather" crack is misplaced. Consuming less than we do now does not make us dead. It just makes us thinner. Bruce Sterling or Mr Creosote?
The final point about keeping a small amount of good stuff and getting rid of the rest is a very sensible idea of which I am a massive fan.

marrickville week (4)

2009-07-07T03:29:00.000-07:00

Source: ABS Census Data

marrickville week (3)

2009-07-07T02:53:00.000-07:00

Source: yewenyi

Source: OZinOH

Source: lucid7

marrickville week (2)

2009-07-06T04:54:00.000-07:00

Source: Marrickville Image Library

marrickville week (1)

2009-07-06T04:18:00.000-07:00

This is the street where I live now. On the downside, there is no baker's cart plying its wares every morning. On the upside, I don't have to shovel up the horse dung from the baker's cart every morning.

Source: Marrickville Image Library

man week (6): little acts

2009-07-01T17:59:00.000-07:00

Men like doing stuff. We are creatures of action. However in my case, "stuff" consists of sitting in front of the TV promising to fix the busted tap in the laundry (I will, I will).

So with all this Man Week stuff, I'm curious as to how this all plays out into action. We bare our souls and have our group hug and it's all like an episode of Thirtysomething but online.

So I'm interested in what happens next. Not big things. Just little things. I can think of a few off the bat.

man week (5): brutal

2009-07-01T16:39:00.000-07:00

Man Week is leading to some darned interesting blogging. One theme that crops is violence. Mostly men being violent to each other via bullying (the issue of men being violent to women crops up less in the writing so far). And it's true. Men - esp. young men - are brutal. And this cuts both ways - the most frequent victims of violence are also young men. This happens at all levels of intensity. I have never murdered anyone. I was bullied at school and I also bullied others. I still feel I am a very angry man but not an especially violent one*.

So if my child is a son, what can I do? I think role modelling is really important. But what does that mean? I can't see myself beating people up in front of him. How I control my temper is going to be important. As will be my assertiveness. One of the most painful lessons in life for me has been the need to meet conflict directly rather than avoid it. I would rather he learned that lesson early.

But beyond that I'm not sure. Mark Pollard mentions martial arts and I would love a son to take up one of these sports - because they are about control & discipline**.

Any ideas bloggerati?

Source: Economist

*We all have emotional motors that power us though our lives. I would like to say I am driven by a desire to better the world or by an ambition to be the best at whatever I do but if I'm honest with myself it's just non-specific rage - as destructive as it is creative. My tombstone will probably have "What are you looking at, breather?" carved on it.

**May be we should bring back national service. And the death penalty. Hang on...

Man Tag

man week (4): gay

2009-06-30T15:50:00.000-07:00

I'm not gay. I checked when I was about 20*. All the stuff above the waist on the other person was fine but there was some extra equipment down there that seemed a little superfluous. I think the technical term may be "cock block".

Reflecting on this experience makes me wonder how difficult it must be for a closeted gay man trying to fit in. Going through the motions. Doing something that's not quite right.

For a few years I was a volunteer at the Ankali Project where I was often "token straight guy". One thing that I think separates gay men from straight men is that you have to choose who you are. Now I don't mean that people "choose" their sexuality because I don't think that's true. Rather being straight is the default option in our society. Coming out as gay requires that you set yourself apart. You have to make a choice about your identity and how you present that publically.

Beyond all that Queer Eye for the Straight Guy interior design stuff, I think that's a key lesson straight men can learn from our non-straight brethren. Understand that you own who you are and that default behaviours are not the only way of being a man.

*At the time I thought I might be uncomfortable with my sexuality. It was more a case of being uncomfortable with myself.

Man Tag

man week (3): bodies

2009-06-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

It's still Man Week. I'm struggling a bit. I don't want to turn this blog into some pale imitation of All Men Are Liars. So each day will be a brief vignette. Make of them what you will.

I once considered becoming a masseur. So I spoke to this guy that was quite experienced in the industry and was connected to a yoga studio I was involved with. He was a big guy. Brick s***-house. Tats. Very macho. Ex-motor mechanic. He had been a petrolhead who loved to strip down & rebuild cars. He'd got bored with that game and decided to do something else with his hands. Massage, obviously. Another set of machines to fix. The switch from mechanic to masseur made complete sense to me.

He said it was a tough game for straight guy. Straight men don't necessarily want other straight men touching them. And if women interpreted any move as being sleazy your name would be mud. But many of his clients valued his strength. They weren't going to get some light backrub. Their muscles were going to be well and truly moved.

Man Tag

man week (2): being a dad

2009-06-29T04:18:00.000-07:00

So Mark Pollard has written most excellently about being a Dad. And as it's Man Week it would be churlish not to write about my own experiences of impending fatherhood.

Basically it's all a bit scary. And oddly detached. The Mum, she's feeling it. That child is an overpowering biological reality for her. For the Dad, not so much. Not our insides being rearranged by a baby. Not our hormones driven from pillar to post by a new life.

For men it's all a little more... conceptual. They say the two events that propel you into adulthood are the death of a parent and the birth of a child. And they are right.

So that's it. You are a grown-up. Which frankly isn't so terrible. I've been a grown up for a long time. Not a particularly successful grown up but an adult nonetheless. And I'm ready to be old. Because the older you get, the less you have to worry about what other people think. I now have the freedom to be an embarrassing Dad. Uncool in every way.

My child has given me this wonderful gift: adulthood. A role of both short-term necessity and ultimate obsolescence. I need not be the oldest teenager in town. Call that music? Hah!

Thank you.

Man Tags

Come on lads. Blog it like you mean it.

do i think you're sexy?

2009-06-29T01:49:00.000-07:00

Gav starts talking (un)sexy:

But let me tell you a little secret. This sort of social media (and almost every aspect of social media) is just not sexy. It doesn’t have the glitz and glamour or even the spotlights of advertising; and there’s not the breathtaking scale of large format outdoor advertising.

Now let me share something with you here that I have mentioned before. There are two kinds of sexy in the world.

The first is simply being desirable. Being the bright, young, slinky, shiny thing. And here Gav is right. I don't think social software is that bright or shiny or slinky.

But the second kind of sexy is slightly different, less discussed but far more important. It's all about making others feel desirable. Healthy sexual relationships are built on mutual desire and it's terribly important for all of us to feel desired*. Some of the most charismatic people I have met make you feel like you are at the centre of their attention. Can this be faked & abused? Of course. But its power cannot be denied.

And this is where social software can be sexy. Because by listening to people, by making them feel wanted and important, we make others feel sexy. Of course we can finish this process by either discarding our conquests or trying to develop something deeper. The choice is open but it has consequences.

Given the choice between being desired and making others feel desirable, I would always go for the latter (but then with a face like mine I would say that).

Go forth and make the world a sexier place.

*Coincidentally I was going to do a session about this at BarCamp Sydney 5 but I had to have a little nap instead. The doctor has told me that I can't have too much excitement.

man week (1): having a dad

2009-06-28T23:09:00.000-07:00

I have just been informed that its Man Week by both Gav Heaton & Mark Pollard. Obviously my testosterone-fuelled machismo has conditioned a Pavlovian response to the term "man" with the linked term "Matt Moore" in their minds (in a purely heterosexual way of course). So this week I will blogging about being a man.

Let's cut to the chase. I'm not actually that comfortable with some aspects of being a man in either English or Australian culture. The blokey, beery, laddish stereotype that some men espouse ain't me. I tried it when I was younger but I was a total failure at being a lad. "Cor, er, look at the, er, tits on that. Anyone read the Times Literary Supplement this week?"

I don't like sport. My Mum is more of a sports fan than I am. Please don't make me watch the footie*. Please don't ask me what team I support. Because then I'll have to break your clumsy yet charming attempts at male-bonding & socialising by telling you the truth.

A big reason behind this is probably my Dad. If you're going to write about being a man, you have to write a little about fathers.

Papa was a rolling stone. Wherever he laid his hat was his home. And when he died, all he left us was alone.

My Dad isn't a rolling stone. He's a very gentle man with a very warped sense of humour (something inherited by both my brother & I) who takes his responsibilities seriously. He is happy with his homebrew, his cycling, my Mum & writing puppet shows for the local church. Despite a spell being a stoker in the navy, he's not especially macho. Nor is he especially interested in sport.

According to all those dramas about men in traumatic relationships with their fathers, where that which needs to be said remains unsaid, I should have terrible difficulty relating to him. But I'm not sure I do. We are different people but we share so much. I have grown to appreciate everything he's done. I think this is true of many father/son relationships (another, fictional Gavin & his Dad come to mind). Many of us do want our Dads to be proud of us. And I hope that many of them are.

A brief intermission from Tricky:

...strong enough to take a life.
Are you strong enough to take care of one?

Now that's something I could sign up to. More on this tomorrow...

*I don't mind being at a footie match but that's mostly because I want to watch the crowd and sense the collective waves of emotion that roil around the stadium. It's like being in a psychic washing machine.

Man Tag

I would like to invite the following to discourse on manliness on their blogs.

There will be 3 more invites per day this week. Gird your blogging loins gentlemen.

Ma

2009-06-18T17:48:00.000-07:00

Pots are formed from clay,
but the empty space between it
is the essence of the pot. - Lao Tse

Listening is only partially about what is said. What is unsaid is often more important. This is one important reason why machines struggle to interpret human speech. They can only work with what is there.

The concept of "negative space" is used in painting to describe the spaces between objects. It's important. The objects and the space in which they sit are closely related. You might call "negative space" by another name: "context".

I had the same experience again in a very different context this morning in a hospice sitting with a friend who is dying and talking to her son. Bizarrely about sport: the England game last night, the Lions Tour, 2020 world series and Andy Murray. Although our topic was carefully chosen to keep us away from the theme of impending death I couldn't help noticing how aligned the themes we spoke of were with the figure in the bed alongside us - metaphors about mental strength, injury, weakness letting go. - Further & Faster

And then I stumbled over the concept of "Ma". Gap. Pause. Lacuna. Space. Betweenness. Our interactions and our lives are full of Ma*. Are you listening hard enough to the spaces?

*As I write there's some dub reggae on the radio - a music built on the use of space (to build intensity, a dub producer subtracts rather than adds sounds).

i'm not a racist but...

2009-06-17T18:51:00.000-07:00

Whenever some starts a sentence with "I'm not a racist but...", you know this conversation is not going to go somewhere pleasant.

So are Australians racist?

Well of course we are. Human beings are probably hard-wired to be prejudiced to those outside their social group. I am a racist. I try not to be. I do not think that prejudices based on race are good thing or to be cultivated but nevertheless I probably exhibit them to a degree.

So are Australians (and esp. white Australians) more racist than other countries?

That's a little harder to decide. Thankfully Andrew Leigh* & co at ANU have done some experiments on this involving CV applications, return to sender letters and reaction times (full report here).

So when it comes to wrongly addressed letters, Australians are not that racist. The reaction times stuff is a little ambiguous but (and this is the part of the research that caught the news headlines) if you want to get an entry-level job in data entry, sales or waiting and you are Chinese or Middle-Eastern then you may need to change your name** if you want to get more call backs. There's so much in this study that I could write about I'll let you read it instead.

In international comparisons, Australians appear to exhibit "CV Prejudice" at similar levels to Swedes (in their attitudes to Arabs & Africans) and Americans (in their attitudes to African-Americans). N.B. This is just one behavioural test. It's not like there's an international racism index - altho that may be something to consider...

This once again reminds of my great good fortune in matters of birth. Ain't nothing like being a white, middle-class male to put a smile on your face!

*Prof Leigh's work has kept on appearing on my radar over the last few years. I'd definitely subscribe to his blog.

**There's some interesting additional stuff in there about what qualifies as a good CV when applying for jobs in different categories too.

statswatch: no recession?

2009-06-07T00:21:00.000-07:00

The Australian Jan-Mar GDP figures came out last week and they were positive. Just. So we are not in recession - officially. There was talk of the role that consumer spending & exports played in keeping the economy buoyant.

What got less attention was what was going on with imports.

As this handy little graph from the ABS indicates, much of the good news in the Q1 data came from imports decreasing drastically. In other words, Australians were buying less from overseas - probably because the AU$ hasn't been doing so crash hot.

The AU$ has been doing considerably better since. Which is great if you want to go on a holiday abroad - but less good if you are an exporter. In fact the trade figures for April came out the next day - and weren't so promising: imports are continuing to go down but exports are decreasing faster.

Last month's employment figures were actually good - more people in jobs. Yay! Let's hope that the numbers for May on Thursday keep the good news coming.

dr cool hits delete

2009-06-06T05:59:00.000-07:00

I'm a fair man.

Actually that's not true. I'm a viciously unfair man.

So when Adam "Dr Cool" Ferrier posted his Facebook quiz, I could not resist. Adam's research is probably sound and his writing is not stupid (but it does tend towards the schoolmasterish - "I've outlined the 4Ps of Marketing as applied to this instance..."). I asked him what the foundations (who, when, where) for his cool research were. And he didn't fess up. So I asked him again. I asked him so many times that he deleted one of the comments. As you can see, oh hang on, you can't because it's deleted. So I guess we'll never know.

Incidentally, putting your research out as a quiz on Facebook is a darned-sight more effective than publishing it in an academic journal. But if you claim that your results are based in research and then complain when people take you seriously and ask for the evidence underlying your research - well that is a bit disingenuous. And frankly: uncool.

paying more

2009-06-02T15:06:00.000-07:00

I'm a big fan if Atul Gawande's writing on medicine (yet another good tip from Patrick Lambe). AG's latest article in the New Yorker is strongly recommended. He visited McAllen, Texas which has the dubious distinction of spending more per person on healthcare than anywhere else in the US (apart from Florida). Is it because healthcare there is better? Apparently not.

And yet there’s no evidence that the treatments and technologies available at McAllen are better than those found elsewhere in the country... Nor does the care given in McAllen stand out for its quality.

So why is it so expensive to keep people healthy in McAllen?

He knew of doctors who owned strip malls, orange groves, apartment complexes—or imaging centers, surgery centers, or another part of the hospital they directed patients to. They had “entrepreneurial spirit,” he said. They were innovative and aggressive in finding ways to increase revenues from patient care. “There’s no lack of work ethic,” he said. But he had often seen financial considerations drive the decisions doctors made for patients—the tests they ordered, the doctors and hospitals they recommended—and it bothered him. Several doctors who were unhappy about the direction medicine had taken in McAllen told me the same thing. “It’s a machine, my friend,” one surgeon explained.

In McAllen, there is s tendency for doctors to focus on making money. They are being entrepreneurial, obeying market forces. All the stuff we've been told is good. And is it good?

In a 2003 study, another Dartmouth team, led by the internist Elliott Fisher, examined the treatment received by a million elderly Americans diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer, a hip fracture, or a heart attack. They found that patients in higher-spending regions received sixty per cent more care than elsewhere. They got more frequent tests and procedures, more visits with specialists, and more frequent admission to hospitals. Yet they did no better than other patients, whether this was measured in terms of survival, their ability to function, or satisfaction with the care they received. If anything, they seemed to do worse...

...To make matters worse, Fisher found that patients in high-cost areas were actually less likely to receive low-cost preventive services, such as flu and pneumonia vaccines, faced longer waits at doctor and emergency-room visits, and were less likely to have a primary-care physician. They got more of the stuff that cost more, but not more of what they needed.

Despite our tendency to see price or cost as a reliable surrogate for quality, it ain't necessarily so.

In the Anglophone world, we have spent the last 30 years valorising private enterprise, business, making money as the optimal way of doing things. The generic government plan to fix something involves introducing market forces. Fortunately their success rate so far has been patchy. If they succeed then we're screwed.

I suspect (& I'm hardly original in pointing this out) that in the future, there will be less money around. There'll be fewer natural resources, less farmable land and less cheap energy. We're going to have to ween ourselves off our obsession with growth - and going cold turkey is going to be very painful.

crown seal

2009-06-02T04:59:00.000-07:00

Neck hugging
Bubble reining
Cloth catching
Shining
Cutting
Closing

I make a glass bottle a monarch.
I seal royal lips.
No gossip in my court.
Vagabonds use me to adulterate
their cups of change
in exchange for cigarettes.

Don't throw me away.
Let me rest in the palm of your hand.
A cold pockmark on your skin.
In your dreams I cover you.
A cap armadillo.
Made to be twisted open.

Source: 96dpi

good readin'

2009-06-02T02:10:00.000-07:00

The missus has a subscription to the London Review of Books that I frequently intercept before it reaches her. A recent pleasure has been the writing of John Lanchester - a novelist with a talent for writing about finance & economics. Apparently his dad worked in a bank. I am as thankful Lanchester senior's conservative choice of career as I am for that of his son's bohemian one as JL's article on the UK economy included the best explanation of a balance sheet that I have ever read.

Meanwhile a little googlesurfing led me to Helen DeWitt's blog that includes this wonderful offer:

Secondhand Sales

Readers sometimes want to buy copies of The Last Samurai for friends. It's tempting to buy the book "As New" for $1.70 + $3.99 postage rather than for $14.95 with free shipping in an order of $20 or more, especially if there are many, many friends. The author gets nothing on a secondhand sale -- but then, the author would get only $1.12 on the new book. To send the author $1.12 the reader would have to pay an extra $9.24. That's a pretty expensive goodwill gesture.

Goodwill doesn't have to cost that much. PayPal takes 30 cents + 3% on each transaction; if you send the author $1.50 by PayPal she will get $1.15. So only 35 cents of the goodwill gesture goes to a middleman. It would look like highway robbery if we hadn't seen the competition.

I'm not into fiction at the moment but for AU$2, I feel like I've played a small part in allowing Helen DeWitt to continuing writing - and being slightly crazy.

google wave cures cancer

2009-06-01T00:53:00.000-07:00

Actually I made that up. Despite the predictions & prognostications, no one actually knows how well Google Wave will work. It sounds cool enough but we should remember that not everything in Google world is a lush fountain of awesomeness (Blogger is not quite up there with Wordpress, what the **** happened to Jaiku) but nevertheless, the dog is keen to see the rabbit.

The only issue with calling your product "Wave" is bad PR whenever there's a tsunami. "No, no, our product doesn't drown people. We're the good kind of wave..."

google vs bing: microsoft thinks i'm gay

2009-06-01T00:32:00.001-07:00

Microsoft have brought out there own search engine competitor to Google. it's known as "Bing" (which makes me think of a dead crooner, not sure if that's the association that they're after). I put both these products through their paces by ~~conducting a rigorous benchmarking process~~ entering a stupid question. Google's results were quite funny. Bing's results were... gay. And I don't mean that in an offensive, equating-homosexuality-with-lameness fashion but literally.

Yikes, may be I am gay. May be Microsoft have tapped into the murkiest corners of my sexual orientation and revealed my true nature to me.

I am out of my closet and it's all thanks to you, Bing!!!

[Click on images to enlarge - please note the findings from Bing are not safe for work or a web demo for your kids]

Story Week Monday: How did Obama do?

2009-05-26T21:54:00.000-07:00

Some of you have been asking about Story Week. Well, our team of researchers have been combing the data and here are some initial results. You may remember Monday's story - as told by a little-known former junior senator from Illinois.

We got about 66 responses for to our questions for this story. Here are some early results. Here is a Wordle cloud made from the responses people gave to the question: "What was memorable about the story?" - note "little", "old" and "lady".

And here is the Wordle cloud of keywords that people added to the story (more words like "motivation" and "inspiration").

And here are the numerical results for each of the criteria.

Most people found it memorable and most seemed to like it - although a significant minority of people thought that it sounded manufactured or slow. How did Obama compare with the others? Well, you'll have to wait and see.

One noticeable difference in responses could be seen in the reactions of people by their country of origin.

Americans found it highly memorable - less so for the Brits and the Aussies. Some possible explanations (and bear in mind that this is a small sample size so it may just be chance):

Americans are more familiar with Obama;
Americans are more emotionally invested in Obama (and I suspect a bias towards liberals among Anecdote/Sparknow/EngineerswithoutFears blog readers);
Obama's mode of storytelling is more appealing to Americans.
Any other suggestions/speculations?

More to come soon.

mixed states

2009-05-25T05:55:00.000-07:00

Now let me start off this post by saying I like Dave Armano's writing and have a lot of respect for his visual thinking talents but I want to take issue with one of his recent diagrams.

I don't know much about Dave's background or experiences so I'm purely responding to this image. To me, it embodies a certain romanticisation of mental illness. Mania + Depression = Creativity?

Well, maybe. But sometimes mania + depression = higher suicide risk. A mixed state (or dysphoric mania) is a very dangerous state to be in. If you're depressed then you may not want to live but frankly suicide is too active an option. Dysphoric mania unfortunately gives you the energy just at the time that it can most do you harm.

Do these results imply that creativity and psychopathology are intimately connected? Are genius and madness tantamount to the same thing? The answer to the first question is affirmative, but the response to the second is negative. DK Simonton

There is evidence of a link between mental illness and creativity but there are some issues here:

In linking creativity to mental illness, we mystify the creative, we make it alien to ourselves. Creativity is for those wacky, crazy people - not for us, no siree. We're normal.
It seems as though we cannot handle mental illness unless we demonise or romanticise it. Monsters or heroes please.
Many people with mental illness are no more geniuses than the rest of us. What happens to them? Where do they fit in?

uppers

2009-05-24T22:01:00.000-07:00

Although "severely elevated mood" sounds somewhat desirable and enjoyable, the experience of mania is often quite unpleasant and sometimes disturbing,

People know that depression is bad. "Mania" on the other hand is often viewed as being a bit "cool". And it is "cool" - in the same way that going on a 3-week crystal meth binge is "cool".

Yes you have lots of energy. And yes you get lots of ideas. However many of these ideas are twaddle but you struggle to tell the difference between twaddle & genius (see megalomania below) The insomnia can be a bit of problem tho. As can the poor impulse control. It can often make you a little aggressive - YES, AGGRESSIVE - YOU MUTHAF****S!!!

Arrogance is also a problem - you basically feel like you're God, all-powerful, all-controlling. Of course, you aren't - but it feels that way. DON'T INTERRUPT ME!!!

If it sounds like being on drugs then it is - except these drug are homebrewed by your nervous system. My episodes are hypomanic - I don't tend to get the full-blown delusions or psychoses. I'm just really, really annoying.

downer

2009-05-22T05:42:00.000-07:00

So depression is very hard to write about in a way that others want to read.

"Oooh, I feel like spending the whole week in bed. In fact scratch that whole 'life' thing, I'd really like that to end in the near future but I don't have the energy to do anything about it right now. Hmmm, maybe I'll cry for a bit."

It's hardly up there fun-wise is it? And yet it's also distressingly common. In any one month, about 4% of Australians (that's about 800,000 people) will suffer from a depressive episode. And I'm guessing that thise figures are similar across the developed world.

At its worst, depression is like being hollowed out with a spoon. All the ice cream in the tub of self is gone, there's just the packaging left. And the packaging is cardboard - thin, soggy & weak. It is like being already dead - which is presumably why depression leaves people feeling suicidal. Ending your existence does not seem like such a big leap, such an unthinkable act. It just feels like finishing the job. The pain is like phantom limb pain, except that this is phantom self pain. "You" have been amputated - what do you do next in the grieving process?

For some people, this is all they have. For many of us, these feelings come and go. Sometimes we just get profound lethargy. We've been left stuck in neutral. Cut adrift. No drive. Frustrating yes, but not fatal.

It's not cancer but it can kill. All of us hit a blue note.

Take a moment to hear that echo in others.

way down in a hole

2009-05-14T22:47:00.000-07:00

Thoughts triggered by watching The Wire: When I started in the world of work, I regularly assumed that everyone above me was competent and that decisions were made with the purpose of the organisation in mind. Admittedly I had grown up listening to my parents' complaints about incompetent colleagues & superiors but they were also keen for me to join a large, powerful organisation that offered a decent salary. There seemed no disconnect between these two positions.

Large organisations tend to be dysfunctional. It's not that they don't do what they're supposed to (and in The Wire that means pushing drugs or catching criminals), it's that they seem to achieve these goals in spite of of themselves. It's really all about individuals getting and retaining material wealth and power over others. We may tell ourselves that the "invisible hand" of the free market makes everything work fine or that some technocratic official knows best but these institutions seem to decrease in effectiveness as the money and effort that we pump into them increases. This can be corporations, government entities, not-for-profits, even entire industries (hello banking sector!).

Institutions both enable and constrain. In engaging with them as individuals we make a trade, I'm not sure how often that trade is worth making. Human institutions will always be flawed but is there a way out of "the game"?

Story Week: Friday

2009-05-07T14:01:00.000-07:00

So its Friday and here we are at the end of Story Week. Many thanks to all of you who contributed and here is our final story - something serious...

Loading...

grief

2009-05-07T01:00:00.000-07:00

So I was talking to a tech-head who went green. She was into all this social software stuff - esp. virtual worlds / Second Life. And now she's into sustainability and permaculture. And she's had to give up heavy internet use as part of that - because all these massive server farms probably aren't sustainable. And giving that all that stuff has caused her some grief. I mean literal grief - a sense of profound loss.

This is important because all of us are going to have to go through at some stage in the future. We are going to have to give up a lot and most of us in the developed world really aren't prepared for that.

Think of this recession as a warm up, a test run for the future. How are you going to handle it? What are you going to do?

Story Week: Thursday

2009-05-06T13:49:00.000-07:00

Our fourth story for Story Week is from the UK - please tell us what you think.

No red signal when minister plays with train set by Adam Sherwin (From Times UK Online)

All aboard the Adonis Express. Frustrated commuters will get direct access to the Transport Minister next week when Lord Adonis embarks upon a railway voyage to criss-cross Britain in six days.

The Minister will board the Paddington to Truro sleeper service on Easter Monday, just one man, his laptop and a £375 standard class Rail Rover ticket. On Saturday he will arrive in York after a 1,500-mile Michael Palin-style trip, involving 45 trains and extensive knowledge of the timetable. He will speed (hopefully) through Cornwall, East Anglia, the West Midlands and up to Aberdeen, before arriving in North Yorkshire to a hero’s welcome. Any signs of cabin fever will be logged on a Times Online blog.

A spokesman said: “Andrew is travelling solo and is happy for commuters to chat to him.”

Lord Adonis tells us: “My plan is to get to railway lines I have rarely or never used. Nothing beats first-hand experience when you are responsible for a major public service.”

Network Rail is advised to clear the line of engineering works.

A prize for the best picture of Lord Adonis captured on the rattlers.

Loading...

Story Week: Wednesday

2009-05-05T15:04:00.000-07:00

Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to Story Week so far. Continuing with our theme of "leadership", today we are featuring a story from Dr Fiona Wood, who was recognised as "Australian of the Year" for her work after the Bali Bombings. And we'd still like to hear your ideas for Friday's story.

When I saw the burns patients and I saw that we needed something radical to actually cover these large areas, that had to be more... They had to be smarter than traditional split-thickness skin grafting. We had to be able to do this better. And that was, I guess, the gauntlet that I threw down to myself. On the Sunday morning after the Bali bombing I got a call from the registrar, who is a very close friend of my senior registrar, who actually on Saturday had left for his holiday to Bali. Our first patients arrived in the early hours of the morning and they were the most severe patients, the most severely injured. And my overwhelming memory of that is the relief on their faces as they arrived at Royal Perth and spoke to us just before they were incubated for ventilation and for the treatment to commence, that relief on their faces. We were full at the time, so we started putting our disaster plan into action. And as the Sunday developed it became apparent that there was going to be a significant need, not just for the Perth Burns Unit but for the Australian Burns community as a whole. When the Bali bombing situation arose we did in fact deal with 15% of our annual workload in a day, but it's the sort of situation that we've been training for a long period of time and when you're involved in it and actually active in doing things it's a very motivating situation because you are able to influence those lives, not always to a positive outcome but we did our best.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/talkingheads/txt/s1711934.htm

Loading...

Story Week: Tuesday

2009-05-04T14:44:00.001-07:00

Day 2 of Story Week is here. Yesterday we had a video with a big Story. Today we have a snippet, a small story of a day-to-day interaction in a workplace. Our theme for the week is leadership, so look at the story in this light. Think how you would feel in the same circumstances. And of course, please pass this on to your networks and encourage them to join the fun. The more, the merrier. N.B. We have yet to finalise a story for Friday - is there a video of a story on the theme of leadership (preferably involving a woman) that you'd like to suggest?

... we organised a workshop, it was really high pressure and done at very short notice. It ended up being a success, but the CEO was there, and I thought it was one of those things where the team had all sort of pulled together, and it could of fallen over, but it didn't. At the end of the workshop, it had all gone well, there was a perfect window there for the CEO to come up to the team and say "Good job". I don't know the CEO at all, but it was a perfect opportunity for him to go and get some easy PR, or even at least say good stuff, and pass it on. But he just left. I mean, he may have had a thousand other things to do, but it was one of those things

Loading...

Story Week: Monday

2009-05-03T16:01:00.000-07:00

Blurb: The Story Week is here! Over the next 5 days, we'll be offering you 5 stories - some momentous, some more low-key - and we're inviting you to tell us what you think of them. After you have viewed, read or heard the story,we'd like you to fill out the form below and maybe tell us a story of your own. We will be publishing (under a creative commons license) the aggregate results from this little experiment and also some of the stories that you tell us. So without further ado...

Loading...

happy endings

2009-04-29T13:12:00.000-07:00

Keith McArthur has kicked off the Cluetrainplus10 Project with the FAQ and the list of participants. This is my contribution.

36. Companies must ask themselves where their corporate cultures end.

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. However "fell" is not really the right verb to use. The inhabitants of the two Germanys did not wake up one morning to find that this icon of the Cold War, this continual reminder of the divided state of their nation, had collapsed in the night. It was taken down. By people. Demolished. It didn't fall, it was pushed.

Organisations have a strange relationship to the outside world - and it doesn't matter if they are corporates, small businesses, government departments or not-for-profits. We talk about customers, suppliers, citizens, donors or service users. We may even have been one just a few weeks previously. We talk publically about serving them. We fantasize privately about killing them. We wonder why they are so alien and difficult. And that is a little odd because they didn't create the technological, legal & social firewalls that we are hiding behind.

Social software does not change the world. It simply makes our present patterns of behaviour less tenable. Other things matter too. We outsourced a whole bunch of stuff. We fired a bunch of people then hired them again and then fired them once more. We've had more cosmetic surgery than Mickey Rourke so it's no surprise that we look as good as he does.

Everyone's a little confused. Is "delighting the customer" really what drives your behaviour? Are your staff really "your greatest asset"? Do you really seek "integrity in all your actions"? The NewSpeak of our organisations is bastard, ugly pidgin of the nerves that is incapable of either poetic inspiration or the direction of a combat command.

If we write our words collectively, in public (and whether it's text or images or video or audio is only of minor importance) then may be we can rebuild our language and the relationships that it supports. But we cannot wait for these walls to fall of their own accord.

They must be pushed.

no luck

2009-04-28T17:31:00.000-07:00

I am torn by the work of Richard St John & his eight secrets to success.

I cannot disagree that passion, work, focus, push, ideas, improvement, service & persistence are good things to do. I would strongly advise people to do these things.

At the same time, Richard calls himself a "success analyst". And yet I think there's a gaping hole in his analysis. And this highlights a critical difference between Richard & myself. Richard seems to believe that the world is fair. I do not. And this has implications.

From my understanding based on his website (& please correct me if I am wrong), Richard has interviewed a lot of successful people and, based on his analysis of those interviews, has identified the 8 secrets to success*. If you do these things then you will be successful. Richard does not believe in luck: our success is NOT determined by this thing we have no control over called luck. Our success is the result of doing things that we do have control over – the Eight Success Principles.

That's because his chosen method blinds him to the role that luck plays in the lives of successful people for two reasons:

There is this thing called the self-serving bias. If you ask people why they have been successful then they tend to attribute it to their own abilities. They tend to attribute their failures to their environment. Successful people may be different in this regard but if so, I would like to see the evidence. Asking people why stuff happened to them is not always a reliable way of establishing facts.
The sample of people that Richard chosen are all successful. He has not spoken to people who did all of his 8 thing but were ultimately unsuccessful. So I'm guessing this bunch of people don't exist. Right?

I asked Richard about this latter point and he was kind enough to respond in this blog post. Please read the whole thing but I'm going to pull out a quote for you: So, there was a high correlation between not doing the 8 Traits and not achieving success.

Richard is right to use the word "correlation". He picked a group that are defined as failures - and quite an extreme group. There is an issue with this. Let me demonstrate this by adding a 9th secret of success: "owning a Bentley". There was probably a higher level of Bentley ownership aong millionaires than there is among street beggars. Does this mean that their lack of Bentley ownership is a cause of their non-millionaireness?

To put this another way, there is also a strong correlation between poverty & mental illness - but the cause & effect relationship may go in both directions. Being mentally ill decreases your ability to find an income. Being very poor causes you lots of stress that may increase your chances of developing mental illness. But all those unsuccessful people that Richard had talked to must have lost (or never had) passion and focus before they ended up in their situation. Right?

If Richard's method seems familiar that's because it is very similar to one used by Jim Collins in Good to Great. Good to Great looked at companies rather than people but has come in for a lot of stick from Bob Sutton & Phil Rosenzweig for using the "asking awesome people why they are so awesome" method. This recent HBR article noted that: we evaluated 287 allegedly high-performing companies in 13 major success studies. We found that only about one in four of those firms was likely to be remarkable; the rest were indistinguishable from mediocre firms catching lucky breaks. But I thought that luck played no role in success? How can this be?

In his blog post responding to me, Richard goes on to say: So, if successful people follow the 8 Traits, what differentiates the ones who achieve super success from those who achieve moderate success? Again, it’s a question of degree. The Gates and Oprahs of the world not only do the 8 Traits, they do them to a greater degree than other people. They love what they do more than most people. They work more hours (even after he was a multimillionaire, Bill Gates worked most nights until 10pm and only took 2 weeks off in 7 years).

Bill Gates is approximately 100,000 times richer than me. That means that he must work 100,000 times harder than me. Or else he loves his work 100,000 times more than me. Or could it be that environment and/or luck play a role here? But that can't be right because life is fair and luck plays no part.

Actually there is one group in the world for whom life is fair. And that's people like me & Richard - white males in the developed world. Life is more than fair for us. It is wonderful. It rocks being a white male living in a developed country (esp. if you have an education, money, status & power) - and don't let any self-hating liberal hippy tell you otherwise. And if the rest of you aren't as successful as us then you have only yourselves to blame. Be as passionate as us. Work as hard as us. Stop being losers.

So what will I tell my children?

I will tell my children that they must work hard & be passionate about they do & all the other things that Richard talks about. But I will also tell them that life is not fair and they are very lucky to be living in a country with access to education & health services (assuming we still do). I will then refer back to the previous point that life is not fair and state that they are also very lucky to be born into this wonderful country in a position of relative status & power.

And I will finish by reminding them that life is not fair and this all could be taken away from them in a moment.

*But wait? Are these really "secrets"? I don't really feel that "hard work is important" is something that anyone has kept from me. Every authority figure in my life has told me this.

bring the noise

2009-04-19T15:22:00.000-07:00

"My name is Legion, for we are many"

Much of the work in data communications has been about getting the clearest data possible, clearest signal possible - and while this may be useful when I'm trying to have a convo on Skype, noise reduction isn't necessarily a good thing when applied to online identity.

Triggers: Marcus Brown writes a little here, Chris Locke writes a little there and Adam Ferrier writes somewhere else.

The strand that links these blog posts for me their recognition that our identities are partially cocreated with others, they lie in relationships (but not wholly). And not all exchanges are good. And not all relationships are wanted.

In giving out our data, in presenting ourselves in different environments we must guard against being too transparent or else we end up like Mr Cellophane.

One option is passive acceptance.

Another solution is to give away as little as possible. Get off the grid. Put up the gates. Information survivalism.

The third is to overwhelm & confuse. Multiple identities. Multiple data. How many social security cards can you collect? How many people do you want to be? How much noise can be introduced into the system*? One person as many? Many as one?

How do we introduce disorder into the world for own collective advantage?

*Michel Serres is obsessed with noise, with turbulence. I have to go back to my copies of his books.

Story week is coming

2009-04-17T18:08:00.000-07:00

Anecdote, Sparknow and Innotecture have been working together for a little while now to find out a bit more about what stories have influence and impact. We've found quite a difference in views, even among ourselves. So we're inviting our combined readership and their networks (and their networks) to participate in Story Week (starting May 4th) Over 5 days we're going to show you 5 stories from different people in different formats, intended for very different audiences and settings. You're going to tell us how you respond to them. We'll tell you what you collectively told us. We'll all learn something in the process. Oh, and it will be fun, too.

Watch this space...

moral panics: young people & the internet

2009-04-10T23:24:00.000-07:00

Journalists love an outrage like ordinary people love hot cross buns. A couple of items have cropped up in the Australian media recently around cyberbullying & the impact of the internet on young people that I think require a little scrutiny.

Exhibit 1: Miranda Devine wrote an article last week entitled MySpace cadets sliding into addiction. Ms Devine quotes Susan Greenfield. Baroness Greenfield is probably a very good researcher in her field of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. However she also has a side vocation as a writer of speculative fiction. Unfortunately, many journalists cannot tell the difference between scientific research and speculation. Based on this interview, the ABC's Kerry O'Brien seems to be one such journalist. I would like to see the Baroness actually support her claims with, y'know, some science. Dr Ben Goldacre puts it very well in this article.

To her credit, Ms Devine does quote some research. Well kinda. She mentions the work of Dr Mubarak Ali. Currently researching the problem, Ali says internet addiction is so serious that by 2012 it will likely be classified as a mental disorder in Australia. Being a bit of nerd, I dropped Dr Ali an email asking if I could receive a copy of his published research. He was kind enough to respond and tell me that he hadn't published anything yet. He pointed me to the Teenspeak website where he is running a survey on this topic. I asked him how many people had responded to his survey (i.e. his sample size) and, as the survey appears voluntary, how he'd be controlling for self-selection biases. He hasn't got back to me yet but it is Easter so I am looking forward to his response after the holidays.

I must confess that I have a suspicion of the term "internet addiction". I haven't seen articles about TV addiction or radio addiction or SMS addiction or telephone addiction. As this ACMA report states (p.2): Despite these changes, other aspects of young people’s discretionary time are notably stable. Electronic media and communication activities overall take up around half of children and young people’s aggregate discretionary time, and this proportion hasn’t changed since 1995. So far from becoming slaves to technology, young people's use of tech has remained fairly stable - it's just the tech they are using that has changed.

Near the end of the article, Ms Devine makes this comment: Her fears may be reflected in reports this week from two fatal traffic accidents in Yagoona and Burwood, where onlookers were said to have watched, laughed, chatted and taken photographs, ignoring the pleas for help from one man as he died, treating the scene as if it were entertainment. When I was a police reporter almost 20 years ago, such a scenario would have been unthinkable.

The problem I have with this statement is simple. If the internet makes us bad people then we would expect to have seen rates of violent crime rise over the last decade as internet use became more widespread. However the opposite is true: rates of violent crime have trended down over the last 10 years as web usage has trended up. N.B. I am not claiming that the internet makes us better people - simply that there are probably other factors that are more important than the internet.

Let me be clear: I am sure that some young people do not have a healthy pattern of internet usage. We need to have a public debate about the impact of these new technologies on young people and the role their parents could be playing. However I would prefer to base this debate on facts and evidence rather than innuendo.

Which brings me to Exhibit 2: ABC's Four Corners programme last Monday. The topic was cyberbullying. The first half of the show seemed sensible enough - discussing first ordinary bullying and then bullying with an online component. Then it all got a bit weird. The main story was an awful one of young man who took his own life. Prior to this he had been harassed by a former friend using a number of different communication media.

You have to sympathize with someone who has had to bury their child. However I have an issue with the ABC supporting statements like: "There's a new word that I've created for this it's a new drug, and the new drug is cyberspace. Cyberspace to us has taken our child."

Suicide by young males is a horrible problem but it is not a simple one. As the Wesley Mission state: Suicide is a complex issue which, while tragic, confronts families, friends and wider communities. It results most often from an accumulation of risk factors, and it intersects with problems and concerns across society: mental health, drugs and alcohol, family issues, employment, cultural identity, law enforcement and criminal justice, education and poverty.

Rather than discuss the complex issues around teen suicide and the particular issues around men (& our chronic inability to seek help when trouble strikes), as far as the ABC was concerned it was all about the interweb as a sinister tool for bullying that is so powerful it makes people kill themselves. This undermined the valuable first half of the programme.

Again, let me be clear: Bullying is an issue. It probably always will be. There is so much good work that could be done in discussing this with parents - but can we have a grown up talk please?

Are we capable of that or would we prefer to work ourselves up into a moral panic instead?

ways i have been lucky

2009-04-08T21:01:00.000-07:00

1. I grew up in family of tight-wads.

I had quite a comfortable upbringing. I am demonstrably middle-class. However in one respect I find myself a little unusual. My family is debt-phobic. My parents grew up with rationing in post-WWII Britain. They nursed a young family through the high-interest rate 1970s. For them, debt was not a handy way of accessing funds but something not that far from alcoholism or drug addiction. This meant that we spent our holidays visiting glamorous Birmingham (where my grandparents lived). However inheritance of their loathing of debt has made my life considerably easier in recent years.

2. I joined a marginal profession just as it faced annihilation.

I trained as a librarian back in the mid-1990s. I don't really remember why. This meant that (quite by accident) I found myself smack in front of the information Tsunami that was the internet. And that was a good thing. It sent me down a pathway that involved technology, human behaviour, all kinds of cool things. Above all, I learned that professionally you either adapt or leave. Simple really.

3. I am mentally ill.

I suspect that I suffer from cyclothymia - a mild form of bipolar disorder (manic depression). The "down" part of the cycle is pretty horrible (struggling to get out of bed, wanting to die), the "up" part is exhilarating & a little scary (boundless energy & confidence, insomnia, poor impulse control) but there are plenty of bits in the middle. There is a genetic link between bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and a close family member was diagnosed with the latter condition. The depression drives me to read compulsively as a form of medication. The hypomania drives me to get things done (often based on what I have read). My condition (and there is no reliable test for it, just conformance to symptoms) has probably aided my professional life - just as my relative's condition has probably condemned them to a life of marginalisation.

There are many other ways in which I have been lucky but these are 3 that have been pinging round my mind recently.

How have you been lucky?

give 'em tha money already

2009-03-29T04:53:00.000-07:00

I have been asked to blog in exchange for money before - but only by people who make Babcock & Brown look like a sure fire bet. Jasmin has put out a request to which three brave souls have replied. I was tempted to see how badly I could insult Incentive House (and their mothers) in the course of this post and still get the cash for the deserving but it's been a long day and until I get the Abusive Post Automator, it's too much like hard work.

I know nothing about being poor in the Philippines. Zip. And here's the thing - neither do most of you. So writing about it is tricky. I could just say "look at the photo of the cute kid on the rubbish tip" and let the image do its work.

But by reading this post, you get to be some kind of hard-core, Silion Valley venture capitalist - minus the freaky cosmetic surgery & fake tan. You get to fund someone else's business. Their ambitions and their dreams. I can't promise you an ROI within the next fiscal. I can't even promise you the nasty free T-shirts that most start-ups give away at exhibitions ("it's printed on cotton that we harvested from the dev team's belly buttons after a 3 day coding sesh").

Screw it, the way things are going, these ladies will probably be lending us money in a few years. You'll want them to like you.

There we go, people, it's all about the naked self-interest. Just Do It.

bring me the head of raymond kurzweil

2009-03-25T14:05:00.000-07:00

Raymond Kurzweil is an intriguing science-fiction writer but a lousy neuroscientist. He seems to think that being human is all about having a brain. And that having a brain is all about having computing power.

Ray should remember that it's not size but what you do with it that counts. As Antonio Damasio has spent a lot of time researching, we think with our bodies as well as our heads. If we want to give our machines consciousness then we have to give them bodies (or rather systems that interact their environments and provide feedback from interventions in that environment that can guide future action).

I do not believe in a soul or some vital essence so I do not have any philosophical objections to machines with consciousness. However neither do I believe in some "Singularity" (it seems rather to close to Milllenial religious ideas like The Rapture*).

There's an important point here for those of us who spend a lot of our time working on the digital/virtual/interweb. We neglect the bodies of people at our peril.

Actually Ray Kurzweil can keep his head but let's see how well he thinks without his body.

*I quite like this The Rapture - I do hope that God offers them an opportunity to do the soundtrack.

Hat tip: George Siemens

innospivs

2009-03-23T16:31:00.000-07:00

Barry Saunders has weighing on the comments section of the previous post with some good ideas and some hot! links!

He's also made me articulate another idea that's been running round my head. You may remember this post from a month ago where I state: Innovation = Invention + Entrepreneurship. Let me spell this out in more detail.

The issue I have with most Idea Management Systems is that they only work for really obvious ideas (often ones that meet explicit needs). The wacky ideas don't get past the first stage gate. The ideation bit (where people are encouraged to come up with & discuss ideas) is fine as far as it goes. But then you get some Stalinist committee of judges and a strict project management framework. Which may be necessary if you are spending big bucks. But more money isn't always better.

Market-based approaches are slightly better but for a proper Innovation Support System you need to recreate an entrepreneurship network inside (& even outside) your organisation:

You need ways of encouraging your employees to notice things - esp. failures & frustrations.
You need ways of linking people with needs to people who have ideas.
You need ways of linking people who have ideas to people who can sell ideas to others.
You need multiple sources of venture capital inside your organisation.
You need to acknowledge & reward creative theft as much (or more) than original idea creation.
You need to actively seek out and embrace innovations that could destroy your business model - because ultimately they will, but the edge is in changing faster than your competitors.
You need to give simple prototypes of ideas to as diverse a range of people inside your organisation and see what the hell they do with them - because it won't be what you expect.
You probably need to engage customers, suppliers, business partners & alumni in this process.

You need the irate, the dreamers, the spivs & the thieves.

uneven

2009-03-23T15:13:00.000-07:00

The future is already here - it is just unevenly distributed.- William Gibson

I've been pondering Sean & Ellen's discussion around explicit, tacit & latent needs. It tied to some thinking I've been doing around innovation.

We expect innovation to come from high-tech research labs because that's where the dollars and the brains are. But that's fundamentally wrong. Innovation comes from where the challenges are. Human beings are generally quite lazy and don't want to learn or change. We only do that when we have to.

You want to find out about a possible future of finance in a resource-constrained world? You'd be better off looking in Bangladesh than Wall Street. Innovation is driven by need. You want the future? Follow the need.

It also suggests that in meeting latent needs, we need to cocreate the solutions with the people feeling the problem. Easier all round really.

Still thinking. More soon.

why having too much money can be bad

2009-03-23T14:56:00.000-07:00

In response to a post by John "Desert Storm" Maloney on the Value Networks email list, the thought came to me that the KM scene in Australia is much healthier than in the US (feel free to disagree) and that's largely because we have less money. We can't afford a heavily customised technology solution or heaps of FTE staff. So the focus becomes finding the few things that make the most difference and then doing those.

This isn't unique to Australia. Stan Garfield did great things at HP with only 4 people.

A friend of mine at Microsoft said: "We have too much money. We never have to make tough decisions or focus on one thing".

If you want to reinvigorate your KM programme, maybe you need to cut its budget. Mary Abraham's suggestion of a KM Dept of One is good - but you'd need a KMer outside your organisation you can trust & talk to for that to work.

open society & its frenemies (3): hypocrisy

2009-03-22T21:36:00.000-07:00

Closed societies allow people to say one thing in public and do another in private. We call this difference between public proclamation and private behaviour "hypocrisy" - or perhaps its the difference between what we believe we should be and what we are. The bigger that gap between aspiration and reality is, the harder it is on us and the bigger role hypocrisy will play. There is a point when aspirations become delusions. At that point hypocrisy becomes the only sane choice.

However if you're going to have an open society then it either needs to be either homogeneous or tolerant. Everybody has to either think the same or accept that others think differently. Given that variation is wired into human beings, an open society is hard work. In some ways closed societies are more comfortable than open ones.

The price of freedom is accepting that you don't always have to right to win the argument.

the open society & its frenemies (2)

2009-03-22T21:32:00.001-07:00

Libertarian capitalists and anarchists view state power as inherently evil. The opposite of an oppressive, totalitarian state is some kind of money-driven or love-driven utopia.

Of course, it's not. The opposite of the Soviet Union is the Congo. The optimal environment for human beings is not constraint-free.

You might say I'm an asymmetric libertarian. The more power a person or entity has, the more that person requires oversight & governance. Of course, it seems to work the opposite way in the real world - the more power an entity has, the greater protection from scrutiny it can buy.

the open society & its frenemies (1)

2009-03-22T21:17:00.000-07:00

Been thinking a lot about government recently.

I quite like free-market competition. I'm not convinced that many people do though. Labour unions don't like it. Many business people don't like it - they would rather have a cosy, lucrative monopoly (e.g. Bill Gates or Steve Jobs). We like competition with the proviso that we win - and everyone knows that a competition where the winner is known before the start is not really a competition.

As tempting as this position is, I believe some form of competition is good for our us - in part because competition is wired into our natures. Of course, cooperation is too. At best we find ourselves driven by a productive tension. We might as well channel our competitive & cooperative desires into something helpful rather than destructive.

We need a free(ish) market (that includes organisations driven by both profit and/or concern). But we also need strong, effective government. If all these people are competing all over the place then someone has to call them out when they try to do something stupid - because they will, they are human. Self-regulation only works when there are reciprocal ties between organisations and their stakeholders - otherwise the temptation to cheat is just too strong.

But the government may also cock things up - so we have to make it as accountable as we can. Governments should thank us for limiting their power (as an alcoholic should thank the person who hides their booze stash) but that's not human nature either.

So we need to ensure that everyone is accountable to someone. The price of freedom is eternal pickiness.

Who are you accountable to? If you can't answer that question then you'd better find someone soon.

exposure

2009-03-19T05:20:00.000-07:00

Something like this image cropped up in a talk given by Ed Mitchell at Digital Eskimo yesterday around our use of social software 'n' suchlike. The public/private distinction is something that I'm acutely aware (oooo, I have so many secrets from you all and let's face it, that's best for everyone), the personal/professional less so. That's mostly a, well, personal thing: I put a lot of my personal life into my work and vice versa. The idea of keeping them completely separate seems a little odd.

But for many people that division is critical part of who they are and I see their choice as reasonable & legitimate. We all pay a price for our choices.

Another thing that cropped up in Ed's talk was the word affordances. This is an important word because it suggests that our technologies (what we build) and our practices (what we do) need to offer multiple ways of working or being. And I think we are both very comfortable and very uncomfortable with that idea. Formally/Collectively we like the idea of people behaving in a certain way, of following the rules. Informally/Individually we cut each other some slack.

noel edmond's multi-colour cynefin framework

2009-03-19T05:07:00.000-07:00

This version of the Cynefin Framework was inspired by a comment from Robert Perey at this. It's still not quite right but it's the best I can do at this time of night & with my limited graphics software. BTW there is no significance in the colours (or is there, Spiral Dynamics fans?)

[Edit: I swear I have seen this model laid out in a similar way before. Who am I ripping off here?]

why roi is a terrible place to start

2009-03-15T16:37:00.000-07:00

This started with Stephen Bounds and then moved on to Sameer Patel. He's along the right lines but I don't think he's pushing hard enough.

Many people in the Enterprise 2.0 community are pondering RoI. It seems to be the Holy Grail of E2.0. This pursuit demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how decisions are made.

If you are selling something that meets a need, it has to be a need that people feel. Not that they see reflected in a spreadsheet that features numbers you've either made up (sorry estimated) or taken from other situations.

Once they feel the need, then you bring out the RoI to keep the CFO happy. RoI follows need.

What does this mean?

It helps if your E2.0 solution meets a need that the organisation and senior management feel. That problem may be around connecting my staff in multiple offices. That be around enabling my research team to share their activities & outcomes better. It may simply be about helping me turn my Sharepoint investment into something that I don't cry myself to sleep at night over.
Finding an immediately felt need is easy. That means that lots of people will probably have done it already. Finding a need that is on the verge of being felt is a lot harder but more rewarding. Ellen di Resta writes about this well.
Once you have identified a problem, shown you have a solution and found those people with that problem then (and only then) does the RoI come into play. The RoI should show that your solution is the best and most cost effective solution to that problem (Remember: All RoIs are always comparative - the alternative is often "do nothing"). That should keep the CFO happy.
If the conversation starts with RoI, you are sunk. Walk away. Or find out what the conversation is really about. Conversations about "RoI" are never about RoI.
Don't just focus on the numbers, focus on stories & status as well.

Until you can do all this, you are not ready to sell - so how can you expect people to buy?

do you know a blunt instrument?

2009-03-15T05:37:00.000-07:00

You may remember Barry Business from PubCamp last year. Barry strikes me as someone that I encounter in Australian business circles a lot. The label that comes to mind is "blunt instruments" (BLs). These are men (very often men) who have progressed up the corporate ladder to senior management. They have the following characteristics:

They appear decisive. They claim not to be afraid to make decisions. For some of them this claim is true. Some of them are just very good at the claiming bit.
They like sports and mixing with other blokes. They aren't so keen on women unless they can either be a bloke (swearing, beer, sport) or a total chick (very feminine). They really don't like gays, unless that gay happens to their boss. Their mileage of ethnic minorities may vary: wog blokes are OK (as long as they like sport); asian guys are considered geeky.
They are cunning. They know exactly who to suck up to. And they know who to kick down on. Never cross a BL, you'll find the knife in your back a few weeks later and the BL protesting innocence.
And they are also canny. They may have an MBA. They can certainly calculate EBITDA in their sleep.
They are confident. They know this world belongs to them. The favourite topic of conversation for BL is himself (which makes conversation easy but dull: "Please tell me why you are so great again?").
But they aren't very imaginative. They didn't get where they are today by being "wacky" or "unusual".
They are physically big (hence the label). Wide, square bodies with wide, squre heads. They are certainly willing to use physical intimidation to get their way.

I don't mind BLs. I don't relish working with them but their behaviour is predictable. It's the penultimate point that gets me. So many beedy eyes, so little vision. And yet they play a role in keeping the wheels of commerce grinding on. We need them - but do we need so many?

Do you know a BL? Is this an accurate picture? What have I missed or am I missing here?

guru triangles

2009-03-10T03:44:00.000-07:00

Thanks to a Mark Gould tweet, I encountered Scott Berkun's post: How to call BS on a guru. SB's post kicked me into writing this one as I have been pondered the place of business gurus.

My pondering is simple: I think that we need to get over them.

Do not misunderstand me. We need people with:

deep skills & expertise in a particular area;
provocative or insightful points of view;
the ability to energize and enthuse others.

But under no circumstances should we treat them with deference or undue respect. How would you treat your postman? Well that's how a business guru should be treated. However instead I see a tendency to give undue deference and respect to the "guru" when what we really should be doing is destruction-testing their assertions.

I don't see this as being only the gurus' fault. We bare much of the blame ourselves. You may recall a couple of posts last year on drama triangles. I think we often fall into unhealthy cycles of behaviour. Drama triangles are unhealthy because in playing a role within the triangle and its associated games, we avoid owning our problems. We act like children.

E.g.

Guru: I am great and all-knowing. I have seen the future of business.
Follower: Truly I am lost. Rescue me, oh great guru! I will pay for your book and your seminar series. Tell me the one true path! I will do anything (except take responsibility for my own future).
Guru: Verily I will show you unworthy one. Remember all other business gurus worship false idols.
{There is a pause. It becomes obvious that not all the guru's sayings are literally true}
Follower: You tricked me, you evil guru! I spit on your Harvard Business Review articles and your incomprehensible lecture notes!!!
Guru: Love to chat, but there's a new fad coming round the corner. Goodbye.
Follower: Truly, I am lost...
{Repeat}

It all ends in tears. And haggling over invoices.

So what can we do? Here are three suggestions:

Drink from many wells. There are lots of good ideas out there but no perfect ones.
Cultivate critical engagement. Ask questions. Lots of them. Start with what niggles you.
Develop your own ideas. Everyone wants to buy ideas of the shelf - but homegrown is ultimately more satisfying.

N.B. If you ever find yourself in a session that I am running and you think I am going a bit "guru", I give you permission to throw paper at me. Or anything else that does comparatively little damage on impact. I will thank you for it.

storytelling (2): ken robinson busts some moves

2009-03-09T03:22:00.000-07:00

At the Single Origin coffee morning, I was having a chat with Mal about the story thing and he said that there are two TED videos with stories that absolutely blow him away. And before he said it, I knew what one of them would be. You can click on the image above and then scroll through the video on the TED site until you get 15:00 in.

This talk is one that everyone seems to love. There are probably many reasons for that: Sir Ken's ease & charm in front of an audience; the topic of the talk (creativity); etc. However the Gillian Lynne story gets me every time. It's very different to the story Obama told. Here are some of my reactions:

It happens near the end of the talk. There's a distinct change in gear that occurs with this story. The previous 15 mins had been very jokey and light and now it gets a little more serious.
It's a story told in the third person (the narrator is not a participant).
It's quite short (around 2:40).
It covers a broad span of time but the real core of the story happens in the doctor's consulting room.
It is a true story.
There are lots of other stories that could be told around Gillian Lynne's life. Our narrator has picked one that serves his point - and been very focused in telling it.
It's a topic that everyone can relate to - having our skills unappreciated, especially at a young age (even if we aren't dancers).
Little details: Turning on the radio on the desk as he leaves.

What did you hear? What touched you? Or did you hate it? If so, why?

storytelling (1): obama gets fired up

2009-03-08T13:24:00.000-07:00

Shawn played a similar video to this at a conference I was at in Melbourne about a month ago. Barack Obama tells a story. The story he tells is very well known in the US but comparatively unseen here in Australia. He used it many times when he was campaigning for the presidency. I defy people to watch it and be untouched. This time he actually had Edith Childs there - but many times it was just him telling the story.

I think it's great example of the use of narrative in public speaking - so I'm just going to make a few notes about it:

It's a story based on true events, not a fable or a fiction - altho there is some dispute by other participants as to details.
It's told in the first person, Obama (our narrator) is a character in the story.
It is slyly self-deprecating. He is tricked into doing something. He is crabby when he comes to the meeting. In other words, the narrator is a normal person.
It is about an everyday event. It is not about an epic moment in American history - it is about something quite commonplace - a small act by someone that has a big effect on him. It is a situation that many of the audience members can relate to.
The story is contained in time & space. It is not his life story, it is not the history of American civil rights. It is focused.
The little details matter - for me it was the reference to Edith Childs' hats. Little details can convince us of the plausibility of a story.
It ends with a call to action that is consonant with the story itself.
It's also quite a long story (8 mins approx) and it takes place near the end of Obama's speech after he's built up some rapport with the audience.
Obama has obviously spent some time in Church. His delivery is reminiscent of a pentecostal preacher.
What do you see & hear? What have I missed?

Now one of the worst things you could do would be to think: "That kind of story for worked for Obama in that situation, I do the same thing in my next quarterly results presentation!!!" You & I are not Barack Obama.

But reflect on what touched you in the story. Where were you gripped? Where did it meander? Why?

Also there are other versions of Obama telling this story on the campaign trail - and each is a little different. If you're really keen, try finding those too and have a look.

cool

2009-03-05T11:53:00.000-08:00

There's a bit of a discussion going on over a JC's place about "cool kids" and online communities. It kinda got derailed by Adam Ferrier into a debate about what is "cool*". I am not interested in cool (as the contents of my wardrobe will demonstrate) but this discussion raises a few questions for me about the role of "community managers" and what the skills are.

The first thing to note is that generalisations are all well & good (and make nice 6 point lists that blog readers love) but may not be that much help in a particular situation. Communities vary a lot. Do not assume that your community is the same in a key respect as another community. To put it in statistical terms (which I know turns you all on), the variance matters as much as the mean. Or to put it more scientificially: The Lone Ranger & Tonto are surrounded by Indians. The Lone Ranger says: "We're in trouble". Tonto turns & says: "Waddya mean 'we', Paleface?"

Anyway, for comunity management, being a good communicator & listener is probably a non-negotiable. As is actually caring about the comunities' common interest yourself. Beyond that, it kinda gets a bit tricky. Are you "cool" or "warm"? Are you a creator or an appreciator? Are you gentle or brutal? Do you have video-editing skills? Can you sing? Are you a whizz with language or numbers? I dunno. It probably depends on your community.

A few years ago, Patrick Lambe & Shawn Callahan looked at the community archetypes** of actKM. This is a community of IM/KM professionals in their 30/40/50s. I think we have one Gen-Yer - but he acts like a 50 year old anyway. Here are the archetypes that emerged. Let me stress to marketing types that these are not Jungian (Healer, Hero) archetypes - altho some of them may look like that. These are recurring identities & behaviours are specific to that community. Similar archetypes can and do pop up across different places but each time the ecosystem is a little different.

What would the archetypes look like in your online community?

*The only comment I will make is that the question "Who is cool?" is actually "Who is cool to group X?" with the "X" bit often assumed or left unexamined - AF's original research looked a specific group (Australians aged 18-26). I also wonder if he's selected on the dependent variable but I haven't seen the original research.

**Patrick & myself are using a similar approach in our Using Expertise work (e.g. here).

social software & worldvision - interview with keith don

2009-03-04T22:21:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I had a great conversation with Keith Don from WorldVision about using social software in not-for-profits. KD was so good that it would be a crime not to make it available. So here goes...

When did World Vision first get involved in social media?

World Vision started using social media before I joined. We had a guy called Adam Valvasori involved with our youth team and he was pushing the boundaries in terms of online engagement. World Vision has always taken the approach that we're a middle-market brand that engages with middle Australia. We deal with international social justice and poverty issues and we thought that many people who are online care about these issues and would want to engage with us and with each other. Initially this was through Stir (our youth site) and creating a presence on MySpace. Our first major success was on YouTube. A few years ago we created a video called Teenage Affluenza. That got featured on the front of Facebook and went viral around the world!

We operate on two levels – raising money in Australia to support our work in developing countries and then secondly to engage Australians on the issues that we care about and we hope they care about too. The Teenage Affluenza video is definitely an example of the latter. In the past we had been a pioneer with a lot of activities in traditional media. We were the first charity ever to buy TV ad space. We had dedicated TV specials. Of course that's now very, very expensive so we need to look at other options. If we're looking at engaging then it's about getting those one-to-one conversations with people directly.

What are you doing at the moment?

Still in the youth space we're doing a lot of YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, Facebook, Bebo and Twitter (of course). Those are really about trying to meet people where they're at. They can talk to us in their space rather than making them come into our territory. We want them to be comfortable and to care about their issues in their own environment. Right now our strategy is maturing. We now have a conscious digital strategy rather than just responding to things – and that's across the whole organisation rather than just in the youth space.

We want to do three things:

How do we engage with Australians in the conversation?
How do we talk to them directly about the issues we see around the world?
How do we give them the opportunity to act on that (either financially or non-financially)?

Right now our website is large and unwieldy. We want to create a platform for engagement where ever they are and make the interfaces between places (e.g. Twitter, Flickr, Facebook) easier for our users. We have a World Vision Twitter account but it's inactive because we don't want it to be a broadcast feed of press releases. If you're not ready to engage with people in a channel then you shouldn't be using it. If you want people to care about your brand and the work that you do then you have to engage with people directly, you have to respond directly and really answer their questions. I would love our Supporter Services group to be accessible via Twitter like Comcastcares but we're not quite ready for that yet.

What changes does this require of World Vision? Has there been any resistance?

It turns our whole messaging and engagement approach upside down. World Vision is over 40 years old, we are set up to do business in a certain way and what worked for us in the past will likely not work for us in the future. We have been very oriented around direct mail and TV ads and the phone lines ringing but now it's all moving online. One of the things we want to do is pull back the orange curtain. We want people to understand what we do and how we do it, we want to take them on that journey.

Things that were previously overlooked internally have to change. If you want to have one message out there then that's easy if it's just press releases but if you have many people talking externally the you need to make sure that your messaging is right. That doesn't mean sticking to the party line or being a broken record. It means being honest if you don't know something and referring them on or saying you'll get back to them.

Who else do you see doing this well?

I don't think anyone is doing it great at the moment. Most of the people doing it successfully are being opportunistic and being first in. Charity:water are doing Twestival which will probably be successful but we'll have to see how sustainable that is. Most of the older charities are struggling because it is a new part of the world for them. Sean from The Uncultured Project has a big following on YouTube – how does he make sure that what he is doing is sustainable and can he join the activist audience with the need for financial support for international development. A lot of non-profits are simply using social networks as a feed. I think that is the wrong thing to do and that will simply alienate people who would rather be engaging with you.

So there's plenty of opportunities then?

There are opportunities if you take the time to do it well. There are also a lot of opportunities to alienate people if you do it badly. You have an outlet to speak about a lot of different things but every time you go off message then you risk alienating people. The other thing is that word of mouth spreads so quickly online. If you upset one person then it'll move quickly. On the other hand, you hear the discontent early so you can deal with problems as they arise.

How do you avoid alienating people?

If someone asks you a question and your organisation isn't comfortable talking about it then you respond accordingly and give the reasons why. You need to be careful about all your relationships online – who you are engaging with, how you are engaging. You still need to be genuine, polite and you shouldn't pretend to be something that you are not. Being genuine is key.

What's next?

For World Vision it is moving to a new platform that allows people to engage with us on the issues that matter to us. It's a new World Vision. It's not just what people see on the ads. Yes we do child sponsorship, yes we help starving children in Africa but we also have a team setting up satellite internet connections allowing people to communicate with each other. We are involved with peace-building, we have rapid response teams that can be in any part of the world in 48 hours. We want to release those stories and have people engage with us around those stories. And if they care about those things then we want them to be able to do something about that. That may be advocacy, raising awareness or it may be donating money.

For me the key thing is to stay sane and help lead the organisation through that process – because everything's evolving. We can't just focus on what we need now, we have to plan for what we will need in 18 months. We cannot afford to be left behind because if we don't make money, it isn't just “we didn't turn a profit” - there are people around the world who could starve. We have to make people see the real stories and if they share in those stories and their urgency then we can make change happen.

Who do you want to see speak?

2009-03-04T12:54:00.000-08:00

You may remember the post about speakers and conferences. I have asked a few people and got the following responses:

Daryl Cook suggested Clay Shirky. Daryl would pay AU$100 (or less) to see Clay and reckons that around 400 people would see Clay. Which means that Daryl estimates Clay's value to AU$40k. Coincidentally, I had an email exchange with Clay's agent a couple of nights ago so I now know what CS thinks he's worth (that is not a joke). What do other people think of Daryl's estimate?
Laurie LockLee suggested John Seely Brown. Laurie would pay $50 and reckons that 200 people would turn up - so JSB's value would be $10k in LLL's estimation. I will find out what JSB thinks it should be.
Cai Kjaer suggest Barack Obama. I haven't got a $ figure of Cai for that one but let me work on it and see what the Big O's people have to say.
James Dellow suggested Charles Handy but didn't want to pay to see. Which means he has assigned CH a value of $0. Is that fair people?
Stuart French suggested Andrew McAfee - no $ value yet tho.

One thing to remember here is that people pay $000s to go to conferences and they are often drawn in by the "big names" (and most of the other presenters at conferences are not getting paid for this). In trying to reimagine the conference and get over our obsession with the "headline act", I realise it was futile, so why not harness that effect and do something interesting with it?

Please fill out the form below (feel free to do it anonymously).

Loading...

story challenge: rip kungler responds

2009-03-04T12:12:00.000-08:00

Rip Kungler responded to my challenge to his honour on the CSTC list regarding the story competition with this digital poem.

I love Rip's work*: Large Toys Make Indulgent Baggage

*The mix of violence, decadence and innocence in Rip's images reminds of that time in Bangkok when I was kidnapped by an under-age tuk-tuk driver who mistook me for George Harrison's nephew. I was in town trying to pitch my edgy "reimagining" of "The Waltons" to a Thai national broadcaster. We were going to play up the hillbilly angle as I recall but not to Deliverance levels obviously, this had to be a family show. They were "onboard" (to use the industry jargon) if we could set it in a little village not far from Chang Rai. They wanted glamour. And monks, lots & lots of monks. This proved to be a sticking point as we had a provisional deal with Matt Le Blanc to play Pa Walton. It is a little-known fact that MLB (as he is known in the industry) has (due to his Irish Catholic ancestry) a morbid fear of the colour orange. He also suffered from aloplecia as a child and finds it traumatic to work with the bald. Negotiations broke down during a teleconference when MLB's agent suggested that the monk's robes should be dyed green & that they be provided with matching wigs. Apparently the Land of Smiles is not yet ready for punk monks. The attempted kidnapping was the last straw. My left knee still aches on humid summer nights and the enraged face of my would-be kidnapper appears before my mind's eye at every ominous putt-putt of a 2-stroke engine.

People tell me that kind of thing happens quite a lot.

conferences & the cost of organising

2009-03-02T03:56:00.001-08:00

It used to be really tricky & expensive to find people. Finding speakers. Finding venues. Finding attendees. You needed contacts & experience & these were high barriers to entry.

It's still hard to put on an event but the economics have changed. Finding speakers is not hard - altho finding good speakers is more challenging - how about a ratemyprofessors* for conference speakers? Finding attendees is still tricky but a lot easier. Venues are falling over themselves to host events in the current climate. Running an event professionally is quite demanding - but there are professional events organisers all over the place.

So the question becomes: "What kind of events do we want?"

Traditional conferences work well for new topics where attendees need "educating". They start becoming boring as soon as the attendees know as much as the speakers. Then BarCamp formats become more interesting - participants start talking to each other. Many conferences get caught in the ravine between the two. Finally, the conference morphs into something else completely - probably closer to Open Space or a similar format.

So one idea I'm toying with is crowdsourcing an event. Doing it at cost. We find someone lots of Australians would like to see and bring them out here. We discuss who they are and what they could do with us. I know of several events that are run on a cost-recovery basis but how can we make this as interesting as possible? As useful as possible for all concerned?

Who would you invite?

What I need is:

~~An international speaker.~~
~~Some places we want the speaker to come to and do their thing.~~
~~What you want them to do. Talk, facilitate, whatever.~~
~~Some software to manage the money side of things. I need something that will collect "donations" but only charge people is a certain threshold is crossed by a certain time.~~

[Edit 3/3/09] - I'm going to make this simpler:

Who would you want to invite?
How much would you pay?
How many people do you think we could get to see them?

I will then ask & see if the averaged market demand matches the speaker's own perceptions. I already have these figures for a certain famous Web 2.0 speaker & author, let's see what we can find out here...

*If people are interested, I'll take the Pepsi taste challenge & publish all the conference feedback I have got - good & bad.

story challenge - show me what cha got...

2009-03-01T13:52:00.000-08:00

Here is a challenge. I am looking for people to write some stories for me. Why I am doing this is described below (as is the how)*. There will be a prize - I don't know what the prize is yet. That will become clear when the entries come in. The deadline is March 31st 2009.

Rules

Your story should be inspired by the 5 images represented below.
It should be less than 500 words (or 5 mins if you choose to use some audio format).

The stories will be judged by Victoria Ward. Jye Smith has already volunteered to participate. Who will take on the mighty JS???

Stories can be posted on a blog as text, audio or video or sent to me.

And now for the 5 images:

Source: crazytales562

Source: Southernpixel

Source: Potato Benevolence

Source: marymactavish

Source: Aine D

Avanti!

*I had been trying to set a Skype podcast with Victoria for the last few months. It wasn't working for either of us so we have taken to setting story-based challenges for each other in lieu of conversation. I was originally going to ask her to write the story but I thought it would be more fun if some of you did it & then got her to respond.

The method I chose for image selection was to ask 5 random people for a word. They were:
James Dellow: implications
Luke Naismith: help
Marcus Brown: lavatory
Ron Donaldson: trilobite
Nancy White: persnickity

Then I put the keywords into Flickr. Ta Da! Many thanks to the above 5 for their input!

swimming the backchannel

2009-02-28T03:55:00.000-08:00

So last week was a week of events. There was the online communities gig* with Mark Pollard, Christy McCarthy, Angela Beesley & a crowd of participants. Thanks again to the Wesley Mission for their help. It was pretty darned good. If you didn't go, find someone who did & then ask them about it.

I also started teaching @ UTS. More on that in a few weeks. I also ranted a bit around social software at FISH@6, tagteaming Tom Kendall.

Probably my most conflicted experience of the week was @ E2EF. Ross knows how to put on an event & he did invite me so I'd better be nice. The social software newbies absolutely loved it. The jaded old 2.0 hacks were bored. Nathan Wallace & Peter Williams were fun. David Backley had 2 brilliant slides that were jam-packed full of experience. IBM were an event sponsor and the presentation by Brent Lello may have been good - I don't know because I found the first 5 minutes such a turn-off that I walked out**.

A conversation I had with two participants*** raised the issue about the back channel. Lots of people were on Twitter, tweeting away. I have mixed feelings about this. Many of the Tweets seem to be: "Hey, I'm at a conference, some just said something" or some form of public note-taking. The next conference I am speaking at with Tweeting, I want the Tweetfeed on screen next to me. Stuff the powerpoints, let's bring it on!!! Olivia Williams has some interesting points but I think the critical thing is that we have a feedback loop here. I want that exposed & integrated. What I really want is a tag cloud of the audience's comments flickering over my head: "interesting" "flawed" "rubbish".

Can someone build that for me please?

What's exciting about tools like Twitter is the immediate, shared feedback you get - which amplifies responses. 90s rave tracks would include samples of crowd roars in the mix - which would trigger copy responses on the dance floor. Tools like cheap SMS, backend computing & real-time visualisation will revolutionise how we experience things as crowds, as audiences, together. People crave that sense of collective experience.

Should we give it to them?

*A few people couldn't make it - including one man whose car broke down on the way to the venue. Ah you say, a likely story. He included a TIFF of the tax invoice from the towing company as an attachment to an apologetic email. N.B. I believe you. But we gave all the spare cash to the Wesley Mission, so I don't think we help you out on this one.

**I don't go to strip clubs because tired old routines being performed by someone desperate for my cash just don't do it for me. I asked the actKM list what they thought of good & bad vendor presentations. I will unveil the results shortly.

***Which took place in a deserted fun fair on a blazing hot day. This was in no way surreal, oh no.

communities & networks

2009-02-24T13:34:00.000-08:00

Nancy White & Tony Karrer have put together the Comunities & Networks Connection. A vast content hub of good writing by cool people - many of whom you will already be familiar with but probably some new ones too.

Share the blogging lurve...

be frustrated

2009-02-23T11:56:00.000-08:00

I've been pondering innovation (which is invention + entrepreneurship) for a while now. It strikes me that innovators are frustrated consumers. They want something. It is not there. And rather than just shrug and say "oh well", they decide to do something about it. Innovators differ from the rest of us in that:

They are willing to act on their frustrations.
They have the capability to get a result when they do act.

Which means that if we want to be innovative we should cultivate our frustrations rather than ignore them. In fact we should actively seek out frustrating experiences. This is very difficult for me because I was raised with the "mustn't grumble" mentality where you made do with what you got. But I am slowly changing.

When were you frustrated today?

dial 247365

2009-02-18T03:17:00.000-08:00

It all started with an article written by Ross Gittins about the response by Australians to the bushfires. I don't want to get stuck into the argument about motivations - that's a whole other can of worms. The point that resonates with me is that we have a collective attention span that would shame a goldfish. We get all wound up about immediate, short-term disasters and actually get off our arses and do something. But around social justice, environmental change, global inequality - for most of us its too hard.

The challenge is: why isn't this motivation, this compassion, this giving a **** normal for us? Why don't we act like there are a million bushfires going on out there every day? Laura Brown has a great line in the comments section of this blog post: Compassion isn't like an indie band that you have to stop liking once their music gets used in an advert. Which I may well have put on a T-shirt.

But it doesn't stop there. If compassion isn't an indie band then neither should it be put behind glass with a little hammer next to it and a sign saying "Use Only In Case Of Emergency" underneath.

Soften the **** up, Australia.

being wrong vs being boring

2009-02-16T22:51:00.000-08:00

I was reading an article that a friend had written this arvo. The underlying idea was brilliant. But it seemed to have fallen into that no man's land between the academia and the business world.

Academics love nothing more than to point to errors in each other's work. In fact, they love it so much, they have built it into a process called "peer review". Don't get me wrong, peer review is very important. But it means that academics tend to armour-plate their writing. Evidence is piled on. Statements are couched to preclude disagreement. It is far preferable to be boring than to be wrong. Articles in an academic journals resemble a division of giant tortoises rumbling across a lethargic battlefield.

The rest of the world does not prize rightness. For better or worse, people would rather read something was useful and entertaining than wholly correct. Frankly I find this a little annoying but that doesn't stop it from being true.

do brands have stories?

2009-02-16T21:18:00.000-08:00

A few months ago, Shawn wrote about brand stories and how he thinks the word "story" is being misused. I agree with him. In fact, I don't think that you can have a "brand story" but brands absolutely have stories around them.

Let's say that a story contains (i) character(s), (ii) location(s) and (iii) events that befall the characters. A character doesn't have to be a human being but we tend to prefer stories with characters that are. If the character isn't a human (e.g. a dog, a car) then we anthropomorphise them. We give them emotions and moods. We give them reason. Above all, we give them agency. They choose to do stuff. Otherwise things just happen to characters in a story. And we find that unsatisfying. Someone tells us an anecdote about an event (e.g. missing the bus, winning a million dollars) and we often respond: "So what did you do?" That combination of event and (human) response is what makes stories compelling.

Now I'm going to use wikipedia's definition of a brand and today it is this: A brand is a collection of symbols, experiences and associations connected with a product, a service, a person or any other artifact or entity. Brands do not have agency. They cannot choose to do stuff. That makes brands a prop or a piece of the stage scenery. Advertising has traditionally gotten around this by anthropomorphising a brand - giving it a face. Michelin Man, the Jolly Green Giant, etc. And in an age of broadcast media, this worked pretty well (and will continue to work sometimes).

Consumers and employees do have agency. They make interesting characters in stories. And they tell each other stories. In fact, the stories they tell each other are a big part of what makes up a brand. Stories are as important as data. And ideally you combine the two to achieve understanding. And yet many people seem comfortable with either one or the other - rather than both. This is missed opportunity.

The Nokia example embedded in Shawn's post is an interesting one because it tries to tell a very specific story that positions humanity as the protagonist ("we") in an epic tale with Nokia product as the key prop. The comments indicate that not everyone agrees with that story.

There's a few more points here:

All this social software stuff can make these stories more visible. The stories have always been there, but they've been hidden & isolated. Antony van Leeuwenhoek's work with the microscope allowed us to see things that had previously been invisible. We've built ourselves a whole bunch of story visualisers and accelerators.
There is sometimes an assumption that all stories have to be epic (like the Nokia example) or that stories need to follow a structure like the Hero's Journey of Joseph Campbell. But they don't. Most of the stories we tell each other aren't epic (as Yiannis Gabriel noted, they are mostly quite banal). Attempting to force the everyday into the epic can be silly.
There is no one story here. We often believe that if we find the one story then everything else falls into place and yet it rarely does. Salman Rushdie wrote a book called Haroun and the Sea of Stories. I've not read it but I love the image in the title. Stories as a sea that surround us and that we inhabit like fish. A sea that we cannot live without and yet rarely recognise.

other people's stories

2009-02-16T21:07:00.000-08:00

I'm currently putting together a whole bunch of stuff on stories and I came across this quote from Steve Denning that I think is very important:

We usually spend a great deal of time thinking about what story we are going to tell. But the hard part of communication is often figuring out what story the audience are currently living. (The Secret Language of Leadership, p. 89)

Official communications often assume that the recipients are blank slates, waiting eagerly to receive what we have to say. A more sophisticated view says that our audience is busy and we must craft compelling stories that grab their attention. However for us to know whether a story is "compelling" or not, we have to know what stories our audience are already telling each other.

We may then choose to tell them something that aligns with what they tell each other already (which is safe but runs the risk of being boring) or present them with something different (which will stand out but always runs the risk of rejection).

fragile

2009-02-16T15:19:00.000-08:00

Source: Redback Theatre Group

I was down in Melbourne last week. It had been hot on Saturday. The air scalded my lungs when I sucked it in. The streets of the CBD were empty. Pedestrians ran between patches of shade, air-con oases. That evening the air temperature dropped by about 25 degrees in half an hour. Someone mentioned the fires.

As you know by now, the fires were fast. Whole towns destroyed. Hundreds of people dead. You can do your bit.

There are already arguments about blame, causes, punishments. Those will work themselves out. I just look at the images and what I see is fragility. Our psychological well-being is founded on our inability to understand how fragile our world is.

Everything might be gone tomorrow.