The year’s first great read

number 1 by Mrs Logic

The Scale Every Business Needs Now:
[Via HarvardBusiness.org]

Beancounter 1: “Our new widgets business — we think it’s amazing”.

Beancounter 2: “We’ve ridden the learning curve, the product mix is optimized, the supply chain’s streamlined, the market’s tightly segmented.”

Beancounter 3: “But we’ve got a burning question for you, Umair — will it scale?”

UH: “You know what doesn’t scale? The point. Dudes, welcome to the 21st Century. It’s so not about pushing more toxic junk at people.”

Beancounters 1, 2, and 3: (enraged, attack UH with pitchforks).

That’s what happened to me not so long ago in one of the anonymous boardrooms of the universe. And it’s happened quite a few times over the last few months. So in the interest of my own personal safety, let me explain the scale every business should strive for today.

Here’s what the economic historians of the 23rd Century are going to say about the 20th.

“They built giant, globe-spanning organizations, that employed tens of thousands of people working around the clock, to produce… sugar water, fast food, disposable razors, and gas guzzlers. Perhaps the defining characteristic of the paradigm of 20th Century capitalism was its astonishing lack of ambition. Rarely in history has such a void, a poverty of imagination been so deeply woven into the fabric of humankind’s economic systems.”

[More]

Some of these ideas may be too radical but I really think that a big problem in the biotech arena is too little ambition. Start-ups no longer dream of changing medicine. They dream of a Big Pharma buy-out. And VCs act as enablers.

The big ambitions actually beats in the hearts of many non-profit research institutions. They want to change the world, ridding it of centuries old scourges in ways that can change cultures. Their ambition scales so nicely that it may really be successful.

And the companies that recognize this will be able to tag along, making a lot of money on the ambitions of the non-profits.

Technorati Tags: ,

The Innovation

Scenes from a Common Craft Video Shoot:
[Via Common Craft - Explanations In Plain English -]

People often wonder what it looks like to make a Common Craft video. So, every once in a while, we take photos as we’re making a video. This video shoot is for a forthcoming title that’s under wraps, but will come out within a month or two.

To acheive the light we want, we work with four really bright halogen lights. They’re so bright that I wear sunglasses when recording – it feels like I get a bit of a tan each shoot. This is Sachi getting things set up.

[More]

Okay, this started out as a nice post about Common Crafts video techniques. They do great work so it was interesting. It provided some isight into the incremental nature of their work (adding a monitor to see the video.

But then in the middle they mention “The Innovation”, which is so neat that it must be spread around:


Recently we discovered something that has come be known at “the innovation.” Basically, we learned that we can write on the monitor screen with dry erase markers. This was a revelation. It meant that we could mark the exact position of images to create consistency in the stop-motion process. When we needed to animate something across the screen, we could draw a line on the screen and follow it. It made our production lives easier.

You can write on the monitor! this is really cool to know and will be something I may have to try out. Just have to make sure the monitor has a glass front and not a plastic one. Although some people report using it on LCDs and it wipes right off. in fact, it seems to work really well for removing permanent marker from an LCD.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Show me the qi

white queen by AMMY.LOU
Unevidence Based Medicine:
[Via BPSDB | The Lay Scientist -]

[BPSDB]I have received a reply to my Freedom of Information request to the University of Westminster for “research papers or other documents” that support claims made by their School of Life Sciences for the qigong tuina course they offer.

You can read the reply here. As I have

[More]

If the school is teaching it, it must be real. Right? They would not promulgate something as medicine that was not, just to make a buck?

I though the Life sciences actually dealt with science. From the description here, little science is involved. Just opinion.

Just believing qi exists does not make it so. As explicated in Alice in Wonderland:


Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”


I guess the School of Life has had lots of practice. Fortunately. most scientists follow the Alice model, not the
White Queen‘s.

Technorati Tags:

A great primer on the diffusion of innovation

[Crossposted at SpreadingScience]
innovation by etcname
I Should Have Majored In Psychology:
[Via Chuck's Blog]

Way back when, I thought it useful to do two courses of study. I wanted that CS (computer science) degree, but the whole topic, while fascinating, seemed so self-contained.

At the time, I thought adding coursework in economics was the right thing to do. Even way back in the late 1970s (yes, I’m that old), I could see the two interweaving in very interesting ways.

I was wrong. I should have chosen to add in psychology rather than economics.

Because — at the end of the day — I’m finding that success with technology has more to do with how people perceive things rather than the hard facts we all work with every day.

Ever Rolled Out A Big IT Project?

I have. Several times, as a matter of fact. And — each time — I spent an inordinate amount of time lining up approval and support for what I was proposing to do.

The least of my problems was making sure the darn stuff worked as expected. My most daunting challenge was usually changing perceptions with hundreds — sometimes thousands — of people who had a vested stake in the outcome.

If you work in IT, you’ve probably come to the same conclusion — the technology will probably be ready far in advance of people’s willingness to embrace it.

Accelerating Change Creates Value

I’m not just talking about IT here — I’m talking about any leadership role in a large organization. To create unique value, we have to change the way we do things. The faster we can change and adapt, the more value we create for our organization and our stakeholders.

And — more often than not — it’s people’s perceptions that stand between where we are — and where we’d all like to be.

A while back, I was chatting with people who put together MBA coursework. Since I tend to work with freshly minted MBAs here at EMC, they wanted to know what I found missing.

My answer was pretty clear: they need at least some sort of background in behavior psychology if they expected to be successful in any organization.

After all, organizations are nothing more than collections of people.

And If You’re In Marketing

I don’t see how anyone could be successful in any form of marketing these days without a deep and empathetic understanding of the human psyche, and how it manifests itself in your target audience.

Yes, showing ROI and “business value” is essential. But I’d offer that’s just table stakes. There’s so much good technology out there today that there are many ways to solve a given enterprise IT requirement.

Worse, when we as vendors come up with something new and interesting (as is frequently the case at EMC) but is a departure from conventional thinking, it takes an inordinate amount of time to get people comfortable with the new approach.

People will often say things like “well, we need time for the technology to mature”. Fair enough. But more often, I’m thinking it’s less about the technology, and more about time needed to have perceptions change.

One of the most frustrating recent examples for me personally was enterprise flash drives. EMC launched them at the beginning of 2008. They worked absolutely perfectly at the time. But adoption was slow, mostly because it was an entirely new idea.

Adoption started to pick up dramatically during 2009. Not because the technology was any better — it was simply that people had gotten more comfortable with the concept.

Since EMC’s business model involves investing a lot in new and disruptive technologies, this inherent psychological barrier to “something new” is often front-and-center in my mind.

[More]

Read the whole thing. This is a great discussion by someone on the ground, detailing ow hard it can be to get people to adapt to new technology.

Different organizations have different rates that innovation diffuses through them. Many do absolutely nothing to facilitate this diffusion in any way. It just happens by essentially ad hoc means.

I’ve written about how change and innovations traverse a community. A better way to facilitate such things is to put disruptive innovators and mediating early-adopters in place to evaluate new technologies. That is what they are really good at and actually enjoy. If they see the value, especially the mediators, they can often speed up the rate the new technology diffuses.

Usually, however, the people in this position are from the middle, the Doers, who really do not like the uncertainty and disruptive effects on their workflow by the introduction of novelty. They are the most hesitant to accept innovation unless informed by the relevant mediators.

But, the organizations that understand human social behavior, that put the right people in the right spots to actually evaluate and evangelize new technologies in a community, will be the ones that succeed. They will not only be able to leverage new technology faster, they will be more resilient and able to deal with failure.

Because, after all, failure is just another change. and organization that deals well with change will have little to fear from failure because it knows that is a faster route to success.

Technorati Tags: ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 183 other followers