Four Pillars: On innovation and education

This post was triggered by a quotation from Bob Sutton’s Weird Ideas That Work, brought to my notice by Chief Innovation Officer, who also informs us that Professor Sutton is now blogging. Great. And thanks to Chief Innovation Officer.

Here’s the quote:

  • Organising for routine work: Drive out variance
  • Organising for innovative work: Enhance variance

This contention and conflict, explained further in the referring blog, is at the heart of some of the problems we face in attempting to move to Four Pillars models in enterprises.

Of course I agree with the sentiments. But I think we need to take them further.

We have to be careful with the concept of routine work. In the 21st century, I’m not sure why anyone should be doing routine work. We have a war for talent, let’s take it seriously. It seems strange to try hard to attract and retain distinctive and talented people, then make them miserable over time by driving out what we hired them for in the first place.

Routine work should be outsourced. To machines.

The software on those machines should be built opensource.

We have to learn to retain, augment, even celebrate, our “variances”, our diversity. Long tails and wisdom-of-crowds and heterogeneity-driven learning are all about the value of being different. Social software helps us identify people we share things with, then helps us identify the things that we do differently despite our sharing some things. That’s what collaborative filtering is about. Prediction markets will not work except where there are heterogeneous large crowds.

The madness of crowds is about herd instincts and uniformity. We are not cows.

The wisdom of crowds is about anything but herd instincts and uniformity.

Choose.

Which brings me to the point of this post. It may have been Judy Breck, or maybe it was John Seely Brown in his foreword to her excellent book, who makes the point about how Assembly Line thinking pervades our educational systems. I honestly can’t remember, and don’t have access to my library while travelling.
Here’s my summary of what I can remember about schools and Assembly Line, I wish I could remember where I read it.

Bells for stopwatches. Registers for clipboards. Uniforms for, errm, uniformity. Routines for class schedules. Pupils aggregated into forms and standards and grades. Focus on reducing standard deviation. Usage of bell curves and relative grading. Weird and awful pseudo-psycho-medical terms for outliers and exceptions.

Assembly Lines produce black Model T Fords well. We are not black Model T Fords.

We are human. Distinctive in our individuality.  Otherwise we might as well automate, or even outsource, our humanity. And all this begins with schools.

An aside. I have noticed that we want all our innovation to take place in “creation” tasks such as marketing and customer acquisition and product development and new markets and all that jazz. Yet we spend most of our money in routine tasks which we resolutely refuse to automate. Or innovate.

Yes, innovate. We have more need to innovate in our routine processes than anywhere else. Otherwise we’re not just paving the cow paths, but cementing the cows on them. And then wondering why our fixed costs go up. The Concrete Cow on the Concrete Cow Path. 

Four Pillars: On usability

I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that the first law of usability is “Words matter”.

The kernel for this post was a piece in Ed Cone’s Know It All blog, pointing me at an interview with Jakob Nielsen in the Wall Street Journal today.

Now Nielsen is someone I like and trust, but the tone of the article surprised me. It is almost as if the article was summarised and quotes taken out of context in order to provoke and excite comment. Well, if that was the case, the article succeeded.

Read the article for yourself. My takeaway is simple. Don’t say blogs and wikis and IM. Say conversation. Say chat. Don’t say RSS. Say syndication (or in Nielsen’s preference, news feeds). And so on.

Largely I agree. Four Pillars is based on using more consumable terms. But I’m happy with Syndication Search Fulfilment and Conversation.

Where I disagree is that RSS is just for news. Or that blogs are the playground of those on the edge. Syndication is the disaggregation of publishing, and not just about news feeds. And I meet people every day who read blogs (including, occasionally, mine :-) ). You can characterise me as edge if you want, that’s your prerogative. But that’s not a reasonable stance to take for blog readers in general, not even for bloggers.

Today, generation M blogs. They needed Flickr and MySpace before they took to it, but blogging is now part of what they do. I expect to see that within six months, Pew Internet reports that fully half of all new blogs are authored by Generation M. And they’re not one night stands.

Calling bloggers “edge” is unreasonable, does not reflect reality.

More later.

Thanks to Ed for the pointer.

On the Strategic Value of IT

The kernel for this snowball was Metric 2.0‘s question in a recent comment on one of my posts.

Does IT have strategic value? I shall resist the temptation to quote Paul Strassmann or Nicholas Carr, or even to rebut them.

My thoughts on this are simple:

  • First, you can no longer separate information and communication from the enabling technology. IT, or ICT, can therefore be deemed as not having strategic value in any industry or sector where information or communications have no strategic value. [I shall desist from the temptation to try and find such an industry or sector, it would be nothing more than an academic exercise full of sound and fury, signifying nothing]. As long as information has strategic value, ICT will have strategic value.
  • Second, there is no doubt that commoditisation of ICT is increasing, and the speed of that commoditisation is also increasing. But the commoditisation of ICT does not mean a consequent loss of strategic value. All it means is that ICT will gently shift from being a With object to a Because Of object. Chris Messina has a good post on this, working off Doc‘s snowballs. [Yes I have linked to this post before, it’s good enough for me to do it again.]
  • Third, no matter which way I try and interpret the word “strategic” I come up with the same answer. Is ICT important or essential in relation to a plan of action for a given business? Usually. Is ICT essential to the effective conduct of a business? Usually. Is ICT useful in destroying the effective potential of a competitor? Usually.

Enough blather. If a business has a strategy, it is very likely that ICT will form an integral part of that strategy, on a Because Of rather than With basis.

Businesses don’t always have visible or perceptible or for that matter even tacit strategies. Many are happy to operate in a market at the whim of their competitors. In such environments it is arguable that ICT has no strategic value. Neither does anything else, for that matter.

I am more than happy to accept that ICT does not always deliver the strategic value required of it. Again, neither do many other things. Why? That’s a whole different ball game.  But part of the reason is blame cultures, part of the reason is poor expectation management, part of the reason is silo-ed approaches within the business, part of the reason is ICT people acting hoity-toity, part of the reason is the lack of worthwhile and implementable standards, part of the reason is a vendor-dominated market, part of the reason is a surfeit of “big whatever” consultants, part of the reason is Conway’s Law, part of the reason is lack of adequate numbers of skilled resources, part of the reason is organisational politics, part of the reason is just bad execution.
In summary:

  • Information and Communication have strategic value
  • Where a firm has a strategy, ICT will have strategic value, on a Because Of basis
  • This strategic value is not necessarily easy to extract; history does not show ICT in a good light
  • But things are getting better as a result of the Web and opensource and Moore and Metcalfe and Gilder

A sideways look at the effects of the Scoble announcement

From Alexa’s Movers and Shakers:

8. up 1,100% ~ Weekly Traffic Rank: 6,726 (was 82,338)

Podtech.net
(No description)
www.podtech.netSite info

9. up 260% ~ Weekly Traffic Rank: 3,089 (was 13,507)

Scobleizer.wordpress.com
(No description)
www.scobleizer.wordpress.comSite info
And if you’re bored, go visit John Sadowski’s site, it was an unusual entry in the top 10 so it got my attention. The mere presence of that site on the Top 10 Movers list bears out one of Hugh Macleod’s axioms.

Four Pillars: An open source essay worth reading

It’s not that often that I am by myself in a strange city away from the usual attractions and distractions of life, and one of the things that lets me do is catch up on my reading. [Yes, I know I read a lot and don’t sleep much, but I mean a different type of reading, more like StumbleUpon meets The Big Library in the Sky].

You may know the kind of reading I mean. When you go through your indecipherable notes listing the things you wanted to catch up on when you had the time. And that’s what I was doing, researching some of my pet subject areas, when I came across Paul Graham’s site. And I found some really great stuff there.

Here’s a small sample of excerpts from an essay entitled What Business Can Learn From Open Source: Each quotation is shown in bold and italicised. My comments intersperse the quotes.
A recent survey found 52% of companies are replacing Windows servers with Linux servers. [1]

More significant, I think, is which 52% they are. At this point, anyone proposing to run Windows on servers should be prepared to explain what they know about servers that Google, Yahoo, and Amazon don’t.

My suspicion is that the 48% are all Not-Invented-Here IT departments, and that this number is dropping. It may actually be lower than 48% already, but there’s still a tendency NOT to claim you run Linux, for fear of being considered radical, insecure, pinko, UnAmerican, whatever. So what do we know that Google, Amazon and Yahoo don’t? Probably that our jobs are less secure than theirs, so we act out our secrets and lies.
Like open source, blogging is something people do themselves, for free, because they enjoy it. Like open source hackers, bloggers compete with people working for money, and often win. The method of ensuring quality is also the same: Darwinian. Companies ensure quality through rules to prevent employees from screwing up. But you don’t need that when the audience can communicate with one another. People just produce whatever they want; the good stuff spreads, and the bad gets ignored. And in both cases, feedback from the audience improves the best work.

Paul makes the Good Snowballs Can’t Be Suppressed point a whole lot more elegantly than I did. And touches on the Covenants versus Contracts bit as well.

….the business world was so surprised by one lesson from open source: that people working for love often surpass those working for money. Users don’t switch from Explorer to Firefox because they want to hack the source. They switch because it’s a better browser.

Key point. It’s all about better. As the saying goes, first you need a good doctor, and if he or she is cheap then that is also good. You don’t need a cheap doctor.

As in software, when professionals produce such crap, it’s not surprising if amateurs can do better. Live by the channel, die by the channel: if you depend on an oligopoly, you sink into bad habits that are hard to overcome when you suddenly get competition. [4]

Protectionism Produces Poop.

And finally, a longer extract:

To me the most demoralizing aspect of the traditional office is that you’re supposed to be there at certain times. There are usually a few people in a company who really have to, but the reason most employees work fixed hours is that the company can’t measure their productivity.

The basic idea behind office hours is that if you can’t make people work, you can at least prevent them from having fun. If employees have to be in the building a certain number of hours a day, and are forbidden to do non-work things while there, then they must be working. In theory. In practice they spend a lot of their time in a no-man’s land, where they’re neither working nor having fun.

If you could measure how much work people did, many companies wouldn’t need any fixed workday. You could just say: this is what you have to do. Do it whenever you like, wherever you like. If your work requires you to talk to other people in the company, then you may need to be here a certain amount. Otherwise we don’t care.

I want to meet this guy. Anybody know him and can set it up, please do. And if he is in the Bay Area, please let him know I’m here till Friday 23rd. Just in case.

Paul makes one other important point. Bloggers are writers. To some people, the word “blogger” conjures up something cheap and nasty, and organisational DNA kicks into immunity overdrive. Much like the effect of the word Wiki.

So I salute a writer who’s been around for a while, but who’s only just come to my notice. I shall be linking to your essays, Paul. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.