Showing posts with label #Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Technology. Show all posts

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

Our Legacy - Challenged by the times we live in!

Sustainability lies not in destiny but in the characters of those forging ahead in the present

I have often thought about the legacy we have inherited and what we will leave behind for the next generation. This always gives me pause for thought when you think of all the badness in the world that manages to grab our attention more than the acts of brotherhood, kindness and concern our fellow man shows to each other each and every day. The pause for the dead often becomes the weight of the living as we struggle in “our world” under relatively harsh economic toil, making ends meet and struggling to see our children fed, educated and happy growing up into our shoes to continue the journey of our kin! My thoughts once again came to rest on such a topic, when I thought of Steve Jobs apparently disproved “last words” and the penetrating meaning the alleged mystery author put into them.

He said:

“The wealth I have won in my life I cannot bring with me. What I can bring is only the memories precipitated by love.

That's the true riches which will follow you, accompany you, giving you strength and light to go on.

Love can travel a thousand miles. Life has no limit. Go where you want to go. Reach the height you want to reach. It is all in your heart and in your hands.

This passage from the 2011 essay (released in 2015) that according to snopes.com is not Steve Jobs last composition is however one of deep wisdom and insight that we should aspire to. In 2005, Steve Jobs said in his Stanford speech “Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

The first passage arguably may not have been him but when you see the other insights he shared, they are saying the same thing... if we want to change any badness in the legacy we got from our fathers, we must be true to ourselves in what we believe, cherish and strive for in life.

The meaning of legacy is something that we never think about directly; but it is defined every single day by our intent, which controls our actions. It’s my belief that if we allow our whole selves to deliver balance to our intent then we see clearly the path ahead and are better able to make good judgement a form factor in our daily lives. It’s up-to every one of us to think about what legacy we like Steve Jobs will leave. Proving a single quote or disproving it is not relevant. What is relevant is that such good intent was allegedly inspired by the a man who made the world a better place simply by Steve Job’s presence in it. Imagine if we all could deliver good intent like that? That’s a world we all could live in, a world that at a deeper level, understands itself and each other!

Sources/Credits:

Pics;


Credits


Monday, 12 October 2015

Innovation - Can it Exist in “Big” companies?

Does company size or company culture matter when it comes to innovation?

It’s no secret that in technology, people rather than products are the key to success. It’s the old scenario of a couple of guys with a great idea and great coding skills teaming up with a “business founder” and before you know it, their company is funded and worth tens of millions of dollars. The meteoric rise of technology start ups is no surprise when one thinks of how ‘software is eating the world.’

What is often overlooked is how big companies innovate across technology and other sectors. Afterall with the march of software into business, the disruptor effect is shortening product life-cycles and transforming whole industries overnight. With such risk out there, the saying “innovate or die” has understandably become very popular in C-Suites. The response is normally two fold in big companies.

A) Fund R&D keeping it as a high priority on the senior management agenda with a focus on high calibre talent acquisition to keep that new product project pipeline filled with viable entries.

b) M&A. Buy small companies where those couple of guys and gals teamed up and made their successful company out of their idea and collaboration.

Many large companies that consider new product development a priority often do both. So, why do so many companies not consider innovation a priority? In my experience, it’s down to a senior level perception of inelasticity in its product range despite the threat of the disruptor effect to their current business model. We are entering a disruption era and industries that have remained relatively unchanged for many years are starting to realise that they need to learn how to change or face becoming obsolete in the wake a disruptor wave.  

For example, banking had the corner on the lending market for generations with no real competition on lending. The technology disruptor wave has hit Ireland’s retail banking shores with companies like Grid Finance offering investor 2 business connections on the Grid Finance platform for the purpose of evaluation of projects and offering of (debt) loans in a manner that is similar to how banks lend BUT the lender makes the decision on his/her money cutting out banking as the “loan middleman”. This type of innovation was considered unthinkable a few short years ago yet it is upon us in today’s cash strapped hyper competitive and hyper connected world.

So, with that in mind, the need for change is apparent and yet so many cling to the notion that change will pass them by and all will be well in their world view. This could be true for tomorrow, next week and next year but eventually change will happen and those who ignore it will be left behind. In facing it, what are the biggest problems for business, is it size or culture?

Some considerations about size when looking at a large company's ability to change:

Size should not matter -  in this light, if the company is structured correctly, the organisational design should be flexible enough to facilitate change.

Too risky - if presented as a knee jerk reaction to a change idea, it once again is down to culture, not size. Companies over-focusing on the transaction and process hierarchy do so at the expense of creativity and innovation.

Too expensive - a classic shut down which once again if returned as an answer in record time to a change idea is down to culture. When this happens, the senior team incur an opportunity cost for their risk adversity.

When looking at company culture; dogma, vertical “silo” structures and leadership practices are all keywords in any evaluation.

Strategy - A company must see a need to a) innovate and b) value in their people to help them innovate. If they don’t, then nothing will change their fate including the below comments until they do.

Leadership Practices - A company who has business practices that are about control (classical management theory) instead of collaboration will never get the best out of their people. Innovation comes from free will to commit to an idea for the greater good of the company and its staff, not from a pay cheque.

Organisational Design - A company who has a classical management model of strict vertical silos leaves little room for effective cross company collaboration making change extremely difficult by design. This again is a cultural (V size) preference for stability. Apple and Google have variations of the Adhocracy culture with a strong focus on collaboration, cross functional projects and ‘common good’ values with creativity and controlled risk taking rewarded.

 Company culture - It’s the platform we all work in, the combination of our combined practices, decisions and experience under one roof. A hierarchical or dictatorial culture by design stifles creativity and innovation. Adhocracy (project orientated) culture and a clan culture are best suited to engaging employee support and commitment to innovation for the company’s and by extension their greater good!

If your organisational model has matrix or horizontal components of other kinds in their design, then your chances of good in-house innovation are greater than most! Here is a couple of pointers on good practice that encourages and manages innovation:

Engineer Work Practices - Make change part of the norm. Google stays innovative by allowing staff to work 20% of their work time on projects of any kind that Google may like. That freedom fans trust and creativity like no other.

Situationally aware leadership - onboard new employees with collaborative leadership and make sure all leaders practice collaborative leadership for their teams

Process map change - make change a process, have regular meetings on new ideas and present them in small groups that pass into the next phase and the next, etc.

Create a giver environment - keep takers out! The malevolent practice of taking credit for the work of others, backbiting and physiological bullying creates an predatory environment where office politics can kill an innovation programme. A giver environment will never take hold if takers are in it. Takers see givers as weak. Givers eventually become victims and leave. No-one wants to be targeted for creating something of worth.


Reward innovation - ensure politics and practices exist to reward innovation that is successful and learn from failures. Risk takers after doing a post mortem on a failure should be coached on what went wrong with the sole purpose of learning from it. The process being controlled should know when to kill a bad project in a timely manner.

Communicate - All of the above through change and after it is worthless if communication is not two way and regular with a strong collaborative tone. This applies to all levels with one standard for the company.

Whilst big companies have the safety of size, they should use their positives to address the threat of disruption, competition and natural life-cycles by becoming leaner, more creative and more innovative. It beholds senior management to follow this path no matter the industry, size or longevity of their organisation to date. Sustainability and the future of their staff is centred about management’s ability to convert the payroll “cost code” into a profit centre where innovation, not simple compliance is the biggest return they get from their biggest asset, which is their people.

Sources/Credits:

Pics;

www.unsplash.com
           

Credits:



Feature pic by Stefanus Martanto Setyo Husodo on unsplash.com

Monday, 7 September 2015

Technology, a revealer of Truth or Fuel on the Fire??..

Is technology driving change for a sustainable tomorrow or driving mankind closer to the edge…


That poor Syrian boy who drowned escaping the conflict and was washed ashore for the world to see on social media is a perfect example of the savage conflicts that we were blissfully unware of just a few short years ago. We all ask, why? How could they? Who is to blame?

I have thought somewhat about that poor boy and the countless numbers of poor unfortunates of all ages whose only crime is being born in a country ruined by heartless state thugs and barbarous religious fanatics whom cannot seem to agree on anything in practice other than the majority of people are not innocents, but pawns in their sick game that shows no sign of abating to reason, compassion and what ever humanity maybe left in their hearts!

So focusing on nations who still have a beating heart in their chests and taking in refugees from ISIS and regime savagry, my thoughts move to process and how take in, process and disburse refugees amongst their population with a proper integration plan. For it to be sustainable, technology once again can aid change but should be overlaid into a good working process before value can be derived from the technology platform set up to house the process.

A good baseline for an integration process should have a proven process structure along the lines of what many NGO’s already have. It could be as follows:


Registration and Identity Validation*
Refugee’s basic details (name/address/family structure/records/issues/etc) are taken with production of passport or ID scanned against a template to create a file number for refugee. The application would scan the ID for defects and known forgery features to identify fake credentials. If passed, the application would then scan the internet looking for historic information on the town/area the refugee is coming from to confirm they have local knowledge of the area. Once the brief interview is over, the refugee status updated on the account.

Medical Evaluation (where necessary) & Starter Pack/Quartering with Essentials
Assigning medical assistance to the registered refugee should be done if needed along with a starter pack and quartering the refugee appropriately, which is assigned to the single read/write record. A record of all requests, needs and issues gets recorded building a data profile allowing needs to be predicted using some commonly used predictive data science algorithms. This also helps with finance, inventory and stock planning.


Interview & Aptitude Test*
A qualified professional should interview the refugee noting body language, answers and intimations that are compared using local culture knowledge. The interview should be recorded and transcripts put through data analysis (sentiment analysis for one) to assess the interviewees sentiment and conclusions of the interviewer. The refugee file should be updated.

An aptitude measuring IQ, EQ and other forms of intelligence should be recorded so the host country has a measurement of intelligence at the point of testing. The aptitude test should also feature cultural awareness of the host nation and quantify the level of awareness. It is in essence a starting point and should impact the longer term integration plan and support needed in transition.

Skills Assessment*
Interviewer should have gotten a skills list at the registration interview and then assigned the refugee to a specialist online skills exam in the areas of expertise to get a quantitative understanding of their skills level including languages spoken and proficiency levels. The results should be automatically updated on the unique account assigned to the refugee.

Threat Assessment*
Not every refugee applicant is an innocent refugee. Records may be unavailable from the country of origin even after application is made for them so an iterative threat assessment is necessary to weed out the wolves! This process may vary, but a iterative interviews recorded with text analytics will help flag threatening diction and repetitive patterning that indicates a possible threat posed by the individual.

Profile Completion & Classification*
Once the initial interview, registration, skills assessment and threat assessment is done with all information passed to a single file, then the refugee should be classified into a hierarchy of profiles (Short Term/Medium Term/Long Term) based on their profile and some preset elements that determines how a host nations will to accommodate the refugee. Where data science helps is when there is a good capture of information. It begins to connect the dots and flags predictive issues with the refugee. It is subject to human oversight but provides the evaluator with an educated guess to cause and outcomes for each point of interest that only gets better over time.

Assignment to Long Term Care/Integration Plan*
At this point, the refugee’s inputs should be somewhat minimalistic in terms of tests analysis and interviews. These types of inputs should be based on refining a longer term plan and the path ahead using data science analytics and case manager judgement. The length of time in the transition stage can be monitored, flagged and augmented by such technology in line with the design intent by the host nation.

(* = partly or fully automated/computerised process where data is inputted into a database located in an indexed data lake)

From there the single record per person is passed onto the host nation’s long term plan via access to the data lake (i.e. if done right,  a data lakes is many databases in the same place analysable as one), where they have permission to access and import that record into their own process instance within the same framework using the same unique file number.

The longer term plan based on the classification should feed seamlessly into the host country’s social fabric with education, cultural and social training being the priorities after housing, medical and job preparedness depending on the short/medium or long term classification.

A single system with integrated process and data science analytics and data driven decisions will have the following effect:

Security - Instantiate a security profile of the refugee based on interaction and inputs from them to a degree of accuracy that is verified by as many sources as possible. In the absence of prior records, it is a starting pillar on which to evaluate future behaviour against refining probabilities and threat posed.

Productivity - Its a travesty to have a good Doctor unable to work because he was not threaded in a plan to bring his English/German/French upto working standards for his host nation from the week he was registered as a refugee. She/he should be placed on a data driven and tailored plan to resolve any obstacles to achieving local qualifications in the host nation.  Every host nation saves a refugee by taking them in, but with technology’s help, the host nation can benefit from their presence and working contributions.

Social Integration - Technology can identify from good data inputs at the initial phase the best plan for integrating every individual into the host nation predicting cost and returns predicted along the journey. Concepts taken for granted can be mapped out and delivered in training to deliver understanding for the refugee and a sense of belonging to their new nation. With less fear of what could be, they take more control over their new lives and are less prone to manipulation by 3rd parties adding value to the society they are joining. Technology can help deliver on this too.


I could go on and one on this, as those outside or wars and savage conflicts are no longer shielded from it thanks to technology. Acting decisively with understanding, knowhow and vision, we can use technology as a catalyst for positive change saving those desperately in need in a manner that just some day may see them repaying such humanity in kind.

Monday, 17 August 2015

Google – Godfathers of Big Data or Big Business

Have Google reorganised to be a financial conglomerate or are they still a big data pioneer looking to better the world at a profit?

I must confess (as a guy who gives my Macbook & iPhone pet names) to being fascinated with Google’s rise and dominance in the market place. Google is the wacky place where weird ideas come to life, transform into something great and change the world!.. well a little bit anyway!... So have the Godfathers of big data succumbed to the Corporate World and joined the ranks of low innovation cash cow companies that present a “safe bet” for investors?

It would appear the media fallout from the big announcement last week suggests that it has but one thing is still clear; Larry Page and Sergey Brin are still in charge. Their rising star Sundar Pichai is now CEO of Google inc and is getting the positive press he rightly deserves. Google clearly have some positive goals in the restructuring that are consistent with the Google way in my view. The reorganisation will see a holding company (Alphabet) oversee subsidiary groups like the profitable Google (Inc) and YouTube, which will all be segregated from its high risk ventures like Self Driving Cars and storing human DNA in the cloud. The segregation of Google’s core business and high risk businesses in spin off subsidiaries present a conglomerate type set up that is arguably similar to that of Warren Buffett's Berkley Hathaway group.

Whilst ‘Wall Street’ may be joyful at the greater transparency of seeing the profitable businesses not carry those high risk ventures that may change the world, the entrepreneur in me sees a greater benefit in the better use of valuable acquisitions (e.g. Twitter) that have a corporate identity, brand and culture, which should be developed, not dissolved into Google’s identity. The flexible nature of what is proposed by Alphabet/Google leaves me with the impression that not only are they looking to shore up their over reliance on advertising (90%+ of revenue), the acquisition ability of the company may diversify into new markets whilst protecting their core brand assets of Google, YouTube, etc. This will allow them to innovate as well as acquire in a safer manner.

Its also noted that Google management in particular has promotional limitations given the prior centralised structure where Page and Brin were the decision makers on everything and it ALL went through their office.. IF they are willing to delegate real power to these new companies that operate under their umbrella, they have a greater shot at retaining quality management they developed from junior roles into senior roles that subsidiaries will now have. It also frees them up for group strategy management which can become very cumbersome especially if you become diverted and start meddling in the operational affairs of subsidiaries. Page and Brin’s trust in their talent to manage their subsidiaries must be well founded and developed with real track records. A majority of senior management appointed from within increases company longevity once there is a giver culture environment present (team player, collaborative, value your peers in get stuff done, etc).


So, with innovation taking a different seat at the table, it is fair to say that even bullish analysts are buoyant at the changes due to the increased profitability view. I would be moderately impressed if they would see this move as part of a larger prize move on strategy by Google, which in my eyes has the following elements:
  • Insulated and “profitable” company brands like Google/YouTube within Google inc can continue the revenue generation wonders whilst having their brands insulated against possible brand failures in the newer and/or high risk ventures.
  • Google’s internal promotion culture can take a shot in the arm with the ability to promote executes into spin off companies doing more senior jobs they they would ever have gotten as the old Google. Talent retention at Google will increase.
  • An alarming amount of Technology acquisitions are considered failures due to not meeting set goals, unforeseen integration problems and/or failure to create value in post acquisition settings. Google has not got a good track record on acquisitions, so they are rightly wary of them. Afterall, when bought, acquired companies are “Google”, which is a risky premise for Google’s brand should it all go wrong. The new structure mitigates that risk by allowing them to be a stand alone subsidiary as they were pre acquisition. They can be developed with their own brand, culture and business practices or if adding value to Google’s brand, they be integrated into Google inc.
  • Google’s transparency and structure will give a better platform for M&A should they want to go down that road. That said, they are innovating internally just fine, which will also benefit from the new structure.


The internal restructure of Google has allot of important points that are being worked out all over the internet and beyond. The biggest thing Google need to remember is what made them great, what will continue to make them great and never loose sight of why they get up in the morning, which is to make the world a better place with their products, services and ideas. “Don’t be evil” for Googlers is about being ethical in achieving that positive impact on the world. If they stick to it, they may well rise under Page and Brin’s strategic guidance in this new structure as a revamped Google that will last far longer than anybody thought it would. What happens next?... thats anybody’s guess.. whats your opinion?


Sources/Credits

Pics;


Credits;