Might it be said that the same problems with standardized education are the ones that also restrict innovation in many settings? Parentheses are mine.
“The logical conclusion is that we need multiplicity in our teaching (innovation) styles to match and map to these varied learning (innovating) styles. But this isn't possible.... standardization in the teaching process -- ...is in direct conflict to the customization needed by the learners (innovators) . “
http://tinyurl.com/6oyyf7
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
Perhaps the only hope for the future of CI, innovation, and education is interdisciplinary studies which are loose, non-standard and self-tailored.
Thoughts?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
CI - are u creating a social epidemic
Was reading the following on Wikipedia about Malcolm Gladwell's tipping point and thought it very germane to CI community. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point_(book)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The three rules of epidemics
Gladwell describes the "three rules of epidemics" (or the three "agents of change") in the tipping points of epidemics.
* "The Law of the Few", or, as Gladwell states, "The success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts."[4] According to Gladwell, economists call this the "80/20 Principle, which is the idea that in any situation roughly 80 percent of the 'work' will be done by 20 percent of the participants."[5] These people are described in the following ways:
* Connectors are the people who "link us up with the world ... people with a special gift for bringing the world together."[6] They are "a handful of people with a truly extraordinary knack [... for] making friends and acquaintances". [7] He characterizes these individuals as having social networks of over one hundred people... Gladwell attributes the social success of Connectors to "their ability to span many different worlds [... as] a function of something intrinsic to their personality, some combination of curiosity, self-confidence, sociability, and energy."[8]
* Mavens are "information specialists", or "people we rely upon to connect us with new information."[9] They accumulate knowledge, especially about the marketplace, and know how to share it with others. Gladwell cites Mark Alpert as a prototypical Maven who is "almost pathologically helpful", further adding, "he can't help himself"... As Gladwell states, "Mavens are really information brokers, sharing and trading what they know".[13]
* Salesmen are "persuaders", charismatic people with powerful negotiation skills. They tend to have an indefinable trait that goes beyond what they say, which makes others want to agree with them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The three rules of epidemics
Gladwell describes the "three rules of epidemics" (or the three "agents of change") in the tipping points of epidemics.
* "The Law of the Few", or, as Gladwell states, "The success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts."[4] According to Gladwell, economists call this the "80/20 Principle, which is the idea that in any situation roughly 80 percent of the 'work' will be done by 20 percent of the participants."[5] These people are described in the following ways:
* Connectors are the people who "link us up with the world ... people with a special gift for bringing the world together."[6] They are "a handful of people with a truly extraordinary knack [... for] making friends and acquaintances". [7] He characterizes these individuals as having social networks of over one hundred people... Gladwell attributes the social success of Connectors to "their ability to span many different worlds [... as] a function of something intrinsic to their personality, some combination of curiosity, self-confidence, sociability, and energy."[8]
* Mavens are "information specialists", or "people we rely upon to connect us with new information."[9] They accumulate knowledge, especially about the marketplace, and know how to share it with others. Gladwell cites Mark Alpert as a prototypical Maven who is "almost pathologically helpful", further adding, "he can't help himself"... As Gladwell states, "Mavens are really information brokers, sharing and trading what they know".[13]
* Salesmen are "persuaders", charismatic people with powerful negotiation skills. They tend to have an indefinable trait that goes beyond what they say, which makes others want to agree with them.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
CI & What is your 9/11
Started reading Pulitzer Prize book "The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" today by Lawrence Wright - about decades of events leading up to 9/11.
This is a potent case study and reminder of the human factors/profiling to be assessed in most fully understanding "competition" AND the challenges sometimes of getting anyone to believe you and take action.
The original FBI discoverer of the plot had pieced together the shape of what was coming five years before 9/11.
Suggest you read a couple of chapters (http://tinyurl.com/bh6y4r). Used on Amazon about $7.50.
This is a potent case study and reminder of the human factors/profiling to be assessed in most fully understanding "competition" AND the challenges sometimes of getting anyone to believe you and take action.
The original FBI discoverer of the plot had pieced together the shape of what was coming five years before 9/11.
Suggest you read a couple of chapters (http://tinyurl.com/bh6y4r). Used on Amazon about $7.50.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
CI - Google VP on why innovation level in recession can be better
Two reasons:
1) No lack of people/ideas when more people are looking for work. Bigger labor/IP supply available to you at lower cost. Most of your assets are people: http://tinyurl.com/lps6bz....so hire the great resources others are laying off. Believe I posted previously on study by McKinsey showing that winning companies spend more than competition on innovation during recessions.
2) Less capital....fewer get funded (e.g. McDonalds, Apple, Crispy Creme came through this)so stakes are higher. The ones that get funded tend to be really breakthrough. In Cincinnati currently per on source close to A round funding, the ratio of funding is 1/4 what it used to be a few months ago. Higher probability that buying IPO stock during recession will pay off for you?
see video clip from BNET @: http://blogs.bnet.com/intercom/?p=2785&tag=nl.e713
1) No lack of people/ideas when more people are looking for work. Bigger labor/IP supply available to you at lower cost. Most of your assets are people: http://tinyurl.com/lps6bz....so hire the great resources others are laying off. Believe I posted previously on study by McKinsey showing that winning companies spend more than competition on innovation during recessions.
2) Less capital....fewer get funded (e.g. McDonalds, Apple, Crispy Creme came through this)so stakes are higher. The ones that get funded tend to be really breakthrough. In Cincinnati currently per on source close to A round funding, the ratio of funding is 1/4 what it used to be a few months ago. Higher probability that buying IPO stock during recession will pay off for you?
see video clip from BNET @: http://blogs.bnet.com/intercom/?p=2785&tag=nl.e713
CI in biopharma a harbinger, dinosaur, new cultivar
In my last corporate experience in Pharma I realized that CI was in some sense becoming either a dinosaur or a new cultivar.
If what I saw happen in the biopharma space is characteristic of your industry, maybe biopharma is a harbinger for you - anticipate change.
Here's what I saw in the middle part of this decade.
1) Many things were partnered in R&D and also in-market. That meant two sets of resources - generally too many
2) Lot's of M&A meant less CI folks needed
3) The fundamental need for more discontinuous strategy meant competition in some sense was less important
4) The quality of outsourced services suddenly rose exponentially behind new services offered in the CI space. This was especially true of new databases which offered terrific value, content with consulting, and easy-to-use enterprise wide information platforms which democratized most of the CI exercise across the entire organization...one of the direct implications of which was everyone suddenly claimed to own CI
Thoughts?
If what I saw happen in the biopharma space is characteristic of your industry, maybe biopharma is a harbinger for you - anticipate change.
Here's what I saw in the middle part of this decade.
1) Many things were partnered in R&D and also in-market. That meant two sets of resources - generally too many
2) Lot's of M&A meant less CI folks needed
3) The fundamental need for more discontinuous strategy meant competition in some sense was less important
4) The quality of outsourced services suddenly rose exponentially behind new services offered in the CI space. This was especially true of new databases which offered terrific value, content with consulting, and easy-to-use enterprise wide information platforms which democratized most of the CI exercise across the entire organization...one of the direct implications of which was everyone suddenly claimed to own CI
Thoughts?
CI is not passive
CI is never primarily about responding. That happens when inexperience and disrespect happens. Now I understand you can't always choose your job. Sometime you get appointed. But if CI is going to be about responding, move on asap. CI is about figuring out what is important to the success of your organization and steadfastly and ingeniously delivering it.
You must find the critical knowledge gaps and fill them no matter what. Instant customer satisfaction and repeat business follow. That's why CI is best done by people with longer term multi-functional industry experience and networks.
I never understand it when folks with only a couple of years experience in an industry and only one business and/or function are appointed. What am I missing?
My first CI boss, a senior manager at a Fortune 100 company, said "Go out and help the business and if you aren't do something else"...what a great description of CI. He wanted action not dusty reports.
You must find the critical knowledge gaps and fill them no matter what. Instant customer satisfaction and repeat business follow. That's why CI is best done by people with longer term multi-functional industry experience and networks.
I never understand it when folks with only a couple of years experience in an industry and only one business and/or function are appointed. What am I missing?
My first CI boss, a senior manager at a Fortune 100 company, said "Go out and help the business and if you aren't do something else"...what a great description of CI. He wanted action not dusty reports.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
CI in political forums
Seems to me now would be a good time for CI experts to apply their skills to political discourse using social media. Am seeing a whole lot of garbage out there misrepresenting the "facts" and accomplishing no more than political rhetoric. For example, no matter what you think about US health care debate on the Hill right now, would be good to carefully analyze so much of misrepresentation out there.
CI can balance out the conveniently omitted facts the polarized sides leave out. We can help others hone their skills in this space to find a balanced set of "facts" and to distinguish the quality of one link from another.(a simple example is the alleged 46mm Americans without health care...a bunch of those choose not to have it; yes I realize there is an issue about what happens when those uninsured get sick and can't pay and the rest of us taxpayers & insurance premium payers pick up the slack directly or indirectly)
CI can balance out the conveniently omitted facts the polarized sides leave out. We can help others hone their skills in this space to find a balanced set of "facts" and to distinguish the quality of one link from another.(a simple example is the alleged 46mm Americans without health care...a bunch of those choose not to have it; yes I realize there is an issue about what happens when those uninsured get sick and can't pay and the rest of us taxpayers & insurance premium payers pick up the slack directly or indirectly)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
