So What?

A piece of advice that I was once given asked me to develop an argument in light of the question "So What?" It is apparent to me that my last post did not develop the argument. So allow me to divert.

A favourite monthly read for me is Wired magazine. It was in the September edition that an article (Good Enough) caught my attention more than most. This article discusses the emergence of technology that is in a traditional sense inferior to what is offered in the market. ">Robert Capps cites Skype, Kindle, netbooks, text advertising, Google SketchUp and the Predator.

The sense of inferiority is something similar to "Keeping up with the Jones", some inspired efforts from a bygone era of consumerism and capitalism that exists today. The age of getting the latest incremental upgrade now featuring 1080p HDTV embedded into your washing machine. As a self-confessed geek, it is a hard argument to make that the latest tech doesn't need to be acquired but there is an element of needing the new extension or simply having the need defined to keep a marketing company in business (I think this may be a rabbit hole which incorporates Joss Whedon and my hatred of Reality TV).

The technological leaps that need to be followed and are advocated in the "Good Enough" article are those that enable accessibility, availability and are often "Like Free". This approach to a redefined quality is intuitive to the current generation (I would like to avoid citing Zs and Ys but I hope you take my meaning), they have seen and value the emergence of the technologies that are mentioned above. It is harder to break the old definitions of quality in generations (individuals?) who don't intuitively understand tech like Twitter.

Where this diversion refers back to the "So What?" is the MQ1 Predator, this is a product provided in a framework that is the antithesis of "good enough". Airworthiness and Military are frameworks that are inherently (and often for the best) conservative, but unmanned vehicles have found a gap in the frameworks. Put most simply, the airworthiness frameworks relax somewhat once the vehicle becomes light and reduces passengers to a minimum (i.e. 0). The military gets very excited when the platform can be available all the time.

Now the implementation of unmanned vehicles can be achieved by the old and bold methods (applying every standard required for Civil/Military aircraft) or an innovative approach can be applied by those who intuitively understand "Good Enough". To implement the former will continue trends of procurement overruns (schedule & cost) and allow others the opportunity to implement air power on a scale that can achieve greater mass for the same price.

There is a balance required, which ought to be achieved by an 'Up or Out' policy ensuring that fresh ideas and bodies are moving through the rigid structures to make sure it is the best and most innovative it can be

Forming a Tribe

Yesterday, I posted a link to a TED Talk in which Seth Godin challenged each of the listeners to go forth and form a tribe. Now I have posted about Seth before, and I have listened to his Audiobook and found inspiring in the ways that I found Gladwell. But what is pertinent about the timing of this TED Talk, is the proximity to my final subject of a Master of Engineering Science (Aerospace)... Well actually, let me take you back.

In 1999, I was in my first year of a Bachelor of Engineering in a fully sponsored position by my employer. This employer was wrestling with the results of HR policies that lead to the attrition of it's Mid-level Aerospace Engineers (namely the Design Engineers and Deputy Senior Design Engineers). The HR policies (and notably lack of management) had allowed a level of stagnation in the higher levels thus not providing pathways for promotion.

Significant effort was devoted to creating an Engineering Sustainability Program that improved many aspects of the management of Engineers. These included access to Continuing Professional Development opportunities, close arrangements with Engineers Australia (CPEng et al.), access to a Masters program (to which I referred earlier) and a 'Retention Benefit' (arguably the least effective component).

Despite an incredible economic boom, engineer retention was healthy and life was good. So good in fact, that in 2009 we are once again clogged at the Senior Design Engineer level.

Yesterday, the Deputy Senior Design Engineer level was informed that there would be no promotion for 2011 and that there would be limited opportunities for Design Engineers. This has also resulted in the reduction in the initiatives of the Engineering Sustainability Program (due to retention not being a problem).

It appears to me that we are hell-bent on repeating the cycle through myopia and absence of active management. Is it really that much to expect that the Career Managers could actually impose an 'up or out' approach to maintain a healthy and balanced workforce of the BEST ENGINEERS for our organisation.

So my movement: Anyone who is interested in railing against indoctrinated and dogmatic behaviour; Anyone who can't abide the cost cuts in the name of savings; Anyone who thinks efficiency can be systemic and not incremented through paper cuts; This is our movement

Not the only one

Maybe they meant something like this

Hours in a day

Ever found that you have run out of hours in a day/week/month?

I seem to have that problem at the moment, and I wonder if it is due to the approaching summer?

Or maybe it is the culmination of some projects? Whatever it maybe, I have lost my focus...

On the upside though, this week has been highly successful. Today I submitted the web version of a Change Management Guide for the entire organisation. Some of you who follow me on twitter may have heard a mention or two of it.

As a project goes, this was a hard slog and entirely different to the day to day breadwinning, so to speak. Whilst this was a properly commissioned project, I only ever saw it as a think tank exercise to deliver a resource that left our organisation a little better off than without it.

The product was essentially a Change Management Guide which well and truly surpassed the intimidation point at 10,000+ words and 14 steps to success... Not to mention the language!

Actually, to mention the language is better... My own engineering/project management background combined with a colleague with a business/logistics background coupled with a particular academic interest in Change Management. If it is not obvious, we spoke diametrically opposed dialects which when painfully combined resulted in some indulgent verbosity. 

But why am I happy about this? Well there was a moment in the project where we introduced a second gateway. Like an Index to a Table of Contents, this second gateway offered a set of questions rather than a designed and stepped approach. The real bonus of this is its ability to embrace the power of the cynic, as noted by Dave Snowden as being so vital.

This is where the website (intranet only at this stage, unfortunately) comes into its own... although I still think that there is a need for a low-fi pamphlet for people to hold in their hands... With both of these in place, Change can be about improvement despite the best effort of some folks to make it about the process. 

The Future, Backwards

Yesterday I ran my second Future, Backwards  in my role as an internal consultant. The day was focussed on developing a plan of action in a changing environment.

The day was scheduled to conduct two simultaneous 'Future, Backwards' then to take the Turning Points from both as Sensemaking Items for use in the Cynefin Model Creation by Social Construction (corners method). The result was to role directly into a Domain-based Strategy Planning Session. There is nothing overly exciting about this as a methodology but it was my first attempt.

It is probably timely to recognise that I was assisted by team members that are not accredited practitioners, which had some impact but was not really the biggest learning point. There were a number, particularly the cognitive load that it places on the participants needs to be managed and exposing the executive to so much ambiguity does not necessarily lead to great results. 

The real take away for me was finding myself frustrated at the lack of imagination and extremely limited vision in the description of possible future states. On thinking about this I wonder if the issue is a 'dominant organisational narrative' in the form of a mantra. Namely, 'more people', 'more money' and  'more resources'...

I am particularly interested to know if anyone has come across a similar issue in their organisation or am I dealing with something peculiar

Serendipity Award

As promised, my thoughts on balancing the Government's responsibility for encouraging Industry to invest in their own R&D...


The Serendipity Award draws on the anomaly that most significant discoveries happen by accident but also whilst searching for something else. This interesting pattern could be seen as a risk for an industry engaging in their own R&D, not knowing where the real research could lead. Now maybe I have misdiagnosed this, but I think that this leads to companies not really digging deep and investing in research instead just merely fiddling in the margins.

I believe that the Serendipity Award should be a commercialisation fund available for any company to submit an emerging technology that they have stumbled across. The constraints on this prize would be that the technology is not able to be commercialised by the industry in which it was discovered.

Now the commercialisation fund, could be formed by volunteer companies who have an interest in recieving the IP/technology. So as you might be able to foresee, the real strength in this venture would be in the networking of organisations interested in the development of technologies here in Australia.

Thoughts?

HECS and beyond

Given that it seems the Government is comfortable grandfathering industry why not then guarantee loans for Social Good/National Need.

I refer to the HECS system in Australia whereby students may defer their tertiary study fees until an income point at which they must repay the debt through the Taxation System. Now there are some important factors in this system, such as the debt is indexed to inflation hence is not subject to interest and is only payable whilst the debtholder is earning above a threshold. This ensures that the individual can pursue whatever career they choose with a reduced upfront cost.

I propose that R&D companies and/or other social good/national need organisations be able to avail themselves of similar loans, which are only repayable via success... I would further challenge government to influence companies to invest in their own R&D through a Serendipity prize... but more on that to come...

Innovation is not subsidising Corporate R&D

I recall the debates over Digital TV in 1998 here in Australia, and Government was faced with mandating not only a rollout period but a format for delivery. To grossly simplify, the choices were between Broad- and Datacasting. Datacasting would move Australia to the forefront of the Information Age. Datacasting essentially allows the consumer to pull the program at their leisure looking like a souped up version of i-view rather than the Broadcast model which centrally controls what and when is available to be consumed, just a digitisation of the contemporary system. One might see that an investment in such a program might have helped our lagging broadband issue...

I raise this in light of some more myopic Australian Innovation Sponsorship... take our stance on environmental technologies. Once again it appears our government chooses to support the Commercially-favourable technologies over real innovation. Surely government should be investing in potentials and not the R&D budgets of Industry.