The ONLY real issue in business is Value. Not values - they're important but different.
Value is quite simply what people feel is spending money on - or spending time, attention and/or energy on.
ALL business issues - design, production, distribution, marketing etc - ultimately come back to this.
What is creating value, what is adding value and what is distributing value are all moot points.
Thursday 30 September 2010
Thursday 23 September 2010
Simple and useful - the genius of Twitter
Twitter is probably the most useful IT idea I've come across in a long time.
What I want is to create and strengthen connections with interesting people, get tips and have conversations that can continue from/into face-to-face or telephone.
Twitter is a very simple idea that works.
Brilliant. Sheer bloody brilliant.
And while I'm at it I very much enjoyed hearing what Clay Shirky had to say on BBC's The Forum podcast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00b2mh2
I had dismissed him as an Internet raver but he's actually a subtle analyst and a solid thinker.
What I want is to create and strengthen connections with interesting people, get tips and have conversations that can continue from/into face-to-face or telephone.
Twitter is a very simple idea that works.
Brilliant. Sheer bloody brilliant.
And while I'm at it I very much enjoyed hearing what Clay Shirky had to say on BBC's The Forum podcast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00b2mh2
I had dismissed him as an Internet raver but he's actually a subtle analyst and a solid thinker.
Wednesday 15 September 2010
Why the Internet is like shipping containers
According to some research I did a couple of years ago, in 1956 it cost $5.83 a ton to load loose cargo onto a ship in the United States. By the middle of the noughties, it cost 16 cents.
In 1959 the old style port industry was loading and unloading 0.627 tons of freight per man hour. By 1976, thanks to containers, it was 4,234 tons per man hour.
The lowly, unlovely shipping container created a "revolution" that most of us have never thought about. It started by providing a means of distributing existing products faster and cheaper, and over time if enabled clever people to think up new products, with new business models.
The Internet is having a similar effect. It's giving people an alternative way of distributing some existing products (non-physical products) and enabling businesses to create and distribute new products and develop new business models.
In 1959 the old style port industry was loading and unloading 0.627 tons of freight per man hour. By 1976, thanks to containers, it was 4,234 tons per man hour.
The lowly, unlovely shipping container created a "revolution" that most of us have never thought about. It started by providing a means of distributing existing products faster and cheaper, and over time if enabled clever people to think up new products, with new business models.
The Internet is having a similar effect. It's giving people an alternative way of distributing some existing products (non-physical products) and enabling businesses to create and distribute new products and develop new business models.
Tuesday 14 September 2010
Even FREE can be too costly
Why do people not take up offers for FREE NEWSLETTERS? or FREE SEMINARS? or even FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION?
It's because "free" refers to price, and price is not the same as cost. Price only refers to money. Cost covers money, time, attention (mental effort) and work (physical effort). The characteristic that they all have is they cause a "bad feeling".
An IKEA flatpack is low-price but may end up costing you more than you expected in terms of time, attention and work.
The opposite of cost is value. It's a vague word with many different meanings in many contexts. In this context it really means "good feeling".
When you are deciding whether or not to undertake any action, you always - consciously or unconsciously - do a quick weigh-up of perceived cost versus perceived value. If the cost outweighs the value, you don't do it. If the value outweighs the cost, you do it.
When I see "free newsletter" I think of the time and attention it will take me to read it and the (unlikely) benefit to me of reading it.
So how would you rate these few lines in terms of cost/value?
It's because "free" refers to price, and price is not the same as cost. Price only refers to money. Cost covers money, time, attention (mental effort) and work (physical effort). The characteristic that they all have is they cause a "bad feeling".
An IKEA flatpack is low-price but may end up costing you more than you expected in terms of time, attention and work.
The opposite of cost is value. It's a vague word with many different meanings in many contexts. In this context it really means "good feeling".
When you are deciding whether or not to undertake any action, you always - consciously or unconsciously - do a quick weigh-up of perceived cost versus perceived value. If the cost outweighs the value, you don't do it. If the value outweighs the cost, you do it.
When I see "free newsletter" I think of the time and attention it will take me to read it and the (unlikely) benefit to me of reading it.
So how would you rate these few lines in terms of cost/value?
Friday 3 September 2010
iPhone 4 antenna problem - my simple solution
You know all the fuss about the dropped signals on the iPhone 4? It's true.. Not that I've lost any calls. It's just that the phone routinely shows me a message saying "Network Lost".
That nice Mr Jobs and his people have offered to send me a "bumper" to put round the phone to sort the problem out. I've ordered one and it's been dispatched, apparently.
In the meantime, I've found a simple, elegant solution. Don't hold the phone! Put it on a table if you want to make a call. I've realised that I normally hold my iPhone in my left hand, leaving my right hand free for fending off overzealous admirers or whatever. And try as I might I can't hold it in my left hand without "shorting" the antenna band. In my right hand it works okay as long as I don't use my fingers ;)
All in all, it's a nice piece of kit but how the hell did it ever get released with such a design flaw?
That nice Mr Jobs and his people have offered to send me a "bumper" to put round the phone to sort the problem out. I've ordered one and it's been dispatched, apparently.
In the meantime, I've found a simple, elegant solution. Don't hold the phone! Put it on a table if you want to make a call. I've realised that I normally hold my iPhone in my left hand, leaving my right hand free for fending off overzealous admirers or whatever. And try as I might I can't hold it in my left hand without "shorting" the antenna band. In my right hand it works okay as long as I don't use my fingers ;)
All in all, it's a nice piece of kit but how the hell did it ever get released with such a design flaw?
Thursday 2 September 2010
Physical fitness - what's the structure of your motivation?
Most people have an idea about what motivates them to do something; curiosity, boredom, fear, greed are a few common ones. Not so many people have an idea of the structure of their motivation. In fact when I first use the phrase with somebody I often get the bewildered response: "Structure? What do you mean?" Just this morning I asked the question of my co-coaching partner. It will be the subject of our next call.
Whatever the "what" of what motivates you, for that to result in action through time, it is bound to have a structure. This applies to any area of life - fitness, work, relationships, hobbies...
For example when I moved to Amsterdam with my wife in 1994, I couldn't cycle to work any more as in London because somebody stole my bike, plus my office was too far away. However, there was a swimming pool where my wife used to go and do her 40 lengths. At the time, I was a poor swimmer and I couldn't imagine doing 40 lengths, but I went a couple of times and found I could do 30. If my wife could do 40, why not me? so I did it a few more times and worked it up to 50 lengths.
That was nice, but I wanted to keep track of how much I was doing, so I devised an Excel spread sheet and set myself a target for the year (300 km). Gradually I added little refinements such as average distances per week and per session. I increased my length count to over 120. I did this for two years in Amsterdam (95, 96) and continued it when we moved to Malaysia (97, 98), completing 360 km in the last full year. When we left Malaysia and returned to NL, there was no swimming pool nearby so I stopped, although I do it whenever we're on holiday in a place with a decent pool.
In short, without setting out to do so, I evolved a motivational structure. The daily driver to get out of bed at 6:30, be in the pool by 7:02 and swim 3km was the spread sheet - the prospect of putting the day's swim into the table and seeing the averages improve and the target distance get a little closer. I found that a powerful pay-off. Over the longer term, I had the added motivator of my physical shape. Visually, in the mirror I could see a gradual evolution towards a more athletic V-shaped torso - broader shoulders, trimmer waist. Kinesthetically, my upper body felt stronger and the arm muscles felt bigger and firmer to the touch.
So I know that to motivate myself for fitness I need a daily routine that's doable, an aspect that can be measured with numbers and tracked through time, and a clear physical pay-off.
Since April I've been developing a new structure that I can fit into my current circumstances. This involves a clear dietary regime to manage my weight (now down to 80kg from 90kg, target 78kg), dumbells for upper body muscles (they were 5kg, just bought 10kg) and sit-ups for the abs. I'm still not quite there with the running, although Runkeeper Pro on my iPhone is having the desired effect.
What about you? What's the structure of your motivation for health and physical fitness?
Whatever the "what" of what motivates you, for that to result in action through time, it is bound to have a structure. This applies to any area of life - fitness, work, relationships, hobbies...
For example when I moved to Amsterdam with my wife in 1994, I couldn't cycle to work any more as in London because somebody stole my bike, plus my office was too far away. However, there was a swimming pool where my wife used to go and do her 40 lengths. At the time, I was a poor swimmer and I couldn't imagine doing 40 lengths, but I went a couple of times and found I could do 30. If my wife could do 40, why not me? so I did it a few more times and worked it up to 50 lengths.
That was nice, but I wanted to keep track of how much I was doing, so I devised an Excel spread sheet and set myself a target for the year (300 km). Gradually I added little refinements such as average distances per week and per session. I increased my length count to over 120. I did this for two years in Amsterdam (95, 96) and continued it when we moved to Malaysia (97, 98), completing 360 km in the last full year. When we left Malaysia and returned to NL, there was no swimming pool nearby so I stopped, although I do it whenever we're on holiday in a place with a decent pool.
In short, without setting out to do so, I evolved a motivational structure. The daily driver to get out of bed at 6:30, be in the pool by 7:02 and swim 3km was the spread sheet - the prospect of putting the day's swim into the table and seeing the averages improve and the target distance get a little closer. I found that a powerful pay-off. Over the longer term, I had the added motivator of my physical shape. Visually, in the mirror I could see a gradual evolution towards a more athletic V-shaped torso - broader shoulders, trimmer waist. Kinesthetically, my upper body felt stronger and the arm muscles felt bigger and firmer to the touch.
So I know that to motivate myself for fitness I need a daily routine that's doable, an aspect that can be measured with numbers and tracked through time, and a clear physical pay-off.
Since April I've been developing a new structure that I can fit into my current circumstances. This involves a clear dietary regime to manage my weight (now down to 80kg from 90kg, target 78kg), dumbells for upper body muscles (they were 5kg, just bought 10kg) and sit-ups for the abs. I'm still not quite there with the running, although Runkeeper Pro on my iPhone is having the desired effect.
What about you? What's the structure of your motivation for health and physical fitness?
.
.
.
Wednesday 1 September 2010
The NLP conundrum
A couple of years ago I was wanting to deepen my knowledge of NLP and related fields such as hypnotherapy, so I called round a few people whose opinion and integrity I respect. One of them FOTP had established a practice oop north somewhere, having left his job as a qualified nurse in the NHS. I asked him why he had left the "official" health service and gone into an area that many regard as dubious. His reply was interesting.
He had gone into the NHS to help people and he had left it because he found he could help people better outside of it. He gave an example of helping an old lady who had developed agoraphobia, explaining how the NHS would have tackled it with several people over several months, and how he sorted it out within a matter of weeks.
In the right hands, for the right tasks, NLP is very effective. It was put together around 30 years ago by an academic and a gifted student (John Grinder and Richard Bandler) and built out by a number of "first generation NLPers" such as Robert Dilts. It had huge potential, and was quickly taken up by "early adopters", who ranged from diligent explorers of their experience through to get-rich-quick snake-oil merchants.
One on hand, NLP s not a "proper" discipline with a scientifically-validated body of knowledge and practice, and a governing body enforcing standards. If the founders of NLP had gone the strictly academic/establishment route, NLP would have been still-born. It would have had the life squeezed out of it. Part of the power of NLP is that the principles of it enable practitioners to generate their own "techniques".
However, this openness means that there's no regulation and there are no generally-recognised standards of competence in training or in practice. Being an "NLP Master Practitioner" means anything and nothing. It probably means that the person concerned attended a training that imparted certain elements, but is says nothing about the quality of the trainer, the length of time spent training or the competence of the Master Practitioner. Very, very few people who pay for NLP trainings fail to get a certificate at the end.
At most, NLP might have gone the Freud / Jung / Klein route. These forms of analytical psychotherapy aren't recognised as scientific, but they are acknowledged to be "serious" because the lay down a very exclusive and very expensive training and qualification process. The trouble is, in my experience, the people who emerge with the qualification are not necessarily more skilled at providing psychological help than a skilled and dedicated practitioner of NLP. This applies even more to medically-qualified psychiatrists and psychologists.
So here's the conundrum for NLP and other new bodies of knowledge (e.g. Ecademy Digital School). To be useful and timely and generative, it can't go through the process of being endorsed and regulated by official, established bodies. But to become respected and respectable and to give certification that means something, they need to have real minimum standards of knowledge and competence. And if there are real minimum standards, then some people will - MUST - fail to meet them.
The net-net of all this is "caveat emptor". If you want to learn something like NLP, do your homework. Ask around, check which trainers have a good reputation. Ask hard questions. If you sniff snake-oil or get-rich-quick motives, or any lack of integrity, think hard; you will be investing your time and effort, not to mention your money
He had gone into the NHS to help people and he had left it because he found he could help people better outside of it. He gave an example of helping an old lady who had developed agoraphobia, explaining how the NHS would have tackled it with several people over several months, and how he sorted it out within a matter of weeks.
In the right hands, for the right tasks, NLP is very effective. It was put together around 30 years ago by an academic and a gifted student (John Grinder and Richard Bandler) and built out by a number of "first generation NLPers" such as Robert Dilts. It had huge potential, and was quickly taken up by "early adopters", who ranged from diligent explorers of their experience through to get-rich-quick snake-oil merchants.
One on hand, NLP s not a "proper" discipline with a scientifically-validated body of knowledge and practice, and a governing body enforcing standards. If the founders of NLP had gone the strictly academic/establishment route, NLP would have been still-born. It would have had the life squeezed out of it. Part of the power of NLP is that the principles of it enable practitioners to generate their own "techniques".
However, this openness means that there's no regulation and there are no generally-recognised standards of competence in training or in practice. Being an "NLP Master Practitioner" means anything and nothing. It probably means that the person concerned attended a training that imparted certain elements, but is says nothing about the quality of the trainer, the length of time spent training or the competence of the Master Practitioner. Very, very few people who pay for NLP trainings fail to get a certificate at the end.
At most, NLP might have gone the Freud / Jung / Klein route. These forms of analytical psychotherapy aren't recognised as scientific, but they are acknowledged to be "serious" because the lay down a very exclusive and very expensive training and qualification process. The trouble is, in my experience, the people who emerge with the qualification are not necessarily more skilled at providing psychological help than a skilled and dedicated practitioner of NLP. This applies even more to medically-qualified psychiatrists and psychologists.
So here's the conundrum for NLP and other new bodies of knowledge (e.g. Ecademy Digital School). To be useful and timely and generative, it can't go through the process of being endorsed and regulated by official, established bodies. But to become respected and respectable and to give certification that means something, they need to have real minimum standards of knowledge and competence. And if there are real minimum standards, then some people will - MUST - fail to meet them.
The net-net of all this is "caveat emptor". If you want to learn something like NLP, do your homework. Ask around, check which trainers have a good reputation. Ask hard questions. If you sniff snake-oil or get-rich-quick motives, or any lack of integrity, think hard; you will be investing your time and effort, not to mention your money
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)