Allow me a brief post to note that my new book Make us more Innovative, has just been published. While the topic of innovation is usually a focus on my other blog, I did want to note (brag) about the release of the book. If you are interested in innovation, I hope you'll give it a look.
Also, we've launched a website for the book that provides an overview and more detail.
A recent article from the Wall Street Journal notes that the military is struggling with something many of us face every day - too much data and not enough tools to help manage that information and use it to make good decisions. What's cool about the approach they are taking is that it's right out of "Minority Report". Now, you don't have to be a fan of Philip K Dick to enjoy seeing technology evolve from novels and films to reality.
The technology in question is called "Gesture Technology". If you saw the film, you may remember that Tom Cruise and several other people from the "Pre-Crime" unit were able to view data in a heads-up display. These individuals could move the data, re-arrange the data and view the data by using gestures. While this technology was not prominent in the short story the film was loosely based on, it turns out there is real research behind the gesture technology. What's more, Raytheon, a defense contractor, has been working with some scientists to try to turn this science fiction concept into a reality.
Their target is military commanders near the front lines of battle. Our military has become fairly accomplished at creating and sending data to the front lines and rear echelons. In most recent battles, we have satellites, electronic surveillance planes and many other data gathering and intelligence gathering technologies and teams. The problem arises when we ask a colonel or major with a laptop near the front lines to make decisions and take action on all of this data.
There's simply too much data to evaluate and no strong tools or mechanisms to quickly understand the data and make decisions. Our soldiers and marines have several strong advantages over other groups that we fight, including training, weaponry and unit cohesion. Additionally, we have what should be a huge advantage in intelligence, but we are often unable to use it.
This sounds to me a lot like many front line managers in major businesses. They may not be under fire, or have to worry about being flanked, but they are asked to make many decisions every day with less than perfect information, while knowing that much of the data and information they need is contained in corporate databases. What they lack is the tools to easily access and make sense of the data.
Help is on the way - courtesy of a science fiction movie. Truth can be stranger than fiction.
A friend and reader of the Thinking Faster blog sent me a link to a story I felt compelled to write about today. The link to the story, "Brain Overload: Too much to do, too little time" can be found here.
The reason I felt so compelled to write about this story is the set of false premises and assumptions the story makes.
Basically the article lays out a new psychological disease state - attention deficit trait. Now, attention deficit disorder is a real problem attributed to genetics. Attention deficit trait is a state caused when a normal brain is under too much stress, causing the person suffering attention deficit trait to make poor decisions, to ignore information and to limit their alternatives and options. But other than ascribing a name and a psychological state to this, there's nothing new here. We've known for years that people generally make poor decisions under stress. What these folks need is not a psychologist but just some perspective.
I guess the two things that bothered me about the article are right there in the title. First, too much to do. Well, I guess most of us are guilt of that state, but it's generally a state that we choose. Most of us can choose what we work on and what we ignore. It's not as though we HAVE to be busy, it's that we CHOOSE to be busy. If busyness is a problem, let's address that, not create another psychological disorder.
Second, the "too little time" issue. Too much to do and too little time are mutually reinforcing, so we are caught in a trap of our own making. Again, few of us operate in a world where our calendars and actions are dictated to us. We have all the time in the world if we use it well and plan accordingly. This article seems to suggest that we are all unable to make our own decisions and set our own calendars, so we are all susceptible to ADT.
What should we do?
First, decide what's important and spend our limited braincycles and time on those things. Only by prioritizing our work can we focus on the important things and not just the urgent things. This is well covered by Covey - but we need to spend time on what's important, not just what's urgent.
Second, learn to say no. Don't let other people place obligations and tasks on you unless they are part of your priorities. I know it's not always fashionable to say no to a request, but evaluate the request in the light of your priorities and free time.
Third, get a plan. Without a plan you and I are likely to jump from task to task, fighting fires but never getting the big things done. I've been a corporate fire fighter, and while its exhilirating in the mix, little gets done that's strategic.
Fourth, take some time for yourself. Plan 20 or 30 minutes a day to walk the dog, read the paper, perform yoga or read your favorite blogger (!). Clear your mind and reset your priorities and focus every day.
We are perfectly capable of filling our schedules with lots of stuff to do and using up all our time. But being busy for the sake of it is really not fulfilling. The main beef I have with this article is that it seems to suggest we are all doomed to live in the attention deficit trait state. We all are doomed to that life if we don't take control of our time and our activites and prioritize and plan accordingly.
I was planning to skip my updates for a few days over the holidays, until I read yesterday's (12/23) Wall Street Journal. A gentleman named Andy Kessler, who is the author of Running Money, wrote a short editorial for the Journal entitled We Think, They Sweat (must be a subscriber to see it online), which is almost as catchy a title as Thinking Faster.
The point of his article was to use Apple as an example of the value of managing ideas and information, versus putting structures in place to keep manufacturing jobs here at home. He says "Their (Apple's) engineers sit around in air-conditioned offices on streets with cutesy names like Infinite Loop...and have others make stuff for them." Later, he points out that "We are moving low-margin, low-wage jobs overseas, but fortunately, are left with high-margin, high-pay intellectual property jobs."
Kessler goes on to point out that doing all we can to keep low wage manufacturing jobs in the US - or weakening the dollar - doesn't really help us be competitive over the long run. He concludes that only by continuing to create new ideas and become more productive will we continue to be the world's leading economy.
Kessler's other ideas about strengthening the dollar and trade deficits are his own. I can't comment on them since I'm not an economist. But this article goes to show that creating ideas and innovation and managing them productively will be the competitive strength of our nation. Kessler thinks that over $15B in market capital of Apple's stock is due to the iPod, which of course is manufactured in China. Now, the iPod, he calcuates, is responsible for $1.5B in trade deficits, but accounted for over $16B in market capitalization, when you include Apple's US partners.
Productivity and innovation have been the lifeblood of this economy for over 200 years, and will become even more important in the future. We may face a day where there is very little actually "made" in the US. Rather, we will be the innovators, designers and consumers for the rest of the world.
Productivity and innovation become even more important as we migrate from manufacturing work to knowledge work. In a recent article in Fortune magazine (registration required), Stephen Covey discussed the need for an eighth habit. While I am not a full-on adherent to the Seven Habits, I agree with Covey's discussion about the need for the new habit.
"Because of the movement into the Knowledge Worker age. It's a whole different reality. Probably 70% to 80% of all the value added to goods and services today comes from knowledge work. Twenty years ago it was only maybe 20% to 30%. That to me is the most significant reason for a new paradigm, a new way of thinking about leadership..."
Stephen Covey gets it. The age of the Knowledge worker is here, but many of our systems, our processes and our core mental models are still in a manufacturing worker age. Many managers and executives have not made the leap to freeing up their knowledge capital. This is made clear by a survey that was included in a follow-on article in the same Fortune issue. In that survey of 23,000 US residents from a wide range of industries, Harris Interactive found that:
As they saying goes, What we have here is a failure to communicate. And trust people with the vision and direction of the company. And provide the tools and processes they need to be successful.
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Carly Fiorina was interviewed about her tenure and what she thinks that H-P needs to do to remain competitive.
In a stunning confirmation of the Thinking Faster blog, Carly Fiorina suggested that "looking day in, day out at how do we get more efficient and effective." In fact, she continued, "H-P..has had a discipline of outsourcing its manufacturing for 30 years. Now we apply that discipline to every part of our business."
There are several things to take away from the interview. First, a large technology firm recognizes that only by becoming even more efficient and effective (read productive) with the assets and resources they have can they continue to compete. Second, the disciplines we've used to improve productivity and efficiency in manufacturing functions (Six Sigma, lean manufacturing, Theory of Constraints) can be applied and will be applied to other "white collar" functions like finance, marketing and sales. Third, if H-P can outsource manufacturing jobs, it can soon begin to outsource certain white collar jobs, in the US and outside the US.
What does that leave? Productivity on the items we can build and create more effectively here than in other, low wage countries and regions, and innovation to create new ideas, since that's what H-P was originally very good at doing. H-P needs to stop thinking of itself as a company that produces things, and start thinking about itself and orienting itself as a firm that creates and manages ideas and innovations. Greater and greater reliance on selling PCs and hardware don't position H-P as a firm that is creating and managing ideas and innovation. Dell will eat H-P's lunch at the low cost end, while Apple will continue to be viewed as the innovator.
Major firms agree, we need to focus on innovation, creativity and productivity to thrive in the coming years. Start Thinking Faster.
In an effort to move from academic discussion of innovation and productivity to examples in the real world, I'd like to take a moment and discuss the recent reorganization of AOL. In the news on Tuesday, November 9, AOL announced some sweeping changes to its organizational structure. Three senior executives and over 700 people will lose their jobs.
Why? AOL has been critized for "moving too slowly and not doing enough to foster teamwork". That's direct from the Washington Post. Now, if an internet company that introduced one of the most significant changes in the way we live and work can become sluggish in decision making and fail to establish strong team work, any firm can catch this virus.
Jon Miller, the CEO, continued to say "We are going to try to be much crisper in decision-making." Further on he is quoted as saying the changes are aimed at facilitating faster decision making and speeder implementation of initiatives.
Good execution and productivity relies on clear lines of responsibility, fast decision making and the quick, successful implementation of ideas and initiatives. AOL has recognized that its structure and decision making has gotten in the way of productivity and innovation and is structuring itself to become lean and fast again.
The point I want to make in highlighting this story is that the need to continually improve productivity and innovation strikes not just at the "old" economy firms like manufacturers, but at all firms regardless of their "old economy" or "new economy" status.
Recent Comments