Monday, August 21, 2006
Google search share down?
Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know how they know - I imagine there's some proprietary rights over the real data, so it's probably a sample, but Forbes is reporting that Google's share of web searches has fallen. About time. Anyone remember when Altavista was king? Google has had a long and spectacular run, as has Yahoo!, but things do change. Interestingly noone is saying that Microsoft's share is growing.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Old Media takes over the New Media?
I have a few bones to pick with this Forbes soapbox article. Firstly, why would it surprise anyone that cashed-up Old Media wouldn't see the light eventually (let's not forget they mostly nay-sayed to begin with) and then jump in buying up the new, hardier post-techwreck upstarts? Especially when the writing's now plainly on the wall? The upstart is here, banging on the door.
Whilst I accept the premise that "old media" will adapt, I disagree with the thrust of the article, that all previous forms of media remain intact and will continue to flourish in "a bigger pie". The pie may indeed be bigger - there are more consumers with more cash in hand now than 50 years ago, for starters - but the forms of media that were around 50 years ago - even 25 years ago - have certainly not 'flourished'. They may look healthy now but that's a veneer - what they are today exists only because of a painful and lengthy process of adaptation to previous change.
Anyway, Clem Chambers writes in part that it was said that "The invention of radio was going to kill newspapers; the advent of television was going to kill radio, cinema and newspapers. The older among us will remember that the computer was going to banish paper from the office and replace textbooks and so on. Yet in all instances, there has never been more apparently "obsolete media" around than today".
Not everyone believes - or has in the past stated - that a new invention "kills" prior art. Sometimes it does, or seems to, just as TV did overwhelm cinema. If you consider it to be otherwise, consider that there used to be cinemas in every suburb, in the tiniest communities - just as there were dance halls, community meeting rooms and public libraries everywhere. Radio and then TV steadily drove down patronage, before cinema fought back with multiplexes; and now cinema is adapting again to DVD and online entertainment options. Cinema may not have been "killed" but it's a very different - and far less dominant- beast from, say, the 1940s version.
Exactly the same applies to radio and newspapers. Radio was the centre of our lives for a while, the fastest way to obtain information and a new source for entertainment. It did impact newspapers hugely and still does. Indeed newspapers adapted and competed but they noticeably increased their op-ed content, decreased their frequency, merged and generally looked desperately around for new ways to survive. It was a major and very public reorganisation and regrouping from the 1960s to the 80s that led to what Clem sees as the flourishing "old media" we see now. But now radio, newspapers and TV itself are threatened by the Internet. Radio is already marginalised. Yes, it has adapted, just as TV is adapting, and they both have found ways to cut costs and cling to their niches. But radio certainly isn't the beast that it was and TV is now facing the same competitive pressures - and losing both viewers and revenue.
As for the myth of the 'paperless office', Clem is clearly not old enough to recall what offices were like before ubiquitous computing. Look at the finance industry for just one example. Bank books were indeed books with handwritten entries. Ledgers were on paper and balances had to be made available daily - on paper. Customer records were on paper. Paper forms for new accounts. Paper forms for every transaction, credit or debit. Offices were packed with paper files that represented the account details of every customer. Typewriters where everywhere. We used handwriting a lot more. We kept everything - on paper. It was a paper-based world.
If you replicated this paper-based information collection, storage and presentation stream to the scale and breadth of today's requirements - well it wouldn't work, would it? It may have been rash to declare the end of paper in the office, but like cinema, radio, TV and newspapers its use has changed profoundly and - relatively speaking - has declined enormously.
Which brings me to Clem's claim that the textbook is also flourishing in this modern digital age. Perhaps he means that the textbook has morphed into an online entity; because paper-based textbooks are on the nose. Children are increasingly required to have laptops in their schoolbags, not paper-based boat anchors.
Whilst I accept the premise that "old media" will adapt, I disagree with the thrust of the article, that all previous forms of media remain intact and will continue to flourish in "a bigger pie". The pie may indeed be bigger - there are more consumers with more cash in hand now than 50 years ago, for starters - but the forms of media that were around 50 years ago - even 25 years ago - have certainly not 'flourished'. They may look healthy now but that's a veneer - what they are today exists only because of a painful and lengthy process of adaptation to previous change.
Anyway, Clem Chambers writes in part that it was said that "The invention of radio was going to kill newspapers; the advent of television was going to kill radio, cinema and newspapers. The older among us will remember that the computer was going to banish paper from the office and replace textbooks and so on. Yet in all instances, there has never been more apparently "obsolete media" around than today".
Not everyone believes - or has in the past stated - that a new invention "kills" prior art. Sometimes it does, or seems to, just as TV did overwhelm cinema. If you consider it to be otherwise, consider that there used to be cinemas in every suburb, in the tiniest communities - just as there were dance halls, community meeting rooms and public libraries everywhere. Radio and then TV steadily drove down patronage, before cinema fought back with multiplexes; and now cinema is adapting again to DVD and online entertainment options. Cinema may not have been "killed" but it's a very different - and far less dominant- beast from, say, the 1940s version.
Exactly the same applies to radio and newspapers. Radio was the centre of our lives for a while, the fastest way to obtain information and a new source for entertainment. It did impact newspapers hugely and still does. Indeed newspapers adapted and competed but they noticeably increased their op-ed content, decreased their frequency, merged and generally looked desperately around for new ways to survive. It was a major and very public reorganisation and regrouping from the 1960s to the 80s that led to what Clem sees as the flourishing "old media" we see now. But now radio, newspapers and TV itself are threatened by the Internet. Radio is already marginalised. Yes, it has adapted, just as TV is adapting, and they both have found ways to cut costs and cling to their niches. But radio certainly isn't the beast that it was and TV is now facing the same competitive pressures - and losing both viewers and revenue.
As for the myth of the 'paperless office', Clem is clearly not old enough to recall what offices were like before ubiquitous computing. Look at the finance industry for just one example. Bank books were indeed books with handwritten entries. Ledgers were on paper and balances had to be made available daily - on paper. Customer records were on paper. Paper forms for new accounts. Paper forms for every transaction, credit or debit. Offices were packed with paper files that represented the account details of every customer. Typewriters where everywhere. We used handwriting a lot more. We kept everything - on paper. It was a paper-based world.
If you replicated this paper-based information collection, storage and presentation stream to the scale and breadth of today's requirements - well it wouldn't work, would it? It may have been rash to declare the end of paper in the office, but like cinema, radio, TV and newspapers its use has changed profoundly and - relatively speaking - has declined enormously.
Which brings me to Clem's claim that the textbook is also flourishing in this modern digital age. Perhaps he means that the textbook has morphed into an online entity; because paper-based textbooks are on the nose. Children are increasingly required to have laptops in their schoolbags, not paper-based boat anchors.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
After 25 years is the PC dead?
Is the PC dead? After 25 years of development we are both nowhere and everywhere. Nowhere in the sense that I for example am doing exactly what I did on a computer in 1984... type. I work with words and numbers. I may do a few other things like video editing, which back then I did equivalently as 8mm film splicing, but 90% of what I do is the same. And by everywhere I mean I do just about everything on a PC of some sort and pretty much carry one of them around all the time. But what really has changed?
They are bigger, faster, lighter, smaller and more colourful - louder as well. They can replace audio systems, video and TV systems, even photograhic paper and film. But increasing so can other devices. What's the betting that one day your cell phone will do everything your PC does today? What will that mean for PC hardware and software businesses?
Interesting InfoWorld piece here on the PC's history and relevance.
They are bigger, faster, lighter, smaller and more colourful - louder as well. They can replace audio systems, video and TV systems, even photograhic paper and film. But increasing so can other devices. What's the betting that one day your cell phone will do everything your PC does today? What will that mean for PC hardware and software businesses?
Interesting InfoWorld piece here on the PC's history and relevance.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Free stuff from McKinsey's
Highly recommended for anyone in business or involved in business studies: the McKinsey Quarterly. Some content is free upon registration. If you are doing an MBA these reports are great reference material.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Apple's Leopard about to pounce
OS wars, again and again
Does it really matter what Apple does? They only have about 2% of the global PC market, if that. However they do possess greater 'mind share'. Far more than 2% of us know about Apple as a brand. We may like 'em or loathe 'em but they do come out with some funky stuff. Here's a positive (perhaps overly positive) report on Leopard from SmartHouse. With Windows Vista somewhere in the wings it's Apple's (and Linux's) time to make up some ground. With Macs now powered by Intel the obvious is happening - Apple can now confidently assert that all apps are available on the one platform - the Apple platform. Whilst that's reassuring for the Mac users - to have access to Windows apps on their otherwise more limited (if impressive) architecture - will it drive PC fans into the arms of Apple dealers?
I suspect it will grab a bigger bite, but it won't shake the earth.
I suspect it will grab a bigger bite, but it won't shake the earth.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Strategic purchase by AMD
The ATI purchase by AMD is interesting. It's not just a simple play to grow a company by absorbing a related but smaller company. Sure, AMD is a chip maker, but it makes the grandest chips of all - the CPUs - so buying up a graphics specialist is (a) chicken feed and (b) not going to shake the Earth. Or will it?
By buying up such a reputable graphics card maker they have guaranteed that at least some of AMD's product will now be getting inside some of those Intel boxes, not just their own. Intel may now have to consider putting pressure on its customers to drop ATI - but it surely risks anti-competitive action in so doing. And some graphics and games buffs love ATI, so there will be resistance. It's thus another ploy by AMD to get the brand into Intel territory and to drive a wedge into the box makers. Do they stick with ATI and thus side with AMD, risking Intel's wrath, or do they side with Intel and drop ATI, accepting any collateral damage that may bring?
It's a canny move by AMD in any case. Read Infoworld's take here.
By buying up such a reputable graphics card maker they have guaranteed that at least some of AMD's product will now be getting inside some of those Intel boxes, not just their own. Intel may now have to consider putting pressure on its customers to drop ATI - but it surely risks anti-competitive action in so doing. And some graphics and games buffs love ATI, so there will be resistance. It's thus another ploy by AMD to get the brand into Intel territory and to drive a wedge into the box makers. Do they stick with ATI and thus side with AMD, risking Intel's wrath, or do they side with Intel and drop ATI, accepting any collateral damage that may bring?
It's a canny move by AMD in any case. Read Infoworld's take here.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Top ten proliferated new technologies by 2020
"In the year 2020 -- the death of locality and other predictions", from Infoworld with extras in bold by yours truly. Infoworld's writer had a talk with Hossein Eslambolchi, former president of AT&T Labs and CTO for the company. This is his/their top 10, except I have added my comment to Infoworld's.
Number 10 -- Next generation speech recognition and Natural Language Understanding [NLU] will redefine human machine interface. Comment: I hope it comes before then, I'm sick of typing. On the other hand I get a sore throat and what happens? Perhaps some more direct mind-machine interface would do the trick?
Number 9 -- Knowledge mining will transform the way we do business. By 2010 individual databases will store 5 terabytes to 10 terabytes of data. By 2020 Eslambolchi says a single database will contain 100 petabytes of data. Comment: can't argue against this one, it's happening as we speak (or write). Tell us something new!
Number 8 -- Open source components at network edge will dominate. Stuff that sits on the edge now, like security and XML messaging will be integrated into the heart of the network and new things will appear at the edge. Comment: hmmm, not very convincing. What's the new stuff? Should we be that concerned about where stuff "sits"? Will we even have an "edge" to consider by 2020?
Number 7 -- Broadband will be common -- death of locality. Comment: well, yeah. Once we cure famine and war we will have the death of locality. In lucky western countries we already have reasonable broadband and it doesn't matter much where you are. I am in Australia. Can you tell? But it matters in Lebanon right now, don't you think?
Number 6 -- e-collaboration and P2P will dominate the workplace. Infoworld says: Maybe. Comment: As we Kazaa and Skype our P2P way through our day now, this is a no brainer. Similarly with e-coolaboration. Like we do it now, so why should it not persist? It will proliferate. It will remain difficult to plough a field e-cooperatively but I'm sure tractors will be electronically, remotely controlled, guided by GPS and absolutely brilliant by 2020. We'll all want one.
Number 5 -- Sensor networks will proliferate. "Yes, if you sneeze into a tissue there will be a sensor on the tissue and you'll find an email in your inbox when you get home asking if you want to reorder". Comment: like we need to waste the world's resources on all those throw-away sensors. Better bet - the box counts the tissues and suggests a reorder, and the new tissues come sans-box.
Number 4 -- Wireless Internet Access will grow exponentially. Sounds obvious but Eslambolchi says gaps will be filled in over the next gen. Comment: still seems obvious. Barring a better way being developed, makes sense. Not earth-shaking. Burying/hanging copper made sense under the old water/power utility model. Thinking of which, what about data via the power lines? Talk about ubiquity...
Number 3 -- Networks will become personal. Wireless IP networks will create a new class of personal devices and services. A network dedicated to you. Infoworld supposes its 'like a personal portal on steroids'. Comment: I think we can all see this one happening. Loads of people have personal LANS, it's just an extension of the obvious.
Number 2 -- Security requirements will continue to increase. Comment: no way! Surely not? Are they wasting bandwidth writing this stuff? I'm beginning to think I am!
And Infoworld says that "the number 1 technology change we will see by the year 2020 is --
Emerging networks and the Internet will be ready for the "sextuple" play. Voice, video, data, wireless, gaming and sensory information". Comment: Go on, tell us more. Did someone have a slow news day? I'm sorry I just added to it! Anyone out there want to prognosticate with vision and insight, rather than stating the blindingly obvious??
Neverthess, as Infoworld says, "go forth and build a business around one of these. You can't lose". Indeed, it's a pretty safe bet you'll have a market. You may have to fight for your marketshare and the return on investment may be poor, but... hmmm. There's no free lunch here, folks. This is leveraging what's already well on its way with many players already claiming rights.Grab a niche or go for a big play, or perhaps build something compelling and new that leverages off these no brainers. Your choice.
Number 10 -- Next generation speech recognition and Natural Language Understanding [NLU] will redefine human machine interface. Comment: I hope it comes before then, I'm sick of typing. On the other hand I get a sore throat and what happens? Perhaps some more direct mind-machine interface would do the trick?
Number 9 -- Knowledge mining will transform the way we do business. By 2010 individual databases will store 5 terabytes to 10 terabytes of data. By 2020 Eslambolchi says a single database will contain 100 petabytes of data. Comment: can't argue against this one, it's happening as we speak (or write). Tell us something new!
Number 8 -- Open source components at network edge will dominate. Stuff that sits on the edge now, like security and XML messaging will be integrated into the heart of the network and new things will appear at the edge. Comment: hmmm, not very convincing. What's the new stuff? Should we be that concerned about where stuff "sits"? Will we even have an "edge" to consider by 2020?
Number 7 -- Broadband will be common -- death of locality. Comment: well, yeah. Once we cure famine and war we will have the death of locality. In lucky western countries we already have reasonable broadband and it doesn't matter much where you are. I am in Australia. Can you tell? But it matters in Lebanon right now, don't you think?
Number 6 -- e-collaboration and P2P will dominate the workplace. Infoworld says: Maybe. Comment: As we Kazaa and Skype our P2P way through our day now, this is a no brainer. Similarly with e-coolaboration. Like we do it now, so why should it not persist? It will proliferate. It will remain difficult to plough a field e-cooperatively but I'm sure tractors will be electronically, remotely controlled, guided by GPS and absolutely brilliant by 2020. We'll all want one.
Number 5 -- Sensor networks will proliferate. "Yes, if you sneeze into a tissue there will be a sensor on the tissue and you'll find an email in your inbox when you get home asking if you want to reorder". Comment: like we need to waste the world's resources on all those throw-away sensors. Better bet - the box counts the tissues and suggests a reorder, and the new tissues come sans-box.
Number 4 -- Wireless Internet Access will grow exponentially. Sounds obvious but Eslambolchi says gaps will be filled in over the next gen. Comment: still seems obvious. Barring a better way being developed, makes sense. Not earth-shaking. Burying/hanging copper made sense under the old water/power utility model. Thinking of which, what about data via the power lines? Talk about ubiquity...
Number 3 -- Networks will become personal. Wireless IP networks will create a new class of personal devices and services. A network dedicated to you. Infoworld supposes its 'like a personal portal on steroids'. Comment: I think we can all see this one happening. Loads of people have personal LANS, it's just an extension of the obvious.
Number 2 -- Security requirements will continue to increase. Comment: no way! Surely not? Are they wasting bandwidth writing this stuff? I'm beginning to think I am!
And Infoworld says that "the number 1 technology change we will see by the year 2020 is --
Emerging networks and the Internet will be ready for the "sextuple" play. Voice, video, data, wireless, gaming and sensory information". Comment: Go on, tell us more. Did someone have a slow news day? I'm sorry I just added to it! Anyone out there want to prognosticate with vision and insight, rather than stating the blindingly obvious??
Neverthess, as Infoworld says, "go forth and build a business around one of these. You can't lose". Indeed, it's a pretty safe bet you'll have a market. You may have to fight for your marketshare and the return on investment may be poor, but... hmmm. There's no free lunch here, folks. This is leveraging what's already well on its way with many players already claiming rights.Grab a niche or go for a big play, or perhaps build something compelling and new that leverages off these no brainers. Your choice.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Blogdomination
Blogging gives me another reason to write. As I do want to write, and I want to practise writing, it seems to me that any method is better than no method. Blogging is a style, one that I break regularly. There's an etiquette as well, which I choose to ignore. The point to me is that I can write what I want, when and where I want. Now I always could - and did - do that. However now my scraps of paper are not filed away in a folder but published on the web. Apart from added colour and motion I have gained a small readership. Potentially, anyway. Somehow it's both inspiring and limiting to have this level of openness. Inspiring that what I write will be viewed and critiqued, and limiting in the sense that now what I write is not just for me. So I tend to edit a bit more harshly. Or not. It's my choice, and I am aware of it.
Anyway, most of my recent writing has been in my blogs. I blog about writing, photography, business, cars and bike racing. Plus I rant and rave. Or just share opinions. There's some overlap, but mostly they stay on track. Feel free to critique.
Anyway, most of my recent writing has been in my blogs. I blog about writing, photography, business, cars and bike racing. Plus I rant and rave. Or just share opinions. There's some overlap, but mostly they stay on track. Feel free to critique.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
More examples of convergence and competition from left field
I briefly mentioned the photographic industry a while ago and this article in Smarthouse (may need to register to read it) prompted more thinking. Basically the 35mm SLR camera business has been dominated by Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus (apologies to the rest of the market) for so long that was hard to imagine any major change happening anytime soon. Of course then the charge coupled device (CCD) came along and we went digital at the point and shoot end quicker than you can click a shutter. Seemed that quick anyway. That hurt film companies, big processors, minilabs and lower end camera sellers like Kodak. In a race to move fast Kodak probably missed the inital boat and has taken a while to catch up. Hard to know why they waited so long with the memory of Polaroid still pretty fresh in their minds.
Anyway, it's another classic case of disruptive forces at play.
The hardware and film makers got the shakes about 5 years ago because new, alternative (digital) technology finally came of age. Enough people had computers with big enough hard drives, fast burning optical media and hi-res printers to make digital seem doable. You could argue that film is superior until you are blue in the face - and they did - but it's no longer that much better, certainly not at the low to medium end. And home printing is faster, more selective and more convenient than even waiting an hour to find your happy snaps are blurred.
So the camera guys get shaken up by the computer and consumer electronics guys. New technology proliferates, new brands emerge and a brand new price war erupts. It also drives sales of computers and hi-res colour printers. Film is dying.
Now some crossover was already happening with Canon leveraging their optical competence in the scanner market and diversifying into printers. And the big SLR makers could only hold out so long before swapping their most popular film-based SLRs for digitals at similar but higher price points.
They love selling SLRs because each one can be accessorised. And they had managed to avoid any dominant standard of lens mount, so if you bought a Pentax or a Nikon you were pretty much obliged to buy Pentax or Nikon lenses, apart from a few aternatives with adapters. It manufactures loyalty. Once a Pentax buyer, always a Pentax buyer - if only because it's too expensive to swap over a whole fleet of flash lenses. So it's a pretty attractive market from a profit perspective.
Enter the disruptors. It's been brewing for 10 years or more. More and more electronics had stretched the old mechanical linkages between lenses and camera bodies already, so the buyer was getting more reasons - or opportunities - to swap brands. If I had to buy a whole fleet of new lenses anyway, because the mechanical links to aperture control were now electronic or because autofocus required a new mount anyway, well I may as well look around. I always fancied a Nikon... ;-)
So digital is the latest and probably greatest incentive to switch brands. The race is on to once again lock customers into proprietary camera to body designs. Camera makers without the resources to go digital will have to consider their alternatives. Pursue the high-end highest-resolution traditionalists and pros who won't, or can't yet, drop film, or get out. Konica-Minolta did both. They hived off their 35mm SLR business to Sony and concentrated their resources on the medium-format higher resolution film-based business.
Sony brings a big brand into the SLR market. A brand that bridges successfully from the consumer electronics end of the spectrum to top-shelf pro video gear. If they are serious about it then they should take a big slice of the market and put the heat on the rest.
Anyway, it's another classic case of disruptive forces at play.
The hardware and film makers got the shakes about 5 years ago because new, alternative (digital) technology finally came of age. Enough people had computers with big enough hard drives, fast burning optical media and hi-res printers to make digital seem doable. You could argue that film is superior until you are blue in the face - and they did - but it's no longer that much better, certainly not at the low to medium end. And home printing is faster, more selective and more convenient than even waiting an hour to find your happy snaps are blurred.
So the camera guys get shaken up by the computer and consumer electronics guys. New technology proliferates, new brands emerge and a brand new price war erupts. It also drives sales of computers and hi-res colour printers. Film is dying.
Now some crossover was already happening with Canon leveraging their optical competence in the scanner market and diversifying into printers. And the big SLR makers could only hold out so long before swapping their most popular film-based SLRs for digitals at similar but higher price points.
They love selling SLRs because each one can be accessorised. And they had managed to avoid any dominant standard of lens mount, so if you bought a Pentax or a Nikon you were pretty much obliged to buy Pentax or Nikon lenses, apart from a few aternatives with adapters. It manufactures loyalty. Once a Pentax buyer, always a Pentax buyer - if only because it's too expensive to swap over a whole fleet of flash lenses. So it's a pretty attractive market from a profit perspective.
Enter the disruptors. It's been brewing for 10 years or more. More and more electronics had stretched the old mechanical linkages between lenses and camera bodies already, so the buyer was getting more reasons - or opportunities - to swap brands. If I had to buy a whole fleet of new lenses anyway, because the mechanical links to aperture control were now electronic or because autofocus required a new mount anyway, well I may as well look around. I always fancied a Nikon... ;-)
So digital is the latest and probably greatest incentive to switch brands. The race is on to once again lock customers into proprietary camera to body designs. Camera makers without the resources to go digital will have to consider their alternatives. Pursue the high-end highest-resolution traditionalists and pros who won't, or can't yet, drop film, or get out. Konica-Minolta did both. They hived off their 35mm SLR business to Sony and concentrated their resources on the medium-format higher resolution film-based business.
Sony brings a big brand into the SLR market. A brand that bridges successfully from the consumer electronics end of the spectrum to top-shelf pro video gear. If they are serious about it then they should take a big slice of the market and put the heat on the rest.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Leadership part 2
An interesting article via BNET on Leadership development. Entitled 'A Systems Approach to Leadership' it begins, "What Is Leadership Anyway? Despite decades of research and a constant search for capturing and nurturing the essence of leadership, consistent, proven approaches to leadership development have proven elusive. The primary reason for varying perspectives and methods is that most definitions and development practices focus on selected aspects of the phenomenon. All to often popular literature and organizations latch onto the latest “reductionistic” fad hoping to create better leaders faster. Why doesn’t this work?"
It's a good short summary and worth a read. Register at BNET and try this direct link. It's written by Schoonover Associates, Inc and seems to tap into a few textbook ideas I've read and make sense.
It's a good short summary and worth a read. Register at BNET and try this direct link. It's written by Schoonover Associates, Inc and seems to tap into a few textbook ideas I've read and make sense.
Leadership
Don't get offended if I mention a German leader from the mid 20th Century, however in the context of learning about leadership - the art of mass persuasion, if you like, Hitler is a classic example. (In this case creatively turned into a short play, a trial if you like, on matters of leadership style.) He may be an example that shows us the dangers of truly hypnotic leadership, and in that there's a lesson indeed, but we may also see echoes of his speeches in own own political leaders as they try to get us to follow and embrace their decisions. There's s lesson in that as well.
Warning: We are looking at leadership styles and their effectiveness, not doing a values analysis. Hitler quite clearly was an exceptional orator who tapped into his audiences feelings in a way few leaders had done before - certainly not on that scale. He also demonstrated a cruel disregard for human life and was the cause of immense hardship and suffering. Despite - or perhaps because of this - his leadership style is worthy of deeper analysis. More here and here on Hitler's style and impact.
Warning: We are looking at leadership styles and their effectiveness, not doing a values analysis. Hitler quite clearly was an exceptional orator who tapped into his audiences feelings in a way few leaders had done before - certainly not on that scale. He also demonstrated a cruel disregard for human life and was the cause of immense hardship and suffering. Despite - or perhaps because of this - his leadership style is worthy of deeper analysis. More here and here on Hitler's style and impact.
Economic context of management
Folks, there's another MBA study sample posted here that gives you an idea or 2 about one approach to writing a report to a board. It relates to the economic context of management decision making - looking around you and into the future before jumping into markets, new products or new strategies.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Strategy and product lifecycles
MBA students love case studies. So to help out (hehe) I do some simple analysis of product life cycles and strategy with regard to Telcos vs VoIP and Dell vs the full solution. It could give you some ideas. It's not deep analysis but it gives you some idea.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Harvard resources for MBAs
Well Harvard resources for anyone who wants to read 'em, really. When studying for your MBA read widely and reference every influence, not just your quotations. Different standards apply at different Universities but in general quote often to back up your thinking and remember to answer the question. These resources are broad - and free - but require rego.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Apple and innovation, take 2
Now I contend that Apple is over-rated on innovation. There's little in an i-Pod that wasn't already around, but that the fusion between i-Pod and online music distribution is a worthy innovation. And so on. Now here's another view of Apple and innovation - from Tom Yager (always a good read on geeky, tech-driven matters and often ahead of the game):
"Before consummate wealth and success, Steve Jobs was the poster boy for that misunderstood fraction-of-a-fraction to which my erstwhile handlers referred. Jobs was odd man out for being inventive, curious, tenacious, fearless, opinionated, and insatiable. These ingredients make an innovator. Jobs built a company, then a culture, and then a product line...". The full Infoworld article is here.
"Before consummate wealth and success, Steve Jobs was the poster boy for that misunderstood fraction-of-a-fraction to which my erstwhile handlers referred. Jobs was odd man out for being inventive, curious, tenacious, fearless, opinionated, and insatiable. These ingredients make an innovator. Jobs built a company, then a culture, and then a product line...". The full Infoworld article is here.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Optimum team size - Wharton article
Optimum team size - now that's an interesting question. My unscientific opinion is that 5-7 people is optimum, but you have to have a good mix of skills and motivators. So teams - I call them cells - averaging 6 working in larger groups of 6 "organs" if you like give you 36 people arranged in a "body". That to me is the upper limit to 'team size', above that it breaks down fairly comprehensively. You can make larger groups of up to 200 "work" but they don't really work as a team, although they are more cohesive than 300. In my as yet untested theory 200 is your upper limit, but you can group teams of 200 into corporate bodies as big as you like as long as you don't exceed 200 in any one extended family of bodies. 200 is my limit because you can get to know 200 people by name. Thus you know your 36 key co-workers well, your 6 team mates very well but just enough of the 200 to keep you feeling "a part of the whole". Well that's my theory!
Here's the Wharton article that started me thinking.
Here's the Wharton article that started me thinking.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
HR impact - remote working
It's obvious enough that when you work in the one building you eventually get to know and converse with - if not everybody - a lot of those people. That's good for cohesion, teamwork, culture and you name it. But what happens when you work remotely? Is it enough to simply email workmates, to telephone them or to use instant messaging? How do you generate those chance encounters? Who do you deliver your elevator pitch to when you don't even have an elevator?
Here's a Workforce Week article on how the US FAA has dealt with part of this issue and some further virtual working options. The key I think is the last para of the article: "If you just tell them, ‘Here is your software, now go work on it,’ you won’t be successful," Drakos says. "You may just end up with a big, empty virtual space."
Here's a Workforce Week article on how the US FAA has dealt with part of this issue and some further virtual working options. The key I think is the last para of the article: "If you just tell them, ‘Here is your software, now go work on it,’ you won’t be successful," Drakos says. "You may just end up with a big, empty virtual space."
Monday, June 05, 2006
Not as silly as it sounds
One thing that you can achieve out of an MBA - apart from the sense of personal achievement, a new network of newbie managers, lots of articles on strategic anything and a nice piece of paper, is an understanding of the Lingo of Obfuscation, those weasel words we know and love. Seriously (and actually I was serious before, too) we do need to use language that makes sense, is understandable and is descriptive of what we want to achieve. We can't always dumb it down as much as some may want, going forward. Business is no different from neuroscience in that respect, is it?
Anyway, a reasonable read on recent business argot here, in the WSJ.
Anyway, a reasonable read on recent business argot here, in the WSJ.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
HR and MBA resources
Welcome to TheSpiel
Folks, we have refreshed the front page look of TheSpiel. You may find it easier to navigate to our business resources from here.
The objective of TheSpiel remains the same: to provide relevant information that may assist you personally in business and to foster sustainability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)