The Real Reason Twitter is Business Critical

Dilbert answered the question of why Twitter is mission critical.

Innovation - Not Always all it's Cracked Up to Be

People sing the praises of innovation like it's going to save the world, answer all our problems and grow our markets. There's only one problem, there isn't necessarily a correlation between innovation and growth. Let me give you an example.

The Japanese cell phone maker, Sharp, is currently selling the Aquos 912SH. It comes with an LCD screen that swivels 90 degrees, GPS, a bar-code reader (for researching and comparing products), digital TV, credit card functionality, video conferencing, a camera and it is unlocked by facial recognition.

It is an amazingly innovative phone that is years ahead of anything else, all except for one problem - they can't sell them anywhere outside of Japan. For years Japanese phones have innovated ahead of the world. In 1999 they had cameras, 3G networks in 2001, full music downloads in 2002, electronic payment in 2004 and digital TV in 2005. And what has all their innovation got them? Squat.

Japan has innovated at least 5 years ahead of the US and their market is shrinking. They've developed standards the rest of the world is not adopting. Innovation is only beneficial if there are growing markets that are demanding your innovations. Next time someone starts prattling on about how great innovation is, ask them why their not buying the most innovative cell phones in the world?

Can Software Save Money in Health Care?

Phillip Longman has an article Code Red in the Washington Monthly talking about how to make health care more cost effective. James Kwak provides an excellent summary of the points in the always informative "Baseline Scenario".

1. The health care cost problem is largely caused by overtreatement.
2. The answer is software: "Almost all experts agree that in order to begin to deal with these problems, the health care industry must step into the twenty-first century and become more computerized."
3. Software implementation projects can go horribly, horribly wrong.
4. The solution is open-source software.

Point one makes sense, but there is no reason to believe that software will solve this problem. If anything, software will make the problem worse. Why?

Computerization is like paving the cow path. People gather requirements, find ways to do things more efficiently and then, ideally, implement software systems to do this. i.e. they pave the cow path. So now cows move more quickly, one has more visibility to where they are and more people can interact with them in more ways. How will this reduce cost?

Someone is in a medical facility for a certain period of time. Paving the cow path will enable fifty people to interact with them as opposed to five. So now fifty people can over treat and over bill as opposed to five. And anybody believes this is going to reduce overtreatement and cost?

It's like trying to trap a mouse in a house of cheese.

Been Caught Stealing

I've been caught stealing;
once when I was 5...

- Jane's Addiction

Could it be that we don't think about projects the right way? People seem to think projects should succeed, but is that really the way? What if, instead of thinking that projects ought to succeed, we thought of them as stealing opportunity from the gods of possibility?

I'm thinking of Prometheus. In Greek legend, Prometheus created man. As marvelous as his creation was, man was a rather drab creature who labored in darkness. He needed a spark, some light and a little warmth in the dark. Prometheus knew what would improve man's life, so he stole fire from the gods and gave it to man.

Think of a company the same way. It operates with a business model, operating procedures, processes, systems and momentum. And then someone realizes that it needs a spark. Just like Prometheus with fire, someone needs to steal opportunity from the gods of possibility and bring it to the business.

Been Caught Stealing

I've been caught stealing;
once when I was 5...
I enjoy stealing.
It's just as simple as that.
Well, it's just a simple fact.
When I want something,
I don't want to pay for it.

I walk right through the door.
Walk right through the door.
Hey all right! If I get by, it's mine.
Mine all mine!

My girl, she's one too.
She'll go and get her a shirt.
Stick it under her skirt.
She grabbed a razor for me.
And she did it just like that.
When she wants something,
She don't want to pay for it.

She walk right through the door.
Walk right through the door.
Hey all right! If I get by, it's mine.
Mine all mine!

We sat around the pile.
We sat and laughed.
We sat and laughed and
Waved it into the air!
And we did it just like that.
When we want something,
We don't want to pay for it.

We walk right through the door.
Walk right through the door.
Hey, all right! If I get by, it's mine,
Mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine..

What Kind of Rock Band is Your Team?

Rock bands accomplish different things. The people and their personalities determine the structures and working arrangements. If the structure is right for the personalities involved, the band will probably be successful for a long time - think U2. If the structures and working relationships are not right - think The Police, it probably won't work, no matter how successful you are.

Does your team resemble any of these bands?

U2 - This band has one superstar and three supporting members. This is not to say that all members don't contribute, but one of them is a superstar and the other three are not. What is interesting is that the superstar has never shown an interest in leaving the team, working separately or conflicting with the team. Also, other members have never shown jealousy or resentment. What are the structures and working relationships necessary to keep the superstar and other team members happily engaged? Are you using them?

The Beatles - This band had two superstars and two supporting members. The competition delivered some amazing deliverables, but it also destroyed them. If you have a competitive group that produces great deliverables, maybe it's best to cultivate the competition, enjoy the outputs and move on when the gig is over.

The Chieftains - This group had no easily recognizable members, rotated people through and delivered the goods for 40 years. If you have a group that is founded around a good idea, consistently produces and has the structures to rotate personal for many years, maybe it's best to keep tuning the instruments and letting them make music.

The Police - This band grew to be the biggest band in the world and yet the members personal animosities were so great that they couldn't find a way to stay together. No matter how successful a group is, if the members can't get along there's nothing that can entice them to work together. Have you ever traded off relationships for success? I have and it didn't work for me either.

Jane's Addiction - This band got itself together, produced an amazing album and song and then fell apart. Much as people have tried to put them back together again and recapture the magic, maybe it's better to enjoy it for what it was, enjoy what they delivered and move on.

Most project teams I've been on resembled Jane's Addiction more than any other. They were good for what they were, accomplished what could be accomplished and never successfully got back together again. Maybe their biggest hit was prophetic: Been Caught Stealing

Whatever team you're putting together, do the structures and working relationships match the personalities and goals?

He who shall not be named

Have you been on a team where one person had an idea they were so passionate about, it almost prevented other discussion? A situation where you could name the person and everyone knew just what you were talking about or you could introduce the topic by saying "He who shall not be named."

We extole passion in classes and in theoritical discussion. We say "It changes the world." We link it to great athletes. How often do we enjoy it everywhere but in our own realities? Isn't it easier to deal with the reasonable, the level-headed and the practical rather than the passionate?

Newspapers and Their Changing Environment

A lot of people are complaining that newspapers are dieing.  That's not completely true.  Newspapers with an advertising based revenue model are dieing.  Companies that didn't depend upon that model are not.  Consumer Reports, Stratfor and Seeking Alpha didn't choose to follow that model, and they are doing fine.

What happened is that newspapers grew up in a particular business environment, did well and expanded.  A couple things changed that are contributing to their problems.  The economic environment changed and newspapers were/are too big to be supported by their revenue model.  This economic environment changed necessitates a business change that newspapers do not want to accept.  If newspapers were a quarter their current size, their revenue model would be fine.  For people running newspapers, that is not an acceptable solution.

The Roman's had a saying, "Times change, we change with them."  Until people running Newspapers are willing to change, they will continue to bleed a slow death.  More interestingly, other organizations, the Stratfor's, the Seeking Alpha's etc. will emerge and offer a better product with a sustainable business model that is aligned with the new economic environment.