aqualung

I've been a little quiet lately ...

.... mainly because I'm travelling in Europe at the moment. If you're interested, I've been updating friends by email, and I'm putting those emails on Tumblr, starting here; and photos on Flickr in this group ....

The Prime Minister, climate change and social media

<update> Rudd's response/summary is here</update>

I was one of twenty people who subscribed to the Prime Minister's blog and commented on his climate change post that were selected 'randomly' to participate in a Web chat on the topic. While some have expressed some doubt about the randomness, my inclusion would seem to argue in its favour ...

The raw transcript of the chat is here; Rudd has summarised the chat in an email to blog subscribers, but as yet I haven't found it on the web ... will link here when I do. One of the participants has blogged it already (and notes Kevin Rudd's typing skills), as has Craig Thomler on his eGovAU blog.

My take?

First, given the low baseline, I'm reasonably happy with Rudd's attempts at 'social media' - it's a bit of a trick trying to keep a conversation with the nation's leader from getting out of hand, so I understand the restriction on participation, and the moderation. These are early steps, and I hope Rudd is watching the success of Kate Lundy's efforts in the same direction (although it's probably easier for Kate than Kevin, given the relative profiles/workloads!), because I think that direction will ultimately bring greater results.

Second, I was pleasantly surprised that the chat itself didn't descend into either a spin-fest or an all-out brawl - there were elements of contention (not a bad thing) and some 'party line' stuff from Kevin, but all in all it wasn't too problematic. Given the time limits, there were understandably some questions and statements "baked earlier", most of which were worthwhile and took advantage of the chat being recorded for later reference. Once those were out of the way, there was more of a discussion between the attendees, with Rudd manfully attempting to keep up, despite that lack of typing skill :).

Third, I think there were some good ideas surfaced, and I think Rudd can take a couple of things out of the discussion:

• our performance/commitment at Copenhagen is symbolically important, and the outcomes from it are practically important
• the necessity for action on climate change is not universally accepted in Australia
• the arguments for taking action should focus more on benefits of a lower-carbon lifestyle, rather than the cost of the transition
• the science is still important, but we know enough to justify action to reduce carbon emissions (this is probably the most contentious point of the discussion)

There are some criticisms:

• as Graham Readfearn pointed out in a tweet today, Rudd avoided any discussion about coal
• he seemed inclined to bring the discussion back to energy efficiency (possibly because that's where the Government has some stories to tell) - not a bad thing on its own, but the conversation covered much more ground than that
• there has been some suggestion that the participation was weighted towards those who support action on climate change rather than sceptics - I don't know whether the "random" selection was, and I don't know what the proportion of sceptics to believers is in the general population, so I can't comment either way. What I do know is that my selection argues randomness, and there were sceptics involved, so it wasn't a "climate change love-in"

 

I will confess that I was as interested in the "open government", "social media" aspect of this chat as I was in the actual climate change discussion (I said I must have been a random inclusion!) - and I think it was a great attempt at opening up the conversation. Could it be better? Yes, but Rudd seems to realise that these are essential steps to remaining relevant to the public, and I hope he has been encouraged to take some further steps - my advice would be for him to talk to people like Pia Waugh (currently assisting Kate Lundy's effort), Stephen Collins, James Dellow, Craig Thomler and a bunch of people involved with the Gov2.0Australia discussion group.

Agile or plastic?

Last weekend I was reading an article on the human brain in the local dead-tree newspaper magazine insert (currently available online, too) and was struck by the concept of plasticity. In the case of the article it was particularly neuroplasticity, but my interest moved onto the applicability of the idea to organisations.

Achieving business "agility" is a hot topic in IT architecture and in management circles at the moment - that hopefully via some application of architectural thinking and some nifty software our organisation will be better placed to respond to changing business conditions, opportunities and threats. Agility is something I believe is possible with a well-executed SOA strategy for instance, but I wonder whether an enterprise architecture should be more concerned with agility, or plasticity.

In this context, what do I mean by "plasticity"? When talking about the brain, plasticity refers to the permanent and ongoing changes as a result of new experiences - as the above article suggests: my brain has been changed permanently by writing that last sentence, and yours has been changed by reading it. An organisation is not a sentient being of itself, but it is made up of humans, all with "plastic" brains - so the organisation's plasticity is potentially an aggregation of the people within it, and their changing experiences, and those individual neurological differences that impact on the work going on there.

Plasticity strikes me as being a longer-term effect than agility, which is more reactive (and not necessarily permanent). When looking at architectural abstractions, agility seems to come as a result of a tactical implementation of an architectural pattern like SOA, whereas permanent, foundational changes in the organisation's "brain" should come as a result of a more strategic and high-level enterprise model that offers an organisation the ability to continue growing and adapting over a much longer period than the next quarterly report to shareholders.

The strategic importance of the concept is this: agility won't happen unless you do something to enable it; but plasticity happens without any effort on your part - and the resulting "brain" may be sub-optimal without the guidance of a framework designed to develop the organisation into something better than it is now.

Of course, it's not a question of agile OR plastic - just as SOA can fit usefully into a more abstract enterprise architecture, an organisation can be both agile and plastic. I believe it needs to be both if it wants to last.

    

the process

This post is really just a summary of what tools I'll be using for the time being, both for the administration of the business and its execution.

 

Google Apps

Mail, calendaring, contacts and simple, shareable documents are all hosted by Google Apps for your Domain

 

Accounting

Provided by Saasu, also hosted. Financial transactions, invoices, purchases and simple inventory in the cloud

 

Modelling

TOGAF, BPMN, standard and customised UML modelling and more: Enterprise Architect by Sparxsystems - a comprehensive tool at a great price ... AND it's Australian! 

For outlining and brainstorming: Freemind (I'm using the v0.9 beta) - a clean, easy to use mindmapping tool; free and open-source

 

Office tools

Documents/spreadsheet/presentation: Google Docs, Openoffice.org, MS Office

Browser: Firefox

Mail client: Web, Thunderbird

 

Communication

Voice: the mobile phone and Skype

IM: Skype, Google Talk and Twitter

Text: Typepad (this blog), shared Google Docs

Images: Flickr, iStockphoto

Presentations: Slideshare

 

 

Some kind of landing page will be forthcoming, but for the foreseeable future this blog will continue to be the main vehicle for long-form information about the venture.

It will be obvious to you all that I am fairly committed to the cloud - for accessibility as well as cost reasons. I also suspect that these various providers will do a better job of back-up and recovery than I would :)

See also:

• the plunge
• the purpose
• the plan
• the pitch

the plan

market

Who do I sell to? Fortunately the skills and experience involved are reasonably transferable between industries; however it makes sense to start where I know the milieu best - the wine industry. This is where I'm already known and where my most recent experience lies, and is where my initial efforts will be directed. Ultimately I would like a range of clients, including other industries - here in Adelaide that probably means wine, mining and government. However - I have a freshly-renewed passport and the kids are adults ... so (within reason) I am not geographically constrained. If somebody wants to get me there (and back!) I'm able to travel - cultural fit is the only uncertainty (I'm English-speaking and Caucasian, but don't hold that against me) - and anybody who knows me knows that online and virtual is where I live, so we can save the earth while collaborating if that's what you're comfortable with.  

 

product

Essentially - words. Discussion, advice, presentations, reports, blog posts, tweets ... I talk, I write, I draw diagrams with boxes and lines. Behind the words is a smart mind, a bunch of experience and knowledge of business - all the better to help you figure out what, if any, technology you can put to good use, and how.

 

price 

Where I'd like to get to is to have clients pay me a portion of the value I generate, rather than charge some periodic rate, because this moves the discussion from cost to value, which I think is a better model. At this stage there are a couple of things that prevent that:

• as a new business it is difficult to forecast how much value will be generated for clients - like task estimation in projects, a track record makes it easier for both parties, and it's not there yet
• I suspect there are plenty of prospective clients who are still uncomfortable with the idea of an unknown commitment, even if the judgment around how much value is generated is with them
• there is uncertainty about the timeframes over which value will be realised and quantified, so it can be a little open-ended for both parties (and there is a certain revenue imperative at my end!)

So, while keeping that goal in mind I have decided to start out with a time and materials model ... and right now the rate is $AU125/hour (or $AU1000/day) plus taxes and expenses.

 

 

As always, comments and questions welcome ...

 

See also:

• the plunge
• the purpose
• the process
• the pitch

the purpose

Briefly stated, the purpose of achurch & associates is to help make your business better. Now I KNOW that sounds a bit trite, so let's parse it:

 

help

I've got experience in fast food, selling, the factory floor and (mainly) information systems. I have qualifications in marketing and finance, and 25 years of implementing business software ... I can help. But I can't do it for you - you need to participate in your own redemption! So I'll help you figure out how your business might work better than it does now - and just like your accountant, lawyer and engineer I come to the table with a particular "technical" skill set, centred in practical uses for information technology.

 

make

this is a verb - there needs to be some activity come out of it all. An idea only becomes an innovation when it is actioned and implemented; advice only becomes beneficial when it is followed by action. My stock in trade is mainly words, but there will be some about implementation.

 

your

it's your business, and it's different from everybody else's in a number of significant ways (it's also similar to everybody else's in a lot of others - but if you aren't different in some way, you can't compete on anything but price - and that's not where you want to be). It's also your responsibility and your decision to accept or reject my advice, and it's your idea of "success" that matters with the outcomes.

 

business

hobbies are fun, and I'm happy to compare notes on leisure activities any time ... but we're talking about a business here, not a science project, and there are some particular outcomes to business activities that are important ... and they usually revolve around value in some way.

 

better

this is your definition - what "better" means to you is what counts, and if we can't agree on that I'll walk away - no harm no foul. I don't know everything and I can't do everything, so even if we agree on "better", if I don't think I can help I'll walk away - no harm no foul. In that case if I know somebody else who CAN help you, I'll introduce you to them - no obligation involved.

 

 

Comments and questions are welcomed ...

See also:

• the plunge
• the plan
  
• the process
• the pitch

the plunge

About two years ago, I circulated an email to some of my network speaking of my intentions to leave my employer. Almost exactly two years later, I've finally done it (I didn't want to rush into it, obviously). After 27 years behind the corporate firewall, I decided it was time to test myself in some less-charted waters - so I have set up a consultancy business called achurch & associates to see if I can make something of it.

 

Now,  some would consider that leaving a well-paid and relatively secure position for the risk and adventure of self-employment in what is considered the worst recession in generations is the action of a crazy, deranged fool. But in the end, the desire to make the attempt proved too strong; plus I have a view about the current economic situation that allows me to see an opportunity to create real, rather than ephemeral, value from my efforts. There is also the thought that, paraphrasing the famous song, "if I can make it here, I can make it anywhere".

 

So the plunge has been taken - my last day of permanent employment is 10th July, and so begins the fun.

 

The next few posts will be an attempt to articulate my approach to this business:

• the purpose
• the plan
• the process   
  
• the pitch

To those of you who I told earlier - thanks for your expressions of support and enthusiasm ... it's reassuring to know that other people think this might work!

Measuring long-term change

Every time I hear comments about this being the "worst recession since ..." or muttering about the GFC, I'm struck by the thought that this is not just an economic crisis (which it is - don't take this to be an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation) but a fundamental shift in how we create, perceive and consume economic value, and that what we are seeing is not just one of the cyclic fluctuations similar to what we have seen before but part of a much deeper change that will affect how we work and live, and where prosperity comes from.

Umair Haque runs a good line of commentary in this vein, talking about the current "zombieconomy" being replaced by constructive capitalism and smart growth (I like his "unnovation" punch too!). Umair speaks of people getting rich in the zombieconomy, but nobody really being better off - that measuring everything with money is not only limiting but often just plain wrong.

But one of the more interesting documents I've come across recently is from Deloitte's "Center for the Edge" (peopled by John Hagel III and John Seely Brown among others) called "Measuring the forces of long-term change - the 2009 Shift Index" (PDF).

It speaks of three measures of change:

• the Foundation Index (the first wave), measuring the impact of increase in computing power, increase in access to that power via the Internet wired and unwired, and changes in public policy; all of which reduce barriers to entry and movement
• the Flow Index (second wave), which builds on the foundation to create new sources of economic value, and
• the Impact index, where we start to see the effects of the first two.

The executive summary and overview are a feast of quotes:

Today's companies must make the most of our own era's new infrastructure through institutional innovations that shift the rationale from scalable efficiency to scalable learning ...

The second wave of change ... is characterized by the increasing flows of capital, talent and knowledge across geographical and institutional boundaries. ... the increasing rate of change precipitated by the first wave shifts the sources of economic value from "stocks" of knowledge to "flows" of new knowledge.

Knowledge flows - which occur in any social, fluid environment where learning and collaboration can take place - are quickly becoming one of the most crucial sources of value creation.

The conceptual framework for the Big Shift underscores the belief that knowledge flows will be the key determinant of company success as deep foundational changes alter the sources of value creation.

I've still got the details to read through, and there's a fair bit of blue sky thinking in it, but it gels with my recent ruminations about what "work" I should be doing, and what opportunities can be found by looking at our current economic situation through a different lens - it may be that the GFC persists because we are still using the old models and metrics to plot our course and explain the problem when we should be looking for the longer-term, deeper shift and the new possibilities it brings. 

12 Rules For Bringing 'Social' To Your Business

A post on the Social Computing Journal site with some thoughts about transforming your business to "social" and what that might mean. A couple of the points:

Social businesses are made of people. Just like soylent green, the network (the Web or enterprise or both) is about who is on it and how involved they are ...

 

The right tools and infrastructure naturally enable good social business. I dislike talking about technology too early but I continue to see a lot of people using the nearest tool at hand, rather than the right tool for the job ...

 

Rethink your views on intellectual property in a highly social world. The famous letter sent by Apple to the little girl who had ideas about how to improve the iPod is a classic example of how we still look at business in an anti-social way ...

 

Censorship kills participation. Nothing will stop a social business in its tracks faster than inappropriate censorship ...

 There's plenty more of flesh on those bones, as well as the rest of the "rules" ...

Climate Futures

Via a Greenmonk Podcast, I came across the Forum for the Future (tagline: "action for a sustainable world"), and their report (created in association with HP Labs) called Climate Futures (PDF).

The report offers five possible future scenarios for our climate future and its impact on business, politics, economies and society ... some of them scary. The document is a reasoned look at what our future might contain - it doesn't suggest which outcome is most likely, nor does it attempt to judge the relative merits of each outcome ... it leaves much of that thinkng to the reader.

Take a look at it, and think about the world you want to be living in in 2030, and think about what that means for our decisions today ...