Category: Innovation

  • Knowledge and power

    Knowledge and power

    In the 16th Century English courtier Sir Francis Bacon declared “Knowledge is Power”, something certainly true during the conspiracy prone reign of Elizabeth I.

    Today the data available about ourselves and our communities is exploding along with the computer power to process that information to turn it into knowledge.

    We see that knowledge being used in interesting ways – US shopping chain Target recently described how they used data mining to determine, with 87% accuracy, to figure out if a shopper is pregnant.

    That 87% is important, it says the algorithm isn’t perfect and bombarding a false positive with baby wear advertising could prove embarrassing, or in some families and societies even fatal.

    A good example of data misuse are the two unfortunate Brummies (alright, one’s from Coventry) who were deported from the US for tweeting they were “going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe

    For the US immigration and homeland security agents, they ready the jokey tweets by the Birmingham bar manager through their own filter and came to the wrong conclusion, although it’s likely their performance indicators rewarded them for doing this.
    This is the Achilles heel in big data – used selectively, information can be used to confirm our own prejudices, ideologies and biases.
    In 2003 we saw this in the run up to the US invasion of Iraq with cherry picking of information used to build the false case that the ruling regime had weapons of mass destruction that could attack Europe in 45 minutes.
    For businesses, we can be sure data showing the CEO is wrong or the big advisory firm has made the wrong recommendations will be overlooked in most cases.

    Despite the Pollyanna view of a world of transparency and openness driven by social media and online publishing tools, the information is asymmetric; governments and big business know more about individuals or those without power than the other way round.

    In a world where politicians, business people and journalists trade on their insider knowledge rather than competing in the open, free market we have to understand that filtering this data is essential to retaining  powers and privileges.

    Usually when the data threatens the existing power structures it is repressed in the same way a dissenting taxpayer, citizen, employee or shareholder is discredited and isolated.

    At present there’s lots of data threatening existing commercial duopolies, political parties and cosy ways of doing business.

    The fact many of those in power don’t want to see what their own systems are telling them is where the real opportunities lie.

    Entrepreneurs, community groups and activists have access to much of this data being ignored by incumbents, it will be interesting to see how it’s used.

    Similar posts:

  • Is it time for Microsoft to make a clean break?

    Is it time for Microsoft to make a clean break?

    Over the weekend Christina Bonnington in Wired magazine looked at how Microsoft is struggling to decide whether to have separate operating systems for their tablet and desktop products – as Apple have – or design one that works on both.

    Creating another version of Windows risks further confusing the marketplace given Microsoft already has between its four different versions of Windows and six flavours of Office.

    Although Apple haven’t suffered at all by having different operating systems. Mac OSX is more popular than ever and iOS dominates its markets.

    Perhaps its time for Microsoft to copy something else Apple did and have a clean break – rework all the Windows code and build a new system.

    Apple did this when they introduced OSX in 2001. Among other things it didn’t support floppy disks, the Apple Device Bus, floppy disks or the networking standards used by the older systems. At the time there were howls of protest from long suffering Apple true believers who had invested a lot into the earlier versions of Mac OS.

    Despite the protests and early hiccups – we sometimes forget that the first version of OSX, named Cheetah, was terrible – Apple’s clean break with the past was a great success.

    Microsoft’s selling point has been backward compatibility; software designed for one version of Windows is expected to work on the next version.

    Backward compatibility is the reason for the spyware epidemic of the early 2000s as Microsoft ignored Windows XP’s security features so that they wouldn’t have to ditch older code in other products like Office.

    Similarly, the contradiction of redesigning the Windows operating system while minimizing disruption to existing users was one of the reasons why Microsoft Vista was such a disaster.

    Perhaps it’s time for Microsoft to bite the bullet and bring Windows into the 21st Century.

    Whatever they decide to do, they better hurry as Apple and Google are carving out dominant positions; waiting until 2013 or 14 for the next version of Windows and Windows Phone may be too late in a market where Microsoft is quickly becoming irrelevant.

    Similar posts:

  • The evolving business

    The evolving business

    This story originally appeared in Smart Company on February 2, 2012

    Woolworths’ announcement earlier this week they are exiting the Dick Smith Electronics business ends an interesting study in how a business can evolve as their industry changes.

    In the thirty years since Dick Smith sold a stake in his business to Woolworths – a few years later they bought out the rest of Dick’s equity – the electronics retail business has changed immensely.

    At the beginning of the 1980s, the CB radio boom that had fuelled the growth of stores like Dick Smith Electronics was coming to an end, as was the hobbyist industry which supplied those building their own computers and other electronic devices.

    In the US, the hobbyist industry included people like Paul Allen and Bill Gates – who founded Microsoft – along with Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, the founders of Apple Computers. Both of these companies had a lot to do with the growth of the DSE business later.

    While those two industries were fading at the time Woolies bought the chain, the availability of consumer electronics was taking off as Video Cassette Recorders, car hi-fi and, later, CD players started entering the market.

    At the time these were high margin items so the transition from a hobbyist store to consumer electronics chain was a lucrative move for Woolworths – something helped by Dick Smith’s penchant for publicity even though he was no longer with the store.

    Eventually the steam ran out of the early wave of consumer electronics but in the mid 1990s the PC revolution took off which allowed Dick Smith Electronics to diversify again.

    As personal computers were taking off, so too did the next wave of consumer technology, particularly in mobile phones, games and big screen TVs which initially had big, fat margins.

    Over time, these margins began to fade as prices dropped but for Woolworths this wasn’t a problem as the beginning of the 2000s saw an explosion of easy consumer credit, allowing stores to move more products to willing consumers.

    Very quickly, the consumer electronics industry became more like the low margin, high volume FMCG – Fast Moving Consumer Goods – sector that is Woolworths’ core business.

    The global financial crisis heralded the end of the credit boom and now cautious, credit shy householders meant consumer electronics were no longer fast moving.

    Dick Smith Electronics aren’t the only chain affected by this, Harvey Norman are suffering the same way and in the United States Best Buy and Radio Shack are in desperate straits for the same reasons.

    Making things tougher for Australian retailers are store rents that are among the highest in the world. Woolworths’ decision to shut down a third of the Dick Smith outlets is a wise move as many of those stores probably have lease renewals pending.

    Woolworths has done well from Dick Smith Electronics over a quarter century as the consumer electronics industry has evolved. Their story is a great example of how a business can adapt in a changing sector.

    Hopefully Woolies will find a motivated buyer – one hopes not one of the clueless private equity asset strippers that have destroyed so many other retail icons in recent years.

    Perhaps we’ll see a buyer who can steer the business well into the phase of consumer electronics retailing with some innovative and fresh thinking that the Australian retail sector needs right now.

    Similar posts:

  • The death of sport

    The death of sport

    In the 1960s, sports administrators refused TV replays of games because it would affect their revenue.

    Sports broadcasting rights were invented.

    In the 1970s, sports administrators resisted live TV coverage of games because it would affect their revenue.

    Sports broadcasting rights became lucrative.

    In the 1980s, sports administrators claimed TV viewers using video recorders would affect their revenue.

    Sports broadcasting rights became more lucrative.

    In the 1990s, sports administrators worried cable and satellite TV would affect their revenue.

    Sports broadcasting rights soared.

    In the 2000s, sports administrators warned the Internet would affect their revenue.

    Sports broadcasting rights soared further.

    In 2012, sports administrators shout that cloud computing services will affect their revenue…….

    Photo courtesy of mzacha on SXC.hu

    Similar posts:

  • The battle between the old and the new

    The battle between the old and the new

    “We will build an America where ‘hope’ is a new job with a paycheck, not a faded word on an old bumper sticker” – Mitt Romney, US Republican Presidential candidate

    “What immediate measures can be taken to protect jobs?”French President Nicolas Sarkozy

    “We want to be countries that made cars” – Kim Carr, Australian Minister for Manufacturing

    Around the world the forces of protectionism are stirring to shield fading industries, businesses and fortunes from economic reality.

    The most immediate target in this battle are the new industries that threaten the old.

    It’s no coincidence US lawmakers want to introduce laws that will cripple the Internet in order to favour music distributors, that the US and New Zealand governments work together to shut down a cloud sharing service or that failing Australian retailers call on their government to change tax rules in order to prop up their fading sales.

    The old industries appear to have the advantage; they are rich, they have political power and – most importantly for politicians – they employ lots of voters.

    We shouldn’t under estimate just how far the managers and owners of the challenged industries will go to protect their failing business models, unwanted product lines and outdated work methods, which isn’t surprising as their wealth and status is built upon them.

    Eventually they will lose, just as the luddites fighting the loom mills and the lords fighting the railway lines did.

    The question for society and individuals is do we want to be part of yesterday’s fading industries or part of tomorrow’s economy.

    We need to let our political leaders know where we’d our societies to go before they make the wrong choices.

    Similar posts: