Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Category: Innovation

Choices
“It’s too hard to keep up with all the choices. I can’t decide whether to use Facebook or Twitter, Microsoft or Google, Dell or Apple? Doing business today is just too complex…”

Maybe it’s true we have too many choices but yesterday’s business people had plenty of hard decisions to make.

Business people a hundred years ago had to choose between steam, gas or electrical power. If they chose the latter, there was another decision between AC and DC electricity.

There was a further choice between keeping your horse drawn cart or buying one of those new fangled motor vehicles, which could either run on kerosine or steam.

So our great great grandparent’s weren’t easier and, unlike the relatively small investments we can make in technology today, their choices could easily bankrupt them if they made the wrong decision.

When we’re fretting over choices at least those on offer aren’t the simple alternative of whether we send our children down the mine or to the mill at the earliest possible age.

Instead of worrying about the choices, it’s time to get informed and understand what the alternatives mean. The time to worry is when our competitors, or the market, is leaving us behind because we didn’t care enough to find out what was happening around us.

Similar posts:
- No Related Posts
August 10, 2011
The web’s big weakness
There’s a fundamental flaw in the way the tech industry does business, that weakness could be what ultimately kills many of today’s new media, web and social media services.

AirBnB, an online home share service, is one of the darlings of the booming Silicon Valley start up sector, having recently being valued at $1.2 billion after a successful capital raising.

Like most Web 2.0 and social media businesses, AirBnB’s advantage is in the low operating costs where customer support is left to the service’s peer review and social media communities while AirBnB pockets a commission for simply making the connection between the landlord and tenant.

The flaws in this “all care, no responsibility” model became apparent last month when a lady posted a description of her house being ransacked by an errant housesitter she found through AirBnB.

AirBnB’s management responded to the article with assurances they were helping and working with their affected customer, claims which were promptly contradicted by the original victim.

To make matters worse, certain prominent members of the Silicon Valley investment and blogging communities alluded she was lying or was “batshit crazy.” Now that other stories of bad AirBnB tenants are appearing, the view this is simply the untrustworthy word of a deranged customer affected by their first such incident is looking hollow.

Failing to deal with customer problems is not unique to AirBnB, hiding behind impenetrable layers of “support” backed up by user hostile terms and conditions is familiar to anyone who has had to deal with an online service gone wrong.

Last month Thomas Monopoly found he was locked out of his Google account and had it not been for the intervention of a senior Google employee, Thomas’ problem would probably still be stuck in an endless feedback loop.

Exactly the same problem has been encountered thousands of times by other users of web mail, social media, online auction and matchmaking sites.

Many of the people running these services retort their products are free so users get the support the support they pay for – an argument conveniently overlooking that most “free” web services are based around selling customer data – but even this does not justify delivering the basic services users have been lead to expect, regardless of what a 5,000 word user agreement states.

Today’s tech startups, and many of their big established cousins in the IT industry, have the idea that customer support is an optional extra and an expense to minimised or outsourced.

In this respect they are not too far removed from dinosaur car manufacturers or some of today’s less dynamic retailers offering little in the way of customer service or after sales support.

That way of working has died as consumers have been able to go online to vent their dissatisfaction, strangely today’s hot tech start ups seem to have missed this aspect of the revolution they have helped start.

Ignoring consumer problems is exactly what’s bringing traditional businesses unstuck in the online world. The funny thing is it might bring many of the online business undone as well.

Similar posts:
August 1, 2011
Building Innovative Cities
The New Lunatick’s Newcastle as a Smart and Innovative City forum raised an interesting question; “how do you build an innovative city?”

In putting together the Digital Sydney project, this was something we closely looked at – how does a city become a global hub of innovation in the creative, digital, financial industries?

What leaps out when studying successful industry hubs is that all have developed without government intervention; most have been an accident of history where resources have come together and have driven by a small group of like minded entrepreneurs.

Those entrepreneurs have been attracted to various regions by the area’s proximity to the natural resources, transport links and available land suited to their industry. While those requirements vary between industries, access to a skilled workforce is the common factor between all of them.

In many respects this is how the current mining boom has worked for Newcastle. Unlike the rest of Australia’s mineral fields, the Hunter Valley has a major city with a skilled workforce that understands mining and engineering.

The challenge for Newcastle – and indeed for Australia as a nation – is diversifying the economy from depending upon resource exports and domestic consumption into creating wealth from the newer, knowledge based industries.

For hubs to develop in these industries, regions need the factors identified by Richard Florida in his Rise of the Creative Classes where he found these cities offered the “three T’s” – Talent, tolerance and technology.

Australian cities like Newcastle score well on these measures but to create hubs you need a motivated group of entrepreneurs and while these exist there may not be the numbers to create a critical mass.

The main reason for this is the domestic investment structure; most Australians invest in housing and aren’t particularly inclined to invest in comparatively risky businesses, particularly those in industries they don’t understand.

Governments can help by opening their data and making procurement friendly to new and smaller businesses – on both scores Australian governments at both levels do poorly with data often being unnecessarily guarded and tendering processes tend to be skewed towards large, usually multinational, corporations.

Assistance programs can also help on the fringes however it’s important not to repeat the mistakes of the film industry where several decades of government grants and funding has resulted in a generation of film makers more skilled at navigating bureaucracies and filling in application forms than telling stories.

Where government assistance can do a good job is in bringing together the various industry groups which was the intention of Digital Sydney. Well targeted, low paperwork schemes like the Australian Technology Showcase and various trade programs can also help growing businesses.

Overall though, the development of innovative cities lies in the hands of the residents, it’s up to the inhabitants of the city, town or region to bring build the hub.

This is exactly what happened with the original Lunaticks society in 18^th Century England that created the region that became known as Birmingham which was the heartland of the English economic powerhouse for over a hundred years.

While we can wait for governments or investors, building industries is about innovators, entrepreneurs and workers. It’s time to get to work.

Similar posts:
- No Related Posts
July 7, 2011
A tale of two conferences
Two conferences about ideas took place in Sydney last Saturday, TEDx Sydney and Social Innovation BarCamp. While both involved exploring concepts and thoughts they could not have been more different.

One was about exclusivity and elitism while the other was about a genuine exchange of ideas. Both the events tell us much about the new and old models of communication and learning.

The entrance to SIBSyd. Exit through the gift shop?

At the Paddington College Of Fine Arts, Social Innovation Bar Camp – SIBSyd – was open to anyone with an idea or who just wanted to show up a throw some thoughts around. Across town at the Everleigh Carriageworks, the TEDx Sydney offshoot of the prestigious US TED event featured high profile speakers before an invitation only audience.

Welcome to TEDx Sydney. May I see your invitation, sir?

Most TED events are exclusive and restricted you have to be qualified to attend, let alone speak and this showed in the way the audience were ushered into the auditorium and then asked to turn off their mobile phones unless they wanted to sit in the back two rows.

The speakers at TED were slick, rehearsed and had their presentations timed exactly to the minute – as you’d expect at an event where the content is carefully chosen – while at SIBSyd any of the audience could choose to speak.

Even with a speaker everybody at a SIBSyd is able to participate, with all the audience of giving their views. In the reforming education session I sat in on a quiet lady at the back of the room told her experiences of working with villagers in Chiapas, Mexico.

It’s unlikely that lady would get an invite to TEDx, let alone have the opportunity to tell her story and that illustrates the fundamental difference between the two conferences.

One is the formal, traditional one-to-many lecture from an expert imparting wisdom on an audience awed by the speaker’s knowledge while the other sees the speaker – who may be an expert – drawing out the collective wisdom of the room.

TEDx stage ready for action

The “unconference” structure of meetings like SIBSyd probably does a better job of developing new ideas as the traditional conference TED is based upon that assumes the expert on the stage already has the answers.

Of the two types of conferences, it’s probably safe to say the collaborative “unconference” model works better in driving innovative solutions to problems. To work effectively though it needs the participants to be motivated by common issues.

The traditional TED style conferences do a better job of getting big ideas across to a broader audience and that’s probably one of the reasons why the event’s videos have been such an Internet success.

Some of the differences reminded me of British writer Paul Carr’s comments about the South By South West Conference in 2009 when he said “I really hope that next year one or two of those early adopters will organise – and I mean that in the loosest sense – a user-generated unofficial fringe conference to sit alongside the main event.” In many ways SIBSyd was the fringe festival to TEDx’s “establishment” status.

SIB Syd session underway

Both have their role and probably the most worrying thing at the two events was the lack of Australia’s corporate and political leadership, with the exception of Penny Sharpe, MLC who appeared to be the sole member of Parliament attending TEDx, there was little representation from either group.

In a time of massive climate, technology and economic change that is challenging the assumptions and business models of previous generations, it’s a shame our business and political leaders aren’t engaging and listening to those outside their narrow circles.

But ideas are one thing and action is another. As journalist and enfant terrible Stilgherrian said during the day, “completely over events about ‘ideas’. We have plenty of ideas. What we need is a bit of effort put into execution.”

Hopefully out of both events we’ll see some of the ideas discussed turned into action

Similar posts:
- No Related Posts
June 3, 2011
Happy birthday, iPad
Last week the iPad’s first birthday quietly passed, lost among the hoopla of the release of the tablet computing leader’s second version. It’s a difficult to think of another product that’s changed an industry so radically and so quickly.

All of Apple’s successes in the last decade have been in areas with many already established players; the iMac entered a crowded PC market, the iPod was just another MP3 player and the iPhone plunged into a sector sated with hundreds of mobile devices.

With each product Apple redefined their segment of the market place and established a secure, and profitable, niche.

The iPad was somewhat different to the other products; with it Apple redefined the entire market and now leads the tablet computing sector. Yesterday industry analysts Gartner put out figures claiming Apple has over two-thirds of today’s market and will still hold half in 2015 despite the rise of the cheaper Google Android devices.

Notable in Gartner’s predictions is the absence of Microsoft Windows based systems and that’s the clue for the iPad’s success as industries like healthcare, retail and logistics had been begging for affordable and usable tablet computers for a decade which the clunky Windows based systems had consistently failed to deliver.

Another factor in Apple’s favour has been the rise of cloud computing, which has freed devices from relying on heavy and power hungry internal hard drives and made them more flexible. One of the most popular business iPad applications has been Evernote, a note taking program which has proved indispensable for business executives.

Most of those executives work for corporations where the IT departments had blocked the introduction of cloud services and Apple products on compatibility and security grounds.

Senior management’s adoption of Apple products and cloud services has broken down that enterprise barrier, which is one of the reasons why competing companies that made their fortunes selling desktop and server products are now desperately trying to find other selling points.

In many ways, the adoption of Apple and the cloud is similar to how personal computers entered business. In the 1980’s computing departments resisted the introduction of PCs for almost the same reasons as IT managers today object to social media, cloud computing and Mac desktops in the office.

The difference is the PC revolution was initially driven by the office accountants, sales teams and secretaries who found desktop applications like Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect made their jobs more effective. This time, being different, it’s their managers driving the change.

For smaller businesses and entrepreneurs Apple’s successes open a whole range of opportunities in the applications and services markets to support these devices.

Those applications also help upstarts disrupt existing industries; the lower cost of entry is reducing barriers and speeding up lead times making slower incumbents more vulnerable to change.

Disruption is probably the greatest lesson that Apple and Steve Jobs have taught us with the iPad, you can enter an already crowded market with a product different from the existing players and own a substantial part of it.

All businesses, regardless of the sectors we work in, can learn from the iPad whether it’s how we can use tablets and the cloud in our operations or how we can apply Apple’s disruptive business model to secure a profitable industry niche. It’s a good time to be being open to new ideas.

Similar posts:
- No Related Posts
April 12, 2011