Comfort with discomfort

It was hot
 
Over the Australia Day long weekend I went camping with a bunch of friends to a place called Taggerty. Taggerty sits just north of the Yarra Ranges in central Victoria, and by want of its position further from the coast and in the lee of the Yarra Ranges it misses out on some of the more variable weather patterns that Melbourne is famous for (it is generally four or five degrees warmer during the day).
 
In summary Taggerty is hot…  
 
…well actually…
 
…it’s not THAT hot, it’s just hotter than I’m recently used to. Over the weekend it averaged 35 degrees celsius (95 degrees fahrenheit)  most days while we were there, but growing up in Perth this was just normal summer temperatures. And for my brother-in-law who lives up in Queensland, anything less than 30 means it’s time to put a jumper on. And for players at the Australian Open who were dealing with a court surface temperature of 69 DEGREES CELSIUS our 35 degrees would have been quite welcome.
 
The heat felt outside our immediate comfort zone, but only because we spend so much time at 22 degrees celsius. We live in air-conditioned houses and travel in air-conditioned cars to air-conditioned offices which are all regulated at 22 degrees. It is all very pleasant right up until we are unable to regulate the temperature any more and then we struggle to adjust.
 
An elaborate metaphor
 
You might not have picked this up but my camping story is also a rather elaborate metaphor for…
 
…the impact of job-destroying robots.
 
Research shows that improvements in Artificial Intelligence and related digital technologies mean that over the next decade almost all jobs will change, and a number of jobs will no longer exist. Which means that everyone who has a job is going to have to deal a bit of change and discomfort. And if we are constantly seeking out what is familiar and stable in our work, the less capable we will be when change becomes inevitable. 

It is entirely possible to avoid discomfort in the short term, but over the long term this is likely to have some dire consequences.
 
  1. We will be ill prepared. If we struggle to operate outside of our comfort zone and our comfort zone eventually disappears, then it goes without saying that we are then more likely to struggle. Seeking out discomfort is an important strategy for building job resilience.
  2. We will miss opportunities. The more we focus on the status quo the less in “Who’s to say the status quo is the best we can do anyway?” There are a whole bunch of people who are currently working outside what we might consider OUR comfort zone (even if they are operating well within theirs)…and many of them seem to be having a great time or doing great work. What’s to say that if we were willing to extend ourselves a little bit we might find incredible new opportunities.
  3. We feel less alive. Ultimately, it is variability of our experiences that makes us feel alive. Happiness is relative to sadness, excitement is relative to boredom, and comfort is ultimately relative to discomfort. We tend to appreciate and enjoy things more when we have also experienced the alternative.
 
The little known power of experimentation
 
In his best selling book How To Lead A Quest: A Guidebook for Pioneering Leaders Dr Jason Fox talks about the power of experiments in developing corporate strategy. Experiments are cheap, simple, easy ways of trying something new whilst also giving yourself a safe way out. This same thinking can be applied equally for an individual level as it can for an organisation.
 
Experiments come in all shapes and sizes but involve a few common elements. They start with a hypothesis (or question you hope to answer), they involve taking action, and there is time given to analysis and reflection.
 
But I imagine you knew some of this already. The little known power of experimentation is that it is a safe way to just do something. And in just doing something we will not only learn the things we hope to learn (answering our hypothesis), we will also learn other things we didn’t expect…and most importantly we will become more comfortable with discomfort.
 
My two grand experiments
 
I’m currently in the process of running two grand experiments. I call them grand experiments because they have the potential to significantly impact the way that I work, and even the way that I live (that being said, they still provide a safe out should they fail to deliver the outcomes I hope for).
 
The first of these experiments is called Project Live. Project Live aims to challenge how I present my keynotes. It is based on the hypothesis that  through the more sophisticated use of images, colour and lighting I can create the type of immersive experiences you might otherwise associate with music concerts. If it fails I can always go back to the structure of my existing keynote presentations but if it succeeds I have the opportunity to dramatically improve the audience experience.
 
The second of these experiments I call my Life Work Adventure. My Life Work Adventure involves me working from a camper van for three months whilst travelling with my family up the east coast of Australia. It is intentionally not just a three month holiday, in a sense that would be too easy. I want to prove that as long as we have access to the right technology and we treat our colleagues and clients with love and respect we can effectively work from anywhere. If it fails I can always go back to working next to the pool in Mt Eliza but if it succeeds I have the opportunity to have similar, or perhaps even longer adventures with my family in the future.
 
If you can’t stand the heat
 
Leading up to our camping trip some of our friends were genuinely concerned about how they were going to deal with the heat (one family even left their camp stove at home so they could pack an evaporative air conditioner) but in some ways the reality was far better than the expectation. Yes it was hot but we quickly found ways of staying cool the best of which involved floating down the Acheron River on inflatable toys and inner tubes drinking a cold beer. The truth is, this isn’t something we would have tried unless it was so damn hot…yet ultimately this was perhaps the ultimate memory we will have from the camping trip. Thirty-two people, on a flotilla of inflatable toys, slowly floating down the Acheron River.
 
In the end it was the unexpected heat that created the most amazing opportunity.


This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.

The divide between IT and…well, everyone else in your business

Back in around 2007, I spent a few a few years working for Rio Tinto. It was my first and only proper corporate job…and it came with a proper corporate IT team. When I started there the IT team was located just a couple of floors below me, but even then I only remember meeting one member of the IT team face to face. His name was George. Unlike the rest of the IT team that stayed at their desks, George use to walk each of 20 odd floors of Rio Tinto employees every couple of weeks. He would drop by each desk, identifying problems people were having, and showing them simple tips and tricks with their laptop or Blackberry (it was 2007 after all).

Photo by Alex Kotliarskyi on Unsplash

…That was until the Helpdesk function got outsourced to India and then I never saw George again, or anyone else from IT for that matter. Getting IT issues fixed ended up being a lot harder and often it was just seemed easier to leave them broken.

Many would find this a rather typical experience of corporate IT. The commoditisation of IT services and the pursuit of lower costs have seen many IT functions either outsourced or rationalised out of existence. But the impact of this is much bigger than the pain and frustration of end users not being able to get simple computer issues fixed. The big cost is in the unrealised potential of new technology solutions to be applied within an organisation.

There is little doubt that some of the biggest opportunities in modern business are being driven by innovations in technology. Yet if the people who understand the technology aren’t (or can’t) effectively engaging with people in the operational side of the organisation, many of these opportunities will never be identified, investigated, or ultimately implemented.

This physical separation between people in IT and operations is just a facet of the IT-Operational Divide. In addition to the physical divide, there is often also a language divide (people in IT and operations use different words, abbreviations and terms), a role divide (people in IT and operations work in fundamentally different ways and don’t understand how or why that is the case) and potentially even a respect divide (IT professionals are often seen as a roadblock and struggle to get the respect of their peers).

As long as this continues, the impact on the bottom line has got little to do with what the cost of the IT function and a lot to do with the improvement opportunities that are never identified.

To proactively realise these opportunities, we ultimately need to overcome the IT-Operational divide…and somewhat ironically the best way to overcome the divide would be to get IT and operational people working together to realise some of these opportunities. But left to their own devices this is unlikely to occur (like mixing oil and water this may initially require a bit of shaking, or for the nerds out there the addition of an emulsifier). Instead organisations need to provide a structured ‘learn by doing’ approach that facilitates direct engagement and breaks down the physical, language, role, and respect barriers that are currently holding the organisation back.

This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.

___

Simon Waller is a author, speaker and trainer helping organisations get more out of their technology. He is also the founder of the Digital Champions Club, a program that develops internal digital experts who can identify, investigate, and implement the technology projects that matter.

Your Pa$$w0rds are not safe

It turns out that there are two quite famous Bill Burrs and one of them has ruined your life.  One Bill Burr is a stand up comic and actor from Breaking Bad, who makes jokes about racism and fat people…he’s the good one. The other Bill Burr, the one you haven’t heard about, is not necessarily a bad man (and he very much regrets much of what he did) but there is also little doubt that the second Bill has caused more widespread pain and frustration in the world than almost anyone else you can think of.


What did this Bill do? In 2003 Bill came up with the guidelines for safe, secure passwords. 

That’s right, it was Bill who suggested that if we use a combination of uppercase, lowercase, numbers and symbols our passwords would be safer. He also advised us to not use the same password for multiple accounts and to change our passwords regularly. 

But before you start googling Bill’s home address and instructions to make Molotov cocktails it is important to note that Bill now admits that much of this advice is now wrong (and he is very sorry).

All the evidence suggests that this approach has made us use passwords that are both easier to crack and harder to remember. Using this approach people tend to choose simpler passwords and follow a similar pattern every time they have to update them. It also encourages people to write their passwords down (or store them in an excel spreadsheet called ‘Passwords’) which makes it both easier for them (and anyone else) to find them when they want.

But this is not a post about Bill, or about passwords. This is a post about what we do when circumstances change. Now that we have new updated advice that shows our password policies are unnecessarily frustrating and painful, as well as being quite unsafe, how long will it be before someone does something about it?

I understand that it’s probably not your responsibility. And you’re busy. And eventually someone will do something about it…won’t they?

Or perhaps they’re all thinking the same thing as you.

One of the problems we face when we have a specialised workforce is that they tend to avoid work that sits outside their domain of expertise. This generally means that unless someone has being specifically provided with the time, resourcing and mandate to investigate and implement these types of digital projects, then nobody is.

There is little doubt that the digital world is a rapidly evolving space. New technologies, opportunities and challenges are constantly emerging and how we respond to them will go a long way to determining our future relevance and success. 

This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.

No amount of training will replace self interest

My dad is one of those people who prides himself on how well he trains his dogs. But growing up we had a dog by the name of Buster and even my Dad wonders sometimes whether Buster just spent 15 years training him.

Buster would go with my Dad everywhere. One day Dad was out running errands and Buster sat with him, sitting obediently in the front passenger seat footwell. It was about lunchtime so Dad stopped off to pick up a steak sandwich to eat. He was eating it on the go but had only managed to eat about quarter of it before getting to his next stop. Trusting that Buster knew not to touch food that wasn’t his, Dad left the steak sandwich unwrapped on the front passenger seat.

After giving the dog a stern ‘Don’t touch it’ he jumped out of the car and ran into a nearby office to drop off some documents. Returning a few minutes later he jumps back in the car and felt a small surge of pride to see that his steak sandwich was still sitting on the front passenger seat.

Commending Buster with a warm ‘Good boy’ it was only after he picked up the sandwich and took a bite that he found out Buster had managed to slip the steak out of the sandwich and left the rest of it completely intact.

The truth is training or telling people what to do rarely works. People might look like they’re doing what they’ve been told, but under the surface something quite different might be going on. If you want people to follow your orders, back up your project or use your technology you need to do one of two things. You need to either take the time and effort to understand how people doing what you want is in their own self interest or you need to find a way to make the wrong outcomes harder to achieve and the right outcomes easier.

* This post is a reflection on a story that I’ve recorded as part of a larger project on the use of storytelling in business. To find out more about the project or to check out some of the stories I’ve recorded head to Project Live.

This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.

Is technology encroaching on our humanity?

There is an increasing level of belief that with just a bit more computing power, another embedded chip we can fix anything from global poverty to climate change. As the ability for computers to create, collect and analyse large chunks of data and develop more and more advanced models of how our world operates, there is a risk that we become blind to technology’s limitations. And when we become blind to its limitations we increasingly apply it in ways that we shouldn’t.

There are two excellent examples of this currently in the news. The first is the Department of Education’s proposal to use Automated Essay Scoring (AES) to assess the written component of the NAPLAN. The second and related example is the use of algorithms to assess English proficiency as a pre-requisite for either a work visa or permanent residency in Australia.

The argument for the use of these types of technologies normally comes down to two factors. The first, which you most often hear from the supporters of AES and computer scoring, is the use of algorithms in assessments means tests are scored more consistently and it reduces the potential influence from personal bias. The second, which you most often hear from the detractors, is that a computer can scan and score tests much faster than a human can, happily works long hours and weekends and isn’t a member of a union.

Supporters claim that the algorithms consistently score more accurately than humans and that any impact on employment is just the price of progress. But this argument is simplistic and ignores the fundamental disconnect between the task that the human and the computer undertake in scoring an English test. This disconnect is the ability to understand meaning.

The ability to understand and convey meaning is a skill that humans have but technology lacks. AES is effectively a statistical analysis of words, sentences and punctuation. It can use this to ‘indicate’ the author’s grasp of the English language but at no point can the algorithm assess whether what was written (or said) was meaningful or even understandable.

This would appear to be a fatal flaw and has been highlighted quite spectacularly by one of AES’s main detractors. Les Perelman is a former director of writing at MIT who created the Babel Generator, an algorithm designed to create gibberish essays that scored highly on AES software. Take, for example, this piece arguing that college tuition is high because of greedy teaching assistants.

“The average teaching assistant makes six times as much money as college presidents… In addition, they often receive a plethora of extra benefits such as private jets, vacations in the south seas, starring roles in motion pictures.”

The essay was given the top score of 6 out of 6.

But there is another and potentially bigger issue that this highlights. If algorithms are only assessing the indicators of good communication rather than the ability to effectively understand and convey meaning, then the algorithm is also incapable of giving usable feedback. It could suggest you use more big words, create longer sentences, and remember to capitalise proper nouns but this is a somewhat superficial assessment of your ability to communicate.

An example of this is Alice Xu, a childcare worker from China who obtained a master of education in Australia and who speaks fluent English took the test and scored 41 out of a possible 90. A year later, after tutoring she achieved a perfect score. As Alice put it “I didn’t improve my English, I just changed the way I took the test, I did it by learning how the computer worked, I don’t think my English skills or ability improved in any way. This exam is really about your test-taking skills, it’s not about your speaking or language ability.”

This is a classic case of how measuring the things that really matter is difficult. So instead, we take what we can measure and make them the things that matter. It is hard to measure love, good character, happiness and value so instead we measure likes, money, time and sentence length and word count.

Even the proponents of NAPLAN suggest it was never meant to be a ‘high stakes’ assessment but, in the absence of other assessments capable of capturing a broader understanding of what it means to be a good human, it has become one. Schools are narrowing their curriculum and engaging NAPLAN ‘experts’ to help them improve their scores. Students are becoming more stressed and parents are hiring tutors. Whether it was intended or not, NAPLAN has now become a thing that matters. The unintended consequence of this is that children develop to be excellent test takers at the expense of being caring, loving and creative human beings.

But wait.

This is not to suggest that technology doesn’t have a place in helping assess student outcomes. Firstly, it would seem reasonable to apply computers in the testing of things that are computable. Areas such as mathematics, physics and chemistry often involve discrete answers that are either right or wrong. If the test involved showing how an answer was derived, a good testing algorithm could even point out where the mistake was made and provide direction on how to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

It is even reasonable to employ AES or similar technologies in the assessment of creative, subjective and meaning driven subjects such as English Literature and Art. It is just important that we are conscious of a technology’s limitations and apply it correctly. In the case of AES we need to acknowledge that the computer’s assessment is, and should always be, secondary to what the human understands.

Just as it has in the past, the technology will continue to get better and the arguments will become more persuasive that the technology can do the same job that a human does just faster and cheaper. For some work (the information drive, logical, right/wrong types of work) these claims will be entirely true. In such cases, the best strategy is to embrace the technology and move onto other things. But for other work, work based in purpose, communication, creativity and meaning this will always be a lie, no matter how hard it may be to tell the difference. In these cases it is important that we continue to fight for our humanity, to do the work that matters even when we can’t measure it.

This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.

Stop holding your clients back

The other week, I presented to the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia at Crown in Perth. One of the stories I shared was the frustration I experienced as a paperless person selling our family home in Perth five years ago. I had people asking for fax numbers, ridiculous amounts of forms and other pieces of paper being sent to me via snail mail and contracts that had been annotated, scanned and emailed so many times that they were illegible.

But that was all the way back in 2011, and oh how the technology has got better since then. According to Moore’s law, by the time it came to buying our new home in Melbourne five years later the technology should have been at least eight times better…and yet I struggled through the same inefficient paper driven processes I had previously.

The technology is getting better but many of the processes aren’t.

One of the most common reasons that I hear for organisations not investing more in technology is “our clients/suppliers/staff aren’t ready yet” but whether you think they are ready or not, your lack of investment in technology is probably holding both them, and you back.

Firstly, we need to acknowledge that any generalised statements about the characteristics of people are flawed. There will always be some people ahead of the curve and there will always be some behind it. This means that the portion of your clients/staff/suppliers who are early adopters (the ones who know what technology makes possible in terms of convenience, usability, time saving and quality) are currently feeling frustrated and perhaps just a little bit disappointed. This was very much my personal experience.

You could suggest that I’m an exception — that most people are generally comfortable with the status quo and they don’t feel disappointed at all, and I would suggest that this is only because you haven’t shown them what’s possible. Technology development is ultimately funded through developing solutions that improve customer experience and the speed and quality of outcomes. So we may not be disappointing our slow adopters yet but we are not necessarily serving them either.

And I would add that there are probably more people ahead and less people behind the curve than you think. The consumerisation of IT means that most of us have access to better technology at home than we do in the workplace which means the level of proficiency you see is far less than what people actually have. The number of people you’re already disappointing might be far greater than you think.

We are currently recruiting for the next intake of the Digital Champions Club. Join a 12 month program that is guaranteed to improve organisation performance and deliver measurable value. Check out the Program Structure.

It’s like trying to get a fat man to run a marathon

One of my favourite business analogies of all time is one used by IT expert and advisor to CIOs, Owen McCall. He likens most organisations IT efforts to ‘trying to get a fat man to run a marathon’. He suggests that IT teams often get ahead of themselves, they become so obsessed with the end goal, the marathon, or the transformation, that they stop focusing on the individual steps required to achieve it.

As Owen points out, the first step to running a marathon is just getting off the sofa, the next one might be to go for a walk, the next one might be to go for a longer walk, then perhaps a jog, then a longer jog, then a run, then a longer run, then a half marathon and finally after months (or perhaps years) the previously fat man might have done enough preparation to line up for his first marathon.

Maybe we like to focus on the end goal because when we break it down into steps it seems like so much more work. But the truth is, if we miss the intermediate steps then we are bound to fail anyway.

We also need to realise that the goal was only ever symbolic, the real objective was not to run a marathon but to get fit, and perhaps to lose weight. This is not achieved in the running of the marathon but in all the preparation that happens beforehand.

This is exactly the same when it comes to digital projects. We are obsessed with big game changing, future proofing projects but more often than not they fail because organisations lack the ‘digital fitness’ to complete them. Worse still, in the pursuit of what might be considered unobtainable outcomes, we are likely to discourage people from engaging in the next digital transformation project when it inevitably comes around.

If you want to pursue big digital projects, then the logical place to start is with much smaller ones. Smaller projects help develop digital skills and create a sense of achievement and confidence with technology. It is a longer path and involves more work to slowly build towards your big projects but this is the work that will make your organisation ‘digitally fit’. And just like with running a marathon, you will realise that in getting digitally fit you will have  increased agility, reduced costs and made the improvements to quality that really mattered anyway.

If you’re looking to start a digital transformation program for your organisation but having a hard time getting the ball rolling, head over to the Digital Champions Club to see how we can help you through the process.

This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.

Photo by Martins Zemlickis on Unsplash

Doing less to achieve more. Five things I’ve learnt from working a 30 hour week.

Six months ago I wrote a post committing both myself and my team to a 30 hour week. I felt now might be a good time to check in and let you know how it’s gone.

But first a confession. I haven’t actually managed to stick to just 30 hours of work each week. There have been a couple where I’ve done less but in most cases I have done more. That being said, I probably didn’t start with an average of 40 hours a week either. So a more accurate title for this post would have been ‘Five things I’ve learnt working at least 10 hours less per week‘…but it doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

So what have I found?

I’m more relaxed
We all struggle with a lack of progress sometimes. The old me would have taken this as a sign that I needed to work harder and longer until I ‘broke through’. The new me steps out, goes and cleans the pool or takes the dogs for a walk. In the back of my head, I know I’ve got some time to burn so I might as well just take a break.

I’m more selective
Cutting your hours back is a great catalyst for culling the work and the clients that you don’t want to do or that don’t add value. Over the last six months I’ve had countless conversations with my team about whether a particular task, program or client is really worthwhile. Sometimes they have, sometimes they haven’t, but the most interesting discussion have been on the ones that didn’t appear to be worthwhile but after making a couple of little tweaks, suddenly made sense.

I’m doing better work
Funnily, one of the first clients I told about my 30 hour week immediately booked me to give a keynote to a room of 100 consultants. It made me realise that now we walk around with our work in our pockets, so many people are struggling to maintain balance. But apart from giving me the opportunity to experiment with a different approach to work and to explore a bunch of new ideas about how technology can make us more human, the reduced pressure and additional head space (see points one and two above) has also improved the quality of my thinking and ultimately my work.

I can switch off easier
I used to really struggle to call time at the end of the work day. When you have your own business there is always at least one more thing you could do…and I would generally try and get it done. Cutting my hours has given me permission to call it quits at the end of the day and not be racked by guilt as a result. This is not to say I don’t think about work outside of work hours anymore, rather I don’t feel I need to, but sometimes I still want to.

I enjoy my family time more
I used to work so hard to put boundaries around my work. I would explain to Nomes (my wife) and Miah and Poppy (my kids) that just because I worked in the backyard didn’t mean I didn’t have work hours. I would leave ‘the house’ at 8:30 in the morning and would finish at 5:30 in the afternoon. But these artificial boundaries just meant I missed out on doing cool things like going for a swim with Miah and Poppy after school or taking Nomes out for lunch during the week. Now I get to be the person who says yes to everything.

As I write this I’ve been trying to think of the ‘cons’ as a counterpoint to the ‘pros’ above…but I really can’t think of any. I really have no intention of returning to my old schedule, if anything, I would like to cut back my hours a bit more. In fact the family is currently planning a three month ‘work-cation’ in our campervan Dennis where the intention is to experiment with a whole lot more flexibility than I employ at the moment (if you’re interested, you can follow follow the adventure through my YouTube channel).

Probably my biggest take away to date is that our current obsession with busyness means we are often doing more work rather than ‘good’ work or the ‘right’ work. Perhaps this is because employers still struggle to define output in other ways apart from the number of hours worked. Perhaps it’s because our identity is increasingly tied to what we own or what we earn. Perhaps it’s because we are worried that if we don’t look busy we might lose our jobs. But regardless of the reason why we feel compelled to be busy I have little doubt that we are often doing a whole lot more than we need to achieve a whole lot less than we could.

This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.

The three best reasons to change how you work

Change might be the new black but it almost invariably comes with uncertainty, discomfort and short term costs. So if we are going to embark on any form of change we need a good reason. These are the three best reasons I know:

1. We don’t have the time. It is unlikely that you are flat out doing only the important things. Research suggests that out of an eight hour work day the average working is only productive for 2 hours and 53 minutes. Other activities that contribute to being busy include reading the news (one hour per day), discussing non-work related things with co-workers (forty minutes per day), and searching for new jobs (26 minutes per day). If, out of the three hours of productive time, we are often spending it in ineffective or unnecessary meetings, communicating poorly, rushing to meet deadlines, constantly following up emails and fixing mistakes, then we might be busy but we are not being effective. Fixing some of this would be a good investment.

2. We don’t have the right people. If you are consistently thinking you don’t think you have the right people, it might not be them, it could be you. The difference between the right people and the wrong people is often in how we motivate, train and support them. By providing an environment that encourages change, celebrates success and tolerates failure people are more likely to be show initiative…otherwise the first bit of initiative we are likely to see is when our best people leave to start a new job (see point one above).

3. We don’t know what to do. We live in an age of constant change and disruption. If you don’t already have a steady stream of value adding improvement opportunities coming your way, then your current approach clearly isn’t working. If you want to know what to do, start by asking people about the challenges they’re dealing with every day (once again, see point one above). If you spend just a little bit of time looking around your organisation you will definitely find things worth fixing. Spend a little bit of time after that and you will probably find some possible solutions. The gap between identifying opportunities and implementation can be shortcut with the right motivation (see point two above), methodology, guidance and support but if you don’t know what to do then you clearly need to change your approach to doing things.

As I said, these are the three best reasons I know for changing the way we work. Unfortunately, in so many organisations these are the excuses we give for inaction.

 

This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.

You can’t find what you’re not looking for

One of the biggest challenges that small and medium sized businesses face when it comes to technology opportunities is that they don’t know where to look for them, and, without knowing where to look, the cost of finding things becomes time consuming and expensive.

In some ways, it’s a bit like playing hide and seek as a kid. The first time you play in a new house or yard you have to look everywhere because you don’t know where to look. But if you play the game long enough in the same space you eventually become better at finding people because you know where people tend to hide.

But the ability to find and execute against technology opportunities is not a game, it’s a value generating activity that can dramatically improve an organisation’s competitive advantage if done well. The real problem for many SMEs is that a lack of knowledge about what to look for and where to look means that it is often done badly, or sometimes not at all.

So what’s the number one thing that SMEs can do to improve their likelihood of success?

Research has shown on countless occasions that the intelligence of the collective is almost always greater than the individual’s. To use the hide and seek analogy above, we are more likely to find people if there are more of us looking…and we are also more likely to find people if we work with an expert who knows all the best hiding spots.

Within the Digital Champions Club we strongly believe in the value of collective intelligence. That’s why all the members openly share the details of the projects they are working on and have completed (since the program’s inception 18 months ago more than 80 projects have now been shared within the community). It is also why we bring in noted experts to educate members on the types of opportunities they need to be looking for.*

*This is not a unique model, it’s just unique in a digital space. In fact, the Digital Champions Club was based on the success of other programs I’ve been a part of such as Thought Leaders, The Executive Connection and The CEO Institute.

If you’re running a small to medium sized organisation, how are you using collective intelligence to improve the way you identify digital opportunities? If you’re not, then I’d suggest it’s both costing more and taking more time than it should. Either that or you’re missing out all together.

At our most recent Digital Champions Bootcamp in Sydney, our guest speaker was Dr Andrew Pratley, a lecturer at the University of Sydney Business School who came and discussed how SMEs need to think about their data differently. He dispelled some of the myths about big data and got members thinking about their data in terms of the questions it could help their organisation answer (this follows on from previous talks by Chris Paynter on artificial intelligence and machine learning and Dermot Crowley presenting on how to use Microsoft Outlook to work smarter). Click on the video above for a short interview we did with Andrew.

If you’re looking to start a digital transformation program for your organisation but having a hard time getting the ball rolling, head over to the Digital Champions Club to see how we can help you through the process.

This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.