We need to learn out loud

One of my favourite books of the last few years has been Smarter Than You Think by Clive Thompson. In the book he introduced me to the concept of thinking out loud. To paraphrase Clive (badly), thinking out loud is the process of putting incomplete thoughts and ideas out in to the world so that like-minded and otherwise interested people can contribute to them, and in the process help you both learn. The true value of thinking out loud is the learning that comes from it.

power-level

 

I would argue that in an increasingly dynamic (and may I dare say disruptive) work environment the ability to learn out loud is not only valuable, it is fundamentally required.

To understand this, let us take a moment to look at antithesis of learning out loud, which is quite obviously, learning quietly. Now this may not be a concept you have heard of before (ba-boom) but it is a type of learning that you are all too familiar with. Learning quietly is what we were taught to do at school, it normally involved listening to a teacher, reading a text book or taking a test…all in hushed silence. Although there is some research to suggest that overly noisy environments can be disruptive to learning, this is not what we are talking about. Learning quietly is not about the environment we learn in but the way in which we learn.*

*This is not an introvert/extravert thing either. I would argue that thinking out loud is just as relevant for both, but for introverts there might be larger doses of self reflection in-between. 

This quiet, studious approach to learning might have worked in a world full of ‘facts’, when the ’truth’ was printed and bound into text books and the teacher’s role was to recite and the learner’s job to digest and regurgitate. Am I talking down learning quietly? Well, I suppose I am. The more I reflect on the close to two decades I spent learning like this I am not sure it served me that well.*

* I am including universities in the learning quietly approach as this was still the dominant form of learning that I experienced there. Case in point, when two of my friends asked if they could do a joint PhD on collaboration they were turned down…a PhD on collaboration could only be done by one of them because the university wouldn’t be able to determine who did the work and therefore who ‘made the grade’.

In contrast learning out loud is a collaborative approach, as pointed out earlier, it involves putting incomplete thoughts and ideas out into the world and getting feedback. Learning out loud is the cognitive equivalent of learning by doing. It is a proactive and iterative approach that involves making mistakes and adjusting accordingly. It is best suited for complex environments where the answer is not known, and often not knowable. According to Dave Snowden (who has an extraordinary ability to make complexity simple) the best strategy to employ in such complex situations is Probe – Sense – Respond. Take action (probe), determine whether the outcome was good or bad (sense), then if it is good, do more of it, if it is bad, do less (respond).

When we Learn quietly we do not probe, instead we are relying on other people to do the probing for us and just hope we get to read about it in a blog article or text book later on. But regardless of how similar another person’s circumstances and experiences are to your own they will never be the same, and as a result the outcomes will also be different.

So beware of false prophets when it comes to technology. Any vendor peddling the perfect answer, a turn key solution…or uses the words ‘best practice’ followed by just about anything, is primarily selling jargon. Digital technology offers wonderful opportunities but you are ultimately going to have to have to take some responsibility for learning it and implementing it for yourself…and if you’re going to learn, can I suggest that the best way to do it is to find a group of like-minded (or otherwise interested) people, and learn out loud.

The opportunities are in the cracks

I don’t know if you’ve seen it but there has been an ‘inspirational email’ going around for the past couple of years about a jar full of golf balls.

golf-balls

It starts with a professor standing at the front of the class and he fills up a jar full of golf balls.

He then asks the class whether it is full. They say “yes”.

He them proceeds to pour a bag of marbles into the jar and they fill up around the golf balls.

He then asks the class again whether it is full. Again, they say “yes”.

He then proceeds to pour a bag of sand into the jar and it fills the cracks around the golf balls and marbles.

He then asks the class again whether it is full (by which time I’m sure they are getting a little annoyed with his smart alec ways). Again they again say “yes”.

He then gets a glass of water and pours that into the jar and it fills the cracks around the golf balls and marbles and the sand.

Apparently this is meant to be some type of metaphor for life and what we fill it with (interestingly some versions trade the water for coffee or beer) but personally I think this story is much better as a metaphor for technology.

Back in the mainframe era we had a small number of highly specialised computer scientists identifying the code-cracking and moon-landing sized projects. There weren’t many of them but they were almost always significant.

During the mainframe era it would have been hard to imagine smaller projects been worthwhile, but we then moved into the PC era.

In the PC era we hired some on premises IT support and got them to take a second look. When we scrutinised a little more closely, we saw there was actually some quite big gaps between the golf ball sized projects and we devised marble sized projects to fill them.

Now organisations felt their work was done. The jar was full. Clearly there was no more room for any more technology.

[insert sigh of relief]

But then we moved into the era of mobile technology, apps and the cloud.

It turns out there were still more gaps to be filled. In fact, even though they were smaller there was actually many more gaps than there was previously.

So who in your organisation is peering into these smallest of gaps and identifying the opportunities to fill them?

I am currently looking to work with a small number of businesses to help them develop their digital champions. If you are interested to find out what this might look like and the benefits that this could bring to your business please get in touch.

The crowd’s not that wise…but there is still a lot you can learn

The other day I was talking to a potential member of the Digital Champions Club. He loved the concept but was concerned that his organisations (which worked in software development) might not get a lot of value out of his membership. One of the really cool aspects of the Digital Champions Club is a quarterly peer learning bootcamp where member organisations get together and share information about the digital projects they are working on. Given that he worked for a software development company that was already fairly tech savvy, he wasn’t sure there was a lot he could learn from other organisations in the program.

Crowd

In one sense he was perfectly correct. His organisation would have been right near the top when it came to technology use and if he was to engage one on one with any other member of the program he would probably have more to give than to get out of the conversation. But if he was to compare his organisation to the collective knowledge of ALL the members of the program then it would be a quite different story.

The idea that the collective can determine a better outcome than the individual dates back to 1907 when Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton discovered  that the average of all entries in a ‘guess the weight of an ox’ competition (yes really) was more accurate than any individual guess. We explicitly rely on this concept for a whole bunch of things such as determining the price of shares on the stock market, and determining the odds when you bet on a sporting contest.

Except it turns out that the crowd is not that wise. Firstly we know that stock markets fluctuate and the underdog in sporting contests sometimes wins. In fact recent research has shown that unless very specific conditions are met, such as having a large, diverse and unbiased crowd then their predictions are not that great. Given that the number of organisations participating in the Digital Champions Club is relatively small and not really that diverse* this seems to undermine the value proposition that the program offers. After all, if the crowd isn’t really that wise, wouldn’t you just be better off going it alone?

Just because the crowd isn’t that wise doesn’t mean there isn’t still a lot to learn. The difference between the Digital Champions Club and say the stock market is that we are not using the crowd to predict the future. We are just using the crowd to test it. By having a whole bunch of different organisations identifying, investigating and implementing digital projects and then sharing what they have learnt with the group, the whole group is going to learn faster.

I consistently hear that one of the biggest challenges for small and medium sized businesses (and even big ones) is getting good advice on which digital tools to test and deploy. Ultimately, being a part of the Digital Champions Club allows organisations to tap into the collective knowledge of the crowd, rather than the wisdom of it.

*They come from a variety of industries but are mostly small and medium sized businesses
There are still a handful of places left in the first intake of the Digital Champions Club. If you or your organisations want to find out how to tap into the collective knowledge of the Club please get in touch.

Curiosity is the antidote to unlimited choice

If we look at the current digital landscape we are spoiled for choice. There are thousands of options when it comes to hardware and millions when it comes to apps and software. But this wasn’t always the case. For much of the digital revolution choice has been somewhat limited.

Crossroads

Even as recently as 2008 Windows held about 95% market share for computer operating systems but with the rise of iOS and Android this has now slipped to about 50%.*

But not only are we now faced with choice about what type of device to use and what software to use with it, we are also faced with new dilemmas about WHERE we use it and HOW we use it effectively.

Once again, the WHERE bit use to have a simple answer…we would use it in our office. Mainly because most of our old hardware wasn’t really portable and even the portable stuff had a terrible battery life and we needed to keep it plugged into the wall if we wanted to use if for more than 30 minutes at a time. Also, up until about 10 years ago WiFi was still a bit of a rarity and if we wanted to access the Internet we needed to have one of those blue cables plugged into the back.

But the WHERE is now anywhere. We now have the choice to work from our office, on the couch, at the local coffee shop (where I am now) or from home in our pyjamas. The question is no longer where can I work, but where should I work.

The HOW we work is even more complex. In fact, it probably represents a large multiple of complexity over WHERE. The how we work is a complex interaction of who we are working with, what we are working on, where is the best place to be doing said work, and the tools we choose to work with.

But somewhere in all the complexity is the opportunity to do our work significantly better than we do right now. Not because the way we work is necessarily ineffective (though it probably is), but rather that given such a range of new opportunities it seems statistically improbable that there aren’t better ways of doing things.

[tweetthis url=”https://www.simonwaller.com.au/?p=5678″]We need to be willing to explore and experiment with different ways of working to find out what works and what doesn’t.[/tweetthis]

And this brings us to Curiosity.

The more choices we have the more we need to invoke a sense of curiosity. We need to be willing to explore and experiment with different ways of working to find out what works and what doesn’t. We know the old ways are just a little bit broken but we won’t find the alternatives unless we are willing to get our hands dirty.

As the power of digital technology is growing exponentially we will be faced with both more and better choices each and every day. As such the need for curiosity and experimentation when it comes to digital technology will also grow.
Unfortunately I think years of limited choice and unreliable technology tools has dramatically reduced our appetite for both.

That is why I think that Curiosity is one of the three key characteristics of a digital champion. If we lack the motivation to be curious about technology ourselves then we need to ensure that we have curious people around us. People who will do some of the explorations and experimentation for us and then show us the answers. If you can’t be bothered studying for the test then the next best thing you can do is sit next to the star student and copy their answers.

For organisations that are interested in developing the curiosity to identify new digital opportunities in your business you might be interested in the Digital Champions Club. The Digital Champions Club is a training program for the digital champions in your organisation that is guaranteed to return $100,000 in the first year.

*Yes, iOS and Android are computer operating systems. A computer is a computer is a computer…regardless of whether you touch the screen or not.

I am currently looking to work with a small number of businesses to help them develop their digital champions. If you are interested to find out what this might look like and the benefits that this could bring to your business please get in touch.

 


Champions_of_Disruption_white_paper

DOWNLOAD THE CHAMPIONS OF DISRUPTION WHITE PAPER

Download my white paper on how digital disruption is impacting your business and what you need to do about it.

 

 

When the drought turned to flood

I read an article recently that said that following the Afghanistan war, the US Army completely changed their information sharing policies. It turns out that the Army had important information that could have saved lives and assisted their own troops but the ‘need to know’ approach to information management meant that the right information didn’t get to the right people fast enough. The new approach is to share information on a ‘need not to know’ basis. Rather than ‘is there anything I should tell you?’ It is now, ‘Is there anything that I should hold back?’

armed-forces-600x400

Over the last couple of decades, we have moved from a world of information drought to a world of information flood. When you are in drought, you hoard the things that are scarce and the ownership of this resource is a source of power.  The problem is the same hoarding mentality doesn’t serve you well in an information flood. Hoarding information just means you are more likely to drown in it.

[tweetthis url=”http://bit.ly/1PRgA0X”]In an information flood, value is created by diverting the resource to where it is most needed.[/tweetthis]

In an information flood, value is created by diverting the resource to where it is most needed. In the US Army’s case, this was the troops on the ground. Think about which of your mindsets and approaches to information management are based in a scarcity or drought mindset rather and an abundance or flood mindset. Are they still serving you or is it time to update your tools and techniques to a world of information overload?

When does change become disruption?

Within business circles, the term ‘digital disruption’ is often talked about but is this really any different from good old every day change? After all, digital technology is not new. Most businesses have been using it in some form of another since the mid 1990s (and some might be able to track their use of digital technology back another 30 years before that).

To determine whether the change we are now seeing is fundamentally different than the ‘normal’ change we have seen in the past there are two factors that we might want to consider. The first of these is the speed of change and the second is the magnitude of its impact. 

The speed of change

The speed of change is one of the hardest things to get our heads around because changes in digital technology are exponential in nature rather than linear. We are fairly good at comprehending linear change because the change we have seen in the past is a good indication of what we will see in the future. Exponential change on the other hand is much harder for our little old brains to deal with.

earth-moon

One of the best example of how they differ comes from Ray Kurzweil. If we take 30 steps in a linear fashion we will move about 30 metres, if we take 30 steps in a exponential fashion (where each step is twice as big as the last) we will move about 1 billion metres, equivalent to walking to the moon and back.

If we compare this back to digital technology and every year is equal to one step then we are about 20 steps in. If this was linear change then we should be two thirds of the way to our destination. But because this is exponential we have so far completed less than 0.1% of the journey.

In effect 99.9% of the change with digital technology is still to come. 

The magnitude of impact

Early on in the digital technology journey we had a fairly narrow view of what technology would impact. We got that computers were good with numbers and we were fairly happy to see our accounting systems and other calculation intensive processes digitised. What we didn’t necessarily realise was that 

a) digital technology was potentially better than us at almost ALL information intensive tasks

b) when we break things down, we realise that whether it be building relationships, working with others, designing products, ordering materials or just about any other part of our jobs, almost ALL the work we do is information intensive*

I expect that this last point might be a little confronting because it seems to suggest that we can all be replaced by technology. Personally I don’t buy into the robot apocalypse vision (just yet) but there is ample research to suggest that highly information and process driven jobs (such as accountants) face a very high chance of automation over the next few years and many others will be automated in part.

The truth of it is that digital technology is going to be cheaper, faster and more accurate than humans can be when it comes to the communication and management of information.

[tweetthis url=”http://bit.ly/1LNGETc”]Based on the speed of change and the magnitude of impact, the term ‘digital disruption’ is appropriate.[/tweetthis]

So where does that leave us?

It is fair to say that based on the speed of change and the magnitude of impact the term ‘digital disruption’ is quite appropriate and the impact is going to be very, very real. Based on this it is probably also time for us to rethink our approach to managing this change.

Up until now,  small and medium sized business owners have mostly taken an ad hoc approach to digital technology, and this approach has served them well. When change happened at a relatively slow pace and the potential rewards were limited (digital tools use to be more expensive, slower and less reliable than they are today) an ad hoc approach was good enough. Now that change is happening faster and the potential opportunities and challenges are much bigger a different approach is going to be required.

All businesses are going to need to become more proactive when it comes to digital technology. This means developing an approach that relies less on the random stimulus provided by outside consultants and more on the development of internal experts.

I appreciate that this particularly challenging for small business owners (and sole practitioners) where additional resources are often incredibly scarce. For these types of businesses, the only practical approach will be in the development of a digital champion that can help investigate and implement digital projects on a part time basis whilst also filling another role**.

We have entered a world of digital disruption but in the words of Kevin Kelly “We’re just at the beginning of the beginning of all these kind of changes. There’s a sense that all the big things have happened, but relatively speaking, nothing big has happened yet.”

 

*For more on this I can highly recommend the book Exponential Organisations which shows that even our natural world and biological systems are largely information based.

**The good news is that the development of such resources can be incredibly rewarding. The saving of just one or two hours per week across a team of 20 could be worth $50,000+ in productivity gains each year (and this could be achieved by rolling out an off the shelf email training program).

 

Is your leadership team drinking from the firehose?

The time we seem to spend managing information rather than doing our work always amazes me. Research by Google a couple of years ago suggested that information workers (people who do thinking work, rather than doing work) spend over 30% of their time looking for stuff…and not always successfully.

fire-hose

The hashtag #TMI is used on social media to refer to someone who shares just a little too much about their personal lives. #TMI stands for Too Much Information and the truth is, this is not just a problem in our personal lives, it is just as much a problem in our professional lives as well. People cc us in on conversations we don’t really care about, and we sit through meetings to get the smallest of status updates that are actually relevant to our roles and we scan endless documents to try and find the bit that’s important.

We are trying to drink from a firehose and all we are doing is getting wet.

It used to be that being at the centre of communication channels in an organisation was a benefit. Now it is just a burden. We have more and more information to get through and our main strategy to date has been to just spend more and more time doing it. The truth is, every hour managing our information is an hour that we don’t spend doing what matters.

I’m not suggesting that we don’t check our email (as appealing as that sounds). What I am suggesting is that we can do it better. What if we could use a combination of technique and technology to improve the way we manage our information. A program I recently ran for the leadership team of one of Victoria’s local councils is a great case study of this. It showed that giving people the right techniques and the right technology to manage their information (and then showing them how to use it) reduced the time burden of #TMI by more than 2 hours a week per participant with one director citing a saving of 5 hours per week. Across the whole leadership team the total time saving was about 90 hours per week, or the equivalent of two full time employees.

But this is not just about time saving (if you have read some of my previous blogs you would know that this is an incredibly poor measure of productivity), this is really about freeing up your leadership team to focus on what really matters. Apart from the time saving the training also gave the leadership team the tools they needed to collaborate better, to work with greater flexibility and to make more informed decisions.

To stretch the analogy just a little too far, we need to teach our leaders how to get cup full of water when they need a drink and save the firehose for when we need to fight fires.

If you live in a world of too much information and can’t afford to keep throwing more time at the problem, get in touch to find out more about the leadership programs I run.

Do you think your orgnisation could manage it’s information better?

The Four Elements of Digital Intelligence (DQ)

As we enter an age of work and life that is increasingly conducted using digital tools, it is appropriate that we once again recalibrate our concept of intelligence. It is here that the concept of digital intelligence (DQ) fits, not at the exclusion of IQ or EQ but as a logical addition to them.

aboutmodafinil

Digital intelligence has four key elements. The first is to understand why we would want to use technology, its strengths and the opportunities to apply it to our advantage. The second is knowing our options, what technology is out there and the ability to choose the right tool for the job. The third is understanding how it works and having the ability to apply our digital tools in an effective way. Finally, we need to develop the judgement to know when technology should be used, when it is going to benefit what we are doing and when it is going to subtract.

Of these it is perhaps the fourth, judgement, which is the most important. Ability in itself is not enough, as it only gives you the how; judgement is something developed through a combination of ability and experience. It is for this reason that many people who are extremely competent with technology, including our kids, often fail to exercise judgement as to when it is appropriate to use it. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

Ability combined with experience, and especially diverse experience, provides a much better basis for sound decision making than ability alone. Considered decisions require the ability to know and understand alternatives and this in turn requires diverse experience. It is probably not surprising that the average age of a judge in Australia’s High Court is close to 65 years old, considering they are making important decisions about how to apply the law – an area where we want people with both the right knowledge and the right experience.

Developing digital intelligence is about developing the knowledge and skills that will allow us to understand new technologies as they emerge, to identify the opportunities in them and manage the risks. Digital intelligence is transferrable, and it is as relevant in our personal lives as it is in our professional ones, just as IQ and EQ also cross those boundaries.

Image credit: aboutmodafinil.com via flickrCC

3D_front_200x200This is an extract from Simon’s new book ‘Analogosaurus: Avoiding Extinction in a World of Digital Business’ now at 20% off from July 15-22 on Kindle! Visit Amazon to purchase or learn more about this book.

Why our productivity mindset needs a makeover

In many organisations, and especially in government, there is massive pressure to improve labour productivity. This is because tax receipts are falling. Yet, the expectation of constituents as to the services that government provides have largely remained the same. Continuing to grow productivity is perhaps one of the biggest challenges of modern organisations and yet I wonder how many organisations really understand what productivity means?

corn-orton_600x400px

In the dryest of economic terms, productivity is the amount of output per unit of input. Although productivity can come in a bunch of different flavours such as capital productivity and resource productivity, the most common form of productivity that we measure is labour productivity, the amount of output per hour worked.

For a long time, productivity has been one of the key measures of organisational success. In fact improvements in productivity has been the single biggest factor in improving the human condition over the last two centuries. In 1790, nearly 90% of the workforce was required to grow the food that we needed but improvements in farm productivity meant that by 2000 only about 2.5% of the workforce was employed in agriculture. Similar improvements in the productivity of manufacturing and services has provided us with a world of abundance.

Improving the Human Condition

The idea that productivity is fundamentally about improving the human condition is key to our understanding of it. Most businesses still look at productivity in terms of the amount or quantity of output rather than the quality of it, or more importantly, how much the output is valued by others. The reason why we look at productivity in terms of quantity is twofold. Firstly, quantities are relatively easy to measure, we can easily count the number of widgets, the tonnes of wheat or even the number of lines of code written. Secondly, for a long time it didn’t matter, one tonne of wheat was largely interchangeable for another tonne. Price was outside of the farmers control so the only reasonable thing to measure was quantity.

This might have been OK in a world of ‘doing work’ but in a world of ‘thinking work’ focusing on quantity is no longer enough. As pointed out in the article ‘Productivity in the Modern Office: A Matter of Impact’ less lines of well written computer code are much more valuable than lots of lines of poorly written code. The same goes for most other outputs of thinking (or knowledge) work, the number of reports, meetings, collaborations, customer engagements and even just plain old ideas that we have are no substitute for the quality of them. In fact I would argue that even though the quality of them is far more important than the quantity, there is another factor that is far more important again: How much the customer or your constituents care.

The Factors That Drive Productivity

If we want to drive productivity, especially in businesses dominated by ‘thinking work’ rather than ‘doing work’, the single biggest factor is to align our work to the needs of our customer. The next biggest factor is the quality of our output, and a lowly third is the amount we can produce. Looking back at our definition of productivity and ‘the amount of output’, the quantity doesn’t matter nearly much as how it is valued. We need to shift our view of productivity from one of push (here are my widgets, now consume them) to one of pull (what do you value, how can I make that happen).

Although our approach to productivity has given us so much, especially in terms of material wealth, perhaps it is time to reboot our understanding of productivity for an age of ‘thinking work’ rather than ‘doing work’. What are your thoughts on this?

Digital Conversations with Dr. Andrew Pratley

One of the best parts of my job is that I get to meet a bunch of incredibly talented people doing interesting things with technology. As part of a new series called ‘Digital Conversations’ I am going to bring some of this great thinking to you through a series of expert interviews.

My first guest is Dr Andrew Pratley, an expert in the field of data and analytics. Andrew completed his PhD at UNSW and is currently an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Sydney Business School in the Discipline of Business Analytics. Over the past decade Andrew has taught thousands of students and trained hundreds of professionals in the power of data.

Andrew-Pratley_600x400px

What I love about Andrew’s work is that he takes one of the most abstract parts of digital technology, data, and applies it in a way that helps people build knowledge and make better decisions.

S: There is a lot of talk about ‘big data’ but you tell your clients to focus on ‘your data’. How is this different and why is it more important?

A: Your data is information you have access to from your clients. customers or co-workers. It’s information readily and easily available and reflects the unique aspects of your business. Big data, on the other hand, is the great drag net of the internet. Yes, it picks up interesting information, but there is a lot of by-catch. Without extensive sorting, you don’t know what’s important and what’s irrelevant.

When I implement change in an organisation I want to know on what basis we made this decision. If that decision comes from information about your customers (your data) I think there’s a far better chance of success than from big data.

S: Where do I need to look to find my data and how do I know if it’s any good?

A: Your data has a shelf life of bottled water, not bottled milk. Instead of looking for your data, spend your time looking for a question worth answering. A question that you care about and would be willing to devote considerable time and resources to. Formulating a good question is a blend of scientific and creative thinking. Science is the process of observation and deduction. Creativity is the process of abstraction and connecting ideas. Work out which area of thinking are you strong in and then focus on the other area to develop better questions.

Coming up with a simple and compelling question that will provide a clear answer is 80% struggle. All too often I see people ask questions like “What is the value of social media?’ to which there is no answer. A better type of question would be “Do customers that purchase in store purchase more from the website with SMS or email follow up correspondence?”.

S: What are the benefits that organisations get from data-driven decision making?

A: I think the use of data to answer questions is a bit like the use of technology to improve our lives. Almost everyone uses data every day to make decisions. Just like we all use technology everyday to improve our lives. The difference is that there is a science behind the data that is rarely understood. People tend to think that because they don’t understand the science they simply shy away from approaching this space.

I know that organisations that are successful translate their strategy into quantifiable metrics that can be accurately assessed with information. Data-driven decision making is the process around the translation of plan into a quantifiable metrics which tell you truth. Sometimes this can be an inconvenient truth.

There’s a strong argument that because the data will never be perfect, we shouldn’t use it. If people really believe this then they would never buy a house, get married or send their children to school.

S: If I wanted to take a more data-driven approach to decision making what could I do to start now?

A: If an organisation is clear about their strategy then the quickest way to know if you’re succeeding is to collect small amounts of data on a regular basis and test this in a rigorous manner. One example of the many different ways you can collect data is through the receptionist at any physical location. This is a prime opportunity to ask one or two critical questions to the exact target market at the point in time when they are most interested in your business.

Compare this to what most organisation do – they send out a blanket email to their entire database with the chance to win a iPad. Which of these approaches is more likely to produce better results? Which of these is less intrusive? In which of these approaches does the customer feel engaged? When I think about data-driven decision making I don’t wonder when could it be used, rather I wonder why aren’t we using it right now.

Andrew helps franchises, start-ups and Fortune 500 companies to identify the best business opportunities based on their data, and implement measurable success. If you would like to find out more about Andrew’s work or to purchase his book Inside Job: Doing the work you want with the job you have visit his website drandrewpratley.com