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.

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.

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

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.

The fine line between sharing and self promotion

There is no doubt that digital technology has greatly enhanced our ability to share and connect with others. Whether it be email or social platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, we are more connected than ever before. As the ease of connection has grown we have expanded our networks beyond the tradition inner circle of friends and family to include many ‘weak ties’, people we’ve met at networking events, people who found our profile online, people who’ve reached out to us and we felt obliged to accept their ‘friend’ request lest we hurt their feelings…people we would struggle to recognise on the street.*

*Professor Robin Dunbar famously determined that we can only maintain 150 meaningful relationships at any one time. This was termed ‘Dunbar’s number’ and has been shown to apply online in much the same way as it does in real life

Sharing with an audience of people we don’t know well is impacting how we communicate. For some, it means sharing less on public platforms, unsure of who is listening and what people might think. For others, it’s carefully curating the content we post online to highlight the best parts of their life and work. And for a few, it is a genuine and meaningful opportunity to expand reach and impact.

But the real risk that lies within these expanded networks is that we stop caring as much. Rather than considering them as friends or acquaintances we start to think of them as an audience (either a personal or a professional one). We can still pinpoint close friends and relatives within that network, but when we consider them as a collective, the number of weak ties often outweighs the number of people whom we care deeply about…and we don’t have the capacity to care about them all.*

*The definition of care is ‘the provision of what is necessary’ and I don’t believe we can show true care for others without taking the time to understand their personal interests and needs.

And so just like an actor treats their audience different from their loved ones, we start doing the same. We play a part for our audience that is different from what we show in private. We seek approval…and we self promote.

The line between sharing and self promotion is a fine one. From the outside they appear much the same but the intent is so very different. Sharing is done from a position of generosity to help the people we care about. Self promotion is what we do to make people like us and remember us…and to confuse matters further, sharing will generally result in some element of self promotion, and self promotion always requires some form of sharing.*

*Case in point is this post. As much as possible, I’ve tried to write this from a position of generosity, to articulate a problem I see many of my peers dealing with and help them find a way past it. But if we are to assume for a moment that it achieves it’s objective, then there is also little doubt this post will also serve to promote me. 

This fuzziness between sharing and self promotion is not just theoretical, it’s a problem I’ve been struggling with over the last few months.

About a year or so ago I started working with Mykel and Dave Dixon (aka The Dixon Effect) to produce a short video that articulates the motivation behind the work I do. It was based on an awesome video that they had done for a good friend of mine Dr Jason Fox, a video that beautifully captures his wonderful complexity and thoughtfulness.

I acknowledge that my willingness to fund the project was not altruistic, it was conceived of for promotional purposes…but along the way the intent changed. The original script was rewritten, Mykel composed new music and Dave reshot some of the video because I felt so uncomfortable with the self promoting elements in the first cut…so uncomfortable that I knew I wouldn’t be happy sharing the video once it was finished.*

*The final product is more a call to action about the choices we make with technology than it is about me. I wanted people to see that making smart choices (or any choice at all) about how we use our digital tools can improve balance and quality of life. 

I received the revised video a month or two ago but have continued to struggle with how and when it is OK to share it.

This dilemma has meant that apart from one little airing on Facebook the video has spent most of its life sitting dormant on my hard drive.

So where does that leave us?

The fuzziness between sharing and self promotion means that only we can determine whether what we post online is done from a position of generosity or selfishness. The fuzziness also means that we will always be able to pretend to others (and ourselves) that one was really the other, but if we continue to operate from a position of selfishness we will ultimately devalue our networks, including the people in them that we genuinely care about.

So with that in mind, I’m sharing my video with you now in this post. I’m sharing it because I think it is a good example of the fuzziness that we are all grappling with when it comes to social media. I’m sharing it because regardless of the self promotion, I believe the message is an important one…

…and I’m sharing it because if you like the video and you find it valuable, well maybe you will like me just a little bit more as well.

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

There are only four approaches to take when it comes to digital technology

When you break it down, there are really just four approaches to take when it comes to dealing with digital, or in fact, any type of change.

And to determine which of the four approaches to take, you only need to answer two questions:

The first question is “do you currently offer a product or service that is a substitute for, or complementary to, technology?” 

When a new technology is introduced, its success is defined by its ability to do what it does faster, cheaper or better than what was available previously. If what you do is a substitute for new technology then your job will be worth less, but if what you do is complementary then it is generally worth more.

Take Uber for example (overused but at least we all know it). Uber has dramatically reduced the time and effort associated with finding, booking and paying for transportation. For some elements of the transportation/taxi industry, such as drivers, Uber is a complementary service. Research shows that drivers now have a higher utilisation (spend more of their shift actually driving passengers around rather than waiting for fares) and earn more money than before. And not just Uber drivers, taxi drivers are also using the Uber app to improve their earnings.

On the other hand, businesses such as Cabcharge which provide a payment service for taxi and hire car operators has seen their revenue plummet as Uber not only provides a booking service, it provides a payment service as well.

The second question is “Are you a proactive identifier of new technology or generally late to the party?”

Regardless of whether your offering is a substitute for, or complement to new technology, you have distinctly better options if you can identify emerging technology trends early.

If you’re an early identifier and offer a complementary service your best approach is to double down. Continuing with the Uber example there have been a number of individuals who have identified new opportunities that have emerged within the Uber eco-system and done incredibly well as a result. One of these is Joseph Ziyaee who realised he could make more money out of referring people to be Uber drivers than being a driver himself. By helping new drivers qualify and register as an Uber driver he now earns about four times as much as he did when he was driving.

If your an early identifier and offer a substitute product then your best approach is to divest. When Uber launched in NSW in 2012 the value of taxi plates were around $400,000. By the time it was legalised in 2015 they had dropped to $200,000 (with the most recent sales at around $150,000). The early identifiers of Uber, the ones who took the time to investigate it’s impact overseas and understand the implications, they divested early and saved themselves significant pain.

So regardless of whether you’re on the right side or the wrong side of technology driven change you have fairly good options as long as you are proactive. When you’re slow to identify opportunities or don’t act on them your options diminish rapidly.

Even if you have a complementary product or service, if you’re reactive to technology driven change then your best option is just to keep doing what you’ve done before.  By luck rather than good management, everything you do should be worth a little bit more than it was before, but the big opportunities are likely to be already gone.

On the other hand, if you have a substitute product or service and are slow to react to change the only real option you have is to defend. The problem with defending is that it diverts energy and resources away from both doing (incurring short term costs) and/or adapting (incurring long term costs). Once again this strategy has been clearly at play in the personal transportation arena. The taxi industry has applied significant resources to try and stop the legalisation of ride sharing services such as Uber. This may have slowed the transition and won some small concessions but the continuing slide in the value of taxi plates suggests the energy invested on defending has had much wasted.

So what’s the moral of this story? The only way to ensure you’re on the right side of digital driven change is to constantly seek it out and endeavour to understand it. If just one app, built with largely off the shelf components, can destroy billions of dollars of value in just a few years imagine what might happen in your industry/organisation/job next.

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

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

What comes before commitment?

Over the last few years social media has dramatically changed what it means to date (and I say this without a shred of personal experience).  Whereas the old approach to dating was

Not dating > Dating > Move in > Engaged > Married


The current landscape goes something like this

Not dating > Texting > Dating > No longer on Tinder > Move in > That talk > Deleting your dating apps > Officially in a relationship on Facebook > Should we get married…ever?*

* With reference to http://www.bolde.com/ridiculous-new-stages-relationships-happen-youre-fully-commit/

This is not a critique on modern relationships or the value of marriage, but rather an observation that greater choice has resulted in people delaying significant decisions. In a sense, what comes before commitment is a commitment to finding out.

But here in lies the rabbit hole.

Often we are unwilling to make the commitment before the commitment. Instead we end up with “F#$k it!” and don’t make a choice at all (even though technically this is itself a choice).

In many ways an overwhelm of opportunity is reinforcing the status quo. I would argue that this is a significant factor in why so many organisations are falling behind when it comes to digital technology. It’s not that they don’t know there are opportunities out there but rather the sheer number of opportunities and so many options result in, well, not doing very much at all.

This is one of the fundamental reasons for starting the Digital Champions Club. I wanted to give people a simple, easy to follow framework for prioritising opportunities and assessing options. But somewhat ironically, the biggest barrier to people joining the Digital Champions Club has been the decision to join.

So in the belief that incremental change is better than nothing at all, I have just launched the Digital Champions Club Resource membership. To follow through with the analogy above it’s like dating but still maintaining an active Tinder profile. You get a half hour one-on-one mentoring session with me (to help you determine which opportunities to focus on), 12 months access to the Digital Champions Club online resources and invitations to some digital champions only events (you can find more details here).

So if you’re looking to go digital, but not willing to settle down just yet, why not swipe right and get in touch.

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

Where’s your humanity?

WARNING! LONG POST

[Insert cup of tea here]

In a month or so I’m delivering a keynote entitled ‘Will technology make us more human?’ It’s a keynote I’ve had in my speaker guide for over a year but until now, no one has actually booked me to deliver it. I’m not sure why that is. It feels like a discussion that many organisations need to start having. There is a very real risk that, without clarity on what we want from our technology, we will ultimately accept anything we are given.

When you delve into any news report and research about our emerging but unknown future, a future where we face being outsmarted by our technology, you piece together a story that goes something like this. Sometime in the next 15 years you have at least a one in three chance of losing your job to a robot or AI. This will be a challenging time, you might try and re-skill into something more current like coding (it’s the new blue collar work) but as technology keeps getting better it will be hard to keep ahead of AI. At some point 20 to 30 years from now it will be deemed that the singularity has arrived, meaning that Artificial Intelligence has surpassed human intelligence at which point we will either need to merge with AI if we want to remain relevant or face becoming technology’s ‘pet’.*

*On the flip side of this doom and gloom is the argument that many of the jobs that face being automated weren’t that great anyway. And I’m not just talking about monotonous factory work, the good news is many lawyers and accountants face automation as well

But something important is missing from this view of the future, and that is…why? What’s the point of all this technology driven productivity? What is it that we want out of life? And before we decide to merge with AI or upload our consciousness to a hard drive, what will we potentially lose or leave behind?

At the core of all this is a question that’s been bouncing around in my head for some time now and that is ‘What does it mean to be human?’ As technology continues to encroach on the activities that we once considered the domain of people, it is reasonable for us to question what it is that makes us special.

Now bear with me. From a philosophical perspective we often use the word ‘human’ in a contextual way. From an evolutionary biology perspective it might mean ’not an ape’ but from a interpersonal perspective it might mean ‘fallible’ (as in ‘we’re only human’). Ultimately, being ‘human’ is being similar to how we see ourselves. Which leads us to an important point, technology will never be human (no matter how good it gets) because it would undermine our own sense of identity. Kiwis hate being considered the same as Australians and Canadians hate being confused with Americans…but everyone would feel a little bit hurt if, during a phone call, someone thought they sounded like an automated answering service.

So, what is human is ultimately defined by what our technology is not.*

*This is compounded by the fact that once we create a technology to do something the value of that thing falls. This is a basic supply and demand equation, technology makes things more abundant and ultimately the value falls. When we didn’t have mechanical tools, physical strength was valued. When we didn’t have calculators, mental arithmetic was valued. And while AI is still in its infancy we will still value certain types of knowledge and expertise such as what you learn in eight years of medical school. 

In this sense, the definition of humanity continues to evolve. In our not too distant past, physical prowess paid a far more significant role in defining our humanity. The Alpha Male is a throw back to when the ability to lift heavy things and swinging them around your head (like, say, a sword) had a significant impact on both our personal success and our value to others. But with the advent of steam power and the flourishing of mechanical technologies, physical strength meant less and less.

In fact, with the first industrial revolution came a revolution in humanity. We came to value people for their brains more than their bodies. Bodies couldn’t compete against the technology of the times and as a result brains became the new competitive advantage.

In his book Unnatural Selection: Why The Geeks Will Inherit The Earth author Mark Roeder argues that many traits that were previously considered detrimental to human survival such as Asperger’s syndrome, ADHD or being on the autism spectrum have now become an advantage. This is not to say that physical appearance no longer matters, but rather that ‘the book’ is not ‘the cover’.

But this is neither the end of evolution in either technology or our definition of humanity. The rapidly emerging field of AI is casting a shadow across what were once greatly valued mental feats. We can no longer compete again computers in Chess, Go* or Texas Hold ‘em. Computers are helping diagnose cancer, completing our tax returns and even recommending where we can get the best Chinese food.** So if the geeks can’t outsmart our technology who get’s to inherit the earth?

*It is interesting that during one of games between the world champion of Go and Google’s Go playing AI, Alpha Go, a response to one of the moves by European champion Fan Hui was “It’s not a human move. I’ve never seen a human play this move”
**In fact that’s all being done with just one AI called Watson. Just don’t ask Watson what’s for dinner, his food suggestions have been generally less than appetising.

Notwithstanding the potential risks to the very survival of the human race that unfettered AI brings, it is perhaps time to once again redefine ourselves and embrace the next chapter in human evolution. Just as in the past, the things we will value going forward, the things we will choose to associate ourselves with, are the things that our technology can’t do for us. This will include traits such as empathy, love, ingenuity, ethics and, perhaps even romance.

Which is a lovely segue to the Business Romantics.

Perhaps the highlight of my last two weeks has been The Business Romantics tour I went to last Friday in Melbourne, The tour was hosted by Mel Grablo of Talking Sticks and Mykel Dixon and featured the amazing Tim Leberecht. What was truly inspirational about this event was not just the content (which could have just as easily being downloaded via YouTube or read on a Kindle at greater convenience) but Mel and Mykel’s commitment to creating an event that rejected established norms (read logic) and catered to an emerging humanity.*

*For someone who speaks at a lot of business conferences it was the first time I’d seen a three piece band to accompany the speakers, a host with a grand piano, a resident artist, an unscripted half hour slot for audience contribution…and a whole lot of wasted catering when this overtook the afternoon tea break.

In his keynote Tim made one particular point that stuck with me. The Romantic period of art and literature was a direct response to the obsession with empirical evidence and the scientific method that emerged during the industrial revolution. We are now in the midst of a new industrial revolution (the fourth apparently) and echoes of the same overt focus on productivity, logic and data can now be seen throughout society’s (and most strongly in business).

But just as data and logic failed to complete our understanding of humanity 300 years ago I believe it will fail again now. This is not to say that there isn’t value in scientific pursuits but rather that parallel to these pursuits we need something else, something more, something that is difficult to automate and therefore retains it’s inherent value.

Our value has always been in our humanity, even if our understanding of what this means has changed over time. I believe we all need to start exploring what we want humanity to mean next. Failure to do so leaves us open to both replacement and control by AI and other emerging technology. In which case, we better hope our future AI keepers like having pets.

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

An Unstoppable Force and an Immovable Object

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Ultimately, a lot of energy gets consumed for very little result. Of course most objects are not truly immovable and if we apply enough force we can get our way. But much of this energy is wasted and, if we’d used it elsewhere, it is likely we could have achieved so much more.

In the Digital Champions Club we try and avoid projects that require people to be coerced rather than be convinced. There are so many improvement opportunities out there. You can generally cherry pick ones where each and every stakeholder is a winner. When you find these projects, people that might have otherwise seemed immovable are suddenly anxious for the project to start, thankful when it has been completed and interested in whatever you propose next.

The best way to deal with immovable objects is not to apply more force, it’s to show them it’s in their own best interest to get out of the way.

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

A Minimalist Approach to Technology Part II

If you’re considering a minimalist approach to technology it is important to distinguish between technology minimalism and minimalist technology. If you’re feeling distracted, frustrated and otherwise overwhelmed by technology one of these options is potentially far more valuable to you than the other.

For those who have missed the hype from the Mobile World Congress Nokia has announced that it is releasing an updated version of the Nokia 3310. With over 126 million of the handsets sold (and at least one of them still in use) The Nokia 3310 is perhaps one of the worlds most iconic phones. It was near indestructible (check out the ‘Nokia 3310 crash test’ meme), had a massive battery life and included the classic game Snakes II…

…No really, if you read the press about the re-release of the 3310, these are the three things that people remember about the 3310, because pretty much that was all there was to say about the phone. The 3310 had a 84 x 84 pixel monochrome screen, there was no browser, no ability to sync your calendar or address book (each phone number needed to to be entered individually using tiny, difficult to use keys), no music player,  no camera, no maps…it was just a phone.

OK, maybe the “it is just a phone” sounds appealing. Maybe all we need is a phone? And this would be true as long as you still carry a Filofax with you, take photos with your old film camera and have a street directory tucked under the front seat of your car. This was life in the year 2000 when the 3310 was first released, and if you haven’t moved on from those days then perhaps this is the perfect handset for you. This is minimalist technology. It’s that one thing that does things well and most other things badly.

Ultimately it fails to recognise the inter dependencies between the different tasks and activities we undertake and the opportunities to save time and frustration by connecting them.

Want to visit your friend Jill? In the Nokia 3310 world you would need to look up your address book, enter Jill’s number in your phone, call Jill, look up your address book again to get Jill’s address, get out you’re map book, look up the address in the map book, find right map and coordinates, start driving, get lost, look up map book again, call Jill to describe where you are etc etc etc.

Or, get out your phone, tell Siri/Google “call Jill” then tell Siri/Google “Directions to Jill’s house”, drive.

The nostalgia we feel for devices such as the 3310 is reflects a desire for simplicity, but it is a fallacy to think that we can achieve this by buying yet another device. In this is the distinction between technology minimalism and minimalist technology. Rather than have our choices made by our technology, we should make choices for ourselves. We need to choose whether we check emails when we should be with family and friends. We need to choose how long we want to spend scrolling through Facebook. We need to choose to turn off our notifications and just enjoy dinner.

Einstein maybe once said (no one is really sure) ‘Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler’, but if we are to seek simplicity we risk oversimplifying something that is necessarily complex. A better adage for the digital age, and perhaps the ultimate objective of technology minimalism is ‘Make everything as complex as necessary but no more complex’
…unless of course you’re the hipster type that still wants to carry a Filofax.
This blog post has been syndicated to Medium. If you’d like to add comments or ideas, head over to this page.