Sunday 28 December 2014

Harmony with Conflict


We homo sapiens are a strange species.  Individually and collectively we are very active but the activity manifests itself in constructive and destructive ways with a multitude of views as to what constitutes each category.  Let me explain with three scenarios, starting with the so-called war on terror.  Many people are fighting each other with an intent to kill and destroy.  Each group believes opposing groups are wrong.  Each individual believes he or she belongs to a group that is right.  The logic doesn't stack up does it?

The second scenario is a work environment where the employees expect decent wages, the shareholders require adequate returns on their investments and customers expect value, quality, responsiveness and support.  It is rare that all these expectations are in harmony, even though the Chairman might spin a tale at the Annual General Meeting that suggests otherwise.

Lack of harmony can be experienced in my third scenario, family life.  There are conflicts between children and parents, brother and sister, husband and wife.  Not continuously, of course, but nevertheless lack of harmony is not unusual.

So far in each of the three scenarios I have described, I have highlighted conflict.  On the other hand, harmony also exists.  So between individuals, between groups, within societies and nations, there is plenty of harmony and good feeling living alongside conflict and contempt.  So where's all this leading to?  Well the question I ask myself is, can harmony exist without conflict?  I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the answer is no.  I will try to explain my thinking.

Harmony requires a preponderance of agreement whereas, conversely, conflict requires a preponderance of disagreement.  The key issues in each case can include matters such as religion, politics, recreational pursuits, distribution of wealth, racial and gender equality, territorial ownership, access to education,........  I'm sure you can think of many more.  But views vary widely and subjective consensus is often very difficult to achieve.  Declarations of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' add fuel to disagreement or conversely, can be a catalyst for harmony.  Of course, 'right' and 'wrong' are the two extremes of a black-to-white spectrum where there are many shades of grey.

Achieving subjective consensus is very difficult when you consider the complexity of the relationships arising from the issues that I have raised thus far.  I do believe it is naive and potentially very dangerous to try to control this complexity with very simple initiatives.  Consider, for example, the conflict in the Middle East between Islamic State and a number of opposing forces.  The current military strategy adopted by a US-led coalition of assuming Islamic State is 'wrong' and the opposing forces are 'right' and continuing to play-out a pseudo zero-sum game where the winner takes all, is, in my opinion, destined to fail.  There needs to be a desire on all sides to look for strands of harmony within the current backdrop of violent conflict because if harmony can be reinforced it is possible, in my view, for it to live alongside some residual conflict and achieve a workable equilibrium.

I like this quote from Frank Matobo: "True learning always creates a paradox of promoting disagreement in order to create a consensus."

Saturday 20 December 2014

Expertise Limited - A Growth Business.


Is your business struggling?  Do you need expert advice?  Well there's plenty about but should it really be the first port of call?  Let's start with the definition of an expert.  Here's one:

A person with great knowledge or skill in a particular area.

Now I'm not doubting that people have great knowledge.  Indeed I believe we all do.  I know that my knowledge can help others and I know that others' knowledge can help me.  Knowledge is a wealth with a fantastic property that allows you to give it away but still retain it.  That means an expert can sell her knowledge over and over again.  Some recipients of the knowledge can sell it on, alone or packaged with other knowledge, and I think you can see why Expertise Limited is not really limited.  It is a massive and growing industry.  But is it really adding value to the world economy?  Like many simple questions there's often not a simple answer and it's worth creating a story to explore the typical intervention of an expert into a problem company, how he might bring beneficial expertise and why the benefits of the expertise might not be realised.

Cock Up & Co manufactures widgets.  It is a well established UK company, employing around 200 staff and until recent times it produced about 2,000 widgets a year.  But for the last couple of years, sales have been falling as a result of foreign competition, mainly from China.  In its last financial year it produced only 800 widgets and posted a £100k loss.  Desperate for an injection of fresh ideas into the company, the managing director brought in Bull Shit Limited, experts in business improvement programmes.  The experts were given a free rein and very soon came up with a plan that was aimed at streamlining Cock Up's Engineering, Production, Sales & Marketing and Administrative processes.  The improvement strategy was based on lean manufacturing, which would cut costs, improve responsiveness, enhance competitiveness and not only bring Cock Up back into the black but also increase its market share and thus grow its business.  Sounds good doesn't it?!

The managing director of Cock Up is a shrewd old bird and before signing up to a contract with Bull Shit, decided to ask their lead consultant a few questions:

Cock Up: "How big is your company?  How long have you been in business?  What's your sales turnover and profitability?"
Bull Shit: "We employ 20 consultants and we've been in business for 10 years.  Our turnover is £2million with a profit before tax of about £200k.
Cock Up: "Are you growing?"
Bull Shit: "No we have stabilised."
Cock Up: "So the improvement formula you are offering me hasn't been applied to your own company?
Bull Shit: "We are a different sort of business."
Cock Up: "OK but if my potential rewards are so fantastic, why don't you use your expertise to set up a business like mine?  Indeed why haven't you done it already?"
Bull Shit:....................(lost for words)

I think you can see where this is leading to.  Of course knowledge is valuable and when we discuss our business with others, we are trading knowledge all the time.  It is and should be a two-way flow.  Naturally it's always good to learn from others, but there aren't one-size-fits-all packaged solutions.  If there were, there wouldn't be any struggling businesses.  We just keep learning, but in the words of Peter Senge: "The more you learn, the more acutely aware you become of your ignorance."

Sunday 14 December 2014

Thanks Steve - My Personal Tribute to Steve Jobs.


Steve Jobs, who was the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Apple, was a brilliant entrepreneur, rightly recognised as a pioneer of the personal computer revolution.  He oversaw the development of the iMac, iTunes, iPod, iPhone and iPad, as well as the company's Apple Retail Stores, iTunes Store and App Store.  He had an uncanny knack of bringing a product to market that a consumer could be convinced was totally unnecessary, until purchased when the same buyer would wonder how it was possible to live without it!  That was certainly my experience with the iPad.  I remember watching the news coverage of Steve Jobs launching the original iPad, when he said:

"iPad is our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price.  iPad creates and defines an entirely new category of devices that will connect users with their apps and content in a much more intimate, intuitive and fun way than ever before."

The lizard brain in me triggered a natural resistance to change from my trusted netbook for something that didn't have a keyboard and commands were entered by touching the screen - how unnatural!  Well although I didn't succumb to owning an original iPad, I did buy an iPad2 and I've never looked back.  Ironically, when I use my current notebook (also  Apple), which has a keyboard, on occasions I find myself inadvertently touching the screen and expecting a response!

I have been involved with computers from the punched card, mainframe days, when something with the processing power of an iPad would be housed in several rooms!  So I like to think of myself as being computer literate.  On the other hand, my mother-in-law, who is 82 years of age, has through the majority of her very active and diverse life, not been seduced by bits and bytes.  She is a very intelligent lady with a wide range of interests that include wild life, sports, history and politics and although her husband has long since found benefit in using computers for Internet surfing, online banking and shopping, etc, she has never found the need to follow suit.  At least that was the case until her daughter, my wife, recently bought her a shiny new iPad!  She took to it like a duck to water and very rapidly it made a real difference to her life.  She now has a vast amount of information on her favourite subjects available to her, as well as various means of communication with her family and friends.  That's thanks to Steve Jobs.

I know the change to my mother-in-law's life is not unique.  Steve Job's innovative and entrepreneurial talent has, in my opinion, made complex and powerful computer technology extremely simple to operate, so users can concentrate on what they want the computer to do for them, rather than what's going on inside.  This has made a real difference to millions of people's lives.  Now some might think it is wrong to pour praise on just one individual for the personal computer revolution.  Well in my mind it's not wrong to do that, because I think Steve Jobs' contribution was second to none.

Thanks Steve.

Tuesday 9 December 2014

Management by Fear


I spent six years of my career working for a British conglomerate, seen as successful at the time, but with an endemic management style that I will never forget - management by fear.  It emanated from the man at the top, who was highly successful at managing a diverse portfolio of businesses with a mixture of arms-length and micro management.  How was that possible?  Well, the arms-length bit was to allow individual businesses to do their own thing provided, from a financial perspective, they met their budget and progressively throughout the financial year, key performance financial ratios.  The micro management came into play if the tree didn't look too healthy, at which point 'head office' would come in and examine the roots!

If you were to survive in a senior position, such as a business managing director, you had to be a particular type of person - a bastard!  The half-life of business managing directors was about eighteen months.  Nobody likes being a bastard for very long!  I suppose what I didn't like about my experience working for that company, was the underlying culture of fear.  Decisions were taken to try to ensure a flow of good news to the top.  For example, profit targets were met by cutting costs in areas where costs really shouldn't be cut.  It was a perform now and let's worry about the consequences later culture.

Against that background, I have to say that I did learn a lot.  It was a period of my career when I was actively engaged in the direction of international business development.  The conservative, risk-averse, attitude of the company could sometimes be seen as an impediment to making overseas sales but on many occasions did ensure the company wasn't saddled with unnecessary financial risks.  When the company constraints seemed unnecessarily burdensome, there was always an escape route - forgiveness is easier than permission!  I practised this route a few times, which was risky.  If the outcome is successful, you won't be punished.  But unsuccessful outcomes led to instant dismissal.  I had to get out.  No, I wasn't fired but unless I changed my ways of bucking the rules, I was in danger of being shown the door.

So why do I think it is now necessary to explain an experience that happened almost twenty years ago?  Well it made me realise that any business culture, positive or negative, is infectious.  You need to go with the flow to survive.  A docile labrador doesn't survive with a pack of wolves.  When I moved on, some of the positive sides of the culture, like attention to detail and strong financial management, were assets.  But the negative side, notably a confrontational approach when subordinates were not performing, could be counter productive.  Let me be clear, the confrontation does not mean bullying but it does mean holding individuals to account for the achievement of their forecasts and not suffering fools gladly.  So someone can fail once, maybe even twice, but beyond that they are replaced.  I soon realised that this can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences like 'soft' forecasting, dangerous short-term cost cutting actions, good and 'filtered' news reporting, etc.

What happened to the company in question?  It came to a sticky end, with parts of it sold off and the remnants almost bankrupt.  For a while I mistakenly followed the majority.  In the words of Mark Twain:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Thursday 4 December 2014

Savage Silos - Destroying Companies, Countries and Communities


Anyone who has worked in an organisation, small, medium or large, will have almost certainly experienced silo mentalities.  A classic symptom is when departments or groups do not want to share information or knowledge with other individuals in the same company.  It doesn't mean individuals are not doing, in their minds, the best they can, but they are doing it within the boundaries of their own little empires.  It is anti systems thinking because it follows the false assumption that if my little empire does well and all the other little empires follow suit, the company, i.e. the sum of the little empires, will prosper.  Well sorry, the whole is not the sum of the parts.  If you get things right, it's greater than the sum of the parts but with silos, it's considerably less.  Each little empire is a silo and it thrives because people feel comfortable interacting within the boundaries of the silo and they feel threatened by any attempt to draw them, their knowledge and information out of those boundaries.  There have been a plethora of corporate fix-it programmes aimed at breaking down silos, including visions, missions, common values, goals........, which look good on PowerPoint presentations but, from my experience, rarely seem to have much impact in the bowels of the organisation.

Silos can destroy companies.

Let's now turn to countries and as an example, the UK.  Although I watch the political antics from afar, I am appalled by what I see.  The rise of nationalism, spearheaded by parties like UKIP and SNP, is an example of silo thinking on a frightening scale.  Also what amounts to anti immigration speeches by the prime minister, David Cameron, perpetuates the Little England, silo mentality.  It's all predicated on some false premise of ownership of a country rather than, at any point in time, a collection of individuals who happen to be residing within a territory with historically defined boundaries.  That collection of individuals was formed by migration of the species and thus immigration.  It has evolved and will continue to evolve, by migration and immigration.  Nobody 'owns' the country, it was there for billions of years before the existence of homo sapiens.  The continuing evolution of the population through migration and immigration, provides diversity and invigoration without which, the country would stagnate and die.

Silos can destroy countries.

There's a common factor in the silo mentality.  The clue is in the word 'mentality', which means 'way of thinking'.  People think, so the common factor is the person.  Yes that's you and me mate!  We are all silos.  We each have a range of behaviours that exhibit, to varying degrees, a lack of openness, selfishness, not working for the common good, etc.  So it's hardly surprising that when lots of 'mini silos' get together, common attributes attract each other and 'maxi silos' are reinforced.  What does this do for society?  Well it certainly damages it.  The strange thing is that when I analyse my own behaviour, I often feel much better when I force (and sometimes it does take a bit of force) myself to be altruistic, yet it doesn't come naturally.  A simple example is giving money to people who regrettably for them, need to beg in the street.

Silos can destroy communities.

So what should we do?  Well I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you wish to change the world start with yourself. 

Friday 28 November 2014

I'll do it when I feel like it!


How often is "I'll do it when I feel like it" thought of as a statement underlying laziness, lack of discipline, procrastination and other condemnations?  I was prompted to use it as a subject for this post by my wife, Sandie, who recently made the statement.  Before she files for divorce, let me explain the background to her outburst.  She needed to make some scones for a charitable event the next day.  She had a sore throat and was feeling pretty rough.  Enter me, Mr Programme Man, who believes in working to schedules, which inevitably include things you don't want to do as well as your favourite tasks.  I have to say I'm not as disciplined now as I was when I was at the coalface of industry, maybe a little bit of wisdom has crept into my life and that wisdom tells me my wife was right!

Anyone who does cooking, which includes making scones, will know that it is highly creative, not mechanistic.  The finished product is complex.  Unlike a clock, you can't pull a scone apart to see how it was made and then reproduce it!  So cooking is always creative and very often innovative.  Creativity and innovation cannot be institutionalised.  You cannot be creative on command.  So my wife decided that she would make the scones later in the day or even early the next morning, before the charitable event, when hopefully she would be in the right frame of mind.

I am very familiar with industries engaged in projects, which often include design, manufacture and in-service support with overall programme timescales up to two or three decades.  In such environments, effective project management is the name of the game.  I guess what I have learnt from many years experience of that game is that some things can be programmed with a fair degree of certainty of cost and timescale, but others can't.  It is usually dependant upon where the task sits within a spectrum from 'simple' to 'complex' with 'complicated' being somewhere between the two.  Generally speaking complex tasks are not just difficult to programme because of the complexity and therefore the unknowns, but also because of the "I'll do it when I feel like it factor".  The slogan on the tee shirt in the photo suggests it is the 'shit' tasks that get put to one side and that's very often the case.  But it also applies and indeed should apply, to activities requiring high degrees of creativity.

Good project managers are well aware of the need to tailor project plans to not just the 'hard' measures of specification, timescale and cost, but also the intangibles of complexity as well as individual and collective motivations.  Combining the what has to be done now with what needs to be done when you feel like it, is no mean task.  Indeed, no matter how simple a task might seem, if it involves human beings then by definition it can become complex.

So thank you, Sandie, for once again dragging me away from my Mr Programme Man roots.  By the way, I prepared and published this post three days ahead of schedule.  Why?  Because I did it when I felt like it!

Sunday 23 November 2014

Student Protests - Symptom of an Unfair Society



The student protests held in the UK on 19 November, were well reported but not, in my opinion, reported very well.  Regrettably, there were some scuffles between a minority of protesters and some of the police, which can happen in demonstrations of this type.  The media tended to give a disproportionate amount of attention to the violence thus missing the point of what the protests were all about.  This post will attempt to redress the balance.

Let's for a moment step back from the issue of education and how it should be funded, and ask a fundamental question, why do nations collect taxes?  To pay for societies' needs of course.  So what are those needs?  Health, education, infrastructure, security........to name but a few and in no particular order.  I reckon education must be high on the list of priorities because it is an enabler for the development of society.  It is the prime ingredient of social mobility, helping to provide equality of opportunity.  That makes sense doesn't it?

Now let's return to the issue of tuition fees.  For someone born to wealthy parents, tuition fees are not a problem.  Mummy and Daddy will pay.  On the other hand, a student who has excelled in state education, whose parents are not affluent, could easily think twice about, or even not consider, the option of going to university and being saddled with a massive debt at the age of eighteen.  And why should that be?  Surely society should see the benefits of funding all stages of young people's education, not just primary and secondary schools.

There is also another important aspect of this debate.  In many of the countries of the world, particularly the richer countries, the gap between rich and poor is increasing.  That is a fact supported by a wealth of evidence.  The gap varies from nation to nation and is particularly worrying in the UK and USA, but less of a problem in the Scandinavian countries.  The UK's tuition fee policy is surely going to exacerbate the wealth-gap problem.  Students from well-to-do families who can afford the fees, will get a better education than students from less-well-to-do families.  A better education tends to lead to opportunities for better paid jobs.  Conversely, a lesser education tends to lead to lesser paid jobs, or no job at all.  It all adds fuel to widening the wealth-gap.

What about affordability?  Yes I can hear the politicians bringing the austerity arguments to the table - we're all in this together!  Well sorry but we're not.  Again there is plenty of evidence to show that the tax laws are heavily biased in favour of the very wealthy.  When I say very wealthy, I don't just mean the top decile of the wealth distribution, but even more favourable for the top 1%, and extremely generous for the top 0.1%.  People with fortunes of tens or even hundreds of billions of pounds don't need to work.  Their money makes plenty of money for them and they can, of course, afford the best investment advice.  But it's always too difficult for governments to tap into this wealth.  There is a major problem, of course, which is international tax competition and thus the use of tax havens.  I don't want to stray into the issue of international capital flows and I don't need to because, that aside, I still believe nations such as the UK, aim their tax collection activities at the soft targets - ordinary workers on Pay As You Earn.

So let's not use affordability as a reason for not providing free education because I would counter that argument with we can't afford not to.  So good on you students, keep protesting and just one day we might have a government that will see the light.  That said, I don't believe any of the UK's political leaders come from families who would struggle with tuition fees........maybe therein lies the problem!

Sunday 16 November 2014

No change there then!


Those of us who grew up in the UK before decimalisation of the currency in 1971, remember pounds, shillings and pence, as well as the coinage that went with it, as illustrated in the photo.  Before the change, the currency had been in existence for 500 years and boy was it difficult to deal with.  At least that's my opinion.  There were 240 pennies to a pound and there were further sub divisions as follows:
  • Four farthings to a penny
  • Two halfpennies (pronounced ha'pennies) to a penny
  • Three pennies to a threepenny bit
  • Six pennies to a sixpence
  • Twelve pennies to a shilling
  • Two shillings and sixpence to a half a crown
There were also crowns and guineas but I won't go into any more detail, I'm sure you get the gist of it.  Every shopping trip was a mathematical brain teaser.  For example, if two items cost five pounds three shillings and eightpence - written £5 3s 8d - what does one item cost?  The answer is two pounds eleven shillings and ten pence - £2 11s 10d.  Now in 'new' currency the two items would be five pounds and eighteen pence - written £5.18 - and each item would be two pounds and fifty nine pence - £2.59.  Much easier isn't it?!

A brain teaser doing the rounds during my youth was - "If a bottle and a top cost a penny ha'penny and the bottle costs a penny more than the top, how much does the bottle cost?"  I don't have any survey data to back this up but my guess is that at least 80% said the bottle cost a penny.  That's the wrong answer, it's actually a penny farthing.  The top then costs a farthing, which means the bottle is a penny more than the top.  The teaser doesn't have the same elegance in 'new' currency somehow, even if we inflate the total price to 1.5p, which in 'old' currency is a little more than threepence ha'penny.  That makes the bottle 1.25p and the top 0.25p.  I suppose the fact there isn't a 0.25p coin makes it too conceptual.  How would you buy a top?  On your credit card?!

Here in Turkey the currency is lira, which is divided into 100 kuruÅŸ, so that's nice and decimal!  My wife and I provide extra English lessons to a Turkish student who also likes mathematical brain teasers so I asked her the question - "If a bottle and a top cost one lira and fifty kuruÅŸ and the bottle costs a lira more than the top, how much does the top cost?"  She got the right answer, twenty five kuruÅŸ, which happens to be coin in Turkey.  So she's one of the 20%, a smart cookie!

I don't really get concerned about currencies.  To me it's just a very convenient means of doing transactions.  I'd rather go to the shop and pay money for a packet of cornflakes, than exchange a chicken for it!  I find the 'patriotic' attraction to the pound in the UK, instead of going for the Euro, rather pathetic frankly.  In fact I would welcome a world with just one currency, maybe the US dollar. However, I do have a sentimental recollection of pounds, shillings and pence, because like the Turkish student, I also have a mathematical bent and love brainteasers.  So in the world that I grew up in, which didn't have calculators, personal computers or credit cards, going shopping really was a brain teasing exercise.  Was it better than today?  I don't think so.  Whatever the coinage, there was never enough of it!........

No change there then!

Sunday 9 November 2014

Timeless


There are three human inventions that, in my opinion, have had an enormous impact on mankind.  These are the wheel, money and the measurement of time.  I might write about the wheel and money in the future but the focus of this blog post is time.  What is time?  Well that's actually not an easy question to answer and if you research some of the philosophical debates, you can convince yourself it doesn't exist.  But what do most certainly exist are the artefacts of man's measurement of time, including the watch that I am currently wearing on my wrist.  These devices are designed to give us a better understanding of the position of our location on the planet, relative to the sun as the world spins on its axis with a complete rotation every 24 hours.  Some devices also tell us where the planet is in relation to its orbit around the sun, which it completes every 365.25 days.  We have divided this travel into months, weeks and days.  Also, because 0.25 days is difficult to deal with, we have 365 days in most years but 366 days every fourth year, which we call a Leap Year.  Clever isn't it?!  These designations are purely artificial for man's benefit, and by the way, when I say "man's" I really mean "human's", there's nothing sexist implied there!  Trees, dogs, rabbits, mosquitos, fungi, fish,.... do not, as far as we know, need to measure time, at least not with the same resolution and accuracy as we do.

Imagine a world without time or more precisely, without the means (or perhaps desire) to measure time.  Ridiculous you might say, but my response is we are far outnumbered by species that don't measure time and they seem to manage quite well.  There again, the other species seem to exist comfortably without drugs, alcohol, tobacco, lethal weapons and wars, but that's also a topic for another time.  If you think you need to measure time to catch the train or plane, be 'on time' for work or know when to watch 'Match of the Day', consider whether you need to measure time to live or conversely, the measurement of time dictates the way you live.

The summer months are very hot here in Turkey, so from May through to October I don't wear a wrist watch, because it's too sweaty and uncomfortable.  To be honest, I don't miss it.  So why do I wear it in the winter?  Probably as a fashion accessory!  Don't get me wrong, I think there are huge benefits from man's invention of time measurement but whilst there are pros, there are also cons and the biggest con is our obsession with 'synchronised living'.  Interestingly there was a period of time when, as a young engineer, I designed digital electronic circuits.  I remember my first foray into this exciting world, when for some reason, I designed the circuits to operate asynchronously.  This means that when one operation completed, it would 'trigger' the next operation to commence and when that one completed, it would 'trigger' the next one and so on.  It was pointed out to me by a more senior engineer who was reviewing my progress, that asynchronous design was 'bad practice'  and 'best practice' was to design circuits that operate synchronously.  Synchronous circuits have a pulse generator, which is known as........wait for it........a CLOCK!  The clock synchronises all the various operations within the circuit.

I think that whereas most species on this planet tend to naturally live their lives asynchronously, something called TIME, or more precisely, man's measurement of time, forces the human species into synchronous living and in my opinion, a more stressful lifestyle.  I'm sure you've had experiences when you are really enjoying yourself only to be told that it's ten-to-three and you need to finish because you'll be late for whatever task was scheduled next.  So try for one day to forget the planned tasks and the schedules and just drift, asynchronously, from one unplanned event to the next - it's bliss!

I could write all day about this, but I haven't got time!!!!

Monday 3 November 2014

Trip the Light Fantastic


When I prepare my weekly blog post, I usually think about the issues and then somewhere along the line, decide on the title.  This week it's different.  For some reason 'Trip the Light Fantastic' was playing on my mind so I decided that would be the title before I had any idea of the content - arse about face you might think, and you're right!  So having determined the title, I had to find out more about it.  To "trip the light fantastic" is to dance nimbly or lightly, or to move in a pattern to musical accompaniment.  Thanks Wikipedia!  The oracle goes on to inform me that "........it is an example of a constructionally idiosyncratic idiom."  This means it is not possible to understand what it means from the words that are used.

I will return to 'Trip the Light Fantastic' later in this post but first the discovery that it was a "constructionally idiosyncratic idiom" got me thinking about idioms.  You're pulling my leg.  It's raining cats and dogs.  This iPad cost me an arm and a leg.........and so on.  Isn't it bizarre to use a combination of words that mean something due to common usage, whereas the literal meaning is quite different.  How confusing for foreigners learning the language.  Not just for foreigners learning English of course, in French "donner sa langue au chat", which literally means "to give one's tongue to the cat", actually means "to give up".

Idioms might be confusing when learning a language but on the other hand I feel idioms add a kind of richness to the language.  Putting words together like "pulling my leg" can have two totally different meanings.  Someone could be grabbing me by the ankle and pulling my leg.  Alternatively someone could be joking.  The combination of three simple words - pulling-my-leg - can convey more than one message.  The whole really is greater than the sum of the parts!

Returning to 'Trip the Light Fantastic', I really don't know why this idiom came to mind because I haven't come across it for many years.  It occurs to me that it might have marketing applications.  Like a producer of electronic equipment always trying to maintain competitive advantage by being nimble in the market, might describe the agility of the company as "we always trip the light fantastic".  Or maybe it would be closer to the literal meaning of the phrase for a light switch manufacturer!

So when something simple like an idiom comes to mind, don't discard it.  There's always a chance it could teach you something about linguistics, be a catchy strap-line for your business venture or maybe the title of your next blog post.  No, I'm not pulling your leg!!

Sunday 26 October 2014

Standing Room Only


There are many problems that we face today, like food and water supplies, combating disease, climate change, energy supplies, threats to wildlife survival, as well as many other environmental, economic and social problems.  A major cause of these problems is human population growth.  The world's human population has already passed the 7 billion mark, which is a seven-fold increase since 1800, and is currently increasing at the rate of 10,000 per hour.  No one likes to see human suffering and death, like the casualties of war and the victims of disease, such as Ebola.  Whilst disasters like these do reduce the population, relatively speaking it is by very small amounts and not in ways that can by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as humane.  But one thing's for sure, indefinite population growth is physically impossible on a finite planet.

So what's the solution?  Maurice Strong, secretary general of the 1992 Earth Summit, said: "Either we reduce our numbers voluntarily, or nature will do it for us brutally."  Harsh words, but in my opinion, he hit the nail on the head.  If we carry on with 'business as usual', the planet will eventually give up on us.  Food supply will not meet demand, climate change will lead to environmental disaster, disease will be rampant, etc, etc, etc........Armageddon.  We don't want that do we?  So let's consider some obvious actions.

Firstly, smaller families must be a priority and in my opinion, it would be better if this could be achieved voluntarily rather by government control, as in China.  We all have a choice about how many children we have and each additional child will have more impact on the environment and consume more resources than anything else we do over our lifetimes.  Having two or fewer children, rather than three or more is, in my view, a socially responsible choice.

Secondly, individuals in developed countries need to be environmentally aware and not consume excessively.  This includes consumption of food, energy, water and unnecessary manufactured goods and services.  Clearly the poor of the world are entitled to improve their living standards and consumption in the richer countries has to be reduced to allow those in poorer countries to attain a decent lifestyle.

Finally, our activities need to be sustainable.  What does this mean?  Well, the Ehrlich or IPAT equation is:

I = PAT, where I = impact on the environment or demand for resources, P = population size, A = affluence and T = technology.

This can be explained as follows.  Our Impact on the environment is dependent on how many of us are consuming resources and creating waste (Population), the average amount of goods and services we consume (Affluence) and how inefficiently/harmfully we produce these goods and services (Technology).  According to the World Wildlife Fund/Global Footprint Network Living Planet Report, we are currently collectively consuming resources of 1.5 Earths.  That's not sustainable!

So let's not continue until there is 'Standing Room Only' because nature will stop us painfully in our tracks way before that condition arrives.  If you want to change the world, start with yourself.

Tuesday 21 October 2014

Weekend in London


I usually publish my weekly blog post on Mondays, but this week it's late because of a very enjoyable weekend in London.  The principal purpose of my visit was to meet my cousin's son, Alan, who is visiting the UK from Australia on a temporary work assignment.  I checked the correct terminology for the relationship between me and Alan and apparently he is my 'first cousin once removed'!  Well that really is a mouthful, isn't it?!  So as far as I'm concerned, my namesake is simply my cousin.  Now I've written about memes (copied behaviour) and genes (inherited characteristics) before -http://alansandal.blogspot.com.tr/2012_08_01_archive.html.  In particular, the rapid transmission of memetic behaviour, rather like a virus, compared with the generational and therefore slow transfer of genes.

My previous meeting with Alan was during a visit to Australia twenty years ago, when he was only 11 years old.  So any copied (memetic) behaviour between us is highly unlikely.  But what about the genetic relationship?  We both knew what each other looked like from a few Facebook discussions, so when we met at a Starbucks we instantly recognised each other.  From then on and I hope Alan will agree, the encounter was really very enjoyable.  We spent several hours together, having coffee, walking, dining, more walking, all with plenty of talking, and it was as though we were just continuing from where we were 'the other day', which of course we weren't but I can't think of another way of describing it.

Did it have anything to do with the genes or was it just the fact that we are two guys who both have engineering backgrounds and who seem to share similar views on a range of topics?  Obviously the extended family was included in the conversation but not very much.  The relationship had all the characteristics of being very mature, i.e. one that had been developed over a number of years and yet that clearly wasn't the case.  I didn't detect any pregnant pauses in the conversation and there was certainly no chatter just for the sake of it.

I still can't make my mind up as to whether the reason for the success of this truly memorable encounter was all in the genes but whatever, thank you Alan for a great time and I look forward to meeting you again, hopefully in the not too distant future, somewhere in the world!

Monday 13 October 2014

Wise after the event.


As I get older, I think I get wiser and one of the ways I check my increased wisdom is to think back to major events involving decision-making in my life and consider how I would tackle those issues now.  These are interesting thought experiments but in most cases inconclusive because I can never be sure what the outcomes of hypothetical courses of action would be.  As an example, I love the story of the man who was explaining to his friend why walking under a ladder was unlucky.  He tells the tale of when he walked under a ladder and shortly afterwards found a £10 note on the pavement.  His friend wanted to know why he considered that to be unlucky, to which he responded that if he hadn't walked under the ladder he might have found two £10 notes!  We never know the outcomes of alternative actions that we haven't taken.

I am not driven by the day-to-day pressures of corporate activities these days, which gives me time to think.  When I experiment and try to apply today's knowledge and experience to yesterday's problems, as well as tackling the here-and-now issues, there are certain principles that guide me.  These are, in no particular order:

Alternative Options
Cause and Effect
Cost vs Benefits
Beware of the Anecdotal

Alternative Options
We all have mind sets, personal ways of doing things, which might might take us down a particular path when evaluating situations.  But sometimes we need to evaluate evidence in dispassionate and objective ways.  One way of doing this is to list alternative hypotheses, then consider alternatives without being too quick to rule out options because of personal prejudices.  Try not to be too certain about anything!

Cause and Effect
Here's a statement that I always think sounds a bit highfalutin - Correlation does not imply Causation.  When the cockerel crows at daybreak, is it the crowing that causes the sun to rise or the rising sun that stimulates the cockerel to crow?  That's quite an obvious example of what is the cause and what is the effect, although don't be too quick to eliminate alternative hypotheses!  In general, there is a danger of assuming causations without sufficient evidence.

Contingency Plans
Expect the best.  Prepare for the worst.  Capitalise on what comes.  We can all have plans but our objectives don't always come to fruition, so it's worth having contingency plans and even if the contingencies don't materialise, make the best of whatever happens.

Cost vs Benefits
Cost vs Benefit analyses are useful and don't have to be about money.  It is helpful to weigh-up the pros and cons of any situation to assist decision-making.

Beware of the Anecdotal
My friend's mother had a terrible pain in her neck but she rubbed Mumbo Jumbo Cream onto the affected area and within three days the pain had gone.  A lovely story but what does that say about Mumbo Jumbo Cream?  It might have helped cure one person's neck ache but that's not really sufficient data to to establish the cream's credentials.  Even the plural of anecdote is not data!  You need properly conducted medical trials to support or disprove anecdotal evidence.

These principles help me to assess my past decisions but what about the future?  Am I wiser now than I was in the past?  Epicharmus was right - "The wise man must be wise before, not after, the event."

Monday 6 October 2014

It's not that simple.


Take a look at the photo.  It's better than a thousand words.  What do you see?  A moving tunnel of water, beautifully formed but given all the constituents of that combine to produce that simplistic beauty - wind, water, tidal forces, etc - could anyone have predicted what it would be, where it would happen and when?  No!

It's not that simple.

We grapple with complexity every day of our lives, knowingly and unknowingly.  But out of complexity sometimes there are emergent properties, like waves, which in general form are predictable.  There will always be waves.  However, the specifics - what, where and when - are almost impossible to predict.  Complexity occurs whenever there is a plethora of interdependent relationships.  That situation exists, of course, in any organisation.  Directors of organisations will experience, as I have done, the myth of management control.  You can have strategies, policies, procedures, work breakdown structures, etc, but you still don't have absolute control.

It's not that simple.

Any organisation, regardless of size, is a highly complex system.  It has a multitude of relationships and interdependencies.  These are within the organisation - person to person, person to technology, technology to technology.  There are relationships between the organisation and the external environment - company to customers, company to suppliers, customers to suppliers.  The company also sits in a Political, Economic, Social and Technological (PEST) environment.  So how can directors and managers control factors that affect their businesses but over which they have no influence, let alone control?  Maybe their fancy strategic plans, scenario planning, risk analyses and the latest management fads, provide them with the tools they need to inject certainty into an uncertain environment.  I don't think so.

It's not that simple.

But can't organisations be so nimble and agile that, even if they are not in control of factors that affect their businesses, they can react swiftly to changes in events in order to out-perform their competitors? Yes and no, we are now getting into the thorny issue of culture - "that's the way we do things around here."  I strongly believe that a company's culture is an emergent behaviour of a highly complex organisation.  Directors and managers come and go, introduce new change programmes, but the culture usually survives any 'interference'.  It's impossible to calm the oceans!

It's not that simple.

What does all this mean?  Is it worth getting out of bed each morning if we can't really change anything?  Of course it is, but we do have to have a sense of realism of what we understand versus what we don't understand and what we can influence or control versus what we can't influence or control.  I've banged on in previous posts about systems thinking, recognising that the whole is not just the sum of the parts and only when we achieve that level of thinking can we begin to understand and maybe anticipate the outcomes of complex living.  Is that really the panacea?  No........

It's not that simple!!

Monday 29 September 2014

Here we go again


Some of the world's leading military powers have formed a U.S-led coalition to fight Islamic State (IS). Selective air strikes but not with 'boots on the ground', will be undertaken to aid the Iraqi, Kurdish and 'moderate' Syrian opposition forces to sort out IS.  World leaders, including Barack Obama and David Cameron, have warned that the action will take years rather than months, but no one has spelt out exactly what needs to happen for the world to know that the coalition's fight has been brought to a successful conclusion.  What's more, the recent history of US-led interventions into Iraq and Afghanistan illustrated the problem of unintended consequences, including the dire situation that the world now finds itself in.  A much older example, the Vietnam war, demonstrated how superior fire-power doesn't always lead to victory.

Let me make my own position quite clear, I am appalled by the tactics of IS.  Barbaric acts such as beheading journalists, crucifixions, gouging eyes out and raping innocent victims, are totally incompatible with what I am sure the vast majority would agree are acceptable standards of behaviour in a civilised world.  We don't need religion to define those standards but even if we do, a force that uses 'Islamic' in its title should surely question how its behaviour could be seen to be compatible with the teachings of Islam.

The real problem, in my opinion, is understanding what each side wants to achieve. Is IS really looking to dominate the Middle East and ultimately the world?  Is the coalition intent on annihilating IS?  Clearly with such diametrically opposed objectives, a negotiated settlement is highly unlikely and indeed, probably not worth considering since coalition States would not negotiate with IS.  So the prediction of a long drawn out conflict is on the cards and as time goes on, it is naive to think that there will be few civilian casualties.  As the number of innocent victims increases, the effects on the conflict are difficult to predict, but it could lead to greater support for IS against the foreign intervention.

So what's the alternative?  There are other options but I can honestly say I don't have a preferred way forward.  What I do know, however, is that knee-jerk reactions to events, often for populist and political reasons, are not normally the best way forward.  Weren't the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan knee-jerk reactions in the wake of 9/11?  History has shown that trying to solve complex problems with simple 'solutions' rarely works.  But here we go again and we are where we are.  As the consequences of the actions of all the players in the conflict unfold, let's hope that eventually sanity will prevail and a peaceful solution will be sought although I guess that will not be before the combatants become battle weary.

The tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst ~ Henry Fosdick.

Monday 22 September 2014

Flies in your eyes.


As I gaze from my balcony across the countryside, I often see a swarm of flies, although not as many as in the photo!  Sometimes I track them, watching the group as it moves around.  Occasionally it will move towards me and just as I think it is within spitting distance (not that I would!), it disappears.  I have confirmed my sightings with my wife, who has also seen the flies and has been pleased that they have disappeared rather than landed!

Recently my wife visited the optician to collect some new spectacles and mentioned the flies only to have our observations shattered!  The 'flies' are 'floaters' - yes, what we have been observing are floaters, which are deposits of various size, shape and consistency, within the eye's vitreous humour, which is normally transparent.  The common type of floater, which is present in most people's eyes, is due to degenerative changes of the vitreous humour.  Sometimes, these floaters are called Muscae volitantes, which is Latin for 'flying flies'.  The objects exist within the eye itself and so are not optical illusions but are entropic phenomena.

Well that's interesting isn't it?!  Yes, I think it is.  The flies in my eyes were until recently, real flies.  Particularly as we live in a part of the world where, at certain times of the year, we battle against mosquitoes, which includes ensuring we have nets on all the windows and doors - but still the little buggers manage to get into the house!  So we have an awareness of the unwelcome presence of flying insects.  Whilst we have this in the back of our minds, why wouldn't we mistake floaters in the vitreous humour for flying insects?!

"Perception is Reality."


Albert Einstein said: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."  Douglas Adams said: "Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you.  You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you."  So whereas my perception of the flies changed because of information my wife received from an optician, which I subsequently researched and confirmed, my perception could change again if, for example, another expert had an alternative plausible theory.  We can only base our view of specific situations and indeed, life in general, on what we perceive using our sensors.  But what my 'flies in your eyes' experience has demonstrated is you shouldn't always believe what you see.  As Douglas Adams points out, it is all specific to the individual observer.  If I should question what I see, then likewise I shouldn't necessarily believe what others tell me they have seen.  Yet everyday I watch the News and mostly believe what I am told.  How naive is that?

I will draw this post to a close with a quote from W. Edwards Deming: "Without data you're just another person with an opinion."  Wise words, but can you believe the data, even if you've seen it with your own eyes?!

Sunday 14 September 2014

Collectively we work wonders.


Look around you and what do you see?  If you're in the city, your panorama is probably dominated by human constructions.  If you're in a rural environment, the natural world of trees, plants and other aspects of an organic landscape might come to the fore, but I bet there's also plenty of man-made material around, including whatever electronic device you're using to read this post.  The human species has certainly made its mark on the planet, a lot of it positive but regrettably, a huge amount of it has been negative.

I'd like the spin of this post to be primarily positive.  I'm fed up with moaning!  When we look around at what humans have designed and produced, how much do we personally feel able to reproduce?  I can drive a car, but could I design and manufacture an automobile?  Probably not, or at least I've never tried.  That's not to say I have no knowledge and skills.  Indeed there are many things I can do, which many others can't do.  However, my skills are not unique, so likewise many others are capable of doing what I can do. The point is that we are surrounded by human achievement, old and new, which has only been possible by collective efforts.  What's more, there is a 'force multiplier' that comes into play when we work together, so 1+1+1 is much greater than 3.

Human achievement throughout the ages has been phenomenal.  We marvel at Egyptian pyramids, Roman ruins and ancient cathedrals.  Likewise we should be equally impressed with televisions, computers and jet aeroplanes.  We will, of course, recognise the way that in all these examples and countless more, human effort has been brought together to achieve collectively wonderous outcomes, which each individual would be incapable of doing alone.

Some of the consequences of our ingenuity were no doubt unintended and in some cases potentially disastrous, like nucleur weapons, climate change and massive environmental damage.  That said, I don't want this post to be negative so let's look to a positive future.  If mankind has achieved so much to date, why aren't similar achievements possible in the future?  Of course anything is possible.  The benefit of hindsight has highlighted what went wrong, so let's learn from experience and correct some of our past mistakes as well as work towards some really positive outcomes.

I'll end this post with a lovely quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."

Monday 8 September 2014

We are the 99%


The Occupy Movement, using the slogan 'We are the 99%', started in the USA with demonstrations on Wall Street, but subsequently spreading to centres around the world.  Their gripe is that 1% of the population controls 45% of global wealth and the focus of their attack is the financial community, particularly bankers, hence the demonstrations on Wall Street.

There is no doubt that there is massive income inequality across the world and I'm not going to use this blog post to spout numbers - the readers can look them up on the Internet.  If we are looking for solutions, then we need to try to understand the problem from a systemic perspective.  Someone once said there are two types of problems - clocks and clouds.


The clock can be taken apart and each of its constituent parts provides an understanding of how the clock works when it is re-assembled.  That is not true of a cloud, which is formed mainly from water and other airborne particles.  The cloud is what is known as an emergent behaviour of a highly complex weather system.  So to understand the cloud we need to observe the whole, rather than the constituent parts.  Income inequality is a cloud-type problem, emerging from a highly complex social system an inherent part of which is a man-made monetary system.

Now from my Internet research, the 99% activists' problems are articulated very succinctly, but nowhere did I find what they were proposing as a solution - perhaps a helpful reader might point me in the right direction but I doubt it somehow, simple solutions to cloud-type problems rarely exist.  It is easy to repair a clock by replacing a defective part, but how do you change the shape of a cloud?  Indeed, many of today's problems are as a result of yesterday's solutions.  In fact, the title of this post does not clearly define the 'problem'.  Firstly, the 1% is not just composed of bankers and financial sharks, but also includes, for example, world-class surgeons and some English Premier League footballers.  Secondly, within the 99% there are also tremendous disparities in income from, for example, people earning $100,000 per year, to many in poverty surviving on less than $2 per day.

There is only so much that can be done politically or through legislation.  Communist states have generally been unsuccessful.  Taxing the rich tends to lose its effectiveness over time.  Subsidies for the very poor are like sticking plaster solutions, tackling the symptom rather than the underlying problem.  On top of all this, wealth attracts wealth and, for example, $10 million sitting in a bank at 10% compound interest, will 'earn' $1 million in year 1, $1.1 million in year 2, and so on.

There are no simple solutions to this highly complex problem and in my opinion, large-scale philanthropy is the best way forward.  Bill Gates, for example, is gladly giving his wealth away to good causes because he feels the need to help the society that was responsible for his success.  That said, I still believe the protests should continue if only to ensure public awareness of the issue does not wane.

The greatness of man is not how much wealth he acquires, but in his ability to affect those around him positively.  (Bob Marley)

Monday 1 September 2014

The Cobbler's Shop


When I was a young lad, many years ago, every village had one and the towns had loads - what? - The Cobbler's Shop.  In real terms, shoes were probably more expensive than they are now.  A good pair of shoes could last many years but not without repair.  So the cobbler's shop was one of the pillars of the community.  All he would do, and I never recall seeing a female cobbler, would repair shoes.  He would generally be an affable character, so a visit to his shop would include a few pleasantries.  But then down to business and the customer would place the shoes on the counter, explaining the problem.  The cobbler would attach a ticket to the shoes, place them on a rack, give a duplicate of the ticket to the customer and say: "Come back next week."

It would always take a week to repair a pair of shoes and it was easy to see why.  The racks of shoes behind the cobbler's counter would represent a week's backlog of shoe repairs!  So although it might take the cobbler, say, one hour to repair the customer's shoes, it would take a week before he would get round to doing it.  Business analysts seeking to improve the performance of companies often use a measure known as the velocity ratio.  In any business process, the velocity ratio is the ratio of productive to total elapsed and available time.  Let's assume the average time taken for the cobbler to repair a pair of shoes, was one hour.  When I was a lad, the working week was probably around 48 hours.  So the cobbler's velocity ratio was 1/48 x 100% = 2%.  In a super-efficient organisation, the aim would be for all productive processes to have velocity ratios as close to 100% as possible!  So the cobbler was very inefficient.

Time has moved on and there are still shoe repair facilities, although not as many as when I was a lad and there aren't many villages that have one.  The methods for repairing shoes haven't changed radically but what about the efficiency?  Well, it is now possible to go to the repairer, put your shoes on the counter and have them repaired while you wait.  The productive time equals the elapsed time, so the velocity ratio is 100%.  But what does the shoe repairer do with the time he has on his hands between repairs, because he no longer has a backlog of shoes to occupy his time?  He does other things like key cutting, engraving, mobile phone screen repairs, trophies, passport photos, watch repairs, etc.


Those who have stayed in business have done so by diversification.  This is a classic example of business improvement by looking at better ways of doing things rather than just automating by using new technology - fantastic!  But you know what?  I really miss The Cobbler's Shop!


I would like to thank Joe Booth at access2growth, who helped me through a business improvement programme in the mid 1990s, for the inspiration for this story.

Monday 25 August 2014

Why I don't value value.


There are many words in the English language that are confusing and in my opinion, 'value' is a prime example.  Here are some definitions of value as a noun:

1. Importance, worth, usefulness.
1.1 Material or monetary worth.
1.2 The worth compared to the price paid, e.g. 'good value'.

2. Principles or standards of behaviour.

Value and worth, particularly monetary worth, are, in my opinion, disconnected and often contradictory.  This is particularly relevant in the context of 'adding value'.  Let's take the example of a construction project.  A builder buys a dilapidated property for £100,000.  He spends a further £100,000 renovating it and then sells it for £300,000.  So he has 'added value' to the tune of £300,000 - £200,000 = £100,000.  The monetary value of the property has increased by £100,000.  But I don't see that as an increase in value, I just view it as a price someone is prepared to pay, which provides the builder with £100,000 profit.

The builder's profit, which he might call 'added value', of £100,000, equates to $166,000.  Why have I done that conversion?  Because 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.  So if it took the builder, say, six months to complete his project, he will have earned (if that's the right word!) almost $1,000 per day, 100 times more than the highest paid in 80% of the world's population.  So what 'value' is the builder's 'added value' to society.  I would suggest very little because it will probably be ploughed back into more construction projects, with similar out-turns, which only privileged members of society can afford to purchase, certainly not 80% of the global population.

It might appear that I am just knocking the capitalist economy, which for centuries has widened the gap between the haves and have-nots and continues to do so.  But other forms of economic management, like that employed by the former Soviet Union, have also failed miserably.  No I am not knocking economic management systems per se, I am merely pissed off with the flowery rhetoric.  In the example of the building project, for 'added value' read 'excessive profit'.  The commercial businesses that might advertise their capabilities as providing 'value propositions' should really be described as offering products and services at 'rip off prices'.

So there we have it.  I've had my say.  I certainly do not value value!

Monday 18 August 2014

Depression


The death of Robin Williams on 11 August 2014, shocked the world.  He was an extremely talented actor who was known to have suffered from depression for some years.  At 63 years of age, he decided to take his own life by hanging himself - his personal suffering had come to an end.  But what is depression?  We've all heard people say, or indeed have said it ourselves, "I'm depressed" when what is really meant is "I am fed up because I have had a row/failed an exam/lost my job/etc".  The ups and downs of life are common and natural.  That's not depression.  True depression results in a low mood and other symptoms, day after day, week after week, month after month.

I don't think I have ever suffered from depression, but I do know someone who did and also committed suicide at the age of 63 - my brother Gordon.  He didn't hang himself but instead jumped off Beachy Head, a chalk headland in Southern England.  No one witnessed the event and his body, washed up on the beach, was not discovered for some time and could only be identified from his dental records.

I remember it well and I am ashamed to say that my immediate reaction was anger.  How could he be so selfish and leave behind him so many loved ones, including his wife, a son and a daughter?  It was many years after the event, when in my own mind I started piecing together snippets of information from family and my own recollection of my brother's behaviour during the latter years of his life, that I realised he was probably suffering from depression.  Did that make me feel guilty?  No, not really.  It's easy to think I could have done this, I could have done that,....  I have learnt that an individual life is a complex part of an even more complex organic system and cause-and-effect analyses of human behaviour rarely expose the roots of systemic problems.

So there we have it, two men with very different backgrounds and lifestyles who in the end suffered from depression and the only way each could find to solve his problems, was to end his life.  I now believe I am beginning to understand depression, an understanding that was totally lacking when my brother died.  I think the illness is extremely well defined by the words of the American psychologist, Rollo May:

"Depression is the inability to construct a future."

RIP Gordon and Robin.

Monday 11 August 2014

Three reasons why this post won't go viral.


Most bloggers wish for the lucky break, the day the latest post goes viral.  Maybe 100,000 views, perhaps a million, or with a world population of over 7 billion, maybe 10 million views are not unreasonable.  So why won't this post go viral?  Well here are three good reasons.

Reason 1: The Title
Readers apparently like precise conclusions, so 'Three reasons why....' Is a good start, but the title is negative.  It explains why something won't happen and readers want positive titles.  'Three reasons why your career aspirations will be achievable' is far more inviting, particularly for young, ambitious high-flyers, and there are millions of those Tweeting, LinkedIn-ing and Facebook-ing everyday!  The title has to be an attention grabber.  It must feed egos and a few #hashtags might give an appearance of appealing to a wider audience - wrongly in my opinion.  The title also needs to have some uniqueness. There have been lots of posts and tweets on the atrocities in Gaza over the past few weeks and if you add the number of views of all such posts, it would be a huge figure.  However, the views per post would be considerably smaller, because the topic Gaza is not unique.  But imagine the following I might get if I described my recent visit to the moon (I wish!), how I had encountered living creatures and my findings had been independently verified.  Oh and by the way, I had posted videos on YouTube of my experiences of meeting the little green men and women.  That would certainly be unique!

Reason 2: My Following
I'm not Richard Branson, Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.  I have a lot in common with them, including two arms, two legs and a brain.  I shit and fart like the rest of them, but the physical similarities are all we have in common.  They are very well known, whereas Alan Hayman, by comparison, has a much smaller following.  Success breeds success, so more people following Richard Branson encourages even more people to follow Richard Branson........and so on.  A large following will, in my opinion, instill even more confidence in the person being followed and therefore, possibly enhance my final reason for viral posts.........

Reason 3: The Content
If you look at TV ratings for various programmes, then in the UK, for example, a 'soap' like Coronation Street might have an audience of around 10 million, whereas a current affairs debate, like Question Time, will struggle to be viewed by more than 2 million.  An easy-viewing, fictional story like Coronation Street is far more popular than an intellectual debate on real events.  Content is a very important factor in the popularity of TV/radio programmes, books, newspapers and blog posts.  Take a look at Amazon.  A popular novel for a Kindle might be priced at £3, whereas a technical book could be as much as £50.  Why?  Because the novel will sell millions and even at a very low margin, will generate good profit.  The technical book with its less popular appeal, will have sales in maybe the low thousands and thus is priced much higher to generate an adequate return for the author, publisher and distributors (including Amazon!).  The content of my blog posts maybe a bit dry for many readers but hopefully stimulating and insightful for others.

So there you have it, three very good reasons why my blog posts are unlikely to go viral - Title, Following and Content.  Am I intending to do anything about this?  In a word -NO!  I aim to satisfy and achieve quality readership rather than quantity of readers.  Yes you, dear reader, are Quality with a capital Q.  I am extremely grateful for your following - Thank You!