When is a weed not a weed?

"I am just going into the garden to do some weeding", my wife, Sandie, said the other day.  We do tend to have a clear division of responsibilities when it comes to gardening tasks and weeding is something I don't take onboard.  It's not a job I enjoy but more important, I am never quite sure what is deemed to be a weed.  Wikipedia's definition is 'a plant considered undesirable within a certain context'.  Well that really is subjective!  I am sure Sandie and I can agree what, for example, is a rose.  But when it comes to weeds, we do have differences of opinion, although I usually bow to her experience of these matters and anyway, I want a quiet life!

When I had a lawn in the UK, I became quite obsessive about achieving a bowling green effect.  I regularly weeded and fertilised the grass and mowed it using a power mower with a heavy roller to achieve a professional striped finish.  Here in Turkey, the climatic conditions are vastly different to the UK.  We have long hot summers with little or no rain and a mixture of weather in the winter, predominantly dry and mild but with heavy storms at times.  An English lawn would not survive in this part of Turkey.  But we do manage to have green lawns, which are a mixture of long-rooted grass and various green 'weeds'.  From a distance it looks good!  The bottom line is, what is regarded as a weed in a UK lawn could be very acceptable here in Turkey.

If a weed is 'a plant considered undesirable within a certain context' then clearly if the 'context' changes, for example UK to Turkey, then what is 'undesirable' also changes.  But context can be more than just climatic conditions.  Context can also be to what extent the lives of weeds affect human activities.  I have already touched on weeds being unacceptable in ornamental lawns and those used for sporting activities, such as bowling, cricket and football.  But of course weeds can also be unacceptable in agricultural environments where they compete for survival against crops that provide food for humans.  This 'context' is where humans are at war with nature.  Plants that interfere with food production have to be controlled otherwise crop yields are reduced or lost.  Humans have a formidable array of deterrents at their disposal, including chemical weapons (weed killers), which can be selective and very effective.

Look at the photo at the beginning of this post.  This is white clover.  Now the lawn enthusiast, which I am happy to say no longer applies to me, would definitely regard this plant as a weed but in many other 'contexts', it is a desirable source of fodder, honey and soil nitrogen.  The lawn specialist would probably eradicate it with a selective weed killer.  However, it tolerates close mowing and is a beneficial component of natural or organic lawn care as a result of its ability to fix nitrogen and out-compete other lawn weeds.  So there's the dichotomy, is it an invasive weed or a truly beneficial companion?!

I could ramble on and on with this topic, but I won't.  We are definitely exploring the world of opinion rather than fact.  So when is a weed not a weed?  Ask my wife! 😊

KISS

No, this blog post is not about the act of expressing love, passion, affection, respect, greeting, friendship, peace or good luck.  It is about the KISS principle, an acronym for Keep It Simple Stupid.  The phrase has been widely used as a design principle, which is based on the premise that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complex.  Simplicity should be a key goal in design rather than complexity.  As an engineer, I can relate to this goal, particularly in the case of software-intensive systems.  The oxymoron 'worse is better' is often applied to software systems, where less functionality ('worse') is often preferable to more complex systems ('better'), which can be more difficult to use and prone to bugs.

A simple acronym like KISS, is easy (simple) to remember, rolls off the tongue nicely and is a good philosophy.  But is it?  I don't think so.  At least, not always.  Whether we like it or not, life is incredibly complex.  So how do you apply simplicity to complexity?  Well, it might be argued that any complex problem can be dealt with by breaking it down into simple 'chunks' and dealing with them individually........KISS!  Imagine an electric blanket that the owner switches on one hour prior to going to bed each evening.  On one occasion he notices the bed is cold and checks the plug observing that a 13A fuse is blackened.  He changes the fuse and the blanket appears to work.  Next evening the bed is cold again........bloody fuses!  So Mr Heath Robinson decides to replace the fuse with copper wire - that won't blow mate!  And it didn't, but the following night the bed covers ignite and the house burns down.  The simple 'solution' to the problem ends in a tragedy.  The fuses had been blowing not because of faulty fuses but because of a damaged element in the electric blanket, causing it to draw too much current.  When the fuse was replaced with copper wire, the element got hotter and hotter until it ignited the bed clothes.  The point of this story is that breaking the problem down into manageable 'chunks', dealing with each one separately........KISS........was not the way to deal with the problem.  The fuse blowing was the symptom of the problem, NOT the problem.

I can think of loads of situations in my own life where quick simple fixes have led to longer-term problems.  On the other hand, I do believe simplicity does play an important role in life.  Leonardo da Vinci said "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" and Albert Einstein who was a master of understanding complexity, said "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."  So I'm not against simplicity in certain situations but it's not the be all and end all of problem solving.  Let me conclude with my own acronym - KISSES - Keeping It Simple Sometimes Endangers Situations........through unintended consequences.

What's the topic for my blog post today?

Most of my blog posts are the result of almost spontaneous inspiration.  I just get the urge to write about something and although they tend to be published weekly, there is no set timetable.  You can't schedule inspiration!  When I look back at my posts, I note they seem to fall into three categories - posts that are topical, based on a recent NEWS item; posts that are based on general OBSERVATIONS; posts that are on issues that I feel PASSIONATE about.  Today's post has a thread that runs through all three categories.

Dominating the NEWS today is the horrendous aftermath of the typhoon, named Haiyan, that hit the Phillipines, which has been reported as the strongest storm ever recorded.  It's a part of the world that is used to typhoons and there were warnings for Haiyan but nevertheless the destruction has been unimaginable and left an estimated 10,000 dead.  National and international relief and rescue efforts are of course underway, but it will take months, if not years, for the affected areas to return to some sort of normality and the lost lives will never be recovered.  Disasters such as this make other world issues pale into insignificance, particularly problems where the solutions are directly controllable by the world's inhabitants.  For example, the issue of controlling Iran's nuclear activities, such that it does not develop a nuclear weapon capability, can be solved by debate, negotiation and agreement, as well as, of course, an overarching desire to succeed by all parties.  The Phillipines tragedy, on the other hand, was an act of nature, over which mankind has no control........but is that true?

Over the past couple of decades, from my OBSERVATIONS of natural disasters, my feeling is that the rate and severity of calamitous acts of nature appear to be on the increase.  I have not collected any statistics to support that claim.  It's just a feeling.  Floods, storms, droughts, hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, blizzards, heat waves, extreme cold........seem to get regular and extensive news coverage.  But are these acts of nature all unavoidable or does mankind have an influence and therefore a responsibility?  Well let me digress to one of my old chestnuts, correlation and causation.  Correlation does not imply causation.  For example if the cockerel crows each morning at sunrise, the cockerel will not be causing the sun to rise!  On the other hand, the rising of the sun could be causing the cockerel to crow.  There are many more subtle examples of of incorrect conclusions from correlations.  After the Second World War the rate of pregnancies in the UK closely followed (i.e. correlated with) the number of bananas that were being imported.  Were the bananas causing the pregnancies?!  Well if you believe that you need to study biology.  It could have been pregnant women had a desire to eat bananas.  It might have been the 'feel good factor' at the end of the war lead to a desire for reproduction and, quite separately, the urge to buy bananas.  Or it might have just been a coincidence i.e. no apparent causal link between the pregnancies and the bananas.

For many years I was not totally convinced of the causal link between mankind's generation of carbon dioxide and climate change, but in recent times I have changed my view.  All the evidence suggests there is a definite correlation between the emission of carbon dioxide from, for example, the burning of fossil fuels and global warming, which is causing climatic changes.  I have become PASSIONATE about this issue (see my previous blog post) and I am so frustrated that there seems no sense of urgency by the world's political communities to take the issue seriously.  Now I'm not suggesting that Typhoon Haiyan was avoidable.  That would be a hypothesis that could be neither proved or disproved.  But what I do believe is that paying lip service to green issues could contribute to more disasters.

That's my blog post for today and my thoughts are with all those affected by Typhoon Haiyan.

Too hot to handle?

It's nice to keep warm on a cold winter's night.  Conversely, the cold weather can kill, so warmth is not a luxury.  It is a necessity.  So I watch with interest the energy debate in the UK, particularly following the recently announced fuel price increases.  The coalition government formed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, with the latter as the junior partner, made a big issue of its green commitment in the early days in office.  I recall news clips of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, cycling to the Houses of Parliament, albeit followed by his limousine!  But it's easy to be green when not faced with tough economic choices and I now sense the tide is turning.

I always thought the highest priority on the green agenda was to prevent irreparable damage to the planet by excessive man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, which cause global warming.  If you believe action has to be taken to prevent the threat to the planet, then the economic arguments are of secondary importance.  The cost of energy produced from fossil fuels will inevitably rise because the deposits of the fuel, which have taken billions of years to form, are diminishing whilst the demand is increasing, ergo the demand is greater than the supply so the price goes up.  The green alternatives, such as solar, wind and waves, are not cheap in terms of capital investment to create useable energy supplies and the costs of running and supporting the new installations.

What about nucleur fission?  Well, it is green in terms of the extremely low levels of carbon dioxide emissions, but dealing with radio active waste, which remains active for many generations, has not been satisfactorily addressed.  Nuclear fusion (like the sun) doesn't have the same waste problem, but commercially available fusion reactors are still a long way off.

What about fracking?  In my opinion, forget it.  It's just another form of dirty fossil fuel with potentially dangerous extraction consequences that are not fully understood.

We can't flick a switch and go totally green overnight.  There needs to be a transition.  For reasons that I have already described, the transition will be costly.  This is where the political debate, such as the one currently raging in the UK, becomes interesting, because costly energy could cost votes!  Politicians are not interested in long term sustainable green energy sources at the expense of their short term political careers.  But the political system, particularly the feudal elective dictatorship in the UK, will not change overnight.  So what's the solution?

I believe the real problem is not the cost of energy but the inability of the poorer sectors of society to pay for it.  A professional footballer, a banker, a doctor, a plumber........for example........will always be able to pay for gas and electricity.  But there are many citizens who have to make the choice between warmth and food during the cold winter months.  Therefore the real problem is the inequitable distribution of wealth, where the gap between rich and poor continues to widen year-on-year.  So the political debate should not be about clean or dirty energy, which in my opinion is really beyond debate.  The real issue is about creating a fair society where the necessities of life, including warmth in the winter, are affordable by all.

But is that too hot to handle?

Don't take the tiger for granted.

There are some things in your life that always seem to have been around.  For me, one of them is the tiger.  It is the largest cat species, with body length up to 3.3m and weighing up to 306kg.  That's big!  But it's not just the knowledge of the existence of the animal that has been with me for as long as I can remember, it's also the use of the word 'tiger' as a name or brand - Tiger Woods and Tiger Beer being just two examples.  It is synonymous with strength, skill and majesty.  Despite being regarded by some as dangerous, wild tigers will normally avoid interactions with humans.  Attacks can, however, be provoked, for example when they are hunted or looking after their young.

My recent interest in tigers was prompted by information from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).  According to the WWF, there are now around 3,200 tigers left in the wild.  There are more than that number in captivity.  Over the last century the population has reduced by over 95%.  Tigers used to roam over most of Asia, from as far west as Turkey.  But now they are only found in isolated areas in India, Nepal, China, Russia, Malaysia and Sumatra.  The main reasons for the population decline are habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation and poaching.  The main reasons for poaching have been the high prices paid for body parts, particularly the skins, and the belief by many people in China and other parts of Asia that some tiger parts have medicinal properties, including pain killers and aphrodisiacs.  Some of the claims of those practising traditional Chinese medicine are as follows:

Tiger claws cure insomnia.

Teeth treat fever.

Fat treats leprosy.

Nose leather cures bites.

Bone treats rheumatism and arthritis.

Eye balls treat epilepsy and malaria.

Tail is used to cure skin diseases.

Bile cures meningitis.

Whiskers cure toothache.

Brain treats laziness and pimples.

Penis is used in love potions and aphrodisiacs.

Dung or feces treats boils, hemorrhoids and alcoholism.

Western medical experts tend to discount all the claims but still the practice goes on.  In my opinion, one of the reasons the traditional practice is perpetuated is because it is 'traditional'.  The adjective 'traditional' almost becomes a seal of approval, a guarantee of success, because so many people have benefitted from (or been fooled by!) the traditional remedies.  I suppose when the traditional cures involve the the use of herbs, then there is little or no damage to the environment, but when it means slaughtering tigers, already an endangered species, it beggars belief.

The other major threat to tigers is habitat loss.  Information from WWF UK States that only 7% of the tiger's historical range is still available to them.  The rest has been cleared and gone to agriculture, forest clearing, roads, etc.  This has forced the tigers to inhabit isolated pockets of land thus impeding their breeding characteristics.

So unless action is taken and fortunately WWF and others do have programmes to save tigers, an animal which is known by all could become extinct and relegated like the dinosaur to the history books.  Please don't take the tiger for granted!

The Impotent President

The current shutdown of the US government seems bizarre to me and many other observers, particularly given the ramifications to the global economy.  What makes the whole saga surreal is the fact that the potentially very dangerous consequences are inflicted by mankind on mankind.  Not with guns and tanks, but purely by elected representatives trying to gain political advantage and being allowed to hold the world at ransom.  It is interesting, however, to note how this particular news item, although still unresolved, is sliding down the scale of importance when measured by its position on international news bulletins.  It is almost as if the world is becoming bored with the antics of American politicians and also somewhat embarrassed for President Obama who is demonstrating his political impotence, which is inherent in the American constitution.  For many major issues he is an impotent President.

The US constitution makes it possible for different branches of government to be controlled by different parties and in the current standoff each party can claim to be representing the will of the people.  This is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it to be, so that there would be a system of checks and balances.  They divided the US government in order to keep it limited and to ensure major decisions are the result of negotiation and compromise.

Now let's compare the US form of government with the United Kingdom's parliamentary democracy.  This form of democracy was described by the former Lord Chancellor of the UK, Lord  Hailsham, as an elective dictatorship.  As a hypothetical example, if something like Obamacare was in the election manifesto of a UK political party and that party won the election, then it's parliamentary majority would allow Obamacare to become law.  Now the first-past-the-post electoral system means that a strong majority on the House of Commons does not necessarily mean the majority of the electorate have voted for the ruling party.  At the last election in the UK, the Conservatives gained 36% of the votes and 47% of the seats in parliament, their current overall majority was created by forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.  This was the first coalition government formed outside wartime or a national emergency since 1918.  So in general, the elective dictatorship leads to strong decisive government, particularly if, as is normally the case, there is not a need for a coalition.

So what system of the two mentioned democracies, is better?  Well no system of government, democracy or otherwise, is perfect.  Winston Churchill said:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

In my opinion, it's one thing for governments to make decisions that affect solely their national interests, but when national decisions have a global impact, then that's a whole new ball game.  Hypothetically, imagine if the Polish government was procrastinating over a decision that could have a serious impact on the global economy.  Do you think the USA would just be a passive observer and wait for whatever will be?  I don't think so!

Looking at the bigger picture, in my view globalisation is testing to the full the world's current territorial governance.  Just how independent are so called independent states?  I am not questioning the cultural ties within countries and regions of the world but political responsibility needs to take on a much broader perspective than national boundaries.  The guy at the helm of the national ship cannot be allowed to be impotent because if that ship sinks, so do the rest of us.  Wake up America!

Business School Crap

As a part time management consultant it is perhaps heresy for me to suggest the teachings of business schools could be described as crap, but I do think business men and women should view with suspicion some of the latest thinking emanating from business academia.  Why do I say this?  Well throughout my own business career I was an instant convert to many of the various business fads, tools and techniques that were vogue at the time, including Boston Consulting Group Matrix, Total Quality Management, Lean and Agile Manufacturing, Balanced Scorecards, Business Process Re-engineering, Best Demonstrated Practice, Value Stream Mapping........to name but a few.  Looking back, I realise now that I suffered from the indoctrination and therefore the businesses that I was part of, or later in my career running, could have suffered too.  That's not to say that managers shouldn't be analytical and some tools, including those mentioned above, can help to gain a better understanding of  business performance and develop strategies.  But it is important not to get carried away with a simplistic approach to business strategy that many protagonists recommend.

Any business is a complex chaotic system that has no predictability.  Also, because it is a system, it contains a daunting web of interdependencies, both internal to the organisation and external to customers, suppliers and the rest of the global community.  The internal dependencies are difficult to influence and impossible to control.  The external interdependencies are even more remote.  Now the business school solutions to these complex problems are often based on subdivision, breaking down the internal organisation into units, divisions and departments, whilst creating neat sub-contract-driven supply chains to 'control' the outside world.  I'm not saying that this is not the way to try to bring some sort of control and certainty to an uncontrollable and uncertain business environment.  But the mistake is to believe such a structure, together with a few business improvement techniques thrown in, is the panacea for success........it ain't!  In my opinion, it doesn't matter how many case studies you review, there are not common threads for success, or conversely, for failure.

I ask myself, if I'm not happy with what's on offer at business schools right now, then what am I proposing?  Well I believe that the talent we all need to develop throughout our lives is thinking.  We have to be able to apply different types of thinking to situations and in the complex world of business, there is rarely a formulaic approach.  It is also dangerous to become too obsessed with both measuring things that have happened and applying measurements to things that have yet to happen.  Let me explain with an example.  I like to watch the UK BBC programme 'Dragons' Den'.  This is where budding entrepreneurs present business cases to proven entrepreneurs (the Dragons) to try to get investment by one or more Dragons into their businesses.  The Dragons will inevitably explore 'the numbers', i.e. the sales and profit to date and the projected sales and profit usually over the next three years.  If the budding entrepreneurs don't understand, or worse still don't know, their numbers they will be crucified by the Dragons.  Whereas if they present a good set of numbers, they get a big tick in the box.  But in reality, the past numbers are history and the future numbers are pie in the sky.  There is generally an obsession with profit but in the words of Peter Senge:

"Profit for a company is like oxygen for a person....unfortunately most businesses operate as if their purpose is breathing."

So in my opinion, understanding business is part of understanding life, because each business is a sub system within life's system.  Now to get from that level to tangible day-to-day actions to improve business performance, will not unfortunately lead to self-contained simplistic processes.  There might be some simple processes  but they cannot be viewed in isolation of the whole.  You might create the most efficient typewriter factory on the planet, but if the world has moved on from typewriters and doesn't use them anymore, you have wasted your time and money.

Now if you have read this blog post and ended up confused, I am not surprised.  I haven't attempted to answer any questions but merely to issue a health warning on the misuse of management fads.  There are no standard prescriptions for business success and in the words of Dr Deming:

"

"Improvement is a process, and not a pill.