LINK _Project Portfolio Management _Foresight-Hindsight in Materials Science and Engineering

LINK

Foresight-Hindsight in Materials Science and Engineering _Project Portfolio Management

KTN- Knowledge Transfer Network, UK - Video Streams on Environment sustainability

LINK to post and video access - KTN-Knowledge Transfer Network-video stream
Also available via the above video wall.

Cheers and enjoy viewing and participation in the live stream debates.

Financial Innovation_The Economist Debate. Stiglitz sways the field advocating a more cautious regulatory approach. CASE for MASS TORTS?

Levine vs Stiglitz: A Case for The TORTS LAWERS?

The debate is summarised in 4 Points, by The Economist's Zanny Minton Beddoes, head of global economic coverage and ex-IMF economist, (cf full summary in reference below)

I. -Both Ross Levine and Joseph Stiglitz agree that financial innovation can boost economic growth.

-Both acknowledge that some innovations have caused harm.

THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE
They differ—and hence where the discussion focused—is in their assessment of whether the financial innovations of the past 30 years have, on balance, been beneficial; and on how best to minimise "bad" innovation while promoting the good sort.

II. Mr Stiglitz is sceptical of the benefits of much recent innovation. He focuses on the many misaligned incentives within finance, and advocates strong regulation with a precautionary focus. Mr Levine sees greater benefits from modern finance, and is concerned with government failures, especially regulatory failures. These differing perspectives are reflected in the debaters' policy prescriptions. Mr Stiglitz wants to create a "Financial Product Safety Commission" to assess the safety and effectiveness of new financial innovations. Mr Levine suggests a new independent agency to watch over today's financial regulators.

III. At the beginning of our debate a small majority (54%) supported the motion. Now a slightly larger majority (57%) oppose it.

MY COMMENTS AND REFERENCES
That's a big swing in electoral terms but there are still 43% against Stiglitz prescription. These are the numbers but where does the balance of power lie, most likely with those with most money - remember this is an educated persons debate and intelligence is not all. ]

These considerations remind me of a powerful minority call by top management (union) for improved self regulation on pay, "performance related" bonus, free stock options, etc...
Here we see daily with what diligence power puts its machine into motion to solve recognised issues.

->RELATED POSTS

INNOVATION -THE WORTHWHILE PROJECT-Conversational styled, review of science's powerful tool "The Experimental Method" in politics and humanities

Sidewiki REf (en référence à) :

"At the beginning of our debate a small majority (54%) supported the motion. Now a slightly larger majority (57%) oppose it."
- Economist Debates: Financial innovation: Decision ( afficher sur - on Google Sidewiki)

Talent makes capital-money dance: Lessons, Secrets and Hype in the Book on Management, Funky Business, by Ridderstrale, Nordstrom, Interview

From the Book Funky Business Forever: How to Enjoy Capitalism by Jonas Ridderstrale and Kjell Nordstrom, review and interview by Idea Connection.

Part I.

Soliloquay:
This post is in many ways, more of a soliloquay – “A talking to oneself”, than a criticism, I hope.,
because:

“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain-and most fools do.
But it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving” from
Dale Carnegie_Wikipedia translating quotes from Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Carlyle, and Dr. Samuel Johnson.

I will have to struggle to respect this excellent advice from a golden oldie.

'Being funky is ultimately about “being true to yourself”. Authenticity is key.' This quote by Ridderstrale caught my attention

Being “true to one’s self,” now with such a quote, how can I avoid making a few comments in my “This-Above-All” pages? How’s that for foresight-Insight and Hindsight? Shakespeare in the late 16th century had this down to a tee. (I bite my lip!)

Hype:
I don’t like the word Funky, it screams of Hype. (fortunately there is another book review-interview from Idea Connection entitled Mastering the Hype Cycle.

Between you and me, I do not think of myself as Funky and even after reading the interview, I still don’t.

Personally, I believe there is more Insight, Foresight and most especially A Brighter Future in the expression “Cool”, in being cool, in planet cooling…
(He or she’s a cool person. A cool attitude. It has been totally adopted in spoken French
“pas cool”= disapproval or even a bad luck event. Porcine flue is certainly “pas cool”).


'At the end of the day you can only be the best person in the world or the best company in the world if you're a first rate version of yourself. Not a second rate copy of someone else.' [As a Scot weaned on “Scotland the Brave described as “the land of high endeavour”…
and again living in the well-known very elitist France. This attitude is a source of self-motivation, what Senge would call the power or pull of vision, a perception. ]

'I can I wipe the floor with all my competitors in the business world [for amateurs otherwise inclined to warfare, but not exactly my definition of being "cool"] as long as I remain true to myself.”'


Things to think about - Useful Lessons? (In fact in this rather lengthy review-interview their are a great many issues raised)

I chose to debate the following issue raised:
Talent vs Knowledge Economy and Intellectual Capital
'Talent is the only thing the western world – U.S., Canada, and Western Europe – is left to compete with. I've changed my mind, and now use the term talent instead of knowledge because talent is a much wider concept. ' Flattering but Highly questionable, ex-Eastern Block approach to human as opposed to motorised sport, Communist Russia and Chinese performance in gymnastics… Russian… Mathematicians and Engineers. But we have seen that “being true to one’s self” underlines the motivation to develop one’s own (almost) unique talents. We also know that this is not new and that professional -great educators-teachers, (trainers, coaches) know how to balance the liberating factors of creativity and the discipline and even abnegation often required to develop a particular in born ability or talent…

[Later in the interview, Ridderstrale also recognises this value of my independent critical comment(s) by quoting; 'If I recall correctly, in his latest book Outliers: The Story of Success, based on studies of highly successful people and groups like the Beatles, Malcolm Gladwell suggests it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to become great at something; to become exceptionally world-class fantastic.'

And the lesson or secret is:
'You better love what you do if you aspire to be great!' – [One 100% ]

'We all know that you can't compete on cost with 1.2 billion Chinese and 900 million Indians, many [many] of whom are [very] well educated. But these days, it is also increasingly difficult to beat them on the basis of having a superior intellectual capital. Talent is a little bit more complex as a concept than knowledge, because talent includes more than the intellectual capital that used to make and still makes some organizations competitive. At the end of the day if you have an MBA or an engineering degree you will have access to the same knowledge whether you study in Beijing, Boston, Bangalore, or Birmingham. [with more or less difficulty depending on your relationship with maths and science] This knowledge from university studies is not as much of a differentiator as it was 10 years ago, for example, because it's available to everyone. [Indeed all the basics and more, are freely available via The Internet where the notion of democracy and in-built common good sense and good will of large free-thinking numbers is the bet placed by the founding generations. (one very good example is Wikipedia)] You still need it, but this know-how will not provide you with a competitive edge. '

'Talent also captures the psychological elements – the importance of having a can-do attitude; and the social capital – the know-who factor – that is increasingly important.' [ie. “Not what you know but who you know”, a common folk culture expression from the old school boys network approach, today emulated by Alumni associations, in particular but not exclusively in business circles and other groups or lobbies, Lions, Rotary, Masonics to mention the most well known in Western Society]
[Suggestion: Arguably, talent to develop requires an advanced state of development with accompanying means. It also requires the experience accumulated in developed societies, and if possible Déja Vu, to put talent to good use – eg. Highly developed planetary observation systems and provisional models eg. such as anthropodic-human induced climate change (CC)]

On the upside,
I admire anyone who can write a book in their a language, other than their mother tongue.

The book is a welcomed attempt from the "European School'.

I recognise the provocative approach firstly because it lead me to read the interview, secondly it the interview and probably the book lends it’s-self to critical “class room” study and thirdly and perhaps most importantly it describes capitalism in an easily understandable form as a machine [easier to understand than system] that can break down and more importantly can be mended. [NB. all human systems have an aim, a purpose, a function. Care not to be overly reductionist summing up the greed for money of efficiency (no human being can be compared to a machine and must remain This-Above-All in his own interest; health, wealth, and happiness "True to oneself", I believe?]

Part II.
As stated above a great many issues are raised in this rather lengthy review-interview.
I have listed a few in what follows.

Motivation from Looking at the most difficult critics:

“Musicians, artists, actors, and painters who were convinced that business was boring” [Today the whole public is critical following the salary divide whereby Keynes considered a differential of 1:40 supportable compared to today’s 1:400.]

Gurus:
'Most business gurus become well known for
-a particular idea,
-a particular concept, which is almost vertical in nature, a core idea, then they dig deeper and deeper into that idea. '

Cross-Disciplinary vs Interdisciplinary: 'The Horizontal approaches'

Consulting Approaches
'Instead of telling people what to do, we invite them to think. Most people regardless of age, gender, occupation, or educational background are interested in being invited to think.'
[People appreciate being considered intelligent or as listed by Dale Carnegie in his last but not least of eight most important human needs and desires “The feeling of importance, self-esteem, consideration. Maslow. ]

'Make money in a well functioning market economy (Only one way) '

Talent vs Knowledge (Economy)

Innovation
'Behind every monopoly there is always an innovation of some kind. The argument we are making in Funky Business is that historically most of those innovations were of a technological kind. '

Innovations new insights
'In general, I don't think the greatest innovation challenges have a lot to do with technology. '

'I think the big challenges are organizational, managerial, leadership-oriented, perhaps even cultural and psychological. Some are even biological because it boils down to the nature of man – we are uncertainty-reducing creatures. We have been designed to avoid uncertainty and risk, because that's how to stay alive. It's probably a good set of design principles from the point of view of staying alive in an uncivilized society, but in business we're talking about how to move beyond the status quo, to create a good life. In a number of ways human nature prevents us from taking enough risks, being creative, and spending enough time and resources on creation of new ideas. Instead, exploitation of existing innovations tends to crowd out creation and experimentation in most organizations.' [Thoughtful, a worth-while debate?]

A simple model of a market economy:
'At the end of the day you have to realize that a market economy is not an ideology. A market economy is a machine. And it is a machine with only one task. As I said, it's a machine that sorts things, people, companies, and countries, on one principle – is it efficient or inefficient. That's what a market does. It's a sorting mechanism, efficient, inefficient, efficient, inefficient.'

A Short History of Competitive Strategy:
'Once upon a time competition was all about access to physical capital, cheap raw material, and cheap labour. Then competition was related to access to financial capital.
-Later, the competitive edge was based on intellectual capital, and
-now it's also a question of psychological and social capital.
Access to the old stuff has now become necessary, but no longer sufficient, in the race for business leadership. That's the way the market economy works.'

[Could this be it’s evolution be it’s down-fall?
“ Human economies are built on the use of energy to transform natural resources into useful products and services.” That should create a bit of e-motion! ] ref. Jancovici and Grandjean in their book in french entitled "C'est Maintenant"

To be fair Jonas Ridderstrale says much more
'Some recent research indicates that competitive intellectual capital still explains a lot of the variation in performance of individuals.

In some of these studies education was found to explain about 28% of the variation in work-related performance. If you consider just one psychological factor, confidence and self-sufficiency explain 38% of the variation in individual performance.

If you add the positive impact of hope, optimism, and resilience to bounce back when difficulties have been encountered, the psychological factors today are critically important. '

The mega challenge
'is to restore faith in the entire system. Trust in the financial system. Trust that capitalism and the marketplace still works.' [Indeed]
Ridderstråle’s recommended reading

Dr. Jonas Ridderstråle's impressive Biography

Full Interview by Vern Burkhardt for Ideaconnection

More...
All Innovation Book Author Interviews

Ideaconnection

Link_Innovation and Creativity from a recent blog source via EntreCard

Innovation and Creativity from a recent blog source via EntreCard.

Taking one's self too seriously is not good policy for Creativity and Innovation.

I am most indebted to David Farrimond for his links and introduction to his non-vulgar humerous approach and work.

More on Davids work and links

My Serious Foresight Ommission -IPCC Climate Change Senario Work:Unfinished From ommissions to => O-missions and E-missions, JOBS

From GHG-CO2 Emissions and Climate Change, longstanding amnesia and ommissions to =>

O-missions and E-missions. ( ROI-Return on Innovation, fair distribution via Jobs cf. for example: Green Jobs - Good Jobs approach by Appollo Alliance of USA )

Be part of the solution not part of the problem.

I simple wish to record one of the most important foresight works to date, the practically incontestable uncovering of man's role in climate change and global warming by the excellant work in progress by the UN_ IPCC International Panel on Climate Change. I have added 2 links to my foresight links.
1. IPCC-online reports.
2. IPCC-report on Emission sources

More reports...

And since nothing is as simple as it appears, Quirin Schiermeier of Nature has launched a debat

along the lines entitled:

The "Claim that the challenge of cutting emissions has been underestimated is debated."[Link-html]

Most constructive informative comments may be viewed at the above link

3 Myths of Innovation from G. A. Moore

"To innovate forever…is a design specification. It is not a strategy; it is a requirement."

quoted from G. A. Moore in his book, "Dealing with Darwin: How Great Companies Innovate at Every Phase of their Evolution"

From the simple belief that one and all can, improve, do better, do one's very best -work for the better (cf my essay various posts or on ChemWeb archives) many of my blog posts are concerned with Innovations and to the belief that they contribute to good job creation, and lasting profit. Innovation to me is the essence of Durable Development (DD) - Sustainable Development (SusDev) Here I shall share some recent reflections and conversations on Innovation defined as "ROI" return on investments or conveniently, return on innovations brought to my attention by an associate Vern Burkhardt at Idea Connection, like my blog spot, an associative web platform concerned with innovation -new (and improved) solutions to real problems.

Innovation is valuable only if it helps a company attain economic advantage.

Myths about innovation:
· Innovation in and of itself is valuable.
· Innovation becomes less necessary and possible as a product or service matures.
· The essence of innovation is the same in all companies.

Poppy Design in steelmaking slag

There are many fairly good sense insights into Innovation: the aim (why) the object of innovation(what) the procesesses (how) taken from Moore's book. In short I shall close with this "reminder to myself" quote:

Innovation, to create a return, must focus on what the customer values.

and since

"To innovate forever…is a design specification. It is not a strategy; it is a requirement."

I am pleased to undeline that, initiated properly, my early premise that Innovations are surely an un-ending source of jobs and revenu still holds!

Focus for common good (4Good): Carbon Capture and Sequestration - CCS example of process analysis in the steelmaking industry.

Sustainability Science from PNAS-AAAS Advancing Science Serving Society

Following my PNAS reading, I have already posted on their new journal "Sustainability Science".
Here, I have bookmarked their online National Academies.Org website and FORUM: Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development. and present their RSS in the side bar menu (LHS left hand side).

NB. Projects = Jobs, and Solutions are what the World is waiting for.

PNAS are moving their office to Washington. Could USA be accelerating their consulting role and enlightenment as concerned scientists at the highest level? Let's hope so.

Creating Tomorrow - Never so necessary, never so urgent? - Organisational Change Processes & Strategy

Critical comments with references (links) based on a white paper: "Creating a Value Driven Change Capability for Executing Organisational Strategy from Cranfield School of Management – April 2008" by Prof Chris Edwards and Rob Lambert of Cranfield School of Management.

Their leader quote is:
"As Darwin so aptly states the winners tomorrow may well not be today’s strongest, nor today’s most intelligent,but those most adaptable to change."

"Suffer-in-silence"? (JA)

For my generation and probably Prof. Edward's this could be an never ending refrain: Bob Dylan sang many years ago "The Times they are a changing "

The following quote also from the authors:
"Today with responsiveness and agility increasingly becoming the organisational focus, clear lines of responsibility for change are essential." provoked my comment as follows:

Although typical in management school & company jargon this could well conjure-up an image of a "Circus" in the minds of the worse critics, today the critics are most likely to be a disallusioned general public and we can be sure the humourists won't miss their target if they ever turn from their main political targets! Aren't we lucky, we scholars and bloggers?

I felt it was high-time to look again at this, apparently galvauded subject; "Organisational Change and Transformation"

A free white paper by the, UK-IT magazine & website ZD.Net, provided stimulation and ample material for my post.

The authors of the paper, Edwards & Lambert ascertain that there are many indications that the rate of organisational change / transformation is increasing with an associated increase in investment risk. Their paper was published in April 2008. In the light of what is common knowledge today - "financial crises, recession, increasing unemployment..." this appears to be a euphimism. As "insider management observers" the authers probably benefited from some privileged foresight.

The subject is most often treated as a management process topic. Edwards & Lambert consider that there is perhaps one more important issue:

"Maybe more important than an effective process is the unifying of responsibility for ‘creating tomorrow’".

This is not really revolutionary. It simply found resonance in me from my own knowledge and reading on management, notably what Peter Senge in the 5th Disciplne terms "The motivationg power of vision of a shared vision" Senge likens this to the elastic band pulling reaction pulling towards a shared vision and goal.

cf. my earlier post in my Sept. 2006 post: INNOVATION -THE WORTHWHILE PROJECT-Conversational styled, review of science's powerful tool "The Experimental Method" in politics and humanities from Blog.

"In many organisations responsibility for delivering today’s performance is clear whereas that for creating tomorrow is less so. "

I wonder if my Hypothesis in Recession and The Environment I – Climate Change -Root Causes and Solutions 26 Sept. 2008. and

Recession and The Environment II – Climate Change: Root Causes and Solutions
also in my "Conversations-on-Innovations" Blog
is to some extent substantiates of these "States of Affaires", the short vs the long view or again as Senge puts it "The Art of The Long View"!

Or again as some sceptics may put it "What is as opposed to what could or should be...?


"All of this investment in change is in an attempt to create a ‘better tomorrow’ for the organisation."

I believe, even the most causual of observers, like me for example, have noticed such apparently huge investments -often seen as real lay-Offs or simple stock-market - manipulation announcements?

My turn to ask the pundit's what is specifically the true, objective ROI-return on investment on such schemes whatever the errors underlined by the scholars?

Whatever, Edwards & Lambert have provided a useful summary paper on the subject raising many questions on change management and it's processes worth summarizing as follows:

An 80/20 rule: THE ANSWER IS IN THE QUESTIONS (QUESTIONING PROCESS MANAGEMENT!)

-Exactly who in an organisation aligns, prioritises and coordinates the portfolio of business change initiatives, ranging from IT enabled change to Six Sigma local projects as well as strategic imperatives defined by the Board?
-Who is responsible for creating organisational readiness for change? Who ensures that adequate business change resources are allocated to each initiative? Who mobilises the various groups that need to be involved in operationalising the change (IT, Organisational Development (OD), etc)? Who tests and signs off the change as suitable in terms of efficiency and compliance?
-Just who rigorously conducts post implementation investment reviews on business change programmes? Some of these tasks are frequently allocated to a Programme Office but such a group often exists to provide administrative and support services only; not a truly managerial capability, with real responsibility and authority. The above questions relate to responsibility for the creation of the organisation’s tomorrow and, as such, it could be said to be the CEO’s responsibility.

"But then everything is the CEO’s responsibility and he/she only has 16 working hours in each day! "

What !!! ?

Comment: Come on Edwards & Lambert... and a fat salary to pay for help but only an "outsider would dare say this, n'est ce pas!

In summary, it is considerably less clear who coordinates and operationalises the creation of tomorrow’s business than it is to understand who delivers today’s business.


Edwards & Lambert summarise the numerous ‘methodologies’ which have been proposed to achieve "successful transformation."
and extract main themes which they bring together to form an Organisation’s Change Capability. cf. Table labled Fig. 1.


The first four elements are concerned with developing an agreed change portfolio.
The literature stresses the criticality of the leadership team communally committing to this prioritised portfolio.

The remaining six elements are involved with the detailed planning, delivery and review of the change initiatives.

As outlinned above recent research undertaken at Cranfield by Professor Chris Edwards & Rob Lambert suggests that these six elements are necessary but they are insufficient, in themselves, to deliver the critical benefits(the famous bottom red-line profit or a more hollistic better future for all?). Realisation of these benefits is more closely associated with the formulation of an agreed change portfolio. (as discussed above.)

Edwards and Lambert state that:
"Their purpose in writing this article is to stimulate a debate so that organisations begin to enhance their capability for executing the business strategy. As the school report might say “More emphasis needed on ‘strategy execution’ and rather less on ‘creating the perfect business direction’”.

"Maybe more important than an
effective process is the unifying of
responsibility for ‘creating tomorrow’."

I can live with that, better, I can perhaps turn this into "I can live better with that", a more hollistic "Global Approach".

SOURCES & REFERENCES:

1. N° 8. Financial Management (Cranfield). In Top Ten White Papers curtesy of ZDNETUK, this Week Nov08 (Free upon sign on)

2. INNOVATION -THE WORTHWHILE PROJECT-Conversational styled, review of science's powerful tool "The Experimental Method" in politics and humanities

3. Recession and The Environment I – Climate Change -Root Causes and Solutions 26 Sept. 2008.

4. Recession and The Environment II – Climate Change: Root Causes and Solutions

Stop press on Recession 13Nov2008 17h00- !

Economic group OCDE says developed world in recession

INNOVATION -THE WORTHWHILE PROJECT-Conversational styled, Review of Science's Powerful Tool "The Experimental Method" in Politics and The Humanities

As one of my more original and I feel better papers, I feel it fitting to bring the readers attention again (& again!) to this earlier work, first published (2004) on ChemWeb and still available on their archive. A full post is available to read and copy (with proper reference to the author, yours truly, of course). It is available on my blog "Conversations on Innovations" at the following Link

I do hope you enjoy reading My Published Paper-Free Online Link
as much as I enjoyed writing it, and look forward to your "comments and questions"

Sincerely