Where is the line between technical innovation and the humanities?

Where is the line between technical innovation and the humanities?

Innovation using physics is forging ahead at an accelerating rate.

Remember the speed at which a covid vaccine was brought to the market after the first identification of the virus. Instead of the usual 10 to 15 years we suddenly had that process compressed into 18 months.

And yet there remained those who refused to accept the vaccination for a range of personal and behavioural reasons which many would say are irrational.

Somewhere the line between the technical innovation involved in the hyper-rapid final stage development of the vaccine and the humanities driving behaviour crashed into each other.

As the rate of technical innovation across every domain accelerates it is likely we will continue to stumble across this barrier to adoption, and a fragmentation of adoption across a range of behavioural parameters.

Simply another social tension driven by the speed at which the modern world is evolving. It is way beyond the speed at which our DNA allows behaviour and attitudes to evolve.

The situation in front of us right now is the degree and manner in which AI is accepted and adopted by organisations and by individuals.

We managed this dilemma in the motor industry as it became obvious that it was profoundly important to incorporate safety into the vehicles as a means to save lives. As a result, it became mandatory to design crumple zones into cars, and install seat belts. Regulatory intervention and oversight 60 years after it became obvious that a car could kill its occupants.

Where will the equivalent crumple zone emerge in the arena of AI, and will it be in time?

The disturbing problem with AI

The disturbing problem with AI

Remember when Lotus 123 arrived?

Most don’t, but I do.

Suddenly, my ‘To Do’ list had babies.

Lotus delivered the opportunity to answer questions that previously had required hours, days and even weeks of work to calculate by hand. That opportunity meant that every man and his dog were asking more questions, and expecting an answer yesterday.

The pattern repeated when Excel blew Lotus out of the water, and it continues as Excel continues to add functionality unimagined a few years ago.

Then, along comes AI, and again repeats the pattern, except, the pattern has been given a huge dose of steroids.

Not only do we and those to whom we report expect those answers immediately, we now also expect that the machine will also ask the questions, and offer alternatives.

Years ago, I learnt the hard way that the lists of jobs to be done my wife put on the fridge for my immediate attention was a trap.

Every time I managed to rub one off, several more appeared at the bottom of the list. Quickly the list became an unmanageable source of conflict, as expectations were so totally different, resources required rarely available, and priorities were both moveable, totally unclear, and seemingly never mutual.

So it has been with digital automation tools from Lotus to AI.

Failure to agree priorities, ensure adequate and appropriate resource availability, and focus aggressively on the agreed priority inevitably leads to conflict, confusion, and sub-optimal performance.

The follow up problem to the explosive growth of AI is that we have surrendered to the ‘instant gratification’ world of Tik Tok.

We want an answer, and we want it now!

This demand for immediacy combined with the massive capability of AI to deliver output unimaginable before Chat hit the headlines is eroding our need, and indeed ability, to think. Superficially, we no longer need to consider the ‘first principles’ aspects of challenges and opportunities that confront us: AI does it for us.

‘Thinking slow’ is not only unfashionable, but seemingly unnecessary.

However, it is my view that those who can ‘think slow’ in the face of the demand for immediacy will win in the end.

Thinking fast and slow in blogs used

Failure to agree priorities, ensure adequate and appropriate resource availability, and focus aggressively on the agreed priority inevitably leads to conflict, confusion, and sub-optimal performance.

You do not have to be using AI tools to know the timeless truth of that statement.

However, it is my view that those who can ‘think slow’ in the face of the demand for immediacy will win in the end.

Is sweat the only marketing silver bullet?

Is sweat the only marketing silver bullet?

Unfortunately, there is no single silver marketing bullet.

There are hordes of so-called marketing experts out there who will flog you a package of promises, digital and otherwise, that almost always end up being hollow.

Marketing success evolves from strategy, making really tough choices in the absence of perfect information, then implementing, learning, and going again.

It requires you to make choices about the future, and how you will face it, shape it and leverage it.

You cannot look at the numbers, they do not exist yet.

You cannot look to the success of others, and successfully copy and paste, as every challenge and context is different.

You must forge your own way, while learning the lessons of others and applying them to your situations.

The only silver bullet in marketing, just like every other field of endeavour, is time, energy, focus, compounding domain knowledge, and perseverance.

Get those five factors aligned, and you will have a good chance of winning.

Has Australia decided on nothing that matters?

Has Australia decided on nothing that matters?

 

 

By Sunday morning we will know the outcome of this visionless, spineless, idea and leadership-free zone that has passed for an election campaign.

Whatever the outcome, we can look forward to more of the same. Sadly.

It is unreasonable to compare the governance of a country to that of a major corporation, they are apples and pears. The objectives are so substantially different it’s absurd to pretend they’re the same.

However, at a macro level, there are striking similarities in the systems, structures and disciplines that should underpin both. Many of the principles that drive successful corporate governance are desperately needed in government.

Long-term financial sustainability

Corporations must generate enough cash flow to sustain their operations. Shareholders, lenders, and customers all have options: they can walk if they don’t see value. That pressure forces financial discipline.

Governments by contrast levy taxes to raise their revenue without the taxed having choice. In addition, they can ‘create’ money by borrowing from the central bank via the issuing of government backed bonds.  Short term this acts as a cushion for cycles in the economy, but long term, just like a corporation, there must be an ability to both pay the interest and on maturity, retire some of the debt. Failure to do so will result in economic erosion and eventual ‘banana republic’ status.

The long term rules of ‘financial gravity’ apply equally to corporations and governments.

Development and deployment of human and physical assets

Corporations invest in leadership and capability because returns depend on it. Governments have a deeper responsibility. Their role is to shape the society’s capacity to think, build, and adapt. Education is the backbone of economic and social growth. It is more than teaching the necessary practical skills needed by the economy, it is also the intellectual and emotional development of the country. We chase the sugar hit and skip the slow burn by treating education as a cost centre, rather than an investment with a long term payoff in wider ways than just financial. The price of misunderstanding the role of education is paid in wasted potential and stalled progress.

Building strategic moats

Warren Buffett nailed it: build moats or die trying. Moats defend your competitive edge.

In national terms, it’s about sovereign capability. Countries that do not invest in strategic domains: energy, food, defence, Intellectual Capital, lose control of their future. Sovereign capability is leverage, and without it, we drift.

Compounding and patience

Einstein called compounding the most powerful force in the universe. Most companies struggle with it. Governments are even worse.

The three-year electoral cycle kills patience. Most policies are Band-Aids with media-friendly headlines. Real compounding needs time and resolve, both of which require leadership.

A handful of exceptions stand out in our history: floating the dollar, Medicare, GST reform. Rare moments of a recognition that the long-term always arrives, sometimes all of a sudden.

Seeing the trends and riding them

Both corporations and governments need to play the trend game. Spot it, bet on it, build around it.

But here’s the catch: governments should do what companies cannot. They must back the long-term, risky bets that create public good. They must build the infrastructure: physical, intellectual, scientific, and social that will serve future generations. This requires an agile mind that can take in new information, process it and arrive at a different point, then  execute a long term pivot. This governance characteristic is totally absent from our politics, where the focus is on predicting and planning an answer to the ‘gotcha’ question at the next press conference.

Transparency and trust

Trust is oxygen. Lose it and nothing else matters. Great organisations know this. They operate with clarity, keep promises, and hold people accountable.

Governments? Far too often, the reverse. Opaque processes, spin over substance, accountability dodged. When transparency dies, trust doesn’t just die with it—it rots.

Has anyone seen a trace of any of these six characteristics in this election campaign?

Anyone?

 

 

 

 

Where does the hype stop, and reality kick in?

Where does the hype stop, and reality kick in?

 

 

American Roy Amara first coined what has become known as Amara’s law.

‘We tend to overestimate the effects of technology in the short term, and underestimate the effects in the long run’.

It was put more simply by (I think) Reid Hoffman who said: ‘the future is like a windscreen coming at a moth at 100mph.’

The initial excitement, hype, enthusiasm for the idea is followed by a period of underperformance, and disillusionment, before the real impact of the technology kicks in and changes the way we do things. Gartner’s well thumbed ‘Hype cycle’ is a better known version of Amara’s law.

Time and again over the last 30 years we have seen this effect on vivid display.

The internet, smartphones, AI, electric vehicles, Hydrogen as an energy source, (just entering the disillusionment stage) and many others.

It can also be applied to wider contexts, we just need to look for it.

Advertising.

No new TV ad campaign was ever released into the world without exalted expectations about the sales that would result coming from the ad agencies and those often clueless advertisers paying the freight. Then, unexpectantly, the ad is shown to be a dog, and is quietly euthanised.

Climate change.

Remember the hype and enthusiasm for ‘doing something’ that accompanied Al Gore’s influential doco ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ back in 2006. Nothing happened, the hype and enthusiasm was drowned by hubris and short term individual, corporate and political self-interest. While it seems unlikely at the moment, I remain confident that realisation will hit soon that we must take remedial action now in order to mitigate the long term becoming worse. Meanwhile. continuing to do nothing more than provide lip service ensures the moth will hit the windscreen in my grandchildren’s lifetime.

Business.

There are cycles of ‘fashionable’ management frameworks that seem to come, become the next great management breakthrough, undergoes the hype, then is shown to be np more than an emperor dressed in some transparent new clobber. Sometimes they re-emerge rebranded to go through the process again. Michael Hammers  1993 book ‘Re-engineering the corporation’ was such a fashion. I recall sitting around a board table listening to a very slick but hollow (even obvious to me at that time) presentation by a high priced consultant making promises of easily won great profit improvements from an aggressive ‘re-engineering’ of my then employer. That business hit the windscreen several years later, having cherry-picked the easy bits of the process, while ignoring those that actually made the long term difference because they were too hard.  A few years later, Al ‘Chainsaw’ Dunlap had another run at it which made him a fortune, but left chaos in his wake. There are many more examples, the fall of GE from the largest corporation in the world to being virtually broke being one.

Politics.

Governments are relentlessly hyping the impact of their latest policy, more intensely than usual around election time. They whip up enthusiasm, at least amongst their acolytes, then falling into the trough of hubris. Usually, there is a renewal under a different name at a later time, often the next election. Remember the ‘Gonski reforms’ to education hyped by the then government, and supported in principle at least by the then opposition? Swept under the carpet of hubris and self-interest, again. Similarly, the 2010 Henry tax review was received by a grateful government who then shelved it. We may now have reached a point where the dust will be partially removed by necessity.

Americans are in the midst of waking up, again, to the reality of a second Trump administration. My contacts over there indicate dismay bordering on horror, and most of the working class Trump voters are about to learn the cost of the hype to them. The US moth seems likely to be splattered over the windscreen by the 2026 mid-term elections.

Artificial Intelligence.

Occasionally, the outcomes go way beyond what was originally envisaged. AI has been evolving for decades, but it exploded into the wider public awareness when ChatGPT was launched in November 2022. We are still experiencing the upswing in the hype cycle; I am certainly playing my small part. However, at some point I suspect soon, the tsunami of tools emerging, the sheer complexity of choice being forced on us will overwhelm all but the few, and we will collectively throw our hands in the air when the robot that does our washing does not appear. This collective action, if that is the way it occurs, will just let the first movers race away with the lollies.

The hype cycle remains around us, daily impacting on our lives. Its greatest risk is that we let it drive our decision making by making short term choices that are strategically flawed.