Apr 11, 2023 | Change, Governance
Now we have a legislated ceiling on carbon emissions, ‘The safeguards mechanism’ the challenge is to ensure compliance.
That is the hardest part, yet to come.
The means by which the emissions will be reduced by business are unregulated, but there is no doubt it will incur capital expenditure. This will provide a challenge for business, that generally sees their first priority delivering immediate returns to shareholders.
Where will the balance be between their regulated and long term moral public responsibility, their short-term responsibility, and often the jobs of decision makers fall?
How will the safeguards mechanism be governed for the long-term benefit of all?
There are two ways to govern the implementation.
The first is the one always top of a governments list, regulation. Sadly, it will not work very well. You can regulate, inspect and punish to the letter of the law, and when necessary, regulate further till the sky turns black. The short-term cost of compliance is likely to be less than the profit generated by finding loopholes and screwing the system. In addition, the regulators are in the thrall of the carbon generating industries, and will always be behind the latest discovery of holes through which businesses can squirm if they choose.
The second is the same as the above, with a wrinkle to fill the unanticipated and unseen holes. Publish the results in a form easily understood by Joe Public. For greater effect, add a few extra columns, such as the domicile of the controlling entity, Income tax paid, and profits declared.
This would bring into play a powerful motivator, Social Proof.
Rio felt the weight of Social Proof when they destroyed the Juukan Gorge caves. I suspect the internal culture of Rio has changed as a result. While this is an extreme example, it makes the point.
Such a publicly available register, all data coming from public sources, (compliance reports, Tax department, stock exchange notices) would serve as a resource for those advocating for change. It would also be a source of goodwill and potentially stock market value for those doing the right thing.
Publishing data on all the top 500 polluters would lead, in a relatively short time, to behaviour changes that will do more for carbon emission reduction than regulation by itself can hope to achieve. It might also lead to a few of the most obvious changes to the tax rules applying to internationally domiciled businesses to be made. The irony is that it is also a simple solution, so will probably not be considered.
Header cartoon credit: Again, Scott Adams and Dilbert distil the challenge into a few words and drawings.
Apr 5, 2023 | Change, Culture, Innovation
Never before has the need for creativity been more critical.
Never before have set about crushing creativity before it has a chance to bloom more than we do now.
My nephew is dyslectic, always had trouble at school, with teachers, sitting still, and anything that required him to read and write. In a parent-teacher interview when he was about 12, my sister was distraught and angry to hear that her son, who had by then built a computer from bits and pieces, powered by a cobbled together solar panel on the roof, would be lucky to progress beyond being a day labourer.
He was lucky. After scraping into a regional university with a practical focus, he earned a masters degree in electrical engineering, got bored, and went back and did medicine. He is now an ophthalmic surgeon, restoring sight in the footsteps of Fred Hollows.
Had his practical talent not been recognised by an academic with a long life of non-academic experience behind him, my nephew may have continued tinkering in the garage while making his living on a production line. What a waste that would have been.
How many like him have we wasted?
How many like him will we continue to waste as we dose up the kids who cannot sit still in school, or colour between the lines, with Ritalin?
Back in 2008 an executive coach named Wayne Burkin wrote a book called ‘Wide Angle Vision: beat your competition by focussing on Fringe suppliers, Lost customers, and Rogue employees’. The title says it all.
Creativity and the resulting change does not come from those who can colour between the lines, always behave in a disciplined manner, are prepared to do as they are told at all times. It comes from the outliers, the originals, the rebels, as Steve Jobs noted, those who ‘Think Different’.
Seth Godin’s remarkable essay introducing us to the ‘Purple Cow’ resonates even more now than when it was written back in 2003. Paragraphs 5 and 6 should be reproduced and stuck on every wall of every room that ever has a student of any kind in it, and every office of anyone seeking to be a leader.
Never have we needed those who think different to have their hands on the wheel of the companies and institutions that together make up the economy, and will shape our kids futures more than we do currently.
Header cartoon courtesy of gapinvoid.com
Mar 29, 2023 | Change, Governance, Strategy
The government’s $15 Billion National Reconstruction Fund faces a range of strategic and management dilemmas.
The Treasurer Jim Chalmers set out the governments priorities in his essay ‘Capitalism after the crisis’ in February. He called for focus on three things:
- An orderly energy and climate transition of the economy
- A more resilient and adaptable economy
- A focus on growth hand in hand with equality of opportunity.
The response has been roughly equal from those who see his views as the defining principles for development of the economy from the poor relations role currently played amongst the OECD, to those who condemn his views for their generality and naivety.
Given these seem to be about equal, he must be close to the mark.
The dilemma in the deployment of any ambitions public program is governance.
The opposition condemns it, claiming that it will achieve no useful outcome, being just a huge a magnet for rent-seekers. I guess they should know how to recognise a snout-ready trough when they see one. The government seems to dismiss this concern as something that can easily be managed, and while it is an admirable sentiment, the ‘yes minister’ syndrome will play a big role. Again, the very difficult middle path seems to be the ideal outcome.
From my experience running a tiny, micro version of this initiative 25 years ago there are some lessons to be learnt and applied, or at the very least, considered in the design of the management and operational infrastructure:
- There needs to be an accountable board made up of mix of experienced and wise people from outside the vested interests, committed to the outcome of moving Australia up the various ‘industrial complexity’ scorecards.
- It needs to be separated from the bureaucracy and run its own management processes, and grant budgets that are multi-year. Tying the operational and grant budgets to an annual calendar dictated by allocations in the national budget is to ensure its failure as a strategic tool. This choice will be difficult for any government, and will probably precipitate another bureaucratic turf war.
- A company limited by guarantee is one structure that can be useful. This does not in any way compromise the accountability of the management for the financial governance of the ‘business’. The shareholders would likely be Federal government, via Dept. of Industry, CSIRO, and one of the credible business associations with a wide cross-industry membership.
- The board would be chaired by a credible figure like Proff. Roy Green. Board members will represent the shareholders, and include several non-aligned members familiar with the areas of strategic focus from the perspective of the evolving technology, financial constraints and opportunities, business development, and strategic marketing expertise.
- The first job of such a board must be the definition of the strategic priorities of the ‘business’. These are one step down from the general outline in the Treasurers essay and take the form of a priority list of industry sectors that will be eligible to receive funding. Within this pathway there must be some discretion, as predicting the future is a challenging task, and you never know what will bob up in the development process that deserves support. The parameters of ‘deserve support’ should be at the discretion of the board, but widely agreed.
- Staffing and budgeting of the ‘business’ must be from outside the bureaucracy. Bureaucratic rules and conventions need to be taken only selectively when they clearly add value to the process. It is quite likely there will be very qualified people currently within the bureaucracy, who may elect to take a leave of absence from those roles to take up one with the business. This could be regarded as a secondment, but the management of the personnel concerned must be at the discretion of the management of the ‘business’.
- Non-profit, research institutes, and quangos are not eligible for funding unless in collaboration with a viable commercial operator. The business will play a pivotal and catalytic role in putting these two pieces of the puzzle together in ways that may lead to funding.
- Dictate to collaborative bureaucracies that they are required to collaborate and co-operate with the ‘business’. This is not to ensure primacy, but to ensure collaboration within the boundaries of commercial in confidence. The business must be ‘cross departmental’ and seen as a neutral player there only to be a ‘compounder’ of public resources.
$15 Billion is a big chunk of money, although dwarfed by the magnitude of the challenge facing the country. This sort of approach should have been implemented 30 years ago, but better late than never, so long as it is done right!
Header credit: Knicked from the NRF website
Mar 15, 2023 | Change, Governance
One of my sons is a radiographer, working in a large public hospital, carrying some management responsibility while still being ‘on the tools’ in an under-resourced, bureaucratic and highly structured environment.
On one hand there is the health system, hobbled by rules, work practises inherited from another century, wrapped up in extreme risk aversion. On the other you have the doctors, ranging from the juniors who are hospital employees, to the specialists who after years of study and work have the opportunity to ‘cream’ the system.
Of interest here when considering the role of AI, is the relationship between the radiographers, who construct the images, and the specialist radiologists. The radiologists carry complete responsibility for the interpretation of those images, along with the directions for treatment to other medical branches that carry out the hands-on care of patients, from nursing to surgery. The radiographer just takes the ‘pictures’, and is prohibited from diagnosis, no matter how experienced they may be.
Being a commercial bloke, for years I have been asking my son, where to from here?
Being a public servant for life is not all that attractive to him, overworked, frustrated and grossly underpaid. On the other hand, to go into business for himself, the combination of the capital required for the imaging gear, and the simple fact that the regulations require that only a specialist radiologist interpret his ‘pictures’, means they have the private radiography game completely sewn up. No private radiography studio can set up without a Radiologist locked in to sign off every image.
However, AI is happening.
One of the earliest uses of AI has been to read medical images. Their ability to ‘learn’, and consistently improve means that the room left for interpretation by a human is being squeezed into an increasingly narrow field loosely described as, ‘So what now”. As this continues to evolve, the need for the specialist radiologist in diagnosis will disappear. With this increasing irrelevance, in a free market, my son could start his own radiography business. This should be free of the regulatory constraints that dictate diagnosis is only to be done by a Radiologist, whose role will be little more than to ‘sign off’ an AI generated diagnosis. Radiology is a medical speciality whose only role within a very short time will be answering the ‘so what now’ question, and that will be increasingly answered by AI, informed by the outcomes of previous cases.
I am sure the ‘Radiologist union’ will fight tooth and nail by lobbying, to prevent that from happening. They are a part of a very smart and very highly educated cohort who have made a huge investment of time and energy into their future, and are unlikely to easily let the rewards from that investment trickle away.
We have only just begun to think about the impact of AI in the wider strategic context, but it seems evident to me, just based on this small example, that huge changes are afoot, many of which will be hobbled by the past, making the changes necessary to leverage the capabilities of AI extraordinarily challenging.
Feb 24, 2023 | Change, Innovation
Hemmingway observed in ‘The sun also rises’ that ‘the future comes slowly, then all at once’.
He has been proven right many times.
Since the release in November last year, ChatGPT has proven the future of AI is here, all at once.
That reality leads to the key question: so, what now?
We often look back on the spread of electrification as a template for thinking about the digitisation of our economies. It is a fair representation except for one small detail, which makes all the difference.
Electrification was a process that proceeded sequentially, piece by piece added as efficiency improved. From the beginning of the digital age, and the recognition of the reality of Moore’s Law, this has changed.
The driver of change has been compounding, each stage building on the previous, with increasing speed. While this has been seen by most as just normal improvement, the cumulative impact has been far greater.
Einstein noted that the most powerful force in the universe is compounding. Imagining the impact of compounding is really hard, makes my head hurt. To imagine it, there is still no better metaphor than the old rice on the chessboard fable.
The emperor promised someone (probably an ancient consultant) a payment in rice on a progressive scale, calculated as doubling for each of the 64 squares on a chessboard. 1, 2,4,8,16,32, and so on. It seemed like a good deal to the emperor who was clearly not mathematically minded.
By the 31st square, payment topped a billion grains of rice, enough to cover your average ancient town square. That is where the problems started as payment kept on doubling, quickly outstripping the total world production of rice.
The tipping point is somewhere around square 25, where the rice was a couple of wheelbarrows full, then seemingly suddenly, it became a vast amount.
Such has been the case with digitisation.
We have been watching its progression since Gordon Moore wrote his 1965 article predicting a doubling of the number of circuits on a single chip every 18 months. A bit like the emperor, we have watched and suddenly it seems we have reached a tipping point led by ChatGPT and its sibling DALL-E. Hot on Chats heels came ‘Bard’ from Google, although stumbling at the launch last week, and no doubt Amazon and Apple are close behind.
The difference we face to that faced by the emperor, is that had he used his abacus, he could have predicted the outcome of his agreement, as it is calculable, to a point. What happens now with the compounding of AI is not so predictable. What we do know is that it will be a disruptive force coming at us with compounding speed and power.
This power to increase the speed, accuracy, and therefore efficiency of the processes we digitise will extract a range of very high tolls. These will be the increased risk of personal data being available and almost inevitably used against us, amplification of bias, ever increasing complexity of the systems we will come to absolutely rely on but not understand how they do what they do, and a complete ‘rework’ of work. This revision of work will make the changes from the cottage industries pre industrial revolution look like minor adjustments by comparison, and will happen at lightning speed.
Of concern to me is that only a few have the scale necessary to ‘train’ these systems. Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Apple have that scale, which will serve to entrench their dominance in the space. Theoretically governments also have the scale, but will be hobbled by concerns unshared by commercial players.
Within a decade, every current job, those that remain, will be almost unrecognisable, and there will be new jobs we cannot yet predict taking their place. What will remain is the human element of creativity, that capability that distinguishes human beings from all other species, the ability to do something completely new.
The good news is that we will still need engineers, architects, doctors, plumbers, and bricklayers, but the shape of their day will be nothing like it is today.
When digital photography took off, putting a quality camera in every pocket, most thought it was the end of photography as a profession. Not so. What became quickly obvious was that there was a clear distinction between the real, creative skills of the elite photographers, and those of the ordinary. The pareto distribution of photographic skill applied, and those that survived as professionals had more time and better tools with which to capture and express their images. This will be repeated in every job across the economy.
Unanswered is the question of how we educate our kids to thrive in a work environment we are unable to visualise.
Header credit: Dall-E. The instruction I gave Dall-E was ‘Surrealist impression of the change from cottage industry to knowledge work’ This was one of 12 generated in about 30 seconds. Look closely at the face.
Feb 20, 2023 | Change, Culture, Governance
Lifelong employment is a thing of the past, casualisation, remote work, and the gig economy have consigned that idea to the dustbin of history.
It seems to me that there should be a revision to the way we seek to employ people, on whatever basis that employment occurs.
When recruiting for my clients as I do from time to time, I use a checklist that has a number of elements not usually obvious in most recruiting processes I have seen, or indeed been subjected to. The checklist assumes that anyone you are speaking to has the required domain qualifications and experience to in theory, get the job done. After that I look for ‘the 3 C’s and E’
Curiosity. To my mind curiosity is essential to be able to see alternatives and options from outside the domain. A wide span of interests, hobbies, reading, and an apparent ‘let’s just see’ attitude are signposts.
Critical thinking. To be able to subject opinions, data, and so-called facts to a process that strips away the inbuilt bias, self-interest, ‘short- termism’ and just bullshit, to reveal the foundation assumptions and facts. ‘How would you approach……..’ Type questions and resulting conversation surfaces this ability quite quickly, as does asking about times they have failed to reach an objective, and what they learnt as a result.
Collaborative capacity. Collaboration has unfortunately been turned into a cliché. However, the reality is that we are in a knowledge world, and most of the valuable knowledge is elsewhere, so you better figure out a way to get access to it. Generally, those who demonstrate they take responsibility for problems in their area of responsibility, while passing on praise for good work by others will find themselves as a ‘node’ in communication networks, rather than being just a receiver or originator of input. The number and distribution of ‘Nodes’ drives collaborative outcomes.
Education, in its broadest sense. STEM education is vital, from cutting-edge technology to basic trade skills. These technical skills drive productivity. Just as important are the ‘soft skills’, the capacity to see through the eyes of others, engage in constructive debate, and accommodate conflicting ideas in your brain at the same time. Education powers the three ‘C’s above
The recent changes have been profound, and the train has not stopped. One of my concerns for the world my grandchildren will inherit is what we are going to do with those who are displaced by technology? The argument that they will find new jobs created by the changes as has always happened in the past, may not happen as smoothly this time. The chances are in my view, that we will see increased levels of pain and anxiety.
We have an emerging social disruption over the next 20 years we have no idea how to manage, and really are not even considering the challenges in any meaningful way.
Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gauld. Originally published in New Scientist magazine.
