Change the way you think

Last weekend as I was reading the Sunday paper I came across this brilliant and funny article by Richard Glover. In it, Richard conducts a simple thought experiment. He asks us to imagine what we would think of inventions if they occurred in reverse order. For instance, how would we feel about landlines, if they were invented after the mobile phone? What if 2D movies were invented after 3D movies?

Richard imagines the following scenario:

Imagine we only had 3D films — a format so expensive that only
mainstream movies can ever be made, with seen-it-all-before plots and
action themes. Even worse, everyone has to wear those Buddy Holly
glasses that get all sweaty and itchy after about five minutes.

Then, voila, someone develops 2D movies. Suddenly films
can be made for a fraction of cost; there's a flowering of smaller, more
eclectic films. Ticket prices drop. Even better, it's suddenly possible
to kiss and make out in the back row of the cinema without your glasses
getting tangled.

Oh, thank you 2D. What a revolution in filmmaking and
viewing. What progress.

I find this blog amazingly insightful for two reasons. Firstly it highlights our natural tendency to assume that 'new' means 'new and improved.' Once a new product appears on the market we tend to ignore its shortcomings and get swept up in the excitement that comes with embracing a new product.

Secondly it highlights how simply considering things from a different angle can make the mundane and commonplace seem suddenly exciting and new. Who would have thought that AM radio could be made to seem more advanced than podcasting? Or that a landline could be considered an amazing technological leap?

The importance of 'searchability'

One mantra that I like to repeat over and over when I speak to people about the power of social networking and web 2.0 is that 'if we all knew what we all knew, we'd be unstoppable.' In other words, one of the greatest limitations that most companies and individuals face when searching for information is that they don't know where to look, or who to ask, for information in the first place.

Social networks are invaluable tools for connecting people to other individuals who have the information that they need.

However, simply having social networks is not enough to make sure that we can find out 'what we all know.' There's one more prerequisite -  the networks must be searchable. The reality is that it doesn't matter how connected to people you are if you don't know what information people in your network have at their fingertips. Unfortunately, while the vast majority of social networks can be searched for 'social' content (like interests, favorite bands and TV shows), very few can also be searched for expertise. But as companies increasingly embrace social media and everything it can offer, I believe that making people and their individual talents 'searchable' will be increasingly important.

The organisation of data into easy to navigate 'chunks' is so important, that people are now suggesting that functionality will form the basis of web 3.0. Exciting!

I stumbled across the following video recently that describes just how important searchability is, and what a huge role it will play in the future of the internet. It's really worth a watch!

Web 3.0 from Kate Ray on Vimeo.

Diff-functional (n): Differently Functional

I had a great conversation with Ken Wallace on the weekend, who’s not only a cracking screenwriter but also has the pleasure of being my brother-in-law. He has recently had his second child, and was saying how he thinks in general people consider the way that they parent, ‘normal’. Everyone else does it incorrectly or abnormally.

That is, you become your own benchmark for what is ‘normal’. Everything else is a bit wacky or, often, ‘dysfunctional’.

There is such wisdom in this – it is not just parenting, it’s everything. We become our own benchmark for what ‘normal’ all the time. And then we get caught up in diagnosing problems with others; we talk about how people need to change and improve and fix things.

Generally by ‘improve’ we mean ‘become more like us’!

But I actually think there is another approach to consider: that other people aren’t ‘dysfunctional’, but rather diff-functional.

Differently functional.

It is a useful lens to consider others’ mindsets not as being dysfunctional because they are different, but as being just that: different. How much we might gain from acting not from a desire to change or correct, but from a desire to understand and learn! Consider this the next time you’re about to launch into a self-righteous tirade about this and that; maybe it’s not wrong, just different?

The power (or at least the omnipresence) of the internet

I came across the following video the other day:

JESS3 / The State of The Internet from JESS3 on Vimeo.

This is a fascinating look at the amount of data seen, generated, and shared over the internet.

Two things jumped out at me from this video. The first is just how powerful the internet is becoming as a way to reach and connect with people. It's an important reminder that we need to re-evaluate the stereotypical view of the internet as a social barrier and instead consider it a social enabler. It's not something that people use because they don't want to form meaningful relationships with people - its a tool that people are increasingly using to connect with like-minded individuals around the world.

The second is how bombarded we are with information - the number of tweets, emails and spam that we are exposed to is growing at an ever-increasing rate. And this means that companies and individuals who are trying to harness the capacity of the internet to connect with people are facing an increasingly difficult task. This has two implications. Firstly, there's going to be a huge market for software developers to design tools that help users to cut through the increasingly baffling array of choices out there. Some of the more forward-thinking developers are already doing this. Apple's Genius tool, for instance, is helping individuals sort through their increasingly gargantuan iTunes libraries to choose playlists that users will like. Cyndicate (the fantastic RSS reader by Cynical Peak Software) allows users to rate their favourite blog posts, and then sorts all new blog posts according to what it believes you will find most interesting. A huge asset given that I get hundreds of new blogs daily from the number of sites that I subscribe to. Secondly, anyone who's trying to use the internet to disseminate information is going to have to provide increasingly valuable offerings if they want people to take the time and energy to read their material.

But don't let these considerations get you down. The most important take home from the video is just how exciting life on the internet is going to become.

Get them while they're hypnotised

I met recently with a fascinating guy – Jonathan Marshall – who among being variously talented and qualified in many fields, is currently doing some hugely exciting work in the early childhood space. He shared with me some research findings that blew my mind; and I wanted to share just one FYI. Forgive me if my use of some of the below terminology is a bit off the mark, this is dense stuff out of a Harvard school of early childhood development and I’m trying to paraphrase as best I can!



There are four different types of brainwaves – theta, beta, alpha and delta. In adults, they spend most of their life with beta rythmns, which are all about executive function and reasoning. Young children spend most of their time in with theta brainwaves.



But get a load of this: the only times adults are really in a ‘theta state’ is when they are hypnotised. That’s right – the mental state of a child is most analogous to a HYPNOTISED adult. No wonder companies fall over themselves to advertise to children – they are bloody well hypnotised! That means open to suggestion, responsive to adult voices etc.



Just had to share that.

Too much efficiency? There's a flip for you!

Just read an article in BRW (from last November, actually – thanks waiting room magazines!) that made a fascinating point about efficiency.

For years now – during the ‘high years’, as I call them – the mantra in supply chain management has been ‘efficiency, efficiency, efficiency’. And by efficiency, people meant less suppliers, less time from input to production, production to shelves, shelves to customer etc.

Interestingly, during the economic crunch, many businesses with heavily optimised supply chains felt the crunch, however, as if you’ve got a heavily consolidated chain and a supplier goes out of business, you have REAL problems with your inventory.

So maybe actually what we need in supply chain management is NOT necessarily efficiency, as much as flexibility. BRW used the example of SuperCheap Auto. With nearly 1000 suppliers, they don’t source more than 2% of their items from any single supplier, meaning they are shielded from suppliers going under. They’ve had to get VERY good at component substitution and a few other things – but it’s shielded them from the crunch better than many other vendors.

Goes back to a philosophy written about by my good friend and colleague Peter Sheahan: sometimes the best thing to do with conventional wisdom is to get the hell rid of it! Or AT LEAST challenge it!

Change or get out

In life there are two approaches to inspiring change: carrots and sticks.

A Rhode Island school has taken the rather 'stick-ish' approach of firing every member of staff because they wouldn't go along with the (awesome) plan to fix the ailing institution.

Wow - I didn't know we were allowed to do this. Look out, team!!