The three things I hate most about Cable TV are:

1. Paying for stuff I don’t want
2. The user experience
3. Commercials

1. Paying for Stuff I Don’t Want

Whenever I get one of those “we’ve changed your cable tv lineup” postcards from my provider I  groan. I know they’ve rearranged the channel numbers again (which makes no difference to me) but they’ve probably added more channels I won’t watch.

I figure that there are less than a dozen out of many dozens of channels that anyone in my household ever watches. Why do we have to pay for all that other stuff? Why can’t we pick and choose what we want to subscribe to?

Don’t tell me “our license terms are arranged years in advance with suppliers and we can’t change overnight.” I know all about that and the claim that it is in consumers’ best interest to subsidize little-watched stations. You don’t ask me my preferences; why would you ever think your licensing schemes based on legacy business models have anything to do with what I want?

Also, don’t tell me “a la carte” plans are too difficult to manage. Ever heard of “pay per view”? Why not extend that concept to subscription plans you can manage online?

2. The User Experience

When I recently wanted to use the Internet to watch and listen to the Michael Jackson video “The Thriller” I typed “Thriller” into my web browser. It took me directly to a YouTube copy of that music video.

Compare that with our DVR interface or the “On Demand” interfaces we have for various cable sources. Using those two methods for accessing content is absolutely painful and time consuming. My iPod lets me easily navigate considerably more program sources using a single click wheel.

On result of this is that I rarely watch well-hidden on-demand items that I might otherwise watch if I could get at them more easily.

3. The Commercials

Flipping through Basic Cable on our small kitchen flat-screen is a hideous experience that makes TV unwatchable. My impression: the probability of landing on a commercial message is at least 50%.

Why am I paying monthly for this?

What To Do?

I know that Hulu, iTunes Store, BitTorrent, Netflix streaming, etc. etc. are all alternatives. But I haven’t made the jump to HD and related equipment yet that lets me more easily hook my inhome wireless network to my televisions. Plus, when I actually have some time to set aside for a movie I either rent a DVD, or I go out with a friend to the theater.

I may eventually upgrade my systems here at home to take advantage of the new stuff, but right now, it’s just not a priority:

1. Getting the same programming I can get on Cable TV via the Internet isn’t something that interests me.
2. Overall I watch less TV now than ever before. I’m just not interested in what’s on TV compared with the alternatives — and the alternatives (online and otherwise) are substantial.

My impression is that I’m spending more time online these days, AND I’m reading more books as well (we have a terrific public library here in Alexandria Virginia).

So I’m not sure how much I even care about cable TV anymore. The selectivity isn’t there, and it’s just too hard to use when compared with the alternatives.

If it weren’t for other members of my household I’d probably cancel it entirely.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald

For the period June 24, 2009 through July 1, 2009, the following are, in descending order, this web site’s most popular Managing Technology posts:

1. Cookies, Imrworldwide, and Nielsen Netratings: What’s the Connection?
2. A Short Definition of “Strategic Planning”
3. What’s the Difference Between Innovation and Creativity?
4. Challenges Facing Recovery.gov and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board
5. How To Develop a Business-Aligned Social Media & Social Networking Strategy
6. ARRA’s Oversight and Information Technology Initiatives
7. For Government Contracting, Defining “Inherently Governmental” is Inherently Difficult
8. Seven Articles about Strategic Planning and Social Media
9. Move Over Kindle: Here Comes the Chinese E-Book
10. Highlights from “Web 2.0 and Sales Process Management”

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald, Ph.D. Dennis’ contact information is here.

True story:

“We only had 4 days to respond. They wanted a fixed price bid,” my colleague told me over the phone, sighing.

A week before I had responded to his hasty proposal text request in the middle of developing a report for one of my own Federal clients. I hadn’t heard from him since.

“So how did you estimate the price?” I asked. The RFP had been vague. I had dismissed responding on my own, given the fixed price requirement. I figured it was wired for someone else with more insight into the fixed price requirement.

“I padded it,” he admitted. “What else could I do?”

Fixed Price Contracts

That’s one of the basic problems with fixed price contracts on service or development type contracts where detailed requirements aren’t provided. You can end up bidding defensively, balancing various risk management considerations ranging from the implications of lowballing to being rejected outright because of price.

That’s one of the reasons I’m concerned about how President Obama’s proposed changes to Federal procurement rules might tip the scales even more in favor of the issuance of fixed price contracts in situations where insufficient detail on requirements and available budget aren’t readily available to potential bidders.

Other Contracting Reform Challenges

This concern and others were voiced recently in a meeting between contractors and OMB, as reported by Government Executive. In addition to concerns about inappropriate use of fixed price contracts in situations such as complex research-and-development efforts, contractors also mentioned:

• Sole-source contracts still have their place in situations where emergency time pressures exist.
• The lack of trained and experienced government contract managers can lead to overruns and mismanagement.
• When considering what governmental functions should be “insourced,” no widely accepted definition of what constitutes an “inherently governmental function” exists. 

These issues were addressed recently in a white paper by Raj Sharma, President of the Federal Acquisition Innovation & Reform (FAIR) Institute, a non-profit whose mission is “…to innovate and reform the federal acquisition system.” Sharma’s white paper The Move to ‘Insourcing’…Proceed with Caution contains the following statement:

The Federal Acquisition Innovation and Reform Institute (FAIR) supports efforts to “insource” critical positions and personnel so that the government possesses adequate organic capability to address the challenging and daunting tasks ahead of us. However, we recommend that the administration, Congress, and agencies proceed with caution, through a deliberate and systematic approach to insourcing based on facts and analysis. Agencies should also adopt realistic time lines for recruiting and integrating new personnel as well as developing new business processes, if required.. Rushing to undo what has been in the making for years, perhaps decades, will be counterproductive. We must also take into account the retirement “tsunami” that makes merely maintaining the current size of the workforce a challenge.

It’s hard to argue against careful planning and analysis, especially when we’re dealing with important public services that cost billions of dollars. According to Sharma, the Federal Government needs to carefully define what it means by “inherently governmental” positions. It also needs to define the “core competencies” that go with such positions.

Sharma’s paper touches on both questions. He suggests an approach to defining core competencies (he suggests “value stream analysis”) and to determining when long-term contracted positions should be brought into the government (he suggests the need for a 5-year time boundary, honest cost-benefit analysis, and realistic public-to-private sector wage comparisons).

Costs Need to be Understood

While I believe it will be impossible to ever completely remove politics from decisions about what constitutes an “inherently governmental responsibility” — just look at how jerked around government regulations can become in response to changes in Administrations — I do think there has to be a basic understanding of how much it costs to do work inhouse versus how much it costs to outsource. That won’t always be easy. But there should be ways to do cost comparisons that don’t encourage “gaming the system.”

The Impacts of Information Technology

One area should receive some attention in the analysis of Federal staff versus contract staff is how work is impacted by information technology. Some tasks require frequent face to face meetings and proximity. Others can be distributed to staff performing work remotely. Still others require access to expertise that cannot be located within a single geographic area.

Workers are increasingly able to collaborate electronically via networks that support network based audio, video, file sharing, and real time communication and data access. Some implications of this are the following:

• Will the ability to manage a geographically distributed workforce provide more flexibility in, for example, the ability to hire and retain staff with specialized expertise?
• What impact should the ability to work remotely have on the decision of whether a job should be performed “inhouse” or by a contractor?
• What impacts will the U.S. Government’s ballooning deficits have on whether or not work is done inhouse or by contractors?

Does Excessive Outsourcing Reduce Efficiency?

In a previous post I wrote about how, in my view, excessive outsourcing of contract management and procurement lead to inefficiency both for the government and for contractors. In that post I suggested that greater transparency in the procurement process and more extensive use of collaboration tools for sharing information, especially at the front end of the procurement cycle, could speed up procurement and make contracted work more responsive and efficient.

One implication of taking a more collaborative approach to work performance is that it becomes more difficult to distinguish specifically what is the Government’s responsibility and what is the private sector’s responsibility. Especially in development type contacts, the “give and take” that can occur early in the  procurement process, when more collaboration is encouraged, can result in a blended view of responsibility.

DHS SECURE: An Example of Public/Private Sector Collaboration

An example of this is the DHS SECURE (System Efficacy through Commercialization, Utilization, Relevance and Evaluation) Program, which is one of DHS’ “…Private sector outreach efforts [that] focus on notifying the private sector about opportunities that exist for partnership and business development to address the needs of the Department and its stakeholders.”

A core element of SECURE is DHS’ working to establish public statements describing DHS technical requirements and market size estimates, then working with private sector organizations via a dedicated process to develop and bring those requirements’ products to market.

Conclusion

Programs like SECURE involve a different approach to procurement than developing requirements and “throwing them over the door to the other side.” Instead they involve collaboration between public and private sector individuals and organizations in nontraditional ways that make the public/private sector distinction more fuzzy than ever.

Such innovative approaches to procurement will need to be considered when developing definitions of what “inherently governmental” means.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald. Contact Dennis via email at ddmcd@yahoo.com.

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the podcast of Phil McKinney’s interview with David Cochran about Cochran’s involvement on the team at Hewlett-Packard (HP) that designed the first pocket scientific calculator. The situation was interesting from the standpoint of innovation management and luck.

The situation Cochran describes was an example of simultaneous “top down” and “bottom up” innovation management. Management wanted a pocket size calculator and pushed the engineering staff relentlessly to provide it. At the same time, engineers had a lot of freedom to try out different things.

The role of industrial design, teamwork, market research, innovative technology, sales staff, and pricing are all touched on. What comes through loud and clear is that HP was moving into uncharted waters. They didn’t know what demand for such a device would be, they didn’t know how to price it, they didn’t know how to sell it, and for a long time, they had no idea how to fit the “guts” of the calculator into an object that would slide into a shirt pocket.

But management wanted one and that’s what was delivered. And I’m glad they did; the pocket calculator allowed me to give up both mechanical calculators and my trusty circular slide rule.

This is the first of a series of interviews McKinney will conduct about famous innovations and I’m looking forward to more.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald

I recently received an email request asking for help from a state emergency management professional who’s interested in Web 2.0. I didn’t discourage him from using the term “Web 2.0.” I thought that would just confuse him. Heck, just today I found out that “Web 3.0” has already been replaced by “Web Squared” by people who should know better …

But seriously, if you’ve ever given a presentation about social media and social networking complete with examples you may remember the blank stares you got from some members of the audience — and often these are the people you most want to reach.

There’s a lot of interest out there, what with Twitter competing with CNN for news from Iran, but still it’s a challenge to get people up to speed quickly, as my correspondent attests.

Here’s the text of the email I received. I’ve altered parts of it to protect his identity:

Dear Dr. McDonald…

I recently attended a seminar on the topic of Web 2.0, which was taught by a twenty-something that knew all there was to know about the latest technology. Unfortunately, there was a disconnect between all this knowledge and my capacity to comprehend. I admit that I am a dinosaur, one step removed from being high-sulphur crude oil - an old fart, if you will.

In looking at available information on the Web, most notably your work, I see the potential for social networking as a government tool, both inside and outside the firewall (for communications within our agencies and for communication with customers and the public at large). I’m also starting my first season working with our state’s Emergency Management Division, which anticipates we’ll be hit by at least half a dozen named storms and hurricanes this year. After reading Big in Japan’s “For Recovery 2.0: Disaster Blog Lessons Learned”, I see even more potential in using Web 2.0.

My problem is that I missed the part between when Web 2.0 started and now. I can see what is out there today, and I’m coming to accept that EVERYTHING will be in Beta Test from this point forward (i.e., new technology will be released before the bugs are worked out of the old technology). What I haven’t yet come to understand is how to select a technology and how to know that it is appropriate for the intended use. If the answer is “hire a consultant”, by the time we get the RFP (Request for Proposal) published and have the bid examined, the product under consideration will be so far out of date that we might not be able to find hardware and software that will do what was requested (Refer to your article “Five Challenges Government Faces When Adopting Web 2.0”).

Can you point me to a Primer that will get me somewhat up to speed? What I’m finding online is already assuming more than I understand.

Thanks!

[name withheld by request]

This is what I sent back:

Dear [name withheld by request]:

It’s not about the technology, it’s about what you want to accomplish. I know that’s old hat but it’s true. Here are some ideas:

1. Join “GovLoop” and check out the different groups (http://www.govloop.com/). Start participating.

2. Check out Social Media Today’s “Social Media School” (http://socialmediatoday.com/school) .

3. Scan through the list of my posts tagged “strategic planning” (http://www.ddmcd.com/strategic-planning-documents/) and “e-government” (http://www.ddmcd.com/egovernment/).

There’s great value on using social media yourself (join Facebook and Linkedin, for example, and start using them to connect with people you actually know) but using such tools in business or government benefits from planning. I don’t mean bone-crushing, mind-numbing, multi-month planning studies, I mean thinking through the who what where when and how about social networking and social media.

When you think about planning, think about:

1. Are you talking about disaster planning or disaster response?
2. Are you talking about internal collaboration or external collaboration?
3. Make sure you think about how and where traditional media, first responder communication, and use of social media and social networking relate to each other.

Hope this helps!

Let me know if you have any questions.

Dennis

What would YOU have told [name withheld by request]?

Copyright © 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald

Jeremiah Owyang’s recent blog post Looking Behind the Curtains on the Social Media Stage: Humans Don’t Scale got me wondering whether there are really two different social media cultures evolving.

Jeremiah comments about some of the pressure he’s experiencing as he balances his work, his personal life, and a desire to use social media in a personal and authentic way. Unlike other social media experts, for example, he doesn’t use personal assistants or staff to write for him. When you communicate with Jeremiah you communicate with Jeremiah.

Consider this “Two Culture” idea. The First Culture believes in authenticity, person-to-person engagement, and “real” relationships. The Second Culture uses the same tools as the First but also believes in automated messaging, using technology to manage networks, hiring personal assistants to manage incoming and outgoing messages, and using the “built network” to broadcast advertising. (I wrote about these distinctions in Are You Building Professional Relationships or a Publishing Platform? and Why I Don’t Use a Ghost Writer.)

While it’s tempting to beat up on  Second Culture folks — after all, who likes to be spammmed by auto-generated Twitter messages selling the latest and greatest Elixir of Youth — I’m not really convinced that there are two separate cultures. The reason is quite simple and I’m sure expresses an idea that goes back to the days of Gutenberg. I’m sure that there were folks back then who, upon learning how the printing press worked, damned it because it did away with the one-on-one nature of written communication and allowed a single writer to “communicate” with hundreds, if not thousands of individuals whom he or she could not possibly ever get to know on a one-on-one basis.

Plus, as printed advertising and newspapers evolved, I’m sure there were voices raised castigating the producers of vulgar and venal printed ads for stretching the truth and promoting questionable (to some) products and services. (I think about that whenever I get a spam email or Facebook or Linkedin Group invite to another self-promotional group that will be promoted for a while then dropped when the owner finds out how much work is involved being authentic and “always on.”)

So I’m not sure if the two cultures are really that distinct. We all use technology in one way or another to expand our reach. The important issue is whether someone is using the tools deceptively by, for example, hiring someone else to write blog posts or Twitter messages without revealing that fact.

I have to admit that, when I do hear of such things happening, I get the feeling that we’re regressing back to the days of mailed newsletters and paper magazines when the idea was not to establish a relationship but to Convince As Many People To Buy Something by Throwing Out As Many Messages As Possible.

I think Jeremiah is just finding out that there are only 25 hours in a day and that he might need to back off on some of the “relationship communication” he’s been engaging in recently. There’s nothing wrong with that; he gives a lot to the community already.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald. Contact Dennis via email at ddmcd@yahoo.com.

My survey-based report Web 2.0 and Sales Process Management is now available in its published form via The Customer Collective and Social Media Today.

Based on my own experience with both doing and managing sales, I’ve always envied accomplished sales professionals who successfully combine ingredients such as likability, intelligence, sales and technical savvy, charm, aggressiveness, persistence — and most of all, the ability to close a sale!

Technology by itself, as sales professionals will quickly tell you, can be a useful support tool, but it isn’t enough. As one sales manager told me when we discussed Web 2.0 applications in relation to his operation,

“I know about this stuff and how useful it can be, but it’s on the edge of what concerns me most. I’d have to take time out to put together custom feeds and the like. How likely is it that busy salespeople will do that on their own when I’m flogging them to make appointments?”

One important benefit that Web 2.0 applications and technology bring to any process is to reduce barriers to sharing and collaboration. But reducing barriers to sharing and collaboration is not the same as promoting sharing and collaboration. Just because a tool is available doesn’t mean it’s going to be used or used effectively. People have to be willing to try it out and, if necessary, change their behavior.

But reducing barriers to change isn’t enough. People still need to know how to make a change. Then they need the motivation to make the change.

As suggested in Web 2.0 and Sales Process Management, there may be some advantages to larger organizations’ adoption of Web 2.0 since they are more likely to have resources available for planning and applying systematic changes to the sales process.

Still, smaller organizations may have the advantage of agility. They may also lack some of the structural and bureaucratic barriers to change that larger organizations experience.

Web 2.0 methods apply not only to sharing information and facilitating collaboration but also to managing information. Opening up sales prospecting and qualification processes to more varied sources could create the need for organizations and individuals to process increased quantities of information. The structures and formats of information obtained through new sources could also impact the types of tools and processes needed to manage the information made available to the sales force.

Sales people who are adept at processing and reviewing large volumes of information — or using tools to help them do so — will have an advantage over competitors who lack such skills.

Web 2.0 and Sales Process Management also demonstrates that helping the entire sales process involves more than sales people interacting with prospects and customers. Improved collaboration systems, social networks, and shared databases need to be accessible not only to sales people but to everyone involved in supporting or contributing to the sales processes. Sometimes that means cutting across traditional organizational and departmental boundaries.

Is your organization ready for that?

Appendix E’s Figure 1 in Web 2.0 and Sales Process Management addresses issues like this in more detail; click here to get a free copy.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald. Dennis can be reached by email at ddmcd@yahoo.com. His web site is located at http://www.ddmcd.com. To see the previous article in this series about Web 2.0 and the sales process, click here.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a Transparency Task Force. One of its first public facing activities is the creation of the FDA Transparency Blog.

This is what the Task Force page says about the blog:

Provides opportunities to learn and provide feedback on what FDA is doing, the basis for FDA’s decisions, and the processes used to make agency decisions. The blog will run for the next six months (June through November 2009).

This is the comment I posted on the blog which reflects my desire to know who is at the other end of the communication channel:

I would appreciate seeing the names and faces of the people of the FDA staff who will be managing and moderating this process. Part of any transparency effort, I feel, is making clear who is responsible for managing the process; names and pictures — and contact information — will help in this regard.

A public meeting is planned for June 24 to discuss FDA transparency issues. The blog will be used to post, on a weekly basis, questions listed in the June 3 Federal Register announcement as input to the upcoming meeting. Here are the questions for the public meeting that are listed in the Federal Register announcement:

1. How can the agency better explain its operations, activities, processes, and decisionmaking?

2. What specific information should FDA provide about agency operations, activities, processes, and decisionmaking, including:
    a. Enforcement actions?
    b. Product approvals?
    c. Recalls?
    d. Other actions?

3. What tools, techniques, processes, or other mechanisms should FDA use to be more effective in providing useful and understandable information?
    a. Internet tools?
    b. Tools to improve targeting and effectiveness of communications, including risk communication?
    c. Improvements to the Freedom of Information Act processes?
    d. Other?

4. What, if any, legislative or regulatory changes are needed to improve FDA’s ability to provide useful and understandable information to the public?

5. As FDA becomes more transparent, what information should remain confidential in order to promote key internal and external policy  goals, such as preserving patient privacy, and how, in these cases, should FDA explain the importance of confidentiality?

6. What metrics should FDA use to gauge the effectiveness of its transparency efforts?

I expect a lot of input on these questions from many of the public and private interest groups touched by FDA.

Making the blog part of this transparency process is a great idea. Still, there are some kinks to work out in terms of how the blog relates to the totality of communication processes that are channeling through the FDA. For example, if you read the Federal Register announcement about the June 24 meeting, you’ll see a very explicit description of how to submit comments in advance of the June 24 public meeting, either on paper (via mail) or electronically (by email).

There’s no mention of the blog. Does that mean that anything submitted via the blog will not be taken as seriously as input submitted via the mail and email channels outlined in the Federal register announcement? And how do comments on the blog differ from comments submitted to Regulations.gov?

I’m also interested in seeing the names and contact information listed of the members of the Transparency Board and of the people who are moderating the blog. For example, is the blog being managed by FDA staff or by contractors? That might be an important distinction in situations where policy is discussed.

All in due time, I suppose. Also, I suspect that this Transparency Blog won’t disappear in November as planned but that it will evolve into an ongoing group of communication programs associated with all of FDA’s externally facing processes. That means, of course, that rules and policies governing secrecy, formal versus informal communication, legal discoverability, confidentiality, and other transparency-related issues will need to be addressed — and that’s what this process is all about.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald.

I had lunch with a fellow consultant recently. We talked about how some complex software-based collaboration systems get used and how some don’t. Sometimes the problem is with the software, and sometimes it’s with how the organization approaches collaboration.

Examples are when a purpose-built collaboration system is designed or customized to support the development of a large, complex proposal that combines business, technical, and financial information. Invariably such systems are complex or cumbersome to learn and use effectively. Many users end up “voting with their feet” and send large Word and PowerPoint files around via email as attachments instead of using the dedicated system. The result is wasted time and increased error and re-work because management now must concern itself with synchronization issues and the inefficiencies these can cause.

The early information I’m seeing about Google’s new Wave communication and collaboration platform is that it has great potential for helping people to collaborate.

Part of the reason why complex collaboration support systems can fail is that they don’t always take into account how real people work and collaborate, especially the people who are more comfortable with using web based tools to support sharing information collaboratively via social media and social networking technologies.

Highly repetitive collaborative processes where individual and group involvement can be described, standardized, and at least partially automated may in many cases be only a small piece of the puzzle. Heavily original or knowledge-based collaborative efforts are more likely to incorporate a level of creativity and innovation in their project work that demands much more flexibility in how people communicate and share information. Platforms like Wave and its combination of real time and “record/playback” messaging- and email-like features could provide a robust and effective way for large numbers of people to collaborate very rapidly and very socially.

One of my specific interests has long been using collaboration tools such as blogs to support project management communications. Two things I’ve learned as a project manager, though, are that collaboration tools need to be easy to use, and people need to understand how they relate to how they currently operate. Will people managing large projects see a platform such as Wave as a useful tool? How easy will it be to use for people not accustomed to managing multi-threaded conversations that can be experienced in real time or via review of recorded streams?

I don’t really know how to answer that based on what I’ve seen so far about Wave. It could be that Wave will be especially useful in what I call “soft” project collaboration situations. These are situations where what is needed is a great deal of flexibility in how web based communication and collaboration take place. Flexibility in this context refers to the ability to start and stop communication rapidly, to rapidly interact with the members of the groups with whom information is shared, and to share data and documents centrally while tracking individual contributions.

The focus of soft collaboration might be on project related communication rather than on performance of the specific processes that are the subject of the project, such as highly structured software testing, complex software application development, construction projects, transportation of goods, or testing and inspection work. These latter cases are opportunities for “hard” collaboration where the nature of the exchanged information is more structured and defined, even when multiple people are involved.

Wave will have competition from other sources. Applications already exist that support internal and external collaboration and communication along with rudimentary project management features; a good example is a past client of mine, Jive Software. Also, even rudimentary email based blogging systems such as Posterous have been suggested as basic project management tools.

Given Google’s creativity, deep pockets, and its track record in making complex web based applications very easy to use, I think Google has a shot at developing and promoting Wave as a platform that includes open source components that a developer community can work with. What will be interesting to watch is how Wave evolves. Will it promote a revolution in how people collaborate and communicate online? Or will it be adapted to support existing processes and work habits? My guess is: probably both.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald, Ph.D.

I was fortunate this week to attend a screening at the National Academies of the new film, Imagine It!, a work by Rudy Poe and Richard Tavener of Infinite Loop Media LLC. This 50 minute film, still in production, shows the importance of science and engineering in solving serious global challenges through innovation, imagination, and education. The version of the film I saw, introduced by Charles Vest, President of the National Academy of Engineering, is targeted at “leaders” such as adults, parents, and teachers. Other versions of the film are being developed specifically for junior high and high school students.

Young people are the real targets of the film’s messages, which include, quoting from the producers’ handout:

• Challenges are positive opportunities for people to change the world
• Educators and parents can win the battle for the imagination of our youth
• Connect science and engineering with creativity and imagination
• Imagine a more perfect world and then get involved in making that happen

At first I was skeptical about the film. I was concerned the audience was in for almost an hour of “talking heads” interspersed with comedic interludes.

It’s not like that at all. In fact, the serious messages of the film are communicated by an extremely well edited and organized series of comments and interviews with established professionals as well as young scientists and engineers.

There’s very little “fluff” in this tightly knit film. My immediate impression, which I communicated to the producers in the lively post-screening Q&A session, was that it is a pleasure to see a film that contains so many ideas of substance, including:

• The need for innovation
• The power of big ideas
• The practical benefits of science and engineering
• The role of technology in solving big global problems
• The need to revolutionize education
• The connection between art and science
• Creativity as a process

The thought, care, and attention that have gone into the production and organization of this film are clear. I hope its various versions get wide distribution and exposure!

Via YouTube, here’s a sampling from the film:

Text copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald

The most consistently popular articles from my web site are related to strategic planning and social media. These include my discussion of methodology titled How To Develop a Business-Aligned Social Media & Social Networking Strategy.

I’ve also created a special compendium of other articles that discuss strategic planning and social media titled Thoughts About Strategic Planning, Social Media, and Collaboration. The following articles are included:

• A Short Definition of Strategic Planning
• It’s Not MY Strategy It’s YOUR Strategy
• How To Avoid Common Strategic Planning Mistakes
• Ten Realities of Managing and Using Technology to Generate Business Value
• Don’t Make “Ready, Fire, Aim!” Your Organization’s Facebook Strategy
• Maybe Business and I.T. Just Need to Collaborate Better
• Getting Real about Social Networking Adoption

You can download a free .pdf version of this compendium by clicking here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald

It will be interesting to see if Amazon can succeed with the expensive ($489) new Kindle DX without negotiating exclusive licensing and distribution deals that lock in and control distribution of different ebooks in selected vertical markets.

By making special arrangements with key publishers and customers, the Kindle could become the de facto primary distribution platform for certain types of DRM-enabled publications such as textbooks that are increasingly expensive to produce and distribute as “dead tree” editions.

Universities are ideal places to experiment. They can subsidize the volume purchasing of many Kindles and pass the savings on to the students.

This is a standard process. Universities have had special deals for computer software and hardware for years. If you’ve ever compared what a college kid pays for Microsoft Office at the campus book store with what you and I have to pay, you’ll see what I mean.

Figuring out what business models make the most sense for the Kindle will be next to impossible without Amazon and publishers opening up on real cost data. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Publishers are traditionally opaque when it comes to per title publishing and distribution costs. Just look at the long-winded discussions that occur online whenever traditional versus ebook economics and pricing are the topic.

A good recent example is The Kindle and Questioning the Economics of eBook Publishing…the Conversation Continues. Everyone in that post’s discussion thread has different numbers and examples. This is typical. It’s impossible for an outsider to really get a good picture of what the best pricing approach is. Each “book” represents a unique product with a limit to how similar it can be viewed to other products and markets. Add the confusion caused by the game-changing Kindle and it’s understandable why such discussions often generate more heat than light.

For me, the following are some of the most complex “bottom line” issues that make general discussions of e-book pricing so difficult:

• Editorial, design, creative and other per-title  “fixed costs” are going to occur whether or not publishers distribute via paper or electronically. Either customer has to pay or someone to subsidize the process is located.
• It’s not always true that reducing the price of a specialized good will increase sales. Some vertical markets are so specialized that upper limits on per title demand kick in quickly. Even with e-book distribution costs driven low, someone still has to pay for the up front creation and other publication costs.
• There’s a limit to how much subsidies to individual parts of the publishing process can be relied upon to reduce the costs incurred by publishers. While the universities experimenting with Kindles are to be applauded, will they be passing the full price of $489 Kindles on to their students given they already have to purchase new computers every few years?
• Trade press economics are different from textbook economics (e.g., see Why Ebooks Must Fail). 

So I don’t think that anyone really knows what the markets and economics for Kindle and e-books will look like in 12 months, especially since the price of the Kindle is so close what a usable notebook computer (or netbook) costs.

I personally believe that the Kindle is a great product. But I’m not ready to run out and buy one just yet. I still enjoy “traditional” web publishing, newspapers, and printed books very much. And I’m a heavy user of my local public library where I regularly borrow books to expand my knowledge that I would never dream of purchasing on my own.

But eventually I believe that something like the Kindle will triumph. I just hope that its short term success does not translate to an increasing “balkanization” of publishing where only the well to do — or heavily subsidized — can afford subscriptions to newspapers and specialized publications.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald, Ph.D. 

In September 2006 I published The Justification of Enterprise Web 2.0 Project Expenditures. It examined differences between the cost justification of current information systems compared with cost justification of older systems. It discussed how some of the rules for calculating and thinking about technology related costs have changed.

Decades ago, automating repeatable manual and clerical processes was common. Automation was often seen as a straightforward generator of benefits such as cost savings and increased service consistency.

Sometimes such savings could justify custom system development. Customizable ERP systems were also developed and marketed based on the concept of “best practices.” ERP customers benefited when a variety of repeatable processes could be automated and standardized around a core set of standardized data and application development technologies.

Things have gotten more complex since then. Systems available off the shelf have expanded in variety. The power and sophistication of software has also advanced. Universal availability of web based search tools and web hosted applications has  altered how people use and justify new applications. Outsourcing practices have altered cost-benefit calculations.

Today, social media, social networking, “web 2.0,” and “enterprise 2.0” approaches are widely available. Systems using such technologies have altered how people can create, exchange, share, and collaborate. Eventually “semantic web” technologies could enable even more sophisticated approaches to the automation of basic processes.

New media have also changed how many people build, maintain, and interact with social and professional relationships. Increasingly, whom you know or have an online relationship with can change and accelerate how you make a decision or solve a problem. After all, why invent a solution — or automate it — if you can quickly reach out to your “online buddies” for help or support?

It’s also possible to engage with users to help with supporting a product or service, even when those users have no financial or employment relationship with the organization providing that product or service. In such cases costs for supporting a product or service are borne at least partially by people employed by other organizations. The availability of such “community based” support cannot be ignored by planners, and it can only be indirectly controlled.

With this as background, consider that you are looking for ways to improve a complex process. If you’ve ever been involved in developing or implementing a complex information system, you know that there are likely to be points in an overall process that cannot efficiently be automated. Some of these are administration or management oriented, some are policy related, some change too rapidly, and some are just too obscure or complex to automate cost-efficiently. 

Such difficult-to-automate process points are traditionally where real people get involved in the process. Perhaps it’s the review of a complex insurance claim, perhaps it’s creation of a research summary, perhaps it’s the rapid assessment of risk where professional judgment or experience are needed. In many system supported processes, there’s a place where manual, intellectual, knowledge-based, or people driven processes must be inserted and managed, either because automation would be too difficult or not cost effective. 

How are social media and social networking impacting decisions to automate various processes? There are at least three considerations:

1. Social media make it possible for more than one person to participate in performing a process.
2. Not everyone who participates in performing a process needs to be in the same location.
3. Some of the costs for performing a given process may be borne by people working — and being paid by — other organizations.

Governance of a process, if it is performed collaboratively, needs to be exerted differently than with a group of people all working with the same organization. Since monitoring costs has traditionally been a basic component of management, altering how costs are defined and measured may  also impact the appropriateness of different governance and control methods.

The identity of the system developer will also impact how different types or costs and benefits will be considered in approaching process automation:

• If the developer is associated with a small commercial startup, considering the benefits of some type of collaborative sharing of various processes might make sense when time and funds are limited; after all, working with “other people’s time and money” has always been a consideration in building a business.
• If the developer is a public or nonprofit institution where the distribution of costs and benefits for participation in a process are spread across a variety of institutions, the lack of a single point of control where all costs can be considered may reduce management’s ability to control process performance and outcomes.

The incorporation of social media and social networking technologies into a complex process may significantly improve the abilty to reduce the time it takes to solve a problem based on improved access to experience and expertise. At the same time, careful consideration should also be given to defining and controlling the associated costs of such technologies, even when these costs are incurred by individuals or organizations outside the normal span of control of management.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald, Ph.D.

Here are my current podcast favorites:

• Are We Alone? Consistently smart and entertaining ruminations on the meaning of and search for intelligence, here and elsewhere. Lots of fun de-bunking of anti-science, too.
• History According to Bob. 10- 15-minute chunks of details about specific topics. Loved Bob’s month by month account of the American Civil War and the series on the Russo-Japanese War.
• In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg. Melvyn chats with academic experts on various topics. His “Brave New World” show was great. My favorite so far: the discussion of The Alexandria Library and its role in ancient learning and culture.
• Center for American Progress Events. The ascendant and influential DC-area think tank regularly schedules important topical events.
• ITIF Tech Policy Podcast. Another influential DC think tank, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation engages about broadband, Internet, energy grid, and other topics.

From my past lists, I’m still very very fond of:

• All About Books. Two guys review a couple of books each podcast. No frills. Definite Nebraska/Midwest US flavor (I’m from Ohio).
• Naxos Classical Music Spotlight Podcast. Often I’ll go directly from listening to one of these sessions to downloading Naxos album tracks via my eMusic subscription.
• BBC History Magazine. I love history. This magazine is fun and the programs, two per month, coincide with new monthly issues (which are available at Borders.)

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald

By Dennis McDonald, Ph.D.

Every sales person I know wants better leads. Because of this the benefits of applying Web 2.0 techniques to prospecting and qualifying would seem to be a no-brainer. But what about using Web 2.0 techniques to support other sales processes?

I explored this question in a recent “white paper” for Social Media Today LLC and Oracle Software. The report (click here for the online version or click here to download a .pdf version) includes discussion, analysis, and reports of an online survey and a series of sales manager interviews that looked at all stages of the sales process, not just the front end.

Here is a portion of the report’s Introduction:

This report discusses how “web 2.0” systems and applications can support management of sales processes. Instead of focusing on specific technologies such as social networking, blogs, wikis, or other technologies, it focuses on business processes and addresses the following questions:

1. How satisfied are sales managers with the different processes currently involved in locating, managing, and closing sales?

2. What can this tell us about where Web 2.0 applications would provide the most benefit to the overall sales process?

Input to this report was provided by a special online survey and by telephone interviews with sales managers. 

The project’s findings include the following:

1. The most immediate perceived benefits of applying Web 2.0 techniques to sales are provided by improving the outcomes of prospecting and customer qualification.

2. When addressing Web 2.0 support for sales-related communication and collaboration, it’ important to distinguish whether participants or processes being considered are internal or external to the sales team’s organization.  For example, while involvement with the social and professional communities surrounding business prospects may improve market intelligence about business prospects, such communications are not as controllable as traditional one-to-one communications between buyer and sellers. Internally, collaboration that cuts across organizational boundaries might be impacted by existing organizational rivalries.

3. Some within-sales-force collaboration may be resisted by sales people if this raises fears of reduced competitiveness or shared commissions. To promote such collaboration it may be necessary to modify compensation plans to reward certain types of collaboration.

4. Sales process maturity may strongly influence adoption of Web 2.0 techniques. Well-defined and formalized processes, such as those that occur closer to the end of the sales cycle, benefit differently than activities that are less structured or performed independently by members of the sales team.

5. The lengthier and more complex the sales process, the more participants will be involved as the process evolves. Making information gathered at one stage available to other participants “downstream” will help ensure a smooth transition from sales to delivery and servicing of the customer. Organizational or departmental barriers that restrict collaboration across groups should not be allowed to disrupt the sales process and satisfaction of the customer.

To download a .pdf version of the final version of the report, click here. To see an online version of the report, click here: Web 2.0 and Sales Process Management.

To see a follow on post to the above titled “More Thoughts on ‘Web 2.0 and Sales Process Management’” click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald, Ph.D.