Are you missing a pointless pursuit to while away some of those precious hours that are left of your life? Do what I did last night and start playing King’s Bounty: The Legend. A very charming little (or rather, long) game that is similar to Heroes of Might and Magic but with more story and humour. The English translation may be a bit lacking, but it’s not too bad. And the game is definitely of the “just one more fight” variety.

And yes, I’m only playing this because the system requirements are sane, unlike those of Dragon Age: Origins which stutters like a Parkinson’s sufferer having an epileptic fit on my computer. Good ol’ turn-based strategy.

Let me start by affirming I am in favor of democratic structures in “for-profit” organizations. I believe people should have a say in
decisions, no doubts about that. In my opinion, the concept of democracy is closely related to the wisdom of crowds where diverse opinions from a larger group of people systematically leads to better decisions and solutions.

Comments from the peanut gallery

Now that’s established, I want to make a distinction between democracy (participating in the selection of the decision) and the discussions leading to decisions – which I will call the debates.

The debate is not a democratic process. Let me use an example to explain why I have an issue with opening debates to crowds.

Following another disappointing loss of our local hockey team, a few colleagues gathered in the cafeteria were loudly debating their opinion on the cause of the team’s poor performance…

• Paul: “Price [the goal tender] doesn’t deserve to play with the team, he lacks consistency…”
• Mario: “What do you mean? Price did what he could but he can’t do everything. With Markov’s and Gill’s injury our defensive line is weak and Price is too often left to himself…”
• Richard: “Did you guys watch the same game I did? We have no offensive line. We gave a lot of talent to bring Cammalleri to Montreal but he is just not the scorer we need and nobody actually has the right skills…”
• Mary: “No, no. It’s the referee who influenced the game…”

I’ll stop here but that is enough to show my point. How many of these people do you believed played in the NHL? None.

How many of these people took coaching training or even played junior hockey? None.

How many of these opinions are actually useful to make the right decision? None. That’s right!

This is what my wife calls the “comments from the peanut gallery“.

Let me use another brief example to prove my point further.

Assume a skilled people manager joins his highly technical team for a brain storming session. The team is looking to improve performance of
their Java application and the tension in the room is high.  The manager – for sake of clarity, doesn’t have a clue about computer programming except maybe for a 3 hours introduction to Microsoft Excel taken 5 years ago – suggests to replace the framework and maybe the sorting method. What are the chances that his suggestion will be accepted? None.

The same situation applies when people with no management experience or training jump into a discussion about people management or
organizational strategies. To take part of the discussion there needs to be a few pre-requisites. It is not enough to want to participate in
the discussion, to really contribute people need: knowledge of the topic being discussed, experience, and a willingness to move the debate forward.

What is not needed is a personal opinion without facts, knowledge or experience but this is exactly what happens when a debate is open to the general public. When these conditions are met (knowledge, experience, and willingness), people should be welcomed to join the discussion so to take advantage of the wisdom of crowds. When these conditions aren’t met, people should stay on the sideline waiting for the debate to end and propositions to be open for selection.

Just like in the Canadian Parliament, a selected (elected) number of people were selected to represent others in the discussion. Once options are
selected, the democratic process can allow people to vote.

-Introduction-

I have found that properly involving people are often an incredibly critical factor, if not the most important factor, to ensuring some sort of organizational change goes along as planned. Understanding the direction of the change should come with the organizational strategy that has been set forth. Knowing the proper timing and ways to involve stakeholders in the change process comes with time and experience. Once those details and the strategy to go forward have been agreed upon, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) has been a favorite method of mine to involve any number of individuals from very small to incredibly large groups toward the implementation of an initiative.

There is an enormous that could be said about AI. In this post, I’ll just stick to the basics to help readers get a flavor of what it is. Further articles will mention more specific aspects of AI.

-Description of Appreciative Inquiry-

Appreciative Inquiry is fun to facilitate, energizes all of the participants, constructs and cultivates at the same time and is many other helpful attributes. It centers on finding the good, the strength, and the positive in an organization or individual, which forms the appreciation. The process to find that information is the inquiry. Hence, that combination becomes appreciative inquiry.

I came to know of AI from the Organizational Behavior (OB) department in Weatherhead. Those who taught me the most are Professors David Cooperrider and Ron Fry, who are both very well known for their consulting work and writing. They can both be recognized by their calm tone, easy going attitudes, and well pronounced mustaches. As a side note, it did seem that many of the distinguished characters in the OB department all had mustaches. Ladies, don’t worry, I have known many fantastic AI practitioners that are women.

In the MPOD (Master of Science in Positive Organizational Development and Change) program, AI changed the program so radically that it evolved into MPOD instead of simply MOD. With the addition of the “P” for Positive, often people ask “was organizational development negative previously?” The answer would be “no” because organizational development is meant to help build or implement changes. The approach in doing so would likely not have been as upbeat or optimistic because of the way that AI purposefully centers on the positive in an organization.

The positive focus is often referred to as a strengths based approach. In using AI, it pulls upon the good aspects that are already present or have been enacted in an organization. The inquiry is the information gathering that helps elicit the stories, descriptions, and other imaginings of what can be possible from the people involved. Due to the nature of pulling out the good aspects present in an organization, it makes it easier, more engaging, uplifting, energizing and more to be a part of the process. Unlike a problem-centric change initiative, one where the objective is to “fix” something, AI tries to create, build, cultivate and otherwise inspire growth in the system of influenced people. Often the energy and enthusiasm brought up in the AI process will produce new dialogue, conversations and fast paced team formation to further enact change.

-How AI Works-

I won’t get into the details of the 4D cycle of AI here yet or other specifics. Those juicy bits of information can wait for follow up posts.

As said above, AI involves a lot of interviewing and storytelling. That is the most crucial aspect of AI since that information and energy from the conversation fuels the rest of the effort. How the interviews are implemented can be done in many different fashions to meet the needs of the change intervention and other potential constraints (time, money, etc). The two methods that I know to be the most influential are cascading interviews and summits.

Cascading interviews

Cascading interviews are where a core group starts as interviewers to gather data, create energy, and discover ideas. Each interviewer would undergo a handful of interviews. The interviewees would then become interviewers and would interview another handful of people who have not been interviewed yet. Through the breadth and depth of the interviewing from gradually spreading out the AI interviews, the cascading effect is obtained. This method allows for the change process to occur at a more natural pace and does not necessitate people to be pulled away from their normal jobs in such a way that an offsite or series of multi-hour long meetings would.

Summits

AI Summits are multi-day workshops that include AI interviews, activities for planning and coordination, and project team formation. The intent with summits is to bring in as many of the key people as possible to try and enact a holistic change process.. AI, being a very energizing method, helps tremendously to provide the steam to the engine of change.

-AI in Action-

Here are some avenues that I have found AI to be helpful:

• Job interviews
• OD interventions on the topics of empowerment and performance management
• Sustainability collaboration
• Workshop facilitation
• Best practice sharing
• Personal development and coaching
• Case study interviews
• MBA curriculum design applications and ideas
• Data gathering for a study on Gen Y values, motivation, and retention
• AI strengths-based performance management reviews

Some Examples Where I know AI has been used very successfully:

• Higher Education
• Utilities (Coal and Water energy)
• Aerospace & Defense
• Fortune 100 companies
• US Armed Forces
• Manufacturing companies
• United Nations Conferences
• Engineering companies

-Closing-

AI rapidly became one of my favorite ways of implementing a phase or an entire change project. The AI interventions can rapidly grow with their own vitality in such a way that it’s both shocking and inspiring. Needless to say, I highly recommend finding your own vehicle for trying it out.

Here’s 2009 precictions for 2010.

Here’s 2008’s predictions for 2009.

Here’s 2007’s predictions for 2008.

And here’s some past predictions. 

And here’s some more past predictions.

Any conclusions on what was predicted, and what is actually happening?

There’s been a lot percolating in my head over the last and it’s about time I got it out in a series of posts relating to marketing as I’ve seen it this year. Hopefully you’ll find it mildly helpful and interesting…and not too rambly.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think anyone who works in a digital agency probably spent most of last year trying to demonstrate how modern marketing needs a distinctive and somewhat evolved approach to work in digital I daren’t say different because that merely feeds the binary decision making and black or white thinking that hinders many organisations. But as Eric Schmidt highlights, we do need to stop making a distinction between media.

That’s not to say that brands aren’t doing good things, it’s probably the most exciting time to be doing what we do. However things are still broken on a vast scale and the problems lie in systems, business models, metrics and marketers being outpaced by how people are using technology.

To use a Mark Zuckerberg quote: “A lot of this (change) is just social norms catching up with what technology is capable of.” The problem is of course, social norms are way ahead of most brands thanks to said technology.

My esteemed colleague Iain McDonald likes to use this little thought experiment to highlight how ridiculous some of our thinking actually is when you look at life through a digital lens.

First of all imagine if the Internet, as it is today, came before TV. Then someone said to you we are going to put a big box in the corner of your living room. You can only watch certain programmes when we say you can and then every 15 minutes we are going to show you half a dozen ads that are 9 times out of ten, irrelevant and uninteresting. We will then repeat many programmes that you have already seen throughout the year. You would obviously tell them to get stuffed.

Online behaviour and the use of technology is changing people’s expectations of brands and how they actually behave in the real world. I will cover a few things before the year is out that will hopefully help you for the next – a fresh start and all that guff.

Things like the re-calibrating of businesses, forgetting what you know, the great digital realisation that people don’t care about brands, marketing to networks, convergence of media, media slices rather than chunks, the system of objects, innovative research and measurement. Next post to come shortly…I hope.

“All children are born artists.  The problem is to remain an artist as we grow up.” – Picasso

Evolution: The Eight Stages Of Listening

Categories: Analysis, Social CRM, Social MediaPosted on November 10th, 2009

As Social Customers Become More Empowered, Organizations Must Have A Listening Strategy
As we approach 2010 planning companies need a strategy around listening. Sadly, most companies, and their agency partners don’t know why to listen or how. As a result, they must identify which stage of listening they are at, and then set a goal on which stage they see to aspire in 2010. I originally published this matrix for client workshops and a keynote presentation on developing listening and advocacy programs, and I’m going to continue to share more and blow-out each of my slides.

Web Strategy Matrix: The Eight Stages Of Listening

Exercise: Self-Assess Culture, Roles, Process, Data, and Tools
Use this matrix to initiate a discussion within your company on which stage you’re at, then put a plan in place to grow to the next level. Do note, depending on size and complexity of the organization, different groups may be in more than one phase. First, identify the characteristics your company currently has, then define which phase you’re in:

1. Does the organization have the right culture setup that’s ready to listen?
2. Is the organization prepared to react to customer opinions? how about in real time?
3. Are the processes in place to triage information to the right teams? How about during a real-time crises on a Saturday morning?
4. Are the right roles in place to listen? Are proactive marketing and support teams trained, empowered, and ready to respond?
5. Is there a single repository of customer information or is it currently fragmented around the enterprise
6. Lastly, what technology platforms are in place to facilitate this strategy? ? Hint: choose this last –not first.

For Dialog: Which Stage Are Companies At?
Curious to hear your professional opinions, what stage do most companies think they’re at?  In reality, what stage are they truly acting at?

Barnes & Noble announced its Q2-FY10 earnings today. Their balance sheet shines some new light on their cost of nook development and marketing and number of nooks they might have manufactured. I estimate about 200K-400K units, read on:

1. Their Intangible assets jumped from $82 million in Q1 to $587 million.  This is surprising for a bookseller. Part of it went to acquiring rights to digital content and part went to product R&D. The latter cannot be capitalization of their product development costs (3 months is short time),  so I think they bought the design and other patents form outside.
2. There is now long term debt, to the order of $325 million, is showing up in their books. The long term debt definitely went into their nook product line – for manufacturing and marketing.   B&N does not own the factories, it rents capacity from Prime View International of Taiwan, who also owns the rights to e-Ink technology and makes those displays for all Kindle and Sony as well (source: GigaOm). To guarantee capacity B&N may have had to invest or at least cover part of the assembly line. But I think most of it went into design acquisition (described above).
3. Another increase is their “Other long-term liabilities”, by about $240 million. There are no footnotes explaining this. For the purpose of this discussion I would allocate a good part of it towards its increase in Intangible asset (design acquisition).
4. So the total cost to design and manufacture nook is about $500 million – that is going big for a bookseller!
5. Their accounts payable increased by $500 million. It is expected that this would go up as stores build inventories for the Holiday season, but in the previous year it increased by only $200 million from Q1-2008 to Q2-2008. I do not think the other $300 went for stocking more books and merchandise, it must have gone to content suppliers, nook suppliers and for marketing campaigns.  Accounting for the rest, $100- $2o0 million (guesstimate) went to Prime View for making the nook.
6. The $100-$2o0 million is possibly allocated for the right to acquire capacity, labor and parts. If we assume half of that $100-$200 million went for parts and if we assume the cost per unit is $250, they made about 200,000 to 400,000 units. Which is what I said they should have manufactured based on the projected market.

If they indeed manufactured 400,000 nooks, given that they are sold out, they must have sold 200,000 to 400,000 nooks in just one month.  That is extremely impressive! B&N has indeed gone really big on nook but still missed the opportunity to price it right!

Footnotes:

The final number is based on the assumptions I made on allocating the step increase accounts payable, the total material costs and cost per unit. Any or all of which can be wrong but at least we have a small range of numbers to work with.

We’re constantly told that the world loves us again now that Barack Obama is president.

Mind you, that “love” is utterly meaningless.  We’re not benefiting in any way from all the “love” we’re supposedly receiving.

We’re certainly not getting more support for the war on terror – oops, forgot Obama says we can’t use that term anymore – I mean the “overseas contingency operation” – from our adoring allies.

Take a look at the following table available from iCasualties.org/Operation Enduring Freedom as of November 24:

In addition to the fact that our casualties under Barack Obama will easily double from 2008 when George Bush was president, there is one more important feature: the fact that, other than the U.K. our allied troop support (see “other”) has actually DECREASED under the leadership of Barack Obama.

While they’ve given token lip service praise of Barack Obama’s “wonderfulness,” they have quietly been doing even LESS to help us in Afghanistan than they were under George Bush.

And the ONLY exception to that pathetic trend is the United Kingdom.

But listen to what the United Kingdom has to say about how Barack Obama is sabotaging and undermining the mission in Afghanistan:

Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan.

James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden
Published: 9:00PM GMT 24 Nov 2009

Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.

Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

Polls show most voters now want an early withdrawal, following the death of 98 British service personnel this year alone.

Ministers say the mission is vital to stop international terrorists using Afghanistan as a base, but Gordon Brown has promised an “exit strategy” that could start next year.

The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.

Mr Ainsworth spoke out as the inquiry into the 2003 war in Iraq started in London, hearing evidence from British diplomats that the UK government concluded in 2001 that toppling Saddam Hussein by military action would be illegal.

Mr Obama has been considering advice from General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to send more than 40,000 extra troops to the country.

Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.

Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committee in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ’surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.

He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.

“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.

“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”

Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan and has announced it will send another 500, a decision some US officials saw as a move to put pressure on Mr Obama.

Mr Ainsworth said he is confident that once Mr Obama confirms his new strategy, allies will follow and British public opinion will shift back in favour of the mission.

“I hope and believe that we are about to get an announcement from the USA on troop numbers and I think that that will be followed by contributions from many other Nato allies and so we will be able to show that we are going forward in this campaign to an extent that we have not been able to in recent months with those issues still hanging,” he said. [...]

So you’ve got the documented record of Barack Hussein undermining the ONLY ally that has been worth butkus – or a butt kiss, for that matter – to the United States in Afghanistan.

The repeated acts of public humiliation of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the UK at the hands of Obama and his administration are detailed HERE.

And during the three month period that Obama has dithered – and that is the Brits’ term, in addition to our own Pentagon command, rather than Dick Cheney’s term, as the media keeps falsely reporting – the public support to remain in Afghanistan has dropped dramatically.

And there’s no reason to believe that the forfeited public support will come back.

Maybe Barack Obama is a dandy leader of the whole world – at least until the Antichrist shows up to take over for him – but he is in fact a lousy President of the United States, and an even worse commander-in-chief of the American forces in Afghanistan.

The ‘life’s a game’ concept is nothing new, but it seems to be particularly resonant at the moment.

Russell describes what I’m feeling beautifully in this great excerpt from his epic playful post*:

“Just like when I walk through the crowds on Oxford Street a tiny part of me is pretending I’m an assassin slipping steely-eyed through the crowds in order to shake the agents on my tail. And I bet it’s not just me. I’m not saying I’m massively deluded, just that, very often, some bit of us is always trying to play those games, to make mundane things more exciting.”

It’s one of those lovely insights that could translate really well into brand activity.

And this Nike spot hits that sweet spot beautifully:

It works because it’s engaging – even if it’s only in your own imagination.

* Yes, I know I’ve linked to it about 10 times already. But there’s a reason for that: it’s wonderful. If you haven’t read it already, I thoroughly recommend taking a look now. Thanks to Neil at Welcome to Optimism for sharing the Nike clip.

Should media allocation strategies continue to play a preeminent role in marcom planning decisions?

To answer this question, let’s begin with an analogy:  how investors make decisions.

Investors typically hold one of two basic philosophies: top down or bottom up. Top down investors analyze the markets, determine which asset classes (stocks, bonds, commodities, etc.) offer the best risk/reward opportunities, and allocate accordingly. Once the basic allocation mix is decided, these investors will allocate further within each asset class. For example, stocks have several characteristics: growth vs. value, large vs. small, emerging vs. developed countries. And within these characteristics lie various sectors: financials, healthcare, telecommunications, etc. The resulting portfolio of investments will ideally reflect this series of macro to micro decisions.

Bottom up investors see a market of stocks, not a ’stock market’. They start their decision making process by analyzing a wide array of investments, and their portfolios are the result of picking individual securities – a bottom up process. Warren Buffet is a well-known bottom up investor.

When it comes to marketing communication decisions, most brand marketers adhere to a top down philosophy, relying on techniques such as media mix modeling to provide a framework for budgets and strategy. This philosophy makes a lot of sense when your marcom universe consists solely of one-to-many channels (TV, radio, print), where commercial messages are directed at a passive audience.

But does the top down philosophy break down when the importance of one-to-many marketing communications grows in importance, where the consumer is viewed as a participant instead of an audience? Do media mix models adequately weigh conversational marketing activities such as experiential marketing, social media, customer service, and sale training?

And what does a bottom up approach look like? Do we begin by imagining possible consumer experiences first and let the media mix chips fall where they may? Or do we create better media allocation models? Or simply continue using the current models while acknowledging their limitations?

I would hope marketers recognize the pitfalls of following an exclusive top down approach. We shouldn’t limit the potential of more interactive marketing communication channels by following a philosophy devised in a one-to-many media world.

It’s not uncommon to find businesses all over this country talking about the impact the current economic environment is having on their operations.

Just yesterday, I was speaking with my good friend, John Fodera. John is a partner in Eisner, LLP’s audit and risk management services group. He spends his days discovering how to reduce risk and streamline operations, while making sure that his clients remain compliant with regulations a diverse as labor law to SEC requirements. Not surprisingly, he hears about the impact of the recession all of the time.

As our discussion progressed, it became apparent that John brings some fresh thinking to these conversations. One of the thoughts that we shared is that cutting staff is not always the best way to deal with a slowdown in business.

John explained that the “knee-jerk” reaction is always to reduce costs and sometimes this is truly appropriate. But, like any other challenge, there are always opportunities.

When companies are concerned about business, they are more apt to rethink the way that they approach the marketplace. Leadership will also find that staff will be more open to trying new approaches. This is typical when the risk of remaining with the status quo exceeds the risk of trying new things.

Reaching out to existing customers and discovering and sometimes re-discovering what is valued in one’s offerings – and what isn’t – can change what is being sold and how it is being presented to other potential clients.

When something is not valued, often, the cost associated with adding and delivering that capability can be stripped out. Suddenly, the product may actually be more valuable because a level of complexity is removed and the cost associated with developing, selling, delivering it and training others has been reduced. Out of such discussions, many competitive advantages and opportunities are born.

And in an age where technology is changing as rapidly as it is, an economic downturn can provide the impetus to create new ways to produce meaningful value.

As John would probably tell you, the real risk is when you are not rethinking your business.  But don’t take his word for it.

Just ask the people running the newspaper industry and the postal service.

Welcome to Obama’s America, where there are only three truly evil acts: 1) being a conservative; 2) working for Fox News; 3) being a patriot who tries to keep America safe from its enemies.

These SEALs are at least guilty of number 3, and are most likely also guilty of 1 as well.  That’s more than enough for Obama.

And of course Fox reported on the story.  But we already know they’re guilty of Crimes Against Obama.

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges For Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By Rowan Scarborough

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

“I gave the detainee a glance over and then left,” the SEAL wrote. “I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health.”

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that “Objective Amber” planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and “they had been tracking this guy for some time.”

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

I’d first like to thank these SEALs for their service; second, I’d like to thank them for capturing Ahmed Hashim Abed; third, I would like to thank them for giving this slimebag a fat lip.

Let’s assess the record of this administration: repeatedly attempting to contact al-Qaeda — merits a promotion; giving a terrorist murderer a fat lip — merits a court martial.

This is what happens under the Obama worldview that requires providing Miranda rights to terrorists and according them all the rights and privileges of American citizens.

It is a cancer that resulted in the Obama administration declassifying vital intelligence secrets which kept this country safe in order to use it as a political weapon

It is a cancer that resulted in the Obama administration literally attempting to criminalize the role of our intelligence professionals at the CIA for their role in desperately striving to keep this country safe.  Now, surprise, surprise, the morale at the CIA is at a 30-year low (dating back to the last time a Democrat tried to destroy the Agency).

It is a cancer that resulted in a Muslim captain who’d had regular email contact with al-Qaeda as well as “soldier of Allah” on his business card getting promoted to major before murdering 14 human beings and wounding more than 30 more at a military base – as he screamed ‘Allahu akbar!’ – while our own SEALs get disciplined for capturing such murderous bags of slime.

It is a cancer that resulted in five confessed terrorists going from requesting the death sentence at a military tribunal to getting an opportunity to plead not guilty and use the civilian trial Obama gave them as a platform for their jihadist worldview while putting America (and George Bush) on trial.

It is a cancer that has resulted in a president dithering for nearly three full months while ignoring his own handpicked general’s request for more troops in Afghanistan.  While nearly twice as many American soldiers have died (so far!) than died under George Bush.

Today Obama came out and – while continuing to criticize Bush for not having the right “strategy” – said he intends to “finish the job” without bothering to have any kind of explanation as to what the “job” even is.   Which is to say, some fat load of good his three months of “policy reviews” has done.  Meanwhile, the morale of our troops is sinking, while the morale of the Taliban and the number of the American body count is rising.

And we have Barack Hussein to thank for inflicting us with this cancer.  The sooner he is gone, the sooner our healing from cancer can begin.

Note to fools: there is no CSI Kandahar, and there is no CSI Baghdad.  We cannot possibly ask our soldiers to gather evidence and turn battlefields into crime scenes.  We are worse than idiots for demanding that our warriors on foreign battlefields act like domestic police officers.  It is a blatant category fallacy.

Prayer for Barack Obama:

Psalm 109:8 – “Let his days be few, and let another take his office.”

I’m of the same opinion of The Globe and Mail article “Bonuses don’t mean better performance” where the author cites several examples in the real world as well as academic research of bonuses not improving output in non-manual labor roles. In my company, we don’t do bonuses, but rather we focus on above-average pay, a great work environment, and positive corporate culture. My line of thinking is that people automatically incorporate the bonus into their standard compensation, and don’t separate fixed from variable pay.

This strategy won’t work for everyone, but I encourage entrepreneurs to proactively decide on their desired type of corporate culture and compensation strategy, and not just blindly follow the plan from their previous employer.

Ireland is a place that has marked me forever. It has been the backdrop to my coming of age (a year in Dublin), happy moments with my family (holidays in Kerry), and where I met the girl I hope to spend the rest of my life with (if she’ll have me!).

The door is always open in Ireland, although, this may have more to do with my name than the politeness of Celtic folk; type Martin Cahill into Google and you will see what I mean. I haven’t always liked Ireland though. In fact, I used to hate it when I was younger. A trip to Ireland typically meant cold rain, scary aunts who would plant those sloppy kisses on your cheek, and extended stays in Kate’s (the local pub). My patience (at the age of 8 or 9) was bought with Club Orange, Tayto crisps and coins for the pool table. These days I visit Kate’s for the same reason my Dad did before. The Guinness is great, yes, but more than that – it’s the conversation. Local farmers walk through the door and into the warmth of Kate’s bar. The atmosphere can sometimes be quiet. Subdued even. There is no hurry to engage in wit and banter. Sometimes a period of reflection is the first order.

Kate also maintains a kitchen behind the bar. I don’t know how she does it, but she can go back there and within a few minutes provide a plate of steaming hot stew, potatoes and veg. Most surprising, is the customer did not even ask for it, but they certainly welcome it. Kate then communicates events from the day. What has been said by Farmer Connolley and the latest prices from the mart. She is a knowledge hub. An RSS feed in traditional Irish style. Another customer arrives and the conversation continues. A community of neighbours all ready to highlight changes in the market, economy, and even the weather. The local radio sits in the corner relaying the local news and the death list (those who have recently passed and the time of the mass and burial). Comment is passed, drinks are finished and people are back on their way. Back out to the land. Back to practice.

Kate’s bar – A School? … And the only piece of technology in sight – the radio.

The experience was reflected in London some time ago. It was my first visit to the Apple Store. As I walked through the door teenagers were typing and clicking on the new range of Mac laptops and iMacs on display. They were emailing and facebook’ing. To my right was a genius bar. A whole workbench of Mac geeks ready to fix your machine or answer your Mac related questions. I walked up the stairs and entered a creative zone. A place where photographers and movie-makers could learn and share tips in relation to their creative pursuits. Further along was a lecture theatre. A speaker was clicking through the latest features of iWork. Some were listening, others were posting online, networking, thinking.

Apple Store – A School? … Technology is on sale, but the centre-piece is people and knowledge.

I arrived in Sydney six months ago. In those early months I was looking for work and networking across the city. I was using both traditional and modern methods. One evening, over too many bottles of Cabernet a new friend asked me “If you could do anything, what would your working week look like?”. Great question, I thought. My response surprised me. “Well”, I said, “If I could do anything then I would like to open an Alternative School of Business. A place where talented folk across Sydney’s new and emerging industries could meet and a space where those looking for work could ‘hang-out’. People would be presenting – perhaps a new business idea. Others would critique and hopefully offer new ideas or routes to making it happen. Industry Pecha Kuchas would play out, events, and possibly corporate off-sites. It should be a hive of learning. A place where folk would come, enjoy a hot meal, and go back to the land. Back to practice. There are no corridors. No offices and no static zones. Just movement, progression and space”. “I would spend my time there”, I said, “and the rest of the week I’d pick up my camera and notepad and go venture” (that though is another story).

An Alternative Business School? Perhaps not so dissimilar to what we have now, you might say? Still, since talking to managers, analysts and talented folk across Sydney’s media, hi-tech, and social innovation scene I still hear a call for change. All cite the importance of an MBA and how they would benefit from such an experience. The good stuff like learning from other industries, making new connections, challenging their thinking, tackling tough problems etc. However, I was reminded of the gulf (supposed) between academia and practice, the pressures brought to bear on families and marriages, the untimeliness of case based learning and the fees!

I think the sector is ripe for great change, but we must avoid the McDonaldisation of education, just as Ireland must avoid the McDonalidation of its Celtic ways. Technology should never replace our human needs for social contact and social spaces. Technology should only ever fuel the conversation, peoples understanding and our overall pot of knowledge. It should only ever be the radio in the corner. What is interesting about today’s technology, is it makes the alternative business school self-organise. There is no need for administration or administrative teams. The school is open. Groups gather around themes. People subscribe. People unsubscribe. This is the magic of new social technology.

“I have to keep celebrating that I’m alive. I shouldn’t be here now. I’m on borrowed time”. These were the words spoken by Jayne before she sat down and told her story about how Individualised Budgets has changed her life, the life of her husband Mark and her wider family including her Mum.

Jayne’s life as a high energy career nurse was thrown into chaos at the age of 30 when she was diagnosed with cancer. She describes how treatment offered structure to her weeks following the original announcement and how she found a sense of purpose in simply trying to stay alive. “By finding structure and purpose something positive will merge” Jayne says. This model of chaos, structure, meaning and emergence has seen Jayne through eight years of fighting cancer and all the ups and downs that entails.

Jayne explains how time became her greatest commodity because no one could say how long she had left to live. Following her first round of treatment Jayne took a part-time job which allowed for flexibility and days away; days spent with Mark on an canal barge – “We like canal barging – it slows life down”. However, one afternoon Jayne was plunged back into chaos as she fractured her spine pushing the boat through a lock. The cancer had spread to her bones. At this point the nature of the problem had changed. It was was no longer an illness, but a disability. This was going to take away her independence and this was the one thing that scared her the most.

It was at this point that Jayne was offered Direct Payments, but this proved to be rigid and outside of her desire to regain independence – “I was trying not to be a disabled person. I didn’t want many of the installations that were being offered. I did need help though, especially with my food shopping, but the times were fixed and no matter what I had to be well on that prescribed day, but I wasn’t”. Outside of this chaos Jayne found meaning attending a local college to study art, but was soon hit with a real problem. She was reliant on other students to lift the wheelchair from her car – “you can’t describe how helpless it makes you feel”.

This is when Jayne was introduced to Individualised Budgets (IB) and she was able to purchase a floating chair and trailer for her car. “All of a sudden my life was transformed. I could go shopping on my own. I could get to and from college and also take part in local field trips. I felt independent again”. The IB payments also allowed Jayne to compartmentalise the six hours of support she was offered through Direct Payments. It was broken into different instances allowing Jayne to take the burden of cleaning the house from her busy Mum and instead spend quality time with her at the local swimming pool. “The IB budget has really allowed me to understand where I want to spend my time and what I want to spend it doing. In the end, this is not about having a service, it’s about having a life”.

Jayne does however state that there has been periods where she has been able to reduce the budget – “We are very conscious that this is not our money. I keep returning to the IB panel and asking if it’s okay to procure a particular service. There have even been instances where I have even been able to give money back”. Jayne now has support on a daily basis – a position that Jayne gave great consideration to – “This is the person I am going to choose to share the last parts of my life and it was important that I was able to make that choice”.

****************

The full report is now available. Please click on the link below to read the report or left-click and download.

Unpacking Service Transformation – Oldham In Control

****************

Another GM Casualty?

Koenigsegg Group AB, a Scandinavian maker of exotic sports cars, said it ended negotiations over Saab, citing delays in closing the deal that led to “risks and uncertainties.” The company said “time always played a critical factor in our strategy for reviving the company.”

This is a valuable lesson-learned, unfortunately at the expense of GM.  When you’re thinking about additions to your line-up of products, whether you’re a large multinational like GM, or a small early-stage firm, you have to ask the following strategic questions:

• does this new product fit in with my overall brand/corporate positioning?
• will it complement the other products? Will it deliver incremental sales or just cannibalize existing units?
• will I be able to invest in and manage this new product in a way that gives it lasting power over time?

In this case, I think that there wasn’t a strategic plan of attack for Saab, which has led to its demise.  What is Saab’s positioning?  Who is Saab’s core customer?  Are there any synergies between Saab and other GM brands?  One would have a difficult time answering any of these questions.  It’s likely that the Saab acquisition, despite what I’m sure were the best-laid plans provided by investment bankers and external consultants during due diligence, was really just a short-sighted attempt by GM to eek out some incremental volume amidst GM’s ongoing share declines.  A lack of vision – again.

GM Plan to Sell Its Saab Unit Collapses – WSJ.com.

The other day in class Professors Alec Horniman and Sankaran Venkataraman were leading a case discussion about Ruimin Zhang – CEO of Haier.  The main focus of the discussion was about how Zhang lead his company through an amazing evolution of capability over a period of time, which by all counts demonstrated the extraordinary talent of Zhang as a leader.  Alec made a few important points toward the end of the discussion which resonated with me.  First, he said, “Evolving is about becoming more complex.”  Haier would have never evolved into the global enterprise it is today without the leadership of Zhang, as Zhang evolved his enterprise evolved with him.  Second, Alec stated that “Strategic changed doesn’t occur without leaders; leaders who are not involved in strategic change are not very interesting.”  The third piece was related to the sequences of knowing and doing, “Doing is Knowing and Knowing is Doing.”  Finally he asked us to reflect on the following questions:

• How am I evolving?
• How am I becoming more complex?
• What can I do to increase my complexity?

The case of Zhang invites each of us to reflect on whether or not we are prepared to evolve and whether or not we have the patience and focus to evolve when the opportunity arises.  As Alec put it, “Zhang is an ordinary person who behaved in extraordinary ways.”

While I was driving back to DC from Charlottesville, I was reflecting on the discussion and on cue in the background Cake began to play “The Distance” in the background on the radio:

Reluctantly crouched at the starting line

Engines pumping and thumping in time.

The green light flashes, the flags go up.

Churning and burning they yearn for the cup.

They deftly maneuver and muscle for rank,

Fuel burning fast on an empty tank.

Reckless and wild they pour through the turns.

Their prowess is potent and secretly stern.

As they speed through the finish the flags go down.

The fans get up and they get out of town.

The arena is empty except for one man,

Still driving and striving as fast as he can.

The sun has gone down and the moon has come up,

And long ago somebody left with the cup.

But he’s driving and striving and hugging the turns,

And thinking of someone for whom he still burns.

This is a metaphor for Zhang and any other leader who has the desire to evolve and constantly improve.  Never give up, never stop dreaming, never stop learning and evolving.  The concept leaders evolving is not a new one just look at the concept of Level 5.

Ryan Evans (@ryanevans) is the owner of Rand Media Group, an online marketing firm. Ryan ordered three dozen cupcakes; I delivered them so we could have a nice chat on his doorstep.

Fast forward 36 hours and we both ended up at the same coffee shop in Lincoln Park. And because both of us had work we wanted to procrastinate work for ourselves, we started talking business. Well, I let him do most of the talking, because I had all of the learning to do.

He ran through some of the basics of SEO and search engine ad placement. And although what he was sharing with me was really basic to anyone who has ever owned a web-based business, it was brand new to me. The stickiest?

“Get as many links to your site as possible.”

Links to your website boost its credibility among the algorithms Google uses to determine which sites are good and which sites are crap.  Good sites with high rankings get higher placement and more visits. Which, duh, lead to more sales.

I can’t wait to figure out how we’ll implement this strategy in 2010. It’ll be interesting to track and measure our efforts.

Thanks, Ryan, for sharing all two hours worth of conversation and information with me. I really do owe you more than just cupcakes.

Firm seeks to minimize “push” and maximize “pull” for clients

Oceanside, CA, USA | 24 November 2009 - MarketPOWER™, LLC added its 2,000th follower today on Twitter, having added its 150 newest followers in less than a month. Its Twitter site’s Google PageRank of 5 has proven unattainable even for many larger firms’ sites, and Director Jeff Cotrupe’s XeeSM page (all social media links, one click) earns a PageRank of 3. “We continue to grow our follower base 100% organically by delivering information and business value, and without using any of the get-followers-quick or ‘train’ systems making the rounds on Twitter,” said Cotrupe. “Beyond rankings and ratings, greater web connectivity leads to more business opportunities. We deploy a myriad of interactive techniques and best practices for our clients and ourselves, but it’s all designed around two core objectives: Reducing outbound sales ‘push’ while creating maximum ‘pull;’ and engaging in comfortable dialogues in optimal venues with prospects, customers and opinion leaders instead of marketing ‘at’ them.”

Se acerca Acción de Gracias, y eso supone festivo, viajes, regalos, compras, etc… para + de 200M de norteamericanos, y todo ello a la vez, uf. Les propongo una estrategia para sacar algún dinerillo y aprovechar esta circunstancia.

Bien, veamos el calendario:  mañana mercado, pasado sólo hay mercado en europa y el viernes tendremos mercado reducido versión mañanera.

La jugada: Compraríamos mañana para vender el viernes.

Aprovechando que Europa no cierra el jueves, compraríamos alguna acción mañana que esperemos que se comporte alcista o con el índice,  en un mínimo, la cual la venderíamos el viernes por la mañana.

Condición: Haríamos eso siempre que mañana tuviéramos un día bajista, o que hiciésemos unos míminos similares a los de hoy.

El timing: Procuraríamos comprar hacia al final de la sesión, así  comprobaríamos el sentimiento de mercado.

Cantidad: Vigilen que saquen algún beneficio con un movimiento pequeño del 0.70%-1%, así que según los casos tendrán que ir apalancados.

Bien, mañana veremos el sentimiento del mercado y si podemos aplicar esta estrategia. Confío en que mañana hagamos un buen mínimo a ser posible un día más bajista que hoy pero siempre cabe que no sea como a priori pensamos por eso la precaución ante todo.

Como tenemos que comprar Europa espero que me hagan alguna recomendación