The signs are better set in stone
Than memories that fizz in glass.
First as tragedy, then as farce -
A light laugh cut into a groan.
A single moult of hair, not mown,
Found in among the buds and grass.
The signs are better set in stone
Than memories that fizz in glass.
I broke each tooth but lost a bone.
Send me to the back of the class.
Because of you, sharpeye smartarse,
I'll end my days in dark alone.
The signs are better set in stone
Than memories that fizz in glass.
What is a rondel?
Monday, May 10, 2010
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
not dead yet
Wonderers Heart is a blog that doesn't shy away from dark stuff. Depression. Suicide. Grief.
And to top it all, it's a little awkward. It tackles topics that evade comprehension and easy answers and Anne does not present neatly wrapped insights into pain, loss and occasional act of inadvertent arson. It is someone thinking/feeling in public. Reflecting in a muddy mirror.
If you ever get sick of blogs with lists of the seven things for blah blah blah then please pay her a visit.
And to top it all, it's a little awkward. It tackles topics that evade comprehension and easy answers and Anne does not present neatly wrapped insights into pain, loss and occasional act of inadvertent arson. It is someone thinking/feeling in public. Reflecting in a muddy mirror.
If you ever get sick of blogs with lists of the seven things for blah blah blah then please pay her a visit.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Thursday, April 01, 2010
random numbers
Random Numbers, darkmatter
The dice have wings. They are little insects of chance, scared away by a sudden movement, a wreckless decision. I see gamblers running around with oversized nets, distended surfaces of hope whose holes gape as they scythe the air.
The dice rest on the flat of my hand and for a moment they are still. Then I cup them between my palms and they start to buzz. To shake and sting. Little stabbing pains in my skin. I let them go.
There is a swarm of dice now, stripping the pleasant green certainties of leaves. A probable desert is all that remains on this land. I hide somewhere between and one and thirty-six.
The dice rest on the flat of my hand and for a moment they are still. Then I cup them between my palms and they start to buzz. To shake and sting. Little stabbing pains in my skin. I let them go.
There is a swarm of dice now, stripping the pleasant green certainties of leaves. A probable desert is all that remains on this land. I hide somewhere between and one and thirty-six.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
live and direct
Tim "Mumbrella" Burrowes is over live blogging (or tweeting) and Katie "GetShouty" Chatfield is feeling the same way.
It's important to note that this kind of activity is still limited to certain events full of "webby" people. Many of the events I go to have no live blogging nor tweeting (and varying proportions of live attendees). So this is a bit of a minority issue but let's assume these behaviours will spread over time.
Rather than seeing tweeting and blogging as potentially distracting activities and so a disaster, I think they may be an opportunity to improve the event experience - if used with a bit of thought by the savvy presenter.
I am not really a fan of straight "presenting". My short attention span means that I'm getting bored of my own voice just after the first slide. I would much rather have others play with and critique or extend my ideas rather than have them received as so much cognitive junk mail - and these new whizz-bang "Web 0.2" technologies allow this to happen. If you build twitter-based activities into your session or offer 3 questions you want to invite the audience to blog about at the end, then you are creating a space for this interaction. At other times, you can invite participants to put down their devices and briefly give you their full attention.
This does require those with a "speaking" role to act more like facilitators than presenters. It means that you probably have to learn improv as well as voice projection, posture, storytelling and visual design to be good at this. It also means that speakers have to accept a more humble but ultimately more powerful role than "the sage on the stage". The only justifiable reason to get on a stage is to change the world a little bit, everything else is ego. And if you want to change the world, that means that the action is out there in the audience - they are the future and you, as a speaker, are the past. You have to go where the action is and tools like twitter can light up the action for you like a flare.
So what else can we do to make events better?
It's important to note that this kind of activity is still limited to certain events full of "webby" people. Many of the events I go to have no live blogging nor tweeting (and varying proportions of live attendees). So this is a bit of a minority issue but let's assume these behaviours will spread over time.
Rather than seeing tweeting and blogging as potentially distracting activities and so a disaster, I think they may be an opportunity to improve the event experience - if used with a bit of thought by the savvy presenter.
I am not really a fan of straight "presenting". My short attention span means that I'm getting bored of my own voice just after the first slide. I would much rather have others play with and critique or extend my ideas rather than have them received as so much cognitive junk mail - and these new whizz-bang "Web 0.2" technologies allow this to happen. If you build twitter-based activities into your session or offer 3 questions you want to invite the audience to blog about at the end, then you are creating a space for this interaction. At other times, you can invite participants to put down their devices and briefly give you their full attention.
This does require those with a "speaking" role to act more like facilitators than presenters. It means that you probably have to learn improv as well as voice projection, posture, storytelling and visual design to be good at this. It also means that speakers have to accept a more humble but ultimately more powerful role than "the sage on the stage". The only justifiable reason to get on a stage is to change the world a little bit, everything else is ego. And if you want to change the world, that means that the action is out there in the audience - they are the future and you, as a speaker, are the past. You have to go where the action is and tools like twitter can light up the action for you like a flare.
So what else can we do to make events better?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
books offer
Who wants a copy of the following?
- American Gods by Neil Gaiman
- The Iliad (Robert Fagles translation)
- A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari
- Rip It Up & Start Again by Simon Reynolds
- I Wouldn't Start From Here by Andrew Mueller
- The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
michael sampson in canberra & melbourne
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
the guy in the polo shirt
When you're at a business IT-related conference or an exhibition, each vendor stand will have a bunch of guys (& maybe a chick or two) in expensive-looking suits. There will also be a guy (maybe slightly overweight) in a polo shirt, fiddling with the demo. I always go for the guy in the polo shirt because most of the stand personnel will be sales people (with the occasional marketing manager thrown in). The guy in the polo shirt is generally the pre-sales guy. Sales teams hunt deals. Pre-sales exists because most sales staff don't have the deep product technical knowledge and can't run anything but the simplest of demos.
Generally I am not interested in the sales pitch. I want to know what the actual strengths & limitations of the product are. Pre-sales guys are far from unbiased but their pride in their technical knowledge means that you tend to get a slightly more realistic view of the product.
Generally I am not interested in the sales pitch. I want to know what the actual strengths & limitations of the product are. Pre-sales guys are far from unbiased but their pride in their technical knowledge means that you tend to get a slightly more realistic view of the product.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
kissin' babies - trying to get to boston for enterprise 2.0
The Enterprise 2.0 Conference running in Boston this June has decided to allow an open submission & voting process. I have three submissions entered & I'm focusing my efforts on this one relating to RoI getting through. So if you could register on the site & vote for me before 20 January, I'd be much obliged.
I also thought I'd give you information about the other papers that stood out for me:
I also thought I'd give you information about the other papers that stood out for me:
- In terms of "voting for your mates", I like Patti Anklam & think her 3 efforts could be most interesting: NetWork, KM & Leadership (Doug Cornelius & Jack Vinson are also involved).
- In terms of "full disclosure": I may well be on the panel for Ephraim Freed's learning culture session if it goes through.
- I have also liked the look of sessions by Jon Ingham, Paula Thornton & MITRE.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
book review: finding the sweet spot
Dave Pollard is a crazy-intense writer - one of the best writers on the web. One might even say that Dave thinks too much. Which is handy for the rest of us because he has written his first book - Finding the Sweet Spot. Dave brings his own mix of idealism and deep, detailed consideration to the topic of a creating a sustainable business. I used Dave's Gifts/Passions/Purpose 3 circle model when I started plotting Innotecture (I don't think I'm there yet BTW).
If you want to think about business in a different way then this book comes recommended.
If you want to think about business in a different way then this book comes recommended.
Monday, January 04, 2010
book review: streetlights & shadows
As you may know, I have a lot of time for Gary Klein. So when I found out by chance on Amazon that he had a new book coming out at the end of last year, I ordered my copy straight away. Those of you that have read previous GK books will not be surprised by the contents but it takes these same ideas deeper. Sources of Power was 20 years of reseach condensed into a single book. The Power of Intuition and Working Minds were more how-to guides for the lay manager & cognitive specialist respectively.
In "Streetlights & Shadows", you get the impression that GK has had a lot of debates with people who disagree with him. GK strikes me as the kinda guy who will go off and ponder unsatisfactory discussions, sometimes for years, until he gets an answer that he's happy with.
This is an immensely rich book but it's not for those seeking easy answers or quick tips & tricks. With luck, it may even make you think as deeply as Gary Klein.
In "Streetlights & Shadows", you get the impression that GK has had a lot of debates with people who disagree with him. GK strikes me as the kinda guy who will go off and ponder unsatisfactory discussions, sometimes for years, until he gets an answer that he's happy with.
This is an immensely rich book but it's not for those seeking easy answers or quick tips & tricks. With luck, it may even make you think as deeply as Gary Klein.
book review: information ecology
Tom Davenport's Information Ecology was published in 1997 and yet I've only just read it. This discovery came about because of some client work. We're trying get a handle on their information environment. Standard information architecture approaches felt inadequate to the task and I was left thinking "What we really need here is some kind of ecological approach to their information. If only someone had written a book on that. Wait a minute..."
So I got my copy and it pretty much lived up to expectations. It should be compulsory reading for all knowledge and information managers. It hasn't really dated, the issues it describes have if anything gotten more severe and its proffered solutions provide food for thought (whether you go with them or not). Plus second-hand copies are stupidly cheap.
When I start my own KM degree, it will form part of the core reading list.
So I got my copy and it pretty much lived up to expectations. It should be compulsory reading for all knowledge and information managers. It hasn't really dated, the issues it describes have if anything gotten more severe and its proffered solutions provide food for thought (whether you go with them or not). Plus second-hand copies are stupidly cheap.
When I start my own KM degree, it will form part of the core reading list.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
i only have 2 problems with the term "design thinking"...
...And those are the words "design" and "thinking".
It's the New. Hot. Thing. Over the Christmas break, I read Change by Design and The Design of Business (having consumed The Ten Faces of Innovation a couple of years ago) - and there are several other books on the topic available.
So what is design thinking?
Well, according to Roger Martin, it's abduction - which is all very clever but not especially helpful. More helpful is the chapter in TDOB devoted to P&G's attempts to become an innovative organisation.
So is "design thinking" just a another phrase for "innovation" then? It will probably be used that way. Expect organizations that want to look good in their annual reports without actually doing anything new to create "Head of Design Thinking" roles and then axe them 18 months later.
For those of us who wish to take this opportunity more seriously, design thinking seems to be made up of the following:
*Of course it is thinking but in a Damasio style not a Cartesian one.
It's the New. Hot. Thing. Over the Christmas break, I read Change by Design and The Design of Business (having consumed The Ten Faces of Innovation a couple of years ago) - and there are several other books on the topic available.
So what is design thinking?
Well, according to Roger Martin, it's abduction - which is all very clever but not especially helpful. More helpful is the chapter in TDOB devoted to P&G's attempts to become an innovative organisation.
So is "design thinking" just a another phrase for "innovation" then? It will probably be used that way. Expect organizations that want to look good in their annual reports without actually doing anything new to create "Head of Design Thinking" roles and then axe them 18 months later.
For those of us who wish to take this opportunity more seriously, design thinking seems to be made up of the following:
- A human-centred (rather than technology-centred) approach to innovation & improvement.
- A systemic concern with the total user experience rather than a narrow focus on a particular product or service.
- A focus on unarticulated needs rather than articulated wants requiring immersive research techniques.
- A willingness to visualise & prototype solutions rather than relying on words alone.
- A willingness to iterate solutions rather than expecting them to be immediately fully-formed.
- An appreciation of the power of storytelling, theatre and emotional communication in general.
*Of course it is thinking but in a Damasio style not a Cartesian one.
Friday, January 01, 2010
enterprise 2.0 book review: is an andrew mcafee a communist?
I've just finished Andrew McAfee's Enterprise 2.0 book*.
There are two good things to say about the book and one criticism:
Good thing 1: Having a Harvard (now MIT) academic talk about the use of social software in the enterprise (plus a handy label) gave it respectability. The book continues that process of maturation. it doesn't hurt that from the opening sentence, it's well-written.
Good thing 2: Although much of the book seems to pull together the thinking & comments of others, AM does have something to contribute - the bull's eye model of strong/weak/potential/no ties. This provides an important perspective on how different social software tools work in different contexts.
Criticism: The last chapter in the book is entitled "Looking Ahead" and draws on Model 1 / Model 2 of Chris Argyris**. Although AM states: It is critical to stress that Enterprise 2.0 alone will not move people and organizations from Model 1 to Model 2 theories-in-use, he believes that they have a major role to play.
In this, he reminds me a lot of Karl Marx. Marx believed that human beings were corrupted by the economic system in which they operated (i.e. capitalism). Remove them from the bad system and everything would be OK. The thing is that environments & institutions can make human beings better or worse but hierarchy & social gaming are built into human nature. We are constantly in competition and co-operation at the same time.
So I personally think that Enterprise 2.0 technologies will have a comparatively small impact (but nonetheless one worth paying attention to) in how organizations work and workers collaborate. I think their combined historical impact will be less than email and other forces will actually drive more corporate openness (or indeed closure).
Of course, the thing about technology & social change is that you never can tell. Enterprise 2.0 is worth putting in the risky end of a barbell strategy.
*I wanted to link to the HBSP info but their site is screwed.
**This morning I was rereading chapter of 6 of Changing the Conversation in Organizations, where Patricia Shaw very carefully takes apart the tradition that Argyis comes from.
There are two good things to say about the book and one criticism:
Good thing 1: Having a Harvard (now MIT) academic talk about the use of social software in the enterprise (plus a handy label) gave it respectability. The book continues that process of maturation. it doesn't hurt that from the opening sentence, it's well-written.
Good thing 2: Although much of the book seems to pull together the thinking & comments of others, AM does have something to contribute - the bull's eye model of strong/weak/potential/no ties. This provides an important perspective on how different social software tools work in different contexts.
Criticism: The last chapter in the book is entitled "Looking Ahead" and draws on Model 1 / Model 2 of Chris Argyris**. Although AM states: It is critical to stress that Enterprise 2.0 alone will not move people and organizations from Model 1 to Model 2 theories-in-use, he believes that they have a major role to play.
In this, he reminds me a lot of Karl Marx. Marx believed that human beings were corrupted by the economic system in which they operated (i.e. capitalism). Remove them from the bad system and everything would be OK. The thing is that environments & institutions can make human beings better or worse but hierarchy & social gaming are built into human nature. We are constantly in competition and co-operation at the same time.
So I personally think that Enterprise 2.0 technologies will have a comparatively small impact (but nonetheless one worth paying attention to) in how organizations work and workers collaborate. I think their combined historical impact will be less than email and other forces will actually drive more corporate openness (or indeed closure).
Of course, the thing about technology & social change is that you never can tell. Enterprise 2.0 is worth putting in the risky end of a barbell strategy.
*I wanted to link to the HBSP info but their site is screwed.
**This morning I was rereading chapter of 6 of Changing the Conversation in Organizations, where Patricia Shaw very carefully takes apart the tradition that Argyis comes from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)