How to Listen

1. Pay attention
2. Don’t talk
3. Don’t think about your reply while the other person is still speaking
4. Pause before replying
5. Think about what the other person has said
6. If it’s helpful, say back to them what you understood they said

How do you excel at listening?  What do you do badly?  What tips can you share to listen better?

A place for everything; and everything in its place

I’ve always wanted to be the sort of person who could honestly say things like “a place for everything – and everything in its place!” It is so organised, so logical and so likely that you could actually find things again. Even though our desire for order and organisation is strong, the tendency to be disorganised is ever present – at least with me.

One of my favourite quotes is from Gustave Flaubert – the French author of Madame Bovary. “Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work.”

As the complexity of our work increases, so the need for order increases. As the complexity of the problems we wish to solve, so the need for organisation increases. As the number of people we involve in our endeavours, so the need for regular orderliness increases. When this order is missing, so unproductive thrashing increases.

I was talking to someone yesterday about an interesting (and far from straightforward) business problem. As we talked and I tried to understand their approach, it became clear that one issue was having information in different places. Whilst the system we were discussing was in constant use, other information was in other places and getting no attention. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the information was lost – but another few months, or years and it may well be lost. Or at least forgotten about so it will be of no use.

So it seems that both my grandfather and Flaubert were right. Whilst Flaubert is known for his scrupulous devotion to his art and style, he is also known as being one of our greatest ever novelists. He was certainly violent and original in his work - which is not bad for such a short life.

Know Thyself

To thine own self be true

Shakespeare’s words ring as true today as the day he wrote them. If we are not true to ourselves, we will forever follow the direction of the wind. But how well do we actually understand ourselves? Apparently I wasn’t the only one who didn’t come with a manual. We all go through life trying to figure out what we like, what we don’t like, what makes us happy, and what doesn’t. What are we good at, and what just doesn’t fit with our temperament.

It’s a slow and sometimes torturous journey with many twists and turns and a fair number of false starts. But as we grow as people, so our understanding of who we are also grows. Or at least it grows somewhere in the back of our minds, in our subconscious. It’s rare that we step back and take a good hard look at ourselves.

But when we do look at ourselves, we find patterns that repeat themselves. I make sense of the world through words – writing and reading. It’s how I am. You may make sense of the world through numbers. Others may be visual. There’s a big difference in these different types, and it moulds our careers and what we do when we want to relax.

So would our lives be different if we DID come with a manual? I think they might. Knowing whether we should put diesel or petrol into the car means our cars last much longer. If we just kept trying one and then the other, murmuring, “No, I think it went better with the petrol” we probably would never have built motorways. Yet still we insist on eating foods that don’t agree with us, we don’t take enough exercise, and we don’t really understand our strengths and weaknesses.

Of course the fact that a manual didn’t arrive in the package when we were born doesn’t stop us creating our own. It might take a few drafts to get to something that seems to work, but it might be a big improvement on having no manual at all.

How to proofread for zero defects

Over the Christmas break I was asked about how to improve attention to detail and proofread work so that it is error-free. It’s an interesting question and one I have given much thought to over the years.

So, on something of a tangential note for the New Year, here are my tips for proofreading and zero defect copy:

1. Allow time between finishing the work and proofreading. Ideally this would be several days or at least overnight, but even an hour or two will help. Allowing the brain to focus on other things allows you to come back to your work with a more detached view.
2. Read the document several times to check for different things, eg whether it makes sense, whether it flows nicely, whether it is factually accurate, whether there are any misleading sentences, etc. Proofreading is not the same as reading through your work. We often mix up proofreading with these other activities, trying to do too many things in one reading. Separate them out to improve accuracy.
3. Use an eye-guide such as a ruler, your finger or the cursor to check each sentence slowly and methodically. Because we are capable of reading quickly, we do. But proofreading requires us to slow down and purposefully read each word. The physical act of moving a ruler or a finger helps.
4. Change the look of the document. Word processors enable us to very quickly change things such as the margins, font or pagination to get a different view of the text. Make the text larger to see if errors are easier to spot.
5. Use the spell checker. This is standard in most word processors but some software requires it to be switched on. Never release a document without spell checking it.
6. Read your work aloud. This has two benefits; firstly you “hear” errors more clearly aloud than when you are reading to yourself. Secondly, it slows down the process, also making errors easier to find.
7. Always go back and re-check your work after you make a change. Many mistakes slip through because of last-minute changes that alter the sense or structure of a sentence. If you make a change, carefully re-check that section.
8. Ask someone else to read your work. No book publisher would ever allow a book to be printed without several people carefully checking it. Someone else will more easily spot awkward sentences, sentences that make no sense, spellos, typos and other gremlins. Even better if you know someone who is a stickler for grammar and punctuation.
9. Concentrate on the proofreading process. Often this “last lap” is done without the attention it deserves. We allow our minds to wander as we work. Proofreading for zero defects is strenuous and requires 100% concentration.
10. Listen to your inner voice. Often we notice errors even though we don’t do anything about them. Grammatical errors or using the wrong word register with us on a subconscious level; listening to your inner voice at the checking stage often saves a red face later.
11. Have good references. Using a good dictionary, a good thesaurus and style guide all help in quickly checking the correct word or phrasing.
12. Create your own checklists. A checklist for things to check, eg grammar, style, readability, clarity, accuracy, completeness, spelling, typos, accuracy of numbers, etc. A checklist for favourite mistakes, eg words you frequently misspell or grammatical errors you make often. Every time a mistake creeps into your work, add it to the checklist so you improve next time.
13. Create your own style guide. Each industry has its own best practice. Create a style guide that includes common company names, abbreviations used in your industry, etc. Include good examples of other people’s work. Include favourite references such as dictionaries or web sites that are useful. This is another feedback loop that helps improve writing with every piece that is published.
14. Read your work in different ways. As authors of our work, we start at the beginning and lovingly read through every word. Readers don’t do that. They scan the title, intro and random paragraphs to see if it looks interesting. They miss bits out or skip to the part that is relevant to them. Simulate a reader’s behaviour by reading random sections, or parts you know might be read out of context. Do they make sense? Are they clear and unambiguous? Try reading backwards and focusing on each word rather than the sense.
15. Proofread from a printout; don’t rely on working from the screen. I know it’s not ecologically sound, but moving away from the computer to a quiet place makes a big difference. You can work slower and more thoughtfully.
16. Build proofreading time into your schedule. Nothing ruins good work like silly errors that should have been picked up long before they get to the reader. It is tempting to think they don’t matter, but readers subconsciously mistrust error-prone work.
17. Use a professional service. I have employed a copywriter to check my work for important work and it doesn’t have to be costly. If you have a large or important document, it could be worthwhile.

It’s a long list. And I’ll admit to having made each and every mistake going. Working in the software industry teaches accuracy, even if it doesn’t come easily and is an on-going struggle. But proofreading and producing zero-defect work is a process rather than a talent. Certainly some people have better attention to detail than others, but technology and checklists help.

Does anyone else have any tips or techniques to share? I’m sure there are more and I’d love to hear!

The gentle art of working together

People can be prickly sometimes, can’t they? We easily get upset when left off the email distribution list for one of our projects, or when someone doesn’t invite us to a meeting. Rightly so – work is an important part of everyone’s lives.

As work becomes more complex, and pressures build to do more, we need better ways to collaborate and share. Email gets a message from one machine to another, but does nothing to help organise and prioritise. The internet has done a great deal to put more at our finger tips, but sometimes the result is overwhelming – so much information, so much to do, and so little organisation.

Within Anatec we use Microsoft SharePoint to share information and coordinate goals. That’s not a great surprise as we are Microsoft Certified Partners. But I think everyone’s needs concerning collaboration are pretty similar. Here is my top ten list of what’s important to get the best out of other people:

1. Be clear. Collaboration sites need to have a good hierarchical structure so information is easy to find. Colour coding by department can help orient people in a large site.
2. Make it attractive. Just because it’s work doesn’t mean to say that the look and feel of your collaboration site isn’t important. The better it looks, the more likely it will be to be used. Have a house style so that fonts and headline sizes are used consistently: it’s a lot easier on the eye.
3. Consistency of purpose. Make objectives consistent and visible and ensure company communications reflect current priorities.
4. Time to think. Make key documents or discussions available to everyone involved. The more time people have to mull over a problem, the better their input will be.
5. No surprises. Ensure key dates are visible well ahead of time. A shared company calendar with dates for exhibitions, people’s holidays, key presentations, etc. helps to keep people focused on the major events during the month.
6. Make it inspirational. Whatever your line of work there are people who will live better lives as a result of what you do. Share the inspiration with your co-workers though words or pictures.
7. Keep content up-to-date. Intranets are a great place to share things, but they need to be kept up-to-date and they need to keep people’s attention. If they always see the same old stuff, pretty soon they will stop reading. If there is a key report you can share though your intranet, then do. People will get familiar with the structure and content by using it more.
8. Make it interesting. Is there a relevant RSS feed you could include on your home page? Can you use appropriate and attractive pictures to help get your message across? It all makes work more enjoyable, and collaboration more effective.
9. Don’t make it optional. Whenever a new system is introduced, there is always resistance. Don’t be tempted to keep emailing documents, just because it’s easier. Put the document on your collaboration site and then email the link. Keep on eye on what people are accessing to make sure its being used.
10. Get everyone involved. Collaboration is exactly that – people working together to create something more than one person could do alone. Ensure there is a structure to the way you work, then use it at every opportunity - in meetings, as a way of discussing things, even as internal presentations.

Collaboration through intranets is not new, but options are opening up for smaller companies to use tools that the big boys have enjoyed for years.

Asking the right questions

So often in life we search for solutions. We look for the answers to our problems, both in business and our private lives. Yet so often it isn’t the right answer that is eluding us, but the right question.

I’ve recently finished reading The Snowball by Alice Schroeder, the biography of Warren Buffett. Readers from nearby planets should know that Warren Buffett is one of earth’s richest men, and an astonishingly successful investor. She paints a vivid picture of his approach to investing. Rather than ask “Should I buy this stock at this price?” Buffett asks “What is this stock worth?” The difference may appear subtle, but the effect is dramatic.

The first question assumes the stock price is reasonable, and the decision hinges around whether you believe it will rise in value or the company will maintain its dividends. The second question is more arrogant: it attacks the very heart of the system. By going back to first principles Buffett ignores the market, and comes to his own independent conclusions as to the value of what is on sale.

It is clearly a successful approach because Buffett’s net worth has more zero’s on the end than this blog has space for.

Putting in a new software system also prompts questions. I see many companies approach the decision by asking “Should we install this software in our business? What benefits will we get by using it?”

Whereas perhaps the question could be better phrased as “What do we need to achieve in our business, and how are we going to get there?” The answer might or might not include software, but the process of figuring out what the objective is, and what the best steps are to achieve it, will produce a better result than concentrating on the functionality of any or even several software packages.

Peter Drucker famously asked “If you weren’t already in the business [you are already in], would you enter it today?”

It’s a tough question that requires some hard thought. And is likely to provide some valuable insights into your business, your competitors, and the direction the market is heading. It encourages independent thought, not a follow-the-leader mentality. I think that’s a useful skill in life and in business.

Measuring and managing performance

Why measuring financial performance matters

Business performance is financial performance, make no mistake about it. The companies with the largest turnovers, the biggest market capitalisations, highest profits are the most successful. These are the companies that make good strategic decisions and create value for their customers, as well as ensuring their shareholders are financially rewarded.

The business of business is business, and unless a company generates sufficient profit there is no opportunity to achieve softer objectives such as creating a good working environment for staff, or being a good corporate citizen.

Not-for-profit organisations also have important financial considerations. Whether financed by grants, taxes or charitable donations there is a duty to provide value for customers and stakeholders. At the very least not-for-profit organisations must demonstrate good financial control and appropriate use of funds.

So if finance is the overriding consideration for most organisations – why measure anything else?

The answer is simple. Excellent financial performance is the result of good decision making and creating value for customers, not the cause. Financial performance is a measure of how well a company has done from a number of different viewpoints: marketing, production, financial control, research & development, training, etc.

Unless financial results are measured, however, there is no objective way of assessing how effective an organisation is. It is clear that sound measurement and management of business activities such as marketing campaigns, new product development, improving productivity, or training staff are the way to achieve better financial performance.

So the burning questions remain – how do you measure and manage the performance of all these constituent parts in order to create value for customers? How do you ensure these initiatives reap the appropriate financial returns?

Why measuring non-financials matters more

As far back as the 1950’s major corporations were realising that measuring the financials was essentially a backwards looking activity. For organisations to perform better, they had to look forwards and measure the full range of activities that contribute to their success.

Perhaps the most influential writers on the subject in recent years have been Robert Kaplan and David Norton. In 1992 they published an article in Harvard Business Review called The Balanced Scorecard in which they argued that four key aspects of a business must be measured and managed in relation to the organisation’s strategy:

1. Financial performance


2. Customer focus


3. Internal business process


4. Learning and Growth.

This has been an enormously influential model – not least because it links measurement and management to strategy. Since their ideas were first published it has been adopted to a greater or lesser extent by many leading organisations.

There are undoubtedly other ways to divide up the activities of businesses and organisations, but the four quadrants of the Balanced Scorecard provide an excellent start.

Even with such a framework there are a host of possibilities, initiatives, projects and measurements to consider. Once decisions have been made as to what to progress and what to discard initiatives then have to be managed, monitored and evaluated to assess their success.

Performance management, measurement, and evaluation is a rich and varied set of disciplines that enable organisations to put a framework on the complex business of improving performance.

Disregard. Plough your own furrow

We live in a world where communication and teamwork is considered beneficial, which it mostly is. I say mostly because there are occasions when solitary work is important, times when disregarding the outside world is more important than studying it.

There have been times during my career when my betters encouraged total disregard for others’ pricing, marketing activities, or system design. Back then this was confusing – surely more information is better than less information? Well sometimes, but not always.

The rationale is that with too much information we get swamped and are unable to move. Comparisons become stifling and all creativity is gone. Whereas starting with a blank sheet of paper and asking elementary questions can produce startling new revelations.

As I was working on a systems problem yesterday, I did exactly that. I went back to basics and asked “what’s really the problem here?” It produced some interesting, and different answers. The technique is not without its dangers – others could have come up with different or better answers. But maybe that is a great deal less dangerous that coming up with me-too ideas and solutions.

The physicist Richard Feynman went through a period from 1961 to 1967 when he was remarkably unproductive. It seemed as if his genius was used up and he was fresh out of ideas. It took a conversation with James Watson, who together with Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, to awaken his creativity. After having read Watson’s book “The Double Helix” he fretted over it for some time.

His conclusion was scribbled on a notepad, surrounded by jottings and doodles. In the centre of the page Feynman had written “DISREGARD.” He realised that this was what he had been missing; this was why his work had been poor. He realised he had to get curious again, go back to disregarding others’ work and asking his own questions of why things worked as they did.

Reading of Watson & Crick’s discovery enabled him to uncover the reasons for his own lack of productivity.

It is similar to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s ideas encapsulated in his marvellous essay “Self Reliance.” Taking too much note of what others think does not always pay.

I realise now that this is fundamental to my work as a systems analyst –I have to disregard the accepted “truth” that others offer. Because a problem is just that – a difficulty that has yet to be overcome – and disregarding the accepted wisdom is one way of approaching a problem.

"Disregard" and "Plough Your Own Furrow" are useful concepts for many problems, not just physics or designing software.

4 simple steps to clarifying your objectives

“To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.” Benjamin Disraeli

Having a clear end point is a fundamental to success: the clearer the vision, the greater the chances of success.

But what if you can’t quite see the end point? What if you are still feeling your way? What if there are unanswered questions and more feedback that is needed?

This is a problem with clarifying objectives – there are always unknowns, always things that change and always unforeseen events.

The key is to identify what is known and what is unknown. When they are muddled up together it is difficult to where you are or how you should proceed. Or indeed, whether you should proceed at all.

1. Clarify what is known. Define the certainties and agreed them.
2. Clarify what is not known. Have a symbol in your planning document that clearly shows uncertainties and unknowns.
3. Prioritise the unknowns. Some may be fundamental to your goals, while others will be incidental. Identifying the uncertainties enables you to start prioritising them.
4. Plan. Figure out a plan of action to deal with the unknowns. This may or may not change what you had previously known, but that’s fine. What’s important is that you have moved forward.
   

Clarifying, sorting, prioritising and planning provide a simple and effective way forward. I use it extensively in systems analysis. During a process of investigation there are many things that are on a continuum from known to unknown. Sorting them out and systematically dealing with them is part of the process of designing a great system. It is also part of succeeding with any type of project.

Try it today with your most important project. It needn’t take long, but will help move you forward more confidently.

Let's talk about Measurement

There is no other subject I have found to be as quick at generating comments as measurement.

Only yesterday I was discussing the 100-day habit idea when the conversation veered towards the complexity of the reasons for wanting to, for example, give up caffeine. The reasons why are, after all, so much more complex and interesting. Yes, I argued, but they obfuscate – one cannot see whether or not the habit is being formed without measuring the number of days one has abstained.

The measurement idea is simple, and reveals nothing or little of the complexity. But it is a highly effective way of defining success or failure. It seems, though, it is also disturbing. I don’t think people like bald measures that hold no insights into the why’s and wherefore’s.

Another example is Toastmasters – the club I attend to practice public speaking.

One of the first Toastmaster goals is to complete the first manual of 10 speeches. The quality of speeches that people give varies enormously – from the well prepared to the barely prepared, the intelligent to the flippant, the funny to the downright embarrassing. Yet despite all of this, there are very few people who are not better public speakers once they have finished those 10 speeches. As someone once wryly pointed out - he had never known anyone get worse.

So despite the differing quality and styles, the number of speeches gives an indication of competence. It is only an indication, of course, even if I did 100 speeches I don’t think I would ever get up to Obama’s standards, although it might be an interesting test.

I consider measurement to be one of the fundamentals in increasing performance. It’s not the only one, but it is a cornerstone.

As Lord Kelvin so succinctly pointed out - if you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.

Work the problem

Anyone who has not been in a coma this last week will know it is the 40th Anniversary of Armstrong and Aldrin landing on the moon. Whatever your views on the space programme it is hard not to be impressed by the scientific and engineering achievements this milestone represented.

As footage of the space missions is played over and over again (at least in my house) one phrase is heard repeatedly:

“Work the problem, guys.” “Work the problem.”

I can find no evidence that the words “work the problem” were uttered with the regularity that the film footage suggests, but I can imagine something similar might have been said.

As tempers and personalities flare and flash it is tempting to get defocused with who did what and why, instead of what needs to be done. NASA couldn’t afford to defocus; this was a critical time for them. They knew the eyes of the world were upon them, and that they were working with difficult and untried technology. They also knew that mistakes could mean the loss of life of their colleagues. I can’t imagine anything with more pressure.

So those 3 simple words encapsulate quite a lot:

• Stay focused on the issue
• Don’t let irrelevant details take attention away from what needs to be done
• Keep focused until the problem is solved

Having a process to solve problems can save time and tantrums, and improve the final outcome:

• Identify and define the problem
• Determine possible causes
• Agree the cause of the problem
• Evaluate possible solutions and select one
• Implement the solution
• Check that the problem has been solved

Not all our problems are rocket science, but that doesn’t make them any less important in achieving our goals.

Use Your Talents

I wrote yesterday about the genius next door: someone you know socially but have no idea about the contribution they have made to their field. It was inspired by a lovely comment from a reader who pointed out that geniuses have to live next door to someone, and sometimes we need to look up and see who is around us.

The unknown genius next door is one thing, but what if you get introduced to an acknowledged major talent? The word genius is perhaps a bit strong as we tend to think of geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci or Einstein, and so no on else measures up. But there are many more who have been blessed with a talent and have diligently used it to make a real contribution in their work and to humanity.

The other evening I found myself sitting opposite such an individual. Well practiced in the art of small talk I invited him to tell me about his work – expecting a short explanation of his field. Not normally a high-risk question - except if you are sitting opposite a theoretical mathematician. Obviously.

I was introduced to the complexities of ring theory and matrices, although the explanation was dumbed down for my benefit. As the explanation progressed (at reasonable speed) he occasionally looked up and asked “do you recognise this equation?” or “you have heard of this?” or some other such question. As I failed to live up to the most basic expectation comments such as “I’m surprised you’ve not seen this before” were thrown in. If this is making it sound like a maths lesson, I’m doing him a grave injustice. It was a fascinating and friendly insight into a different world, a rarefied place where those who make genuine breakthroughs in algebra live.

He has a mathematical matrix named after him. Awesome.

On the way home I thought about Radio 4’s “Thought for the Day” when The Rev. Rosemary Lain-Priestley spoke of the Parable of Talents. Use Your Talents wisely, Jesus preached. Those who do not were judged harshly by Jesus, but those who do use their talents to generate wealth were praised. It was a fitting thought for the drive in to work.

It seems to me that we are all blessed with talents, but not everyone uses them wisely. I know I go about my day without a thought of any talents I might have, or how they manifest themselves in my work.

As individuals, managers and parents, however, we need to be aware of our own, and others’ talents. We need to encourage the best out of ourselves and those around us. Most of us won’t have some major breakthrough carrying our name, but that doesn’t matter. What the Parable of the Talents teaches is that we should not squander the talents we have. All contributions matter.

I now have a napkin covered in algebra. I’m hoping its similarities with the napkin Picasso signed are recognised. In the meantime, though, I will be using my talents just in case theoretical mathematics never gets to hang in The Tate.

Nuclear Fusion's promise

I am one of those illogical people who is amazed when something of world importance happens to be on my doorstep. I mean – it has to be on someone’s doorstep, doesn’t it?

Culham is home to UKAEA’s research facility into Nuclear Fusion and is the world’s most advanced magnetic confinement research programme anywhere in the world. It is home to MAST (the UK’s fusion machine) and JET (the EU’s Joint European Torus). Nuclear Fusion is probably the most difficult thing that mankind has ever attempted, so the work they are doing on my doorstep is right up there on world-scale impressive things. I visited Culham last week and was shown around their impressive facilities. It is fascinating stuff and provides more than a little food for thought.

Let’s start with Nuclear Fusion. It has been described by a certain dishy physicist as mankind’s “Get Out of Gaol Free Card”. We don’t appear to have too many other answers about how we are going to supply an ever-increasingly energy hungry world with electricity that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels. Renewables such as wind, tidal, hydro and solar will play their part but there is no realistic likelihood that they will be able to replace the amounts of electricity that we are generating using coal, oil and gas – we simply couldn’t install enough of them. Nuclear Fission (traditional nuclear power stations) is a likely stop-gap but has significant problems, not least of which is managing waste which is radioactive for thousands of years. So Nuclear Fusion carries heavy expectation on its shoulders – it promises big advantages in the conundrum of how to produce electricity without frying the planet or using up resources that future generations also have a claim to.

But therein lies the rub – it’s still a promise, a hope, a research facility. And will remain so for some years. The reasons are twofold – one is that it is extremely difficult to do, and the second is that it is underfunded: the second reason only being slightly more controversial than the first.

Nuclear fusion produces energy by fusing atoms together at massively high temperatures. It is the same process at the heart of the sun and the stars. But on earth we have to use much higher temperatures because we cannot reproduce the mass of the sun. So where the sun is a mere 15 million degrees Celsius at its core, scientists have to heat plasma to 200 million degrees Celsius to get deuterium and tritium atoms to fuse together. It’s a tall order which is posing all sorts of problems and keeping some very bright brains more than occupied.

As for the funding issue, we spend about £75m per year on fusion research in the UK – that’s our own UK research on the MAST programme plus our contribution to the EU JET programme. Even I don’t think that’s a lot of money when you consider the scale of the problem and the potential benefits involved. We (that’s you and me the taxpayer) spent £1.6bn on refurbishing the MOD headquarters at Whitehall in 2007. It was agreed to be extremely good value considering the quality of marble and oak that was used. I only mention it to give you some sort of benchmark and so that we can be clear on where our priorities lie.

The UK’s energy spend each year is £75bn. So we are spending 0.1% of our energy expenditure on trying to find a credible replacement for our carbon-based fuels. In the meantime our government is collecting £780m in tax from the UK’s largest energy company. I hate to think what that figure might be if you added the tax from all the UK’s energy companies together.

By now I hope you are beginning to think that our efforts to replace carbon-based fuels are beginning to look a little half-hearted, despite what all those fluttering windmills would have you believe. Not all problems have an easy solution, and a deeply embedded problem like our addiction to carbon-based fuels took hundreds of years to take hold. Undoing the damage we realise we are now doing is going to take at least as much effort.

And for those interested in such things – the picture is of the sun taken by NASA at 7am this morning, Saturday 4th July 2009. Neat, huh?

The Great Climate Changing Debate

The end of the world is nigh! We are all going to die. Or fry. Or get 2 degrees warmer. Or something. Anyway, it’s not good, and Something Has To Be Done.

The Great Climate Debate at Reading University had a number of eminent scientists, researchers and thinkers; all sharing their views. The debate was about geo-engineering, or Playing God as it might be more succinctly described. Geo-engineering is all about manipulating the earth’s climate or atmosphere so as to moderate global warming. It doesn’t fix things; it just slows things down or reduces the effect. But it has to be large-scale - geo-engineering is not about tinkering – only grand gestures have any chance of doing good.

Unhelpful flippancy aside, it appears that something does indeed have to be done. Whilst the debate about the climate goes on, there is little doubt that we are pumping unhealthy amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And there is no immediate likelihood of us stopping – we like to light and heat our homes, we like driving wherever and whenever we want to. So we have to look at all options. The question is which ones, and to what degree do we fund them?

Do we paint the roads and buildings white? Well, no. As it turns out we inhabit too small an area of the earth’s surface for that to be useful. What about pumping sea-water into the clouds? Yes – good idea – but it needs money for research and how reversible is it? It is certainly a novel idea to cool down the planet - a bit like giving it a cold shower every now and again.

All of this is based on modelling what we think might happen if we go on as we are at present. Of course there are lots of assumptions in this – not least of which is that we will go on as we are now. This is a big assumption, because we may not. Energy prices might increase to the point where we start switching off lights we don’t need. Or new, cleaner ways of generating electricity might come on stream. I’m thinking of nuclear fusion, of course, which is admittedly still some years away, but so is all this geo-engineering.

What was most impressive about the debate was both the quality of the professional presentations, and the heat of discussion afterwards. Forgive the pun, but people really did feel strongly. There was enormous disagreement about how to move forward, but then I think that’s true of the energy debate overall. But people were certainly engaged in the issues. It was a thought-provoking and very worthwhile evening.

Energy rhetoric, but little data

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Milliband, argued in The Times yesterday that “we must try every option to shift to a low-carbon world”. He reasoned that energy security and climate change commitments were sufficient incentive to back the government’s policy of building new nuclear power plants.

I, for one, would like to see more data.

Let’s not forget that nuclear power is also a threat to the planet. Whilst melting ice is not a popular move with that most potent symbol of our planet – the polar bear - neither is waste that stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The choices may not be palatable, but surely all the more reason to have good data, presented clearly.

Renewable energy, he said should not be dismissed: wind is producing enough power for 2 million homes. 2,000,000 is indeed a large number – an impressive number even. But it is a meaningless number in the debate about energy and climate change. How many homes and businesses need power? And at what cost?

Milliband rightly pointed to the future with ideas such as “clean coal” which as soon as the technology is ready the government will ensure will be 100% committed to. Whilst he was quick to quantify the potential jobs that will be created through this R&D, he was less keen to share the costs even though they are equally quantifiable.

Neither did he talk of other technology which might provide low-carbon alternatives a great deal more palatable for our polar bears than sitting on radioactive waste for a million years. Yet they do exist.

This whole issue is quantifiable: cost of power, amounts of subsidies, carbon emissions, temperature changes, sea levels, thickness of ice, number of species. I could go on – they are many and varied and all absolutely quantifiable. Yet for some reason we prefer pictures of polar bears to clear data which would help us make good decisions about what mix of power to rely on.

The UK has armies of statisticians paid to collect, collate and present exactly this data. Couldn’t Mr Milliband have included some of their work? He was writing for The Times, after all.

6 things that seem to be true ... but are not

1. It should be easier than this. It should, shouldn’t it? But it isn’t. Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers writes some fascinating things about why some people are successful and others are not.


2. Other people don’t struggle like I do. Paul Simon said some people’s lives roll easy – and maybe he knew. My suspicion is that they had to work pretty hard too.


3. We have enough technology. We are too curious to be ever satisfied with the technology we have. There will always be something faster, smaller and whizzier. We won’t necessarily need it, but we will buy it anyway - particularly if it comes with a cool case.


4. Children grow up faster than they did in my day. Maybe, but children are still children – even though they sound scarily sophisticated. Love, nurturing and listening are needed as much today as ever.


5. You can build loyalty. Maybe you can buy it for a short term – but the battle starts over again every day. Business intelligence and performance management don’t top the IT Director’s shopping list for fun.


6. We can save enough energy to make a difference. After getting a new electricity meter counter gadget it has now become a hanging offence to turn on the spotlights in the hallway in my house. Using the last of the loo paper is a minor offence by comparison. Everyone is going green and saving energy – and quite right too. But it still won’t be enough to let all the world’s children grow up at the speed they are determined to.

Six rules about risk (and life)

One of my favourite software writers observes that the quickest way to deliver a project is not to make mistakes. It is good advice (although not that easy to follow), and risk management is part of project and performance management. As many organisations have too graphically illustrated, there is little point in aiming for peak performance if you destroy the very organisation you are trying to manage.

A friend recently sent me Dr Aswath Damodaran’s Six Rules of Risk Management, which I liked a lot. At the considerable risk of getting a reputation for loving lists, here it is:

1. Where there is an upside there is also a downside
2. There are no free lunches
3. There is no risk in the past - study the past but remember risk is in the future
4. Risk management is everyone’s problem
5. Plan to be a risk taker - hire the right people
6. Do everything you want to manage risk, but at the end of the day you also need luck.

An interesting list – I would quibble slightly with 2 and 6 – but no more than quibble. A lunch, at the end of the day is a lunch; losing Barings Bank (or whatever) is a little more serious. And luck is a highly debatable entity, don’t you think?

Emotional Intelligence

Award-winning business intelligence that changes lives

Business intelligence means different things to different people. But underlying any business intelligence project two things are normally found:

1. Desire to improve performance


2. Quantitative analysis

The one thing you don’t see in the above list is emotion. You can’t quantify emotion, and it’s not an easy thing to manage. Which is why the work done at Pfizer to get an important new drug into the market is so interesting.

It took business intelligence specialists’ persistence to uncover emotional barriers to a new drug that makes the lives of HIV sufferers considerably more comfortable.

The problem
Celsentri is a new drug that can be taken orally to slow down the HIV virus in some patients. Trials have shown the drug to be both effective and well tolerated within certain groups. However, a test was needed to identify those who would benefit. In an increasingly commercialised medical world, the cost of the test was seen as a barrier. However – despite the test being made available free of charge, there was still resistance to prescribing the drug. Why? It didn’t make sense – it was better for the patient, and the barrier had been removed from the doctors.

The solution
The business intelligence team already realised there was a hidden barrier to prescribing the new drug. Research was commissioned which used a three-pronged approach:

1. The research focused on before, during, and after the decision to switch treatment.


2. In-home interviews were conducted to allow in-depth and open discussions. Patients were encouraged to talk about problems with the decision to change drugs, and how they were advised.


3. Doctors were asked to map what they did, and when, onto a timeline. This removed ambiguity in discussions and allowed patterns to be seen in their decision making.

What emerged was that cost played little or no part in doctors’ reluctance to prescribe the drug. What was important were timescales to get results back, and that the test removed some of the decision-making away from skilled and experienced consultants. In other words, the reaction was part logical, and part emotional.

Pfizer changed the test, and with a renewed understanding of the problem, re-launched to a more accepting audience. As a result patients are now benefiting from a drug which is effective, and also easier to take.

Pfizer called their approach the Pfizer 6-D’s:

• Define the question
• Dig to address the question
• Discover customer perspectives
• Distill responses to build insights
• Develop marketing programs based on customer insights
• Deliver based on evidence

Unsurprisingly, the Business Intelligence specialist at Pfizer who oversaw the project, Andrew Sims, is now in line for a prestigious British Healthcare Business Intelligence award.

His approach is instructive - not only within the healthcare market, but for anyone involved with customers. Whilst Business Intelligence is a quantitative discipline, people are still people, and remembering the emotional angle is important.

Earth Hour - intelligence for the planet

I attended a Microsoft seminar last week and the subject of what’s in a name was discussed. Business intelligence is so much more than just business, isn’t it? It’s as relevant to business as it is to the public sector as to voluntary or charitable organisations. Business intelligence is for everyone – including, I believe, the planet.

You might have noticed that 28th March 2009 saw Earth Hour.

WWF asked 1bn citizens of the world to switch off their lights for one hour to show their concern. The campaign has generated a great deal of interest and support amongst those that care about the earth and the way we are treating it.

Yet I have to admit I was far from convinced. Yes, turning off the lights for an hour is fun and different. Yes, turning off the lights is a reminder of the enormous benefits we all take for granted with on-demand electricity. And yes, it was great to see so many people showing that they believe this issue is important.

But no, we are not debating the energy issue in a grown up way. No, people are not well informed enough about the alternatives. And no, I cannot understand why the most likely source of clean and efficient power is not higher on people's and politician’s agendas.

I guess I think the energy debate is a complicated one that affects all of us. But not all of us are being involved. At the same time as the government approves a new coal-fired power station, they also under-fund the best chance we have for clean and efficient fusion power that could be commercially viable as soon as 20 years from now – providing the right actions are taken. Yet very few people know about either decision.

As Earth Hours shows, however, they do care. They care passionately and WWF have done a wonderful job in highlighting the issue in such a fun way.

Business intelligence is about having enough data to make good decisions. Research has shown that business people make better decisions when they act on data, and not just intuition. So why are we driving the energy issue without the data? Just sitting in the dark for an hour isn’t going to help – we need better education and better information. We need intelligent data. Then maybe we will collectively make better decisions about how our children will keep their lights on.

The future's bright - but largely ignored

Britain is to have a new power station. It is claimed to be cleaner, more efficient, and, wait for it, will be coal fired. Yes, you heard – coal fired.

Like me, did you just check your calendar to see whether it really is 2009? That would be 2009 in the 21st century when we are all well aware of the

adverse effects of burning coal (greenhouse, gases, acid rain, the impact on the land, and much more besides). Plus we are doing all this in the full knowledge that coal is not a renewable energy source. It is the sort of decision that might have been excusable in the 60’s or 70’s, but surely not today.

So what’s the alternative?

There are

renewable energy sources - wind, solar, tidal and water. These are clean, with relatively little impact on the environment, but will never produce the majority of our power.

Then there are nuclear energy sources – nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Fission is in use today, with the main disadvantage of the extraordinary long time that the waste remains radioactive.

Nuclear fusion is not yet in production, but it has so many advantages you wonder why. It is clean, produces no greenhouse gases, with either no or little radioactive waste, and is safe. And it can produce electricity in the amounts we need to support an increasingly power-hungry world.

Generating power using fusion would answer most of the problems we currently have with energy production. That’s a pretty big thing for future generations, but it is largely not debated and not sufficiently funded. The reason? We are still some years away from a working fusion power plant and it doesn’t have the easy-sell that renewables have.

More research is needed to harness the power that we know can be created through fusing atoms together. We have some of the best scientific brains in Europe working on it, but they are hampered by lack of political will and lack of funding. More money is spent on ringtones in the UK than is spent on developing fusion. That says something about our priorities.

So what’s the link to metrics, and performance management? You guessed it – targets: government and EU targets. We have an EU mandated target to achieve 15% of our energy from marine renawables by 2020. Laudable in itself, but it means that the long term and the very significant benefits of

fusion are left off the agenda. That can’t be right.

Is it another case of measuring what’s easy, and palatable, whilst omitting the more challenging measures? In this world of 30-second sound bites and our obsession with celebrities, we risk neglecting what’s really important. Are we avoiding the decisions, and targets, that will make this planet a habitable place for our children’s children?