Comments

Tom, the supply chain issue is a Without Warning event of significant magnitude were just now beginning to get a glimpse into. I've been talking about it over on my Blog
WithoutWarningCoach.com. for several months now.

http://www.withoutwarningcoach.com/blog/supplychains

Here is my primary concern. Supply chains have been connected based on cost and efficiency. Today, a 5 cent part can shut a $100 million line. Adding to the complexity, products in supply chains have been diminished and a ready source of cash flow in this downturn. Now as demand starts to return, manufacturers are finding supplies inadequate or suppliers in throws of insolvency, unable to buy raw materials to mfg. products. this is a major issue on the horizon. Beware!!!

Posted by Rodney Johnson at May 20, 2009 3:32 PM

Just hope like hell that the supply chain management consulting firm that developed your systems and software for J.I.T. delivery WASN'T chosen by being the low bidder. Too many balls susceptible to being dropped. Proactivity a must. Now more than ever.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 20, 2009 4:59 PM

"...the Wall Street fiasco was started and accelerated by genius programmers whose programs effectively (and automatically) took over global financial markets."

Flashback to the movie "War Games."

"Would... you... like... to... play... a... GAME?"

Global economy. Much more than a chess match. Stakes WAY too high. No "do-overs."

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 20, 2009 5:03 PM

P.S.: ... and it looks like a lot of folks are banking on the little lever they turned in the voting booth last year functioning as a "RESET" switch.

Or maybe "CTRL+ALT+DELETE" is what we did. Nah. More like we unplugged and went for a "cold boot."

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 20, 2009 5:11 PM

All the above postings are wonderful and right on the money. Science and technology do not have the quality of being good or evil. Clearly, an ill- minded fellow can use state of the art to go against humankind without the unthinkables. In my view and respectful of lots of capitalism plus with lots of humanity, 98% of financial institutions need an 'in extremis' CHANGE in their business concepts/models.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at May 20, 2009 5:48 PM

"Of course the Wall Street fiasco was started and accelerated by genius programmers whose programs effectively (and automatically) took over global financial markets."

Many of us thought the tipping point was Congress & government/banks/mortgagers/ promoting housing loans to those who could not afford them with mortgages that were too inexpensive to start with - so that too many defaulted on loan payments & ended up in foreclosure.

Posted by C Love at May 20, 2009 6:03 PM

Speaking of the difficulties engendered by the global stock markets, I learned a lesson quickly in 1996. In the R&D efforts directly based on (or serving) the “industrial military complex,” there is this great rejection of overdoing it number crunching and the stemming modeling. In my experience, I have seen and found valuable to grant more relevance to a combined used of (FIRST AND FOREMOST) “Qualitative Analyses” and (SECOND) Espoused with responsible “Quantitative Analyses.” Issues like “fuzzy logic” and the apparent “illogicality” of quantum mechanics (whose visionary logic is embed ubiquitously) makes me (in my case) to be extremely careful with such qualitative analyzes without sacrificing the quantitative ones. On the stock markets, the insidious numericalization factor driven by (i) greed and (ii) lack of universal principles play hugely (and this for the great pain of the Global Economy and its corresponding ‘Global Finance’). More on this is at: http://www.slideshare.net/andresagostini/wall-street-and-main-streets-outrageous-inconvenient-facts-by-andres-agostini-arlington-virginia-usa-presentation

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at May 20, 2009 6:04 PM

"It describes in gory detail the vast interconnected systems of just-in-time management..."

Our interconnectedness, with central control in the hands of a few--namely big banks, seems like the single most major problem of globalization and the reason that a major fiasco will be more devastating than the Great Depression and plausible indeed. While we hear talk of "shoots of sunrays" this economic downturn does not seem to be by any stretch of the imagination over. Foreclosures rose by 32% since last year.

"Of course the Wall Street fiasco was started and accelerated by genius programmers whose programs effectively (and automatically) took over global financial markets."

These "genius programmers" are actually quants who used faulty VAR programs to validate bogus numbers that enabled them to double dip and rack up fees on the front end and back end while we give billions in bailout money not to address the problem but to uphold a faulty system. The mortgage scenario presented above is a red herring. One might rather speak of implicit and complicit collusion between Wall Street banks, credit agencies, and some members of Congress.

Senators Chris Dodd ® and Richard Shelby ® headed the powerful US Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. It would seem that they have been incompetent in their positions. But to lay the financial fiasco at the feet of government alone is simply ludicrous. The question to be asked is who benefited most? Not the government, homeowners or credit agencies—though all are culpable. Can you guess who?

Regarding technology, it does not create itself; neither does it inherently have a moral or ethical compass.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 20, 2009 6:57 PM

The Democrat dominated Congress is to blame since they came into power in 2006 with a mandate to fix the economy & stop the wars - they have made matters much worse with their incompetence & now 13% approval rating. Hopefully the nefarious Democrat "lead" Nancy Pelosi does the right thing & resigns - that is a valid start. The 90-6 Senate vote against the president on his incompetence regarding Gitmo is another sign of chaos that only a Barnes & Noble bag lady would approve of. The main recession catalyst is that too many deadbeats defaulted on home loans & left taxpayers holding the debt.

"These "genius programmers" are actually quants who used faulty VAR programs...". Sweet dreams with that rant! :>).

Posted by C Love at May 20, 2009 7:36 PM

"Of course the Wall Street fiasco was started and accelerated by genius programmers whose programs effectively (and automatically) took over global financial markets."

All these guys were doing was pursing their version of WOW.
Or were they shooting for an excellent failure?

By the way, how was the war in Iraq NOT a 'ready fire aim' project?
Rumsfeld and company were definitely pursing their version of WOW.

Posted by dan at May 20, 2009 8:27 PM

He had done so well for a while there. Now, I see that he has retreated again to an amnesia state. God, please let him recover soon. I would hate to thrash him about with a whip every which way reminding him repeatedly of the wretched past eight years and his very own fledging floundering Gingrichy galloping Googling anti-rigorous ranting. What a weakened whimsical waif.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 20, 2009 8:33 PM

"The main recession catalyst is that too many deadbeats defaulted on home loans & left taxpayers holding the debt."

This guy is puffing on a serious pipe as he neglects to address the impetus behind the bogus financial instruments that were bundled and sold off and caused the likes of Berkshire, who also wrote such instruments, to lose its Triple-A credit rating, not that Moody's is credible in the very least itself now.

The general public who defaulted on these loans seems to have namely created the perfectly designed perfect storm.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 20, 2009 8:45 PM

"He had done so well for a while there. Now, I see that he has retreated again to an amnesia state. God, please let him recover soon. I would hate to thrash him about with a whip every which way reminding him repeatedly of the wretched past eight years and his very own fledging floundering Gingrichy galloping Googling anti-rigorous ranting. What a weakened whimsical waif.'

I take it you are talking about Tom.

Posted by dan at May 20, 2009 9:09 PM

Uh, no, dan. Guess again.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 20, 2009 10:14 PM

FLY THE USER-FRIENDLY SKIES.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. Thank you for flying with us today on No-Fault Airlines. We are now cruising at an altitude of 27,000 feet. At this time we would like to point out a couple of important safety items. Please watch the demonstration you see on the dim television screen in the front of the cabin. First, if you will look above your head, you will notice a small door. In the event of loss of cabin pressurization, that door will open and an oxygen mask will drop down in front of you. Place the mask over your mouth and nose and pull the elastic strap over your head and breathe in a desperately hyperventilating manner. To minimize anxiety in such a hypothetical emergency, we have added nitrous oxide to our emergency oxygen system so that you can die laughing.

"In the event of a crash landing in water, your seat back cushion will serve as a flotation device, provided it does not skip like a flat rock for an average of 113.9 miles across the ocean, eventually reaching shore like a spinning saw blade sailing through a small native village, striking and destroying the grass hut occupied by the native tribe's chief, killing him and half of the tribe's total population of 17 villagers, resulting in yet another financially devastating lawsuit against our airline and its parent company, Insolvency Unlimited Holdings, LLC.

"If you are asked to exit the plane in an emergency, the person seated nearest each door will find a keychain with a key to the exit door underneath his or her seat, provided that the duct tape holding it there has not lost its adhesion. The keychain is equipped with a single-LED light. That person should reluctantly and hopelessly remain at the door attempting to no avail to assist others in fighting their way to and through the emergency exit, resulting in two thirds of their fellow passengers being trampled to death in the process. Those passengers who survive this part of the emergency exit procedure are strongly encouraged to hold their breath during this exit, especially if we are underwater at the time, as the length of the oxygen tubing attached to your breathing device is only 4.3 feet, which was the computer simulated and calculated optimum length for a device that will probably be dry-rotted anyway. This person will also find a stack of prepared prayers to distribute to each passenger as they exit. These prayers are printed in 21 languages, all brought to you courtesy of some unheard-of religious sect which is located on an uncharted island in an undisclosed ocean in order to protect themselves from the gaming restrictions of virtually every known country. In order to fictitiously seem environmentally conscious, these prayers are printed on the thinnest possible papers -- usually on the back of financial records and memos we could not afford to shred prior to receiving court subpoenas for them -- so that they will rot away quickly, at least slightly offsetting a small percentage of the impact that all the fuel and plastic components of this plane will have on the ecology of the ocean for the next 7,625,839 years.

"Due to the current economy and No-Fault Airlines' desire to actually stay in business and keep as much of your money as possible, there are no stewardesses or hostesses on our planes. Should you feel hungry, there are vending machines hopefully still located in small areas near the front and rear of the cabin. Should you need change for these machines, that is not our problem. We chose not to put heavy change machines full of quarters on our planes to reduce weight and maximize profits. You will not need change anyway, as nothing in the machines is priced below $20. We are a business. All food items in the machines come in lightweight foil packages and consist of seventy year old military surplus M.R.E.'s to further reduce cost and weight. If you wish to reconstitute one of these products, we do not offer water on this flight due to weight and cost: pi$$ on it.

"We also ask that you adhere to the prearranged bathroom visit times, which are printed on the back of your official ticket -- which we know you do know actually have because you booked your flight online with CheaperNell.com. Upon visiting the toileting facilities, please do not produce excessive waste, as we are charged by the pound and gallon for disposal, and the taxes on these have recently been increased in almost all countries in order to keep the grass mowed in the cracks in the runways. Our toilets are equipped with highly sensitive measuring devices so that in the event you do produce more than your share of waste, you will be assessed a surcharge which must be paid prior to exiting the plane. This payment can be in the form of your first-born, next of kin, car titles, or property deeds, provided you have these documents with you and certify that any of the before mentioned four methods of payment are free and clear of any liens or other encumbrances. We do not accept credit cards because we can not afford the software to calculate currency exchange rates, and the 3% merchant's fee on credit card transactions already put is dire financial straits because we were using them to purchase fuel at whichever corner gas station was the cheapest. Which reminds us, should you hear the engines make an occasional strange noise, please do not be excessively alarmed as that is an expected and frequent occurrence when utilizing 10% ethanol regular unleaded gasoline in engines designed for high octane jet fuel.

"If you have any questions or need assistance during the flight, please pick up the telephone-style handset located in the small compartment between the seats. When you pick up this handset, you will be connected as soon as possible to an automated flight attendant system with voice prompts allowing you to choose from a variety or prerecorded, useless messages that probably will not help you in any way, but we hope that the background music you hear playing while waiting for a non-existent human being will sufficiently distract you and keep you from filing a complaint with a real person outside our company after the flight.

"We also ask that you refrain from knocking on the cockpit door expecting such niceties as letting your child meet the captain. It would be futile to do so, as there are actually no human beings flying the plane. We are totally automated, using logic control systems which are state-of-the-art, or at least the company said they were when we purchased them 41 years ago, all carelessly patched, retrofitted, and maintained by the lowest possible bidder to No-Fault Airlines. Or by the owner's niece's ex-boyfriend's eleven year old who is a real whiz at "Doom."

Beep... beep... "It seems that someone has used our automated system to report that a child has just thrown up all over seats 6 through 11... and we have an unidentified flying object headed directly toward us at a combined air speed of 924 mile per hour...

"Ladies and gentlemen, we will be landing shortly. About 192.6 miles short, to be precise...

"Logic error in line 372,724... this program has become unstable... you may press CTRL+ALT+DELETE to reset the system or simply turn off the power to this plane to reset. By doing so data in any open programs may be lost...

"..."

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 21, 2009 9:30 AM

Above comment semi-©Copyright 2009 by Dan Gunter, all rights deserved. This is a hopefully fictitious piece of literature and does not necessarily distract the opinions of any customer service committees, quality control, or safety teams or experts of any airline, governmental agency, life insurance company, Wall Street investment firm, or any of their agents or consultants, and any similarities whatsoever between this fictitious account and the actual experiences of any real passengers on any real flights on any real airlines is purely tragic.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 21, 2009 9:46 AM

The WSJ article got it completely wrong. JIT is NOT about cutting your ability to properly take care of your customers or about long, long supply chains dependent on cheap labor and the whims of half the world. That is actually the antithesis of JIT (or Lean Manufacturing). JIT and Lean Manufacturing are the keys to success in these weird economic times and every time I read some garbage like that WSJ article it boils my blood bigtime. It seems as though any ignorant peasant can get a job as a "journalist" these days, write anything the want and label it the truth. Ugh.

Posted by mike at May 21, 2009 6:02 PM

As an ex-programmer (although never in the genius category so this doesn't apply to me!) - I take issue a bit with blamming the programmers!

Coders are techies - yes they may sometimes have a flash of insight but generally they follow the business requirements.

If it helps to allay fears there is one key piece stopping this kind of event happening - competance!

Most companies struggle to get their own systems to basically work together let alone impacting anything else. Yes there have been some instances of multiple systems in the same area compounding problems but these are very rare in comparison to the amount of IT that goes on in the world.

Posted by PaulH at May 22, 2009 1:49 AM

PaulH, I'm not so certain that the programmers are being blamed or that they are actually at fault in any of these issues, really. They design systems based on a given set of parameters and conditions, using the data at hand, to design pure logic systems. It is the users at fault as much as anyone -- if not totally -- for depending solely on "logic" and "systems" to keep things running smoothly. Human beings have abilities such as "insight" and "hunches" that machines can never have, regardless of how fast the computers get or how sophisticated the code is that the machines execute. The ultimate "scenario running system" will always be a team of human beings that can figure out when it's time to ask a different "what if?" question. Computers are great for creating graphs and charts and maps and such when they are based on crunching a lot of numbers, but they can't "think things through" and ask "are these REALLY the numbers I should be considering and am I really seeing the relationships between input and output correctly?"

I helped set up the computer software used by a city's HAZMAT team. We had a state-of-the-art computer and the latest software, capable of drawing chemical "plume maps" based on everything from the particular chemical to the the temperature, humidity, and wind conditions. But I saw it as still being no more than an "educated guess." If the plume model was essentially saying "Evacuate people within six blocks in such-and-such direction" I didn't take that as-is. If there was an elementary school one block farther away, the computer didn't know that and didn't have the ability to imagine the wind picking up a couple of miles per hour more than forecast, changing the dispersion from six blocks in that direction to ten. I could just imagine the headlines: "273 students and faculty dead after accidental chemical release." If that had happened and in the interview I was quoted as saying "Well, the computer said to only evacuate for six blocks" it would not be the programmers at fault. It would not be the computer or software. It would be ME for not having the "intelligence" to make a REAL "judgment" based on experience and caution.

The closest a computer will ever come to "thinking" or "cognition" will be this: ASSUMING that whatever it was told to do was okay and that it was told the right way to do it. If a human being simply assumed such, we'd call him or her a naive idiot. Yet that's the equivalent of what the best of so-called "intelligent systems" do, and we so often trust the output only to regret it later.

These supply-chain problems, financial fiascoes, etc. might seem to some to be the result of computer errors, but they are really more like the result of human errors -- errors in judgment for falsely assuming that we were smart enough to create systems that could replace the human element or at least take precedence over it. With no contingency plans and with poor planning, the computers and the programmers become a scapegoat... a convenient direction in which to point the finger.

I love to produce video. The computer is a great tool for doing that. But the computer can not write the script for me, plan the shot, film it, decide which clips and scenes to capture to data files, arrange them, choose the effects, select the right music and arrange the video so that the pacing and transitions all work with the music passages, etc. If I send a video to a client and they think it sucks, I can't point the blame at the computer any more than the client could blame my computer if the final video does not help them attract more business or train their people better.

If my computer malfunctions and I'm late getting the video to the client, I still can't blame it on the computer. I made a commitment and should have lived up to it no matter what it took. That's why I have two systems for editing. If one fails, I use the other one and get the job done. If I didn't have a backup plan, or didn't know to look at the final rendered video to make sure there isn't a glitch in the file when it plays back or a problem with the DVD I burned and I let a problem slip through, then perhaps I AM dumber than the computer for being naive enough to think that merely having the thing means everything will be A-OK.

Neither life nor the infinite dynamics of the Universe can be reduced to a simple flowchart. That's all computer programs are -- flowcharts. Albeit very sophisticated ones, they are still just flowcharts.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 22, 2009 6:39 AM

The words of PaulH are well received from the standpoint of there being a grand scheme by programmers in general to defraud the system. The majority I'm sure create programs for the expressed purpose of bettering their companies within certain requirements. Companies, by and large I would assume, produce programs that will interface well with others that allow for efficiency and effectiveness.

Programmers in the above are one thing; quants are something else. Quants devise financial instruments based on Value-at-Risk measures, taught in business schools everywhere, that seems to create ongoing boom and burst cycles every ten years that we have come to know as a natural part of our capitalist system. But are they?

I’m no expert, but it seems that these cycles may be designed and not natural. Some get increasingly richer and others loose what they have only to build again and loose it again while the creators of such instruments benefit throughout, waiting on the next boom and bust cycle in a system that at times feels like a big racket with many players with greater or lesser risks.

Retirements lost, charities affected, college funds lessened, yet some were paid big, even those who shorted the market, betting against it, waiting for the bust—they too win in a bear or bull market. But no jail time for the creative VAR geniuses who created such “programming” as they were within the law, though apparently highly unethically so.

To give such companies billions in bailout, having created less value and more risk (it’s funny that such is called Value-at-Risk, eh?) and not DEMAND fundamental changes in how things are doing, including the law through regulation, seems criminal itself. Many are simply waiting for the public ire to again subside to return to business as usual in a lulled state. Are we there yet?

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 22, 2009 8:29 AM

The programming error is the human 'glitch' that makes us greedy.
People who made 50,000 dollars a year and took out 500,000 dollar mortgages were greedy.
The people who OK'd these loan to get their fees were greedy. The people who lobbied congress to change the rules so these things could take place were greedy. We are greedy because for most of our time on the planet, stuff was scarce, so getting as much as we could when it was available made perfect sense. In the 1950's, futurists predicted that by now, we would be able to at the same level people lived at in the 1950's by working only 4 hours a day. That actually happened - it just that we all have decided that the 1950's life style was not enough for us, so we work more and more so we can have more and more stuff because we are greedy. Blogs like this celebrate this greed by telling us how great it is to work and how we need to improve every product more and more so the products are more attractive and in effect fuel our greedy nature.
Why is empathy important? To get people to be more productive. Why is diversity important? So we can understand a wider set of peoples desires so we can get more and more people to buy stuff. Why is communication important? So you can perfect a message that will manipulate the people who work for you to work harder and harder to make more stuff to sell at a better price so more and more people can afford stuff they don't really need.

Posted by dan at May 22, 2009 1:34 PM

Bravissmo, dan, by and large! Thank you--much appreciated. There is also the necessity of continued improvement of products and innovation, including design. There musn't be a disavowal of what is basically human nature, the consistency of change and improvement. There is also something to be said here of personal responsiblity and for our very own rage against any detrimental machine--ways of relentless thinking.

A bit of your comment gives personal responsibility and choice into the hands of others, i.e., corporations and management gurus. Although, I'm sure many of these realize that perhaps they have not always done or said everything perfectly. Who has? In moving forward, we should be interested in real change. While marketing can be powerful and advice persuasive, we, the people, are responsible to stand up and reject what is detrimental to culture collectively.

Personally, I worry about those who will come after us. What kind of world will we leave them?

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 22, 2009 2:03 PM

"What kind of world will we leave them?"

A world that is "automated" to hell but not back if forget about responsibility, accountability, and how to actually THINK. We haven't gotten so enamored with our "systems" and machines that "people" seem to have been lost somewhere along the way.

"... of the people, by the people, and FOR the people." If those words were being penned today, would they read "of machines, by machines, and FOR machines" ??? I shudder to think they might.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 22, 2009 4:04 PM

"If those words were being penned today, would they read "of machines, by machines, and FOR machines" ???"

Probably not.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 22, 2009 5:25 PM

I fear that our lives, our time, and our priorities are more and more centered around the tools at times, rather than the tools making our lives easier and less stressful.

Example: high school kids that spend six hours per "school night" on a computer on myspace and facebook and can type 40 words-per-minute on a cell phone using only their thumbs, but they can not write a coherent sentence, much less write a research paper in school.

What is designed as a "convenience" in order to make existing tasks easier and "free up" time for us to enjoy so often and so easily ends up merely handicapping us and driving many to even lower levels of literacy and basic skills.

Our dependence on machines has grown to the point that we borderline expecting them to serve in humankind's stead.

Show me a man without a computer or cell phone when he's away from work and I'll show you a man who probably has a closer than average relationship with his wife and children. And perhaps with himself.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 22, 2009 7:31 PM

"Show me a man without a computer or cell phone when he's away from work and I'll show you a man who probably has a closer than average relationship with his wife and children. And perhaps with himself"

Outstanding observation Dan - well said.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 22, 2009 7:37 PM

We can find the balance. These online communities are also not all bad. After all, blogs are such and some of us are most certainly blogging more than others. Recently, I received an email from a very respected businessman four times my senior. He told me stories of his travels and speeches on colleges campuses. He had such faith. Inspiring! I will continue to do my part.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 22, 2009 10:05 PM

"Our dependence on machines has grown to the point that we borderline expecting them to serve in humankind's stead."

This seems way over the top.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 22, 2009 10:07 PM

Show me a man who thinks high school kids spend too much time on facebook and I'll show you a man who forgot how much his parents hated elvis or the beatles or jimi hendrix or the ramones - take your pick.

Posted by dan at May 22, 2009 11:08 PM

I firmly believe that far too many teenagers spend too much time on Facebook, MySpace, and various other "social networking" sites at the cost of decreased development of other more valuable interpersonal social skills, experiences, and education.

In my younger years -- and even today -- I never cared that much for Elvis, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, or the Ramones. And I could read well, write well, knew my multiplication tables (all the way to 12×12, mind you) and I didn't even have a computer to teach them to me. I knew how to use a printed dictionary and a set of encyclopedias (the kind that occupied a couple of full shelves.) In the event of a power failure or the telephone line being out of service, I did not find myself miserable and bored. I knew there was always a candle, matches, and a book or magazine to peruse.

I guess I was one of those weird human beings that appreciated the value of face-to-face communications and still do. I am one of those people that feels that if someone that lives within a block of you genuinely intends to be one of your best friends, they will show at least as much interest in spending face-to-face time together, out in the real world, as you do in a world that is very easy to create illusions in. It might also have something to do with why I tend to relate to people I work with on an atypical level. Should a rich famous man driving a much nicer automobile than the one I own choose to wave and smile at me, I do not consider myself to be so far beneath him in social status that I can't wave and smile back. I will return the gesture out of sheer courtesy, if for no other reason. I also do not consider a flagman on the highway to be be lower in social status than me, thus I will wave and smile at him, as I often do partially as a way of saying "Thank you, because you are actually doing something that is important, it benefits me and the other people on the highway, and I appreciate you for it." Doing either of these is painless and my experience is that all three of us might have a slightly better day for all having done so. People appreciate courtesy. A very profound notion for some people, no doubt.

I guess it's also why I don't feel compelled to go to places like Tom Peters' website seeking out fellow visitors to aim ridiculous remarks at for the mere thrill of it. I could. But I understand how rude that would be. I see no reason to be rude merely for thrills.

I respect Tom, I respect what he is trying to accomplish, and I respect my fellow guests. Now, should I choose to go and find a comment for the express purpose of antagonizing or belittling another visitor, I would have to accept and live with the fact that possibly unbeknown to me, the vast majority of other visitors would have no reason to respect me or my opinions, as I have demonstrated very poor character and judgment. In fact, I would imagine they would see me as a very immature, possibly insecure person. I also would not be surprised if there were "off-stage" dialog taking place in which I was described as being a total ass.

If I disagree with another guest's opinions on an intellectual or logical level, I will -- in an adult fashion -- attempt to engage in polite dialog on the matter, if I feel it is a matter worthy of discussing and that it somehow contributes in a positive way to the collective dialog desired herein. My intention is to explore pertinent matters in a mature fashion. I find that it is actually an enjoyable and easy thing to do. I even enjoy having my own thinking challenged, as it affords me the opportunity to look at things from multiple and contrasting points of view. The vast majority of visitors to Tom's website have a marvelous gift for doing that. Perhaps some were not born with this gift and never developed it in the course of their lives. Alas, even their best efforts to encourage me to try and view issues from a different perspective will be doomed to failure, as we humans tend to respond in kind to being approached and addressed in a respectful manner. At least most of us do. There are some people who do not reciprocate courtesy and respect.

Unfortunately, I do not control how others choose to behave or conduct themselves online. No matter. It's their reputation and credibility that's on the line should they choose to act like the Southernmost end of a Northern facing horse. Not mine. I will continue to enjoy the richness of the dialog by engaging in such in ways that are befitting of the very high caliber of Tom's site. All others I will endeavor heretofore to simply ignore.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 23, 2009 1:17 AM

on the one hand we talk about networking being THE skill of the future and then we worry about children spending too much time using the very tools that help this! There is no doubt in my mind that networking tools are going to be very important in the future - the current generation of tools are nowhere near this - in a few years facebook and even twine will be viewed as primative technology - but it's a start.

I still believe in face to face and perhaps these children don't do enough of that.

With my own son I have the usual parental concern about his hand writing speed and quality and yet learning to type quickly would be far more useful in the world of work.

Posted by PaulH at May 23, 2009 2:45 AM

Paul – It’s an interesting time we are living in. I just looooooove the new technology. I now have more friends I’ve never met than those I’ve met. The world is a much smaller place than when I was a kid. We can instantly communicate with anyone, anywhere, technology permitting. And yet there is still nothing like meeting a person face to face. I always say technology must remain the servant not the master. Technology will never replace that unique face to face moment when we know we have really connected. I am not at all sure about social networking sites. I’ve recently joined a Neighbourhood Watch Group in my village on Facebook. This I see as a very effective use of social networking tools. As regards ‘friends’ on Twitter and Facebook I often have a cull and remove people who have latched on to me for no apparent reason.

Teaching your kids to write is still of great value Paul – Trust Me I’m NOT a Doctor :-) ...

Have a great Saturday

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 23, 2009 7:16 AM

Perhaps if I would have read Dan Gunter's comment above thoroughly, I would have a different perspective. But from the pieces I snatched it appears that his attempt is to try and shape how others respond to his comments. This not only lacks skill to me, but it also seems like a weak attempt at leadership. To seek to engage in a conversation with another by simply expressing what others lack and what he he will not do in an effort to maintain his views also seems weak to me. Perhaps the more "mature" "adult" thing would be to simply do. "Be the change you wish to see."

We talk a lot here about engagement, diversity, and communication, but when it occurs in ways that are uncomfortable or in ways that we do not deem "courteous" or "adult"-like we lapse into words words words that make us feel better, perhaps even better than the person with whom we disagree. The lesson to be learned in communication is that others WILL NOT respond in ways that we always deem polite, nor always agree. But the significance is how we respond. Does your response evoke thought? Does it affect the discussion on any level?

Our "attempt to discuss pertinent matters in a mature fashion" often falls flat--as in dead. I find the statement below laughable indeed, if nothing more than the lame attempt to exert a moral high ground. "...perhaps some were born with this gift and never developed it in the course of their lives." I also find that those who often seek to gain said ground often provoke TP’s name for proper alignment with themselves. This is what's very lame and childish.

Dan Gunter says:

"My intention is to explore pertinent matters in a mature fashion. I find that it is actually an enjoyable and easy thing to do. I even enjoy having my own thinking challenged, as it affords me the opportunity to look at things from multiple and contrasting points of view. The vast majority of visitors to Tom's website have a marvelous gift for doing that. Perhaps some were not born with this gift and never developed it in the course of their lives."

This is the kind of self-righteous self-praising status quo lame language that have been spunned repeatedly by so many others that does and means very little. (Now, how many times have you heard those exact words or some version of them?) It does not change anything on any level, but merely assuages feelings and makes the writer feel as if he is indeed among the few whose rhetoric and style, even intellect, is agreeable with the norm. The problem here is that group think and similiar ways of being have never brought significant change to anything, even online social networks, including blogs. And, yes, communication is about exchange and change--at least for me.

Dan Gunter also says:

"I guess it's also why I don't feel compelled to go to places like Tom Peters' website seeking out fellow visitors to aim ridiculous remarks at for the mere thrill of it. I could. But I understand how rude that would be. I see no reason to be rude merely for thrills."

You mean to tell me that he can't handle these responses:

Dan:

"Our dependence on machines has grown to the point that we borderline expecting them to serve in humankind's stead."

Me:

"This seems way over the top."

Dan:

"If those words were being penned today, would they read 'of machines, by machines, and FOR machines' ???"

Me:

"Probably not."

Perhaps had I responded point by point to his soliloquy which did not by and large hold interest for me, he would have felt better. Perhaps if I addressed him with many lackluster words--as this is what would have followed--without "thrill" my words would have been perceived as not being "ridiculous" to him. Perhaps I should have begun my comment with something like the very typical certainly not "atypical" as described above with "Dan, you make some very good points, but..." I wouldn't be even responding to his latest comment at all.

I will think about Dan Gunters' words above perhaps a little more, but it will undoubtedly not change the way in which I respond, as I "firmly believe" my responses to be appropriate and if they are not those of this site will do what they deem most appropriate unequivocally. I accept this. (Does adding "firmly" make a thing more firm?)

By the way, leadership is not merely about telling others what THEY NEED to do or what YOU WILL NOT do, but simply responding in ways that will make a difference however this may be. This goes for matters personally or professionally, dealing with young people on social networks at home, adults on blogs, or with employees at the office.

Dan wrote a good line: "It's their reputation and credibility that's on the line should they choose to act like the Southernmost end of a Northern facing horse. Not mine." But I do wonder if it undermines the effort of his righteous response. It also seemingly seeks to elevate his style and denigrate another, as surely those who read this blog will think that his responses are by far more appropriate than others and race to the phone to retain him.

My dear, Dan Gunter, try again.

Now, just imagine if I would have read the comment above thoroughly, how many more words I would have here. I know. I know. For some that would not be a good thing. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2009 8:17 AM

"I often have a cull and remove people who have latched on to me for no apparent reason."

For some the latching brings a mere connection. This is not all bad either. Some might even be flattered in a good way that others find something that they have said of value or even merely questionable. Some may just simply want to be in the living room. These sites are not always about us, but a sense of others.

I read somewhere that blogs are for bloggers, not merely for the post writer; I wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2009 8:24 AM

PaulH, Trevor, and fellow guests on Tom Peters' site,

Good morning, gentlemen. Now we are talking about my core concern exactly. The tools and technology are great, but as Trevor alluded to, we must be careful to remain the master of them and not slaves to them.

I can remember when a business telephone call came in on the business landline. If you were out on a job, they left a message and you called when you returned or got the message. We still got the job done. I dare say that 90% or more of the calls that we consider "urgent" now are really not that at all. But we've developed a sense of immediacy and urgency about everything. With a cell phone strapped to us 24/7 we feel compelled to answer it NOW. I catch myself occasionally in the grocery store or WalMart thinking "I need to call so-and-so about that shoot on June 9th..." and before I know it, I'm talking on the cell phone and grocery shopping at the same time. True, I CAN do it, but why? There would be nothing wrong with saying to myself "I'll call when I get back to the studio." I realize that I am a victim of this shift in thinking as much as anyone, thus I am pointing the finger at me -- nobody else -- me.

And along comes this thing called twitter. We already had e-mail lists and managers and groups, and RSS/XML feeds, etc. But that wasn't enough. We wanted yet a more effective way to "follow" what someone else was doing or saying. Translation: we wanted a way to be "in one another's face" 24/7. Being honest about it, I don't have a single person or entity on my twitter list that I really need IMMEDIATE updates from. I thought having weather advisories would be nice, so I went and activated the mobile device feature on twitter. Again, I'm as bad a tech junkie as anyone. But then when I started getting tweets about every drop of rain that fell for hours, I said "Enough is enough." When the weather anchor spit out a tweet that only said "Good morning" at 6:30 a.m. I began to realize that this twitter business can get out of hand quickly. I can't blame anyone else for LETTING it be a nuisance, only me. So, off it went.

I'm not saying that I'm some sort of psychology genius or relationship expert. But I speak both from the heart and from (often hard learned) experience when I suggest that folks consider trying a few things. They would include:

• Indeed learn and encourage your children to learn and understand such things as the "social networking" sites. They can be good, in their rightful place. Exercise moderation. Also keep in mind that the only difference between your kid jumping in the car with a total stranger after school and them engaging in online dialog with a stranger might turn out to be a matter of HOW SOON they disappear or get involved in something very dangerous.

• Insist that your children only use those sites on the condition of you having their user ID's and passwords. There is ultimately NO DIFFERENCE in you insisting that they not take off to a party with people you don't know or at a location you are unaware of and them getting involved in online dialog with strangers. Teenagers typically want to meet people and make friends. But there are safer ways. Much safer. Actually visit your kid's online profile occasionally and see what is going on. Some people will say that's "snooping" or "invading their privacy." But it's actually caring and concern and due caution. More than once I've seen a teen receive comments thinking they meant something benign -- particularly sexual acronyms -- only to discover later that they were not understanding some sexual references that were being thrown at them. Nobody is calling the kid stupid or bad, they just don't have the breadth of experiences most adults and they are often more vulnerable in that respect. If we love them, we work to keep trust and openness with them so that we CAN keep a watchful eye out for potential dangers.

• Do you want a simple way to show your family that you really love them and care? Try making a rule that during dinner, family time, or after a certain hour the cell phones get turned off. If I am supposedly spending time with my family but I am also expecting a REALLY important business call, I see it as robbing them of the emotional attention they deserve. I've done it too many times. When I started making a habit of switching my cell phone off while we were watching a movie together or having dinner or other "US" time, it wasn't long before I got what I felt was a wonderful compliment. Sandy said to me "Something you do that I really appreciate is turning your phone off. That lets me know that when you say 'I am with you' you are REALLY with ME." That felt good. Really, really good. Friends, family, etc. that are really close enough relationships that they might actually NEED to call me in an emergency, etc. know the home number. They know that if it really IS an emergency and they don't reach me on my cell, they can leave a voice mail then try me on the home phone. If we're having dinner or something, they'll get the answering machine. If it's an emergency, I can hear them leaving the message. It's not difficult for them to say "Dan, pick up, it's urgent. So and so was in an accident and..." I pick up. Not so hard. If it's something that can wait, guess what? It waits.

I know that there are one or two (perhaps more) people here on Tom's site that scream the word "brevity" at me. My apologies in this instance, but I think these matters call for more consideration and dialog than a simple sentence or two. We've allowed ourselves to be driven to a false sense of urgency about everything. So much so that the the things that really matter most -- the things that could have the greatest, most positive, and most lasting impact on our lives -- have gotten relegated to the same status as the things that don't.

In the name of convenience and saving time, we're allowing all this technology to induce a sort of Attention Deficit Disorder and interfere with our relationships. We're allowing them to dilute our priorities. We want to engage in social networking... why? To make friends? What about the friends and family we have physically present? Are we as EMOTIONALLY present with them as we should be if we can't have a two-sentence conversation with them without having to answer a call on the cell phone or go see who it is that's "dinging" us online?

I will conclude by saying that I am seriously considering starting a website devoted to nothing but people sharing ideas on how we can begin to clear some of the fog that we've allowed to roll into our lives. We say "I love you" and "I am always here for you" to the people we supposedly do and are, but are we? Are we really?

Are all these "tools" and new technologies REALLY making our lives better and richer? They can, if we use them wisely and don't allow them become addictions and nuisances.

Tom sometimes rants about practicing "serial monogamy" on projects, saying there's absolutely no such thing as being totally, passionately committed to more than one "key project" at a time. Is the same not basically true of friends, family, and the important relationships in our lives? Can we REALLY have 1,392 "friends" like my profile said once? No. I looked at the list and I actually felt like I knew HOW MANY? Try a whopping "7." I am NOT exaggerating. Sad. So I sat down with a piece of paper (the real stuff, not a computer screen) and made a list of the people I actually know -- people I have face to face contact with -- people that I can contribute something to the lives of and receive something back. I felt good at first when the list reached the 60+ mark. But then reality hit me: I had not had face to face contact or really spent any time with most of them in over a year or two. Why not? Because I was too "busy." Too busy doing what?

Online social networking.

So THAT was making my life BETTER? Nope. At least I was humble enough to point the blame in the right direction -- at myself -- for allowing myself to get caught up in the technology and allowing the people that really mattered to pay the price for it as much as I was.

I set out to do something about it and set a better example for the kids in the process. I have still not perfected it. But at least I will humbly scold myself frequently and make an effort.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 23, 2009 9:21 AM

"PaulH, Trevor, and fellow guests on Tom Peters' site...

Good morning, gentlemen..."

LOL! I, nor other women who frequent this site, need not read what follows. Way funny, child-like too! But I'm feeling him.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2009 9:32 AM

Judith – I think we are agreeing.

I love people ‘attaching themselves’ to me to be in my living room – I have many friends on my own Blog who visit regularly and comment – others visit but don’t comment – both are very welcome in my living room.

My point about Twitter in particular is that there are many folks ‘out there’ who are clearly attaching only to add to their ‘number’ of friends, thus making it appear they have many … its all fun for them and that is great for them. I have no problem whatsoever with their behaviour. I think I am able to assess after a while whether the person has attached to me for reasons other than boosting their own numbers. I only 'cull' when there is no point in staying attached.

All the people I link with on my own Blog and through various other Blogs I usually get to know very well and make the relationship work between us or not and if it doesn’t work we go our separate ways .. Sounds a bit like life actually – Have a good Saturday.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 23, 2009 9:48 AM

P.S.: I want to say clearly and directly that I appreciate the comments and thoughts of others. I do read them. I do not always agree. But I do not feel that makes me "right" and them "wrong." At times I find my own thinking shifting and being affected greatly by what others share. I do not suggest anyone simply taking anything I choose to share or suggest as being "right" and blindly putting it to use.

What I DO advocate, however, is that we openly share our thoughts, ideas, and experiences. I try very very hard to do so in a courteous and respectful manner. Perhaps I am no better at that than anyone else in this community. I try constantly to do a decent job of that. It is easier to do on some days than on others, for sure.

Finally, if one of my fellow members feels strongly enough about sharing something and they feel it takes 20,000+ words to do so, "write on" my friend. Thank you in advance for going to the trouble. I feel honored that you invested the time, and I will in kind invest the time to read and consider it.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 23, 2009 10:02 AM

Thanks, Trevor, for the clarity. I understand where you're coming from. I think that we agree that it's all good. :-)

It was cool to have to look up the derivation of the word "cull." I have not used it before and can't remember reading it anywhere, though I suppose I might have. For some reason, I like the sound of it: soft and hard. Sounds sometimes lead me to greater research, though your context was clear. Cool!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2009 10:33 AM

Dan - ENOUGH--please!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2009 10:36 AM

Trevor, agreed. They knew that would be a psychological "selling feature" of twitter, most likely. That would explain why when you visit your twitter account one of the more prominently displayed pieces of information is how many people you are following and being followed by.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 23, 2009 10:41 AM

Whew! Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2009 10:57 AM

"I wouldn't give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity. But I'd give my right arm for the simplicity on the far side of complexity." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Sometimes the easiest, most direct route misses all the best stops.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 23, 2009 11:57 AM

You, my dear, are no Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great essayist, judge, poet, physician, and Supreme Court Justice. But keep at it, though. You might just hit on something good. Time and chance happen to us all. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2009 12:25 PM

Judge not, lest . . .

Posted by RobCH at May 23, 2009 12:46 PM

LOL! I am no Oliver Wendell Holmes either.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2009 12:52 PM

Oliver Wendell Holmes' diverse and vast experiences gave him the breadth to write so fully; it was probably the impetus for his genius. Or, perhaps it was his genius that gave him the impetus to write so vastly and live such a full extraordinary life.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2009 12:57 PM

I hope the Tom Peters Company's webmaster will check for a malfunction in these comment features. I am unable to find or view the post where I actually claimed to "be" an Oliver Wendell Holmes. Oh, never mind. I see. I never actually said or wrote that. Perhaps someone's computer needs to be checked for cross-linked comment files. Has to be some sort of computer malfunction, as there's no way it could be someone jumping to conclusions or putting words into someone's mouth, as we NEVER tell other people what they should say or think on here. Not in a million years.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 23, 2009 1:32 PM

Oh, the technology conundrums. And dependence. This week, I changed over to HDTV service with my cable company. And they offered a great price on a package including telephone via cable. Net savings of around $30 per month. Great. Except that NOW my phone line will be dependent upon the cable service to be working. The security system is tied to the phone line. Thus, if the cable goes out, there goes the internet service, the phone, and the monitoring service for the security system. They say a battery backup for the cable gear should "prevent any loss of telephone service in the event of a power failure." That covers ONE of countless failure scenarios.

In short, single-sourcing for technology might be cheaper, but I'm not convinced that it's always better. Gimme a backup plan. Murphy is alive and well. And I think he is gainfully employed by our cable provider.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 23, 2009 1:53 PM

For a view into the other side of things....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html

Posted by Stephen Garner at May 23, 2009 2:12 PM

Stephen, thanks for the link. Great article. My stepdaughter, who is going into her senior year of high school, chose "Intro to Automotive Technology" as an elective this year. There is video on the internet of her and some classmates replacing an alternator on a car. At a time when so few people actually seem to know how to check the fluid levels in their own car, tire pressure, and such, I was rather impressed with her learning these things. And she was amazed at the technical materials a good mechanic really has to learn.

Your friendly auto mechanic doesn't just get his hands greasy anymore. He also has to know how to use the diagnostic computers, use the internet to search for parts and technical information, and so much more. He's definitely a "skilled" tradesman. But he still has to get his hands dirty at some point because the computer still can't turn a wrench. In the assembly plant with all the robots, now THAT'S a little different story. But even there, someone has to fix the robots :-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 23, 2009 2:28 PM

Big is the new small
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/business/24unboxed.html?hpw

Posted by magilla at May 23, 2009 5:58 PM

Guilty as charged, Dan. I thought a small Biblical reference might slip past the rader, but no. :)

Posted by RobCH at May 24, 2009 12:15 AM

RobCH, Laughing now. It's all good.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 24, 2009 6:41 AM

Indeed it is, Dan. My typing seems to have gone completely to pot. "All fingers and thumbs" as they say, but then what on earth else do people have on their hands?

Posted by RobCH at May 24, 2009 6:59 AM

"...but then what on earth else do people have on their hands?"

You mean besides a ring, if they're so blessed? LOL. Well, in my case, there's also lots of hair. Way too much. And it becomes somewhat "malignant" in middle age... spreads to all the annoying places, disappears from where it was meant to be, and the eyebrows do the "I'm standing straight up from now until eternity" thing. LOL.

Technology has brought us medicine to alleviate many, many symptoms of age. So far, that ain't one of 'em.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 24, 2009 7:34 AM

I guess the doctor could try prescribing female hormone replacement therapy or something to try offset the male hormones and see how that works. But I don't like being a guinea pig, and I'm certainly not interested in being scheduled for a hysterectomy. LOL.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 24, 2009 7:40 AM

Hmm, I see I'm in good company!

Posted by RobCH at May 24, 2009 9:14 AM

Magilla - Thanks for the article. Good stuff! Reading it, I still could not help but to think that what TP began with skunk works are essentially what these big companies are returning to again. While innovation may have begun with entrepreneurial ventures and the like, it seems to me that skunk works projects within larger companies, including the government which has always been in bed with big business though the image is misaligned--perhaps purposefully so, has always been what got big companies to move. Skunk works were intrapreneurial.

It's very difficult to turn such companies around largely and simultaneously, not to mention the government which lags behind as a norm. The current administration’s push for change on so many levels is something we have not quite seen in quite a while. The skunk works-like approach still seems necessary in government or big business. Even with technology, there is the ever-present human element that needs training and adjusting, not to mention the technical challenge of seamless systems that interface with others. I am no tech expert, but I assume that becomes easier and easier with time.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 24, 2009 9:38 AM

What has been played down in most success stories in Silicon Valley is the fact that the basic building blocks (the invention of the computer, the invention of the transistor, the invention of the Internet, the invention of the silicon chip) were all done by large companies or at government labs.
The concept of Skunkworks was created by Lockheed. Even the term "skunkworks" was coined by an engineer at Lockheed.
Big companies can develop blinders - for example, the chips that were used to power the first Apple computer were sitting fully formed in a lab at Xerox because the only thing Xerox saw them as were parts to a copy machine. Steve Wozniac saw they could be computers and thats where Apple came from. The real game changers (computers, transisters, the internet, the human genome project) are created by big government and big business. Individuals can look at these game changers and see them in ways the Big guys don't. But without the Big guys, we would not even have this blog or any blog.

Posted by magilla at May 24, 2009 11:03 AM

Intel and 3M are good examples of "institutionalized intrapreneurship" as I like to refer to it. It is possible to stand behind the smaller teams making the breakthroughs without choking them.

In these large organizations the leadership knows that they need to support innovation in every corner.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 24, 2009 11:53 AM

Good points, magilla. I was, by the way, aware that Lockheed created the skunkworks concept. But it sure took one big guy, Tom Peters, to bring this concept to national and international prominence. :-) There is also something to be said of the necessity of individuals (big and small) to execute and even transform what government and big business do.

The Internet is now not what it was and its use is constantly evolving and expanding.

My point earlier around the political ideology regarding the exclusion of government in business is precisely what you have outlined above. There has always been a interrelation between the two. I made the point somewhere about the government allowed the likes of Ford, Firestone, and Edison to excel in business.

Government and business are supposed to be for the good of the people. Both are to serve useful and desirable purposes.

Your lucid point about both big government and big business was not lost. But perhaps many of these large conglomerates that government sanctioned through regulation have not served the country or the public well, not to mention globalization and the potential for international catastrophes in financial systems and supply and demand.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 24, 2009 12:00 PM

Good examples with Intel and 3M, Dan, though "instituitional intraprenuerialship" sounds like it belongs on a psyche ward. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 24, 2009 12:12 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?pagewanted=6&hpw

Posted by magilla at May 25, 2009 8:09 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hpw

use this link instead - it starts on the first page.

Posted by magilla at May 25, 2009 8:29 PM