~synthesis~

mastering apprenticeship

I did my undergraduate degree at the University of Waterloo in Canada. It is a fantastic school (I might be biased), and it contributed greatly to preparing me for what awaited me in the years that followed.

In addition to the academics and the social, thanks to their Co-op Program, I graduated with excellent work experience, zero debt, and a firm job offer. Combining the practical with the learning is a critical success factor for any educational system.

I can’t count the number of candidates I’ve interviewed over the years with a solid academic pedigree, but no sense of the working world, how to navigate it, get things done, add value in a team setting, and even to be self-motivated and driven. We’d take a chance on some, but there’s no substitute for someone who can hit the ground running with both school and street smarts.

Many colleges and universities are embracing co-op or similar approaches to better prepare their graduates for employment (I’d like to think Waterloo is a pioneer!), as now are some forward-thinking high schools.

I was invited to speak to the faculty of such a high school a couple of weeks ago - Saint Martin de Porres in Cleveland. It was an eye-opening experience.

Saint Martin teaches low-income students and is noteworthy for many reasons, the greatest of which is that EVERY student graduates (vs. ~50% for the rest of Cleveland); and every graduate in the school’s history has been accepted to at least one college or university, all with a >30% higher college persistence rate than the national average. ...Wow!

From the founder to the school head to the faculty, everyone is committed to (in my words) the ideal that every child matters; that they must embrace and nurture each student; imbue drive, resourcefulness and perseverance; and teach them to embody integrity, respect, and grace.

Powerful stuff.

But there’s more - every student is required to work for a local company in a four-student job-sharing team, where together they cover a full work-week throughout the school year (1.25 days/week/student).

Over 100 companies in the Cleveland area are Corporate Work-Study Program partners, and this year alone, will invest more than $2.5 million towards funding the school! ...Wow!

Saint Martin takes this program very seriously - in fact, a teacher told me that they have a (very real world) zero-tolerance policy if students fail to take their job seriously; they are a bit more tolerant of in-school lapses, but work is work.

So... not only does every student receive an excellent education, they also graduate with work experience; are savvy about the workplace and how to thrive there; and they benefit from their very generous employers who provide mentorship and career guidance.

Blending theory and practice (master/apprentice) is at the heart of true learning and life-preparation, and has never been more critical than in this day and time, when students (and especially minorities) are disproportionately unemployed.

This alone is noteworthy, but there's also this:

The students’ academic proficiency is undisputed (100% acceptance of graduates to college/university), but they accomplish that with 25% less class time than other schools! Recall that each student spends five (5) school days every four weeks (ave 1.25 days/week) at work.

That’s “lost” teaching time -- or is it?? When you personally experience the application of learning outside school, your desire and capacity to learn in school grows, as does your engagement in class. In other words, they have improved the efficiency of teaching and learning by removing the kids from the classroom and putting them to work! How cool is that!

While almost every teacher I’ve ever met is worried about the volume of content that must be taught in a very limited time window, the faculty at Saint Martin has been able to literally teach more in less time ‘cause their students are steeped in context.

An important lesson for all school leaders and teachers.

Inner city students are the most disadvantaged among us, and it is important to learn from schools like Saint Martin de Porres, who are changing this by caring for their students, being innovative and creative in how they prepare their students to be kick-butt graduates, and by ensuring the sustainability of the school.

Bravo

remember who you are

Henry Ford once said, “Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right.”

Ford's planned auto-innovations will enable cars to run apps, read your Twitter feed to you, let you update your Facebook status, and surf the web, all while driving! Ford executive Sue Cischke: “Telling younger people not to use a cellphone is almost like saying, ‘Don’t breathe.’”

We know that texting while driving is more dangerous than being drunk or stoned, and yet Ford, in their quest to be "with it" have chosen to pander to kitsch ["Cischke" <--> "kitsch"?] and actually enable distracted driving to win younger buyers - now there's a strategy - let’s proactively help young drivers "stop breathing...” - not sure this is the path to repeat business.

In talking to high-tech C-level executives, I know they are desperate for strategies to help "connect with the consumer." This despite the fact that most of their revenue comes from corporate clients, whose values and priorities are decidedly not-consumer. Corporations (and older people) are interested in function, economic value, predictability and vendor stability; young consumers are interested in form, social value, creativity, and “new.”

So why are large corporations like Ford and others desperate to be hip when their real (paying) customers value the opposite?

In the old days, for costly items like trucks or computers, it was easier to get corporations to buy - they had more money to spend, there were fewer of them (easier to sell/market to a smaller segment), and they could write off the costs of these purchases, making them even cheaper. Whereas the consumer had less money, was much harder to reach, and didn't have the tax advantage. The barriers to entry were lower at the office.

Today corporate customers are extending the lifecycle of hard goods like cars and PCs; they’re reluctant to deplete their cash reserves; and they’re negotiating when they do buy. None of these problems exist in the home, and more specifically, in the minds of new buyers. The barriers to entry are now lower at home and with younger people.

Their example is Apple, who has seen non-corporate, young-consumer sales also drive adult and business purchase behavior. But their “cool” comes from an uncompromising commitment to the product and its design. This priority is why people buy, and why they can command a premium price in tough times. It is also what justifies the "adult" decision.

Executives at Ford (and many high tech companies) are glomming onto social media in the belief that being Twitter/Facebook-enabled associates them with youth and “cool,” and winningyoung and hip customers, leads to “adult” sales as well. This is just badly-executed imitation.

It feels like Ford (and other) executives no longer believe they can “do a thing,” and desperate to remain relevant, are vainly grasping at social networking straws in the hopes that that becomes their new killer feature. 

They should know better. Marketing and random features don't compensate for bad decisions and weak products.

The first step is simple - be clear about your “why” - once you know why you exist - what your fundamental purpose is, then the what and the how become much clearer. There is no doubt about Apple's "why." I fear that companies like Ford have gotten so pendulous that their “why” is lost somewhere in the folds of their quadruple chin.

Instead of enabling distracted driving, get on a treadmill, and work off the fat (high priced consultants, MBAs, etc.) that has caused you to misplace who you really are.

leap of faith

Education's goal is to prepare students to succeed in life. What skills will help kids be healthy, independent and even happy?

Most schools choose English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and "World" Languages as core skills. Missing is anything that helps students bridge concepts across subjects, or become independent thinkers and learners. Also missing is anything that looks at the whole student, their hopes and emotions (as they go through puberty), how they will live and work within our society, and how they become ...a person.

Research shows that employers are looking for broad, creative thinkers who can work in varied settings and in teams to solve complex, multi-disciplinary problems. In other words, people who know how to learn and have the confidence and wherewithal to get things done in ambiguous and unpredictable settings.

There are schools whose mission is to graduate students like this. Two that I know are Seattle Girls' School and High Tech High. They are amazing.

Both schools incorporate an integrated curriculum in which students actually become entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, activists, writers and artists. They also focus on the person before them, treating them not like a widget in a factory but a human being with feelings, fears, interests and lives outside school.

Tangentially, the US Department of Education is investing $4 Billion to fix the 1,000 poorest-performing schools in America. The primary approach is a complete reboot, including a complete staff overhaul. Cynics predict a 1% success rate, or 10 good schools, and $3.96 billion wasted. I think they'll do better, and I'm willing to bet that the successful schools will have principals who are focused on the whole student, who aren't pitting teachers against each other, and who recognize that an integrated and experiential curriculum is not only what the kids need, but how best to engage them in the magic of learning.

Leaders like this are what made Seattle Girls' and High Tech High successful, and what's needed not just in the worst of our schools, but all of our schools. These aren't easy people to find, so we need better resources to help the less-brilliant leaders.

I recently suggested an approach that leads to integrated learning by inverting the classroom, turning lectures into homework, and what was homework into teacher-facilitated classwork. This ought to be a part of the academic solution, but it doesn't address a problem most poor schools face - that the students have a tough, tough life (poverty, violence, drugs, etc.) outside school; and with that occupying their minds, can hardly be expected to care about math or grammar.

Of course a school can't fix problems at home, but is it possible for them to help children cope with these issues, and in doing that enable them focus on school? Yes. Are there examples of this in action? Also yes.

John Gilmour founded four LEAP Science and Maths Schools, in townships (where the black people were forced to live during Apartheid and continue to live now) in Cape Town and Johannesburg. I had the opportunity to visit one school last year and was amazed. Each class spends one hour/day in Life Orientation, where an Occupational Therapist helps students listen, feel, understand and express what is inside them, and learn how to interact with each other.

The result is a remarkable awakening of children who might otherwise have lived lives of crime, poverty and disaffection, but instead are successful, empowered contributors to society. Gilmour has made this work with students who are immersed in the worst circumstances, and created graduates whose brightness and brilliance easily matches that of any American private school student.

Are inverted classrooms and Life Orientation a panacea? No. Are they worth exploring? Absolutely. What holds us back? They're different and not invented by the "establishment."

There is a fear of trying anything new or "radical" even though America is only graduating 70% of its students, of which most are unprepared for college (1/3 drop out after their first year, and 1/2 never graduate). Shouldn't some of the $4 Billion from the Dept of Ed go towards proving these approaches in American schools?

The traditional approaches are failing; radical is our only choice.

awakening

The recent uprising in Tunisia was sparked (sorry) by the act of one person, it (very) rapidly expanded into a national uprising that resulted in the ousting of a long time President whose resounding electoral victories (he won his fifth election in 2009 with his lowest mandate - 89%) were always suspicious. Despite his close call in 2009, it was not until January 13 of this year that he announced that he would not seek reelection in 2014, and then realizing this was not enough, fled the country the next day. I'm willing to bet that in the 29 days following Bouazizi's immolation, former President Ben Ali had NO idea that that one seemingly inconsequential event would so quickly evaporate his once-powerful stranglehold on Tunisia.

That one man's desperate act would have gone unnoticed without the amazing communication capabilities, which even the poorest among us now enjoy, is a powerful testament to the world we now live in.

President Hosni Mubarak is reeling from roughly the same kick in the groin, and wondering, "what the hell just happened?" Emboldened by these acts, the oppressed from Morocco to Pakistan are rising against their leaders; leaders who until very recently lived under a wonderful shelter of power, wealth, and comfort without accountability. These regimes (even the faux-democracies) have wielded power over their citizens (many of whom live in poverty) for generations without repercussions. How will things change?

I think there are three lessons to be learned - first, politics or leadership is a delicate balance between the application of power and serving the citizens. Second, the right (and ability) for people to assemble may not be pervasive, but it is unstoppable. Third, be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.

Politics - citizens expect that leaders will be somewhat heavy-handed; they also expect public safety, employment, the opportunity to feed, clothe and shelter their families, and in most places, education and health care. We are all willing to suffer, but there is a breaking point. The Middle East reached it recently; we saw it in Sudan with their referendum; it affected the dissolution of the Soviet Union; and caused America to declare her independence from Britain.

Are Western states immune? Nope - the Wars on Terror + the Patriot Act combined with severe domestic belt-tightening have created unrest across America and Western Europe. The difference in the West is that politicians give away more than they should to win, where in the East, they suppress the populace more than they should to remain in power. But either way, in the end, the people suffer.

I think sustainable leadership requires adherence to three absolutes - Integrity, Transparency, and Accountability. There can be no compromise. Once you cross this delicate line, you are either perceived as insipid (President Jimmy Carter) and lose respect, or as despotic (almost every other example of government gone bad) and subject to revolt. Most governments will use misdirection (Wars, etc.) to keep their citizens in line and resistance at bay, until they get found out.

Assembly - the Communication Revolution is upon us and there is no turning back. Anyone has the capacity to create and share and associate, though its implications are not fully grasped by all. Even the American government was caught off guard by the speed with which things progressed in Tunisia and then spread to other countries. Birds of a feather are able to find like-minded people, convene and create movements in ways that were not possible even five years ago. Once tightly-held secrets (Wikileaks) are also fair game. Governments simply can't keep up.

Wishes - the Egyptians want Mubarak ousted - he is why they live in poverty, suffer high unemployment, and a high cost of living, etc. They want free and fair elections to choose their next government, believing that once Mubarak is gone, Egypt will once again flourish and all will be better. I feel sorry for the eventual winner of the elections - the world markets are in crisis, oil and grain (and hence most food) will be more expensive due weather, this turmoil and the economy; and let's face it - the situation in Egypt (or anywhere else) is not caused solely by its leader - most of the contributing factors that caused these problems still remain, and are very difficult to fix. The next leader may not fare any better.

The world is holding its breath to see what happens in the Middle East - from economics to diplomacy to war, changes of this magnitude to the status quo will have gigantic repercussions. Bouazizi may have ended up doing a huge favor to the Ben Alis and Mubaraks of the world - they will leave (with $$ tucked away in offshore accounts), their successors will inherit the messes they presided over, and the citizens will need to start over.

But there is something to celebrate - rising against despotism is a good thing. Self-determination is a good thing. I hope the citizens of these countries will look inwardly to realize that they are now responsible for their destinies, that they can no longer blame "the man," and that they alone have the ability to create viable economies, and ensure the health, safety and well-being of their families.

a notre sante

In the face of the Republican onslaught against the Health Care Reform Bill, here's a speech I'd consider if I were President Obama.

[The Oval Office]

My fellow Americans, good evening. Almost 30 years ago, President Reagan delivered his first speech to the nation from this very desk in the Oval Office. His speech was about the economy, and the tough times ahead. I wish I could report that tough times are coming to an end, but I can't. Turning our economy around is my highest priority, and today I wish to focus on our health and how it affects the economy. To paraphrase President Reagan, I regret to say that Americans have never been more unhealthy than they are today - there is no comparison in our history; this despite the fact that we spend more on health care than almost every nation in the world.

I recently asked for a health care report card, and here are some high (or low) lights. You won't like it. I didn't like it. But we have to face the truth and then go to work to turn things around. And make no mistake, we can and will turn it around.

The incidence of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and others is highest our history. Today more American children are at risk of chronic health issues than ever before; we spend more per person on health care than ever before; and we waste more per person on health care than we can afford. Focusing on our children, 14.5 million (over 20%) live in poverty; over 16.7 million live with anxiety and depression and do worse in reading and math because there isn't enough food to eat. More than 1.5 million American children are homeless, resulting in a lack of safety, comfort, privacy, reassuring routines, adequate health care, uninterrupted schooling, sustaining relationships, and a sense of community. And things are not improving; two million children will be affected by the housing crisis and resulting foreclosures; and in 2000, 39% of children lived in low-income housing, by 2009, it was 42%.

These are shocking numbers, as are their consequences.

Children who begin life in difficult circumstances are most likely to end up struggling throughout their lives, most likely to run afoul of the law, and most likely to become a burden to society to the tune of about $500 billion per year. It breaks down to $160 billion in increased health care costs, and $170 billion each in increased law enforcement costs and lost economic productivity.

Setting aside the moral obligation to ensure that every child in this country has shelter above their heads, is well-fed, healthy, and well-educated, can we afford the economic impact of sick and impoverished children? I know the incoming Congress pledged to cut our budgets by $100 billion, and I'm very interested to see where they propose to make these cuts. But I'd like to up the ante - let's find a way to save $500 billion/year! With deficits ballooning and rising defense and social services costs, I challenge our Congress to make a real and sustainable dent in our budgets, with an impact that will last for generations.

Many will claim that America has the best hospitals, doctors, and nurses; the best technology; the most innovative researchers and the best treatment options available in the world. I agree. There is no better place to be than the United States if you need any kind of medical help, provided you can afford it. But as we've seen, millions of our children can't.

The definition of health care is the prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions. I believe we have the best management and treatment system in the world, but we fail when it comes to prevention and preservation.

Why? As with many things, it comes down to money. The current health care system from pharmacology to treatment to long-term care gets paid when you get treatment. Their success is dependent on your ill-health. Let's think about that for a minute - if you don't go to the doctor, he or she doesn't get paid. If you don't need any medicine, the pharmacist and the pharmaceutical companies don't get paid. For them to be successful, you have to be sick.

Now you might say that being healthy favors the insurance companies, and I thought so as well, but it's not the case. People who are healthy don't buy as much insurance, and don't contribute to rising costs, which help justify premium increases; people who are unhealthy buy more. Insurance companies might prefer not to pay claims, but they realize that they have to keep the machine running - the more people visit doctors, go to hospitals, and seek treatment, the more they can keep raising premiums and growing profits.

Last year, we passed the Health Care Reform Bill, which aimed the state of our - your health care. While it does help, we must do more to address our children's struggles, and to improve the overall state of our economy.

So I challenge us all to find ways to save $500 billion a year, every year by investing in prevention and preservation for our children. From pre-natal to early childhood to young adults, by providing every child with free health care and a great education, we can not only save $500 billion/year, but also lower unemployment, decrease crime, and increase income taxes; all of which will help accelerate our path towards a stronger, healthier and wealthier country.

To close, once again in the words of President Reagan, my fellow citizens, let us join in a new determination to rebuild the foundation of our society, to work together, to act responsibly. Let us do so with the most profound respect for that which must be preserved as well as with sensitive understanding and compassion for those who must be protected.

We can leave our children in poverty, with an un-repayable massive debt and a shattered economy, or we can leave them liberty in a land where every individual has the opportunity to achieve their greatest potential. All it takes is a little common sense and recognition of our own ability. Together we can forge a new beginning for America.

Thank you and good night.

the america moment

President Obama recently called the US education crisis our Sputnik moment; this because there are significant challenges:

1. Education budgets around the country facing even more dramatic cuts.
2. The incoming Republican Congress intending even deeper budget cuts.
3. PISA scores (OECD global student achievement testing) place America near the middle of the world, sandwiched between Iceland and Liechtenstein, well below the leaders.
4. The belief that to be successful, America must follow "the leaders."

Dennis Pierce talks about this in today's eSchool News, and ends his editorial with: If we don’t spend more on our schools, our children’s future will suffer.

Here's the data (knowing that things have changed a bit since 2008): Education America spent $10,259 per student that year (=$593 billion total), this total has shrunk some in the last couple of years but I guarantee most what I point out in the link are still true:

1. Student populations are declining year over year.
2. The proportion of the overall payroll going to teachers is declining year over year.
3. There are still almost 15,000 school districts in this country, each requiring its own infrastructure, budget, and politicians.
4. Education leaders are stuck in a rut and think the only path to success is more spending.

Dennis Pierce and President Obama couldn't be more wrong. Increasing the budget for education will NOT fix things. It is true that we must improve the situation in our schools, but more money is NOT the answer.

America is afraid of everything right now - Homeland Security has declared a war on Americans (TSA, etc.); the Pentagon has declared a war on disaffected people labeled as terrorists, but who live in poverty in some of the worst places on Earth; the Republicans are afraid of China taking over the American economy; and the Democrats are afraid of Finland, Poland, and Estonia because their students are smarter.

But America is forgetting some fundamental truths. (Perhaps I see this more clearly because I was born in the Third World looking from the outside into countries like the US.)

1. America didn't become America by following in other countries' footsteps. It became America because it charted its own path and believed that success will come to those who work the hardest and choose to break molds, vs. to those who copy and conform.
2. Corruption is human nature - the more money you throw at a problem, the less likely you are to find a solution, and the more assured you are of creating an even bigger mess. The data clearly shows that the more we spend, the fewer we graduate, and worse, the weaker the graduates.
3. ONLY in the minds of bureaucrats has education EVER been about test scores or single subject proficiency.

Rather than being America's Sputnik moment, this should be the world's America Moment. The rest of the planet needs to look at what the US is doing and despair. Leadership requires others to look to you, not vice versa. That's the challenge I expect a President, Congress, and Edu-cognizanti to proclaim! Where is your gumption people???

America went from being an average country to a superpower in less than a generation. A defining moment in this transition happened in 1940, when President Franklin Roosevelt went to Congress asking that America go from the 12th largest Air Force to the LARGEST Air Force, that she build the most advanced planes ever, and that her production capacity should increase at least five-fold.

The essential America Moment happend when despite his using these numbers metaphorically, the country took him literally. America not only achieved what everyone said was impossible, but doubled it (100,000 planes/year vs. the 50,000 in FDR's speech)! She created a industrial force that innovated in design, engineering, and production at levels never before seen; and in ways that put the fear of Uncle Sam in every other country's heart.

The President (and the rest of the Edu-Cognizanti) should find their inner FDR and demand that: "American students deserve an education system the likes of which has never before been seen. One where each student is able to find and develop their greatest selves; where every teacher is passionate, committed and excellent; and where all schools are filled with joy and achievement.

The graduates of Education America 2.0 will be equipped to not just survive, but adapt and thrive no matter what future unfolds. They will be the engine that drives America into the 22nd century as the country that is not only the best place to live, but the only one that all others look to achieve similar greatness."

America is neither Finland nor Korea - the people, their aspirations, their very natures are different. We need an education system that is of the people, by the people, for the people - uniquely and bespokenly American. It is possible to create a clear and simple plan that Republicans, Democrats, the Unions, parents and most school leaders) will wholeheartedly support - we just haven't tried.

Stand up people - our time has come.

bumfuzzled

There's been a lot of furor lately about WikiLeaks and the US State Department documents they published (vs. stole). The United States Congress is seeking to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange; Senator Joe Lieberman in a recent Fox News interview stated that Assange (an Australian) should be tried for American treason! He is also contemplating charges against the New York Times for bad citizenship! Do Senators now get to fabricate their own laws? Next he'll outlaw literate people - oh wait - that was Pol Pot.

Every government/police system in the world wishes to prosecute Assange for his part in publishing these documents. I bet if they had their way, the US Congress, Interpol, etc. would also want to prosecute everyone who tweets or blogs, and possibly everyone who's under the age of 25 just on principle.

According to www.senate.gov, the average age of this, the 110th Congress is 57 years (55.9 House, 61.7 Senate). This is one of the OLDEST Congresses ever. The average Congressperson was born in 1953, when TVs had two channels, no remotes, and black & white pictures; they were teenagers before it was even possible to send telexes. They graduated from university five years before CNN was created, a decade before personal computers became commercially available, fifteen years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and almost a quarter of a century before mobile phones were broadly available. The world's population has almost tripled since they were born.

Sadly for them, we are in the midst of the Communication Revolution. Going from the Industrial Revolution (their world) to the Information Revolution to this, the Communication Revolution, we have shifted from standardization (Ford Model T) to discoverability (Internet/Google) to transparency & immediacy. While foreign to these relicsleaders (many of whom have never even read email), the need to be transparent and expect to have anything be immediately exposed for all to see is today's reality. Keeping secrets like you did during the age of Leave it to Beaver, in a time where the latency between information capture and global distribution is measured in seconds is absurd.

Congresspeople: the good old days are over. The RIAA faced this with online music, the MPA is facing it with online films, and you are now facing it with pervasive (and unfettered) access to information. The systems you employed to safeguard your secrets are antiquated and designed for the Cold Warriors, not today's average 12-year-old. But like your much-vaunted HUAC and Senator McCarthy's demagogic anti-communist investigations, you have charged decrepit freaks like Lieberman to persecute these modern "evil-doers" in the name of National Security. Bravo.

History will judge you as it did McCarthy and HUAC - as a Congress unable to fathom a changing world, using its power in desperate ways to impose order, and putting its energy into holding on to the past vs. leading your country towards a brighter future.

Punctuating the 2010 US Government's reaction to this leak is their edict to all government employees instructing them NOT to read any of the WikiLeaks documents. Quoting MSNBC, the Department of Homeland Security sent out a strongly worded memo to all employees and contractors telling them that not only may they not “download or attempt to download” any of the classified WikiLeaks memos onto their computers, they also may not “discuss the content” of such “potentially classified” documents “with persons who would not otherwise be authorized access,” according to a copy of a Dec. 3 memo from the department’s Office of Chief Information Officer. NASA and the Library of Congress have blocked the WikiLeaks site from their employees.

As a Homeland Security employee put it, "So, my grandmother would be allowed to access the cables, but not me."

Remember - these same government leaders have publicly decried the Chinese Government for impeding free information flow to her citizens.

The modern world has left the aging US Congress and various government Ministries bumfuzzled.

How does one de-fuzzle? I don't think it's possible - with apologies to canines everywhere, you can't teach old dogs like Lieberman/Pelosi/etc. new tricks - they're simply too withered, and sadly too entrenched.

Giving them some credit, they do understand that the WikiLeaks episode portends an even more dangerous future - one where no secrets are safe, no back-room dealings are kept in the back room, and what happens in Vegas becomes a TV movie that everyone can watch. Their strategy is to delay that future as long as possible, not realizing that their very acts (which only serve to extend the story) are actually helping seal their fate.

That this is news to Congress is not surprising given their agedness, but it is surprising that one of the youngest (and most tech-savvy) presidents in history is behaving so much like his septuagenarian colleagues.

Or is it that the very act of joining the government not only bumfuzzles but also calcifies?

goog-up

If money is the ONLY reason someone is working for you, do you really want them in any kind of role, much less a “mission-critical” one? Aren't they then really a vendor/ consultant vs. an FTE?

When you start a company, everyone is connected to the vision, shares the passion, and is there with you to create something great. When you're small enough and young enough, this common thread amongst all employees is intrinsic, and management is almost not necessary. As you grow, you must create the conditions that naturally attract those that must work with you, and repel those that shouldn't; your values and integrity must be intrinsic and permeate the whole company. This is the best of management.

I recently wrote about how I thought Google might implement a growth strategy that would be more in keeping with its original premise and the ethos of its founders. Over the last five years, they've grown more than seven (7) times in revenue, and their employee base has grown almost five (5) times to 23,000+.

Impressive! There is no arguing their success in advertising, email services, video provisioning and of course search, and there is no arguing their competence in these.

Sadly, success has a price (especially for American companies that wish to play in Europe, and eventually other regions); but it can be avoided. They have to be open to growing by becoming smaller, recognizing that spinning off little "Googlets" can enable both the organization and its people to progress and achieve; and they have to be committed to great management.

When Brin and Page (Google founders) wanted to hire a CEO, they needed someone who spoke their language, that had chewed the same dirt that they had; otherwise they wouldn't be able to relate to, or trust him. They found Eric Schmidt, a fellow-nerd. Of course there are other critical functions (HR, PR, facilities, etc.), but they were viewed by the nerd collective as "non-core," nothing more than corporate overhead, and there was less focus on hiring in these areas.

In some high-tech companies, HR/Operations, etc. are roles where executives are relegated (penalty box), or where "core" people are assigned because there are no other (real) senior openings. Since these roles are "different" and aren't valued (or understood), there is a tendency to not only not pay for, but mistrust really capable outsiders; so if at all, these roles are filled with inadequate leaders. You can't be cavalier about any management role.

Now we read that Google is struggling to retain their employees (ConnectCV, NY Times), and the risks of not caring about "non-core" things like effective management surface. I'm singling Google out, but this is true of most (all?) high-tech companies. When asked about their recent brain drain, Schmidt's response was "the company’s attrition rate for people it wished would stay has been constant for seven years."

My interpretation: "We think of our people as numbers and don't regard or value them as individuals with unique abilities, gifts and interests. Our numbers are consistent; we don't suck any more than we used to, and we don't see a need to change." What do you think that response says to the 23,000 people that stayed behind and still work for Google?

This answer was not crafted by anyone that cares about the people of Google, it was written by a PR person whose job is to spin a story and control the message. It speaks volumes that Schmidt was quoted saying this. Alas - most high-tech leaders blindly parrot PR/HR talking points.

If it were me: "Of course it hurts when people like Lars or Matthew leave - they are amazing and talented, and this is our loss. But I am excited about people like XXX and YYY who are doing fantastic things; and we just recruited ZZZ and QQQ who are brilliant and passionate, and already making a difference. Our strength is that no one person is Google; together all of us are Google. I wish Lars, Matthew and everyone else who has worked at Google the very best in their futures; we are proud of the fact that Google 'graduates' are sought after by other companies; it's a compliment to the great people who work at Google now, and we are honored that they chose to spend time here and make a difference with us."

A statement like this must be a genuine reflection of management's philosophy and approach. When senior executives companies so obviously feign knowledge of their own products and customers, or worse knowledge of their employees or interest in their well-being, it's time to short the company.

Google recently gave all 23,000 employees a 10% raise; from the NY Times article: "The motivation was, in part, the “war for talent,” Mr. Schmidt said. People who have other job offers have been persuaded to stay with seven-figure bonuses. Google says 80 percent of people who get a counteroffer stay put."

The interpretation is either "Doh! We suddenly realized you're underpaid!", or "When we learn that you're not happy, the only thing we can think to do is buy your loyalty." Neither is a message I want to share with current/future employees or investors. What kind of people does this say Google is recruiting? Those bent on creating profound impact, or those just looking to make a buck?

Goog-ups (high-tech screw-ups) happen when you grow to a certain size (when leaders no longer personally know all the employees), but because you're still "small" (~250 employees), you feel that it's "frivolous" to burn valuable FTEs on mere people management. Here is my corollary to the Mythical Man-Month - a well-run and well-managed company is much more sustainable and likely to succeed than one that is lean but un- or badly-managed.

Goog-ups only value "core" skills. Everything else isn't just overhead, it's commodity. Or in the old IBM parlance, plug-compatible - anyone can fill those roles, and they're utterly replaceable. A mature player sees and appreciates the whole chess or Go board, and plays the whole board, not just that one pawn or stone.

According to a Feb ‘09 survey, the top three reasons employees stay are: good relationship with co-workers; job security; and desirable commute. The top three reasons for leaving are inadequate compensation; inadequate professional development opportunity; and insufficient recognition. High tech compensation is already excellent, but rather than focusing on why people stay, and optimizing for that, most obsess only with why people leave. Addressing the latter is about sucking less. Addressing the former is about being the place people would work for free. Which would you prefer? Which is more sustainable?

A well-run company has the maturity to look at the whole board, and plays not just to win today, but to keep winning always.

endurance

Is "good" an absolute or does it change over time? We are creatures of habit and tradition; in general what was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow. This especially applies to the things we value, and while most "goods" do and should endure, there are some that don't, and some that shouldn't.

Often these "goods" are benchmarks or measures that say things should be done tomorrow the way they were done yesterday. But is "good" good enough this time? For example:

1. We expect medical interns to work extended hours because the doctors that came before did. This despite studies in the New England Journal of Medicine, and other publications that prove that this does not improve learning or develop skills, and worse, actually harms patients!
2. We want our kids to do as much or more homework than we did, despite studies that show that it does not lead to meaningful learning. We believe in measuring student performance in the same way we did a generation ago, despite the data that shows that the ability to do well in a test has no correlation to success in the world or to personal achievement or happiness.
3. We base current business models on the past despite the fact that the (business) world has changed fundamentally, what worked yesterday is absolutely not guaranteed to work today, and that the world tomorrow will be different yet again.

We fear tomorrow but know and understand yesterday, so by measuring tomorrow based on yesterday, we are admitting that tomorrow matters less than yesterday. This is not leadership; it is instead a classic example of traditional MBA thinking - administer micro events based on historical trends, and assume the bigger picture will take care of itself.

Leaders who think this way should neither lead nor think.

What happens when a business model comes along that is fundamentally different from what came before? Google's model was brilliant - they turned the end user into the product and the advertiser into the customer. Microsoft turned the application developer into value-added "pull" for their products, and used these external "solution developers" as the sales machine that just dragged Microsoft along. The "establishment" scoffed at these two companies, as they did at Southwest Airlines, PayPal, Skype, Napster, ...and even the once radical notion of using ball-point pens in schools. Forsooth!

But the establishment (teeming with MBAs) does a bit more than just scoff at these upstarts; they actively subvert them by portraying them as untenable, wrong, evil, unproven, charlatans, etc.; they lobby against them through governments, press, and public. This is how incumbents attempt to hold on - by suppressing competitors vs. improving themselves. Just read this article to see that even the market-watchers (supposed innovators) get into the game of decrying those who are challenging the status quo.

A couple of weeks ago, Steve Wozniak said that Google's Android will become the most pervasive smartphone operating system. EVERYONE (media, competitors, Apple-haters) jumped on this assuming he meant that Apple's iOS will lose, and the iPhone is doomed. They compared this to Apple's "loss" to Microsoft in the personal computer marketplace (Windows still enjoys a ~90% market share vs. Mac/OSX and others).

Really? What is the basis for measuring "win" and "loss"?? Narrow minds define winners based on market share - and it's true, from that point of view, Android is more likely to win, because it's free to the manufacturers and they're not limiting the design criteria all that much. But is that really winning? Is Mac/OSX a loser in the PC market because it has less share than Windows? What computer are you using right now? What do you wish you had?

Outside of sports there are very few places where "winning" is clear-cut. In war - the "winning" side does get to write history the way they want, but let's face it, no-one would call America's invasion of Iraq a "victory" despite the fact that they technically won. Take Windows and PCs - it's fair to say that Microsoft "won" and continues to win the PC war but at what cost? Their success put them in the cross-hairs of a number of governments who feared their market share and pervasiveness as threats to competition. This cost Microsoft $billions, and even worse, altered the very nature of the company and its approach to doing business. This is not a "win," but this is the fate of share "winners." Hmmm...

Now let's look at the "loser." Apple seems to have done ...adequately despite their "poor" market share. Looking at their stock price, market cap, share of PR voice, future prospects, etc., I don't know about you, but they seem quite viable for a loser. How do their competitors look?

Perhaps NOT having a dominant market share was the best thing for them? It allowed them to diversify their efforts beyond the PCs, into music players, music services, and other consumer devices. Not being committed to one category or product-type let them be open to cannibalizing their own products, be innovative, creative and driven. When your market share is very high, your tendency is to preserve it vs. usurp it - you only have to look at the music industry to see how well this plays out.

I'm not saying they had a master plan and things turned out exactly as intended, but I am saying that Apple approaches the world differently than its peers, and stays true to its intention despite market pressure/ perception/ etc. This is a mark of leadership and vision. I don't believe for a second that they want to be the most sold phone in the market - I think they want to be the best phone, the best experience, and the most fun. Rather than volume, their obsession is impact or effect.

Are there absolute performance characteristics that will always be "good"? How about:

1. Are you competing on price or value?
2. Do your customers choose you in the face of cheaper alternatives?
3. Are your products more important than your ethos/values ...your "why"?

Arbitrarily deciding that X is good just because it worked a generation ago or even yesterday is naive and doomed. Absolute measures of "good" should be about who you are, and why you are. These are the enduring "goods."

expectations

Does a customer have a right to be served? Is there a law that requires every customer to be catered to? Does that law make sense?

It's true that there have been occasions in history where people were not served [see picture on the left] because of some kind of visible difference. It also happens today, case in point being this eight (yes, 8) year old girl, Evelyn Towry, who was arrested and handcuffed by the Boise police department at the request of her school principal because of her autistic behavior and I suppose they (full grown adults) felt physically threatened by her (yes, 8).

But I don't think the law makes sense. The existence of anti-discrimination laws doesn't always create the right outcome. In both cases not only were the perpetrators evil and wrong, but law enforcement was as well! Exactly what protection did the victims get? When we have too many rules, it becomes too difficult to enforce any of them, and the level of specificity creates too many loopholes, allowing fundamental wrong-doing to be forgiven.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with the jerks that denied service to black people, or abused a poor eight-year-old child. Both parties should have been/be severely punished. In my opinion, people (white and black) should have boycotted the former's restaurant, and the latter all need to be terminated - the teachers, staff, principal and police officers should all be out on the street (and ideally not allowed to ever procreate again, but I suppose some might consider that harsh).

When does it make sense to exclude a customer? Seth Godin wrote about a failure heirarchy (I like this idea a lot) - it argues that you have to live up to your intentions and expectations, and that failure is critical to success. Part of this license to fail comes from choosing the right customers.

Roger Kay claims that Apple is firing its customers and that that's wrong. His view is that Apple should be much less exclusive in its dealings and be open to all types of customers. I don't agree.

When you build a product (say an item of clothing, you "optimize" it for a certain gender, a particular body-type, and sometimes even for certain skin colors - and that's acceptable. If you've ever eaten at the Carnivore in Nairobi, you know that they don't care about or cater to anyone other than meat-eaters. Aston Martin does not cater to poor people. etc. So why does Apple have to serve corporate clients?

Not only do I think they should avoid corporate customers, I also think catering to this clientele will cost Apple it's margins (profitability), as well as its reputation. As a commercial vendor, Apple will have to build products with specific features (security, manageability, interoperability); it will have to test products with greater rigor to ensure compatibility with applications built by 3rd parties; it will have to build a more extensive sales, service and support engine; and it will absorb a much greater change management burden to ensure that commercial clients are "whole" when then do upgrades, etc.

Even in the consumer space, Apple is going through some struggles with product quality. Now imagine if they'd sold the iPhone4 as a commercial product, and their antenna issues caused companies to lose business - there would be lawsuits galore ('cause let's face it, they're flush with cash, have a huge market cap, and are in some categories, dominating their markets) claiming lost income due to Apple's product flaws.

I think Apple was brilliant to deliberately step back from the commercial business (and think they should move away even more concertedly); it enabled them to dramatically streamline their business and operating model. As a consumer goods company, their only obligation is to the consumer. This allows them to:

1. Confine their sales channels (their stores, other resellers, the web).
2. Implement the most basic upgrade/switching support - easy to move from one Mac/iPod/iPhone to another, but not much else.
3. Focus their engineering efforts on specific and Apple-chosen consumer capabilities (aesthetics, music, photography, etc.) versus responding to features their corporate customers demand.

Corporations don't like as rapid a product update cycle as Apple is used to (it's too expensive and difficult for them to upgrade that often); they want a lot more "personal" care and feeding than Apple would want to fund; and they're a lot more particular about standards, compliance, interoperability, and a host of other things.

Further to #2 above, today the barriers to change are much lower in the home than the office (it's waaaay riskier and more expensive for corporations to upgrade or switch). Apple's success is predicated on a rapid innovation rate and the only market segment able to absorb that kind of re-purchase cycle is consumers. Why go after a market that can't keep up with your business?

By treating everyone in the same way - as mere consumers with disposable income and a sufficient degree of panache to be able to pull off owning an Apple device(!), Apple is able to go after the market that is most able to buy and buy often. Their customers' expectations are set and set clearly. If a corporation does wish to buy their products, they essentially have to do it as consumers.

By setting expectations correctly, Apple is not only able to remain focused while lowering their cost of doing business, they are also able to maintain their premium pricing, while creating an ever-more loyal fan/customer base who readily forgive Apple's mistakes and eagerly await their next Apple purchase. That's why a business should have the right to choose its customers - it allows it to set, live up to, and succeed based on clear expectations.

open accreditation services

Is learning is undergoing a transformation? From this article in the NY Times on the profusion of lectures available online, its implications on learning, and how that's changing the way students learn; to 21st Century Learning proponents, who claim that learning in this century is like no other, that students are actually different, and that institutions need to evolve their curriculum to match, you might think so.

I don't think the turn of a calendar's page changes the way the brain works, but what (if anything) is really different about education in this century?

It's not enough to say we have new technology today vs. yesterday, because yesterday they had new technology vs. the day before. It's not enough to say that we expect more from our students today than ever before (ibid).

What about this - could this be the century in which the business model of education changes? Is this the point where accreditation as we know it goes away? This isn't new in the history of learning, but it's something that hasn't happened in perhaps the last 150 years.

The mainstream public education system on this planet is authoritarian, discriminatory, built to make life easier for adults and regulators, and seemingly not even designed to make children great. The rules in most schools are all about what you CAN'T do. Oppression doesn't seem to be a good way to engage students and improve learning outcomes - does it?

How does the system become so authoritarian? Simple - they own the ticket to employment. I wrote recently about the tertiary education is becoming commoditized; I think things are getting even worse now. The most tangible benefit of staying in school and graduating is the piece of paper you get that says you attended, graduated, and are now employment-worthy.

If you have something hammer-like (the ticket), then it is easy to be lazy and use that hammer to assert power vs. truly engaging students - think of most country's border guards; they should be tourism advocates, but instead let their power get in the way. This is not universal, but it is pervasive.

Change in this case won't come from within. These days, more and more employers look beyond the accreditation to the person to assess whether they'd be a good hire. Ask any recruiter, hiring manager, employment consultant or counselor and they will confirm that where you went to school only helps if it's one of the top ten (or where the hiring manager went); otherwise it's more about the rest of you - who you are, what you've done, and how you did it that counts - take a look at your own resume - is education at the top or near the bottom?

Admittedly, most employers (today) won't let you in the door without the proper accreditation - that's still the first filter. But I believe this is changing. The number of "accreditation-free" people that get hired is growing rapidly, and the approach these hiring managers take and the quality of these hires will be the biggest determinant of the "value" of a formal education.

As these "alternate" candidates prove their worth in the market (likely at lower starting salaries as well), I think there will be a groundswell at both ends - hiring managers/recruiters becoming more open-minded, and students becoming more savvy.

Students are already skeptical about school; when the approach that these hiring managers use to select candidates becomes better known, it could begin to shape students' process for building a resume, the way they demonstrate knowledge, ability and experience, and the criticality of a diploma.

Imagine if you could describe your job-worthiness not in terms of a certificate, but as say a balanced scorecard, or as Seth put it, as your own quilt. It would not only be a huge help to hiring managers, but also allow much more of the candidate's broader value to be demonstrated.

Just as Open Education Resources (OER) is altering the nature of curriculum and teaching materials, I think we're about 10 years away from an Open Accreditation Service that enables students to score or quilt all of their achievements across the board.

The next revolution in learning then, is the outmoding of the existing business model. And as with the music, video, and print/TV advertising industries, education will try and hold on to the past, but at some point face reality, and focus on earning the opportunity to teach your child. I can't wait.

overclocked

Have you noticed how much e-stuff you have? How much you depend on all that e-stuff? How much the e-stuff dictates your behavior?

I was giving a speech recently and among other things, talked about how significantly electronicization has altered power consumption. There was this article I read in 2003 that said the average freshman at the University of Miami needed 18 power outlets in their dorm room! As part of a renovation of residences, the University actually had to add new power substations to accommodate the students' hunger!

I'm guessing today's student may need less plugs but more power - if it were me, I'd need 6 - iMac (music, video, work), external speakers, laptop, iPhone/iPod (shared), headset, oh and my toothbrush.

Overclocking is the equivalent of giving your computer steroids to increase its throughput. If you go too far, you can harm the circuitry, and potentially trash the PC. What's the human equivalent?

You know you're overclocked when you're wishing you had your phone so you can check email or play a game while waiting in line, or at the gas station filling up your car. You know you're overclocked when you have to check texts and emails when you're having a drink with a friend and they've popped off to the bathroom. You know you're overclocked when you dim your phone so you can play without disturbing others while watching a movie.

I admit to the first two, but not the third :-).

Are our bodies able to cope with the increased electro-magnetic radiation? What about our minds? We now have many (too many) business processes but not enough time to process things. There is value to reflection - it is how we change minds, grasp concepts, and create a shared vision. Reflection is also how we question things; it is how we are able to look at things from alternate perspectives; it is how we move from reacting instinctively (which is all you can do when you don't have time) to reacting purposefully, to changing outcomes ...profoundly.

We intentionally create pressure situations - in the corporate world they call these "forcing functions" - creating faux crises that require rapid response. The result has no choice but to be evolutionary, gradual if any improvement and largely the same old thing in a new PowerPoint template - because there's no time for anything profound. Without the time to change minds, new ideas can't gel, be socialized and convince others.

There is absolutely a place for rapid-fire reactions and quick decision-making - this is a big part of getting things done. BUT you can't expect every decision to be made this way. Briefly overclocking a business is good when reacting to a crisis or capitalizing on an opportunity, but like any computer that's treated this way, the longer you do it, the greater the risk of burnout.

The obvious damage is falling ever deeper in a rut and ironically losing that very competitive edge; the collateral damage is people burnout - you only have to look articles like this or this to see that the American worker is overclocked - they're afraid of being viewed as redundant so they don't take vacations; they don't have time to reflect and be energized so they can't conceive to catalyze revolutions (or even evolutions); and worst of all, they make big decisions rashly, and end up paying the piper at some point in the future. Constraining broad thinking (or as Seth Godin put it, getting meta) is what prevents us from really grasping a situation and doing something about it.

In the end though, I think the e-stuff is a red herring; we've overclocked ourselves in response to a ...desperation to get things done, to build and sell more widgets, and to own more crap. This ideal is not ideal. It is impales us in a self-imposed rat race, and removes us from the social, reflective, connected (dare I say actualized) world in which we ought to live. We've lost our ability to exercise a modicum of control over our own actions, and achieved an inability to exercise the instinctive urge to sit back and think...

forests and trees

If you're in a position of power, chances are you want to hang on to it. If you're in a position of power and you don't have to do a lot stay there, you like it even more; and if you've had it this way for years, complacency has set in as well. What's your natural reaction if someone or something challenges that power? Do you welcome change or do you hunker down, decry it, and marshal your resources to defend because you believe the status quo is righteous and "they" are just plain wrong? 

Despite all resistance, there are things beyond your control - some examples that come to mind include Open Source to Microsoft; bad carbs and saturated fats to fast food restaurants; cell phones in children's hands to teachers, etc. In the first case, the company still rails against their competition but now demonstrates interoperability and even distributes open source software of its own. In the second case, most fast food companies have seen the future and shifted to healthier options.

In the third case, most schools, teachers and unions continue to passionately resist change; they are adamant about the "right" way to learn, closing the door to Google, Wikipedia, the Internet, cell phones, etc.

Dean Shareski wrote a great blog calling out schools that on the one hand ask for technology in the classroom, but then prevent students from bringing their own tech to school because it would erode "the traditional education model." David Warlick wrote teacher shock about students who aren't being taught about the world around them.  Chris Lehmann also wrote a great post about a presentation to the FCC on the role of teachers in the new world of teaching.

A couple of months ago, I wrote that teachers and schools are the gatekeepers to information and accreditation, but it is changing rapidly - their hold on information is all but gone, and the value of their accreditation is diminishing as quality and relevance wane. Despite this, the incumbents remain vigilant in their fight to "control" the classroom in the name of true learning and status quo.

Dean, David and Chris are heroically pushing their fellow educators to shirk the past and embrace technology as an opportunity to transform education from the inside vs. resist and be done unto by external forces. In the business world, an apt metaphor is: "if someone's going to eat your lunch, it may as well be you, even if you have to cannibalize an existing revenue stream to do it."

The "Resistance" has powerful weapons - tenure, the political power of unions, a massive and highly distributed bureaucracy, and low self-esteem resulting from being at siege for so long. Aikido masters teach their students to blend with their opponents' motion and redirect the force to a more advantageous outcome. I think the Education community can do the same.

Blend

I'd argue for consistency and consolidation of administration across the country. Imagine how much money and energy it would save if there was one education standard mapped to one set of curriculum? The lesson plans should be at the discretion of schools and teachers, but should incorporate the use of advanced concepts like computers, calculators and cell phones - this is their biggest compromise, but look what they get in return (one standard, one curriculum).

Redirect

Take all the savings from the rationalization and invest it in increased pay and benefits for teachers.

Gain Advantageous Outcome

Improve and equalize the education service provided to every student in the country, grow teacher pay, hopefully improve student outcomes, do it without increasing the budget for education in the country, look like heroes, and get paid.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? I doubt it - this is a classic case where the Resistance is stuck in the trees and can't see the forest.

actually, "gov"-up

Creating a converged government is controversial, some of the comments I received (like J.R.'s) made me ask myself, "what if we could do a full tear-down and start over, what would the new house look like?" But before I get into that, as d.eris pointed out, the result would no longer be a federation, so instead of a federal government, there would be a national government, or just a government:-).

So... here goes - this is mostly about the process of getting elected, some of the political accountability and it touches on a couple of other aspects like taxation and some core national services. This is by no means exhaustive. Hopefully it provokes a debate about how things could be in iAmerica (i=imaginary;-).

Elections

There are only two kinds of elected officials - the President/VP and the 435 members of Congress; there is no Senate, nor of course are there any local officials. The President can run for one six-year term. Congresspeople can run for up to two four-year terms, and they overlap - so half the House is reelected every two years.

Campaign Financing

Actual or prospective government employees may not accept any kind of gift - public or private, cash or otherwise. To become a candidate, you must be nominated by 1% of your district's citizens, or 10,000 voters, whichever is less. Once nominated, you are entitled to $0.50 per voter in your district, or approximately $250,000 in government funds for your campaign. The presidential candidate follows roughly the same process, and is likewise constrained to $0.50/voter of national funding.

Voting

Voting is mandatory and fully electronic. The penalty for not voting is harsh - your tax bracket is raised to the next level until your vote is recorded (i.e. skip two elections and you're in a higher tax bracket for four years).

During the election (one month every two years), candidates must speak not only about their national interests, but also their local/district commitments. Each candidate must declare their ten most critical local priorities, which forms the basis of their "local" platform and part of the framework for their accountability to their voters.

Voting is a three-step process:

1. Indicate your top ten local issues/priorities based on the published list of each candidate's top ten (so if there are three candidates, you pick your hot issues based on the aggregated (30 or less, since some issues will overlap) candidates' list).
2. Vote for your Congressperson (you will also see how each candidate matches up to your top ten; if there is an incumbent, you see how they performed in support of your top ten issues).
3. Select your presidential candidate (potentially with a similar prioritization model).

By first being asked to prioritize the local issues you care about, we create a sensitivity to local needs for the eventual winner, plus the voter is now able to clearly see which candidate(s)' priorities are most closely aligned. It doesn't force you to vote for the best match, but at least you are making a more informed choice. Moreover, it is in the candidates' best interests to understand their voters' issues up-front and focus on the things at top of mind in their platform to create the most matches on voting day.

Reach

A mandatory electronic voting process includes the provision that the government provide every citizen with the means to do this. As you probably know, every wireless device in the world (phone or PC or whatever) has a unique (MAC or IMEI) address. The government must provide each citizen with a basic device (that is registered to their social security number; if the citizen chooses, they can purchase their own device, but each citizen must have a "registered" device).

This device will be provisioned with basic, free wireless access to deliver government services (voting, emergency services, information, potentially health care records (in a health vault of some kind), financial information (e-wallet), etc.). Each citizen will therefore be able to "connect" and vote wherever they are on Election Day. Since the incentive is quite powerful (see above), it is expected that turnout will be virtually 100%, ensuring that every individual's voice is heard.

Further, the system will capture local priorities (this could also be extended to national priorities), aggregated by district to ensure local needs are met, and when mapped to voting records, actual outcomes, etc., will create a powerful accountability model. I would imagine getting a quarterly report card on how my Congressperson is doing vis-à-vis the aggregated priorities of the district, and the ones I outlined.

This might create the perception of a more big-brother-ish society, but I think with the right regulatory safeguards, it actually creates the opportunity for a leaner, more accessible government, and a better-served citizenry.

Once Elected

The three branches of government remain intact, though Congress does have additional responsibilities.

Congresspeople are required to spend two-thirds (67%) of their time in their district, overseeing national agency focus and prioritization based on the local top ten issues, etc.; and one-third (33%) in Washington on national issues (education, health care, security, infrastructure, defense, etc.).

The local responsibility is much greater than in today's Congress. In this regard, Congresspeople act more like governors of their district. This will require a larger local staff, a deeper understanding of local needs and issues, as well as the ability and accountability for all of the constituents' governing needs.

Since the penalty for accepting private or commercial funds is termination, lobbyists will have a harder time creating influence. Congresspeople will also be judged based on their track record versus the priorities their district set out during the election; this will create a more powerful accountability dynamic, and given that they are required to "govern" their district as well, build a deeper appreciation and focus on the needs and challenges facing their constituents.

When in Washington D.C., Congresspeople will focus on national issues alongside the President. This process operates similarly to the current House, but with the dynamic of a multi-party system (vs. the two that currently dominate). As we've discussed here and here, I think a 3+-party system offers a better representation of the people's wishes, creates more moderated governance, and provides a stronger checks/balances model than we have now.

Checks and Balances

While in principle the federal/state/local model is a check/balance model, I don't believe it works in reality. Look at how much power the Feds wield during crises (9-11, Katrina, etc.), but more importantly, when you follow the money it's very clear that in the end, federal dollars are worth way more than local dollars. You only have to look as far as No Child Left Behind - the Feds account for only 9% of the total national education budget, and yet through NCLB, they basically defined an education model that dramatically altered every state's approach to education.

But if you want more evidence of this, ask any state or local official that you know how much time they have spent (as a percentage) trying to figure out how to maximize their access to federal funds (TARP, stimulus, or otherwise). It's now common for a city to have a stimulus package lobbyist in DC!

When a municipality or state is beholden to the Federal government for handouts, the checks and balances have evaporated. 

I therefore feel that the Congressional accountability model, change in their job descriptions, constraints to financing rules, and the multi-party approach, combined with the current Separation of Powers are enough to ensure an improved government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Taxation

There is only one form of taxation allowed in the country - a simple and progressive income tax. We would start from scratch and create a simpler tax policy for the country that achieved three things - enough income to operate the country (no deficit financing); the ability to set aside some funding as a national reserve; ideally operated so that the poorest third (or higher) of the population paid no taxes. Note that if you didn't vote in an election but were in the lower third of income earners, you would now be subject to taxation per the penalties of not voting.

National Standards

There will be national standards for things like education, health care, infrastructure (roads, air/marine traffic, etc.) and domestic and national security. These standards will ensure equal access to all resources for all people and across the country. Every school for example will operate under the same guidelines and expectations, much like this. In the same way, all roads, railways, airports, ports, etc. should be managed equitably.

Health care... that's a whole separate kettle of fish - I may write a separate post on this, but in the mean time, suffice it to say that today Americans are not the healthiest people in the world, and much work is needed to get them closer to good health. Defense - I believe this is a matter of foreign policy vs. global policy, where in almost every case, economic acts trump military acts.

As I began to write this, it became clear how expansive and complex this is. It raised to a higher notch my respect and admiration for the gentlemen that wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It made me realize how much they were able to accomplish with so few words. They were quite something.

In a related vein, I think these next-generation Congresspersons have an incredibly difficult job. In this new world, I think it might actually be the place where true impact is created, and where leadership and the qualities of being a great leader are tested and honed.

necessity and invention

I've been reading a lot about increased funding and expanded budgets for "innovation" in education lately. America spends a lot of money (among the highest) per student on public education; most people are unsatisfied with the results, and yet the prevailing strategy to improve things is to throw more money at the same system.

The Numbers:

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2005-2006 (the most complete data I could find) school year for public K-12 schools:

1. Total number of students: 49,113,000
2. Total number of teachers: 3,143,000
3. Spending per pupil: $9,154
4. Total operating budget: $449.6billion
   • Instruction $274.2billion - 60.98%
   • Support Services $157.1billion - 34.95%
   • Food $17.3billion - 3.84%
   • Enterprise Operations $1.0billion - 0.23%
5. Total budget: $528.7billion (#4 + $7.4b other current expenses, $57.4b capital outlays, $14.4b interest on loans)

ASIDE: According to the US Census Bureau's Public Education Finances report, of the $274.2b for Instruction, 89.8% or $246.2b goes towards teacher salaries and benefits ($78,334 per teacher). That's a pretty good wage these days, but as I've said before, I believe that teachers should be better-paid, and respected as peers to doctors, lawyers and engineers. Regarding this last point, I wonder then if it's time for teachers to secede from their unions? Most lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. are not union members; I wonder if being union members creates the impression of not being on an equal footing with those professions, and actually diminishes teachers?

I'm not judging whether the level of funding above is too much or too little for America. Let's say it's just right. Now combine this with the graph to the left, and it's pretty clear that the budget is big, and has and continues to grow very rapidly.

I don't know enough about the public sector, but in business when growth like this occurs, it is likely that bad habits form. People get lazy, money is not spent wisely, and consultants get hired to do what employees should be doing, or to provide management with a CYA safety net. Management gets in the rut of preserving the status quo/gravy train. Most organizations that survive past the rapid growth phase have to go back to the drawing board and rethink their whole business. They must develop a strategy re-defining success, specifying new resource allocation models, and advocating entirely new business processes and approaches in order to achieve their goals.

With the kind of funding growth education has enjoyed, I wonder if the administrators have simply been adding more $$ to existing line items - taking the easy way out?

Have they taken the time to form a strategy that establishes where the puck will be, enumerates and prioritizes their current resources, and defines a plan for how to get there? If the current budget won't get to the puck, they should first look inward, make trade-offs, and then demonstrate exactly how additional funding results in specific outcomes that other stakeholders want and would fund.

I've written before about how organizations can get waylaid by their own success, and the effect of size on performance. While both blogs were about commercial companies, I wonder if some of the same principles might apply to education?

At one time, the American education system was among the best in the world, and it appears that the formula from that era remains in force today despite many changes to the world around us. Why is that? Despite all the lip service paid to edu-evolution, except for very small pockets, the system appears to be just the same as it was two or three generations ago. It feels like Education is trying as hard as it can to live up to this Peter Drucker quote.

Can education achieve innovation when increased funding is not a part of the picture? If necessity is the mother of invention, is it possible that the constant increases in funding have resulted in precisely the wrong (zero-innovation) outcome?

Humans tend to think most creatively when their backs are against the wall, and they have to adapt or die. If put in that situation, would the American education system find a completely new and innovative way to achieve its goals? I think it's possible.

It takes leadership to achieve this, but I don't see the present administration (President Obama or Secretary Duncan) taking this on. We remain in desperate need of an education sensei to lead us.

tinkering

My good friend Larry pointed me to a fantastic presentation by John Seely Brown on tinkering. The ten minutes you invest in listening to John is well worth it.

Where to begin. First - I think back to times I'd spend with my father, fixing his car, or an appliance, or building something (he is a tinkerer:-)), and how I osmotically learned about machinery or design, and most importantly, how I learned to decompose a problem and then solve it bit by bit until it was complete.

This approach also taught me to be bold. I can't overstate this - when you are working on a problem beside someone whom you trust and who knows more, you are more likely to try things because you know s/he is there to help/rescue/fix you if something goes wrong. When you're learning alone or in a typical classroom setting this type of "support" might not be available for two reasons - creativity and exploration is generally discouraged (a crime IMO), and often the teacher or tutor is dealing with too many students to actually be there at the precise time the one child is at the point of trying something.

As I've gotten older, I'm emboldened (because I learned how to "fix on the fly") to the point where I can now explore, experiment and create, and actually enjoy it! This is how we will build the leaders of tomorrow, by giving them the ability and confidence to do things, to try things, and to seek the joy of learning, and sharing.

"Playing with Knowledge"

I love this phrase. The idea of create, reflect and share is very familiar. About a month ago, this same "Larry" and I had breakfast together and talked about many things, including the failure of standards in learning. During that conversation, he described his view of learning - observation, reflection, documentation, exhibition. I know that Larry and John are two peas in a pod on this:)! The share/exhibition aspect can't be overlooked, whether it is in a gallery, a school hallway, or teaching another student (as John suggests), learning is cemented during this process - yet, the education system today rarely offers students this opportunity, favoring regurgitation instead (another crime IMO).

This process of continuous learning and teaching is crucial. When Einstein (thanks Larry:)) spoke these words, he was talking about discovery, which I see as implicit and tied into the learning process above, and brought to life through exhibition.

Exhibition has another aspect - it requires creation - often physical and tangible creation. The creation process enables us to evolve to not just a way of learning and teaching, but also a way of improving. When work in progress is shared (as my father did with me), we were both able to improve it, I as the observer might have had an idea that my father as constructor didn't and after some discussion and experimentation, who knows, maybe together, we created something better, just because we shared.

But we did more than share, we critiqued each others efforts as well, not maliciously or judgmentally, but productively. Building the skill to do that and having the strength to accept it is so fundamental in school, because let's face it, it's certainly there (positive and negative) in real life.

I wish our public school system were bold enough to embrace this approach. The possibilities for its graduates would be limitless.

This blog is one way in which I tinker - it results from my observations of the world; how I reflect (and synthesize) what I see; an articulation; and then my favorite part - the exhibition, where when shared, I have the pleasure of learning from others (you) through their (your) willingness to share.

Thank you.

233

Eleven score and thirteen years ago, a document was signed - it demanded greatness from a people and a place. The principles were simple - we must honor and respect everyone, and celebrate each person's right and opportunity to achieve their best. It set the stage for incredible achievements on so many fronts.

A tradition of success can be fraught - generations grow up expecting results, expecting preeminence, and expecting the ride to be easy. The mindset of being owed outcomes creates complacency. The reality of sure and steady economic growth creates a sense of entitlement. When this happens, I think beginnings and ends are most overlooked - beginnings = education, ends = retirement - because people are most focused on the middle. A good social safety net also gets ignored because prosperity seems so attainable for anyone.

But when times do get tough as they are now, these three are most tested. Today we recognize that each has much room for improvement. In the spirit of America's history, we need revolutions in education, retirement and social safety nets to reach or restore greatness.

Revolutions are of course not a foreign concept in America, nor is heroism, creativity or leadership. Two months ago, I wrote something about a path towards peace that I felt was worth repeating:

Last week I wrote about a new diplomatic approach to the Middle East that began with an apology; achieving this won't be easy - people have emailed me saying that this is too high a price to pay, and too difficult a task for America to achieve. But today I was watching part 2 of the 20 Hours in America episode of the West Wing, and President Bartlet's speech that closes with a reference to a terrorist incident at a school.

...restoring abundance amid an economic shortfall, securing peace in a time of global conflict, sustaining hope in this winter of anxiety and fear. More than any time in recent history, America's destiny is not of our own choosing. We did not seek nor did we provoke an assault on our freedom and our way of life. We did not expect nor did we invite a confrontation with evil. Yet the true measure of a people's strength is how they rise to master that moment when it does arrive. 44 people were killed a couple of hours ago at Kennison State University. Three swimmers from the men's team were killed and two others are in critical condition. When, after having heard the explosion from their practice facility, they ran into the fire to help get people out. Ran into the fire. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels tonight. They're our students and our teachers and our parents and our friends. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels, but every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. this is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard We will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars. God bless their memory, God bless you and God bless the United State of America. Thank you. Source.

The emphasis above is mine. I am not American but I live in the United States. Living with, working with, and knowing the people who live where I now do, I am convinced that even if the people in that practice facility were known to be Middle Eastern Muslims, the swimmers from the men's team would have run into the fire without a second thought.

This speech always touches me, it fills me with pride and purpose, and it brings a tear to my eye. It convinces me that I'm right to be optimistic, despite sorry being the hardest word.

Education, Retirement and a Social Safety Net are difficult, difficult problems, but if America opens its mind to new ideas and creates a sense of urgency, I know it can spark the revolution that will create greatness.

Happy 233rd.

gauntlet of girth

I was watching Pixar's brilliant film Wall-E again today, and got to thinking about how the spaceship was built in the movie. The well-intentioned designers decomposed every anticipated act into a process and then automated it. This certainly created a more efficient, streamlined, and predictable system, one that did exactly what it should when it needed to. It did this to the point where every micro action had a pre-defined reaction, and success was measured by that micro actor's ability to do what it was supposed to. Of course the best example of this in the film is "Mop."

In the end, the result of all the problem decomposition, process management and operational efficiency was a profoundly well-managed and controlled environment that worked, provided everything happened according to plan. Over time, in the controlled environment, the system worked well enough that humans (the original constructors and source of inspiration) became superfluous - there was no need or expectation for them to do anything, be anything, or act in any way. With the system meeting every need, people became lazy and dull - aspiration-free. How horrible. How frightening.

Ironically, it took a machine with a soul to rekindle man's soul and give it purpose. The predictable, programmed, precise (but soulful) machine became the random act that re-ignited aspiration and re-awakened humanity.

As organizations in our reality mature, growth rates are harder to maintain because the revenue base keeps getting larger. A natural reaction for many is to prioritize operational efficiency, process management and business predictability vs. new growth opportunities. Why? Because at least you can control what's inside and maintain (and potentially grow) profitability by being a "better-run company."

There is no doubt that size does matter - the markets have proven that. There's equally no doubt that size is not an assurance of success, the markets have certainly proven that. There is also this truth that when organizations get bigger, they seek something (perhaps vindication?) that requires or results in ...girth.

The organizational equivalent of human girth - aka cellulite - is groups like HR, Legal and of course MBAs. As with cellulite, these elements seem to have an innate ability to multiply and expand at the expense of the value-creating parts of the company. At their best, HR, Legal, MBAs, etc. manage to create micro-successes, and cause companies to bias and measure micro-outcomes on the assumption that they are additive or multiplicative, and will result in macro success. Business processes form around the micro, funding and resources become contingent on the micro, performance is rewarded based on micro behavior, and most sadly, those who wish to innovate and transform cannot do so without first running the gauntlet of girth.

So what's my solution for corporate liposuction? I think there is at least one way for organizations to form and be lead so that they maintain the adaptive, sense and response essence that characterized their initial trajectory of success.

It is possible to be great and be lean. It is possible (though shocking to many I'm sure) to successfully run a company where PowerPoint and McKinsey analysis are not the lingua franca. It is possible to do this, but not easy. It requires one to flaunt the laws of girth-gravity. Who among us is able?

co-creating futures

Like David Warlick, I had not read this wonderful Chinese quote before:

If you are thinking a year ahead - plant seeds;
If you are thinking 10 years ahead - plant a tree;
If you are thinking 100 years ahead - educate the people

In the next breath I read Dean Sharesky's latest posting about how the book destroyed the community. Then I remembered Scott McLeod's recent post on what students want in an e-textbook - see the graphic on the right.

Together, these three are a most powerful argument. The first sets the context - it speaks of the power of education and its impact on the destiny of a people. The second refers to a predisposition (perhaps a desire to live in the past) that the way they learned something or did something is superior to what's available now or what happens now. The third speaks to what the current student generation wants in order to successfully shape its destiny and create the best tomorrow (and today) possible.

Dean has built a persuasive "business case" to rethink the nature and role of traditional paper books, and their real implications. I must admit I had never thought of books as an anti-community catalyst, though it's hard to argue the point given Dean's post. Moreover it also opens up the question of whether a traditional book is even the best way to read.

I love books and read as much as I can, but surely there are better ways to enrich the conversation? There is an argument that a book sparks the imagination and helps create a more vivid experience and impression of the author's story. I would normally agree, but then I look at how my good friend Clyde Ford has incorporated an enriched geo-spatial dimension in the e-experience of his latest book Precious Cargo; and now believe that this is actually a much better, more vivid, and imagination-sparking approach to reading.

There is a tendency to view technology as an anti-social medium. But in talking with Clyde, I know his vision is for adults and children alike to interact with his book. To learn virtually first-hand about the places his characters traveled, visualize, annotate, share their impressions and experiences, and ideally be inspired to show off their own world (both real and imagined) using similar (or what the heck, altogether different!) tools and techniques. He believes that this is a way to spark a broader embracing of literariness, literature and self-expression. I agree.

I also think it's a way to evolve the mainstream definition of literature and expression, and maybe even learning. If mashups were one starting point for this journey, why not expand the idea and open books up to the same capability? Might that inspire more people to read and express? Might it inspire deeper learning and understanding? If greater learning occurs through the process of teaching, then I think so.

Talking of self-expression, Scott has pointed us to a fantastic analysis that shows what students want in order to become better learners.

Participation creates vestedness - if students participate in the design and potentially creation of their texts, then don't we get better results? If people in general are able to participate in the consumption (and creation) of content, don't we get improved appreciation of that content?

Isn't that the ideal outcome?

the "Ed"

Andrew Rotherham recently pointed to a McKinsey analysis of national education data. A few things jumped out at me after a quick scan of the supporting materials to the article:

• We can learn from our neighbors (Canada is among the highest performing countries)
• We can spend less money (the US spends more per achievement outcome than anyone else)
• We can create more potential (effective graduates)
• That potential is worth a lot (the more graduates you have, the greater your GDP)

Then there's something missing - there has to be, otherwise how could the American education not be be better than it is?

If you were told: "You can spend less to create a better product that will make you more money, and one of the best examples of this is your next-door neighbor." Wouldn't you do it?

What are we missing??

This reminds me of The Karate Kid, a coming of age film where a boy learns how to defend himself from a group of thugs with the help of his Japanese superintendent. The Super starts him off with some work around his house, painting the fence, washing the floor, waxing the car - all done in a very specific way. After doing all these seemingly meaningless chores, the boy gets angry and frustrated, and that's when the old man, with a slew of attacks, shows him that he's unknowingly built the muscles and reflexes that are the essence of self-defense!

The sensei was wise, proven and savvy enough to know what elemental skills the boy needed, how best to teach them to him, and once these seemingly unrelated skills were mastered, he helped the boy realize that he had learned something altogether different.

The American education system needs a sensei. Someone with the wisdom and guile to craft a profound outcome out of a series of seemingly unrelated acts that suddenly explode on the American people,  forming the basis of a great education system.

The traditional approach is based on the Everett Rogers Innovation Diffusion Curve to the left. School teachers fit this curve very nicely. The most visible, Web 2.0, twittering blogger-types are all in the Innovators category, with Early Adopters, the Majorities, and maybe a slightly bigger than smaller category of Laggards.

But the Innovators are too far ahead of everyone else, so much so that the mainstream simply can't connect with them. Traditionally, the Early Adopters would bridge the gap to the Majorities and help pull them along into the future, and while this is how grassroots/organic change will happen in education, I think this process is too slow and too fragmented to yield meaningful results by itself. Moreover, the Majorities have enormous inertia and inadequate incentives to be receptive to quantum change.

We need a catalyst (sensei) with unimpeachable authority and strength, based on wisdom and experience to create the circumstances where "epiphanically" a national transformation occurs. It might take a decade to happen, but we all know it will, because our sensei is just that good.

I wonder - who is the Peter Drucker of Education?

Where is this person who has the chops and cred to be able to make profound change happen? And how would it happen?

It's time for America to create a non-political, national sister organization to the Federal Reserve/Ben Bernanke for Education.

We could call it "the Ed."

We just need to find our sensei.

bookmaking

I've been traveling the last couple of weeks and haven't had much time to write. But this article caught my eye, and some words popped into my brain.

The New York Times reported that the US Department of Justice is opening a probe into Google's Book Search service. The class action suit filed by authors and publishers was settled recently, granting Google the license (from authors and publishers) to commercialize just about every in-copyright book ever published in the United States. The resulting potential monopoly situation has piqued the DOJ's interest.

According to the Inquisitr, Google has digitized some seven million books, many out of print, and whose authors aren't around to claim royalties. They will charge for access to the books and share the revenue with authors and publishers. You have to register your book in the Book Rights Registry to receive your share of the 63% royalties that the registry will receive. If a book is "orphaned," Google may show 20% of the content for free (ad-funded) and then sell consumers access to the rest of the book, keeping all the proceeds.

Channels Matter

Google controlling the largest digital book library in the world and the ability to set prices and conditions of use for any services provided by Book Search is problematic. There is no doubt that tomorrow's reader will prefer e- to paper, which makes Google's repository the de facto library for America, and potentially the rest of the world, depending on how this goes with the EU and other markets.

Publishers are OK with this because they have secured monetization rights to new releases, thinking that this is their greatest source of revenue. This tip-of-the-iceberg mentality is fraught with risk. Long-tail principles teach us that more than half of what interests people is not recent, today or kitsch - it's the stuff that's in the inventory that publishers just ceded. Moreover, there is a principle of efficiency or one-stop-shopping that pushes people to go towards more definitive and complete sources. Given that, it's a slam-dunk that every new author is going to want to have their newly-released book in the medium that gives them the most potential readers - Google; this will force publishers to want to push all their content through Book Search.

Of course you will all recognize this as the same dynamic and head-in-the-sand mentality that the RIAA and music industry exhibited in the face of iTunes. Looks like publishers even more naive, 'cause they don't believe this will happen to them.

Channels Rule

This is something publishers know intrinsically, but they're so entrenched in their world that they can't grasp this new paradigm, or the fact that it will subsume their current business. The individual author probably likes this because they're thinking this will results in increased royalties for their books. The Darwinian Free Market Forces (DFMF) person in me says - "Good - let them be victims of their myopia!" But the Serve Society's Best Interests (SSBI) side says - "No - we can't allow this to happen!"

Society (and the people) should control access to its members' works (especially works of art). Broad, universal control of literature, music, art, etc. can not be in the hands of a commercial enterprise, no matter how benevolent they may be, or appear to be. It belongs to the people.

Changing the Channel

What if we form a joint venture (this applies to the USA only) with US Library of Congress (LOC), National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the US Public Libraries and ask Google to turn this Book Search facility over to it. We will form www.booksearch.gov (or bs.gov for short - I'm guessing it'll be easy for people to remember this) as a revenue-generating facility whose profits for the first three years will go to Google (to cover their investment), and following that will go to funding the LOC, NEA and Public Libraries.

This appeases the both the DFMF and SSBI in me and allows us to keep the fruits of society's labors in the hands of the people and not the one.

<<UPDATE - to correct some typos - Thanks John>>

the brittle truth

I heard this great quote on a TV show called Naruto: "anything that has form must one day decay."

Besides asking what the heck I was doing watching Naruto in the first place, I wondered why things get brittle as they age? Is it size? Ego? Sedentaryness? For inanimate objects, it feels like they just dry up - grapes to raisins, plums to prunes, etc. - not a happy thing. I imagine a person's "water content" also diminishes over time...

-- Oops - sorry about that - I felt oddly compelled to get a drink of water just then.

So why does it feel like the older (and larger) an organization gets, the more it "retains water"?? When organizations decay, they don't shrink and dry up, they ...congeal. Besides the "yuk" & "eeew -- gross" factor, this pendulous, ineffectual, slug-like behavior could have some dramatic effects on the world around them:

Apparently, 7,100 (or 47%) of the 15,000 air traffic controllers in the US will hit their mandatory retirement age in 2012. I don't know about you, but this doesn't make me sit back, relax and enjoy the flight!

I'm not an actuarial scientist, I didn't eat Wheaties for breakfast or sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, despite this even I can deduce that:

1. People do age (duh!)
2. It takes time to train an air traffic controller
3. The skies are crowded as it is, and we already have a lot of "close calls"
4. Planes aren't going to be replaced with Star Trek transporters anytime soon

The numbers:

1. There are 15,000 air traffic controllers today (we'll need 16,000 by 2012)
2. 3,500 of the 15,000 are in training (so there are really only 11,500 fully-qualified controllers)
3. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has found that 22% of facilities have already exceed the number of trainees they're allowed to have working at any time <-- read that one again!
4. 7,100 of the 11,500 (or 61%) qualified controllers are going to retire in three years (2012)
5. And now for the big one - it takes about three years to train an air traffic controller

Besides thinking it's time to go long on companies that sell video-conferencing technology, I'm wondering if this is just organizational decay? That as the DOT or FAA have grown older, they've just lost the ability to think clearly, forecast correctly, elevate issues appropriately, etc.? I'm sure there are many employees there who have been shouting about the impending resource gap, but maybe "management" just ignored it?

I think of the company I work for - it's now over 30 years old - and certainly some elements of it feel very sluggish. I think of the company that insures my apartment, that still today (after four years of assuring me that this was in the works) do not have a way for me to look at my policy or pay my bill online. I look at how long it took for America (a self-proclaimed super-power) to react to Katrina, or recognize that it's roads and highways are falling apart, there are so many examples.

What to do? How do organizations stay fresh? Here's one idea.

impossible is nothing

According to the Conference Board, about 40% of households will e-file their tax returns this year. Why isn't it higher? It saves the IRS $millions to have people e-file vs. paper-file. Why is it not 99%? Imagine how many trees we'd save just by not having to print all those forms and booklets and stuff? Imagine how much more efficient the IRS would be if it didn't have to transcribe the millions of manually-filled-out forms? Imagine how much less expensive it would be for the Feds to run the IRS!

Let's look at voting systems for elections. Why is this not fully-electronic today? How is it that India, a country that has a much less advanced infrastructure compared to the United States is able to conduct fully-electronic voting? Imagine how many trees we'd save, imagine how much complexity would be eliminated, imagine how many fewer lawyers we'd need! All of this plus we'd learn the results immediately! When the last polls closed, the results (the final results) would be published, and undisputed.

There are many other examples:

• Why does it take so much paperwork for a Veteran to receive their benefits?
• Why is it so hard for a family to apply for tuition assistance?
• Why is it so hard for someone who can't afford to feed their family to get meal-assistance?
• The list is endless.

Don't you wonder why this country insists on remaining in the dark ages so much? After all, this the nation that became something, the thing in a matter of 15-20 generations! It flaunted rules and traditions, challenged the establishment, was noisy, aggressive and passionate, and got it done!!

But then all of a sudden, laurels were found, and people insisted on resting on them. WTF? Why abandon that passion, energy, the feeling of never being satisfied with good enough?

Simple. We became comfortable. We became complacent. We did this because things were going so well (due to the work our predecessors had done), and we figured it would just remain this way no matter what - it was our birthright. Hah!

We forgot the hard work, sacrifice and passion it took to get here in the first place. And most critically, that if this country could do it, any other that wished to put in the hard work would do this and more.

Now all of a sudden, there's a sense of discomfort, that others have not only caught up, but surpassed.

The sense of entitlement, and resulting bureaucracy has led us astray. The effect of mind-numbing paperwork (while useful in keeping certain people employed and feeling like they had the biggest penises in the room) has resulted in hopeless inefficiency; process that take months or years to accomplish what should happen in minutes; and the reality of bureaucratic inertia arresting productive work, and impeding great outcomes.

Let us start somewhere. Why doesn't the IRS take the lead and say that they will only accept paper returns on an exception basis. That they will require that everyone who has an ATM card or a mobile phone or a TV must file electronically. (They will provide mechanisms that allow for that to happen at post offices, public libraries, other state-run facilities and even hospitals.) In the end, even doing this will save more money than it costs to process all the paper returns.

Why doesn't the FEC state that we will require a voting system like the one I described here??

Why doesn't the Veteran's administration say that we will automatically give every Veteran the benefits they're owed - no paperwork required? And so on?

Is it really that hard? I don't think so. Is it equitable for every citizen? No. So why not create exceptional solutions that specifically cater to those "edge-cases" vs. burden the whole system with it? That's a truly equitable solution.

From what I know of the IRS (I had the opportunity to work with it's then CIO about five years ago), this (even accounting for all the special accommodations I described above) would actually be a net cost savings to them; in conversations with people at the Department of Social Security, I heard similar words when talking about their processes.

Maybe it's time for President Obama to enact Patriot Act Part 2 - the American Redemption from the Tyranny of Paperwork.

Oh, and Mr. President: please just email the Act to Congress, and have them e-vote to pass it.

Mega-Negawatts

A negawatt is a watt of power that wasn't consumed. It's a powerful (sorry) concept, and could be a great way to motivate consumers to reduce household energy usage.

The bane of a utility's existence is unanticipated demand - either negative or positive. The former means that they purchased power that was unconsumed. The latter is worse. If the demand for energy exceeds supply, then to meet demand and avoid brownouts or blackouts, the utility desperately needs to buy energy on the spot market, often at a premium, and of course the cost is passed on to the consumer.

Therefore the perfect world for a utility is steady, highly predictable energy usage curve. That gives them ample time to know what they need, when they need it, and then make sure that their buyers or suppliers are able to procure at the best-possible price.

But freak weather conditions, systemic failures (downed power lines, damaged equipment like transformers, etc.), human failures (mistakes, bad decision-making, etc.) can cause unanticipated outages, and require dramatic and expensive steps.

There are wholesale markets where a utility can sell excess energy or buy emergency energy. Assuming you bought your energy at reasonable wholesale prices, it seems likely that you stand to earn a pretty solid return on investment by selling it to a "needy" buyer.

How does this relate to negawatts? This is the cool part. Imagine if you were able to instrument your home so that all power consumption (small and large appliances, heating/cooling, lights, computers, etc.) was managed via a simple browser-based application that you could access from anywhere (think of a schematic of your home and you can turn things on/off, schedule activities, laundry, dishwasher, lights to vacation mode, etc.).

Now imagine if your electricity provider comes to your neighborhood or apartment building and makes you this offer: if all of you wire up your homes (per the paragraph above) at a cost of say $2-300 per house (not horrible), we'll periodically contact you and ask you to lower your energy consumption for a number of hours. And if you as a community are able to do this, and hit the "number" we need, we'll sell the energy you save (negawatts) on the spot market, and share the profits with you.

Ideally, it would be possible to recover the $2-300 initial cost in a matter of months. And now all the future savings are upside. And because you can more closely monitor your usage, connect to your home via the Internet (even with your phone) to make adjustments, or even just to adjust your thermostat to optimize energy usage, you can really make a difference. The utility could also set the "rebate" model so that the bigger the community that participates, the more you get back from them. This creates a dynamic where all the neighbors are interested in each others consumption and maybe even "helping" to make sure everyone toes the line.  Community guilt as it were:-).

The utility company will love this because they can use this motivation to flatten the curve of their overall energy usage; better instrumentation allows them to more accurately predict consumption; and finally, getting the community behind them and participating actively, results in everyone working together to lower our overall energy footprint.

Negawatts - we should all convince our utility companies to do this - it could be a really great way to effective, grassroots energy conservation.

Sense, respond, adapt

The good old days. It's not that they were that good, it's just that in hindsight and since we survived it, we feel a fondness for it. The past is also safer because it's known and understood; the future is obviously neither.

I was reading Seth Godin's latest this morning. We are also in the midst of the Communication Revolution. The implications of this combined with what Seth wrote are huge.

Survival is about agility. The mantra has to be: sense, respond, adapt. Most large (and sedentary) companies will be able to live for a while based on sheer inertia. But that only lasts so long. The automobile industry has run out of momentum. Because things are moving so much more quickly due to the Communication Revolution, there's more friction to arrests the inertia. Move fast or stop moving altogether...

The airline industry learned it too; during the fuel crisis, Southwest Airlines was least scathed, because they had sensed future oil issues, responded with a hedge strategy, and adapted to the new world more successfully as a result.

Apple has done this twice. When they recognized that they were no longer Apple Computers (long before they announced this) but Apple Inc., they ramped up their Apple Store strategy and became a retail force, connecting directly with their customers. Fantastic move to sense that the consumer was becoming more empowered and conscious of their own image; they responded, and adapted. The second time is happening now. It's their recognition of the value of iTunes and that it and the App Store are their new channel to the consumer. I think the ripple effects and impact iTunes and App Store will have are going to be massive, and surprise a lot of people.

Organizations that are naive enough to believe the market will wait patiently while they attempt to extract every possible drop of milk from their cash cows, are in for a much quicker reckoning with reality.

But those that look at change and like the Aikido master, are able to take its inertia and redirect it to their advantage are the ones that will thrive.

Sense ~ Respond ~ Adapt

Energy Innovation

I was listening to an interview on NPR yesterday with an executive from Shell who said that energy independence is impossible, we just need to talk about reducing consumption. Questions arose. What is energy independence? What happens when you have it? What ought to be the right price to pay for this?

I think it is in Americans' nature to think: "if I see something I want and I can get it, unless someone stops me, I'm going to take it." That applies to buying bad mortgages, it applies to eating fast food, and it absolutely applies to energy consumption. We have big cars, big houses, big appliances and big appetites. This isn't true everywhere in the world, though I've seen it more and more in the Middle East and some Latin American countries like Venezuela.

When gas prices rose above $4/gallon, consumption fell. Instead of driving, more people tele-commuted, conducted e-meetings (vs. face-to-face), and braved public transit. People were even more thoughtful about home heating and whether they really needed to run the dishwasher right now. But when prices came back down, the old habits returned and consumption resumed.

There were hard times. People dependent on driving long distances suffered deeply. The American urban sprawl, was built that way because gas prices have historically been so low. When you travel through or live in Europe, you notice that gas prices are two to almost three times higher than here. Moreover, public transit is much more efficient and available, and everything is a lot closer to each other - you hardly need to drive.

The very nature of American urbanization puts us at a tremendous disadvantage compared to the European Union when it comes to the COGS of our products and services. Today, American workers are a bit more productive than their European counterparts, but one never knows how long that will last, and if that advantage erodes, the increased cost of fuel will make our products that much more expensive to sell and buy.

With few exceptions, public transit is abysmal in the US - first because we don't spend any money on it, and second because people mostly hate to use it. Let's change that! There is a large public transit allocation in the stimulus package, why not take this opportunity to change the game? First, all new public transit vehicles must be natural gas or electric powered, second, let's double gas prices again (for non-public transit consumption) with a tax whose proceeds are earmarked for pubic transit investments, and to expand transit coverage beyond city-centers. The results:

1. Lower CO2 emissions
2. Lower fuel imports
3. Cheaper overall transportation costs
4. A re-thinking of American city planning

I know this hurts the already-ailing auto industry because we'd be reducing their demand pretty dramatically, but maybe it's time to smell the coffee and realize that auto manufacturing has way too much capacity as it is, and is simply not sustainable.

Also - I haven't mentioned one very significant result from all of this. American ingenuity. I think when pressed, and when our backs are against the wall, creativity and innovation will occur - this country will produce the successor to the internal combustion engine. It will produce batteries that are (maybe even organic) smaller, have greater capacity and are more safely disposed of. It will design new forms of transportation that fundamentally change the very concept.

This is really what's needed. But to get there, our backs need to truly be against the wall - that's when the magic will happen.

Strategic Entrenchment

About ten years ago, after a mind-numbing series of meetings at work, and in a fit of frustration, I became convinced that "the best predictor of future failure is past success." The conversations were about how to get ready for tomorrow, assuming today is going well, but growth from today's businesses won't be sufficient to meet tomorrow's growth objectives.

Invariably, when one is in a meeting like this, the most closed-minded people are those with the deepest attachment to the "today" businesses. It's a damned shame, since before they got to be "today," they were creative, innovative, anti-establishment people who wished to shake things up and make a difference. But now, their cognitive dissonance makes them completely closed to new ideas that might cannibalize the fruits of their labor. The worst part of this is that they're in charge now.

There is no openness to the idea that future success might come from an altogether different direction, and while it might cannibalize existing, better us than our competitors.

This type of entrenched (some might call it constipated) thinking seems to permeate the large organizations that I've encountered in my life. As I wrote here, the bigger you get, the more distant you become from the things that mattered when you first started, building great products that customers want, and focusing on customer service.

In the case of my employer, this intractability led directly poorer versions of products for our customers (where in some cases they actually preferred the older generation to the new one).

This doesn't just apply to engineering and product development, I've seen the same behavior in marketing and planning organizations who insist on using a certain planning method or marketing framework because it worked once for them back in 2007, and got them promoted. It's akin to a student writing essays only in the format they used in grade 7 because they got an "A" on it, and can't understand why they got a "D" in grade 9.

I'm absolutely not saying that the old way is always the wrong way. I'm just saying that being open to new ideas and opportunities can lead to even better outcomes.

In many cases, the entrenched thinking leads to what Clayton Christensen referred to as "disruptive innovation." The incumbent is so committed to their existing path and product vision that they are simply blind to the possibility of someone fundamentally altering the game. Examples of this from Christensen's book include the mainframe to the mid-range to the PC, or tape drives to disc drives to flash memory, etc. This also happened to Microsoft with Netscape (Internet Explorer) and Linux (Windows), movie theaters with the advent of video cassettes and VCRs, to catsup when Heinz came out with Ketchup [this, IMO is one of the most brilliant marketing strategies ever employed, I will write about this tomorrow], and there are many other examples.

In all cases, the prior success of the "today" leaders simply shuts them off to innovations out of left field that in the end dramatically disrupt their engines.

What then can the leaders of today do to prevent this type of situation? It's very hard to be told your baby is no longer beautiful, nor is it reasonable to expect the "parent" to listen to these nay-sayers. Though one of the best examples of bucking this trend would be Apple and their willingness to cannibalize their amazingly successful iPod line with the iPhone and Touch, or to abandon PowerPC technology for Intel. These were bold moves, that flew in the face of "conventional" thinking, and you have to applaud Apple's management for that.

One approach to helping companies stay open to new ideas, while making sure they extract maximum return from existing events, might tie back to that blog entry Size Does Matter.

What if there was also a policy that once a successful business line in the main company hit a certain profitability and had achieved a specified return (say 200% of the original investment), it was required to spin off 20% of its employees and fund that "start-up" with 5% of the profits for 2-3 years? The start-up is  charged with beating the incumbent and taking down the mother-ship. If after those 2-3 years there are no promising results, the start-up is on its own. But if it succeeded, the parent company would have a choice of bringing them back in-house, or sticking to the program as defined in Size Does Matter, and creating a whole new revenue stream, while milking the last drop out of their cash cow.

How many of us would not jump at the chance to form a whole new group for a well-funded "do it the right way this time"??  I know I would.

Size does matter

When does a company get too big? For most companies, success is defined as rapid, profitable growth. But at some point, the company becomes unwieldy, hires more HR, lawyers and "operations" people than ever imagined, and starts to erode the essential sensibility that made them what they are.

The bigger and more mature an organization gets, the more inwardly focused it gets. (Yes, there are exceptions, but in the main, I think I'm right.) When you start out, and are an unknown underdog, you can't afford to care about anything else but your customers, and building and shipping your product. You are incredibly responsive to the market and your customers, because you'll die if you aren't.

But at some point, you become more focused on yourself, your perception, your opinions, than you do your customers or your products. It's not to say that lip service isn't paid to the customer and the market, but let's face it, even that is a more self-aggrandizing gesture. You take yourself so seriously that now the PR department has a deciding voice in policy.

And if you're looking for the sure sign that you're there: it's when people in the organization get measured on internal awareness campaigns, and actually spend real money advertising to the employees about some little program that only that team cares about.

Another impediment growth was articulated extremely well in this article by Scott Anthony. He talks about how companies raise the bar for successful innovation. In a survey of Fortune 100 companies, some stated that $1 billion was the minimum market opportunity they would target. In other words, innovations that could not demonstrate a $1b revenue opportunity did not qualify for consideration! How do you know? Who knew that you'd be this big when you were starting out, so how are you able to discard opportunities so arbitrarily? Finally, are you really going to believe a forecast a bunch of MBAs wrote based on historical trends and analysis? How often are they right?

It seems that to grow, one must have the willingness to think small, and adopt the rules that encourage an open-minded view of innovation, change and opportunity.

Seth Godin, another very smart guy wrote this really interesting piece recently, in which two paragraphs  connected with me:

Ideas that spread, win. Sometimes ideas get changed in transmission, and sometimes those changed ideas spread even farther and with more impact than the ideas that came before them.

In business, if you lock down ideas, make them difficult to change and spread and have impact, you fail. If you accept the fact that change is real, that there is competition for your ideas and that amplifying the good stuff works, you can grow and thrive.

He's absolutely right. This is a critical element of sustainability, and is ignored often at the organization's peril.

But now I'm wondering - why do I need to grow at all? Why does a company have to keep getting bigger to succeed? Is it possible to stay small and be successful? What if a company (even a public one) decided that it was no longer seeking revenue growth, but feels instead that it's making enough money and that improving its products, processes and services but remaining relatively the same in size is success enough?

What if the employees of this company were happy with that as well? They didn't all want to be CEO, they didn't all need to earn that much more money, they were content with the status quo...

OK - that's just absurd - human nature will not allow this.

Since we can't live in this Zen-infused complacency, how does an organization sustain success? How about combining the views of Anthony and Godin while maintaining a sense of smallness?

What if we were able to build a company whose employees were shareholders, and where innovation and change were embraced. But when an innovation began to flourish, they did three things:

1. The company sold off 60% of the new business, retaining a large but non-majority stake
2. Recouped the cost of its R&D, etc. and hopefully made some profit from the 60% sale
3. Allowed employees related to that business the option of staying or leaving

The effect on their organization would be a new revenue stream added to the investment portfolio, but no commensurate headcount or physical asset growth. If the spin-off did well, they benefited; if it didn't, they didn't lose, since the sale of 60% was implicitly profitable, plus they'd get to write off the 40% that was still on their books.

In the end, the company's performance would be based on their ability to maintain the business they started, and with their culture of open-minded change, the ability to spin off as many profitable innovations as possible, creating new revenue streams, employee growth opportunities, and happy employees and shareholders.

Size does matter, but happiness and success don't require you to be biggest one on the block...

UPDATE:
Pierre de Vries wrote this brilliant entry a couple of days ago (I wish I'd read it before I wrote this). In it he describes the four stages of evolutionary transformation and rebirth (my words) as: "exploitation or growth, a mature conservation phase, a catastrophic release, and finally reorganization leading to new growth." This is conceptually very aligned to what Anthony and Godin talked about as well a most viable alternative path to the one I suggested above. A cycle of continual reinvention might be a very natural and effective way for organizations to avoid bloat and stay vibrant and engaged.

Can we talk?

Wordnet defines "Revolution" as "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving."

I like the world revolution - and use it often in my vernacular. Today I was thinking about some of the revolutions we've all experienced.

The Industrial Revolution (IR) began in the 18th century, and marked the point when the growth of mechanical work began outpacing the growth of manual work. The technologies that shaped IR were the steam engine, iron founding and textile manufacturing. The business model was centralized, patent-based monetization, where few were granted IP rights, and they built huge economic machines. Resulting innovations in transportation (rail, ship, automobile) caused the effects of the industrial revolution to go global, albeit over a generation or three.

The Information Revolution (IR2) began in the mid-20th century. It was marked by the connection of easily-stored content to widely-available distribution. The technologies that shaped this time were reduction in storage prices, improved data transmission through telephony, TCP/IP for networking, the massively widespread use of PCs, and the invention of the World Wide Web and Internet (thanks to Al Gore of course). The business model shifted from big to small, from centralized to decentralized, and most critically away from just Western centers of power. The value of IP waned compared to the value of awareness and "eyeballs", which when combined with much lower costs of entry into the "network" resulted in more content being available to more people with almost no effort on the publisher's part. Moreover, banking had evolved to the point where people almost anywhere in the world were able to buy things from anywhere else, thereby monetizing their content. The proliferation of PCs combined with the availability of phone lines that could handle data (via modems to start) made this revolution go global in a matter of decades.

The next revolution (which we are now at the beginning of) is the Communication Revolution (CR). It is marked by the proliferation of mobile telephony; search engines (which is really the transition between IR2 and CR); and non-verbal communication modes (SMS, data, email, etc.) and Internet access via cell phones.

In each Revolution, the infrastructure required to participate is progressively smaller. In fact, having a lot of infrastructure actually impedes and steepens (is that a word?) the on-ramp to the next Revolution.

Moreover, the generations that were born in these latter revolutions have very different preconceptions and approaches to doing things. They live in a world that is steeped in "polyphonicness" - and they're comfortable there. They don't feel the need for communication to replicate face-to-face experiences <-- this is a big one IMO. There is no need to simulate a live meeting for effective communication; each has value and impact, but one doesn't supersede the other. They're also less about persistent fidelity (i.e. highest definition audio/video, immersive feel, etc.) and more about efficacy and fitness for purpose. The concept that I needed to talk to you now, found you, in eight words communicated my message, you acknowledged, and we're done, is very efficient and without the burden of "building a relationship first". This can be done via simple text messaging; no need for a Video Conferencing Room that costs $50,000 and requires three admins, five technicians, an owners' manual, four remotes, and all that crap.

With the proliferation of mobile phone systems, this Revolution has begun even more quickly (a decade?). But CR isn't about blurring boundaries (that happened with IR2). This is rather about blurring time.

Standardization --> Discoverability --> Transparency & Immediacy

IR was about standardization through mechanization (you can have any color you want as long as it's black). IR2 was about publishing and sharing. CR is about not being able to hide (or more poetically, being no longer being cloaked in a veil of time, place, and knowledge).

Everybody talked about "Internet time" back in the day, well we're now in cellular time, Dorothy. I don't even need to wait to boot up my machine and open a browser. If I want to know what's going on somewhere, I can call and find out, if I want to talk about something, I can call and share. But I can also Twitter, text, blog, send pictures, etc. - all in real time.

This is the revolution, and its implications are profound.

Most organizations today have a clearly-defined a protocol and hierarchy. This structure creates latency. They simply don't have the ability to respond in real time to real problems or opportunities. In the CR world, MBAs are a hindrance - they take too long and obsess overly about historical patterns and writing reports.

The concept of a sense-and-respond organization does not yet exist. The Communication Revolution is pointing this out every day as we learn about the bungling acts of corporations and governments. In the past, they would have had the time to manage the conversation, control the message, and have a measured response or be able to hide it. Now they look like buffoons with their heads cut off.

We need to build a business model that embraces sense/response; it needs to have measures, discipline, and an infrastructure that's able to accommodate what CR requires. This capacity is a priority for survival in this Revolution and for whatever is coming next. The leaders of this new model are very much not the leaders to today's corporations or government.

I was reading this MSNBC article today and was freaked out at the thought that Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer or Robert Gates don't use email for work! So if you want to communicate quickly to them, you need to write a memo, print it, and deliver it to one of their minions who will (if the mood strikes) find a way to get it in their hands at some point.  Holy SH*T! This is how we run a country?

The industrial revolution created mechanical speed, the information revolution changed space (specifically, the distance between points in space), and the communication revolution changed time (sense and response time).

Are you ready?

Philanthropy, foreign policy and sustainable outcomes

There's a lot of talk lately about what role the Obama government should play in helping emerging countries ascend. Most attempt to marry philanthropy and relatively short-term, Western ideas about what we think "they" really need. I wonder if we're simplifying too much and over-committing to the idea of philanthropy?

When philanthropy does create an outcome, how long does it last once the funds and the Westerners leave? If the intervention is not in the natural flow of the local community, and something that they would make a trade-off for within their hierarchy of needs, how often does it succeed?

I'm reminded of a story I read a while back about a Microsoft executive who visited a school in Guatemala - essentially someone donated a satellite dish + internet access to a school; at some point they stopped paying the satellite bill, and there ended that project.

Sustainability is the panacea for all intervention. But things only stick if all the players wish it to, and would make the trade-off for it vs. other priorities. In many emerging communities, the other priorities include food, shelter, income, and healthcare. Even education doesn't always make the cut.

The most successful recent technological intervention in emerging communities is the mobile phone. The innovation was in the sale of cheap handsets and pay-as-you-go plans. The Western investment was typically to build the network (cell towers), and provision very simple, cheap handsets and SIM cards via local retailers.

It succeeded because it was about business not philanthropy. A market investment was made to create a symbiotic relationship - provide a service that the local community wants and willing to pay for. It took time for this to happen, but now there are ancillary businesses that have grown organically from this and it is self-sustaining.

Historical successes include the TV and VCR, though they are used sporadically since they need continuous electricity, which a mobile phone does not. I think this is one reason why PCs don't (and won't) do so well.

I would make the bet in the mobile communication arena (vs. PC computing, or pure internet access, or whatever), and I would consider the following for-profit ventures:

1. Provide ubiquitous and very-low-cost mobile data plans, and provision low-cost data-enabled mobile phones
2. Build a simple, pervasive text and mobile data (3G, GPRS, etc.) e-banking and e-transaction service 
3. Create and distribute mobile educational curriculum, much like Kumaras Pillay does in South Africa
4. Develop mobile content on how to use #1 & 2 to create your own e-business in local languages

The Obama administration should promote investments that create a symbiotic relationship between the Western companies, local companies, and local consumers, but that's just fluff.

The Administration's real role should be to catalyze the ITU and the World Bank to negotiate multinational, multi-party deals that enable #1 & 2, and spawn companies in partnership with UNESCO to build pan-African (say) mobile curriculum for #3. If the large Western companies have a brain (and they do), they will help build #4 in each market to drive increased adoption and usage.

The "owner" should be Hillary Clinton, the new Secretary of State. It should take six months to negotiate the deals with the various parties, and 24-36 months before we see results from pockets of  critical mass. It should cost relatively little to do this (low-interest loans to upgrade cell towers for data access (~$25mm),  implementation of a simple e-banking model (~$1-2mm), and curriculum development ~$2-3mm)), and say 3-5 people in the Administration to oversee progress.

The citizens would benefit if the services were of enough interest to warrant spending their very scarce funds. The local companies would form organically and benefit their communities. The larger (and sometimes Western) companies would benefit because their markets had expanded.

America would benefit because it believes (as Obama said many times) in peace through improved global education, prosperity and communication.

A rising tide lifts all boats. As value is provided to the lowest layer, its worth rises, and goodness flows throughout the whole system. It might take more time (3-5 years) than we'd like, but the result is pervasive, locally-owned and sustained improvement, and a good step towards peace and prosperity for all.