sábado, 30 de mayo de 2009
Efemeralización o Ephemeralization
Es la obsesión de los administradores de procesos, de Internet y quizás la búsqueda permanente a través de toda
Doing more, with less.
Este dibujo nos muestra el tiempo de viaje a las grandes ciudades.
Eficiencia en la logística. El ex-Harvard Jeffrey Sachs, considera que es una de las razones principales para el bajo crecimiento de áfrica. Paul Krugman también estudia esto con la economia geográfica.
Sin embargo esta búsqueda de alcanzar niveles de rapidez y eficiencia ... más rápido y más barato ... recuerden Internet es inmediato y ubiquo y cada dia más rápido y más barato ... parece ser un paradigma discutible.
Buckminster Fuller (1969) llamó a este proceso de tratar constantemente de alcanzar más con menos, Efemeralización (Ephemeralization).
El progreso puede ser un concepto questionable (Heylighen & Bernheim, 2000a).
Mejoras para un observador pueden parecer deterioros para
otros.
Esta búsqueda de eficiencia, en Internet, puede ser visto como una disminución de la fricción.
Cuando la fricción tienede a 0, entonces pueden aparecer efectos indeseados; como por ejemplo en el caso de los neumáticos y las carreteras.
Cuando el camino está congelado, al existir una menor fricción, o sea, ser más eficiente .. o efemeralizado ... entonces frenar, se hace muy dificultoso ... ya que existe un menor roce ... y "aparece" un efecto indeseado.
¿la pérdida del control de los "derechos" de autor son una salida indeseada?
Heylighen, F. (2002), “Complexity and Information Overload in Society: why increasing efficiency leads to decreasing control”, Belgium: Free University of Belgium
jueves, 28 de mayo de 2009
Enterprise 2.0 Isn’t a Checklist
by Paula Thornton
May 27, 2009 at 1:46 pm
When speaking at national Data Warehousing conferences years ago I was surprised by two clear patterns:
And yet, the approaches needed for E2.0 initiatives are the antithesis of typical IT practices.
1. There are no rules; there are no requirements
An optimal E2.0 initiative evolves organically (hold that thought for further clarification). E2.0 initiatives are the canary for Business 2.0 — if they die, the business will as well (either absorbed by the larger market or re-emerging anew after an identity meltdown).
2. The goal is not Binary Code
This is the realm for Design Thinking, not Analytical Thinking (previously noted: end of piece). As Roger Martin alludes to in The Design of Business (starting pg 6) this is an era to shift away from the locked down binary code of repeatability (optimal for machinery) and become more comfortable with the ’squishy’ realm of the heuristic (optimal for capitalizing on human wetware). It doesn’t mean that we abandon the right side of the continuum — mystery…heuristic…algorithm…binary code — but that we shift to the left.
3. Controls are Nooses of Death
This is the realm of ‘middles’: neither chaos or order, but a powerful, constantly changing space called complexity (think practice of ’science’ not ‘lots of pieces’). IT is still focused on increasing controls to improve results — increasing compliance, embracing defined practices of Project Management, etc. If you’re building a spaceship and lives are at stake, these practices are a must. If you’re running a company in today’s turbulent marketplace, everything that is locked down and fixed prevents the real human capital of the organization from adapting to constantly changing circumstances. There is never an ideal process or system and there will always be exceptions. IT cannot respond fast enough to these changes. That means the flexibility has to be built into the systems. This is not to suggest that controls are abandoned — it simply means that all of the existing controls have to be questioned and likely changed for greater human oversight throughout the organization (managed via a distributed social governance model, not a hierarchy).
4. It’s not about a Blog or a Wiki
A true sign of a E2.0 initiative destined for failure is one that focuses on the technologies. Certainly there are a variety of technologies that enhance and help to enable E2.0, but even as technologies, they are absolutely ineffective when implemented with a typical IT approach: install them. Blogs, Wikis, Mashups, and other Social Computing mechanisms are elements of a flexible infrastructure. As a solution they have to be architected. This will prove problematic for most IT groups for the same reason that SOA has failed — IT hires ‘drafters’ not ‘architects’. In company after company, the majority of people I’ve met who hold ‘architect’ titles know nothing about real design: they can draft solutions, but not architect them (the problem starts with the job descriptions — check out some postings).
So what IS Enterprise 2.0 focused on? People: tapping the human potential, helping to change the way business gets done by optimizing it not to the systems but to the people. Not shaping the people (via training and documentation) to the systems and the business, but changing the systems and the business to optimize the potential of the people.
Enterprise 2.0 is a mindset, framed by the orders of nature: enabling endless possibilities, organizing simple things in simple ways.
Enterprise 2.0 is about facilitating orderly chaos:
May 27, 2009 at 1:46 pm
When speaking at national Data Warehousing conferences years ago I was surprised by two clear patterns:
- Each year, over 50% of the people in attendance were new to the field and often were there because they’d ‘inherited’ responsibility for a data warehousing initiative, but knew nothing about the industry or the practices.
- Because of #1, the majority of the attendees were under tremendous pressure to perform. They were looking for recipes — checklists that they could take home and just start working on.
And yet, the approaches needed for E2.0 initiatives are the antithesis of typical IT practices.
1. There are no rules; there are no requirements
An optimal E2.0 initiative evolves organically (hold that thought for further clarification). E2.0 initiatives are the canary for Business 2.0 — if they die, the business will as well (either absorbed by the larger market or re-emerging anew after an identity meltdown).
2. The goal is not Binary Code
This is the realm for Design Thinking, not Analytical Thinking (previously noted: end of piece). As Roger Martin alludes to in The Design of Business (starting pg 6) this is an era to shift away from the locked down binary code of repeatability (optimal for machinery) and become more comfortable with the ’squishy’ realm of the heuristic (optimal for capitalizing on human wetware). It doesn’t mean that we abandon the right side of the continuum — mystery…heuristic…algorithm…binary code — but that we shift to the left.
3. Controls are Nooses of Death
This is the realm of ‘middles’: neither chaos or order, but a powerful, constantly changing space called complexity (think practice of ’science’ not ‘lots of pieces’). IT is still focused on increasing controls to improve results — increasing compliance, embracing defined practices of Project Management, etc. If you’re building a spaceship and lives are at stake, these practices are a must. If you’re running a company in today’s turbulent marketplace, everything that is locked down and fixed prevents the real human capital of the organization from adapting to constantly changing circumstances. There is never an ideal process or system and there will always be exceptions. IT cannot respond fast enough to these changes. That means the flexibility has to be built into the systems. This is not to suggest that controls are abandoned — it simply means that all of the existing controls have to be questioned and likely changed for greater human oversight throughout the organization (managed via a distributed social governance model, not a hierarchy).
4. It’s not about a Blog or a Wiki
A true sign of a E2.0 initiative destined for failure is one that focuses on the technologies. Certainly there are a variety of technologies that enhance and help to enable E2.0, but even as technologies, they are absolutely ineffective when implemented with a typical IT approach: install them. Blogs, Wikis, Mashups, and other Social Computing mechanisms are elements of a flexible infrastructure. As a solution they have to be architected. This will prove problematic for most IT groups for the same reason that SOA has failed — IT hires ‘drafters’ not ‘architects’. In company after company, the majority of people I’ve met who hold ‘architect’ titles know nothing about real design: they can draft solutions, but not architect them (the problem starts with the job descriptions — check out some postings).
So what IS Enterprise 2.0 focused on? People: tapping the human potential, helping to change the way business gets done by optimizing it not to the systems but to the people. Not shaping the people (via training and documentation) to the systems and the business, but changing the systems and the business to optimize the potential of the people.
Enterprise 2.0 is a mindset, framed by the orders of nature: enabling endless possibilities, organizing simple things in simple ways.
Enterprise 2.0 is about facilitating orderly chaos:
- Minimizing Structure, Optimizing Connections
- Tapping Existing Kinetic Energy
- Celebrating Flaw-Finding and Fixing
- Supporting Rapid Change
How do you get there?
Now we can start the technology discussion…
http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/05/27/enterprise-20-isnt-a-checklist/
- Truly Utilize Resources: It’s not a destination — it’s a journey. You’re already on the path: embrace where you stand. First assess whether or not existing resources have access to one another: the people element. Finding people has to be the first priority. Determine the typical scenarios for problem solving and recognize that departments or hierarchies do not hold the answers to business problems/issues: people do. Warning: classic ‘expertise locator’ technologies will likely not be the right answer here.
- Shorten Distances: Simplify all aspects of ‘doing’ business. Repeatedly ask: What can we stop doing? Leverage what’s working (from the perspective of all individuals impacted, not just those with ‘management’ responsibility to execute) — bypass the rest. From an IT perspective, being successful here the concept of software as we know it goes away. The desktop becomes a collection of functions that can be assembled into sequential processes, but are not locked into place. Existing applications can be tapped, bypassing inefficient UIs and raising the most relevant activities and functions to the ‘top’ (omnipresence). Even two years ago Dion Hinchcliffe introduced the concept of situational software.
- Embrace Organic: Organic is not chaotic. A palm frond is distinct from a maple leaf. Nature has order, but that order is under rapid cycles of repeated construction and destruction. The question becomes one of determining what structure is necessary to support a specific, unique pattern (purpose), yet does not prevent the ability to adapt to constantly changing conditions — not only to survive, but flourish.
- Shift Focus: Particularly for IT, the focus shifts from code (developers) to UI (designers). Coders are trained to make things binary; good designers are comfortable with the ’squishiness’ of heuristics. That doesn’t mean developers go away; it means that there should be a 1-to1 ratio of developers and designers. They’re two totally different kinds of mindsets — and while there are unique individuals who can do both, it’s rare that 1) you can find them or 2) you know what to look for and adequately assess. Besides, there’s an important phase of working through the natural ‘dissonance’ that will occur between these two mindsets. This can be lost when resolved in the mind of a single person (or it will just increase work-induced-schizophrenia, ala. stress). The fallacy of paired programming is not in the number, but in the resources and their focus. Pairs should be made up of two different perspectives.
- Shift Thinking: Design Thinking requires a different approach: it focuses on trying out multiple possibilities (fail fast) to test an algoritm — a problem statement. Don’t think problem=flaw, but problem=mathematical equation. Different algorithms solve different problems. Many solutions fail because they either 1) started with the wrong question (the solution is the answer to the question) or 2) did not adapt to change the question (the problem statement) as more was learned along the way. Our current definition and funding of projects is a key contributor to this fatal flaw.
- Shift Culture: A company that has been optimized for ‘machine’ design (command and control), will have a culture that reinforces such behaviors. Such a culture will undermine E2.0 potential. It will seek to eliminate the efforts as a ‘foreign body’. A different culture is not a prerequisite, it’s a corequisite. It should evolve as enabled by the other changes. Such cultures have to move from ‘rules’ to ‘guidelines’; from ‘fixed processes’ to ‘governance models’; from binary to heuristic (obvious exceptions will be for those industries and/or business artifacts subject to legislation).
Now we can start the technology discussion…
http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/05/27/enterprise-20-isnt-a-checklist/
miércoles, 27 de mayo de 2009
sábado, 23 de mayo de 2009
domingo, 17 de mayo de 2009
Cato Institute: "Sr. Presidente, no estamos de acuerdo"
5 de febrero de 2009
WASHINGTON, DC—El presidente Obama dice que "los economistas de un amplio espectro político están de acuerdo" con la necesidad de un gasto público masivo para estimular la economía. De hecho, muchos economistas no están de acuerdo. Cientos de ellos, incluyendo Premios Nóbel y otros académicos reconocidos, han firmado un anuncio que el Cato Institute colocó en periódicos alrededor de EE.UU. El texto del anuncio dice:
"A pesar de los reportes de que todos los economistas ahora son Keynesianos y de que todos respaldamos un gran aumento en el peso del gobierno, nosotros los que aquí firmamos no creemos que más gasto público es una manera de mejorar el desempeño de la economía estadounidense. El aumento en el gasto público por parte de los gobiernos de Hoover y Roosevelt no sacó a la economía estadounidense de la Gran Depresión en la década de 1930. Más gasto público no resolvió la 'década perdida' de Japón en los noventas. De tal manera que es un triunfo de la esperanza sobre la experiencia creer que más gasto público ayudará a EE.UU. hoy. Para mejorar la economía, los políticos deberían enfocarse en reformas que eliminen los obstáculos al trabajo, al ahorro, a la inversión y a la producción. Tasas de impuestos más bajas y una reducción de la carga tributaria siempre son las mejores maneras de utilizar la política fiscal para estimular el crecimiento".
http://www.elcato.org/node/4029
H1N1 en Chile
Mujer llegó desde México:
Confirman primer caso de gripe A (H1N1) en Chile esto plantes lo que siempre digo ¿porque exagerar los efectos reales sin el contexto o la realidad? hay 1 persona enferma confirmada, lo que obviamente, por tratarse de una enfermedad contagiosa y con algún grado de mortalidad podría preocuparnos.
¿cuantos recursos se estarán usando ... ? horas extras, honorarios para expertos, gastos generales de operación, logística, etc. ...una enfermedad bien cara, en comparación con la gente que muere de infartos al corazón o el número creciente de jóvenes que mueren por la incapacidad del estado de modificar hábito en la población a través de la educación.
En el imperio ocurre lo mismo: más gente muere de accidentes de tránsito que de terrorismo; pero el estado decide aumentar el gasto público hasta 3 o 4 % de su PIB ! para defenderse algo prácticamente inocuo a nivel de mortalidad.
Las serpientes de cascabel matan a más personas que el terrorismo, norteamericanos.
sábado, 16 de mayo de 2009
¿Por qué los periodistas merecen bajas rentas?
El profesor Picard, amablemente me permitió publicar este trabajo de él.
Esta presentación: ¿Por qué los periodistas merecen bajas rentas?, fue llevada a cabo en la Universidad de Oxford, Mayo 6, 2009.
Estoy autorizado y trabajando en una traducción al español.
Por que los periodistas merecen bajas rentas
http://www.robertpicard.net/
Esta presentación: ¿Por qué los periodistas merecen bajas rentas?, fue llevada a cabo en la Universidad de Oxford, Mayo 6, 2009.
Estoy autorizado y trabajando en una traducción al español.
Por que los periodistas merecen bajas rentas
http://www.robertpicard.net/
miércoles, 13 de mayo de 2009
domingo, 10 de mayo de 2009
Presentaciones Prezi
como todos quienes hemos visto la presentación de Umair Haque, quede sin aliento.
dinámica, bonito diseño, red, conectividad ...
obviamente no era un Power Point ..., nadie en el imperio del mal y las licencias y las patentes (Micro-something, que tb uso ... ) podría haber hecho algo así.
http://prezi.com/showcase/
Carlos
dinámica, bonito diseño, red, conectividad ...
obviamente no era un Power Point ..., nadie en el imperio del mal y las licencias y las patentes (Micro-something, que tb uso ... ) podría haber hecho algo así.
http://prezi.com/showcase/
Carlos
jueves, 7 de mayo de 2009
Creative Destruction and the Future of Newspapers
February 27, 2009
There's a sad irony to the information age.
At the end of the industrial age, we were declared to have entered into an information economy. But many are wondering if that word "economy" has proven too optimistic. It's true that as physical products are increasingly commoditized, economic value resides more and more in information.
But at the same time, the Internet has brought the imperative that "information wants to be free." Today's digital networks have made distributing information incredibly easy and cheap, and restricting information incredibly difficult. From an economic viewpoint, this makes it harder and harder to charge for information. The information economy eats itself.
Exhibit A in this season of discontent: the print news industry.
The Tribune Co.'s bankruptcy filing last year started the tremors and justifiable panic that the industry is nearing collapse. The Atlantic recently published a startling piece by Michael Hirschorn on the possibility of the NY Times going under in Q2 2009. This week the owner of the SF Chronicle announced the paper would be sold or shuttered.
On his Buzzmachine blog, BRITE 09 speaker Jeff Jarvis has been covering the first wave of newspapers that are shifting to publishing only online. But the price of journalists is not dropping at the rate of web servers (Moore's Law aids Google, but not The Times). Major news organizations cannot possibly sustain their current operations with only their web ad revenue.
In response, TIME magazine ran a recent cover story by Walter Isaacson, suggesting that print journalism might survive with "micropayments." In it, he asked, can we build an iTunes for the news?
Most observers say no. Clay Shirky blogged a rebuttal, pointing out that the history of the micropayment business model has shown nothing but failure for those attempting Isaacson's remedy. (Shirky also argued that the iTunes model could never work except in a monopoly. I strongly disagree with his analysis on that, but will pick that up in a later post.)
So, is it true that legions of bloggers – amateur writers, if you will – are threatening to bring down professional journalism, whose costs cannot compete with all this free talent?
Not exactly. A bigger source of competition, often overlooked, was pointed out by Michael Kinsley in a recent op-ed in the Times. Bloggers and new voices aside, the Internet has brought newspapers into vastly greater competition with *each other.* In the old days, writes Kinsley there was "no sweeter perch [i.e. monopoly] in American capitalism than ownership of the only newspaper in town. Now, every English-language newspaper is in direct competition with every other." How many readers will subscribe to Denver's Rocky Mountain News (the 150-year-old newspaper closes today), when they can read the Manchester Guardian, the NY Times, the Washington Post, or countless other top-notch English-language sources just as easily?
And yet, Kinsley is optimistic that journalism and professional reporting will survive, in a smaller (and I suspect, greatly restructured) industry. I recommend his article for a bit of sober optimism.
The upheaval brought by the Internet stems from increased economic competition that is endangering formerly parochial fiefdoms. Today, the stress of global competition is hitting the newsroom, just as it hit the factory floors of Detroit a generation ago.
Let's hope the next wave of professional journalism will bring a new dynamism and energy to its vital task. Creative destruction is painful, but it usually yields benefits in the end.
miércoles, 6 de mayo de 2009
Inseparable amigo Toro, estamos rodeados ... no cara pálida, ESTAS rodeado ...
participé en un debate interesante de el estado, acceso y propiedad de los medios de comunicación.fue una experiencia metafísica.
primero porque pensé que los dinosaurios ya estaban extinto, pero No.
segundo, porque nunca imagine que el embudo aún existiera.
la fauna fue amplia, jovenes idealistas, maduras con un discurso cuasiextinto, no tan jovenes mas pragmaticos.
al parecer la discusión NO es amplia, ni centrada en lo importante. todavía discutimos sobre lo que deberia ser y no tenemos claro porque las cosas son realmente de otra manera.
por otro lado, el gremio es impertinente, porque es un gremio profesional el cual pareciera ser incapaz de armar o generar trabajo en equipo o simplemente negocios.
es bien fácil: quieren decidir de todo en el negocio, poner los temas que ELLOS consideran relevantes, buenos o valiosos ... y miran con desdén al empresariado, que dicho sea de paso, les da TRABAJO!
más adelante seguire con esta descripción.
domingo, 3 de mayo de 2009
sábado, 2 de mayo de 2009
viernes, 1 de mayo de 2009
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)