The weak minded live in the gutter ...

Today, my weekly shop was delivered with a free copy of the Times. This single act falsified the old adage that the "best price is free".

Had they attempted to charge for it, I would have refused. Since it was free, I ended up wasting precious time. This gutter rag is so poisonous, that its use to wrap fish and chips would cause a major health scare.

Whilst I don't agree with ad hominem attacks, the first opinion piece I read deserves no quarter. Magnus Linklater's miserably titled "Don't try to teach pupils who can't learn".

Magnus' argument, I use that word out of generosity not merit, is that it is not worth trying to educate those from the most deprived backgrounds. As someone who was brought up in his early life on a London council estate but managed to get to Cambridge through good state school teachers, I feel tempted to tell this old fart to stick his head in a pig.

However, I'll show restraint (but not much).

Magnus' drivel questions whether those from deprived backgrounds have the ability to absorb academic subjects. His polemic would have us investing in enthusiastic children from suitable backgrounds (i.e. those in the middle to upper classes) whilst the rest of us learn vocational skills.

Magnus would reinforce the social divide by depriving those from deprived backgrounds because of their background and regardless of ability. He theorises that perpetually consigning a whole class of people to vocational work would be in their interests. Stuff and nonsense.

He conflates ability with background and resurrects the old arguments used in eugenics. However, the poor are not somehow defective and ability is not the preserve of the rich.

We have a disgraceful lack of social mobility in this country. This is the problem we need to solve.

I will however agree with Magnus that there is one case where the perpetually weak minded live in the gutter. It's in the press and Magnus' shockingly poor analysis provides plenty of evidence of this.

Evolution, it's all about the genes ... not quite.

West Nile virus is a pathogen that causes fatal encephalitis in humans. A chemokine receptor (a type of receptor found on the surface of certain cells) CCR5 is critical for protection in humans. However, in predominantly Northern European populations a defective CCR5 allele (form of the gene) has been found. This defect is known as CCR5 delta 32.

Homozygosity (i.e possession of two defective forms of the gene inherited from each parent) for CCR5 delta 32 is significantly associated with high risk and a fatal outcome when it comes West Nile Virus.

Now, HIV also uses CCR5 as a co-receptor in order to invade its target cells and homozygosity for CCR 35 delta 32 is reported to provide strong protection against HIV infection. So those Europeans who are homozygous for CCR5 delta 32 (estimated at 10% of the population) have a strong protection against HIV but a weak resistance to West Nile Virus.

In a long term scenario with the uncontrolled and unchecked spread of HIV, you might reasonably expect the population to become predominantly homozygous for CCR 35 delta 32 i.e. to be brutal, they are the ones who are more likely to survive.

However, with environmental changes we are seeing the spread of West Nile virus further North and if it is uncontrolled and unchecked then you could reasonably expect a decline in the level of homozygosity for CCR 35 delta 32. Again, for rather brutal reasons.

I mention this to illustrate one point. Evolution is not independent of the environment; it is predominantly controlled by it. In an environment which is constantly changing, where strengths can become weaknesses and vice versa, the stability of a complex system often depends upon diversity. Variability in the genetic make-up and the phenotype of a population can often save it.

In the current unstable economic climate, it is often tempting for a company to retreat to core activities and minimise diversity. This is probably the last thing you should be doing.

Waste not, want not ....

This is fascinating, bioproduced hydrogen (ok, it's anaerobic rather than a photo bioreactor) used to run a generator. Nanologix seem to be involved with some interesting projects.

The Red Queen Hypothesis ... Part I ... Activities

The Red Queen Hypothesis is used in Genetics to describe why systems need to constantly adapt in order to remain competitive. Formally, it is stated thus:-

"For an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just in order to maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-evolving with."

(Leigh Van Valen, 1973, from wikipedia)

I want to describe this effect in terms of business, however to do so we need to first look at how business activities change. Let us start by examining the use of CRM.

The concept of CRM (customer relationship management) systems was an innovation back in the 1980s. However as everyone sought to exploit this new concept, CRM became far more ubiquitous and well defined. The activity has undergone a metamorphosis from innovation to leading edge to product to even utility services. This is not an unusual event, as there is always a constant pressure towards commoditisation of any activity as everyone tries to take advantage of any innovation (see figure 1).

Figure 1 - The metamorphosis of CRM.
(click on image for larger size)

In figure 2, I've mapped this transition on a graph of ubiquity (how common something is) vs certainty (how well known or defined something is).

Figure 2 - A graphical representation of the transition of CRM.
(click on image for larger size)

The transition of an activity from an innovation to something ubiquitous and well defined (or more commodity-like) is fairly standard. Most activities (whether processes, sub process or the results thereof) are in a continuous state of transition.

Organisations consist of a mass of activities, and those activities exist somewhere on that graph. The activities are all connected and you can even map this out. However, for the time being I've provided a representation of an organisation in figure 3 in graph form.

Figure 3 - Activities in a organisation
(click on image for larger size)

Whilst these activities are at different stages of their lifecycle, they are all undergoing a metamorphosis from innovation to commodity. This transition is independent of the organisation itself, as an activity becomes common when others adopt it.

All organisational activities are therefore in a constant state of flux.

Now, I'll use this concept in the next section to explain the Red Queen Hypothesis and its application to business.

I'll huff and I'll puff and ... ohh I like how you've painted it.

Whenever I'm mapping out the activities (for example business processes) of an organisation, I try to use colour codes for the different lifecycle stages of an activity. I find this helps me when visualising what the organisation needs to do and how it needs to change.

It's just something I do. I've provided four images to show the colour codes I use.

Stage 1 - Innovation, First Instance
(click on image for larger size)

Stage 2 - First Movers, Bespoke examples
(click on image for larger size)

Stage 3 - Transition, Products
(click on image for larger size)

Stage 4 - Commodity.
(click on image for larger size)

It's worth remembering that any activity has an effect on the organisation. In the case of a created product the effect is overall on cashflow, however you could equally have a process whose effect is on the efficiency of operations and cost reductions.

Generally, any innovation should be built upon many commodity or transitional like activities. If it's not, you need to ask yourself why not?

Componentisation of systems into activities and use of commodity components where possible is a massive accelerator for innovation. It is the reason why I advocate using Service Orientated Architectures (SOA), Software as a Service (SaaS) and Enterprise Architecture (EA) frameworks like Zachman.

The speed at which a complex system evolves is much faster if it is broken into smaller stable components and hence organised into one or more layers of stable subsystems (for more on this read up on Howard Pattee).

If you:-

1. take a system of k elements
2. group every s number of k elements into a new component, l
3. group every s number of l components into new component, m
4. keep on repeating this grouping until you can't group any more

Then, with each component being considered stable, the rate of evolution of the system will be proportional to the log to base s of k.

To show this in action, consider the three little piggies building a house. Let's say each house requires 100,000 bricks and whilst the big bad wolf can blow down an unfinished item, any stable component is too strong to be blown apart. Our three little piggies will follow different strategies:-

• Piggy 1 : Build the house in one go with each brick being a single component.
• Piggy 2: Build stable components, each component containing 10 sub-components. i.e. 10 bricks = a line. 10 lines = a section of wall etc.
• Piggy 3: Build stable components, each component contain 100 sub-components.

OK, let's say on average you can put together 1,000 components before the big bad wolf returns. Then :-

• Piggy 1 : will never be completed.
• Piggy 2 : will be completed by the 12th visit of the wolf.
• Piggy 3 : will be completed by the 2nd visit of the wolf.

In general: build in blocks, use small stable components.

[NB: For simplicity of explaining the analogy, I've taken the initial act of combining 100 or 10 or 1 brick(s) into one component as creating one component. If you instead treat each brick as a component, then the times are Pig 1: Never, Pig 2: 112 visits, Pig 3: 102 visits.]

It sounds obvious, but knowing the lifecycle stage of an activity along with componentising systems which can be componentised is a necessary step to increasing innovation. In other words: if someone has already built a hammer, use it and don't rebuild it.

Equally essential is to use different methodologies at different stages of an activities lifecycle (it's not agile vs six sigma or networked vs hierarchical or innovation vs efficiency - it's a mix of each, all the time). In other words: get used to living with change.

Using such an approach you can balance the innovation paradox between the order needed to survive and the disorder needed to create a future.

In summary: build in blocks, use a hammer, expect the plan to change and don't forget to add a splash of colour.

GATTACA

Last year, Google invested in 23 and me, an organisation that specialises in genetic sequencing. Apparently, the company intends to create a genetic database that people can search for both personal and scientific reasons. As they say on their site: "unlock the secrets of your own DNA, today!"

This year, Google has unveiled its personal health records service. According to Nick Carr, future partners will include a "slew of hospitals and care providers, medical testing companies, pharmacy chains, and health insurers".

For some reason, I always get nervous whenever "the secrets of my DNA", "search" and "health insurers" are mentioned in close proximity to each other.

Out of curiosity, the 15th amendment states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude".

Do you think you might need to add "DNA sequence" to that as well?

Hacking DNA and all that jazz

Recently returned from e-Tech (http://conferences.oreillynet.com/etech/) and have been fascinated by the remixing DNA concepts proposed by Drew Endy.

It is a new approach in my book, and I'm torn between using my spare time for :-

A. hardware hacking (hardware hacks from the far side - James, see http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050314/pf/050314-14_pf.html)

B. DNA remixing (see http://web.mit.edu/endy/www/scraps/talks/03.15.05.ETech/)

C. 3D fabrication (manufacturing via inkjet like technology).

D. Living.

E. Beer.

Choices, choices, choices.

Away tomorrow to a Butler Group symposium on measuring IT value. Could it be that finally people are catching on to worth based development (WBD)? A move away from the flawed fixed price or hour charging mechanisms which pervade our industry?

A fair dollar for a fair dollar.

Open source and XP (agile not windows) have made headway, everyone is catching onto commodity pricing of IT as a service (salesforce.com and all the web services being setup etc). Maybe soon those few project which are of competitive advantage will use WBD?

Internal venture capital mechanisms to fund new IT projects and a focus on value where value is important and cost where it is cost of doing business?

I've high hopes for tomorrow. Expect ranting soon.

Today I had 6 ducks left in my pond.