Pearl Zhu's Blog, page 1462
January 10, 2015
A Venture Capitalist Mindset
Seeing things via VC’s lenses can help digital leaders & professionals manage opportunities and risks with priority, agility and resilience.
Digital leaders and professionals have to equip themselves with all types of growth minds and innovative minds. Either you are a corporate executive or an entrepreneur; a business strategist or a IT manager, what can you learn from a venture capitalist mindset? A portfolio’s mindset: Venture Capitalist (VC) manage portfolios of investments, continually evaluating individual and aggregate investments in terms of value, risk, and reward. VCs do not have a single or small set of assets – they have a number of (potentially diversified) portfolios. Each portfolio has goals and metrics unique to that portfolio –investments are not compared across portfolios. Visibility into each investment is established to provide ongoing investment health information as well as enable understanding overall portfolio health. An analytics, systems and risk intelligence mindset: There are both opportunities and risks in every investment. VCs have to apply systems thinking to make objective assessment of their investment portfolio. Venture capitalists identify and evaluate investments in a way that drives enterprise value in terms that business leaders understand. They need to continue to make objective assessment of their investment: Are they diversified?What is the relative health (risk, value, strategic importance) of each of my portfolios?What investments, or even portfolios, should be shut down? What investments, or even portfolios, should I direct more assets to? What, and where, are there talent gaps? How can I better communicate to and partner with the business to improve my portfolio’s value?What opportunities am I currently missing? Can Categorizing portfolios: (run the business, grow the business, compliance/regulatory, and innovation)
A Priority Mindset: Ask any entrepreneur or VC, they would say, investing or running a business is a thorny journey, there are many roadblocks, distractions, or hassles on the way. Hence, a priority mindset to stay focused and directed networking identifies promising big ideas for investment – ideas that will accelerate bold change. Some ideas may need to be incubated to allow time and effort to develop the idea and prove relevance and value. CXOs or managers with VC-like mind will continue to prioritize and adjust the strategy, to leverage growth potential. The portfolio review and analysis is periodically performed by evaluating financials, schedule, and risk. They ask tough questions via VC’s lens: – Can identify where budget, talent, and other resources & assets are focused vs. neglected. - Defining portfolio strategies.– Can establish intended objectives, financials, and risk profiles in the portfolio- Can leverage new or variations of existing processes and methods, such as agile, - Can move ideas through their lifecycle to achieve first to market- Can achieve portfolios agility to anticipate and respond to changing market conditions - Can attract talent with entrepreneurial talent, technical skills and business savvy as well. A good Venture capitalist’s mind is innovative and systematic as well, either you are a corporate executive or a high potential digital professional, learning to think as a VC will help you manage opportunity and risk more strategically and systematically; setting priority appropriately and unleash your potential with resilience and agility.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital leaders and professionals have to equip themselves with all types of growth minds and innovative minds. Either you are a corporate executive or an entrepreneur; a business strategist or a IT manager, what can you learn from a venture capitalist mindset? A portfolio’s mindset: Venture Capitalist (VC) manage portfolios of investments, continually evaluating individual and aggregate investments in terms of value, risk, and reward. VCs do not have a single or small set of assets – they have a number of (potentially diversified) portfolios. Each portfolio has goals and metrics unique to that portfolio –investments are not compared across portfolios. Visibility into each investment is established to provide ongoing investment health information as well as enable understanding overall portfolio health. An analytics, systems and risk intelligence mindset: There are both opportunities and risks in every investment. VCs have to apply systems thinking to make objective assessment of their investment portfolio. Venture capitalists identify and evaluate investments in a way that drives enterprise value in terms that business leaders understand. They need to continue to make objective assessment of their investment: Are they diversified?What is the relative health (risk, value, strategic importance) of each of my portfolios?What investments, or even portfolios, should be shut down? What investments, or even portfolios, should I direct more assets to? What, and where, are there talent gaps? How can I better communicate to and partner with the business to improve my portfolio’s value?What opportunities am I currently missing? Can Categorizing portfolios: (run the business, grow the business, compliance/regulatory, and innovation)
A Priority Mindset: Ask any entrepreneur or VC, they would say, investing or running a business is a thorny journey, there are many roadblocks, distractions, or hassles on the way. Hence, a priority mindset to stay focused and directed networking identifies promising big ideas for investment – ideas that will accelerate bold change. Some ideas may need to be incubated to allow time and effort to develop the idea and prove relevance and value. CXOs or managers with VC-like mind will continue to prioritize and adjust the strategy, to leverage growth potential. The portfolio review and analysis is periodically performed by evaluating financials, schedule, and risk. They ask tough questions via VC’s lens: – Can identify where budget, talent, and other resources & assets are focused vs. neglected. - Defining portfolio strategies.– Can establish intended objectives, financials, and risk profiles in the portfolio- Can leverage new or variations of existing processes and methods, such as agile, - Can move ideas through their lifecycle to achieve first to market- Can achieve portfolios agility to anticipate and respond to changing market conditions - Can attract talent with entrepreneurial talent, technical skills and business savvy as well. A good Venture capitalist’s mind is innovative and systematic as well, either you are a corporate executive or a high potential digital professional, learning to think as a VC will help you manage opportunity and risk more strategically and systematically; setting priority appropriately and unleash your potential with resilience and agility. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
CIO as Chief Improvement Officer: How to Connect the Dots between PI vs. KPI
Performance Indicators (PI) measure progress across a broad range of intended outcomes (goals, objectives, even outputs) and are used at all levels inside the organization. Key Performance Indicators can be a subset of PIs, or they can roll several PIs into one (an index). KPIs are used to measure overall progress of the organization toward its mission and primary goals -- they are high-level indicators that everyone in the organization can relate to. KPIs are often used to create corporate dashboards; they can be used in PR documents and other reporting tools to present an organization's outcomes to the public.All indicators must be related to the outcomes identified in the organization's strategic plan -- collecting extraneous data that no one will use is a waste of your organization's human and technological resources. When implementing KPIs usage, it is important to ensure that they are aligned to the overall strategy and operations of the business; you select the critical few and the KPIs are a combination of leading, lagging, financial and non-financial indicators. It's got something to do with correlating over time, which ones tend to correlate soonest and best with metrics that matter most to overall effectiveness. Keep KPI to a much smaller set (generally less than ten); these KPIs are often associated with company incentive compensation systems. Unless your organization has experience with using KPIs (and an ability to collect measurement data), minimizing the number of KPIs to start and review annually to see what to add/revise based on the goals of the upcoming planning process.The use of KPIs is meant to improve and transform organizational performance.The more metrics you have, the more difficult it is to tell which KPIs are important for driving business performance and signalling success. Identifying the “critical few” metrics is therefore important because this helps bring clarity, alignment and focus on what is important. Thus the selected KPIs should motivate employees not only to achieve them but also to improve. Good Performance Indicator helps you make better decisions to improve performance. If your KPIs are the opposite, they are a long list copied from the industry database; are not aligned to your organization's specific strategy; are only lagging and financial not being able to tell you anything about the future; drive wrong behaviours across the organization and bring some significant levels of discomfort to employees, then they could be deemed as bad measurement. Bad KPIs can be described as those that do not reflect progress against the long term goals of the firm. The other problem is usually in the measurement approach itself. The way the KPI is measured can be inaccurate or not really a reflection of the behavior the firm is looking to exhibit.
KPIs must be carefully selected to fit your teams and operations. So a cost KPI might be suitable for executive review, but may not work on the production floor. KPIs must be carefully selected to fit your teams and operations, keeping in mind the specific use.if it doesn't help you make a decision, then it's not a KPI.1). KPIs must be things that can be accurately measured in a timely fashion. Holding teams responsible for KPIs that have significant error in their measurement is impossible.2). KPIs must be meaningful to those who are being measured. For example, using a cost KPI to try to motivate a production team to achieve if the production team cannot control a significant portion of the cost (materials costs) doesn't work. So if the goal is to improve the cost factors for a production team then use a productivity measurement, such as units produced per man-hour. This gets them thinking about line efficiencies and labor, which they should be able to control.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
January 9, 2015
How to Measure Agile Maturity
Achieve agile maturity at the 'organization' level, not just the 'team' level.
Many organizations are doing agile, and very few organizations are being agile. In order to improve agile maturity, the measuring needs to go beyond agile as "agility." It is a philosophy of managing complexity and unpredictability through empiricism. How do you measure a philosophy? There are practices that agile is enhanced with; such as engineering practices, testing practices, requirements etc. Also many of the agile practices assume there are other project management practices in place it could leverage off; take Risk Management or Communication Management as examples. But more specifically, what are the principles and methodologies to measure agile maturity at organizational level?
Organization maturity assessment should assess whether development teams are required to put their effort into the right project. The people who ask for functionality and the people who verify that functionality is being delivered should be part of the team. Everybody on that team should continuously collaborate and interact in the interest of delivering business value. The business value can't be determined by the development team only. Development team should deliver what the business asks (better, cheap, fast). Quality is the the difference between what is delivered and what was required. An experienced dev/tester can advise but should never substitute the user. The development team always needs to keep business value and ROI in mind and as focus. Always thinking about helping the business to deliver more business value earlier on and increase ROI, actually enable return earlier on to be reinvested, so more return value can be created faster. Achieve agile maturity at the 'organization' level, not the 'team' level. Therefore, the relevance test needs to be included:- all approved work is completed- all completed work adds value to the business
It's about results, not an artificial "maturity" metric. Much of Agile is a reaction of the one-size-fits-all attitude of maturity models that can be satisfied without real improvement. If it's about bragging rights, brag about your improved performance in the areas that are important to prospects and customers. (1). You encourage what you measure. If you measure intermediate objectives, you will encourage meeting them, which often sub-optimizes the main goal - delivering value. Therefore, the only thing you should measure publicly and continuously is delivered value. (2). When a team root causes an issue (often, but not always triggered by not delivering sufficient and consistent value), then (and only then and only temporarily) measure the intermediate metrics needed to identify where the breakdown is and to see if remedies are addressing that breakdown. Once that issue is resolved, quit measuring those intermediates. (3). Any effort at comparing teams or defining and collecting metrics so that management has spreadsheets to manage instead of teams to manage is worst than waste - it will always lead to dysfunctional behaviors. Put that effort into improving each individual team in its individual context. Making each team the best it can be at delivering value on a consistent basis is the only goal.
The most meaningful measure of Agile success is customer satisfaction. This won't necessarily be possible on the first release. However, if customer/end-user (and field/sales) satisfaction with the software improves after successful implementation of Agile, then you've likely built a high quality product that is more focused on customer needs. The survey needs to be statistically relevant and formal. It won't apply to all companies or internal projects, but large Agile transformations in large companies can achieve great value moving to Agile and have an objective measure of that value with continuous improvement. Further, to measure against your former process, you would need to have established baseline data with comparable or translatable metrics for comparison. If you don't have that, then you're probably limited to measuring the ongoing improvement of your new process approach. Financial measures are the area where you're almost guaranteed to have prior and comparable data. Performance and satisfaction measures depend on how much you focused on these things before.This should help teams and organization to:1). Check periodically whether they are on right direction 2). Quantify the progress 3). Focus on right priorities 4). Give an idea to change leaders that where to focus and where to bridge the gap
There are different level of agile maturity. At macro level, it is about being agile and doing the right things (projects, etc); and it means three things:- Business IT integration - Portfolio Management - Portfolio governance
At the micro level, it’s about doing agile projects; and there are three things matter: - Predictability of the team delivering to their commitments - Continuous Improvement mindset exposed via retrospectives and how they are followed through and - Level of Innovation (realm of Unknown Unknowns) the team can generate sprint on sprint. This part is about building the product right.
Leadership maturity: C level executives commitment can be judged in three ways as well on: - Agile Hiring - Agile Contracts (where vendors are engaged)- Devops Implementation
The problem with measurement is that more often, metric is very subjective. That is, from a scientific methods perspective, there is no way to run a real experiment to try one process against another. Each organization is different, and even within the same organization, and even if they do better by "being Agile," there is no way to remove the confounding factors (such as luck entering a product space or better market conditions). But this will not stop an organization from measuring components of things that are measurable and will lead to favorable outcomes. Still, in order to improve organizational level of agile maturity, understand and measure agility from different perspectives, focuses on customer satisfaction and ensure organization as a whole is optimal than the sum of pieces.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Many organizations are doing agile, and very few organizations are being agile. In order to improve agile maturity, the measuring needs to go beyond agile as "agility." It is a philosophy of managing complexity and unpredictability through empiricism. How do you measure a philosophy? There are practices that agile is enhanced with; such as engineering practices, testing practices, requirements etc. Also many of the agile practices assume there are other project management practices in place it could leverage off; take Risk Management or Communication Management as examples. But more specifically, what are the principles and methodologies to measure agile maturity at organizational level?
Organization maturity assessment should assess whether development teams are required to put their effort into the right project. The people who ask for functionality and the people who verify that functionality is being delivered should be part of the team. Everybody on that team should continuously collaborate and interact in the interest of delivering business value. The business value can't be determined by the development team only. Development team should deliver what the business asks (better, cheap, fast). Quality is the the difference between what is delivered and what was required. An experienced dev/tester can advise but should never substitute the user. The development team always needs to keep business value and ROI in mind and as focus. Always thinking about helping the business to deliver more business value earlier on and increase ROI, actually enable return earlier on to be reinvested, so more return value can be created faster. Achieve agile maturity at the 'organization' level, not the 'team' level. Therefore, the relevance test needs to be included:- all approved work is completed- all completed work adds value to the business
It's about results, not an artificial "maturity" metric. Much of Agile is a reaction of the one-size-fits-all attitude of maturity models that can be satisfied without real improvement. If it's about bragging rights, brag about your improved performance in the areas that are important to prospects and customers. (1). You encourage what you measure. If you measure intermediate objectives, you will encourage meeting them, which often sub-optimizes the main goal - delivering value. Therefore, the only thing you should measure publicly and continuously is delivered value. (2). When a team root causes an issue (often, but not always triggered by not delivering sufficient and consistent value), then (and only then and only temporarily) measure the intermediate metrics needed to identify where the breakdown is and to see if remedies are addressing that breakdown. Once that issue is resolved, quit measuring those intermediates. (3). Any effort at comparing teams or defining and collecting metrics so that management has spreadsheets to manage instead of teams to manage is worst than waste - it will always lead to dysfunctional behaviors. Put that effort into improving each individual team in its individual context. Making each team the best it can be at delivering value on a consistent basis is the only goal.
The most meaningful measure of Agile success is customer satisfaction. This won't necessarily be possible on the first release. However, if customer/end-user (and field/sales) satisfaction with the software improves after successful implementation of Agile, then you've likely built a high quality product that is more focused on customer needs. The survey needs to be statistically relevant and formal. It won't apply to all companies or internal projects, but large Agile transformations in large companies can achieve great value moving to Agile and have an objective measure of that value with continuous improvement. Further, to measure against your former process, you would need to have established baseline data with comparable or translatable metrics for comparison. If you don't have that, then you're probably limited to measuring the ongoing improvement of your new process approach. Financial measures are the area where you're almost guaranteed to have prior and comparable data. Performance and satisfaction measures depend on how much you focused on these things before.This should help teams and organization to:1). Check periodically whether they are on right direction 2). Quantify the progress 3). Focus on right priorities 4). Give an idea to change leaders that where to focus and where to bridge the gap
There are different level of agile maturity. At macro level, it is about being agile and doing the right things (projects, etc); and it means three things:- Business IT integration - Portfolio Management - Portfolio governance At the micro level, it’s about doing agile projects; and there are three things matter: - Predictability of the team delivering to their commitments - Continuous Improvement mindset exposed via retrospectives and how they are followed through and - Level of Innovation (realm of Unknown Unknowns) the team can generate sprint on sprint. This part is about building the product right.
Leadership maturity: C level executives commitment can be judged in three ways as well on: - Agile Hiring - Agile Contracts (where vendors are engaged)- Devops Implementation
The problem with measurement is that more often, metric is very subjective. That is, from a scientific methods perspective, there is no way to run a real experiment to try one process against another. Each organization is different, and even within the same organization, and even if they do better by "being Agile," there is no way to remove the confounding factors (such as luck entering a product space or better market conditions). But this will not stop an organization from measuring components of things that are measurable and will lead to favorable outcomes. Still, in order to improve organizational level of agile maturity, understand and measure agility from different perspectives, focuses on customer satisfaction and ensure organization as a whole is optimal than the sum of pieces.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital Master Tuning VIII: How to Build Digital Capabilities in 2015
Capability-based strategy-execution is the only path leading to sustainable digital transformation
After being through years of downturn and recession, there are many optimistic views for 2015; for many organizations, it is reaching the inflection point for the digital transformation; after being through cost cutting or workforce reduction, it is the year to focus on capability rebuilding. In the book “Digital Master,” we introduce the special set of digital capabilities with a METAPHOR, you can read and discover more. What are your new year perspectives for business, do you have a clear capability-based strategy & execution plan?
Building digital capability is a strategic imperative in 2015. Organizational capability is one of the key components of balanced scorecard perspectives, and organizations need to build capacity in terms training and retraining of staff and also in terms of acquisition of modern technological tools. Rebuilding capacity and shaping strategic digital capability should be a continuous process. Cutting cost to enhance corporate bottom line is a welcome idea and appropriate strategy should be adopted. Integration strategies will help setting priorities in capability building.
It's important that you define what's core and context in your organization. Cost cutting might have damaged an organization. The core you shall not touch, that's what define your uniqueness (and if you have cut into that, than you have to rebuild it. In the context you need to constantly change, which also includes cost optimization. In the last couple of years many companies cut too deep into their capabilities and were having difficulty executing strategy. The result has actually been some inefficiency (operational processes hitting chokepoints) and inability to realize potential revenue. In different capacities, organizations are looking to fix some of the more glaring capability gaps in the short-term and identify a method for improving capabilities in the long-term.
The technological advancement will continue to help develop integral digital capability. Organizations are becoming smarter at reaching consumers, in a targeted and deliberate way, and consumers are becoming smarter at consuming and providing direct feedback to the organization. Technology actual shifts the efficient frontier out (rather than reaching an "efficiency" along the curve). More, the emerging digital technology is the most important element in the new breed of digital capabilities which are rigor, but not rigid, standardized, but not lack of innovation; mosaic, but not monolithic, it can be built on the fly and adapt to the change more seamlessly.
Digital capability has dynamic and “recombinate” nature. The particular environment organizations find themselves in today is especially difficult as compared to years past. Competition is more global and in many industries, products are becoming more commoditized putting pressure on pricing, margins and investable budget dollars. The ability to simply raise budgets to rebuild lost capabilities is going to be tough sledding. Well-run companies recognize such issues as a matter of course, and thus, to well align talent, process and technology to efficiently and effectively improve operations and invent human capital to establish more flexible talent pipeline." And building capabilities becomes a constant process irrespective of the economic conditions.The well-run companies need to do this under all circumstances. It was rare to have major budget increases beyond cost of living adjustment or moving at the rate of inflation. It always meant that if you wanted to improve or build out certain capabilities, you need to "self-fund" them or recombinate them into the new capabilities. That meant improving the productivity of (and reducing the labor intensiveness) of less-critical activities, and re-deploying the savings into other areas deemed more valuable for the long-term health of the firm.
Digital is shifting the organization from process-centric to people-centric and capability based, the main focus of the management is not just eyeing on imitating what’s competitor’s doing, but building the set of differentiated capability to lead and compete for the future. Try this Digital Master Fun quiz to learn more about Digital Capability.
6. Digital capability is a type of gem, with a “typo”, but not a flaw. What is it? A: Ruby B: Pearl C: Diamond D: Jade
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Introduction URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
After being through years of downturn and recession, there are many optimistic views for 2015; for many organizations, it is reaching the inflection point for the digital transformation; after being through cost cutting or workforce reduction, it is the year to focus on capability rebuilding. In the book “Digital Master,” we introduce the special set of digital capabilities with a METAPHOR, you can read and discover more. What are your new year perspectives for business, do you have a clear capability-based strategy & execution plan?
Building digital capability is a strategic imperative in 2015. Organizational capability is one of the key components of balanced scorecard perspectives, and organizations need to build capacity in terms training and retraining of staff and also in terms of acquisition of modern technological tools. Rebuilding capacity and shaping strategic digital capability should be a continuous process. Cutting cost to enhance corporate bottom line is a welcome idea and appropriate strategy should be adopted. Integration strategies will help setting priorities in capability building.
It's important that you define what's core and context in your organization. Cost cutting might have damaged an organization. The core you shall not touch, that's what define your uniqueness (and if you have cut into that, than you have to rebuild it. In the context you need to constantly change, which also includes cost optimization. In the last couple of years many companies cut too deep into their capabilities and were having difficulty executing strategy. The result has actually been some inefficiency (operational processes hitting chokepoints) and inability to realize potential revenue. In different capacities, organizations are looking to fix some of the more glaring capability gaps in the short-term and identify a method for improving capabilities in the long-term.
The technological advancement will continue to help develop integral digital capability. Organizations are becoming smarter at reaching consumers, in a targeted and deliberate way, and consumers are becoming smarter at consuming and providing direct feedback to the organization. Technology actual shifts the efficient frontier out (rather than reaching an "efficiency" along the curve). More, the emerging digital technology is the most important element in the new breed of digital capabilities which are rigor, but not rigid, standardized, but not lack of innovation; mosaic, but not monolithic, it can be built on the fly and adapt to the change more seamlessly.
Digital capability has dynamic and “recombinate” nature. The particular environment organizations find themselves in today is especially difficult as compared to years past. Competition is more global and in many industries, products are becoming more commoditized putting pressure on pricing, margins and investable budget dollars. The ability to simply raise budgets to rebuild lost capabilities is going to be tough sledding. Well-run companies recognize such issues as a matter of course, and thus, to well align talent, process and technology to efficiently and effectively improve operations and invent human capital to establish more flexible talent pipeline." And building capabilities becomes a constant process irrespective of the economic conditions.The well-run companies need to do this under all circumstances. It was rare to have major budget increases beyond cost of living adjustment or moving at the rate of inflation. It always meant that if you wanted to improve or build out certain capabilities, you need to "self-fund" them or recombinate them into the new capabilities. That meant improving the productivity of (and reducing the labor intensiveness) of less-critical activities, and re-deploying the savings into other areas deemed more valuable for the long-term health of the firm.
Digital is shifting the organization from process-centric to people-centric and capability based, the main focus of the management is not just eyeing on imitating what’s competitor’s doing, but building the set of differentiated capability to lead and compete for the future. Try this Digital Master Fun quiz to learn more about Digital Capability.
6. Digital capability is a type of gem, with a “typo”, but not a flaw. What is it? A: Ruby B: Pearl C: Diamond D: Jade
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Introduction URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
A Synthetic Mind
A synthetic mind is future oriented, holistic, focuses on long term problem solving, without ignorance of emergent trends.
Digital world is complex and ambiguous, though analytics is always important to breakdown the big problems/projects into small blocks, and conquer them piece by piece; however, given the real-world complexity and abundance of information, you will never have time to digest every piece of information or analyze every detail; you don’t have time to learn everything as well. So what shall you learn first, and how can you integrate what you learn into a holistic and an objective picture, that depends on what you are trying to synthesize. Synthetic mind is rare, but become more precious to overcome the silo thinking, biased decision making and solve the over-complex problems facing in business and society today.
Synthetic mind is more future oriented, perceives “what could be.” while analytics describes “what is.” But Analysis is the breaking down of a complex system into pieces that are small enough to be understood, in such a way that you can reassemble them (as you broke them down) to gain a deeper understanding of "what is." Those individual pieces then give you a sense of "what can be." Synthesis is then the process of assembling those pieces in a different way in order to achieve "what could be" and based on that select "what should be".
Synthetic mind tends to look at the system as a whole and not being part of a whole. Synthesis is about combining things into a whole. Digital world is hyper-connected and interdependent, a synthetic mind has an advantage to see it as a “whole.” But before you can combine, you need to first do a logical, natural partitioning. Analysis is largely about partitioning. In other words, the Synthesis process should be pulling the Analysis process, just as the Analysis process is feeding the Synthesis process.
Synthetic mind is more on the lines of problem solving by taking a longer term approach. Where analysis is concise analytic work, takes a short term approach, more looking at root cause, look at context in which it has happened, and then expanding into being a larger picture to solve larger problems, making it part of a whole wider world. Synthesis: place together; the combination of components or elements to form a connected whole. It is a nature digital thinking for hyper-connectivity.
Synthetic mind can either understand emergent properties, or create emergent properties. More often, analysis as process ignores emergence. Hence the emergent digital trends and accelerating changes makes synthetic mind digital fit. It is very much the same way that divergent and convergent thinking are important for critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity and intelligence, analysis and synthesis are important and complementary.
Analytics vs. Synthesis: Analysis and synthesis, as scientific methods, always go hand in hand; they complement one another. One could perhaps go so far as to suggest that there's often a strong correlation between the two sets. Analysis is understanding the thing by examining it as parts. Synthesis is understanding a thing by examining it as a whole. Analysis without synthesis is reduction. Synthesis without analysis is intuition. They should complement each other, the question is how best to combine them. Every synthesis is built upon the results of a preceding analysis, and every analysis requires a subsequent synthesis in order to verify and correct its results. So in terms of difference... they are the two ends of the line between understanding the parts and understanding the whole - very different but also equally and inextricably linked to the process of understanding, and both required when looking at the potential for and impact of change. In this basis one can never be 'better' than the other, as both are equally necessary. in any case Analysis is necessary to have knowledge of an argument, a situation, a problem. Synthesis is necessary to summarize understanding of it and to transfer information about it to others. They are interdependent and complementary to each other. They are invaluable intellectual processes.
A synthetic mind is future oriented, holistic, focuses on long term problem solving, without ignorance of emergent trends. Analysis without Synthesis may be interesting or even educational, but results in no improvement. A synthetic mind is better fit for digital transformation.
“Analysis focuses on structure; it reveals how things work. Synthesis focuses on function; it reveals why things operate as they do. Therefore, analysis yields knowledge; synthesis yields understanding. The former enables us to describe; the latter, to explain." -Ackoff
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital world is complex and ambiguous, though analytics is always important to breakdown the big problems/projects into small blocks, and conquer them piece by piece; however, given the real-world complexity and abundance of information, you will never have time to digest every piece of information or analyze every detail; you don’t have time to learn everything as well. So what shall you learn first, and how can you integrate what you learn into a holistic and an objective picture, that depends on what you are trying to synthesize. Synthetic mind is rare, but become more precious to overcome the silo thinking, biased decision making and solve the over-complex problems facing in business and society today.
Synthetic mind is more future oriented, perceives “what could be.” while analytics describes “what is.” But Analysis is the breaking down of a complex system into pieces that are small enough to be understood, in such a way that you can reassemble them (as you broke them down) to gain a deeper understanding of "what is." Those individual pieces then give you a sense of "what can be." Synthesis is then the process of assembling those pieces in a different way in order to achieve "what could be" and based on that select "what should be".
Synthetic mind tends to look at the system as a whole and not being part of a whole. Synthesis is about combining things into a whole. Digital world is hyper-connected and interdependent, a synthetic mind has an advantage to see it as a “whole.” But before you can combine, you need to first do a logical, natural partitioning. Analysis is largely about partitioning. In other words, the Synthesis process should be pulling the Analysis process, just as the Analysis process is feeding the Synthesis process.
Synthetic mind is more on the lines of problem solving by taking a longer term approach. Where analysis is concise analytic work, takes a short term approach, more looking at root cause, look at context in which it has happened, and then expanding into being a larger picture to solve larger problems, making it part of a whole wider world. Synthesis: place together; the combination of components or elements to form a connected whole. It is a nature digital thinking for hyper-connectivity.
Synthetic mind can either understand emergent properties, or create emergent properties. More often, analysis as process ignores emergence. Hence the emergent digital trends and accelerating changes makes synthetic mind digital fit. It is very much the same way that divergent and convergent thinking are important for critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity and intelligence, analysis and synthesis are important and complementary.
Analytics vs. Synthesis: Analysis and synthesis, as scientific methods, always go hand in hand; they complement one another. One could perhaps go so far as to suggest that there's often a strong correlation between the two sets. Analysis is understanding the thing by examining it as parts. Synthesis is understanding a thing by examining it as a whole. Analysis without synthesis is reduction. Synthesis without analysis is intuition. They should complement each other, the question is how best to combine them. Every synthesis is built upon the results of a preceding analysis, and every analysis requires a subsequent synthesis in order to verify and correct its results. So in terms of difference... they are the two ends of the line between understanding the parts and understanding the whole - very different but also equally and inextricably linked to the process of understanding, and both required when looking at the potential for and impact of change. In this basis one can never be 'better' than the other, as both are equally necessary. in any case Analysis is necessary to have knowledge of an argument, a situation, a problem. Synthesis is necessary to summarize understanding of it and to transfer information about it to others. They are interdependent and complementary to each other. They are invaluable intellectual processes.
A synthetic mind is future oriented, holistic, focuses on long term problem solving, without ignorance of emergent trends. Analysis without Synthesis may be interesting or even educational, but results in no improvement. A synthetic mind is better fit for digital transformation.
“Analysis focuses on structure; it reveals how things work. Synthesis focuses on function; it reveals why things operate as they do. Therefore, analysis yields knowledge; synthesis yields understanding. The former enables us to describe; the latter, to explain." -Ackoff
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
January 8, 2015
User Experience as Key Element of Digital Strategy
Digital is the age of customer empathy.
User experience becomes key element of digital strategy. "Strategy," whether for UX or business in general, is about doing things in informed, disciplined, collaborative, and systematic ways (vs. ad hoc, on-off, narrow and tactical) to continuously measure, improve, and optimize the relevance, utility, and competitiveness of offerings (products, services, technology solutions, etc.) for better performance and results. More specifically, what’s UX strategy and deliverable all about?
UX strategy is about "the big picture." You want your user experiences to support organizational strategy. How will you react if organizational strategy shifts? After all, strategy is about predicting the future. You're not thinking of the "UX" that's only about wireframes and visual designs. You're thinking about brand, positioning, and environment, but from the standpoint of rigorous user understanding. The strategic objective is to understand what your customers need and to help the business orient itself towards those needs in pursuit of its objectives. To do this you also have to understand the company's long term goals and Identity (brand) and the Industry realities (competition), as well as the market (the reason for being). Develop a high-level design strategy that satisfies the requirements of different groups. Often, this meant not just identifying a direction that met in the middle of all those constraints, but rather figuring out which constraint / need / context actually mattered most in terms of potential impact to business, defection from customers, fast moving market change, etc, and then making that case back into the organization to get everyone aligned on a sometimes uncomfortably narrow focus.
UX strategist is a specialized business strategist who has multi-disciplinery knowledge. The work of UX strategists requires general knowledge and research around business best practice, industry behaviour, marketing, communications, technology, psychology, sociology, economics, and an interest in cool hunting and trend watching. The ability to model and empathize and the natural creativity and a technical aptitude. As the future unfolds, you may realize that the assumptions were wrong and you need to shift strategies. Are you locked into ways of delivering technology that are no longer appropriate or can you be flexible and quickly adapt to the revised direction? The purpose of undertaking a project is almost always to effect change. After all, you’re building something new. This raises many UX questions. Will people adopt a new tool? Do they have the knowledge they need? How will new tools affect existing processes? How will you manage unanticipated consequences that might arise? UX strategists ask questions and do things as described above so that they can then: a) facilitate "understanding" and help frame the "full" picture (big, little and everything in between) b) establish the foundations upon which a strategic program and approach to UX can be built and sustained over time, across channels, and in different contexts.
The hard part of UX Strategy is generating organizational consensus on the actual implementation. This is where serious people skills are required to navigate towards a solution that balances competitive stakeholder objectives, while still providing a first class experience to the best big picture interests of the business. The questions to ask are "Are you committed to distinguishing yourselves in the marketplace primarily by offering a superior user experience? How, specifically, is that a good idea? What does "superior user experience" mean to you and to your customers, and how, specifically, do you know that? What do you need to do to make it happen?" The job is answering these questions and helping to put the answers into practice.
Strategic UX also is intertwined with corporate culture. What is the relationship between IT and the business? Are they true partners? Are they aligned around outcomes? Are they dedicated to providing your staff with powerful, flexible and easy to use tools? How do your customers and prospects use social media and the web? How transparent are you willing to be in interacting with them? These are cultural questions with a strategic UX component as well. By adapting or influencing the corporate culture, it is easier to “socialize” the heck out of the strategy, getting a complex set of stakeholders to agree to move forward, commit resources, put projects on specific roadmaps, etc. Partner with and transition design strategy to more execution-focused design teams to make the strategy real.
Three level Experience Design: 1) Strategic experience design: looks 5+ years ahead, aims at omni channel experience orchestration and making the future service experience concrete, incorporating technological and socio-economic trends etc. Typical deliverables are high level visualizations of the future experience, vision films, service ecosystem models, CX principles, CX targets. 2) Tactical experience design: looks 1-3 years ahead, ‘designs in advance' and aims at design direction in specific channels (digital channels). Typical deliverables are visual product/service roadmaps, online design principles, platform generic reference designs and prototypes, ux targets, generic design components, and design guides/libraries. This stream aims to prepare for the operational work to be done as well as possible. 3) Operational experience design: looks at what needs to be done here and now (0-1 year ahead), both in terms of development, maintenance and optimization. Where relevant, uses the reference designs created in the tactical stream as a foundation. Typical deliverables here are platform specific and detailed concepts, ux-wireframes, visual designs, ui documentation, front-end code.
There are multi-stage UX deliverables. The deliverables initially include research, in terms of focus groups with stakeholders and users and quant/qual marketing research. Based upon the research, you deliver 'Recommendation.”Then come functional specifications that detail the granular functionality, wireframes, process diagrams, DB schema, governance guidelines, development stages - all the nuts and bolts. Then comes Visual Art, the dressing of the Wireframes. UX generally partners with UI Design to complete this task. UX guides with Usability Heuristics and other collaborative activity, depending on talent.
Regardless of where your UX team being resided, UX is not just a single business or technical project, it is an important element of your digital strategy, from research to planning; from multi-lenses inquiries to multiple-stage reviews; from visual arts to wire frames, it is not just about a user interface, but an end-to-end” customer experience and about your brand and competency.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
User experience becomes key element of digital strategy. "Strategy," whether for UX or business in general, is about doing things in informed, disciplined, collaborative, and systematic ways (vs. ad hoc, on-off, narrow and tactical) to continuously measure, improve, and optimize the relevance, utility, and competitiveness of offerings (products, services, technology solutions, etc.) for better performance and results. More specifically, what’s UX strategy and deliverable all about?
UX strategy is about "the big picture." You want your user experiences to support organizational strategy. How will you react if organizational strategy shifts? After all, strategy is about predicting the future. You're not thinking of the "UX" that's only about wireframes and visual designs. You're thinking about brand, positioning, and environment, but from the standpoint of rigorous user understanding. The strategic objective is to understand what your customers need and to help the business orient itself towards those needs in pursuit of its objectives. To do this you also have to understand the company's long term goals and Identity (brand) and the Industry realities (competition), as well as the market (the reason for being). Develop a high-level design strategy that satisfies the requirements of different groups. Often, this meant not just identifying a direction that met in the middle of all those constraints, but rather figuring out which constraint / need / context actually mattered most in terms of potential impact to business, defection from customers, fast moving market change, etc, and then making that case back into the organization to get everyone aligned on a sometimes uncomfortably narrow focus.
UX strategist is a specialized business strategist who has multi-disciplinery knowledge. The work of UX strategists requires general knowledge and research around business best practice, industry behaviour, marketing, communications, technology, psychology, sociology, economics, and an interest in cool hunting and trend watching. The ability to model and empathize and the natural creativity and a technical aptitude. As the future unfolds, you may realize that the assumptions were wrong and you need to shift strategies. Are you locked into ways of delivering technology that are no longer appropriate or can you be flexible and quickly adapt to the revised direction? The purpose of undertaking a project is almost always to effect change. After all, you’re building something new. This raises many UX questions. Will people adopt a new tool? Do they have the knowledge they need? How will new tools affect existing processes? How will you manage unanticipated consequences that might arise? UX strategists ask questions and do things as described above so that they can then: a) facilitate "understanding" and help frame the "full" picture (big, little and everything in between) b) establish the foundations upon which a strategic program and approach to UX can be built and sustained over time, across channels, and in different contexts.
The hard part of UX Strategy is generating organizational consensus on the actual implementation. This is where serious people skills are required to navigate towards a solution that balances competitive stakeholder objectives, while still providing a first class experience to the best big picture interests of the business. The questions to ask are "Are you committed to distinguishing yourselves in the marketplace primarily by offering a superior user experience? How, specifically, is that a good idea? What does "superior user experience" mean to you and to your customers, and how, specifically, do you know that? What do you need to do to make it happen?" The job is answering these questions and helping to put the answers into practice.
Strategic UX also is intertwined with corporate culture. What is the relationship between IT and the business? Are they true partners? Are they aligned around outcomes? Are they dedicated to providing your staff with powerful, flexible and easy to use tools? How do your customers and prospects use social media and the web? How transparent are you willing to be in interacting with them? These are cultural questions with a strategic UX component as well. By adapting or influencing the corporate culture, it is easier to “socialize” the heck out of the strategy, getting a complex set of stakeholders to agree to move forward, commit resources, put projects on specific roadmaps, etc. Partner with and transition design strategy to more execution-focused design teams to make the strategy real.
Three level Experience Design: 1) Strategic experience design: looks 5+ years ahead, aims at omni channel experience orchestration and making the future service experience concrete, incorporating technological and socio-economic trends etc. Typical deliverables are high level visualizations of the future experience, vision films, service ecosystem models, CX principles, CX targets. 2) Tactical experience design: looks 1-3 years ahead, ‘designs in advance' and aims at design direction in specific channels (digital channels). Typical deliverables are visual product/service roadmaps, online design principles, platform generic reference designs and prototypes, ux targets, generic design components, and design guides/libraries. This stream aims to prepare for the operational work to be done as well as possible. 3) Operational experience design: looks at what needs to be done here and now (0-1 year ahead), both in terms of development, maintenance and optimization. Where relevant, uses the reference designs created in the tactical stream as a foundation. Typical deliverables here are platform specific and detailed concepts, ux-wireframes, visual designs, ui documentation, front-end code.
There are multi-stage UX deliverables. The deliverables initially include research, in terms of focus groups with stakeholders and users and quant/qual marketing research. Based upon the research, you deliver 'Recommendation.”Then come functional specifications that detail the granular functionality, wireframes, process diagrams, DB schema, governance guidelines, development stages - all the nuts and bolts. Then comes Visual Art, the dressing of the Wireframes. UX generally partners with UI Design to complete this task. UX guides with Usability Heuristics and other collaborative activity, depending on talent.
Regardless of where your UX team being resided, UX is not just a single business or technical project, it is an important element of your digital strategy, from research to planning; from multi-lenses inquiries to multiple-stage reviews; from visual arts to wire frames, it is not just about a user interface, but an end-to-end” customer experience and about your brand and competency.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital Master Tuning VII: How to Shape Effective Digital Culture
There is no magic formula, but a sharp vision, a sound strategy and strong discipline to transform a culture of mediocre to culture of outstanding.
Culture is invisible, but one of the most powerful factors for business’s long term prosperity; culture is soft, but one of the “toughest” ingredient in “digital transformation formula.” Creating a culture itself needs a (internal) strategy. In our recently released new book "Digital Master", culture matters have been introduced systematically, by walking through a few well popular culture models helping digital leaders and professionals with in depth understanding of cultures in scientific way, also well craft eight types of digital cultures to fit the forward-thinking organizations in their digital transformations.
Culture is not something that can be dictated and followed such as a new policy or rule from management. The spirit of organization comes from the top. Not only walk the talk; leaders, believing in the effects and high value of a company-culture, need a lot of resilience, to follow their roadmap continuously. Culture has context and its relative to the group of people that follow it or share a common set of beliefs, such as specialized set of skills or principles.You cannot tell anybody what their values are. If they don't *have* those values, what are you going to do about it? That is the question confronting anyone who wants to change culture. Telling employees *why* the management is putting processes in place; what values the processes are there to support, is not going to give the organization processes that 'stick'. As soon as a person finds a problem, they will revert back to doing things the way *they* think is the right way. As a result, you should consider looking at culture through the lens of people's interaction with one another in an organization (within and across team silos) than from an organizational management perspective. A team’s collective intelligence and specialization is rooted its organizational structure, attempting to spawn a culture change at a policy level is likely to result in the opposite, while aligning with an existing set of corporate principles they already share in common may prove to be most productive. This in the end will have the effect of promoting culture change organically while reducing the stress that people have from fear of the perceived risk of losing one's job for sharing ideas.
Highly effective digital cultures don't reflect their members, their members reflect them; meaning you select team members who are natural fits. It is a culture that supports collaboration, one that is comfortable with uncertainty. Culture is determined by behaviors - how do you act/react to everything at all times. It is a reflection of the mind-set. If your culture embraces the future, inspiring others, being a customer fanatic,... then it forms the environment, the basics from which you develop strategy. Culture not only eats strategy for lunch, but without it, strategy becomes as Shakespeare wrote, 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.' For it is the actions, the behaviors that make up and determine the success of your strategies.
Culture is really the leader - not strategy. Strategy is driven by culture. Yes, culture eats strategy for breakfast for culture is the framework in which strategy is held for effect benefit and growth.The problem between culture and strategy is one of focus. Culture is an amalgamation of people, their core values, their socioeconomic realities, lifestyles, and education. A company which values culture understands that each employee adds, or detracts, from company culture. The greater number of employees adding to company culture strengthens the company. The employees whose personal culture works against company culture detracts from company mission, vision, and goals. Thoughtful management will develop effective strategy which uses its greatest asset, its people. Integrating strategy with an understanding of company culture not only strengthens the company but also sets the direction for future growth. A company with a culture of integrity looks for employees which have the same core value. Company strategy flowing from company culture is intentional leadership at its best. Company strategy without integrating company culture is, at best, "using" people, which leads to abuse in the name of the good of the company.
Being “agile” is a type of digital culture. In “Digital Master,” we introduce eight types of unique digital cultures, being agile is one of the significant cultural evolutions. In order to make an organization more agile, you first need to get senior management buy in, then drive them from top down across the agency, so that the change ultimately happens bottom up (if that makes sense). In order to get buy in, using agile successfully in a small team on a small project, as a POC sometimes works wonders. The most important things to get it right are empowerment, freedom to choose ways of working, making tools, training, techniques, allowing for failure. Most organizations adopt "Agile" as a silver bullet. Since silver bullets kill werewolves, their adoption of "Agile" tends to fail. To adopt an "Agile" (not Fragile) culture, it has to be adopted throughout the organization. While an edict from top might help get things rolling, it is not a solution. A number of companies with well defined values and principles are quite close to what the nine building blocks of agile are: passionate individuals, close collaboration in the team, knowledge, focus on value, close collaboration with customer, simplicity, adaptability, continuous improvement and trust.
Culture adoption happening is like a wave. Senior Management starts the wave coming into the shore, but it then has to reach the beach (bottom) before it can go back out. Senior management has to adopt first, but they have to adopt a realistic picture and not another silver bullet. Also there is is a complementary way to get new employees to INTEGRATE into a new culture quickly and efficiently. It is to provide them with a suitable and readable corporate history, which will or should cover the detail of the employing organizations’ organic experience. Given to new bloods at the beginning of tenure (when they are most receptive), it can become a very powerful tool. Secondly, included in the nature of cultural topography is so-called tacit knowledge. Tacit’s importance to cultural issues which is barely acknowledged by institutions and individuals. Only few people, including the few “old timers” who become the major transmitters of culture, typically would know how to define it, let alone be able to articulate it.
Culture is invisible, but the most powerful elements to lead organization or society's long term prosperity. And then it might be "management" whose beliefs need to change. Perhaps it is the management culture that is out of date and harming the organization's prospects. Try this Digital Master fun quiz and learn more about different types of digital culture and how to build them effectively.
Culture is the collective mind and habit, the decoded digital culture shares a common thing: A: Water B: Air C: Utility D: Gas
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Introduction URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTubeFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Culture is invisible, but one of the most powerful factors for business’s long term prosperity; culture is soft, but one of the “toughest” ingredient in “digital transformation formula.” Creating a culture itself needs a (internal) strategy. In our recently released new book "Digital Master", culture matters have been introduced systematically, by walking through a few well popular culture models helping digital leaders and professionals with in depth understanding of cultures in scientific way, also well craft eight types of digital cultures to fit the forward-thinking organizations in their digital transformations.
Culture is not something that can be dictated and followed such as a new policy or rule from management. The spirit of organization comes from the top. Not only walk the talk; leaders, believing in the effects and high value of a company-culture, need a lot of resilience, to follow their roadmap continuously. Culture has context and its relative to the group of people that follow it or share a common set of beliefs, such as specialized set of skills or principles.You cannot tell anybody what their values are. If they don't *have* those values, what are you going to do about it? That is the question confronting anyone who wants to change culture. Telling employees *why* the management is putting processes in place; what values the processes are there to support, is not going to give the organization processes that 'stick'. As soon as a person finds a problem, they will revert back to doing things the way *they* think is the right way. As a result, you should consider looking at culture through the lens of people's interaction with one another in an organization (within and across team silos) than from an organizational management perspective. A team’s collective intelligence and specialization is rooted its organizational structure, attempting to spawn a culture change at a policy level is likely to result in the opposite, while aligning with an existing set of corporate principles they already share in common may prove to be most productive. This in the end will have the effect of promoting culture change organically while reducing the stress that people have from fear of the perceived risk of losing one's job for sharing ideas.
Highly effective digital cultures don't reflect their members, their members reflect them; meaning you select team members who are natural fits. It is a culture that supports collaboration, one that is comfortable with uncertainty. Culture is determined by behaviors - how do you act/react to everything at all times. It is a reflection of the mind-set. If your culture embraces the future, inspiring others, being a customer fanatic,... then it forms the environment, the basics from which you develop strategy. Culture not only eats strategy for lunch, but without it, strategy becomes as Shakespeare wrote, 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.' For it is the actions, the behaviors that make up and determine the success of your strategies.
Culture is really the leader - not strategy. Strategy is driven by culture. Yes, culture eats strategy for breakfast for culture is the framework in which strategy is held for effect benefit and growth.The problem between culture and strategy is one of focus. Culture is an amalgamation of people, their core values, their socioeconomic realities, lifestyles, and education. A company which values culture understands that each employee adds, or detracts, from company culture. The greater number of employees adding to company culture strengthens the company. The employees whose personal culture works against company culture detracts from company mission, vision, and goals. Thoughtful management will develop effective strategy which uses its greatest asset, its people. Integrating strategy with an understanding of company culture not only strengthens the company but also sets the direction for future growth. A company with a culture of integrity looks for employees which have the same core value. Company strategy flowing from company culture is intentional leadership at its best. Company strategy without integrating company culture is, at best, "using" people, which leads to abuse in the name of the good of the company.
Being “agile” is a type of digital culture. In “Digital Master,” we introduce eight types of unique digital cultures, being agile is one of the significant cultural evolutions. In order to make an organization more agile, you first need to get senior management buy in, then drive them from top down across the agency, so that the change ultimately happens bottom up (if that makes sense). In order to get buy in, using agile successfully in a small team on a small project, as a POC sometimes works wonders. The most important things to get it right are empowerment, freedom to choose ways of working, making tools, training, techniques, allowing for failure. Most organizations adopt "Agile" as a silver bullet. Since silver bullets kill werewolves, their adoption of "Agile" tends to fail. To adopt an "Agile" (not Fragile) culture, it has to be adopted throughout the organization. While an edict from top might help get things rolling, it is not a solution. A number of companies with well defined values and principles are quite close to what the nine building blocks of agile are: passionate individuals, close collaboration in the team, knowledge, focus on value, close collaboration with customer, simplicity, adaptability, continuous improvement and trust.
Culture adoption happening is like a wave. Senior Management starts the wave coming into the shore, but it then has to reach the beach (bottom) before it can go back out. Senior management has to adopt first, but they have to adopt a realistic picture and not another silver bullet. Also there is is a complementary way to get new employees to INTEGRATE into a new culture quickly and efficiently. It is to provide them with a suitable and readable corporate history, which will or should cover the detail of the employing organizations’ organic experience. Given to new bloods at the beginning of tenure (when they are most receptive), it can become a very powerful tool. Secondly, included in the nature of cultural topography is so-called tacit knowledge. Tacit’s importance to cultural issues which is barely acknowledged by institutions and individuals. Only few people, including the few “old timers” who become the major transmitters of culture, typically would know how to define it, let alone be able to articulate it.
Culture is invisible, but the most powerful elements to lead organization or society's long term prosperity. And then it might be "management" whose beliefs need to change. Perhaps it is the management culture that is out of date and harming the organization's prospects. Try this Digital Master fun quiz and learn more about different types of digital culture and how to build them effectively.
Culture is the collective mind and habit, the decoded digital culture shares a common thing: A: Water B: Air C: Utility D: Gas
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Introduction URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTubeFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Innovation vs. Invention
INNOVATION IS THE SYNTHESIS OF INVENTION AND COMMERCIALIZATION.
Innovation comes from the Latin, "Innovare" - 'to change or alter things that already exist'. Invention, on the other hand, has its roots in the Latin word "Novare", 'to make new / create'. The difference between innovation and creativity is implementation. One of the good definition of innovation is: "to transform the novel ideas into commercially successful products & achieving its business values.”
Invention creates; innovation realizes value. Innovation is the practical application of new inventions into marketable products or services. Invention is making ideas from money, innovation is making money from ideas.
Invention create, innovation applies creatively. Innovation is the introduction of something new or the new way to do things. Invention is about something is invented: as (1): a product of the imagination; (2): a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment.
Innovations = different and new. Invention = just new. Innovative ways of thinking lead to unique, value added inventions or improvements to current inventions. So innovation is more process driven and invention is more product oriented.
Invention precedes innovation but innovation does not always need invention. Innovation may or may not require an invention. If it does not require an invention then it is incremental innovation if it does require an invention then it could be something like disruptive innovation, whatever that is! Invention is the origin, innovation is the destination.
Invention =conceptualization to developing something New. Innovation =developing over the existing product to have better feature. Invention transforms challenges and problems into creative answers. Innovation is the integration of the invention into real world process, delivery system, market, and large scale supply as well as combining the invention's technology into the other technology components (formulation) of the target product.
Invention is to create what does not exist. innovation is to improve what exists. There is a fundamental problem with the comparison. Invention is a well understood term at least legally as the novelty test is really black and white but innovation is not; when do you have innovation? At what point is it achieved? Innovation is coming up with something of value by applying it to a product or process. The application is the invention.
If invention is the creative storyline, innovation is the movie. Innovators are therefore a complex mix of screenplay writers, casting agents, Director of course, production assistant, etc.... And if they have cash, they may even be able to call themselves the Producer!
Innovation = Invention + Execution. Invention: Creating new possibilities. Innovation: Creating sustainable competitive advantages. (1). What about the impact of Innovation/Invention dynamics on intangible dimensions of the output (services)? (2). Also, almost always tangible and intangible dimensions are impacted together even if in different ways/different degrees. What about those combinations?
INNOVATION IS THE SYNTHESIS OF INVENTION AND COMMERCIALIZATION. Innovation = f(Invention, Commercialization). It helps measure by: a) identifying innovation by seeing invention density, and b) integrates "audience recognition" to innovation, which clarifies measurement and suggests relativity.
Innovation is about having new knowledge and new processes. innovation is the specific phenomenon of the knowledge-based economy. innovation is about too much knowledge in terms of too many good creative ideas, and too little available resources. Innovation is about prioritization - a system that can "smell" the right idea at the right time and place.
If invention is a picture snapshot, then innovation is a colorful playbook, with all possible combinations of scenarios and all shades of relationships.Defining, distilling, determining, disrupting. Potentiality Vs. Realization (in a context).
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Innovation comes from the Latin, "Innovare" - 'to change or alter things that already exist'. Invention, on the other hand, has its roots in the Latin word "Novare", 'to make new / create'. The difference between innovation and creativity is implementation. One of the good definition of innovation is: "to transform the novel ideas into commercially successful products & achieving its business values.”Invention creates; innovation realizes value. Innovation is the practical application of new inventions into marketable products or services. Invention is making ideas from money, innovation is making money from ideas.
Invention create, innovation applies creatively. Innovation is the introduction of something new or the new way to do things. Invention is about something is invented: as (1): a product of the imagination; (2): a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment.
Innovations = different and new. Invention = just new. Innovative ways of thinking lead to unique, value added inventions or improvements to current inventions. So innovation is more process driven and invention is more product oriented.
Invention precedes innovation but innovation does not always need invention. Innovation may or may not require an invention. If it does not require an invention then it is incremental innovation if it does require an invention then it could be something like disruptive innovation, whatever that is! Invention is the origin, innovation is the destination.
Invention =conceptualization to developing something New. Innovation =developing over the existing product to have better feature. Invention transforms challenges and problems into creative answers. Innovation is the integration of the invention into real world process, delivery system, market, and large scale supply as well as combining the invention's technology into the other technology components (formulation) of the target product.
Invention is to create what does not exist. innovation is to improve what exists. There is a fundamental problem with the comparison. Invention is a well understood term at least legally as the novelty test is really black and white but innovation is not; when do you have innovation? At what point is it achieved? Innovation is coming up with something of value by applying it to a product or process. The application is the invention.
If invention is the creative storyline, innovation is the movie. Innovators are therefore a complex mix of screenplay writers, casting agents, Director of course, production assistant, etc.... And if they have cash, they may even be able to call themselves the Producer!
Innovation = Invention + Execution. Invention: Creating new possibilities. Innovation: Creating sustainable competitive advantages. (1). What about the impact of Innovation/Invention dynamics on intangible dimensions of the output (services)? (2). Also, almost always tangible and intangible dimensions are impacted together even if in different ways/different degrees. What about those combinations?
INNOVATION IS THE SYNTHESIS OF INVENTION AND COMMERCIALIZATION. Innovation = f(Invention, Commercialization). It helps measure by: a) identifying innovation by seeing invention density, and b) integrates "audience recognition" to innovation, which clarifies measurement and suggests relativity.
Innovation is about having new knowledge and new processes. innovation is the specific phenomenon of the knowledge-based economy. innovation is about too much knowledge in terms of too many good creative ideas, and too little available resources. Innovation is about prioritization - a system that can "smell" the right idea at the right time and place.
If invention is a picture snapshot, then innovation is a colorful playbook, with all possible combinations of scenarios and all shades of relationships.Defining, distilling, determining, disrupting. Potentiality Vs. Realization (in a context).
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
January 7, 2015
Digital Master Tuning VI: Five Insights of Digital Leadership
Digital leadership must be extremely visionary, empathetic, generous, conscious, passionate, and humble.
Digital and virtual leadership are new and emerging paradigms that are yet to be fully understood, and designed as they are still evolving. It can be said to be stifling by existing leadership paradigms and practices. While current leadership principles are still applicable, what needs to change are platform, delivery, and application in a virtual environment to be effective.
Start by asking different questions regarding technology and leadership. Technology is here to stay and leaders should embrace it. It takes good leaders to bridge those relationships and find the common links between people, shared goals or shared interest. There are many informal ways to grow relationships and teams. One area that will have to change is the passive leader in the corner office. There is no one outside the door anymore. The weight falls on the shoulders of the leaders to adapt. Leaders must understand the changing environment and be prepared to travel more and find new ways to serve the teams. You have to find ways to adapt as leaders so the virtual organization maximizes the potential. you can't continue to ask more of your teams in hours and work days, because the work is no longer the place you go, but the work you accomplish. If you try to manage it the same way, you will certainly stifle the potential.
Digital leadership must be extremely visionary, empathetic, generous, conscious, passionate, and humble; with self-confidence to rely on the best people without fear. You can promote this type of leadership in organizations though the right actions supporting people’s personal development. Virtuality is just a current indication of the need that organizations have to rely on confident and responsible people that do not need to be controlled but guided and motivated. It is all a matter of personal commitment to the organization and to the team you belong to. Such commitment rests mainly in two aspects, leadership’s coherence and personal alignment to the firm values. You must feel identified and recognized to give your best at any situation. There are several generations trying to figure out how to incorporate millennials into existing organizations. But leaders are trying to figure out how to build new organizations that leverage the strengths of the millennials rather than trying to accommodate it. It is not necessarily complicated but these are huge organizational culture changes requiring new approaches and understandings.
A virtual organization does not by itself necessarily stifle leadership but that, on the contrary, it raises the challenge of leadership. In order to be a successful leader in a virtual organization, a manager must possess a number of qualities: 1). He/she needs to be an excellent communicator to convey a clear vision2). He/she must possess those competences that are critical for success in virtual leadership: open-mindedness, flexibility, cultures intelligence, ability to deal with complexity, resilience, optimism, energy, and integrity. 3). Most important is that he/she is able to build trust. The ability to build trust is an absolutely essential role required of a virtual leader or any leader. 4) In global virtual work environments, culture cognizance and intelligence will differentiate a great leader from the mass.
Training will have to be developed for different forums to meet the needs of all types of employees. As organizations shift towards more virtual teams and networks the relationship skill becomes more important to sustain and improve delivery. Perhaps there is the need to train on the specifics of leading in the context of virtual teams. If you have global employees perhaps you have the post pictures of themselves and have them answer a few general questions like we would in a icebreaker. Additionally establish ground rules for communication and meeting progress checks. Technology requires leaders to exert a lot more energy due the limited or nonexistent face-to-face interaction. In a traditional settings the leader would be able to identify and resolve the human dynamic problem through nonverbal cues and personal interaction.
Expending energy in improve leadership effectiveness. The challenge isn't how much energy they exert – most leaders have a full plate of tasks already consuming the energy available throughout the day – but rather expending energy in a way that accounts for, in this case, the diversity of the workforce. Management of ‘multi-location’ organizations can quickly lead to 1) leadership over-spread – everyone gets a little but no one gets enough, 2) leadership laser-focus – the tele-workers get all the focus and the traditional workers are left out, or vice versa, or 3) leadership-by-proximity – the traditional workforce ‘votes the tele-workers off the island’ based on ease of access to the individual leaders. To effectively leverage feel, you need: •A strong vision and strategy •Creation of an environment that allows for continuous and effective communication •Make sure all of the pieces “fit” •To ensure that the team has the tools needed to succeed.•To make sure that mediocrity is not accepted and innovation is rewarded.•Scoreboards that reflect the mission •Plan fireworks for success
Globalization happening at a greater pace has resulted in moving from actuality to virtuality very quickly without going through the traditional organizational transitions. Hence the need for leadership has changed from being just traditional/transitional to being transformational today, leaders are in more need of basic 3C's capabilities- Communication, Collaboration and Coordination. In addition to 3C's capabilities there is a greater need for leaders moving away from ambiguity to more closer to clarity especially when dealing with virtual teams. What this means is that you do need to have clear strategic vision, planning and implementation plans and strong appropriate leadership (there would be different leadership / managerial capabilities required in these three different areas). Cross Cultural cognizance and intelligence is also becoming a critical factor in success of virtual teams thus leadership need to be anchored to cultural aspect. This should be essential part of the training for any leadership development within an organization. In summary here is the list of critical elements/concepts that are critical for "digital" leadership for virtual organization (not limited to); 1). Transformational Leaders 2). Stronger 3C's capabilities- Communication, Collaboration and Coordination. Coordination (performance accountability), Collaboration (agile, innovative) bridged by Communications.3). Away from ambiguity and closer to clarity 4). Clear Strategic Vision , Planning and Implementation plans 5). Cross Cultural cognizance and intelligence
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital and virtual leadership are new and emerging paradigms that are yet to be fully understood, and designed as they are still evolving. It can be said to be stifling by existing leadership paradigms and practices. While current leadership principles are still applicable, what needs to change are platform, delivery, and application in a virtual environment to be effective.
Start by asking different questions regarding technology and leadership. Technology is here to stay and leaders should embrace it. It takes good leaders to bridge those relationships and find the common links between people, shared goals or shared interest. There are many informal ways to grow relationships and teams. One area that will have to change is the passive leader in the corner office. There is no one outside the door anymore. The weight falls on the shoulders of the leaders to adapt. Leaders must understand the changing environment and be prepared to travel more and find new ways to serve the teams. You have to find ways to adapt as leaders so the virtual organization maximizes the potential. you can't continue to ask more of your teams in hours and work days, because the work is no longer the place you go, but the work you accomplish. If you try to manage it the same way, you will certainly stifle the potential.
Digital leadership must be extremely visionary, empathetic, generous, conscious, passionate, and humble; with self-confidence to rely on the best people without fear. You can promote this type of leadership in organizations though the right actions supporting people’s personal development. Virtuality is just a current indication of the need that organizations have to rely on confident and responsible people that do not need to be controlled but guided and motivated. It is all a matter of personal commitment to the organization and to the team you belong to. Such commitment rests mainly in two aspects, leadership’s coherence and personal alignment to the firm values. You must feel identified and recognized to give your best at any situation. There are several generations trying to figure out how to incorporate millennials into existing organizations. But leaders are trying to figure out how to build new organizations that leverage the strengths of the millennials rather than trying to accommodate it. It is not necessarily complicated but these are huge organizational culture changes requiring new approaches and understandings.
A virtual organization does not by itself necessarily stifle leadership but that, on the contrary, it raises the challenge of leadership. In order to be a successful leader in a virtual organization, a manager must possess a number of qualities: 1). He/she needs to be an excellent communicator to convey a clear vision2). He/she must possess those competences that are critical for success in virtual leadership: open-mindedness, flexibility, cultures intelligence, ability to deal with complexity, resilience, optimism, energy, and integrity. 3). Most important is that he/she is able to build trust. The ability to build trust is an absolutely essential role required of a virtual leader or any leader. 4) In global virtual work environments, culture cognizance and intelligence will differentiate a great leader from the mass.
Training will have to be developed for different forums to meet the needs of all types of employees. As organizations shift towards more virtual teams and networks the relationship skill becomes more important to sustain and improve delivery. Perhaps there is the need to train on the specifics of leading in the context of virtual teams. If you have global employees perhaps you have the post pictures of themselves and have them answer a few general questions like we would in a icebreaker. Additionally establish ground rules for communication and meeting progress checks. Technology requires leaders to exert a lot more energy due the limited or nonexistent face-to-face interaction. In a traditional settings the leader would be able to identify and resolve the human dynamic problem through nonverbal cues and personal interaction.
Expending energy in improve leadership effectiveness. The challenge isn't how much energy they exert – most leaders have a full plate of tasks already consuming the energy available throughout the day – but rather expending energy in a way that accounts for, in this case, the diversity of the workforce. Management of ‘multi-location’ organizations can quickly lead to 1) leadership over-spread – everyone gets a little but no one gets enough, 2) leadership laser-focus – the tele-workers get all the focus and the traditional workers are left out, or vice versa, or 3) leadership-by-proximity – the traditional workforce ‘votes the tele-workers off the island’ based on ease of access to the individual leaders. To effectively leverage feel, you need: •A strong vision and strategy •Creation of an environment that allows for continuous and effective communication •Make sure all of the pieces “fit” •To ensure that the team has the tools needed to succeed.•To make sure that mediocrity is not accepted and innovation is rewarded.•Scoreboards that reflect the mission •Plan fireworks for success
Globalization happening at a greater pace has resulted in moving from actuality to virtuality very quickly without going through the traditional organizational transitions. Hence the need for leadership has changed from being just traditional/transitional to being transformational today, leaders are in more need of basic 3C's capabilities- Communication, Collaboration and Coordination. In addition to 3C's capabilities there is a greater need for leaders moving away from ambiguity to more closer to clarity especially when dealing with virtual teams. What this means is that you do need to have clear strategic vision, planning and implementation plans and strong appropriate leadership (there would be different leadership / managerial capabilities required in these three different areas). Cross Cultural cognizance and intelligence is also becoming a critical factor in success of virtual teams thus leadership need to be anchored to cultural aspect. This should be essential part of the training for any leadership development within an organization. In summary here is the list of critical elements/concepts that are critical for "digital" leadership for virtual organization (not limited to); 1). Transformational Leaders 2). Stronger 3C's capabilities- Communication, Collaboration and Coordination. Coordination (performance accountability), Collaboration (agile, innovative) bridged by Communications.3). Away from ambiguity and closer to clarity 4). Clear Strategic Vision , Planning and Implementation plans 5). Cross Cultural cognizance and intelligence Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
January 4, 2015
How to Overcome The Obstacles of Agile Transformation
More and more organizations are on their journey from doing Agile to being agile, and there are many obstacles on the way, what are the causes of those failure, do they fail to follow the principles, or are they failing to do the best practice? Are they failing forward or backward? Who should take more responsibility -their leadership or fellowship?
The major obstacle to change is the "why" principle. If people don't buy into the need, they will fight change tooth and nail. When they do, change is easier especially if you remove the major obstacle which is the middle where people are comfortable and adverse to change. The root cause of the "copy & fail" concept is an emphasis on "doing Agile" without understanding the people-centric values of "being Agile" are what makes the magic happen. There are other psychological factors that contribute... but the primary root cause leads to a whole mess of different flavors of "failures."
Agile is pushed into an organization, needs to be implemented in certain timeframe. The only 'thing' forgotten is that people do not want to change without understanding and support. Implementing the Agile method is simple but executing the new way of working with the people is a lot harder. It is not so surprise to see, after 6-12 months, upper management discovers Agile is not working at all. Because they forgot their people to buy in, this happens frequently with any changes.
If an organization sees an attempt at implementation as a failure, they will never be Agile. Agile is about failing your way to success and impact, not about labelling efforts. A successful implementation of Agile can mean many things, ranging from "we were a really cool organization and now we found and implemented a system that supports our values and passion" to "due to xx circumstance we have had to break down our organization completely and rebuild it with Agility as its ultimate purpose, we are not there yet but we are working on it". Too many traditional, Waterfall companies think Agile is a plug-and-play process, which it isn't. Agile transformation requires just that - transformation. Most businesses overlook that phrasing entirely. It requires not only buy-in but actual commitment throughout and across the organization.
Agile is simply not equipped to have meaningful conversations with executives. If you cannot "sell" Agile to the top, their "What's In It For Me?" question will not resolve positively. To increase the success rate of large "Agile Transformation" programs, Agile needs to evolve and address the needs of executive management, so that they get a reason to believe in Agile. And at the end of the day, it boils down to speaking their language: numbers.
Lack of strategic change agents: The larger the scope of change, the more people you are likely to have who are not really *bought in* to the change. So the larger transformations are more likely to fail. They would require a very large effort at ensuring a sufficient number of people 1) have really bought in to the change and 2) have sufficient assistance to pull the rest along with them as the new ways and thinking bed themselves in. If people haven't *really* bought in to a change, then as soon as things become difficult they will revert to what they are familiar with. Where people have really bought into a change, then they will be strongly motivated to find ways of making it work, whenever things get difficult. It's the change agents' obligation - on whichever level they may be - to invest time and effort in educating the whole organisation about the change, it's goals, advantages and disadvantages. If they don't, they've already failed. When the top management just announces that "from tomorrow on we're agile", and the people doing the work don't get the information, support, and room to learn, the implementation will fail. When the development unit decides to go, without explaining to business why they need to answer questions all the time instead of just sending over a list of requirements and getting back to their jobs, the implementation will fail.
Follow other’s footstep without reflection: As with any process improvement initiative, you need to be realistic about agile. It is another tool in the toolbox and not a silver bullet. The key is to understand why you are undertaking an agile process and what you expect to achieve. Don't do agile because the other company is doing it. Assess the challenges specific to your organization. What keeps you up a night? Determine the best tools to address those challenges. Agile may be just one of several improvement initiatives. Assess your team, product, and culture honestly. Agile works best for small cross functional teams with good interaction with customers or customer proxies (business analysts). Is your team open to an agile mindset? In agile, you have to be able to make progress without having the whole answer and to not gold plate with features that you think will be necessary.
Fail to select the right project to do Agile. To succeed, start small. Get the proper tools and training. Hire a mentor. Define your goals ahead of time and understand how agile can help achieve them. Agile can be frustrating if you don't have comprehensive strategy, principles, or practices, and you are trying to take ivory approach. 1). Improper IT motivation for adopting Agile. It is mostly the development team adopting "Agile" to avoid planning and documentation. This leads to Cowboy coding, which leads to a dissatisfied business. Add on top of this the lack of fully vetting out what done looks like and you have disaster point #1. The best way to conquer this is to start running the meetings off your tracking tool (which hopefully is Agile). This helps you use science to uncover hidden impediments and make sure everyone keeps the boards up to date. 2). Lack of business buy in to the culture: While they certainly buy into the "development practices Agile" concept, they don't want the added "overhead" of having to prune the backlog every time they get a new item at a higher priority.3). Executive/management view of Agile as a silver bullet. You have to get management to understand that Agile does not magically make things faster. That the faster is accomplished more by the following: A. Pruning out non-priority items. Less work is done in less time. Really strange concept, eh?
B. Understanding what is acceptable and what is not. But this only works well when business gives up the time to give full acceptance criteria, the team asks questions when given the time and the team codes tests to cover the acceptance.
Agile pioneers tries to ensure Agile projects would get better, more consistently successful, results. One of the most important fundamentals of Agile is the emphasis of producing "Learning" Teams - not only learning about the product you are developing, but also learning how best to work as a team. The organizational leadership should embrace this philosophy, building Agile Practices iteratively and becoming a "learning" organization; inspecting and adapting, learning from the mistakes and successes of its teams, learning from other organizations and best practices external to the organization.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
