Big data is like Moneyball for geeks. The term itself is so innately exciting that it made the leap from neologism to buzzword in a heartbeat. Mostly, that’s a good thing, because it has undoubtedly increased enthusiasm and investment in a crucial area.
Unfortunately, all the hype also has a downside, because we are now in the midst of a big data bubble where everything and anything seems to be touted as having some kind of big data tie-in, which makes it hard to know what we’re talking really about.
In their book, Big Data, authors Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Ken Cukier define it as “things that one can do at a large scale that can’t be done at a small one” and that, I think, gets to the heart of the matter. Big data is not just a difference in scale, it’s a difference in kind and it demands that we make serious changes to how we think, manage and operate.
Ever since GE built the first industrial lab in 1900, research and development has been a highly secretive affair. Security protocols have been regarded almost as important as scientific ones. Industrial espionage has been pursued as zealously as the political kind.
Apple, arguably the world’s most innovative company, has become renowned for keeping its cards close to the vest and even “don’t be evil” Google has launched its own super-secret research center.
However, amidst the cloak and dagger a new open innovation trend has begun to take hold. The turning point was Henry Chesbrough’s 2003 book, Open Innovation, which coined the term and laid down basic principles. Since then the idea has gained steam and it’s becoming clear that open innovation initiatives are key to staying competitive.
In 1992, Francis Fukuyama published his book, The End of History in which he argued that, with the cold war over and liberal democracy triumphant, the major historical narrative dialectic of history was over.
He was, of course, somewhat mistaken. The world today looks much more like Samuel Huntington’s vision of The Clash of Civilizations than anything else. There doesn’t seem to be any less division and strife now than before.
However, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that something has fundamentally changed, albeit the shift is technological rather than cultural (a fact which Fukuyama himself alluded to in a later book). History, as we know it, is over not because we’ve figured it all out, but on the contrary because we’ve unleashed forces that render the future inscrutable.
History is, to a great extent, a tale of great powers: Athens vs. Sparta, Rome vs. Carthage, the Axis vs. the Allies and NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact. Great nations drive great events.
That is, until fairly recently. While North America and Europe struggle to return to prosperity, BBVA research predicts that 68% of global economic growth over the next decade will come from emerging markets.
So the greatest opportunities are likely to come from some of the most unlikely places. However, few executives are ready to deal with the challenges of the developing world. Cultural, governance and management challenges meet you at every turn and general business experience is often a poor guide. Here’s what you need to know.
Before the industrial revolution, people were valued for knowing a trade. However, when machines took over physical labor, those skills became devalued and most people either performed simple, repetitive tasks or managed those who did.
By the late 20th century, a knowledge economy began to take hold. Now, workers’ value lay not so much in their labor , but in specialized knowledge, much of which was inscrutable to their superiors. In order to thrive, enterprises had to become learning organizations.
Now, we are entering a new industrial revolution and machines are starting to take over cognitive tasks as well. Therefore, much like in the first industrial revolution, the role of humans is again being rapidly redefined. Organizations will have to change the way that they learn and managers’ primary task will be to design the curricula.
Ever since The Guardian reported that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting the phone record metadata of millions of Americans, the cable talk circuit has been ablaze with pundits demanding answers to what should be obvious questions.
The question that nobody seems to be asking is probably the most important one: What is the NSA doing with the data and why do they need so much of it? The answer is a relatively new field called social network analysis and, while it may make people uneasy, the benefits far outweigh the risks, so it is probably something we will just have to accept. read more…
Back in the 15th Century, Leonardo da Vinci, the great genius of the Middle Ages, said that “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Most modern managers would agree. Every good operation works hard to streamline its processes down to the barest essentials.
However, the world is a complex place and it’s only getting more so, which is why many management thinkers have been urging businesses to embrace complexity, to become, in effect, system thinkers rather than reductionists.
As Richard Straub noted in a recent article in HBR, that effort has largely failed and we shouldn’t be surprised. Executives are paid to be accountable and are understandably reluctant to give themselves up to the complexity Gods. In truth, complexity is not something we need to embrace, merely something we need to accept and manage.
As most people are aware by now, a man named Cody Wilson has developed a gun design that allows anyone with a 3D printer to manufacture their own firearms. Just download the file, press a button, add a firing pin and you’re ready to go.
However, there’s more at stake here than the gun control debate. As digital technology makes it possible to spread ideas with astounding speed across ethical, geographical and political borders, we’re going to have to deal more often with ideas we don’t like. How we choose to do that will greatly affect our way of life and our ability to innovate.
Progress is a funny thing. As Bruce Gibney noted in the Founders Fund Manifesto, we were expecting to have flying cars by now, but ended up with 140 characters instead. What gives?
And Mr. Gibney isn’t the only one to question progress. From Nassim Taleb to Evgeny Morozov, a fair number of highly intelligent and very well informed people are arguing that, for all of the hubbub, what we consider to be technological progress isn’t really all that meaningful.
I believe that much of the criticism stems from a misunderstanding about the function and purpose of technology. While skeptics are right to point out that the basic functionality of many inventions hasn’t improved for decades (or even centuries), our goal for the future should not be to merely improve upon the past, but to advance beyond it. read more…
It’s easy to become jaded about announcements in the tech world. Slick, media savvy CEO’s announce “revolutionary” new products with metronomic regularity. Version 1.0 becomes 1.1 and eventually 2.0 and on and on. It all seems like a blur.
Meanwhile, the truly groundbreaking stuff often goes unnoticed (neither the transistor nor the microchip were instant hits). Genuine paradigm shifts come in strange guises, with little tangible effect on immediate life and often take decades to make an impact.
Nevertheless, we should take notice at the recent news of the Google-NASA quantum computing partnership which marks the beginning of a new digital paradigm. Although we must account for that which is beyond our present understanding, even the projects currently underway promise a future that seems more science fiction than science fact.
Or install manually
Copy and paste the following Google tag code onto every page of your website, immediately after the element. Don’t add more than one Google tag to each page.
, authors Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Ken Cukier define it as “things that one can do at a large scale that can’t be done at a small one” and that, I think, gets to the heart of the matter. Big data is not just a difference in scale, it’s a difference in kind and it demands that we make serious changes to how we think, manage and operate.
, which coined the term and laid down basic principles. Since then the idea has gained steam and it’s becoming clear that open innovation initiatives are key to staying competitive.
in which he argued that, with the cold war over and liberal democracy triumphant, the major historical narrative dialectic of history was over.
than anything else. There doesn’t seem to be any less division and strife now than before.
). History, as we know it, is over not because we’ve figured it all out, but on the contrary because we’ve unleashed forces that render the future inscrutable.
