My point is we all have something to use, a talent that needs polishing, ideas that need explaining and a host of other things that constitute our uniqueness.  One guy I saw at this retreat/conference was making a robot fish to find pollutants in rivers where humans couldn’t go and of course for commercial reasons (SKYNET!).   How unique and interesting!  There was a man studying glycomics, another looking at the semantic web and me doing whatever I can to avoid work.

Why don’t you begin to be unique and special, just like everyone else.  Don’t stop doing something because it makes no money or because it’s going nowhere.  If you believe it’s you, you should want to do it just to be unique and different.  It’s the different things that make this world so interesting, at least to a boring academic like me!  There are no guarantees of success but at least you can be happy within yourself.  Don’t throw it all away, just spend one hour a week being unique, then build it up to 190,000 hours.  Before you know it you will as unique as everyone else!

Modernism, classicism, realism, impressionism–dividing things into schools of thought–or even warring camps–makes it easy to create tension and thus attention.

When I first tweeted about this my thoughts were wow, I have faced this problem my whole academic life.   Since 2002 I have been toying with this idea introduced by a former colleague about crossing paradigm boundaries.  The ism schism eh?

Here’s where the problem is for problem solvers.  There aren’t problems of information technology, information systems, management or operations research, there are just problems, we are people we frame them.  We have invented weasel words in academia and built our kingdoms on the back of dead philosophers and then wore a path to the goal of making knowledge for the masses.   So what’s the point?  I am reading a book about the social sciences at the moment and how case studies became popular, then declined, only to become popular again and yet in both falls there is a consistent thread bringing them together.  Pointless debates about methodology.  You’d think that by now given a couple of hundred years we would have solved some of our social problems, we aren’t even close.   Not even knocking on the door, while science and other areas are shooting ahead at a lightning pace.  Why?

Perhaps the answer lies in the question: Why can’t academics solve problems?  Well how long an explanation do you want me give?  Should academics solve problems or just catalog and file them?  In a recent conversation with a senior member of staff at Griffith, I was told that I need to find my ‘patch’ and become known for something.  This is very good advice.  Yet, I am reminded of my PhD literature review of the problem solving literature that covers six major discipline areas including: Education, Philosophy, Business, Humanities, Law and Science.  Why?  Because I was stupid enough to make a commitment to study the problem of the problem.  Problems are like people, they are everywhere… funny that!  The issue now for me, a somewhat backward less modern post-post modern academic is where do I fit?   Nowhere and everywhere.  Do we start micro-defining problems?  Or macro-defining meta-knowledge?  The whole wife and two kids issue fits into this somewhere as well… dammit.

So why is the academic enterprise failing?

It’s hard to say, but I wonder what John Dewey would say if he were alive.  He once argued that we can only think about life as a process if we understood problems from the point of view of the people who gave them meaning.  He wasn’t talking about individuals only but also groups.  People who give meaning to things as a byproduct of being human.  Academics have categorised a large percentage of problems into cubes such as ‘management’, ‘information systems’, ‘international business’ and so on.  These are disciplines that have their own frames of reference, literature and so forth, yet they all have the problem of a problem and this covers differing views of what concerns us and how we think about it.   To answer my own questions, knowledge has fragmented and studies now are micro, with a very small sphere of influence.  This is a shame because we could combine our various disciplinary smarts and solve REAL problems, not imaginary ‘methodology’ problems.  A philosophical problem has meaning, it surely does, yet the impact of the meaning is almost always meaningless unless the problem is non-trivial and not just philosophical.

I will finish with a thought first brought to my attention from a book about conflict resolution.  It’s easy to say I am right and you are wrong, but it’s much harder to say in which way are both of us right?

The future of business informatics

This lecture is one of the best I have had the pleasure to give.  It came mainly from Alison Ruth. In a really neat way it emphasises how technology has become a part of our culture to the extent where disciplines like Informatics/Information Systems have gradually faded out of thought.  I really like how it shows us the growing themes of technology and how new trends are emerging.   But by the time you read this paragraph this will be out of date!

The thing I love so much about this lecture is that you really shows you how much technology has impacted and indeed become embedded in our lives.  You can’t even say, ‘Change Management’ without thinking about it.  It’s amazing to me that Business Schools all over Australia are leaving their IT up to ICT departments without at least thinking about the role IT plays in governance, policy and management.  Why is this?  It’s puzzling.

The final analysis though can be found from the Kodak video.  Look at the things they have done to transform their brand and how did they do it?  Through social media of course.  I will leave whoever of you read this to ponder the meanings of these things while I scramble around to reinvent my career.   What will happen in the future?  More stuff no doubt.  This time next year who knows where I will be… probably here typing another blog post for y’all.   I like what is on the final part of the prezi:

What will we be teaching in 5 years?

Well it won’t be business informatics to postgraduate students at Griffith University anymore… which is a shame.

Enjoy… I did.  R.I.P. Business Informatics.

The people in charge of our internet.

As an Australian academic who teaches information policy to international students I find this kind of rant from our senator embarrassing.  I mean really, attacking Google over a mistake with wifi data?   Then going on to say that it was a breach of privacy?  Anyone who has been around computers long enough knows how easy it is to get access to free wifi.  I wonder, where these networks secured and do the people who own them even know they were secured?  WHO KNOWS?

The students in my information policy class last night discussed this and came up with much better interpretations than the present person sitting in the job.  Even though I took the time to consider the internet filter and other issues… I think I can safely say that this man doesn’t represent me at all.  He keeps saying and doing things that boggle the mind.

Ok the rant is over for now.

Why?

A situation arose where a tough issue was up for the committee to discuss and the chair rightly made the statement that it’s probably too hard.   Often they are.   The kind of issues that require a lot of stakeholders, key input from a variety of people and large scale discussions of lots of people and many perspectives.    Reaching consensus becomes hard, finding agreement becomes difficult and navigating the terrain of politics becomes very messy.  In a hierarchy it’s even worse.   The balance of power rests on the shoulders of those at the top who often are framing problems under pressure and as such go for what looks like the best option for everyone.  This leads to compromise, satisificing and a situation where we all get some of what we want sometimes and everyone sacrifices something to keep the other group of people happy.   In one way this kind of problem solving is negotiation and fails to really handle the deep issue that’s being discussed.   Yet, in most situations I have been in, this kind of situation is exactly what we have to live with.

The too hard basket: Decisions that will never be made

True creativity that involves finding new perspectives and better ideas are often missing.  Why?  It’s too-hard to argue, it’s too hard to fight, it’s too hard to offend people, it’s too hard to be creative, it’s too hard to upset a risk averse culture, it’s too hard to risk the failure that might hold up my promotion, it’s too hard to risk the mortgage, it’s too hard to challenge people because they might not like me, it’s too hard to face up to reality that innovation requires a big risk with a small chance of reward, it’s too hard to create leadership and vision in an apathetic culture and so on and so on and so on.   What’s too hard?  Problem solving is too hard so we don’t do it.  We work around it.  We never make the decisions that need to be made because it’s too hard.

What constraints are there?  Political, social, cultural…?  Lots, that’s what makes it too hard.   The cult of ‘balance’ and ‘feasibility’ will tell you that ‘it’s too hard’.  They are right it is.  We shouldn’t be ashamed of making these kinds of decisions because the opportunity to truly creative isn’t something you will find at most universities, businesses or fund raising events.  No, it’s something you will have to search for.

True Creativity and Problem Solving means using the too hard basket

Rules are good except when they stand in the way of change.  To be truly creative we need to be making decisions where we have the guts to reframe.  Have you heard the saying don’t throw the baby out with the bath water?   In most circumstances I have been in we empty a little bit of the water, keep the baby when we should have really tossed the kid and drained the tub.  That’s not a good picture is it?  Yet, that hidden assumption that things are generally ok is so bad it’s toxic.  Sometimes, things are pretty far from ok.  They are not ok.  They are failing.

Failure is the signpost of change that says: this didn’t work.  It’s like Microsoft Windows really or a badly leaking dingy… just patch it up!  The bastard is sinking and water is coming in the boat but hey that’s ok because we have a lot of tape in here and that will keep this thing floating until the next poor sucker comes along and patches it up.  The problem is…. it’s too hard to change when it’s easier to get people to agree, which in itself is very, very hard.

So what are we to do?

I don’t know.  But I know this: things don’t always get worse before they get better, sometimes they keep getting worse until they become bottom of the fridge nasty.   So we are faced with a tough choice.  Do we innovate, negotiate or detonate?  These are tough choices.  In my meeting experience this morning I caught a glimpse of how hard it is to be innovative and create new directions when you answer to so many people.  It’s difficult and requires support.   In my limited experience, real problem solving means: bringing out the concern, the perspectives that construct it, the stakeholders and finding ways to reach a place where the problem is no longer a problem.  It sounds simple?  It isn’t!

The thing about relationships is that they’re tricky and are not always the same. They may start out one way and either deteriorate or become better as time goes by. And since it takes two people to make a relationship, you can never predict how the one you’re in is going to turn out. Human beings are fickle creatures and prone to mental and psychological changes depending on their experiences, so you can never be sure how relationships will turn out.

In general, both people in a relationship must work towards making it work, and when makes no effort and the other gives their all, then we have an unhealthy relationship, one that will definitely go down the drain in time. Some of us stay on in such relationships even though we know they’re not good for us, mostly because:

• We’re scared of change: We don’t have the courage to be proactive and break off the relationship because it would mean effecting and coping with a great deal of change in our lives.
• We pretend that things will get better: There are times when we’re so addicted to certain people even though we know that they’re not good for us and that we would be better off without them in the long run. And so we pretend that things will get better if we just hang in there and continue to please the other person and do whatever they want. But 99 percent of the time, adopting a doormat attitude only makes people actually treat you like one.
• We are truly in a bind: Some people are caught in abusive or otherwise unhealthy relationships because they have no other alternative – they may have other factors to consider besides their own unhappiness, like children or the fact that they are not financially independent.

No matter why you stay in unhealthy relationships, the fact remains that they are not good for you in any way. So the sooner you break away from them, the better off you’ll be in the long run. You may even be tempted to take back your significant other when they come back and promise to treat you better, but more often than not, they don’t change. So it’s best you make a clean break when you know and acknowledge to yourself that the relationship is unhealthy and that you must be strong enough to turn your back firmly on it.

By-line:

This guest post is contributed by Shannon Wills, she writes on the topic of Top Online Engineering Degree . She welcomes your comments at her email id: shannonwills23@gmail.com.

This technique breaks down the relationship between the audience and the viewer.  Filmmaker David Lynch does this too but he breaks the brain (sounds out sorry):

Although what he is saying comes from transcendental meditation, which I am iffy on, he makes a very good point and this is what I consider breaking the fourth wall to be.   The fourth wall is the assumption that we are watching a movie or being entertained, or doing what we should.  Breaking that wall is breaking the assumptions that hold the illusions together.   You can create fancy ideas about innovation, leadership and management but you can also challenge what is known and why it’s known to make new temporary patterns in knowledge.  Why would you want to do this?

Breaking old patterns Making New Ideas = Synthesis and (New) Creations

Breaking the fourth wall is hard work.  It makes you the enemy of bosses, clients, managers and investors.   It’s a risk but the reward is worth it.  Of course it doesn’t always work does it?  Some ideas fail.  Nevertheless in the on-going pursuit of ideas and learning you can suffer worse than not to try.  I should know I have spent the last three years not trying.  If you try you may succeed.   New creations and synthesis of old ideas can help, but breaking the fourth wall is hard work.

Think of the some key examples of our time.  Apple did with the iPod and then the iPhone and then the iPad (no they didn’t). I have been very blessed to have been working with someone who has broken my fourth wall constantly.  I have learned a great deal from this experience and it’s something I won’t ever forget… except for the un-lecture we did. Yet, I am still proud to say that we did that… it was breaking the fourth wall.   What fourth walls do you have?  Are they worth breaking?  If so they do it, if not then do it and see what happens.   We need more creativity and joy in this blue ball of ours because at the moment it’s run by efficiency minded nano adminobots.

My challenge is to keep doing this in my teaching, research, service and other work.  I am truly committed to breaking this wall.  Even though I don’t know it.

When I read articles like this one I am left scratching my head at the ability of people in power to tackle serious problems.    Here’s a quote from the RBA (Reserve Bank of Australia) leader man:

“I think it is a mistake to assume that a, you know, riskless easy, guaranteed way to Prosperity is just to be leveraged up into property,” he told the Seven Network. “You know, it isn’t going to be that easy.”

He added that he worries about whether future generations will be able to achieve home ownership.

“I’ve got kids that within not too many more years are going to want somewhere of their own to live and you wonder, you know, how is that going to be afforded because prices are getting quite high.”

Prices are continuing to rise on the back of demand from a growing population outstripping housing supply.

Is this guy on crack? He’s the leader of the reserve bank and he wonders if his children will be able to afford a house?  So the leaders of this nation are quite happy to let the rich get richer and increase housing in-affordability in Australia?

The place where I grew up is the third most expensive place to live in the world and it’s not that flash.  For me to buy a house in my suburb means that I need 6.5 going 7 times my current income, almost as bad as places like London or Sydney.   So what’s the answer from the man in charge.  Allow me to paraphrase for you:

“Oh who knows.  I mean my kids can’t afford it but instead of actually managing the issue you know what I am going to do?  I am going to treat this as if it has nothing to do with me.  It’s the market!   Oh by the way, if you are looking to get into the market, you can’t because we made it too expensive for the average young Australian wage earner.  Sorry about that.  So you young people, just sit around collecting degrees and um er… yeah as you were.”

This is not solving the problem, it’s absolving it.  Sitting there and wondering as it passes you buy.  No offense man, but seriously if you don’t know what to do, what the hell am I supposed to tell my kids?  Good luck kids, get a massive home loan and live in the middle of Uranus.

A lesson in Problem Absolving – Problem Solving is not doing nothing!

The late Russell Ackoff called problem absolution (doing nothing) the option most people take.  Nothing is being done to fix this issues so it cycles around the system creating no improvement.  When a situation is improved, we notice.  We say, ‘holy crap, I can afford a house.’  When it gets worse we say, ‘OMG, the problem isn’t getting any better.’  Simple?  Doing nothing is, ‘Oh that’s a problem, er… come back and see me in a year and you will be ok.’

I am at a complete loss to explain a lack of governmental response to the price of houses.  Even with a grant, the boost and any other kind of incentive, there is no way I can ever hope to live anywhere near I work and raise my family.  It just won’t happen.  It’s not just me either.  Data from the latest ABS survey indicates (it does go here to check it out) that housing debt carried by Australian families is approaching the 40% mark.  Putting aside my hobby horse for a moment, consider the ramifications of that.  What happens if that becomes too much in the future?  What happens to our economy?  Forget about home ownership: what about long term security?

Possible Solutions

I am not an economist, I am barely an academic so here goes.  A list of things we could do right now:

• Take away the financial imperative: Create a situation where home ownership is regulated by the government.  A years wage (on average) for a house.  Ok, so like I said, I am not an economist.  Economists: why won’t this work?
• Remodel work so it can be done from anywhere and support the mobile workforce:  Create hubs and campuses for city dwellers in places like Uranus, I mean Pluto, I mean the country.  Change the reason for living in a city to one of lifestyle and promote that.  Sure, that will drive prices higher and create weird developer towns like North Lakes.  It will give losers like me an entry point.
• Stop blaming the market and think about price ceilings: There is a natural level of supply for demand but here’s the kicker, Price. Supply and Demand is regulated by the price people are willing and able to pay. These stupid arguments about not enough land, blah blah blah.  What about price?  The argument goes: price drives up demand because of the lack of supply for a scarce resource.  I.e.  From the above quoted article: “Prices are continuing to rise on the back of demand from a growing population outstripping housing supply.”  If this were true why is there so much vacant land in the outer regions of Australia?  A better way of saying this would be: At the current price, which is rising due to the perceived lack of supply and a growing base of people wanting to buy in city areas, housing is become more expensive.  Therefore, demand for these city properties is surging and the price ceiling (the price people are willing and able to pay), has yet to be reached.   Oh but is there a price ceiling?  I thought house prices only ever went up… right?  WRONG!  Conventional economics says that price regulates supply and demand, yet I can’t find a single article that clearly explains this, why?  Well, I have no idea about economics that’s why!
• Change our desires: This is a tough one.  We want a house because we desire.  Give me some drugs so I don’t want me own place. Now I know why a lot of people smoke weed (I don’t).
• Make bigger caravan parks: Okay so now I am getting silly.  At least I have attempted to apply some ideas to the problem instead of turning on the money hose or sitting back, scratching my arse saying,’Oh yeah that is a problem eh!’.

As I write this I am pondering my future and looking with dismay as I save money, labour under yet another dragon of a landlord and work towards my first home purchase.  The question, that will no doubt go unanswered is this:  What are we going to do about it?  The answer I expect is nothing because all of the rhetoric I see coming out of the media is complete bullshit.  You know, stuff like: Save a deposit (can’t save that much – I have two kids), don’t want a massive house for your first home (I am looking for a small 3 Bedroom place for me and me kids bro), don’t complain, Entitlement mentality (I am not entitled but this is a desire you are profiting from mr. developer, take it away and I write about something else) and all the other shit the media says people in my generation are guilty of.  I say, cram it with walnuts jack! How’s this:  If I save for ten years I will have saved one-quarter of what I need in today’s prices.  What will the prices be in ten years?  A million dollars for a complete dog box with no windows in the middle of the ocean?  Jesus wept!

I will leave you with this link to remind you of what happens when we don’t take a proactive approach towards our problems.  I would also recommend that all Australians read the Subprime Solution by Robert Shiller.  Sure, that may not happen here but it may help us structure the problem in a way that leads to… OMG… a solution!

50 Life Coaches on Twitter.

This seems like a natural use of the service and it’s really interesting to see this field branching out in this way.  Leave a comment if you have seen others like these examples above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32vpgNiAH60

Thoughts?

It most industries I have encountered, advertisers lie.  This is obvious to most and the distrust bread in the general public is now at a point where I believe most people have stopped believing what advertising says to us.  When the celebrity comes on to our screens and smiles showing us, ‘you can look just like me’ an uneven false image is created.   You can’t hope to look like them.  Yet advertisers build their campaigns around a deep down truth that is a lie we tell ourselves.  Things such as:

You can look younger by using skin cream

You can improve you health by drinking this

Take these pills and you will lose weight fast with no side effects

And so on and so on. Why do we buy these lies?  Even television channels do this by piquing our interest with clever editing in the commercials.  They place a well-crafted lie in a commercial and we accept it… or do we?  I think we know it’s false and realise the lie but buy things in hope.  We don’t believe false advertising with our minds, we believe them with our actions, often against our better judgement.

I think this is kind of theatre we have grown accustomed to and expect.  Take for example the following advertisement:

In a strange way Cadbury are selling chocolate by way of entertainment.  A marketing guru I saw on the Gruen Transfer argued that chocolate sales went up as a result of that ad.  I would say it this way: Interest was piqued in chocolate because of that ad and people remembered why they liked it and went and bought it.  I don’t think you need to advertise to sell chocolate, just sell it at a reasonable price and people will buy it and this is the point isn’t it?

What Advertising people do so well is play with our Engagement, the way we think and act in social settings.  Engagement is a word I have used to talk about how people think and how that influences the way they act.  Advertising plays on both.  If I was being a pragmatic philosopher I would say, ‘thinking is acting’.  That is, advertisers make us think and because that influences our behaviour.  That’s no surprise but what is: they deceive us to do it.   For my final example, I will use real estate advertising.

Real Estate is a controversial area.  So many people have been ‘ripped’ off by agents in one way or another.  Yet, the way a house is sold relies explicitly on the honesty of the buyer and the real estate agent.  My father in law told me how he recently pulled out of buying a house simply because the building inspection came back as showing evidence of termites.  In Australia, especially Brisbane, this is a big deal.  It can mean you have massive damage to the structure of the house and you will be up for thousands of dollars in repair bills.   He had built into the contract that subject to a building inspection, he wouldn’t purchase the house.   So he didn’t.  He lost his deposit and recent reports show that the same house has been resold twice in three years.  All that pain could have been avoided if an honest approach prevailed.  Yet, you can’t sell a house unless you lie… right?

Putting aside all arguments about ethics, integrity and character, there is another pragmatic issue for advertisers here that needs thinking about.  That is, the issue of how to sell things in an economy where attention is the scarcity.  Does that mean more dishonesty should come in so we pay attention?  Are we really to believe the claims of real-estate agents?  I think not.  Yet, these are the social connections we have forged.  It doesn’t mean every real estate agent is a liar or a cheat.  Of course not.  But, which one that you know would happily point out the termites in a building and say, ‘hey check this out, there’s a huge problem that’s going to cost you thousands of dollars.’  It’s ‘buyer beware’ because that’s the society we live in and that’s what we expect.  So it is in advertising, we know it’s pretend so we go along with so-called false advertising and accept it because we know we are being lied. It’s a social contract.

The question is: why have we come to accept it?

Often we say when we are making decisions that we need ‘more’ information.  As Clay Shirky said in something I watched once: it’s not about more information, it’s about better filtering.  I think it’s about better perspectives, ideas and concepts.  Yes that probably is more information but it’s filtered, tailored and well suited to your problem.  Sometimes more information leads to confusion and this isn’t helpful.

What then?

More perspectives?  How about better ideas?  Why keep digging the metaphorical hole in the same place… try something else.  Get somebody from outside the problem to come in and have a look.  Quite often they will frame it in way you don’t expect.  Sometimes we are coming from the completely wrong angle… this isn’t at all helpful either.

In the long run I suppose it would be easier to say that having more information would justify the amount of weight we put on the top of a organisation.  Ultimately though, most of the time, better ideas will do.  Wherever you can find them.

‘I believe in free will I can do what I want.’

VS.

‘I believe in FATE everything is predetermined.’

For the record I don’t know what I believe.  Back to the post.  How can you ever resolve this?  You can’t.  It’s a bipolar idea.  It has one side which is a the down side and one which is the upside.  Do you know what these ideas have in common?  They are based on an assumption/assessment of the future.  Yet there is a connection here.  If these people both went about their lives something would happen… something magical.  They would eventually die and at some point they are likely to pay tax.   Yet they would never report the event in the same way:  It’s God’s will that I pay tax, I choose to pay tax.  It’s God’s plan that I die, I die because I choose to keep living.  Both ways of thinking are different yet can never be proven outside the frame of human thought.  Why?  Because, they are bipolar ideas.  If one says the sun is up, the other says it’s down.

Here’s a third option

Try another idea.  Why not say somethings are predetermined others are not, because I choose.  Or let’s just do away with the whole stupid bipolar idea in the first place and say it this way: I have no idea.  I pay tax because I don’t want to go to jail and I die because life stops at some point.  No big deal.  It’s just the way it has to be because I choose to pay tax.    Or because I can’t cheat death I choose to keep living until I expire.  The predetermined has now become my choice, even though it’s not a choice at all.

Breaking your brain?

Maybe.  But remember it’s only an idea and that’s all it could be ever ever ever.  Why?  I don’t know why it’s just what I believe.  An idea only has the power to convey the abstract long enough until the reality of life hammers it out.  Yet, I won’t know that a turtle rules world as suggested by some religions and Stephen King until I die.  Even then I may never find out.  It may be black and I will be alone.  I still believe in Ghosts.

Is there more than one answer?

To Bipolar ideas?  No.  They are the same idea but looked at from two different points of view at once.   Not all ideas are bipolar some tripolar some have no polar, others are simply unanswerable.   Some ideas though have a special quality in that they are the same idea but because they are dealing with a difficult concept you can actually see them two ways at once.

See what happens when you do a PhD kids you eventually go crazy.

Can’t thinking is when we are faced with the opportunity to change or do something and we say ‘can’t’.  The Late Russell Ackoff highlighted this is something of his I read saying that those unchallenged ideas, the one’s that can’t are often not impossible but are considered to be impossible.  They are possible but our mindset tells us it ‘can’t’ be done.  It’s more likely that we won’t try because of what we think or what we expect.  The reality could be completely different.

Newsflash: You won’t know until you try.  So instead of saying ‘can’t’ say ‘won’t’ or ‘yes’ and see what happens.  If you really can’t… then don’t.

Things remain the same.

Things remain the same.

What just happened?

NEWS FLASH: I did not lose my job this time, instead I move to International Business and Asian Studies.  I will teach Information Systems from there until the next time things change.

As you were.

1. People only buy ‘popular’ media online.

I think the idea of the Long Tail has promise.  In fact I have it in my lectures.  You could argue that the internet is another culture with it’s own ideas on what the mainstream is, what the 80-20 rule constitutes and what they like.  The mainstream internet, things that grow to popularity on the internet, should be considered in context as being part of internet culture.   You can’t compare what becomes popular on the internet to what is considered popular on television for one very good reason.  They are two completely different mediums.  This becomes obvious when you look at how poorly the transition to the internet fiction has had.  It’s still stagnant, backwater or very very obscure.  That is internet culture. A question for artists, business people and the like is: how do internet cultures buy and sell?  How do I tell a story on the internet and support myself as an artist without losing heart?  The long tail explains the possibilities but doesn’t give us the pragmatics.

And this is my biggest problem with the ideas of internet business models.  It’s still geared towards the mainstream, just a different one: internet culture mainstream.  We have heard the mantra connect with fans and give them a reason to buy yet how do we find fans with no money?  What if you are selling something that’s unappealing to internet culture?  Then what?  This is what we need to learn.  And I am not saying that there is no long tail effect there is, my point: How much of that is simply because the internet contains so many interlocking cultures?  Can you compare the apples (TV) with oranges (internet)?  Probably but the shape, tastes and sizes of markets are completely different.   We need to look at it differently.

2. The internet could level the playing field but you have to realise it’s another field altogether

My second and final point is that the internet creates the potential for disintermediated content to become popular because it’s the internet.  Something that’s popular on television may or may not become popular on the internet.  We really need to spend more time looking at internet trends and usage before we can make the claim that it levels out the playing field.

We need new business concepts not just models

I think a way forward for internet business ideas is good quality research.  In the days of e-commerce all we had was Michael Porter on the internet.  What we need is better thinking.   I am personally hoping for this but seeing precious little more than the free culture versus copyright debate.  New ideas not the same old crap.

*Note: I am not sure this makes sense.  I am absent of mind at the moment.  Feel free to comment (constructively).

Idea fences mean we create a way of seeing things that inhibits us from seeing another perspective.  Someone I know would say about a problem,’Well it’s either this or that.’  My response was, ‘why can’t it be something else?’.  The idea fences we build put the issues we want to discuss in a neat little basket.  We fence them off and say, ‘this is my position and you can only enter my idea house if you are willing to open the fence of my idea gate’.   Metaphors ahoy.

I am very good at making idea fences.  I often resist changing my ideas because I like them and have grown accustomed to having them in my mind’s garden.  Yet, I know I have to do it and I hate it.   I think I know something then I find an article or somebody says, ‘have you thought about this?’ Then I hop back on the merry go round again and wheeeeeee more ideas.   Ideas also mean power in my world, ‘Oh you are the guy who wrote that paper or you are an Information Systems person aren’t you?’   Then I am fenced in by others.  This kind of fencing reinforces the fence around me, which in essence has no place in any real terms outside of my own thoughts; and creates a comfortable seat for me to sit in and contemplate.   I am fenced and fencing.

In closing this ramble tamble, let me assure that ideas have a persistent quality.  The ingredient of persistence is ‘belief’.  That’s what makes them real.  We believe they are and so they are and we act on them and it is so.  Yet, this perspective is yet another example of a fence I have built around myself and ask me in five years, if I am still alive what I think and the chances are I will have changed my mind!

EA games are losing money.

Think about it.  That is a big statement.  So what are they doing to fix it:

1. Downsizing

2. Bringing out fewer games (my favourite Cricket game was one of these that suffered at the hands of this ‘downturn’.

Two things I would have thought are drastic measures for such a big player.  Why do companies downsize in a downturn?  Instead of thinking up new ideas and using the talent you have to innovate to recover lost profits, you decide to get rid of people?  Do you know what kind of message that sends to other employees?  Bringing out less titles.  Why not bring out more on a smaller scale?  As the article says:

Instead of spending $60 on a shiny new disc, many people are playing free or cheap games online, on their mobile devices and on Facebook. They are spending a few dollars here and there to buy virtual add-ons for the games, or they are signing up for subscription-based online games.

Find new models EA!  Don’t just sit around waiting for people to decide to buy disks again.  Make new models!  You are the industry leader in games and personally speaking gave me great pleasure with your titles.  What are some ways you could release a niche game cheaply and support it with trendy new ideas around new business models?

If EA games goes under then the world will end as I know it.  Well not the world… just the fun part of it.

If you want to be a leading writer, you have to write and keep at it until you get good enough.  That will take a lot of time.  If you want to sing and be the best you can, you need to practice.  Anything that’s easy or ‘at hand’ is usually simple to learn and master.   The cost versus the benefit in that equation is something like this:

Simple thing + Low Skill = Low Benefit.

However, if we raise the barrier it should look like this:

Hard thing + hard skill = High Benefit.

However, there is something missing from that equation and it’s this:

Value + Hard thing + Hard Skill = High Benefit.

You could say it this way, the more value increases the higher the cost to you and to your consumers, students, partners, chickens and whatever other relevant category you would to shove in here.

Now I have added another cost to the learning of a skill that has been overlooked.  The free business model idea hinges on value, as do most other ideas.  Without value you can work as hard as you like at giving things away and it won’t matter a damn.   If we take a poorly written book or a bad movie and say, ‘I don’t know how anyone can like that’, the answer is value.

So what is the cost associated with value?