
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>

<title><![CDATA[Connected Intelligence....]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[Vasu's Musings on Business,Management and Leveraging Collective Wisdom]]></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:27:51 GMT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Here comes the Monkey]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=255</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; "><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">One of the major impediments for YouTube to move from the Study Room to the Family Television is not just Technology, but the <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/08/monkeys-with-me.html">monkey with the megaphone</a>.</span><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Sure, there is the "report this video" button in YouTube, which lets us report an offensive video. But, how does that help filter the borderline offensive video. </span><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">How will it help, if there is one segment which is very offensive, which is very similar to another video, except for that offensive segment, which we overlooked. If we were to instrument a "citizen censorship", what is the motivation for the user to participate and offer subtle feedback?</span><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">If we were to harness the voluminous participation of ordinary people, with extra-ordinary talent,in all the three screens, computer, TV and the mobile, then we need to think in terms of containing the monkey with the megaphone effectively, first.</span><br /><br />
</span></font>]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:27:51 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Our &#39;Cookie Cutter&#39; Obsession]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=254</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Explicit Warning Labels do not indicate that there are not-so intelligent persons amongst us, but reflects how less intelligent we have evolved collectively. This is a contradiction, which is almost impossible to fix.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
However, there is something we could easily fix in an organization. ..Our obsession to simplify everything. This is rooted in our misconception that, once we simplify something, we have intellectual control over it. This faulty premise, manifests in how-to documents, that makes things so explicit, that there could be virtually no ambiguity, which is an impossible goal.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Seeing, walking, catching a ball and virtually most routine activities that most ordinary human beings could do effortlessly, is possible because, we are endowed with one incredible innate ability, i.e., being able to negotiate with ambiguity adroitly and thus able to approximate things. Without this, we cannot see and comprehend, understand basic things and perform normal functions.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Sure certain activities could be programmed. Nothing wrong with that concept. But, employing the 'cooking cutter' to program your employees is wasteful of Human Intelligence and could be expensive, in this age of Uber-Sourcing. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
Leave the Collective Intelligence notion to the Sub-Human Species such as the bees. Instead, connect the Individual to the Collective.<br /><br />
</span></font>]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:41:34 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Collective Intelligence or Stupidity]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=253</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">The Automation Era, with all its benefits, has also set us up into a trajectory of false expectations, that 'all of intelligence could be replaced'.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The Algorithmic Recommendation, the digital cousin of Automation attempts to do just that, <em>replace intelligence</em>. In 2003, Amazon offended lots of folks on Mothers' day by recommending to buy a Vibrator. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
What Human Beings provide that machine algorithms cannot provide is richness of interpretation says <a href="http://www.weigend.com/">Dr. Weigend</a>.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
So, if we shift our expectation from the Easy Button, (which strives to replace intelligence),&nbsp;to augmenting intelligence, then&nbsp;connected intelligence is the right trajectory. Social Recommendations, sure provide 'richness of interpretation.' But, are Facebook friends <a href="http://kk.org/ct2/2008/08/friendability.php">really friends</a>? <br /><br />
</span></font>]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:34:07 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Lights, Camera, Action and Knowledge Work Performance]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=252</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Today was certainly not the day for the NPR News Reader. She was fumbling and ...ering and what not.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
There is not much of an invisible component in a News Reader's job. Everything she utters becomes instant feedback.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
This is clearly not the case with knowledge work, where the invisible forms a significant portion of the work. Therefore, knowledge work tends to become more social rather than based on the work product quality. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
The fix is to make the significant actions of the knowledge worker, the decisions, insights and solutions available in the fishbowl ... rather than monitoring the web activity or watching the hours. Technology provides many affordances for 'fishbowling' a worker's action. Instrumenting them in a context is the big challenge.<br /><br />
</span></font>]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:22:31 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Workability]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=251</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Kevin Kelly writes about <a href="http://kk.org/ct2/2008/08/friendability.php">Friendability</a>, where he distinguishes facebook friends from Actual Friends (who has visited your home), to Real Friends (who drops you at the Airport at 6 AM) and True Friends (who gets his friend out of jail).<br /><br />
<br /><br />
This made me think about a similar distinction in the workplace.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
There are Workers. Then, there are Actual Workers (who would <a href="http://blogs.amusecorp.com/index.html/232">remove the rodent </a>before proceeding with the Lane painting), Real Workers, who would not mind taking a critical customer call during a thanks giving dinner and True Workers, who did not expect being an internet viral sensation, when they sent the <a href="http://www.zazlamarr.com/blog/?p=240">flower bouquet to a customer</a>.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
I think, it is not merely the great strategic intent, nor merely the Exemplary Leadership, which makes great organizations, but these "True Workers", who would get the "Jesus Phone" just right. .. who has the guts to engage in providing the invisible value as well alongside the visible, rather than merely the 1000 page document or 16 hours of visible work.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Providing and Managing invisible value is pivotal in connecting intelligence.<br /><br />
</span></font>]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:44:39 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[TV Remote and Google]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=250</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Good to start blogging after a Vacation...<br /><br />
<br /><br />
I still like watching TV, in spite of the plethora of options to talk on the Mobile Phone, watching You Tube Videos, emailing, twittering or playing video games, I still enjoy the relaxing passiveness of Television Watching.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
However, the Television Remote spoils the fun. The Cognitive Overload is way too much to put up with for the small benefits of say, time-shifting, place-shifting and whatever shifting.  I could care less for any of these...<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Forget those Neo-luddites who coined the term 'idiot box'.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
I want to merely be able to press a button and continue watching. If I did not like something, I should be able to switch programs. Kapish!!<br /><br />
<br /><br />
If the Cable folks tell me that life is not simple anymore, I would point them to what Yahoo! did over 10 years back, who provided me a clutter of a page until Google emerged and brought in <a href="http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html/81">simplexity</a>, a simple interface to complexity. Trash the Remote and not the TV.<br /><br />
</span></font>]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:37:59 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[No Posts during July]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=249</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">There will be no more posts in the month of July. I would return back in August after a vacation.</span></font><br />]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:25:23 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[16 hours per day doing what?]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=248</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Since recognizing and managing the invisible is a hard and sophisticated task for which we have no ready-made tools to observe the invisible, employees instead spend a great deal of time,illuminating the visible and the tangible...to the powers that be.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">This is one of the top reasons, why people spend lot of hours in the office. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">...proudly proclaim that they wrote a 1000-page document,</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">...spend enormous amounts of time and effort in loudly expressing their opinion about the 'color of the bike shed' in meetings.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">...answering mails at 2 AM during the weekend.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Unfortunately, none of these actions guarantee an absence of intellectual laziness&nbsp; in the part of the employee. Even if we were to rule out intellectual laziness, what the workplace accomplished collectively might be very different from the original intent.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Thus, the workplace is 'out of tune' from what the corporation seeks to achieve. The only certain way to fix this, is to tear down the workplace and come up with a fresh new design ... with the sole purpose of connecting the individual intelligence to the collective... To be able to observe value in both the visible as well the invisible.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Ah! The Connected Intelligence.</span></font><br />]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:29:08 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Art of Managing the Invisible]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=247</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; ">Michael Jordan earns the honor as one of the greatest basketball player,not merely for his individual excellence, but chiefly for his ability to connect to the collective, the team.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Over time, it is easy to observe individual excellence in sports, as the evidence is clearly visible to the observer.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
However, in a reality show, where you are part of a team in Morocco, contesting with other teams to shop with a 40-dollar budget, it is not the michael jordans of the world who prevail, but the obnoxious loud jerks. It is not as if, such a task is trivial that it does not require talent at all. But, the real reason is that, the value of a key contribution is not visible, but invisible and available only in retrospect. .. and it is too late.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The 'Dilbert' enterprise thus resembles a reality show, where the jerks get away with their self-serving ways. Thus, ideas get crumpled, true value gets replaced by pretentious tasks. Managing the 21st Century Enterprise requires recognizing and managing the invisible. The Michael Jordans' of the enterprise are not readily conspicous, but could be only visible with the help of a microscope, which is capable of observing the invisible.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
With an Evidence-Based Management mindset which could be instrumented by Technology, the fakes could be easily displaced by the silent worker, who could transform the business with their passion and super-engagement. <a href="http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html/216">Celebrate Talent</a><br /><br />
</span></font>]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:00:49 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Software Development Process Governance]]></title>
<link>http://blog.amusecorp.com/index.html?cq=1&amp;p=233</link>
<description><![CDATA[<font size="3"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; ">You don't go about designing a society from scratch. It exists. You deploy structures and mechanisms to 'govern' it. A society is governed, not managed.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
By governance, you not only limit/prohibit undesirable behavior and actions, but also guide, regulate and harness actions towards a purpose.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Applying this notion to Software Development Processes, Quality needs to be managed. You need to design, measure, improve, analyze and Control Quality. Sure.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Similarly, Requirements need to managed as well.<br /><br />
But, the overall software development process, I think, needs to be governed and not managed.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
If you did not get what is in the image, try squinting your eye a bit and you would be able to read it easily. Similarly, I think you might have to do some 'mental squinting' to get this notion of governance.<br /><br />
</span></font>]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:33:30 GMT</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>


