There are some interesting challenges when considering innovation, artificial intelligence and the use of data and the purposes it is put to.
Is the role of government to be the conscience of business, make-up the short-fall in family and community responsibility, and the prefect for innovation and wealth?
There are some very stark contrasts between Singapore (government custodian of centralised data), Estonia (people decentralised data) and China (government controlled data).
Does Jersey want to use data to drive a political agenda (in the way China ranks and scores citizens) or encourage engagement (in the way Singapore offers-up centralised data) or reassure people (in the way Estonia will report each data access directly to the citizen)
Some interesting questions as we contemplate opportunities arising from AI and the blockchain, with the former offering data and decision power and the latter audit and trust.
I look forward to hearing the views of the panel at Barclays AI Frenzy Launch Event 12 July 2018
https://www.digital.je/news-events/digital-events/barclays-ai-frenzy-launch-event/
#jersey #egov #blockchain #regulation #socialchange
REFERENCE
How to fix the future – Andrew Keen
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fix-Future-Andrew-Keen/dp/0802126642
Feedback and comments always welcome
TimHJRogers
@TimHJRogers @AdaptCCompany +447797762051
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timhjrogers/
http://www.adaptconsultingcompany.com/
TimHJRogers World Champs Rower, Commonwealth Games Triathlete, MBA (Management Consulting) PRINCE2 Projects & Change Practitioner, TEDx & Jersey Policy Forum
Jersey’s Digital balance between Opportunity and Trust @TimHJRogers @AdaptCCompany
https://medium.com/@timhjrogers/jerseys-digital-balance-between-opportunity-and-trust-ff484363dbee
Friday, 29 June 2018
Five things to make a difference to our Digital Future
In his book “How to fix the future” Andrew Keen has looked to what five factors might mean the future is to our benefit rather than Brave New World, 1984, or The Matrix.
1. Ensure AI is open and not propriety or owned. A modern day example would be the World Wide Web. The open, free and accessible by all has been the formula for success.
2. Ensure fair play allowing new entrants to the market and preventing dominant abuse by larger organisations. This is where legislation and regulation is necessary for standards and certainty which helps innovators thrive.
3. Hold social media to high standards, fact-checking and challenging fake news and being vigorous with corrections but fair to opinions. Notably in some countries it isn’t possible to post comment without using their national-ID. That may be a step too far, since the idea of accountability and responsibility has to be balanced with privacy. There is room for debate, and some easy controls in a community as small as Jersey.
4. There is a sliding scale from human to robot. With augmented processing power available from our phone, glasses, and ear piece we are already seeing technology implants to help the disabled and enhance the able. We are already seeing technology replace humans and it’s time to rethink about the role of the human and the protections for those that will not thrive in this new world.
5. There is plenty of evidence that cave people have fuller and happier lives than people today. It can be debated if the industrial and technical revolution has liberated or subjugated the majority. There is a backlash against globalisation and expert-elite but is it too late when the decisions are made by machines rather than policy makers? How are preparing for these changes in education and choice?
I look forward to hearing the views of the panel at Barclays AI Frenzy Launch Event 12 July 2018
https://www.digital.je/news-events/digital-events/barclays-ai-frenzy-launch-event/
#jersey #egov #blockchain #regulation #socialchange
REFERENCE
How to fix the future – Andrew Keen
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fix-Future-Andrew-Keen/dp/0802126642
Feedback and comments always welcome
TimHJRogers
@TimHJRogers @AdaptCCompany +447797762051
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timhjrogers/
http://www.adaptconsultingcompany.com/
TimHJRogers World Champs Rower, Commonwealth Games Triathlete, MBA (Management Consulting) PRINCE2 Projects & Change Practitioner, TEDx & Jersey Policy Forum
Five things to make a difference to our Digital Future
https://medium.com/@timhjrogers/five-things-to-make-a-difference-to-our-digital-future-361f3c73a868
1. Ensure AI is open and not propriety or owned. A modern day example would be the World Wide Web. The open, free and accessible by all has been the formula for success.
2. Ensure fair play allowing new entrants to the market and preventing dominant abuse by larger organisations. This is where legislation and regulation is necessary for standards and certainty which helps innovators thrive.
3. Hold social media to high standards, fact-checking and challenging fake news and being vigorous with corrections but fair to opinions. Notably in some countries it isn’t possible to post comment without using their national-ID. That may be a step too far, since the idea of accountability and responsibility has to be balanced with privacy. There is room for debate, and some easy controls in a community as small as Jersey.
4. There is a sliding scale from human to robot. With augmented processing power available from our phone, glasses, and ear piece we are already seeing technology implants to help the disabled and enhance the able. We are already seeing technology replace humans and it’s time to rethink about the role of the human and the protections for those that will not thrive in this new world.
5. There is plenty of evidence that cave people have fuller and happier lives than people today. It can be debated if the industrial and technical revolution has liberated or subjugated the majority. There is a backlash against globalisation and expert-elite but is it too late when the decisions are made by machines rather than policy makers? How are preparing for these changes in education and choice?
I look forward to hearing the views of the panel at Barclays AI Frenzy Launch Event 12 July 2018
https://www.digital.je/news-events/digital-events/barclays-ai-frenzy-launch-event/
#jersey #egov #blockchain #regulation #socialchange
REFERENCE
How to fix the future – Andrew Keen
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fix-Future-Andrew-Keen/dp/0802126642
Feedback and comments always welcome
TimHJRogers
@TimHJRogers @AdaptCCompany +447797762051
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timhjrogers/
http://www.adaptconsultingcompany.com/
TimHJRogers World Champs Rower, Commonwealth Games Triathlete, MBA (Management Consulting) PRINCE2 Projects & Change Practitioner, TEDx & Jersey Policy Forum
Five things to make a difference to our Digital Future
https://medium.com/@timhjrogers/five-things-to-make-a-difference-to-our-digital-future-361f3c73a868
Go for Launch or Gone to Lunch?
Too many projects languish at the bottom of someone’s in-try.
My experience is people seldom like to say NO, and passive resistance to change comes from a thousand “Yes but…” excuses or pending some critical meeting, review, endorsement, memo, assurance or approval.
The problem is that too often delay or doing nothing is more expensive and risky than doing something and (if necessary) making corrective action.
The mantra is often to Do Ditch Delegate or Delay
My challenge is to help them Decide. My approach is what I call my Go for Launch meetings. I invite the stakeholders or work-stream owners to a meeting and simply ask: “Are we go for launch?”
This face-to-face approach to managing people and tasks is far better than memos and emails because people immediately have focus and ownership for the response.
The answer is either YES, or NO because…..
At least then I can hear and manage the delay which otherwise pile up as inaction rather than challenges to overcome.
Interestingly people don’t like saying NO, so very often I get YES and a firm commitment where otherwise there would be deafening silence.
Having made the firm commitment, and having done it personally (with ownership for the response) it is interesting to see how many stuck projects become personal missions and quickly become unstuck.
Feedback and comments always welcome
TimHJRogers
@TimHJRogers +447797762051
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timhjrogers/
http://www.timhjrogers.com/
https://medium.com/@timhjrogers_24478
TimHJRogers World Champs Rower, Commonwealth Games Triathlete, MBA (Management Consulting) PRINCE2 Projects & Change Practitioner, TEDx & Jersey Policy Forum
#linkybrain #projects #change #leadership #performance
My experience is people seldom like to say NO, and passive resistance to change comes from a thousand “Yes but…” excuses or pending some critical meeting, review, endorsement, memo, assurance or approval.
The problem is that too often delay or doing nothing is more expensive and risky than doing something and (if necessary) making corrective action.
The mantra is often to Do Ditch Delegate or Delay
My challenge is to help them Decide. My approach is what I call my Go for Launch meetings. I invite the stakeholders or work-stream owners to a meeting and simply ask: “Are we go for launch?”
This face-to-face approach to managing people and tasks is far better than memos and emails because people immediately have focus and ownership for the response.
The answer is either YES, or NO because…..
At least then I can hear and manage the delay which otherwise pile up as inaction rather than challenges to overcome.
Interestingly people don’t like saying NO, so very often I get YES and a firm commitment where otherwise there would be deafening silence.
Having made the firm commitment, and having done it personally (with ownership for the response) it is interesting to see how many stuck projects become personal missions and quickly become unstuck.
Feedback and comments always welcome
TimHJRogers
@TimHJRogers +447797762051
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timhjrogers/
http://www.timhjrogers.com/
https://medium.com/@timhjrogers_24478
TimHJRogers World Champs Rower, Commonwealth Games Triathlete, MBA (Management Consulting) PRINCE2 Projects & Change Practitioner, TEDx & Jersey Policy Forum
#linkybrain #projects #change #leadership #performance
Too Many Projects?
I have worked with a good many clients who have too many projects and not enough resources. In many cases hiring extra resource to help the work, the co-ordination and the delivery is all that is required.
But in some cases the in-tray is simply piled high with many No1 Priority Tasks to the extent that people suffering change fatigue regard failure as business-as-usual.
The simple answer is focus, but that isn’t necessarily the right answer.
As a triathlete too much focus on swimming is always at the expense of cycling and running and the secret to success is know the perfect blend for the person, the course, the circumstance. As a former athlete and high performance coach my challenge is always to focus on the outcome and rely upon the process.
In business focus on your strengths is a regular but wrong suggestion. It is seldom your strengths that cause you problems but your weaknesses. Being brilliant at sales is of little value if you are not equally good at invoicing and receipting income.
I have worked with organisations with as many as 250 projects in a 20 year pipeline. The question is often is it better to do 100 things at 1% or 1 thing at 100%. This is a hypothetic argument since no organisation will do only one project per year – but it makes a point: If you attempt to do too many things there will be no discernible benefit and you will simply dissipate your energy.
Project success is nearly always in the planning. Good planning makes for easy communication, collaboration and execution. The same is true of business strategy. Too many objectives both exhaust the staff and confuse the customers.
Inevitably strategy is about competing interests and becomes highly political and personal. What is often missing is an agreed method of measurement or priority. It may (or may not) be return on investment, customer satisfaction, market share. What is should not be is who shouts loudest.
Perhaps the subject of your next strategy, planning or management away-day should not be which projects should we do, but by what method should we prioritise. Then, like the athletes I train focus on the outcome and rely upon the process.
The perfect solution is one which is suitable, feasible and acceptable.
Feedback and comments always welcome
TimHJRogers
@TimHJRogers +447797762051
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timhjrogers/
http://www.timhjrogers.com/
TimHJRogers World Champs Rower, Commonwealth Games Triathlete, MBA (Management Consulting) PRINCE2 Projects & Change Practitioner, TEDx & Jersey Policy Forum
#linkybrain #projects #change #leadership #performance
But in some cases the in-tray is simply piled high with many No1 Priority Tasks to the extent that people suffering change fatigue regard failure as business-as-usual.
The simple answer is focus, but that isn’t necessarily the right answer.
As a triathlete too much focus on swimming is always at the expense of cycling and running and the secret to success is know the perfect blend for the person, the course, the circumstance. As a former athlete and high performance coach my challenge is always to focus on the outcome and rely upon the process.
In business focus on your strengths is a regular but wrong suggestion. It is seldom your strengths that cause you problems but your weaknesses. Being brilliant at sales is of little value if you are not equally good at invoicing and receipting income.
I have worked with organisations with as many as 250 projects in a 20 year pipeline. The question is often is it better to do 100 things at 1% or 1 thing at 100%. This is a hypothetic argument since no organisation will do only one project per year – but it makes a point: If you attempt to do too many things there will be no discernible benefit and you will simply dissipate your energy.
Project success is nearly always in the planning. Good planning makes for easy communication, collaboration and execution. The same is true of business strategy. Too many objectives both exhaust the staff and confuse the customers.
Inevitably strategy is about competing interests and becomes highly political and personal. What is often missing is an agreed method of measurement or priority. It may (or may not) be return on investment, customer satisfaction, market share. What is should not be is who shouts loudest.
Perhaps the subject of your next strategy, planning or management away-day should not be which projects should we do, but by what method should we prioritise. Then, like the athletes I train focus on the outcome and rely upon the process.
The perfect solution is one which is suitable, feasible and acceptable.
Feedback and comments always welcome
TimHJRogers
@TimHJRogers +447797762051
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timhjrogers/
http://www.timhjrogers.com/
TimHJRogers World Champs Rower, Commonwealth Games Triathlete, MBA (Management Consulting) PRINCE2 Projects & Change Practitioner, TEDx & Jersey Policy Forum
#linkybrain #projects #change #leadership #performance
Who do you work for? And how that question can determine the outcome of change.
I have been Project Manager for some large scale public sector change projects. One of the questions I ask is: Who do you work for?
They may answer as follows…
I work for the public sector
I work for government
I work for [person name]
I work at [location address]
I work for the finance team
I am an accountant
I find it interesting to see if their belonging and identification is with the organisation, the department, their profession or something else. Understanding this helps understand motives, values and loyalties.
For example loyalty to the boss, profession, department or organisation are not the same.
Too many projects start with communicating top-down and not listening bottom-up. My experience is before making pronouncements perhaps start by asking some questions. It may help to establish motives, values and loyalties.
TimHJRogers
@TimHJRogers @AdaptCCompany +447797762051
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timhjrogers/
http://www.adaptconsultingcompany.com/
TimHJRogers World Champs Rower, Commonwealth Games Triathlete, MBA (Management Consulting) PRINCE2 Projects & Change Practitioner, TEDx & Jersey Policy Forum
It’s not what you do but the order that you do it.
I have seen a good many large-scale and small-scale change projects in my time.
The order in which you do things can have a big impact on the result, as any mathematician: 4 / 5 + 3 -1 = 2.8 but 5 + 3 -1 / 4 = 1.75.
But here is a simpler example: If you put on your underwear, trousers and shoes and shirt you look ready for a job interview. If you put on your shoes, trousers then underwear first you may struggle to get anything past those shod feet and second, you’ll look like an idiot with your underwear on the outside.
This is obvious isn’t it? Ok, try putting this in the right order…
STREAMLINE: Use new procedures and technology to streamline your products and services making them efficient and effective.
DOWNSIZE: Reduce the size of the organisation, with an impact on competence, capacity and desire.
CHANGE: Embark on a massive period of change demanding significant competence, capacity and desire.
THINK: Rethink what are your core and affordable services; what should continue, what should be streamlined and what should be outsourced or stopped.
OUTSOURCE: Outsource non-core services and non-essential people, allowing flexibility without commitment and ostensibly allowing another organisation to provide the services to other people which you don’t want to do or cannot afford.
UPSKILL: Upskill your people so that they have competence, capacity and desire, either to improve your business or somebody else's. Either way they are adding to society rather than being a drain on the public purse as someone who is unemployed or depressed.
What are the implications of this order?
STREAMLINE, DOWNSIZE, CHANGE, THINK, OUTSOURCE, UPSKILL,
Or this?
THINK, UPSKILL, CHANGE, OUTSOURCE, STREAMLINE, DOWNSIZE,
Please put your observations in the comments below.
What is the future like for Charities? And should government be helping?
What is the future like for Charities? And should government be helping?
As government will inevitably seek to outsource more and fund less, what is the future like for the 500+ organisations in Jersey’s third-sector who are increasingly bridging the gap between social need and public service?
Without doubt the new Charities Law will have an affect where smaller organisations cannot satisfy the demands of governance.
It seems predictable that, for example, with 30+ Charities all competing to serve and support those affected by Cancer we are bound to see some rationalisation and consolidation as organisations with similar objectives merge.
It seems logical that there will be an increased drive to share back-office resources like HR, Training and Technology.
This is not an issue unique to Jersey.
The UK Small Charities Coalition help small charities access the skills, tools & information they need to get going and do what they do best, but this is becoming more difficult.
GDPR and Cyber Security will demand increasing attention on policies and process. The Times wrote Smaller charities have been “left in the dark and confused” about how they can comply with strict new data laws.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/small-charities-struggling-with-general-data-protection-regulation-7582x9z26
In parallel with the planned government reform it seems timely to also consider a review of the relationship between the public and the third sector, perhaps with a view to leveraging the central admin functions of the public sector to support Charities.
For example, why not standardise and streamline the data-sharing agreements between government and the Charities that provide public services under a Service Level Agreement.
Why doesn’t government, perhaps, offer every Charity that operates under a Service Level Agreement free Cyber Essentials and free Secure and Encrypted email – just as it would any Public Sector Department.
If Charities are to be used either as an extension of public service, or a replacement for services that can no longer be provided by government it seems both logical and fair that government should extend its infrastructure and expertise to help them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)