My Digital FootPrint

So the technical term for that delay or lag from then you finish speaking to you hearing when the next person speaks is wrapped up in an idea of “Latency”.   Latency is measured in milliseconds (ms), which is thousandths of seconds . Latency for a face to face conversation is like zero. For say a landline call, it is defined by an ITU standard and is judged by the ability to offer a quality of service.  Ideally, about 10ms will achieve the highest level of quality and feels familiar.  A latency of 20 ms is tremendous and is typical for a VoIP call as it is perfectly acceptable.  A latency of even 150 ms is, whilst noticeable, permitted, however, any higher delay or lag times and the quality diminishes very fast. At 300 ms or higher, latency becomes utterly unacceptable as a conversation becomes laboured, driven by interruptions and lack flow.  We all know the phrases of “no-one left behind” or “you are only as strong as your weakest team member.” Well, the same applies for latency, on

Who is the “we”, this piece is co-authored by Kaliya Young and me, who together have worked for over 45 years on identity and personal data. For this article, we are looking at the role of values, principles and rules within the industry and sectors seeking to re-define, re-imagine and create ways for people to manage the digital representations of themselves with dignity. As we write this there is an ongoing conversation about the regulation of Facebook and the regulation of big tech in general. We see a problem with the frame of the conversation because we believe ON PRINCIPLE they shouldn’t exist as in no-one entity should have that much power and control over the global population’s identities, “their” data and the conversion we have. So any frame that accepts BIG TECH as acceptable won’t create rules that actually move towards the principle of ending the current hegemony but rather just seek to regulate it as is. W ith this piece, we are seeking to look at how principles change

I had the pleasure of hosting @ledaglyptis on mashup* .  We chatted about programmable money. A central theme was about gaining acceptance of a “big idea.”   Programmable money, cryptocurrency, control of money, tracking, avoiding fraud, CBDC are all part of a big idea, which we concluded has a few issues.  However, Leda beautifully draws on her background as a political scientist and gave us this thinking. Starting from a Big Idea that will struggle to gain acceptance as is it a jump to far for ordinary citizens, companies and capital steps in to make and create acceptable use cases.   These are adopted by niche markets who gain value and benefits.  Slowly many capital-backed incremental, agile acceptable use cases become a wider acceptance which means we end up with the badly thought through Big Idea. Is this a back door or just humanity and now do we pick up all the known problems which are now at scale - create a new BIG IDEA!   The question is how do we add into the loop solving

all explained here   https://www.mydigitalfootprint.com/2019/09/facebook-published-charting-way-forward.html

  " I’ve found that leaders with good judgment tend to be good listeners and readers—able to hear what other people actually mean, and thus able to see patterns that others do not. They have a breadth of experiences and relationships that enable them to recognize parallels or analogies that others miss—and if they don’t know something, they’ll know someone who does and lean on that person’s judgment. They can recognize  their own emotions and biases and take them out of the equation. They’re adept at expanding the array of choices under consideration. Finally, they remain grounded in the real world: In making a choice they also consider its implementation." Fantastic paper    https://hbr.org/2020/01/the-elements-of-good-judgment SIR ANDREW LIKIERMAN is a professor at London Business School and a director of Times Newspapers and the Beazley Group, both also in London. He has served as dean at LBS and is a former director of the Bank of England.

Who is allowed to ask the question, why does this board exist and to whom is it accountable? Purpose, when framed by shareholder primacy, was easy. Make sure the board creates and delivers value and wealth for the shareholders; almost at any cost. The skills, processes, practices and values needed were largely simple and financially driven/ rewarded. Much has been written about the topic and the theory forms the basis of the practices that control where we are today. The fundamental fabric has now changed. Indeed shareholders never owned the company and real-time trade removed a belief about responsibilities and ownership. It has to be said that these ideals were only a mechanism we created to exercise accountability and responsibility controls. However, those controls and beliefs are now themselves lost. By example, audit is broken and does not work . When reframing the purpose for a board, based on 2020 reasons for a business to exist, of which there are many, but: when framed for sa

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-national-data-strategy/national-data-strategy#executive-summary The pillars are spot on Data foundations : The true value of data can only be fully realised when it is fit for purpose, recorded in standardised formats on modern, future-proof systems and held in a condition that means it is findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. By improving the quality of the data, we can use it more effectively, and drive better insights and outcomes from its use. Data skills : To make the best use of data, we must have a wealth of data skills to draw on. That means delivering the right skills through our education system, but also ensuring that people can continue to develop the data skills they need throughout their lives. Data availability : For data to have the most effective impact, it needs to be appropriately accessible, mobile and re-usable. That means encouraging better coordination, access to and sharing of data of appropriate quali

René Magritte painting shows an image of a pipe. Below it, Magritte painted, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe", French for "This is not a pipe".  "How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture "This is a pipe", I'd have been lying!"   René Magritte How often, when we obseve something, do we assume we are right in what we see and assume.  It is a pipe, but is it not as it is a picture of a pipe.  In our path to experiance it becomes harder to hold paradox's of thinking.  What data led story have we heard today where we beleive it is the story, but infact it is just a representation of the story.   Indeed can data ever be more than a representation?

Wanted to compare the corporate and large company business models that I have seen adapt and morph over the past thirty years. Opted to use the traditional triangle, not to show organisation structure but to represent the number of people in roles.   The1990 model For me this is the traditional business concept, the one taught on my MBA, the one I was helped grow and my first startup.  There were roles and structures and the more senior the role was related to a higher level of understanding, experience and insight.  Yes, Peter’s principle was rife.  The exec team could mange with a dashboard as the processes and foundations of the business were linear.  Any complexity was the fun of senior management allowing the sponge of middle management to both slow down change but maintain stability.   The Naughties “digital” The internet pioneers were off creating new and existing models, leaving the corporates to adapt to the new.  Finding and retaining digital expertise became the mantra for