My Digital FootPrint

I have written and read my fair share of board and investment papers over the past 25 years.  This post is not to add to the abundance of excellent work on how to write a better board/ investment paper or what the best structure is - it would annoy you and waste my time.  A classic “board paper” will likely have the following headings: Introduction, Background, Rationale, Structure/ Operations, Illustrative Financials & Scenarios, Competition, Risks and Legal. Case by case there are always minor adjustments. Finally, there will be some form of Recommendation inviting the board to note key facts and approve the request.  I believe it is time for the Chair or CEO, with the support of their senior data lead (#CDO) to ask that each board paper has a new section heading called   “ Data Attestation. ”  Some will favour this as an addition to the main flow, some as a new part of legal, others as an appendix; how and where matters little compared to its intent. The intention of this new

Trust is not a thing or a destination but an outcome of a transition. I have written over 214 articles on “trust” over the past 12 years.   I have read endless books and done countless presentations on the topic of TRUST. I have always searched for the relationships between trust and strategy, value, consent, privacy, identity, data and risk.   The well-reasoned articles include Imaging a Digital Strategy starting from TRUST , Trust is not a destination! , How can Brands restore user trust?   A segmentation model based on trust , The relationship between Trust, Risk and Privacy .  This article brings together some of the thinking already explored in previous articles but as the new drawing below.   It started as I was playing with Laplace to Fourier and back.  These are the transformations between time and frequency.  Whilst time and frequency are related, to move between the domains in maths requires some fancy work.  On either side of the status is TIME and FREQUENCY, and between th

There are more elephants in the room than you imagined!   When we unpack climate and ESG, it is too big, so we don’t know what to do.  However, this post unpacks the “too big” so that we can individually identify the one thing we can all do that will make a difference.  The 1st elephant in the room Never teach an elephant to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the elephant. This elephant represents the big issues: politics, geopolitics, policy, human behaviours, policing, crime, cyber-attacks, climate change, poverty, tax, ESG, economics, capitalism, growth, sustainability, vaccines, circular economy, transparency and equality as examples.  They are all so big and complex that we cannot get our heads around them.  No one person owns the problem.  We ignore those who go on about them often by putting them into the category of philosophies as I don’t understand or know what I can do, believing that my individual actions will make no difference.    The 2nd elephant in the room The blind

“Every” management student has had to answer the exam question: “Leadership/ management: Nature or Nurture? - discuss” It is a paradox from either side of the argument, the logical conclusion always highlights the other has truth. The reality of leadership and management is that it is a complex adaptive system, and context enables your nature to emerge and nurturing to mature.  This is important because we also know there is a link between strategy, styles (leadership) and business structures.  In this article, we will unpack how your “nature or nurture” thinking-structure, affects outcomes.  Your thinking-structure is also a complex adaptive system as your peers and customers thinking, your companies “culture of structure” thinking affect you. BUT have you considered how your data structure and your data philosophy will have a direct and significant impact on outcomes?  I’ve known that my neurodiversity package (severe dyslexia, mild high functioning autism, ADHD) informs how I inter