My Digital FootPrint

What happens when we decrease life support by 1% Taking water down by 1% per day once you pass a threshold of low water intake and death is a certainty in the short term (blue line). Taking food down by 1% per day, once you pass a threshold, death is a certainty, but it is slower to take you from life than reducing water (green line). Taking lifestyle or experience down by 1% per day gets more challenging and more complex, and you will likely die earlier, but death is not facing you (black line). We all die, but lack of water means it happens now, lack of food means it happens soon, lack of lifestyle means life could have been longer (black line). Leaving purple as the optimal. When reducing water by 1%, you reach a point very quickly where revolution is worth it as there is nothing to lose. When reducing food by 1%, you reach a point slowly where revolution is worth it as there is less to lose. Still, if you go too far beyond the point when you have agency and capacity from suffi

Peak Paradox is a framework to help you reclaim clarity and control as we believe that if you cannot see the paradox, you have been framed and are in a model where someone else is in control.  When you can see the paradox in the data, information, recommendation or decision, you will have improved your clarity.  This is a guide on how to apply the framework to unlock business models, concepts and complexity . Most aspects of everyday business and life can be questioned within the boundaries of the Peak Paradox Framework.  I have been exploring that we tend to go out of bounds for a while but find it is too hard to stay there for long. Movement outside of the boundary tends to be a transitional state.  The thick red line illustrates the usual boundaries in the figure below.  This post explored how to make better decisions using the framework and laid down the idea that some decisions can occur off-piste, outside of the normal boundaries. It presented the reason why we need to minimis

Day zero of being a #CDO is probably not the best day to ask difficult questions; however, sometimes, there is no better day.  The first question to ask the executive leadership team as you walk around being introduced might be: “What is the one thing that we, as a team and organisation, want our data to drive, deliver or provide?” You might want to wait to ask this question and first determine what tools are being used. This will frame what outcomes and decisions are being supported.  The question and answers allow you to determine if there is an alignment or gap between “What is the one thing that we, as a team and organisation what our data to drive, deliver or provide? ”  and what will happen anyway because of tools, processes and legacy.  One critical aspect of being a #CDO is determining how our processes and methods only enable certain decisions to be made, but we have to unpack legacy. Legacy within this framing is threefold. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions. These are:   Deci

You are standing in front of Deep Thought , as in the AI in HitchHicker Guide to the Galaxy.  You are tasked with asking the famous question.  “What is the answer to the world, the universe and everything?”  In Douglas Adams original work, Deep Thought responds by saying, “it will take some time”; before coming back sometime later with the answer “42.”  However, this is when data was a statistic, and we were “physical beings” who had not considered what experience would emerge as data became dynamic and we transitioned to “information beings.” In our new context as informational beings, Deep Thought would not just take our question, go off to think about it but would respond.  Deep Thought would do what we do and ask for clarification and to check the understanding of the question. I can imagine Deep Thought asking, “I just wanta check what you mean by ‘the answer to the world the universe and everything’ and do you want a brave answer, comfortable, or courageous answer?  I can do a

Source :  worth observing that this Dilbert was 1993 !!!!  Radar and sonar are incredible inventions as they allow us to perceive what cannot be actually seen with the naked eye.  As technology has advance and big data analysis has emerged we have gone from a simple echo to high-quality resolution.  However, the peak value for Radar is that it informs you something is there which requires low resolution and very little data.  As Radar resolution has improved we can get direction and speed which requires a little more time. This new information definitely adds value to any required reactive decision. The identification of what the actual object is through increased resolution has an incremental value but not as much as knowing it is there and what direction at what speed but such information can lead to a better decision but suddenly there is an economics of cost compared to the incremental improvement in outcome.  Knowing what type of bird by species or what plane by manufacturer, doe

source : https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-05-20 The Insurance model wins through fear which makes you play it safe and limit risk; as they only payout for sure bets. The Banking model wins when growth fuels a salary increase and you borrow more than you have or save.  The Food production model wins when you stop cooking and you become addicted to sugar and salt (convenience) as they control all the supply. The Supplements model wins by fear and misinformation because you are not cooking.  The Logistics and transport model wins with long complex supply chains due to higher levels of specialism creating better EOS. The Legal market wins every way no matter what anyone else does, but especially the wealthy. The Pharma Industry wins when you medicate and hide the issue rather than solve root causes. The Consulting market wins because they promote that someone else is winning which drives the fear of losing your job because the banking industry has control by indebtedness of you both.

The Media wins by playing with us When Education wins, everyone wins I can win but the self interest distroys more We win by being one together in our diversity It is not we lose by doing nothing, someone else gains more Our paradox is that the more diversity we have, the less diverse we become.