My Digital FootPrint

I have the deepest respect and high regard for Wardley Maps and the Cynefin framework .  They share much of the same background and evolution. Both are extremely helpful and modern frameworks for understanding, much like Porter’s five forces model was back in the 1980s.  I adopted the same terminology (novel, emergent, good and best) when writing about the development of governance for 2050. In the article Revising the S-Curve in an age of emergence , I used the S-curve as it has helped us on several previous journeys. It supported our understanding of adoption and growth; it can now be critical in helping us understand the development and evolution of governance towards a sustainable future. An evolutionary S-curve is more applicable than ever as we enter a new phase of emergence. Our actions and behaviours emerge when we grasp that all parts of our ecosystem interact as a more comprehensive whole. A governance S-curve can help us unpack new risks in this dependent ecosystem so that

Because when there is a leader, we look to them to lead, and they want us to follow their ideas. If you challenge the leader, you challenge leadership, and suddenly, you are not in or on the team. If you don’t support the leader, you are seen as a problem and are not a welcome member of the inner circle. If you bring your ideas, you are seen to be competitive to the system and not aligned.  If you don’t bring innovation, you are seen to lack leadership potential.  The leader sets the rules unless and until the leader loses authority or it is evident that their ideas don’t add up when a challenge to leadership and a demonstration of leadership skills becomes valid. We know this leadership model is broken and based on old command and control thinking inherited from models of war. We have lots of new leadership models, but leaders who depend on others for ideas, skills and talent, are they really the inspiration we are seeking?   Leadership is one of the biggest written-about topics, but

A problem of definitions As we are all reminded of inflation and its various manifestations, perhaps we also need to rethink some of them.  The reason is that in economics, inflation is all about a linear scale. Sustainable development does not really map very well to this scale. In eco-systems, it is about balance.  Because of the way we define growth - we aim for inflation and need to control it.  However, this scale thinking then frames how we would perceive sustainability as the framing sets these boundaries.   What happens if we change it round? What we have today in terms of the definition that creates conflicts and therefore has to ask, is this useful for a sustainable future as we are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Economics Definition Perceptions from the Sustainability community and long term impact Hyperinflation Hyperinflation is a period of fast-rising inflation;  an Increase in prices drives for more efficiency to control pricing. Use of scale to create damp

Mind the Gap This article addresses a question that ESG commentators struggle with: “Is ESG a model, a science, a framework, or a reporting tool?    Co-authored @yaelrozencwajg   and @tonyfish An analogy. Our universe is governed by two fundamental models, small and big. The gap between Quantum Physics (small) and The Theory of Relativity (big) is similar to the issues between how we frame and deliver short and long-term business planning. We can model and master the small (short) and the big (long), but there is a chasm between them which means we fail to understand why the modelling and outcomes of one theory; don’t enlighten us about the other.  The mismatch or gaps between our models create uncertainty and ambiguity, leading to general confusion and questionable incentives. In physics, quantum mechanics is about understanding the small nuclear forces. However, based on our understanding of the interactions and balances between fundamental elements that express small nuclear forces

Predator-prey models are helpful and are often used in environmental science because they allow researchers to both observe the dynamics of animal populations and make predictions as to how they will develop/ change over time. I have been quiet as we have been unpacking an idea that with a specific data set, we can model user behaviour based on a dynamic competitive market. This Predator-prey method, when applied to understand why users are behaving in a certain way, opens up a lot of questions we don’t have answers to.   As a #CDO, we have to remain curious, and this is curious.  Using the example of the rabbit and the fox. We know that there is a lag between growth in a rabbit population and the increase in a fox population.  The lag varies on each cycle, as does the peak and minimum of each animal.  We know that there is a lag between minimal rabbits and minimal foxes, as foxes can find other food sources and rabbits die of other causes. Some key observations.   The cycles, whilst

I participated in a fantastic talk in May 2022 on “Ideological Polarization and Extremism in the 21st Century” led by Jonathan Leader Maynard who is a Lecturer in International Politics at King's College London.  The purpose here focuses on a though I took from Jonathan's talk and his new book, “ Ideology and Mass Killing: The Radicalized Security Politics of Genocides and Deadly Atrocities ,” published by Oxford University Press.   When I started thinking about writing about Peak Paradox, it was driven by a desire to answer a core question I asked myself, individuals, boards and teams; “ what are we/ you optimising for? ” .  It has become my go-to question when I want to explore the complexity of decision making and team dynamics as the timeframe (tactical vs strategic) is determined by the person answering the question. Ultimately individuals in a team, which give the team its capabilities, are driven by different purposes and ideals, which means incentives work differently