Time for tech to step up with a single truth view

Fake News needs stamping out. It's undermining democracies and right now it's costing lives.

Every time a Covid denier or anti-vaxxer spreads their evidence-empty theories they risk not only many lives, but - no doubt unwittingly - they also support an insidious racism. 

Ask yourself - who would want to target the South Asian Muslim community with the bullshit about pork and alcohol products in the vaccines? Who benefits from creating extra risk of Covid death in a community already over-represented in the list of victims?

Just as we all have a role to play in preventing the spread of the virus, so we all have a role to play in preventing the spread of fake news. So crank up your crap filters. Challenge with facts or just block and walk away (don't feed the troll...)

But we could use some help in this. We have the tech to be much smarter in our response to fake news - and more scalable.

Through data validation and verification - and the application of AI and ML to unstructured data, we have made great leaps in personal identity. Customer Data Platforms enable clear sight of the individual - where-ever you tread digitally - whether that be web, mobile, voice and increasingly in the digitally augmented real world. It's why when (potentially) Alexa listens, Facebook targets you with an ad.

We call it the Single Customer View - aka the one version of the truth. Once established as a kernel it is built upon with each new data discovery - person A is - called X, lives at Y, eats at Z. These remain true until updated - always back to that single person A as the kernel.

Given the alarming and real challenge of Fake News, it's time the same tech guns were turned on fact, rapidly evaluating the source of the kernel of the fact, ranking it for quality and quantity of source to provide an early estimate of accuracy - and then built upon with a network of validation. Posts could be red / amber /green flagged in real time.

Imagine the frustration of the anti-vaxxer whose links to sources are instantly red-flagged for reputation? That might wake them up, too.

Yes, I know, there are questions about whose version of the truth we test by. Google already offers more weight to links it trusts. The BBC already decides what stories it will broadcast and how it will tell them. Our access to 'truth' IS already edited.

The web was meant to be a way that truth could always find a way - overcoming state control or media mediation. But the last few years have taught us that our mass congregation in social networks makes (some, too many of) us vulnerable to influence and control by bad actors.

Those bad actors exploit human vulnerabilities (and build bots to do the same). Now good actors must step up and rebalance - subjecting lies to scrutiny and giving those susceptible to believe them to the tools to alert them to the distinct possibility they are being sold a pup.

Image via UN

The Great Backlog clearance. Building stuff people used to need.

We are in the midst of the Great Backlog Clearance. Innovating backwards.

Granted - there is some smart, future-creating innovation being driven in pockets, but the majority of commercial activity right now has defaulted to a realisation that all that stuff we had been happy adding to backlogs, feeling in the rush of pre-Covid BAU that it could wait, we now realise is an urgent must have.

We've been generating quite a long-list for several years. Now a lot of organisations are hurtling head-long through their to-dos in a game of digital catch-up.

Hence the market demand for people who can make the stuff on that to-do list. Coders, engineers. Nuts and bolts folk. Of course, as the backlog becomes the product to ship, you then need folk to sell it. Hence the current demand for people to sell stuff you've made.

So - people who make the stuff you are in a dash to catch up with. People to sell stuff when you make it.

When you are clearing the backlog, what you don't need is people to tell you what needs to be made. There's so much to do, already, right?

Hence the lack of demand in the insight-to-innovate space.

While this may feel like the appropriate response to difficult economic circumstances, it is, instead, a short-cut to mid-term decline. Dealing with the backlog is dealing with past demand, generated in the context of a different (pre-Covid) world. One which is changed for a minimum of three years and perhaps forever.

You are building responses based on invalid insight. You are innovating backwards. You are building things people used to want. That may feel like you are getting stuff done, but it is not serving the new needs of the new contexts. It is supply to an out-moded demand.

The Responsive Organisation is seeking to build better from change. It is not looking at what it should have done in the old context. It is seeking to understand the new contexts, imagining the experience of its customers in the new, next and possible contexts of the now and next system we are feeling are way through. And it is moving fast to serve those new needs.

It is asking itself, what needs to be made now?

It is enabling the mindset, ways of working, collaborations and commercial approaches, and access to technology, to deliver best-fit solutions for the new and next nows.

So if you are busying yourself building out your pre-Covid backlog - stop. 

Reassess your backlog; revalidate the insight; start from live understanding of need in new contexts, to press the go button on your insight-to-innovate investment. Start responding to now and next.

Lift you head up, look around. You're not in Kansas anymore.

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

When almost every human interaction is a 'meeting'

A very smart connection of mine shared his list of rules for effective meetings. They were drawn up pre-Covid19. And I believe there are many circumstances in which they remain 100 per cent valid. You should download them for yourself and use them as appropriate.

But the list of best practices prompted me to think about the pivotal role now held by meetings in the organisational life of distributed teams. Where once they were simply part of the toolbox of human interaction prompts and touch points within an organisation, today, as we seek to maintain connection from our homes, they have become almost the only show in town.

If you have a sudden flash of inspiration, the kind you used to be able to call out to the person sitting by your side, or opposite your desk, now you have to go schedule a zoom/teams etc call. And the protocols of agendas, timing, note taking, action points, co-availability and all the rest may be too high a transaction cost for that idea. So you might just not bother raising it at all.

So in the current context I am wary of suggesting any best practice surrounding meetings.

In working with distributed teams for many years, I have learned that effective meetings start with social connection - the chat bit that we may think is non-productive, but which has huge value for team wellbeing, empathy building and well, caring about each other.

I get that other 'coming togethers' can handle the serendipity and idea sparks we are missing in our current daily interactions but I also think it may be wise to avoid any dogma around what is or isn't the right way to run a meeting when our contexts are changing so rapidly.

This is a time in which best practices will seldom be applicable, in which, instead, novel and emergent practices should be tested in order to shape a way forwards.

What we do know is high performing teams have strong empathy for each other, and enjoy an 'equity of conversation' - ie they all talk for about the same share of time when they are interacting.

Perhaps those are the initial constraints we should try applying to explore what meetings may become?

Photo by Alex McCarthy on Unsplash

The North Star is clearer than ever - Learn, Learn, Learn

There is a clear new goal for every organisation - a North Star of brilliant clarity.

The obscuring clouds of the old normal have been blown away by the Context Shock of Covid19 and that has revealed a simple truth: In the Chaotic-to-Complexity reality of the next two years, as my good friend Rory Yates put it, organisations that learn the most will win.

The route ahead will emerge from the weak signals of the unknown unknowns - the very things that what you think you know, will blind you to. You can never be an expert in the new. The only way you can get a handle on chaos (or seek to understand complexity) is to find ways to learn from it. Dave Snowden's probe-sense-respond in Complexity or act-sense-respond in Chaos, for example.

As we learn we can reimagine our place in what we discover.

First apply some constraints - a framework in which to learn. The two essential constraints on a global scale are those defined by Doughnut Economics (follow that link for an interactive illustration) and activated in the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. The upper constraint is the planet's capability to support us and the lower constraint is minimum standards for humanity re rights, education, food, shelter etc. The space between (the ring of the Doughnut) is A Safe And Just Space For Humanity.

My own Planet Experience framework illustrates how this can be good for the planet, good for people and good for profit. In my view it is THE business superpower of the next 20 years.

Your North Star is therefore to learn as much as you can within the constraints of making a positive contribution to an economy which has, as its purpose, not growing GDP or y-o-y growth, but the creation of a Safe and Just Space for Humanity.

It's important in the conditions we face - of multiple unknowable outcomes - to acknowledge the decision makers role is now to be the steward of an ecological system rather than the operator of a machine. Decision makers must embark on that learning journey now.

There will be specific stocks and flows in the systems of your business which allow you to add energy or seek to dampen feedback loops towards unique and valuable contributions to the Safe And Just Space. 

Applying these become your guide to how you organise, the kpis that matter most to you, how you plan, how you set targets and how you describe success. Because it's not just the amount you can learn, but how able you are to respond at pace to what you learn - how you act on the insight - that really matters.

This focus on learning was always valuable and a core part of the CX-led businesses that now dominate the planet. Amazon is not only brilliant at gathering insight, it is designed to learn from that insight. It's a learning organisation first.

Today - in a period of Context Shock, it is even more important to become a Learning First organisation - to make Learning your north star. This is not a time to make plans like you used to make plans. This is not a time to set targets like you used to set targets. This is not a time to describe success like you used to describe success. That way leads backwards.

To be a learning organisation is to make your journey towards The Responsive Organisation; Always learning from change and acting on it with rapid iterative, insight-led ways of working, lesson-seeking, value-focused people and the organisational antifragility to handle the no-normal ambiguity of the world we find ourselves in.

Further Reading:

• How To Respond To Context Shocks
• Learned Personal Antifragility
• Being Change - The Responsive Organisation Needs Responsive People
• The New Better of Work - The best of distributed teams and office life
• People Audits - When your people aren't coping
• Urgent Digital Transformation
• Accelerated Trend to Automation

Is furlough a glimpse of a bot-powered economy?

The Context Shock of Covid-19 is forcing underlying trends to the surface at unprecedented rates. We aren't experiencing anything that wasn't going to happen anyway - we are experiencing it faster.

Political economist Orit Gal points out: "complexity theory teaches us that major events are the manifestation of maturing and converging underlying trends: they reflect change that has already occurred within the system."

This means going 'back to normal' is a mistake. As is failing to become more responsive.

I have detailed two of these trends in distributed working, and the responsive organisation (and it can be argued distributed working is nested in and part of the trend towards the responsive organisation).

I have also documented the trend towards treating our planet as a partner, in the way we have become good at treating our customers with respect - in the concept of Planet Experience.

There are, naturally, others. The trend towards a cashless society, for example, away from traditional education (by subject and as a mass production model), for another.

I want to raise some questions about the acceleration of a significant and immediate additional trend today, because its second and third order consequences will have extreme impact on our economic model: Automation. 

As companies survey the challenges facing them over the next 12-18 months they will seek to cut costs both by scaling back on their office needs (distributed working) but also by automating everything they can. If any aspect of your job can be automated and the business you are working for is looking to survive, what it will spend on, is in ways of saving money. And it's undeniable that bots usually look like a short term win in this respect.

We can argue about the harm caused by the loss of smarts from carving people out of a business. The brighter organisations will use bots to lift and shift the bits of people's working lives that don't require creativity and imagination - so that that the people are free to create value by being more creative and imaginative. But that's looking on the bright side.

We are in a darkened world of raised drawbridges, of panic and protectionism. Fear will drive many, many struggling businesses to simply take the savings and worry about the consequences later.

Those consequences will include large scale unemployment. And for many people, pivoting to being an RPA expert (for example) will, realistically, be out of reach.

What this leads us to is the acceleration of a further underlying trend - perhaps towards some version of the Universal Basic Income. Covid-19 has given us an accelerated glimpse of that future through schemes such as the UK Government's Furlough policy. Touted as a job retention scheme on the assumption things get better again fast, coupled with the lock-down experience, it may prove a leading indicator of life after large scale automation. A taste of things to come.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with bots taking peoples jobs. The challenges are in how we judge what constitutes a positive contribution to the society we live in and the ecosystem on which we rely.

If you enjoy time in the sun, exercising, learning, baking, creating art, music, craft, and in time, spending time with friends and family - doing the things you 'enjoy' more of the time than the things that are recognised as making an economic contribution (ie working), then perhaps we should formally value the enjoyable stuff as highly as we do the 'economically valuable' stuff.

But how? How do we get paid if the bots are doing our jobs? 

Stephen Hawkins last message on the web gave us a clue. He said the problem wasn't the bots, it was capitalism - at least the form of market-first capitalism dominant today. Bots are bad if they mean the economic value they create /displace comes back to fewer and fewer owners of this new means of production. Bots are fine if the value they create is more equally distributed to the benefit of both society and planet.

Taxing bots has been suggested to tackle this in the short term, with the tax raised being available to spend on positive interventions for society. Which could include a Universal Basic Income and investment in a happier, healthier society and planet.

This trend demands something important of us - our understanding of our own value, and of what we call success. We will need to start prioritising happiness over stores of wealth.

Is that all bad?



Photo by Robert Collins on Unsplash

The web gives us a critical advantage over this virus

As we come to terms with the news that UK schools are about to close for what could be six months, I find myself reflecting on how lucky we are.
Imagine if this had happened before the mass adoption of the web?

When I was at school there was no internet. A pc was a rarity. Mobile phones unheard of.
I would not have been able to order what I needed online - and there certainly was no opportunity to experience e-learning, virtual classrooms or any of the other digital innovations education has been dancing with, but will now have to adopt on a mass and 'business-as-usual' scale. Imagine facing the next six months without any of that.

Of course, the same is true of business.

The web allows us to continue to trade, to continue to meet and do deals, to collaborate on ideas, concepts, prototypes, launch strategies and projects of all kinds.
We are exceptionally lucky that Covid19 comes at a time when we have the technology to physically self-isolate WHILE socially connecting. This is the only time in history that has been possible.
The web has given us a critical advantage vs this virus.
We can continue pretty much every aspect of trade and education. We can maintain our economic progress. We can do it while improving our relationship with our planet.

All  we have to do is get over the shock and get used to a few new tools.

We can do this.

Covid-19: You can only predict with the data you have. Scary numbers in context

Like so many commenting on this Covid19 crisis - I'm no expert. I just connect the dots to try to understand - just as I do with anything else I experience.

So here's my guess on what the Government is up to:

1. They were always planning to put the vulnerable in a long period of isolation. The bet was that in isolation very few (comparatively) would succumb. They were expecting the 10s of thousands of deaths number they now hope to manage us towards.

2. Acting in this way early enough would allow the wider society to continue to function and - crucially - the NHS to cope.

They assumed that those requiring hospital beds would broadly be in that vulnerable group with limited exposure. But lots of younger folk need some care. They survive - but they need NHS resources. That's what the data shows from Lombardy - and that creates the crisis point for the NHS.

I think the tipping point moment for the Government was when they recognised (only this weekend) that there were likely to be up to half a million cases in the UK already - not the few thousand detected. In that scenario it is highly likely that those now being asked to isolate for months include large numbers who have already come into contact with the virus.

That could result in significantly higher numbers of deaths than an earlier invocation of isolation for the vulnerable would have caused.

If you take a (broadly) mid-point mortality rate between the Chinese and Italian experiences you end up with 100,000s of thousands dieing in the UK. This sounds scary big but remember, 550,000 people die in the UK every year and many of those this virus will be accountable for are substitutional rather than additional (ie folk who may well have died in the same 12 month period).

To provide some further context, if 100,000 people do die in the UK - that's one in 600. Alcohol or drugs kills 1 in 34 , heart disease 1 in 4. And the average American has a 1 in 77 chance of being killed by firearms.

Had we moved to isolate the vulnerable earlier, the period of social distancing for the rest of us that is now required could have been significantly shortened. But you can only predict with the data you have. And that 500,000-cases-in-the-uk guestimate is very new.

My guess is now that restrictions will only be lifted once the vulnerable are secured and the hospitalisation-rate among them calculated.

The Great Pause has begun.