Subtitle: Backup in an Organisation – the Specialists View
What’s in a word: Backup carries positive connotations – redundance is perhaps neutral – duplication is bad. And what sort of backup am I talking about here? Not hardware, not data, not the usual meaning of the word - but rather organisational backup of human competencies in specialised functional areas. How much formal backup of that sort do an organisation need, if any?
From my experience I see three main organisational approaches, viz. -
· Backup level 0: Some specialist activities are outsourced and the corresponding competencies located outside the company. The actual contractor may, or may not, have backup. From the company’s viewpoint all kinds of backup are to be found outside the organisation, - ”in the market”.
· Backup level 2: Some specialist activities tend towards strategic significance and the corresponding competencies are systematically identified and resources duplicated within the organisation.
· Backup level 1: Some specialist activities are handled in-house without duplication of corresponding human resources and activities. There is, effectively, no formal backup. But is that synonymous with ”missing a Plan B”? Though that is sometimes the case, it is not necessarily so. – Arguably, Plan B is either to rely on finding specialist competency backup “in the market”, or to develop in-house competency ad-hoc, if needed; in both cases with a likely significant overhead cost in time and money. - The key challenge is to identify this situation in advance and to deliberately accept it where appropriate – and not appear to be overtaken by unforeseen events when they happen.
It is important to note that in the right circumstances all backup levels – 0, 2 and 1 – are valid and correct organisational choices. But they are not all equally popular and “in vogue”. Outsourcing is in vogue. Duplication is - to some extent – in vogue, where it can be justified on the basis of strategic importance and the organisation’s ability to pay. But a level 1 “no backup” setup is [too] often just considered an old-fashioned, irresponsible and undesirable result of managerial negligence and a candidate for deliberate transfer to level 0, or level 2.
I would say the relative popularities reflect middle managements point of view: Backup levels 0 and 2 represents, respectively, pre-emption and prevention as management tactics for specialist functions, whereas backup level 1 leaves managers at the mercy of their specialist subordinates, – or so they may feel.
But how does the middle manager’s view compare to an economist’s (or CxO’s) viewpoint? While it is true, according to Murphy’s Law, that all things go wrong once in a while and a few things go wrong almost all of the time, it is not true that all things go wrong almost all of the time. At the same time the “responsible” backup levels 0 and 2 both carry significant economical overhead compared to the “irresponsible” tactics of backup level 1. Consequently, there is a real economic trade-off between the chosen level of backup and the cost of operation. It is often argued that backup levels 0 and 2 make an organisation more resilient (or robust). But one could equally well argue that often a resilient (or robust) organisation should easily be able to sustain the occasional setbacks associated with level 1 backup, while most of the time being able to profit from a smaller and more effective organisation.
And how does the manager’s view compare to the specialists viewpoint? Mixed. Some specialists prefer to be external consultants to customers rather than in-house specialists to an employer. But while many specialists like to work closely together with certain colleagues, I believe few really like to work one-on-one on everything with somebody else. It is a matter of perceived short-term efficiency and of few specialist professionals being really “equal” in specific competencies. Each has his, or her, preferences, strengths and weaknesses – and often one will be racing forward and the other be struggling, relatively, to the dissatisfaction of both. And it will always be the runners-up, the backup, and not the leading and most competent of several specialists who sets the pace. This also translates to a cost to the organisation, both directly and indirectly in the form of reduced specialist employee work satisfaction.
In conclusion, where does these thoughts take us? They imply that trust should be promoted in the organisation - trust between top management and middle managers of functional specialists, and between middle managers and subordinate functional specialists – in order for backup level 1 to be a viable solution where it is economically optimal in an organisation.
Top management must trust middle management in order for the latter to take on the risk associated with backup level 1, and middle management must trust specialist subordinates in order for the latter to be allowed and able to apply their skills optimally in an environment where deliberate and informed application of backup level 1 is an acceptable option.Finally, I just like to add that very few specialists – or people in general - are truly “indispensible” in an organisation – particularly in a networked organisation. It is my experience time and again that the gap left by even extremely “important” people usually closes much sooner than anticipated. There are exceptions, of course. Curiously, they usually appear in the wake of unconspicuous people in quite subordinate positions in a heavily networked environment. Normally, persons leaving an organisation are willing, or can be persuaded, to help facilitate the ensuing transition. If that is not the case due to illness or accidents, everyone else is usually willing temporarily to make an extra effort. Only rarely are organisational fissures associated with outright animosity, since it is expensive to all parties, and even such occasions can usually be handled at a lesser expense than maintaining extensive organisational backup in the long run.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Not Martin Luther's 95 theses, but ...
Theses (95) about climate, humans, growth and the true state of the world
by Morten Lintrup
Out of love for and desire to contribute to protect and preserve planet Earth as home and habitat for the present and future generations of humans, and to counter political correctness that ignores the population aspect of climate change and creates a dangerous modern type of sale of indulgences, the following set of theses have been compiled and is presented here for common appraisal and discussion towards the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December 2009.
- Dedicated to Björn -
1. Man is part of nature, but can make no claim on nature.
2. Man is neither above, nor below nature.
3. Man has rights and duties in relation to other people. His rights are counterbalanced by his duties.
4. Out of consideration for other people, Man is obliged to respect and protect nature as the common basis for the unfolding of life.
5. All men are born with no right to Justice and each must take on his destiny.
6. Justice is not absolute, only relative, and it cannot be achieved by force but only - and not always - be reached through labour and dialogue.
7. Where justice is not possible, force may be necessary. Where the requisite power is lacking, graceful resignation is essential.
8. Responsibility and influence goes hand in hand. Without influence, there can be no responsibility.
9. Every human, every family and every human society retains the right to and possibility of perdition on Earth. (Gaza may be seen as a typical example at societal level.)
10. Christians must recognise that the imperative to multiply and fill the Earth has been realised, upon which a favourable view of contraception should prevail.
11. Muslims must recognise that Islam is neither above, nor below, other denominations and respect freedom of headscarf and gender equality.
12. Atheists must recognise that believing in infinite growth is the logical equivalent of believing in a flat Earth, unbounded in all directions.
13. Freedom of speech is absolute.
14. Freedom of association is only limited by not being allowed to actively subvert [secular and preferentially] democratic societies' monopoly on the use of force.
15. Freedom of assembly is only limited by not being allowed to infringe upon [secular and preferentially] democratic societies' monopoly on the use of force.
16. Freedom of religion is only limited by not being allowed to restrict the rights of others to enjoy similar freedom of religion, or challenge their life, reputation and access to the gifts of nature.
17. Use of force is a prerogative of secular and preferentially democratic societies. In particular, religion can not substantiate use of force and violence.
18. The future is no less important than he present.
19. Life quality is no less important than life quantity. Proper unfolding of life is equally as important as mere survival. (E.g. vegetarians have made a personal choice, only, which can not be attributed normative value in any political or moral sense.)
20. Society has a duty to protect and support its weak members according to its ability. The individual may claim the protection but not the support of society.
21. Stronger societies have a duty to support weaker societies. Weaker societies have no claim on the support of stronger societies.
22. Minorities in society are obliged to partake in the creation of value on an equal footing with the majority. With a way of life that precludes this, the former must accept a commensurate material standard of living. (The Amish people in the US is a positive example of reduced creation of value and acceptance of a similarly frugal standard of living.)
23. Socialism is the "red" ideology about the collective as the basis of society. In a socialist society, in practice it is essential to be able to do most things yourself.
24. Liberalism is the "blue" ideology about the individual as the basis of society. In a liberalist society, in practice it is essential to be a good teamworker.
25. Humanism is the "green" ideology about nature as the basis of society. There have been no truly "green" societies, but to be accepted in "green" communities it is essential to recognise the indefinite importance and infinite value of every single human being.
26. Pragmatism is the ideology of politics. In practical politics, open-mindedness, integrity, knowledge, and humour are important qualities.
27. Insight in the lives of others requires real ability to understand other cultures on their respective premises. Empathy too often is just a projection of ones own feelings onto the cultural basis of others.
28. Global consensus is an impossibility. To believe, hope, or wait for it is to be chasing a mirage.
29. Access to the goods of nature is primarily a matter of politics and not of ethics. Equal access to the goods of nature for all humans would not constitute Justice.
30. Man is a social creature that depends on living in a - or typically several - communities. Only for a limited period of time can he, or she, live in isolation.
31. Merit and guilt is therefore not always collective and not always plain individual. Both types exist, however, together with [much more common] mixed types.
32. A typical example of collective guilt and collective expiation constitutes Germany during, respectively after WWII.
33. A typical example of collective guilt and individual expiation constitutes the newborn, who at birth enters into a number of predefined communities already associated with merit and guilt contingent upon their history.
34. A typical example of individual guilt and collective expiation constitutes terrorism, where innocents are targeted indiscriminately, and every member of society experience and contribute to the necessary preventive measures.
35. Democracy is, by experience, a flawed system of government, - yet, it is less flawed than all other systems of government.
36. Theoretical (untested) systems of government, and systems of government, which in spite of numerous attempts have never worked out reasonably well, deserve the utmost scepticism; - and it is for the media to meet their idealistic spokespersons with such scepticism.
37. The so-called Human Rights is the free worlds belated response and post factum precaution against the German version of fascism, national socialism (Nazism).
38. Champions of Human Rights in modern times are often magnanimous at the expense of others.
39. The great challenges in present time are (in random order): Climate change, overpopulation, over-consumption, and dhimmiphobia.
40. Common to these challenges is, that they emphasise human obligations over human rights. "More society and less individual" is thus required in the time to come.
41. If democracy is to have a future, and not just a past and a present, democracy must learn to deal with these challenges, none of which democracy has significant experience in handling.
42. …furthermore, democracy must accept that dealing with these challenges will be a learning process, where mistakes will be made, and somebody will feel violated - usually unwarranted, occasionally justified - but always loud.
43. …moreover a sustained effort is needed to identify and expose such prevailing moral and ethical concepts that are no longer accurate in view of present and future conditions for human life.
44. Western civilisation is neither significantly more guilty, nor significantly more meritable than other civilisations: It was behind both killing of Jews and abolition of slavery, and it stands for both an disproportionate share of historic CO2-emissions and a halt to indigenous population growth.
45. The limit to growth is reached with human induced climate change.
46. The obvious signs of induced climate change, evident to both lay and learned, are primarily world-wide melting and retreat of glaciers, and gradual disappearance of North Pole ice cover.
47. It rests on the responsible societies of the world - democratic as well as non-democratic - to implement the necessary steps to secure a stable climate and to safeguard this solution against the irresponsible societies of the world.
48. Adjustment to inevitable and, to a lesser extent, natural climate change is also necessary.
49. Correlation between solar activity and climate constitute an interesting anomaly, but an insignificant causal explanation of currently observable climate change.
50. Safeguarding world climate is by its very nature a challenge to society to a higher degree than it is a challenge to the individual. A market oriented approach is, however, necessary to engage the individual in the solution.
51. To base ones opinions, decisions and actions on dimensionless growth rates is misleading and dangerous when situated in the vicinity of ecological discontinuities, non-linearities and threshold effects.
52. The concept of 'peak oil' is a physical reality that must be anticipated and responded to. Whether this event has already taken place, or it only happens in 5-10 years, is not crucial.
53. In a post-fossil, but energy-intensive, society, facilities to collect solar power [whether as radiation, wind, or waves] must be attributed positive aesthetic value.
54. Atomic energy cannot, in the long run, provide a clean supply of energy to protect climate. The pivotal problem is that locating and safeguarding atomic power plants is really a supra-national issue, which it appears unrealistic to control properly.
55. Technological fixes should be treated with great circumspection and only be implemented with reluctance and caution.
56. Inasmuch as IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been entrusted with evaluation of both climate research results and strategies to respond to climate change, it is disappointing that IPCC has neglected to look at correlation between climate and population.
57. The best tool for the evaluation of effects of population growth on emissions is the I=PAT equation. [Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology]
58. Education must be distributed evenly to both sexes, contraception must be made available to all, and child labour must be abolished.
59. In their choice of family size, humans must consider the well-being of their community, and society must by the necessary means, including significant economic incentives and disincentives, secure the interests of society and their fellow citizens.
60. "Fertile is not fellow" when it comes to citizens conscious choice of irresponsibly large family size, which - just as excessive consumption - is an expression of selfishness.
61. The achievement of China in the area of population is, like any pioneering effort, in some respects stained but also visionary and creditable.
62. Demographic transition is an equivocal concept. Different patterns of behaviour in different societies and cultures has caused significant disparity in the expressions of demographic transition.
63. There is one key uncertainty from the standpoint of the future size and age structure of the total human population: the speed of fertility decline in lesser developed countries and, in the longer term, the ultimate fertility level reached.
64. Failed states in political decay have always seen a prior development with rapid population growth.
65. Failed states should be treated in a manner reminiscent of the treatment of failed companies. Brutality apparent may be an expression of enlightenment proper.
66. Failed states with rapidly growing populations cannot be brought to their feet without a policy stabilizing the population. (E.g. Afghanistan, Haiti)
67. Democracy is the result of social order, not the opposite. Thus, democracy should not be an immediate and primary target of society building in failed states.
68. Even though overpopulation is never the immediately apparent and triggering cause of emergencies in more or less failing states, factors like poverty, soil exhaustion, infrastructure overload, flawed institutions and generally bad governance are all features prevalent in weak states burdened by overpopulation.
69. Societies with a surplus of young men are hotbeds of social unrest and expansive migration. It is, however, not a human right to be born in a country not overpopulated already, or to be allowed to travel somewhere else for a better life.
70. Unquestionably, it may be hard on most to have to live in an overpopulated country and partake in society building there. Unquestionably, it was also hard on most people, who partook in early industrialization and society building in today's developed societies. (Cf. the Belgian movie 'Daëns'.)
71. Slowly decreasing populations in densely populated regions are at the same time a challenge and a blessing. Only few countries - e.g. Italy, Spain and Russia - can expect decline to be so rapid as to present a genuine problem.
72. Surplus population in lesser developed countries is [at least] a magnitude greater than the "population deficit" in the developed world, and the former lack necessary prerequisites and qualifications to constitute a possibility for substitution of the latter.
73. By a realisation that migration very often is caused by overpopulation, large parts of the asylum sector - from people smugglers to legal administrators - may be transferred to constructive activities with society building in lesser developed countries.
74. Thermodynamics and anthropology both imply that space is not a path for development of human society at large; it is only a flight of fancy for a few playful thinkers, technicians and tycoons.
75. Sustained growth is not possible in a closed system.
76. In a world exploiting its full resource potential, more of one factor (population) means less of another (manufactured goods).
77. Beyond growth, primarily the developed societies and secondarily the aspiring societies must explore and comply with economics of sustainable development.
78. GNP is to a higher degree a measure of resource flow than of prosperity or happiness.
79. The nation and not the Earth must be the basic unit within which to curb population and consumption in practice.
80. Free movements of people across national borders erode any national attempt at self discipline and control of consumption and population.
81. Consumption of natural capital is not income and must not be treated as such.
82. Taxation should be transferred from labour and other income to resource flow and consumption of natural capital.
83. The productivity of natural capital should be maximized in the short term; - in the long term society should invest in enhancement and substitution of it.
84. The ideology of global economic integration through free trade and free movements of capital, labour and export financed growth is a dead end.
85. Dhimmiphobia [so-called Islamism] is by experience a severely flawed and totally unacceptable system of government, - closely related to apartheid.
86. The free media sponsor a resolute but futile effort to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Journalists and politicians are able to make such a hair-splitting distinction, but for the ordinary citizen it is impossible.
87. This is equally bad for the decent Muslim, who is sometimes confused with the dhimmiphobes, and for the ordinary citizen, who cannot criticize rabid, political Islam without being shooed and branded as racist in case of a simple error of speech.
88. It is an important task for the free media to develop a suitable and clear way to distinguish Islam and "Islamism", here denominated as dhimmiphobia.
89. Decent Muslims may rightly request that so-called political Islam, today denoted Islamism, be given another designation, clearly distinguishable from their religion, Islam.
90. So-called Islamism is closely related to known concepts such as ecclesiocracy, hierocracy, theocracy, racism, apartheid and xenophobia. Central in Islamism, however, stands the love of the umma and a corresponding hatred and disdain for the dhimmi.
91. As so-called Islamists, compared to adherents of other ideologies, are more prone to fight than to work to further their conviction, they first and foremost gather around negative feelings towards dhimmi. They are thus motivated by dhimmiphobia. Political Islam therefore ought to be denoted dhimmiphobia, and the so-called Islamists as dhimmiphobes.
92. Decent Muslims are obliged to clearly distance themselves from dhimmiphobia, even in the presence of some immediate risk to their life. There is no room for taking cover and betting both ways. Within other denominations courageous pioneers have had to act similarly, or the present free and attractive societies would never have been.
93. Free societies must not tolerate active or overt dhimmiphobia and should be suspicious of and work against passive and hidden dhimmiphobia.
94. Dhimmiphobes cannot be downplayed as a tiny fraction of Muslims. In several places, e.g. Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Gaza, dhimmiphobes have achieved political superiority, and dhimmiphobia may be supported by narrow-minded reading of the Quran.
95. Should climate control efforts fail, the sinking of Titanic could be seen as a harbinger of hope due to the reasonably successful rescue operation saving a fair share of passengers in an "impossible" situation brought about by arrogance of civilization, ineptitude and lack of imagination.
Credits for solid inspiration to:
H E Daly (Beyond Growth, 978-0807047095) for 76 og 78-84,
G Heinsohn (Söhne und Weltmacht, 3-280-06008-7) for 69 og 72,B C O'Neill, et al. (Population and Climate, 978-0-521-01802-9) for 51, 56, 57, 62 og 63.
by Morten Lintrup
Out of love for and desire to contribute to protect and preserve planet Earth as home and habitat for the present and future generations of humans, and to counter political correctness that ignores the population aspect of climate change and creates a dangerous modern type of sale of indulgences, the following set of theses have been compiled and is presented here for common appraisal and discussion towards the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December 2009.
- Dedicated to Björn -
1. Man is part of nature, but can make no claim on nature.
2. Man is neither above, nor below nature.
3. Man has rights and duties in relation to other people. His rights are counterbalanced by his duties.
4. Out of consideration for other people, Man is obliged to respect and protect nature as the common basis for the unfolding of life.
5. All men are born with no right to Justice and each must take on his destiny.
6. Justice is not absolute, only relative, and it cannot be achieved by force but only - and not always - be reached through labour and dialogue.
7. Where justice is not possible, force may be necessary. Where the requisite power is lacking, graceful resignation is essential.
8. Responsibility and influence goes hand in hand. Without influence, there can be no responsibility.
9. Every human, every family and every human society retains the right to and possibility of perdition on Earth. (Gaza may be seen as a typical example at societal level.)
10. Christians must recognise that the imperative to multiply and fill the Earth has been realised, upon which a favourable view of contraception should prevail.
11. Muslims must recognise that Islam is neither above, nor below, other denominations and respect freedom of headscarf and gender equality.
12. Atheists must recognise that believing in infinite growth is the logical equivalent of believing in a flat Earth, unbounded in all directions.
13. Freedom of speech is absolute.
14. Freedom of association is only limited by not being allowed to actively subvert [secular and preferentially] democratic societies' monopoly on the use of force.
15. Freedom of assembly is only limited by not being allowed to infringe upon [secular and preferentially] democratic societies' monopoly on the use of force.
16. Freedom of religion is only limited by not being allowed to restrict the rights of others to enjoy similar freedom of religion, or challenge their life, reputation and access to the gifts of nature.
17. Use of force is a prerogative of secular and preferentially democratic societies. In particular, religion can not substantiate use of force and violence.
18. The future is no less important than he present.
19. Life quality is no less important than life quantity. Proper unfolding of life is equally as important as mere survival. (E.g. vegetarians have made a personal choice, only, which can not be attributed normative value in any political or moral sense.)
20. Society has a duty to protect and support its weak members according to its ability. The individual may claim the protection but not the support of society.
21. Stronger societies have a duty to support weaker societies. Weaker societies have no claim on the support of stronger societies.
22. Minorities in society are obliged to partake in the creation of value on an equal footing with the majority. With a way of life that precludes this, the former must accept a commensurate material standard of living. (The Amish people in the US is a positive example of reduced creation of value and acceptance of a similarly frugal standard of living.)
23. Socialism is the "red" ideology about the collective as the basis of society. In a socialist society, in practice it is essential to be able to do most things yourself.
24. Liberalism is the "blue" ideology about the individual as the basis of society. In a liberalist society, in practice it is essential to be a good teamworker.
25. Humanism is the "green" ideology about nature as the basis of society. There have been no truly "green" societies, but to be accepted in "green" communities it is essential to recognise the indefinite importance and infinite value of every single human being.
26. Pragmatism is the ideology of politics. In practical politics, open-mindedness, integrity, knowledge, and humour are important qualities.
27. Insight in the lives of others requires real ability to understand other cultures on their respective premises. Empathy too often is just a projection of ones own feelings onto the cultural basis of others.
28. Global consensus is an impossibility. To believe, hope, or wait for it is to be chasing a mirage.
29. Access to the goods of nature is primarily a matter of politics and not of ethics. Equal access to the goods of nature for all humans would not constitute Justice.
30. Man is a social creature that depends on living in a - or typically several - communities. Only for a limited period of time can he, or she, live in isolation.
31. Merit and guilt is therefore not always collective and not always plain individual. Both types exist, however, together with [much more common] mixed types.
32. A typical example of collective guilt and collective expiation constitutes Germany during, respectively after WWII.
33. A typical example of collective guilt and individual expiation constitutes the newborn, who at birth enters into a number of predefined communities already associated with merit and guilt contingent upon their history.
34. A typical example of individual guilt and collective expiation constitutes terrorism, where innocents are targeted indiscriminately, and every member of society experience and contribute to the necessary preventive measures.
35. Democracy is, by experience, a flawed system of government, - yet, it is less flawed than all other systems of government.
36. Theoretical (untested) systems of government, and systems of government, which in spite of numerous attempts have never worked out reasonably well, deserve the utmost scepticism; - and it is for the media to meet their idealistic spokespersons with such scepticism.
37. The so-called Human Rights is the free worlds belated response and post factum precaution against the German version of fascism, national socialism (Nazism).
38. Champions of Human Rights in modern times are often magnanimous at the expense of others.
39. The great challenges in present time are (in random order): Climate change, overpopulation, over-consumption, and dhimmiphobia.
40. Common to these challenges is, that they emphasise human obligations over human rights. "More society and less individual" is thus required in the time to come.
41. If democracy is to have a future, and not just a past and a present, democracy must learn to deal with these challenges, none of which democracy has significant experience in handling.
42. …furthermore, democracy must accept that dealing with these challenges will be a learning process, where mistakes will be made, and somebody will feel violated - usually unwarranted, occasionally justified - but always loud.
43. …moreover a sustained effort is needed to identify and expose such prevailing moral and ethical concepts that are no longer accurate in view of present and future conditions for human life.
44. Western civilisation is neither significantly more guilty, nor significantly more meritable than other civilisations: It was behind both killing of Jews and abolition of slavery, and it stands for both an disproportionate share of historic CO2-emissions and a halt to indigenous population growth.
45. The limit to growth is reached with human induced climate change.
46. The obvious signs of induced climate change, evident to both lay and learned, are primarily world-wide melting and retreat of glaciers, and gradual disappearance of North Pole ice cover.
47. It rests on the responsible societies of the world - democratic as well as non-democratic - to implement the necessary steps to secure a stable climate and to safeguard this solution against the irresponsible societies of the world.
48. Adjustment to inevitable and, to a lesser extent, natural climate change is also necessary.
49. Correlation between solar activity and climate constitute an interesting anomaly, but an insignificant causal explanation of currently observable climate change.
50. Safeguarding world climate is by its very nature a challenge to society to a higher degree than it is a challenge to the individual. A market oriented approach is, however, necessary to engage the individual in the solution.
51. To base ones opinions, decisions and actions on dimensionless growth rates is misleading and dangerous when situated in the vicinity of ecological discontinuities, non-linearities and threshold effects.
52. The concept of 'peak oil' is a physical reality that must be anticipated and responded to. Whether this event has already taken place, or it only happens in 5-10 years, is not crucial.
53. In a post-fossil, but energy-intensive, society, facilities to collect solar power [whether as radiation, wind, or waves] must be attributed positive aesthetic value.
54. Atomic energy cannot, in the long run, provide a clean supply of energy to protect climate. The pivotal problem is that locating and safeguarding atomic power plants is really a supra-national issue, which it appears unrealistic to control properly.
55. Technological fixes should be treated with great circumspection and only be implemented with reluctance and caution.
56. Inasmuch as IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been entrusted with evaluation of both climate research results and strategies to respond to climate change, it is disappointing that IPCC has neglected to look at correlation between climate and population.
57. The best tool for the evaluation of effects of population growth on emissions is the I=PAT equation. [Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology]
58. Education must be distributed evenly to both sexes, contraception must be made available to all, and child labour must be abolished.
59. In their choice of family size, humans must consider the well-being of their community, and society must by the necessary means, including significant economic incentives and disincentives, secure the interests of society and their fellow citizens.
60. "Fertile is not fellow" when it comes to citizens conscious choice of irresponsibly large family size, which - just as excessive consumption - is an expression of selfishness.
61. The achievement of China in the area of population is, like any pioneering effort, in some respects stained but also visionary and creditable.
62. Demographic transition is an equivocal concept. Different patterns of behaviour in different societies and cultures has caused significant disparity in the expressions of demographic transition.
63. There is one key uncertainty from the standpoint of the future size and age structure of the total human population: the speed of fertility decline in lesser developed countries and, in the longer term, the ultimate fertility level reached.
64. Failed states in political decay have always seen a prior development with rapid population growth.
65. Failed states should be treated in a manner reminiscent of the treatment of failed companies. Brutality apparent may be an expression of enlightenment proper.
66. Failed states with rapidly growing populations cannot be brought to their feet without a policy stabilizing the population. (E.g. Afghanistan, Haiti)
67. Democracy is the result of social order, not the opposite. Thus, democracy should not be an immediate and primary target of society building in failed states.
68. Even though overpopulation is never the immediately apparent and triggering cause of emergencies in more or less failing states, factors like poverty, soil exhaustion, infrastructure overload, flawed institutions and generally bad governance are all features prevalent in weak states burdened by overpopulation.
69. Societies with a surplus of young men are hotbeds of social unrest and expansive migration. It is, however, not a human right to be born in a country not overpopulated already, or to be allowed to travel somewhere else for a better life.
70. Unquestionably, it may be hard on most to have to live in an overpopulated country and partake in society building there. Unquestionably, it was also hard on most people, who partook in early industrialization and society building in today's developed societies. (Cf. the Belgian movie 'Daëns'.)
71. Slowly decreasing populations in densely populated regions are at the same time a challenge and a blessing. Only few countries - e.g. Italy, Spain and Russia - can expect decline to be so rapid as to present a genuine problem.
72. Surplus population in lesser developed countries is [at least] a magnitude greater than the "population deficit" in the developed world, and the former lack necessary prerequisites and qualifications to constitute a possibility for substitution of the latter.
73. By a realisation that migration very often is caused by overpopulation, large parts of the asylum sector - from people smugglers to legal administrators - may be transferred to constructive activities with society building in lesser developed countries.
74. Thermodynamics and anthropology both imply that space is not a path for development of human society at large; it is only a flight of fancy for a few playful thinkers, technicians and tycoons.
75. Sustained growth is not possible in a closed system.
76. In a world exploiting its full resource potential, more of one factor (population) means less of another (manufactured goods).
77. Beyond growth, primarily the developed societies and secondarily the aspiring societies must explore and comply with economics of sustainable development.
78. GNP is to a higher degree a measure of resource flow than of prosperity or happiness.
79. The nation and not the Earth must be the basic unit within which to curb population and consumption in practice.
80. Free movements of people across national borders erode any national attempt at self discipline and control of consumption and population.
81. Consumption of natural capital is not income and must not be treated as such.
82. Taxation should be transferred from labour and other income to resource flow and consumption of natural capital.
83. The productivity of natural capital should be maximized in the short term; - in the long term society should invest in enhancement and substitution of it.
84. The ideology of global economic integration through free trade and free movements of capital, labour and export financed growth is a dead end.
85. Dhimmiphobia [so-called Islamism] is by experience a severely flawed and totally unacceptable system of government, - closely related to apartheid.
86. The free media sponsor a resolute but futile effort to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Journalists and politicians are able to make such a hair-splitting distinction, but for the ordinary citizen it is impossible.
87. This is equally bad for the decent Muslim, who is sometimes confused with the dhimmiphobes, and for the ordinary citizen, who cannot criticize rabid, political Islam without being shooed and branded as racist in case of a simple error of speech.
88. It is an important task for the free media to develop a suitable and clear way to distinguish Islam and "Islamism", here denominated as dhimmiphobia.
89. Decent Muslims may rightly request that so-called political Islam, today denoted Islamism, be given another designation, clearly distinguishable from their religion, Islam.
90. So-called Islamism is closely related to known concepts such as ecclesiocracy, hierocracy, theocracy, racism, apartheid and xenophobia. Central in Islamism, however, stands the love of the umma and a corresponding hatred and disdain for the dhimmi.
91. As so-called Islamists, compared to adherents of other ideologies, are more prone to fight than to work to further their conviction, they first and foremost gather around negative feelings towards dhimmi. They are thus motivated by dhimmiphobia. Political Islam therefore ought to be denoted dhimmiphobia, and the so-called Islamists as dhimmiphobes.
92. Decent Muslims are obliged to clearly distance themselves from dhimmiphobia, even in the presence of some immediate risk to their life. There is no room for taking cover and betting both ways. Within other denominations courageous pioneers have had to act similarly, or the present free and attractive societies would never have been.
93. Free societies must not tolerate active or overt dhimmiphobia and should be suspicious of and work against passive and hidden dhimmiphobia.
94. Dhimmiphobes cannot be downplayed as a tiny fraction of Muslims. In several places, e.g. Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Gaza, dhimmiphobes have achieved political superiority, and dhimmiphobia may be supported by narrow-minded reading of the Quran.
95. Should climate control efforts fail, the sinking of Titanic could be seen as a harbinger of hope due to the reasonably successful rescue operation saving a fair share of passengers in an "impossible" situation brought about by arrogance of civilization, ineptitude and lack of imagination.
Credits for solid inspiration to:
H E Daly (Beyond Growth, 978-0807047095) for 76 og 78-84,
G Heinsohn (Söhne und Weltmacht, 3-280-06008-7) for 69 og 72,B C O'Neill, et al. (Population and Climate, 978-0-521-01802-9) for 51, 56, 57, 62 og 63.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Petitio Principii, ”Assuming the Initial Point”, (or ”Begging the Question”)
Last time, two weeks ago, I examined what may be termed ”the cross-paradigm fallacy” when attempting to look into the future. The fallacy may be said to derive from assuming – falsely – that contemporary statistical relations remain valid in radically different circumstances. But those different circumstances need not be in the future. They can equally well have occurred in the past, and I will explore this possibility in the following.
This different, but related fallacy, is the well-known petitio principii, ”assuming the initial point”, or ”begging the question”. Let’s critically consider a well-known argument, viz. –
”Human ingenuity is without bounds; the divide that humanity in general and western civilization in particular is now facing and must soon cross with respect to energy supply is inconsequential. We have successfully spanned similar divides several times earlier on (human to animal power, on to wood/charcoal, on to coal, to oil/gas, with some hydro and nuclear power...). - We will do it again; there is positively no need for concern!”
Yes, we have succeeded several times before, but is that important? Not at all! It is irrelevant and misleading. The problem is, that if civilization had not succeeded some earlier challenge then we would not be around to consider the question. Our society would instead be found on history’s ”junkyard” of past civilizations together with those of Sumerians, Mayans, Easter Islanders, and countless others. The so-called Bayes’ theorem states it very succinctly:
P(AlB) = P(BlA)*P(A)/P(B)
- where
· P is Probability, typically expressed as a percentage, 0-100%
· ‘A’ denotes current [or future, soon-to-be] successful transformation of energy supply,
· ‘B’ denotes past successful transformation(s) of energy supply.
(Cf. Wikipedia):
· P(A) is the prior probability, or marginal probability, of A. It is "prior" in the sense that it does not take into account any information about B,
· P(AlB) is the conditional probability of A, given B. It is also called the posterior probability because it is derived from, or depends upon, the specified value of B,
· P(BlA) is the conditional probability of B given A,
· P(B) is the prior or marginal probability of B, and acts as a normalizing constant.
Now, obviously P(B) is 100% (since ”we know, we’ve made it so far”), and P(BlA) is also 100% (since ”if we make it again, then we can still be certain we made it before”). Therefore:
P(AlB) = P(A)
In so many words, the probability ”we can make it again, since we did it before” is equal to the probability that ”we can make it again” – in this case past successes are simply irrelevant to future possibility of success!
A similar line of false reasoning applies when one all too frequently hears a statement like; -
“It doesn’t matter people in third world countries have many children today. It was just like that here in the developed countries a 100 years ago. My great grandmother was out of a family of SOOooo many siblings... And we all have such ancestors – don’t we? – so it was really the same thing, - right?”
Dead wrong! But why is this anecdotal reasoning plain nonsense? Well, make some simplifying assumptions, notably that there are equally many boys and girls, and enter some simple combinatorial statistics...
1. Where a family in a third world country today averages 6 children, that means that each woman on average gives birth to 3 girls/women in the next generation,
2. Assume that in the developed world 100 years ago the pattern was [not too far off]
200 of a 1000 women had no children (0; of which 0 girls)
150 of a 1000 women had 1 child (150; of which 75 girls)
150 of a 1000 women had 2 children (300; of which 150 girls)
150 of a 1000 women had 3 children (450; of which 225 girls)
150 of a 1000 women had 4 children (600; of which 300 girls)
100 of a 1000 women had 6 children (600; of which 300 girls)
100 of a 1000 women had 9 children (900; of which 450 girls)
Now, with this distribution 1000 of each generation of women gave birth to 1500 girls/women in the next generation – just half of what has been and in many places still is prevalent in the third world today.
Also, it is easy to see why today we almost all have ancestors with many siblings: There is NO possibility that our great grandmother had ZERO children – or we wouldn’t be around to ponder the probability! - Conversely, there is (300+450)/1500*100% = 50% probability that our great grandmother was out of a family of 6, or more, children. The remainder 50% is the probability our great grandmother was out of a family of 1 to 5 children. Given the fact that we all have four great grandmothers, it is further possible to make a simple estimate that NONE of them was out of a family of at least six children:
½ * ½ * ½ * ½ * 100% = 6%
Conversely, there is (100-6)% = fully 94% probability each of us can point to a great grandmother out of a family of 6, or more, children, even though the total number of children in the developed countries at that time only amounted to half of what is still the case in many developing countries today.
Now, THAT is a real fact presented to you by simple application of basic statistics, and any denial of it is a damned lie. – Stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog to see what follows next!
This different, but related fallacy, is the well-known petitio principii, ”assuming the initial point”, or ”begging the question”. Let’s critically consider a well-known argument, viz. –
”Human ingenuity is without bounds; the divide that humanity in general and western civilization in particular is now facing and must soon cross with respect to energy supply is inconsequential. We have successfully spanned similar divides several times earlier on (human to animal power, on to wood/charcoal, on to coal, to oil/gas, with some hydro and nuclear power...). - We will do it again; there is positively no need for concern!”
Yes, we have succeeded several times before, but is that important? Not at all! It is irrelevant and misleading. The problem is, that if civilization had not succeeded some earlier challenge then we would not be around to consider the question. Our society would instead be found on history’s ”junkyard” of past civilizations together with those of Sumerians, Mayans, Easter Islanders, and countless others. The so-called Bayes’ theorem states it very succinctly:
P(AlB) = P(BlA)*P(A)/P(B)
- where
· P is Probability, typically expressed as a percentage, 0-100%
· ‘A’ denotes current [or future, soon-to-be] successful transformation of energy supply,
· ‘B’ denotes past successful transformation(s) of energy supply.
(Cf. Wikipedia):
· P(A) is the prior probability, or marginal probability, of A. It is "prior" in the sense that it does not take into account any information about B,
· P(AlB) is the conditional probability of A, given B. It is also called the posterior probability because it is derived from, or depends upon, the specified value of B,
· P(BlA) is the conditional probability of B given A,
· P(B) is the prior or marginal probability of B, and acts as a normalizing constant.
Now, obviously P(B) is 100% (since ”we know, we’ve made it so far”), and P(BlA) is also 100% (since ”if we make it again, then we can still be certain we made it before”). Therefore:
P(AlB) = P(A)
In so many words, the probability ”we can make it again, since we did it before” is equal to the probability that ”we can make it again” – in this case past successes are simply irrelevant to future possibility of success!
A similar line of false reasoning applies when one all too frequently hears a statement like; -
“It doesn’t matter people in third world countries have many children today. It was just like that here in the developed countries a 100 years ago. My great grandmother was out of a family of SOOooo many siblings... And we all have such ancestors – don’t we? – so it was really the same thing, - right?”
Dead wrong! But why is this anecdotal reasoning plain nonsense? Well, make some simplifying assumptions, notably that there are equally many boys and girls, and enter some simple combinatorial statistics...
1. Where a family in a third world country today averages 6 children, that means that each woman on average gives birth to 3 girls/women in the next generation,
2. Assume that in the developed world 100 years ago the pattern was [not too far off]
200 of a 1000 women had no children (0; of which 0 girls)
150 of a 1000 women had 1 child (150; of which 75 girls)
150 of a 1000 women had 2 children (300; of which 150 girls)
150 of a 1000 women had 3 children (450; of which 225 girls)
150 of a 1000 women had 4 children (600; of which 300 girls)
100 of a 1000 women had 6 children (600; of which 300 girls)
100 of a 1000 women had 9 children (900; of which 450 girls)
Now, with this distribution 1000 of each generation of women gave birth to 1500 girls/women in the next generation – just half of what has been and in many places still is prevalent in the third world today.
Also, it is easy to see why today we almost all have ancestors with many siblings: There is NO possibility that our great grandmother had ZERO children – or we wouldn’t be around to ponder the probability! - Conversely, there is (300+450)/1500*100% = 50% probability that our great grandmother was out of a family of 6, or more, children. The remainder 50% is the probability our great grandmother was out of a family of 1 to 5 children. Given the fact that we all have four great grandmothers, it is further possible to make a simple estimate that NONE of them was out of a family of at least six children:
½ * ½ * ½ * ½ * 100% = 6%
Conversely, there is (100-6)% = fully 94% probability each of us can point to a great grandmother out of a family of 6, or more, children, even though the total number of children in the developed countries at that time only amounted to half of what is still the case in many developing countries today.
Now, THAT is a real fact presented to you by simple application of basic statistics, and any denial of it is a damned lie. – Stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog to see what follows next!
Monday, October 5, 2009
More than money and counting…
In BI monetary units and simple counts are ubiquitous. But there is much more than money and counting to a good BI system. In fact, it is dangerous and deceptive to rely only on economic indicators. To the credit of business executives in general, I have hardly encountered any who would question the wisdom of this – and there’s no problem of just paying lip service to academic concepts – they know, and they really mean it. But of course, the financial side must always be handled, and quite likely first… For me, with an engineering background for working in BI, this broader view on business is very satisfactory. There is a host of measures and units other than money that need controlling in business, and for me they are quite often the ones most “fun” to work with.
But change the focus – just a bit actually – to society as a whole, or to local bodies of government and administration. I believe responsible management entails almost the same within public administration and within business administration. Call it BI or GI (Government Intelligence!) - it is all decision support and conceptually very similar.
At top level, however, it is my impression that actually businesses has a better grasp of non-financial indicators than do most political executives. Perhaps it is because non-financial measures are typically more long-term than financial measures that many politicians seem to care less; perhaps it is because politicians tend to be more superficial and less focused in what they do. Anyway, the outcome is the same, and I am regularly worried about what seem to be closed-loop arguments between economists and politicians in purely monetary terms about our common future.
With these general considerations I wish to introduce a well-timed exception to this worrisome trend – and welcome David MacKay as new special advisor on energy issues to British Government as of 1 October. David MacKay is professor at Department of Physics at University of Cambridge, and - just as important - he is author of a splendid new book on [British] society’s options for future energy supply, “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” - which he has also made freely available for download at http://www.withouthotair.com/.
The bad news is that there are no easy and convenient fixes. The good news is that there are coherent models available for society to choose from, which do not imply turmoil and upheaval – in fact MacKay presents five different models. Coherence is the essential feature, coherence in energy units such as PJ or kWh – not in pounds or Euros, as no one can really predict the economical regime, in which our future energy shall be produced and consumed.
Taking one step back, it is possible to describe quite generally and accurately when economists and economic planning should be side-stepped and natural scientists and engineering should be put to the fore. It should be done whenever a change of regime is investigated, where knowledge of the current economic regime is of little value, or is actually an impediment when the future regime must be envisaged.
With an example from mathematics it is a bit like the difference between normal, Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry. The rules are simply different in each case and someone ingrained with the rules of Euclidean geometry is hardly the right choice for exploring the options of non-Euclidean geometry.
A Dane and a[n] [engineering] statistician myself, but not primarily an economist, I am not happy with the actions and opinions of Björn Lomborg (“The Sceptical Environmentalist”, “Cool It”), but I am particularly concerned with his ingratiation with politicians, whose language he obviously knows well. The problem is he holds and voices strong opinions about environmental degradation, energy supply, climate change and everything else. He articulates his considerations and opinions only in economical terms and he derives his experiences and theoretical basis from an economic regime, which is hardly comparable and relevant for the economic regime of the future society likely to emerge.
...‘sorry for being fully five days late with this posting – particularly as it celebrates professor MacKay’s taking up his office with British government – but events do not always move along a straight line (my attempt at classic British understatement!) - stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog to see and read what happens next.
But change the focus – just a bit actually – to society as a whole, or to local bodies of government and administration. I believe responsible management entails almost the same within public administration and within business administration. Call it BI or GI (Government Intelligence!) - it is all decision support and conceptually very similar.
At top level, however, it is my impression that actually businesses has a better grasp of non-financial indicators than do most political executives. Perhaps it is because non-financial measures are typically more long-term than financial measures that many politicians seem to care less; perhaps it is because politicians tend to be more superficial and less focused in what they do. Anyway, the outcome is the same, and I am regularly worried about what seem to be closed-loop arguments between economists and politicians in purely monetary terms about our common future.
With these general considerations I wish to introduce a well-timed exception to this worrisome trend – and welcome David MacKay as new special advisor on energy issues to British Government as of 1 October. David MacKay is professor at Department of Physics at University of Cambridge, and - just as important - he is author of a splendid new book on [British] society’s options for future energy supply, “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” - which he has also made freely available for download at http://www.withouthotair.com/.
The bad news is that there are no easy and convenient fixes. The good news is that there are coherent models available for society to choose from, which do not imply turmoil and upheaval – in fact MacKay presents five different models. Coherence is the essential feature, coherence in energy units such as PJ or kWh – not in pounds or Euros, as no one can really predict the economical regime, in which our future energy shall be produced and consumed.
Taking one step back, it is possible to describe quite generally and accurately when economists and economic planning should be side-stepped and natural scientists and engineering should be put to the fore. It should be done whenever a change of regime is investigated, where knowledge of the current economic regime is of little value, or is actually an impediment when the future regime must be envisaged.
With an example from mathematics it is a bit like the difference between normal, Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry. The rules are simply different in each case and someone ingrained with the rules of Euclidean geometry is hardly the right choice for exploring the options of non-Euclidean geometry.
A Dane and a[n] [engineering] statistician myself, but not primarily an economist, I am not happy with the actions and opinions of Björn Lomborg (“The Sceptical Environmentalist”, “Cool It”), but I am particularly concerned with his ingratiation with politicians, whose language he obviously knows well. The problem is he holds and voices strong opinions about environmental degradation, energy supply, climate change and everything else. He articulates his considerations and opinions only in economical terms and he derives his experiences and theoretical basis from an economic regime, which is hardly comparable and relevant for the economic regime of the future society likely to emerge.
...‘sorry for being fully five days late with this posting – particularly as it celebrates professor MacKay’s taking up his office with British government – but events do not always move along a straight line (my attempt at classic British understatement!) - stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog to see and read what happens next.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Continuity in BI Solutions – the User Perspective Revisited
Ever so often in BI development one must go a fair distance from A to B and has to draw up a roadmap for doing so. That plan should be agreed upon between Business and IT – between users and developers. And there are several pitfalls in the process.
Here I will discuss the case of continuity as experienced from a user perspective. In some cases it is evident that continuity must be preserved when moving from the old BI solution, A, to the new BI solution, B: continuity of the collected data, historical and new, - and continuity of presentation in that calculated KPI’s remain intact with effectively identical business definitions.
In other cases disenchantment with the existing, old solution may be such that it may be tempting to opt for a “revolutionary” new solution without regard for real cross-solution continuity. From an IT perspective this may seem the more attractive and easier way to go, and Business may be persuaded to go along. Or so it may seem. According to my experience, things are rarely as simple as that.
The problems are that initially Business may not fully comprehend and understand the scope of a new BI solution, and that the Business representatives at the defining stage may not really be representative of all Business users.
As an IT person one should ask the right questions and those questions are not always just the simple and direct questions. In this case it is important to know what triggered the need to go from A to B. Are we looking at a native and immediate desire for a new BI solution, or are we really handling a spinoff project from a change of ERP system, a merger or acquisition, or a high level policy change in the company? In any of the latter cases, even if Business superficially agrees to a whole new BI solution one should be quite wary of possible complications. After all, the existing solution has been and still is supporting business needs in the short term. Any excitement about a new solution may quickly disappear when faced with the challenges of implementing it. How deeply rooted is dissatisfaction with the current solution? It may actually prove quite shallow!The solution then, I propose to be, that IT should really probe the level of user dissatisfaction with the current solution before settling for taking off with both legs to leap into the future and construct an entirely new BI solution to replace the existing one. And unless completely satisfied that the old solution will be missed be no-one, the prudent thing to do is to dissect the old solution and to document any changes, especially where features may be discontinued. It may seem tedious at times, but it actually has a number of advantages for IT too. Any such documentation and understanding is useful as part of the specification of the new solution. It also helps to clearly define and emphasize what is actually new features in the solution to be. And eventually, any difference in data presentation between the old and the new solution is just a potential error as long as it remains unexplained, - once understood and explained it becomes an improvement and an extra feature! - Last, but not least, a thorough understanding of the old solution is an immense help when constructing and implementing the new. Contrary to the leap into the future described above, it is like a long walk where one foot always remain in contact with the ground. And after all, when literally going somewhere, I – as most people – do tend to arrive faster and in better shape after a steady walk than after a series of leaps and jumps. Agree? - Stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog for more deliberations on both technical and organisational aspects of BI!
Here I will discuss the case of continuity as experienced from a user perspective. In some cases it is evident that continuity must be preserved when moving from the old BI solution, A, to the new BI solution, B: continuity of the collected data, historical and new, - and continuity of presentation in that calculated KPI’s remain intact with effectively identical business definitions.
In other cases disenchantment with the existing, old solution may be such that it may be tempting to opt for a “revolutionary” new solution without regard for real cross-solution continuity. From an IT perspective this may seem the more attractive and easier way to go, and Business may be persuaded to go along. Or so it may seem. According to my experience, things are rarely as simple as that.
The problems are that initially Business may not fully comprehend and understand the scope of a new BI solution, and that the Business representatives at the defining stage may not really be representative of all Business users.
As an IT person one should ask the right questions and those questions are not always just the simple and direct questions. In this case it is important to know what triggered the need to go from A to B. Are we looking at a native and immediate desire for a new BI solution, or are we really handling a spinoff project from a change of ERP system, a merger or acquisition, or a high level policy change in the company? In any of the latter cases, even if Business superficially agrees to a whole new BI solution one should be quite wary of possible complications. After all, the existing solution has been and still is supporting business needs in the short term. Any excitement about a new solution may quickly disappear when faced with the challenges of implementing it. How deeply rooted is dissatisfaction with the current solution? It may actually prove quite shallow!The solution then, I propose to be, that IT should really probe the level of user dissatisfaction with the current solution before settling for taking off with both legs to leap into the future and construct an entirely new BI solution to replace the existing one. And unless completely satisfied that the old solution will be missed be no-one, the prudent thing to do is to dissect the old solution and to document any changes, especially where features may be discontinued. It may seem tedious at times, but it actually has a number of advantages for IT too. Any such documentation and understanding is useful as part of the specification of the new solution. It also helps to clearly define and emphasize what is actually new features in the solution to be. And eventually, any difference in data presentation between the old and the new solution is just a potential error as long as it remains unexplained, - once understood and explained it becomes an improvement and an extra feature! - Last, but not least, a thorough understanding of the old solution is an immense help when constructing and implementing the new. Contrary to the leap into the future described above, it is like a long walk where one foot always remain in contact with the ground. And after all, when literally going somewhere, I – as most people – do tend to arrive faster and in better shape after a steady walk than after a series of leaps and jumps. Agree? - Stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog for more deliberations on both technical and organisational aspects of BI!
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A Simple Business Proposition (Motor Insurance)
Less than a week ago Kim Rud-Petersen, Fair Forsikring’s [Insurance] executive of the Business division blogged [in Danish] on Borsen.dk: Kim Rud-Petersen’s subject was the extreme conservatism and very slow - even to the point of laziness - business development within the insurance industry at large. I used to work with DW/BI for an insurance company for several years, and I strongly agree with Kim Rud-Petersen. Let me give a simple example of what I mean; a case of how insurance companies might very usefully activate some of their more or less dormant data to the immediate mutual benefit of their private motoring customers - and themselves!
If I want to trade my car, papers and data are important. With a comprehensive service history and knowledge of accident repairs, trading the car is easier and the price is usually significantly higher, see e.g. www.bilpriser.dk. Of course, some information – e.g. about serious prior damages – will depress the price, but the trend is clear-cut and important: With less uncertainty, the risk premium is reduced and a better deal is possible for both an honest buyer and an honest seller. But when you’re a private trader there’s a snag. You have really no access to solid information about repaired damages, that is privileged information for the auto trade with their proprietary data bases and professional experience. [At least in Denmark; in Sweden a comprehensive and public database is maintained. In the US a less comprehensive privately organised database exists.]
Now enter the insurance industry: Suppose I wanted to sell my car and advertised it at e.g. www.bilbasen.dk. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the option of going to the website of my auto insurer and simply release for public showing the damage and repair history of my car? I could even link directly from my advertisement to my insurance company, and thus make my car more attractive with a more comprehensive description immediately available to prospective buyers. Perhaps I might even be willing to pay some small amount for the privilege of attracting viewers and generating traffic to my insurance company’s website!
But that is only one side of the coin. Try taking a look from the side of the insurance company. As it is now, the insurer hears nothing before the car is sold and the business of insuring it is discontinued. With the described feature, the insurance company gets early warning when a customer releases damage and repair history of his car for public viewing. The company is then able to proactively take steps towards protecting the business; ideally business may actually be increased – doubled - when the company is able to hold on to both the owner/seller (with a new car) and the traded car (with a new owner)!!
This was only an appetizer. Rest assured that serious money is involved overall, making it worthwhile for a progressive and competent insurance company to establish such a feature. It is not even particularly difficult to develop and calculate the idea as a business case. I once did it over 10 pages, but that is a story too long for a BI blog. I am personally convinced the idea will be realised; only question is when and by whom. It would have to be a company genuinely concerned with helping and empowering its private customers, even at the risk of annoying somewhat the auto trade by slightly infringing upon their perceived privileges. I hope some time to be able to tell that story. Stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog for any possible developments.
If I want to trade my car, papers and data are important. With a comprehensive service history and knowledge of accident repairs, trading the car is easier and the price is usually significantly higher, see e.g. www.bilpriser.dk. Of course, some information – e.g. about serious prior damages – will depress the price, but the trend is clear-cut and important: With less uncertainty, the risk premium is reduced and a better deal is possible for both an honest buyer and an honest seller. But when you’re a private trader there’s a snag. You have really no access to solid information about repaired damages, that is privileged information for the auto trade with their proprietary data bases and professional experience. [At least in Denmark; in Sweden a comprehensive and public database is maintained. In the US a less comprehensive privately organised database exists.]
Now enter the insurance industry: Suppose I wanted to sell my car and advertised it at e.g. www.bilbasen.dk. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the option of going to the website of my auto insurer and simply release for public showing the damage and repair history of my car? I could even link directly from my advertisement to my insurance company, and thus make my car more attractive with a more comprehensive description immediately available to prospective buyers. Perhaps I might even be willing to pay some small amount for the privilege of attracting viewers and generating traffic to my insurance company’s website!
But that is only one side of the coin. Try taking a look from the side of the insurance company. As it is now, the insurer hears nothing before the car is sold and the business of insuring it is discontinued. With the described feature, the insurance company gets early warning when a customer releases damage and repair history of his car for public viewing. The company is then able to proactively take steps towards protecting the business; ideally business may actually be increased – doubled - when the company is able to hold on to both the owner/seller (with a new car) and the traded car (with a new owner)!!
This was only an appetizer. Rest assured that serious money is involved overall, making it worthwhile for a progressive and competent insurance company to establish such a feature. It is not even particularly difficult to develop and calculate the idea as a business case. I once did it over 10 pages, but that is a story too long for a BI blog. I am personally convinced the idea will be realised; only question is when and by whom. It would have to be a company genuinely concerned with helping and empowering its private customers, even at the risk of annoying somewhat the auto trade by slightly infringing upon their perceived privileges. I hope some time to be able to tell that story. Stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog for any possible developments.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Pitfalls of CRM – the Case of Honda (Cars)
This weekend I found myself at the thin – receiving – end of a CRM customer satisfaction programme for Honda Motor Co. Now, that was not exactly surprising since I acquired a new ‘Honda Civic 1.8 Sport I-Shift’ some two months ago. On such an occasion, however, as a BI consultant I cannot help taking a professional stance and consider whether the questionnaire adequately measures what [I think] it should be designed to measure.
First, let me sketch the situation. My wife’s car suddenly quit in mid-May, and then she wanted to take over my VW Golf Tiptronic 6-12 months before planned and anticipated. For that to be possible, I would need to find another car at short notice. Now, being led by events and acting reactively rather than proactively, I did not want to commit myself for a very long time to some new car, I could not be sure would be just right for me. We like to buy new, or virtually new, cars and keep them for 10+ years, plus I enjoy a youngtimer 1995 Mercedes E220 (W124C) cabrio for sunshine driving. As it happened, the problem solved itself as quickly as it had appeared. I really, really like the design of the current Honda Civic, and just at the time Honda Denmark advertised a batch of leftover 2008 Hondas available for two-year leasing [hire-purchase] at very reasonable cost, manual and I-Shift automatics even being offered at the same price. In an MC accident in 1994, I lost almost half my left leg and now cannot operate a normal [in Europe] clutch for a stick shift. To lease a Civic I-Shift was a solution which was at the same time cautious and affordable and experimental and fashionable, considering how I-Shift can [optionally] be operated by hand from the steering wheel, and how car leasing is being discussed in [Danish] media as both modern and – in the right circumstances – economical. Furthermore, it is so fortunate and practical that although Honda dealerships are quite sparse, one small Honda dealer is situated just a little over 1 km from where we live. All in all, I had to go elsewhere to locate and try out a Civic I-Shift, but having done that, the acquisition of the car was really a formality associated with only minimal contact with the actual local dealer.
Now for the subject matter: How did I experience Honda’s CRM questionnaire?
On one hand, the questionnaire was brief, just 4 pages not very densely printed. It could easily be completed within 5 minutes. Credits to Honda for that! Working professionally with CRM and statistics, I also tend to oblige and answer more questionnaires than an average citizen, I think. Still, it is far from rare for me to decline, or simply break off, not being polite at any cost. I do that whenever I feel some company is transgressing either what is their reasonable interest in the subject matter, or my patience. And by experience, what is more often the critical point is clearly my patience rather than my privacy!
On the other hand, questionnaire focus was obviously the dealership rather than the car. The local Honda dealer being small and anything but sophisticated, there were few points I could reasonably award it. Now I feel just a little bad and sad about the whole thing. Perhaps my situation is a little special, but the questionnaire did nothing to disclose that. I required little, expected little, and got little from the dealer in connection with the deal.
But what I needed, I got, including a local point-of-service in the time to come. And location and distance was not even the subject of a CRM question, I had to make a separate note of it! – I just hope, Honda’s questionnaire is not “designed with a purpose” to provide a rationale for consolidating dealerships into a select few distant “temples of motoring” the way certain other makes have already done.
And the Civic is great, by the way. It is no Super car, of course, but a superb value for money proposition with a highly distinctive design plus some interesting features. I just hope, probably in vain, that when another Civic is released in a couple of years, it will not be a totally different design but retain a certain familiarity with its predecessor, as is usual by European car manufacturers.
First, let me sketch the situation. My wife’s car suddenly quit in mid-May, and then she wanted to take over my VW Golf Tiptronic 6-12 months before planned and anticipated. For that to be possible, I would need to find another car at short notice. Now, being led by events and acting reactively rather than proactively, I did not want to commit myself for a very long time to some new car, I could not be sure would be just right for me. We like to buy new, or virtually new, cars and keep them for 10+ years, plus I enjoy a youngtimer 1995 Mercedes E220 (W124C) cabrio for sunshine driving. As it happened, the problem solved itself as quickly as it had appeared. I really, really like the design of the current Honda Civic, and just at the time Honda Denmark advertised a batch of leftover 2008 Hondas available for two-year leasing [hire-purchase] at very reasonable cost, manual and I-Shift automatics even being offered at the same price. In an MC accident in 1994, I lost almost half my left leg and now cannot operate a normal [in Europe] clutch for a stick shift. To lease a Civic I-Shift was a solution which was at the same time cautious and affordable and experimental and fashionable, considering how I-Shift can [optionally] be operated by hand from the steering wheel, and how car leasing is being discussed in [Danish] media as both modern and – in the right circumstances – economical. Furthermore, it is so fortunate and practical that although Honda dealerships are quite sparse, one small Honda dealer is situated just a little over 1 km from where we live. All in all, I had to go elsewhere to locate and try out a Civic I-Shift, but having done that, the acquisition of the car was really a formality associated with only minimal contact with the actual local dealer.
Now for the subject matter: How did I experience Honda’s CRM questionnaire?
On one hand, the questionnaire was brief, just 4 pages not very densely printed. It could easily be completed within 5 minutes. Credits to Honda for that! Working professionally with CRM and statistics, I also tend to oblige and answer more questionnaires than an average citizen, I think. Still, it is far from rare for me to decline, or simply break off, not being polite at any cost. I do that whenever I feel some company is transgressing either what is their reasonable interest in the subject matter, or my patience. And by experience, what is more often the critical point is clearly my patience rather than my privacy!
On the other hand, questionnaire focus was obviously the dealership rather than the car. The local Honda dealer being small and anything but sophisticated, there were few points I could reasonably award it. Now I feel just a little bad and sad about the whole thing. Perhaps my situation is a little special, but the questionnaire did nothing to disclose that. I required little, expected little, and got little from the dealer in connection with the deal.
But what I needed, I got, including a local point-of-service in the time to come. And location and distance was not even the subject of a CRM question, I had to make a separate note of it! – I just hope, Honda’s questionnaire is not “designed with a purpose” to provide a rationale for consolidating dealerships into a select few distant “temples of motoring” the way certain other makes have already done.
And the Civic is great, by the way. It is no Super car, of course, but a superb value for money proposition with a highly distinctive design plus some interesting features. I just hope, probably in vain, that when another Civic is released in a couple of years, it will not be a totally different design but retain a certain familiarity with its predecessor, as is usual by European car manufacturers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
