RBPEA: On power and gender
What is power? Where does it come from? Where does it go? Who has it? Who doesn’t have it? Who should have it? Who shouldn’t have it? And why? – or why not, for that matter – to any of…
Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom
What is power? Where does it come from? Where does it go? Who has it? Who doesn’t have it? Who should have it? Who shouldn’t have it? And why? – or why not, for that matter – to any of…
Part One of the Breakthrough Series
Imagine a project in which everyone understands their role, they know what success looks like, and they’re working synchronously to achieve results. A project that is fully supported by the executive level and wher…
#QTWTAIN @lucykellaway asks if those workers who stay for years with the same companies (are) unambitious and mediocre, or does the corporate grind make them so?Her article addresses the perception that people seemed to get dimmer the higher they went …
#QTWTAIN @lucykellaway asks if those workers who stay for years with the same companies (are) unambitious and mediocre, or does the corporate grind make them so?Her article addresses the perception that people seemed to get dimmer the higher they went …
#orgintelligence The recent appointment of an algorithm to a Board of Directors raises the spectre of science fiction becoming fact. Although many commentators regarded the appointment as a publicity stunt, there has always been an undercurrent of fear…
#orgintelligence The recent appointment of an algorithm to a Board of Directors raises the spectre of science fiction becoming fact. Although many commentators regarded the appointment as a publicity stunt, there has always been an undercurrent of fear about machine intelligence. Even the BBC (following Betteridge’s Law of Headlines) succumbed to the alarmist headline Could a big data-crunching machine be your boss one day?
There are several useful ways that an algorithm might contribute to the collective intelligence of a Board of Directors. One is to provide an automated judgement on some topic, which can be put into the pot together with a number of human judgements. This is what seems to be planned by the company Deep Knowledge Ventures, whose Board of Directors is faced with a series of important investment decisions. Although each decision is unique, there are some basic similarities in the decision process that may be amenable to automation and machine learning.
Another possible contribution is to evaluate other board members. According to the BBC article, IBM Watson could be programmed to analyse the contributions made by each board member for usefulness and accuracy. There are several ways such a feedback loop could enhance the collective intelligence of the Board.
Organizational Intelligence is about an effective combination of human/social intelligence and machine intelligence. Remember this when people try to develop an either-us-or-them narrative.
Jamie Bartlett, Will Artificial Intelligence put my job at risk? (Spectator 6 June 2014)
Adrian Chen, Can an Algorithm Solve Twitter’s Credibility Problem? (New Yorker 5 May 2014)
John Rentoul, Will Artificial Intelligence put my job at risk? (Independent 6 June 2014)
Richard Veryard, Does Cameron’s Dashboard App Improve the OrgIntelligence of Government? (23 January 2013)
Matthew Wall, Could a big data-crunching machine be your boss one day? (BBC News 9 October 2014)
Other Sources
Algorithm appointed board director (BBC News 16 May 2014)
Okay, this is where it gets scary – for me, anyway… – because it’s time for me to return to RBPEA: Really-Big-Picture Enterprise-Architecture. (The reasons why it’s definitely scary for me – and for anyone doing any of this work, frankly…
A study from Accenture exposes a disconnect between the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), with only one in 10 of the executives surveyed being satisfied with the current level of collaboration between CMOs and CIOs.
Key findings of the study, based on a survey of 400 senior marketing and 250 information technology (IT) executives in 10 countries, include:
Accenture argues that this disconnect threatens the ability of companies to deliver effective customer experiences, and suggests some ways for CIOs and CMOs to work more effectively together.
The report contains some interesting hints of cognitive differences between the two functions. Take for example the concept of “requirement”. On the one hand, marketing wants IT to respond faster and more flexibly to “market requirements“. Whereas IT complains that marketing doesn’t provide adequate and stable definition of “business requirements”. This indicates a clash between two conflicting notions of what counts as a legitimate requirement, and the Accenture report doesn’t explicitly suggest a resolution of this conflict.
There are also interesting differences in the implied value system. The marketing function tends to place higher value on hard-to-quantify business benefits such as “customer insight”, whereas the IT function tends to place higher value on hygiene factors such as privacy and security. In both cases, these priorities may be influenced by the way budgets and targets are allocated to each function by the organization as a whole, and the ways in which different kinds of investment and operational expenditure can be legitimately cost-justified. Let us imagine that in a particular organization, the CIO can only justify investing in a new Customer Insight system if she can show that this system will produce measurable improvements in business outcomes. Whereas the CMO can only justify devoting any resources to customer privacy if she can show that security breaches would have a measurable effect on customer satisfaction or corporate reputation. (This may be relatively easy in some sectors, much harder in other sectors.)
There are some prevailing stereotypes of marketing and IT, which would suggest they are on different planets: one function being precise and highly numerate, the other being imprecise and unreliable. In reality, they are much closer together, and should be able to collaborate closely, if only they can manage to speak the same language.
Source: The CMO-CIO Disconnect, Computer Weekly, August 2013.
A study from Accenture exposes a disconnect between the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), with only one in 10 of the executives surveyed being satisfied with the current level of collaboration between CMOs and CIOs.
Key findings of the study, based on a survey of 400 senior marketing and 250 information technology (IT) executives in 10 countries, include:
Accenture argues that this disconnect threatens the ability of companies to deliver effective customer experiences, and suggests some ways for CIOs and CMOs to work more effectively together.
The report contains some interesting hints of cognitive differences between the two functions. Take for example the concept of “requirement”. On the one hand, marketing wants IT to respond faster and more flexibly to “market requirements“. Whereas IT complains that marketing doesn’t provide adequate and stable definition of “business requirements”. This indicates a clash between two conflicting notions of what counts as a legitimate requirement, and the Accenture report doesn’t explicitly suggest a resolution of this conflict.
There are also interesting differences in the implied value system. The marketing function tends to place higher value on hard-to-quantify business benefits such as “customer insight”, whereas the IT function tends to place higher value on hygiene factors such as privacy and security. In both cases, these priorities may be influenced by the way budgets and targets are allocated to each function by the organization as a whole, and the ways in which different kinds of investment and operational expenditure can be legitimately cost-justified. Let us imagine that in a particular organization, the CIO can only justify investing in a new Customer Insight system if she can show that this system will produce measurable improvements in business outcomes. Whereas the CMO can only justify devoting any resources to customer privacy if she can show that security breaches would have a measurable effect on customer satisfaction or corporate reputation. (This may be relatively easy in some sectors, much harder in other sectors.)
There are some prevailing stereotypes of marketing and IT, which would suggest they are on different planets: one function being precise and highly numerate, the other being imprecise and unreliable. In reality, they are much closer together, and should be able to collaborate closely, if only they can manage to speak the same language.
Source: The CMO-CIO Disconnect, Computer Weekly, August 2013.
Organisations are fighting for relevance in a larger market place where brand names and size are less of a factor. Customers are now looking for the products and services which deliver the outcomes they need, regardless of who provides them. Being able to meet these demands at speed and scale will be fundamental in achieving Read More
“How do I loathe thee, TOGAF? Let me count the ways…” In case anyone thinks that I’m just ‘TOGAF-bashing’ for the sake of it, I do believe that TOGAF has genuine value for what it was originally designed to do, namely architecture…
By Sally Long, Forum Director, Open Trusted Technology Forum, The Open Group A First Line of Defense in Protecting Critical Infrastructure – A Technical Solution that can Help Address a Geo-political Issue The challenges associated with Cybersecurity and critical infrastructure, … Continue reading →![]()