The luxury watchmaker Romain Jerome has created a $300,000 watch. For billionaires to tell time? Not exactly - the watch doesn't actually tell you the time. What's more, it sold out in 48 hours!
So what does the watch actually do?
“With no display for the hours, minutes or seconds, the Day&Night offers a new way of measuring time, splitting the universe of time into two fundamentally opposing sections: day versus night.”
Day versus night, huh? And it sells out for an unbelievable price?
I'm going to start working on a new dashboard project, directed at CEOs of multi-billion dollar firms.
It won't have KPI's, trends, links or navigation; all it will do is flash two words - either "MAKING MONEY" or "LOSING MONEY".
Next I'll develop a separate version to sell sports teams - a new scoreboard that flashes only whether the home team is "WINNING," "LOSING" OR "TIED".
Showing posts with label wall street journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wall street journal. Show all posts
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Markets Rule, Even in Politics
This is a line from L. Gordon Crovitz’s opinion article in the Wall Street Journal called “Trading on the Wisdom of Crowds” from April 28th. Prediction markets have been popular posts here on talkDIG the last couple of weeks and I apologize if I am sounding like a broken record. But the topic seems to be appearing every where. I rarely read the opinion section in the WSJ, but the title caught my eye. Crovitz discusses the topic of prediction markets and the deadly accurate Iowa Electronic Market. Now, if you think prediction markets are a fairly recent phenomenon, think again. According to Crovitz, some $165 million in today’s dollars were wagered on the 1916 election where Woodrow Wilson defeated Charles Evans Hughes.
One interesting topic that Crovitz raises is the difference between using the traditional form of predicting political results, statistical polling, and using a prediction market that trades future results like stocks. There are plenty of examples that prove that a properly formed market will provide more accurate results then a statistical polling sample set.
Are you convinced yet that prediction markets can be an effective tool for your organization? Have you identified any areas, either internally or externally where a prediction market can more accurately predict an outcome?
One interesting topic that Crovitz raises is the difference between using the traditional form of predicting political results, statistical polling, and using a prediction market that trades future results like stocks. There are plenty of examples that prove that a properly formed market will provide more accurate results then a statistical polling sample set.
Are you convinced yet that prediction markets can be an effective tool for your organization? Have you identified any areas, either internally or externally where a prediction market can more accurately predict an outcome?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The Price You Pay When Your Data is Questioned
I read this article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that I found interesting and relevant to DIG. There is always a debate on the value of having “one version of the truth” and the necessity of accuracy in corporate data. To date, that hasn’t been the case with certain types of performance measurement, especially website visits. Well, comScore is paying the price through shareholder value and their stock price. The issue stems from the accuracy of “clickstream” data that comScore, like their competitor Nielson, collect and track the popularity of websites on the web. Google announced that advertising clicks grew by 20%, while comScore reported only a 1.8% growth. Well, who is right?
This data is critical for marketers when deciding where to spend their ad dollars. You should read the full article to gain a full appreciation of the entire story, but here are a few snippets that are relevant to the importance of having “one version of the truth”.
Sarah Fay, chief executive of both Carat and Isobar US, ad companies owned by Aegis group said “We have not expected the numbers to be 100%”. It’s good to see that no expectations were being set out of the gates. Not sure this would fly when discussing something like revenue for an organization.
The article goes on to point out that comScore and Nielson data doesn’t always match up. “To complicate matters, disparities between comScore and Nielson data are common, as the two companies use different methodologies to measure their audience panels.” This isn’t something we don’t here inside the four walls of a corporation for something like a measures calculation rule.
Brad Bortner, an analyst with Forrester Research points out “There is no truth on the Internet, but you have two companies vying to say they are the truth of the Internet, and they disagree.”
And finally, my favorite quote in the article came from Sean Muzzy, senior partner and media director at digital ad agency http://www.ogilvy.com/neo/. “We are not going to look at comScore to determine the effectiveness of Google. We are going to look at our own campaign-performance measures”. This would be the equivalent of “if you don’t like the results, try a different measure.”
I have always wavered on the need for accurate data for certain types of measurement, especially something like clickstream analysis. I guess that wavering has now fallen to the side of the camp with the other types of data that require precision and accuracy.
This data is critical for marketers when deciding where to spend their ad dollars. You should read the full article to gain a full appreciation of the entire story, but here are a few snippets that are relevant to the importance of having “one version of the truth”.
Sarah Fay, chief executive of both Carat and Isobar US, ad companies owned by Aegis group said “We have not expected the numbers to be 100%”. It’s good to see that no expectations were being set out of the gates. Not sure this would fly when discussing something like revenue for an organization.
The article goes on to point out that comScore and Nielson data doesn’t always match up. “To complicate matters, disparities between comScore and Nielson data are common, as the two companies use different methodologies to measure their audience panels.” This isn’t something we don’t here inside the four walls of a corporation for something like a measures calculation rule.
Brad Bortner, an analyst with Forrester Research points out “There is no truth on the Internet, but you have two companies vying to say they are the truth of the Internet, and they disagree.”
And finally, my favorite quote in the article came from Sean Muzzy, senior partner and media director at digital ad agency http://www.ogilvy.com/neo/. “We are not going to look at comScore to determine the effectiveness of Google. We are going to look at our own campaign-performance measures”. This would be the equivalent of “if you don’t like the results, try a different measure.”
I have always wavered on the need for accurate data for certain types of measurement, especially something like clickstream analysis. I guess that wavering has now fallen to the side of the camp with the other types of data that require precision and accuracy.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
A View From the Top – Chevron CIO Profile
Last week I posted a topic on the CIO from Google, Doug Merrill. This week, I want to highlight the CIO from Chevron, Gary Masada. He was interviewed in the Wall Street Journal and there were a few comments I wanted to highlight and discuss.
Off the top, Mr. Masada discusses the information overload that organizations are facing. From the interview, Mr. Masada used the following analogy when responding to the question of the biggest challenge that he is facing as the CIO:
“Getting our arms around all the information we have. We’re basically creating the Library of Congress every day or so…”
The conversation continues on to discuss how Chevron addresses the exponential explosion of information and how users find what they need.
“People have to do something to help themselves, which is organize their information so that it can be found….But it’s a pain. And besides that, you’re probably just going to make another mess the minute it’s clean…what I really need is a disciplined way to make sure that I don’t repopulate it the very next day.”
The idea of “discipline” also relates to having governance processes in place to create the consistency needed. My question for the readers is how does this apply in an E2.0 environment? In examples of collaborative environments, are their governing groups or is the mass considered the governing body? Can we apply the models from areas like open-source development or Wikipedia internally to the organization?
“Another part of it is tagging the information in ways that make it easier to find [by adding so-called metadata that describes what’s in a file in more detail].”
The point about tagging is interesting and is happening as a first step in many organizations as they move to E2.0. Certainly the aspect of tagging information will help improve accessibility through enhanced meta-data. The concept of individuals helping themselves is a first step. Getting this to happen across the entire organization in a collaborative environment instead of just a few select individuals should keep the “house” clean.
On the topic of technology that is targeted for consumers and the impact on corporate technology, Mr. Masada responded with the following:
“Web 2.0 and Facebook and all of that are here there are real. The issues when you [start to bring these technologies into the workplace] are things like privacy, security and liability. The young generation doesn’t even know it’s an issue…these younger folks are more comfortable sharing information than older people.”
I actually chuckled when I read this…mainly because it is true. There is a considerable generation gap and I would say that all of the social platforms have taken off through high school and college students (I am proud to say that my 17 year old nephew didn’t know what I meant when I asked him for his Twitter username so I could send him a message). Is this a barrier for companies to adopt E2.0? Will it take a period of time to work out the generational gaps that exist or convince the “older” generation that E2.0 can create value? And how are organizations addressing privacy, security and liability issues? These are all questions that need to be addressed quickly to keep up the momentum with E2.0.
The final topic that Mr. Masada discusses is how Chevron matches technology investments with a business problem.
“We have a process that we call Everest…it’s a way of checking all of our IT projects against the major business strategies...A lot of projects come from the bottom up. They’re productivity-related and they may help. But if the core business strategy is not to invest in that sector of the business but to invest somewhere else…it’s not the best use of IT resources. Yet in many cases, IT resources just stay where they’ve always been.”
This is a perfect example of linking strategy to the resource allocation and initiative management activities. If organizations aren’t applying the appropriate stratex budgets and aligning initiatives to strategic objectives, opportunities will be missed. If resources and budgets are limited, reducing or eliminating initiatives that are not considered strategic or a core business function will free up resources to fund new strategy initiatives. It is good to see that organizations like Chevron have an IT governance process that aligns IT investments with the strategies of the business.
I would appreciate comments on the E2.0 questions, since these seem to be initial barriers for organizational adoption.
Off the top, Mr. Masada discusses the information overload that organizations are facing. From the interview, Mr. Masada used the following analogy when responding to the question of the biggest challenge that he is facing as the CIO:
“Getting our arms around all the information we have. We’re basically creating the Library of Congress every day or so…”
The conversation continues on to discuss how Chevron addresses the exponential explosion of information and how users find what they need.
“People have to do something to help themselves, which is organize their information so that it can be found….But it’s a pain. And besides that, you’re probably just going to make another mess the minute it’s clean…what I really need is a disciplined way to make sure that I don’t repopulate it the very next day.”
The idea of “discipline” also relates to having governance processes in place to create the consistency needed. My question for the readers is how does this apply in an E2.0 environment? In examples of collaborative environments, are their governing groups or is the mass considered the governing body? Can we apply the models from areas like open-source development or Wikipedia internally to the organization?
“Another part of it is tagging the information in ways that make it easier to find [by adding so-called metadata that describes what’s in a file in more detail].”
The point about tagging is interesting and is happening as a first step in many organizations as they move to E2.0. Certainly the aspect of tagging information will help improve accessibility through enhanced meta-data. The concept of individuals helping themselves is a first step. Getting this to happen across the entire organization in a collaborative environment instead of just a few select individuals should keep the “house” clean.
On the topic of technology that is targeted for consumers and the impact on corporate technology, Mr. Masada responded with the following:
“Web 2.0 and Facebook and all of that are here there are real. The issues when you [start to bring these technologies into the workplace] are things like privacy, security and liability. The young generation doesn’t even know it’s an issue…these younger folks are more comfortable sharing information than older people.”
I actually chuckled when I read this…mainly because it is true. There is a considerable generation gap and I would say that all of the social platforms have taken off through high school and college students (I am proud to say that my 17 year old nephew didn’t know what I meant when I asked him for his Twitter username so I could send him a message). Is this a barrier for companies to adopt E2.0? Will it take a period of time to work out the generational gaps that exist or convince the “older” generation that E2.0 can create value? And how are organizations addressing privacy, security and liability issues? These are all questions that need to be addressed quickly to keep up the momentum with E2.0.
The final topic that Mr. Masada discusses is how Chevron matches technology investments with a business problem.
“We have a process that we call Everest…it’s a way of checking all of our IT projects against the major business strategies...A lot of projects come from the bottom up. They’re productivity-related and they may help. But if the core business strategy is not to invest in that sector of the business but to invest somewhere else…it’s not the best use of IT resources. Yet in many cases, IT resources just stay where they’ve always been.”
This is a perfect example of linking strategy to the resource allocation and initiative management activities. If organizations aren’t applying the appropriate stratex budgets and aligning initiatives to strategic objectives, opportunities will be missed. If resources and budgets are limited, reducing or eliminating initiatives that are not considered strategic or a core business function will free up resources to fund new strategy initiatives. It is good to see that organizations like Chevron have an IT governance process that aligns IT investments with the strategies of the business.
I would appreciate comments on the E2.0 questions, since these seem to be initial barriers for organizational adoption.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
A New Type of CIO
I read an interesting article last week in the Wall Street Journal about Douglas Merrill, Google's Chief Information Officer. To say the least, Merrill is not your typical CIO. Granted, Google is not your typical type of organization. Here are a few snippets and comments from the article that I found interesting.
"Mr. Merrill's group lets Google employees download software on their own, choose between several types of computers and operating systems...."
This isn't totally off the wall, but certainly unique. They are a company focused on innovation and technology, so it isn't surprising that they wouldn't "constrain" anyone from getting the resources they need.
"We're a decentralized technology organization...Google's model is choice. We let employees choose from a bunch of different machines and different operating systems, and [my support group] supports all of them. It's a bit less cost-efficient - but on the other hand, I get slightly more productivity from my [Google's] employees."
The decentralization and the idea of choice certainly go hand in hand. The cost-efficiency comment is interesting and it doesn't sound like something that they necessarily quantify. I also assume that Mr. Merrill is being extremely sarcastic when he says he gets slightly more productivity out of Google employees. Based on the number of tools that Google produces for consumers, I would say that they are quite productive and innovative. I made the comment the other day to someone that I can't keep up with all the new things that they constantly release! On the topic of security, Mr. Merrill had the following response.
"The traditional security model is to try to tightly lock down end-points...we put security into the infrastructure. We have programs in our infrastructure to watch for strange behavior."
"When I talk to Fortune 100 CIOs, they want to understand, 'What is your security model? Is it really as reliable? What's the catch?' I already had to build security standards because search logs are really private. Very few [Google employees] have access to consumer data, [and those who do] have to go through background checks."
What I find most interesting about Mr. Merrill's comments is the fact that fortune 100 CIOs immediately have questions about security, primarily because of Google's approach to employee "choice". Google has shown that they can provide a best-of-breed infrastructure that is stable and secure. My guess is that most CIOs struggle to successfully provide a decentralized environment without ending up on the front page of the newspaper because their systems have been
compromised.
The last comment I will make about Mr. Merrill is that he has a fascinating academic background, especially for a CIO. He studied social and political organization at the University of Tulsa and a masters and doctorate degree in Physcology from Princeton University. His IT knowledge came through practical experience at RAND, Price Waterhouse and Charles Schwabb. Certainly politics and physcology play into the role of a successful CIO.
When I look at Google's approach to information technology and management, their approach is around the principles of the organization: decentralized, autonomy and a focus on innovation. Those principles may not make sense for every organization, but they clearly work for Google. Do I think that every physcology major is going to be the next CIO at company XYZ? No. Do I think that there are lessons to be learned from Google and Douglas Merrill, absolutely.
If you are interested in listening to Mr. Merrill speak to how Google eats their own dog food, take a look at the YouTube video below. He and CEO Eric Schmidt discuss how they use Google Apps internally in an effective and collaborative manner while meeting business and consumer needs, including security. Google Apps is a great example that relates back to the three themes of DIG: having organized and accessible data, providing robust analytic tools, and providing a massively collaborative environment.
Comments are welcome. I would be interested to hear related experiences and if you feel that IT is helping enable your business the way that Google is enabling theirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Submit to Technorati
