All posts by Jim Muttram

Uncategorised

Will Apple miss the next big thing?

29th March 2012 Jim Muttram Leave a comment

Will Apple be smart enough to capitalise on the next big opportunity in personal computing – turning the smart phone into the CPU for computing anywhere?

I remember back to the time when there was a huge debate about “convergence” – the big question about whether consumers would accept one multi-functional mobile device (the Swiss Army Knife approach) or would want a series of specialized devices such as a phone, camera, GPS. MP3 player and so on. The iPhone settled that debate completely with hardware and software (apps) which cater for just about every need. It now seems incredible that anyone even argued the point.

Well, we are fast approaching a re-run of that debate. Why have a computer and a smartphone when you could use a phone as your CPU, operating system and file store and simply link via Bluetooth to a screen, keyboard and mouse? Any why not make that screen your TV?

Apple is actually very well placed to make this move. It is already converging its operating systems – OS X looks increasingly like IOS especially after Mountain Lion. And they produce a superb range of Bluetooth-enabled peripherals and brilliant screens.

But this is a big leap for a company which makes so much money from computer hardware – $6.3bn in the last quarter of 2011. Risking that is a big bet for any company, let alone one that is riding the wave with its iconic highly designed and desirable computers.

If not Apple, then maybe Android? Already there have been Android phones launched with full versions of Ubuntu Linux loaded on them. And Android’s makers Google doesn’t have a hardware business to cannibalise. In fact, it would make massive sense for Google to back a move like this – it is trying to push an alternative to Microsoft’s Office Suite (Google Apps) and what better Trojan Horse than consumers determined to carry their computing device with them wherever they go?

Even Microsoft may be better placed to capitalise on this trend than Apple. Microsoft doesn’t actually make computers (although their OEM partners clearly do) so although there would be much painful disruption if Windows 8 became the operating system on choice on the mobile portable computing device of the future, the company could but only profit in the long run.

I may be wrong, but I bet we will see this trend play out; it remains to be seen who will ride the wave.

Uncategorised

Community from spam

5th March 2012 Jim Muttram Leave a comment

Sometime last week I started to get spam email from a Middle Eastern site called GulfMalayaly. I just deleted as I mostly do with this kind of spam as I have found in the past that the “unsubscribe” options is only partially effective and, anyway, I’ve got better things to do with my time.

Pretty soon though I started to get emails from people who were in a similar boat asking to be unsubscribed, while later others emailed (again the whole list) to ask fellow victims not to reply as they were beginning to escalate into spam session.

Then two interesting things happened. Firstly, someone suggested that instead of spamming each other perhaps we should create a LinkedIn group and find out more about each other to see what we all had in common. The group is called Unified by Spam – The Social Experiment and on it you can see a growing band of people joining and talking to each other, and even a poll which identifies which industries/parts of the world the participants come from etc.

Secondly, a sub-set of the original recipients have ignored both the initial advice to desist from trying to message back to the original perpetrator and the invitation to join the social experiment. They are busy still spamming in an increasingly irate and profane way – the result of which is that I am getting a notification every few minutes that a message is being quarantined by the Exchange Profanity Filter. There is nothing I can now do about these messages.

I was struck by how neatly this episode summarises the two basic types of participants in web discussions everywhere.

Uncategorised

What is Innovation?

23rd February 2012 Jim Muttram Leave a comment

What is innovation? The Oxford English Dictionarydefines it, somewhat unhelpfully, as: “the action or process of innovating”; but, then elaborates: “a new method, idea, product, etc.” It then goes on to note: “innovation is crucial to the continuing success of any organization.”

As innovation is so important, I thought I would unpack the idea a bit. Many people think that “true” innovation is the invention of genuinely novel things which have never before been seen in the world. However, this is a very high bar at which virtually everyone would fail. Humans have been around for over 200,000 years and there are billions of us, so most things, one way or another, have been thought of before. In my view, this strict definition isn’t particularly helpful.

I think a more useful definition is something like this: “The recognition and implementation of an idea or combination of ideas which brings a unique utility not before seen or used which adds value by fulfilling a consumer need.”

I spent Christmas 2011 reading Steve Job’s biography by Walter Isaacson. I have always thought of Steve Jobs as intrinsically innovative; but, what was special about him was not that he came up with entirely new ideas – the graphical user interface on the Macintosh, for example, had been invented by Xerox Parc and there had been many MP3 players before the iPod – but, that he came up with unique combinations; which, taken together, added real, never-before-seen value to the consumer.

Take the iPod: As a music player, it was certainly very elegantly designed; but, its capacity was well below the best that was available–at the same price–on the market at the time. What Apple did was combine the player with the web (in the form of iTunes) in such a way as the combination was unique. Suddenly, tasks that were really difficult, or close to impossible to do on the player, could be done on the Mac, thus freeing the player to do what it did best: play music. And, by deconstructing the album into songs–and miraculously persuading the music industry to play ball–it created a huge new market for legal downloads. The rest, as they say, is history.

Or take the iPhone: There were smartphones before the iPhone; but, they weren’t very smart. The iPhone’s unique advantage, apart from the legendary great design, was the App Store. Suddenly, the phone could become whatever you wanted it to be; thus, the real revolution in smartphones that we are living through today was born.

Google provides another good example: Google’s revolutionary idea, apart from its blisteringly good search, was AdWords. But, Google didn’t invent key word advertising; that honour went to Idealab that spun-out GoTo.com which was later renamed Overture and was then bought by Yahoo!. However, it was Google who hit the jackpot with search advertising, and it did so by reinventing the model. Overture had ordered ads by whoever bid the most that quite often resulted in the top advertisement not being the most appropriate. It was simply the one with the deepest pockets.

Google changed the rules. It ordered results partly by the bidding and partly by the success of the ad which was measured by how many people clicked on it and on the quality of the ultimate landing page. And, it also limited the power of those with the deepest pockets by charging only one cent above the amount of the second highest bidder. These innovations revolutionised the medium.

So my argument is innovation comes from the real innovators who can be—and often are–those that take ideas already out there and reinvent and recombine them in ways which create real utility for the user. As Steve Jobs said, paraphrasing Picasso*: “Good artists copy; great artists steal.”

In the innovation process at RBI Data Solutions, we always try to think as broadly as we can about customer problems. Of course, we would love to invent some genuinely and completely novel services that the world has never seen; but, we are just as happy if we construct combinations of already-existing components, provided we produce an elegant solution in the end. We are not yet as good as Steve Jobs at this process, but we are working on it.

First published on the internal Reed Elsevier Innovation website, February 2012

Uncategorised

Community vs functionality…and the winner is…

19th February 2012 Jim Muttram Leave a comment

Community trumps functionality every time. I’ve just finished reading Steven Levy’s book In the Plex which is a brilliant portrait of the rise of Google. It is staggering just how much change that one company has wrought in the world. But the book ends with Google facing the fact that the new “Google” is Facebook – young, iconoclastic and, crucially, in tune with social instincts.

One in every seven minutes online are spent on Facebook, a phenomenon which has convinced Google, belatedly, that it needs to be in this race – hence Google +.

The fact that community trumps functionality every time was brought home to me last Christmas. All three of my (nearly grown up) children wanted new mobile phones. The two boys were set on a new Android phone – the Samsung Galaxy S2 (actually they wanted the S3 but it isn’t out yet) – but my daughter was adamant that she wanted a Blackberry.

This was painful to me as I have been a long-time Blackberry user who gave up when the iPhone demonstrated what a smartphone should really be like. I tried to talk her into getting another smart phone – an Android or even and iPhone – but she wasn’t having it. So I bought what they each wanted.

On Christmas day the boys were delighted with their S2s – and I have to say they were impressive devices – large, clear screens and masses of power and functionality.

But my daughter was ecstatic with her Blackberry Bold. It wasn’t as expensive as the boys’ phones (and in my view it certainly wasn’t as good) but she loved it. And the reason? Blackberry’s messenger app BBM. This is the killer app for her and her circle. Everyone, it seems, uses it and the volume of messages she now sends and receives has gone through the roof. I’m not sure this is entirely a good thing, but it has certainly proved a point to me.

Uncategorized

Development Principles

20th December 2011 Jim Muttram Leave a comment

At a recent offsite meeting with Bankers Almanac and Accuity, as I was listening to all the suggestions about developments we could make, I started to make a list of principles that I thought we ought to use to guide our technology plans. As it happens, the list came to 10, but I’m sure there could have been more. And the list is in no particular order of importance, just things that occurred to me when they cropped up. See if you agree with my choices:

Retire legacy/shadow systems and simplify as we go along (clean up after ourselves)
Automate wherever possible – and to whatever extent possible
Separate data from the products they go into – don’t define data as products
Build to a service based architecture
Hold everything in XML – even it we also hold, for instance, number series elsewhere as well. It is the best medium for an information business.
Everything should be able to be cut by its major attributes – especially geography
Design everything so that analytics can be derived easily. Data about data can be even more valuable than just data
Make everything internet based
Buy don’t build wherever possible
Build in performance and scaleability from the outset

That’s my list – I’m sure there are other views and I’d be interested to hear them.

Uncategorised

China’s new management style

1st December 2011 Jim Muttram Leave a comment

For several years now – ever since, in fact, I became involved with a Chinese company – I have been fascinated by the difference in outlook and business approach of Chinese businessmen.

Recently, I had something of a “Paul on the road to Damascas” moment when I read a new book by the Frenchman heading up management consultant Roland Berger’s Chinese business, Charles-Edouard Bouee.

Called China’s Management Revolution – Spirit, Land and Energy, the books’ central thesis is that China is developing its own unique management style blending the best of its very long cultural past and modern (American) management theories.

The key difference between the West and China when it comes to management theory, argues Bouee, is that Chinese managers emphasise vision and tactics – not strategy. There are sound cultural reasons for this which I won’t go into here, but if you want to read more, I heartily recommend the book, particularly to those who deal with Chinese management on a regular basis.

But to shine some light on the essence of this management style I will set down what Bouee says are its nine major characteristics.

Dynamism

The environment in China is ever-changing, partly because of rapid economic growth and partly because of the one-party system which can result in dramatic change. As a consequence Chinese management style emphasises tactics over strategy – more surfer riding the wave, than military strategist.

Adapted

Tuning is everything – the key is to be ready for opportunity when it emerges. Partly this comes from the Daoist view that we are helpless in the face of a powerful universe and at the mercy of luck – although if we catch it early enough, we can influence outcomes.

Flexible

Vision and tactics are much more important than strategy. If you have no clear plan you have no “face” to lose if you change direction. Chinese are always ready to take short-cuts.

Synthetic

There is no “not invented here” in China – Chinese managers are pragmatists who will take what works and assimilate it. As Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese premier who started the Chinese economic miracle, said if a cat can catch mice, its colour and provenance are immaterial.

Mutual

There is a strong sense that both the company and the individual should benefit from their collective experience. The concept of reciprocal obligations is strong, and there is a great importance put on intangible outcomes, such as trust, good relationships and loyalty. Bouee says three things are important to employees: Legacy – being part of something lasting; Learning – self-fulfilment and reaching one’s potentia; and Life/Love – a sense of family and a caring environment.

Consensual

The boss is a very important figure in Chinese firms taking the role of “emperor”. But the position comes with obligations. There are top-down decisions which employees expect but only after exhaustive discussions with trusted advisors. (Bouee says the Central Communist Party operates in exactly this way through controlled leaks and internal brain-storming sessions). This need for consensus is why communication is especially important in a Chinese company and, incidentally, why, he says, Microsoft Word is favoured over PowerPoint as the former is a discussion while the latter is a conclusion.

Spiritual

While religion is not strong in China, the rich and very long history of Daoist and Confusion philosophy has resulted in spirituality being very much a part of life. Chinese companies often couch their vision is value-laden metaphors and references from myths and legends.

Disciplined

Chinese companies value discipline and betraying the boss is a sacking offence. Training is emphasised and performance reviews, though less process-oriented than in the West, can be frequently – maybe even monthly. Bouee says Chinese companies can appear quite disorganised at the same time, but don’t be fooled.

Natural

This management style, argues Bouee, is emerging naturally from the Chinese environment. Despite the strong influence of American management thinking which flooded into China as a result of Deng’s reforms, the natural style of the Chinese is reasserting itself. It is organics – grown from Chinese cultural roots.

In summary, this is a great book if you are looking to understand what is going on it Chinese companies – at least it contained many “ah-ah” moments for me.

Uncategorised

Thoughts on identity

3rd November 2011 Jim Muttram Leave a comment

One of these days I will get to actually go to Web 2.0, the famous internet conference in San Francisco founded by Tim O’Reilly who originally coined the term “web 2.0”. Each year I promise myself I will go and each year things come up and somehow it never works out.

However, luckily they are far-sighted enough to post the presentations online so at least I can get a virtual update on the latest thinking.

I haven’t yet even had time to do even this, but one presentation I have seen – and which I think is very significant – is by Christopher Poole aka “moot”. Christopher was the founder of 4chan and of new startup Canvas. He speaks very persuasively about the need for multiple identities online and criticises the push by Facebook and Google + to insist that we only have one facet to our personalities. I heartily recommend a quick look.

Uncategorised

Media in the open

25th September 2011 Jim Muttram Leave a comment

This is the weatherman for ESPN Chicago doing his stuff in a studio in a shop front on Michigan Avenue. It gives new meaning to the term “transparent media”.

Uncategorised

Brand perils in the advertising economy

23rd September 2011 Jim Muttram Leave a comment

This is a screenshot of the Wall Street Journal daily email that I received this morning.
Clearly someone, somewhere in the venerable WSJ thought it was a great idea to carry some network adverting on the mail shot – after all, why not? Money for old rope.
Problem is that it is old rope that these ads are promoting – actually worse than that. The top ad for weeks had been “6 -Year-Old Mom looks 27” which claims to promote a miracle cure for wrinkles, and the next is selling online masters degrees. Just the sorts of things one would expect the WSJ to be endorsing!