Here's one for all those Game of Thrones fans. Gizmodo had an article (click here) which talked about the rise and fall of popularity of the various groups that readers can assign themselves to. There are about 214 of these noble houses, characters or groups in the series.
The popularity is shown here from prior to Episode 1 through the week 7-8 Break and also the week after the final episode. Basically it's a popularity contest. But definitely a fun one to plot.
Enjoy!
This first chart compares the 7 Noble Houses in the books against one another:
Also, here is a breakdown of all the 214 Groups, Characters or Noble Houses you can explore via the dropdown:
To get your own data and create charts like this in seconds, check out www.superdatahub.com
This is pretty amazing. It's real-time lightning strikes all over the globe. The website Blitzortung has been created by a community of people around the world using sensors to triangulate the occurences of lightning all across the globe. I suggest you check it out with your volume on. The 'clicks' you hear are all the lightning strikes occurring and with a latency of 3-6 seconds it's pretty impressive.
I've seen documentaries with images of the earth from space that show the occurrences of lightning and it is quite mesmerising. To get this kind of information normally is a paid service but the group of volunteers part of the Blitzortung community have pulled together to do something quite unique too. Whilst it does rely on sensors actually being available the capabilities of these are pretty powerful.
More importantly they keep data on these lightning strikes and this can prove useful in certain applications.
This blog analyses 'The Capitalist's Dilemma' by Clayton M. Christensen and Derek van Bever from the June 2014 edition of the Harvard Business Review. It examines the disappointing way in which investment in innovation has failed to take off in the U.S. This is not to say that there is no innovation at all but the potential for it to be culturally pervasive across a wider spectrum is still there and there are a number of reasons why it hasn't happened.
Assessing risk
Traditionally, managers have been afraid to change because they see change as a risky investment. This will always be the case as long as assessing risk is performed in the same way. The problem is that we traditionally look at risk from an insurers mindset which assumes risks are only "high" or "low". Instead they should be looked at as either "good" or "bad". Even in business, the do nothing approach has an associated risk with it so managers may as well embrace risk and be in control.
Innovation types
Assuming that risk is acceptable, there are a number of ways that innovation can be fostered. These are Performance, Efficiency and Market Creating.
Performance innovation looks at substituting poor performing or older products for new ones. Efficiency innovation is all about creating a new business model to sell old products that lead to increased productivity or reducing jobs to free up capital. Finally, Market creating innovation transforms the product or organisations to create new marketplaces or new types of customers (Apple and iPhones for example).
The last of these is quite an significant one and revolves around 2 key features.
Enabling technology that drives down costs as volume grows
It is a new business model allowing the innovator to reach people who weren't customers because they couldn't afford a type of the original product - eg affordable cars or affordable computers
Companies that do this tend to need more staff leading to employment growth
The need to combine innovations in other markets brings about a culture that fosters partnership growth also leading to better outcomes for organisations and employees
There is a basic equation postulated here that goes like this:
Technology that drives down costs
+
Ambition to eradicate non consumption
=
A revolutionary effect
Products that no one has thought of before have the potential to change the marketplace.
Can we be too efficient?
In short, yes. The Efficiency innovation is a good example. For the most part, it's focus is traditionally on eliminating jobs rather than generating them. It is mainly because it is based on the assumption that corporate performance should be based on the efficient use of capital.
This leads to an unwillingness to spend because it sees debt as a problem. The saying that you've got to spend money to make money rings true. Companies like Coca Cola Amatil run up large amounts of debt. The debt part should not be the problem that organisations focus solely on solving. The creation of revenue and wealth should be given equal if not higher importance. There is no debt problem if you make enough money.
So where did this focus come from? Historically it's come from the idea that capital is scarce and costly. This means the best thing to do is to maximise the amount of profit per capital and various ratios that measure this. The problem with these ratios of x/y is that emphasis is put on controlling the denominator a lot more than increasing the numerator.
Despite estimates from Bain & Co that capital is in abundance, there is still hesitation from organisations to be attracted to market creation innovations because they put capital costs on the balance sheet. Efficiency innovations look to take costs off the Income statement and can be seen as a more positive thing with most innovation strategies bearing fruit after years 5-10.
Organisations should not just look at serving the needs of current customers but also the potential needs of their future customers. Companies that can see this and be first to market will be more prosperous than others.
Would you like fries with that spreadsheet?
In this article, Christensen and van Beever see spreadsheets as the fast food of strategic decision making. Just like fast food, spreadsheets have the potential to create an unhealthy society by creating an over-reliance on tasty things.
The tasty bites from spreadsheet come in the form of metrics. When these were first created, analysts were able to gain power and leverage in businesses because they could tell CEO's all about their company leading to the 'orthodoxies of new finance'. From metrics, analysts and traders could short-sell company stocks and eventually control the markets these companies compete in.
The tyranny of metrics has the potential to focus on them too earnestly that it withers away ambition. There is a need to be careful not to outsource managerial judgement because there is always the unknown factor in any strategic decision. The key to all of this is to never start an investment conversation with a spreadsheet. Keep the idea alive and fan the flames a bit more. There is a definite need for metrics but at the right time and the right place.
Thesis pieces
Christensen and van Bever postulate that reform is needed in order to change the landscape and offer up 3 forms of this.
The need to assess investments in new ways. Simply put the metrics used in the past such as return on net assets or earnings per share, have led to investments that squeeze costs and non cash assets. This means that investment to create jobs and growth falls behind efficiency innovations and doing nothing.
Capital needs to be spent not hoarded for a rainy day. Growth only comes out of outlays of capital and successful companies have proven it is fine to spend in order to improve. We see this in the market place often where companies spend time on a product refresh that sees them come back stronger than before, think Samsung for example.
Need to look at new ways to manage scarce and costly resources. Time is quite an unheralded resource however if it is prioritized then investments that make the most of a persons time can lead to thought-provoking innovations. For example, if Time is factor that needs to be enhanced then companies can look to innovate via automation or outsourcing of non-essential activities.
Conclusion
The article raises some thought provoking questions and leads to lessons that are applicable here in Australia for government innovation and policy making especially as it relates to ICT strategy at both Federal and State levels. Despite the overall negative perception of the budget by the Australian public, for some government agencies the outcomes look potentially bright whilst others remain cautious. A key theme repeated at various events has been the need for government agencies to focus on productivity especially in terms of how to get the most out of their budget. Some see that they are limited by lower staff resources and reduced budgets. Despite this, in order to survive and be relevant, it is important to spend on capital but to assess the risk and the type of new innovation they offer in a smarter way.
The main take away here is to not just accept things should be done in certain ways because that's how it has always been. Rather organisations need to be cautious of accepting traditional approaches to solving new age problems. Additionally, there is no solving of problems or creation and fostering of innovation without capital investment. It might not be the spark the lights the fire but it is indeed the fuel that keeps it going.
Nick Kelly, Research Fellow at the University of Southern Queensland wrote a great article in The Conversation recently.
It's about the potential of Australian schools following the P-Tech model for schools that is seen in New York.
The model basically sees a high school partly funded by the tech sector (in this case IBM) that is supposed to train kids in technology skills and make them more "job ready". The model has the original school plus a number of other partnerships and is placed in areas of lower socio-economic ranking. These kids get an associate degree in technology and even get to interview with IBM.
Now that all sounds good but there are a number of problems with this model. Firstly, if an organisation like IBM starts sponsoring schools then it is highly unlikely they will teach kids any other bits of knowledge outside of IBM or it's partner technologies. An IBM school teaching Linux? I highly doubt that. If something like this is accepted it leads to pushing people down a specific path (IBM or otherwise) instead of broadening their thinking.
Secondly, the fact that these type of schools concentrate on lower socio-economic areas is much like how the US Army recruiters would place themselves in similar towns where youth have little choices. I know it sounds like a stretch but it could well come true.
I have no problem with teaching kids about technology and bringing new types of courses to high schools however we need to be cautious in the content.
I spoke about the reform I see necessary if any is to be made in the education sector in a previous blog post (Click here). It is more than just a particular class or sponsor. It's about finding the individuals within a cohort or class and focusing on the individual to help discover their talents and their needs. Technology can help provide this type of service to students. It can also be used to teach students to ask questions of the data they are given.
A single sponsor from the tech sector is unlikely to be able to generate the open ended discussions necessary for teaching free thinking especially around technology conversations. What would be better would be if schools incorporate technology into their syllabus that it is designed to not just focus on one type of tech-offering but on many. The pros and cons of each should be discussed because it teaches the future generation to find the best answer to solve specific problems. Maybe then we can avoid the blanket solutions we see over and over in the public and private sector.
That's right. The above image is considered by many to be the greatest Infographic ever made and it's by Charles Joseph Minard. The guys over at one of my favourite YouTube channel's, Numberphile, have deconstructed the image to show just how clever it is in conveying it's message. It does this quite well actually.
You can view it on YouTube here.
Starting from the left it shows the original size of Napoleon's French army (brown line) as they move to invade Russia.
It shows the number of troops he began with and also maps the various locations they traversed as they chased the retreating Russian ranks.
This image is quite beautiful because of the different directions the line takes as it shows that columns of troops broke off from rank to rejoin Napoleon later.
It also shows the changing average temperature over time as the troops travelled further into the Russian winters.
Finally, the black line shows the eventual retreat of the French and the eventual size of their dwindling numbers arriving back home
There are 6 variables tracked here and quite a vivid image painted when you see the width of the bars that show the original versus the eventual army size.
There's quite the raging industry when it comes to Infographics and whether there is software that just creates these or artists and designers are used, the point to it all is that it should convey a clear message or story. The image itself is considered one of the first moments in the history of the analytics and it is mentioned in my article about the "THE EVOLUTION OF ANALYTICS - PART 1".
Next time you're creating a report or chart or even Infographic, take heed from the lessons you can take from Charles Joseph Minard's work and see if you too can tell a story.
So the tool I've been using to create these charts is called SuperDataHub. It can also be used to upload data from other areas such as sports. I found this interesting dataset of Major League Baseball data and ran a few charts here:
To get your own data and create charts like this in seconds, check out www.superdatahub.com
Another group of charts, this time on the topic of interstate migration patterns. The report here shows the arrival patterns across all the states. Clearly there was a spike in 2008, partially due to a spike in arrivals from overseas dispersing across the states. Additionally the East-coast states, NSW, Victoria and Queensland all continue to be the main leaders of these sea-changers.
To get your own data and create charts like this in seconds, check out www.superdatahub.com
So here's some more charts from SuperDataHub using data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. These are very easy to embed into websites and can be quite useful for whatever report or story you're trying to convey. Even the most mundane business reports can be brought to life and look more like a story if you use interactive graphics right?
First one is about full time employed persons over a period of time (year on year counted at December from 1989 till 2013). It is divided into each state for comparison and the drop down at the top allows for selection of period of hours worked - eg 0, 1-15, etc. For more information click on the 'i' button on the top right hand side of the chart:
This next one is about estimated resident populations in each state from 2001-2012
Finally, another fun one is looking at fertility assumptions over a period of time. The metadata information is important here which you can see from the 'i' information button. The ABS states that:
The population projections in this dataset are not intended as predictions or forecasts, but are illustrations of growth and change in the population that would occur if certain assumptions made about future demographic trends were to prevail over the projection period. While the assumptions are formulated on the basis of an assessment of past demographic trends, both in Australia and overseas, there is no certainty that any of the assumptions will be realised. In addition, no assessment has been made of possible future changes in non-demographic conditions. Data for 2012 are preliminary estimated resident population. Data for remaining years are projected populations. All populations are as at 30 June
I watched a very interesting video recently by the esteemed Emeritus Professor, Christopher Pollett of the Public Management Institute, Katholieke Unversiteit Leuven, Belgium. An extract of it is available here.
The full speech is shown on youtube here. (Full video below thanks to IPAA - Institute of Public Administration)
He talks extensively about public management reform and public services and has written several books.
In this speech at IPAA 2013 in Canberra he talks about the need for Dissolution, Revolution and Evolution in the public service.
What struck me as quite interesting were his comparisons on public sector reform and how all too often there have been many big ideas that are pushed through by politicians and interest groups in government that have either not fulfilled their full potential or failed altogether.
Dissolution, Revolution, Evolution
His speech highlights the ideas that have led to a Dissolution, Revolution and Evolution of the Public sector. Dissolution sees the recognition of the public sector as sub-optimal if not coupled with private sector. Public versus Privacy sector efficiency debates will see advocates on both sides of the coin however. Revolution sees citizens involved as active agents in reform not passive recipients. Finally Evolution is all about governance and that governments need to create a network of private sector, non-profits and citizen associations to manage the entire network and work together for better reform.
This idea that everyone plays a role is important because when many people are impacted by a solution they should all play a part in the discussion at least.
Pollett goes on to show that none of these ideas is particularly new and all have inherent problems. However they are based on solid premises that have some good about them and it is their good that should be taken up and pushed forward to be combined with the other ideas to create a more rounded basis for reform.
Current problems
Another area discussed was the theme of broad level, holistic ideas of reforms in government and how these blue-sky approaches were not very effective in addressing specific problems.
Bunched up in this are some generalized concepts to solve problems that turn out to be better at just shifting the way we look at the problem more than being productive ways to find solutions.
Furthermore, specific 'best-practice' methods of approaching solutions to a problem are in fact problematic and are based on widespread notions. In fact, customised solutions that address specific problems are more likely to be successful here than a blanket coverage approach to an overall problem.
Where does the knowledge lie
Combining knowledge is key here, academic, expert and recognised best practice and this is crucial when solving problems. He mentions the need for involving even citizen groups in these talks and when bringing all these types together, academics, governments, experts, citizen, the need is to make it possible to have them all talk to each other rather than at each other.
This is rarely the case however in real life and what could well help guide and manage the early stages of public reform instead are few and far between in actuality.
Diagnose the problem
A very important piece of the puzzle is diagnosis and Pollett suggests that the initial definition can be deceiving if we only look at the 'presenting problem'. This could be only a surface symptom or misleading stereotype and what is required is more in depth questioning and thorough diagnosis.
What is required?
What is needed then is a way to bring all of the important stakeholders together because not one of them is more important than the others and all are needed to diagnose the problems and come up with solutions. Importantly, the widespread knowledge amongst the group really does mean the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
Opinion
The presentation cuts to the very heart of public sector reforms of any nature and I look at from a technology perspective. Australia and the various government agencies that are engaged in providing better data services to the public are all too often restrained by technologies that are limited in helping solve the above issues. This is because they have various flaws that limit how easily stakeholders can come together. Perhaps why the groups here tend to talk at each other rather than to each other.
For example whilst the mandate is to share a large amount of data, an agency might be restricted with who they can share that data with because the technology precludes them from being able to sufficiently protect (confidentialise) the data. Furthermore, some technologies don't allow easy creation/validation of data to go to specific parties and the time-frames to build requested reports is long. The quicker data can go out to those who need it, the more useful it becomes.
If technology solutions were able to solve these problems it would pave the way toward making public sector reforms of sharing data with the public and researchers much more successful.
Imagine a platform that allows for large volumes of data to be shared with various users, researchers and the public for example, yet has the highest levels of government confidentiality attached. Also, imagine that this system was easy to use so that data custodians could fulfil many data requests easily or even automate this process. Imagine again that this solution exists already and is being used in government. To all three you would be correct and the agency in question is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For almost 3 decades now they've been working with Space-Time Research, a Melbourne software vendor, to provide solutions that do all this and more for the Australian public.
I'd like to see a model like this being used in other areas of government where joined up data is a vital part of reform. Advantages of this include creating a solution based on a proven platform that has delivered many benefits to researchers, statisticians, the Australian public and others.
The results could see portals that are specifically able to access unit record data for those accredited folks such as researchers and other portals that show similar but more protected information that gives enough insights to non-accredited requesters of data such as the general public.
Having this will increases the ability for conversations to take place about things like better health or transportation planning. Just like in Pollett's article it could well bring the academics, experts and public together to discuss the topics. Not only does it even the playing field between these stakeholders but it also helps ensure greater success for government projects, big and small.
What is also clear from Pollett's speech is that there are multiple approaches to solving problems and not a one size fits all solution. The shape of reforms to solve public sector problems should also govern that technologies underpinning the solution need also be agile, and adaptable to change to shape specific solutions. The best way this is done is from having a solid, easy to use, safely protected and fast platform that can be used as a base from which specific, pointed, customised solutions can be built to solve various problems. For example, the platform could be used to handle predictive analytics capabilities with a simple cloud analytics plug-in over the top for law enforcement or emergency management initiatives. It could be used to add various mapping technology to help with transport and urban planning initatives. It is all about the strength of the base platform that allows for more data and more safety that allows these specific problems to be solved by customised solutions.
If this advice is heeded then the future of public service reforms will be quite productive and effective. That is not to say that they are not doing this today, there are many more initiatives in the space of data sharing than there have ever been. What is missing is the overall effectiveness of these reforms to really bring people together. If there was some way that this could be helped by technology then I am all for pushing that agenda to the very highest echelons of government and decision makers. In a world where useful, meaningful and effective technology is used, people getting easy access to data that in quick and safe manner will be the norm. The preparation of the data will not be a burden to prepare and empowered users will serve themselves. As Pollett says, it is a type of guided integration that is necessary at the very start of public sector reforms and it is a rarity in both Europe and here in Australia. That could well change however.
Like Christopher Pollett said, what is needed is this Dissolution, Revolution, Evolution. What I'm saying is that the tools are here and they are more than ready to be used.
