13/1/17: AID:Tech in Global Top 10 at IBM SmartCamp 2016

Another brilliant win for the AID:Tech https://aid.technology/ team placing into Global Top 10 Startups for IBM SmartCamp http://smartcamp2016.com/.

4/10/15: IBM: Some Tough Numbers on Higher Education Success

IBM Institute for Business Value Higher Education Survey 2015 with results published in June 2015 has been quite an interesting read. The report “Pursuit of relevance How higher education remains viable in today’s dynamic world” is available here.

Take the following Question: “To what extent do you believe the current higher education system in your country is meeting the needs of the following groups?”

Chart below plots percentages of respondents by group across three core categories of ‘customers’: students, employers and society at large.

One thing that jumps out is that corporate recruiters are relatively more positive than education providers (excluding university staff) when it comes to assessing the education system performance.

Another conclusion that jumps out is that with exception of one sub-group in one category, overall assessment of education systems is pretty grim - no >50% support for the proposition that education system meets the needs of either students, employers or society.

Third conclusion is that, on average, higher education systems serve better the needs of students, followed by society, than industry.

More damning, “Survey results also point to higher education shortfalls in other areas. In terms of economic value, only 51 percent of industry and academic leaders believe higher education is providing value for money, and just 49 percent view it as contributing to economic growth and competitiveness.”

There is also a very interesting gap across respondents categories in terms of what is perceived to be the most important metrics of success of modern education system. Chart below illustrates:

As can be glimpsed from above, educators are literally falling over themselves in pursuit of jobs placements. While corporate recruiters and learning executives are less warm about this objective.

Very interesting findings, some counter-intuitive, some potentially arising from the sample selection biases (after all,  we don't have much to go by in terms of actual corporate leaders, and data reported is limited, as for example the chart above clearly shows). Nonetheless, the questions raised are of great importance.

19/9/15: IBM's Global Location Trends Report

Recently released "Global Location Trends: 2015 Annual Report" by IBM should be a pleasant read for Irish policymakers. The report "outlines the latest trends in corporate location selection — where companies are locating and expanding their businesses and creating jobs around the world."

And Ireland features positively and prominently, albeit with a caveat (below).

Take, for example, jobs creation by FDI-backed firms: per report, "Ireland and Singapore remain the strongest per-capita performers among the more mature (and, therefore, higher-cost) economies"

Notice that Ireland's rank has slipped slightly in 2014 compared to 2013.

Another category where we perform really strongly is average job value:

Per report: "For the fourth year in a row, Ireland is the top ranking country in the world on this measure. It continues to attract investment projects in industries characterized by high knowledge intensity and economic value added, such as life sciences and information and communication technology (ICT). The global top 10 ranking consists primarily of mature economies with a mix of investments similar to Ireland’s".

These are pretty impressive numbers, except for one major caveat: none of the report data was adjusted for corporate inversions. So when a U.S. company moves offshore to, say, Ireland (as many did and continue to do), via a tax-optimising inversion, the results appear to be an addition to Ireland's stock of FDI and Ireland's jobs creation, whilst in reality, both are superficial at best, and beggar-thy-neighbour at worst.

Perhaps surprisingly, despite being the main focal point of FDI inflows in the Republic, Dublin did not fare too well in the urban rankings, coming in at joint 12th position in 2014 ranking, down 5 places from the 7th rank in 2013.

Overall, the positive tone of the report is more than warranted in Ireland's case.

Nonetheless, the problem of aggressive tax optimisation and sharp practices by a number of MNCs invested in Ireland should be reflected and discussed in the global rankings.

This is especially important, given the report claims to reflect quality of FDI and jobs created. Ireland attracts massive inflows of tax optimising FDI in the areas of ICT services, pharma, biotech and medical devices, with aggressive on-shoring of Intellectual Property, and dire lack of actual research jobs being created. Instead of actual research, jobs in sales and back office activities, as well as residual (lower value) research are being registered as being registered as 'Professional' or 'Scientific' and the value added by these jobs creation is often, de facto, fully reflective of tax optimisation schemes.

The report authors might want to consult some facts listed here.

23/1/2014: Insatiable Innovation - IBM's View on End-of-Growth Hypothesis

For some months now I've been meaning to post on the topic of the IBM's recent report on global development in Innovation markets, titled "Insatiable Innovation: From sporadic to systemic".

The paper is a sizeable response to the popular theory gaining ground that the world is past innovation capacity peak. I covered this topic on this blog (see for example http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2012/08/2882012-challenging-constant-growth.html).

IBM folks, obviously disagree: "Is innovation dead? Numerous press reports seem to indicate so. A view is emerging that innovation is no longer the driver of growth it once was, as evidenced by a January 2013 cover article in The Economist. Pundits point to declining growth in global productivity as further proof that “The Big Idea” is a thing of the past (e.g., global per capita GDP 10-year CAGR, which topped 4 percent in the 1950s, fell to nearly 0.5 percent by 20102)."

A note of caution is worth putting forward here, IBM authors do not do literature analysis. This makes their paper weaker. They could have benefited from directly challenging the evidence and analysis presented in the likes of Gordon's work on the topic, rather than dismissively waving arms at it.

But what IBM authors do do is solid review of their own experience coming from the real economy and own IBV studies:

"Our view, based on analysis of past IBM Global CEO studies, as well as practical, hands-on experience, is that innovation is far from dead. It is, instead, thriving among those outperforming companies that apply product, operational and business model innovation to truly differentiate themselves from their competition. The ability to generate, control and exploit innovation can become a major source of strategic advantage and economic benefit, as demonstrated by the growth in value of those companies deemed “most innovative"."

This is not the evidence that can undermine the core thesis put forward by Gordon, but rather an argument that incremental innovation is alive and well.

Interestingly, the evidence presented by the paper seems to reflect well on the thesis of slowdown in revolutionary innovation and the diminishing returns to innovation. At the top level, here's what IBM are saying: "Innovation has been constantly evolving in its complexity and impact. Beginning with the industrial revolution in the Nineteenth Century and continuing through one technological milestone after another, economic activity has become more global, opening up new markets, new businesses and new business models (see Figure below). These models have evolved to the extent that, in today’s age of “universal customization,” customers are empowered to affect product attributes in real-time, with products and services becoming hypercustomized to meet the needs of individual customers."

Wait, but this is exactly what the thesis of diminishing returns to innovation is about. As returns are reduced, complexity (and associated costs) rise. The chart above, perhaps inadvertently, but nonetheless correctly, shows that acceleration in economic returns to technology from the current plateau can only happen if/when we move to Universal Customisation. This is fine, except we are not yet there. Thus IBM top-level view that innovation is about to raise the gear of productivity growth is reliant on assuming that what we envision already occurred. It has not. Hypercustomised has not yet met any of the needs of individual consumers and we have no idea when it will do so.


"Growing complexity has intensified competition, providing an ever-greater impetus for:

• Product innovation that has broadened the competitive playing field. Products today increasingly face non-traditional competitors.
• Operations innovation that has generated efficiencies and decreased cost for organizations and customers. Many organizations, for instance, now source production from specialists.
• Business model innovation that motivates creation of sophisticated ecosystems of products, services and experiences. Emerging technologies are fundamentally changing business and scale economics."

Let me discuss couple of points, not subtracting from the graph, but rather adding to the picture of complexity in innovation it attempts to capture.

While at the first stage of Mass Industrialization, production lines started to replace farmers and artisans and new industries fueled economic growth, in more individualised world, empowered by what IBM terms "Mass (robotic)automation", Miniaturization and subsequently Universal Customization do not only lead to the increased functionality within a reduced size, improved speeds and performance and computerisation, but also to re-introduction of atomistic / artisan producers back into demand chain.

The reasons for this are two-fold:

1. With advanced production technologies, execution of production becomes secondary to innovation and design. Speed to market becomes key differentiator of successful innovations from failed. Here, larger systems, including corporate systems, can be and will be successfully challenged by smaller producers;
2. As demand becomes more individualised and more atomistic, satisfying this demand will involve more atomistic products and designs. Here, artisans can deliver significant value added to the market.

Universal Customisation, thus, is a stage where artisans, atomistic designers, consumers-producers evolve to regain markets from corporate, vertical structures of command and control.

Which means that the only way the system does not dissolve into entropy is by assuring that Global Connectedness stage delivers seamless access to the markets. In other words, Global Connectedness will require not only revolution of data flows (Internet), but revolution in logistics.

Or put differently, unless there are some yet-to-be-mapped breakthroughs in a number of areas, the age of Big Innovation is eclipsing. Gordon's thesis still stands...

16/11/2013: WLASze: Weekend Links on Arts, Sciences & zero economics

This is WLASze: Weekend Links on Arts, Sciences and zero economics. Enjoy!


In recent WLASze (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/11/2112013-wlasze-weekend-links-on-arts.html), I wrote about the IBM's Watson super computer pushing out the limits of AI by getting into the areas of 'computational creativity' - not quite human creativity, but still… Here's an MIT Technology Review take on the same http://www.technologyreview.com/view/521596/the-secret-ingredient-in-computational-creativity/

Ages ago I used to do some work trying to figure out what exactly Waston's capabilities can be used for (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2011/02/13022011-what-jeopardy-champ-can-do-in.html). As I found out, the bounds to computation are that computation is bounded - in other words, computational systems are still based on continued iterations of pre-set space of data. Computers lack the power of creation no matter how much power of combination is granted to them.

Thus, culinary exploits of a computer are fun and good, bye more important question, however, remains the same as before: what is creativity in the first place… The real breakthrough for the AI will arrive when computers start asking that, rather than answer reducible problems of matching traits to combinations of various substances.


Now, let me see… here's an example. "Legacy Machine N°1 was conceived when Maximilian Büsser started fantasising: "What would have happened if I had been born in 1867 instead of 1967? In the early 1900s the first wristwatches appear and I would want to create three-dimensional machines for the wrist, but there are no Grendizers, Star Wars or fighter jets for my inspiration. But I do have pocket watches, the Eiffel Tower and Jules Verne, so what might my 1911 machine look like? It has to be round and it has to be three-dimensional: Legacy Machine N°1 was my answer."" Take a look
http://www.mbandf.com/machines/legacy-machines/lm1/#/about

Of course, you might say that there is reductionism going on here: the author took specific time periods hallmarks and reduced them to physical design semiotics, to graphic and industrial markers. The issue, however, is that both the inputs and outputs were qualitative, not quantifiable, in their very nature. And as a result, translation from inputs to outputs required much more than an algorithmic search-and-match, but an aesthetic narrative, leap of faith, belief, discontinuity.


Non-reducibility of art follows across both the creative dimension and descriptive compositions. Example: John Pawson's minimal St Moritz Church photographed during a choir rehearsal:
http://www.dezeen.com/2013/11/15/st-moritz-church-john-pawson-photography-hufton-crow/

The point of this is that with true art, one does not really know where the creation ends or begins. One can have reference points or interpretative meanings assigned to work, but one cannot have re-traceable deterministic path from a work of art back to the points of data origination that inform that work. In the case of AI - one can and indeed the record of the pathway exists.


In mathematics, this goes to the heart of the nature of countability, infinity and infinite sets. Mathematics distinguishes different degrees of infinity - something unique to the subject. Artists inhabit the world that allows for them. Computers, however, are able to function only in the world with countably infinite systems in them. Here's a quick and dirty article on the difference in sizes of various infinite sets: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes and more entertaining version: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128231.400-ultimate-logic-to-infinity-and-beyond.html#.UoeJ3JRHBF8

Let me add that if you extend the above argument to include power sets, then the set of possible infinities becomes infinite itself and the size of possible infinities becomes infinite.


Amazing beauty of juxtaposition: content vs context in Max Sher's photographs. See series Amerika:

Russian Palimpsest:

Your spring will never end:

I Will Drink To Your Decline:

See more at http://maxsher.com/work


How fast does the Earth rotate? Geeky answer to a child-like innocence of the question: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970401c.html but someone, please tell NASA that designing a website can be… oh… so exciting… (as opposed to simply plugging text into a tabulated space presented like some sort of a proto-socialist elections leaflet asking you to support your only candidate choice from your only political party…


And just to keep track of the past propaganda the WLASze unleashed on you, here's a WSJ article on the Detroit revivalist design shop Shinola:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303618904579169660144850526
I love these guys and has covered them in WLASze: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/11/10122013-wlasze-weekend-links-on-arts.html What an awesome merger of design, tradition, and sentimental wealth of Detroit…


And another self-referential note. Readers of the WLASze know I have been critical of Banksy's foray into NYC with 'artist in residence' concept. I love, this, however: http://www.foodrepublic.com/2013/10/11/banksys-latest-nyc-art-installation-takes-aim-slau?utm_source=outbrain.com&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=CPC What an awesomely invasive push through the urban mindscape.

It's "Sirens of the Lambs"… pitch-perfect…

The latest in pre-apocalyptic disaster-state living schematise is upon us, courtesy of a student's warped (vino? or "…two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get locked into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can," as Hunter S. Thompson defined a perfect condition for tripping out of space) imagination and via Woldless Tech (the place where Big=Great and Invasive=Sensitive): http://wordlesstech.com/2013/11/07/amazing-eco-friendly-walking-metropolis/
"An amazing eco-friendly walking metropolis" that is actually non-amazing (beyond the scale) not eco-friendly non-metropolis:

But, to be fair to the WorldlessTech, they have some actual pearls: http://wordlesstech.com/2013/10/30/famous-logos-communist-regimes/. The humour is spot on most of the time…

This alone is worth coming back to the site…


And for the last bit… an absolutely stunning project via Bot & Dolly here: http://www.botndolly.com/box
A live performance exploring "the synthesis of real and digital space through projection-mapping onto moving surfaces". WATCH IT! From the Box to Levitation to Intersection to Teleportation to Escape…

Enjoy!

17/10/2013: Customer-Activated Enterprise: External & Internal Influencers

In the previous post I covered a few quick ideas that stemmed from the recently published IBM's Institute for Business Value CxO-level study: "The Customer-activated Enterprise: Insights from the Global C-suite Study" (available here: http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/gbe03572usen/GBE03572USEN.PDF).

As I noted - this is an absolutely 'a must' read for anyone interested in the future directions for interactions between customer-driven value added activities and enterprise structures and strategies. It subtly, quietly punches beyond the 'ritualistic' tech-saves-us-all hype and into the deeper thinking inhabiting today's C-level offices. This is good. Very good. Less brand futurism, more future-focused pragmatism.

So another fascinating insight (my judgement, of course, as are the comments presented here).

Based on this guide: Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), Chief Finance Officers (CFOs), Chief Human Resources Officers (CHROs), Chief Information Officers (CIOs), Chief Marketing Officers (CMOs), Chief Supply Chain Officers (CSCOs), let's re-weight by removing 'own' functions of the CxOs:

1) Technology Factors (ex-CIOs) score 11 points
2) Market Factors (ex-CMOs) score 8 points
3) Macro-economic Factors (ex-CFOs) score 19 points
4) People Skills (ex-CHRO) score 26 points
5) Regulatory Concerns (ex-CSCOs) score 20 points
6) Socio-economic Factors (ex-CMOs) score 35 points
7) Globalisation (ex-CEOs) score 37 points
8) Environmental Issues (ex-CMOs) score 36 points
9) Geopolitical Factors (ex-CEOs) score 41 points.

So re-weighted prioritisation is:
Top tier priorities:
Top 1: Market Factors (ex-CMOs) score 8 points - Second Priority for CEOs
Top 2: Technology Factors (ex-CIOs) score 11 points - First Priority for CEOs
Top 3: Macro-economic Factors (ex-CFOs) score 19 points - Third Priority for CEOs
Second tier priorities:
Top 4: Regulatory Concerns (ex-CSCOs) score 20 points - Fifth Priority for CEOs
Top 5: People Skills (ex-CHRO) score 26 points - Fourth Priority for CEOs

The CEO position (2013) overlap is provided directly from the chart below:

Note that the CEOs priorities are not that distant from the priorities of the overall CxO suite priorities once we remove actual direct stakeholders in each priority area.

Also note that top 5 priorities today (as outlined in top 2 tiers above) are consistent themes from at least 2006 survey on. This is aligned, in my view, with the shifting nature of strategic transformation drivers and the input of external sources into strategic influence formation at the C-level:

Notice that C-suite influence is proximate in importance to Customers input and Board input. In the future, with partnerships and networks of value-added expected to both expand and deepen, including growth in customer-partnership models, this is likely to change. We can expect more heterogeneity in perceived influencing factors across the C-suite and the rise of key external business partners and non-executive senior leadership roles in contributing to strategic influence formation. I suspect the C-level and Board inputs will be downgraded.

Something to watch… but here's a suggestive sub-trend:

Can you open up the structures without bringing up the roles of key partners and internal non-execs? I don't think so...

17/10/2013: Customer-Activated Enterprise Research: Partnerships & Value-Added

I recently wrote about the upcoming publication of the IBM's Institute for Business Value CxO-level study: "The Customer-activated Enterprise: Insights from the Global C-suite Study" - the link to the original post is here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/09/592013-ibm-64-of-global-cmos-want-to.html

Now the study is out and available here: http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/gbe03572usen/GBE03572USEN.PDF

Some interesting insights from it will be forthcoming over the next few days as I slowly digest the paper (slowly - due to time constraints and not due to the nature of this superb piece of research).

First instalment a chart plotting CxOs' view of major changes in the business landscape in the next three to five years.

Note the emphasis on (opinions and views are my own - on foot of my interpretation of the data presented):
1) Bigger partner network is seen as a crucial trend changer by 73% of CxO executives - which is inherently driving the strategic focus of the enterprise development toward more diversified base of partnerships and networks.
2) Social and digital interactions are displacing face-to-face interactions and this implies that social and digital platforms will have to become also key tools for development and deployment of partnerships. End result of this (1) and (2) nexus is that business models will have to expand horizontally and beyond traditional nodes of corporate management and control. Risk will rise, uncertainty will rise both in scope and complexity.
3) This is supported by the shift in the partnerships nature: from lower emphasis on efficiency-driven partnerships toward more value-adding partnerships. In other words, not sub-contracting to specific tasks, but expansion of R&D, strategy and value-adding chains beyond the bounds of the traditional enterprise. This is very exciting, but adds even more complexity and uncertainty as well as more disruption to traditional (vertical or hierarchical) enterprise structures.
4) Focus on customer as individuals focus shift suggests that the era of Big Data will be moving toward the era of Small Data - greater granularity to follow with greater customisation. These can only be delivered via fluid, dynamic, non-contractual partnerships arrangements. Networks, not managerialism.
5) Not surprisingly, operational control weakens, organisational openness rises.

Much of the same that I have been talking about at TEDx Dublin and more recently at Alltech's Presidents Club meeting. You can also see my ideas on MNCs-led partnerships by searching this blog.

5/9/2013: IBM: 64% of global CMOs want to approach customers as individuals

Since 2009, IBM Institute for Business Value has been surveying C-level executives around the world to  assess the development of digital economy.

Recently, IBM released some headline numbers for the forthcoming (October) survey for 2013:

• 64% of CMOs want to approach customers as individuals
• 71% of CIOs see communication moving towards more social/digital collaboration
• Majority (55%) of CHROs foresee increasing organisational openness
• Just 34% of organisations have an in-depth understanding of their customers
• But 78% expect their organisations to have an in-depth understanding of their customers by 2017
• Only 1 in 5 organisations has the capacity to use Big Data with just 40% intergating internal and external data sources, just 18% using Big Data to identify new products and services
• 77% of all CFOs support products and services innovation

Handy info graphic (you can click on it to enlarge):

21/6/2013: Weekend Reading Links: Part 1

The first post of my regular weekly feature of the Weekend Reading Links On Arts, Sciences and Zero Economics:


Let's hit science bit (ok, rather technology) first: IBM's famed Watson is getting into a museum: http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/ibms-watson-jeopardy-computer-comes-to-chm/
I remember being at IBM when Watson played the Jeopardy rounds. It was amazing. I also recall working on Watson's capabilities and deployment in finance for deep risk pricing. As my memory tells me, the code for Watson's brilliance was written by a team from Ireland.


I know, I avoid dealing with economics here, so treat this as not a note about how art is a fantastic example of high value-added exports, but as a story about globalization of art's language and acquisition and exchange of knowledge: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Royal-Academy-in-talks-with-potential-Moscow-partner/29952


Art meets design: http://wordlesstech.com/2013/05/24/jaguar-inspired-artwork-unveiled/
I was supposed to speak about the economic dimensions of design (including industrial design) at http://birmingham-made-me.org/ this week, but had to withdraw for personal reasons. Really bummed!


An amazingly consistently thoughtful inversions of Jan Kriwol: http://wordlesstech.com/2013/05/14/unique-universe-by-innovative-polish/

A simple trick of inverting the focal point to create a juxtaposition between expectation and realization. Pure orthogonality works.


Is it art? Well, I am not sure. But it has meaning. It has its own language, its own semiotics, its own passions, beliefs etc. So is it art?
http://likes.com/misc/prison-tattoos-and-their-secret-meanings
I am not sure. But I do recall how much amazement I experienced when I first time looked at prison tattoos from the point of view of attempting to understand them. For years, seeing them on beaches around the USSR, I grew up on a steady diet of rejecting these expressions of personal lives as being vulgar, invalid, something to be permanently kept below my domain (all consisten positions of the Russian intelligentsia's conservativism in the face of both reality and modernity). And then, years later, there I was in a UCLA classroom of Professor Mascaro, reading about Russian prison tattoos and writing an essay on the link between liner logic and their compositions... Still remember that! And the strangely correlated across time and space St Pat's day when myself and Professor Mascaro were the only two people in a class, not wearing green... Many years fast forward, here I am in my Dublin kitchen posting about prison tattoos, remembering Professor Mascaro and wondering... is this art?..


A.A. Gill is a form of narrative that is art. And here he is with a thesis of America the Marvelous http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/07/america-with-love-aa-gill-excerpt?mbid=social_twitter
Worth a read, as always.


I wrote before about light art, Dan Flavin (here) in particular. Here's James Turrell - another master of the medium - and he is http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/on-view/james-turrell

Back in 1999 myself and MrsG had a joint entry at a group exhibition in Baltimore, using light as part of installation. The tile was Mutatis Mutandis, if I recall correctly, and it lived for about 5 minutes, subsequently knocking out lights in the entire multistory building in downtown Baltimore... the party went on... Turrell's work is striking enough to knock daylights out of your senses of space and dimension. If in NYC - a must see!

Guggenheim's show completes an unprecedented sequence of installations undertaken by Turrell that started with LA's LACMA, followed by Houston's MFA within a month and then onto NYC to Guggenheim - all across the impossible span of just 3 months. Impossible, because the entire installation of this retrospective requires rebuilding rooms, halls, spaces spanning 92,000 sq feet.

Here's an image from Houston:

Let me end this post on accidental art http://www.businessinsider.com/14-pictures-of-our-crowded-world-2013-6
The first image is fantastic. Absolutely, Gursky-like (link). As is number 9 and number 12 and 13. And number 7 is Missoni-like or better yet Morris Louis in gamma and linearity of the core movements. Yes, yes, Michael Wolf deals with density, especially in his Hong Kong series... that, perhaps, next week?

End of this post... stay tuned for the second part tomorrow and read...