NETWORKING? ERASING DYSTOPIAN CONSCIOUSNESS?

Some thoughts about networking and internet based on an analysis of Edward Bellamy's Utopia, “Looking Backward”, and Aldous Huxley's Dystopia” Brave New World”.

There’s always Dystopia if Utopia isn’t available; on a regular basis, in my humble opinion.

“We can now literally "look backwards" at the 20th Century and as we do so, the contrast between Bellamy's utopia and Huxley's dystopia is a useful one to simulate reflection on what went wrong. And, clearly, something very important did go wrong to confound the reasonable hopes of men and women. While they expected that moral and social progress would continue in parallel with technical progress, in reality every forward advance seems to have been accompanied by catastrophes that call into question the very survival of the human race.

In Brave New World, the radical overextension of rationalization makes human beings into objects of technique on much the same basis as raw materials or machines. This same view underlies much 20th Century thought, for example, pessimistic social theories such as Max Weber's and the various philosophies of technology influenced by Martin Heidegger.

What is it about networking that has the effect of erasing dystopian consciousness? Instead of the passivity associated with participation in a broadcast audience, the online subject is constantly solicited to "interact" either by making choices or responding to communications. This interactive relationship to the medium and through it to other users appears non-hierarchical and liberating. Like the automobile, that fetish of modernity, the Internet opens rather than closes vistas. But unlike the automobile, the Internet does not merely transport individuals from one location to another; rather, it constitutes a "virtual" world in which the logic of action is participative and individual initiative supported rather than suppressed by technology. This explains the proliferation on the Internet of expressions with the pronoun "my," as in "My Yahoo," "My MP3," and so on.

It is noteworthy that this evolution of the network owes more to users than to its original designers who saw it as a system for the distribution of information. The real revolution occurred when the Internet became a medium for personal communication. As such it is a switched system like the telephone in which the corporate giants who manage the communication have no control at all over what is communicated. Such systems, called "common carriers" in English, extend the freedom of assembly and so are inherently liberating.

What is more, because computer networking supports group communication, both in real time and asynchronously, the Internet can host a wide variety of social activities, from work to education to exchanges about hobbies and the pursuit of dating partners. These social activities on the Internet take place in virtual worlds constructed out of words by the participants. The "written world" of the Internet is indeed a place where man and machine appear to be reconciled (Feenberg, 1989).

At this point, a note of caution is in order. The enthusiastic discourse of the Information Highway has become predictable and tedious. It awakens instant and to some extent justified skepticism. It is unlikely that the 21st Century will realize the dream of a perfectly transparent, libertarian society in which everyone can work from their home, publish their own book, choose multiple identities and genders, find a life partner and buy personalized goods at an electronic mall, and complete their college education in their spare time for $49.99. It is reasonable to be suspicious of this vision. After all, someone devises the menus that offer the choices, and then makes money off the users. The choices are thus not really free in either the economic or the political sense. The dystopian critic finds here merely a more refined and disguised incorporation of the individual into the machine.

The Internet will certainly have an impact on society, but it will not revolutionize everything. It is ludicrous to compare it with the industrial revolution, which pulled nearly everyone off the farm and landed them in a radically different urban environment. My "migration" to virtual space over the last 20 years can hardly be compared with my ancestors' migration from the country to the city. Unless something far more innovative than the Internet comes along, the 21st Century will be continuous with our world, not a radical and disruptive break. The real significance of the Internet lies not in the inauguration of a new era, but in what it reveals about social and technological change at the current level of advance.

The issue is not whether the Internet will liberate us, as though a technology had that power, but rather the subtle change in the conditions of public organization and activity introduced by networking. This change had already begun before the rise of the new medium, but intermittently and laboriously. The Internet promises to enhance the ability of the population to intervene in the technical decisions so vital in a society like ours. This has to do with fundamental changes in the structure of democracy under conditions of technological advance.

So long as the population of modern societies is politically defined by traditional spatial districts, its influence on technical life is severely restricted. What can a local community do about the introduction of a technology that crosses all geographical boundaries, for example, a new medicine or a new method for producing food? The "public" which ought in principle to be able to comment on such changes and influence them democratically is not locally defined. It is fragmented into subgroups which follow the lines of specific technical mediations. For the most part it can only act in the technical sphere through those subgroups, whether they are factory or clerical workers, students, patients, soldiers, or grocery shoppers.

The geographically bounded units of traditional politics may eventually integrate the various technically mediated subgroups through legal or regulatory decisions. But usually where politics in the familiar sense of the term is involved at all, it draws the conclusions of an initial round of struggle that follows the links in technical networks. Unfortunately, all too often the fragmentation of technical publics renders them politically impotent.

The utopian and dystopian visions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were attempts to understand the fate of humanity in a radically new kind of society in which most social relations are technically mediated. The hope that such mediation would enrich humanity while sparing human beings themselves was disappointed. There is no way of extending technical control without it embracing human beings. But what the dystopian failed to understand was that once inside the machine, human beings gained new powers they could and would increasingly use to change the system that dominated them. We can observe the faint beginnings of such a politics of technology today. How far it will be able to develop is less a matter for predictions than for practice. “

“Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Reflections on the 20th Century”

(Andrew Feenberg , Philosophy Department, San Diego State University)

Cristina Falcão

The Paradox of Paradigm

Paradox is a statement that seems self-contradictory but expresses possible truth. Also it can be something that is contrary to popular opinion.

Paradigm is something that serves as a model or a pattern. It can be a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996),wrote a ground breaking book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, in which he describes a paradigm as a box in which normal science places all its beliefs, commitments, until a better paradigm emerges. A paradigm shift is when a new breed of extraordinary scientists choose to jump into that newer, better box.

Later, Stephen Covey (1990) wrote about the paradigm shift in the business context.

A paradigm is the conceptual framework upon which we build our world; it is built upon past experiences; if we are not willing to make shifts in our paradigms, we will remain stagnate in our growth; a paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking to another; it is something that does not happen like self generation it is driven by change.

We could say it is another name for Change, but a paradigm shift goes much deeper, it is about combining change with the challenging of existing assumptions and innovation.

Leaders of cultures recognize that their traditional paradigm is out of date, and perhaps this leads them to assume that a 'paradigm-shift' program will provide the remedy. Culture change is not simply about how you see yourself and others. It is about how the system works, i.e. how we do the work together, rather than how we work together. The paradigm shift is to understand how to act on the organization as a system.

However, initiatives which threaten the current operating culture are typically resisted to extinction, and many initiatives simply bear no relation to the economic performance of the organization.

The most critical thing to understand about a paradigm is that, in a paradigm shift, everything goes back to zero. What does that mean? It means that whatever made you successful in the old paradigm may not even be necessary in the new paradigm.

And here comes the paradox: The paradox is that changing a culture starts with different thinking about the work.

There are two interesting paradoxes: the decision theory paradox and an Economics paradox:

Abilene paradox: People can make decisions based not on what they actually want to do, but on what they think that other people want to do, with the result that everybody decides to do something that nobody really want to do, but only what they thought that everybody else wanted to do.

Allais paradox: A change in a possible outcome, which is shared by different alternatives, affects people's choices among those alternatives; in contradiction with expected utility theory (utility is a measure of relative satisfaction).

Before shifting paradigms we should see that business in general is filled with instances of paradox.

If it would improve performance to do the work differently, how does it mean we should behave? Focusing on behavior without embedding it in a work context creates an entirely new pathology - people try to play a new game.

By contrast, focusing on how we work, anchors improvement in things that are real, and opens the door to working on culture, in a way which has relevance and, more importantly, is palpably relevant.

This new global world surrounds us with paradox. In order for companies to master paradox they must first identify the opportunity it contains.

Some major businesses are developing an e-commerce in order to sell direct, cut costs and eliminate the small businesses. Yet, small businesses represent a very lucrative, high profit margin market for those businesses.

Another paradox is the question “Should you hire the best people?” Sometimes hiring the best people could be your downfall (another paradox).

It all depends on the situation and how you define "best." Should you focus or diversify?” Both, actually (another paradox), diversification can lead to situations where managers ignore the other business lines and pursue their own goals at the expense of company growth as a whole.

Is paradox the new paradigm?

Will future business success depend on the ability of managers and leaders to embrace paradox? Will they succeed holding in their minds two contradictory ideas, each of which can be applied when necessary?

By embracing paradox, managers will lose the half-truth thinking that ignores the context so pertinent to business decisions. These seeming paradoxes often exist, in the first place, only because we try to apply business rules across all contexts.

It is natural that business bears the same tension that pervades everything else in our lives. Economies and ecosystems are filled with examples of competing goals and conflicting ideas that somehow work themselves out to create balance and, in many cases, an optimal situation.

Only when we have understood the paradoxes of business, can we propose a paradigm shift: changing focus could be the key to getting exactly what we were so focused on to begin with.

Cristina Falcão

Trust – Guest Post by Carol Kobza

Trust – Guest Post by Carol Kobza: "

In contrast to last week’s UK-based post from Andy Wolf, this week’s guest author is a veritable neighbor of mine. Carol Kobza is a creative force with incredible innovation experience in creating brands, leading new product development teams, art directing new products, and focusing team efforts toward results.

I’ve gotten to know Carol over the past year as we’ve both been getting our businesses fully going. We’d talked about Carol doing a guest post, and I was so excited when this article arrived talking about how you can build a trusting environment that “nurtures creativity” in an organization:

Imagine that you are new to an organization. You’re enthused as you participate in one of your first meetings. A manager says, “We’re having trouble coming up with an idea for an activity for the executives’ meeting in Philadelphia next week.” You say, “How about the symphony?”

The response: “Bwaaaaaahhh!” followed by huge laughter that fills the room and bounces off the walls. No one else gives another idea. You leave the meeting and describe the occurrence to your co-workers. “What a rotten thing for her to do,” they whisper…and it begins. The manager becomes a regular subject of jokes in the cafeteria. Before you know it, there’s some serious, negative politicking going on.

Trust among people in organizations is a tender twig that is easily broken. And it is one of the elements of an environment that nurtures creativity.

How can you build trust in your organization?

• Allow and reward people for discovering problems. Identifying a problem is not a criticism. It’s often an honest attempt to creatively improve the way things are done.


• Sponsor and support ideas. Everybody with a great idea needs someone, who will protect them from the power of “NO” and clear paths around obstacles.


• Support rather than undermine one another’s creative efforts. If people know they won’t be punished or laughed at for speaking up, they’re more likely to continue to give ideas. Who knows? The next one might save or make millions.


• Encourage creativity. It doesn’t cost a dime. Studies show over and over again that a sincere compliment or “thank you” is more motivating than cash.


• Let people be who they are. Diversity is more than race, gender and sexual preference. It’s also about the style in which someone thinks, speaks and dresses. The research bears this out. Diversity equals a happier, healthier and, guess what, more successful organization.


• Free up information. Face it. Everyone has access to information so why put a choke hold on it? Where there is collaboration and sharing of information and knowledge, you’ll find people who enjoy their work and want to see their company succeed. – Carol Kobza

"

Idea Connection - CEN Navarra - 2009

It was a great session in CEN Navarra. We were presenting ideaCONNECTION services. I think the spanish market will start to see Colaborative Problem Solving as a real cheap investment for the return it presents. Innovation paradigm is on top of today's business news. Internal R&D departments have a great battle in front to prove and stop external and efficient tools, knowledge and processes to step in.
Let's see what happens.

Advance Review: Awaken Your Genius Awaken Your Genius

Thank you Ricardo Andorinho

We had coffee this morning, but Ricardo probably won't remember. He was in Portugal; me? I was in the USA. So, how did the coffee thing happen?

Like most mornings, I took a book with me on my coffee run. Today, it was hot off the press: Awaken Your Genius, by Ricardo Andorinho. Expected release date: November 30, 2009. Just in time for Christmas gift giving. In fact, the web site will be up in the next few days to accept advance orders.

So, how did I get my hands on a copy?

It is called an "Advance Review Copy" —it's where the publisher prints an early version of the book to elicit brief reviews that can be used to promote the book upon release. As the publisher, I made sure that I received the second copy of the book as it came off the press. Ricardo, the first.

I gotta tell you, it is better than I remember!

Ricardo poured his soul into the pages that make up this book. But don't take my word for it, consider this early review:

"This is not your grandfather's Business Leadership Guide! Ricardo challenged my thinking; even caused me to wonder if I should give even more thought to some of the decisions that cross my desk on a daily basis."
—Robert S. Wood, Proprietor, www.OldWestAntiques.biz


Need to take your life to the next level?

Drop me a line and request the link to the advance order desk.



Jeff 'SKI' Kinsey
www.throughput.us/contactSKI/

P.S. Seriously Ricardo, thanks for allowing me to help give birth to your first book. It is an honor. Plus, a special shout out to Sara Williams for her keen sense of editing. I ask that she use a light touch, to insure the book retained just a hint of the broken English that makes my conversations with Ricardo so enjoyable. Mission accomplished.

The Chain Theory

My question is: Why do you call it theory?

That's a pure critical thinking task that can be address on every system. If we were able to build efficient tasks and links we would avoid this problem. Identifying the weakest link can bring great results. Building systems prepared for the possibility of failure should incorporate EXCELLENCE into the process.

I am a one of the biggest fans of Eli Goldratt, however the word theory fails in the overall formula.

MBUintelligence

IT Design Strategy

Design Patterns:

It is a general reusable solution to a commonly occurring problem in software design ,description or template for how to solve a problem that can be used in many different situations.

Use of Design Patterns:

• Design patterns can speed up the development process by providing tested, proven development paradigms.
• New Designs are not visible until later in the implementation, Reusing of Design patterns help to prevent this.
  

Classification of Design patterns:

• Creational Pattern
• Structural Pattern
• Behavioral Pattern
• Concurrency Pattern
  

Typical Creational Patterns:

1. Abstract Factory
2. Factory method
3. Builder
4. Lazy initialization
5. Object pool
6. Prototype
7. Singleton
8. Multiton
9. Resource acquisition

1. Abstract Factory Pattern:

It provides a way to encapsulate a group of individual Factory that have a common theme.
Provide an interface for creating families of related or dependent objects without specifying their concrete classes.
Example : 

diagramFactory --> Round , Triangle , Line 
DocumentFactory --> Letter , email, eBook

2.Factory method Pattern:
Define an interface for creating an object, but let subclasses decide which class to instantiate. Factory Method lets a class defer instantiation to subclasses.
The factory method pattern is an object-oriented design pattern. It deals with the problem of creating objects without specifying the exact class of object that will be created. The factory method design pattern handles this problem by defining a separate method for creating the objects, whose subclasses can then override to specify the derived type of product that will be created.

Example:
ConcreteCreator Inherits Creator; Both will have method factoryMethod () Returns Product.

3. Builder Pattern:
Separate the construction of a complex object from its representation so that the same construction process can create different representations.

The Builder Pattern is a software design pattern. The intention is to abstract steps of construction of object so that different implementations of these steps can construct different representations of objects. Often, the Builder Pattern is used to build Products in accordance to the Composite pattern, a structure pattern.

4.Lazy initialization Pattern:

In a software design pattern view, lazy initialization is often used together with a factory method pattern. This combines three ideas:
* using a factory method to get instances of a class (factory method pattern)
* storing the instances in a map, so you get the same instance the next time you ask for an instance with same parameter (compare with a singleton pattern)
* using lazy initialization to instantiate the object the first time it is requested (lazy initialization pattern).

5. Object pool Pattern:

An object pool is a set of initialized objects that are kept ready to use, rather than
allocated and destroyed on demand. A client of the pool will request an object from the pool and perform
operations on the returned object. When the client has finished with an object, it returns it to the pool, rather than destroying it. It is a specific type of factory object.

6.Prototype Pattern:
Specify the kinds of objects to create using a prototypical instance, and create new objects by copying this prototype.
A prototype pattern is a creational design pattern used in software development when the type of objects to create is determined by a prototypical instance, which is cloned to produce new objects. This pattern is used to:
* avoid subclasses of an object creator in the client application, like the abstract factory pattern does.
* avoid the inherent cost of creating a new object in the standard way (e.g., using the 'new' keyword) when it is prohibitively expensive for a given application.

7. Singleton pattern:
The singleton pattern is a design pattern that is used to restrict instantiation of a class to one object.
Ensure a class has only one instance, and provide a global point of access to it.
Example: Only one instance of a database Object

8. Multiton Pattern:
The Multiton pattern expands on the Singleton concept to manage a map of named instances as key-value pairs.
Example: Java Runtime java.lang.runtime

9.Resource acquisition Pattern:
It is initialization Ensure that resources are properly released by tying them to the lifespan of suitable objects.

Structural Patterns:

Adapter :Convert the interface of a class into another interface clients expect. Adapter lets classes work together that couldn't otherwise because of incompatible interfaces.
Bridge: Decouple an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary independently.
Composite: Compose objects into tree structures to represent part-whole hierarchies. Composite lets clients treat individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly.
Decorator : Attach additional responsibilities to an object dynamically keeping the same interface. Decorators provide a flexible alternative to subclassing for extending functionality.
Facade : Provide a unified interface to a set of interfaces in a subsystem. Facade defines a higher-level interface that makes the subsystem easier to use.
Flyweight: Use sharing to support large numbers of fine-grained objects efficiently.
Proxy : Provide a surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it.

Behavioral Patterns:

Behavioral design patterns are design patterns that identify common
communication patterns between objects and realize these patterns.
By doing so, these patterns increase flexibility in carrying out this communication.

* Chain of responsibility pattern: Command objects are handled or passed on to other objects by logic-containing processing objects
* Command pattern: Command objects encapsulate an action and its parameters
* Interpreter pattern: Implement a specialized computer language to rapidly solve a specific set of problems
* Iterator pattern: Iterators are used to access the elements of an aggregate object sequentially without exposing its underlying representation
* Mediator pattern: Provides a unified interface to a set of interfaces in a subsystem
* Memento pattern: Provides the ability to restore an object to its previous state (rollback)
* Null Object pattern: designed to act as a default value of an object
* Observer pattern: aka Publish/Subscribe or Event Listener. Objects register to observe an event which may be raised by another object
* State pattern: A clean way for an object to partially change its type at runtime
* Strategy pattern: Algorithms can be selected on the fly
* Specification pattern: Recombinable Business logic in a boolean fashion
* Template method pattern: Describes the program skeleton of a program
* Visitor pattern: A way to separate an algorithm from an object
* Single-serving visitor pattern: Optimise the implementation of a visitor that is allocated, used only once, and then deleted
* Hierarchical visitor pattern: Provide a way to visit every node in a hierarchical data structure such as a tree.



Concurrency Pattern
Object Oriented Design patterns typically show relationships and interactions between classes & objects targeting on the Design problems rather than application problems.

concurrency patterns are those types of design patterns that deal with multi-threaded programming paradigm.

* Active Object
* Balking pattern
* Double checked locking pattern
* Guarded suspension
* Leaders/followers pattern
* Monitor Object
* Read write lock pattern
* Scheduler pattern
* Thread pool pattern
* Thread-Specific Storage
* Reactor pattern

The Active Object design pattern decouples method execution from method invocation that reside in their own thread of control. The goal is to introduce concurrency, by using asynchronous method invocation and a scheduler for handling requests.

The pattern consists of six elements:
* a proxy, which provides an interface towards clients with publicly accessible methods
* an interface which defines the method request on an active object
* a list of pending requests from clients
* a scheduler, which decides which request to execute next
* the implementation of the active object method.
* a callback or variable for the client to receive the result.

The Balking pattern is a software design pattern that only executes an action on an object when the object is in a particular state.

There are some in this field that think this is more of an Anti-Pattern, than a design pattern.
If an object cannot support its API, it should either limit the API so that the offending call is not available or it should …

* be created in a sane state
* not make itself available until it is in a sane state
* become a façade and answer back an object that is in a sane state.

Double-checked locking is a software design pattern also known as "double-checked locking optimization". The pattern is designed to reduce the overhead of acquiring a lock by first testing the locking criterion (the 'lock hint') in an unsafe manner; only if that succeeds does the actual lock proceed.

Guarded suspension is a software design pattern for managing operations that require both a lock to be acquired and a precondition to be satisfied before the operation can be executed. The guarded suspension pattern is typically applied to method calls in object-oriented programs, and involves suspending the method call, and the calling thread, until the precondition (acting as a guard) is satisfied.

In concurrent programming, a monitor is an object intended to be used safely by more than one thread. The defining characteristic of a monitor is that its methods are executed with mutual exclusion. That is, at each point in time, at most one thread may be executing any of its methods. This mutual exclusion greatly simplifies reasoning about the implementation of monitors compared with code that may be executed in parallel.

Monitors also provide a mechanism for threads to temporarily give up exclusive access, in order to wait for some condition to be met, before regaining exclusive access and resuming their task. Monitors also have a mechanism for signaling other threads that such conditions have been met.

Used in Banking Software design to avoid multiple withdraw of amount from same account.

A read/write lock pattern or simply RWL is a software design pattern that allows concurrent read access to an object but requires exclusive access for write operations.

In this pattern, multiple readers can read the data in parallel but an exclusive lock is needed while writing the data. When a writer is writing the data, readers will be blocked until the writer is finished writing.

scheduler pattern is a software design pattern. It is a concurrency pattern used to explicitly control when threads may execute single-threaded code.

The scheduler pattern uses an object that explicitly sequences waiting threads. It provides a mechanism to implement a scheduling policy, but is independent of any specific scheduling policy — the policy is encapsulated in its own class and is reusable.

In the thread pool pattern in programming, a number of threads are created to perform a number of tasks, which are usually organized in a queue. Typically, there are many more tasks than threads. As soon as a thread completes its task, it will request the next task from the queue until all tasks have been completed. The thread can then terminate, or sleep until there are new tasks available.

Please check back again , I would update with examples.

SRINI CENTHALA

A Change of Venue

I have had the opportunity to spend the majority of this week in the desert. I like the desert, I think people either like it or dislike intensely. Few are ambivalent about it.

In a strange kind of a way I see the desert as a metaphor for where we can go next with the economy. Many people think of the desert as an absolute arid wasteland with nothing to offer. I recommend to people that if they are within a hundred miles of Tucson to stop in at the Desert Sonora Museum. They call it a museum, but in some ways it is much closer to a zoo where the flora and fauna of the region are viewable in their native habitat. I can tell you that the variety of flora and fauna will astound you.

Similarly I look at places like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Palm Springs that were "carved" out of the desert. Where some saw nothing but sagebrush and cactus others saw opportunity. I am not promoting the "instant community just add water" model, but these areas until recently experienced enormous growth.

As I was reading the newspaper this morning two stories also particularly struck me. The first story was where a team of surgeons removed six major organs from a seven year old girl in order to remove a baseball sized tumor, they then replaced many of her organs. I see this as an example of American health care at its best.

The other story was about some business owners who took a stand to "pay it forward"

• A pharmacist who split $16,000 among his 24 employees. He asked each of them to donate 15% to their favorite charity and spend the rest in local businesses to stimulate the economy.
• A florist who surprises 1 to 3 random customers per week with a free bouquet to brighten their day.
• A CEO of a small business who offers each employee $2000 towards the purchase of a new car or $1000 towards the purchase of a used car. The car dealers in his community are among his customers so he is trying to help them stimulate sales.
• A city councilman in California started a prom dress drive for young women who can't afford a gown. Local businesses joined the effort donating dry cleaning and free hair styling, and the local Elks Club is collecting shoes.

What is interesting here is that in each case these are small businesses. This is an example of personal competency and responsibility. These people didn't receive a bail out. They also aren't "turtling", they decided to take a personal stand.

I have said before that maybe the current economic situation will cause us to stop, pause, and reevaluate. There is plenty of "contributory negligence" to share with how we got where we are. As you know I am a huge believer that the answer is people, and I think some of these stories make my case.

For today anyway the market is up and all the news isn't negative.

Mark Herbert

Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt on TV

http://www.toc-goldratt.com/TV/video.php?id=163&type=2

Thanks Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt
Thanks Jeff SKI Kinsey

Innocentive - Can you win the challenge?

Core Evidence

Dear strategists,

When I have to face a complex problem, that doesn't presents a clear solution, I try to focus on the CORE EVIDENCE. Core evidence is the key that unlocks a given system. Usually is very simple of identifying, however, if I am dealing with complexity my analysis may carry out some obstacles. 

Why is this so important? Because to understand the cause of a given problem I need to focus on the critical aspects that involves that particular situation. This way I can lock what is top priority for the system to work, and what is not. Just by doing this exercise, I can find many times that the problem borns outside the process that gives the alarm. Other times it is a consequence of integrating complexity in a non-programed and educated basis.

Everything affects organizational performance. Everything counts. Everymove can influence your venue.

Management thinkers are already focus on people, which is the only driver of change inside an organization. However, the number of managers that are studying people and how they work together is insignificant. Everyone is preocupied about innovation and doesn't understand that Innovation does not exists. What exists is innovators. If you can drive innovators to produce an output in your company everyone can call it Innovative. Innovation doesn't come in a package. Is already inside the people that works with you. You just need to find it and to it give the sufficient room to prosper.

Best regards,

Ricardo