Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Sunday, 6 December 2009
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Friday, 4 December 2009
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Saturday, 28 November 2009
This is a very well known Swedish proverb. Well, in Sweden at least.
It means "There's nothing to worry about ... yet." No need to panic yet, we still have (some) time.
The proverb above is actually just a short version of:
"There is no cow on the ice as long as its behind is still ashore"
which maybe makes more sense. No need to panic, yet, the whole cow is not on the ice yet. We still have time.
Having a cow on ice can be a rather interesting adventure I guess. So, as long as the cow is only halfway on the ice there is no need to panic. But as soon as all of the cow is on ice you need to worry... Cows are not well designed to walk on ice.
Why should there be cows on the ice anyway? Well, Sweden have lots of lakes and large archipelagos. And there is also ice on these lakes and water in the winter of course. So, relocating cows using iced lakes and waters was not uncommon. Might be a lot easier as well than using small ferries to transport cows in summer.
"There is no cow on the ice."
One of the best Swedish proverb around. And when using it you should never ever use the long version.
(In Swedish: "Det är ingen ko på isen" - and a long version: "Det är ingen ko på isen så länge rompan är på land.")
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Lets explore an interesting twist on this. Lets use three cards instead of three doors. One of the cards is a King. The other two something else. The three cards are on the table showing the back side.
Carol now picks one of the card - but she does not turn it. The Game Host Eric now turns on of the other two. He shows Carol (and the audience!) that it is not the King. Eric then puts the card in his pocket.
Let us assume we have the version of the Monty Hall-problem where the game host always shows a non-winning card (i.e. he knows where the King is and select a non-King to show and put in pocket).
He then asks Carol if she wants to swap cards, i.e. picking the other card on the table. Should she?
Yes, she should swap. When Carol picked the first card probability for her was 1/3 to pick the King. And 2/3 that the King was among the other two. When Eric reveals a non-King nothing changes really. And by swapping Carol will increase her odds to win. (Read more in the wikipedia article!)
Let us also assume that John now enters the room from a short bathroom visit. What he see is a table with one card close to Carol. And another card closer to Eric. John asks the person sitting next to him what the game is about - and neighbor responds: "One of those cards is a King. And Carol can keep her card or switch to the other. If she gets the King she wins."
John do not know that there was a third card. (Now in Eric's pocket)
Carol is now convinced she should swap cards and that the odds for her to win would then be 2/3. (Again: Check the wikipedia article to see why the odds are like that. Remember that the game hosts knows where the King is.)
John on the other hand is convinced that the odds for winning if she swap cards is 1/2. Two cards on the table - one if King. Simple as that.
So, now we have two persons in the same room. Seeing the same table and cards. But they are convinced that probability for win if swapping are different.
Who is right? Are they both right?
If Eric now would tell John about the third card and how Eric put it in his pocket. Should Eric rethink the probability? Will past event influence probability from Johns perspective? Would a hidden card from the past in Eric's pocket change John's calculations?
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Here is one of many versions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfsozTcieVY
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Do not just jump in and fire away all your 5W1H questions. They are different tools. Just like hammer and saw are different tools for a carpenter.
what? is used to establish. Fact oriented. "What is that?" "What happened?" "What are going to do?" Often a rather neutral word. Will rarely create any upset feelings.
where? do not establish - but used to clarify. Cannot stand on its own. No danger in using this question. Just clarifying something.
when? is also a clarifying question. Often related to something we learned from the "what?"
who? is getting tougher. Now we want to know who did something or who should do something. We are touching on responsibilities and blame (or reward!). Not a good question to start with. And who-questions can also create feelings and emotions.
why? is the hardest. Now we search for justification or reason. "Why did you do that?", "Why does it work that way?" We are asking for opinions and justifications. We are not creating actions with "why". Watch out with this one. It is nice to know why something happens or why we should do it. But it is a risky question.
how? is an action trigger. With how you either trigger problem solving or story-telling. "How did it happen?" "How can we do this?" No blame - just a request to tell a story. This is also the question that best engages the other person. We are talking to the other persons knowledge and intelligence and asks for a story or solution.
This is not always fact-based so the answer can be more "free".
This is of course over-simplified. But consider that question words are different. What do you want to achieve? Are you running a trial? Solving a problem? Looking for a way forward? The different tools will shape the discussion, responses and relation differently.
Select your tools wisely!
I like the "how"-tool best. But I also use all the other questions too.
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Here are four different types of dialogues.
Think of the dialogue as a dog-fighting arena. You and some other person meet at the arena and you bring your "systems" there - to the "battlegroud". You let the systems into the arena and then the dialogue starts.
In the first example (top left) person A (pA) brought system A (sA) and person B brought system b. Both will now argue to make their system win this fight. To find out which system is the best. There will be arguments and pro and cons and similar. And the focus will be the tension between the two systems. Pretty much like two dogs fighting.
In the second (top right) we have Exploring. Here the persons bring their systems. But also possibly let other systems in. Here they look at each other systems and try to figure out how they work. No system is right. Focus is on understanding the systems and how they relate. And also consider other alternatives, like System C and D (sC & sD).
Third example is Building. Here the persons bring their systems. But focus is to build something new. Create something together. The existing systems might be used in whole or as parts. But the focus is on creating something together. Build a new fighting dog (sF).
In the last (bottom right) the persons do not bring anything to the arena. They are more interested in the person and relation. The dialogue is socializing to learn more about the person. Possibly to be able to enter one of the other boxes later. You are often here when you meet someone for the first time.
Imagine what happens if person A think that the dialogue is Arguing - and person B think they are in Exploring or Building. Being in different "boxes" will make it harder for them. And they will not understand what the other person is up to.
If both persons are in same box - the dialogue and understanding will be improved! And the outcome could be understood by both. It is like establishing rules for the "dog fight" and how the arena will be used.
Make sure you are in same box...
Friday, 6 November 2009
I was a role player. My solder was brave and loyal. And not focusing on being the strongest - but the kindest. Playing a female role was a great advantage back then. Even though I suspect that all people knew I was "man" - they still acted as if I was a girl. Well, I was a girl -ingame - but the boundaries netween real and in-game are very fast blurred.
I married a brute enforcer that took care of me. And I even had a sweet little sister. It was all a huge experiment. Fun, rewarding and great for learning how to meet different people. Most people were kind - and some were the opposite. Since I decided to be the kindest I never had any enemies. I befriended even the most awkward and rude.
Well, it was all fun and play.
Until September 11 , 2001. It was amazing how that event not only changed the world. But also the interaction in-game. The discussions were intense. Lots of people afraid and looking for support and comfort ingame.
Every chat-channel in-game were filled with the lively discussions about "why, what, how, whats next why, WHY?"
Having the ingame chat we were all brought together. People from New York reported ingame, sharing with people from Russia, Norway and anywhere. We spent a lot of time trying to support each other. But also working together in the game. The tool - the game - brought us together, made the world smaller and less scary.
What we saw in-game back then was probably pretty much what we today would see in Facebook, Twitter and similar if happened today.
Hopefully these tools are bringing us closer together today. Day by day. Tweet by tweet. Bringing common understanding. And understanding and acknowledging each other perspectives.
The tools should not support us after the disaster. The tools should help us prevent it.
I am hopeful.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
(Graham Chapman line from Monthy Python)
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Sometime we see it like: (Green is useful - and solid green is "goal")
We have a neutral process producing some result X. And we think of X as the goal and our focus area. But even if X is our goal we could focus on the process. Focusing on the process can improve the quality and make it a lot more rewarding. Like this: (The yellow border indicates focus area)
And often X is not the goal. It is just something that will be used in another process. When we are cooking to create dinner - dinner is not the end-goal. It will be used in another process - eating. Like this:
And here us the beautiful part when we focus on the process instead of the result. The process will actually help us take the next step - run the next process.
When we are cooking we will prepare for our eating as well. We will get more hungry perhaps. And we will touch and feel all the ingredients. We also learn how the meal is preparaed so that we better can eat and enjoy it. And while cooking dinner we can socialize with our dinner guests and make the dinner conversation even more interesting.
Here the "Knowledge", "Preparation" and "Socializing" contributes to the next process ("Ying"). And there are more elements that could be outcome of Xing that will contribute to Ying.
The same goes for planning. The plan is nothing. But the plan will be used in some other process. Running a project, fighting a war, celebrating an uncle etc.
And even when Xing do not directly contribute to Ying we still have more knowledge, socialized a bit, prepared something and had some fun. We have only won things!
So - do not focus too much on "end-result" - but use the processes as a learning and preparation stage to make next steps even more rewarding. And while at it - Have fun!
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
The planning process can be more important than the actual plan. The running can be more important than the run. The cooking process more important than the dinner.
When a child learn to do the math the method and process is often more important than the actual result. We want the child to learn how to calculate - not the answer "53". Or "78".
You often learn and build knowledge in the process. Maybe you do something with someone else having a great time together, and the end result is of less importance.
X is nothing - Xing is everything
Friday, 23 October 2009
There is an old movie and play called Ebberöds Bank with an interesting business concept.
In the small town of Ebberod a bank is started. This is the first bank in town. With some clever PR and marketing the first customers are attracted. And the business is excellent - they lend out money at 4 percent interest rate but gives 8 percent on the savings accounts.
How is this possible? "It is all about volume", says management.
The bank gets very popular and everyone wants to loan money and immediately put them back into a saving account. And since the bank is attracting so many new deposits and everyone continues to put money into saving accounts the bank has plenty of money...(Like a pyramid game, of course, a bubble that will burst one day....)
Everyone is happy! Business is excellent!
Everyone is happy except for a larger bank in the big city nearby. All their customers are leaving to put their money into Ebberods bank. Eventually the big bank is forecd to buy Ebberods Bank. Which means that the owner of Ebberdos Bank gets money for the bank and gets rid of the problem of a faulty business model. And a lot of soon-to-be unhappy customers...
Stupid? Well, the larger bank got into panic mode. Seeing all customers run away. And seeing a new bank with a business model they could not understand. Maybe thinking "They cannot be giving away money - so they have someting that work".
Ethical? Sustainable? No. But it is interesting that a business concept that do not work still can be a financial success for the "creative" person.
And I bet there are real Ebberod Banks out there. Business models and operations that seems to work in the short run. But are doomed to collapse. We need to figure those out, instead of getting into panic mode. Think twice when you see something very "succesful" that you do not understand. Questions to ask: "Is that sustainable? Sound? Ethical?".
I like that movie!
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
So, step back. Get new perspective of the system, yourself and how you act. Step back further and become better at stepping back and how you learn.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Monday, 12 October 2009
In the picture you have the "honest" person box in right bottom. Working to get money for pleasure and expenses. And possibly also save some for later consumption. (Later consumption illustrated with a delay arrow.)
In the dashed box you have the criminal acting. Doing crimes to get money from the honest persons.
To stop the criminal we pay tax to get police officers. And the police have (at least) three things to do. Put criminals in jail (assuming they are guilty of course), stop crimes and possibly try to stop money "transfer" to criminal.
We could also spend time (work) to try to stop the criminal from stealing our money.
When we put the criminal in jail he becomes a prisoner. And after that he becomes an honest person. (We hope).
Of course the model is incomplete (In fact all models are...or should be?). But the most interesting thing was how easy it was to continue discussion about the model and how reality works. The youngster added a lot of questions and perspectives. And we could easily have built a more detailed model. And also find some "solutions" to the problem we could spot in the model.
Like "How do we make sure that the prisoner becomes an honest person?" and "How do we deal when criminals steals from other criiminals?"
I love to see how shared modelling and storytelling sparks thinking and discussions.
When you now see this model I do not think you get the same value from it as we did when doing it.
Key is "shared creation". The model and modelling is the playground for this "shared creation".
The shared creation process is often more important than the resulting model. But, the model is very valuable when we want to continue the shared creation or move on to problem solving, discussions, presentations,...
Saturday, 10 October 2009
When asked if we could use child perspectives and thinking during the workshop everyone nods. We agree to be naive, curious, play and approach things as children do.
So, I then make a small test. And I ask:
"What is huge and green, lives four meters under ground and eat rocks and stones?"
Noone has yet instantly answered that question in my workshops. Sometimes complete silence. Sometimes some giggling and laughter. Possibly some whispering in the other end of the room.
I then again remind them:
"Well, think again and bring forward that child in you. Any suggestions?"
And usually some good answers are now voiced. First a bit unsecure. Than louder and with more laughter added. And as I acknowledge all good suggestions we usually end up with the beast I had in mind:
The Big Green Stone-Eater.
Most of us acknowledge how useful it can be to think like a child. But still we find it very hard to do it. In groups even harder.
Challenge yourself - be the child you are! And be prepared that it is hard work and you need to practice!
And when someone asks a complicated question - the answer might be something as simple as The Big Green Stone-Eater.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
- Hej, jag ringer från föreningen X.
- Hej [hinner jag nästan säga]
- Jo, först vill vi tacka dig för att du är medlem. Och snart är det dags att förnya medlemsskapet.
[Här ville jag komma in i samtalet - men fick inte...]
- Och då undrar vi om du kunde tänka dig att ändra till autogiro. Så skulle vi spara pengar och administration.
Aj! Det gjorde ont. De vill att JAG ska ändra mig för att spara DERAS pengar. Oavsett hur behjärtansvärt ändamålet och föreningen är så måste det gå att säga på annat sätt. Och framför allt; sälja in det till mig.
Varför inte starta ett samtal? En riktig dialog? Lyssna på mig? Kanske vill jag berätta något för föreningen - eller göra något mer.
Och sedan kanske berätta hur livet blir lättare och bekvämare för mig. Samtidigt som de också kan göra sitt arbete i föreningen enklare och effektivare.
Att ringa upp någon - inte lyssna - och föreslå "Vi vill att DU ska ändra dig så att VI sparar pengar" - är INTE en vinnande strategi. Ännu sämre (och dyrare för föreningen!) är det de gånger det är en inhyrd telemarketingfirma som gör jobbet åt föreningen.
Nästa föreningen som försöker samma sak får en omedelbar uppsägning!
Today on radio a debate indicated very clearly that there were parts missing in that model! The persons debating focused not on any of the things described in the earlier model. They skipped today and the future and instead they focused on the past. Trying to show how succesful they had been in the past. And how the other party failed in the past.
In this map these two new potential focus areas are indicated (yellow border boxes)
1. When listening to debate the earlier map was considered and it was clear something was missing. Having a map (or model) means you have a chance to better see what is missing or needed.
2. Maps should and could be re-visited! The landscape changes or more details becomes available. Or something was missing from the start.
Maps and models are useful. And fun.
Monday, 5 October 2009
Kinthing is useful for many reasons. Kinthing can solve a lot of problems for you, and it is often very fun and rewarding. When normal thinking don't work - kinthing might.
And it is easy! Anyone can do it. Just do it and soon you will be able to kinth fluidly. And in any situation.
Kinth; think backwards and/or re-arrange and/or re-group.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
I disagree. Or rather, there are situations where doing the same thing over and over again is the key to create different results.
So, if you do the same thing over and over again you should very often expect different results. Doing the same thing will trigger change.
If you every morning ignore your wife your marriage will change. If you take a hammer and hit the wall the wall will change, and one day there will be a hole. If you treat people in a fair and consistent way the respect for you will change - grow.
If you kick your dog over and over again it will die. And with the last kick the result will be different.
There are plenty of situations that are less drastic of course.
Every sound qoute makes sense only in specific contexts.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
To keep secrets we could learn some easy-to-use principles from the military.
This is an excerpt from an instruction book for how to classify information - used within Swedish military and others:
"Våra försvarsförberedelser är i vissa fall svåra, i andra lätta, att dölja för omvärlden. Det är svårt att dölja våra resursers existens, något lättare att dölja resursernas egenskaper och tillstånd och lättast att dölja våra avsikter beträffande resursernas utnyttjande."
(RISK 1990 - Riktlinjer för sekretessbedömning inom försvarsmakten, M7745-705003)
The text says that it is hard to hide the existence of something. A bit easier to hide performance and status and easiest to hide the purpose or objective.
Presence, Performance, Purpose = 3P as guide for how to keep secret.
Example 1. It is hard to hide that your country develop a new bomber - B8. You can hide the fact in the early phase perhaps. When the "enemy" has discovered your bomber - you can still hide performance and status. How many bombs can it carry? What sort? What range can it operate within? But even those things will be known soon. So, now you can still hide its purpose or objective. How are you going to use the bomber? And what country will you attack first...
Example 2. You have a secret lover. Your husband will find out eventually. Denying the existence would then be silly. But performance and status, such as hair-color, sexual performance, how often you meet the lover can still be hidden. After a while even thse things will be known. But your last secret - purpose/objective - will be the hardest to figure out for your husband. Will you leave husband for lover? What is your plan with the lover? Will you get another lover?
If you want to keep something secret - consider the 3P - Presence, Performance and Purpose. Be prepared that the secret will be known by others in that order.
Do not struggle to much hiding its Presence. Hide the Performance instead. But most important - never give away Purpose!
Sunday, 27 September 2009
In the picture below the upper path (marked with "1") is the first time you solve the problem. When solving the problem you will learn things and get insights (e.g. Insight A in picture).
If you decide to use another method or tool or approach you might get the middle path (marekd with "2"). Another journey that could possibly lead to the same solution. But in the process you made new insights (Insight B).
Yet another go would be the lower path ("3"). And in that path you will again make new insights. But also possibly solve some other problem. And you might end up with another solution to the original problem. An alternative solution. A solution that might be better than the first you found (using path 1).
Problem solving is a journey. And the methods and tools you select will form the path. Each path could give you unique solutions, new insights and solutions to other problems.
The first solution and problem solving process will of course influence the following attempts. But the new method and tool selected will make the path different anyway. The methods and tools will force you onto a new path. Just like different transportatoin methods will change your real life journey - although destination might be the same.
Another good thing with using mutiple methods is that you gain experience. You learn what methods works best and how to use them. And you can compare and build a toolbox for when to use what...
And you can describe the solutions achieved using different perspectives. Maybe the audience prefer to learn that solution was gained using path 2. Even though you first solved the problem using path 1.
Solving the same problem multiple times can be very rewarding.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
När jag stod där i mörkret blev frestelsen för stor. Jag knackade damen framför på axeln och frågade:
"Jo, ursäkta, men vet ni om det här är fackeltåget FÖR eller MOT rasism?"
Damen snäste - precis som de gjorde i gamla pilsnerfilmer och flyttade sig snabbt några platser framåt i kön. Hon tyckte inte det var ett dugg kul. Jag däremot fnittrade hela vägen där vi gick med våra facklor i mörkret.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Once upon a time there was a company producing drugs. They were good. They had a great research department. And even some money to spend on research, since they knew they would sell the drugs.
The owners were happy since they got their profit. And they continued to invest in research, find new medicine, sell and become richer and richer. Like this:
In the same country there were doctors and hospitals of course. When they found a disease they treated it. And if drug A helped - they would use it.
The drug A would counteract the disease A. Like this: (the special arrow is "counteract")
But, now a problem was seen. When treating the sick with the A-medicin resistant bacteria developed. Or suddenly appeared. The doctors were not sure how, but it was a fact that they now had to deal with disease B. And it seemed that it was the wide-spread use of drug A that "created" or "allowed" the resistant bacteria to enter the scene.
The drug A did not cure people with disease B. So, they really needed the drug company to come up with a new medicine.
The situation looked something like:
The drug company developed drug that doctors used. While using the drugs resistant bacteria appeared and new disease was born. And that triggered the need for new research. All this created another loop with diseases, resistant bacterias, need for new drugs. And so on.
Can you see any problems?
The most clever people in the country met and discussed. Here are some of the questions they were discussing:
- How do we limit usage of drug A in order to avoid disease B - while still helping people with disease A? Should we help now - or consider the future? Or both? How do we balance this situation?
- If we limit usage of drug A - How do we ensure that the company can do research and have happy owners? If they cannot sell drug A they cannot research new drugs.
- Should we by ethical means do everything we can to stop every new disease? Thus risking to create new resistant bacteria that we need another drug for. All in a spiraling effect...
And I actually think they they still are discussing these matters...
[If nothing of this makes sense, or is completely unrealistic, remember: its just a story :-)]
Monday, 14 September 2009
Saturday, 12 September 2009
But there are many things we complicate quite on our own. Based on project myths, methods, stereotypical thinking about projects etc.
Because there are principles and basic thinking that makes project work more successful. Very fast! But, we really need to get back to basic thinking. Re-think a lot. Not complicated thinking - quite the opposite really.
And it is not snake oil, or fairy dust solving it all - but very basic thinking and insight what a project is - and how it can be successfully executed...
How to share this "wisdom"? How to get it out in the open to be shared, discussed, used and ignored. Blog about it? Write a book?
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Here is a picture of the situation: (follow the link to left to a Southbeach Quickguide for more information about Southbeach modeller and how to interprete the model/images)
If we now consider how party Y might argue to gain followers or voters. They have lots of possibilities and can act on almost any of the items in the previous picture:
The blue boxes contains what the Party Y might say to win. And with Party Y perspective the various effects (arrows) now are of different "strengths".
It can be very beneficial to illustrate a situation with a map. And then consider what might happen to or how to act upon each item in the map. With the knowledge gained you can build a strategy and plan to execute. Or solve the problem you have.
And as you can see there are plenty of blue boxes that Party Y could use to form their strategy!
Use a map to find'em all!
Get out there, kids. Learn, Challenge, Grow! And make sure that your children also learn.
Friday, 28 August 2009
I wish I could say that too. I regret almost nothing in my life. (So far). But there is one thing I regret. One chance I had that I did not take. And this has haunted me since.
In 1998 I was in Austin and visited a toy-store. And there I found a singing flower. Very silly. yet irresistible. It sang "You are my sunshine" and danced a simple dance (just tilting sideways). I hesitated. Checked the price tag, checked whether I could fit it into one of the bags.
And then it happened. Some stupid rational voice inside me said "You don't need that singing flower. And it is a very silly thing."
So, I turned around and walked away. The flower still singing.
And since that day I have regretted that I listened to that rational inner voice. I know that my life would have been better if that flower had been part of it. Singing to me every day, singing to my wife, dancing in front of my kids.
So, do not listen too much to rational inner voices telling you what is "silly" or "best for you". You know better! And you might miss good things in life, like "You are my sunshine"-singing flowers!
By the way. Here is the flower --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88DIh9vgyr8
(Not mine though. I still do not have a singing flower...And I think I never will have. )
Friday, 21 August 2009
We sat very close. Just like you would imagine a storyteller sitting close to the children.
I showed the first page and started "Once upon a time there was a ...." and then I pointed to the symbol and looked at one of the participants. Who immediately responded with "a snowman". And then I continued with "that one day" - and now looking at next person that quickly added "went shopping". And we continued. I connected the sentences - and the group added context.
We flipped page. I pointed to the symbol and said something that would connect to previous sentence. And by looking at a person she or he would add to the story. My part became smaller and smaller. I was just a 'page flipper' showing silly symbols on A4 sheets. And the group was co-creating the most wonderful small stories.
There were laughters and giggling. But also excitement. The group was exciting telling the stories. And all were curious what would happen next. What would the circle on the paper turn into? A moon? A cheese? A football kicked by a vampire?
We created magic! They created stories. And they all listened to each other. They build upon each others contributions. We played. Seriously.
And it was fun. With a couple of A4 sheets with simple symbols we managed to create stories, excitement and engaging stories. And for a moment we managed to bring forward our inner child.
I love storytelling.
And this small exercise showed that not only children can create stories and fairy tales. Adults can too!
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Friday, 14 August 2009
Thursday, 6 August 2009
"Packages" are used for many reasons - and there are many useful functions to consider. But there are also many harmful functions.
In this picturee you find some of the useful (green boxes) and some of the harmful (red boxes). (Not complete of course!). So, now we just need to find ways of removing the harmful functions and keep the useful.
Starting today to change how we use "packagin" would not be too soon...
Monday, 3 August 2009
(said the god Om in Terry Pratchett's Small Gods)
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
The cool guy sitting is my mothers grandfather. He was born in Sweden, but suddenly had to leave the country. He moved to USA (1910) - leaving his pregnant girlfriend in Sweden. The child (Arvid) became my grandfather.
After a few years in US David Oscar got married to Matilda and they had two sons. The families in US have very many memories and stories kept of this "Swede". When he lived in Sweden his name was David Oscar Svensson - but changed Svensson to Seaburg in the US.
David Oscar invented things and came up with new ways of doing things. My grandfather Arvid (David Oscars son) was also a sort of inventor and new-thinker. Not like Edison or Nobel of course. Not very famous. But they did come up with new ways of doing their job. Always improving things. Simplifying. Always having another way of dealing with problems.
They were supported by their wifes of course! Getting and having support is important for inventors. As well as for all of us.
Anyway, I like the picture of David Oscar and his smile and cigar. Trying to impress the viewers of the photograph? Thinking about what?
And I like the idea that I have some of his DNA in me....
Monday, 13 July 2009
Then I can start to relax. See new patterns. See new people. Learn about myself.
Yesterday I spent watching car race. Noisy, smelly, exciting and lots of people. And as you can imagine, VERY relaxing.
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Many persons find it very easy to spot the "error" and wonder if it is intentional. Or just an error.
Focus is drawn to the single error.
But, in the list there are seven "rights" as well. And still we let our focus be the one error.
And yet we often think to "reward whats right" to foster and teach. Seems that this is harder than we think; to focus on the "rights" instead of the "wrongs".
Are we looking for perfection? There should be no error at all? Maybe, but then we have to remember we are always learning and growing. And making "errors" and mistakes should be allowed.
To be able to really focus on the "rights" we need to focus! Do not let the single error take away all the good things!
Test yourself: Imagine your child coming home with a test-score 9 right of 10. What is your first thought? Would you like to know what the error was? Or would you be happy for the 9 correct ones?
(Can't remember in what book I first saw this "trick".)
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Many times 1 + 1 is not 2. On the light side you can add one rabbit to one rabbit and end up with a whole rabbit family.
You can also add a piece of string to another piece of string - and just get a longer piece of string. And adding one chaos to another chaos will most likely only get you bigger chaos. Not two chaoses. (Thanks, @seabird20)
If you read two newspapers you don't get twice as much news. Sometimes the information cancels out altogether (Thanks, @richardveryard)
And one hull plus one hull are not always two hulls. Sometimes it is a catamaran.
Back to the "serious math"...
1+1=10 if we do it in binary number system.
And if we have a clock-system with the "hours" 0 and 1 only the "1+1" will become "0". (Just like 08:00 plus 9 hours will become 5...)
And we also need to pay attention to what "+" means. How we use "+" to add number is a rule in the number system we have agreed upon.
And what number system are we using? Is the "1" belonging to the set of N or Z? Or real numbers? Are the first "1" the same as the second "1".
When using computers and Float numbers 1 + 1 do not always add upp to 2, due to representation of floating numbers.
So, very seldom is 1+1 = 2
And by the way. If you have one hungry lion and add three rabbits you will not get four live animals. You will get ONE less hungry lion.
To see that 1+1 is anything but 2 can be very advantageous. If you only find "2" as the right answer you miss a lot of opportunities....
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
We need to start considering what will happen when we extend beyond short and long term.
Here are some questions to consider when solving problems and creating solutions:
- Will this solution X work forever?
- What will happen to environment and the planet if X (what we start/create now) goes on forever?
- Would it be good if X continued forever?
- What side effects (good/bad) might there be if X continued forever?
- If X continues forever, would the overall situation improve?
We should only create and implement things that should and could go on forever.
Very few things continues forever, but we need to extend our thinking and see beyond. Whatever long term solutions we might come up with, can really be short term. And what we create now can "blow up" for the next generation.
Solutions might or might not evolve over time and take care of the problems we create today. But we cannot rely on that. We need to create truly sustainable solutions. That works in the "forever" perspective.
We have the tools and many different ways of thinking to deal with this. Lets do it!
Monday, 29 June 2009
Imagine a pinball machine. Imagine what would happen if you removed all the walls, small obstacles, rubber things, springs, targets. Just a steel ball slowly rolling down...*donk*. An easy game to play.
It is the obstacles and boundaries that makes the machine interesting. It is those obstacles and boundaries that creates the speed and excitement. *pling* *katchong* *swosch* *plang-pling*. It is the walls that creates the speed. It is the walls that forces the steel ball to take another route.
Without the boundaries and obstacles the game would turn into a slow, non-exciting game. No need to be alert. No need to actually do anything.
Same with innovation. We need boundaries and problems to innovate and keep us moving forward. Give us unlimited resources and the game gets uninteresting. Give us problems, limited resources and problems - and we will get speed, excitement AND innovation. We need the *pling* and *katshong* and all the walls!
The most exciting and rewarding pinball machine is the one with most problems, eh, walls and springs!
(Thanks, @catuslee, for reminder about the importance of "limited resources")
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Lyssnade idag på radio hur pengarna för effektiv - men dyr - MS medicin var slut på ett sjukhus. Säkerligen riktigt.
Det som var lite underligt var att det faktiskt borde finnas pengar. Men, i en "annan plånbok". Systemtänkande och intressent-analys skulle behövas.
En politiker berättade att det var tänkt att de besparingar som man fick genom att hålla MS borta skulle kunna flyttas så att medicin kunde bekostas. Om personen får sin medicin så blir det inga följdsjukdomar. Inget handikapp. Och därmed sparas det ju massor av pengar på någon annan klinik, sjukhus eller vårdcentral.
Pengarna för medicinen tas ur ena facket i en plånbok. Och besparingarna görs i ett annat fack. Hur kopplas dessa ihop?
Att en enskild läkare ska kunna få medel att flytta omkring är inte rimligt. Större grepp krävs!
Om personen får sin medicin så kanske han kan jobba och skapa nya skatteintäkter. Och dessutom inte behöva bidrag.
Jag vet inte vilka belopp eller hur följderna ser ut av MS, men jag är säker på att vår hälsovård och politiker skulle kunna klura ut det. Men, det krävs ett systemtänkande och se på "ekonomin" i vidare perspektiv.
Det är ju möjligt att det visar sig att medicinen är BILLIG jämfört med vad följderna blir av att inte medicinera!
Här en liten model i ämnet. Om vi ger medicin til MS-sjuka så motverkar vi sjukdomen och personen kan jobba. Och därmed ge skatteintäkter. Dessutom så blir det inga - eller färre - sjukbesök hos någon annan vårdgivare. Och inga framtida bestående handikapp. Och därmed sparar vi massor av offentliga medel.
Undrar hur "dyr" medicinen egentligen är....
En kanske viktigare sak är ju också att vi pratar om livskvalitet! Och att ge alla den vård de behöver. Har vi råd att inte använda den dyra medicinen? Och ska verkligen medicin kunna ta slut - av pengamässiga skäl?
Lyft blicken och se en större bit!
Friday, 5 June 2009
Yesterday I tried to listen to a debate. EU parliament election coming up.
They all used a singular focus when talking and discussing. "The problem is....", "...and the solution is....", "Your suggestion is....". And using that technique they walked through several different topics. But every time with a singular focus.
Mmmm. "several different topics" .... "singular focus".
I do not believe we have ONE problem to solve. And I do not belive that there always is ONE way to solve a problem. There will always be another problem. There are always other ways. What seems unconnected and unrelated always are.
Friday, 29 May 2009
@j4ngis is the Matroska of mindstorms, #innovation and creativity (and wraps a bit of Shanghai in a bit more of Sweden). #followfriday
Getting a recommendation like that - from a guy like Mr Belfiore. Yummie!
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
We presented the setup to the group of managers affected. They applauded. We asked if this covered everything they needed. "Yes". We asked again - Have we covered all and every meeting needed? And they all responded with "YES".
The managers decided that this was what they needed. Not more - not less. And we spent a few minutes discussing how to get "the show on the road", i.e. implement the governance structure.
It was in that discussion one of the managers suddenly suggested:
-"Well, I have made reservation for a group meeting in Gothenburg next week. Maybe we can detail this then? And actually I am thinking that we can have these group meetings, say, every second month."
-"Yes. Good suggestion", all responded.
This group meeting in Gothenburg was not in our governance structure. Neither was any bimonthly group meetings of that kind. And yet they all stated 15 minutes earlier that the governance setup was all they ever needed.
So where did this extra meeting come from? Seems we actually did a lousy job explaining the setup - since it only took a few minutes until the group had added new elements to the governance structure.
Since then my collegue and I use "meeting in Gothenburg" for situations where a group seems to understand and share knowledge. And yet do something in a complete different direction... Indicating that they did not understand. Or just ignored what they just acknowledged...
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
"...receiving one-sided fragments via replies sent to folks you don't follow in your timeline is undesirable. Today's update removes this undesirable and confusing option."
How do they know that this is undesirable? And how do they know this is unwanted confusion?
I love to see these fragments. And I love the partial and sometimes temporary confusion they create.
Monday, 4 May 2009
Monday, 27 April 2009
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Trust... That is one of the letters in VPEC-T. Maybe think through them all, I thought. And here are some questions that came up:
V- Value: Why do I care? Will my friend care? What am I trying to achieve with this feedback. What I am hoping that my friend will do with the feedback? How do I value our friendship? What are our common values, what do we share? Will value increase, e.g. will our friendship grow? Will I grow? Will he grow?
P - Policies: Are there any rules? Like, forbidden words when giving feedback to this friend. Any taboos I can think of? And restrictions on what feedback I can give? What would be out-of-bound? What situations could be where feedback is not welcome, i.e. friend doing something specific or having a bad day. What signals should make me stop the feedback process? In short: the rules and playground!
E - Event: What should trigger the feedback? Should I wait for a specific time? Or action from the friend that triggers the feedback? Should I plan the feedback - set up formal meeting? How should the feedback session start? Planned or spontaneous? Wait for right moment?
C - Content: What should be included in the feedback? How to give the feedback? As a story? In a dialogue form? Provide evidence? Draw on napkins? Illustrate in other ways? How long? Will it sound meaningful? Make sense? Be constructive? Should it be delivered in multiple sessions? Body language to use?
- Paus: just relaxing a let the questions above form answers. Making notes on a pad...
T - Trust: Ok. Do I trust and respect my friend? Does he trust me? If I go along with this would we build trust? Or break? Will the setup given for this feedback be serious? Having answered all the questions above - do I trust myself doing this?
Having the VPEC-T letters I managed to create structure for myself and rethink lot of this feedback process. I really do care for this friend -and this thinking made me rethink - and rethink again (!) - and now I feel more comfortable about how to deliver the feedback.
VPEC-T is not magic or a cure for everything. But it sure helped this time. And I am sure that there are plenty other situations too where VPEC-T will make a difference. Suggestions?
Waitress: "So? You are not the first one complaining" and walks away.
I am so grateful for this experience. The restaurant did not provide one surprise - but two. Since the food was not what we expected they instead managed to create a very memorable experience with 'waitressing with attitude'.
Great service? Well, is was different service. And service we will remember.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Saturday, 11 April 2009
Could not the music players warn the runner/walker that a car is coming?
Could possibly pick up the sound of something approaching fast (sound getting stronger). And then play a warning signal so that the runner knows that something is coming from behind - fast.
That could give the runner/walker a few extra seconds to verify what is coming. Step (more) out of the way. Or even stop and let the car pass.
Any music device inventor/innovators taking on this challenge?
The above is the profile of a narrow Swedish road. The road is highest in the middle to make sure that rainwater don't stay.
(The blue thing with two black boxes is a car of course!)
When you walk on this road you walk to the left. (Right in UK?) And to make sure you dont get hit by a car you need to walk far out to left. And there the difference in height for left and right foot can turn out to be very uncomfortable. Consider walking on the hills of a mountain!
If my left leg could be extended when I walk on these roads the pain would become smaller.
So, why not create shoes that automatically adjust so that the difference in height is removed (or at least reduced). Such shoes could also be used to adjust walking style of people rehabilitating from accidents? Or to straighten people that walks leaning towards a side.
So, any shoe-inventor out there taking on this challenge?
The shoes could communicate with each other and adjust height and angles as the ground and levels changes...and....well, better that someone with shoe-skills and technical skills do the thinking I guess.
Today, in a forrest far far away I stopped to study an ants nest. Lots of activity and movement. I was hypnotized.
Suddenly I felt pain on my arm. A small sting. When I looked down I found a lonely ant standing on my arm. I looked closer and the ant seemed to raise his body and was probably trying to tell me something.
I stepped back from the ants nest - still carrying the ant on my arm. I inspected myself but could not find any more ants on skin or clothings.
The ant on my arm was running around - as if he was searching for something. A brief moment I thought of killing the ant. Getting even. But then I re-considered.
I could not kill someone that brave. A lonely ant trying to handle me - the large beast. And I was also puzzled what his intentions really were.
Did he consider me to be food? So he was trying to kill me and drag me home to the nest? A real fiest coming up.
Did he consider me as a threat to the nest Trying to kill me or scare me off?
Was he trying to impress a female ant? "I can take that huge ugly beast. Blind-folded even."
Was he trying to teach the small padawan ants how to handle a beast like me. Maybe the small ants were hiding in the grass while my heroic ant tried to find out how to deal with me. "Stay back and watch!"
Whatever he did he did it alone. But most likely to serve the good of the whole nest. Risking his own life he took an initiative. He did not wait for an order.
I decided to return the ant safely to the nest. He ran off. Maybe trying to bring more ants. "I did my best. But he was *huge*. Come and help - and we have food for the whole year!"
I hope that he got a promotion for bravery and for taking initiative. And I am sure he will be a good role model for the younger ants.
Life and nature are magic!
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
En tanke är ju att det kanske inte är någon som förstår min engelska ändå...så varför ens försöka?
Monday, 6 April 2009
This iteration did not stop them. They did not give up. They continued to innovate, work and iterate. Of course this wreck could be seen as a failure at the time it crashed. But only three years later it was rather a necessary iteration to achieve heavier-than-air flights.
So, do not give up if you wreck your glider. Keep pushing and your innovation might take off. Learn from the iterations. If you succeed all "failures" along the way will be seen as iterations, but if you stop at first failure you will end the journey with, yes, a failure.
Another stubborn person was Edison that together with his team worked his way through lots of iterations to come up with a working light bulb.
Innovation requires stubborness and passion. And a will to separate iteration from failure.
(Note 1. The Wright brothers were possibly not the first ones with flying machines. But they were stubborn and - if not first - at least among the first.)
(Note 2. Been thinking about "iteration" instead of "failure" a while. Think it was http://www.twitter.com/jamestodhunter that got me started thinking some week(s) ago)