Saturday, 26 November 2011


I guess all parents are proud of their kids. I know I am. Maybe my children are as amazing and fantastic as I imagine. Maybe they are *the* best.

But maybe I also love them so much that I focus on their good sides. I see the good things they do and are and pay less attention to whatever less charming aspects there might be. If we treated fellow persons as we see our kids - would they also become as amazing? Would they also make us proud?

Well, regarding my kids I don't care if my love makes me blind. They *are* still the best!

Thursday, 17 November 2011

Brand loyalty

Yesterday we had expensive production creating high quality products.  The high quality created brand loyalty, i.e. the consumer would buy some brand next time as well. But,these high quality products were long lived, thus reducing number of purchases made.

Like ths upper small model in this. The harmful expensive production create (neutral) high quality products. They have (harmfully!) long lives making purchase a rare event. When a purchase is made though, the consumer will due to the brand loyalty created bu high quality pick the right product.

In the lower model we have instead cheap production creating (neutral) low quality products. Those are short lived and the consumers need to buy more products.
In the lower model you instead need to create brand loyalty some other way:
  • Support
  • Functionality
  • Advertising
  • Image
  • ...
This way you will also be able to create a "need" to get next product even when product is not broken...

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

Shooting star

While driving, early this morning,  I saw an amazing shooting star. Immediately I wished I would see another one. Moments later my wish came true! Another shooting star.
Since the first wish came true I realized this was serious business. Therefore I spent the second wish on something more personal and valuable.

Now I just need to work hard to  make sure that the wish come true.

Sunday, 13 November 2011

Challenge your knowledge

We know so much Sometime too much. We should challenge our knowledge more often. When faced with a challenge or need to take a decision - challenge the knowledge you have. And maybe the knowledge you don't have.
When you brain says you "know" something, challenge and ask "How do I know that?"
  • Where did I read that?
  • Who told me?
  • Can it be verified?
  • ...
You can also ask yourself why you know it.
  • Do I only know things in special areas? Ignoring other perspectives?
  • Am I part of a culture, society, religion ... encouraging this knowledge?
  • Was knowledge given to me with a (hidden) agenda?
  • ...
And lastly consider what knowledge you also need - but still haven't:
  • Am I lazy and happy with just this knowledge?
  • What perspectives am I missing?
  • Where can I find the knowledge needed?
  • ...
Of course there are many more questions and considerations. The fields of "knowledge", "learning", "knowledge management", etc are huge. But maybe the above three questions can make you slightly more aware of the quality (and purpose) of your knowledge?

Mexican standoff

Solutions can counteract (or solve) problems, but they can also produce other problems. And a problem can counteract (obstruct) another solution.

Here is a sort of Mexican Standoff with problems and solution. In real life you would need analysis from different perspectives and probably stakeholder analysis to deal with the situation.

(An arrow means "produces", and a 'crossed' arrow meand "counteracts". Red is harmful and green is useful.)

Saturday, 12 November 2011

Common enemy

A common enemy unites. But it is also a risky setup and will drain energy from achieving the goal.

Here we have two countries A and B with a common enemy C. The red lines to C illustrated "opposed" or conflict and tension.

Country A have a goal - to achieve A(2). And of course it will get help from country B - since B also is enemy of C.  In order for this setup to hold A now have to:
  • Watch the relation with C. Prepare to attach or defend.
  • Continue to work with B and encourage the A-B-relation.
  • and also make sure that Country C remain enemy to B
So A have to spend energy on many things in order to continue to operate (emphasized with blue):

Having an energy drains energy. But as illustrated, having a common enemy drains more energy!

You might not be able to avoid enemies - but keep them few. And to not create a setup where you rely on having "common enemy". You will waste energy and focus. And risk is always there that it will collapse into:

Here B has instead joined C. A do not have any allies - only enemies. And no help to reach the goal. Playing the game with "common enemy" can put you int the place of being the common enemy. It is a delicate balancing act.

Best setup in the above is of course:

Here A will get help from both B and C to reach the goal. And no energy is wasted at all. Maybe a sort of Utopia - but certainly the best to aim for.

Imagine also the original setup when Country D comes into play. What allies, enemies and boundaries will be created?  How much energy wil be wasted just to maintain a setup including enemies?
- Avoid creating enemies
- If you have to have enemies: Avoid having "common enemy" (will drain extra energy!)

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Small thought

Build a model and they will comment.

Tuesday, 1 November 2011


So, to prove I am a person I have to type this company's name?

Is this a very subtle form of a small ad? Or just co-incidence?