Too Good To Be True!!!!!

I have just read the BBC report on an incredible fraud. One that just goes to show that some things are just too good to be true and, must, I believe, support the supposition that you cannot con and honest man.

Without cutting and pasting the story, a business man sold what was protrayed as a leading bomb detecting technology and made £50m in the process. Despite containing no electronics these detectors were supposed to be able to detect almost anything, anywhere and under any concealment. Too good to be true, one would suspect so.

Selling at around £27,000 these were based on novelty golf ball detectors bought in the US for circa £8. Iraq bought around half of these (ie over 6,000) devices, but just look at the device:-

Who in their right mind would pay around US$40k for each item? And having been bought who would believe they could work. Professional soldiers and police have been using these in regular security operations. Surely at least one must have suspected? That these were bought over a number of years and used (apparently) seriously defies belief.

I suspect the relevant security forces would have had more success using a pair of birch twigs as divining rods. The devices are described as novelties so I suspect they cannot find a golf ball either, but that is not stated.

I find myself just shaking my head. They do say if something seems too good to be true then it probably is and this must fall into that category and for a fraid of this scale and stupidity to have been sustained for so long suggests that there were many people who looked no further than the money that slipped into some discrete bank account. This all at a time when others went about their lives in the blissful ignorance that the protection they were being offered was worthless.

The regulatory cuckoo!

In case you wonder this is another change analogy rather than a nature blog. It arose in my mind after talking with a friend about how many strategic developments are suffering as resources are diverted to either fixing operational problems or satisfying regulatory developments.

The tension between oeprational/tactical change and its strategic cousin has long been with us and a challenge for business and portfolio managers. By operational/tactical change I mean the actiivities that are not quite BAU, but arises from the aquisition of new business that needs something a little different, requirements to "fix" problems in the current BAU processes or may be small improvement initiatives related to the current business practices.

Strategic change is that which constitutes major or fundamental changes required to meet business objectives. Of course we can debate the boundaries and they are likely to be different for different businesses reflecting their ambition and appetite to spend/invest in change.

We could also debate whether straightforward system upgrades are strategic, tactical or indeed should be part of the BAU portfolio of work, but for now we will leave that.

Coming back on topic, many organisations have separate budgets and resources for operational and strategic change and this goes a long way to preserving the balance. Of course operational managers whose budgets have been pared to the bone will eye the change budgets enviously and look at access them wherever possible. There is nothing wrong with that as long as there is effective and apprpriate governance across the commissioning and management of change.

This BAU nibble mainly impacts the world of operational change, but I have managed small, but limited funding pools within a corporate portfolio to pay for small initiatives. This was quite effective and one I would commend to others.

In the strategic world there was always the question of "mandatory" changes that "just had to be done". The claimed priority over all the rest. Often these were infrastructural projects and increasingly were driven by changes in the regulatory environment. The balance between mandatory and "discretionary" changes and the allocation of appropriate funding was hard, but not impossible.

The issue now seems to be that regulation has become the cuckoo chick in the change nest. It has grown so big that it is squeezing out strategic change and exhausting the parent company's ability to sustain it. While at the same time, the number of things that need to be fixed seems to be growing everywhere, the squeeze on real value-adding and discretionary change is almost suffocating.

I have seen the response to this where business units see the need to look after themselves. They start squirreling (sorry for another nature analogy) away funds in their BAU budgets and start running change outside the main governance processes or skill sets. On the one hand this is good as it is change that the business clearly wants and is leading, but on the other hand it risks poor execution and a lack of perspective - often creating issues that then need fixing and distract from real operational change.

I am not sure if this is what might be called a perfect storm, but it is something and until we work out how to break out of it and run change better, I expect we will see the cuckoo getting fatter and fatter and the poor parent/business labouring more and more as the things it wants to get done to grow and thrive can't get done. It becomes a question of survival!

Do you know the balance of change in your organisation and do you project it forward? Are you happy with it? If not, what are you trying to do about it?

Any Comments? Suggestions?

MedicAlert - Lifetime membership or what?

A long time ago in childhood the doctors discovered that I am allergic to penicillin and tetracyclines. These are cumulative allergies ie they are worse each time you suffer them and could at some point kill you.

As medical probelms go this is not the worst as it is unlikley that in the instances that I might be administered either of those drugs that I would not be able to tell the medical staff of my allergies.

As a precaution my parents bought a liftime(?) membership of MedicAlert an organisation that gives one a neckelt or bracelet with a distinctive emblem that records your condition and holds a membership number and central phone number. In instances of medical emergency the presence of the token alerts attending to staff to the existence of an issue and on phoning the telephone number they can receive contact details along with doctor's details and other prescribed information.

I have now had this over 30 years, though I confess I have not worn it for most of the last 20. That said I did pay extra to have a silver necklet rather than the standard stainless steel. I have moved house and doctors rarely and my parents are still alive as primary contacts so the instances where I have needed or wanted to update information had been few and far between.

So it was with some surprise that I opened a letter from MedicAlert at the beginning of this month telling me that my lifetime membership is no longer lifetime. Quite bluntly the letter told me that I have three options;

• To start paying an annual fee (remember we had paid for a lifetime membership!);
• To stay "free" but undertake to contact and update my details at least once a year, the catch being that should I miss an annual update then I would be automatically placed on the annual fee with no return to "free" ie they would wait until I slip and then start charging me having taken credit card details as part of the "free" option; or
• Cancel my membership, but then I would be required for return my emblem to them for "safe destruction"

While I recognise that the world has changed and would accept a cost to update details WHEN I needed to update them, I objected

• the the imposition of an annual fee on what had been contracted as a lifetime membership
• the sneaky way to catch the unwary who opt for the "free" option, but slip up; and
• the suggestion that I was obliged to return my property (the emblem) to them for "safe" (what is that about?) destruction.

Oh yes, and I had until the end of the month to decide.

I emailed them immediately and over two weeks later I had heard nothing so last night I sent a follow up email asking if I would get a response? What I received today was a simple reiteration of the contents of the original letter and no acknowledgement of my issues. Frankly this incensed me as it suggested no customer/client interest.

I had just responded to this email registering my disgust at the poor service and that I would cancel the service and would NOT be returning my emblem or filling in any more paperwork, when I received a call.

This was from a "nurse" working for the organisation. Let me politely say that english was clearly not her first language. She said that she was responding to my first (or was it my second?) email. After checking my details she once again told me the options - yes, I knew them by now - and proceeded to chastise me for not updating them for a number of years. Well I still have the same condition, I still have the same father, I still live in the same house and I still have the same doctor. Forgive me for not moving enough. She then told me that she had to tell me to return the emblem, but I did not have to do that (work that out!).

To me she was not listening to my issues and continually talked over me. Fortunately this is not key to my future wellbeing so can cut this out - I think she finally got that! However it is a crass example of client service and certainly triggered my Friday rant.

Rant over!

Musical Serendipity

I have often written about my love of seredipity, the instances when you unexpectedly chance upon something good or interesting. It happened again last night so I thought I would share it.

My wife and daughter, sister-in-law and niece all wanted to go and support the band in which the girls ex-headmaster and now friend of their mothers sings. He was due to play the Dublin Castle in Camden, a pretty well known music venue that can claim Madness, Amy Winehouse, Blur and Travis as past performers.

Last night the names were less well known and having arrived about 8 my "girls" settled in the front bar with drinks and Facebook, waiting for David and the band to turn up.

Around 8:40pm the music started in the back room and I decided to go an listen, leaving the ladies to their "social networking".

The first band up was called MoRo . A four piece with the sound cranked up too loud for the small room, but then I am over 50 so I am probably biased. That said I did like them. I am not sure if I should but I would liken the sounds I heard to Runrig, a Scottish Rock band of the past that I liked. On their site you can listen to some of their work. For me they were the best to the night, and well worth a listen. To me the stand out aspects were the singer's voice and the work of the bassist.

The second band/act was Madame So. I confess that I did not take to their set, again too loud and unintelligible for me, but I have to say that their/her Youtube piece is better. The standout here was the diminutive female drummer, Mari Mardou who I thought provided a strong and energetic foundation for the two guitars.

Last up was Random Patrols, the band the girls had come to see. Lo and behold this is when they came into the room having missed the other two acts. The band has a number of videos on Youtube that you might care to look at.

Let's just say they have been doing this longer than the other two acts, all holding primary careers that are not music. The volume was lower, reflecting the band and its audience and the three guitars worked well together.

To me MoRo was probably the best/most interesting. I would not have seen them or even known of them without going to see Random Patrols. Indeed I may never see them again, but for at least one night they were my bonus.



.

It is interesting what your social data says about you.

The image above comes instantly from allowing a web app access to my Facebook page. While some might question some aspects of the analysis when you look at the deeper explanations I would say they are about right.

What is interesting is that I just use my Facebook page in a limited capacity and really just for family and old college friends. There is relatively little information on there, yet it is obviously enough for the data algorithm involved to quickly deduce some pretty accurate views on me. Just imagine what would happen if it got access to my Linkedin account or maybe even this blog!!!??!?!

If only for a little amusement I have included the relevant link below in case you fancy giving it a try. If you do, please do share how insightful it is/was?

http://www.youarewhatyoulike.com/

Let's recognise a sportsman and a gentleman!!!

Since Sunday's closing holes much of the sporting press coverage has been of Adam Scott's victory at the Masters in Georgia - the first Australian to win the event. This is fully justified given the way he played over four days. He finished the regulation 72 holes with a birdie putt of 25ft to take what seemed to be an unassailable lead. Only two players were still on the course, Snedeker was out of contention and Angel Cabrera, the 43 year old Argentinian past winner, needed a birdy to tie and force a play off.

It would have been easy and understandable if, in playing the 18th, Cabrera had put a par on the card and left Scott to celebrate. Instead and to his credit Cabrera put his second, fabulous shot within 3ft of the pin and the impossible became possible. This was all the more poignant given that he had his son "on his bag" ie acting as caddy. As a father I can only imagine what it must have been like to share the four days and then that shot, with his son as his aide and supporter.

As these two had been in the final two pairings they were ready to play on and two holes later it was over as Scott produced another birdie to win the Green Jacket. One of the first to congratulate him was Cabrera with a genuine bear hug.

The following morning the BCC commented on the show of sportsmanship as Cabrera and Scott walked off the green arm in arm. It does the sport of golf credit and sets a great example for others, in or out of golf, to follow.

So while the world rightly congratulates Adam Scott I would like to place a marker for Cabrera; golfer, father, gentleman and sportsman.

The Value of a Different Perspective?

Today I chanced upon the image shown above. It has been released by Dr Max Roberts and is a re-envisioning of the iconic Harry Beck London Tube Map of 1931 (as updated). It uses tangents and spoked and is clearly inspired by the Tube logo.

I know that there have been criticisms of the 1931 map with distances on the map lacking relationship to real distances between stations. The classic examples being Great Portland Street and Regents Park or Bayswater and Queensway which both appear to require two stops and a change of lines, but are in fact only 0.1m apart or around 3 minutes walking.

While this new, round version does have something appealing about it, I found myself unconvinced. So I decided to challenge myself to really look hard at what it offered before deciding. It certainly does something to address some "spatial" elements, though I am unsure of "rim" sections where it appears one travels around London getting no closer or further to the centre. As a commuter this does not appeal psycholgically.

On the subject of centre, this map suggest Tottenham Court Road as the centre of London. Now unless your world is restricted to discounted electronics I can think of few reasons or people who would consider that to be THE centre. Cartographically, I believe all distances to and from London are measured from Charing Cross so that is certainly a candidate, as would be say Oxford Circus or maybe Westminster. In branding terms I think this new map has got the centre wrong.

All in all I think it is a clever idea and pretty well executed, but I don't think it adds enough to warrant a change from this:

Actually as I posted this image I thought the one thing the radial picture my cope with better is the charge zoning shown in grey on this map. It can be quite confusing to work out which zones one needs on a ticket and IF the radial could make that simpler then that might be the reason to change. I have not tried to overlay the charge zones, but a quick visual inspection shows this would not work.

Also tempus fugit and the advent of the Oyster Card for paying for fares and the proposal that London Buses go cashless, one wonders how long before the Tube goes cashless too. Soon one will just swipe in and out, without the pre-journey Mensa test of how many zones and what ticket?

So for now the round map, might grace a wall as a peice of interesting art, but I am not sure I see much more for it.