Seriously, do they think we are idiots? The ones who come up with all those goofy ads - the ones that make you want to tear your hair out or inflict great amounts of damage around you – you know the ones I’m talking about. You would have to think really long and hard to come up with a reasonable explanation for all those ridiculous promotions polluting the environment. Then of course it becomes crystal clear to you in an inspired “Understanding All Marketing Fundamentals Everywhere” moment and you attribute it all to brand communication, positioning, placement, identification, demographics, behavior and socio-economic targeting, unique selling propositions among a host of other such academic explanations (because that is what the learned ones would do). OK. So if that’s the truth, then that’s the truth. And who am I, an unlearned, marketing-fundamentals-challenged ignoramus, to challenge such a truth? Having accepted that as the basis for giving free license to advertising professionals everywhere to promote brands whichever way they see professionally fit, lets for the moment go back to our opening statement: Seriously, do they think we are idiots?
The answer is ‘Yes’. Well, to be fair, it’s more like they couldn’t care less. For, you don’t matter. Seriously, if you question any aspect of any concept presented in any manner, you automatically are no longer part of the “target group” and if you are not part of that group then your opinion will have as much impact as a fart in a thunderstorm. And opting out of such a group by questioning the sanity of such branding again will have as much impact as the same fart in a thunderstorm. If you don’t believe me, look around you and see how many people walk this planet. We are talking HUGE numbers here. You, I and a thousand others vigorously shaking our heads in disbelief and rolling about on the floor laughing will have as much impact as….you get the picture.
So, as you can see, it doesn’t matter what you and I think. For every you and I, there is a million and two out there who think otherwise. And THAT’S who they are after. As long as they have their goofy undivided attention they don’t give a rat’s ass what you and I think. And you and I can roll on the floor laughing till the cows come home, those goofy ads will continue to pollute the environment around you.
From every channel on every TV set, from every station on every radio, from every billboard on every street, from inside of every page in every magazine and from every shadowy corner you can think off, they will leap out at you and violate your sensibilities in the foulest way imaginable. And if you don’t believe me or have not been subject to this phenomenon then you must live on Mars. To have had the good fortune of not having had goofy ads shower you every third second of your existence, you must be truly blessed - or live on Mars, as the case may be.
But then again this is how the cosmos functions – at least in our corner of the universe. And as long as this is how equations get solved in the larger scheme of things, I, the unlearned, marketing-fundamentals-challenged ignoramus, shall stay away from the scholarly analysis of the existence of goofy ads every where and get on with less complicated pursuits in life.
So, if there be others out there like me...., join in ….and one…and a two….and a three….……
Whitu whitu face dekhe
Dilwa beating fast sasura chance maaare re
Oh Very Happy in my heart Dil Dance maaare re
Dance maaare, dance maaare dil yeh dance maaaare re….
Seriously.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Non-linear Disambiguation of Dimensionally Diverse Perspectives
The following is a work of fiction. All references to people, states of mind and theories contained therein are a by-product of the author's regular thought process which include random ramblings proceeding from a freewheelin' brain and any resemblence to any persons living, dead or in any ambiguous state, is not intended and purely coincidental. The references to pony-tails, however, are not.
Gross, Ketchhup et al[1] laid the groundwork for the formalization of the definition of perspective ambiguity. In the early part of their work they dwell at length on the assumptions that lead to their version of the definition. In the later part of their work they dwell at length on how those assumptions do not entirely hold thereby leading to the removal of large parts of the definition. With the result that this work offers a dangling definition affording a tilted view of ambiguity resulting in a perspective that is hard to stomach.
Bugg, Lows, Leech and Meng[2] build on this set of assumptions removing large amounts of ambiguity thereby affording a cleaner view of the underlying assumptions that lead to the definition. The only problem with this is that in the process of disambiguation they proceed to remove large amounts of the ambiguity also and end up with a perfectly sanitized definition for deviant behavior in cats which no longer applies to perspective ambiguity whichever way you look at it.
Rastogi, Ganguly, Siddappa and Muthukrishnan [3] proposed an approach for formalizing a definition starting with the basic assumptions that lie behind Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Although this affords an extremely interesting perspective on the cross influences of unrelated theories on each other, it does little to further the cause of research in this particular area.
As is evident from the observations recorded above, there is very little relevant reference work available for research work in the area of proposing formal approaches to arriving at a definition for a Non-linear Disambiguation of Dimensionally Diversified Perspectives. So here is what I decided to do. Dump all plans for arriving at a formal definition and wing it.
To start with, here is some perspective to think about. Take a good hard look at yourself in a mirror after you are plastered – say a good 7 to 8 drinks down should do nicely for a start. Then as you stare hard at yourself in the mirror, you pose your question to the face in the mirror. Don’t wait for an answer. There will be none forthcoming. Come back after a couple of drinks and listen to the answer to the question you had posed earlier. After having listened to the answer, if you can relate it with the question that you had posed earlier and in the process make sense of the question and the answer as they relate to each other – then that, my friend, is perspective. Put another way, it is being able to relate entities that are spread across dimensions of time, space and sense of identity.
The ability to comprehend with absolute clarity complex relationships between entities with shifting identities, in itself an art, and further being able to do it, while dealing with the ambiguities spanning dimensions, is known as non-linear disambiguation of dimensionally diverse perspectives.
Maybe it’s called something else but I like to call it that.
The ability to define relationships spanning radically differing contexts constitutes what your everyday right-brained dude terms ‘Creativity’. It is not, as the same dude thinks, the ability to come up with a few smartass lines for a TV/radio commercial or splotch up an abstract and label it ‘My Conscience Inverted’. That, my friend, is just that - a splotch on the conscience of any right-minded individual, with or without a conscience, inverted or otherwise – and there is nothing ambiguous about that.
Dumbing it down a bit, creativity, as I see it, is the ability to take two totally unconnected entities and draw a connection between them. My friend the Graphic Designer disagrees, and fails to see any connection between me and my definition. Now getting him to see the connection would amount to being really creative. But this is not about him so we will leave him and his pony-tail to figure out the connection of one with the other and stay on the topic on hand.
A little mental exercise for you – consider two items – a green pea and the latest bollywood film that would have opened at the box office. If you were to say that the film was made by a bunch of people with the IQ of a green pea, then you would be on your way to creative satisfaction. Staying on the same topic and drawing further connections would get your creative juices flowing fairly freely. You get the idea. You could exercise your mind and soon you would be a fountain of creativity with the juices flowing on a production scale. Hell, you could set up a bottling plant and market your creative juices. The brand name could come from some outsourced agency, who would think up the name in an inspired moment of juice making. All of which will not be possible if you were not to give them a brief and the freedom to go innovate in the first place. That then becomes cooperative creativity. Of course the franchises will step in and find value-add options that go with the bottled stuff – now you are looking beyond the cooperative and moving onto collaborative turf. Find an overseas market and you are progressing nicely into the global. And to think it can all begin with a humble green pea and a stupid bollywood film. Which lets us conclude that almost anything and everything can be a source of great inspiration.
So there you have it. My submission on Creativity and Non-linear Disambiguation of Dimensionally Diverse Perspectives. And if it doesn’t agree with the pony-tails out there, well, as the man said, to each his own. And I am sure there is nothing ambiguous about that.
References:
[1]Gross, Manuel; Ketchhup, Bruno; Abrams, Kasturi Peter (1969). ‘Birds of A Feather: Social Analysis in the Developing World'. Vol. 4.
[2]Bugg, Manolo; Lows, Utpatan; Leech, Keeda and Meng, Ming (1978) 'What, Where, Who, Why? Pertinence in a Mixed-Up World'.
[3]Raman, Jignes; Ganguly, Jignes; Siddappa, Jignes; Muthukrishnan, Jignes (1996) 'Hum Sab Ek Hai: Cross-referential Identity Differentiation'
Note: The above is a work of fiction. All references to people, states of mind and theories contained therein are a by-product of the author's regular thought process and any resemblence to any persons living, dead or in any ambiguous state, is not intended and purely coincidental. The references to pony-tails, however, are not.
Gross, Ketchhup et al[1] laid the groundwork for the formalization of the definition of perspective ambiguity. In the early part of their work they dwell at length on the assumptions that lead to their version of the definition. In the later part of their work they dwell at length on how those assumptions do not entirely hold thereby leading to the removal of large parts of the definition. With the result that this work offers a dangling definition affording a tilted view of ambiguity resulting in a perspective that is hard to stomach.
Bugg, Lows, Leech and Meng[2] build on this set of assumptions removing large amounts of ambiguity thereby affording a cleaner view of the underlying assumptions that lead to the definition. The only problem with this is that in the process of disambiguation they proceed to remove large amounts of the ambiguity also and end up with a perfectly sanitized definition for deviant behavior in cats which no longer applies to perspective ambiguity whichever way you look at it.
Rastogi, Ganguly, Siddappa and Muthukrishnan [3] proposed an approach for formalizing a definition starting with the basic assumptions that lie behind Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Although this affords an extremely interesting perspective on the cross influences of unrelated theories on each other, it does little to further the cause of research in this particular area.
As is evident from the observations recorded above, there is very little relevant reference work available for research work in the area of proposing formal approaches to arriving at a definition for a Non-linear Disambiguation of Dimensionally Diversified Perspectives. So here is what I decided to do. Dump all plans for arriving at a formal definition and wing it.
To start with, here is some perspective to think about. Take a good hard look at yourself in a mirror after you are plastered – say a good 7 to 8 drinks down should do nicely for a start. Then as you stare hard at yourself in the mirror, you pose your question to the face in the mirror. Don’t wait for an answer. There will be none forthcoming. Come back after a couple of drinks and listen to the answer to the question you had posed earlier. After having listened to the answer, if you can relate it with the question that you had posed earlier and in the process make sense of the question and the answer as they relate to each other – then that, my friend, is perspective. Put another way, it is being able to relate entities that are spread across dimensions of time, space and sense of identity.
The ability to comprehend with absolute clarity complex relationships between entities with shifting identities, in itself an art, and further being able to do it, while dealing with the ambiguities spanning dimensions, is known as non-linear disambiguation of dimensionally diverse perspectives.
Maybe it’s called something else but I like to call it that.
The ability to define relationships spanning radically differing contexts constitutes what your everyday right-brained dude terms ‘Creativity’. It is not, as the same dude thinks, the ability to come up with a few smartass lines for a TV/radio commercial or splotch up an abstract and label it ‘My Conscience Inverted’. That, my friend, is just that - a splotch on the conscience of any right-minded individual, with or without a conscience, inverted or otherwise – and there is nothing ambiguous about that.
Dumbing it down a bit, creativity, as I see it, is the ability to take two totally unconnected entities and draw a connection between them. My friend the Graphic Designer disagrees, and fails to see any connection between me and my definition. Now getting him to see the connection would amount to being really creative. But this is not about him so we will leave him and his pony-tail to figure out the connection of one with the other and stay on the topic on hand.
A little mental exercise for you – consider two items – a green pea and the latest bollywood film that would have opened at the box office. If you were to say that the film was made by a bunch of people with the IQ of a green pea, then you would be on your way to creative satisfaction. Staying on the same topic and drawing further connections would get your creative juices flowing fairly freely. You get the idea. You could exercise your mind and soon you would be a fountain of creativity with the juices flowing on a production scale. Hell, you could set up a bottling plant and market your creative juices. The brand name could come from some outsourced agency, who would think up the name in an inspired moment of juice making. All of which will not be possible if you were not to give them a brief and the freedom to go innovate in the first place. That then becomes cooperative creativity. Of course the franchises will step in and find value-add options that go with the bottled stuff – now you are looking beyond the cooperative and moving onto collaborative turf. Find an overseas market and you are progressing nicely into the global. And to think it can all begin with a humble green pea and a stupid bollywood film. Which lets us conclude that almost anything and everything can be a source of great inspiration.
So there you have it. My submission on Creativity and Non-linear Disambiguation of Dimensionally Diverse Perspectives. And if it doesn’t agree with the pony-tails out there, well, as the man said, to each his own. And I am sure there is nothing ambiguous about that.
References:
[1]Gross, Manuel; Ketchhup, Bruno; Abrams, Kasturi Peter (1969). ‘Birds of A Feather: Social Analysis in the Developing World'. Vol. 4.
[2]Bugg, Manolo; Lows, Utpatan; Leech, Keeda and Meng, Ming (1978) 'What, Where, Who, Why? Pertinence in a Mixed-Up World'.
[3]Raman, Jignes; Ganguly, Jignes; Siddappa, Jignes; Muthukrishnan, Jignes (1996) 'Hum Sab Ek Hai: Cross-referential Identity Differentiation'
Note: The above is a work of fiction. All references to people, states of mind and theories contained therein are a by-product of the author's regular thought process and any resemblence to any persons living, dead or in any ambiguous state, is not intended and purely coincidental. The references to pony-tails, however, are not.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
some lines
"Oh, the hours I've spent inside the Coliseum,
Dodging lions and wastin' time.
Oh, those mighty kings of the jungle, I could hardly stand to see 'em,
Yes, it sure has been a long, hard climb.
Train wheels runnin' through the back of my memory,
When I ran on the hilltop following a pack of wild geese.
Someday, everything is gonna be smooth like a rhapsody
When I paint my masterpiece."
- from When I Paint My Masterpiece by Bob Dylan
Dodging lions and wastin' time.
Oh, those mighty kings of the jungle, I could hardly stand to see 'em,
Yes, it sure has been a long, hard climb.
Train wheels runnin' through the back of my memory,
When I ran on the hilltop following a pack of wild geese.
Someday, everything is gonna be smooth like a rhapsody
When I paint my masterpiece."
- from When I Paint My Masterpiece by Bob Dylan
Those Early Wickets...
Whats the deal with the strategy of picking up a few early wickets? Though not a deranged fan of the game of cricket, I do enjoy the game in moderation, watching matches on TV and not really losing sleep over the outcome. But be as it may, I cant for the life of me understand one line that keeps popping up with great regularity no matter which match on which channel playing which teams I watch. Its the response to the inevitable question posed by the commentators to (usually) the captains of the teams, which is 'what would your strategy be for this game' - the inevitable response, among others lines, features "we'll be looking to picking up a few early wickets". Now. I ask you. Is that strategy? I mean, who, no matter which part of which country they play cricket in, would NOT be looking to pick up a few early wickets? A few early wickets? I would think it would be more like many early wickets, if not all early wickets. Thats not strategy. Thats a wish. Thats an ideal. Thats heaven. I am captain of a team, what I would want to do is I would want to go in there and hope to pick up ALL wickets early - preferably as early as midway through the second over. So I could go in knock off the required runs and settle down to a leisurely evening watching some of my favourite movies with a glass of my favourite beer.
So as you can see I am many confused with this line I keep hearing over and over again. So if there are any kindly souls out there with a take on this, and I am sure there must be many, please feel free to enlighten this dumb soul as to this particular strategy that seems to have completely escaped my comprehensive capabilities.
Many thanks in advance from one who has just witnessed the Mumbai Indians completely decimate the Rajastan Royals for just over a hundred. Now THAT - that which helped achieve this, whatever you may call it, is what i would call strategy. And the early wickets, just happened to be a result of that.
So as you can see I am many confused with this line I keep hearing over and over again. So if there are any kindly souls out there with a take on this, and I am sure there must be many, please feel free to enlighten this dumb soul as to this particular strategy that seems to have completely escaped my comprehensive capabilities.
Many thanks in advance from one who has just witnessed the Mumbai Indians completely decimate the Rajastan Royals for just over a hundred. Now THAT - that which helped achieve this, whatever you may call it, is what i would call strategy. And the early wickets, just happened to be a result of that.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Weekend Movies
There were three movies I watched over the weekend: The Fountain, Hollywoodland and The Pianist.
By far the best of the three was The Pianist directed by Roman Polanski. A very touching portrayal of a Polish Jew's struggle in the Warsaw ghettos during the Nazi occupation and the survival of the spirit. It seems a very personal movie and ranks far out there ahead of other films that have dealt with the same subject.
The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky is a visual experience. It is a fantasy showing three parallel stories spanning a time expanse of at least a thousand years. The stories will confuse you and perhaps leave you lost. Dont worry. Sit back and enjoy the film for what it is - a superb visual treat.
Hollywoodland is based on the true incident in Hollywood in the late 1950s when the actor George Reeves playing Superman on TV apparently committed suicide. It looks into his life and the possible circumstances leading upto the event. Although it is based on this incident there is a parallel story revolving around the private detective (who is fictional) who goes through a process of discovery while investigating the case. Interesting if you like period movies.
By far the best of the three was The Pianist directed by Roman Polanski. A very touching portrayal of a Polish Jew's struggle in the Warsaw ghettos during the Nazi occupation and the survival of the spirit. It seems a very personal movie and ranks far out there ahead of other films that have dealt with the same subject.
The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky is a visual experience. It is a fantasy showing three parallel stories spanning a time expanse of at least a thousand years. The stories will confuse you and perhaps leave you lost. Dont worry. Sit back and enjoy the film for what it is - a superb visual treat.
Hollywoodland is based on the true incident in Hollywood in the late 1950s when the actor George Reeves playing Superman on TV apparently committed suicide. It looks into his life and the possible circumstances leading upto the event. Although it is based on this incident there is a parallel story revolving around the private detective (who is fictional) who goes through a process of discovery while investigating the case. Interesting if you like period movies.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Destruction
"I must love what I destroy and destroy the thing I love"
- Sting from Moon Over Bourbon Street
- Sting from Moon Over Bourbon Street
Friday, March 28, 2008
Vague In Vogue
"For the benefit of Mr. Jones, we shall be delightfully vague, till such time that we begin to appear, to all intents and purpose, vaguely delightful. And look to those who are so good with words at keeping things vague. For it is sooner now, than later, that we will need that vagueness to keep from being blinded by all the clarity around us."
- Me (while examining the ambiguities in the larger scheme of things)
- Me (while examining the ambiguities in the larger scheme of things)
Friday, December 07, 2007
And we all made our choices...
Choice - that taken-for-granted option that is the birth-right of today's generation can be a pain in the ass sometimes.
Was a time when we didn't have much of a choice. We read what book we could lay our hands on, we watched whatever movie was playing at the local theatre, and we tuned into whatever channel was offered on the radio. And this was not really that much into the past, I maybe old, I'm not THAT old. But today - you dont need to lay your hands on any book - you have stores on end stacking them, you have unlimited choice online and whether you go looking for one or not there is a good chance one will come your way and bump you on the head. Movies - there for the asking - the plethora of multiplexes, dvd rental stores and ofcourse all the online stuff. Same goes for the music.
I'll not get into those examples. There are many more examples I could give but they are too complicated and best analysed by the web pundits of today. I'll stick to an example which is closer to my understanding. I am at a multiplex standing in line for a ticket (I can hear the sniggering "use the online booking dummy" - I do many times, only this time for the example I stand in line). I need tickets for the current show which is going to be starting sometime soon. I am maybe a couple of people away from the window when I notice that the guy at the window is taking a little longer than usual. I look and see that he is in deep discussion with the ticket-giving person. They both have their eyes scanning the monitor studying a seating plan which is staring back at them.
You see in my day, which was not so long ago in the past, we really didnt have a choice. When it came to your turn at the window, you stuck in your money, asked for the required number of tickets, and walked away with the tickets the ticket-giving person stuck in your hand. And these tickets already had the seat numbers scribbled on them. So you didnt really get to choose your seat. No choice. No delay. A simple in and out.
So getting back to our friend at the window and the ticket-giving person - they were now discussing viewing angles and reclining comfort as a function of the distance of any given seat from the screen. That having been put behind them, they moved on to weighing the trade-offs on choosing an aisle seat in the middle of the hall vis-a-vis a corner seat further down - viewing distance and reflection losses figuring in the discussion. An explanation on the different pricing followed with a short commentary on the state of the economy and its impact on multiplex box-office collections. By this time my movie was getting all warmed up and the show, as we say, was about to begin. I looked around and the others in the line didnt seem too concerned - they were deep in conversation with their others and so I casually glanced around and hummed and hawed a bit. Internally, I was yanking the guy at the window away from his post, reaching in for the tickets and ripping them off after shoving in the money for them. But no - that couldnt happen here. Choice - you could choose your seat, and take your time doing it. For mine is the right to choose, and choose I shall, and take my time doing it.
Finally they seemed to arrive at the optimum seats, spent a few more minutes deciding what the title of their elaborate thesis should be, and parted ways. By now my movie had reached the interval, so I just bought tickets for the next available show. And it wasnt necessarily the movie I had wanted to see.
So much for choice.
Was a time when we didn't have much of a choice. We read what book we could lay our hands on, we watched whatever movie was playing at the local theatre, and we tuned into whatever channel was offered on the radio. And this was not really that much into the past, I maybe old, I'm not THAT old. But today - you dont need to lay your hands on any book - you have stores on end stacking them, you have unlimited choice online and whether you go looking for one or not there is a good chance one will come your way and bump you on the head. Movies - there for the asking - the plethora of multiplexes, dvd rental stores and ofcourse all the online stuff. Same goes for the music.
I'll not get into those examples. There are many more examples I could give but they are too complicated and best analysed by the web pundits of today. I'll stick to an example which is closer to my understanding. I am at a multiplex standing in line for a ticket (I can hear the sniggering "use the online booking dummy" - I do many times, only this time for the example I stand in line). I need tickets for the current show which is going to be starting sometime soon. I am maybe a couple of people away from the window when I notice that the guy at the window is taking a little longer than usual. I look and see that he is in deep discussion with the ticket-giving person. They both have their eyes scanning the monitor studying a seating plan which is staring back at them.
You see in my day, which was not so long ago in the past, we really didnt have a choice. When it came to your turn at the window, you stuck in your money, asked for the required number of tickets, and walked away with the tickets the ticket-giving person stuck in your hand. And these tickets already had the seat numbers scribbled on them. So you didnt really get to choose your seat. No choice. No delay. A simple in and out.
So getting back to our friend at the window and the ticket-giving person - they were now discussing viewing angles and reclining comfort as a function of the distance of any given seat from the screen. That having been put behind them, they moved on to weighing the trade-offs on choosing an aisle seat in the middle of the hall vis-a-vis a corner seat further down - viewing distance and reflection losses figuring in the discussion. An explanation on the different pricing followed with a short commentary on the state of the economy and its impact on multiplex box-office collections. By this time my movie was getting all warmed up and the show, as we say, was about to begin. I looked around and the others in the line didnt seem too concerned - they were deep in conversation with their others and so I casually glanced around and hummed and hawed a bit. Internally, I was yanking the guy at the window away from his post, reaching in for the tickets and ripping them off after shoving in the money for them. But no - that couldnt happen here. Choice - you could choose your seat, and take your time doing it. For mine is the right to choose, and choose I shall, and take my time doing it.
Finally they seemed to arrive at the optimum seats, spent a few more minutes deciding what the title of their elaborate thesis should be, and parted ways. By now my movie had reached the interval, so I just bought tickets for the next available show. And it wasnt necessarily the movie I had wanted to see.
So much for choice.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
If you dont like your veggies - play them!
Check out this amazing orchestra - all green, all veggie, and all - well - you figure that out. But all in all, it sure is different.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Strategy or What?
Napoleon Bonaparte, emperor of France, master of strategy and conqueror of most of Europe sure knew how to freak the enemy. He didn't rely so much on brilliant innovation while strategizing, rather he spent time studying the innovations of others and then thought about how it could be reused in the present context. He relied on flashes of insight to tell him what to do. When he first set out to conquer with a badly impoverished army from southern France, he goaded them saying that there was wealth to be had out there in the world and that they should go and get it. He advanced into Italy, and the Italian and Austrian generals identified Turin and Milan as strategic objectives. The Italian army spread out to defend Turin, and the Austrian army fanned out to defend Milan. Napoleon headed towards neither and went in between them. This confused the hell out of the Italian army which sent out troops looking for him, which allowed him to pick them off at his leisure at various points that were advantageous to him. He then headed not towards the Austrians defending Milan, but towards Austria. This panicked the Austrians who then set off in pursuit to defend their country. Napoleon picked a town along the way, set up in the middle of the town and allowed his artilery and then the infantry to take out the Austrian army on the bridge leading into the town.
This concept of finding the right thing to do at the right time came to be known as "Napoleon's Glance" - as recorded in a work On War by Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian, who ended up fighting on the losing side in many battles with Napoleon. He went away and pondered over twenty years on the genius of Napoleon and what made him tick, and came up with the concept of the coup d'oeil, meaning a stroke of the eye, or glance.
The source for this is the book, Napoleon's Glance by William Duggan.
This concept of finding the right thing to do at the right time came to be known as "Napoleon's Glance" - as recorded in a work On War by Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian, who ended up fighting on the losing side in many battles with Napoleon. He went away and pondered over twenty years on the genius of Napoleon and what made him tick, and came up with the concept of the coup d'oeil, meaning a stroke of the eye, or glance.
The source for this is the book, Napoleon's Glance by William Duggan.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wikinomics
Mass collaboration changes everything! Or does it?
For a treatment on this subject you could read Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes everything by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams.
Openness, Peering, Sharing and Going Global: these concepts are dealt with in the book covering a wide range of examples from a mining company that opened up its internal data to the world to get people around the world to come up with locations where they could mine to the well known ongoing Linux collaborative effort. Do organizations still need to follow the strict closed door approach to innovation and research or would it make sense to throw open the doors and allow the collective mind to go to work for them. Is the wiki workplace really what we are heading towards? Peering, a marketplace for ideas, the Prosumer, collaborative research, common platforms for innovation, and above all, the collaborative mind making for a new world. Is this really the direction that we need to go in?
An interesting read.
For a treatment on this subject you could read Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes everything by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams.
Openness, Peering, Sharing and Going Global: these concepts are dealt with in the book covering a wide range of examples from a mining company that opened up its internal data to the world to get people around the world to come up with locations where they could mine to the well known ongoing Linux collaborative effort. Do organizations still need to follow the strict closed door approach to innovation and research or would it make sense to throw open the doors and allow the collective mind to go to work for them. Is the wiki workplace really what we are heading towards? Peering, a marketplace for ideas, the Prosumer, collaborative research, common platforms for innovation, and above all, the collaborative mind making for a new world. Is this really the direction that we need to go in?
An interesting read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)