Categories

Announcing Airshow 2.0

We are ready to roll out Airshow 2.0, a redesigned curriculum for motion-based data presentations.

Three years ago, we created the Airshow concept as a study of how stories come alive using data. We drew inspiration from cinematography and combined with the work of Welles, Tufte and Rosling to build a new theory of presentations. We offered explanations of: 

  • How and why are presentations different from one-on-one interactions?
  • Will new user interface metaphors such as touch help tell stories better than the slide advance clicker?
  • Are motion and interaction an effective ways to present? If so, how are they to be choreographed and directed?
  • How does “camera position” affect a data story?

Since that initial concept, we have learned far more.

Airshow 2.0 moves beyond executing a story in pixels to the writing and directing process. As before, we teach using the process itself: through stories presented as data. 

A full-day presentation of Airshow 2.0 will debut on May 28 in Boston. We will also hold a special performance in San Francisco on Saturday June 11 (weekend before WWDC) to commemorate Airshow’s third anniversary.

To register, or for more information, see http://airshow.io/ .  A 30% discount is available to early registrants. 

Asymcar #31 Serenity Now

Brand (new) theory: Can a well known brand do something new? Must the new thing stand alone? Must it have a new name, a new distribution model? We evaluate BMW’s “i” sub-brand from both a strategic and tactical perspective. Also a more nuanced review of the i3 after driving it a while. What is the real job it does.

Source: Asymcar #31

The Critical Path #173 iPod, iPhone, iPad, i3?

Horace explains why he was wrong about the BMW i3. Also, more Q&A.

Source: The Critical Path #173

The Critical Path #172 This is an iPad Pro and This is an  iPad Pro

On this special “in person” edition of the Critical Path, Horace and Anders discuss Apple’s latest product offerings, the iPhone SE and the new 9.7 inch iPad Pro 9.7, and take listener questions via Twitter.

Source: The Critical Path #172

Asymcar 30: The Big Bang Theory

We talk finance and other curiosities with Sviatoslav Rosov PhD, CFA, Analyst.

Beginning with Henry Ford’s “Old Fashioned Layaway Plan” followed by the launch of General Motors Acceptance Corporation, the Certified Pre-Owned sleight of hand and today’s auto sales finance and reporting controversies all shaped the industry. Finance is one of many vectors which tie the system together into what its is.

We once again explore the other vectors that might open disruptive opportunities for an entrant. Wide ranging discussion touching all the big points ultimately asking whether Big Bang change is coming. Or will it the big whimper?

Source: 5by5 | Asymcar #30: Asymcar 30: The Big Bang

Dialogue with Sviatoslav Rosov for CFA Institute Magazine

 

Why is an expert on disruptive technology “worried” about financial innovation?

 

Excerpt from “Chaos Is Hard to Predict”

Does technical innovation always end in displacement/ replacement?
The professions being challenged include physicians, lawyers, consultants, and analysts. Algorithms and sensors could conceivably displace some subset. However, it’s not a certainty. One way to fend off automation displacement is to redefine and change the scope of the profession.

The classic example is from the birth of the Industrial Revolution. As machines replaced certain tasks, new jobs were created which required higher skills and hence edu- cation, leading to universal matriculation and eventually the popularity of higher education. Professionals need to “invent” new jobs for themselves as a means to keep disruption at bay.

Read more: CFA Institute Magazine.

 

The Next 40

In Apple’s first 40 years it shipped 1,591,092,250 computers[1].

This shipment total is higher than any other computer company in its first 40 years. Actually there are no other PC makers that are 40 years old. One computer maker (IBM) is older but they only sold PCs for 24 years and what they still sell they don’t sell in high numbers.

That does not make it the top seller in a given year. Looking at only the Mac, Apple’s traditional form factor personal computer, Apple has only returned to the top 5 last year. Only if including the iPad it was the top computer vendor in 2011 and including iPhone, it was first in 2009.

Screen Shot 2016-03-28 at 11.36.56 AM

After having a 40 year run and after selling more computers than all American and Japanese computer companies put together, how should we think about the next 40 years?

First, clearly Apple shifted from being a “computer company”. It has already changed its name to exclude the word “Computer” but that has been interpreted as saying that it sells devices (which happen to also be computers.) The word “computer” is already archaic. We stopped using computers to compute in the 40s. We used them to make decisions, keep track of things, speed things up and then to communicate and then to entertain.

Devices, it seems, are what customers mainly use to do, well, everything. Computing has grown to encompass most activities we engage in. So is Apple then a device maker?

Notes:
  1. including Apple II, Mac, iPhone, iPad and iPod touch; excluding Apple Watch, Apple TV and other iPods. Includes Q1 shipments estimated at 63,597,000 Macs, iPhones and iPads []

Significant Digits #3 

 

The latest episode of Significant Digits is available for download.

In One Infinite we loop you in on the last show at the Loop. We expand on the small numbers and condense the big numbers.

Asymcar #29

Horace and Jim begin with the industry’s rhetorical bubble. We consider the auto eco-system’s atmospherics on auto companions and quickly revert back to the reality of today’s manufacturing practices and industry lead times.

Source: Asymcar #29

Priorities in a time of plenty

How Apple is managed is one of its enduring mysteries. The idea that a company with $235 billion in sales is managed with a single P/L[1]  is fascinating in many ways. Not least of which is how it allocates resources. The fundamental question of which great idea gets to be funded and which great idea gets to be ignored is the core of every manager’s dilemma. The Apple problem is at scale  when each decision’s consequences are so momentous. In the case of Apple there are so few projects that reach the market and their impact is so great that one wonders how they can be sure they are doing the right thing.

Conventionally, product development is filtered through a sieve of  metrics, market sizing and impact on top/bottom income lines. These “financial” measures of success are considered prudent and optimized for return on equity (also known as the maximization of shareholder returns).

But this can be a toxic formula. The financial optimization algorithm always prioritizes the known over the unknown since the known can be measured and is assigned a quantum of value while the unknown is “discounted” with a steep hurdle rate, and assigned a near zero net present value. Thus the financial algorithm leads to promoting efficiency at the expense of creation. Efficiency may be the right priority when times are difficult and resources are scarce but creativity is the right priority in a time of plenty. And abundance is what being big is all about.

To allow for some creation large firms create divisions. Some divisions are tasked with “core products” which are measured by a set of firm metrics and some are tasked with “emerging products” which are given a set of loose metrics. This leads to obvious resentment and war between divisions when resources need allocating.

Ominously, the core divisions tend to always win. At the root of divisional power struggles are measurements–the roots of financial metrics. Managers fight with data. “You can’t manage what you can’t measure” they’re taught. But if you have something that can be easily measured and something that is difficult to measure, won’t the easily-measured be managed and the hard-to-measure be ignored?

There is a general principle at work here: Managing by measurement is fraught with the pitfall of measuring the wrong thing. Making sure that you’re measuring the right thing becomes the value-adding role of the manager. A role that is increasingly being neglected.

The mass phenomenon of measuring the wrong thing because it’s the easiest to measure is called “financialization”. Financialization is the process by which finance and finances (rather than creation) determine company, individual and society’s priorities. It comes about from an abundance of data that leads to fixation on what is observable to the detriment of awareness of hazards or obstacles or alternatives. This phenomenon is more likely when the speed of change increases and decision cycles shorten.

Financialization is creeping into all aspects of society and the extent to which it infects companies is the extent to which they suffer from early mortality.

So is Apple avoiding financialization? How can anyone avoid the tyranny of mis-optimization?

The unified P/L might be a clue. It obviates the need for divisional rivalry and power-based or financial politics. Without divisional P/L, management can be organized functionally with the obvious benefit of de-politicization. The singular P/L does create another problem however: the absence of an alternative resource allocation algorithm centralizes the decision. By centralizing decisions at the highest level, few decisions can be taken and that means each decision has to be right more often. We swap a distributed but financialized process for a central but capricious one.

So how is the central decision process made fair? What guides the allocation process?

Notes:
  1. Profit and Loss statement is an income statement usually applied for a subset of a larger company which allows subdivisions to be managed individually. []