Looking at the current Web 2 Tools, and reflecting on the reading assignment, will Web 2 Tools lead to better predictions of the future? How can Web 2 enhance understanding and anticipating trends in Economics, Weather, Financial Services, Population, Technology, Business Planning and other sectors? I'm not confident that better collaboration tools will prevent another "$200 Billion" of "erroneous" future predictions each year. Most of the environments and sectors leveraging collaboration tools are buried somewhere in Chaos and Complexity. Both are difficult to predict. In fact, since non-linear relationships greatly amplify mistakes, and reside within Chaos systems, collaborating to predict the future may still remain difficult. For example, will better collaboration tools such as Web 2 really enhance weather predictions when using seasonal average temperatures yields 90% accuracy? Web 2 tools are valuable if there is common user acceptance, and collaboration is the proper approach to problem solving, decision making, and predicting future risks. Part of my research revolves around how collaboration technology may enhancer information sharing and overcoming horizontal and vertical information sharing barriers at the strategic level. Web 2 is easy to use, but performance is key to using the technology. HM
Given the text book review for economics and the market, finding failed predictions is easy...over a 80% chance to find a failed prediction. The discussion on complexity and chaos is very insightful, and seems to so true. Even today, predicting the market and economics seems so futile.
For me one of the greatest failed predictions was the end of the world in 1989, the "Late, Great, Planet Earth". It seems we've all forgotten. Regan was in office, and Israel was a nation state since 1948. Many experts sited that after 40 years, the anti-Christ would take over the world and attempt to destroy Israel. Well, it didn't happen. But, what did happen was the "collapse of the Soviet Union". Wow.
The thought of a all-out Nuclear War with the Soviet Union was so pervasive and nominated our thinking in the economy, politics, and social fiber. Then to see the world caught by complete surprise I found to be incredible.
The current innovation approach in industry is lacking in strategic aligning with the organizational strategy. So often the approach is shop from a list of tools (such as Web 2.0), compare vendor claims, rate each tool and select, then “sell” the choice to the organization and decision maker. Often, as the new products are deployed to the employees, there is the high cost of operations, maintenance, and training. Then months later, the tool is not used and the IT shop is wondering why the choice was ever made in the first place. This is the “technology ambush”.
What is needed is a more robust innovation plan that begins with defining business success. What does how business look like when it’s successful? Are we being successful today? If not, then the next step is to discover barriers to success such as costs, processes, and even performance. Can these areas be improved? Can the barriers be overcome by improving the speed, quality, or lowering the expense? Then, the organization implements the crafted solution by addresses the full spectrum of people (community), process, and then TECHNOLOGY. The goal is to align technology with supporting the firms strategy objectives and goals.
So often, new technology is appealing to the IT department, the new technology just does not fit the company’s purpose. With WEB 2, it’s difficult to see how the new technology would provide a strategic advantage. The goal of a strategic advantage is have a niche or unique product that differentiates in the market place. Innovation plans must avoid the technology ambush, and seek to align innovation efforts to truly enhance the firm’s strategic objectives.
1.I see ("hear") podcasting is a good choice for think tanks. Think tanks allow brainstorming and creating new ideas. The key is not to "evaluate" comments so that Group Think takes over, and all the ideas migrate to the mean. 2. Podcast text: Future is a concept, not a fixed object that can be transformed by numerous, complex forces. Although the future is incredibly difficult to predict, it can be easier to accomplish in "investment" increments. Five years out is focused on making innovations that are faster, cheaper, better. The idea here is to just make improvements, and validate concepts. 10 Years out usually requires Coupling ideas, and then seeing the predicted result. 15 years out and one must see strategic trends in other disciplines and environments. 3. Hope shapes the future. I found the results of research for 15 years out to become shaped by either positive feelings or negative feelings. If the author had hope, he had a positive outlook for the future. The future is something someone can "take". Today's solutions to today's problems will shape and provide some prediction to the future. For example, high energy today, will most likely cause the future to have alternatives available. This may be common sense, but look at today's problems, see the successful solution, and one gets a feel for the future. Lastly, good or bad acts today affect the future. The recent Russian invasion into Georgia will have numerous implications for future political science, security, defense and even cyber warfare.
PURPOSE. Provide status on Maritime Defense Technologies BOTTOM LINE. Within the next 15 years C4ISR will be making significant leaps in capability. Although no one technology provides the 80% solution for Maritime Defense, it is imperative that Maritime Leadership does not limit future capabilities by current paradigms. A lack of imagination or vision may become the best threat to Maritime Homeland Defense. BACKGROUND. The range of Maritime Defense Technologies spans all warfighter domains and includes cyber. Technologies span from National Technical Means to Acoustics to Biometrics. Although the Navy is the executive agent for DOD acquisition process, Maritime Defense technologies leadership requires a Joint, multi-agency, international coordinated effort. Joint support and governance to achieve Maritime security involves a “loosely-coupled” Command & Control. DISCUSSION. The diagram depicts major technology efforts and an estimated time period for improved capabilities. These capabilities may now permit the following effects in our plans, strategy, and policy: • Improved problem analysis- quicker divergence awareness and root cause analysis from a known, desired end state. Significant gains in sensor development and “real time” sensor processing will bring new dimensions to problem recognition. This may lead to added pressure for course of action development and selection time. • Significant improvement in decision-making cycle times requiring robust policy guidance to lowest response levels. Improved processing speeds and semantic taxonomies within Communities of Interest will lead to improve course of action selection, and allow “prototyping” risk mitigation plans • Rapid deployable, mobile communications coupled to large bandwidth permitting real to near time response and information feeds to maintain real time situational awareness to implement solutions to first responders. • Development of “universal” core software code that permits “expeditionary” access to disparate data sources in various languages • Learning information systems that begin to anticipate for the user key assessments and alerts for future risks or concerns. Future capabilities will have such potential for data overload to leadership and decision makers, that users will need to development information refinement methodologies to identify the key “Pareto” (80/20 rule) parameters. RECOMMENDATION.
NORAD-USNORTHCOM J5 needs to continue leading efforts defining effects and desired capabilities to address Maritime Defense gaps and shortfalls. Strategic-technology alignment must remain in cooperation with OSD, DHS, COCOMS, Interagency Partnerships, and Coalition Alliances to enhance the National Strategy for Martime Security and related plans. Now is the time to begin adocating for the following measures of effectiveness: • Real time • Resilient • Robust • Intelligent • Mobile • Surprise • Foresee • Worldwide • Common Semantics
5 comments:
Looking at the current Web 2 Tools, and reflecting on the reading assignment, will Web 2 Tools lead to better predictions of the future? How can Web 2 enhance understanding and anticipating trends in Economics, Weather, Financial Services, Population, Technology, Business Planning and other sectors? I'm not confident that better collaboration tools will prevent another "$200 Billion" of "erroneous" future predictions each year.
Most of the environments and sectors leveraging collaboration tools are buried somewhere in Chaos and Complexity. Both are difficult to predict. In fact, since non-linear relationships greatly amplify mistakes, and reside within Chaos systems, collaborating to predict the future may still remain difficult. For example, will better collaboration tools such as Web 2 really enhance weather predictions when using seasonal average temperatures yields 90% accuracy?
Web 2 tools are valuable if there is common user acceptance, and collaboration is the proper approach to problem solving, decision making, and predicting future risks. Part of my research revolves around how collaboration technology may enhancer information sharing and overcoming horizontal and vertical information sharing barriers at the strategic level. Web 2 is easy to use, but performance is key to using the technology.
HM
Given the text book review for economics and the market, finding failed predictions is easy...over a 80% chance to find a failed prediction. The discussion on complexity and chaos is very insightful, and seems to so true. Even today, predicting the market and economics seems so futile.
For me one of the greatest failed predictions was the end of the world in 1989, the "Late, Great, Planet Earth". It seems we've all forgotten. Regan was in office, and Israel was a nation state since 1948. Many experts sited that after 40 years, the anti-Christ would take over the world and attempt to destroy Israel. Well, it didn't happen. But, what did happen was the "collapse of the Soviet Union". Wow.
The thought of a all-out Nuclear War with the Soviet Union was so pervasive and nominated our thinking in the economy, politics, and social fiber. Then to see the world caught by complete surprise I found to be incredible.
Innovation Plan
Avoid the Technology Ambush
The current innovation approach in industry is lacking in strategic aligning with the organizational strategy. So often the approach is shop from a list of tools (such as Web 2.0), compare vendor claims, rate each tool and select, then “sell” the choice to the organization and decision maker. Often, as the new products are deployed to the employees, there is the high cost of operations, maintenance, and training. Then months later, the tool is not used and the IT shop is wondering why the choice was ever made in the first place. This is the “technology ambush”.
What is needed is a more robust innovation plan that begins with defining business success. What does how business look like when it’s successful? Are we being successful today? If not, then the next step is to discover barriers to success such as costs, processes, and even performance. Can these areas be improved? Can the barriers be overcome by improving the speed, quality, or lowering the expense? Then, the organization implements the crafted solution by addresses the full spectrum of people (community), process, and then TECHNOLOGY. The goal is to align technology with supporting the firms strategy objectives and goals.
So often, new technology is appealing to the IT department, the new technology just does not fit the company’s purpose. With WEB 2, it’s difficult to see how the new technology would provide a strategic advantage. The goal of a strategic advantage is have a niche or unique product that differentiates in the market place. Innovation plans must avoid the technology ambush, and seek to align innovation efforts to truly enhance the firm’s strategic objectives.
1.I see ("hear") podcasting is a good choice for think tanks. Think tanks allow brainstorming and creating new ideas. The key is not to "evaluate" comments so that Group Think takes over, and all the ideas migrate to the mean.
2. Podcast text: Future is a concept, not a fixed object that can be transformed by numerous, complex forces. Although the future is incredibly difficult to predict, it can be easier to accomplish in "investment" increments. Five years out is focused on making innovations that are faster, cheaper, better. The idea here is to just make improvements, and validate concepts. 10 Years out usually requires Coupling ideas, and then seeing the predicted result. 15 years out and one must see strategic trends in other disciplines and environments.
3. Hope shapes the future. I found the results of research for 15 years out to become shaped by either positive feelings or negative feelings. If the author had hope, he had a positive outlook for the future. The future is something someone can "take". Today's solutions to today's problems will shape and provide some prediction to the future. For example, high energy today, will most likely cause the future to have alternatives available. This may be common sense, but look at today's problems, see the successful solution, and one gets a feel for the future. Lastly, good or bad acts today affect the future. The recent Russian invasion into Georgia will have numerous implications for future political science, security, defense and even cyber warfare.
Maritime Defense Future Technologies
PURPOSE. Provide status on Maritime Defense Technologies
BOTTOM LINE. Within the next 15 years C4ISR will be making significant leaps in capability. Although no one technology provides the 80% solution for Maritime Defense, it is imperative that Maritime Leadership does not limit future capabilities by current paradigms. A lack of imagination or vision may become the best threat to Maritime Homeland Defense.
BACKGROUND.
The range of Maritime Defense Technologies spans all warfighter domains and includes cyber. Technologies span from National Technical Means to Acoustics to Biometrics. Although the Navy is the executive agent for DOD acquisition process, Maritime Defense technologies leadership requires a Joint, multi-agency, international coordinated effort. Joint support and governance to achieve Maritime security involves a “loosely-coupled” Command & Control.
DISCUSSION.
The diagram depicts major technology efforts and an estimated time period for improved capabilities. These capabilities may now permit the following effects in our plans, strategy, and policy:
• Improved problem analysis- quicker divergence awareness and root cause analysis from a known, desired end state. Significant gains in sensor development and “real time” sensor processing will bring new dimensions to problem recognition. This may lead to added pressure for course of action development and selection time.
• Significant improvement in decision-making cycle times requiring robust policy guidance to lowest response levels. Improved processing speeds and semantic taxonomies within Communities of Interest will lead to improve course of action selection, and allow “prototyping” risk mitigation plans
• Rapid deployable, mobile communications coupled to large bandwidth permitting real to near time response and information feeds to maintain real time situational awareness to implement solutions to first responders.
• Development of “universal” core software code that permits “expeditionary” access to disparate data sources in various languages
• Learning information systems that begin to anticipate for the user key assessments and alerts for future risks or concerns. Future capabilities will have such potential for data overload to leadership and decision makers, that users will need to development information refinement methodologies to identify the key “Pareto” (80/20 rule) parameters.
RECOMMENDATION.
NORAD-USNORTHCOM J5 needs to continue leading efforts defining effects and desired capabilities to address Maritime Defense gaps and shortfalls. Strategic-technology alignment must remain in cooperation with OSD, DHS, COCOMS, Interagency Partnerships, and Coalition Alliances to enhance the National Strategy for Martime Security and related plans. Now is the time to begin adocating for the following measures of effectiveness:
• Real time
• Resilient
• Robust
• Intelligent
• Mobile
• Surprise
• Foresee
• Worldwide
• Common Semantics
Hal Moore/J5/27 AUG08
Post a Comment