I also greatly appreciate the opportunity to have worked and learned with such talented and dedicated professionals in the Office of Science and Technology.
June 16, 2011
New Beginnings
I also greatly appreciate the opportunity to have worked and learned with such talented and dedicated professionals in the Office of Science and Technology.
June 15, 2011
Apple Store "Heaven"
Apple Store "Heaven"
June 11, 2011
The Internet: A Right and a Responsibility
Good Online is reporting (10 June 2011) that the “U.N. Declares Internet Access a Human Right.”
According to the U.N. report, “The Internet has become a key means by which individuals exercise their right to freedom of expression.”
But as Good points out, this is not just a “third-world concern,” since even in America those without high-speed access cannot adequately perform certain functions “and that surely this affects their ability to get informed, educated, and employed.”
The U.N. is pushing for more protections for people to “assert themselves freely online,” but Good proposes that Internet access means more than just freedom of expression, but also the right to more public Wi-Fi access, better access to technology in libraries and I would assume in schools as well.
Interestingly enough, just on Thursday, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC and AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson announced that as part of NYC’s “Road Map for the Digital City,” they were launching a five-year initiative for free Wi-Fi service at 20 NYC parks—this is seen as a “critical developmental tool” for children, families, and communities.
The Internet stands alone as a technology that is now a “human right.” Radios, televisions, and telephones—none of these have that status. Yes, we have freedom of speech, but the technologies that enable them are not seen as a human right.
Similarly, access to the printing press (i.e. the technology for printing) itself is not a human right—rather, freedom of press (i.e. expression through print) is.
Do we not communicate and express ourselves over radio, TV, telephone, and other technologies as we do over the Internet? Do we not get information from them and through them? Do we not reach out with them to others both nationally and globally as we do over Net?
The answer to all of these is of course, we do.
So what is distinct about the Internet that the mere access to it is declared a human right?
I believe it is the fact that the Internet is the first technology whose very access enables the protection of all the other human rights, since it empowers EVERYONE to hear and speak from and to the masses about what is going in—whether in the tumultuous streets of the Arab Spring to the darkest prisons silencing political dissent.
While radio and television, in their time, were important in getting information and entertainment, but they were essentially unidirectional modes of communication and these can be manipulated by the powers that be. Similarly, the telephone while important to bridging communications over vast distances was for the most part constrained between two or at most a few individuals conversing. And publishing was limited to the realm of the professionals with printing presses.
In contrast, the Internet enables each person to become their own TV producer (think YouTube), radio announcer (think iTunes), telephone operator (think Skype) or publisher (think websites, blogs, wikis, etc.).
The Internet has put tremendous power into the hands of every individual. This is now a declared right. With that right, there is a tremendous responsibility to share information and collaborate with others for the benefit of all.
Of course, as a powerful tool of expression, the Internet can also be used malevolently to express hatred, racism, bigotry, etc. and to malign other people, their thoughts or opinions. Of course, it can also be used to steal, spy, hack, and otherwise disrupt normal civilization.
So we also all have the responsibility to behave appropriately, fairly, and with dignity to each other on the Internet.
While I applaud the U.N. for declaring the Internet a human right, I would like to see this expanded to include both a right and responsibility—this to me would be more balanced and beneficial to building not only access, but also giving and tolerance.
(Photo Source: WorldVisionReport.org)
The Internet: A Right and a Responsibility
June 9, 2011
Misappropriating Twitter
By now we are all familiar with the news story regarding a prominent lawmaker, recently married, who admitted to a longstanding pattern of inappropriate sexual exploits via Twitter.
As The Wall Street Journal (9 June 2011) notes, the individual got caught when he “mistakenly sent the photo to tens of thousands of Twitter followers,” rather than as a private message.
As a public servant who is a proponent of social media technology used appropriately, I was very concerned when I saw this in the news (note: all opinions my own).
The government needs social media tools like Twitter. It is an important tool for sharing information and alerts. It is obviously not for “sexting” your followers, especially with a Twitter handle that is apparently coming from someone in the government.
Twitter is an important means of engaging the public in important ways, moving this great country forward on policy issues and a vision that is noble, righteous, and for the betterment of our world. What a shame when these tools are misappropriated!
So while I cannot say “with certitude” what exactly this person was thinking, I am certain that we need social media in government and that there are numerous positive ways for it to be applied. With the caveat that the basis for social media by anyone in government has to be truth, transparency and genuine outreach on issues of importance to the people.
A lot of government people and agencies are doing a good job with Twitter and other social media tools. Let's go back to focusing on the positive work that we can do with them, even as we note with caution how badly they can be misused.
Misappropriating Twitter
June 7, 2011
2048--And The World Will Be As One
John Lennon sang the song Imagine—envisioning a time when everyone will be at peace “and the world will be as one.”
Perusing the bookstore, I came across a relatively new book that came out last year called 2048 by J. Kirk Boyd, Executive Director of the 2048 Project at the U.C. Berkeley Law School that carries a vision of peace, unity and human rights similar to the song.
By 2048, Boyd envisions a world with an “agreement to live together”—marked by an International Bill of Rights with five key freedoms:
1) Freedom of Speech—includes freedoms of expression, media, assembly, and associations.
2) Freedom of Religion—the right to worship in your own way and separation of church and state.
3) Freedom from Want—everyone has a right to a useful and fairly paying job, a decent home, adequate medical care, and a good education.
4) Freedom from Fear—freedom from repression, enabled by an independent judiciary and the enforcement of the rule of law.
5) Freedom of the Environment—driven by preservation and sustainability for future generations.
I would see the freedoms in the U.S. Bill of Rights that are not explicitly mentioned here to be implicitly covered by the broad categories of Freedoms from Want and Fear.
For example, the right to bear arms and such could be covered under the Freedom of Want. Similarly, the guarantees to a speedy, public trial and not to be put in double jeopardy or unreasonably searched etc. could be covered under Freedom from Fear.
Boyd’s 2048 implementation of an International Bill of Rights carries forward the Declaration of Human Rights—that consists of 30 articles—by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948—on it’s one hundred year anniversary—that has unfortunately not been fully realized yet.
In a time when so much oppression, repression, and global poverty still exist, I am awed by this vision and call for human rights throughout the world.
I like the clarity and simplicity of Boyd’s five freedoms. They can be easily understood and remembered.
The freedoms according to Boyd will enable us to focus together, think (and write) together, decide together, and move forward together.
This is a far different world than the one we live in today that is driven by scarcity, power and politics and that keep people in seemingly perpetual fighting mode.
What will it take to reach a world architecture that brings peace, prosperity, and dignity to all? A global catastrophe. A common enemy. A messianic fulfillment. Or is it possible, with G-d’s help, to move today—incrementally—through our own planning, reason and devices to live in peace as one humankind?
2048--And The World Will Be As One
June 5, 2011
Video Surveillance Made Easier
Video Surveillance Made Easier
June 4, 2011
Armored Skin
Armored Skin
June 3, 2011
Describing Meal Time
Describing Meal Time
May 31, 2011
CPR by iPhone
CPR by iPhone
May 30, 2011
Nothing But Legs
Nothing But Legs
"G-d Said No"
"G-d Said No"
May 28, 2011
Perfect Is The Enemy of Good
Perfect Is The Enemy of Good
May 26, 2011
Educating The World
- Mathematics
- Science
- Economics
- Finance
- History
- Statistics
- And more
Educating The World
May 25, 2011
Apples or Oranges
An very good article in Harvard Business Review (June 2011) called "Before You Make That Big Decision" identifies a dozen of these biases that can throw leaders off course.
What I liked about this article is how it organized the subject into a schema for interrogating an issue to get to better decision-making.
Here are some of the major biases that leaders need to be aware of and inquire about when they are presented with an investment proposal:
1) Motivation Errors--do the people presenting a proposal have a self-interest in the outcome?
2) Groupthink--are dissenting opinions being actively solicited and fairly evaluated?
3) Salient Analogies--are analogies and examples being used really comparable?
4) Confirmation Bias--has other viable alternatives been duly considered?
5) Availability Bias--has all relevant information been considered?
6) Anchoring Bias--can the numbers be substantiated (i.e. where did they come from)?
7) Halo Effect--is success from one area automatically being translated to another?
8) Planning Fallacy--is the business case overly optimistic?
9) Disaster Neglect--is the worst-case scenario imagined really the worst?
10) Loss Aversion--is the team being overly cautious, conservative, and unimaginative?
11) Affect Heuristic--are we exaggerating or emphasizing the benefits and minimizing the risks?
12) Sunk-Cost Fallacy--are we basing future decision-making on past costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered?
To counter these biases, here are my top 10 questions for getting past the b.s. (applying enterprise architecture and governance):
1) What is the business requirement--justification--and use cases for the proposal being presented?
2) How does the proposal align to the strategic plan and enterprise architecture?
3) What is return on investment and what is the basis for the projections?
4) What alternatives were considered and what are the pros and cons of each?
5) What are the best practices and fundamental research in this area?
6) What are the critical success factors?
7) What are the primary risks and planned mitigations for each?
8) What assumptions have been made?
9) What dissenting opinions were there?
10) Who else has been successful implementing this type of investment and what were the lessons learned?
While no one can remove every personal or organizational bias that exists from the decision-making equation, it is critical for leaders to do get beyond the superficial to the "meat and potatoes" of the issues.
This can be accomplished by leaders interrogating the issues themselves and as well as by establishing appropriate functional governance boards with diverse personnel to fully vet the issues, solve problems, and move the organizations toward a decision and execution.
Whether the decision is apples or oranges, the wise leader gets beyond the peel.
Apples or Oranges
May 22, 2011
Peace and Security
Peace and Security
May 21, 2011
The Information Blanket

The Information Blanket
May 20, 2011
Purpose Drives Productivity

Purpose Drives Productivity
May 17, 2011
Know What's Right, Do What's Right

And at one point, he says straight-out, integrity takes two things:
1) Know what's right
2) Do what's right
And I'm loving it!
Straight-forward and simple--know and do what's right.
Then he tells me about Gus Lee, a nationally recognized ethicist (and Chair of Character Development at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point) who wrote this book Courage: The Backbone of Leadership.
I was inspired by what I heard and since went back to learn more about his philosophy on the subject.
Lee believes that "leadership is grounded in high character" and that "we think we are looking for managers, but in fact, we need principled leaders."
To drive our "moral courage", Lee says we have 3 powerful resources:
1) Conscience--"that moral, inner voice."
2) Discernment--this is where you work to discern "the higher right" getting past "fear, feelings, and wishful thinking" and of course, our own self interests.
3) Discerning Advisors--we seek the counsel of "the most courageous, high integrity, high character, and principled person or people" you know.
And I would add a fourth important resource, which is religious teachings that can be a steadfast guidepost (especially when coupled with the others as a personal litmus test of whether you are applying them correctly).
Finally, I like Lee's observation that there are three type of individuals when it comes to issues of integrity:
1) Egotists--those who are self-serving.
2) Pragmatists--those who "serve results" or what I would call serving a specified cause.
3) People of Courage--those who "act in the right regardless."
Doing the right thing is not easy (it means putting aside your own interests)!
That's why it takes tremendous courage to be the type of moral person that we all ultimately admire and respect.
Those leaders who act with moral rectitude, these to me are the few and the amazing!
Know What's Right, Do What's Right
May 15, 2011
Hooray For Motivation
Already in 1964, Frederick Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory differentiated work satisfiers (aka motivators) such as challenging work, achievement, and responsibility, from dis-satisfiers (aka hygiene factors) such as the absence of status, job security, adequate salary/benefits, and pleasant work conditions.
In other words, motivation is driven primarily by the underlying meaningful and the productive work, not by the context of the work such as the money and fringe benefits.
In that vein, Harvard Business Review in "A Spotlight on Productivity" in May 2011 describes how poor managers "unwittingly drain work of its meaning"--in essence destroying their employees motivation and their productivity.
1) Trivializing Your Workers Input--"managers may dismiss the importance of employees work or ideas." In a sense, this one is about marginalizing employees, their creativity, and their contributions and is extremely destructive to the employees and the organization.
2) Decoupling Employee Ownership From Their Work--"Frequent and abrupt reassignments often have this affect." Also, not assigning clear roles and responsibilities to projects can have this affect. Either way, if employees don't have ownership of their projects, then the productivity will suffer amidst the workplace chaos and lack of ultimate accountability for "your work."
3) The Big Black Hole--"Managers may send the message that the work employees are doing will never see the light of day." In other words, employees are just being forced to "spin their wheels" and their is truly no purpose to the "shelfware" they are producing.
4) Communication, Not--Managers "may neglect to inform employees about unexpected changes in a customers priorities" or a shift in organizational strategy due to changes in internal or external market drivers. When employees don't know that the landscape has shifted and moreover are not involved in the decision process, they may not know what has changed, why, or feel invested in it. Without adequate communication, you will actually be leaving your employees blind and your organization behind.
So while it is tempting to think that we can drive a great work force through pay, benefits and titles alone, the lesson is clear...these are not what ultimately attracts and retains a talented and productive work force.
The magic sauce is clear--help your work force to know and feel two things:
1) Their work--is ultimately useful and usable.
2) That they--are important and have a future of growth and challenge.
When they and their work mean something, they will get behind it and truly own it.
In short: mean something, do something.
To get this outcome, I believe managers have to:
1) Make the meaning explicit--Identify your customers, the services you are providing, and articulate why it is important to provide these.
2) Determine strengths and weaknesses of each employee and capitalize on their strengths, while at the same time coach, mentor, and train to the weaknesses.
3) When workers go "off track," be able to give them constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement without demeaning and demoralizing them.
4) Find the inner strength and self confidence not to be threatened by your employees actually doing a good job and being productive--that's ultimately what you've hired them for!
5) Recognize the importance of everyone's contributions--It is not a one-person show, and it takes a bigger boss to recognize that other people's contributions don't take away from their own.
6) Be a team and communicate, honestly and openly--information hoarding and being the smartest one in the room is an ego thing; the best leaders (such as Jack Welch) surround themselves with people that are smarter than them and information is something to be leveraged for the team's benefit, not weaponized by the individual.
There are more, but this is just a blog and not a book...so hopefully more to come on this topic.
Hooray For Motivation
May 13, 2011
Who's On First
We've all be to "those" kinds of meeting. You know the ones I'm talking about: The cast of characters has swelled to standing-room only and you're beginning to wonder if maybe there's a breakfast buffet in the back of the room.
It seems to me that not only are there more people than ever at todays meetings, but meetings are also more frequent and taking up significantly more hours of the day.
I'm beginning to wonder whether all these meeting are helping us get more work done, or perhaps helping us avoid confronting the fact that in many ways we're stymied in our efforts.
Read the rest of the article at Government Technology.
Who's On First
Reading is Love
Reading is Love
May 11, 2011
To Infinity and Beyond
To Infinity and Beyond