I read quite a few blogs. Interestingly, I know of several that regularly write very well, in depth, on topics in which I am very interested. I add them to my Reader, so I don't "lose" them, and then proceed to not read them. On reflection, I think a blog must just be the wrong form for an in depth analysis.

Instead, I will try very hard to imitate what does seem to work: an episodic conversation. I realized several years ago (reading a Harvard Business Review interview about supply chains) that a Q&A form is very effective precisely because it leads me to not expect a structured argument (whereas I would expect such in a normal essay in the same magazine). This lack of expectation forces me to assemble the structure for myself - and I guess I remember those occasions where I think I did a pretty good job of it ; ) .

So hey, let me tell you about what I read on the weekend. Perhaps for the same reason as Q&A's, the business books that work best for me come across as essentially narrative, not analysis. My all-time favorite is Lowenstein's When Genius Failed (about the collapse of LTCM in 1998 - two whole financial crises ago).

A close second is Michael Lewis' Liar's Poker. This weekend, I read a great article by Lewis about the culture that lead to the current crisis (a shout-out to Chris Eirich for pointing me to it).

The End, by Michael Lewis, Condé Nast Portfolio, Nov 11 2008

The era that defined Wall Street is finally, officially over. Michael Lewis, who chronicled its excess in Liar’s Poker, returns to his old haunt to figure out what went wrong.

... [In Liar's Poker] I thought I was writing a period piece about the 1980s in America. Not for a moment did I suspect that the financial 1980s would last two full decades longer or that the difference in degree between Wall Street and ordinary life would swell into a difference in kind.
... The funny thing, looking back on it, is how long it took for even someone who predicted the disaster to grasp its root causes. They were learning about this on the fly, shorting the bonds and then trying to figure out what they had done.
... That’s when Eisman finally got it. Here he’d been making these side bets with Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank on the fate of the BBB tranche without fully understanding why those firms were so eager to make the bets. Now he saw. There weren’t enough Americans with shitty credit taking out loans to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product. The firms used Eisman’s bet to synthesize more of them. Here, then, was the difference between fantasy finance and fantasy football: When a fantasy player drafts Peyton Manning, he doesn’t create a second Peyton Manning to inflate the league’s stats. But when Eisman bought a credit-default swap, he enabled Deutsche Bank to create another bond identical in every respect but one to the original. The only difference was that there was no actual homebuyer or borrower.

I don't know Mr. Lowenstein or Mr. Lewis, or Victor Fung & Joan Magretta of the HBR Q&A, so I can't ask them. But I'm quite sure there was a lot of analysis before the writing started. And so, in that spirit, I'm already thinking about my next pseudo-random blog posting.

Posted by Keith Fortowsky at 4:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Jochum is a very tough act to follow! And it just gets worse when he tells us that he is new to blogging! So am I, but don't expect the same quality.

But I should use "new to blogging" in a limited sense. I haven't actually written a blog. But I've done something close with a Furl archive. And I have been interested in the concept of blogging as a locus of knowledge-creation for quite a few years.

I started University as a computer science major, and maintained an interest in the field as I moved into economics. This turned out to be a lucky thing, since when I entered the workforce in 1985 it seemed that the only people my age who were getting jobs were working with computers. I got even luckier by getting a job where I was the only "computer person" in a small, relatively isolated government agency. Over the next decade, I was essentially able to explore and proselytize as our agency moved from typewriters (the only computers were a specialized system to issue and track truck permits, which I maintained), to single-use word processors, to the wonders of PC's.

As these PC's became attached to networks in the 1990's, I began to explore what was then called "groupware". And I was lucky enough to read Understanding Computers and Cognition (Winograd & Flores, 1987) early in this exploration (I guess I should mention an earlier stint of philosophy classes, between my computer science and economics phases).

So I came upon blogging with a background of a lot of previous experience and experimentation - most of it failed. What immediately attracted me to blogs was that their core structure was built upon what I had come to realize were the only two permanent categories for a given piece of written content: who said it, and when.

Unfortunately, these essentials are often lost in many current blogs. The most common problem is a lack of obvious dates (probably due to self-consciousness about lengthy gaps between postings). And one of the limitations that I've noticed with this guest blog is that an essential part of the "who", the bio that appears at the top, disappears when we move to a new guest blogger.

So, to follow the dictum rather than curse the darkness, light a candle .... below, for "posterity", is a somewhat longer bio of myself (Dave will post the first few lines soon, at the top of the "guest blogger" spot). And below that is a repeat of Jochum's bio, for those who are finding his postings sometime in the future (maybe even the very near future, such as after reading this entry!)

Keith Fortowsky is our guest blogger until November 29. Keith found Dave Snowden's work through AOK in 2004, and attended the Amsterdam accreditation course in Sept. 2008. Keith is an Applied Economist (MSc, University of Minnesota). Keith's professional interests focus upon using data to to support evidence-based "strategic conversation". Keith is currently Coordinator, Institutional Research at the University of Regina (Canada). In this role he develops, maintains, and disseminates "institutional statistics": the corporate-level record of performance at the University of Regina. Prior to his current position, Mr. Fortowsky worked for 20 years in economic research and policy positions in transportation (freight and supply chains) and agriculture. Keith was also an early and enthusiastic client of Trade Area Solutions. Since he couldn't afford to "buy the company" he has happily settled for becoming an integral part of it's advancement, as part-time Chief Technologist/Data Architect.

====================
Previous Guest Blogger:

Jochum Stienstra

Jochum Stienstra is our guest blogger until November 15th. He was one of the pioneers in the use of narrative techniques in market research with over twelve completed projects and several more in the pipeline mostly in the Netherlands. He has co-authored one paper with David Snowden and his recent paper "Loser, hero or human being, are you ready for emergent truth" was adjudged the best methodology paper by ESOMAR a few weeks ago and is available from their web site.

Posted by Keith Fortowsky at 4:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some of my blogs were about innovation. This subject keeps me thinking. No wonder, it is a major subject for marketing and marketing research. I don't want to fall in the trap of categorising (after reading Daves blog on the wholes in the knitting). But there are a few different reasons to start innovation, and it is worhtwhile to look at the differences in innovation behaviour. To name five kinds (not at all complete):

1 emerging innovation.
This just happens. No clear owners. Over time the habits change. Tools are used differently. At office the tie is no longer seen (only at finance and consulting offices). Someone makes an adjustment to something. It slowly spreads. After a decade nobody remembers it has ever been different. Words get a different meaning. New words are used. Not a big deal. A seemingly slow process you don't even notice. But the effect is huge. Like the movement of the sun. Just look at a movie from 20 years back, or fashion two years back.
2 new niche-innovation.
Like in evolution, sometimes the environment changes and the new environment creates new opportunities. Internet was something like that. It created a vaste innovation space, attracting innovative types, creating innovative companies
3 gun-to-head innovation
This is intended innovation for businesses that have seen society change and are in the 'problem zone': newspapers for instance. An extremely difficult innovation space, because at the same time the company is still extremely dependent on 'the old habits' and innovation is often in conflict with the core business. On top of that free thinking is quite difficult with a gun pointed at your head
4 profit driven
Nowadays in FMCG innovation is commodity. You can't survive without. It is: finding new products. A whole industry is built around that (and I am part of that industry). The interesting thing is that in this environment real innovations do not work, they are not as profitable. A little difference in packaging, a small adaption that fits within the categorie rules is more likely to generate short time profit. A huge innovation for instance was the Magnum: more ice, more chocolate and a new look on icecream (indulgance). If you look at it from Mars it is not a huge distance from ice before Magnum. The good news about that is that 'old world methodolodies' like traditional market research work fairly good in this context. Maybe this kind of innovation is very much mimicking nature evolution within fairly stable systems.
5 fun and passion driven innovation
There is always this one person, or a couple of persons, that is absolutely maverickal crazy about an idea. Most of them end up poor. Some of them blame society for a lack of succes. But if you look at a lot of successes (Nike shoe's, Innocent drinks) behind it is a burning passion to create.

I think it would be interesting to think of a 100 new innovation spaces. If you want to become rich you categorise them, and build pre-constructed solutions for all. In due time your categoresation will of course have to adapt, be it through proces 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, or a combination of those.

This is my last Blog. I must say that I almost feel sorry. I thought it would become a two-week burden and didn't know I would like this as much! Maybe to be continued on my own site.

Posted by Jochum Stienstra at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I hate to be ill. I have that condition every now and then (too often). It usually takes me a bit more than a week. I have it right now. What I hate most is the fact that you have to admit that you are not in power. Your body takes over. The funny thing about it, which reflects almost a truïsm, is that you notice that reality functions quite well without you. You always have this feeling that it couldn't. New technology enables you to work a bit on line. Colleges take over your tasks (God bless them).

If I would be ill for a longer time (which I won't, but for the sake of argument), slowly my working existance would fade away. I have seen researchers immigrate that I thought of as indispensible. And yet my company still flourishes. From a different situation new solutions spontaneously emerge. It is the same mechanism that makes innovation so hard to predict by marketing research. The consumer thinks of the world as it is as the way it will always be. Real new products are not concievable and cannot be judged from the old world that consumers live in. We need different thinking for innovation.

Like I said, a truism. Sorry. Not capable now of anything more.

Posted by Jochum Stienstra at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)