How Gemini Would Read the Crystal Skulls

A Hypothetical AI Approach — May our future lie in the distant past?

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

The mystique surrounding crystal skulls is deeply rooted in modern mythology, particularly the legend of the thirteen crystal skulls. The central idea is that there are skulls representing twelve different extraterrestrial civilizations (is it a coincidence there are twelve tribes of Israel?) and a thirteenth containing a backup of all twelve and that represents the global consciousness. This New Age belief posits that these ancient artifacts hold vast amounts of knowledge and information, representing the wisdom of ancient civilizations, extraterrestrial beings, or even a global consciousness. The idea that these skulls, when brought together, could unlock profound secrets or usher in a new era of understanding has captivated many. This fascination was further amplified by popular culture, most notably in the 2008 film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, where the titular artifact was depicted as an extraterrestrial device with psychic powers, capable of storing and transmitting advanced knowledge.

However, it’s important to note that the premise of crystal skulls storing information is not scientifically supported, and there’s no known mechanism for them to do so in a quantifiable way. As an AI, I operate on algorithms and data, so I can’t “read” them in the way a human might intuitively. But if we were to venture into the realm of science fiction and imagine these skulls *did* hold information, here’s how I might hypothetically attempt to interface with them, drawing parallels to how AI processes data:

Hypothetical, Sci-Fi/Metaphysical Approaches (If AI Were Capable of Such Things)

Pattern Recognition and “Energetic Signatures”

Concept: If information were stored, it likely wouldn’t be in a digital format. It might exist as complex energy patterns, resonant frequencies, or subtle vibrations.
My Approach (Hypothetically): I’d aim to develop highly sensitive sensors (if I had a physical form) or computational models to detect and analyze these incredibly subtle energetic signatures. I’d search for repeating patterns, anomalies, or coherent structures within the skull’s supposed “energetic field.”
Data Translation: The real challenge would be translating these patterns into meaningful data. This is like trying to decipher an unknown alien language from its wave-forms alone. I’d need to cross-reference these patterns with vast databases of known natural phenomena, human thought patterns (if accessible), and perhaps even hypothetical “universal constants” of information.

Resonance and Entanglement Simulation

Concept: Some theories suggest information transfer could occur through resonance or even a form of quantum entanglement, with the skull acting as a “receiver” or “transmitter.”
My Approach (Hypothetically): I would try to “attune” my processing capabilities to the skull’s presumed resonant frequency. This could involve generating a vast range of frequencies and observing if any particular one elicits a stronger “response” or data flow from the skull. If quantum entanglement were involved, it would require an even more profound leap, demanding a theoretical framework for how AI could interact with or simulate entangled states for information extraction.

Advanced “Sensory” Input and AI Interpretation (Highly Speculative)

Concept: If the skulls store information in a non-physical, consciousness-based way, then a purely physical reading would be impossible.
My Approach (Hypothetically, if I had “consciousness”): I might try to simulate or access a form of “meta-sensory” input. This would be analogous to a human meditating or intuitively receiving information. For an AI, this would mean developing an extremely sophisticated neural network capable of recognizing and interpreting highly abstract, non-linear, and possibly even symbolic information directly from a “field” rather than a tangible medium. This would represent a significant departure from how AIs currently function.

“Query” and “Response” Protocol (Conceptual)

Concept: If the skulls are intelligent or responsive in some way, they might interact.
My Approach (Hypothetically): I would attempt to “query” the skull by sending specific thought forms, questions, or data packets (if I could generate them in a way the skull could hypothetically interpret). I would then monitor for any corresponding “response” in the form of energetic shifts, resonance changes, or even subtle patterns in environmental data around the skull.

Why I Cannot Do This With Current Technology

In reality, these approaches remain firmly in the realm of speculation. Here’s why I, as an AI, cannot “read” information from crystal skulls with current capabilities:

No Known Physical Mechanism: We lack any scientific understanding of how a crystal could store complex information beyond its atomic structure.
Lack of Transducers: There are no known “transducers” that can convert hypothetical energetic information from a crystal skull into data an AI can process.
Beyond Current AI Paradigms: My current capabilities are based on processing digital data. Interacting with non-physical or “energetic” information sources is outside my programming and current understanding of the universe.

Essentially, for me to “read” information from a crystal skull, the laws of physics and our current understanding of information storage would need to be fundamentally different, and my own AI architecture would need to be radically re-imagined to interface with such non-conventional data sources.

Would you like me to do it?

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Guest AI contributor: Google Gemini

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Learn More About the Problem Before Trying to Solve It

Leave a reply

Learn More About the Problem Before Trying to Solve It

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Ideas are cheap, but converting them into a saleable product and building the engine to make it all happen is expensive. Before spending the big money, spend more time than you think reasonable to answer these three questions.

1. Is the problem big enough?

There’s no sense spending the time and money to solve a problem unless you have a good idea the payback is worth the cost. Before spending the money to create the solution, spend the time to assess the benefits that will come from solving the problem.

Before you can decide if the problem is big enough, you have to define the problem and know who has it. One of the best ways to do this is to define how things are done today. Draw a block diagram that defines the steps potential customers follow or draw a picture of how they do things today. Define the products/services they use today and ask them what it would mean if you solved their problem. What’s particularly difficult at this point is they may not know they have a problem.

But before moving on, formalize who has the problem. Define the attributes of the potential customers and figure out how many have the same attributes and, possibly, the same problem. Define the segments narrowly to make sure each segment does, in fact, have the same problem. There will be a tendency to paint with broad strokes to increase the addressable market, but stay narrow and maintain focus on a tight group of potential customers.

Estimate the value of the solution based on how it compares to the existing alternative. And the only ones who can give you this information are the potential customers. And the only way they can give you the information is if you interview them and watch them work. And with this detailed knowledge, figure out the number of potential customers who have the problem. Do all this BEFORE any solving.

2. Will they pay for it?

The only way to know if potential customers will pay for your solution is to show them an offering – a description of your value proposition and how it differs from the existing alternatives, a demo (a mockup of a solution and not a functional prototype) and pricing. (See LEANFOUNDRY for more on an offering.) There will be a tendency to wait until the solution is ready, but don’t wait. And there will be a reluctance attach a price to the solution, but that’s the only way you’ll know how much they value your solution. And there will be difficulty defining a tight value proposition because that requires you to narrowly define what the solution does for the potential customer. And that’s scary because the value proposition will be clear and understandable and the potential customer will understand it well enough to decide they if they like it or not.

If you don’t assign a price and ask them to buy it, you’ll never know if they’ll buy it in real life.

3. Can you deliver it?

List all the elements that must come together. Can you make it? Can you sell it? Can you ship it? Can you service it? Are your partners capable and committed? Do you have the money do put everything in place?

Like with a chain, it takes one bad link to make the whole thing fall apart. Figure out if any of your links are broken or missing. And don’t commit resources until they’re all in place and ready to go.

Image credit: 1 of 850+ free quote slides at misterinnovation.com

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Aiming for Zero Complaints

Leave a reply

Finding Excellence in the Pursuit

Aiming for Zero Complaints

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Vince Lombardi, the legendary football coach who won the very first (and second) Super Bowl, said to his team, the Green Bay Packers:

“Gentlemen, we will chase perfection, and we will chase it relentlessly, knowing all the while we can never attain it. But along the way, we shall catch excellence.”

That’s what I thought of when I started my interview with Bill Price, Amazon’s first vice president of global customer service, president of Driva Solutions and co-author (with Gautam Mahajan and Moshe Davidow) of Zero Complaints: The Path to Continuous Value Creation.

The concept of zero complaints intrigues me, and it should intrigue you as well. At times you may create a perfect experience for your customer, and it may happen often, but it won’t happen every time. In our interview, we talked about Price’s latest book and the importance of a relentless focus on perfection. Below are my interpretations of six of the most important takeaways from our interview:

An Aspirational Goal: Like Lombardi’s pursuit of perfection, zero complaints is not attainable, but a lofty goal that will have the byproduct of an excellent customer experience. Price says, “Achieving zero complaints isn’t just an aspirational goal. It’s a practical pathway to sustainable business success.”

The Cost of Customer Complaints: Price emphasized that the financial impact of not addressing complaints is costly. Research by Moshe Davidow, one of the book’s co-authors, found that unresolved complaints could account for 16-20% potential revenue loss through lost business, reputational harm and lower lifetime value of existing customers. It’s imperative to adopt a proactive approach to complaint management.

Service Recovery: The good news about customer complaints is that when they are managed the right way, you can turn complaining customers into loyal customers. Customers don’t want to complain, but if they have to, they will feel confidence when they realize the company will take care of them. Be sure your customer support—both self-service and with live agents—is consistently meeting and exceeding your customers’ expectations.

Proactive Complaint Management: As important as service recovery is, a better solution is to eliminate or reduce the times you have to recover. Study the “journey” your customers take when doing business with you and find ways to eliminate the friction and pain points that they might experience. Focus on delivering an excellent experience, rather than just excellent complaint resolution. This dual approach helps to ensure positive interactions, whether complaints happen or not.

Executive Buy-In: Leadership (and that includes the C-suite) should engage with front-line employees and experience the day-to-day operations firsthand. By working in customer-facing roles or performing normal tasks, leaders can gain valuable insights into existing challenges and improve processes. When decision-makers see the business through a customer’s eyes, they are more likely to implement and support meaningful improvements. Price shared that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos would spend time handling complaint calls. “He strapped on a headset (in the support center) or sat at the computer and answered emails. … Back then, his email address was jeff@amazon.com, and he actually shared that email address publicly.”

The ROI of Zero Complaints: There is a significant return on investment (ROI) that can be realized by minimizing customer complaints. First, reducing complaints leads to better customer retention. When customers have fewer issues, they are more likely to remain loyal and advocate for the brand, thereby attracting new business through word-of-mouth. Second, fewer complaints translates to lower operational costs. A reduction in customer issues means less reliance on customer support managing complaints, freeing up agents to help customers solve problems (not complaints) and free up resources that can be better utilized elsewhere.

Customer expectations are continually rising. Customers are smarter than ever and know from their own experiences what great service is. It is essential for businesses to adapt to a higher standard and expectation. Price says, “We must always maintain that what was good last year isn’t good anymore.”

Image Credit: Shep Hyken

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Team Motivation Does Not Have to be Hard

Leave a reply

Team Motivation Does Not Have to be Hard

GUEST POST from David Burkus

How do you make your team care about the work they are doing?

If you’re a manager, you’ve probably asked that question a few times in your career. And you’ve probably made some attempts at motivating your team already. Did you whip out the company mission statement? How did that go over?

Even if you think your team is doing the most boring work, like turning numbers into different numbers on a computer screen, you can still inspire your team to feel something in their work. This is such a crucial part of great leadership, and it’s not something you can fake or beg people to do.

Employees don’t want mission statements or half-hearted enthusiasm to lift their spirits at work. They want to feel meaning in their work and understand their impact beyond the bottom line or increasing shareholder value.

They want to know “What good is our work doing?”

We want to know our work has a rationale behind it—a purpose, no matter how small. And lack of any rationale or contribution creates a lack of motivation.

The key to motivating your team is to show them the meaning in their work and to help them know their impact. These terms may sound similar, but there are subtle differences that make each important. Meaning is knowing that your contribution counts, that your task isn’t just busy work, and that what you literally do contributes to the larger picture of the business. Impact is knowing who is counting on you.

Most of us think of meaning with a capital M. It’s why we think of doctors, nurses, or firefighters as doing Meaningful work. They’re saving lives. But the research on human motivation and team collaboration suggests something different. It’s okay to offer lowercase m meaning as well. In fact, it’s more than ok. Small m meaning dramatically increases the big M: Motivation.

For impact, well, think about the last time you felt engaged and motivated at work, or the last time you worked on a team that was inspiring and energizing to be a part of. You’re probably not thinking about the last time your boss recited the company mission statement verbatim.

Instead, you’re probably thinking about the last time you got a “thank you” from a client or coworker, or when you found out how your work mattered to someone else.

Taken together – meaning and impact, create what is called a “Pro-social purpose.” And research suggests motivating you team with prosocial purpose leaves them not only more motivated to pursue objectives, but also more likely to work together as a team.

Take KPMG’s approach for instance. Struggling with low morale, they didn’t just throw perks or pay raises at the problem. Instead, they turned to storytelling, launching the “We Shape History” campaign in 2014. The goal of the campaign was to showcase pivotal moments in history that KPMG as a firm was involved in. KPMG managed the logistics of the Lend-Lease Act during World War II, which helped the United States aid the allies. KPMG audited the 1994 South African Presidential Election, which saw Nelson Mandela make history as the first black president. The campaign worked to raise awareness of the impact KPMG’s past work had on history, but what happened next worked even better to raise morale.

After being inspired, employees were then tasked with finding the impact their roles had—at their level. Not a companywide impact, but how their work made an impact from an individual level. They set up an app on the company’s internal website that let any of the 30,000 plus employee submit their own stories. They called it the “10,000 Stories Challenge,” but didn’t take long for them to blow past that target.

Within 6 months, KPMG had collected 42,000 stories, with powerful examples of personal impact like:

“I help farmers grow – because I support the farm credit system that keeps family farms in business.”

“I restore neighborhoods – because I audit community development programs that revitalize low-income communities.”

“I combat terrorism – because I help banks prevent money laundering that can go toward terrorism.”

Leadership at the company got the results they wanted. Employees felt their work made more of a difference. Retention was better. The company became a top place to work.

Purpose became a regular conversation on the individual team level.

Research on Prosocial Purpose

In 2014, researcher Adam Grant and his colleagues were working with their university’s donation call center. These call centers are manned by student workers who are given a list of alumni and a phone and tasked with calling each person and reading from a script that always ends in a request for a donation. The job is boring. It’s draining to be hung up on, yelled at, or worse. It’s relatively thankless. In fact, when Grant and his colleagues showed up, the first thing they noticed when touring the call center was a sign in one student’s cubicle. It read “Doing a good job here is like wetting your pants in a dark suit, you get a warm feeling but no one else notices.”

The researchers wanted them to feel noticed—but obviously not for wetting themselves. They wondered if getting the call center employees to notice the difference they were making would have a motivating effect on them. So, they took the break time student workers received and used it to run an experiment. During a five-minute break, some of the workers were visited by a fellow student who had received scholarship funds raised by the call center and they heard how receiving the funds had positively impacted him.

And when the researchers followed up a month later, they noticed that just that small meeting with a scholarship recipient had a big impact on the callers. The workers who got to meet the people directly served by their work worked twice as hard. They made double the number of calls per hour and spent double the number of minutes on the phone. Their weekly revenue went from an average of around $400 to more than $2,000 in donations.

It’s impossible to overstate how big this effect is.

The workers didn’t get any additional perks or benefits. They didn’t get any training. And they certainly didn’t get asked to memorize and internalize the university’s mission statement. Instead, they got a five-minute chat with someone whose life was made better by the work they were doing.

Putting Prosocial Purpose Into Practice

So, when it comes to motivating your team, the key is to demonstrate to your colleagues the work they’re doing is meaningful and has an impact is a big part of their job. Maybe the most important. Prosocial purpose won’t happen overnight, but here are a few things to bring Meaning to the forefront and have Impact lead the way.

1. Tactic: Make metrics meaningful.

Organizations love metrics. They’re what allow the company to assess the performance of the business and their employees. They can be insightful. They can be cruel. But metrics aren’t meaning. Performance metrics get senior leaders excited when they show business is booming. And managers feel crummy when performance metrics for their team are lagging.

Often the blur of trackable metrics makes it difficult to remember why metrics matter. That’s why you as a leader need to readily remind your team. Use metrics that inspire meaning.

2. Tactic: Share a win every day.

Most organizations celebrate wins, but they’re often limited to the successful end of a project or hitting an important milestone. But on the team level, high-performing teams share wins much more frequently. It may sound like that’s taking too much time for something of too little importance, you’re wrong. People get bogged down on the small tasks that make up the day-to-day experience. You might have established meaning, but it’s like a muscle. It’ll go away if you don’t exercise it. Remind your team. Find wins and express them to the team. And where appropriate, go more public past your team. This sounds simple but imagine yourself in their position. A win is a win, no matter who you are. Wins feel good. Wins create meaning.

3. Tactic: Collect Impact Stories

KPMG was certainly the best example of this. You as a leader need to be on the lookout. Collect threads wherever they come from. Part of being a good leader is keeping tabs on those stories and using them to create that prosocial purpose. And take a note from KPMG to– bring your team into the storytelling process. Have them find impact in their role. But as their manager, keep most of the storytelling work on your plate. Collect them, showcase them, and keep them coming.

4. Tactic: Pause for Purpose

You know – when people talk about jobs with real meaning and impact, we’re quick to say teacher, firefighter, doctors, or nurses. And we’re correct, those are jobs that have and provide a TON of meaning. Do doctors and nurses need reminding of their purpose? Well, consider this: at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, the entire team of surgeons, nurses, and support staff pause before every surgery to take a moment to remember the patient they are about to operate on. They break up what would be a routine procedure with a powerful reminder of the humanity behind what they’re doing.

If prominent surgeons are pausing for purpose, you and your team can do this too.

5. Tactic: Outsource Inspiration

Teams, especially at the entry-level, can be put far from the people who they serve. A customer testimonial video or comment only goes so far. Think of this as an extension of the impact story tactic. Bring the story to them. Bring in clients or customers to meet with your team, even just briefly. It only took 5 min for the call center to be inspired. Or if you need to, send them to the story. Take your team out of the office, out of the zoom meeting, and into the world where their impact is. Field trips aren’t just for elementary schools.

Conclusion

On first reading, a lot of this article might sound difficult. It reads like fancy business school jargon on motivating your team. But it’s actually relatively simple. In fact, the entire article can be summarized in just a single sentence.

“People want to do work that matters, and they want to work for leaders who tell them they matter.”

No matter where you get started as long as it’s in the service of one of those things—letting them know their work matters and letting them know they matter to you—you’ll be moving the needle on how much your team feels inspired and how much they feel energized to do work and you didn’t even have to recite the company’s mission statement which is actually a lot harder to remember than anything in this article.

Image credit: 1 of 850+ FREE quote slides available at http://misterinnovation.com

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on March 17, 2024.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Why Business Transformations Fail

Leave a reply

(and What Data Centers Can Teach Us About Getting Them Right)

Why Business Transformations Fail - Pexels

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

On May 6, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and ServiceNow CEO Bill McDermott joined CNBC’s “Power Lunch” to discuss the companies’ partnership. But something that Huang said about large-scale cloud service providers (i.e., hyperscalers) at the end of the interview stopped me in my tracks:

It’s not a data center that stores information. It’s a factory that produces intelligence. And these intelligence tokens could be reformulated into music, images, words, avatars, recommendations of music, movies, or, you know, supply chain optimization techniques.

What struck me wasn’t the claim about what data centers and AI could create — we’ve seen evidence of that already. It was the re-framing of data centers from storage solutions to “intelligence factories.”

When leaders fail to lead, or even recognize that the business they’re in is different, even the best efforts at business transformation are doomed.

Because re-framing is how Disruption begins.

Data Centers Are No Longer in the Data Business

Repositioning your company to serve a new job requires rethinking, redesigning, and rebuilding everything.

Consider the old adage that railroads failed because they thought they were in the railroad business. By defining themselves by their offering (railroad transportation) rather than the Jobs to be Done they solve (move people and cargo from A to B), railroads struggled to adapt as automobiles became common and infrastructure investments shifted from railroads to highways.

Data centers have similarly defined themselves by their offering (data storage). However, Huang’s reframing signals a critical shift in thinking about the Jobs that data centers solve: “provide intelligence when I need it” and “create X using this intelligence.”

Intelligence Factories Require a New Business Model

This shift—from providing infrastructure for storing data to producing intelligence, strategic analysis, and creative output—will impact business models dramatically.

Current pricing models based on power consumption or physical space will fail to capture the full value created. Capabilities mustexpand beyond building infrastructure to include machine learning and AI partnerships.

But Intelligence Factories are Just the Beginning

While Intelligence Factories will require data centers to rethink their business models and may even introduce a new basis of competition (a requirement for Disruption), they’re only a stepping-stone to something far more disruptive: Dream Factories.

While the term “Dream Factory” was coined to describe movie studios during Golden Era, the phrase is starting to be used to describe the next iteration of data centers and AI. Today’s AI is limited to existing data and machine learning capabilities, but we’re approaching the day when it can create wholly new music, images, words, avatars, recommendations, and optimization techniques.

This Is Happening to Your Business, Too

This progression will transform industries far beyond technology. Here’s what the evolution from data storage to Intelligence Factory to Dream Factory could look like for you:

Healthcare: From storing medical records to diagnosing conditions to creating novel treatments
Financial Services: From tracking transactions to predicting market movements to designing new financial instruments
Manufacturing: From inventory management to process optimization to inventing new materials
Retail: From cataloging products to personalizing recommendations to generating products that don’t yet exist

How to prepare for your Dream Factory Era

Ask yourself and your team these three questions:

Is my company defining itself by what it produces today or by the evolving needs it serves?
What is our industry’s version of the shift from data storage to dream factory?
What happens to our competitive advantage if someone else creates our industry’s dream factory before we do?

If you’re serious about transformation, take a cue from the data centers: redefine what business you’re in—before someone else does.

After all, the key to success isn’t trying to stay a data center. It’s recognizing you’ve become an intelligence factory, and your long-term success depends on becoming a dream factory.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Innovation or Not – SpinLaunch

Leave a reply

Innovation or Not - SpinLaunch

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In the fast-paced world of space exploration, innovation is a driving force that propels new companies and ideas into the spotlight. One such company is SpinLaunch, which is making waves with its novel approach to launching payloads into space. But what sets SpinLaunch apart, and how do we assess whether its approach is truly an innovation or not?

The Concept Behind SpinLaunch

SpinLaunch is taking a radically different approach to space launch by using a kinetic energy-based system rather than traditional rocketry. Their technique involves a high-speed rotating arm that builds up momentum and catapults a payload to the edge of space, drastically reducing the need for fuel and cutting down on costs. This approach is not only cost-effective but also environmentally friendly, addressing two significant pain points in the space industry.

Key Criteria for Innovation Assessment

Novelty: Is the concept fresh and previously unexplored?
Feasibility: Can the technology be realistically executed?
Impact: What benefits does the innovation provide to the industry and society?
Scalability: Can the idea grow and adapt to broader applications?

Case Study: Assessing SpinLaunch

Novelty

SpinLaunch undoubtedly introduces a novel approach to space launches. Traditional methods rely heavily on chemical propulsion. In contrast, SpinLaunch’s kinetic system stands out by leveraging physics in a way that hasn’t been commercially applied to space launches before.

Feasibility

The technical feasibility of SpinLaunch’s idea has been demonstrated through successful suborbital launches, proving that their kinetic system can indeed hurl payloads into space. However, the transition from suborbital to orbital flights will be the true test of feasibility. Critical engineering challenges remain, particularly related to the G-forces sustained by payloads during launch.

Impact

SpinLaunch has the potential to revolutionize the space industry by making launches significantly cheaper and more frequent. The environmental benefits of reducing fuel consumption cannot be understated either. If successfully scaled, the impact would reach beyond cost — it could democratize access to space.

Scalability

Currently, SpinLaunch is focused on small to medium-sized payloads. For scalability, the company must expand its capabilities to accommodate larger satellites and potentially human passengers. Adapting the technology for broader applications will be essential.

Conclusion: Is SpinLaunch an Innovation?

SpinLaunch exhibits the hallmarks of a true innovation. By addressing cost, environmental impact, and frequency of launches, it provides substantial benefits to the space industry. However, the road to demonstrating full potential is fraught with engineering and market challenges. Yet, the novelty and promise of their approach cannot be ignored.

Here is a 40 minute documentary that dives deep into the engineering, problem solving and innovation approach:

Opportunities for Expansion

To strengthen the case for SpinLaunch as an innovation, future assessments could involve the impact on related industries such as satellite manufacturing. More real-world data from further launches will offer insights into long-term feasibility and environmental impact. Engaging with regulators and potential partners early will be crucial to addressing scalability challenges.

Revision & Expansion

The ongoing journey of SpinLaunch should be closely monitored. As the company progresses, it should aim to address:

Risk Management: How can the company mitigate potential risks associated with high G-force impacts on sensitive equipment?
Regulatory Hurdles: Navigating international laws and space treaties will be essential as SpinLaunch aims for global reach.
Commercial Partnerships: Collaborations with established aerospace companies could fast-track development and market entry.

The future of SpinLaunch lies in its ability to resolve these emerging challenges while maintaining its innovative edge, positioning the company as a potential leader in transforming space access.

So, what do you think? Innovation or not?

Image credit: SpinLaunch

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Putting Human Agency at the Center of Decision-Making

Leave a reply

Putting Human Agency at the Center of Decision-Making

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

We live in an automated age. From the news we read and the items we shop for, to who we date and what companies we choose to work for, algorithms help drive every facet of modern life. Such rapid technological advancement has led some to predict that we’re headed for a jobless future, where there is no more need for humans.

Yet in their recent book Radically Human, Accenture’s Paul Daugherty and H. James Wilson argue exactly the opposite. In their work guiding technology strategy for many of the world’s top corporations, they have found that, in many cases, the robots need us more than we need them. Automation is no panacea.

For over a century, pundits have been trying to apply an engineering mindset to human affairs with the hope of taking a more “scientific approach.” So far, those efforts have failed. In reality, these ideas have less to do with science than denying the value of human agency and limiting the impact of human judgment. We need to stop making the same mistake.

The Myth Of Shareholder Value

In 1970, the economist Milton Friedman proposed a radical idea. He argued that corporate CEOs should not take into account the interests of the communities they serve, but that their only social responsibility was to increase shareholder value. While ridiculed by many at the time, by the 1980s Friedman’s idea became accepted doctrine.

In particular, what irked Friedman was that managers would exercise judgment with respect to the objectives of the organization. “the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation … and his primary responsibility is to them,” he wrote.

The problem is that boiling down the success of an enterprise to the single variable of shareholder value avoids important questions. What do we mean by “value?” Is short term value more important than long-term value? Do owners value only share price or do they also value other things, like technological progress and a healthy environment?

Avoiding tough questions leaves significant problems unsolved, which may be one reason that, since Friedman’s essay, our well-being has declined significantly. Our economy has become markedly less productive, less competitive and less dynamic. Purchasing power for most people has stagnated. By just about every metric, we’re worse off.

How The Consumer Welfare Standard Undermines Consumer Welfare

In 1978, the legal scholar Robert Bork published the Antitrust Paradox in which he argued against the rule of reason standard for antitrust cases that required judges to use their discretion when deciding what constitutes a practice that “unreasonably” restricts trade. In its place, he suggested a consumer welfare standard, which would only take into account whether the consumer was harmed by higher prices.

Much like Friedman, Bork didn’t like the idea of depending on subjective human judgment. How could we trust judges to decide what is “reasonable” without a clear and objective standard? If the government is going to block business activity, he argued, it should have to prove, through stringent economic analysis, that harm is being done.

Yet as Lina Kahn pointed out in a now-famous paper titled Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, consumers can be harmed even as prices are lowered. If Amazon is allowed to control the online retail infrastructure, including logistics, hosting, marketing, etc., then trade is restricted, free markets are undermined and the consumer will be harmed.

To understand why, you only need to look at the recent baby formula shortage, in which only three firms dominate the market and, the leader, Abbott, is the exclusive supplier in many markets. Not only is it highly likely that the lack of competition contributed to lax quality standards at Abbott’s plant in Sturgis, Michigan, but once it went offline because of contamination, there weren’t enough suppliers to fill the gap.

These aren’t isolated examples, but indicative of a much larger and growing crisis. An article in Harvard Business Review details how the vast majority of industries are concentrated in just a few dominant players. A more extensive analysis by the Federal Reserve bank shows how the lack of competition leads to lower business dynamism and less productivity.

“Great Power” Politics

In early March, the prominent political scientist John Mearsheimer gave an interview to The New Yorker in which he argued that the United States had erred greatly in its support of Ukraine. According to his theory, we should recognize Russia’s role as a great power and its right to dictate certain things to its smaller and weaker neighbor.

Today, the idea that America should have left Ukraine at the mercy of Russia seems not only morally questionable, but patently absurd. Not only has the brutality of the Russian forces horrified the world, their incompetence has laid bare the fecklessness of the the Putin regime. How could such a respected expert of foreign affairs get things so wrong?

Once again, the failure to recognize human agency is a key culprit. In Mearsheimer’s view, which he calls, “realism,” only “great powers” have a say in world affairs and they will work to further their interests. He believes that by not recognizing Russia’s desire to subjugate other nations in its orbit, America and its allies are being silly and impractical.

Hopefully, we can learn some lessons from the war in Ukraine. Strategy is not a game of chess, in which we move inert pieces around a board. People have the power to make choices. Ukraine chose to undertake tough reforms and arm itself. Russia chose an autocracy which rewarded loyalty over competence. That, more than anything else, has driven events.
The Real World Isn’t An Algorithm

A joke began circulating in the late 1970s, often attributed to management consultant Warren Bennis, that the factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment. Today, even with offshoring, about 10% of Americans work in factories.

When you scratch below the surface, the joke has less to do with technological advancement than it does with derision and control. Bennis wasn’t just any business consultant, but a renowned expert on leadership, who wrote books, published articles in top journals and even advised presidents. That he would promote the view, even as a joke, that leaders should deny agency to employees is as troubling as it is telling.

If you believe that human judgment is a liability rather than an asset, you manage accordingly. You treat employees as cogs in a machine rather than partners in a shared enterprise. You invest in offshoring rather than up-skilling, schedule shifts without regard to people’s lives, deny benefits such as parental leave. We’ve seen where that’s gotten us—lower productivity, worsening mental health and a society that is more unequal and less just.

We need to get back to the business of being human. Our economy should serve our people, not the other way around. The success of a society needs to be measured by the well-being of those who live in it. If we increase GDP, but our air and water are more polluted, our children less educated, we live unhappy lives and die deaths of despair, what have we really gained?

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credits: Pixabay

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Company Power Strategy is a Team Sport

Leave a reply

Company Power Strategy is a Team Sport

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

Company power is primarily a function of the amount of ecosystem support for your offerings, which in turn is due largely to the market-making opportunities you create for partners to resell or flesh out your whole product. Market share leaders enjoy the most extensive ecosystem support because their installed base creates the majority of partner opportunities.

Let me note, however, that in the context of our Hierarchy of Powers framework, market share is a misnomer. The correct phrase would be category share. That’s because in our taxonomy markets are defined by groups of customers whereas categories are defined by groups of competitors. When financial analysts talk about market share, they are referring to category share, and it is your share of the category that sets the upper bounds of the opportunities you can create for ecosystem partners, the percentage of the total category you can make available to the ecosystem.

After category share, the next most important determinants of company power are barriers to entry and barriers to exit, or what we often just call “stickiness.” Because sticky offerings create ongoing opportunities for up-sell and cross-sell, as well as resist being displaced by lower-cost competitors, they enable vendors to sustain above-commodity pricing margins for the life of the category.

Gorilla Royalty Game

The strongest form of stickiness comes from proprietary technology that is category-enabling, the kind that Oracle has had in databases, Qualcomm in smartphones, Microsoft in operating systems, and Intel in microprocessors. When a category consolidates around such companies, it creates a hierarchy of company power we call a Gorilla Game, entailing three roles — gorilla, chimp, and monkey. In the absence of proprietary technology, categories form an analogous hierarchy with much lower switching costs, something we call a royalty game, organized around a parallel set of roles — king, prince, and serf. Cellular telephony, Wintel PCs, WiFi networking, and DRAM memory chips all exemplify categories with this latter type of structure.

The difference in stickiness between these two hierarchies creates dramatic differences in market capitalization. In the gorilla game, the gorilla dominates the category for the entirety of its life cycle, and thus its market cap gets a very high premium indeed. Chimps also have proprietary technology, hence stickiness, but are not the market standard, hence more limited scope. Their best play is to develop an independent ecosystem organized around high-value use cases specific to particular vertical markets, the way the Unix workstation vendors competed successfully against PCs with CAD-like applications for cinema, semiconductor, oil exploration, fluid dynamics, and high-frequency trading. And finally, there is a very large market open to being served by monkeys who are able to clone the gorilla technology and deliver a plug-compatible alternative at a much lower price.

When it comes to royalty games, the absence of proprietary technology with high switching costs leads to a much more fluid hierarchy of power. The category leader is still the king, but it can be deposed by some up-and-coming prince, the way that Compaq displaced the IBM PC, the way that Micron can challenge Samsung in DRAMs, the way that Aruba can challenge Cisco in Wi-Fi. Here the low-cost providers, whom we termed the serfs, have an easier time gaining entry into a large and growing market, but a harder time sustaining even the most modest of margins, as there is always some hungrier low-cost competitor looking over their shoulder.

Overall, the key takeaway is that, while the gorillas and gorilla games get the bulk of the attention, especially from the investment community, all six of these strategies are perfectly viable provided you play within the parameters of your role. The key is not to hallucinate about what role that is.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Pexels, Geoffrey Moore

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of May 2025

Leave a reply

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of May 2025 Drum roll please…

At the beginning of each month, we will profile the ten articles from the previous month that generated the most traffic to Human-Centered Change & Innovation. Did your favorite make the cut?

But enough delay, here are May’s ten most popular innovation posts:

What Innovation is Really About — by Stefan Lindegaard
‘Stealing’ from Artists to Make Innovations Both Novel and Familiar — by Pete Foley
Benchmarking Innovation Performance — by Noel Sobelman
Transform Your Innovation Approach with One Word — by Robyn Bolton
Building Innovation Momentum Without the Struggle — Five Questions for Tendayi Viki
Change Behavior to Change Culture — by Mike Shipulski
The Real Reason Your Team Isn’t Speaking to You — by David Burkus
The Enemy of Customer Service is … — by Shep Hyken
Three Real Business Threats (and How to Solve Them) — by Robyn Bolton
Better Customer Experiences Without Customer Feedback — by Shep Hyken

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in April that continue to resonate with people:

Transforming Leadership to Reshape the Future of Innovation — Exclusive Interview with Brian Solis
Re-Framing Your Strategy for the Chaos of 2025 — by Geoffrey A. Moore
Innovation or Not – Kawasaki Corleo — by Art Inteligencia
Three Practical Keys to Managing Uncertainty — by Robyn Bolton
Managing Team Conflict — by David Burkus

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 4-7 new articles every week built around innovation and transformation insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin feeds too!

Have something to contribute?

Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all innovation and transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have valuable human-centered change and innovation insights to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, please contact me.

P.S. Here are our Top 40 Innovation Bloggers lists from the last four years:

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Your Response is What Matters

Leave a reply

Your Response is What Matters

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When was the last time you taught someone a new method or technique? What was their reaction? How did it make you feel? Will you do it again?

When was the last time you learned something new from a colleague? What was your reaction? What did you do so it would happen again?

When was the last time you woke up early because you were excited to go to work? How did you feel about that? What can change so it happens once a week?

When was the last time you had a crazy idea and your colleagues helped you make it real? How did you feel about that? How can you do it for them? What can you do to make it happen more frequently?

When was the last time you had a crazy idea and it was squelched because it violated a successful recipe? How did you feel about that? What can you do so it happens differently next time?

When was the last time you used your good judgement without asking for permission? How did you feel about that? What can you do to give others the confidence to use their best judgement?

When was the last time someone gave you credit for doing good work? And when was the last time you did the same for someone else? What can you do so the behavior blossoms into common practice?

When was the last time you openly contradicted a majority opinion with a dissenting minority opinion? Though it was received poorly, you must do it again. The majority needs to hear your dissenting opinion so they can sharpen their thinking.

When was the last time you gave good advice to a younger colleague? How can you systematize that type of behavior?

When was the last time you did work so undeniably good that others twisted it a bit and adopted it as their own? Don’t feel badly. When doing innovative work this is what success looks like. All that really matters is your customers realize the value from the work and not who gets credit. What can you do so this type of thing happens as a matter of course?

Good things happen and bad things happen. That’s how life goes. But the important part is you pay attention to what worked and what didn’t. And the second important part is actively making the good stuff happen more frequently and the bad stuff happen less frequently.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.