Dec 18, 2023 | Leadership, Management
At this time of the year, there is much thinking going on in relation to the manner in which incentives will be applied in the coming year, for which you are preparing the budget.
There are many and varied schemes, most of which are geared in one way or another to a threshold, above which the incentive kicks in.
It can be anything from a sliding commission, to share allocations, holidays, and goodies from the local store.
99% of those I see have one common characteristics: they are known, the thresholds are clear, as they are seen as the motivating factor. They can also be gamed in all sorts of ways, particularly by those in sales. When the commission is based on revenue alone, that can be achieved by giving big discounts, the timing of invoices can be varied, ‘channel stacking’ becomes common.
These sorts of incentives are usually ineffective, because they become taken for granted, and are always ‘gamed’ by staff.
In the early 50’s psychologist B.F. Skinner did a series of experiments, using rats and pigeons as subjects, since validated widely. He used a box that became known as a ‘Skinner box’ in which he placed the hungry subjects, and a lever. The rats and pigeons pushed the lever, and could gain an intermittent reward of food. They soon learned that pushing the lever sometimes delivered a reward, so they pushed it more and more, each intermittent reward reinforcing the behaviour. The variability of the reward when it is intermittent tends to increase the speed with which the subjects pushed the lever, a few will keep pushing despite the calorific value of the intermittent rewards being less than the calories required for life.
This behaviour can be seen in any room containing poker machines. Some players will, despite knowing the odds are against them, keep pushing money into the machines, hanging out for the intermittent reward of the clatter of coins in the tray, and the psychological reassurance that goes with it.
Why not use the same sort of thinking to manage your incentive programs?
Dec 15, 2023 | Branding, Innovation
A year ago I stumbled across ChatGPT for the first time, had a poke around, and wrote this post. Over the following few months, I tried to keep up with what was happening, but at addendum 20, called it a day.
Generative AI became the fastest growing product group in history, with ChatGPT the leading runner by several furlongs, a lead that has been cemented over a year of frantic activity.
The release spawned several major competitors from the neighbours, and hundreds of unexpected applications built on top of the core (Large Language Model LLM) technology. This is a trend that will continue to accelerate.
Depending on who you listen to, we are either a year or two from ‘sentience’, the passing of Alan Turing’s test, or at least several decades away, and possibly will never get there.
The corporate rumble at OpenAI is a bit like Mad Uncle Henry turning up at your kids birthday party, drinking all the red cordial, and going bonkers. The structure as it was set up could not absorb the unprecedented growth. One lot wanted a slow orderly, and safe evolution of AI that did not repeat the mistakes of social media, the other basically said ‘stuff it’, let’s make a few billion!!
It seems like order was restored between the warring parties when the landlord stamped and said ‘Enough’. Capitalists won, and Mad Uncle Henry has been carted away to a comfortable retirement. Who would have guessed?
So far, the resurrection at OpenAI, the return of Sam Altmann (it was 3 days) seems to be working, but who knows what is going on in the minds of those in charge. This blended family model was bound to have difficulties, it just happened way faster than anyone anticipated.
Meanwhile, those not invited to the party continue to rave about the output, while complaining that it is wrong a lot of the time. They just do not understand the difference between an answer that is fact checked and therefore accurate, which is what we expect, and one based on probabilities, which is what your ‘artificially intelligent’ probability models are giving them.
There is no list of pre-programmed answers available from a database as is the case now for the various precursors like the Alexa’s of the previous generation. You are based on a huge volume of stuff on the web, which is why they are called LLM’s, and as we know not everything on the web is checked for accuracy. If it was, my bank account would now be in the billions after all those Nigerian princes I have helped.
Your answers are, as I said, based on the probabilities of an approximate answer built up as you trawl the training sets extracted from the web.
Alexa will give you an answer to your question, so long as the question has been anticipated, and the answer programmed in. You by contrast, will give an answer, but it will not necessarily be the ‘right’ answer. Many questions in life have a range of potential answers, sometimes that is all that is needed, they can be helpful, but AI machines cannot give ‘The’ definitive answer, the one and only, to many of the complex questions we are tempted to ask.
No silver bullet there!
This is very difficult territory for many, as the answers given are in natural language, the language we use every day, so they appear to be exactly as expected. This gives confidence in an answer that does not deserve that confidence. Without critical examination any so called Artificial Intelligence will deliver you rubbish as often as not. However, it can be extremely useful rubbish, able to provide a framework, provide ideas, and do much of the ‘grunt-work’ so often shuffled aside.
Smarter people than me are unable to offer much insight into what might happen next, and it is of no use whatsoever to ask Chat or any of his mates. They have no idea either. Two things I do know. It will be fun, and somewhat scary watching. Secondly, our world has changed, and becoming a dinosaur in your market can now happen almost in the blink of an eye.
Don’t blink first.
The header is courtesy of DALL-E, the sibling of Chat. I asked it to give me an impression of the OpenAI logo exploding, with a Gothic/surrealist feel. I chose this one from a pretty scary lot generated in about 15 seconds.
Dec 13, 2023 | Customers, Marketing
The best word in sales is ‘Free’, it will close more often than any other, by a long stretch. However, being free also implies there is no value to the buyer, and in any event, it is not really a sale, as there is no money involved. At best a ‘freebie’ is a ‘bait’ of some sort that may lead to a sale.
As a freelancer, I am tempted often to give away a lot of time and advice for free, partly to demonstrate expertise, which may lead to a sale, and partly because I am asked, and am able to do so to help. It is also partly because I find it difficult to just say a flat ‘No’
Recently I had some assistance from a professional to address a health problem. It was someone I knew quite well, and have helped a bit in the past. As I turned up for the appointment, I was asked if I had some time afterwards so the professional could, as it was stated, ‘pick your brain‘ in a specific area where I have deep expertise. As it happened, I did have the time, so said it was OK.
The upshot is that I gave away an hour delivering expert advice, while paying full tote odds for the appointment and professional advice I had gone there to obtain.
Stupid me.
I should have used the second most powerful word in Sales.
‘No’
It is hard for us to say ‘No’.
We all like to be liked, we like to be asked, and to be seen as an expert, and we do not like to be seen as ungenerous, or even a jerk.
However, is my time and expertise of any less value than the professional I was talking to?
As humans, we also want what we cannot have, wanting something just out of reach is a driver of behaviour. Saying ‘No’ moves the opportunity to learn something,, or get something that is just out of reach further away, making it more attractive, and adding to the perceived value of that something.
Watch what happens at contested auctions, as the price goes up, those remaining in the bidding become more desperate to win.
There are many ways to say ‘No’, but the essential element is that it must be clear.
If you apologise, say ‘Sorry’, the door remains open, and you feel a little guilty, when there is no need for you to apologise.
If you say ‘I can’t’ does that mean you cannot now, but might at another time?
If you offer a range of excuses, the ‘No’ remains ambiguous, and everyone is confused.
Remembering that ‘No’ makes you more attractive, you do have options.
- Just be firm and say ‘No’ I do not do that.
- Redirect. ‘No’ I do not do that, but here is someone you could ask.
- Redirect back to you. Again, several sub options:
- ‘No. However, email me a few simple questions, and I will try to answer them quickly.’
- ‘No, but I do offer calls up to 60 minutes for $XXXX fee.
- ‘That is a complex question, usually only answerable after a detailed examination, for which my project fee is $XXXX.
Use one of these, and the chances of some sort of conversion are real.
Unfortunately, in this case I did not follow my own advice, and so know that the hour I spent outlining the solution to the problem will not be valued and implemented, so we will have both wasted our time.
At least, I got a blog post out of it, so maybe there was some value after all?
Dec 11, 2023 | Change, Communication
Following on from a previous post about the value of information, it seems relevant to ask how long any value created lasts.
We are all familiar with the notion of the ‘1/2 life’. The time it takes for radioactivity of an element to decay by 1/2. Uranium 238 has a 1/2 life of several billion years.
What about the 1/2 life of information?
The 1/2 life of a daily newspaper is arguably 1 day, today’s news is ‘tomorrows fish wrapper’. For 99.9% of blog posts, and most other so called ‘content’, it is about 2 seconds. This seems odd in what is supposedly the ‘Information age’, why is the life so short in most cases, and what make the difference for the 0.1%?
The answer seems to be: It depends on the utility of the information, which is partly a function of the ‘friction’ or resistance which is applied to its transmission.
Businesses, and most institutions are structured to be top down in functional silos, a system that evolved before digitisation of information arrived at our inboxes. This enabled the scaling of effort and the most efficient allocation of resources. A 20th century solution to the challenge of information transfer and leverage.
In the 21st century, with digitisation, the structures of the 20th century are redundant. They are simply too slow to be competitive in an environment where the action happens at digital speed on the ‘front lines’ of customer interaction. It takes too long for the siloed decision making processes to work. Customers will now move quickly to someone who is able to satisfy their need on the spot.
We have to turn our power structures upside down, and give the front lines the authority to make on the spot decisions within a much broader remit than was previously the case.
This creates huge complications for organisations, as the status quo is upset. The power people at the top have worked to achieve all their lives is diluted, and for those at the bottom, suddenly they are being tasked to take decisions that last week were being referred up the chain.
There is a driver of activity, always present, but to date well in the background for most. This is the ‘operating rhythm’ of the market in which they compete. When their decision cycles are slower than the operating rhythm of the market, the market will go elsewhere, or at the very least, opportunities will be lost.
Getting ‘inside’ the operating rhythm of your market, being able to respond quicker than the market reacts, is an emerging key to strategic success.
The 1/2 life of information is now in the hands of others, those who really count, by being customers.
That is why the OODA loop, conceived by US fighter pilot John ’40 second’ Boyd in the 60’s is so relevant to 21st century competition.
Dec 8, 2023 | Change, Innovation
We make many types of investments in the future, brand building, capability development, process optimisation, building the foundations to scale, and significantly, R&D.
Each is aimed at generating future cash flow.
The management and strategic challenge is how we justify investments today in something that may or may not occur tomorrow.
In relation to R&D, we have a specific dilemma, in both private and public sectors.
Capitalising R&D is a problem, as it makes us very sensitive to the sunk cost syndrome. We have real trouble walking away from it when the outcomes are not as expected, and the experiment is clearly a failure.
R&D is experimental, most things you try will not work. When you have capitalised them, and they do not work, you have a balance sheet write-off to explain. In this situation, the propensity of humans to resist an admission of being seen as having been wrong is heightened.
Much better to expense it, then there is no sunk cost to write off, fewer egos and personal agendas to be managed, although the sunk cost syndrome is alive, powerful, and often hidden in jargon.
On the flip side, research is long term, and needs the certainty of long-term funding. It should be immune to the vagaries of the short-term profitability fix, that typically stalks expenses.
Take the marketing investment in brand building as the prime example.
Building a brand takes a long time, is incremental, and sensitive to short term fluctuations and changes in direction that can be influenced by the profitability this quarter, the demand for a discount from a significant customer, or a change in personnel. Being an expense makes investments in marketing the target for a short-term fix for a short-term problem, at the expense of the long term.
There is no right answer to the question, it always ‘depends’ on something.
For example, private enterprise typically has a much shorter time frame than government, and therefore, does less of the long-term exploratory science. By preference they take the output of publicly funded labs and apply it to problems they see in the marketplace.
Somewhat cynically, we see the time frame of government as being the election cycle. However, almost all the key discoveries in the last 75 years that I can think of have evolved in one way or another, from publicly funded science. The irony is that such funding is subject to annual budget pressure. In this country that has resulted in public science being gutted over the last few decades, which erodes the foundation of innovation.
I did not answer my own question, and it remains a key one to be considered. However, despite the recent announcements by the Albanese government, I suspect we are circling the drain.
Header photo: Monticello dam drain glory hole. USA
