Manage To Change

Turn It Off

We're all busy.  

For me, a small and rapidly expanding business takes up most of my time. It's both exciting and exhausting. For you it might be the same or it might be a demanding position with a more traditional employment agreement. It doesn't matter.  

My epiphany this weekend was that it is NOT only the hours I work that exhaust me.  It's the hours I think I'm not working that wear me out!

The busier I get the more I seem to mentally process all the things I need to do at times when I should be disconnecting, relaxing, and giving my poor brain a rest.

Sure we could start talking about multi-tasking, over stimulation with news and information, fractured attention, and tons of things that erode our productivity and inhibit our ability to rejuvenate.

But for me...I'm going to start by taking one day completely off every week. 

What do you do to recharge your brain? Any suggestions? 

Michael Hansen SIIA Keynote: What I Learned from Galileo Galilei

  Image via Wikipedia

Michael Hansen, CEO Elsevier Health Sciences opened the Software & Information Industry Association's (SIIA) Annual Information Industry Summit by reintroducing the audience to Galileo. His lessons from Galileo:

In a time of change, remember your roots. Galileo reminded Hansen of Elsevier's core strength to: "bring insights to the world and have those insights as a basis for better decisions." Elsevier published Galileo's controversial work in 1632.

In keeping with those roots, how can Elsevier, or any medical publisher, provide a valuable resource to a physician who only gets to spend approximately six minutes with a patient (generally considered a reliable statistic for primary care doctors)?  What can a publisher deliver in a fraction of that time that could benefit the physician and patient?

To address this need, Elsevier created a Clinical Decision Support business unit.  And, leading into the next Galileo lesson, this unit is not charged with simply delivering information at the point of care.  They are charged with "making information more to the point and more specific, as a recommendation."

In times of pressure and crisis, explore the counter intuitive.  Don't just follow conventional wisdom.

Those not familiar with medical publishing, may not realize that Hansen's example above, providing more specific recommendations to physicians, is very unconventional thinking. For many reasons, not the least of which is legal liability, this isn't often done.

In fact, I would argue it's the most unconventional idea he raised today. 

Below are two additional examples, that while interesting, are not uncommon practices in many organizations:

Hansen offered a sales example to highlight unconventional thinking, with a major client, the sales team took a more collaborative approach.  They analyzed the client's information assets and identified redundancies, resulting in a decrease in content costs of 10%.  His takeaway? "Forge new partnerships, relationships, and collaborations."

Of course, the revised content holdings included several Elsevier assets. 

Hansen's second example was related to people. Many companies say that people are their greatest resource, yet they don't communicate with them and are often reluctant to share bad news.

Elsevier found that in sharing concerns with their employees, they were able to identify savings offered up by people who were much better suited to identify savings opportunities than an isolated group of people in a conference room.  For example, staff were able to suggest cuts in travel that totaled almost 20% across the board.

While the second two examples might not be considered counter intuitive in many circles, that's irrelevant.  They were counter intuitive to Elsevier and, in pursuing them, Elsevier stepped out of their comfort zone.

Unconventional is in the eye of the beholder.

What are we doing to explore the counter intuitive, the unconventional, in a way that is consistent with our strengths (roots)?

Have our objectives changed? Should they have?

Have the methods by which we achieve our objectives changed? Should they have?

Hansen pointed out that the recession is bad but not as bad as the inquisition.  If Galileo could be unconventional, why can't we?

Motivation: Do You Have Drive?

"There's a mismatch between what science knows and what business does." Daniel Pink at TED Talks 2009

According to Dan, what science knows is that when people are offered rewards for simple, structured tasks results improve.  But, when rewards are offered for tasks that are conceptual they have a negative impact on performance.

What business does, especially American business, is almost uniformly attempt to motivate staff through monetary incentives.

The alternative?  Intrinsic rewards: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose.

This video was an introduction to Dan's new book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. I just ordered my copy.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Daniel Pink on New Book 'Drive,' Motivation, the Economy (time.com)
• Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us - in conversation with author Dan Pink (krishnade.com)
• What motivates good work? (time.com)

Google Wave: When More is Too Much

We're talking about Google Wave over on the Scholarly Kitchen.

Google Wave was built to answer the question, “How would email look if it were invented today?”  But Wave goes far beyond email-like functionality and tries to get to the heart of communication in all the forms that we’ve come to know.  Wave is part email, part IM, part Wiki, and part document management, to name a few.Ann Michael under, The Scholarly Kitchen, Oct 2009

Come join us!

Sci Foo Camp 2009: Nature Video

After Michael Clarke's coverage of Sci Foo Camp on the Scholarly Kitchen, I thought there was nothing left to say.

• Day 1
• Day 2
• Day 3

I was wrong.

NatureVideo just posted a Science Foo Camp 2009 video on YouTube.  From DNA, to skulls, to puzzles, it seems like Sci Foo had it all.

It was interesting to see how most of those interviewed contrasted the open and informal nature of Sci Foo with traditional science research and discovery.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Photos: Foo Camp 2009 (laughingsquid.com)

reBlog from Kent Anderson under: The Scholarly Kitchen

Image via CrunchBase

I found this fascinating quote today:

Earlier this week, I wrote about the management trap that occurs in industries undergoing disruptive innovation. David Smith from CABI forwarded this presentation from Netflix to me. It’s excellent, and deserves to be shared widely.Kent Anderson under, The Scholarly Kitchen, Aug 2009

Culture

View more presentations from Reed Hastings.

SIIA: New Rules for Licensing, Building & Aggregating Information

Earlier in the spring, while attending the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) NetGain conference, I was asked to answer a question as part of a series for the SIIA Content Division. 

As the result of sheer coincidence, Chris Anderson was a keynote at the conference and was also asked the same question.

Several people were interviewed and the SIIA has posted all of the interviews as well as all of the sessions from NetGain.

The question?

What are the new rules for licensing, building and aggregating information?

Chris' answer was brief and pointed to Freemium as the new model.

My answer was a little longer and is included here just for fun!

Boring Technology & Convening Supporters

Kent Anderson from the Scholarly Kitchen linked to this Clay Shirky video filmed at the State Department by TED.

It's 17:03 minutes of insight!

"What matters here isn't technological capital, it's social capital.  These tools don't get socially interesting until they get technologically boring...when everybody is able to take them for granted."

"They had understood that their role with my.barackobama.com was to convene their supporters, but not to control their supporters."

Online Education: Tastes Great or Less Filling?

Whether to provide a more vibrant and relevant educational experience or to save money on text books, it looks like online education is making some headway. 

Connecticut District Tosses Algebra Textbooks and Goes Online, that's what I read last week in the New York Times .  Connecticut teachers were frustrated by rushing students "through their Algebra I textbooks only to spend the first few months of Algebra II relearning everything they forgot or failed to grasp the first time."

They rewrote the curriculum to focus on fewer topics at greater depth in Algebra I, thus better preparing students for the more advanced concepts and eliminating much of the review time in Algebra II (which could now be spent learning concepts that were cut from Algebra I).

The results?

"...school officials say their less-is-more approach has already resulted in less review in math classes, higher standardized test scores and more students taking advanced math classes."

The costs?

...they spent about $70,000 to develop the new math curriculum...[and] the district will soon save at least $25,000 a year on textbooks.

That's interesting.

Not only did they seem to come up with a more effective approach to learning, but they're going to save money.

Two days ago, BBC News published the article, Online Push in California Schools.

"From the beginning of the next school year in August, math and science students in California's high schools will have access to online texts that have passed an academic standards review."

Questioning the true motivation for the change, the BBC News article noted that "Last year California spent $350m on textbooks and can no longer afford it."

Today David Worlock, Chief Research Fellow at Outsell, published The Online Cost of Education is "Cheaper" (Insights subscription required).

As David observes, "School infrastructure in the developed world has now reached the point where the implementation of a fully digital curriculum is very possible...even if the real underlying reasons have more to do with budget cuts than education." 

Could technological advances, changing learning habits, the growing irrelevance of current curriculum, and financial woes finally add up to a wholesale movement of education toward more online learning options?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Schwarzenegger's book ban hits Pearson (telegraph.co.uk)

Publishing, Nautilus, and Networks

Image by mindseyeimagery via Flickr

The other day I got a LinkedIn group alert from Andrew Spong linking to an article in The Journal of Electronic Publishing entitled Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase, by Joseph J. Esposito.

His "Nautilus Model of Scholarly Communications" was a brilliant way to provide a foundation for discussion.  The model is illustrated in the article cited above, but he introduced it in Open Access 2.0 published in The Scientist.

At the "innermost spiral of the shell of a nautilus, where a particular researcher wishes to communicate with a handful of intimates and researchers working in precisely the same area" is where he proposes Open Access is most viable.   He goes on to posit that at "each step away from the center, the role of the publisher grows and the merits of open access diminish."

At the core of the model is the degree to which the participants in the particular ring of the spiral are known to each other.  At the center, they know each other quite well.  As we move out, they do not and "...the publisher's brand is a form of insurance" to the consumer, insurance against wasting time (and, potentially, money).  

Thinking about the widening rings of the nautilus shell as decreasing degrees of familiarity, it seems as though this model is useful to consider more broadly.

• What kinds of products are valuable to [small] networks whose members are very familiar with one another?
• What kinds of products are valuable to networks whose members are NOT familiar with one another?
• What kinds of supporting services are needed in each type of network?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Framing the Open Access Debate (scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org)