It all started when I got tired of all the daily Norton messages. It was alarming and I assumed something must be wrong with the software. I tried completely deleting Norton and reloading. (A completely nightmarish process and worthy of its own post.) No change. The daily warnings continued. Searching the Norton FAQs and user community support provided no clues on how to stop the messages. I finally got on with Norton tech support via their chat tool.

Norton support jockeys’ favorite thing to do is to completely remove Norton and reinstall it. Their support personnel in India love to take control of your machine and do all the driving for you. Apparently this must be the best way to make Norton’s products work because the dozen or so times I have called, this is inevitably the action required. This process speaks volumes about Norton’s product, its complexity, and its invasiveness into your operating system and files. I’ve NEVER liked Norton for all of the above reasons and was able to avoid them for years by using other products. A recent software bullying requirement from a key client’s IT department required me to have Norton to work within their ecosystem. So I am reluctantly back in Norton’s clutches.

After multiple support tickets and elevation to level 2 support, it was determined that I am “at-risk” because I have not installed all of the Norton products. Norton wants me to install their web tools onto each of my browsers, use their VPN, use their password manager, and the list goes on. Turns out the only way to stop that “at-risk” message was to install the products. I was assured I could then delete them immediately after installing and the message would not come back.

Really!

This is the very definition of spam and malware. A product that invades your system and takes over operations. It borders on ransomware. This is software bullying at its finest.

And Norton is not alone. Adobe is equally complex. Equally as invasive. And equally as demanding about access to the internet, your files, and being “on” at all times.

This is the ecosystem approach taken by many of the long-standing software giants. You must use all of our integrated apps. No, you can’t pick and choose and no you can’t unbundle it.

The other kind of bullying takes the form of paying for necessary software but being forced to agree to invasive marketing and messaging requirements to use the product you purchased. A seller of refrigerators can’t force you to subscribe to regular messages, banners, and communications as a precondition to cool your food and make your ice. Nor can they require you to agree to marketing and use of your personal information. Why should I pay for the product and agree that they can do as they please with my info as a precondition to using my purchased product? Because they are and remain software bullies.

To be clear, I understand if I am not paying for the software then I AM the product - that is my information is how the company is making a profit. When I pay for a product however, I believe that they should be paying me to use my info. While babystep consumer rights inroads are being made on this front, nothing substantive or sweeping is happening in the US.

Rather than succumb to the bullying, I am fighting back.

Good morning Norton warning. You suck!

I recall being in London on a business trip with an extra day to spend. After visiting some new sites, I deciding to go to 221 B Baker Street. This was in 1990 (pre-smartphone for the youngsters reading this) – the “dark ages” for having up-to-date information and digital anything. Paper maps were the only form of navigation. Getting there involved reading a stylized paper city map of London. The mapmakers had not seen fit to include 221 B Baker Street, which made for extra challenges.

After a 3-mile walk (that only appeared as inches on the paper map) I arrived at the correct street address. Unfortunately, this was before anyone decided to erect a museum or put a plaque on the wall indicating the world-famous detective that once had a residence here. The problem, according to Wikipedia, is that the street numbers for the location of the residence were changed in the 1930s. The block of odd numbers from 215 to 229 was assigned to an Art Deco building known as Abbey House, constructed in 1932 for the Abbey Road Building Society, which the society and its successor (which subsequently became Abbey National plc) occupied until 2002. The residence of Sherlock Holmes was not recognized as such. It is now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/221B_Baker_Street

So without any map application or a smartphone, and without any Internet information for the change in address, I arrived at the correct “address” but was not at the correct “location”. A long trek that came up short and deprived me of a visit to my favorite detective’s museum. Good exercise, but a disappointment.

Every city in the world has a similar problem for visitors. How do city employees recognize all the locations that visitors might be interested in? Further, how do they provide signage that helps create a walkable city? Check out this solution for signage; one that helps walkers enjoy the visit.

http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/02/diy-wayfinding-signs-are-about-to-go-mainstream/386081/?utm_source=SFFB

partnership (1)

noun part·ner·ship \ ˈpärt-nər-ˌship \

Definition of partnership

: an arrangement in which people engage in an activity or business with one another or share something with each other

There is growing public-sector interest in partnerships. Once found only in the private sector, the concept of partnering is increasingly important to how the public sector approaches:

• resource constraints,

• increasingly complex problems, and

• implementation of sustainable solutions.

In this new series of articles, we will discuss new concepts in public sector partnering. We outline the elements of a good partnership. We also provide some suggestions for assessing partnerships governance and performance.

It is important to define partners as being different from stakeholders. Partners bring resources to the fight. Stakeholders bring issues, points of view, and positions. Partners invest time, talent, and treasure – the 3 Ts – to mutually determined problems.

As public sector budgets remain flat, or decline, hiring and contracting for services are no longer options. The public sector is increasingly seeking partners to provide the skills, funding, data, staff, and competencies that it does not possess. We refer to this joining of resources as “collaborative capital.” Collaborative capital is the sharing of intellectual capital, political capital, labor, and financial capital among many organizations to address a defined problem.

1. Intellectual Capital: the data, unique processes, software, and insight that is the basis of each partner’s business model. It includes the ability to confer legitimacy on any of the above.

2. Political Capital: the ability of each partner to influence public policy, regulation, law, and public budgets.

3. Labor: the staff and volunteers each partner can commit toward ongoing governance, developing solutions, and implementation.

4. Financial Capital: the actual dollar funding each partner provides toward the solution.

Each of these 4 elements of collaborative capital is generally required to solve public-sector problems. Each partner should provide some or all the 4. Some partners bring only one of the above and others all four. The most successful partnerships have the necessary and sufficient partners to provide all 4 types of collaborative capital.

In the next segment, we will discuss each of the collaborative capital elements in more detail, and how they play out in public sector partnering.

Sign up now so you don’t miss the first issue.

Subscribe now

In the meantime, tell your friends!

In the first article of this series, we discussed how flat-to-declining public sector budgets are making partnerships more attractive to government agencies. We discussed the concept of “collaborative capital” as a means for the public sector to enhance skills, funding, data, staff, and competencies that it no longer possesses.

Further, we outlined 4 distinct resource types needed by partnerships.

1. Intellectual Capital: the data, unique processes, software, and insight that is the basis of each partner’s business model. It includes the ability to confer legitimacy on any of the above.

2. Political Capital: the ability of each partner to influence public policy, regulation, law, and public budgets.

3. Labor: the staff and volunteers each partner can commit toward ongoing governance, developing solutions, and implementation.

4. Financial Capital: the actual dollar funding each partner provides toward the solution.

Each of these 4 elements of collaborative capital is generally required to solve public sector problems. Not surprisingly, financial capital is the element most often in short supply. There are 3 main reasons for this:

1. Public sector budgets are flat or have been declining for over a decade.

2. Public sector partnership members tend to be from other public sector agencies (federal, state, and local), nonprofit organizations, universities, and quasi-governmental groups like advisory councils and planning authorities. These groups generally have resource elements 1, 2, and 3, but little financial capital.

3. There is an ongoing reticence for public sector groups to partner directly with the private sector. The private sector could be a great source of financial capital, but there are concerns about:

• The private sector having different motives – profit motives. Profit motives are generally viewed by the public and nonprofit sectors as preventing altruistic funding. The common view is that few private sector entities define altruism as essential to their business model and the funding they provide has strings attached.

• The motives for partnering are as important as the goals of the partnership. Suspicion of profit-oriented motives can lead to mistrust and suspicion of the private sector by other sectors. “What are they after?”, is a question we often hear.

• In the case of nonprofits, partnering with the private sector can be seen by their membership as “selling out”.

• Additionally, public sector partnering with the private sector is complicated by laws, policies, and formal oversight rules that increase the burden of compliance and administration.

It’s all about perceived risk.

There is an inherent risk that all parties in a partnership must subscribe to – mainly the risk that one’s partners will do something negative and the fallout will impact everyone’s reputation. Right or wrong, public and nonprofit sectors often perceive this risk to be higher, or more likely to occur, when working with private sector partners.

Our experience has shown partnerships that include the private sector are no riskier than partnerships between public sector entities and between the public sector and nonprofit sectors.

Partnerships within the public sector – between federal agencies, or between federal and state agencies – have all the same real and perceived risks as partnering with the private sector.

The perceived risk items for private sector partnering listed above are identical to partnering within the federal, state, or nonprofit sectors. Money from any source other than the private sector is viewed as a good thing. This aversion by many to private sector funding and participation is the next great hurdle for public sector leaders to address. The decline in public funding for critical programs and priority projects may just be the catalyst that breaks the ice for some.

As public sector budgets continue to decline, access to outside financial resources will, of necessity, become a key source of funding. It will become necessary to seek out private sector entities willing to bring financial resources to the partnership.

Breaking down the perceived risks and barriers to include all sectors in a partnership involves unpacking the elements of business trust. In the next section, we will cover those elements and outline how to apply a model of business trust to expanding beyond the traditional and obvious partners.

© 2020 Brett Boston. All rights reserved.

I recall being in London on a business trip with an extra day to spend. After visiting some new sites, I deciding to go to 221 B Baker Street. This was in the 1990 (pre-smart phone for the youngsters reading this) - the "dark ages" for having up-to-date information and digital anything. Paper maps were the only form of navigation. Getting there involved reading a stylized paper city map of London. The mapmakers had not seen fit to include 221 B Baker Street, which made for extra challenges.

After a 3-mile walk (that only appeared as inches on the paper map) I arrived at the correct street address. Unfortunately, this was before anyone decided to erect a museum or put a plaque on the wall indicating the world-famous detective that once had a residence here. The problem, according to Wikipedia, is that the street numbers for the location of the residence were changed in the 1930s. The block of odd numbers from 215 to 229 was assigned to an Art Deco building known as Abbey House, constructed in 1932 for the Abbey Road Building Society, which the society and its successor (which subsequently became Abbey National plc) occupied until 2002. The residence of Sherlock Holmes was not recognized as such. It is now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/221B_Baker_Street

So without any map application or a smart phone, and without any Internet information for the change in address, I arrived at the correct "address", but was not at the correct "location". A long trek that came up short and deprived me of a visit to my favorite detective's museum. Good exercise, but a disappointment.

Every city in the world has a similar problem for visitors. How do city employees recognize all the locations that visitors might be interested in? Further, how do they provide signage the helps create a walk-able city? Check out this new solution for signage; one that helps walkers enjoy the visit.

http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/02/diy-wayfinding-signs-are-about-to-go-mainstream/386081/?utm_source=SFFB

Inter-organization problem solving creates huge problems for traditional managers and management theory.

Loss of Control It is uncomfortable for organizations and managers to give up control and decision-making to inter-organizational bodies. Establishing business trust is THE essential element for real progress and support for the work of inter-organizational team’s to be successfully implemented.

Prioritizing Resources Participation on inter-organizational teams requires that resources be offered up to the team, and people's time is only the start. Resources go beyond meeting participation and include redirecting each participating organization’s resources to the effort: information and data sharing, re-prioritization of existing effort, communication, and changes to strategy are always part of the mix.

Decision-making and Governance Determining decision-making models, beyond pure consensus is a new area in management theory. The key questions is: “If we can’t reach 100% consensus, then what level of agreement is necessary for you to support the solution if outvoted?”

Delegation of Authority to Representatives Participation in inter-organizational teams requires delegation of authority to (often) lower level managers who will then have the authority to commit the resources and name of the organization to a solution.

Complexity of Communication Communicating decisions and progress back to the organization for work that is outside the organization’s structure is not a process that now exists. Until inter-organizational teams are formally viewed as part of the organization’s business model, they will remain in a communication gray area with their work effort not well understood by the organization.

For strategists, fonts might seem a strange beginning point for a discussion on shared vision, shared future, and a major urban planning effort. Even more surprising is the ignition point for the change happened in a coffee shop, when two of America's font designers (this is a job?) started a conversation on type fonts that grew into a vision for their community.

How do we get from font designs to large-scale urban planning, change and shared vision. Easily it seems. Using fonts as a means to a design end is similar to what Apple or Nike do for product marketing. Creating a unique and representative look and feel is a standard marketing and branding strategy. The rub is that businesses generally do not start planning efforts with a font and move to a product. It's typically the other way around.

From a simple discussion on fonts, the designers segued into how to use font to create a branding strategy for an entire city. It is a bold notion; visionary, radical, insane, and really, really smart. For all of us that have tried to do any form of urban or community planning its simplicity is sublime and enviable. Sure, these guys will get their share of egg-throwers, font-wannabee critics, and folks that are just against anything (and for nothing). And yes, the change effort will require just as much work as any traditional planning effort. The same amount of convincing, selling, involving, political wrangling, and public input. They will need the same commitment to see it through as all planners to create any plan that involves change. But darn it, you just have to admit that it looks like a lot more fun to do it their way.

Business strategists and community planners take note. The sparks that ignites strategies and large-scale change are occurring more and more in the realm of social media technologies, art and the design world. Staying current with cultural trends, not just marketing trends, business, and "go to" sources for competitive trends, will round-out your strategy palette.

Looks like higher prices are caused by the "crack spread", the cost for refineries to buy the oil, crack it into petroleum product, and sell it. Refineries are apparently closing down, due to the economics of the crack spread, which pinches the supply side of the equations and keeps prices high; and in fact is driving them higher. The current predictions are that the US will see $4 per gallon by May at a time we are using less. This argument implies that the economic constraints within the petroleum market are now working counter to supply and demand. Or more serious, the market economic model for petroleum is broken.

What are some implications?

A very disturbing scenario is $4 per gallon is considered by some industry watchers as the place where the national economies can stall - the price for energy reaches such a high cost that manufacturing, travel, and power production are negatively affected, reducing or reversing the recovery underway.

Another more troubling scenario is that Petroleum manufacturers are creating their own price points by restricting supply (closing refineries) and thus elevating prices. We can be sure that a case will be made that they are "artificially" keeping prices high to make sure profits remain high.

The net result of $4 gasoline is that demand will continue to drop, setting off another round of counter to supply and demand economic price increases. If energy is indeed market-driven, then we may be seeing fundamental changes occurring in the petroleum sector that will have cataclysmic and rapid changes on how the US public views and consumes energy.

The implication for broad sectors of the economy - automotive, alternative fuels, manufacturing - are clear. If these sectors follow observed historical trends when facing sharp increases in petroleum pricing, we can expect a rapid movement to high fuel mileage vehicles, demand for more domestic drilling, and growth in alternative energy production. This cyclic dance has been going on since the OPEC shockwave in the 70's. Prices go up, people make consumption changes to reduce demand. Alternative energy sources start a mini-boom. Then prices "miraculously" go down. But if the "crack spread" has in fact shifted and the economics of refining petroleum has changed, we will not see prices below $4 as a consequence of reduced demand. Pricing will continue to rise in the face of falling US demand.

A lack of a consensus on a national energy policy, and the ongoing politicization of the issue, has prevented objective dialogue and discussion on the US supply and demand for petroleum. Cheap energy is and always has been, the main driver of the US economic miracle. Expect turmoil, rapid price increases, and gas-bag punditry on the solutions. You should be use to it by now. What you shouldn't expect is a rational discussion or national policy aimed at keeping America competitive by transition from a petroleum-based economy to an economy that can sustain itself for another century or two.

Cultures like Google and Apple are renowned for creating competitive advantage through fostering creativity and great new product offerings.

One often overlooked aspect of having a fantastic culture is the value to the company of recruitment and retention. Many of my clients bemoan the fact that they cannot offer competitive salaries - particularly those in the public and non-profit sectors - and therefore lose-out on the "best" talent in the market. Additionally, many feel that low salaries cause a high turnover rate among their best employees leading to a talent-brain-drain within the organization.

During the recent recession, lower paying companies have been able to hire extra-ordinary talent. But they fear, with good cause, that these same people will be heading to other higher paying opportunities once the job market improves.

The competitive component that most organizations are missing out on is the quality of their culture. Working within a fantastic culture is one of the key strategies for retention of great talent. Articulating and carefully cultivating a great culture can help all companies hire, develop and retain an above average, talented workforce.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2012/02/08/corporate-culture-the-only-truly-sustainable-competitive-advantage/

In my strategy work, I use decision support tools that allow participants to give simultaneous and anonymous comments using many-to-many networked computers. This totally avoids the crowd-pleasing mentality that inhibits good ideas, as mentioned in the article. Often, WHO says something is more important than the content value of the idea itself. The "who said it" often shuts down the creativity of the group as much as critical challenges to ideas.

The jury is still out, and there are hundreds of studies that show better results for group process over individual ideas than those cited in the article below. I firmly believe that anonymous, technology-assisted group process produces far superior outcomes than produced by people working alone, particularly when the strategy or issue is complex. Effective group idea triggering consistently leads to superior strategies and solutions.

Reminds me of the old African proverb.... "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1668930/the-brainstorming-process-is-bs-but-can-we-rework-it

A lack of long-term perspective is impacting all aspects of modern society:

• There are no national strategies on energy, future technology development, and for the first time in generations, no societal commitments on a shared vision for a better future.

• Short-term focus on huge investment returns is leading to expectations of returns well beyond what was once respectable. This is driving investor expectations that can only be met through complex derivative and mathematically driven financial instruments that few understand, and that are so highly leveraged, that the global economy now pivots on unexpected global incidents.

• Most organizations are head down in tinkering around the edges, with few attempting to reinvent themselves with dynamic and innovative models of organizational design and product innovation.

My posts will focus on the value of strategy and shared vision to addressing some aspects of these issues. I will cover the creation of informal multi-organizational partnerships and how they can cooperatively serve to address increasingly complex issues. How to create intentional strategies that move the needle toward a shared vision held by any organization or multi-organizational entity. As importantly, we will also explore the value of involving a broad array of interested, but nontraditional partners in today's strategic thinking and show how inclusion of these new and unconventional players complicates planning, but greatly improves implementation.

Together, let's explore what's possible in strategic planning and vision setting.

Looking forward to a creative and fruitful dialogue.