Timeless Humour

My sister has informed me that she expected my blog to be funnier than it has proven to be. While I can't be expected to change my editorial policy - in the interests of my many, many readers - it is, after all, Christmas. And what better time to experience the gift of giving? So here...take this for funny:



For those of you who don't know, this is a classic Far Side cartoon by Gary Larson, entitled (I believe) Midvale School for the Gifted.

My predictions for 2006

Before I get to my predictions for the new year, I should say that a number of my clients have vested interests in some of these predictions coming true. With that said, don’t discount them as publicity fluff, but rather as indications of the belief I have in my clients’ business models. There….take that.

• The Y1C Crisis – While I highly doubt we’re going to run out of oil in the next 12 months, I do think the days of $1.00/liter gasoline are here to stay. In the biggest crisis to hit Canada since Y2K, watch the gasoline companies scramble to update their price signs to reflect the new, three figure reality…or start pricing gasoline in full cents.


• PIPEDA Bites – It came in like a lion in 2004 but since then has looked far more like a lamb. Expect this year to see federal and provincial privacy commissioners really start to hold companies accountable for privacy breaches…and by accountable I mean more than a couple of bad PR days.


• Convergence Resurgence – BCE’s divestiture of Bell Globe Media hammered one more nail in the coffin of Jean Monty’s convergence vision, but I wouldn’t write it off too soon. Don’t be surprised to see at least one or two big mergers, involving at least two of Monty’s convergence pillars: communications (Rogers, Telus?) and a content (Corus, Chum, CanWest?)


• The New, New Wireless Wave – This is almost more a hope than a prediction, but I do see 2006 as the year that, finally, wireless providers come out with an affordable, all-in-one device that delivers phone, data, MP3s, TV, radio, internet, universal remote control, voice recorder, calendaring, and maybe even a clock.


• Green: The New Color of Money – Even with natural gas and oil prices skyrocketing this year, the misconception still exists that green, renewable energy products are only environmental in value, and only for the select few that can afford them. Look for 2006 to see a change in mindset – especially with Ontarians seeing more natural gas hikes in January – with the realization that renewable technologies actually cost less…and you get to save the world.


• VoIP Goes Mainstream – With Vonage putting their feet to the fire, incumbent telcos have sheepishly unveiled their VOIP offerings, although you wouldn’t know it from their marketing. It makes sense, but this year Canadians won’t have a choice but to see how much money they stand to save with VOIP, and telcos will have to respond.


• Judgment Day for Satellite Radio – If the technology gift guides are any indication, satellite radios will be under the tree for virtually every technophile in the country this year. Don’t be so sure. Even with the might of Howard Stern, I’m not convinced Canadians will take too well to paying for something they’ve grown accustomed to getting for free. Plus, where will we tune in to hear those annoying Goodyear ads?


• Taking Responsibility for IT – The debate around how to regulate and govern information technology will continue once again, but two things will change. One is that corporate officers and directors will start getting nervous about the risks and potential liabilities their firms’ IT systems represent. The other is that software glitches are going to get more serious.


• I Won’t Shoot Another Eagle – A shameless plug I must admit, but last year I shot two bona fide eagles. I don’t see this happening again any time in the near future, much less in the coming year.


• And last but not least...More Reality TV!
  
  

Tow the line on CIA landings

Allegations have recently arisen that Canada has offered the CIA a hand in transporting suspected members of al-Queda and other terrorist organizations to and from an international network of alleged interrogation centres. The Canadian press claims that a particular Hercules craft in question flew from Newfoundland to a Scottish airport that's under scrutiny as an apparent destination for numerous covert flights, and that said plane is registered to Rapid Air Transport, an alleged shell company controlled by the CIA.

No doubt these allegations will make their way into the crossfire of heated accusations among campaigning political leaders. The Feds will deny any knowledge of any such activity. The Tories will call for greater transparency while also aligning closer with the U.S. in curbing terror. And of course the NDP will call this an abomination of justice, where the people’s right to know and judge for themselves has been stolen by the technocracy in office.

Instead of putting into motion a predictable series of shots across the bow, I suggest a unified approach that puts the matter to rest, keeps it out of this election, and maintains the focus of this election on what really, truly matters to Canadians. More to the point, when pressed I hope each of the leaders looks to the U.S. for guidance on this matter; not cuddling up to the Americans, but learning from them how to deal with an issue that is best left out of a general election, something like:

“We’re not at liberty to speak to issues like this of utmost national security. Suffice it to say that your elected officials are acting in the best interest of both Canadians at large, and overall human rights. This is our mandate, our responsibility, our duty to Canadians.”

To enter into a debate about minutia detail surrounding clandestine counter-terrorist operations will do nothing to help any of the parties, nor anything to help quell international insurgency. The only thing that will come from opening up this can of worms is more anger, a blip in the polls, and another squeeze of lemon on the open sore that is our relationship with our neighbors.

Is IT spending the key to productivity?

Will increasing our investment in information and computing technologies (ICT) narrow the productivity gap between the U.S. and Canada? That question is at the heart of a recently released study from the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, commissioned by the Information Technology Association of Canada.

On the one hand, there definitely appears to be a link. As reported by ITWorldCanada:

The report concluded that in 2004, current dollar investment per worker in IT by Canadian businesses was 45.1 per cent of U.S. levels, and as a share of GDP just 61.1 per cent. By sector, companies in the information and cultural industries led the pack, investing US$ 12,244 per worker, while the accommodation and food services industry brought up the rear, investing just $98 per worker.

With Canadian productivity growth also lagging that of the U.S., CSLS president Andrew Sharpe said there is a link between lack of IT investment and the productivity gap. "Many people think [IT investment] is a key factor behind the Canada/U.S. labour productivity gap."

A recent study by University of Toronto economist Melvyn Fuss and London Business School chair of economics Leonard Waverman concluded IT spending accounts for 60 per cent of the productivity gap, but Sharpe said he would put the figure at closer to 20 per cent.

On the other hand, to conclude that more servers makes a more productive company appears not only to be an onversimplification, but a potentially dangerous one at that. As John Krpan, Executive VP at IT services firm RIS (DISCLAIMER: RIS is one of my clients), put it in a recent column penned for the Globe and Mail's online technology section:

IT has proven its value, both enhancing productivity on a macro level, and as an enabler of innovation at the company level...but there are those who will argue that there isn't even a correlation between IT spending and productivity.

In his still widely debated 2003 article IT Doesn't Matter, Harvard Business Review editor Nicholas Carr makes this argument based on a study of 2,500 U.S. firms. Carr explains that the most productive and successful firms spend less than a quarter on IT (0.8 per cent of revenue) than what is spent by the average company (3.7 per cent). Moreover, the companies that generated the lowest returns also spent only 0.8 per cent of revenue on IT.

For the sake of productivity, competitiveness and innovation, companies shouldn't just spend more on IT; they should spend smarter. In IT, the old adage that one size doesn't fit all couldn't be more valid.

Having the wisdom to draw the line — between spending more and getting more out of IT — is the key to more productive companies, and a more productive Canada.

So do more computers make for a more productive country? The techie side of me wants to say yes. But the still fresh memories of the dot-com days lead me to advise...be smart about how you interpret these findings.

Gimme a Break, Yosemite Dave

"It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship."

So said David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, in a stinging response yesterday to Prime Minister Martin's recent criticism of America's environmental and commercial policies.

In theory, he's right. We should all just get along. We do need closer ties and a more sophisticated relationship with the U.S. In fact, I'm more supportive of closer Canada-U.S. ties - in terms of trade, defense and the environment - than virtually anyone I know. Jack Granatstein, if by chance you're reading this, you would certainly be an exception.

But to swagger in and scold us while claiming the higher ground in the relationship? To respond with threats in the manner of an older brother who's pissed off that we outed him for siphoning booze out of dad's liquor cabinet? Give me a break.

1. As much respect as I have for the U.S. and the lessons we can learn from you in terms of patriotism, capitalism and taking on global responsibilities, you are hardly in a position to be dishing out advice when it comes to bilateral relations. Really.

2. You can't pretend the same thing doesn't happen during your elections. It was only last year that Canada was in the crosshairs of the Democratic campaign (fuelled no doubt in part by CNN's omniscient Lou Dobbs) as an offshore haven stealing jobs from hard working Americans. On the other side of the political spectrum, many of us will remember Pat Buchanan's lovely reference to "Soviet Canuckistan" as a nation of whining freeloaders.

3. What's the slippery slope you're talking about, and where does it lead? Will you stop buying our oil? Our natural gas? Our lumber? Our cars? Will the next defense budget include funding for new northern Minutemen? Just what are you hinting at?

4. Regardless of tit-for-tat comments of recent weeks, you still owe us $5-billion!

Rather than tell Wilkins where he can shove his belt buckle, I ask that he give it a rest and let the campaign take its toll. Yes, electioneering leaders are like kids in the sandbox that need some adult supervision when they get nasty. But with all due respect, that adult is the voting public, not David Wilkins.

Memo to Stephen Harper: Focus on Succession

Dear Mr. Harper,

It seems you’ve found yourself in a position of great potential power again, and this time you've learned from past experiences. While I can’t say I agree with all of them, your GST cut, tough stance on same-sex marriage, and tax cut approach to child care show that your platform comprises more than simply not being Paul Martin. Your physical makeover appears to have hit the mark…even Margaret Wente thinks you’re a hottie.

Acknowledging all your progress, I can’t help but point out a fundamental (if not widely recognized) weakness that still haunts your cause; most Canadians still have a really, really hard time picturing you as the leader of their country.

While I still hold some animosity towards Rick Mercer for leaving This Hour Has 22 Minutes, he did make a rather poignant observation in a recent episode of the Rick Mercer Report; that Canadians could easily find themselves looking forward to two leadership campaigns and two federal elections within the next 24 months. If, as accepted by most as one of two likely outcomes, the Liberals win a minority government, we will almost certainly see Paul Martin’s tenure come to an anti-climatic close by way of a leadership review, with his successor surely calling a quick election to secure a mandate from the people. If the Tories win a minority government, the other widely accepted likely outcome, as Mercer put it, your government would last as long as the lifespan of a fruitfly (it may have been butterfly…I’m not sure).

Which brings me to my advice…the NDP and Bloc aside, this election really isn’t so much about the current party leaders as it is about their potential successors. To win over the hearts and minds of Canadians, show them now what the future of the party holds. Mounting polls show that the biggest threat to the Liberal incumbency has nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal; it’s a universal desire for change.

Unfortunately for you Mr. Harper, you’re just not the person Canadians see as being the end product of that change. The antagonist, yes…the successor, no.

Also unfortunately for you, the Liberals seem to have no shortage of suitors to the throne. Recently parachuted Michael Ignatieff – while I’m still not sure I see the connection – is already being touted as a future PM, a Trudeau incarnate. You can be certain that John Manley will be an instant contender upon throwing his hat in the ring. I would be surprised if one or both of Tobin or McKenna, both strong characters with loyal supporters, don’t consider a run at the post too.

On the Tory side, there are more challenges than candidates. Granted, Peter MacKay has party leadership written all over him, but for the time being he’s a bit young, still a bit stung from the Belinda breakup, and quite frankly….too loyal to you. Bernard Lord would have been a highly credible candidate, if not for the recent byelection that effectively forces him to stay in office to keep the New Brunswick Tories in power.

So Mr. Harper, to reiterate: find someone, anyone, in the Conservative party whom you think Canadians could realistically see as their next Prime Minister and make that guy (in the gender-neutral sense) the clear heir to the thrown. Don’t secede the leadership, but make it abundantly clear that the Tories are quickly going to evolve from toppling mode to governance mode, complete with a PM-style leader poised to take the helm.

But I finally get Wiki

I recognize that I’m not doing a very good job selling myself as an early adopter of technology, but I must still confess that, in addition to blogs, I really didn’t get the hype around Wikipedia, at least…until now.

I understand the concept of empowering all netizens (how’s that for a dot-com buzzword) to contribute to an expanding knowledge base. I can grasp the benefits of a collaborative approach to building that knowledge base. And I fully appreciate the value of knowledge evolving over time.

What I didn’t get was based on my belief that the reliability of a reference tool – an encyclopedia for example – is a direct function of its authors’ credibility. And how do authors exhibit their credibility? Through their academic distinctions, their professional track record, and/or other experiences that demonstrate their relative exclusivity as subject matter experts.

Therein lies the problem; by its very nature Wiki can’t provide the exclusivity necessary to demonstrate credibility and reliability. It’s too…democratic.

And that’s when the light bulb went on (bear with me if you already know where I’m going with this).

The very element of Wiki that, in my mind, discounts its value as a reference tool is what makes it quite possibly the perfect medium for an entirely different purpose: policy development. Imagine if, instead of surprising the country with a $500-million handgun ban this week, the Liberals launched a Wiki policy forum, where the basic objectives (cut down on gun-related deaths) and constraints (minimize impact on civil liberties) of the intended policy were laid out, along with a skeleton of possible implementation options. Instead of costly focus groups, pollsters and policy analysts, leave it up to the people to shape public policy.

Sounds great in theory, but in practice it’ll be chaotic, right? I don’t know. But considering how disenchanted voters are with the coming election, coupled with election promises (like the handgun ban) that completely miss their mark, I’ve got to believe a smart campaign team would at least give it a try.

I don't get blogs!

I don't get blogs!

Starting my own blog has been on my to-do list for the better part of two years now. And at long last, my theory – that if I shared my intentions with a critical mass of people, their expectations would force me to deliver simply in order to save face – has borne fruit. The last straw came earlier this week by way of an email from my friend Rick Spence, the former Editor and Publisher at PROFIT Magazine who blogs it up at Canadian Entrepreneur. His email (in typical Spence fashion) was quick and to the point, with three out of 12 or so words reading: “Start blogging fast.”

So, there you have it, and here I am.

However proud I may be right now, I must come clean with an admission: I don’t get blogs. I don’t get how they’re any different from the open source code I used almost a decade ago to create a discussion forum on my web site. I don’t get how a blog is any different from a web site that is simply updated daily, or even an ancient Bulletin Board System (BBS) for that matter. What I do know is that I’ve been driven to start blogging out of sheer commitment to staying on the early side of the adoption curve, and I’m hopeful that I’ll get it soon. In the meantime, if anyone can enlighten me on the revolutionary significance of blogs, please do.