Enlightened Conflict

answering the help wanted ads for data decipherer

March 12th, 2013

Help Wanted!- Data, data everywhere—and not enough people to decipher it – WSJ headline 3/11data decipherers

 

51% of surveyed IT professionals currently involved in big-data projects cited ‘lack of expertise to connect the dots’ as a reason projects fail in their organization. No other factor was more commonly cited. – infochimps, inc.

 

Well.

This post is either going to show I am incredibly naïve or incredibly smart or incredibly stupid <and clueless>.

Look.

Everyone in business is drowning in data these days.

But here is a newsflash … we were always drowning in data … albeit different data … but I am willing to bet a shitload of money that anyone with any business experience will agree that we had so much data crossing our desks <in the good ole days> that you could build your own great pyramid of paper if you so desired.

As I scratch my head over the flurry of farcical diatribes around “big data” I can’t help but be reminded of the poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”:

 

“water, water everywhere, nary a drop to drink.”

<Bruce translation: despite the depths and vast expanse of the ocean it can’t begin to quench our thirst>

 

We might say the same thing about how technology has enhanced the volume of data these days.

The volume of data is almost unfathomably vast.

And because of that we see thousands of articles on how to sift through the data for business advantages.

Well.

This is crazy talk. Mostly because it seems like everyone is mesmerized by the quantity of data available.

Anyone with any business chops will quickly point out that anyone, throughout the history of business, has always had a quantity of data available.

And we almost always had too much quantity <more than they could ever use>.

The access to quantity has never been an issue.

Now.

data analysis statslogocroppedThey will also point out that part of knowing your business shit is setting up efficient/effective data gathering … so you capture the most important <and not invest gobs of energy on stuff you will never use, cannot use, do not really want to use or is just plain useless> data.

Now.

They will also point that data analysis has three components:

-          Assessing the data available <with gobs available which gobs are most meaningful>

-          Setting up a system to use the useful data <consistently trapping & tracking the useful stuff consistently saves time and effort>

-          Analyzing the data <connecting the dots … instead of just showing numbers>

Now.

They will also point out that the third step in the process is often best done by someone who has no clue how the data is gathered … or even needs to know exactly what data was not gathered <although they may at some point suggest gathering something that someone up the ladder had decided was unimportant> … but they know how to connect dots.

Now.

I will now point out we in business have been doing this for years.

Sure. More and different data may be available today but the schematic looks the same.

 

Business management has always faced an obstacle when it comes to reaping the benefits of big data because they always need someone who can tell them what it all means.

But it seems that because there are so many new ways to gather and track data there is a heightened awareness, and desire, to actually use all this data stuff … with the same good intentions that business had in the past … gain a competitive edge … or at least to keep up with the competition.

Oh.

And here is what any business person with chops will also tell you … relying on data alone isn’t enough. This is a game of both head and gut.data connecting-dots-stevejobs

When you rely too heavily on data, you can become too reactive, too myopic in your thinking and miss out on what the numbers can never tell you … the why’s and the what’s and the <inconceivable to number crunchers> impractical inconsistent sometimes illogical human mind & behavior. Data cannot tell you what to do.

<Big> data can lead to small sharp insights and beget great decisions and action.

But.

Here is a business truth <that most executives do not want to hear these days> … data, of any size <double venti, regular venti, grande, etc.> has no value in and of itself.

The true value of data is found in context.

Look.

You absolutely need a team with technical people to gather & mine the data … but they need to be working together with an experienced analytical person who knows how to ‘connect dots.’ This type of person knows how to observe information, interpret information and place it in context with non-number/data stuff and explain it.

And, no, that person may not be a data gwonk.

They are just good at connecting dots.

And they are good at not being blinded by the newest  & nearest data point.

 

“Gut feel is great for everyday problems. But, it often leads us astray when we’re presented with complex streams of information. We can be blinded by the newest and nearest data point and miss the big picture.” – Nate Silver statistician & author

 

I don’t agree with Nate … well … he did caveat it with “can” and “often” … so maybe I will give him a break.

Gut feel … intuition … ability to “feel” the numbers in context … is essential in order to use the data.

I do believe in what IBM calls “augmenting intuition.” And that means … well … what it says. Augment … ‘in addition to’ … add in as part of your decision criteria.

No amount of numbers <and data of any kind> can eliminate all decision risk. Nor can any amount of numbers <and data of any kind> insure you make the best decision.

Here is my last “Truth” of this post … data & analytics can make you equally smart & stupid.

People make smart decisions using data all the time.

People make stupid decisions using data all the time.

The only thing consistent is people.

And here is where the article kind of truly went a little nutso.

data connectdotsIncreasing training & skill set on ‘connecting dots’ <I assume this is “analyzing the data” in academia> to increase the amount of decipherers available to businesses.

This is where it all falls apart for me.

Because doing what they suggest basically means that data drives good decisions. Data all by itself. No intuition … no feel … no gut from experience … that maybe data can make a decision for you … and they are wrong.

I become scared because I almost feel like this is a deeper dive into that business hellhole I call “responsibility free decision making” with the intent to do the “safest behavior to increase return <or increase advantage>”.

This is using data to make all the decisions <and they even use it to hire a person which is also kind of nuts>.

This is dancing on the head of a pin business management.

And it doesn’t teach people how to think.

It doesn’t utilize skills of existing people <who aren’t steeped in ‘Big Data” but are also not intimidated nor blinded by the newest & nearest data point> who are very good at connecting dots.

And, worse, it guarantees a next business generation of “big Data decipherers” … or people who use data decision making skills and have honed no intuition skills at all.

Am I suggesting “gut management” alone? Of course not. I never have. I never will.

In the 80’s we scoured computer printouts with ‘crosstabs’ and supermarket SAMI and Nielsen reports which contained reams of data point we had to make sense of.

In the 2000’s we are scouring computer printouts <assuming you print out> which contain reams of data points we have to make sense of. And you did it then, as it should be done now, as part of a team to insure you didn’t get dazzled by some shiny data point.

This stuff drives me a little nuts because we all think the newest and nearest data point <oops … innovation> means that the world has turned on its head.

It hasn’t.

Some skills are just … well … good business skills. Adaptable to pretty much any new widget or innovation that mankind can create.

I know how to connect dots. I have no clue how to build systems to gather these dots. And you know what? I am not sure I have ever known.

And I am not unique. There are hundreds if not thousands of Me’s out there.

The skill?
Making Big Data nice small simple learnings/conclusions. Ok. Making any data available into nice small simple learnings.

2013. 1913. 1813.

The skill has always been relevant … and thinking that ‘data decipherer’ is some new skill is crazy.

rabbits

February 9th, 2013

rabbit hat mean

… not even the best magician in the world can produce a rabbit out of a hat if there is not already a rabbit in the hat.”  - Boris Lermontov

 

Ok.

I admit. I often get a little crazy when I hear “well, you pulled that one out of your ass” <this generation’s version of pulling a rabbit out of a hat>.

Well. I apologize. Only 99%+ of the time I go crazy. I account for the less than 1% of the time to sheer dumb luck.

When someone makes a surprisingly good in the moment decision … or uncovers a relatively surprisingly insightful idea … in most cases the fact they are surprising people does not mean they just made it up out of the ether.

What I mean is that pulling a rabbit out of a hat <or out of your ass> implies you created something from nothing.

 

Here is a Life truth … even a business truth … so maybe let’s just call it Truth.

 

You cannot create something from nothing.

Sure.

Sometimes the connections between what was and what ends up being are blurry <if not even visible and sometimes appears to come out of the proverbial ether> but everyone needs to have a solid base of knowledge before making the connections <thinking or tangible things> to create something. That knowledge can be within <your own pea like brain and its experiences and thoughts> … or without <tapping into other people or things>.

Anyway.

Here is the full quote reference.

Livy Montagne: “You’re a magician, Boris. To have produced all this in three weeks, and from nothing.”

 

Lermontov: “… not even the best magician in the world can produce a rabbit out of a hat if there is not already a rabbit in the hat.”

 

Again.

You can’t create something from nothing … you can only create something from something else <or something elses>.

Another Truth?

Wrap your head around this.

Ideas exist … and don’t exist <simultaneously>.

Yup. Physicists have found something <particles and things that move around that we cannot see> can simultaneously exist and not exist.

In other words, some things are capable of existing in several different states.

Any physicist can correct me but I believe it is the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics which suggests particles are allowed to travel along all paths and exist in all possible states simultaneously.

What changes uncertainty? The simple act of measurement. Measurement, or the simple recognition of what actually is, instantly forces it into just one path or state and it is no longer uncertain.

I believe it is called something like ”collapse of the wave function’” in physics.

Yeah.

It is the same in thinking, doing or whatever.

world controlled by a rabbitRandom knowledge collapses upon itself until it creates something. The ‘nothing’ is just a bunch of somethings yet to be consolidated.

 

I have been to far too many ‘brainstorming’ or ‘creative thinking’ or even ‘the power of visualization’ workshops … so many that my brain cannot storm and I cannot think straight let alone creatively and I cannot visualize shit. Every time I walk out I grab my copy of James Webb Young’s “Technique for Producing Ideas” <published in 1937 and still relevant today> and flip thru the pages to remind myself that ideation is all about cramming bits & pieces of ideas & information & thoughts into your head until you can either assimilate it into a ‘rabbit’ or you interact with someone else and inspire them to create a ‘rabbit.’

So. With that. Two thoughts.

Accumulate knowledge: the more you learn the more you can pull out of your ass <consistently>.

Practice: the more you use what you have learned the easier it is to pull something out of you ass.

 

Sorry. There is no such thing as divine inspiration.

There is no such thing as pulling rabbits out of hats <unless there is already a rabbit there>.

 

We all have a gazillion thoughts, observations, and information <parts, pieces or whole> bouncing around in our heads … either in our subconscious or conscious mind. There are a myriad of possibilities existing with regard to possible outcomes.

The nothing is all these pieces and parts not assembled.

The something is when assembly is achieved.

Now.

Not everyone is good at “assembling” or even implementing from the nothings floating around in their heads but that is a different post for a different day.

If you feed your mind you will end up with a boatload of rabbits in your hat.

But, please, something from nothing?

Not even a magician can do that.

that I have not been

April 25th, 2012

“’pray for nothing, say every night in bed, I have been a king, I have been a slave, nor is there anything, fool, rascal, knave, that I have not been, yet upon my breast a myriad of hearts have lain.” Mohini Chatterjee by Yeats

If I had not known that Yeats was enamored with mysticism and reincarnation I … well … would have ended up writing what I am going to write.

My first thought?

It has to do with living life however the cards are dealt … and regardless of whether you are a fool or an intellect … you will find someone ‘upon your breast will lay’ <that means you will have love & loves>.

I like that.

Doesn’t matter who you are and what you do … there will always be someone for you.

Oh.

And beyond having someone love you <assuming you allow it and you stop worrying about whether you are good enough> … there is a really big thought in there that there are lives within lives … and I imagine another way of saying that is … you can live several lives within one lifetime.

That’s what I think when I read this.

That’s a lot but I think it is a lot of good stuff.

Yeats wrote a lot about his belief that the soul of man is eternal. And that existence is cycles within cycles. I may not buy that whole “eternal” thing but I do believe that Life is cycles within cycles. It really only has one true beginning and end … but multiple starts and stops … and detours and exits … and … well … you get it. Cycles within cycles.

With that in mind I wanted to end this post with the conclusion of the poem used in the beginning … “men dance on deathless feet.”

Birth-hour and death-hour meet,

Or, as great sages say,

Men dance on deathless feet.

Now that is awesome.

You are either living or dying.

But your footsteps on Life will never die.

Oh.

One last thought <regarding this quote>.

If you truly believe that you live many lives within one life … well … then isn’t it worth setting aside desire and ambition as secondary to whatever type of life you want to lead?

Let me leave you with that thought.

turn your back on what you know

April 20th, 2012

“To truly learn turn your back on what you know … leave it all behind. To truly know the world you must immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.” – Tibetan thought

Oh my.

Immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.

That may be one of the most difficult things in the world to do.

It is natural to gravitate to what is most comfortable … that which you know and that which is the easiest for you to do.

I imagine many of us do this just as part of every day life and tell ourselves we are still learning as we bump into others who do something different and watch from afar.

But that is having one foot in what you know and maybe dipping a toe into what you don’t.

That isn’t truly ‘learning.’

At some point in order to truly learn you must … well … leave it all behind.

And that is difficult. Really difficult.

I know I cheat. How? I use young people. I try and place the situation in their hands, step back and listen. And I don’t judge <or eliminate possibilities>. It is my way of ‘immersing in what is not your knowledge.’ In their inexperience <within my own experience> they share a world of experiences in which I have no knowledge.

Oh.

I may think I do. But I don’t. It is a difficult thing for most of us to do … turn your back on what you know.

But I find it easier as long as I keep this other Tibetan thought in mind:

“Is being an investigator the opposite of being an artist? Maybe it is just that some mysteries require an artist not an investigator. That an artist has different ways to get to the truth.” – Tibetan thought

The path to truth is not just one path. Sure. I may know one ‘truth.’ But in knowing that I know … well … one thing. And I am sure many people are fine with the knowledge of one truth. And I do not begrudge them of that. For one truth is, at its core, a truth. And I believe everyone needs some truth in their life.

Does knowing more than one truth make someone better? Yikes. I don’t believe I could be a good judge of that. Because knowing multiple truths can be confusing … and in confusion someone just may not end up in a better place. I guess I would suggest that if multiple truths put you on more solid ground than go for it.

But the real point to this is that someone without YOUR knowledge is more likely to teach you something completely new than someone who shares your knowledge.

And, ultimately, if you are trying to understand the world, or simply solve a problem, to truly learn the answer … you may have to turn your back on everything you know.

judgment

March 28th, 2012

“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.” - Henry Clay

I was tempted to call this “when statistics get in the way of a good decision.”

Let me get this out of the way upfront. I like numbers. I have an Economics undergraduate and accounting accounted for several of my good grades in college. And I like that if you weave your way through numbers they can tell you things that can inspire the ‘real’ thought.  And I like the fact that numbers can sway an “I think” based opinion to a “here is what I know” based opinion.

Anyway. I purposefully used Henry Clay (so think maybe 1800 as to date of the quote) so that some contemporary statistical gwonk doesn’t come out of the woodwork saying something along the lines of “statistics have only evolved in the last 20 years” or something crazy like that. “We have never had better data to make decisions from than today!” is a statement that was as true in 1800 as it is in 2012 and as it was in 100 BC.

This is an eternal issue.

People have looked at statistics since the time good ole Adam started calculating how many apples fell out of the tree to figure out how often he was gonna get laid.

Henry Clay just had the luck to be quoted on it.

So before I begin my rant let me say, yes, I get decision-making is a cognitive process … where the outcome is a choice between alternatives. And that numbers can play a role.

I also get that people have different preferences as to how to approach decision making and that there will always be a varying degree between thinking and feeling and numbers and experiential.

And I do believe all decisions, at least the worthwhile ones, have to incorporate some sense of logical decision-making. Logic in that we seek to exclude <or marginalize> emotions <as well as personal biases> and try to use only rational methods <perhaps even mathematical/statistical tools> with the intent to isolate what is typically called the decision utility.

I get all that.

Oh.

And by the way … I hope no one tries to dump the whole “left brain/right brain” mumbo jumbo on me because science has already proven that is an urban myth (yeah … I will write something on that). There is no right brain left brain.

There is no “numbers are facts” crap.

Yeah. On that last one ….

“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.” – Gregg Easterbrook

Numbers don’t lie.

But they also don’t tell you what to do. In saying that let me suggest why I believe this statistical ‘torturing numbers’ issue has been an issue for eternity.

The thought.

Many people who don’t want to make decision … okay … maybe they just get nervous with accountability … use statistics to make the decision … not inform a decision.

Why?

Well. There are boatloads of reasons but suffice it to say that without using numbers … you are getting paid (or at least judged) not just on decision-making skills but on your judgment skills. That means accountability is solely on you (the person).

Think about that. But also think about this (as you get judged). The following is an explanation on decision making using statistics:

Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Statistical Decision Theory

I’d like to start today’s lecture with a reminder about something I said a long time ago when we finished our survey of population viability analysis. Population viability analysis is best seen not as a way of garnering precise predictions about the fate of a population but as a way of ensuring that all relevant life-history variables have been considered, that they have been considered efficiently, and that we have a reasonable sense of the trajectory that the population is likely to follow if current trends continue. It provides a way of structuring our thinking about the problem. That’s precisely the way I think we should regard the approach to decision making that I’m about to describe. One of the most difficult tasks facing conservation biologists, as I have emphasized repeatedly, is that decisions must often, perhaps usually, be made in the face of woefully inadequate data.

(ba bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)

So.

From that incredibly dry mind numbing analysis of statistical decision theory they dropped this little bombshell in toward the end of the ‘how to use statistics’:

There is the recognition from statistics that there are two types of errors we can make in evaluating an hypothesis:

-          We may say that something is happening when it isn’t (Type I), or

-          We may say that something isn’t happening when it is (Type II).

Say what?

The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed. – Robert Heinlein

(I wish I had written this in response to the statistical theory thingamajig)

Ok. What that means (to those of you solely dependent upon statistics). You may use the statistics to prove something is or isn’t happening … and it may not be happening or it is happening <anyone now wonder why statisticians are avoided?>.

Anyway. I will back off the ‘accountability through numbers folk’ for a second.

Trying to give statistical-using people the benefit of the doubt … let’s think that maybe when you are stressed out, frankly, any option seems pretty good … especially one which seems factual (numbers seem more factual to people … despite the fact that one you start combining them they become less factual).

I imagine it is like someone dying of thirst and drinking from whatever looks like the safest pool.

Uh oh. But some pools are poisoned.

And, unfortunately bout this stress theory of mine, when the adrenaline from the stress wears out, you realized that the statistics you leaned on for the decision YOU made were all bullshit (or someone points out they were bullshit when you actually invest some energy trying to explain them later).

And you are screwed.

Because of statistics (although people will inevitably try the “but the numbers told us what to do”).

Ok.

Here is the good news (relatively speaking). You can do something about the stress decision making leaning on numbers thing.

Most people, given enough experience, become aware that stress can do a number on your decision-making skills. How do I know? Well. Of course someone has done a study on it.

Scientists have some statistical based thinking about exactly how stress screws up your ability to make decisions.

According to ScienceDaily, psychologists Mara Mather and Nichole R. Lighthall (who completed a review of the literature on stress and decisions) they found that, even though you’d think being stressed would turn people into pessimists and therefore more careful … stress actually makes us focus too much on the upside of our decisions.

Says Mather, “Stress seems to help people learn from positive feedback and impairs their learning from negative feedback.”

Uh oh.

That sucks (maybe you cannot do something about the bad stress decision making thing). Nuts.

I guess my point in bringing up the study is that maybe under stress it is easier to grab on to statistics to make a decision <all the while thinking positive thoughts> and therefore avoided the judgment call on your own.

Uh oh (again).

Look.

I was wrong. You can do something about this judgment thing.

Judgment isn’t easy … but at some point you are accountable … or you should be … and hiding behind statistics just won’t hack it.

As Yoda would say “the answers are within you.”

The key to making a smart decision is giving yourself the time to gather all the information you need <and, yes, that can include statistics> and move forward with whatever proactive thinking method approach you have some confidence in … and make a decision.

A daunting decision doesn’t have to put you in an analysis paralysis death grip.

Use a logical decision-making method to help you evaluate your choices and pull the trigger.

And make a decision.

And not let statistics make the decision for you.

Here is the net on statistics: It helps us formalize and categorize our thinking to make sure that we have considered all relevant possibilities.

Quantitative analysis should be viewed as explorations of possibilities … not hard predictions.

I believe being able to use numbers, and statistics, to explore possibilities is truly a skill <or an art>.

Not everyone can do it. Ok. Well. That’s not true. Anyone can do it … it’s just that not everyone can do it well.

Knowing what to do with the numbers is an art.

In fact, just to circle back to the main topic of this post, let’s call it … well … judgment. Yeah. Judging numbers. Weighing the importance of one number versus another as well as learning which numbers are unimportant.

And there are even fewer people who have mastered that art.

But. That doesn’t mean everyone should get bogged down in statistics and numbers because if you do, yup, you can torture any decision you want out of numbers.

And, frankly, you are lying to yourself if you believe that is a decision. That is simply being a coward (in the decision making world).

You have deferred decision to ‘numbers.’ And inevitably you are deferring accountability.

Sound harsh?

As harsh as this?

“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.” - David Ogilvy

Harsh.

Sound like truth?

Yup.

big ideas, small (sharp) Ideas and no Ideas

March 18th, 2010

So.

Between Bob Hoffman at The Ad Contrarian, me and some boneheads in North Dakota (ok. they are in Portland) we have covered every aspect of all sizes of ideas:

http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2010/02/best-idea-is-no-idea.html

Here is my net.

Big ideas in marketing are crap.

Thinking you have a big idea is better than actually having no idea.

Confusing a bunch of tactics with a strategic idea is just plain stupid.

Iterative tactics without strategy idea is insane.

If you can get paid for having no ideas do anything to keep that job.

Small (sharp) ideas are uncool but exponentially cooler than no idea and better than supposed big ideas.

Hey look. I believe there are Big Ideas. I believe Einstein had one. Marconi. Maybe Edison. Surely Newton. But not all big ideas are good ideas.

“I think I am going to fly around the world.” (Amelia Earhart).

“I think I am going to kick Russia’s ass.” (Napoleon)

“I think the beta is the technology of the future.” (Sony)

“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.” (Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles)

Anyway.

Ideas are good in any shape or size (no ideas have no shape therefore by this logic are not good).

I just tend to believe often big things come in very small packages when it comes to ideas. So if all you do is look for big packages you are gonna be sorely disappointed when you open it up and look at the idea.

But regardless this iterative process thing this company in the Arctic suggests which leads to ‘no ideas’ is really kind of nuts. Maybe (and this is quite possible) I am missing something but like adcontrarian what I seem to see is “hey, big ideas are crap so I am going to constantly implement a boatload of little tactics until some of them start working and then write up the idea.” Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ….

Well. I have certainly seen a great tactical idea generate a honed strategic idea but I can honestly say I have never seen anyone just throw a whole bunch of tactical shit up against the wall and see what sticks and then like a Rorschach test identify the strategic idea from the shape of the tactical shit.

But, hey, if someone is buying it up in Portland so be it.

Regardless. It is kind of the way business in general seems to be evolving (to my dismay I may add).

I believe this iterative thing they describe is being driven by two things:

1. Consensus

A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.

(Abba Eban)

“If I have an idea I want to share ownership so it succeeds.” Or that is kind of the bullshit you hear. Look.

A good idea is a good idea. Gaining consensus will only dull a sharp idea. No debate. Figure out a way to implement without consensus. Not saying it’s easy but that’s kind of the gig.

2. Fear

To be fearless in a room full of fear is frustrating.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (Henry Louis Mencken)

Fear takes shape in organizations in a couple of ways:

a. Fear of being wrong or making a mistake.

This is a tough one. Nowadays with employment being what it is many people are running scared. And scared leadership is putting even more pressure on people to make fewer mistakes (rather than do more right things). This iterative process is a beautiful way to hide from making a mistake. How can you be wrong if it is baked into an admitted iterative process?

b. Use data to make a subjective decision.

Ah. This is where research comes in.

In other words “why use common sense and our knowledge when we can implement a congruent multi phase segmentation study that identifies the double helix DNA of our desired customer.”

I believe big research studies don’t produce big ideas. But. If you have patience and look hard enough typically within this big research study you can probably mine a little sharp looking diamond of an idea that can make a big difference. But most organizations don’t use research that way. They use research to make a decision for them. Use data out of fear.

I guess in the end I would suggest this Iterative process thing is kind of a marketing buzzword bullshit thing gone wrong.

But.

I still believe a process seeking Big Ideas is crap.

when an Immutable Law is broken does it make a sound?

March 15th, 2010

So. In 1993 a pretty smart couple of guys wrote a book called The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing (the smart guys were Al Ries and Jack Trout).

Here are the first two of The 22 Immutable Laws:

1. It is better to be first than it is to be better.

2. If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new category you can be first in.

Uh oh. Apple has mastered making these laws unimmutable. (I am concerned that is not a word).

I am not sure people have noticed (because I believe when you break one of these laws they don’t make any sound) but Apple has been quite successful by not being first at anything they have done nor created any new categories. They have possibly become the absolute best “follower” in the history of business.

Apple is regularly voted the most innovative company in the world. But I am not sure that is the award they should be winning. Its inventiveness takes a peculiar form in that it is “renovation” rather than building. They should be voted the best “renovator” company in the world (boy, that sounds like a shitty award to win, huh?).

What do I mean? Rather than developing entirely new product categories Apple is excellent at taking existing ideas which may not be optimally implemented and showing the rest of the world how to implement them in a much more appealing way.

It has already done this three times.

The Apple Macintosh

In 1984 Apple launched the Macintosh. It was not the first graphical, mouse-driven computer, but it employed these concepts in a useful, pleasant appearance product (they kind of not only understand the usability function, but they also understood that their product – most often seen as a desk accessory – was a fashion statement for the user).

first generation ipod

In 2001, came the iPod. It was not the first digital-music player, but it was simple and elegant, and carried digital music into the mainstream (and once again they understood the “fashion” aspect of the product).

iPhone

In 2007 Apple launched the iPhone. It was not the first smart-phone, but Apple succeeded where other handset makers had failed, making mobile internet access and software downloads a mass-market phenomenon (and fashionable again).

As competitors rushed to respond to Apple’s approach, the computer, music and telecom industries were transformed.

iPad

Here comes their fourth attempt at renovation. The iPad — a thin, tablet-shaped device with a ten-inch touch-screen. Hey. Who knows if it will be successful. Apple has certainly had their share of failures but even in their failures they have been spectacular.

But this isn’t a post on whether they are good at these things. This is about Apple breaking Immutable Laws and being good at something else – Renovation.

So. In the end I believe I like, really like (although I don’t own an i-pod and I hate Macs), Apple because they are a renovator and not a builder (sort of like me but they are bigger and better than I am).

As a great ‘Renovator,’ Apple has this innate ability to identify the essence of an existing or emerging product category, identify the parts (or pieces…whatever) and then put usability at the core of these pieces, making them famous with a really cool façade feature. Somebody called it “re-hashing half baked concepts” but I call it Renovation.

Apple is the ultimate Renovator.

So. With all that said…I think that stupid sounding award I suggested earlier is a valuable award. And nothing to be embarrassed by. Being the best at something is nothing to be embarrassed by.

I vote for Apple as Renovator of the Year if not the century.

Enlightened Conflict