Information Availability vs Innocence Lost

As I watched my 6 year old daughter surf the web, looking up information on Samuel Pepys and the Great Fire of London, it struck me just how different her upbringing would be to my own. She will have the combined knowledge of the majority of modern civilisation at her fingertips. Doubt will last just a few moments until a definitive answer can be sought from Wikipedia or a myriad of other sites. It is hard to argue that this isn't a very good thing indeed.

But then again, some of the traditional ways of finding things out may be lost in the process. Pestering a busy parent (and learning the social skills required to do this without being shouted at) will be much less necessary. Thumbing through reference books and using a bit of lateral thinking about where on earth to even begin finding something out will be skills that are lost. Will we see a generation so dependent on search engines that they will stand around like little lost sheep in the event of a power cut?

And, given the time of year, how long can we keep our children believing in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas? What a shame it would be if we lost some of the less tangible beauties of childhood.

Funding and the evolution of ideas

Much of the investment popularly labelled "VC" or "Angel" is delivered not just as an endorsement of an idea, but rather more so the people behind it. The perception is that an individual idea will change over time, as the realities of market forces, further research and good old-fashioned "doability" collide with the vision that was held on day 1.

Now compare this with a model that I've been looking at in recent times, the corporate sponsorship of innovation. OK, what does that mean? Essentially it is trying to get a large blue chip organisation to pay a retainer with an innovation team or organisation that guarantees them first dibs on anything that may come out of the pipeline (and preferential rates). The model sort of encourages investment in the organisation rather than any individual ideas, which tallies as well I guess. The challenge is getting the funding organisation to believe in the idea-generation organisation. Where this has historically worked well has been the pharma/drug-discovery sector, where the big players will put independent researchers on a contract that prevents them selling anything of interest to rivals, whilst encouraging the development of promising drugs that have commercial application.

So, coming to the crux of this post, is it better to present fully-fledged ideas that have already been built up, with the opportunity to generate rapid returns (assuming they get "bought")? Or is a longer-term approach of investment in people a better decision?

It seems to me that it is possibly a combination of the two that works. Building up credibility through a series of discreet deliveries (that are successful!) opens up the door to a larger conversation about retainers, etc. I hope to try and put this to the test at some point, so I'll keep you posted about the reactions I get.

The triumph of the little guy?

It is now possible to provide an online experience, for example when selling books, that rivals that of Amazon.com. There are an estimated 4 million independent online retailers, and there has to be a good chance that their sites are some of the best on the web. Even if you just do the maths, the number of people coming up with different ways of solving the problem must be in favour of the little guy. And yet, the number of small independent retailers being held up in the public eye as a great example of how to sell online can be counted on the fingers of one.. um.. nose.

So what's happening? Do you need a marketing budget and a PR consultancy in order to "get noticed"? Surely that's against the spirit of the so-called web 2.0 revolution? Word of mouth is supposed to be the biggest thing these days isn't it?

OK, so what about other factors. Maybe the little guys simply aren't producing the goods. Well, just from my own line of work I'd say that this is probably true of 99.9% of online ventures, but then again there are lots of small businesses that are actually getting good help and advice from little web agencies (and sundry other experts) across the land. I know we ourselves have built some pretty cool things for little businesses, that have helped them compete with the best of the web.

All of this leaves me a little perplexed. If it isn't the lack of cracking small business web sites, some other dynamic in the equation must be failing. I suspect it is.. and I may not be popular (or even correct) for saying this, but I think it's the audience.. The problem with web 2.0 and its democratic distribution model is that it requires the consumer to be sophisticated enough to be able to tell a good one from a bad one. When the differences aren't that great, then maybe its easy to forgive people that lack of distinction and just go with "the brand they know".

It does make me wonder just how effective all this hype will ultimately turn out to be, and whether there is anything other than hope and ambition left to comfort the tiny startup looking to dominate against the big guys. Come on someone, tell me about cases that I've forgotten about where the little guy has triumphed.

Data, data, everywhere!

Well, the UK government seems to have lost a lot of data.. including mine. I can't quite work out how I feel about this. I know, in some sense, that the chances of me being exposed by this are still relatively small (anyone who has lost stuff in the post may know how unlikely the damn thing is to turn up), but then again all this publicity will almost certainly mean that anyone coming across a couple of discs will check to see what's on them. Ho hum.

I'm also feeling a pinch of sympathy for whoever lost the data in the first place. I worked in a major insurer, alongside colleagues who were manipulating massive amounts of data like this. The problem, as has been pointed out in some areas of the press, is actually a cultural one. It is easy to forget that these details belong to people. That they aren't just bits and bytes, records and extracts. They are bank accounts and addresses, names and dates of birth.

It's bad enough that we don't look after our own data well enough, but when the government (and other organisations) starts handing out lots of it through carelessness, then we really are left hoping rather than knowing that we're safe.

When should Xmas start?

1st December?
24th December?

or, as it seemed to here in the UK, around the 1st November..?

Maybe I'm just getting old.

Is security through obscurity enough?

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be concerned about your private information being out there on social networking sites, but maybe there are levels of tolerance to consider.

Personally I believe a lot of security is to do with mindset. You should be aware of what information is "public domain" and what implications this has. I'm not an expert in this field, but it seems to me that my mother's maiden name, my email address and my date of birth (at the very least) are all circulating out there. My "standard" password that I use when I need to set up an account that I don't think is very important is also potentially out there. Passwords for my banking and email (just think what you're able to do from your mail account!) I guard with my life.

You should also be aware of what might be valuable to other people, and avoid putting it out there. Facebook (and others like it) allow me to see where an individual is (just think how that affects the physical security of you and your home), details of who else they know and who their employers are. Certainly I'd stay out of networks that allow random strangers to see more than you'd want a stalker to..

Now going back to the title of the post, and thinking about the notion of how schools of fish protect themselves, is it OK to rely on the fact that you are just a bit more secure than those around you? Probably most of the time, but if someone targets you specifically...

The Ideation Business Model

I'm wondering if there's a new world for "micro-venture capitalists".

If I connect people looking to be entrepreneurs (but who don't have an idea that they're confident in, and who perhaps lack the skills and experience to make it a success) with a bunch of ideas that we don't have the time or energy to exploit further, can we monetise this?

I might have to think about this a bit more.

Won't somebody please think of the children?

The way kids are now taught in school has become much more important to me in recent years. I have 2 children, one of whom is now in school, with the other due to join her in a year or so. And in response to this I chose to become a school governor.

To be honest, I think we're very lucky at this particular school. We have an outstanding head teacher who understands the value of a balanced education. But then again, the entire system seems to be geared towards creating individuals with required levels of academic achievement. Fine. Probably a good thing even.

The thing is, with the pressure of Key Stage exams and Value Added scores, and all the other measures that are applied to their performance, the teachers are inevitably deprioritising ways of encouraging creative thinking and problem solving in the kids. There's a general perception that there's a "right way" to get to the answer. A "right way" to be successful in life. And actually, at least from my experiences, that just isn't true. There is, as the old saying goes, more than one way to skin a cat (although who found this out, I'm not sure).

Play is one of those areas that helps creativity. Sport is another. Exploring the world around you is incredibly important. And it's so hard to do sat at a desk or in front of a TV or computer. For sure there are many skills that a student needs to acquire in life, but is one of the most important ones a sense of curiosity?

Blog Life Expectancy

My first post.. Will it be my last? Do I have enough of (even vague) interest to say? Does it matter?