Innovate or Die.

Quite a dramatic statement and one that seems to be making many companies nervous because it's one thing to say it and another to actually accomplish it. A lot of companies likely think they don't need to innovate, because their product is low maintenance or has no technology or process attached. Yet innovation is as much about the people behind it as about the product and in some cases it's only about the people as they are the product.

Innovation is not about invention, it is about, " the successful exploitation of an idea that adds value to the customer and commercial return for the creator" according to innovation expert Cris Beswick. So it's not about coming up with a new invention but more about working with what you have, be it product or people and what your environment, business and surroundings provide, to improve and move forward successfully. The central meaning of innovation relates to renewal and for this to take place people and companies need to change the way they make decisions.

The recent list of the top 50 most innovative companies on the net had a top ten that included some major players with Apple at number 1, Groupon at number 5 and Netflix at number 8 to name a few. None of those companies have a worldwide patent on inventions. What they do have is people willing to fail, people willing to stretch their thinking and people who trust each other to work on the end game of success.

Innovation is going against the grain of common thinking and not being concerned about competition no matter what they say. Steve Ballmer in one of his keynotes once discussed the iPhone thus, "There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."

Apple didn't invent the phone or the PC tablet, Groupon did not invent the shopping coupon and Netflix did not invent the video, DVD movie. Yet they all in their own way have made that space their own with innovation on ideas that existed that could be expanded upon with creative thinking and new technology.

Sure there are many technology companies on the innovation list but it's the non techo companies that have made the biggest leap of innovative faith because it is dependent on their people more so than the product. Companies like Trader Joes, Pepsico, Nissan and ESPN have succeeded with people as their innovative curve. That's because innovation comes when companies support people when they fail, whether that is on air with the sports banter of ESPN or in the grocery aisles of Trader Joes and Pepsico. It's about meeting in coffee shops and at the photocopier, chatting all hours of the night about an exciting idea and sometimes the occasional meeting called by someone who thinks he has the craziest idea ever and who wants to know what other people think of it.

In companies like Apple it also comes from saying no to hundreds of ideas and figuring out all your products can fit on a small coffee table and that's the way you like it. Just because a new niche market opens up for you, it doesn't always need to be filled by you. Innovate to stand out, not to take over.

Bare Bones.

How much will I pay for my next computer? By that I mean, phone, tablet, PC or anything else that resembles technology for leisure or work. There is a movement around to "Bones" technology where you have only what you use on your hardware and pay accordingly. Sure Dell had the build your own method but like cable TV where you end up with the religious channel in your sports package, there were always redundant features and programs you never used. Why?

I don't know of anyone in my circle who has the ability or need to use every aspect of their computer. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that 50% may not even be close to the use for capacity or programs loaded onto today's computers by their owners. So why are they so fully loaded? Is it to bring the price up? Is it for bragging rights among the few technobyte over achievers? Or is it just more is be better syndrome? After all everything from cereal packages to cars are now topped up with as much space or technology as possible to make them seem more appealing. I'm sure if my car had a couple of Saturn V booster rockets it has enough technology to orbit the earth and return home safely.

With cloud computing gaining speed today, surely hard drive will become redundant as we finally trust our information to hyper space. The gaming population aside, is it necessary to have the biggest most gigantic video and graphics program loaded? There are so many programs that only have appeal to a niche population of users and as such could easily be discarded for Joe Citizen.

So what do I really need? How about a computer that turns on when you push the button and you don't have to wait for all those redundant programs to load before you can look at the pictures your best friend sent you on Facebook? How about a processor powerful enough that it can send a man to Venus? How about a suite of programs or even better, applications I chose from, that make sense to me and that I can navigate through without a manual? I'm sure my laptop would weigh a whole lot less and be even more transportable?

Evidence shows people generally use whatever browser is loaded onto their purchase so how many choices do you need? Then they "Favourite" their 10 most used sites, never to change them unless there is a global groundswell for a better alternative. Think about the sites you use now and how long you have been using them? There have been better competitive sites but you haven't bothered to move because your choices work just fine.

Do you remember years ago, when the local education institutes had classes in computers to show you how to turn them on and use them? The so called intuitive nature of today's technology has supposedly made that thinking obsolete and everyone is left to their own devices or the neighbour's 15 year old to navigate their way through.
So my dream technology would be a range of boxes I could tick for programs and applications that work as advertised, with speed to spare, all carried in a tablet with the weight of my wallet. No I don't have a lot of money in my wallet, so it weighs very little.

What's your dream technology package look like? Do you think Apple is working on it?

Vroom Mobile.

People are spending inordinate amounts of time in their car, to and from work, so much so that statistics are now bulging with numbers amounting to days out of their lives. I have colleagues spending anywhere from 10 to 20 hours a week in their cars as the urban fringe extends past the mountains. With traffic slowing all the time people are looking to do more than just listen to the latest Grammy winner on the car stereo, no matter how many speakers are involved. Thankfully the mobile phone along with Bluetooth technology has come to the rescue of workers and bored commuters alike.

Thanks to the government's short sighted approach to road infrastructure, we are all having to conduct some business over the phone while in the car. So it comes as no surprise the government in their budget forecast have almost doubled expectations for fines levied on motorists and are looking to phone bans to help fill those coffers. The data for hand held phone conversations along with texting distracting drivers is hard to overlook but with so many cars now having hands free, we are at least trying to resolve the issue concerning many motoring bodies along with the government.

From many views including workers productivity, banning mobile use in cars is a real slap in the face because the need would not be there for many if the road system actually worked. The government can't use the fatality or accident rate as this has been in decline for the past 30 years, from a high in 1979 of 29 deaths per 100,00 to less than 7 per 100,000 today. The fines already in circulation have most people scared enough to look after the road rules and there are no statistics claiming mobile leads to road deaths, in fact speed at 39%, alcohol at 21% and fatigue at 18% are still the main causes according to RTA crash data.

One of the reasons for my last car purchase included inbuilt Bluetooth technology, so if the car manufacturers and the consumers are going to great lengths to adhere to the letter of the law, why can't the government work with their constituents on this? Even in the land of the car, California, where people live in their cars and where on most mornings you can see people doing everything from shaving, having a full breakfast to putting on makeup, they have come to agreement on hands free mobile use and the fact it doesn't add to the crash statistics.

So with everyone working to make something possible why would the government consider such bans unless it really is just a revenue stream for future election campaigns? Here's a thought, fix the road system and public transport and maybe there wouldn't be a need to impose bans to raise more revenue, we'd actually pay taxes to make that happen.

When we are disadvantaged in any way, be it by time constraints via traffic caused by infrastructure shortcomings or any hurdles not of our own doing that stand in the way of accomplishing our jobs competently and living our lives well, the last thing we need is bureaucracy taking advantage of that situation. Banning hands free mobile and then profiting from the fines feels a little like taking the piss.

My rant for the day.

Just the two of us.

Hard to tell if it's the economics, population, geography or we just like two of everything but Australia has a long history of duopolies. From Coles and Woolies, DJs and Myers, BHP and Rio through to historical sparring partners TAA and Ansett, we have seen the growth of two giants in many fields of commerce. Maybe we just don't want too many choices?

Globally it is not uncommon and Coke and Pepsi come to mind as well as Boeing and Airbus. What those duopolies have always been good at, is acquiring competition, either for growth purposes or just to keep something away from the other. Right now we are seeing two giants of the net in Google and Facebook square off in competition for Twitter as each try to grab market share in consumer awareness. It won't be the last time they come face to face with wallets in hand as the net becomes the next battleground for such companies looking for market share and customer loyalty, even if that loyalty has to be bought.

Google has tried to break into the social side of the business before with little success. Past social acquisitions have included Aardvark, Zingku, Angstro and Dodgeball with none of them gaining Google any ground on Facebook. They know the power that social search and constant consumer contact can have for their product and with Facebook hits already surpassing Google it would seem they have to take a serious stance and Twitter at $10 billion is serious. Facebook continues to have the upper hand from a social economics view point and twitter would seem to fit their profile but do they have the wallet to fork out $10 billion? Google has the cash to buy small countries but does Twitter want to be gobbled up and used for other agendas or worse, become the next Aardvark?

Twitter as interesting as it is, is only the tip of the iceberg for these two as acquisitions develop on the web that will create interest or competition for either party. The issue with a lot of the acquisitions so far, is they have potential for growth but rely on past reasons to keep their customers that may not fit with the acquisitor. People like to choose where they interact and often they look for the niche players because they fit with their thinking and not everyone wants to belong to giant conglomerates. Right now someone is building a version of Twitter on a small sexy scale that will be the next great thing.

Where does that leave the next owner of Twitter if it's clients look elsewhere because all of a sudden Twitter is just part of a portfolio and that doesn't appeal to the quickly changing loyalty of the net? Like all acquisitions the trick is to keep your new clients happy and engaged, especially on the net as companies like Twitter don't make anything, so all they have is engagement. Rio may have made a bad deal when buying Alcan all those years ago but they had a commodity which they eventually sold on because people understood the nature of mining and aluminium cans.

Is that how Google and Facebook see me, as a commodity?

"E" Everything.

I'm talking about technology. I'm talking about early adoption of all things gadget. I'm talking about always wanting the next best thing that needs electricity. It's not just a guy thing or boys toys syndrome because the whole world seems to be going crazy over every new invention or innovation update that comes along in the "E" market.

The recent consumer electronics show in Las Vegas got worldwide coverage and every minute was transmitted via some kind of communication channel from old style media morning TV shows to tweets and blogs. It is the Oscars of the "E" world and everyone who is anyone looks to get a speaking gig or have the most innovative booth showing off their wares. Now being the gadget guy of the family, shows like this are a focus for what I might spend my hard earned dollars on in 2011.

The issue is of course I had already spent hard earned dollars in 2010 on new technology that is now old generation. So how do I justify the next outlay of cash on something that will be replaced or outdated even quicker than it was in 2010? Or a better question would be, should I wait for the next best thing and how long will that be and what will it be? Will the speed of change in the "E" world be so quick that I won't be able to keep up or make a decision?

Leading futurists like Cisco Systems, Human Productivity Labs, Technorati, IBM and California Berkeley University have all proffered visions of our future under the "E" cloud and there look to be watershed years ahead for my wallet when it comes to the next "E" purchase.

With data to increase to obscene numbers we can look forward to carrying smaller and smaller technology. With the world's data to increase six fold within each of the next two years storage is envisioned to multiply to such an extent that 11 petabytes of storage, equalling 600 years of 24/7 playing DVD quality video, will cost only $100 by 2029. By 2020 individuals will maintain personal data equivalent to 130 terabytes, making the 128 gigabytes stored today seem inconsequential. I haven't filled my 128 gigabyte quota so I better start now if I want to fill my profile up with useful or useless information.

Within the next decade a $1000 personal computer will have the raw processing power of the human brain, not mine obviously because I'm having problems just processing the numbers put forward for the future. I guess we'll need such PCs as the Internet is slated to double in information every 11 hours within a few years. Now I'm really having trouble keeping up.

So my quandary remains as to when and what to buy in regards to the next great thing. The prediction that by 2020, 35 billion devices will be connected to the Internet, meaning 6 devices per person, could be an indicator of costs coming down even more, which could make my quandary disappear in a cloud of cheap purchases.

I hope some of these predictions come true because it's not cheap being the early adopter "E" guy in the family.

Not Me.

I joined a travel information technology company late last year with the intention of learning more about that part of the industry and bringing my relationships and communication skills along for the ride. My perceptions of that particular industry were formed over years of dealing with the travel agency community, suppliers and their views of the technology distribution companies as very technical and when generalising in a more social way, "geeky".

I have often used this term to describe where I work and it always gets a smile as people nod in that way of understanding, knowing technology can be all consuming and people needing to be single minded to have technology and e commerce success. Today it is almost a term of endearment as technology pervades every crevice in our society and who wouldn't want to be "geeky" and on top of all of those changes and in charge of their lives through technology? Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are now aspirational "geeks" and leaders of the next generation of technology giants.

Recently, having thrown in my "geeky" card as I like to call it in a meeting, one of my colleagues pointed out that I may come from outside the IT environment but I was the only one attached to my iPad, scribbling furiously with my recording livescribe pen, reading my subscriptions to Fast Company, Wired and ZDnet, all the while listening on my iPod while communicating on my Blackberry. Not to mention organising my leisure time online via Quickflix DVDs, Skyping with overseas friends on the weekends and never being able to walk past a Dick Smith or JB HiFi just to breath in the technology fumes.

Oh my God, it's me, isn't it? I'm the geek. Everyone else chose to work at the technology company for more reasons than just "geeky" DNA, with most of them revolving around specific skill sets for technology understanding, the ability to solve intricate software solutions and wanting to benefit future travellers and suppliers with their vision of the future.

Perceptions and judgements are drawn from many areas of your life, from people of influence, from experiences, from people you've worked with and your own thinking of how the world should be, according to you. That last point is a strong influencer and often your view is through glasses tinted with 3rd, 4th and 5th hand experiences, which leads to surprises like the above flash of the obvious.

When I think back to my first technology buys that I could afford for myself, underwater cameras and high end stereo equipment and how I spent hours setting them up just so, was it any wonder I'd end up here? Perceptions need to change over time and it is up to us to be open enough, that old perceptions don't turn into prejudices and taint our thinking about people or companies because you never know where you might end up next.

So now when I use the "geeky" card, I'm talking about myself and I think about how lucky it was I finally ended up at an IT company.

Exodus.

No not the movie with Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint, although it could be used as an analogy for staff leaving their jobs and looking for a new land to work in. Too much?

I recently received a Linked In update telling me that 84 of my business connection colleagues had changed jobs in the last year. That amounted to about 15% of the number of connections in my account and as it turned out a pretty average staff turnover rate for Australian businesses in a year. So I didn't take much notice but I now see more and more articles, especially from major recruitment companies telling me that a major employee exodus is about to begin for the year. It's almost like the annual migration of wildebeest or the swallows coming back to San Juan Capistrano.

It seems employees coming back from summer holidays have had some time to think about the big picture, what matters most in their lives, their future, and all that thinking often reflects in company turnover figures at this time of year. 15% has been an average in staff loss across most industries in Australia according to the Institute of Managment annual survey of 700 organisations. Even with that figure, over a six year period, it can mean an entire staff replacement, but the feeling lately seems to be that anything up to 50% for some companies won't be unusual in 2011.

So how do you keep them, those rascally employees looking for greener pastures? Companies know the cost of replacement can be anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 times annual salary to replace staff so why wouldn't they try everything to keep them happy? Positive staff support, HR selling the company at every opportunity and great working conditions go a long way to keeping people focused, energised and out of the classifieds but sometimes even that isn't enough.

With wages set to increase, an inordinately low unemployment rate and a positive outlook on 2011 it seems like the perfect storm approaching for employers and as Steve Martin was so quick to point out, "all I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work" and in that lies the problem for employers in 2011. The other problem is identifying staff that are contemplating leaving, is it the telltale signs of less than stellar performance, tardiness and a general malaise that should raise your antennae?

On the other hand if you are the one thinking about leaving, you already know who you are and you are probably reading this blog on the beach, between holes on the golf course or in a coffee shop scanning SEEK while coughing over the phone to the HR manager.

The trick in all of this toing and froing is to find that elusive occupation for which you have a passion or for your employer to realise this and work with you to create that passion. You work for a long time, so don't you think it is a worthwhile exercise to try and find that passion and make a difference no matter where you work? If you don't tell anyone what you are passionate about, how will the boss ever fully understand you?

Ideal jobs do exist, just ask Steven Speilberg who gave a simple answer to the job question, " I dream for a living".

Your Usual Seat Sir?

I'm sitting in my seat reading my newspaper as the flight attendants start their safety demonstration. I barely look up or listen, along with the majority of passengers in the cabin. If I look around, the seats are filled with people looking to fill in the next hour or so on their technology of choice, catching up on sleep they missed out on, by getting this early flight or checking their mileage points online. These are the "road warriors", the "FF" boys looking for the next level of recognition, the "lounge hounds" who spend more time at airports than at home.

Seat belts need to be tightened thus, while life jackets are adjusted just so and in case of emergencies face masks will fall from the ceiling in a timely manner. Life rafts (c'mon we're flying over land already) and emergency positions of heads between knees, all pass in one ear and out the other. No one listens.

Is it because we have so much trust in this aluminum canister and in the guy up front who is a faceless voice reassuring us that we'll catch up time from the late departure? Is the safety record so phenomenal that we feel safer here than in our car at home? Are the dulcet tones of the flight attendants sending us into a trance? Or is it a numbness born of a 1000 flights, hearing the same messages and breathing the rarefied air that give the cabin a look of passengers without care? The cabin remains quiet and the flight attendants go about their duties in silent efficiency.

I try not to be blasé about air travel because it really is a marvel if you think about it for more than 30 seconds. Now being cool, internationally stylish and looking like you've done this a 1000 times, is something altogether different. Looking like you belong with cool indifference and a sense of status in your walk is the realm of the corporate executive in today's business world.

Travel for these passengers is as much about how they look travelling as to the experience itself. It's about having the right luggage, sitting in the right seat and most certainly having the right sunglasses on. Even on short domestic hops it is easy to pick the "Gold and Platinum" flyers with the latest technology, the best seats and on first name basis with the flight attendants. The recognition associated with regularly flying our skies is an aspiration for many and as the numbers grow the cabins will become ever more quiet and private club like, where members nod at each other in silent recognition and wink at the flight attendant in their best George Clooney guise. Surely cigars have to make a comeback soon?

So the search for more points to gain higher levels is not about where to take the family on that next points holiday but more about recognition and levels of comfort, so they can sit there cool and indifferent because on the ground that kind of recognition is difficult to attain and it's hard to tell one corporate executive from another.

Recognition and status are hard earned in life but with a good corporate travel policy and companies intent on doing business face to face (the only way) recognition and fake sincerity can be quickly provided by frequent flyer programs, so much so, that the the skies will continue to fill up with flyers aspiring to the George Clooney look.

Now where did I put those sunglasses?