• Home
  • About
    • About Competitive Futures
    • About Eric Garland
    • News
  • Case studies
    • Competitive strategy
    • Economic development
    • Opportunity assessment
  • Services
    • Research
      • Technology foresight
      • Future customer profiles
      • Competitor positioning
      • Investment due diligence
    • Training
      • Future Intelligence course
      • Real Forecasting
  • Media
    • Best practice reports
    • Books by Eric Garland
    • Articles by Eric Garland
    • Podcast episodes
    • STEEP Reports
    • Presentations
  • Blog
  • Contact

Archive for February, 2007

Ideas from the Association for Strategic Planning Annual Conference

Wednesday, 28 February 2007 11:04 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

Any reason to get out of Washington’s recent slush-and-ice storms would have been a good one — but IAsp_oldlogo_1
got to head for sunny Southern California for a great reason. February 27 was the annual meeting of the Association for Strategic Planning, a group dedicated to strategic management, vision, and leadership in general.

I have only one complaint: I didn’t get to spend enough time with everybody. What a fascinating group of people.

Here are some of the many ideas floating around in the conference, in no particular order:

  • As much as people talk about strategic planning, they don’t always actually plan. (See Tanaia Parker and enterprise architecture for more)
  • Having a decisive, aggressive strategy can lead to fantastic success, and also, total annihilation. (See Michael Raynor’s interesting new book The Strategy Paradox)
  • TRIZ, a Russian methdology to solve engineering problems, can be applied quite cleverly to solving strategic issues — people love to take nebulous questions of strategy and use a rigorous methodology to understand them.
  • People love getting together to discuss strategy with other professionals – there aren’t as many forums for this kind of thing as you’d think.
  • Lucky for me, people still want to talk about THE FUTURE.

Now, time for our next stop on the Future Inc. tour…

-Garland

The News Conundrum — Do we give people what they want, or what they need?

Sunday, 25 February 2007 10:45 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

Anna_nicole_smith_3

Unless you have been in a coma this week, you’ve been unable to avoid the news of the untimely
death of Anna Nicole Smith and the media frenzy that would make a school of piranha look sedate by comparison. We’ve seen pictures of her fridge, discussions of the corpse and morbid analysis of the woman’s unusual family life.

Many of you will find this obvious, but this is as frivolous as celebrity coverage gets. This woman was a minor, C-class celebrity, whose talents were limited to a large bosom and the willingness to let us watch her emotional demise on reality television. This was not the demise of an elder statesman, nor an especially talented artist, nor anyone of note. It’s a sad story, and while America is at war, there are lots of those going around.

But celebrity sells, and so we’ve seen this story flogged to death. I guess there’s no reason to take hallucinogens when you get to watch CNBC actually try to assess the potential economic impact of her death during the run down of the New York Stock Exchange. Not E! the entertainment channel — but CNBC, the one with Maria Bartiromo and people talking about financial markets. Surreal doesn’t cover it.

Now, why is this happening? Have we lost our minds. Well, yes, but let’s dig in to the story. I had to quiz a close friend of mine who’s in the national media business. I said, "Are you guys feeling a little ashamed right now? How can you slime America with this kind of mindless garbage?" He clued me in on the economic reality of this kind of story.

"Eric, we ran a story on the 2008 budget the same day. It went from committee to subcommittee and there are all sorts of important changes. But right next to it, the Anna Nicole Smith story got 12 million hits on our website in one hour. For every story we do that matters, we have to ring the cash register too. "

We’ve heard this argument before — "We’re giving the public what it wants." And you know, I believe them. The fact is, the story about the budget is right there, for the taking. Next to the stories about the creation of Iraq war intelligence. And the next cure for diabetes. And the future. And all kinds of interesting stuff. But Jennifer Aniston’s putative nosejob will get more hits.

These are the economics of media in a world of six billion channels for six billion people. As we go forward, there are so many choices that people can choose to only be fed the tastiest, least meaningful tidbits of information. And it’s their right to do so. But collectively we have lots of decisions to make that will require an informed people. And perhaps if we are overwhelmed with coverage ever time a C-list celebrity dies, this is a threat to our future.

I’m not certain about any answers here. Thoughts?

-Garland

It’s Who You Know

Tuesday, 20 February 2007 07:07 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments

As my dear old friend April Swain used to say, "I have a question…"

In business, they say "it’s not what you know, it’s who you know," the cliche of cliches.

Now what is the difference between:

The Old Boys’ Club



and


 

Social Networking?










Here’s why I ask:  I don’t think the  cultural patriarchy that created the Old Boys Club, the stereotypical elite white male club of influence, really exists anymore. There’s this other Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn driven thing, and it doesn’t have the same values — it’s content, not context. And it’ll take a few years to see how this really affects the networks of power in society.

As Liam Fahey says, if I knew what this meant, I would write a book. For the moment, I’m merely asking.

-Garland

Viva la Revolucion de Open Source!

Sunday, 18 February 2007 14:36 Written by Eric Garland 0 Comments


Cuba and Venezuela, the Bad Boys of the Caribbean Basin, have taken an unusual step in fighting so-called American Imperialism — they are dumping Windows is favor of open source Linux.

You see, not only is dropping $250 on a new copy of Windows Vista a bad deal, it’s feeding the imperialist tyranny! Viva Open Source! Viva Linus Torvalds!

The world is not just collective, it’s collaborative too. I don’t know how this fits into the 20th century paradigm of Communism versus Western Capitalism, but it sure is interesting.

For those of you who get a laugh out of the Red Hat + Che Guevara image — you are as big a geek as I am. Stand up and be proud.

-Garland

$50,000 for a Bachelor’s Degree — thanks George Washington University!

Friday, 16 February 2007 09:12 Written by Eric Garland 1 Comment


Some of you may know that I regularly sound off on the fact that the cost of basics in American society is skyrocketing ahead of wage increases. Real estate, healthcare, education, etc.

Well, that’s not dissuading some universities from making headlines! George Washington University will now be charging $50,000 per year for their world-famous Bachelor’s degrees!

My wife– who is an employee of George Washington University hospital — choked upon hearing the news, especially since she went to medical school for only $35,000 a year.

I am doing more and more talks at colleges, and when I talk about "graduate degree inflation" people often ask me what I mean. Well, with the increasingly competitive marketplace for work, people have been forced to seek higher credentials regardless of their saleability in the workplace.

These kids ask me if they really are consigned to grad school – is it a sound investment? What are they buying for all this money? I turned to a recent report on higher education, and found a financial analysis of the cost of education — what you could expect given the amount you pay and the amount you would ultimately earn. To elucidate the matter, I made a handy graphic:


Hey, college is still a good deal, in general. Unless you are so smart you’re going to knock ‘em dead at Yale and Princeton, your best money is spent at a state school for bachelor’s degree, followed by a professional degree — the Net Present Value of that combination was around $700,000.

But planning on getting a $200,000 bachelor’s degree in the gender studies of basketweaving, followed by a Master’s in comparative French literature? Its NPV is negative, meaning that you’ll never get your money back. ESPECIALLY when they ratchet up the cost of bachelor’s degrees.

Regardless, this is a message to the Baby Boomers running America’s universities — these tuition hikes are not just a burden to deep-pocketed parents who don’t care either way. You are reducing the future ability of Gen X and Y to keep the healthcare and social security schemes running.

Think about it. This may come back to haunt you yet.

-Garland

« Older Entries

About the blog

This is the official trend blog of Competitive Futures, a management consultancy that provides trend research and analysis for business and government around the world. Here, we update you on interesting trends we see as part of our work for our clients.


For managing partner Eric Garland's new author and speaker blog, please consult and bookmark http://www.ericgarland.co

Get trend updates sent to your mailbox

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Sign up for the CompFutures Trend Report

Trends we’re tracking

Tags

agriculture analysis bailout bailouts banking banks business development business models California China competitive intelligence debt disruption Economic Development Economics economy education Energy Entrepreneurialism Facebook finance financial crisis forecasting forecasts foresight future Futurism Greece healthcare intelligence leadership Media mergers mindsets music oil petroleum psychology publishing Retail scenarios social media social networks strategy urbanization
Podcast powered by podPress v8.8.10.12