The Professor's Notes

I used that phrase today, over at Dean Dad’s blog and after further reflection, wondered if I had, perhaps, used the phrase incorrectly. You see, “eating your own dog food” generally refers to using a product that your company sells. According to that vast storehouse of collective knowledge, Wikipedia, it has its root in the Alpo dogfood commercials, but started moving into the lexicon at Microsoft.

So, when I wrote that that the babyboomers were the ones “who argued to ‘never trust anyone over 30.’ Seems they now are being asked to ‘eat their own dogfood’” I may have been mistaken. You see, Dean Dad was essentially arguing that the current crop of Adminstrators need to move along (ref his first line “Reason #456 we need to hire the next generation of administrators”). Thus I felt that asking them (the boomers) to move along and get out of the way, was essentially reminding them not to trust anyone their own age.
But the question I have is whether it is “eating your own dog food.” It certainly is “having to take your own medicine.” And perhaps it is asking for one to “follow one’s own advice.” But is it the same as using your own product?

I argue that in this context it is. You see, Dean Dad is talking about how a service organization is run. Services are different from “goods” in that there is no tangible asset, nothing to, well, eat. So one must stretch the metaphor a bit. But in this case, I believe it works, since one is being asked to follow the management principles they at one time preached. To continue down the road of “old saws” one could say for the Boomers their “Chickens have come home to roost.”

Perhaps it is time for Boomers to acknowledge that they were wrong about something. And for the Gen X’ers to realize that their parents aren’t always wrong–and perhaps should be allowed to continue to work, and lead.

POLYGAMIST CULT RAIDED; CPS SEIZES ABUSE VICTIMS!

Two small problems: first, there wasn’t any “polygamy” per se going on; and second, there wasn’t any abuse going on.

Have you lost your freakin’ mind?! Think about it. Read the rest of this entry »

It didn’t take long before I saw the (incorrect) drawing of a connection between the Burmese government’s refusal to allow relief to enter Myanmar, and the US response to Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast region. (Note, it was far more than New Orleans.) I knew it was coming. In fact, when I heard Laura Bush plead for the Burmese government to allow the international community in, I knew it was coming. In today’s era of knee-jerk hatred of Bush, the minute one speaks, all rational thought goes out the window.

For instance, one blogger, in response to the various news stories, asks “ Surely I’m not the only one who sees the irony in this.” Read the rest of this entry »

If you are reading this blog, you have no doubt noticed the Twitter summary on the left, perhaps listened to a podcast or two, and even read my thoughts about various technologies. I have given talks about social networks, and even pointed out that it’s about relationships. All this, and I am left with the question: So what?

To answer that question, I have this post. But this post is the first in what may be a long series about moving new-media social networking disruptive technologies out of the echo-chamber.

I found myself at a conference this weekend arguing for the importance of social networks and, at the end of it, I realized the challenge we face is taking social networking and new media out of the hands of the techno-saavy, and put these tools, “embed” them, if you will, into the lives of the every day practitioner.

So what do I mean by practitioners? What practice do you think of when I write that? Doctors? Lawyers? Bartenders? How about almost anybody that does something. Now, in my specific instance I was first thinking of researchers, and then extended that to a discussion about connecting textbook authors to their customers (both faculty and students!) The lesson I am taking from this however is that this goes further. We need to take the various lessons of social networking and apply them where we are.

So for this first post of the series, let me share the discussion about researchers. I sat on a panel discussing how to get research (and funding) from the “public sector.” Once we reminded the audience that the public sector includes more than just the Federal Government, we talked about the various ways of “finding” the requests for proposal, and we even talked about the importance of “contacts.” One of my colleagues even jokingly commented that “once you can fake sincerity you have it made!”

Then it hit me–it’s really about developing social networks!

I first asked how many in the audience were using Linked-in or some other social networking tool. Not surprisingly, less than 10% in the room were members, and of those who weren’t literally NONE had even heard of it. I then used that as an example of how one can build networks (professional social networks) with people who not only have similar interests, but hopefully a network of people who sincerely want to help others succeed.

And what was the big secret I brought to them? No secret, really, but just something that I think has often been lost in these communities. As I mentioned in my talk on Social Networks the success lies in the development of relationships. These relationships are best when everyone brings something of value. If one wants to succeed, then develop these networks, and ensure that you are a “giver.” if you honestly seek to help those in your network, you will find that others will come to you, and often come to you with funding.

I ended up recommending a very good, very easy reading book, Love is the Killer App. This book talks about the importance of sincere sincerity, and the importance of truly putting others well being ahead of your own. What I really like about the book is his emphasis on improving yourself so that you have something of value to offer. It’s about being ready to give, not being ready to take. Now, some would say it is the application of the Golden Rule, others would say it’s just Karma, but the reality is you will find that caring about others, and helping them make the important connections in life, really does work–for them and for you!

So far, there’s nothing “new media” here. Stand by for other posts. In the meantime, please, share with us how you have successfully made “the connection” with people.

(apologies to our British friends for the lame play on words in the title)

Alternate Title: Confused About Race in 2008 America

A recent imbroglio on another blog got me thinking. Not about intellectual fascism (which set the whole thing off), but about the ObamaNation defending Reverend Wright by saying “Jerry Falwell is Just As Bad.” And then deleting rational discourse to the contrary from their blogs, but I digress. [Why would one start a blog, create a controversial thread, and then clap ones hands over ones ears shouting "LALALALALA?" Weird.]

Then Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece in the WSJ Weekend Edition about it (The Reverend Wright controversy. Not intellectual fascism in the blogoshpere.). She basically said she was puzzled by why anyone would even be concerned.

So here we have two competing ideas: Read the rest of this entry »

Over at his blog, Cole Camplese posted on the potential of online meetings as a replacement for many of the day-to-day meetings we all at times have had to attend.
I am fortunate that, with the big career change, I am no longer attending as many meetings as I had in the past, and the ones I do attend are all in one building. That said, I have met the technology and found it wanting.

I would like to think I am rather “tech saavy.” I do podcasts. I run two WordPress blogs and a content management site (go visit Supply Chain Innovations Today!) but I have to say, online meetings are frustrating simply and completely because of the techonlogy.

It seems that I end up spending more time configuring, reconfiguring, and tweaking, than I do having the meeting. I just went through 20 minutes of set up and troubleshooting so that eLluminate would work–and now I wonder if any time I change any of my configuration I will have to go through it again. And changing my configuration can mean something as simple as “rebooting the machine” or opening another audio using program.

But online meetings save time, allowing us to be more “productive” right? Perhaps, but perhaps not! Read the rest of this entry »

Over at his blog, my brother discusses the trend of schools not looking at the SAT scores when making admissions decisions (with his SHC at the cutting edge of that movement). It’s an interesting decision, and one that I find worthy of pursuit, but I also believe it is fraught with challenges. As I see it, there are few “objective” measures by which we can evaluate students. Of course there are many “quantitative” ways to assess students.

The first that comes to mind is their GPA. Unfortunately, this is, while certainly a “quantitative” measure, it is not “objective.” It fails in at least two ways. First, it fails to consider that variations in content covered (pace, depth, breadth, etc) and also cannot account for the subjectivity and variability of the grading process itself. At best it doesn’t allow for cross set comparison (comparing students from different schools), and at worst, it fails to accurately provide any useful information.

In a selection process, one needs to be able to compare, say, Chris to Drew. If I only have one slot left, how do I determine which of the two are more likely to succeed? Let’s say for the sake of argument that both have identical GPA’s, but are from two different schools. Are both schools the same? Did they cover the same material? Did the teachers evaluate the students in the same way, asking the same questions, and grading the exams and other work in a similar, and consistent, manner? This of course, gets more complicated if, say, one of you has a slightly higher GPA. Does that indicate anything in the cross-set comparison? Read the rest of this entry »

Drew, at his blog “Notes from Off-center” wrote, in criticizing the current Bush Administration that “Just like Reagan, Bush II has taken a balanced budget and screwed it up.” I suppose everyone is entitled to a little bit of re-writing history, but to argue that Reagan started with a government that had a balanced budget is, well, a fantastic stretch.

For the four years preceding Reagan (better known as the “Carter Years”) there was a deficit run each and every year. Reagan did not inherit a Balanced budget. Not even close. I always thought it an interesting bit of history that prior to 1999, the last “balanced budget was in 1969, and that was only after “using” the Social Security surplus to balance the books.

Just thought you might want to know.

And now, having dispensed with that myth, let’s look at some other economic indicators from the Carter Era.

In addition, Reagan started with double digit inflation (12.5% for 1980), double digit interest rates (the federal reserve, or PRIME was at 13.35 in 1980), and unemployment was at a more “reasonable” 7.1% level.

So, since Drew opened this, let’s take a look, shall we, at how our current “bad economy” compares to the one Jimmy Carter handed to Reagan.

Inflation:12.5% Carter, 4.1% Bush

Prime Interest Rates: 13.35% Carter, 5.02% Bush (and have dropped more since the final ’07 figures)

Unemployment: 7.1% Carter, 4.6% Bush

So. what lessons can we draw from this? Well, certainly we can learn that we should check facts before making statements like “Just like Reagan, Bush II has taken a balanced budget and screwed it up.”

But we should also learn from this that we should place our current economic situation in historical perspective. While we are flirting with a recession (defined as 2 consecutive quarters of “negative growth” in the GDP), we have, by many measures a strong economy. Some would argue that it is built on a deck of cards, and that all these indicators are simply castles in the sand. Perhaps. Or perhaps economies always have troubles, and challenges, and growing and declining markets.

Perhaps we have had it so good, for so long, that we lose sight of how good we still are doing today, compared to even 30 years ago.

I last wrote about the numbers being a bit “off” on the gas tax. I stand by the “general” analysis, since the discussions in the media centered around the “average American” but I wanted to discuss a bit more in depth, some other confounding variables.

Of course, the first is the diesel tax. Most Americans don’t drive diesel cars. But virtually all tractor-trailer rigs run on diesel. And the tax on diesel is higher than on gasoline. And, of course, trucks put more miles on the road than general use automobiles. This does mean a larger share of the $10 billion in tax revenue comes from trucking than from automobiles, both in miles driven and cost per gallon. Read the rest of this entry »