Convergence Vs. Functionality

Convergence is a measure of the partition(s) our minds create to help make sense of the stuff around us.

Functionality is a technical statement of what the stuff around us does.

The only dogmatic prescription apposite to convergence is: At any point in time stuff either functions in accordance with how we have partitioned our minds (that's good), or stuff doesn't (that's bad).

Many years ago Bob was at a club listening to Miles Davis. The stuff coming from Miles and his band was not the stuff Bob recognized as jazz. Between tunes Bob asked, "What's that you're playing Miles? It sounds different." Miles answered, "Times change man."

Miles was right (about change not music) times do change. We take note of change that strikes a Responsive Chord. We tune out dissonant change.

When typing became known as word processing Wang became successful. When word processing became known as something you did with a computer Wang became obsolete.

Functionally the Wang word processor was a computer; technically superior to the offerings from Apple and IBM. Unfortunately in the minds of customers Wang meant ONLY word processing. "Times changed man", but Wang didn't. They were behind the convergence curve even though they were in front technically.

Times change when the partitions in our mind change. Predicting and parlaying with changes in convergence is called success. Confusing a change in functionality for a change in convergence is called failure.

Technorati tags: Broadcasting, Convergence.

Comments | Permalink
By Matthew Manna on June 29, 2007 10:29 AM to the Broadcasting category.

Case Studies Have No Genes

As templates for success case studies are failures.

It's possible some business types have not undergone a case study. But from the thousands that have it's time to ask, "What has been learned"? From failed businesses we learned what they did wrong; from those that succeeded what they did right. So it would seem that businesses would succeed if they avoided what the failures did and imitated what the successes did. But such is not the case. After thousands of case studies we find some companies succeed; most companies fail. Is failure caused by not reading the appropriate case study - possibly but not likely?

The cause lies in believing that case studies of successful businesses are templates for success. Case studies are not templates, they are summations of the output of talented people managed in an environment that attracts and holds talent.

A business manager with prolific case study knowledge should no more expect to duplicate a successful business than a sports team by like process should expect to duplicate a national champion. The talent and the environment in which it is managed are the nature and nurture of all organizations and these elements while identifiable are not inheritable.

In short, case studies have no genes.

Talent is the scarcest of all business resources and managing talent is the scarcest of all business skills. No case study to date has shown how the scarcity of these two elements can be made plentiful for distribution to all who desire them.

Technorati tags: Business, Case Study, Marketing, Research, Unusual Mind.

Comments | Permalink
By Robert Manna on February 23, 2006 08:15 AM to the Broadcasting category.

Garfield Orders Chaos

Bob Garfield's excellent April 04, 2005 Advertising Age primer 'The Chaos Scenario' (registration required / QuickFIND AAQ48M) has traction-o-plenty.

The article details media's 'New World Order', peaks and pokes at the future, and creates an opinion buzz strong enough to make Jolt Cola jealous.

A statistic that should not be slid over is contained in paragraph twenty-two....

'A 2000 Veronis Suhler Stevenson survey showed that Americans devoted an average of 866 hours to broadcast TV annually and 107 to the Internet, a ratio of 8:1. The projection for 2005 had the TV/Internet ration of 785 hours to 200, or just under 4:1.'

Some simple math shows combined TV/Internet viewing increased 12 hours from 973 hours in 2000, to a projected 985 hours in 2005. Suggesting, even if opinions about how are varied, there is more opportunity to aggregate an increasingly fragmented customer base.

Comments | Permalink
By Matthew Manna on April 28, 2005 12:00 PM to the Broadcasting category.