2010 - Back to basics or out of the comfort zone?

At about the same time last year (Dec 2008) I ventured into predicting a few things that could happen during 2009. Out of luck or just good intuition, some of them bore similarities to what happened in this year (my friend Cesar Lopez now must be officially impressed!). The reader can see a previous post and get also (un)impressed. In general terms I said recession was going to hit hard to those who were more vulnerable. But in the midst of it we could see some good things happening (like Brazil emerging as a protagonist in the international arena...).

Anyway, now that there is some time to think and reflect, I will do just that. First of all, it has been a very rewarding year in professional terms. Two books published, a good conference organised, progress in making education more related to the realities of companies and the workplace. Some of my students have impressed me by stretching their skills and achieving their goals (Msc and PhD ones, you really keep surprising me!). Others have shown resilience in continuing their learning and making their living while they do so, again nice surprises and now we share our lives as friends. Well done us all! Second of all and on the not pleasant side, some health issues (stress, anxiety) that now are being taken care of by slowing the pace to achieve things. Friends and family (old friends that we cannot forget) have been there to support.

Yes, support is important, and now it seems that many people talk about going back to basics. Jumping now to another area, that of companies and organisations. They are now reducing their 'tentacles', by focusing on what they know best, their core businesses. They are being selling 'other' businesses (their luxury product lines). Governments and big corporations are now and virtually abandoning ventures (expensive IT systems investments). Others are keeping investments because of previous commitments (i.e. the London Olympics), as if they are also considering basic goals (regeneration), and as someone said recently, 'at the time of making such commitments they seemed to be a good idea'.

In a previous post I mentioned that there could be possibilities for jobs and investments in 'common' assets (IT for your company, your leased car). People making decisions to go back to basics might be considering that their 'core' business is not to own very expensive IT infrastructures let alone expensive cars. OK. No serious or long-term investments here, but we are all assuming that there is another party supporting our decisions. Yes, there is someone with capital to buy IT or to buy cars in our names and then charging us a periodical fee and with sophisticated financial models. Financial, that sounds like what banks does it not? And kind of unsustainable (irresponsible) support brought us to where we are. Can those dealing with IT learn something from this? It seems that support can be offered but not indefinitely. At some point, support (if we can still call it that way), will become so expensive to offer and to charge, that it could become unsustainable. Those looking at technologies like "The cloud" with a critical eye are not taking note of this. I know that one of my current students might see this post and will be thinking: So you are sceptical again! Possibly...or maybe suggesting some kind of sustainable support for sustainable action.

Or maybe what I am suggesting is that support is a systemic problem, because action and support need each other. Going back to basics presupposes that someone, somewhere, is going to pick up the pieces we leave when we reduce the size of our 'tentacles'. Downsizing could be part of an economic cycle where the next innovation is going to generate new economic and technological opportunities; but this means someone will have to take the lead in innovation. That is why we also see that now we're expecting some individuals to become entrepreneurs and venture into new opportunities.; we're also expecting some companies to continue investing in research and development (R&D) At a more personal level, going back to basics, like I am thinking for myself in terms of not doing as many things as I did this year of 2009, would presuppose that someone is (not) going to push in the same direction as I have been pushing (why should they?). Or maybe that I can use technology to help me go back to basics, like improving my time keeping, helping me disseminate things on emails and websites, and letting others do their job. But...even with technology, we're still mere mortals. In a good way, going back to basics should put that as a priority. Because we live in a complex environment where support might not be available for everything we require support.

OK, so maybe the reader is now thinking that I am suggesting some kind of (un)morally driven 'invisible hand' intervention, which could also be interpreted as a 'real hand' one. Hands, not tentacles. Are we now witnessing a swing of the pendulum from 'go global' to 'just play your part in the landscape of things'? Maybe. Or maybe we still have to suffer some kind of dramatic shakes in our landscapes. For some of us, this could also mean going out of the comfort zone (like my friend Meera said to me after we had a ride in a rollercoaster today, we had such good fun and the fears from the beginning are just history, we needed an adrenaline boost). To 'move on' or to be 'moved on', said someone in the magazine PM today after several career changes. Maybe I am preferring today both, but swiftly. Only if we knew what change was going to give us the maximum benefit...What we only know is that what happens is for the best, as my friend Benjamin Osorio used to say.

So going back to basics might mean finding the right wave to let ourselves be moved by, something familiar that without noticing it, move us on! That is why I am loving zumba...once you warm up without realising it, you keep doing exercise for the fun of it!

Ok, if Cesar asks me again: Do you have any prediction? I will play it safer this time and will tell him that each of us will find a good way to live 2010... We just have to swiftly try some new things, and keep an open mind on what will come (in systemic terms this might mean understanding the waves we come across, our context, and our bigger systems, so that we become active parts of those). If I can aim to do some of this, I will personally try to flow swiftly, slowly but surely, that might also work when it comes to a big change. Often, we think we do not change neither personally or in our environment, only when others acknowledge it we then start believing that change really happened.

Support, belief, finding the right way. And trust...have I missed any other 'basic' thing?

(IT) Asset management: Fighting recession?

In the last month I have listened to several people whose expertise and ideas seem to be currently converging to one interesting idea...

The current economic crises has taught us that there is no capital to invest. In both IT and the property sectors and worldwide, lack of capital has meant that invesment has been reduced considerably. Consequences in the supply of manufacturing and construction materials have been seen. Many companies are fighting to keep orders from customers whilst the latter are more reluctant. Those with some capital (i.e. banks) are also reluctant to let it go. Governments are spending capital trying to keep people in jobs and with benefits. Those wanting to buy properties are being held back, because it is not certain that their capital is going to be productive in the long run.

So those with capital or assets are seizing an opportunity. To 'lease' products and goods. In the IT sector, I heard that some companies are lending capital to their customers so they can buy IT goods and services; and pay a lease premium. In the automotive sector, this way of 'owning' cars has been around for several years. One does not own a car, only until it is fully paid. The property rental market seems also to be growing in certain countries or has positively influenced the lack of deep problems (debt). In this case one should not have to own a property. As long as there is a good agreement between parties, one could stay in a property as a tenant for several years...

If this is the case, and as long as the financial aspect of 'leasing' keeps customers happy with the arrangement (so that we feel that we are getting a good deal and that possibly we are 'buying' what we pay for, then the desire to own things could become secondary, and with it the need to invest capital in owning and paying to maintain such ownership. Some customers who already own 'old' assets could be supported so that they could maintain these assets and possibly upgrade them gradually. As Jay Forrester once suggested when talking about regeneration of town centres, he was saying that those who owned listed building could be allowed to lease them at a premium, part of which could be dedicated to fund renewal and maintenance of the building.

IT companies could then need a new type of professional: an asset manager, capable of ensuring good service and upgrade, and serving customers in a long term relationship. Such a manager could also attract capital from those that have it, so that new assets could be bought and administered. Those individuals wanting to set up an IT business could think of setting up collective assets (e.g. portals, websites, shared data processing centres), bring several customers and investors under one 'hub', and run it efficiently and effectively. Or perhaps they can also work on enabling better recycling of IT goods.

Will this happen...? maybe, but it depends on what we think about 'ownership' and what we want to do about it. Personally, I think t can take an act of faith in many respects and a re-setting of our priorities in life. Collectively, this means we really need to start caring for relationships.