No need to go to Mars, let us go to Cuba!

The recent announcement of the normalisation of US-Cuba relations is a great news item.  

I cannot help thinking that many in the IT world are now planning to conquer Cuba.  So those crowfunders that are planning to go to Mars should think twice.

Let us imagine how IT in Cuba would develop.  So far some basic software is going to be allowed to circulate.  But what is next? Will it be the telecoms infrastructure, the cloud services, the legacy systems? Will the Western world impose its evolutionary and strategically aligned view of IT in this new 'universe'? 

To my limited knowledge, there is already mobile comunicacions.  There is blogging.  But there is no electronic data to be considered as such.  Good thing I think.  Hopefully the drive to see this universe conquered in terms of Big Data will be delayed.  At least for a while.  

IT helps colonise the world.  It brings possibilities but also problems.  I really hope Cuba does its own history with IT rather than simply copy what others have done.  IT brings ways of thinking.  And of living. They should decide which of these are desirable and which are not.   And they should also be allowed to teach the rest of the world one or two things about IT.  

Rest in peace dear friend, even if LinkedIn does not allow you!

This week I got an email in which a dear deceased friend (Rajan) invites me via LinkedIn to connect with some people.  Yes, LinkedIn, one of the most popular social (or shall we say professional) networking sites.  

It caught my eye for several reasons.  First, my friend has been deceased for at least four (4) years.  That is enough reason to feel surprised and shocked.  

Second, although my friend was great at introducing people to each other, I doubt that he had in his will that LinkedIn should continue doing so.  My friend died at the time where electronic social networking was becoming an interesting phenomenon.  The email seems to have come from an interest group that he very likely set up and never left.  So LinkedIn has continued doing something on behalf of this group.

Third, this got me thinking that unless you tell LinkedIn or someone in this interest group what happened to my friend, the website will continue introducing people to each other.  As if human life would lose its value for the sake of the purpose of this website: making intelligent connections.  The website seems automatically programmed, or supported, by so called 'intelligent tools' which based on your personal information and electronic behaviour, will find the right people to introduce you to.  

So the issue of how intelligent technology can become makes me think about what Stephen Hawking has recently said about Artificial Intelligence.  He is concerned that if not properly checked or programmed to respect human life at all cost, Artificial Intelligence can take over the human race and create new forms of 'life' in the planet, many of which would make logical sense to this intelligence at the expense of human life.  

How is this a systems problem? Well, take your pick.  We are creating technology systems that can become blind to how their creators see the world.  We are creating blindness to human events (death in this case).  We are not properly balancing human with online interaction. 

For websites like LinkedIn the obvious solution would be to ask us, human beings, to inform them of any event or changing circumstance in our lives.  So far LinkedIn is good in asking us about changes in our jobs, skills, knowledge and connections.  I wonder if they are going to create an 'obituary' for people who die.  But would you like it to fill it in? 

At Rajan's funeral I met his family and friends, and believe it or not, I am connected to one or two of them via LinkedIn! 

So this blogpost is the best obituary I can write for him.  Rest in peace dear friend.  Even if LinkedIn does not leave you and I in peace! 

Meet the new UK supermarket: Are we there yet? Fortunately not!

This week I heard the news that one of the big four UK supermarket chains (Sainsbury's) has decided to stop plans to increase the number of shops.  

What the news suggested was that senior managers and executives took this decision based on the worryingly share increase of not so big supermarkets like Lidle and Aldi.  Sainsbury's like Tesco now want to concentrate on making existing shops more appealing to customers.  

Bits of memory recall from something I read in the UK Guardian newspaper tell me that this type of decision can be challenged. Aldi and Lidle have only a tiny portion of the market.  So expecting them to grow exponentially or taking a bigger share from the big four is not realistic.  

What the big four seem to be suffering is from a lack of understanding of the fact that people like you and I do not spend as much as we used to in supermarkets. 

The reasons (and I write about what I read plus other bits)?  Well, for a start the economic crisis.  We have become more conscious, also because we do not want to throw away food that we do not consume (this might explain why the big four still take a big share via express shops).  Second (and related to a express way of shopping), some of us have managed to squeeze some flexibility in our lives, so that we still shop but for fewer items when we need to.  

This is not to say that we still have a big shopping during the week.  Only that we leave things for later when we really need them.  What is wrong with that? 

Third, online shopping has also made us more aware.  The consumer experience online is not leading to prefer online shopping but rather to avoid deception. Just think of the last time you bought something that looked good on the screen, only to find out it was not what you expected. Supermarkets have taken advantage of this type of 'natural' error by keeping your favourite shopping list online.  I keep making mistakes by ordering the same without realising that I do not consume some of these 'preferred' ones. 

So either physically or online, supermarkets seem to entice us to go back shopping but without considering fully the above reasons.  

Ironically I go physically more often to supermarkets than I used to and I notice the following.

Lots of people (including myself) make the trip as an excuse to entertain myself and my kids.  We go searching for a bit of fresh air and something nice to treat ourselves and our loved ones.  We could do with some add ons, like for instance nicer spaces to seat and have coffee; a post office, a news agent; a dentist or a GP; children's entertainment; a venue to do a bit of sport, or listen to music.  

We want to have a good experience, not only do the shopping.  

But what are we getting instead?  Petrol stations (inaccessible if you go by foot); travel exchange money shops; electronics shops; cardboard and plastics recycling (ok, this is handy but partially, as it is also inaccessible by foot); insurance salespeople; credit card salespeople; tons of alcohol piled up here and there.  

And the list continues...

I think it is time supermarkets reinvent themselves.  Fortunately the big four have become puzzled by what others are doing. So they need to look at themselves deep and hard.  

I do not think they need to follow cost-based business models (like Aldi and Lidle's although they are also good at bringing nice products from the European continent).  

Supermarkets need to turn your eyes to the communities around them.  

And if they are going to use information technology, they should make it help us to have a pleasant and honest experience either online or offline.