Top five FIFA World Cup teams on MITRE's prediction market

As of June 29, 2010 the top five teams to win the cup are:

1. Brazil with 28.59% chances to win the cup
2. Spain with 18.04%
3. Germany with 14.02%
4. Netherlands with 12.04%
5. Argentina with 10.18%

I am betting on Germany.

My personal rank in the market (the is to stay in the upper third):



Most recently I received my prize from betting on appointment of John S. Pistole as the next T.S.A. Chief. Too bad I bet only one share (got 49 virtual dollars).

One can run, but cannot hide from World Cup at SDM

I spent Sunday morning watching the game between Germany and England, structure versus chaos, youth versus maturity, team play versus individual ambitions. An example that a system is greater than the sum of its individual elements; and that  structure does dictate behavior. Great team effort by Germany.  England did not need Beckham to loose this game.

The World Cup is my greatest enemy these days. It is my greatest source of distraction and procrastination. I try to avoid my US, Spanish, Saudi, Korean, Chilean friends (guys, you know who you are and I will not publish your names) who are watching live games on their laptops via www.espn3.com, I try to block myself from the heated follow up discussions. I stay away from bars and other public places. I even tried to stay away from my house, where my family is watching the games 24/7 on TV.

Football (dare I say soccer) is a great game, where rules are simple and everyone can consider himself/herself an expert (if you have a blog, your chances of being such expert double). These days you cannot avoid the World cup, when even bloggers on National public radio are comming up with "ballanced" and  "impartial" taxonomy of football fans: "...

1. The Citizen: wild-eyed nationalists, unless you’re a compatriot..


2. The Hermit: must “stay home in front of the telly with a can of beer and a packet of crisps,”


3. The Hoverer: want to hang out with their chums, drink some beer, maybe glance at the game every ten minutes or so


4. The Ogler:


5. The Windbag: opines brazenly and shamelessly


6. The Chronic, Enthusiastic, and Frequently Mistaken Caller of “Offside!


7. The Real Deal: takes sheer pleasure in watching the game—regardless of nationality


8. Soccer Savant: deeply loves soccer, he knows a lot about it—and imparts his knowledge in a calm, cool-headed manner ..."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/showmeyourcleats/2010/06/26/128132590/seven-species-of-soccer-spectator-a-taxonomy?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

CRISIS-MANAGEMENT CROWDSOURCING PLATFORM WAS LAUNCHED IN KYRGYZSTAN TO MAP AND SHARE RELIABLE INFORMATION

On June 21, 2010 crisis-management crowdsourcing platform was launched at http://www.aikol.kg . The website allows people on the ground to map and share information in nine different categories (events, infrastructure, epidemics, people gathering, etc) using text massages or internet. The site is in its early days of operations, but it quickly began to pick up posts from all over the nation.  It may not take much time before the platform accumulates significant amount of information. Two major problems that the initiative could face in near future are accessibility to the platform and reliability/verifiability of information.



The platform that is being used by the website seems to come from open source non-profit initiative called ushahidi. User named <altyni> initially posted that "We are supported by crisis managers of Chile, Haiti, Dushanbe, Ukraine, USA, Kenya #savekg" and several hours later "I officially announce that we have launched @ushahidi platform in #freekg", "#thanks: Mark Belinsky, Nona Lambert, Patrick Meier, David Kobia, Alana Shaikh, Anaha Ayala, Max Froumentin, Juliana, Sanjana and others."

“The open-source project Ushahidi, which takes its name from the Swahili word for “testimony,” ...  The software allows text messages to be mapped by time and location. It was developed to track reports of ethnic violence in Kenya in 2008. Suddenly mere words can create a moving picture of where violence started and where it intensified.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/09link.html?_r=1

The Ushahidi platform was most recently used in helping earthquake effort in Chile and Haiti; tracking extreme weather (snowstorm, etc) and wildfire; monitoring elections in India, Mexico and Sudan; covering activities in Gaza during the war; recording reconciliation effort in Kenya, etc. Here is descriptive video http://ushahidi.com/embeds/what_is_ushahidi.html



If you would like to share information, you can send text message to 0779069805, email to savekg@gmail.com or use #savekg on twitter. You can also contact the developers to offer your help via webpage http://www.aikol.kg/contact .

Bloomberg reports about Kazakh National Bank seeking bidders to manage $100 Million of its $25b.+ National Oil Fund

"Kazakh Oil Fund Seeks ‘Boutique’ Bidders to Manage $100 Million"

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601095&sid=argSOp2PrPKE

You can read the official announcement on External management tender for «Global active equity» and Investment Guidelines at http://www.nationalbank.kz/?docid=539&switch=eng

More info: http://www.swfinstitute.org/fund/kazakhstan.php

John Sterman's Summary on Principles for Successful Use of System Dynamics.

My favorite is #11.

"...

1. Develop a model to solve a particular problem, not to model the system. A model must have a clear purpose and that purpose must be to solve the problem of concern to the client. Modelers must exclude all factors not relevant to the problem. The goal is to improve the performance of the system as defined by the client. Focus on results.

2. Modeling should be integrated into a project from the beginning. The value of the modeling process begins early on, in the problem definition phase. The modeling process helps focus diagnostics on the structure of the system rather than blaming problems on the people making decisions in that structure.

3. Be skeptical about the value of modeling and force the “why do we need“ discussion at the start of the project. There are many problems for which system dynamics is not useful. Carefully consider whether the system dynamics is the right technique for the problem. Modelers should welcome difficult questions from the clients about how the process works and how it might help them with their problem. The earlier these issues are discussed, the better.

4. System dynamics does not stand alone. Use other tools and methods as appropriate. Most modeling projects are part of a larger effort involving traditional strategic and operational analysis, including benchmarking, statistical work, market research, etc. Effective modeling rest on a strong base of data and understanding of the issues. Modeling work best as a complement to other tools, not as a substitute.

5. Focus on implementation form the start of the project. Implementation must start on the first day of the project. Constantly ask, How will the model help the client make decisions? Use the model to set priorities and determine the sequence of policy implementation. Use the model to answer the question, How do we get there form here? Carefully consider the real world issues involved in pulling various policy levers. Quantify the full range of costs and benefits of policies, not only those already reported by existing accounting systems.

6. Modeling work best as an interactive process of joint inquiry between client and consultant. Modeling is a process of discovery. The goal is to reach new understanding of how the problem arises and then use that understanding to design high leverage policies for improvement. Modeling should not be used as a tool for advocacy. Don’t build a client’s prior opinion about what should be done into a model. Use workshops where the clients can test the model themselves, in the real time.

7. Avoid black box modeling. Models build out of the sight of the client will never lead to change in deeply held mental models and therefore will not change client behavior. Involve the clients as early as possible. Show the model. Encourage them to suggest and run their own tests and to criticize the model. Work with them to resolve their criticism to satisfaction.

8. Validation is a continuous process of testing and building confidence in the model. Models are not validated after they are completed nor by any one test such as their ability to fit historical data. Clients build confidence in the utility of a model gradually, by constantly confronting the model with data and expert opinion – their own and other’. Through this process both model and expert opinions will change and deepen. Seek out opportunities to challenge the model’s ability to replicate a diverse range of historical experience.

9. Get a preliminary model working as soon as possible. Add detail only as necessary. Develop a working simulation model as soon as possible. Don’t try to develop a comprehensive conceptual model prior to the development of a simulation model. Conceptual models are only hypotheses and must be tested. Formalization and simulation often uncover flaws in conceptual maps and lead to improved understanding. The result of experiments inform conceptual understanding and help build confidence in the results. Early results provide immediate value to clients and justify continued investment in their time.

10. A broad model boundary is more important than a great deal of detail. Models must strike a balance between a useful, operational representation of the structure and policy levers available to the clients while capturing the feedbacks generally unaccounted for in mental models. In general, the dynamics of a system emerge from the interactions of the components in the system – capturing those feedbacks is more important than a lot of detail in representing the components themselves.

11. Use expert modelers, not novices. Modeling requires a discipline approach and an understanding of business, skills developed through study and experience. Get the expert assistance you need. Use the project as an opportunity to develop the skills of others on the team and in the client organization.

12. Implementation does not end with a single project. In all three cases the modeling work continued to have impact long after the initial project is over. Models and management flight simulators were applied to similar issues on other settings. The modelers developed expertise they applied to related problems and clients move into new positions and new organizations, taking the insights they gained and, sometimes, a new way of thinking, with them. Implementation is a long-term process of personal, organizational, and social change.

..."

John Sterman, Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World (2000): Summary of Chapter 1.

"...

1.Yesterday's solution becomes today's problem...

2. Policy resistance arises because we often do not understand the full range of feedbacks operating in the system. Our actions alter the state of the system, other people react to restore the balance we have upset... Side effects are not the feature of the reality but a sign that our understanding of the system is narrow and flawed.

3. Our decisions alter our environment, leading to new decisions. But also triggering the side effects, delayed reactions, changes in goals and interventions by others. These feedbacks may lead to unanticipated results and ineffective policies.

4. All dynamics arises from the interaction of just two types of feedback loops, positive (self-reinforcing) and negative (self-correcting) loops. The positive loops are all processes that generate their own growth. Negative loops counteract and oppose change. These loops all describe processes that tend to be self-limiting, processes that seek balance and equilibrium.

5. Active modeling occurs well before sensory information reaches the areas of brain responsible for processing visual information.  Our survival depends so completely on the ability to rapidly interpret our environment that we long ago evolve structures to build these models automatically.

6. The act of measurement introduces distortions, delays, biases, errors, and other imperfections, some known, other unknown and unknowable. Measurement is an act of selection.

7. People generally adopt an event-based, open-loop view of causality, ignore feedback processes, fail to appreciate time delays between action and response and in the reporting of information, do not understand stocks and flows and are insensitive to nonlinearities that may alter the strength of different feedback loops as a system evolves.

8. When we attribute behavior to personality we lose sight of how the structure of the system shaped our choices.

..."

Kiplinger missed Boston and/or Cambridge, MA in its "10 Best Cities for the Next Decade"

Kiplinger's editor argues that the innovation factor has three elements: (1) smart people, (2) great ideas and (3) collaboration. Based on these criteria, Kiplinger presents its top ten ranking for "places to start a business or find a job" (http://alturl.com/vn88):

1. Austin, Tex.

2. Seattle, Wash.

3. Washington, D.C.

4. Boulder, Colo.

5. Salt Lake City, Utah

6. Rochester, Minn.

7. Des Moines, Iowa

8. Burlington, Vt.

9. West Hartford, Conn.

10. Topeka, Kan.

What Kiplinger misses in its criteria, is strength and density of new technology companies. According to MIT Professor Michael Davies, there are "two regions-four institutions" (Harvard-MIT, Berkeley-Stanford) where innovation is concentrated, and Kendal-MIT area by far surpasses all other cities.

101 Things I Learned in the System Design and Management Program #101SDM

Dear SDM Fellows,

Congratulations to those of you who just graduated.  On behalf of SDM10 cohort we wish you all the best in your future career and life endeavors.

I am sure many of us at least once had difficulties explaining what SDM is all about, and I think that “an elevator pitch” does not reflect all aspects of our unique program.

So I am trying to put together “101 Things I Learned in System Design and Management Program.”  I think it could be a good summary of SDM program for perspective students (and sponsors?), as well as current, graduating and alum members of the SDM community.

It will take some time and several drafts, but I am eager to finish it before the Annual Systems Thinking Conference at MIT in October this year.

I am sure everyone has at least one idea and one experience to share with the rest of us. If you have time, please email directly to me abdimom@mit.edu (or twit at #101SDM), because spam can easily kill this idea. I will share with everyone drafts along the way (eventually I will put together a wiki or some other sharing tool). If the project proves to be successful, we can leave it for future SDM fellows to come up with updated editions.

Looking forward to hear from you,
Azamat Abdymomunov, SDM10

Just a thought on "design thinking" in business

It will take some time before "design thinking" is accepted by the mainstream. Unfortunately, there are not many examples of such acceptance in "soft systems," or at least such examples have not been systematized. People tend to apply "design thinking" in organizations at latent level without actually thinking of it. When we are explicitly confronted with the concept of design thinking we disregard it as "common sense." As Marvin Minsky said once “An idea will seem self-evident – once you have forgotten learning it!”.

FT is praising Kazakhstan for handling financial crisis: "demand that creditors absorb all, or part, of the losses"

"...what has just occurred on the Kazakh steppes is looking surprisingly relevant to this hand-wringing about European banks and US reform. Until recently it was generally assumed in the emerging market world that when a bank ran into problems it would either be bailed out by the government (or, more likely, the International Monetary Fund) or go spectacularly bust and close its doors...

...0ption, as demonstrated in Kazakhstan, is to demand that creditors absorb all, or part, of the losses, even as the bank remains a going concern. And indeed, this is precisely the idea that is now starting to gain traction in some regulatory quarters."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/050d003a-6f4a-11df-9f43-00144feabdc0.html

NYTimes discusses "nuking the well", studies were done decades ago

I just read NYTimes article about the discussion to use underground nuclear explosion to seal the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html?hp. The idea may sound crazy, but experiments were conducted in 1970s in the USSR. The places are called Lira and Azgir nuclear testing sites in Western Kazakhstan, you can read more on  http://www.nnc.kz/en/about/activity/radioecology.html .

Kazakhstan's National Nuclear Center continues environmental monitoring of the sites.  I am not an expert in this field, but from what I understand an underground nuclear explosion creates a sealed cavity that serves as a container, which keeps natural gas and condensate form leaking into the ground. I have thought about this project when InnoCentive announced its  "Emergency Response 2.0 : Solutions to Respond to Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico" on https://gw.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/overview/9383447 .

At that time I thought it could be nearly impossible to place a nuclear device 1 km deep into the water and further into the seabed. But I guess, some of the scientists that were involved with the project decided to give the idea a shot, literally. I knew that both underwater and underground tests were routinely done in the past (see http://alturl.com/v7x6 ), but combining two in one could be a real challenge.

I agree with NYTimes that such risky idea is cannot be seriously considered.  However, as crazy as the idea sounds, the fact that it got front page coverage in NYTimes (!!!"...What about nuking the well?") suggests that both BP and the Federal government are running out of serious options. Or perhaps, public opinion is being prepared for an option that includes conventional explosion to stop the spill, which looks much more acceptable vis-a-vie a nuclear option.

Here is an abstract from the paper called Reduction of Risks from Lira Underground Nuclear Facilities at Karachaganak Oil-and-Gas Complex published by National Nuclear Center researchers in 2008:

"T. I. Ageyeva2, A. Zh. Tuleushev2 and V. V. Podenezhko2
(2) Institute of Nuclear Physics, Almaty, Kazakhstan
The theme of this article is the investigations of radioactive contamination within and around underground cavities created by underground nuclear detonations performed in connection with the operation of oil and gas condensate fields. Underground storages of gas condensate are not maintained for a long time. The results from the large-scale complex indicate the absence of a real threat from nuclear objects on the environment. However, there is a potential danger connected with possible changes in the geological environment containing the underground storages of condensates. The pressure created in the cavities is the controlling parameter of the conditions in the cavities. Laboratory investigations of a condensate from the underground cavities confirm the absence of caesium-137 and strontium-90 and the presence of tritium. The strategy of closing off the cavities with the application of filling the cavity space with loose or helium materials is designed. The basic objective of the subsequent works is to decrease the environmental risks associated with oil-and-gas operations and underground storage of condensates.

Keywords  cavities - underground nuclear detonations - condensate storage - LIRA - Kazakhstan"

Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3w0jgvmx87tv332/

Realpolitik of the Blame Game

After BP’s numerous failed attempts to stop oil contamination in the Gulf of Mexico its corporate image is in ruins.  As BP’s public image reached its saturation limits for criticism, the political debate redirects public attention from the oil company to the Federal government.  With the accident rolling into its sixth week, the Obama administration is forced to answer  “Who is to blame?” and “What to do?” In short, political pressure and public anger demand swift satisfaction.

In this respect, Obama's decision to begin criminal investigations into the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the oil spill may give such satisfaction. Unfortunately, it is short-lived and may prove counterproductive in the long-run. Criminal inquiries into the cause of the oil spill is likely to narrow down the scope of post-mortem analysis to near physical and temporal proximity of the accident. In other words, the investigation will focus on people who made decisions as the accident emerged.

After the Exxon Valdes accident, the public was given a scapegoat, Capitan Hazelwood, who was singlehandedly blamed to cause the accident. Although, he was later cleared of the charge being drunk at the time of the accident, he had never cleared his name from the stigma of causing of the biggest oil spill in US history (until current accident).   There were more systemic problems such as functional and interoperable navigation systems on board the ship and on the shore of Alaska, the culture of tolerance to safety problems among the oil executives and public official, etc. However,  systemic factors tend to “spread the blame” and lack the luxury of targeted blame, thus satisfaction of punishment.  Simple and straightforward causes are always easier to describe and accept. I hope to be wrong, but it is likely that we can expect several Capitan Hazelwoods from BP and its subcontractors who could be “scarified” to satisfy public outcry.  However, it is unlikely that such narrow view can help us understand the complexity of the accident.

It is in our human nature to go back in time and look for a single event, which could have prevented to the catastrophe from happening.  The bigger the accident, the stronger is our temptation to reverse time. Inability to reverse the situation results in anger, dissatisfaction and need for revenge. These emotions have to be channeled one way or the other. What make the case with the oil spill unique is the fact that the public is given a rare opportunity to be part of the accident as it emerges.  The public feels helpless to reverse time and to contain the accident. Old and new media channels enables people to get first-hand accounts of the environmental impact on the ocean's seabed, the coast and wildlife. As the result, it is natural for people to ask who is in charge and who is to blame. If those who are in charge do not act swiftly and find those who are to blame, the public could blame those who are in charge.  If those who were in charge yesterday do not blame those who are in charge today, then those who were in charge yesterday are to get blamed themselves and vice versa. The same is true with BP and its numerous subcontractors.

Unfortunately realpolitik of the blame game creates an environment in which each player is concerned with own political and legal liabilities. Criminal inquiry adds more gasoline to the flame.  Starting the investigation before accident’s containment is almost like investigating causes of an air crash with airplane still in the air. Perhaps, such approach could give unique perspective, but more likely it will downgrade itself to simplified description of immediate events with operators and decision makers who were unfortunate enough to be in close proximity as the accident emerged.