Showing posts with label http://fcinf.com/v/c9ua. Show all posts
Showing posts with label http://fcinf.com/v/c9ua. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

RIP Google Wave

Official Google Blog: Update on Google Wave.

RIP Google Wave...

"Wave has not seen the user adoption we would have liked. We don’t plan to continue developing Wave as a standalone product, but we will maintain the site at least through the end of the year and extend the technology for use in other Google projects. The central parts of the code, as well as the protocols that have driven many of Wave’s innovations, like drag-and-drop and character-by-character live typing, are already available as open source, so customers and partners can continue the innovation we began. In addition, we will work on tools so that users can easily “liberate” their content from Wave." (Official Google Blog, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-on-google-wave.html)

Obituaries:

"Google Wave, Poorly Understood and Underused, Dies In Infancy" (Fastcompany.com)

"Maybe it was just ahead of its time. Or maybe there were just too many features to ever allow it to be defined properly, but Google is saying today that they are going to stop any further development of Google Wave." (Techcrunch.com)

"Goodby Google Wave, We Hardly Knew You." (DailyFinance)


"Google's attempt to reinvent e-mail has fizzled." (CNN.com)

"The move isn’t much of a surprise; adoption never seemed to materialize for Google Wave — even after it dropped its invite-only status — as users struggled to find meaningful use cases for the service (though we found a few)." (Mashable.com)


"It's dead, Jim. Google Wave, the much-hyped collaboration tool that Google released in beta form just about a year ago at its developer conference, is dead." (Examiner.com)

"Google is known for daring to invest in new products, services and features and being willing to walk away from those not living up to its hopes." (AFP)

"After opening to the public in May, Wave failed to attract the user base Google anticipated. Instead, when faced with a drastically different paradigm for interaction, the public decided to stick with the familiar: e-mail, IM and Facebook." (Switched.com)

Monday, August 2, 2010

"MIT OpenCourseWare recognized by the AAAS"

MIT OpenCourseWare: Unlocking Knowledge, Empowering Minds -- d'Oliveira et al. 329 (5991): 525 -- Science.

"The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has announced that MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) has been named a recipient of the Science Prize for Online Resources in Education. OCW is the Institute's groundbreaking effort to share the core academic content — including syllabi, lecture notes, assignments and exams — from the entire MIT undergraduate and graduate curriculum. The site currently includes materials from more than 2,000 MIT courses and has received more than 68 million visits since the site's launch in 2002." (http://web.mit.edu/press/2010/ocw-award.html)

Sunday, August 1, 2010

System Design and Management Program and Social Media, need some crowdsourcing advice...

Trying to organize SDM seminar on social media and recruiting, what topics and new trends do you think could be interesting for SDM MIT Fellows? I need some crowdsourcing assistance here...

BBC News - Global cluster bomb ban comes into force

BBC News - Global cluster bomb ban comes into force.

BBC: "A new global treaty banning cluster munitions has come into force. The Convention on Cluster Munitions bans the stockpiling, use and transfer of virtually all existing cluster bombs, and also provides for the clearing up of unexploded munitions. It has been adopted by 108 states, of which 38 have ratified it. The charity Handicap International estimates that 98% of cluster bomb victims are civilians and nearly one-third are children."

Friday, July 30, 2010

Recorded Future goes beyond Search

"The company is called Recorded Future, and it scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come. In a white paper, the company says its temporal analytics engine “goes beyond search” by “looking at the ‘invisible links’ between documents that talk about the same, or related, entities and events.”

Thursday, July 29, 2010

MIT vs. Harvard Case Competition 2010

We have several System Design and Management fellows participating in the MIT vs. Harvard Case competition in different MIT teams. As far as I know they are Leyla Abdimomunova SDM09, Donny Holaschutz SDM10 and Daniel Wallance SDM10. Please come to support them tomorrow July 30, between 2:00am–6:00pm at Wong Auditorium (E51).

MIT Events Calendar - Friday, July 30, 2010 - MIT vs. Harvard Case Competition 2010.

The case that teams will have to crack is on Boston based car-sharing start up called RelayRides.

Friday, July 16, 2010

"I Write Like" filter-like algorithm compares and categorizes your writing style

Have you heard about "I Write Like"? Go to http://iwl.me and insert couple of paragraphs of your writing. In few seconds the algorithm will tell you "which famous writer you write like by analyzing your word choice and writing style and comparing them with those of the famous writers".

The idea belongs to Dmitry Chestnykh, a 27-year-old Russian software programmer. "Chestnykh modeled the site on software for e-mail spam filters. This means that the site's text analysis is largely keyword based. Even if you write in short, declarative, Hemingwayesque sentences, its your word choice that may determine your comparison" (NPR: http://alturl.com/8qurx).

The Russian blog-sphere is surprisingly quiet about both the author, Dmitry Chestnykh, and the site.  As for Dmitry himself, he twitted "I write like Douglas Adams. Proof:" on July 8. One week later he is Internet's newest superstart,  busy giving away interviews. Here is one of them from THEAWL.COM (http://alturl.com/4h8tx):

"...How many authors are currently in the database? How did you decide which authors to include?
The current version includes 50 writers. First versions included authors from the bestsellers list on Wikipedia, top downloaded books from The Gutenberg Project (a public library of out-of-copyright books), and the ones I could remember. Later versions included authors suggested by users.

When are you going to add explanations for the algorithm for each author? Why haven't you included this already — why keep it secret?
I wanted to write a blog post about it, and to open-source the code, but haven't had time for it yet, because I've been busy updating the program and handling all the traffic, emails and comments I received. Also, it's really interesting to read how people try to explain the results they got.

Actually, the algorithm is not a rocket science, and you can find it on every computer today. It's a Bayesian classifier, which is widely used to fight spam on the Internet. Take for example the "Mark as spam" button in Gmail or Outlook. When you receive a message that you think is spam, you click this button, and the internal database gets trained to recognize future messages similar to this one as spam. This is basically how "I Write Like" works on my side: I feed it with "Frankenstein" and tell it, "This is Mary Shelley. Recognize works similar to this as Mary Shelley." Of course, the algorithm is slightly different from the one used to detect spam, because it takes into account more stylistic features of the text, such as the number of words in sentences, the number of commas, semicolons, and whether the sentence is a direct speech or a quotation..."

Well, I inserted three sample essays from my blog.  Twice it came out as David Foster Wallace (http://alturl.com/w2quj) and once as Arthur C. Clarke (http://alturl.com/rmixh).

Friday, July 9, 2010

What is value-related operand of a glider?

Those of us who took System Architecture recognize this question. Is it air or human? What is being changed in the process of gliding? Last weekend we decided to check for ourselves. Well, the answer is definitely - human.



On the side of runway at Bar Harbor Airport (Maine), which is 12 miles from Acadia National Park.



Here is 1963 Cessna 182F that pulls us into the air.



It takes less than 45 seconds to take off. The glider is very light and fast.



July 4 weekend is the busiest time at the county airport. The airport's "parking lot" is full with private jets that bring wealthy summer house and island owners.



As we reach 4,000 ft (1,220 m), Cessna detaches the cable and leaves back to the airport.



Bar Harbor at morning low tide.


The same land bridge that connects the Bar Island during the low tide.

This is how the glider looks from the ground.

A bird's-eye view of Acadia National Park.



The same theme from the top of Cadillac mountain.

... and the shore.

Landing the glider.

... glider survival rate 0.5 :(

Friday, July 2, 2010

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

Brazil is out. I am glad because it adds more uncertainty to the game. As of July 3, 2010 the top five teams to win the cup are:

1. Spain with 28.82%

2. Germany with 20.59%

3. Argentina with 19.39%

4. Netherlands with 18.64%

5. Uruguay     5.65%

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

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).

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

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 .

Saturday, June 19, 2010

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.

..."

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

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/

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

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.

Friday, May 28, 2010

MITRE Prediction Market Pilot

Couple of days ago I’ve signed up for the MITRE Prediction Markets Pilot. Prediction market(s) is one of the most controversial and recent means of organizational tools. It is in such early development stage, that few organizations have ever made an attempt to formally integrate the method into its organizational design.

In short prediction markets create common and usually electronic platform that allow participants to put their bets on certain prediction, which has asset price and where this price is tide to the probability of this event. Most famous and successful example of prediction market is Iowa Electronic Markets, a non-profit academic exchange, which conducts US Presidential Elections prediction markets and claims to have more accurate results than the election pools.

Here are some basics: let us assume that in the Winner-Takes-All Market one-dollar value is assigned if the prediction that candidate A wins the election and zero dollars if the same candidate looses the election. The price of the contract that fluctuates between the staring point and the end-point of the bet (for example between 0.2 dollars and 0.4 dollars) means that the chances of candidate A winning the election fluctuates between 0.2 and 0.4 probability. Let us assume that the probability of the bet at a certain day is 0.33. This means that one can buy the contact for 0.33 dollar at that day and if the candidate A wins the election at some point in the future, the gain is equal to 0.77 dollar (or loose 0.33 dollar if the candidate fails).

Basic requirements for Prediction market are:



  • Clear rules. Event should have definite outcome and ending date. Preferably known market participants.

  • Clear incentives (monetary or other) to make accurate predictions and bet against other participants.

  • Stable market size.

  • Adequate rewards for risk taking.

  • Mix of participants, which includes experts and non-experts like me.

  • Clearly defined, exhaustive and engaging predictions.


In the case of MITRE pilot, there are predictions such as “When will the oil spill in the Gulf of TX be contained (i.e. no longer allowed to contaminate the water?)”, “Will Greece default on all or part of its sovereign debt by December 31, 2011?”, “Will the iPhone be available on the Verizon Network on Oct 1, 2010?” and many more. Each player has 5,000 units of virtual currency (which for some reason are called dollars, perhaps because organizers would like to honor the currency in which the pilot is funded :) ).

In 2005 Google made an attempt to introduce prediction markets to evaluate its internal performance (such as product launch dates or quarterly figures) and assess external competitive environment (such as actions and products made by its competitors). One key distinction from the Iowa Electronic Markets and MITRE’s pilot was that Google employees/traders were trading in pseudo currency called Goobles.  The authors of the project created indirect reward system, so that monetary benefits would not distort the prediction outcomes. After all, the value generated by the prediction markets was participants’ perception of future development and events. This shift in motivation made traders focus on their reputation, credibility and ability to influence the market.  It is not clear if the prediction market is operational at Google these days. It seems that long-term sustainability of such initiative require strong commitment form both management and market participants. One interesting and unexpected conclusion that can be taken from Google’s initiative is the fact that prediction market can map the flow of information within particular organization. There was a study done by Google and Wharton scholars to prove this point (Using Prediction Markets to Track Information Flows: Evidence from Google, 2009).  One more important detail, in Google’s case the prediction market techniques fit company’s innovative culture with its etiquette of internal communication, as well as diverse, tech-savvy and self-motivated employees.

It is too early to say, but it seems that MITRE’s pilot is also moving into the direction of using non-monetary incentives such as honor badges, surveys, rankings, etc. The main question here is whether the performance of the players will eventually be measured by virtual monetary gains or accuracy of predictions.

So what is the justification for prediction markets? I tried to dig some articles in Google Scholar.  Here is a good summary of justifications that comes from Joyce E. Berg and Thomas A. Rietz; and their 2003 Prediction Markets as Decision Support Systems, Information Systems Frontiers Market paper: “(1) the markets give continuously updated dynamic forecasts; (2) through the price formation process, the markets aggregate information across traders, solving what would otherwise be complex (at best) aggregation problems; (3) markets give unbiased, relatively accurate forecasts well in advance of outcomes; (4) these forecasts can outperform existing; (5) the evidence suggests that market dynamics can overcome biases that individual traders may have, effectively eliminating them from forecasts; (6) the markets can be designed to forecast a variety of issues and provide a variety of types of information” (Joyce E. Berg, Thomas A. Rietz, 2003).



Cass R. Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, former University of Chicago Law School and current Harvard Law School professor, argues that predictions market (information market) tend operate more accurately than exit pools and expert panels due to the dynamic and aggregate nature of the market. In prediction markets (information markets) participants are given the right incentives to disclose information they hold. “Groups often hold a great deal of information, and an important task is to elicit and use the information of their members… Much of the time, informational influences and social pressures lead members not to say what they know. As a consequence, groups tend to propagate and even amplify cognitive errors. They emphasize shared information at the expense of unshared information, resulting in hidden profiles… [Information] markets tend to correct rather than amplify individual error, above all because they allow shrewd investors to take advantage of the mistakes made by others. By providing economic rewards for correct individual answers, they encourage investors to disclose the information they have. As the result, they are more often more accurate than the judgment of deliberating groups”(Sunstein, 2006).

It seems that prediction markets have value, but I will have to try it on my own to be convinced.  So currently I am in the "learning by doing" mode: taking careful strategies and aiming to get into upper quartile rank of market traders. I will keep readers posted on my success.

As for the trading platform of MITRE’s pilot, I should say that it is user-friendly. It has Dashboard and Stats that engage you into the trading process. It also gives you an option to ask clarifying questions and make comments before or after particular trade is made.  So the system is evolving and I am interested to see where it will takes us in the end (the pilot will last for 6 months as far as I know).

You can visit the site https://mitre.inklingmarkets.com/ to be the judge.


Wednesday, May 26, 2010

"The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations"

Great book written in 1989 by West German Professor Dorner. This is a good introduction into System dynamics and System thinking. The book gives several mental models of how people "attack" complex problems and why they often fail. Dorner describes several psychological experiments that help to differentiate "bad decision maker" from "good decision makers," as well as mental traps that lead to failures. Based on this analysis he presents his model of decomposition and planning. At the end of the book Dorner quotes Clausewitz that "...War is not an infinite mass of minor events... War consists rather of single, great, decisive actions, each of which needs to be handled individually." Such "strategic thinking" requires far greater expenditure of mental energy argues Dorner.

Dorner ends his book with the thought that "...If we cannot form a picture of a temporal configuration, we cannot adjust our thinking and actions to take that temporal pattern into account... We human being are creature of the present. But the world today must learn to think in temporal configuration."

The book is easy to read and comprehend. I gave it to my 15 years old son to read it. Hopefully he will use my advise to read it earlier in his life.

"The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error" by Sidney Dekker

I met Professor Dekker couple of weeks ago during his visit to Engineering System Division at MIT.

He is definitely one of the most intelligent and sharp thinking persons I have ever met. I was impressed with his clarity and speed of thought. I could catch with his speed of thinking only after he made an iterative loop in his argument.

There are two major themes that are reflected throughout his book. First is that human error is not the cause but a symptom of a trouble. Accepting this notion is first step towards New view of human error, which can never be the conclusion of an investigation, but rather its starting point. Understanding error means reconstructing the context in which such decision was made. "Human error problem is an organizational problem.  This means that understanding human error hinges in understanding the organizational context in which people work."

People tend to react post factum and backwardly reconstruct sequence of events in a linear manner.  In the aftermath of an accident, one can easily list logical arguments how and why people should have foreseen and prevented the upcoming events. We easily judge people, who failed to take proper actions. We focus on their personal shortcomings such as absence of proper training and experience, health conditions and hours of proper sleep, etc.  We usually tend to focus our attention on people who happened to be closest to the accident in term of time and space.

Second theme of the book is forward looking metal model, which focuses on preventing accidents in the future rather than analyzing the accident with a hindsight bias. Hindsight gives the investigators better and more complete information in comparison to people who made the decision prior to the failure.  It provides with facts that become midpoints in the linear logic flow that the investigator reconstructs. As we walk backwards, each facts is perceive not as an "intersection point" with a list of equally valid choices, but rather as point of the process when/where incorrect decision was recorded. Hindsight bias exaggerates the importance of the recorded facts versus other events that are not directly related to the specific accident.

The author compares three accident models (1) the sequence-of-event, (2) the epidemiological model and (3) the system model. He argues that the latter is a holistic approach that looks at accidents as emerging form interactions between system components and processes, rather than failures within them.

Dekker warns against "quick fixes" and misuse of technical labels, which do not describe the gap between reality and our judgments, whereas "safety improvements come from organizations monitoring and understanding the gap between procedures and practice." He concludes that "a safety culture is a culture that allow the boss to hear bad news."

Tim Brown on Change by Design

I've got the book after Tim Brown's video lecture at Sloan MIT at the end of spring semester. The book is full of so many great and original design ideas. It was hard to concentrate while reading this book, because you want to close it in mid-sentence and try to change the world around you.  Here are some marvelous quotes from the book:

"Design has the power to enrich our lives by engaging our emotions through image, form, texture, color, sound, and smell. ... design thinking points to the next step: we can use our empathy and understanding of people to design experience that create opportunities for active engagement and participation."

"Unlike a prepared script or an operational manual, [blueprint] connects the customer experience and the business opportunity. Every detail holds the potential to sour a relationship... but only few offer possibilities for an experience that is distinctive, emotionally gratifying, and memorable. The blue-print is at one and the same time a high-level strategy document and a fine-grained analysis of the details that matter."

"Design can help to improve our lives in the present. Design thinking can help us chart a path into the future."

"Instead of an inflexible, hierarchical process that is designed once and executed many times, we must imagine how we might create highly flexible, constantly evolving system in which each exchanges between participants is an opportunity for empathy, insight, innovation and implementation."

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

MIT is discussing Should Google Leave China



http://events.mit.edu/event.html?id=11610639

My good friend Edward Steinfeld, Associate Professor of Political Science at MIT (http://web.mit.edu/polisci/faculty/E.Steinfeld.html) is moderating the discussion at MIT today.

The panelists of the discussion are (1) David Clark, Senior Research Scientist, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, (2)  Yasheng Huang, China Program Professor in International Management, Sloan School,  (3) Craig Simons, Knight Science Journalism Fellow and (4) Xiaojian Zhao, Knight Science Journalist Fellow.

I am curious about the delicate dilemmas that the moderator will try to address.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Current Trends in Operational Environment

Organization is a form of human interaction within specific temporal and spatial domain. As part of their day-to-day activity humans have to interact within and with variety of organizations, which differ in terms of goals, complexity, decision-making process, hierarchy and performance.

We would like to focus on two general trends, which may not present holistic foresight, but rather state central to our discussion questions. First trend is the changing nature of interrelation between human and communication. Second trend is dynamic interaction process between organization and operational environment.

Individualization of communication and its affect on human behavior

New means of communication increase personal connectivity to the existing technological and social networks. As the amount of exchanging data increases, humans demand faster, more reliable and more capable channels of communication. Such channels allow humans absorb information in print, audio and visual format at much faster pace than ever before.

Individualization of communication affect human learning pattern, which shifted form printed books and formal learning to wide range of new learning methods and informal education processes. Move over, the monopoly of formal institutions to generate knowledge and to confirm facts changes human behavior dramatically. Such behavior is vivid in current ability to respond instantaneously to news, events, communication messages, personal or collective moods, political opinions, etc. Each human today can be considered not only consumer, but also a possible generator of information and knowledge.

Interrelation between organization and operational environment

Standardization of operational procedures such as international financial and accounting standards, currency exchange, financial planning and economic forecasting led to common themes of operational environment in different countries. Different benchmarking in terms of competitiveness, business-friendliness, corruption, penetration of information and communication technologies create certain expectations from national states to progress towards commonly acceptable standards.

Organizations do play significant role in persuading nation states to remove certain barriers and create favorable operational environment.  On the other hand, key characteristics of favorable operational environment over time become embedded in organization’s structure and behavior. For example, state’s requirement for certain transparency may not benefit particular organization in the short term, but over time becomes unquestionable part of organizational behavior. In sum, organizations push for more acceptable standards of operational environment, as well as adapt to the changing operational environment.

Decision making process

Keeping these two trends in mind, we need to step back to get clear picture of the evolution of decision-making processes. Let us evaluate such decisions in terms of frequency, proximity, magnitude and immediacy.

In terms of frequency, today’s decision makers are equipped with complex analytical tools that can measure uncertainty and allow exercising options as frequently as it may require. New means of communication allow individuals within organizations to calibrate their decisions in a continuous mode.  More over, new facts and consequences of a certain decision take much less time to communicate and could be shared with wider audience. Outside party of specific organization such as stakeholders, consumers, client, watchdogs, etc. may have as much influence on the frequency of such decisions as any internal party with the organization. In sum, constant flow of information and analysis makes the decision making a truly continuous process with numerous calibrating interferences.

New means of communication and human behavioral patterns change human perception of proximity.  Our perception of distance and time changes with the ability to communicate with different parts of the globe at lower cost and faster pace. Virtual collaborative projects are erasing physical borders.  Decreasing cost of physical shipment and steady decline in the cost of travel narrows the gap between physical and virtual domains of human collaboration.  Popular culture, common perception of standards of living, shared goal and ability to communicate frequently helps to narrow most important cognitive gap – trust between individuals.

Favorable operational conditions and new means of communication do affect the magnitude and immediacy of decisions.  One may assume that the power of top management would increase with increased magnitude and immediacy of decisions.  However, in such environment the top management does not posses the monopoly of knowledge and facts. The same constant flow of information that was described above could paralyze the top management with multiple decision options, which presumably are subject to immediate and frequent revision.

In addition, middle management may have as much power to generate equally significant or insignificant decisions in terms of magnitude and immediacy. Availability of information, facts and knowledge give middle management a perception of complete picture in which this particular organization has to operate.  In other words, information is not longer collected and decisions are no longer disseminated from the top of organization’s paradigm. How can top management expect to keep its house in order if its directives become irrelevant before they reach their addressees?