Point-2-Ponder/Ver. 14.52921

The goal of this series of regular posts, until further notice, is to offer up for consideration points for contemplation represented by topical cognitive development. This differs from submitting for consideration an ideal in which adoption or debate ensues.  As has been our thinking from the onset it’s not about creating adopters but developing mindsets, on your terms in such a way that respectful dialog can occur. Without this cognitive development we are left with fact less and often emotional contention that polarizes not grows societal development.

Even the most active and creative thinkers have their moments. As is often the case though occurs as a result of some form of environmental stimulus. It may be the result of events, discussions, or that lingering thought that for some reason has come to the surface. It’s this ebb and flow in discernment that creates points-to-ponder (P2P). 

• When do we stop? This is really an all inclusive question whether it be relating to work, or relationships or initiatives we are involved with.  Harkening back to my software engineering days we were continually confronted by stoppage, and the one element that was time and again used was the loss of patience. As It becomes a little more serious when it comes to life, some stop with the occurrence of an event (eg. retirement), others stop out of frustration while some stop as a result of lost hope.  Think long and hard about the advantages of continuance and the value from stoppage.
• Ever have someone or some group that you have no liking for (btw you always need to have some degree of respect in order to sustain your self-dignity) but discover that you share a common opinion with them? What often separates this common ground is the motivation behind the opinion. For example you may believe the opinion based upon decorum, to the other party they may have this shared opinion based upon a personal motive. How we react can be interesting. The temptation is always there to discredit the source despite the agreement. Others may choose to take the hire road and retain dignified silence. We had this happen just this week in terms the topic of discrediting nations for implied personal gain.
• Is the truth in reading between the lines? Is an organization who posts popular (but funded) news struggling when they are asking if you follow their business group? Is published news really shallow when it is funded? When organizations shift interests from their core principals does that mean they weren’t committed and are a ‘fair day’ organization that rambles from one vogue endeavor to another? Is the proliferation of e-sessions creating a quality issue?
• As soon as you create that fist line of code your final solution is already starting to decay. Yes, what you produce may be novel but it is slowing giving way to the impact of change. Let use Microsoft as an example, how can this be true? There are the factors that the present release of anything still has in their wings one, two or more versions in the works. Secondly, the multiplicity of software products distracts from the decay condition. Thirdly the interconnection of some products (ie. Microsoft office permits cross production slowed erosion caused by interconnectivity). Finally, some products were acquired or developed simply to slow the decay through distraction (with full intention of curtailment). So think about the degree of investment, speed of delivery and durable life. It certainly would elevate interest in reusability of validated elements.
•  Pouring over my copious notes I came across many ideas for pondering…

  o  Analytic security and the amalgamated coupling that may leave the matter of security and integrity to either be over done or containing massive gaps. In this particular context we are thinking about the data and it’s subsequent transformation into usable information form. Added concern involve the timing which can also make for jagged security inconsistencies, and the pipeline/expressway that accumulates-processes the stream of potential analytic intelligence.  In short security becomes a part of analytic authenticity.

o  Are venture capitalists too endeared/excited about potential and not focused enough on viability? Time and again we see floated rounds based on the notion and overlooking the full mechanics. What might have had promise is lost, what didn’t have promise could have. It’s what one might consider as missing the boat.

o  How well do you understand software economics? Involved parts would be mortality status, sustainment care, value creation-generation and reusable service investment. Since we are not particular good at estimating AND when we do we struggle to manage the committed investment there is a long ways to go in getting control of software economics. What would be your thoughts as to how to get things righted?

o  What is a startup and for how long? Are there evolutionary stages and what causes advancement to occur?

o  Complete and ultimate control involves 100% risk. Spreading risk produces equity growth potential.  Directing and acute awareness of risk early diverts failure impact.

  (there are more but I will reserve them for future P-2-P’s.)

 This should be enough to get your thoughts going and considering the what, why, how and use of the wisdom you should have gained. Yes, we have our own opinions and ideas and yes we can share them with you. Keep in mind however that the information we would provide would be used to further develop your own positions and tempered by your particular situational context. Please feel free to engage in a free interchange by contacting us at [email protected] noting the particular topic under consideration.  More to come in upcoming weeks.

Freely Redistribute/Share With Our Permission ?2021

Clarity Group Global is an intellectual decision validation institution dedicated to the support of leaders, companies and organizations that face challenging choices. Making right decisions that produce significant value equates to less disruption and chaos, "non-tradition made exceptional".

Examples and illustrations are used for purposes of contextually clarity. These fervently adhere to our unwavering commitment to client confidentiality and should be construed as a ploy to self-promote.Point-2-Ponder/Ver. 14.52921

The goal of this series of regular posts, until further notice, is to offer up for consideration points for contemplation represented by topical cognitive development. This differs from submitting for consideration an ideal in which adoption or debate ensues.  As has been our thinking from the onset it’s not about creating adopters but developing mindsets, on your terms in such a way that respectful dialog can occur. Without this cognitive development we are left with fact less and often emotional contention that polarizes not grows societal development.

Even the most active and creative thinkers have their moments. As is often the case though occurs as a result of some form of environmental stimulus. It may be the result of events, discussions, or that lingering thought that for some reason has come to the surface. It’s this ebb and flow in discernment that creates points-to-ponder (P2P). 

·        When do we stop? This is really an all inclusive question whether it be relating to work, or relationships or initiatives we are involved with.  Harkening back to my software engineering days we were continually confronted by stoppage, and the one element that was time and again used was the loss of patience. As It becomes a little more serious when it comes to life, some stop with the occurrence of an event (eg. retirement), others stop out of frustration while some stop as a result of lost hope.  Think long and hard about the advantages of continuance and the value from stoppage.

·        Ever have someone or some group that you have no liking for (btw you always need to have some degree of respect in order to sustain your self-dignity) but discover that you share a common opinion with them? What often separates this common ground is the motivation behind the opinion. For example you may believe the opinion based upon decorum, to the other party they may have this shared opinion based upon a personal motive. How we react can be interesting. The temptation is always there to discredit the source despite the agreement. Others may choose to take the hire road and retain dignified silence. We had this happen just this week in terms the topic of discrediting nations for implied personal gain.

·        Is the truth in reading between the lines? Is an organization who posts popular (but funded) news struggling when they are asking if you follow their business group? Is published news really shallow when it is funded? When organizations shift interests from their core principals does that mean they weren’t committed and are a ‘fair day’ organization that rambles from one vogue endeavor to another? Is the proliferation of e-sessions creating a quality issue?

·        As soon as you create that first line of code your final solution is already starting to decay. Yes, what you produce may be novel but it is slowing giving way to the impact of change. Let use Microsoft as an example, how can this be true? There are the factors that the present release of anything still has in their wings one, two or more versions in the works. Secondly, the multiplicity of software products distracts from the decay condition. Thirdly the interconnection of some products (ie. Microsoft office permits cross production slowed erosion caused by interconnectivity). Finally, some products were acquired or developed simply to slow the decay through distraction (with full intention of curtailment). So think about the degree of investment, speed of delivery and durable life. It certainly would elevate interest in reusability of validated elements.

·        Pouring over my copious notes I came across many ideas for pondering…

o  Analytic security and the amalgamated coupling that may leave the matter of security and integrity to either be over done or containing massive gaps. In this particular context we are thinking about the data and it’s subsequent transformation into usable information form. Added concern involve the timing which can also make for jagged security inconsistencies, and the pipeline/expressway that accumulates-processes the stream of potential analytic intelligence.  In short security becomes a part of analytic authenticity.

o  Are venture capitalists too endeared/excited about potential and not focused enough on viability? Time and again we see floated rounds based on the notion and overlooking the full mechanics. What might have had promise is lost, what didn’t have promise could have. It’s what one might consider as missing the boat.

o  How well do you understand software economics? Involved parts would be mortality status, sustainment care, value creation-generation and reusable service investment. Since we are not particular good at estimating AND when we do we struggle to manage the committed investment there is a long ways to go in getting control of software economics. What would be your thoughts as to how to get things righted?

o  What is a startup and for how long? Are there evolutionary stages and what causes advancement to occur?

o  Complete and ultimate control involves 100% risk. Spreading risk produces equity growth potential.  Directing and acute awareness of risk early diverts failure impact.

(there are more but I will reserve them for future P-2-P’s.)

This should be enough to get your thoughts going and considering the what, why, how and use of the wisdom you should have gained. Yes, we have our own opinions and ideas and yes we can share them with you. Keep in mind however that the information we would provide would be used to further develop your own positions and tempered by your particular situational context. Please feel free to engage in a free interchange by contacting us at [email protected] noting the particular topic under consideration.  More to come in upcoming weeks.

Freely Redistribute/Share With Our Permission ?2021

Clarity Group Global is an intellectual decision validation institution dedicated to the support of leaders, companies and organizations that face challenging choices. Making right decisions that produce significant value equates to less disruption and chaos, "non-tradition made exceptional".

Examples and illustrations are used for purposes of contextually clarity. These fervently adhere to our unwavering commitment to client confidentiality and should be construed as a ploy to self-promote.