Sofcoast

Thoughtsream: Huffman's Three Principles for data sharing

Todd Huffman stopped by the corporate offices this week for a series of company planning meetings and partner presentations and discussions.  I asked him if I could post his "Three Principles for Data Sharing" outlined by Sean Gorman on the FortiusOne "Off the Map" blog September 2009 post.

Enjoy. 

Based on Todd's work in Afghanistan, he describes the “beer for data” project at the Taj.

The data sharing success boiled down to three basic principles:

1) Create immediate value for anyone contributing data: when users contribute data they should get an immediate return on that investment. In the case of the Afghan pilot that meant getting to see your contributed data on a map of high resolution satellite imagery as soon as you uploaded it. The imagery for Afghanistan was made available by NGA, then tiled and served up by a Fusion Server, graciously donated by Google.

2) Make contributor’s data available back to them with improvements: any data that goes in should be available to download back out again. Further, the data should come back better than when it went in. In the Afghan pilot this meant if you shared data in a spreadsheet format into the platform you could get it back out as KML, shapefile, Atom, JSON, spatialite etc. (Addendum to principle 2 - PDF’s are evil, and make parsing and extracting data into a sharable format complete misery.)

3) Share derivative works back with the data sharing community: urge users who create derivative works, with shared data, to contribute their data products back to the group. In the case of the Afghan pilot researchers were taking the detailed data from the field and feeding it into their sophisticated models and simulations. Researchers would then upload the results into GeoIQ to share the derivative works back with the data sharing community. This meant that agencies and individuals that shared data again got a better product back by contributing. The researchers get better data to feed their models, and a self perpetuating feedback loop is created that sustains increasing data sharing.

While these sound like simple principles, it is amazing how often they are not followed and effective data sharing is blunted. Too often data sharing - especially with government and corporations - is a black hole. Data goes in but never comes back out. Also it is rare to see the positive feedback loops of researchers sharing their work products back with the data sharing community. Too often researchers get wrapped around the axle on their products being proprietary or sensitive. While this can be the case there is huge benefit in feeding results back to gauge their veracity and accuracy. I’ve definitely seen way too many models that look great in the lab and completely fall apart in reality because researchers would not feed results back to the field for verification and error bounding. I’m hoping we’ll have more opportunities to implement these principles in future projects and we can see the success of Todd’s work in Jalalabad duplicated hundreds of times over.

Thoughtstream: Defending the brand

I am a mac user.  I've been operating Sofcoast from my macbook pro 17 inch laptop off and on since I was a defense consultant several years ago.

Lots of people complain about Apple.  I've even grumbled a little bit too from time to time because my experience with my mac until recently was more like an unhealthy relationship with a girlfriend.  When things were good they were great! When they were bad, they were really bad... just listen to the Lucinda Williams song "Joy" from the Crazy Heart soundtrack (a great movie) and you'll get a "feel" for what I'm talking about.

"...you took my joy I want it bayack!"

The point is that over the past year my previous macbook has crashed on two separate occasions, the last time was a couple of weeks ago.  The first time this happened, I took my mac to the Apple store and they fixed it and I restored my lost data from my time capsule (which is a killer product that I believe everyone needs).  This time (and once again) Mr. Jobs and his team have taught me an enormously important lesson about product quality and customer experience.  Over the past six months we've been focused on building the worlds first tactical inflatable wing. (check out this post to get some background).

Key Lessons learned from my recent experience with Apple.

1. Building stuff for others to use every day is hard. Don't compromise.
2. Customer experience creates (or destroys) value.  Be careful.

Most recently, while I was in San Diego, I experienced the second episode with my old macbook. I took the computer to the Otay Ranch Apple Store in a panic.  I showed up and gave them the computer to see what they could do. They told me they'd call me when they finished up the diagnostics.  Long story short, I left my old macbook pro at the store, bought a new macbook pro that day, took it home, restored all of my data and was back up in about 20 hours with no data loss.

It gets better.

I got a call the next day from the Apple store manager.  Apple decided to replace my old macbook pro with a new one (the one I purchased in a panic the day prior).  They refunded my full purchase price minus a small fee.  The Macbook Pro is a two thousand dollar computer. (a lot of money for an entrepreneur..)

What a harrowing and ultimately fantastic experience!

In a world where we're all connecting to each other through applications we download to our smart-phones or the content we generate and share on blog posts or social networks, the tools we interact with every day (for some every moment of the day) to connect with each other to help us access, share, connect or find information is now an embedded part of our social fabric.  It's in our DNA.  Everything we do has an experience connected with it that we can share with each other instantly through these tools.

The point is this:  In 24 hours I went from singing the Lucinda Williams song, Joy, (..."you took my joy!"), from the Crazy Heart soundtrack to singing the song "How you like me now!" from the group, "The Heavy" album titled "The House that Dirt Built".

I will never forget this. 

I guess it's because I expected to simply be "stuck" with a lemon and the replacement costs. And I wasn't. Why?  Because the store manager was empowered to "defend the brand".  He didn't want an Apple customer to have a bad experience with an Apple product.

That's a customer experience to remember.

For me this is a profound (re)discovery.

How about you?

Have you ever chose to "defend the brand"?

If so, how? Why?

If not, why not?

Cheers,

John Surmont

Founding CEO

Sofcoast, Inc.

 

Thoughtstream: Put it on a tether

I've spent quite a lot of time working with Small Unmanned Aerial Systems.  I've worked with extraordinarily bright end users, engineers, scientists and program managers to improve system designs and performance. I have also worked diligently to increase awareness and to develop new area's to operate these systems. 

I gave a talk to the AUVSI San Diego Chapter in November and decided to post the core thesis of the talk when I could.

The primary issue was, is and remains to be "low altitude access for small unmanned aerial systems".

I believe this is a national issue and of great importance and interest to every American.

I've spent hundreds (if not thousands) of hours working unmanned systems issues in my career both as a military member and now as a civilian.  The most difficult set of issues that I have personally dealt with (and still deal with) are unmanned systems access to the national airspace in the United States.

My professional assessment is that the United States is at least five years (yes, I said FIVE years) away from any meaningful remedy that will enable rapid, ad-hoc, low altitude national airspace access for Small Unmanned Aerial Systems (SUAS).

So, what does this mean to you or I as American's and taxpayers?

Imagine that a Police Officer has a small drone in the trunk of his or her car.  He or she receives a call that a person is lost in the woods.  They respond by driving to the approximate last known location of the lost person and park their vehicle.  They pull out their small drone system with a camera onboard, launch the system and begin a hasty search of the area. 

I'm not a Law Enforcement expert.  I'm not an expert in conducting searches. (although I've conducted a few searches in my life for lost gear....including a few lost small unmanned aerial systems...which is another story...)

It seems to me, in this situation, an effective and swift response might make a difference.

Today, this Police Officer probably wouldn't have the equipment because no administrator or councilmember or city manager in their right mind would (or perhaps could?)  approve purchasing equipment that is illegal to operate in the United States.

When I say "illegal" I am describing the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) regulations that specify and permit equipment to be operated in the United States National Airspace System every moment of every day at every altitude everywhere in the United States. 

To wit, in large part,the FAA does a fantastic job, considering all of the complexities and issues that they deal with minute by minute with regards to ensuring a safe aviation transportation system. 
 

Put simply, the US national airspace management system (designed in the  1940's) that the FAA uses to keep America's skies safe actually limits and restricts our safety in other ways.

When filing a Flight Plan isn't an option

It doesn't help that police officer may not know specifically where or when he or she might need to begin a hasty search for that lost person.

Presently, in order for that Police Officer (end user) to operate equipment (e.g., Small Unmanned Aerial Systems) in the National Airspace, they are required to have a Certificate of Authorization (COA) Waiver, which is a license of sorts that allows  "specific persons with specifically certified and approved equipment with specified and special permissions to deviate or depart from existing FAA regulations for a specific period of time at a specific location".

Currently, the FAA prefers that all Unmanned Aerial Systems operations (Small, Medium and Large) be confined to Warning Area's and Restricted Area's airspace, Non-Joint use Military Class D airspace and in some cases Class G airspace for "low altitude" access provided that that airspace is owned/controlled by the Federal Government.

Again, unfortunately, this doesn't do the lost person or the first responder much good.

Put another way, Imagine filing a flight plan that takes two years to be approved.

The problem is that it can and does take years to be granted these permissions. (If you can get them).  If you live in area's that are "unsuitable" from the FAA's perspective, your request will be denied or rejected.

Again, unfortunately, this doesn't do the lost person or the first responder much good.

The present regulatory requirements for having pre-approved (Certificate of Authorization Waivers) COA's essentially eliminates the possibility for "rapid and ad-hoc" access to low altitude airspace in the US.  These requirements also eliminate certain US citizens from the value and benefit to a) compete in a burgeoning industry and b) benefit as tax payers and citizens from the protections and capabilities these systems can provide to all of us.

Another time we'll talk about additional consequences of such restrictions such as the impact of lost business opportunities, job creation, industrial diversification and innovation.

I and most of my peers have accepted this to be the present situation for now and into the foreseeable future that we find ourselves in.

Put it on a Tether

The primary reason I decided to design and build an inflatable wing on a tether is a very practical one.

The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) allow moored and tethered equipment (e.g., lighter than air balloons) to operate at or below 500 ft. above ground level (AGL).

So we're developing a new product category that on one hand is an interim solution that can serve to provide "rapid and ad-hoc access" to low altitude airspace in the US.  On the other hand it's also a capability that has merit in that it just might democratize the very undemocratic process of accessing  low altitude airspace in the United States.

One of the biggest benefits of the ASAP product category is actually being able to easily (and legally) get payloads airborne, thereby allowing for low altitude airspace access for numerous reasons, one of which might be searching for that lost child in the woods.

Our early beta customers such as Murray State University and The Department of Justice's Rural Law Enforcement Technology Center and the Border Region Technology Center agree.

Cheers,

John Surmont

Founder/CEO

Sofcoast, Inc.

Thoughtstream: Leadership is knowing when to punt and when to go for it.

For me Football was my first love.  To say I thoroughly enjoy the game of football might be an understatement.  I'm not sure why I am so deeply drawn to the game of football. 

Some of the fondest memories of my life center around football season. Whether it be my memories of the intense focus and attention to be ready each and every down, to the sweet smell of fresh cut grass.  Maybe it was my memory of those grueling two-a-day (and sometimes three-a-day) practices and my sense of accomplishment and self-improvement after each practice session or game.

Maybe it is simply that these are memories of the sounds of my youth. 

I remember like it was yesterday, coaches yelling instructions to my teammates and I who were of course eager to play and demonstrated this in our earnest responses to the gruff cacophonic sounds of barked corrections from somewhere just out of view. 

Maybe it was that I began to discover and unearth my own competitive zeal and physical abilities as I learned about myself and how to work with others in the field of sport.

"Cover!"

"Finish!"

These were words that I remember hearing almost constantly. Maybe that's because I wasn't "covering" well or "finishing" the play well - I'd be willing to bet that that's the case.  Nevertheless, I remember fondly the joy of joining others in a concerted, unified, concentrated and focused effort to accomplish something that I believed to be important.  Playing to win.

The point is that I have, and continue to, draw many parallels between football and other experiences throughout my life.  After watching the NFL's AFC showdown this weekend between Indianapolis and New England, I think every entrepreneur can draw parallels between Football and starting (founding) a business, building and launching a new product or entering a new market.

Here's an article that while it may be speaking specifically about a game, the message is clearly about more than the game of football.

So, what's the life lesson for you?

Cheers,

John

===================================================

What's So Great About Punting?
Belichick's Decision Draws Fire, But Number Crunchers Are in His Corner; the Blackjack Table

By DARREN EVERSON and REED ALBERGOTTI

In the past 24 hours, Bill Belichick has been ripped and ridiculed, caricatured, called a fool and even accused of falling asleep on the job. "I seriously think he might be losing interest," wrote one fan.


New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick moments before deciding not to punt in Sunday night's loss.
But before we run the head coach of the New England Patriots out of town for the tough decision he made in Sunday night's 35-34 loss to the Indianapolis Colts, let's look at the nature of his crime.

Faced with a fourth down in his own territory late in the game with a vulnerable lead, Mr. Belichick decided to let his offense try to win the game with one play. If the Patriots had gained two yards, they would have had a first down and likely been able to run out the clock. The other option, of course, was to punt and, by doing so, leave the outcome of the game in the hands of quarterback Peyton Manning and the Colts.

Put simply, Mr. Belichick is taking flak because he decided, in the middle of a close, hard-fought and emotionally charged game against a major rival, to throw caution to the wind. In other words, he's being pilloried for not being a wimp.

Somehow in American football, the punt—a clear and unambiguous symbol of surrender and retreat—has become the hallmark of sensible coaching.

After the game, many football traditionalists—even some of Mr. Belichick's former players—rushed to denounce the move. Former Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi wrote a column about how the decision showed a lack of confidence in the team's defense, and former Patriots safety Rodney Harrison said afterward that it was the worst coaching decision he'd ever seen Mr. Belichick make.

"I thought it was our best chance to win," Mr. Belichick said at a news conference on Monday.

At the same time, however, football statisticians and the coaches who lurk on the game's cerebral fringe thought Mr. Belichick's decision was heroic.

"I would've thought about [going for] it too," says Texas Tech coach Mike Leach, a law-school graduate who is renowned for his counterintuitive approach to football. "Who cares what people think?"

"Of course I thought it was the right decision," says Kevin Kelley, a high-school football coach at Pulaski Academy in Little Rock, Ark., who has become famous for his strategy of virtually never punting. "If anybody was going to do it, it had to be Belichick. What went through my head was, 'I hope he makes it, because if he doesn't, all the naysayers will say they were right.' But they're still wrong."

The truth depends, of course, on how you slice the numbers. Brian Burke, a statistician who has studied the results of fourth-down situations in the NFL, says a team in the Patriots' situation had a 79% chance of winning by going for it (either by converting the fourth-and-two or stopping the opponent thereafter). That compares favorably to a 70% probability of preventing a foe from driving down the field for a touchdown following a punt.

The human factors can cut both ways. Given that New England's worn-out defense had just allowed a 79-yard touchdown drive to the Colts in under two minutes, Mr. Belichick's gamble made some intuitive sense, too. But at the same time, a punt would have forced Mr. Manning—who'd thrown two interceptions already—to direct his team down the length of the field with two minutes left.

Above all, though, the essence of Mr. Belichick's "crime" may be something simpler than all this: His decision went against the natural instincts of all human beings when they're forced to make high-stakes decisions. In a recent study, researchers from Duke and UCLA found that when faced with a decision involving risk, people have an overwhelming tendency to make the supposedly safe choice—to err on the side of caution—even though doing so may lead to worse results.

By studying thousands of hands of blackjack played by random people, the researchers found that when they strayed from the "book" or the optimal strategy, those players who did something aggressive were more successful than those who did something passive.

In fact, the subjects made four times as many passive mistakes as they did aggressive ones. And these passive mistakes—holding on a 16 when the dealer has a king showing, for example—were more costly: They cost $2 for every $1 won, versus $1.50 for every $1 won on aggressive mistakes.

Why do people embrace caution? "It's because of the regret that people face when they take an action and it doesn't turn out well for them," says Bruce Carlin of UCLA's Anderson School of Management, who worked on the study.

At issue, it seems, is the very idea of what constitutes gambling. If going for it gave the Patriots a statistically better chance of winning—and if aggressive deviations are often better than passive ones—then the gamble would have been to punt, even though that was the seemingly safe play.

"I thought it was nice to see somebody go for it rather than going for it only when it's a no-brainer," says David Romer, a Cal-Berkeley professor of economics who has studied fourth downs in the NFL. "I'm disappointed it didn't work out."

"I'd like to think I would have had the courage to do what Bill did," says NFL Network analyst and former coach Mike Martz.

—Carl Bialik, David Biderman and Phil Izzo contributed to this article
Write to Darren Everson at darren.everson@wsj.com and Reed Albergotti at reed.albergotti@wsj.com

Thoughtstream: Traveling Light

 The past few weeks have been a very exciting time for our business and as a team we’ve been incredibly active in making new sales both hardware and software.  We had a fantastic meeting with Mike O’Shea and his folks in Coronado, CA.  I also attended portions of the AUVSI User Interoperability Conference in Coronado, CA, which I found to be worthwhile as well.

 

The recurring theme that I keep hearing is the desire for interoperable communications at all times in all situations in all environments.  This is a “heavy” requirement that I remember dealing with back in the early part of my SEAL career. 

 

For the majority of the first ten years of my career, I specialized in communications. In the teams we call SEAL’s with a communication specialty, “SEAL Communicators”. As a SEAL communicator, I found that as technology improved, my life improved.  In the early days of my career the equipment that I carried for my platoon was heavy, complicated with cables everywhere.  On long patrols, it wasn’t unusual for the communicator to be one of the heaviest members of the patrolling element, regardless of the nature of the mission.  I also remember having it drilled into my head as a new guy that there were two situations that were taboo for any SEAL.

 

• Loss of equipment or weapons
• Not being able to effectively communicate or “making comms” while in the field.

 

In one of my first training events as a new guy SEAL we were conducting a “swimmer op”, the point here is that we were in the water.  I was the communicator for this event, therefore I had communications equipment in the water with me. The mission profile was for us to be swimming through pier pilings and crossing some pretty difficult water obstacles to perform the tasks we needed to get done.  Needless to say, as a new guy, my methods for securing the communications equipment to my body were lacking and I lost a radio. 

 

This mistake was minor and I recovered from it, however what I discovered was that I didn’t like drawing the kind of attention to myself that one draws when they lose equipment as a SEAL.  Not a happy time for the new guy. 

Forevermore, I vowed that I would never lose anything ever again.  I also vowed that I would never be “that guy” again.  I wouldn’t be the guy who couldn’t “make comms” either. 

 

So as my career progressed, I developed a bit of a following and reputation as a communicator who “made comms” first time, every time.  Today it might be difficult to imagine having difficulty in establishing communications (“being able to contact someone or have some able to contact you.”) but it really was difficult, believe me.

 

“Making comms” became what amounts to be an obsession of mine.  I was determined to ensure contact and connectivity at all times for my unit, and I was successful.  Even if it required me to rewire a cellphone in the middle of the gulf of mexico and access the private cell network owned by the Shell Oil company….to this day I appreciate the anonymous operator who patched my call through as my team was out of gas drifting out to sea and I was able to establish communications in order to change the location we were extracted because we didn’t have the fuel to make our extract point.

 

For me I learned that communications was truly a lifesaving system.  I also believe that I probably carried a bit more equipment than most other communicators, simply because I was always concerned that I might not have something I might need and for me not being able to establish communications was unacceptable.

 

I’m learning that as technology advances, the burden of being a “strongback” to carry stuff diminishes, but the critical importance of being able to rapidly establish and maintain communications anywhere is even more important.

 

We’ve taken additional steps to target and meet this need with the our latest ASAP design.  This next system, code named “Eager Talent” will be even more disruptive than the previous ASAP X4C design some of you have seen.  We will be unveiling “Eager Talent” in the next couple of months.

 

I’ll leave you with a clue.

 

 

I’ve started to enjoy Cliff Bars quite a bit lately, especially the White Chocolate Macadamia Nut flavor!  While enjoying my tasty treat, I glanced at the back of the package and found some remarks from the founder, Gary Erickson.  I’ll quote what’s on the White Chocolate Macadamia Nut package:

            “While trekking Nepal, I met up with an expedition about to climb Dhaligiri, one of the world’s highest peaks. I figured that with more than 200 porters the expedition must have been traveling with at least 20,000 pounds of stuff Expeditionary climbing takes an enormous amount of energy, equipment, and people, to put just a handful of individuals on top of a mountain.  My friends and I prefer to climb alpine style, we move quickly, carry light packs, and leave no waste behind.  Each campsite is a beautiful destination in itself, not simply a means to an end.  I don’t believe in reaching the top at any cost – in climbing or business.  Clif Bar’s journey resembles alpine climbing.  We try to travel light and are committed to keeping our company, products, people, community, and the earth healthy.”  Gary Erickson, Founder and Owner of Clif Bar & Company.

 

 

With the “Eager Talent” system we are doing much of the “heavy lifting” for our customers in enabling them with a “travel light” capability that moves them closer to establishing and maintaining interoperable communications and information flow at all times in all situations and in all environments.

 

Cheers,

 

John Surmont

Founder, CEO

Sofcoast, Inc.

 

Thoughtstream: Sofcoast's Implementation of Situational Awareness Infrastructure

I couldn't help but laugh when I read Fred Wilson's post The Golden Triangle.  One of his most poignant quotes is below...

"The three current big mega trends in the web/tech sector are mobile, social, and real-time."

I laughed because over the past 5 years (yes, it really has been that long...) I've attempted to articulate my vision for a "Situational Awareness Infrastructure" system for "the masses" to pretty much anyone who would/could listen to me.  I have been connected to some VC's, I've also heard from other Sofcoast co-founders and board members, product managers and advisors that when they describe Sofcoast and this vision of a "Situational Awareness Infrastructure Technology" most of them can't comprehend and just get confused.

We also had the opportunity to bring our idea to In-Q-Tel and ironically, they've told us that we're "too far along" and "too well connected" to DoD to be interested. 

I've since passed this along to my network and they've all kind of scratched their heads..

The irony is that Fred Wilson with Union Square Ventures is now articulating what I've been working on for the past five years as an individual and for the past three years as a company.

Think about it.  Unless I was targeting something that could have an even bigger impact and benefit to society than my existing chosen profession why would I leave a 15 year career as a Navy SEAL?

I wouldn't.

So, in 2006, I decided to step "into the void" and prepare to exploit the massive creation activity and opportunities in bringing a broad array of areas together like material science, textiles, manufacturing processes, web, computing and mobile tech. The real opportunity that I set out to target is the gap in the areas of contextually relevant activity stream integration, human computer communications, human computer interfaces as well as the always difficult attributes of end-user relevance and system affordability.

My goal has been and continues to be to build on the 15+ years of experience and expertise I've developed with mobile information systems such as tactical communications, unmanned aerial systems, ground based robotics, communications software systems, sensors in order to build out a new type of "Awareness Dimension"  for "high value", "mobile" and "edge users". Such as "high demand, low density" users (I translate this for civilians as "High-Value" users) such as hard to reach in the field experts. Example types of social software systems tools are Situational Awareness tools and common operating picture (COP) tools. As for real-time, (it doesn't get any more "real-time" than targeting and manhunting).

Here's a brief rundown of key milestones with our Three2Link system as well....

• November 2007 developed conceptual spec for mobile software
• January 2008 fielded early alpha prototype of WeieDo
• May 2008 developed conceptual spec for SaaS platform
• July 2008 filed "continuous media flow" patent.
• August 2008 fielded early alpha prototype of SaaS platform - WeieLink
• February 2009 fielded functional system demo called WeieMedia
• September 2009 - Renamed software system to "Three2Link" (mobile, social, real-time)
• Present - Continuing to successfully market and develop early interest and pilot customers.

You can also learn more about my thinking in two of my previous posts. Diffusion vs. Scale and "Context Efficiency - aka the Point".

What's the real issue here?

Perhaps it is that business models require "scale" in order to provide investor returns and historical bias against diffusion is manifest in which business plans and business models are successful. Maybe the problem is that business models haven't "caught up" yet?  It definitely seems like many of us are out here in "no man's land" on "the edge" attempting to leverage the converging benefits of scale with the benefits of diffusion and offering an opportunity to enable the Enterprise to catch up.

Think about it. Enterprise level software is software which provides business logic support functionality for an enterprise, typically in commercial organizations, which aims to improve the enterprise's productivity and efficiency.  Services provided by enterprise software are typically business-oriented tools such as online shopping and online payment processing, interactive product catalogue, automated billing systems, security, content management, CRM, ERP, Business Intelligence, HR Management, Manufacturing, EAI etc. Characteristics of enterprise software are performance, scalability, and robustness. Enterprise software typically has interfaces to other enterprise software ( for example LDAP to directory services) and is centrally managed ( a single admin page for example).

Additionally, enterprise solutions don't scale "down and across" very well, especially for in field applications or for people in highly constrained environments or "edge" users.  Translation:  Enterprises need a minimum of infrastructure to function.  How does a diffuse network of people who have lost a robust infrastructure organize, manage and cope?

With the Three2Link system, Sofcoast is relentlessly focusing on leveraging the power, opportunities and efficiencies (contextual and otherwise) of mobility (dispersion, diffusion) create, while empowering these highly mobile user's  with relevant (actionable and real-time) activity stream integration (scale) while providing the social overlay (relevance) people have grown accustomed to in their day to day personal lives.

Cheers,

John Surmont, founder & CEO

About

Sofcoast develops affordable, game-changing solutions that empower local, national and global entities in the public and private sectors to connect and enable mobile field workers, defend against danger and loss, and restore stability in the event of disaster.

Thoughtstream: Low Friction Innovation Redux

Is affordability the new luxury?

One of the core foundational theories that sparked the creation of Sofcoast is that there has been and continues to be massive creation activity in a broad array of areas to include material science, textiles, manufacturing processes, web, computing and mobile tech.  Yet there is a gap in the areas of activity stream integration, human computer communications, human computer interfaces, end-user relevence and affordability.  The way I describe it today is that I'm an adherent to Paretto's principle, check out a previous post where I talk about "Good Enough". 

In one of my previous posts, I introduced my personal philosophy for innovation, titled "Low Friction Innovation"  (I haven't yet discussed my framework for analysis and design called "PIP-C, which I'll do another time.)

In this thoughtstream, I was making observations by drawing parallels with the work that Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt has done in developing his philosophy called theory of constraints, which is a discourse on effectively producing desired outcomes.  For me, innovation is very simply that:  Finding or creating ways, methods, means, techniques or tools to effectively produce outcomes ---- THAT ARE CONTEXTUALLY RELEVANT.

In the course of my studying his philosophy, Dr. Goldratt's point that social inertia can in fact become the largest constraint for groups and organizations to overcome.  Social Inertia is defined on Wikipedia as a term "...used to describe the resistance to change presented by societies or social groups, usually due to habit."

Understandably, there are other approaches to innovation that are critically important.  My point here is that Low Friction Innovation is not new to humanity and only in recent modern history has mankind even had alternative structures (collectively termed by yours truly as "high-friction innovation") to tackle problems.  Obviously, in modern history as societies developed industrialization and now as we're all witnessing, post-industrialization, bigger problems have been solveable as these new structures such as government organizations, militaries, taxation systems, economic and monetary policy, education, industries and of course markets with customers continued to evolve. 

Think about it, people living in caves had very little choice and were faced with tremendous resource constraints other than to simply adapt as best they could.  It's kind of funny to think about how fire, the wheel and a common language are the three most significant innovations of pre-industrialized society, yet to us they seem crude, prehistoric and "totally obvious!". 

Alternatively,  think about the difficulty of putting man on the moon without a commitment to a higher purpose and a willingness to target something with massive (almost unfathomable) friction and constraints like the Apollo Space Program.   This is one of those accomplishments of humankind that rest on thousands of innovations, some of them low-friction and others high-friction and if cost/risk were the driver, Tranquility Base  wouldn't exist.

So, how should society view innovation today and in the future?  Should this be an "either - or" question? or some type of hybridized way of thinking? Perhaps the question is a simple one:  How does social inertia impact our military industrial complex and academic research community?  Does it produce bias towards high-friction innovations?  (I guess I could ask the same question the other way about the structures for financing new ventures and startups as well..)  If so what does this bias mean to all of the constiuents including the most important constituent (in my humble viewpoint) the end-user, followed closely by the taxpayer?

What Social Inertia's are we dealing with in the United States in our socio-economic systems, our politics, financial and economic and our military and defense establishments?

Alternatively, what social inertia's are present in developing societies?  In failed states and 3rd world countries? How does this play out on a global scale?  How does this play out regionally and locally? What is the impact to the Humanitarian Assistance Organizations and Relief Groups?

In his farewell Military Industrial Complex speech in 1960, President Eisenhower provided a warning to the American People of the risks to our society in developing the "armament industry" as he put it....

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry  is new  in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

Throughout my entire career spanning military service as well as my post-service career, I've had ongoing discussions about this "low friction" or "good enough" philosophy.  In many cases I've proven over and over that this philosophy works in very practical ways and this has provided  me with opportunities to further describe additional advantages and benefits which include reduced cost requirements. (Actually the costs don't disappear, they are simply "transferred" from hardcosts to intangible "soft" costs, i.e., the organization must shift from a "top-down" model to a learning and self-aware knowledge focused organization) which can translate into increased efficiencies across the organization (and as a byproduct, lead to more efficient cost models which equates to "affordable" capabilities) that can be fielded much faster and with increasingly precise relevance for end users. 

Of course my background is with Special Operations Forces, which has been shown to be one of the most economical and cost effective military capabilities in the history of modern warfare, so efficiecient use and deployment of resources to tackle tough problems is kind of in my DNA....

If you'd like a more recent example of someone warning society about the hazards of certain social inertia's inducing painful constraints, look no further than this week. In an October 7th, 2009 article titled "Future Weapons Need to be Adaptable, Cost Less" (Aerospace & Defense News) General James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that the United States can no longer afford to "cut out large chunks of its defense budget" for weapons systems that provide "ony a niche capability". 

The most poignant comment made by General Cartwright is that "no matter how good a weapon system is, it has to be affordable, which  flies in the face of most of the entrenched industry experts

Does this mean that  affordability is now the new luxury for a society confronted with constraints ("contractions" or "corrections") not seen since the great depression? Even for Large Defense Programs procurement? Is this an indication of some sort of a shift? 

I'm not sure.

These are my thoughts. I guess they manifest from my own social inertia's, coming from a rural community in Southeastern Kentucky where as they say "pickens are slim", since I was a little boy struggling to find food for my mother and myself, to growing up observing a genius entrepeneur (my grandfather, RL Owens), to my unforgettable experiences as a Navy SEAL to the most challenging experience of my life (no kidding) starting Sofcoast, it's ingrained in me to find or create a solution to whatever problem I'm faced with.  I think most people have this survival instinct, whether they know it or not. 

Sometimes we as people forget that we can accomplish much more than we may think we can.  Sometimes we as people need to produce experiences to remind us of this.

Don't let yourself be what President Theodore Roosevelt called "..those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

Get moving.

This is important because it is at the core of Sofcoast's value system.  Everything Sofcoast stands for is based on the vision that affordability is not a codeword for "small", "cheap","low quality", "sub-par" or a "partial fit".

Affordability means being responsible.  It means making a positive contribution to society and humanity. It means being mindful to maintain a balanced view. It means developing and adhering to a sort of intellectual discipline and "technical frugality" to elegantly design in ways that continuously contribute positively to humanity.

Maybe another excerpt from President Eisenhower's farewell speech might help describe one of the core tenents of Sofcoast's value system as he warns all of us to be careful of impalanced views....

"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Cheers,

John S. Surmont, Sofcoast founder & CEO

Sofcoast develops affordable, game-changing solutions that empower local, national and global entities in the public and private sectors to connect and enable mobile field workers, defend against danger and loss, and restore stability in the event of disaster.