Matthew, (01)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew West [mailto:dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 30 January 2011 09:38
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
> Subject: RE: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Elevator Pitch
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> > I know you asked for a short speech, but this seems to be turning into
> > a discussion.
>
> MW: That's fine.
> >
> > I recall people phrasing this in change management terms. If you want
> > someone to scratch, you need to persuade them they have an itch.
> >
> > Where this seems to me relevant here is that as with many new things,
> > ontology can be used to fix things that are not currently perceived as
> > problems. The question is how to make them be perceived as problems -
> > how
> to
> > make them itch.
> > The issue is not so much they are not problems, but that people are so
> used
> > to the situation they no longer perceive them as problem. I have
> > sometimes heard this called the 'learned helplessness syndrome': where
> > people have
> got
> > so used to a problem, they ignore its existence.
> >
> > John said "Vague slogans and talking points are useless. These
> > questions must be answered with hard facts, case studies, and
> > results." And the official wisdom is right in many cases.
> >
> > However, I think there is another way of looking at this.
> > Market diffusion theory
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations ) identifies
> > innovators, who are characterised as people who can form a vision
> > without "the hard facts, case studies, and results" John talks about.
> > In my personal experience, these people exist (not many) and have
> > budgets (even fewer) and these are the most likely candidates for a
> > project. (As
> an
> > aside, you qualify (or did when you worked at Shell).
>
> MW: I'd put this slightly differently. In Shell, there were two types of
people
> making decisions on things like this, technocrats, and business budget
> holders. The technocrats are the first barrier (I think this is what you
think
> of as the innovators). You have to persuade these guys that you are not
> selling snake oil, and they are technically savvy enough to see if
something
> stacks up or not - that's their job. After that you still have to get
money from
> the Business Budget Holders. This focuses on the business case for some
> specific implementation of a technology. Some key considerations are: (02)
CP> If you look at the literature on market diffusion of innovations, there
is no assumption or expectation that the innovator is a technocrat. Indeed,
technocrats are often blind to innovations in their field because they are
embedded in the current paradigm. You may have been an exception in this
case. In the literature, the innovator is characterised as having the
ability to construct a vision from the limited facts available - as this
will be the case for a new technology.
CP> My experience has been that this analysis seems to fit.
CP> In fact, it is a useful guide to who will be receptive. If someone asks
says they want something innovative but an essential requirement is that it
has been implemented successfully at hundreds of site (or has a significant
market share, or something similar) then they are late majority by nature
and unlikely to purchase. (03)
>
> - recognition of the problem in business terms,
> - the benefits from implementing the solution being realisable,
> - the implementation plan being achievable,
> - the perceived risks being acceptable.
>
> MW: So I see two specific audiences. Personally, I am most concerned about
> the Business Budget Holder. (04)
CP> See above. Only one audience, unless what you term the 'technocrat' is
an influencer on the budget holder. (05)
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
> >
> > In this case, the issue is having a vision - which is different from
> > hard facts, case studies, and results.
> >
> > Interestingly, the case is similar in some cases of scientific
> development.
> > I recall referring John to Kuhn's paper on measurement, where he said
> > that having measurement was a sign of maturity in science, not
innovation.
> >
> > So, I'd suggest working out where the innovators with budgets are and
> > then getting in the lift with them, and then present your vision.
> > And, returning to the point I started with, innovators tend to be
> > looking for itches so easier to persuade they have one.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> > > summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> > > Sent: 28 January 2011 14:55
> > > To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Elevator Pitch
> > >
> > > Dear Matthew and Mills,
> > >
> > > MW
> > > > there are different audiences we need to reach, so unless you are
> > > > just addressing a general audience, please state the audience you
> > > > are are addressing.
> > >
> > > Yes indeed. An elevator pitch must be tailored to the interests of
> > > the
> > person
> > > you are talking to.
> > >
> > > MD
> > > > First, make a case to the senior most executive that your solving
> > > > a problem, meeting a challenge, exploiting an opportunity that
> > > > matters to him/her and the organization.
> > >
> > > The IBM sales force had one fundamental guideline:
> > >
> > > Before you can sell the solution, you must sell the problem.
> > >
> > > Before anybody at any level is going to want an ontology, they must
> > > be convinced of two things: (1) they have a serious problem, and
> > > (2) a
> good
> > > ontology can solve that problem.
> > >
> > > Before we can sell the idea of ontology to anybody, we have to ask
> > ourselves
> > > some very serious questions:
> > >
> > > 1. What problem(s) can an ontology solve?
> > >
> > > 2. How are those problems being solved (or bypassed) today?
> > >
> > > 3. Could an ontology solve or help solve those problems
> > > better than tools that don't use an explicit ontology?
> > >
> > > 4. How?
> > >
> > > Vague slogans and talking points are useless. These questions must
> > > be answered with hard facts, case studies, and results.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > > _
> > > Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > > Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> > > summit/
> > > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Community Files:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> > > bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > > Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
> > Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > Community Wiki:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (07)
|