I used to have a term a few years ago in the world of 'Change Management'. It was 'Permafrost'.
  • The C Suite wanted change – they could see that if they didn’t, their company would be dust.
  • The people on the ground wanted change – they could see the efficiencies it would bring

No – it was the layer in the middle – paper pushers, middle management, the land of CYA Memos … no change required. Status Quo rules. The permafrost layer.

Which got me to wondering about all that data that we have. More every minute. More generated in the past two years than we had managed since the start of civilization. And yet we still know so little. Is Data the new permafrost – that ‘essential layer’ that doesn’t add value because nobody really knows what to do with it ?


What do you think ?

            <a href="http://beyondbridges.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Ben-Thompson.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-3329" src="http://beyondbridges.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Ben-Thompson-200x300.jpg" alt="Benjamin" width="200" height="300" /></a>Another excellent article from <a href="http://stratechery.com/2015/facebook-and-the-feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ben Thompson</a> at Stratechery. But couldn't help but notice his comment "Everyone loves to mock Paul Krugman’s <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/19980610100009/www.redherring.com/mag/issue55/economics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">1998 contention</a> about the limited economic impact of the Internet:"

The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in “Metcalfe’s law” – which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants – becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other!

I think there is nothing to mock – and Krugman was spot on. People generally do have nothing to say to each other. Check out most of the pages on Facebook – banality and ‘check out this’ tends to be the order of the day. True – Ben goes on to say

Was Krugman wrong because he didn’t appreciate the relative worth people put on what folks in their network wanted to say, or because he didn’t appreciate that people in their network may not have much to say but a wealth of information to share?

… so he does recognize that really what is going on is sharing – and amplification … rarely interesting conversation (I set the FB group world aside on this) is rare.

So is Facebook destined to simply become a mass media amplification system ?