Good and bad things of service integration in travelling

I'm not a true frequent traveller but I do complete my fair share of miles per year, mostly to destinations abroad. One of the things that I find particularly convenient, especially when I travel for work, is service integration across different companies. It is something that is usually meant to save time and money, often carrying the peace of mind bonus, too!

'Travel' by Vasile Hurghis
under a CC license

Service integration is not a truly novel thing but the steps we 've been seeing so far were rather timid. Some, such as the code-sharing flights of different airlines, are well established as a practice. Package holidays and all-inclusive resorts also have a long history in most places. Others, such as booking travel chains consisting of, say, airport parking - flight - car rental - hotel, are a bit newer.

Judging service integration as a practice depends on what vantage point one chooses. For the traveller, the emphasis is usually on the convenience factor. Things may seem differently, however, if one chooses to focus on value or the impact on the ecosystem of businesses (or the ecosystem in regions, including people and businesses) affected by this practice.

Intrapreneurship: should organisations embrace the on-the-clock pet-project approach?

In a business, pet-projects are small-scale projects of individual employees, under their full personal control, carried out within the organisation, often using resources of the organisation.

'Luminous idea' by Tiago Daniel
under a CC license

Pet-projects have gained visibility through the successful practices of companies such as Google, HP, 3M, Genetech, IBM and others. There, employees have been given the flexibility - and have even been encouraged - to allocate a percentage of their normal working time between 15 and 20% to a personal project of theirs that may be (and usually is) different to and independent from their ongoing work tasks.

But is the policy of allowing employee pet-projects worth it or is it just a (persistent but limited) hype?

Finding the right balance between the group and the individual

'Balancing Rocks' by Viewminder
under a CC license

We often hear that successful organisations are based on effective teams. Almost equally often we hear that successful organisations are those with charismatic, efficient leaders. Those statements are complementing rather than contradicting each other. However, as the headcount and complexity of structure, operations and objectives of organisations increases, the importance of the teams that operate them becomes increasingly important. A major challenge in teams of a given composition is how to balance between the needs/ priorities of the individual and the needs/ priorities of the group.

Open source software: a helping hand for growth

Open source software is one of the things that occasionally gets entangled in the webs of ideology, politics and corporate marketing talk. However, open source software is a rather simple idea: Develop something, using an open, collaborative approach if possible, make it available to the public as a product, together with its source code and let them use it as they please. That simple.

Does this development model even make sense? Why would anybody do this? How can open source development pay their bills and, more importantly, who provides support to open source software users?

Is internet access a critical service?

Internet access is a mission-critical factor for most modern businesses. Even for individuals, internet access is amongst the top priorities covering both work and leisure reasons and has increasingly found its way to bars, hotels of any price range, libraries and public spaces. At a political level, Information Society (a part of which is internet infrastructure and services) is considered to be a tool for maintaining and strengthening human rights, while there are voices supporting a further upgrade of internet access as a civil/ human right.

'Internet open 7 days til late'
by duncan c under a CC license

Having said that,  the penetration of internet access across the population varies a lot from country to country (and from region to region). Recent usage statistics indicate that internet access ranges between about 26% of the population for Africa to about 88% for North America. For Europe the figure is at about 70%, ranging from 42% for Ukraine to 98% for Luxembourg. While increasing trends exist in nearly all regions world-wide and internet has established presence even in remote areas, access to internet is still far from, say, access to mobile telephony services, where, for instance, in Europe there are 125 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.

Despite the fact that a small-but-significant of the population don't have the means to access the internet, wherever internet access has been established it has had a marked impact on business practices, both in the private and the public sectors. Communication, ordering, data gathering, information dissemination, archiving, networking, etc., are processes that tend to be done exclusively via IT and internet resources in places where such resources are available, of course.

But is internet access being treated as a critical service?

Face-to-face meetings. Still much needed.

'Penguins have a meeting' by
Laura Taylor under a CC license

Businesses and people have grown past the local scale for quite some time now making communication an obvious priority. Despite the increasing number of communication means available, face-to-face meetings still persist. That happens in spite of their higher cost compared to other commonly available alternatives. Why is that? Are they truly irreplaceable?

In all the jobs I had so far, the king of communication means was e-mail. Formal or informal, long or short, pre-run by the management or not. Yes, I have had the experience of the occasional paper-printed letter and, unfortunately, a bit more often, the experience of its distant cousin, the fax message. And then it has been the phone. Plenty of my working hours have been spent there. Every once in while, though, I had to arrange for or participate in face-to-face meetings. So far, that has been with clients or potential clients, project partners, funding bodies, policy makers, working group members, colleagues and peers, top management executives, middle management, trainees, sector stakeholders, ..., you name it...

Have all those face-to-face meetings been worth the time and the cost, especially when international travel was involved? Yes. Even when the hard objectives of the meeting were not met.

You see, when you interact with others in the real word, you exchange much more information than that which words alone convey. This can be via body language, via facial expressions, via interactions with others that may be present but not part of the meeting, via comments that although irrelevant to the topic of the meeting convey information when perceived in context, etc. More importantly, this exchange of information goes both ways. At the end of most of my meetings I had a clear feeling on where things were going and that, in turn, helped me choose my follow-up actions accordingly.

Face-to-face meetings are engaging, too. Agreement (or disagreement) on actions feels firmer. Trust (or distrust) is established more easily and so are other things, such as tolerance, patience and understanding - all necessary from time-to-time in successful, durable collaborations - that we exhibit in our everyday life but are harder to do when using, say, written means of communication.

I admit that I haven't done any hard-fact cost-benefit analysis. But face-to-face meetings still get a lot of praise, having several valid reasons in their support. True, virtual meetings, including video conferences (conference calls never really appealed to me), have a lot of potential but they also come with their own disadvantages, as people in the meeting consultancy side say. Of course, when resources are running thin, one can always try to make the best out of virtual meetings. After all, face-to-face meetings do have their own peculiarities :-)

(as anything that involves people)

 

(but are still better than conference calls)

Doing good

Doing good or, at least, doing something good, is very much within the spirit of these days (Christmas, New Year's Eve, Epiphany). People are willing to be more open, to give to those in need, to contribute to good causes and to feel that they are doing their (little) bit to make world (or, even, a tiny part of it) a better place.

'Donation box' (cropped
and size-reduced), originally
by Yukiko Matsuoka
under a CC licesne

I won't say that doing good is in our very nature, while - to some extent - it most probably is. Altruism is a characteristic that has been examined by many different viewpoints (scientific, evolutionary, philosophical, religious, etc.) and, while not unique to humans, it has contributed to what humanity is today.

Instead, I'll stick to the simplistic view that, given the right chance and the right environment, most people would choose to do good, regardless of the exact reason behind their choice.

Indeed, our social ecosystem includes numerous local, trans-regional and international organisations devoted to good causes. Charities, as non-governmental organisations, have a recognised status in many countries, giving them privileges, such as tax exemptions or administrative simplifications, so as to facilitate their work. Some doing-good-oriented organisations go after a higher profile (and have catchy names, e.g., the Do Something Great Today Foundation, Doing Something Good, DoGoodVolunteer, etc.). Some are lucky enough to have lots of resources, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and can, thus, work on diverse projects and places. Others, like the Medecins sans frontieres are much more "thematically" focused.

There are also non-governmental charity organisations that are contributing to society in a very different way. Think of the Mozilla Foundation (that is behind the Firefox browser), the Wikimedia Foundation (which is behind Wikipedia), the Electronic Frontier Foundation, etc. These are organisations with a mission that is relevant and has an impact to the public' s normal, everyday life.

There also non-profits that provide funding mechanisms to help those in need. Kiva, for instance, facilitates people to provide microloans to people all around the world. While those are not donations but loans (i.e., people will have to return the capital + interest) they are thought to help local development since they address "investments" that are not within the core business of typical banks. They may provide, for instance, the money a farmer needs to get fertiliser for this year's crop, i.e., they normally provide small amounts of money.

Microcredit organisations are not the only type of crowdfunding. The crowdfunding category is very diverse and, altogether, as an alternative way to get funding is becoming increasingly available and popular. Although not a clear charity mechanism, crowdfunding platforms allow people with a vision to address the wide public and ask for support. The rules of the game vary greatly amongst the different platforms. Indiegogo and Kickstarter are popular examples for individuals (you can also have a look at the 7 most supported Indiegogo campaigns and at the most funded Kickstarter projects) but there numerous other services with very different operation styles, some of which are best suited for businesses.

In other cases, there are business entities that include charity support in their business model (e.g., Humble Bundle Inc.). And, of course, there is the - thankfully increasing - trend of corporate social responsibility, where enterprises - of any size or business sector - give back to the society.

Then there is volunteering (e.g., Global Volunteer Network, International Volunteer Programs Association, etc.. As a means, it has been used extensively both at times/ places of need and as an additional assistance to the normal mechanisms in place.

So, are we having enough charity to make sure that our world is enjoying a life that meets - at least - the minimum "acceptable" standards?

No. Really, we are far from that.

The resources made available through our current charity ecosystem, together with the resources allocated by governments, international organisations, etc., cannot meet the actual demand, which is substantial, even in middle- and high-income countries (albeit for different things than low-income countries).

Yes, there are also concerns regarding efficiency in the mechanisms used to channel resources from those who provide them to those who need them. Fraud is another concern that occasionally arises.

But that doesn't make giving, donating, volunteering and supporting good causes pointless. Despite current shortcomings, doing good always counts!

Even if it helps a single individual for a finite amount of time...

Full disclosure and disclaimer: As of writing this post, I have not been affiliated to or have been supported by any of the organisations mentioned in this post. Also, I have not specifically enquired for or used their services. Thus, I am in no position to endorse them (or not) and my mentioning them herein is not meant to constitute an endorsement. Any organisation or organisation type mentioned in this post is for information purposes only. Most likely, there many similarly-minded organisations out there. If you want to donate or contribute to a cause or if you want to receive assistance, do take the time needed to find and compare the alternatives suitable for you.

The Dunning-Kruger effect...

'Neon Jester' by Thomas Hawk
under a CC license

...or 'confidence and competence are two very different things' or, at a more direct approach, 'never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity'.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the condition where one feels confident for one's performance, despite the fact that one doesn't have the required skills. At the same time, skilled individuals may lack confidence because they assume that they are no better than their peers. Thus, self-evaluation tends to work in different ways in skilled and unskilled individuals, with the former being more critical to their performance while the latter failing to realise their shortcoming.

The Dunning-Kruger effect manifests itself in many parts of everyday life and could help explain several of the shortfalls we witness around us. For instance, managers that may have been selected for their confidence and overall attitude, may be prone to repeated errors of judgement, if they are not skilled on the subject matter of their business. Since a tall, multi-layer management structure is commonly adopted across many sectors, such cases might be more common than one would think.

However, the effect does have its limits and it can be mitigated or, even, avoided. The fact that it does not demonstrate itself at the same intensity across different cultures indicates that it is affected by the way people are raised and the environment they are exposed to. It also suggests that is can be addressed though the education system, which would also work on the approaches that people use for self-evaluation.

Indeed, we need to ensure that people understand the value of expertise, especially when we are talking about people that go up the management ladder. We also need to make experts more visible and accessible, in particular to people in power. More importantly, we need to find ways to promote teamwork and encourage the formation of multi-skill (and possibly also multi-cultural) flexible groups within organisations, not being afraid to use flat or matrix organisational structures, so as to ensure that problems are correctly identified and assessed and that solutions are well-conceived and implemented.

These are easy things to say but would require plenty of small changes in order to ensure that such system would survive. For example, remuneration, benefits and motivation perks would need to be allocated under a modified rational. Appraisals would also need to be carried out in a different way. Quality practices (which normally do assume that tasks are carried out by suitable experts) may also need to be adapted.

Dilbert by Scott Adams, Strip of 26/08/1992