X : Our strategy doesn't align with our business.
Me : How do you mean?
X : We create these strategy documents but they never really get implemented as the day to day business takes over.
Me : That's common. Can I ask a question?
X : Sure
Me : ... Me : Do you map?
X : I've heard of your technique but we don't use it.
Me : Ok, so your business operations is not based upon a map of the landscape?
X : No
Me : And your strategy is not based upon a map of the landscape?
X : No
Me : What made you think they would align?

X : Why do you continue to use twitter / X?
Me : Because I like the tool and the crowd.
X : Do you support @elonmusk
Me : No. I disagree on many of his views.
X : He is far right.
Me : Perspective matters. US is generally more right wing & Silicon Valley especially so. X : What do you mean by "Perspective matters"?
Me : Elon's views are not that unusual for Silicon Valley - . There's a lot of support based upon a different view of economics and government.
X : Different?
Me : Different from Europe. cbsnews.com/news/trump-jd-…

X : What do you need to do in order to map a business?
Me : Ask ...
1) "Who are the users?" (at the least, include consumers and the business)
2) "What are their needs?"
3) "What is the chain of components required to meet those needs?"
4) "How evolved are those components?"
... Me : Once you have done that, allow others to challenge it. Even better, build the map with others. It really is that simple.
X : But creating a map is difficult.
Me : Only to those used to making decisions without understanding users, needs, the supply chain etc.

dX: How do you deal with strategy?
Me: First, we need to answer the Where question, which depends a lot on the what and why.
dX: And?
Me: Ok, some very simple steps ... Step 1: Visualise your environment. That means getting people to discuss, collaborate & challenge in order to create a "good enough" map of your environment. Should be a couple of hours.
Step 2: Look at what's changing which is competitor moves, your moves & economic patterns.

Those born in the 1890s experienced electrification, telephone, radio, television, nuclear age, penicillin, two world wars, commercial flight, computer age and a moon landing. By the 60s we had AI, VR and 3D printing.

Today, we have the internet / www and have improved stuff. Is it me, or is human progress slowing down? Great breakthroughs, moments of change, and radical transformations seem like a thing of the past. What we call "revolutions" in industry today seems mostly a marketing slogan.

No surprises, this was clearly signalled back in 2015.

During this decade has the US disentangled its reliance on China in the semiconductor industry?

I'll let you guess.

https://twitter.com/Byron_Wan/status/1771874130885005643

We will be entering a phase in which the US high-tech industry (including the military complex) is highly dependent upon China, whilst China is not dependent upon the US.

A couple of prompts with Claude 3 creates a Wardley Map for economic sovereignty in the defence space.

Not bad at all -

On par with political, military and defence folk I've spoken to. I'm also finding I can have a reasonable discussion about mapping with Claude 3.onlinewardleymaps.com/#clone:XvHskIi… It's not perfect but it's not bad. There's more I want to interrogate Claude over ... i.e. the link to secure sourcing, the positioning of some components etc. But it's almost good enough that I can start a discussion over strategy and investment.

dX: What is the single most significant problem facing AI today? Safety? Lack of skills? Inertia?
Me: Overinflated expectations by the business. dX: You don't think AI will become widespread?
Me: Of course, it will; industrialised components are rapidly becoming cost of doing business. Don't confuse that with expectations. There will be an awful lot of disappointed businesses hoping it would create some advantage.

For those who don't know, I'm working increasingly on and with Glamorous Toolkit - ... I have become fascinated by our willingness to blame humans for problems that are created by our toolsets ...gtoolkit.com ... I saw this last night at Cloud Camp. Apparently, the issues with understanding, explainability and observability in AI are down to humans' inability to deal with complex environments... no, they're not. The problem is with the tools and the type of tools we are creating ...

dX: Have you thought about adding another axis for your maps
Me: Hmmm. Maps start with identifiers users and their needs ... ... the understanding the chain of components needed ...

Faulty products, harm to users, executives profiteering, fighting compensation ... what is truly bizarre about the Fujitsu Horizon case is that the public seems to think that this is an isolated example rather than the normal way that traditional corporations act. Just take a look into any industry, pick something like retail with BNPL (by now pay later) to EWA (earned wages access) to use of slave labour. It's story after story of despicable behaviour, of exploitation of both workers and consumers in pursuit of profit.

dX: Any thoughts on cell based structures?
Me: Do you mean, "use small teams" i.e. take a map and break it into small teams?
dX: Yes
Me: It's in my doctrine table, I've been doing this for 18+ years, I think it's a good idea ... BUT ..
dX: But?

1/2

Me: You really want to get the basics done first, like understanding your users, their needs, the components involved, etc.
dX: Can't we just add cells?
Me: And the cells will magically fix the org for you without any work? Sounds like some McKinsey ppt. I would start with the basics.

2/2

Let's hope that before becoming entangled in a more extensive conflict, we have thoroughly contemplated not only territorial aspects but the wider technological, economic, social, and political landscapes. It is crucial to pay attention to supply chains from energy supplies to agriculture to rare earths -> To give you an idea, around 21% of automotive parts ship through that region and though there are alternative paths, some perishable goods might not survive the journey. Land-based shipments have problems because of other existing conflicts.

dX: Do you use Cynefin?
Me: I find it useful.
dX: Can I replace your evolution axis with ...
Me: Complex, complicated ...
dX: Yes
Me: No
dX: Why? Let us take a map. A user has some need met by some capability for which there are three competing solutions, all at different stages of evolution in the product space ... e.g. it could be power production and micronuclear vs tidal power vs solar

Choices, choices ... when your existing system of power is under threat you can either

a) adapt

or

b) double down on reinforcing existing power structures through fear of others, of change etc.

"I only have one rule. Everyone fights" Johnny Rico.

https://twitter.com/andrewmichta/status/1741477585085665507

In other words, when the ruling power (and its agency) is under threat then the tendency is to double down on "threat from others", that sense of belonging to a collective (which has mostly been ignoring you) and concerns over safety ->

Looking forward to reading this. I don't know the deets yet. Fingers crossed they went with the proposals giving exemptions for open source. By that, I mean actually open source - including training data - and not pretending to be open with a subset of the symbolic instructions. Otherwise, it'll be game, set and match to China shortly ->

https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1733256557448630344

btw ... minor quibble. China's generative AI laws came out on the 15th of August.

The mañana mañana fallacy of growth ... if only we grow, can we fix the problems. This is sad to see, repeating the mantra of neoliberalism as if there was no alternative. Often accompanied by slurs of "grown up", "responsible", and "realism". I suppose it could be worse. Labour could be arguing for supply-side economics and the trickle-down effect.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1731744163585032607

dX : Supply side economics?
Me : Ah, the return of supply-side Jesus. It's the same stable as the trickle-down effect i.e. questionable skid marks in the history of economics with people denying it as much as they keep on trying it. Very popular with Ayn Rand readers i.e. fruitcakes.

dX : Will AI help solve our energy and food problems?
Me : Unlikely
dX : Why?
Me : I've examined investment (using maps) across 14 industries. Take agriculture, ChatGPT et al spews the same crap that analysts do, focused on return of capital rather than fixing the problem ... Me : Using ChatGPT et al to help create your strategy in the commercial world is fine because you're only focused on growth, making a return on capital and what the analysts think is important (a feedback loop). You should question doing this in Government. Take sustainability.

dX : Do you store your maps in github?
Me : Yes. The code can be found here - . The tool I use is

... but ...github.com/swardley/MAP-R…
onlinewardleymaps.com Me : ... I'm slowly starting to store the SVG files.
dX : Why?
Me : Eventually the code will be the images. This is the world that large multi-modal models are taking us into. Our current concept of what is code will become archaic.

dX: Thoughts on #AISafetySummit
Me : None. I'm busy focused elsewhere.
dX : Isn't it a major issue?
Me : About 50 of us looked at this back in April, the two major issues are legislation and equity (openess, democratisation of benefits) ... ... of these, openess is one of the major traps. When we talk about Open Source then that means all the symbolic instructions needed to recreate the function of what is open source. That can be more than just code, in the world of LLMs and LMMs it includes data and images ...

dX: Have you written up the mapping sustainability sessions?
Me: No. That won't be for months.
dX: Hmmm.
Me: Well, in the mean time, this makes a rather neat summary of it.
dX: The problem is money?
Me: The problem is return on capital. There's a world of difference between where we need to invest to fix a problem and where we invest to maximise returns. You might need civic engagement to fix the problem (but that's not a lot of financial opportunity), there's more in technology and financial instruments.