E-Book Killer Feature

The Amazon Kindle has been in the news a lot recently and has been largely derided, despite being available on ebay for well over the Amazon price. One of the comments that really resonated with me is why do you need to carry so many books around with you? It's not like an album that you dip into on a whim for a few tracks before shooting off to another one. No, you read a book, cover to cover.

But then... once read, a (good) book is something you do want to dip back into. So having your library with you is a good thing. Making it searchable so you can find that passage. Having your annotations (margin notes) to assist you in locating it - also searchable of course. This begins to add real value, like an MP3 player for my music library.

How come no one is talking about this aspect of ebooks? It seems to obvious killer application... and the Kindle has it.

Frameworks follow the MECE rule

I came across the concept MECE (Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhastive), first put forward by McKinsey's, and it stuck out as an excellent principle to apply repeatedly as I look at proposed solutions. I realise that it is largely a common sense principle and, certainly analytical thinkers, will apply this rule by nature. However, thankfully, not everyone works in the same way and this MECE concept will help me to explain to people how I'm approaching their solution.

If things are not mutually exclusive, then there is overlap. Overlap means muddled thinking and will result in confusion. Collectively exhaustive is more problematic to me as a simple phrase; it needs context - a scope.

Clearly the term does not mean to exhaustively cover everything. Therefore, it must also be intentionally non-exhaustive; in other words, the areas that are not covered are intentionally excluded. It's the same as saying define what's in and what's out and then ensure the solution is exhaustive within the domain.

When we developed our Framework (loosely based on TOGAF) for EA, we took a logical view of the technology areas and were not constrained by the organisational structure or skill sets of people. As a result we achieved the mutually exclusive goal. The starting point in TOGAF pretty much set us up to be exhaustive, although the Framework is not defined to the same depth in all areas. The evolution of the Framework means this will improve over time.

It's just a word, but a significant one

I get a lot of people talking to me about things that are 'strategic' and it's very clear that they don't mean the same thing I mean when I use the word. Actually there is a similar disconnect with the word tactical too. So what do people mean when they say strategic:

1. Long term: this is something that's going to be around for a long time.
2. Paradigm shift: something that's completely different to the current solution.
3. Big: it's a large bit of work, or taking a larger (more general perhaps) view.
4. Important: something important... but to whom?

The word Strategic comes from the Greek word stratēgos meaning general. From answers.com the following definition:

adj. Important or essential in relation to a plan of action; Highly important to an intended objective

So I've started to challenge people when they use the word to clarify what they mean. Here's what I mean when I use it, and then I'm going to stop using it if I can...

I mean it is significant, or a course of action that is for the long term and perhaps difficult/expensive to undo; and by long term, intended as a platform for further development (something that could therefore include a licence to increase its significance over time).

Conversely I use tactical to mean something that is certainly not significant and can be replaced at any time and certainly cannot be used as a platform.

So I'm going to adopt the word significant in preference to strategic and see if that brings clarity to my conversations.