Archive for dezembro \29\UTC 2010

Technology 25 Years Hence

dezembro 29, 2010

Em um artigo publicado ontem em The New York Times (, Ray Kurzweil escreve um pouco sobre previsões!


Technology 25 Years Hence

Updated December 28, 2010, 06:21 PM

Ray Kurzweil invented the CCD flatbed scanner, omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind and the first commercially marketed large vocabulary speech recognition. He received the National Medal of Technology and has written four best-selling books, including, “The Singularity is Near.”

Thirty years ago, I realized that timing was the key to success as an inventor. Most inventions fail because the timing is wrong — the innovation needs to make sense for the world that will exist when the project is finished.

Consider how quickly the world changes; just a few years ago, most people didn’t use social networks, wikis or blogs. As an engineer, I gathered a lot of data to try to make sense of technology trends, and found a significant exception to the notion that “you can’t predict the future.”

The law of accelerating returns allows us to forecast certain aspects of the future.

If you plot the basic measures of the price to performance and capacity of information technologies (for example, computer instructions per second per constant dollar, bits of memory per dollar, or the total number of bits being moved around over the Internet), they follow remarkably smooth — and foreseeable — trajectories. This observation goes well beyond Moore’s Law (which says you can place twice as many transistors on an integrated circuit every two years); in the case of computation, it goes back to the 1890 American census, long before Gordon Moore was even born.

What’s predictable is that these measures grow exponentially, not linearly, though our intuition about the future is linear, which is hard-wired in our brains. This makes a remarkable difference. Thirty steps linearly gets you to 30, whereas 30 steps exponentially (2, 4, 8, 16. . .) gets you to a billion.

This “law of accelerating returns,” as I call it, tells us that any area of information technology will grow enormously in power while becoming ever smaller in size. This law has continued for the three decades since I first noticed it, and goes back decades before that.

And it’s not just electronics and communications that follow this exponential course. It applies as well to health, medicine and its related field of biology. The Human Genome Project, for instance, saw the amount of genetic sequencing double and the cost of sequencing per base pair come down by half each year.

In the early 1980s, I saw the ARPANET (now known as the predecessor to the Internet) double in size each year. In “The Age of Intelligent Machines,” which I wrote in the mid-1980s, I described a vast worldwide communications web emerging in the mid-to-late ‘90s as a result of this power of exponential growth. At the time, this seemed absurd to many observers, since the entire Department of Defense was only able to provide digital communication to a few thousand scientists per year. But the Web exploded by the late ‘90s as a result of the power of exponential growth.

Over the past two decades, I’ve made hundreds of predictions based on the law of accelerating returns. Of 147 predictions for 2009 that I made in “The Age of Spiritual Machines,” which I wrote in the 1990s, 78 percent were correct as of the end of 2009, and an additional 8 percent were off by a year or two. The closer I stayed to just predicting the underlying price/performance and capacity of information technologies, the more accurate the predictions were.

The law of accelerating returns is the only reliable method I know that allows us to forecast at least certain aspects of the future. A computer that fit inside a building when I was a student now fits in my pocket, and is a thousand times more powerful despite being a million times less expensive.

In another quarter century, that capability will fit inside a red blood cell and will again be a billion times more powerful per dollar.

O efeito China sobre as importações brasileiras

dezembro 26, 2010

A China tem sido, e será ainda muito mais nesta próxima década, um país que não pode mais ser ignorado na nossa economia.  Além de ter se tornado a segunda maior potência econômica do planeta, está paulatinamente ficando mais relevante para a economia brasileira.

É o que corrobora interessante artigo publicado pelo BNDES, intitulado “O efeito China sobre as importações brasileiras“, produzido pelos economistas Fernando Puga e Marcelo Nascimento, e que pode ser baixado aqui!

Uma das revelações do artigo é que entre 2005 e 2010 se notou pouca modificação nos percentuais de evolução da participação da China nas importações brasileiras de produtos intensivos em recursos naturais (um ganho de apenas 0,7 pontos percentuais).  Em contraste, a participação chinesa em produtos intensivos em trabalho e intensivos em conhecimento aumentou em 14,8 pontos percentuais e 11,1 pontos percentuais, respectivamente.

Vale a pena a leitura!

Why do firms exist?

dezembro 24, 2010
A revista The Economist paga um merecido tributo a um dos grandes nomes da Economia: o Prof. Ronald Coase, que celebra neste dia 29/12/2010 100 anos de idade.
O Prof. Coase tem sido uma das pessoas que mais têm marcado a minha formação em Economia, e nos meus mais recentes trabalhos (ver minhas Palestras e Artigos na área de Publicações da venho dando o devido destaque, ao lado de outra fera como o Prof. Oliver Williamson!
Uma homenagem bem merecida!
Why do firms exist?

Ronald Coase, the author of “The Nature of the Firm” (1937), turns 100 on December 29th


Dec 16th 2010 | from PRINT EDITION

FOR philosophers the great existential question is: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” For management theorists the more mundane equivalent is: “Why do firms exist? Why isn’t everything done by the market?”

Today most people live in a market economy, and central planning is remembered as the greatest economic disaster of the 20th century. Yet most people also spend their working lives in centrally planned bureaucracies called firms. They stick with the same employer for years, rather than regularly returning to the jobs market. They labour to fulfil the “strategic plans” of their corporate commissars. John Jacob Astor’s American Fur Company made him the richest man in America in the 1840s. But it never consisted of more than a handful of people. Today Astor’s company would not register as a blip on the corporate horizon. Firms routinely employ thousands of workers and move billions of dollars-worth of goods and services within their borders.

Why have these “islands of conscious power” survived in the surrounding “ocean of unconscious co-operation”, to borrow a phrase from D.H. Robertson, an economist? Classical economics had little to say about this question. Adam Smith opened “The Wealth of Nations” with a wonderful description of the division of labour in a pin factory, but he said nothing about the bosses who hired the pin-makers or the managers who organised them. Smith’s successors said even less, either ignoring the pin factory entirely or treating it as a tedious black box. They preferred to focus on the sea rather than the islands.

Who knows the secret of the black box?

The man who restored the pin factory to its rightful place at the heart of economic theory celebrates his 100th birthday on December 29th. The economics profession was slow to recognise Ronald Coase’s genius. He first expounded his thinking about the firm in a lecture in Dundee in 1932, when he was just 21 years old. Nobody much listened. He published “The Nature of the Firm” five years later. It went largely unread.

But Mr Coase laboured on regardless: a second seminal article on “The Problem of Social Cost” laid the intellectual foundations of the deregulation revolution of the 1980s. Eventually, Mr Coase acquired an army of followers, such as Oliver Williamson, who fleshed out his ideas. In 1991, aged 80, he was awarded a Nobel prize. Far from resting on his laurels, Mr Coase will publish a new book in 2011, with Ning Wang of Arizona State University, on “How China Became Capitalist”.

His central insight was that firms exist because going to the market all the time can impose heavy transaction costs. You need to hire workers, negotiate prices and enforce contracts, to name but three time-consuming activities. A firm is essentially a device for creating long-term contracts when short-term contracts are too bothersome. But if markets are so inefficient, why don’t firms go on getting bigger for ever? Mr Coase also pointed out that these little planned societies impose transaction costs of their own, which tend to rise as they grow bigger. The proper balance between hierarchies and markets is constantly recalibrated by the forces of competition: entrepreneurs may choose to lower transaction costs by forming firms but giant firms eventually become sluggish and uncompetitive.

How much light does “The Nature of the Firm” throw on today’s corporate landscape? The young Mr Coase first grew interested in the workings of firms when he travelled around America’s industrial heartland on a scholarship in 1931-32. He abandoned his textbooks and asked businessmen why they did what they did. He has long chided his fellow economists for scrawling hieroglyphics on blackboards rather than looking at what it actually takes to run a business. So it seems reasonable to test his ideas by the same empirical standards.

Mr Coase’s theory continues to explain some of the most puzzling problems in modern business. Take the rise of vast and highly diversified business groups in the emerging world, such as India’s Tata group and Turkey’s Koc Holding. Many Western observers dismiss these as relics of a primitive form of capitalism. But they make perfect sense when you consider the transaction costs of going to the market. Where trust in established institutions is scarce, it makes sense for companies to stretch their brands over many industries. And where capital and labour markets are inefficient, it makes equal sense for companies to allocate their own capital and train their own loyalists.

But Mr Coase’s narrow focus on transaction costs nevertheless provides only a partial explanation of the power of firms. The rise of the neo-Coasian school of economists has led to a fierce backlash among management theorists who champion the “resource-based theory” of the firm. They argue that activities are conducted within firms not only because markets fail, but also because firms succeed: they can marshal a wide range of resources—particularly nebulous ones such as “corporate culture” and “collective knowledge”—that markets cannot access. Companies can organise production and create knowledge in unique ways. They can also make long-term bets on innovations that will redefine markets rather than merely satisfy demand. Mr Coase’s theory of “market failure” needs to be complemented by a theory of “organisational advantages”.

All this undoubtedly complicates “The Nature of the Firm”. But it also vindicates the twin decisions that Mr Coase made all those years ago as a young student at the London School of Economics: to look inside the black box rather than simply ignoring it, and to examine businesses, not just fiddle with theories. Is it too much to hope that other practitioners of the dismal science will follow his example and study the real world?

The Contribution of Human Capital to China’s Economic Growth

dezembro 19, 2010

Interessante paper do National Bureau of Economic Research- NBER dos EUA sobre o papel do capital humano no crescimento econômico da China!

The Contribution of Human Capital to China’s Economic Growth

John Whalley, Xiliang Zhao

NBER Working Paper No. 16592
Issued in December 2010
NBER Program(s):   EFG


This paper develops a human capital measure in the sense of Schultz (1960) and then reevaluates the contribution of human capital to China’s economic growth. The results indicate that human capital plays a much more important role in China’s economic growth than available literature suggests, 38.1% of economic growth over 1978-2008, and even higher for 1999-2008. In addition, because human capital formation accelerated following the major educational expansion increases after 1999 (college enrollment in China increased nearly fivefold between 1997 and 2007) while growth rates of GDP are little changed over the period after 1999, total factor productivity increases fall if human capital is used in growth accounting as we suggest. TFP, by our calculations, contributes 16.92% of growth between 1978 and 2008, but this contribution is -7.03% between 1999 and 2008. Negative TFP growth along with the high contribution of physical and human capital to economic growth seem to suggest that there have been decreased in the efficiency of inputs usage in China or worsened misallocation of physical and human capital in recent years. These results underscore the importance of efficient use of human capital, as well as the volume of human capital creation, in China’s growth strategy.

This paper is available as PDF (282 K) or via email

iPhone Added $2Billion to Trade Deficit w/China

dezembro 18, 2010

Post do blog do Prof. Mark Perry ( na quarta-feira 15/12/2010!


iPhone Added $2Billion to Trade Deficit w/China


Turn over your iPhone and you’ll see that it’s “assembled in China.” But that doesn’t mean that most of the profits or revenue go there. In fact, only about $6.54 (a little more than than 1%) of the full $600 retail price of an iPhone goes to China and more than 60% goes directly to Apple and other American companies (see chart above), according to a “teardown report” by iSuppli that was featured in a July New York Times article. It also doesn’t mean that your purchase of an iPhone contributed very much to the U.S. trade deficit, even though that’s what the government trade statistics tell us.

A new reasearch paper calculates that because of the way trade statistics are calculated – the full value of an iPhone is considered an export to the U.S. from China by both countries, even though only about 1% of the value was created during the final assembly process in China –  just the iPhone alone added almost $2 billion to America’s trade deficit with China in 2009. The authors find that if a “value-added approach” was used to calculate trade statistics, the iPhone would have instead generated a $48 million trade surplus for the U.S. in 2009, instead of the $1.9 billion trade deficit reported using the conventional methodology.

See WSJ article here, which points out some political implications:
“The new research adds to a growing technical debate about traditional trade statistics that could have big real-world consequences. Conventional trade figures are the basis for political battles waging in Washington and Brussels over what to do about China’s currency policies and its allegedly unfair trading practices.  There’s a growing belief that the practice of assuming every product shipped from one country is entirely produced by that country no longer reflects the complex reality of global commerce.
If trade statistics were adjusted to reflect the actual value contributed to a product by different countries, the size of the U.S. trade deficit with China—$226.88 billion, according to U.S. figures—would be cut in half. That means that political tensions over trade deficits are probably larger than they should be.”


More spending needed in science, technology and innovation: OECD

dezembro 16, 2010

Saiu o ‘Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010 da OECD. Vejam abaixo um dos releases!


More spending needed in science, technology and innovation: OECD

[Date: 2010-12-15]

Illustration of this article

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) says in its latest annual report that OECD members and non-members must drive science, technology and innovation (STI) investment in order to contend with intensified global competition and bolster long-term growth. STI offers societies the potential to tackle the myriad challenges they face, such as health issues and demographic change. Maintaining STI investment is key.

The ‘Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010′ highlights that OECD members posted sluggish research and development (R&D) spending figures, with annual growth shrinking from more than 4% in recent years to 3.1% in 2008. Patent numbers rose by more than 2% from 1995 to 2008, but growth has weakened in recent years, and the number of OECD-area patents dropped in 2008. Trademarks also decreased by 20%. The report suggests that a rise in quality triggered the drop in the quantity of patents. Companies may also be opting for other ways to safeguard their knowledge base such as collaborative information science mechanisms.

Businesses were forced to rein in their efforts to maintain innovative activity, and trade and foreign investment have adversely affected the global value chains. This in turn has hampered businesses’ technical expertise and market intelligence.

However, the OECD found some positive results as well. Despite the crisis that has played havoc on the global economy in the last two years, a number of countries have reported surges in spending. Germany, South Korea, Sweden and the US have in fact given their long-term innovation a boost by increasing spending on public research. Moreover, all OECD members, save for the US, reported increases in their output of scientific articles between 1998 and 2008.

The report also notes how emerging economies continue to increase their R&D spending. Russia, for example, reported that R&D spending in 2008 was equal to 2% of the OECD total, which is nearly equal to the shares of Canada and Italy.

‘Investment in science and technology is an investment in the future,’ says OECD Secretary General Angel Gurría. ‘At a time of fiscal consolidation, countries must carefully consider the long-term impact of spending cuts on science and technology. There is also a need to increase the efficiency of this spending. The right governance structures should be in place if countries are to make the most of the resources devoted to science and technology.’

So how can we give innovation a boost? The OECD report highlights a number of issues that need to be resolved. For instance, governments should establish a new shared system for the governance of international cooperation in science and technology so as to tackle the challenges that affect us all including climate change. Members should also enhance policy support at various stages of the innovation value chain such as entrepreneurship. The report also notes how the information and communication technologies (ICT) infrastructure should be upgraded and greater access to public research data should be offered. Finally, policy at the international, national and regional levels should be coordinated better.

For more information, please visit:


To browse the ‘Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010’, click:

Google launches next phase of voice-recognition project

dezembro 15, 2010

Dica do meu parceiro Diogo Costa, da IDM (, depois de uma produtiva reunião na data de hoje!  O post veio do blog de Ray Kurzweil (


Google launches next phase of voice-recognition project

December 15, 2010

Source: Boston Herald, Dec 14, 2010

Google on Tuesday switched on a new program that will dramatically improve the accuracy of its speech recognition service, which allows people to use verbal commands to search the Internet, send an e-mail or post a Facebook update.

Users of the latest Android-powered smart phones can now allow Google to recognize the unique pattern of their speech by downloading a new app from the Android Market. The service gradually learns the patterns of a person’s speech and eventually will more accurately understand their voice commands.

Google’s plans to allow your computer or smart phone to speak back to you, in a “voice” that will sound increasingly natural, and even human.

The linguistic models that Cohen’s team has helped develop over the past six years at Google, based on more than 230 billion searches typed into and speech inflections recorded from millions of people who used voice search, are now so vast and complex that it would literally take several centuries for a single PC to create Google’s digital model of spoken English.

The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday

dezembro 14, 2010

Um interessante artigo do McKinsey Quarterly divulgado hoje! O original pode ser encontrado aqui!


The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday

McKinsey’s new survey research finds that companies using the Web intensively gain greater market share and higher margins.

DECEMBER 2010 • Jacques Bughin and Michael Chui

Source: McKinsey Global Institute

Every new technology has its skeptics. In the 1980s, many observers doubted that the broad use of information technologies such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) to remake processes would pay off in productivity improvements—indeed, the economist Robert Solow famously remarked, “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”1 Today, that sentiment has gravitated to Web 2.0 technologies. Management is trying to understand if they are a passing fad or an enduring trend that will underwrite a new era of better corporate performance.

New McKinsey research shows that a payday could be arriving faster than expected. A new class of company is emerging—one that uses collaborative Web 2.0 technologies intensively to connect the internal efforts of employees and to extend the organization’s reach to customers, partners, and suppliers. We call this new kind of company the networked enterprise. Results from our analysis of proprietary survey data show that the Web 2.0 use of these companies is significantly improving their reported performance. In fact, our data show that fully networked enterprises are not only more likely to be market leaders or to be gaining market share but also use management practices that lead to margins higher than those of companies using the Web in more limited ways.

Over the past four years, McKinsey has studied how enterprises use these social technologies,2 which first took hold in business-to-consumer models that gave rise to Web companies such as YouTube and Facebook. Recently, the technologies have been migrating into the enterprise, with the promise of creating new gains to augment those generated by the earlier wave of IT adoptions.3 The patterns of adoption and diffusion for the social Web’s enterprise applications appear to resemble those of earlier eras: a classic S curve, in which early adopters learn to use a new technology, and adoption then picks up rapidly as others begin to recognize its value. The implications are far reaching: in many industries, new competitive battle lines may form between companies that use the Web in sophisticated ways and companies that feel uncomfortable with new Web-inspired management styles or simply can’t execute at a sufficiently high level (see sidebar, “Managing the Web-based organization”).


1 Robert M. Solow, “We’d better watch out,” New York Times, July 12, 1987.

2 See “How businesses are using Web 2.0: A McKinsey Global Survey,”, March 2007; “Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise: McKinsey Global Survey Results,”, July 2008; “How companies are benefiting from Web 2.0: McKinsey Global Survey Results,”, September 2009; and Michael Chui, Andy Miller, and Roger P. Roberts, “Six ways to make Web 2.0 work,”, February 2009.

3 Andrew McAfee, Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2009.

The findings

Our annual surveys of Web 2.0 use in the enterprise provided the basis for the findings in this article. The present survey, our fourth, garnered responses from 3,249 executives across a range of regions, industries, and functional areas. Two-thirds of the respondents reported using Web 2.0 in their organizations. As in past surveys, we asked respondents about their patterns of Web 2.0 use, the measurable business benefits they derived from it, and the organizational impact of Web technologies. We also inquired about the market position of the respondents’ companies, whether their market share had changed, and how their operating margins compared with those of competitors in the same industries.

Web 2.0 technologies are now more widely used

The share of companies where respondents report using Web 2.0 technologies continues to grow. Our research, for instance, shows significant increases in the percentage of companies using social networking (40 percent) and blogs (38 percent). Furthermore, our surveys show that the number of employees using the dozen Web 2.0 technologies continues to increase.4 Respondents at nearly half of the companies that use social networking say, for example, that at least 51 percent of their employees use it. And in 2010, nearly two-thirds of respondents at companies using Web 2.0 say they will increase future investments in these technologies, compared with just over half in 2009. The healthy spending plans during both of these difficult years underscore the value companies expect to gain.

Among respondents at companies using Web 2.0, a large majority continue to report that they are receiving measurable business benefits—with nearly nine out of ten reporting at least one. These benefits ranged from more effective marketing to faster access to knowledge (Exhibit 1).

Toward the networked enterprise

We analyzed the shared characteristics of groups of organizations in our survey and clustered them according to the magnitude of the business benefits respondents reported from the use of Web 2.0 tools and technologies. Our analysis revealed striking differences.

Among respondents who say their companies are using Web 2.0, most (79 percent) achieved a mean improvement of 5 percent or less across a range of business benefit metrics (Exhibit 2). Respondents at the companies in this group report the lowest percentages of usage among their employees, customers, and business partners; say that Web 2.0 is less integrated into their employees’ day-to-day work than respondents at other companies do; and are least likely to report high levels of collaboration or information sharing across the organization. We call these companies, still learning the ropes of Web 2.0, the “developing” group.

Three types of organizations, however, seem to have learned how to realize a much higher level of business benefits from their use of Web 2.0.

Internally networked organizations. Some companies are achieving benefits from using Web 2.0 primarily within their own corporate walls. The survey results indicate that companies in this group—13 percent of those using Web 2.0—derive substantial benefits from deploying these technologies in employee interactions. Respondents at such organizations report a higher percentage of employees using Web 2.0 than respondents at developing organizations do. Respondents at half of the internally networked organizations reported that Web 2.0 is integrated tightly into their work flows, for example, compared with only 21 percent of respondents at developing organizations. Web 2.0 also seems to promote significantly more flexible processes at internally networked organizations: respondents say that information is shared more readily and less hierarchically, collaboration across organizational silos is more common, and tasks are more often tackled in a project-based fashion.

Externally networked organizations. Other companies (5 percent of those deploying Web 2.0) achieved substantial benefits from interactions that spread beyond corporate borders by using Web 2.0 technologies to interact with customers and business partners, according to survey results. Executives at these organizations reported larger percentages of their employees, customers, and partners using Web 2.0 than respondents at internally networked organizations did. But the responses suggest that the internal organizational processes of externally networked organizations are less fluid than those of internally networked ones.

Fully networked enterprises. Finally, some companies use Web 2.0 in revolutionary ways. This elite group of organizations—3 percent of those in our survey—derives very high levels of benefits from Web 2.0’s widespread use, involving employees, customers, and business partners, according to the survey. Respondents at these organizations reported higher levels of employee benefits than internally networked organizations did and higher levels of customer and partner benefits than did externally networked organizations. In applying Web 2.0 technologies, fully networked enterprises seem to have moved much further along the learning curve than other organizations have. The integration of Web 2.0 into day-to-day activities is high, executives say, and they report that these technologies are promoting higher levels of collaboration by helping to break down organizational barriers that impede information flows.


4 For more details, see “Business and Web 2.0: An interactive feature,”, December, 2010.

Capturing competitive advantage

Executives at the more highly networked companies in our survey reported that they captured a broad set of benefits from their Web investments. A key question remained, however: do these benefits translate into fundamental performance improvements, measured by self-reported market share gains and higher profits?

We performed a series of statistical analyses to better understand the relationship between our categories of networked organizations and three core self-reported performance metrics: market share gains, operating profits, and market leadership. Exhibit 3 shows the results.

Market share gains reported by respondents were significantly correlated with fully networked and externally networked organizations. This, we believe, is statistically significant evidence that technology-enabled collaboration with external stakeholders helps organizations gain market share from the competition. They do this, in our experience, by forging closer marketing relationships with customers and by involving them in customer support and product-development efforts. Respondents at companies that used Web 2.0 to collaborate across organizational silos and to share information more broadly also reported improved market shares.

The attainment of higher operating margins (again, self-reported) than competitors correlated with a different set of factors: the ability to make decisions lower in the corporate hierarchy and a willingness to allow the formation of working teams comprising both in-house employees and individuals outside the organization. These findings suggest that Web technologies can underwrite a more agile organization where frontline staff members make local decisions and companies are better at leveraging outside resources to raise productivity and to create more valuable products and services. The result, the survey suggests, is higher profits.

Market leadership, which we ascribed to those organizations where respondents reported a top ranking in industry market share, correlated positively with internally networked organizations that have high levels of organizational collaboration. Self-reported market leadership also, however, correlated negatively with externally networked organizations. We believe it is unlikely that better interactions with external stakeholders lead to a decline in market position. A more likely explanation for the data is that market leaders use Web 2.0 to strengthen internal collaboration, seeking to enhance the organizational resiliency required to maintain their leadership positions. Market challengers, by contrast, may be more focused on external uses of Web 2.0 to win customers from industry leaders.

Overall, we found that respondents at 27 percent of the companies in our survey reported having both market share gains against their competitors and higher profit margins. That kind of performance clearly makes these companies profit consolidators in their industries, with earnings growing faster than the rest. Highly networked enterprises were 50 percent more likely to fall in this high-performance group than other organizations were. This finding suggests that the fully networked enterprise could become the benchmark for more vigorous competition in many industries.

Moreover, the benefits from the use of collaborative technologies at fully networked organizations appear to be multiplicative in nature: these enterprises seem to be “learning organizations” in which lessons from interacting with one set of stakeholders in turn improve the ability to realize value in interactions with others. If this hypothesis is correct, competitive advantage at these companies will accelerate as network effects kick in, network connections become richer, and learning cycles speed up.

Going forward

The imperative for business leaders is clear: falling behind in creating internal and external networks could be a critical mistake. Executives need to push their organizations toward becoming fully networked enterprises. Our research suggests some specific steps:

  • Integrate the use of Web 2.0 into employees’ day-to-day work activities. This practice is the key success factor in all of our analyses, as well as other research we have done. What’s in the work flow is what gets used by employees and what leads to benefits.
  • Continue to drive adoption and usage. Benefits appear to be limited without a base level of adoption and usage. Respondents who reported the lowest levels of both also reported the lowest levels of benefits.
  • Break down the barriers to organizational change. Fully networked organizations appear to have more fluid information flows, deploy talent more flexibly to deal with problems, and allow employees lower in the corporate hierarchy to make decisions. Organizational collaboration is correlated with self-reported market share gains; distributed decision making and work, with increased self-reported profitability.
  • Apply Web 2.0 technologies to interactions with customers, business partners, and employees. External interactions are correlated with self-reported market share gains. So are internal organizational collaboration and flexibility, and the benefits appear to be multiplicative. Fully networked organizations can achieve the highest levels of self-reported benefits in all types of interactions.

About the Authors

Jacques Bughin is a director in McKinsey’s Brussels office; Michael Chui, based in the San Francisco office, is a senior fellow of the McKinsey Global Institute.
The authors would like to acknowledge the important contributions of Angela Hung Byers and Martin Rouse.

Your javascript is turned off. Javascript is required to view exhibits. 

Previsões para as TICs em 2011

dezembro 13, 2010

Saiu a nova newsletter da Creativante (e última deste ano de 2010), e você pode acessá-la aqui!

IBM Offers CIOs Predictive Analytics for Data Planning

dezembro 11, 2010

Post do blog!


IBM Offers CIOs Predictive Analytics for Data Planning

By Jennifer LeClaire
December 10, 2010 2:18PM

Adding predictive analytics to IBM’s technology services is aimed at helping CIOs make better decisions about their IT operations. IBM’s Steven Sams said the new capabilities use data generated by IT operations. An analyst said IBM is going farther than other vendors, and the predictive analytics will help ensure money is being spent effectively.

In yet another move to use analytics to transform business, IBM has rolled predictive analytics into its global technology-services portfolio — including IT and strategic outsourcing services. This time it’s all about helping CIOs make better decisions about IT operations.

The predictive analytics aim to empower CIOs to construct specific, fact-based financial and business models using tools that help interpret and model data. Practically speaking, that means better planning for data-center capacity or emerging technologies such as cloud computing.

“Until now, CIOs have been unable to access many of the predictive, analytics-driven tools that CEOs or CFOs have used for years,” said Steven Sams, vice president of IBM Site and Facilities Services. “In essence, this broad array of new analytical capabilities take data generated from IT operations and turns it into a set of facts that clients can then use to make smarter business decisions.”

Analytics in Action

One example is IBM’s Alternate Cash Flow Analysis. The tool can help determine which alternatives in data-center or IT infrastructure operations can cost-effectively meet business goals. This analysis  calculates the “do-nothing strategy” — for example, what would happen to investments if left in their current state — as a baseline for other financial comparisons.

IBM’s Physical Threshold Capacity Analysis can help forecast data-center capacity requirements many years into the future, allowing clients to know how long their data centers will remain viable and when they will need to be upgraded. Based on a client’s input on expected application growth, IT strategy, and current data-center capabilities, the tool provides objective analysis on the data-center capacity thresholds to predict energy and space requirements.

IBM’s Resiliency Rationalization Analysis works to help clients correctly gauge resiliency within their data-center infrastructure. IBM said current metrics for understanding reliability typically focus on the capital costs and don’t facilitate the business decision of understanding the value of availability to ongoing business operations. Using client input on relative application values, recovery times, operational quality, and other data can provide visibility into the trade-offs between the value of availability and the cost of reducing risk exposure.

Adding Value To IT

As IBM sees it, adopting predictive analytics to analyze cash flow, threshold capacity, and resiliency rationalization can help CIOs and business leaders better plan, manage and deploy IT infrastructure and budget effectively. Charles King, principal analyst at Pund-IT, agreed, noting that IBM is taking predictive analytics a step farther than other vendors.

“We seem to be in a period where companies are starting to spend on IT again. Even though the purse strings are loosening up, businesses still want to make sure they are spending their money intelligently and responsively,” King said. “This is the kind of service many companies will find valuable as they are laying out their data-center purchases and their broader IT strategy.”

%d blogueiros gostam disto: