Dem af jer, der husker mig fra TEDGlobal husker måske, at jeg stillede nogle spørgsmål, der stadig optager mig. Et af dem var: Hvorfor er det nødvendigt at bruge 6 milliarder pund på at øge hastigheden på Eurostar-toget, når man for omkring 10 procent af det beløb kan få mandlige og kvindelige topmodeller til at servere gratis Chateau Petrus til alle passagerer under hele rejsen? Man ville stadig have fem milliarder pund tilbage og folk ville bede togene om at sagtne farten. I husker måske jeg også stillede dette spørgsmål, en meget interessant betragtning, at de mærkværdige små skilte, der blinker "50" til dig efterfulgt af en glad smiley eller sur smiley i forhold til om man overholder fartgrænsen eller ej - så er disse faktisk mere effektive i forhold til at forhindre trafikuheld end fotofælder, der indebærer en reel trussel om straf.
Those of you who may remember me from TEDGlobal remember me asking a few questions which still preoccupy me. One of them was: Why is it necessary to spend six billion pounds speeding up the Eurostar train when, for about 10 percent of that money, you could have top supermodels, male and female, serving free Chateau Petrus to all the passengers for the entire duration of the journey? You'd still have five billion left in change, and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down. Now, you may remember me asking the question as well, a very interesting observation, that actually those strange little signs that actually flash "35" at you, occasionally accompanying a little smiley face or a frown, according to whether you're within or outside the speed limit -- those are actually more effective at preventing road accidents than speed cameras, which come with the actual threat of real punishment.
Efter min overbevisning ser der ud til at være en uoverensstemmelse indenfor mange områder af menneskelig problemløsning, særligt dem der involverer menneskelig psykologi, kendetegnet ved: At tendensen for en organisation eller institution er at anvende så meget magt som muligt, så meget tvang som muligt, hvorimod sandsynligheden for at en person vil blive påvirket i modsat retning er omvendt proportionelt med hvor meget magt, der bliver anvendt. Der ser derfor ud til at være en uoverensstemmelse. Så det jeg beder om, er etableringen af en ny job titel - jeg vender tilbage til dette senere - og muligvis indførslen af et nyt ord i det engelsk sprog. Fordi for mig ser det ud som om store organisationer inklusiv regeringen, der selvsagt er den største organisation af alle, er i virkeligheden blevet fuldstændig afsporet i forhold til hvad der har betydning for folk.
So there seems to be a strange disproportionality at work, I think, in many areas of human problem solving, particularly those which involve human psychology, which is: The tendency of the organization or the institution is to deploy as much force as possible, as much compulsion as possible, whereas actually, the tendency of the person is to be almost influenced in absolute reverse proportion to the amount of force being applied. So there seems to be a complete disconnect here. So what I'm asking for is the creation of a new job title -- I'll come to this a little later -- and perhaps the addition of a new word into the English language. Because it does seem to me that large organizations including government, which is, of course, the largest organization of all, have actually become completely disconnected with what actually matters to people.
Lad mig give jer et eksempel på dette. I husker muligvis AOL-Time Warner sammenlægningen, anset for på det tidspunkt at være den største enkeltstående aftale nogensinde. Det er den muligvis stadigvæk. Alle der er til stede i dette lokale er i et eller andet omfang kunder hos enten den ene eller begge de fusionerede virksomheder. Af ren interesse, bemærkede nogen så noget forandret som resultat af fusionen? Så medmindre i var aktieindehavere i et af selskaberne eller en af forhandlerne eller advokaterne involveret i den helt sikkert meget lukrative aftale, så har i engageret jer i en omfangsrig aktivitet, der har haft absolut ingen betydning for nogen af jer. Omvendt, så har flere års arbejde med markedsføring lært mig, at hvis man have folk til at huske en og værdsætte det man laver, så er de mest effektive ting faktisk de små ting. Dette er fra Virgin Atlantics 1. klasse, det er et salt og peber-sæt. Ret fine i sig selv, de har form som små flyvemaskiner. Hvad der er er rigtig, rigtig sødt er at alle personer der kigger på disse har den samme drilske tanke som er; "Jeg tror jeg kan tage dem med". Men når man kigger i bunden af dem, er der indgraveret i metallet: "Stjålet fra Virgin Atlantic 1. klasse". (Latter) Her, flere år efter husker I det strategiske spørgsmål om hvorvidt i fløj med en 777 eller en Airbus, så husker I de ord og den oplevelse.
Let me give you one example of this. You may remember this as the AOL-Time Warner merger, okay, heralded at the time as the largest single deal of all time. It may still be, for all I know. Now, all of you in this room, in one form or other, are probably customers of one or both of those organizations that merged. Just interested, did anybody notice anything different as a result of this at all? So unless you happened to be a shareholder of one or the other organizations or one of the dealmakers or lawyers involved in the no-doubt lucrative activity, you're actually engaging in a huge piece of activity that meant absolutely bugger-all to anybody, okay? By contrast, years of marketing have taught me that if you actually want people to remember you and to appreciate what you do, the most potent things are actually very, very small. This is from Virgin Atlantic upper-class, it's the cruet salt and pepper set. Quite nice in itself, they're little, sort of, airplane things. What's really, really sweet is every single person looking at these things has exactly the same mischievous thought, which is, "I reckon I can heist these." However, you pick them up and underneath, actually engraved in the metal, are the words, "Stolen from Virgin Atlantic Airways upper-class." (Laughter) Now, years after you remember the strategic question of whether you're flying in a 777 or an Airbus, you remember those words and that experience.
Et lignende eksempel er fra et hotel i Stockholm, The Lydmar. Er der nogen der har boet der? Dette er elevatoren, der er en række knapper i elevatoren. Det er der ikke noget usædvanligt ved, bortset fra at det ikke er knapper, der vil tage dig til en bestemt etage. Den starter med "garage" nederst antager jeg, men den går ikke op til stuen, 1., 2., 3., 4. I stedet kan man vælge "garage", "funk", "rhythm & blues". Man står foran en række knapper, som man bruger til at vælge musikken i elevatoren. Mit bud er, at omkostningerne ved at installere dette i elevatoren på Hotel Lydmar i Stockholm er maksimalt omkring 500-1000 pund. Det er ærlig talt mere mindeværdigt end alle de millioner af hoteller, som vi alle har boet på, der fortæller dig at dit værelse for nyligt er blevet renoveret for 500.000 dollars, for at få det til at ligne alle andre hotelværelser, man har boet i gennem hele ens liv.
Similarly, this is from a hotel in Stockholm, the Lydmar. Has anybody stayed there? It's the lift, it's a series of buttons in the lift. Nothing unusual about that at all, except that these are actually not the buttons that take you to an individual floor. It starts with garage at the bottom, I suppose, appropriately, but it doesn't go up garage, grand floor, mezzanine, one, two, three, four. It actually says garage, funk, rhythm and blues. You have a series of buttons. You actually choose your lift music. My guess is that the cost of installing this in the lift in the Lydmar Hotel in Stockholm is probably 500 to 1,000 pounds max. It's frankly more memorable than all those millions of hotels we've all stayed at that tell you that your room has actually been recently renovated at a cost of 500,000 dollars, in order to make it resemble every other hotel room you've ever stayed in in the entire course of your life.
Nuvel, dette er trivielle eksempler fra markedsførings-industrien. Men jeg var til et TED arrangement for nyligt og Esther Duflo, der er en af de førende eksperter i
Now, these are trivial marketing examples, I accept. But I was at a TED event recently and Esther Duflo, probably one of the leading experts in,
effektivt at udrydde fattigdom i U-landene, holdt foredrag. Og hun kom med et lignende eksempel på noget der fascinerede mig, der i en forretnings-kontekst eller statslig kontekst, ville være så triviel en løsning, at man ville skamme sig over den. Det handlede om at opfordre til vaccination af børn ikke bare ved at gøre det til et socialt arrangement - jeg synes det er fornuftig brug af adfærdsøkonomi, at hvis man møder frem med flere andre mødre for at få sit barn vaccineret, så er ens selvtillid meget større, end hvis man møder frem alene. Derudover at gøre det attraktivt at blive vaccineret ved at give et kilo linser til alle der deltager. Det er en meget lille ting. Hvis du er en højtstående person i UNESCO og en tilfældig person spørger, "Hvad foretager i jer for at udrydde fattigdom i verden?" så vil man ikke rigtig føle sig selvsikker ved at stå frem og fortælle, "Jeg har løst den, det handler om linser", vel?
effectively, the eradication of poverty in the developing world, actually spoke. And she came across a similar example of something that fascinated me as being something which, in a business context or a government context, would simply be so trivial a solution as to seem embarrassing. It was simply to encourage the inoculation of children by, not only making it a social event -- I think good use of behavioral economics in that, if you turn up with several other mothers to have your child inoculated, your sense of confidence is much greater than if you turn up alone. But secondly, to incentivize that inoculation by giving a kilo of lentils to everybody who participated. It's a tiny, tiny thing. If you're a senior person at UNESCO and someone says, "So what are you doing to eradicate world poverty?" you're not really confident standing up there saying, "I've got it cracked; it's the lentils," are you?
Pga. vores egen storladne selvopfattelse har vi den forestilling om, at store problemer, kræver store, og vigtigst af alt, dyre løsninger. Alligevel, så viser adfærdsøkonomi gang på gang, at for menneskelig adfærd og forandring af adfærd er der et meget, meget stærkt misforhold til stede, så det der rent faktisk ændrer vores adfærd og som ændrer vores holdning til ting ikke er proportionelle med de medførte omkostninger eller den grad af magt, der er anvendt. Men alt omkring organisationer gør dem ukomfortable med det skæve forhold. Det der sker i en organisation er, at den person, der har magten til at løse problemet samtidig har et meget, meget stort budget. Og når man har et meget, meget stort budget, så leder man efter dyre ting at bruge det på. Hvad der fuldstændig mangler er en gruppe mennesker, der har uovertruffen magt men ingen penge. (Latter) Det er den slags mennesker, jeg gerne vil skabe fremover.
Our own sense of self-aggrandizement feels that big important problems need to have big important, and most of all, expensive solutions attached to them. And yet, what behavioral economics shows time after time after time is in human behavioral and behavioral change there's a very, very strong disproportionality at work, that actually what changes our behavior and what changes our attitude to things is not actually proportionate to the degree of expense entailed, or the degree of force that's applied. But everything about institutions makes them uncomfortable with that disproportionality. So what happens in an institution is the very person who has the power to solve the problem also has a very, very large budget. And once you have a very, very large budget, you actually look for expensive things to spend it on. What is completely lacking is a class of people who have immense amounts of power, but no money at all. (Laughter) It's those people I'd quite like to create in the world going forward.
Her er et andet eksempel, som jeg somme tider refererer til som "Terminal 5-syndromet", det er, at store dyre ting, får stor intelligent opmærksomhed. Terminal 5 er helt igennem fantastisk. indtil man dykker ned i detaljen, brugervenligheden, hvilket er skiltningen som er katastrofalt. Man kommer ud til til ankomsthallen i lufthavnen og man følger et stort gult skilt, hvor der står "Tog" foran dig. Man går herefter 100 meter, med den forventning om at se et nyt skilt, der formentlig vil være gult og som vil være foran en, hvor der står "Tog". Men nej, det næste er derimod blåt og hænger til venstre, og der står "Heathrow Express" Jeg mener, det kunne næsten være som den scene fra filmen "Airplane" Et gult skilt. Det er præcist hvad man vil forvente.
Now, here's another thing that happens, which is what I call sometimes "Terminal 5 syndrome," which is that big, expensive things get big, highly-intelligent attention, and they're great, and Terminal 5 is absolutely magnificent, until you get down to the small detail, the usability, which is the signage, which is catastrophic. You come out of "Arrive" at the airport, and you follow a big yellow sign that says "Trains" and it's in front of you. So you walk for another hundred yards, expecting perhaps another sign, that might courteously be yellow, in front of you and saying "Trains." No, no, no, the next one is actually blue, to your left, and says "Heathrow Express." I mean, it could almost be rather like that scene from the film "Airplane." A yellow sign? That's exactly what they'll be expecting.
Men faktisk, det der sker i stigende grad rundt om i verden, i øvrigt takket være Britisk Airport Authority. Jeg har talt om dette før, og en genial person kontaktede mig og sagde. "Ok, hvad kan man gøre?" Så jeg fandt på fem tiltag, som de faktisk vil benytte. Et af dem er også - selvom logisk set er det en god ide at have en elevator uden op eller ned-knapper. men hvis den kun kører mellem to etager, så er det faktisk ret skræmmende. Fordi når dørene lukker, og man ikke kan gøre noget, så er man faktisk trådt ind i en Hammer-film
Actually, what happens in the world increasingly -- now, all credit to the British Airport Authority. I spoke about this before, and a brilliant person got in touch with me and said, "Okay, what can you do?" So I did come up with five suggestions, which they are actually actioning. One of them also being, although logically it's quite a good idea to have a lift with no up and down button in it, if it only serves two floors, it's actually bloody terrifying, okay? Because when the door closes and there's nothing for you to do, you've actually just stepped into a Hammer film.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Disse spørgsmål - hvad der sker i verdenen er, at de store ting bliver udført utrolig godt. Men de små ting, hvad man ville kalde brugerflade, er udført særdeles dårligt. Men samtidig lader det til, at det er gået i hårdknude med at komme med løsninger på små problemstillinger. Fordi de personer, der rent faktisk kan løse dem, er for magtfulde og for optagede af noget de betragter som strategi til at løse dem. Jeg prøvede denne øvelse for nylig, da jeg talte om banker. De sagde, "Kan vi lave en reklame-kampagne? Hvad kan vi gøre for at opfordre folk til at benytte netbank noget mere? Jeg sagde, "Det er meget, meget enkelt." "Når folk logger ind på deres netbank, er der rigtig mange ting de gerne ville kigge på. Det sidste i verden man vil se på er sin saldo." Jeg har venner, der faktisk aldrig bruger deres egen banks hæveautomater, fordi der er risiko for at den muligvis viser deres saldo på skærmen.
So these questions ... what is happening in the world is the big stuff, actually, is done magnificently well. But the small stuff, what you might call the user interface, is done spectacularly badly. But also, there seems to be a complete sort of gridlock in terms of solving these small solutions. Because the people who can actually solve them actually are too powerful and too preoccupied with something they think of as "strategy" to actually solve them. I tried this exercise recently, talking about banking. They said, "Can we do an advertising campaign? What can we do and encourage more online banking?" I said, "It's really, really easy." I said, "When people login to their online bank there are lots and lots of things they'd probably quite like to look at. The last thing in the world you ever want to see is your balance." I've got friends who actually never use their own bank cash machines because there's the risk that it might display their balance on the screen.
Hvorfor vil man frivilligt modtage dårlige nyheder? Det vil man ganske enkelt ikke. Så jeg sagde: "Hvis I laver "Vis min saldo" som en mulighed og ikke bare bliver vist som standard, så vil I opleve dobbelt så mange personer logge ind på deres netbank og de vil gøre det tre gange så ofte. Lad os være ærligt, de fleste af os - hvor mange af jer checker jeres saldo før i hæver penge fra en hæveautomat? Og I er endda ganske rige i forhold til resten af verden. Det interessante ved det er, at ingen mennesker gør det, eller i det mindste kan indrømme at være så nidkær at gøre det. Det der var interessant ved det forslag var, at implementere det forslag ikke engang ville koste 10 millioner pund; det ville ikke medføre store omkostninger, det ville koste omkring 50 pund. Og alligevel sker det aldrig.
Why would you willingly expose yourself to bad news? Okay, you simply wouldn't. I said, "If you make, actually, 'Tell me my balance.' If you make that an option rather than the default, you'll find twice as many people log on to online banking, and they do it three times as often." Let's face it, most of us -- how many of you actually check your balance before you remove cash from a cash machine? And you're pretty rich by the standards of the world at large. Now, interesting that no single person does that, or at least can admit to being so anal as to do it. But what's interesting about that suggestion was that, to implement that suggestion wouldn't cost 10 million pounds; it wouldn't involve large amounts of expenditure; it would actually cost about 50 quid. And yet, it never happens.
Fordi, som jeg sagde, er der en fundamental uoverensstemmelse at de folk med magt vil lave store dyre løsninger. Og der er i et vist omfang en myte omkring store strategier, der er dominerende i forretningsverdenen for tiden. Og hvis man tænker over det, så er det meget meget vigtigt at den myte bliver fastholdt. Fordi, hvis bestyrelsen overbeviser alle om, at succesen i en hvilken som helst organisation næsten udelukkende er afhængig af beslutningerne foretaget af bestyrelsen, så er det med til at retfærdiggøre forskellen i lønnen, i forhold til hvis man faktisk anerkendte at meget anerkendelse for en virksomheds succes muligvis skyldes noget andet, i små taktiske tiltag.
Because there's a fundamental disconnect, as I said, that actually, the people with the power want to do big expensive things. And there's to some extent a big strategy myth that's prevalent in business now. And if you think about it, it's very, very important that the strategy myth is maintained. Because, if the board of directors convince everybody that the success of any organization is almost entirely dependent on the decisions made by the board of directors, it makes the disparity in salaries slightly more justifiable than if you actually acknowledge that quite a lot of the credit for a company's success might actually lie somewhere else, in small pieces of tactical activity.
Men det der rent faktisk sker -
But what is happening is that effectively --
og opfindelsen af regnearket har ikke hjulpet på det, mange ting har ikke hjulpet på det - forretning og regeringer lider af en form for fysisk misundelse. De vil have at verden er et sted, hvor indsatsen og forandringen er proportionale. Det er en form for en mekanisk verden, som vi alle ville elske at leve i, hvor alting er opstillet i regneark, alt er muligt at gøre op i tal og det beløb man bruger på noget er proportionelt med graden af succes. Det er den verden som folk ønsker. Sandheden er, at vi lever i en verden som videnskaben kan forstå. Uheldigvis minder videnskaben mere om klimatologi eftersom i mange tilfælde kan meget små ændringer have uforholdsmæssigt stor betydning. og ligeledes kan store store aktiviteter, såsom store fusioner, opnå ingen som helst betydning. Men det er meget, meget ukomfortabelt for os at anerkende, at vi lever i sådan en verden.
and the invention of the spreadsheet hasn't helped this; lots of things haven't helped this -- business and government suffers from a kind of physics envy. It wants the world to be the kind of place where the input and the change are proportionate. It's a kind of mechanistic world that we'd all love to live in where, effectively, it sits very nicely on spreadsheets, everything is numerically expressible, and the amount you spend on something is proportionate to the scale of your success. That's the world people actually want. In truth, we do live in a world that science can understand. Unfortunately, the science is probably closer to being climatology in that in many cases, very, very small changes can have disproportionately huge effects, and equally, vast areas of activity, enormous mergers, can actually accomplish absolutely bugger-all. But it's very, very uncomfortable for us to actually acknowledge that we're living in such a world.
Det jeg siger er, at vi kunne gøre tingene en smule bedre for os selv, hvis vi så på det, på denne simple 4-vejs tilgang. Her er strategi og jeg siger ikke at strategi ikke har noget betydning, Der findes mange eksempler på, hvor man bruger rigtig mange penge og man opnår ganske meget. Og det ville være forkert af mig at negligere det. Når vi bevæger os til venstre kommer vi selvfølgelig til rådgivning.
But what I'm saying is we could just make things a little bit better for ourselves if we looked at it in this very simple four-way approach. That is actually strategy, and I'm not denying that strategy has a role. You know, there are cases where you spend quite a lot of money and you accomplish quite a lot. And I'd be wrong to dis that completely. Moving over, we come, of course, to consultancy.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Jeg synes ikke det var særlig pænt af Accenture at droppe Tiger Woods på sådan en forhastet måde. Jeg mener, Tiger forholdt sig faktisk til Accenture-modellen. Han udviklede en interessant model til udlicitering af seksuelle ydelser, (Latter) så den ikke længere var leveret af en monopolist. I mange tilfælde at udlicitere tingene lokalt, og selvfølgelig det at have evnen til at få leveret en til tre piger på et hvilket som helst tidspunkt, der medfører en udjævning af arbejdsbelastningen. Så hvad Accenture pludselig syntes var så negativt, er jeg ikke klar over.
I thought it was very indecent of Accenture to ditch Tiger Woods in such a sort of hurried and hasty way. I mean, Tiger surely was actually obeying the Accenture model. He developed an interesting outsourcing model for sexual services, (Laughter) no longer tied to a single monopoly provider, in many cases, sourcing things locally, and of course, the ability to have between one and three girls delivered at any time led for better load-balancing. So what Accenture suddenly found so unattractive about that, I'm not sure.
Så er der andre ting, der ikke koster så meget og som man ikke opnår noget med. Det kaldes pettitesser. Men der er også en fjerde ting. Og det fundamentale problem er, at vi faktisk ikke har et ord for det. Vi ved ikke hvad vi skal kalde det. Og vi bruger slet ikke nok penge på at finde disse løsninger, finde frem til de små ting, der måske eller måske ikke vil virke, men som hvis de virker, kan medføre en succes, der langt overstiger de omkostninger, de anstrengelser og forstyrrelser de medfører.
Then there are other things that don't cost much and achieve absolutely nothing. That's called trivia. But there's a fourth thing. And the fundamental problem is we don't actually have a word for this stuff. We don't know what to call it. And actually we don't spend nearly enough money looking for those things, looking for those tiny things that may or may not work, but which, if they do work, can have a success absolutely out of proportion to their expense, their efforts and the disruption they cause.
Det første jeg kunne tænke mig er en konkurrence - til alle der ser dette som en film - er at komme med et bud på et navn for alt det i nederste højre hjørne. Det næste jeg kunne tænke mig er at verden er nødt til at have folk med ansvar for det. Det er derfor jeg plæderer for "Chef for detaljer" Alle virksomheder burde have en og alle regeringer burde have et ministerium for detaljer. De personer, der ikke har nogen penge, der ikke har noget ekstravagant budget, men som indser, at man muligvis opnår større succes med udbredelsen af et regeringsprojekt ved at fordoble antallet af fordele man betaler for, men man vil formentlig opnå den nøjagtigt samme effekt ved blot at omdesigne formen og skrive det på forståeligt engelsk. Og hvis vi etablerede et ministerium for detaljer og forretningsverdenen havde ledere med ansvar for detaljer, så vil den fjerde kvadrant, der er så voldsomt negligeret for øjeblikket, muligvis endelig få den opmærksomhed som den fortjener.
So the first thing I'd like is a competition -- to anybody watching this as a film -- is to come up with a name for that stuff on the bottom right. And the second thing, I think, is that the world needs to have people in charge of that. That's why I call for the "Chief Detail Officer." Every corporation should have one, and every government should have a Ministry of Detail. The people who actually have no money, who have no extravagant budget, but who realize that actually you might achieve greater success in uptake of a government program by actually doubling the level of benefits you pay, but you'll probably achieve exactly that same effect simply by redesigning the form and writing it in comprehensible English. And if actually we created a Ministry of Detail and business actually had Chief Detail Officers, then that fourth quadrant, which is so woefully neglected at the moment, might finally get the attention it deserves.
Mange tak.
Thank you very much.