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.
Oni od vas koji me se možda sjećaju s TEDGlobal-a sjećaju se da sam postavio nekoliko pitanja koja me još uvijek zaokupljaju. Jedno od njih je: Zašto je potrebno potrošiti šest milijardi funti na ubrzavanje Eurostar vlaka kada za oko 10% tog novca možete imati vrhunske supermodele, muške i ženske, koji poslužuju besplatni Chateau Petrus svim putnicima tijekom cijelog putovanja? Još uvijek bi vam ostalo pet milijardi, a ljudi bi tražili da vlakovi uspore. Sada, možda se sjećate da sam postavio pitanje, ali isto tako i vrlo zanimljivo zapažanje, da zapravo ti čudni mali znakovi koji zapravo blješte "35" prema vama, povremeno praćeni malim smješkom ili mrgudom, u odnosu prema tome jeste li unutar ili izvan ograničenja brzine -- su zapravo učinkovitiji u sprječavanju prometnih nezgoda od kamera za brzinu, koje dolaze s pravom prijetnjom stvarne kazne.
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.
Dakle, izgleda da postoji čudna disproporcionalnost na poslu, mislim da u mnogim područjima ljudskog rješavanja problema, posebice onih koji uključuju psihologiju ljudi, koja je: Težnja organizacija ili institucija je razviti što je moguće više sile, što je više moguće prisile, dok zapravo, težnja osobe je biti gotovo pod utjecajem, u apsolutno obrnutoj proporcionalnosti s iznosom sile koja se primjenjuje. Dakle, čini se da postoji potpuna nepovezanost ovdje. Ono što ja tražim je stvaranje naziva novog posla -- doći ću na ovo malo kasnije -- a možda i dodavanje nove riječi u engleski jezik. Jer čini mi se da su velike organizacije, uključujući vladu, koja je, naravno, najveća od svih organizacija, zapravo postale potpuno odvojene od onoga što je zapravo važno ljudima.
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.
Dopustite mi da vam dam jedan primjer za to. Možda ćete se sjetiti ovoga kao AOL-Time Warner spajanja, proglašenog u to vrijeme kao najvećeg pojedinačnog posla svih vremena. Možda je još uvijek, koliko ja znam. Sada, svi vi u ovoj prostoriji, u jednom ili drugom obliku, ste vjerojatno klijenti jedne ili obje organizacije koje su se spojile. Samo me zanima, je li itko uopće primijetio nešto drugačije, kao rezultat toga? Dakle, osim ukoliko ste slučajno dioničar jedne ili druge organizacije ili jedan od onih koji sklapaju sporazum ili jedan od odvjetnika koji su uključeni u, bez sumnje, unosnu djelatnost, vi se zapravo uključujete u veliku komad aktivnosti koje su značile apsolutnu gnjavažu svima, dobro? Nasuprot tome, godine marketinga su me naučile da ako stvarno želite da vas ljudi zapamte i cijene što radite, najmoćnije stvari su zapravo vrlo, vrlo male. Ovo je iz Virgin Atlantic gornje klase, to je bočica soli i papra. Dražesne same po sebi, one su male, tako reći, avionske stvarčice. Ono što je stvarno, stvarno slatko je da svaka pojedina osoba gledajući te stvarčice ima istu nestašnu misao, koja je, "mislim da bi ih mogao ukrasti." Međutim, vi ih podignete i ispod, zapravo ugravirano u metal, su riječi "Ukradeno iz Virgin Atlantic Airways gornje klase." (Smijeh) Sada, godinama nakon što se sjećate strateškog pitanja jeste li letjeli u 777 ili Airbusu, vi se sjećate tih riječi i tog iskustva.
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.
Slično tako, ovo je iz hotela u Stockholmu, Lydmar. Je li itko odsjeo ondje? Ovo je dizalo, a ovo je niz gumba u dizalu. Uopće ništa neuobičajeno, osim da to zapravo nisu gumbi koji će vas odvesti na pojedine katove. Počinje s garažom na dnu, pretpostavljam, prikladno, ali ne ide gore redom garaža, prizemlje, polukat, jedan, dva, tri, četiri. Zapravo piše garaža, funk, ritam i blues. Imate niz gumba. Vi zapravo odaberete svoju glazbu u dizalu. Moja procjena je da je trošak instaliranja toga u dizalo u Lydmar hotel u Stockholmu vjerojatno 500 do 1.000 £ maksimalno. To je iskreno nezaboravnije od svih tih milijuna hotela u kojima smo svi boravili koji vam kažu da je vaša soba zapravo bila nedavno renovirana po cijeni od 500.000 dolara, kako bi nalikovala svakoj drugoj hotelskoj sobi u kojoj ste boravili tijekom vašeg života.
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, 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?
Sada, ovo su trivijalni marketinški primjeri, prihvaćam. Ali ja sam bio na TED-ovom događaju nedavno gdje je Esther Duflo, vjerojatno jedna od vodećih stručnjaka u, učinkovito, iskorjenjivanju siromaštva u zemljama u razvoju, zapravo govorila. A ona je došla do sličnog primjera nečega što me fasciniralo kao nešto što bi, u poslovnom kontekstu ili vladinom kontekstu, jednostavno bilo tako trivijalno rješenje da izgleda sramotno. To je bilo poticanje cijepljenja djece, ne samo praveći od toga društveni događaj -- mislim da je korist ekonomije ponašanja u tome, ako se pojavite s nekoliko drugih majki da vaše dijete cijepite, vaš osjećaj povjerenja je puno veći nego ako odete sami. No, drugo, da bi se potaknulo cijepljenje svi koji su sudjelovali dobili su kilogram leće. To je malena, malena stvar. Ako ste starija osoba u UNESCO-u i netko kaže: "Što radiš da iskorijeniš siromaštvo u svijetu?" niste baš samouvjereni stojeći ondje govoreći: "Razriješio sam to, to je leća", zar ne?
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.
Naš vlastiti osjećaj samo-preuveličavanja čini da veliki važni problemi . za sebe trebaju imati pričvršćena velika važna, a povrh svega, skupa rješenja. Pa ipak, ono što ekonomija ponašanja pokazuje uvijek iznova u ljudskom ponašanju i promjeni ponašanja da postoji vrlo, vrlo jaka disproporcionalnost na poslu, da zapravo ono što mijenja naše ponašanje i ono što mijenja naš odnos prema stvarima nije razmjerno stupnju troška prikačenog za sobom, ili stupnju sile koja je primijenjena. No, sve vezano za institucije čini ih nesukladnim s tom disproporcionalnosti. Dakle, u institucijama se događa da ista osoba koja ima moć da se riješi problem također ima vrlo, vrlo velik proračun. A jednom kada imate vrlo, vrlo velik proračun, vi zapravo tražite skupe stvari na koje ćete ga potrošiti. Ono što u potpunosti nedostaje je klasa ljudi koji imaju goleme količine energije, ali uopće nemaju novca. (Smijeh) To su ljudi koje bih želio stvoriti u svijetu koji ide naprijed.
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.
Sada, ovdje je još jedna stvar koja se događa, to je ono što ja ponekad nazivam " Terminal 5 sindrom", a to je da velike, skupe stvari dobivaju veliku, visoko inteligentnu pažnju, i one su odlične, i Terminal 5 je apsolutno veličanstven, sve dok ne dođete do malih detalja, upotrebljivosti što je oznaka koja je katastrofalna. Izađete iz "Dolazak" u zračnoj luci, te pratite veliki žuti znak koji kaže "Vlakovi" i on je ispred vas. I tako vi hodate još sto metara očekujući možda još jedan znak koji bi pristojno mogao biti žuti i ispred vas te govorio "Vlakovi". Ne, ne, ne, sljedeći je zapravo plavi, s vaše lijeve strane, i kaže: "Heathrow Express". Mislim, to bi gotovo moglo biti kao scena iz filma "Airplane". Žuti znak? To je upravo ono što će oni očekivati.
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.
Zapravo, što se događa u svijetu sve više -- sada, sve zasluge rukovodstvu British Airporta. Govorio sam o ovome prije, i briljantna osoba je stupila u kontakt sa mnom i rekla: "Dobro, što vi možete učiniti?" Tako sam došao do pet prijedloga, koji su zapravo djelovanja. Jedan od njih također je, iako logično prilično je dobra ideja imati dizalo bez gore i dolje tipku u njemu, ako samo služi za dva kata, to je zapravo zastrašujuće, ok? Jer kad se vrata zatvaraju i nemate više što raditi, zapravo ste zakoračili u Hammer film.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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.
Dakle, ova pitanja ... što se događa u svijetu je velika stvar, zapravo, učinjeno je veličanstveno dobro. No, male stvari, ono što bi mogli nazvati korisničko sučelje, učinjeno je spektakularno loše. Također, čini se da postoji potpuni zastoj u smislu rješavanja tih malih rješenja. Jer ljudi koji ih zapravo mogu riješiti zapravo su premoćni i prezaokupljeni nečim što smatraju "strategijom " da bi ih zapravo riješili. Pokušao sam ove vježbe nedavno, govoreći o bankarstvu. Rekli su: "Možemo li napraviti reklamnu kampanju? Što možemo učiniti i potaknuti više on-line bankarstva?" Rekao sam, "To je jako, jako jednostavno." Rekao sam: "Kada se ljudi prijave na svoju online banku ima mnoštvo stvari koje bi vjerojatno željeli pogledati. Posljednja stvar na svijetu koju želite vidjeti je stanje vašeg računa." Imam prijatelje koji zapravo nikada ne koristite bankomate, jer postoji rizik da bi mogli prikazati njihovo stanje računa na zaslonu.
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.
Zašto bi se dragovoljno izložili lošim vijestima? Ok, jednostavno ne bi. Rekao sam: "Ako napravite, reci mi stanje moga računa." Ako to napravite kao opciju, a ne kao zadano, vidjet ćete da se dvostruko više ljudi prijavljuju na online bankarstvo, i oni to učiniti tri puta češće." Budimo iskreni, većina nas -- koliko vas zapravo provjeri stanje računa prije nego što podignete novac s bankomata? A vi ste prilično bogati prema standardima svijeta u cjelini. Sada, zanimljivo je da niti jedna osoba to ne čini, ili barem može priznati da toliki guzonja to učini. Ali što je zanimljivo o tome prijedlogu je da njegova provedba ne bi koštala 10.000.000 £, to ne bi uključivalo velike količine izdataka, to bi zapravo koštalo oko 50 penija. Pa ipak, nikad se nije dogodilo.
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.
Jer postoji temeljna nepovezanost kao što sam rekao, ljudi koji imaju moć žele činiti velike skupe stvari. I tu je u određenoj mjeri veliki strategijski mit koji je sada rasprostranjen u poslovanju. A ako razmislite o tome, vrlo je važno da je strategijski mit održan. Jer, ako Upravni odbor svakoga uvjeri da uspjeh bilo koje organizacije gotovo u cijelosti ovisi o odlukama Upravnog odbora, to čini razlike u plaćama nešto više opravdanijima, nego ako zapravo potvrdite da poprilično puno zasluga za uspjeh tvrtke leže negdje drugdje, u malim komadićima taktičkih aktivnosti.
But what is happening is that effectively -- 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.
No, ono što se događa jest da učinkovito -- i izum proračunske tablice nije pomogao ovdje; mnoge stvari ovdje nisu pomogle -- posao i vlada pate od neke vrste fizičke zavisti. Ona želi da svijet bude vrsta mjesta gdje su ulaz i promjena proporcionalne. To je vrsta mehanističkog svijeta u kojemu bi svi željeli živjeti gdje, učinkovito, sjedi vrlo lijepo na proračunskoj tablici, sve se može brojčano izraziti, a iznos koji ste potrošili na nešto je razmjerna skali vašeg uspjeha. To je svijet koji ljudi zapravo žele. Uistinu, mi živimo u svijetu koji znanost može razumjeti. Nažalost, znanost je vjerojatno bliže klimatologiji u kojoj u mnogim slučajevima, vrlo, vrlo male promjene mogu imati nerazmjerno veliki utjecaj, i jednako, široka područja djelovanja, ogromna udruživanja, mogu zapravo ostvariti apsolutnu gnjavažu. No, vrlo, vrlo neugodno za nas je zapravo priznati da živimo u takvom svijetu.
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.
No, ono što želim reći je da bismo mogli napraviti stvari malo boljima za sebe ako gledamo na to u ovom vrlo jednostavnom četverostranom pristupu. To je zapravo strategija, a ja ne negiram da strategija ima ulogu. Znate, postoje slučajevi u kojima potrošite poprilično novca i ostvarite poprilično toga. I bio bih u krivu kada bih odbacio to u potpunosti. Nastavljajući dolazimo, naravno, do savjetništva.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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.
Mislio sam da je bilo vrlo nepristojno od Accenturea potkopati Tiger Woodsa na takav ubrzan i brzopleti način. Mislim, Tiger je sigurno zapravo ispunjavao Accenture model. On je razvio zanimljiv vanjski model za seksualne usluge, (Smijeh) nevezan više za jednog monopolnog poslužitelja, koji u mnogim slučajevima, prikuplja stvari na lokalnoj razini, i naravno, mogućnost izbora između jedne i tri djevojke dostavljene u bilo koje vrijeme vodio boljem balansiranju teretom. Pa što je Accenture iznenada našao tako neprivlačno u tome, nisam siguran.
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.
Zatim tu su druge stvari koje ne koštaju puno i postižu apsolutno ništa. Zovu se trivijalnosti. No, tu je četvrta stvar. A osnovni problem je što zapravo nemamo riječ za ove stvari. Mi ne znamo kako to nazvati. I zapravo ne trošimo ni približno dovoljno novaca u potrazi za tim stvarima, u potrazi za tim sićušnim stvarima, koje bi možda mogle ili ne bi mogle funkcionirati, ali koje bi, ako funkcioniraju, mogle imati uspjeh apsolutno vanrazmjeran njihovu trošku, trudu i poremećaju koji uzrokuju.
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.
Dakle, prva stvar koju bih htio je natjecanje -- za svakoga tko gleda ovo kao film -- da se dosjetite imena za tu stvar na dnu desno. I druga stvar, mislim, je da svijet treba imati ljude zadužene za to. Zato pozivam "glavnog službenika za detalje". Svaka korporacija bi trebala imati jednoga, i svaka vlada bi trebala imati Ministarstvo detalja. Ljudi koji zapravo nemaju novca, koji nemaju ekstravagantan proračun, ali koji shvaćaju da zapravo možete postići veći uspjeh u preuzimanju vladinog programa zapravo udvostručavajući nivo pogodnosti koje plaćate, ali vjerojatno ćete postići upravo taj isti efekt jednostavno redizajnirajući obrazac i pišući razumljivim engleskim. A ako bi zapravo stvorili Ministarstvo detalja i poslovi bi zapravo imali glavnog službenika za detalje, onda bi taj četvrti kvadrant, koji je tako žalosno zanemaren u ovom trenutku, konačno mogao dobiti pažnju koju zaslužuje.
Thank you very much.
Puno vam hvala.