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 koji me pamte sa TEDGlobal-a sećaju se da sam postavio par pitanja koja mi se i dalje nameću. Jedno od njih je zašto se mora potrošiti šest milijardi funti da bi se ubrzao voz Eurostara kada za oko 10% tog iznosa možete dovesti vrhunske manekene i manekenke da služe besplatno vino Petrus svim putnicima tokom celog putovanja? Pri tom bi vam ostalo pet milijardi, a ljudi bi tražili da vozovi uspore. (Smeh) Možda se sećate i da sam postavio pitanje, jedno zanimljivo zapažanje, da oni čudni mali znakovi koji vam na putu signaliziraju „60 km/h“ koje povremeno prati nasmešeno ili namrgođeno lice, u zavisnosti od toga da li poštujete ograničenje brzine - zapravo su delotvorniji u sprečavanju saobraćajnih nezgoda od kamera za praćenje brzine koje podrazumevaju stvarnu pretnju prave kazne. Dakle, izgleda je na delu čudna disproporcija, prema mom mišljenju,
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.
u mnogim oblastima u kojima ljudi rešavaju probleme, posebno u onima koji uključuju ljudsku psihologiju, a to je da postoji sklonost organizacija ili institucija da primene što više sile, što više prinude, dok je, zapravo, sklonost osobe da bude pod uticajem nečega u potpuno obrnutoj proporciji sa količinom sile koja se primenjuje. Izgleda je posredi potpuna nepovezanost. Dakle, tražim otvaranje novog radnog mesta, vratiću se na to malo kasnije, a možda i uvođenje nove reči u engleski jezik. Jer zaista mi se čini da su velike organizacije, uključujući i vladu, koja je, svakako, najveća od svih, zapravo postale potpuno odvojene od onoga što je ljudima stvarno bitno.
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.
A daću vam i jedan primer za to. Možda se sećate ovog spajanja kompanija AOL i Tajm Vorner, svojevremeno najavljenog kao najveća pogodba svih vremena. Možda je još uvek, ne bih znao. Svi u ovoj prostoriji ste, u nekom vidu, verovatno korisnici jedne ili obeju organizacija koje su se spojile. Interesuje me samo da li je iko primetio bilo šta drugačije kao rezultat svega toga? Dakle, osim ako ne posedujete akcije jedne ili druge organizacije, ili ste akter ili advokat u ovom nesumnjivo unosnom poslu, onda ste samo uključeni u jednan ogromni deo aktivnosti koji apsolutno nikog ne dotiče, zar ne? Nasuprot tome, dugogodišnji rad u marketingu naučio me je da, ukoliko stvarno želite da vas ljudi pamte i da cene ono što radite, najmoćnije stvari su zapravo veoma, veoma male. Ovo je iz više klase Virdžin Atlantika, to je stoni set za so i biber. Prilično su zgodni, to je zapravo neka vrsta aviončića. Ono što je zaista simpatično je to da svaka osoba koja ih ugleda dođe na istu nestašnu pomisao, „Možda bih mogao da ih maznem.“ A kada ih pokupite, shvatite da su ispod, na metalu, ugravirane sledeće reči: „Ukradeno iz više klase Virdžin Atlantik Ervejz.“ (Smeh) Godinama nakon toga, kada se setite onog strateškog pitanja da li letite 777-om ili Erbasom, vi se setite tih reči 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 tome, ovo je iz jednog hotela u Stokholmu, Lidmar. Da li je neko bio tamo? Ovo je lift i niz tastera u njemu. Zapravo ništa neobično u svemu tome, s tim da to baš nisu tasteri koji vas vode do određenog sprata. Počinju sa garažom u dnu, kako dolikuje, pretpostavljam, ali naviše ne idu garaža, prizemlje, polusprat, jedan, dva, tri, četiri, već je napisano garaža, fank, ritam i bluz. Imate niz tastera kojima, u stvari, birate muziku u liftu. (Smeh) Po mojoj proceni, ugradnja ovoga u lift u hotelu Lidmar u Stokholmu verovatno ne košta više od 500 do 1000 funti. Iskreno, to je upečatljivije od onih silnih hotela u kojima smo svi odsedali gde vam kažu da je vaša soba nedavno renovirana po ceni od 500 000 dolara, da bi ličila na bilo koju drugu sobu u kojoj ste odsedali tokom celog svog 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?
Priznajem da su ovo trivijalni marketinški primeri, ali skoro sam bio na jednom TED događaju gde je Ester Duflo, verovatno jedan od vodećih stručnjaka u oblasti iskorenjivanja siromaštva u zemljama u razvoju, održala govor. Ona je naišla na sličan primer nečega što me je fasciniralo kao nešto što bi, u kontekstu poslovanja ili vlasti, bilo toliko trivijalno rešenje da bi delovalo neprimereno. Poenta je prosto bila da se podstakne vakcinacija dece, ne samo praveći od toga društveni događaj, što je dobra primena bihejvioralne ekonomije - ako dođete sa još nekoliko drugih majki da vakcinišete svoje dete, vaš osećaj poverenja je mnogo veći nego da se pojavite sami - i kao drugo, podsticanjem vakcinacije davanjem kilograma sočiva svima koji učestvuju. To je takva jedna sitnica. Ako ste viši službenik Uneska i neko vas pita: „Šta preduzimate po pitanju iskorenjivanja siromaštva u svetu?“, niste baš sigurni da možete da kažete samo: „Smislio sam, trik je u sočivu“, 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 osećaj za uvećanje sopstvene vrednosti nalaže nam da veliki i bitni problemi iziskuju velika, značajna, i pre svega skupa rešenja. Opet, ono što bihejvioralna ekonomija stalno iznova dokazuje je to da u ljudskom ponašanju i promeni ponašanja postoji veoma snažna disproporcija, i da ono što zaista menja naše ponašanje i što menja naš pristup stvarima zapravo nije srazmerno nivou troška koji se za to vezuje, niti stepenu sile koja se primenjuje. Međutim, čitav koncept institucija čini ih neprilagođenim u smislu te disproporcije. Dakle, ono što se dešava u institucijama je da obično osoba koja ima moć da rešava probleme takođe ima veoma, veoma veliki budžet. A kada imate veoma veliki budžet, vi zapravo tražite skupe stvari na koje biste ga potrošili. Ono što uopšte ne postoji je klasa ljudi koja ima ogromnu moć, ali nimalo novca. (Smeh) Takve ljude bih voleo da stvorim u svetu koji ide putem napretka.
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.
Evo još nečeg što se dešava, što bih nazvao „sindromom Terminala 5“, a to je da velike, skupe stvari privlače ozbiljnu, sofisticiranu pažnju, a one su zaista sjajne, i Terminal 5 je stvarno fantastičan, dok ne dođete do sitnih detalja, upotrebljivosti, tj. signalizacije, koja je katastrofalna. Izađete iz dela za dolaske na aerodromu i pratite veliki žuti znak na kome piše „Vozovi“ ispred vas. Onda hodate još stotinak metara, očekujući eventualno još jedan znak, koji bi trebalo da uljudno bude žut , ispred vas i da piše „Vozovi“. Ali ne, sledeći je plavi, s leve strane, i na njemu piše „Hitrou Ekspres“. Mislim, to bi moglo biti poput one scene iz filma „Avion“. Žuti znak? To je upravo ono što očekuju.
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.
U stvari, sve češće se dešava u svetu - svaka čast Britanskom aerodromu Već sam to spominjao, jedna izuzetna osoba mi se obratila i pitala: „Šta možete da učinite?“ I stvarno sam izneo pet predloga, koje oni i sprovode u delo. Jedan od njih bio je i taj, iako je logički gledano dobra ideja, da se uvede lift bez tastera gore i dole ako opslužuje samo dva sprata, to je prilično zastrašujuće, zar ne? Jer kada se vrata zatvore i više ništa ne možete da učinite, zapravo ste upravo ušli u horor film.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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, vezano za ta pitanja šta se dešava u svetu - one stvarno krupne stvari, rade se izuzetno dobro. Međutim, male stvari, da kažemo korisnički interfejs, rade se iznenađujuće loše. Takođe, izgleda da postoji potpuni zastoj kada je u pitanju nalaženje ovih sitnih rešenja. Jer su ljudi koji ih rešavaju zapravo suviše moćni i suviše obuzeti nečime što smatraju „strategijom“ za rešavanje problema. Skoro sam imao ovu vežbu, kroz razgovor o bankarstvu. Kažu: „Možemo li da napravimo reklamnu kampanju? Kako da podstaknemo onlajn bankarstvo?“ Kažem im: „To je zaista lako.“ „Kad se ljudi uloguju na svoj onlajn račun, postoje mnoge stvari koje bi verovatno rado želeli da vide. Poslednja stvar koju bi želeli da vide je stanje na računu.“ Imam neke prijatelje koji nikad ne koriste bankomate svoje banke zato što postoji rizik da im se na ekranu prikaže stanje na računu. (Smeh)
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 biste se svesno izlagali lošim vestima? Dakle, prosto ne biste. Kažem: „Ako pretvorite 'stanje na računu' u opcionalni, umesto podrazumevani izbor, videćete da će se duplo više ljudi ulogovati na onlajn račun, i tri puta češće će ga koristiti.“ Da budemo iskreni, koliko vas tačno proverava stanje pre podizanja novca sa bankomata? A vi ste prilično bogati po širim globalnim standardima. Vidite, zanimljivo da niko to ne radi, ili barem ne priznaje da je u toj meri u analnoj fazi. Ono što je zanimljivo kod tog predloga je da njegovo sprovođenje ne bi koštalo 10 miliona funti; ne bi iziskivalo velike troškove; zapravo bi koštalo oko 50 funti. A, ipak, nikada se nije ostvario.
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 suštinska nepovezanost, kao što sam rekao, a to je da ljudi koji imaju moć žele da se bave velikim skupim stvarima. A tu je i donekle veliki mit o strategiji koji je trenutno dominantan u biznisu. I kada razmislite, veoma je važno da se očuva mit o strategiji. Jer ako odbor direktora ubedi sve da uspeh neke organizacije skoro u potpunosti zavisi od odluka koje donese odbor direktora, time se razlika u zaradama malčice lakše pravda, nego kada bi priznali da velike zasluge za uspeh kompanije možda zapravo leže na nekom drugom mestu, u finesama taktičkog nastupa.
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.
Ali, ono što se zapravo događa... pri čemu rad u tabelama nije puno pomogao; mnoge stvari nisu puno pomogle... privreda i država pate od neke vrste zavisti prema nauci. Žele da svet bude mesto u kojem će uloženo i promena biti proporcionalni. To je jedan mehanicistički svet u kojem bismo svi voleli da živimo gde je sve lepo postavljeno u tabelama, sve se može kvantifikovati, a iznos koji potrošite na nešto srazmeran je stepenu vašeg uspeha. To je svet kakav ljudi zaista žele. U realnosti, živimo u svetu koji nauka može da razume. Nažalost, nauka je verovatno bliža klimatologiji jer u mnogim slučajevima, veoma male promene mogu imati nesrazmerno snažno dejstvo, a isto tako, ogromni poduhvati, izuzetno velika spajanja, mogu da apsolutno ništa ne postignu. No, za nas je prilično neprijatno da priznamo da živimo u takvom svetu.
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.
Ipak, želim da kažem da možemo da nam olakšamo stvari ako bismo ovo sagledali jednostavnim pristupom sa četiri ose. To je zapravo strategija, i ne poričem da strategija ima svoju ulogu. Ima slučajeva kada potrošite dosta novca i postignete puno. Pogrešio bih kada bih to potpuno osporio. Dalje, naravno, stižemo do konsultanata.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Smatram da je Aksentur veoma neprimereno ispalio Tajger Vudsa na tako brz i nepromišljen način. Mislim, Tajger se zapravo pridržavao Aksenturovog modela. Napravio je zanimljiv model eksternalizacije seksualnih usluga, (Smeh) više nije bio vezan za jednog monopolskog dobavljača, u brojnim slučajevima, robu je nabavljao na lokalnom nivou, i svakako, mogućnost da dobije između jedne i tri devojke u bilo kom trenutku dovela je do boljeg raspoređivanja opterećenja. Ne znam šta je Aksentur odjednom video tako loše u tome.
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.
Postoje i druge stvari koje ne koštaju mnogo i ne postižu ništa. Zovu se trivijalnosti. Međutim, postoji i četvrta stvar. I osnovni problem je što nemamo odgovarajuću reč za to. Ne znamo kako da je nazovemo. A zapravo ne trošimo ni približno dovoljno novca tražeći te stvari, tražeći one sitnice koje mogu da rade ili da ne rade, ali koje, ako rade, mogu postići nesrazmerni uspeh u odnosu na troškove, uloženi trud i dezorganizaciju koje stvaraju.
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, prvo bih voleo jedan konkurs - za sve one koji ovo gledaju kao film - za osmišljavanje naziva za tu stvar u donjem desnom uglu. A druga stvar je, mislim, da su svetu potrebni ljudi zaduženi za to. Zato se zalažem za „direktora za detalje“. Svaka korporacija bi trebalo da ga ima, a svaka vlada bi trebalo da ima ministarstvo za detalje. Ljudi koji nemaju novca, koji nemaju ekstravagantan budžet, ali koji shvataju da zapravo možeš ostvariti veći uspeh kroz usvajanje nekog državnog programa duplirajući nivo beneficija koje plaćaš, a verovatno ćeš postići isti efekat jednostavnom promenom forme i pisanjem na razumljivom engleskom. A kada bismo stvarno osnovali ministarstvo za detalje, i kad bi firme imale direktora za detalje, tada bi ovaj četvrti kvadrant, koji je trenutno nesretno zapostavljen, mogao konačno da dobije zasluženu pažnju.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam puno!