Human knowledge is not doubling every two years!!!

It is often suggested that human knowledge is doubling every two or three years. I want to challenge this suggestion based on my knowledge in the fields of leadership, change, organization development and innovation.

I had a chance to review (an unpublished literature review) over sixty articles covering the concept of leadership for creativity and innovation. I covered the time period 2007-2014. What struck me was that articles prior to 2008 were riddled with methodological problems: they lacked controls, the measurement instruments (surveys) were claimed to be valid, when, in my professional opinion, they were not, and there was no real conceptual clarity. Thus, when we say the number studies has quadrupled since the field started in the early 80s, that is meaningless, because the quality of the studies was very lacking.

Another area where I contest the notion that knowledge has doubled is related to book publication. It is often cited that there are 300000 published every year. However, a much smaller portion is new knowledge in the form of nonfiction books. A closer examination of this sub-genre will show that there is only a "small" amount of new stuff under the sun. For example, an author publishes six books, but four are variations on the same theme. As a result, we do not really have six times more knowledge, but maybe something like two and a half.

Another salient problem is proliferation of concepts. What I mean by this is that several authors writing about the “same” concept independently not knowing that other authors have talked about the “same” subject. Often the other authors have a different academic background, and use different labels for the same phenomena. For example, the concept of wicked/tame problems (originally from urban planning), adaptive and technical challenges (Leadership studies), and critical/routine decisions( leadership studies). All of these are very similar, but perhaps slightly different phenomena. Thus the claims for a significant increase in knowledge is not warranted.

Some suggest that knowledge is doubling based on the increase in internet traffic; however, this is very misleading. For starters, porn, and cat videos which account for 80% of web traffic do not contribute any new knowledge. Second, a 4K video, while using four times more bandwidth when compared with a 1080p counterpart produces little additional knowledge.

Data is, probably, doubling every two years, but information is not. What would it take to truly double knowledge? First, making sure that the studies do not become routinized. In other words, making a concentrated efforts to think outside the box and make truly original contributions that matter. Second, going outside “our” field to make sure that we do not reinvent the wheel, only in this case using our own jargon. Third, making sure that we are actually measuring knowledge and information and not data. Data can be counted in bits and bytes, but knowledge has to be measured using other means.

You can do without bleach, yes you can!!!

CPU TDP

CPU TDP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvAg35VuG5g

Servant Leadership and the triple bottom line

Introduction:

In this blog post I look at servant leadership and explore how servant leadership as described in Peter Block's (1996) Stewardship and Robert Greenleaf's (2002) Servant Leadership: A Journey fits with the concept of the triple bottom line.

First, I must describe servant leadership. However, before I can proceed, I want to point out that the treatment of servant leadership by Block and Greenleaf are similar but at the same time, have clear differences. Also, Block the recent author of the two, appears to be influenced by the writings of Greenleaf. In both authors' work, the leader becomes a servant leader by being in service to others. For Block the leaders and everyone in the organization are in service of those on the front line, i.e., those who produce the final product, sell it, or those who are in service of the customer in general. Greenleaf's view on the other hand, is more expansive; he not only writes about the leader being in service to the individuals in the organization, but also about the organization itself being in service to the larger community, "the organization as servant." Here, Greenleaf focuses on the role that trustees can play in various organizational settings as a way to ensure such a service is delivered to society as a whole. I have been privy to attending a part of a Board of Trustees meeting for a university in which the board members and the board as whole acted in a servant capacity, trying to make sure that university is committed to its mission of service to the student and local community. During the meeting, several student were questioned about their programs and the larger role that their programs play in the community.

Another difference between the treatment of the subject by both authors is that Block is more concerned with democratic leadership and flattening the organization than Greenleaf. Still, Greenleaf does touch on the subject, but does not go as deep as Block. It would seem that Greenleaf takes democratic leadership as a matter of course in servant leadership. He writes about the concept of first among equals(primus inter pares) as a way for the leader to operate in teams. This position seems to be at odds with Block's view which calls for true equality in work teams. Each of the position has its own merits, however, that is the subject of another paper.

An area of similarity between the two authors is the relationship of servant leadership to community building inside the organization. Both authors seem to think that there is a link. It would seem that Block's ideas in this book about the relationship between community and servant leadership serve as a precursor to his book Community:The Structure of Belonging book. Both authors think that servant leadership and the environment that it creates in an organization is more conducive to creating a communal experience within the organization.

Servant leadership has its roots in religious tradition. Here two stories stand out, the story of Jesus Christ washing the feet of the disciples, an activity only reserved for the most lowly servants of the time. The other story is the story of a leader of a religious order named Leo, who traveled with a group as their servant, while unbeknownst to them he was the leader of the religious order to which they belonged. As the story goes, the success of the group was highly dependent on the presence of this servant to the degree that the group fell apart once he left the group(Greenleaf, 2002).

Servant Leadership and the Triple Bottom Line

The triple bottom line is about organizations measuring their success not only by using financial measures, but also by how well they treat people and the environment. Some have understood people to include both employees and the larger community, while others have a more limited sense that included one or the other but not both. The triple bottom line provides a more systemic view of the organization that fits squarely within the assumptions of open systems theory; the organization is both adapting and influencing of its external environment: resources, people and ideas flow in and out of the organization. Also by measuring impact on the environment, and the community the organization takes responsibility for its actions. Finally, measuring the impact of the business on the employees is a better indicator of performance than financial measures alone, which usually have a lag or delay and are therefore insufficient as a sole measure of organizational health.

The environmental aspect of the triple bottom line seems to be absent from either authors' work. This lack of concern environment could be either done on purpose to keep the focus on democratic values. Also at the time of the writing of either book, environmental awareness was not as high as it now. Finally, the organization can really afford to ignore the environment as it is a commons, and commons usually have no feedback loop to indicate their level or quality.

Unlike the case with the environment, where there are no immediate consequences for acting in an environmentally irresponsible manner, dealing with the employee can have immediate impact on the bottom line. Both Block and Greenleaf seem to agree on how organizations and leaders should treat their employees. Both agree about the lack of success of top-down command and control leadership and the success of democratic leadership.

As far as the role of the organization as servant, Block seems to favor more money making, this can be inferred from his focus on serving the front-line employees such as production and sales people. Greenleaf, on the other hand suggests that the organization should take on some of the role played by government. The argument here is that American large businesses have the needed resources to act in a manner that is similar to government , and at the same time are nimble enough to have good chances of success, unlike the bureaucratic government.

Block, Peter(1996). Stewardship:Choosing Service Over Self-Interest. San Francisco, CA. Berrett-Koehler.

Greenleaf, Robert(2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness 25th Anniversary Edition. Mahwah, New Jersey. Paulist Press.

Heifitz, Ronald(1998). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.

Holman, Peggy et al(2007). The Change Handbook: The Difinitive Resource on Today's Best Methods for Engaging Whole Systems. San Fransico, CA. Berrett-Koehler.

Meadows, Donella(2008). Thinking in Systems. White River Junction, VT. Chelsea Green

Red eye

Tens of millions of Americans drink large(SB's Venti and grande) as opposed to small(Tall) coffee. Having a larger quantity of liquid, the cups for these larger drinks use up anywhere between 10-25% more material.

The other day I stumbled on something called "Red eye" which is basically drip coffee fortified with a single shot of espresso. And while I find it very strong for my taste, I think that a few million people might enjoy the extreme caffeine buzz and abandon their "super sized" coffee in favour of a smaller sized environmentally friendlier drink.

Cashless Quadcore CPUs

Last month AMD launched their quad core CPUs without level three cash. These CPUs offer 10% lower performance at a 30% lower price with 20% less power. They almost perform on par with the Level 3 cash version expect for games and a few other applications.

Considering that the performance per watt is 10% better, it got me thinking that maybe Intel should follow suit. Not only would this be helpful for the environment, but would also allow more people to adopt quad core processors as these cashless processors are 30% smaller and therefore are cheaper to produce.

It is a shame that AMD was at least six months late with these processors. In any case, the next challenge for AMD is to bring down the power consumption even further. In theory these processors should consume 30% less power(because of the 30% smaller size) as opposed to a "mere" 20% reduction.

Looking back, I think that Level 3 cash looks great on paper, but in reality it is a poor way to spend chip real estate. Maybe in the future both AMD and Intel would restrict level 3 cash to gamer and server oriented chips where a level 3(L3) cash would make a real difference.

I also hope that AMD goes the same root with their desktop 6 core CPU. Without L3 cash the six core CPUs would have the same die area as a regular quad core with L3 cash, this would allow for significant power savings or more headroom for higher clocks. More importantly it would cost the same with at least 20% more performance. But if AMD decides to go the L3 cash root, then they would have the same large die area as they have for their Istanbul server chips(approx 330 mm2), which is currently the largest x86 die area.

Sugar

For many years I noticed that people in developing countries like their coffee or tea very sweet, usually pouring an average of 2.5 tea spoons of sugar per cup. 12 years ago I used to put that much sugar in my coffee, but then I slowly went down, by half a table spoon every couple of weeks until I finally settled at 1 tea spoon per cup. Now I find tea or coffee with just 1.5 tea spoons of sugar extremely sweet.

Whenever I met someone who put too much sugar in their tea I would always tell them how I was able to cut down and I still find my tea sweet. I always told this out of concern for their health since refined sugars are bad for health and artificial sweeteners might not be helpful with weight loss in the long run, not to mention their alleged bad health effects.

But the fact that a reduction in sugar consumption might be also good for the environment did not hit me until today. As far as use with tea or coffee goes, the potential for reduction in developing countries is huge, assuming five cups per day and 1 billion adults, the annual saving could be as large as 18 million tons, almost 10-11% of total world demand. This means that land areas devoted to sugar cane or beet production can be either used for something else that is more worthwhile or reforested.

Will there be a financial loss for sugar producing countries? I doubt it as price is likely to go up a bit and compensate for the lower demand. Also as mentioned above there will be additional land available for other crops.

Cats and Dogs

Millions of Americans have pets and millions are pondering which pet to get, a cat or a dog. The arguments for and against are somewhat well known.

Cats require little or no toilet training, are independent, do their own thing most of the time, and unless de-clawed can damage furniture and carpets. Still they are cute and have a "sixth sense".

And while dogs require months of toilet training, they have many things going for them; they are very loyal, protective of their owner, and smarter than cats. There is a good reason why it is considered man's best friend.

But these difference aside, I wanted to answer the most important question and that is the environmental one. Here cuteness or intelligence do not matter. Because both animals are carnivores, cats would win hands down as they are much smaller than dogs and therefore consume significantly less food than dogs. If 80% of dog owners switched to cats over the next 10yrs, there would be tremendous environmental savings.

CPU Power Usage Regulation

Who says that government can not do good. Back in the 70s the government made targets for car mileage and this resulted in tangible improvements in fuel economy and reduced the environmental impact by millions if not billions of tons of CO2.

So if the government can regulate fuel economy, why can't it regulate CPU or computer platform TDP? And unlike the situation with cars there are only a handful of high end CPU players out there: AMD, Intel, IBM, and SUN. This should somewhat be easy, and can be done in a reasonable manner assuming there is political will.

Previously I suggested that CPU manufacturers, voluntarily reduce the max TDP over time. But now I think that a little push by the government might go a long way towards kick starting things.

A hypothetical time line for quad core CPUs might go something like this:

*2010, max TDP==> 120 W
*2012, max TDP==> 110 W
*2014, max TDP==> 100 W

Similarly for dual core CPUs:

*2010, max TDP==>55 W
*2012 max TDP==>45 W

And so on.

In order not to hurt CPU companies so much, the government might decide to regulate certain market segments and not others. For example, consumer CPUs, but not servers.

Another way would be for government to impose extra taxes on energy inefficient CPUs. Alternatively it could give tax breaks/tax credit for energy efficient CPUs; Individual states can increase sales tax on computer costing more than 800$.

This same kind of logic can also be applied to GPUs, chipsets and other computer components like hard drives memory, and power supplies.

For GPUs the break down would not be in the number of cores but based on market segment. For example:

*Enthusiast==> 150 W
*Performance==> 110 W
*Mainstream==>75 W
*Entry level ==> 45 W

And these numbers would be reduced by 10 watts every two years, similar to what I proposed for CPUs.

Shaving And The Environment

I know this might be a stupid post, but as I was shaving the other day, I started to get ideas about how shaving can impact the environment, so in someway, this is not so different than my previous post on hair.

For starters, I think using disposable razors is a big no no. Probably as I write this, millions of these went into the trash. And I somehow doubt that the plastic in them is being recycled.

The second piece of advice that I wanted to mention is choosing a none disposable razor. And here, I would recommend choosing a current generation one as cartridges would be available for many years to come and they tend to last longer. Not to mention the fact that current generation razors tend to produce a smoother shave.

I really do not feel comfortable in recommending an electric shaver on two grounds: a) the price and b) the fact that it uses electricity or batteries. I would like to see an environmental impact study for both electric and regular razors. On the good side, electric shavers do make use of shaving a cream so there is some sort of saving there.

Speaking of shaving cream, one should get the largest size available largely due to fact that a larger size would use less packaging materials.

One last thing that I should mention is doing away with shaving all together and letting your beard grow, this might sound like good advice, but in reality you would use more soap to wash your face. So this actually needs further study.

Green Computing

I have been using computers for the last 22 years, so I know a thing or two about them. Here is my own guide to green computing.

• If you have a single core 90nm P4 Prescott or an Athlon XP, now might be a good time to replace your processor/computer.
• Choose a green operating system that is low on CPU usage and has good power management features. For servers, Red hat Linux is an excellent choice.
• If you are just an occasional gamer who does not mind playing games at lower quality settings, chose a computer with integrated graphics. At the time of this writing the best integrated graphics chipset is AMD's 780G.
• Chose a computer with an energy efficient processor, this costs only 10-20$ more.
• If your CRT monitor is 5yrs old, now is a good time to replace it with a lower power LCD. However, resist the temptation to oversize your LCD, unless your work demands it. For most people a 17-19" LCD should be fine.
  
• Chose a medium end dual core CPU or a low end quad core CPU. Unless you run scientific software, or games, these processors should be more than adequate for years to come.
  
• Set the power management on your computer to max. Have the shut down of the monitor occur only after 5-10min of no usage.
• If you can wait to buy a new computer, wait until early next year. By then all CPUs from Intel and AMD should be built using a more power efficient 45nm process. Furthermore DD3 should be cheaper, but more importantly should consume less power than DD2.
• Get a laptop instead of a desktop if your work does not require a lot of horse power.
• Chose software that is low on CPU utilization. This would require some trial and error, as currently there is no standard that tells you how many CPU cycles each program consumes on each processor model or the total average energy in watts per task(for example a virus scan or watching a movie.)
• If you have multiple servers, go for virtualization and server consolidation. Additionally, make sure that the platform you purchase will have socket/memory type longevity.
• Chose computer RAM that has a low voltage rating.
• If money is not an issue, go for a high efficiency power supply.
• Buy computers and LCD panels with an energy star compliant rating.
• Choose a chipset or graphics card that can do HD(HD and Blu ray) decoding. GPUs are more efficient at HD video decoding than CPUs. Nvidia and AMD offer very efficient decoding in this regard.
  

Cars

Every green/enviro site has their own set of recommendations for car energy saving, so I wanted to mention a few of my own:

*Nitrogen tire filling. This is somewhat controversial, some studies show it does not work while others do, it is really hard to tell, but on the off chance that it might work, I would recommend it.

*Energy saving tires, these can actually work. Not sure if there would be any additional savings if these are combined with nitrogen tire filling. But if there is, the total would be 7-10% more mileage.

*I have seen very few sites mention the change of spark plugs, but with current fuel prices, it might not be a bad idea to change them before they are due for change.

*If your car is 10 years old, and you drive in the city more than you do on the highways, then now might be a good time to get either a compact car with a small 1.4-1.6ltr engine or a hybrid. Hybrids from Toyota and Honda are an excellent choice.

From a few article I read, I have already seen a shift in demand to smaller engine cars and Hybrids. I hope that car factories can keep up with this shift.

Car Longevity

Say that I buy a computer today, for example an Athlon 64 5200+ x2, I can upgrade it in a couple of years with a somewhat faster CPU that consumes less power. Similarly I can replace the graphics card inside the computer within 12-18 months with a twice as fast card that consumes less that what I currently have in terms of energy. The only worthy component that I can not replace is the chipset, and I really think that replacing it should be an option.

Anyway, what I would like to see is a similar upgrade path for cars, the ability, every 5-7 years, to replace the engine with a 15-30% more efficient engine. And I think this retrofitting should cost something like 1000-2000$ max. Such an upgrade path would be welcomed by a lot of people because they would not need to dump their "old" car every so many years or sell for peanuts.

Such an approach would also be helpful for the environment as the number of new cars produced would decrease. In this scenario the only people who would be slightly unhappy would be the automakers. But I do not think their profit margins would decrease much because they probably depend more on the spare parts business, and an older car is likely to need more spare parts than a new one.

Overpopulation

The estimates vary from source to source, but there is generally an agreement that earth can not support more than 5 billion people, however most estimates fall between 1 and 3 billions. I put my own estimate at 1 billion.

How do I arrive at this 1 billion figure? For starters, I want everyone to have a good living standard and to have an amount of unemployment of no more than 5%; currently world wide unemployment is 30%, so based on unemployment alone, the number of people on planet earth should be less than 4.5 billions. Further more, not only do I want a very low rate of unemployment, but also I would like to eliminate meaningless jobs, these are easily more than 50% of the jobs in the market. Another 20% of the jobs can be eliminated due to a smaller market when humanity down sizes and also due to technical innovations.

So how will we get from almost 7 billion people to just 1 billion? Well, I doubt that any thing can be done about China in the short run, as it already has a one child per family law. As for India, I think a lot can be done; a combination of financial incentives, family planning programs, education, and a two child per family law might be able to slow down the population explosion. If this is successful, maybe 10 years later a one child per family law can be enacted.

As for the muselm world, the same tactics can be used as I suggested for India, however a big problem is the opposition of religious authorties to family planning and abortion. From an Islamic jurisprudence point of view, there is a loophole that can be exploited, exceptions and reverasl of fatwas can be done if the clerics are convinced that humanity is heading for distatser and that there is no otherway but to issue new fatwas that not only allow family planning but encourage it. Once this is done, the various governements can start a two child per family limit program, or financial incentives for people not to have more kids, or to have them later than sooner.

Similarly, in south america and other areas under the hold of the catholic church, the catholic church needs to see the light and reconsider it positions in view of the iminemnt threat. I think the pope is a reasonable person and someone might be able to talk the him out of his position.

Reducing the population of humans is not a hopeless case, at least a dozen countries with a good living standard are having their populations decrease(not on purpose,) so clearly it is doable.

So once the population starts to decrease, it would be a great opportunity to redraw the map of the world in an envirnemtally smart manner; most people would live in areas with moderate climates. To me it makes no sense that people live in countries were you need to have the AC on 24/7, or where you need to keep the heating on most of the year. The greatest hurdles are natinalism and the fact that people would not be happy about leaving their own country, just for envirnmental reasons.

Can Microsoft save the day? part 2

Previously I wondered if Microsoft would ever save the day for humanity by supporting none x86 CPU architectures, and today in a similar vein I will argue that it should include GPGPU support for acceleration of current/future applications and create some sort of longevity for computer owners.

Just a week after I wrote my "Can Microsoft save the day" post, this article was published on toms hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-cuda-gpu,1954.html

The article is very interesting in that a) was skeptical of the claimed performance gains B) did not have high expectations c) the expectations were exceeded d) it showed that even with a crude quick test, that there is tons of juice to be milked from the GPU.

Basically, according to the article, in some cases making use of a mid range GPU for application accelartion can even beat an upgrade from a 2 core CPU to a 4 core CPU. Now what is more interesting is it that might be achieved with higher energy efficiency and performance per watt.

If this is implemented at the OS level, I see the possibility of saving of millions of Kilowatts per year. I can imagine a situation where a single or dual with a 30-45W TDP would be offloading all sorts of stuff to a 45 W midrange GPU and beating a 4 core 130 W CPU.

Then What?

I could not help but write this blog post despite it's political nature; the solution provided by the presumptive republican nominee senator John McCain for decreasing oil prices got me fuming on the inside.

McCain's solution for the short to medium term relief from high oil prices is to increase the supply side by drilling in Alaska and offshore while doing nothing on the demand side. This is a partially flawed proposal in several ways.

First of all, increasing the supply would shift the short and medium term focus away from renewable energy and improvements in efficiency and other related research. This will produce devastating results in the medium and long term.

Secondly, drilling in Alaska and off shore would almost surly harm the ecosystem, and drive many species extinct.

Finally, and this can not be stressed enough, this is only a short term solution, a quick fix if you will, that will last for the next 10-20years. Then what? What will happen when the oil dries up? It would seem that just like with social security, Iraq or the budget deficit, the modus operandi here is to leave the problem for the the next president or next generation to deal with.

A CRT monitor ban

The doom of incandescent lamps is almost certain, thanks to laws passed in various states and countries to prohibit their sale starting 2010-2012. Alas, no similar proposal is on the table for CRT monitors.

And while the long term demise of CRT monitors is all but assured, I think that legislation to ban these monitors by 2012-2014 should be put on the table for discussion in various countries as soon as possible.

Not only do CRTs consume three times the energy of comparable LCD monitors during operation, but they also consume 5-10 times more when they are idle. Additionally, the cost of the space that is required in industrial countries can be in the 100$ range per CRT monitor.

So if the demise of CRT is certain, why am I proposing an accelerated death sentence, why not let them die off "naturally"?

For two reasons, the first is because of the current state of affairs with regard to global warming and the second reason is that such a death sentence would sure drive the price of LCDs to more affordable levels.

What to read

In the not so distant future, I have no doubt that e-book readers will replace traditional books. Which is very good for the environment on several fronts, including less trees cut for paper making, less chemicals used for paper making, no ink used, less space required for books, no fuel required for shipping or distribution, etc.

However in the mean time the vast majority of us are still stuck with ink and paper books made in hard or soft cover. So what is my advise for "environmentally friendly" reading:

*Avoid hardcover books. These tend to weight 40-70% more than paperbacks, require more paper to produce, more energy to transport, more space to store, and are generally twice as expensive as their paperback counter parts.
*Buy a book with more pages, it will keep you entertained for longer, would require less trips to the library or the book store.
*Buy nonfiction, it takes longer to read.
*Get books from the library, and avoid owning books all together. This will come in handy on several fronts including space saving etc.
*Get as many books from the library as you can in one trip(assuming you read at home)
*Make a switch to e-books if you can.
*Give away or sell books that you do not want to keep.
*Buy used books.
*exchange books with friends.
*If you can read it, get the tinny pocket book edition that is around 2.5"x 4".

Now let me look in my crystal ball and tell you what I see; I see e-book readers starting to take off in about 3-5 years. This is assuming the same kind of price drop that most electronic gadgets follow.

Choosing a city to live in?

I guess most people do not take the environment as an important factor when they decide to move into a city. Some of the things they consider are night life, weather, friends, family, cost of living.

However, I think it is also important to take into consideration some environmental factors:

• Traffic. A city with too much traffic can not only waste 1000s of hrs of your lifetime, but also can be harmful for the environment, because cars consume fuel even when idle.
• Flat terrain. In a city with a flat terrain, it is possible to ride a bike. Not only is this good for the environment but also good for one's health and pocket. Also cars are more fuel efficient in flat terrains.
  
• Climate. A city with moderate climate will allow you to drive with the AC off during the summer. And would have minimal usage of both heating and cooling in your home or office.
• Building codes. A city with good building codes would help cut your electricity/heating bill.
• Public transportation. A city with good public transportation would save a lot of energy and would be very good for your pocket.

So I guess everyone living in Arizona and New Mexico would have to move out.