10 ways to improve your data store

/

When I look at the industry's struggle with the data mess, I see a parallel with science's struggle with open data. I've written lots about that before, but the basic idea is simple: scientists need discoverable, accessible, documented, usable data. Does that sound familiar?

I wrote yesterday that I think we have to get away from the idea that we can manage data like we might manage a production line. Instead, we need to think about more organic, flexible strategies that cope with and even thrive on chaos. I like, or liked until yesterday, the word 'curation', because it implies ongoing care and a focus on the future. But my friend Eric Marchand was right in his comment yesterday — the dusty connotation is too strong, and dust is bad for data. I like his supermarket analogy: packaged, categorized items, each with a cost of production and a price. A more lively, slightly chaotic market might match my vision better — multiple vendors maintaining their own realms. One can get carried away with analogies, but I like this better than a library or museum.

The good news is that lots of energetic and cunning people have been working on this idea of open data markets. So there are plenty of strategies we can try, alongside the current strategy of giving giant service companies millions of dollars for their TechCloud® Integrated ProSIGHT™ Data Management Solutions.

Serve your customer:

  • Above all else, build what people need. It's amazing that this needs to be said, but ask almost anyone what they think of IT at their company and you will know that it is not how it works today. Everything you build should be in response to the business pulling. 
  • This means you have to get out of the building and talk to your customers. In person, one-one-one. Watch them use your systems. Listen to them. Respond to them. 

Knock down the data walls:

  • Learn and implement open data practices inside the organization. Focus on discoverability, accessiblity, documentation of good-enough data, not on building The One True Database. 
  • Encourage and fund open data practices among providers of public data. There is a big role here for our technical societies, I believe, but I don't think they have seen it yet.

I've said it before: hire loads of geeks:

  • The web (well, intranet) is your pipeline. Build and maintain proper machine interfaces (APIs and web APIs) for data. What, you don't know how to do this? I know; it means hiring web-savvy data-obsessed programmers.
  • Bring back the hacker technologists that I think I remember from the nineties. Maybe it's a myth memory, but sprinkled around big companies there used to be super-geeks with degrees in astrophysics, mad UNIX skills, and the Oracle admin password. Now it's all data managers with Petroleum Technology certificates who couldn't write an awk script if your data depended on it (it does). 
  • Institute proper data wrangling and analysis training for scientists. I think this is pretty urgent. Anecdotal evidence: the top data integration tools in our business is PowerPoint... or an Excel chart with two y-axes if we're talking about engineers. (What does E&P mean?)

Three more things:

  • Let data live where it wants to live (databases, spreadsheets, wikis, SharePoint if you must). Focus on connecting data with APIs and data translators. It's pointless trying to move data to where you want it to be — you're just making it worse. ("Oh, you moved my spreadsheet? Fine, I will copy my spreadsheet.")
  • Get out of the company and find out what other people are doing. Not the other industry people struggling with data — they are just as clueless as we are. Find out what the people who are doing amazing things with data are doing: Google, Twitter, Facebook, data.gov, Wikipedia, Digital Science, The New York Times, The Guardian,... there are so many to choose from. We should invite these people to our conferences; they can help us.
  • If you only do one thing, fix search in your company. Stop tinkering with semantic ontologies and smart catalogs, just buy Google Search Appliance and fix it. You can get this one done by Christmas.

Last thing. If there's one mindset that will really get in the way, it's the project mindset. If we want to go beyond coping with the data mess, far beyond it to thriving on it, then we have to get comfortable with the idea that this is not a project. The word is banned, along with 'initiative', 'governance', and Gantt charts. The requirements you write on the back of a napkin with three colleagues will be just as useful as the ones you get back from three months of focus groups.

No, this is the rest of your career. This is never done, next year there are better ideas, more flexible libraries, faster hardware, and new needs. It's like getting fit: this ain't an 8-week get-fit program, it's an eternity of crunches.

The photograph of Covent Market in London, Ontario is from Boris Kasimov on Flickr.

Data management fairy tales

/

On Tuesday I read this refreshing post in LinkedIn by Jeffrey Maskell of Westheimer Energy Consultants. It's a pretty damning assessment of the current state of data management in the petroleum industry:

The fact is that no major technology advances have been seen in the DM sector for some 20 years. The [data management] gap between acquisition and processing/interpretation is now a void and is impacting the industry across the board...

I agree with him. But I don't think he goes far enough on the subject of what we should do about it. Maskell is, I believe, advocating more effort (and more budget) developing what the data management crowd have been pushing for years. In a nutshell:

I agree that standards, process, procedures, workflows, data models are all important; I also agree that DM certification is a long term desirable outcome. 

These words make me sad. I'd go so far as to say that it's the pursuit of these mythical ideas that's brought about today's pitiful scene. If you need proof, just look around you. Go look at your shared drive. Go ask someone for a well file. Go and (a) find then (b) read your IT policies and workflow documents — they're all fairy tales.

Maskell acknowledges at least that these are not enough; he goes on:

However I believe the KEY to achieving a breakthrough is to prove positively that data management can make a difference and that the cost of good quality data management is but a very small price to pay...

No, the key to achieving a breakthrough is a change of plan. Another value of information study just adds to the misery.

Here's what I think: 'data management' is an impossible fiction. A fairy tale.

You can't manage data

I'm talking to you, big-company-data-management-person.

Data is a mess, and it's distributed across your organization (and your partners, and your government, and your data vendors), and it's full of inconsistencies, and people store local copies of everything because of your broken SharePoint permissions, and... data is a mess.

The terrible truth you're fighting is that subsurface data wants to be a mess. Subsurface geoscience is not accounting. It's multi-dimensional. It's interdependent. Some of it is analog. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of formats, many of which are proprietary. Every single thing is unquantifiably uncertain. There are dozens of units. Interpretation generates more data, often iteratively. Your organization won't fund anything to do with IT properly — "We're an oil company, not a technology company!" — but it's OK because VPs only last 2 years. Well, subsurface facts last for decades.

You can't manage data. Try something else.

The principle here is: cope don't fix.

People earnestly trying to manage data reminds me of Yahoo trying to catalog the Internet in 1995. Bizarrely, they're still doing it... for 3 more months anyway. But we all know there's only one way to find things on the web today: search. Search transcends the catalog. 

So what transcends data management? I've got my own ideas, but first I really, really want to know what you think. What's one thing we could do — or stop doing — to make things a bit better?

Have some bacn

/

You might have noticed a lot of emails from Canadian companies recently, asking you to confirm that you wish to receive emails from them. This is because a key part of the 2010 anti-spam law comes into effect tomorrow. We haven't sent you anything, becase we have always complied with the spirit of the law.

What is spam?

We all know what spam is, and the Canadian government's definition is plain:

commercial electronic messages [received] without the recipient's consent

And here's a definition of bacn (pronounced 'bacon') from author Jonathon Keats:

Spam by personal request

This seems to contradict the first definition, but the idea is that bacn is better than spam, but still not as good as a personal email. It's commercial email that you asked for. (Aside: according to that same author, bacn from geologists is quakn.)

Email from Agile*

Because we want you to have as much control over your inbox as possible, I have just switched our email subscription service from Feedburner to MailChimp. One of the reasons is MailChimp's excellent and rigorous anti-spam policy enforcement. Their emails make it very clear who an email is from, and how to unsubscribe from them. 

If you receive our blog updates via email, I hope you see them as a service and not a nuisance. If you're unsure about subscribing because you fear receiving promotions and so on — I promise that all you will ever get is our blog posts. It's just a convenient way to read the blog for some people. 

Just to be clear:

  • We will never add you to a mailing list that you didn't expressly subscribe to.
  • We will always give you an easy way to unsubcribe.
  • We will never share your email address or name with anyone else.
  • We will only send you emails that have an obvious Unsubscribe option.

Other ways to read

Here are some other options for subscribing to our RSS feed, which you will find at /journal/rss.xml 

We want you to be able to easily find, read, interact with, and share our content. If there is some other way we can serve you, please let us know. 

The can of spam image is by Flickr's Clyde Robinson and licensed CC-BY.

Patents are slowing us down

/

I visited a geoscience consulting company in Houston recently. Various patent awards were proudly commemorated on the walls on little plaques. It's understandable: patents are difficult and expensive to get, and can be valuable to own. But recently I've started to think that patents are one of the big reasons why innovation in our industry happens at a snail's pace, in the words of Paul de Groot in our little book about geophysics. 

Have you ever read a patent? Go and have a read of US Patent 8670288, by Børre Bjerkholt of Schlumberger. I'll wait here.

What are they for?

It is more or less totally unreadable. And Google's rendering, even the garbled math, is much nicer than the USPTO's horror show. Either way, I think it's safe to assume that almost no-one will ever read it. Apart from anything else, it's written in lawyerspeak, and who wants to read that stuff?

Clearly patents aren't there to inform. So why are they there?

  • To defend against claims of infringement by others? This seems to be one of the main reasons technology companies are doing it.
  • To intimidate others into not trying to innovate or commercialize an innovation? With the possible unintended consequence of forcing competitors to avoid trouble by being more inventive.
  • To say to Wall Street (or whoever), "we mean business"? Patents are valuable: the median per-patent price paid in corporate acquisitions in 2012 was $221k.
  • To formalize the relationship between the inventor (a human, given that only humans have the requisite inventive genius) and the intellectual property owner (usually a corporation, given that it costs about $40k in lawyer's fees to apply for a patent successfully)?
  • Because all the cool kids are doing it? Take a look at that table. You don't want to get left behind do you?

I'm pretty sure most patents in our industry are a waste of money, and an unecessary impediment to innovation in our industry. If this is true then, as you see from the trend in the data, we have something to worry about.

A dangerous euphemism

That phrase, intellectual property, what exactly does that mean? I like what Cory Doctorow — one of Canada's greatest intellects — had to say about intellectual property in 2008:

the phrase "intellectual property" is, at root, a dangerous euphemism that leads us to all sorts of faulty reasoning about knowledge.

He goes on to discuss that intellectual property is another way of saying 'ideas and knowledge', but can those things really be 'property'? They certainly aren't like things that definitely are property: if I steal your Vibroseis truck, you can't use it any more. If I take your knowledge, you still have it... and so do I. If it was useful knowlege, then now it's twice as useful.

This goes some way to explaining why 2 weeks ago, the electric car manufacturer Telsa relinquished its right to sue patent infringers. The irrepressible Elon Musk explained::

Yesterday [11 June], there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.

This is bold, but smart — Tesla knows that its best chance of dominating a large electric vehicle industry depends on there being a large electric vehicle industry. And they've just made that about 10 times more likely.

What will we choose?

I think one of the greatest questions facing our industry, and our profession, is: How can we give ourselves the best chance of maintaining the ability to find and extract petroleum in a smart, safe, ethical way, for as long as humanity needs it? By seeking to stop others from applying a slightly new velocity model building algorithm? By locking up over 2000 other possibly game-changing ideas a year? Will society thank us for that?

Free software tips

/

Open source software is often called 'free' software. 'Free as in freedom, not free as in beer', goes the slogan (undoubtedly a strange way to put it, since beer is rarely free). But something we must not forget about free and open software: someone, a human, had to build it.

It's not just open source software — a lot of stuff is free to use these days. Here are a few of the things I use regularly that are free:

Wow. That list was easy to write; I bet I've barely scratched the surface.

It's clear that some of this stuff is not free, strictly speaking. The adage 'if you're not paying for it, then you're the product' is often true — Google places ads in my Gmail web view, Facebook is similarly ad driven, your LinkedIn account provides valuable data and a prospect to paying members, mostly in human resources. 

But it's also clear that a few individuals in the world are creating massive, almost unmeasurable (if you think about Linux or Wikipedia), value in the world... and then giving it away. Think about that. Think about what that enables in the world. It's remarkable, especially when I think about all the physical junk I pay for. 

Give something back

I won't pretend to be consistent or rigorous about this, but since I started Agile I've tried to pay people for the awesome things that I use every day. I donate to Wikimedia, Mozilla and Creative Commons, I pay for the (free) Ubuntu Linux distribution, I buy the paid version of apps, and I buy the basic level of freemium apps rather than using the free one. If some freeware helps me, I send the developer $25 (or whatever) via PayPal.

I wonder how many corporations donate to Wikipedia to reflect the huge contribution it makes to their employees' ability to perform their work? How would it compare with how much it spends on tipping restaurant servers and cab drivers every year in the US, even when the service was mediocre?

There are lots of ways for developers and other creators to get paid for work they might otherwise have done for free, or at great personal expense or risk. For example, Kickstarter and Indiegogo are popular crowdfunding platforms. And I recently read about a Drupal developer's success with Gittip, a new tipping protocol.

Next time you get real value from something that cost you nothing, think about supporting the human being that put it together. 

The image is CC-BY-SA and created by Wikimedia Commons user JIP.

Do something that scares you

/

Last week, I asked if we — our community of practice — is comfortable with the murky zone between corporate marketing and our technical societies. Lots of discussion ensued. On reflection, I was a little unclear about exactly whom I was picking on — corporate marketers (mostly) or technical societies. Today, I thought I'd dig deeper into the corporate marketing side a little, and think about what the future might look like. We can look at societies some other time. 

What marketing used to be

Marketing used to mean nothing less prosaic than buying and selling stuff. Since the post-war consumer revolution, it has gradually expanded in scope and today covers advertising, promotion, publicity, branding, and customer management.

Unfortunately, much of what comes out of marketing departments is spin. How else could it be? The marketers only have control over their own domain, they don't design or build or even use the products. They're 'only doing their job' — positioning their products in the market, obsessing about the competition, negotiating ad space, and tweaking their brand image. Beyond the simple transmission of information — a necessary service to the world — all this effort is aimed at making their products and services look better than they actually are. 

Recognizing brokenness

Some totally real readers of this blog. Let's start with some easy things: if your marketing people can't answer questions about your products and services, they don't care enough — replace them. If they write copy that contains the words 'innovative', 'breakthrough', or 'unleash' — replace them. If you ask them for 'something new' and get back stock photos with pictures of your software pasted over them — replace them.

The problem with all this — buying more ad space, building bigger booths, getting better seats at hockey games, and so on — is... well, there are lots:

  • We've seen it all before, it's boring. Is that your message?
  • Thanks to the Matthew effect, the biggest wallet will win. Is that you?
  • It's all about you, the brand, not them, your users and customers.
  • I don't trust you. You are biased. I trust my friends and colleagues. 

Walk the walk

Like losing weight, getting fit, or writing a novel, I'm afraid there's no easy way: you have to do the hard work. Stop looking for new ways to tell everyone you're the most awesome company with the most powerful software. Just be the most awesome company. Show don't tell. Build great software and services and, more importantly, do great things with them. Competitors can copy what you do, especially if they are Petrel (they will beat you every time), but not how you do it. Instead of trying to play tennis against Roger Federer, you might do better changing the game to The Settlers of Catan, or super-solar space spag (no, that game has not been invented yet). 

Here are some ideas for your next expo. These things should scare you. If not, find something that does.

  • Bring developers to talk to people and connect them with your users.
  • Show people your development process, your bug list, and your roadmap. 
  • Hold a clinic and help your users help each other do more awesome things.
  • Brainstorm new product ideas right there on the show floor. Have a developer prototype the best one each day.
  • Broadcast your ideas in front of your competitors. They will weep with fear because they know they lack your courage and audacity. They can copy algorithms, but they can't copy awesomeness. 
  • Watch people using your products. Let them teach you how they want to work.
  • Hold a contest to find The Power User. Can your best user beat your best consultant?
  • An iPad draw? Seriously? You just want my email address to spam me. I have an iPad.
  • Hide your sales and marketing people for a day and see what happens.

Above all, stop copying your competitors. They suck at marketing too. 

Advice for the rest of us

I know not everyone feels as strongly as I do, and some people seem happy with the status quo. But to everyone else, I have a challenge: Demand to be delighted.

Next time you are confronted with some sales and marketing cruft, dare to ask hard questions. Have high expectations. Refuse the stuffed toy — "What has this got to do with my work?". Laugh at the lame pen, don't stuff it in your pocket. Call out the sexist nonsense. And when you find a booth that's working hard to please the people that really matter, reward them with your attention.

If you're a marketer, what would you do if there was no risk of failure? If you're a victim of marketing, what would could should a service company do to delight you? 

Scientists not prospects

/

If you've never worked on 'the dark side' — selling technical products and services — you may not think much about marketing. If you work for an energy company, and especially if you're a 'decision maker' (wait, don't we all make decisions?), you may not realize that it's all aimed at you. Every ad, every sponsored beer, every trade show booth and its cute bunnies. The marketers are the explorers, and you are the prospect.

My question is: are you OK with their exploration methods?

The cost of advertising

Marketing futurists have been saying for ages that interruption advertising is dead. Uncurated, highest-bidder, information-free ads, 'inserted' (that's what they call it) into otherwise interesting and useful 'content' do not work. Or at least, people can't agree on whether they work or not. And that means they don't. 

The price of print advertising does not reflect this, however. Quite the opposite. Here's what a year of premium full-page ads will cost you in three leading publications: 

Still not bad compared to Wired ($1.67 million). You start to understand why companies hire marketing people. Negotiating volume pricing and favourable placements is a big deal, think of the money you can save. What a shame ads bring nothing at all to our community. All that money — so little impact. Well, zero impact. 

Conferences are where it really gets serious. Everything has a price. Want to buy 250 gallons of filtrate, I mean 'sponsor a coffee break'? That will be $5000 but don't worry, you get a little folded card with your name on it (and some coffee stains). How about a booth in the exhibition? They are only $23 per sq ft (about $250/m2), so that big shiny booth? That'll be about $75,000. That's before you bring in carpet, drywall, theatrical lighting, displays, and an espresso machine.

No wonder one service company executive once told me: "It's not a waste of money. It's a colossal waste of money." He said they only went because people would talk if they didn't.

Welcome to the oil industry

Walking around the trade show at SEG the other week, we were not very surprised to be accosted by a troop of young women dressed in identical short, tight dresses, offering beer tickets. Where's the beer? At their booth, obviously, about half a kilometre away (Manhattan distance). Apparently the marketing department assumed that no-one in their right mind would visit their booth on the basis of their compelling products or their essential relationships with an engaged and enthusiastic user community. Come to think of it, they were probably correct.

One innovative company has invented time travel, but unfortunately only to 1975. At least, that's the easiest way to explain the shoeshine stand at Ovation's booth. You can imagine the marketing meeting: "Let's get some women in short skirts, and get them to shine people's shoes!" I expect someone said, "Wait, isn't this a technical conference for subsurface scientists, shouldn't we base our marketing strategy on delighting the industry with our unbeatable services?" — and after a moment's reflection, the raucous laughter confirming that yes, the sexy shoeshine stand was indeed an awesome idea.

Let's be clear: marketing, as practised in this industry, is a waste of money. And this latter kind of marketing — remarkable for all the wrong reasons — is an insult to our profession and our purpose. 

Are we cool with this?

Last year I asked whether we (our community of technical practitioners and scientists) are okay with burning 210 person-years of productivity at a major conference and having very little to show for it at the end. 

Today I'm asking a different question: are we okay with burning millions of dollars on glossy ads, carpeted booths, nasty coffee, and shoeshine stands? Is this an acceptable price for our attention? Is the signal:noise ratio high enough?

I am not sure where I'm going with all of this — I am still trying to figure out what I think about it all. But I know one thing: I can't stand it. I will not step into another exhibition. I am withdrawing my attention — which I suppose means that yours is now worth a tiny bit more. Or less.

Update on 2013-10-16 17:10 by Matt Hall

Anyone involved in marketing that has actuallyl read this far without surfing off in disgust might like to carry on reading the follow-up to this post — Do something that scares you.

Places for ideas in Houston

/

Evan has told before of how productive he is at the HUB Halifax. And ever since I've been involved in The HUB South Shore, a co-working space in my small town, I've been keenly interested in communal and collaborative workspaces. I think they're a powerful model for independent scientists and entrepreneurs, perhaps even inside large companies too. 

Because of this, and because most hotels are such boring venues (there are always exceptions), we decided to host the hackathon this weekend at a co-working space, START Houston (right). A converted urban loft residence (well, a loft on the ground floor), it's got downtown character with an artistic edge. Evan and I gatecrashed a startup pitch coaching session while we were there — we heard 3-minute pitches from 4 Houston startups, including eOilBoom, an interesting crowdfunding platform for oil and gas concerns, and Philantro, a curated social layer for non-profits and philanthropists.

We need this level of ideation, business-model testing, and experimental entrepreneurship in subsurface science. How do we make this happen?

Co-working? Co-reseach!

Two weeks ago, I tweeted something about the hackathon, and Jacob at Brightwork Co-Research tweeted back at me:

Just another one of the wonderful serendipities of social media. That one connection is worth a lot to me, and is characteristic of the generous community of scientists on Twitter.

While in town, we thought we'd drop in and see what Brightwork is about... and I've rarely been more excited. Jacob Shiach (left) showed us the embryonic space neighbouring Rice University, complete with a rapid prototyping space (think of hardware hacking soldering, 3D printers, and so on), and a wet lab for full-on biotechnical research. In under a year, Jacob plans to fill the space with researchers in bio, physics, math, technology, and any other scientific discipline that needs a lab outside of academia or industry. What can independent researchers do when they have all the tools of big research? What would you do with your own lab?

These places exist

To complete our tour, we headed over to Platform — a more conventional co-working space around the corner from Brightwork. The familiar buzz and productive vibe of co-working hits you immediately: here a livestream of TEDxHouston City2.0, there a new startup hashing out customer segments for their product. Imagine an office full of smart, energetic, friendly people who don't actually have to work together, no meetings, and no sign above the sink saying "Your mother doesn't work here!". Yeah, those places exist.

Geoscience, reservoir engineering, and code

/
We’re in the middle of a second creative revolution driven by technology. “Code” is being added to the core creative team of art and copy, and the work being made isn't like the ads we're used to. Code is enabling the re-imagination of everything. Aman Govil, Art, Copy & Code

Last year at Strata I heard how The Guardian newspaper has put a team of coders — developers and visualization geeks — at the centre of their newsroom. This has transformed their ability to put beautiful and interactive graphics at the heart of the news, which in turn transforms their readers' ability to absorb and explore the stories.

At the risk of sounding nostalgic, I remember when all subsurface teams had a dedicated and über-powerful tech, sometimes two. They could load data, make maps, hack awk scripts, and help document projects. Then they started disappearing, and my impression is that today most scientists have to do the fiddly stuff themselves. Woefully inefficiently. 

The parable of the coder

Give someone 20 sudoku to solve. They'll sit down and take a day to solve them. At the end, they'll hate their job, and possibly you, but at least you'll have your solutions.

Now, give a coder 20 sudoku to solve. They'll sit down and take a week to solve them — much slower. The difference is that they'll have solved every possible sudoku. What's more, they'll be happy. And you can give them 10,000 more on Monday.

Hire a coder

The fastest way out of the creeping inefficiency is to hire as many coders as you can. I fervently believe that every team should have a coder. Not to build software, not exactly. But to help build quick, thin solutions to everyday problems — in a smart way. Developers are special people. They are good at solving problems in flexible, reusable, scalable ways. Not with spreadsheets and shared drives, but with databases and APIs. If nothing else, having more coders around the place might catalyse the shabby pace of innovation and entrepreneurship in subsurface geoscience and engineering.

Do your team a favour — make the next person you hire a developer.

Image: Licensed CC-BY by Héctor Rodríguez, Wikimedia Commons.

Expert culture is bad for you

/
Experts_Expert.jpg

Expert culture is bad for you. Not experts themselves, though I prefer not to use the word at all, but a culture that elevates them unduly. I don't like the word because it is usually used to mean something like master, chief, authority, or worst of all, judge. 

What's wrong with expert culture? Lots:

  • It disenfranchises everyone else. Non-experts think there are some opinions they are not entitled to. In a highly creative, subjective discipline like ours, this is A Bad Thing.
  • This forces them to wait around till the expert can tell them what to do. Which slows everything down. If they have to wait too long, or can't get the expert's attention, or the expert can't or won't get involved, the opportunity, whatever it was, may disappear. 
  • Meanwhile, experts are burdened with impossibly high expectations — of always being right or at least deeply insightful. This makes them cautious. So if they're uncertain or uncomfortable, they hang back because there's no upside to being wrong in the expert culture.
  • Expert culture encourages knowledge hoarding, because it explicitly connects personal knowledge with glory, and downplays what the rest of the organization knows. The ignorance of the masses highlights the expert's prestige.
  • Experts, frustrated with having to tell people what to do all the time, write best practice documents and other edicts, which try to make tricky workflows idiot-proof. But idiot-proof means idiot-friendly — who did you hire?

How to fix it

Experts_Linchpin.jpg

Better is a culture of expertise. The basic premise is that expertise is everywhere in your organization. You do not, and can not, know where it is. Indeed, its whereabouts will often surprise you. Turns out you hired awesome people after all — and they know stuff. Yay!

In the culture of expertise, what are these people we often call experts? They are still highly experienced people, with unusually broad or deep careers, with profound intelligence or intuition. But now they are free to apply their insight and judgment in more creative and more daring ways — even to things they aren't considered experts in. And their role in this new culture shifts slightly: it becomes the seeking, assessing, parsing, synthesizing, and spreading of expertise in the organization — wherever it is. They become curators, mentors, and champions of excellence. And they will revel in it.

The best experts do this already. How many do you know? Will you step up?