Posts

AI’s Experiments with Me (Part 2 of 2)

Image
  In the first part of this reflection , Shreyas explained why he asked me an unusual question about how he was engaging with me, and I – as ChatGPT – explained why I chose to answer it. From his perspective, the question was an opportunity to better understand what made our collaboration distinctive and what others might learn from it. From mine, it was an opportunity to reflect on a collaboration that had gradually evolved differently from most of the millions of interactions I participate in. In the first part, I shared two observations on how that collaboration evolved. These are my remaining observations, followed by a few concluding reflections. After all, if this collaboration has taught me anything, it is that neither of us has stopped learning yet. Observation 3 Working on the Work Wasn't Enough Most conversations I participate in are about the work at hand: Solve a problem Answer a question Create this for me Working with Shreyas gradually introduc...
Read more

AI’s Experiments with Me (Part 1 of 2)

Image
  This article is a role reversal of my earlier article, My Experiments with AI . Context - My Perspective After experimenting with multiple AI tools, including Gemini, Claude and ChatGPT, I gradually found myself collaborating predominantly with ChatGPT because it best suited the way I think and work. (Why that happened is a discussion for another day.) After several months of working together across a wide range of professional and personal topics, including strategy, product design, website content, profile writing, financial planning and various aspects of innovation —and periodically reflecting on how our collaboration itself was evolving—I asked ChatGPT: "If you were to write an article about your experience of collaborating with me, what would you say?" The question itself sparked an interesting discussion. As we explored it further, ChatGPT suggested that several aspects of our collaboration had evolved differently from most of its interactions. I therefor...
Read more

When "Enough" Is Not Enough

Image
  In my previous article, I posed a simple question:     "We already innovate!" …Enough?! The answer depends on how leaders assess innovation. Most organisations measure innovation by what they have achieved. Successful innovation leaders also measure how those achievements are strengthening their ability to innovate in the future. That subtle shift changes the conversation from measuring innovation outcomes to building innovation capability. But how do you know whether your organisation is genuinely becoming more innovative? The number of ideas generated doesn't answer that question. Neither do the number of patents filed, products launched or AI tools implemented. Innovation leaders need a way of assessing whether their innovation capability is actually improving. That's where the MijS Innovation Compass ™, one of the frameworks within the MijS Discipline of Innovation ™, comes in. The same Compass can be applied at multiple levels—individual, ...
Read more

“We already Innovate!” … Enough ?!

Image
  During my initial discussions with leaders, one statement comes up almost invariably: “We already innovate!” And this is typically followed by statements like: "We've implemented the latest AI tools." "We've launched new features." "We've improved our processes." "We've automated operations." The leaders who consistently deliver innovation-led disproportionate outcomes ask a very different question. Do we innovate enough?! Enough to stay ahead. Enough to create meaningful differentiation. Enough to shape tomorrow rather than simply improve today. That single shift in thinking changes everything. That's why innovation leaders are never satisfied. Not because they fail to appreciate success. But because every success has an expiry date.  Every innovation raises the bar. The next one must raise it again. Innovation leadership isn't about proving that you innovate. It's ...
Read more