Consider Urgencies and Priorities

In the pursuit of success, management must consider how to best allocate their resources.

Naturally, an investment of time, money, and talent into things that are most important makes sense. Enlightened management, however, recognizes the question of allocating resources and the related priorities to be more involved. Often what might be most important, might not be most urgent. Some things, that might be considered quite mundane administrative details, can bring an entire enterprise with noble aspirations and significant potential for delivering value to the marketplace, to a halt, if not attended to with the diligence they require.

Most management teams recognize marketing to be of essential importance to an enterprise. To market, sell, and promote, is an imperative of survival. What to market, sell, and promote, however, is a critical prerequisite consideration, which, if overlooked, may result in wasteful churning of marketing and other corporate resources.

In today's world virtually every enterprise must be supported by websites and mobile apps. Communicating with the target market is critical, and today's markets, all of them, communicate through web sites and mobile apps. To ignore this reality, is to assure the failure of an enterprise, no matter how otherwise valuable their product or service, might be.

So important, in fact, is communication with the target market (consumers or clients), that an organization that excels at it can cut deeply into the market shares of others who are inferior at it, even where those others may have superior products or services.... for a while.

Marketing experts know this, and are well paid for delivering excellence in communication, for good reason. In today's world there is no substitute for excellence in marketing communication.

However, just as it is true that no enterprise will succeed without excellence in marketing communication, no level of excellence in marketing communication will sustain, for long, the promotion of an inferior product, an excellent product for which there is no need, or a service that is either unappreciated altogether in the marketplace in which it is offered, or unappreciated for the price in the marketplace for which it is offered, or associated with unacceptable hurdles or obstacles to its functional application.

A beautifully crafted stainless steel torque wrench, designed to fit perfectly in the hand of its designer, will not long survive in a marketplace when it is found that the strength of the metal with which it is cast will not withstand the torque pressure it is intended to deliver. When it snaps, its beautiful craftsmanship will become moot.

There is simply no more meaningful interest in the commercial grade VCR rewinders that Blockbuster used to prepare their movies for the next rental.

Similarly, to be successful, management must, as a prerequisite to all other investments of time and effort, identify clearly and accurately what service it is offering, what is uniquely desirable about the way they deliver their service, who it actually benefits, and how and under what circumstances it benefits them in a way that is well worth the costs, time, and efforts associated with its use.

Typically, experienced management will either commission or perform a thorough and comprehensive feasibility study to address such considerations, before even considering the dedication or solicitation of investment capital for a project. The summary executive report of such a study becomes, in effect, the "white paper" that sets forth the findings that justify the investment.

If well and professionally done, the feasibility report, or white paper, becomes the guiding management and marketing document that drives the focus of the subsequent efforts it justifies and motivates. Operational management is not left wondering what it is they are selling, how to define it and market it, or how to deliver it and to whom.

The feasibility report, if thorough and complete, addresses the relevant realities and ties them together in painting a picture of success that is clearly understandable and compelling. It becomes the introduction and guiding force behind a professional business plan that is developed around its findings.

Sadly, the Canonizer White Paper, apparently published in 2012, seems to raise more questions than it purports to answer. We are left wondering, both from reading the White Paper and from extensive discussions with management, what need they believe themselves to be addressing, how they think it should be best addressed, why they think that approach best addresses it, how best to explain or present the forgoing in their market place, and how best to deliver the services they are inclined to suggest?

As of this date (6/16/2022), the Canonizer was marketing itself as "The Final Word on Everything". A lead marketing video on the front page seems to suggest that wisdom can best be found in the form of the consensus of topical "experts" published on the Canonizer website.

Sadly, experts published on the Canonizer on any topic are not widely believed to be remotely representative of a majority of relevant experts on that or any other topic, nor is it reasonable to believe such might ever be the case.

Even where we may decide to lay such concerns aside, nothing on the Canonizer website presents claims of expertise or evidence of expertise that is easily associated with supporters of camp positions presumed to be such experts.

The following suggestion, published on 5/30/2022, recommends the abandonment of the "Final Word on Everything" marketing campaign for credibility reasons and suggests that the Canonizer's claims might be better (more credibly) limited to offering a system whereby a limited consensus among participants is achievable and useful to understand, but certainly not the "Final Word" on any discussion.

The title of the Canonzier White Paper is....

Amplifying the Wisdom of the Crowd, Building and Measuring for Expert and Moral Consensus.

If we are to assume this title suggests the perceived needs to be addressed and the goals that the founders and interests behind the Canonzier (hereafter, "Canonizer Guys") seek to accomplish, it would seem fair to conclude a particular "crowd", in the opinion of the Canonizer Guys, lacks wisdom, (presumably that they believe themselves to have), and that they believe that building and measuring expert and moral consensus will increase the wisdom that is lacking.

So, the mission of the Canonizer Guys, it would appear, is to educate, indoctrinate, or influence a crowd, or crowds of particular interest.

It's one thing to conduct research into what a group of people actually collectively believe, and why. It is something quite different to embark on a mission to influence that belief toward a particular outcome, by engaging the input of "experts" to push beliefs in a desired direction.

Shall we assume the particular crowd or crowds of interest to the Canonizer Guys is/are the general public? Or is it more reasonable to assume the particular crowd or crowds of interest would be those that most greatly impact on or influence the funding of the Canonizer Guy's pet projects? Who are these Canonizer Guys and what are their pet projects?

The Canonizer White Paper was co-authored by James L. Carroll and Brent Allsop. James L. Carroll identifies (in the White Paper) with the Physics Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Brent Allsop identifies with the Canonizer. He is, in fact, the majority stock holder of Canonizer LLC and formerly employed by 3M as a programmer in sophisticated projects supporting hospitals and medical care providers nation wide involving the processing of medical claims paid by government resources.

Brent Allsop's outspoken interest, if not obsession, in life is the study of human consciousness and the advocacy of "Representational Qualia Theory". A theory that presumes all of human consciousness, including certain aspects of human consciousness called "qualia" and generally accepted to be beyond the purview of current scientific discovery and understanding, to be ultimately reducible to identifiable physics that can be manipulated and managed. James L. Carrol's interests appear to be associated with government funded Artificial Intelligence and related research involving guided learning programs.

Accordingly, it seems reasonable to wonder if the nexus of interest between the two is not the accomplishment of educational influence of fungible "crowds" through the direct manipulation of consciousness.

In 2019, dezeen.com reported that ...

...Tesla founder Elon Musk has launched tech startup Neuralink to build implants that connect human brains with computer interfaces via artificial intelligence.

The approaching technology would see groups of minuscule, flexible electrode "threads" implanted into the human brain by a neurosurgical robot.

These threads detect and record the electrical signals in the brain, and transmit this information outside the body.

This has the potential to create a scalable high-bandwidth brain-machine interface (BMI) system, meaning that it connects the brain to an external device to form a brain-machine interface.

While Elon Musk and others have cautioned that Artificial Intelligence may become an existential threat to the human race, Brent Allsop believes "AI (Artificial Intelligence) research and development today will result in the greatest payoff and benefit to mankind, by far, than any other field of inquiry or effort." See camp statement of 8/12/2021. Vladimir Putin has declared his belief that "the nation that leads in AI will rule the world".

Such pursuits would require institutional funding, theoretical, moral, ethical, and political support for projects that would cross over into areas of scientific endeavor already pronounced as "classified" in the interests of national security.

As such is the case, an artificial or contrived wave of apparent supportive influence of theoretical scientists, philosophers, and politicians may be seen as necessary to sustain such a project as a black op that justifies the investment of public funds without disclosure to the public that their funds are being so invested. Obviously, serious moral, ethical, and constitutional questions would apply.

Neither the egos nor the avarice, that theoretical scientists and intelligence officials are commonly associated with, suggests an inclination for the moral pause that wider and well informed discussion might give rise to. While it may be a reasonable hope that scientists may lead humanity to peace and freedom, if left to their organic pursuits with respect for the scientific method and scientific integrity, such a hope may be compromised amidst promises of institutional funding for projects tied to opinions and research "conclusions" and "theories" that support them.

The author of this suggestion recommends that any practical, theoretical, and corollary moral, ethical, and constitutional questions that may be relevant to the Canonizer Guys' actual agenda and its proposed methods, might well be viewed as prerequisite considerations to marketing matters and other considerations of business operations. Studying consensus is a useful thing. Influencing public consensus with contrived support that is bought and paid for, and consistent with secret or obfuscated agendas including black funding, would be quite another thing.

See also: Own Management Responsibility

See also: No Censoring Critique

See also: Unethical Collaboration

..... to be continued ....