互聯網大學 | 企業數位轉型需要的人才及能力
1/24 (日)下午 互聯網大學邀請了 — IBM 全球企業諮詢服務事業群總經理總經理 吳建宏先生 與我們分享「企業數位轉型需要的人才及能力」的議題
IBM 的策略顧問致力於,運用AI、混合雲、諮詢服務來解決企業的問題、協助企業轉型)
/
ㄧ、你如何定義「數位轉型」?
我所定義的「數位轉型」主要分成工作方式的轉型、工作流的轉變。
1. 工作方式的轉型|遠端工作、協作工具的興起
隨著疫情加劇,讓人們開始「遠距學習」、「遠端協作」的旅程,學習如何使用線上協作工具,例如:Slack、Jandi、zoom、google meet等等,甚至是使用線上學習平台學習,例如,Coursera, Udemy, Hupspot, google analysis academy, Lynda,Hohaw等等,都是需具備的能力之一。
此外,在遠端工作、團隊成員多元的情況下,更不能忽視語言溝通的能力
(最基本的就是英文溝通!如果連最基本的溝通都達不到,就算有再強的技能,也很難拿到offer)。
2. 工作流的轉變|從瀑布流轉變為敏捷式專案執行
先前看過一本書 < Google創投認證!SPRINT衝刺計畫:Google最實用工作法,5天5步驟迅速解決難題、測試新點子、完成更多工作!> ,書裡提到現在越來越多團隊在產品開發上,選擇使用「 sprint 衝刺計畫 」,而非瀑布式工作流。
若使用先前的「瀑布法開發法」就必須透過 — 計畫、設計、發展、測試、維護等從上而下、step-by-step 傳統作業流程。
但是,若團隊使用「敏捷式開發法」,就可以透過五天的衝刺計畫,發展出一項專案產品。
p.s.不過因為隊員必須在計畫執行中聚在一起、空出五個整天(排除其他工作),所以我認為不太適用於遠端工作中!
以下是「敏捷式開發法」的周行程範例!
星期一|說明衝刺計畫的流程、設定在計畫內要解決的問題、畫出產品及顧客的關係圖、請教專家、選定目標
星期二|隊員示演理想的解決方案、畫出方案草圖
星期三|選出或溝通出最佳解決方案、試畫製分鏡腳本
星期四|隊員分工(包含製作者、整合者、促進者、資料收集者、採訪者等)、製作原型、試運轉
星期五|與五個潛在顧客進行訪談
(p.s.如果對「敏捷工作術」感興趣的話,< Google創投認證!SPRINT衝刺計畫:Google最實用工作法,5天5步驟迅速解決難題、測試新點子、完成更多工作!> 書裡頭有更詳細的案例解說!)
/
二、IBM 所定義的數位轉型(圖二+圖三)
The Cognitive Enterprise
1. 文化
(1)Culture
* 是否能接受「Agile」?如何更敏捷的決策?
(2)Skills
* HR數位化
* 以技能評估 candidate 是否合適這個職缺?
(3)Ways of working
* 思考方式|設計思考力
* 工作環境|共同工作空間
*
2. 平台
(1)Enterprise strategy platforms
* 協助客戶形成生態圈
* 將 Business Model 加入 API 的元素
(2)Industry platforms
(3)Cross industry platforms
(4)Enterprise enabling platforms
3. 流程
(1)Front-office processes
(2)Back-office processes
* 流程數位化
* 協助中小企業貸款,量數最多的案件是中國信託,因為他讓流程線上自動化(RPA),鼓勵客戶線上申請、機器人自動審核
(3)Decision process
4. 科技
(1)AI
(2)Blockchian
(3)Automation
(4)Internet of things
(5)5G
(6)API
5. 數據
(1) Proprietary data
(2) Licensed data
(3) Public data
(4) Custom
(5) Legacy
6. 應用系統
(1) Cloud native
(2) Digital
7.基礎架構
(1) Public
(2) Private
/
三、在數位轉型下,我們需具備的能力?(圖四)
/
四、Q&A section
1.去年IBM在「雲端金融論壇」提到未來的金融趨勢有 — 開放銀行、金融上雲、純網銀,那麼透過 IBM garage 實行敏捷創新、敏捷AI 、敏捷上雲時,有沒有遇到什麼困難?如何因應?
A : IBM 會以「成本效益分析」、「法律問題」、「雲端的預算」的角度出發做思考。
2. IBM 會希望員工跨部門輪轉嗎?
A : 未來希望人才往「ㄆㄞ型」前進,所以部門員工輪轉的方式會是「部門的輪調」或「不同專案間的輪調」。
3. 如果幫助客戶的服務成效不彰時,會有什麼應對措施?
A : 雖然可能出現不被客戶信任的情況,但可藉此學習、避免下次出現類似的情況。
#ibm #learn #digital #xchange #taipei
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「cross section data」的推薦目錄:
- 關於cross section data 在 Thekittychang Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於cross section data 在 元毓 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於cross section data 在 VOP Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於cross section data 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於cross section data 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於cross section data 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於cross section data 在 What is the difference between pooled cross sectional data ... 的評價
- 關於cross section data 在 Cross Section Analysis — MetPy 1.1 的評價
- 關於cross section data 在 Generate cross-section from panel data in R [duplicate] - Stack ... 的評價
cross section data 在 元毓 Facebook 的精選貼文
根據計算,100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東;200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。
順道一提香港15~30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看,兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。
另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair,幾天內湧進40萬人次,照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。(http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg)
當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車,幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。
而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。
順道一提,因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現:
https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/
EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)
cross section data 在 VOP Facebook 的最佳貼文
新刊出版 NEW RELEASE !
Voices of Photography 攝影之聲
Issue 25 : 監控 : 科技資本主義及其不滿
Surveillance: Technocapitalism and Its Discontents
歡迎來到2019,在本世紀將加速前往第二個十年的同時,全球正進入新型態的治理境界,一個炫麗繽紛的數位異化年代。科技資本主義鼓吹的美好網路資訊社會、數位公民幻景,現已整合為順從技術應用與網路社群企業的領導,使人在不斷製造的便利、歡愉與安全的服務口號中上癮,聽任其監控我們的一舉一動,將我們挾帶進難以辨識的、以演算法、審查與評分機制流動控管的漩渦之中,牢牢確保現實世界按照既有的政商權力體系運作。當資料從原本網路科技的副產品,變成如今科技資本主義發展的主要目的,成為「資料(影像)」而非「使用者」的我們,如何建立反支配的能力?
在本期《攝影之聲》中,陳界仁揭示當前科技-政經複合體的「全域式」操控警訊,在人類的自我意識存在危機與新種姓制度降臨之前,尋求從中突圍的思考路徑;義大利藝術家保羅.奇理歐對網路重商主義造成個人資料的濫用加以反擊,藉由遊走在法律邊際的藝術介入,提出積極干預與對抗的社會實踐;作為網路藝術的先鋒,鄭淑麗將在威尼斯雙年展台灣館展出的「3×3×6」,延伸邊沁的環形監獄概念,以3D影像掃描、臉部辨識技術與行動應用程式裝置,駭入「數據全景敞視監控」(data panopticon)的當代牢籠,呈現跨域解放的科幻異托邦地景。同時,我們也邀請影像研究學者黃建宏與新媒體藝術家陶亞倫進行深度對談,論析監控結構、影像科技與人性欲望的糾葛關係。
此外,本期收錄多篇專文:張世倫以蘇育賢錄像作品中脫逃移工的影像所引發的監管議題、以及台灣攝影史上第一次全島大規模拍攝身分證的影像事件等,疏理攝影本身隱含的治理元素;孫松榮則從1980年代初、台灣首位銀行搶犯李師科被監視器拍下的身影,乃至高重黎與陳界仁的錄像藝術,剖析體制的視線規訓;施懿珊的網路社會生態實驗與身分發明,持續進行新一波數位統治術的思辨與未來預示;顧錚藉由冷戰時期東德秘密警察遺留的影像檔案,一探諜報監視技術的早年發展;張瑋探尋敏感反映監控體系的當代藝術,思索科技應用與控制之間的辯證啟示。
「攝影書製作現場」單元進入「編輯」階段,特別訪問日本著名攝影出版社蒼穹舍的創辦人、資深圖片編輯大田通貴,並記錄了大田的影像編輯工作實況。「影像香港」單元則論辨十九世紀初、香港第一位攝影師的攝影史推論解讀。
2019年的歷史意義,是為了進入2020政治權力佈局而存在的一年。賽博空間作為兵家必爭之地,權力引發的控制欲也將啟動網路科技新一波的社會效應。在這個政治人物集體網紅化、並試圖將公民鄉民化的詭譎時刻,你我將在歡樂的聲效氣氛中,準備迎接從未經歷過的處境。
● 購買 Order | http://bit.ly/vop25
Welcome to 2019, a dazzling era of digital alienation as this century accelerates into its second decade and the world enters a new state of governance. The glorious information society and visions of a digital citizenry advocated by technocapitalism have integrated into leaders of technology application and Internet social enterprises. We find ourselves hooked on the constant slogans of convenience, pleasure and security, allowing our every move to be monitored while being dragged into a whirlpool whose flow is controlled by an unrecognizable mechanism of algorithm, review and scoring, thereby ensuring that the real world operates in accordance with established political and business powers. As data transforms itself from a by-product of network technology to become the main purpose behind the development of technological capitalism, how do we build the ability to resist domination as we turn from ‘users’ to ‘data (images)’?
In this issue of Voices of Photography, Chieh-Jen Chen rings the alarm on the pervasive control of the current political economy of science and technology, seeking a path of thought towards a way out before the descent of an existential crisis and a new caste system. Italian artist Paolo Cirio strikes back at the abuse of personal data resulting from Internet mercantilism through social practices of active interference and confrontation, using art forms that teeter on the edge of law. As a pioneer of Internet art, Shu-Lea Cheang will be representing Taiwan at the 58th Venice Biennale with “3×3×6”, an extension of Jeremy Bentham’s concept of panopticon. Hacking into the “data panopticon” of a contemporary prison using 3D image scanning, facial recognition technology and mobile applications, a cross-domain and liberated sci-fi heterotopia opens up. At the same time, we have also invited imagery researcher Chien-Hung Huang and new media artist Ya-Lun Tao for an in-depth discussion to analyzing the complex relationship between surveillance structures, imaging technologies and human desires.
Readers will also find a number of essays in this issue: Shih-Lun Chang reveals the political element hidden in photography as he takes a look at the regulatory issues that were sparked from the image of an escaped migrant worker in Yu-Hsien Su’s video work, and the first large-scale identity card photoshoot in the photography history of Taiwan; Song-Yong Sing analyzes the institutional discipline of vision through the images of Shih-Ke Lee, the first bank robber in Taiwan in the early 1980s, that were caught on a surveillance camera, and the video artworks by Chung-Li Kao and Chieh-Jen Chen; Yi-Shan Shih continues to contemplate and predict a future that is dominated by the new digital wave through her Internet social ecological experiments and identity inventions; Gu Zheng explores the early development of espionage surveillance technology through image files left behind by the East German secret police during the Cold War; Chang Wei ponders the dialectical relationship between technology application and control as she looks at contemporary art that consciously reflects the system of surveillance.
The “Photobook Making: Case Study” series enters the “Editing” phase. We have a special interview with Michitaka Ota, the founder of the renowned Japanese photography publishing house, Sokyu-Sha, who is also an experienced image editor, and follow him in action at image editing work. Meanwhile, the “Image Hong Kong” section discusses the interpretation of the photographic history of Hong Kong’s first photographer in the early 19th century.
2019's significance as a year is because it exists for the political power mapping of 2020. As cyberspace turns into a crucial battleground for strategists, the desire for control that comes with power will also trigger a new wave of social implications brought about by Internet technology. In these volatile times when politicians are becoming Internet sensations and trying to turn citizens into netizens, we will be preparing to face never-before-encountered situations in an atmosphere of joyful theatrics.
---
Voices of Photography 攝影之聲
www.vopmagazine.com
cross section data 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
cross section data 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
cross section data 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
cross section data 在 Cross Section Analysis — MetPy 1.1 的推薦與評價
cross_section can obtain a cross-sectional slice through gridded data. import cartopy.crs as ccrs import cartopy.feature as ... ... <看更多>
cross section data 在 Generate cross-section from panel data in R [duplicate] - Stack ... 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>
cross section data 在 What is the difference between pooled cross sectional data ... 的推薦與評價
Cross -sectional data differs from time series data also known as longitudinal data, which follows one subject's changes over the course of time. Another variant ... ... <看更多>
相關內容