Category english (sort of)

Apply for ISPIM PhD Innovation Management Dissertation Award

ISPIM, John Wiley & Sons and Innovation Leaders are offering prizes worth over EUR 10,000 to the authors of the three best innovation management dissertations from 2014. The deadline for submission to the ISPIM PhD Innovation Management Dissertation Award is 31st January. Info here.

Previous dissertations are interesting to browse. Open innovation seems to have earned quite a few interesting thoughts:

Du, Jingshu – Vlerick Business School, Belgium – Research open innovation at the R&D project level (Prize winner)

“First, the effect of open innovation depends on the type of partners involved in the collaboration process, as well as the key performance indicator of the project that managers are focusing at. While science-based partners are particularly helpful in achieving high financial returns, market-based partners are beneficial in faster project development.

Second, the effect of open innovation depends on a number of contingencies, such as project characteristics, project management style, project resources and technological stock, timing of
collaboration, and technological fields that are involved in the collaboration. I find that these characteristics are important, but they have been neglected in prior research. More R&D
collaboration will not necessarily improve innovation performance. In contrast, it is the organization, the management style, and the timing of R&D collaboration activities that help to
generate better innovation performance.

Furthermore, besides project management and timing of collaborations, managers also have to keep in mind that different technological fields that are involved into collaborations may affect
their innovation performance differently. While my sample firm seems to collaborate more in the core technology fields, results suggest that collaborations conducted in firms’ non-core
technology fields lead to higher returns. However, establishing partnerships in firms’ non-core technology fields is not easy, as the focal company may suffer from both a weak absorptive
capacity as well as the unwillingness of potential partners in establishing links. To cope with these issues and to maximize the value of collaborations, firms may therefore first start
collaborating in their related non-core technology fields, instead of in distant non-core technology fields”.

Gruel, Wolfgang – RWTH Aachen University / Daimler AG, Germany – Open Innovation and Individual Absorptive Capacity: An Empirical Evaluation of Individual Knowledge Preferences (Prize winner)

“The dissertation’s findings have significant theoretical implications. It was found that besides from preferences for internal knowledge, that are frequently mentioned by existing innovation
management literature, especially in the Not-Invented-Here research, preferences for external knowledge existed as well. Up to now, this phenomenon has hardly been considered by
innovation researchers and thus, a comprehensive understanding of the development of knowledge preferences has not yet been possible.

Furthermore, the results make a valuable contribution to a more detailed understanding of the knowledge absorption process. The fact that knowledge preferences did not exist at the first point
of contact with an idea, but preferences for internal knowledge have been shown at the level of actually absorbing and using the knowledge suggests that there are significant differences
between these two levels of knowledge absorption. Distortion effects that are based on the knowledge source seem to be limited or less powerful in the early stages of the knowledge
absorption process, but seem to develop over time and have a significant impact on later phases of assimilation and transformation processes. This interrelation should be examined more closely. Also, it should be considered that some of the examined factors do not only influence the knowledge preferences, but might also have a significant impact on the innovation process in
general. For example, a high level of perceived competition within a group helps to promote preferences for external knowledge. However, at the same time, it might also be a source of internal conflicts, which, in turn, might have a negative impact on the group-internal transfer of knowledge.”

As for access to science, JC De Martin shares the following working paper:

Does Cheap Access Encourage Science? Evidence from the WWII Book Replication Program
Barbara Biasi
Stanford University – Department of Economics; Bocconi University
Petra Moser
Stanford University – Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
December 26, 2014

Policies that reduce the costs of accessing prior knowledge (which is covered by copyrights) are becoming increasingly prominent, even though systematic empirical evidence on their effects continues to be scarce. This paper examines the effects of the 1942 Book Republication Program (BRP), which allowed US publishers to replicate science books that German publishers had copyrighted in the United States, on the production of new knowledge in mathematics and chemistry. Citations data indicate a dramatic increase in citations to BRP books after 1942 compared with Swiss books in the same fields. This increase is larger for BRP books that experienced a larger decline in price under the program. We also find that effects on citations are larger for disciplines in which knowledge production is less dependent on physical capital: Citations to BRP books increased substantially more for mathematics (which depends almost exclusively on human capital) than chemistry (which is more dependent on physical capital).

Qualitative easing. Draghi’s possible way to deal with both deflation and growth

There is no best time for a monetary easing than a low inflation – or almost deflation – context. But “quantitative easing” is not the only solution. Which is good since buying national bonds with new digital money issued by the Central Bank seems to be an unconvincing solution. There could be a different way?

Quantitative easing effects are not easy to asses. The matter has generated important and controversial studies. One problem is about the real impact that a quantitative effect has on growth: by lowering real interest rates it should positively impact investments, but there is no guarantee that it works this way; on the other hand, it generates some kind of expectation about the Central Bank’s will to fight deflation while creating some concerns about governments’ will to fight for structural reforms.

But why should a Central Bank limit its choices only to buying or not buying any kind of national bonds? Why not trying to influence national policies by declaring the will to buy only a special quality of bonds? This approach could be called “qualitative easing”.

Here is just an example. The “qualitative easing” could be designed in such a way that gives money to the economy while still managing to avoid lesser attention to structural reforms. It could be done by the Central Bank buying not just any debt: the Central Bank could buy new bond only aimed at completing important infrastructural projects to be implemented through a transparent process. Italy, for example, badly needs a new digital infrastructure; it has hundreds of important investments to do in roads, railroads, airports and ports; it has to invest in its environment, which has been impoverished by decades of wild building and of industrial sites abandoned. Investing in such things could start a cicle of growth, but there is no money to do it. Qualitative easing could be a way to look differently at this problem: fighting deflation while investing in growth at the same time. Moreover: if one takes into account the idea that reforming the public administration is a very much needed structural reform in a country like Italy and that this could be done by investing in a modern and transparent digital platform for citizens dealing with public burocracy, then the country could issue special bonds only to finance this digitalization and the Central Bank could buy them. And the process could be internationally monitored in such a way to limit corruption and mismanagement.

In other words, qualitative easing could have the same impact as the quantitative easing but with a twist: it would have both a monetary effect and a growth effect.

In Europe, a quite good monetary policy is not matched by a fiscal policy. But qualitative easing could be a sort of proxy of a good fiscal policy for growth, and a very effective one.


A lot a lot. And I like David Weinberger’s take on the Italian draft “Declaration of Internet Rights”

David Weinberger has a set of comments about the Italian draft “Declaration of Internet Rights”. He says he likes the draft a lot. «A lot a lot». He quotes the draft, the opening for public comment and Fabio Chiusi’s report.

«I like the document a lot. A lot a lot. The principles are based on a genuine understanding of the value that the Net brings and what enables the Net to bring that value. This is crucial because so often those who seek to govern the Net do so because they see it primarily as a threat to order or a challenge to their power.

The Declaration focuses on the rights of individuals, taking the implicit stance (or so I read it) that the threat to those rights comes not only from Internet malefactors and giant Internet conglomerates run amok, but also from those who seek to govern the Net. It includes as rights not only access to the Net, but access to education about how to use the Net, a point too often forgotten.»

What is wonderful – and, sadly, rare – in David’s comment is the fact that he actually read the draft and found out what it is meant for. It isn’t about regulating the Net. It is about regulating those that want to regulate the Net. And it does so in the name of human rights by focusing on the actual character of the Net, which the draft describes as a great opportunity and not a threat: what’s threatening are governments and big companies that want to change the Net to control it.

Net neutrality, for example, is not a form of regulation that limits market’s freedom. On the contrary: it is an enabler for freedom in the market of innovation and expression. And samething similar can be said about the notions of “platforms’ interoperability” and “digital impact assessment” (meaning: the institution that wants to decide something about the Net must first demonstrate it understands the ecosystemic consequences of what it is trying to do).

David also stresses this aspect of the draft by suggesting that it contains something like “Every effort will be made to enable the governance of the Net bottom up and by the edges.” Which is a truly internettian wording that I personally like a lot a lot.

Yes. Because the draft – which I timidly helped writing at the Commission – can be improved. Maybe its wording could be even simpler, its goals should be clearer, its limits should be more understandable. That is why we should hope in a rich public debate about the draft.

Drôle de guerre: Hachette, Amazon and authors. Something needs to be fixed, but looking ahead

A commercial dispute between Amazon and Hachette has led quite a few authors to take a stand. On which side? Well, they surely are against Amazon. But are they also with Hachette?

Authors United sent a letter to their readers through an advertisment. They claim Amazon has boycotted Hachette and made the works of some authors more difficult to find at the right price. Amazon answered by accusing Hachette to impose the wrong price on their books (adding a little gaffe about Orwell). Hachette just said that they want to go on negotiating. John Kay suggests that the real problem is in publisher’s strategy.

It’s been a sort of “drôle de guerre” until now. But the future is not going to be nice for some of the players. Amazon is winning on the technology side and there is little that Hachette and other publishers have been doing to prevent their complete defeat. Authors are asking Amazon – rightly – for fair competitive tactics. But in the long run, this is not enough. If they like publishers they should be asking them to improve their vision and strategy.

Publishers buy authors’ copyright in exchange of some services they still give, such as financing, marketing and editing, but they can pay for it only if the also make a great delivering. As a matter of fact, marketing and editing can be done by someone else, maybe financing too, delivering is done more and more by Amazon. Publishers’ problem is not about negotiating: it is about creating a real strategy.

Where to look? Where is Amazon going to find problems?

Amazon is a scalable platform that has the ability to lower the price for delivering content – and many other things – to the consumer. The more customers they have the more margins they do in an exponential manner. What prevents them to make huge and stable profits now is their choice and will: it is because they are investing tons of dollars in innovation and in acquiring customers. In the long run they will have a base they think is right and start getting more and more profitable. The problem with that is that they also want to lock-in customers. Their platform is not interoperable with any other platform. This is because in their technical world they want control. And this fundamentally changes the idea of Amazon as the place where you find anything you need to find at a very good price.

Amazon is competing against publishers, and winning. But it is also competing against other platforms: such as Apple and Google. In the book world they win because customers feel that Amazons has the best choice of books – and a very good device to read them. If Amazons starts not to sell everything, if it excludes some publishers or authors, it will be chaos: people will have to have a device for every platform to get to every author. So they need to fight publishers without helping Apple and Google.

There is a technical flaw in Amazons’ stategy. If the net is neutral somewhere can be created a new platform that starts from skratch with the idea that it will allow to deliver, pay and read any book that is published by any author. A new interoperable platform that levels the field for competition between authors, publishers and device makers can be a prospect: if someone starts to invest in it before Amazon has completely won.

Authors could ask publishers to invest in this platform, now. Or they could start thinking about a new platform that will help all professionals to find they business model: editors, markerters, financers, stylists, authors and every other profession can gather in a new book project, make a deal about how to divide revenues and deliver the work. It is not impossible.

What’s impossible is to win by just complaining.

Internet as commons. Comments about the end of “the tragedy of the commons” in Edge

In a very interesting set of twitts, Sharper shows some doubts about the notion of the internet as commons. The discussion started from a post that I wronte on Edge suggesting the retirement of “the tragedy of the commons”. In that post I wrote about the internet as a commons. And Sharper doesn’t agree.

Sharper: “Read w/interest your piece re: Tragedy of the Commons. However, the Internet isn’t a Commons, every piece/connection is owned.”
Me: “But the internet protocol is commons, isn’t it?”
Sharper: “I think I see what you’re getting at, but internet border links also use QOS and route based on business rules.”

Difficult to talk about these things on Twitter? Maybe. But it is much more difficult for me to write in English…

Me: “my point – internet protocol and standards are commons; companies and states expoit it; sometimes overexploit; that’s not inevitable as the “tragedy” theory implies…”
Sharper: “Standards aren’t a scarce resource/commons. Everyone can use a protocol standard without affecting others use. Can you define what you mean by a commons? Internet standards don’t seem to fit any definition I’m aware of”

Sharper has a point in writing that a language in not a commons (while I think it can be thought that way, but I’m not sure).

Anyway Sharper went ahead criticizing the very idea that there can be a knowledge commons.

Sharper: “In terms of software and ideas. Those are non-exclusive goods. They can be shared freely, but aren’t a “commons”"

I think that knowledge commons do exist; they are different from traditional commons; that they can be overexploited; but that is not inevitable.

There is an interesting contribution by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom published by Mitpress in which the authors write about the internet as commons. I’m pretty sure that Ostrom and Hess understand the notion of commons. And they write the growing new space of the knowledge commons: “Whether labeled the “digital,” “electronic,” “information,” “virtual,” “communication,” “intellectual,” “Internet,” or “technological” commons, all these concepts address the new shared territory of global distributed information.”

See: Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, edited by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom
A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons : a chapter from Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: from Theory to Practice.

Grande su Medium

(A new article has been published two days ago on Medium, about Italy.)

In Italy’s political scene, comedy and tragedy blur. And today, an historical moment became a show

History always comes some other day, in Italy. Today, Italians expected history to be written. Enrico Letta, the prime minister, was due to explain his policy at the Senate. And a vote was to be casted that would have decided if the government was going to stay or go. Europe was waiting in stress. Stock exchanges where betting. Citizens were worried. (continue reading)

RKF Training Institute – Activists teach us to love our democracy

At the Training Institute set up by the Robert Kennedy Foundation in Florence, activists for human rights from all over the world come and learn how to smartly use the internet as a tool to get their job done. It takes courage to work for spreading the ideas that are needed to help people in some countries in growing a society that respects human rights. But it also takes an intelligent ability in using the network: how to campanign, how to communicate in a secure way, how to be conscious about the tactics that authoritarian governments can use against those that fight for human rights: that’s what activists learn at the Empowerment Lab in Florence with the help of organizations such as Electronic Frontier Foundation, Global Partners & Associates, Global Voices Online, Human Rights Watch, OneWorld Digital Security Exchange, Open Society Foundations, Tactical Technology Collective, and Witness. Furthermore, the financial support by the Ford Foundation has been essential for the organization of the First Group that has been in Florence until yesterday. Here is the blog.

But as activists learn what can help them in their non-violent fight, we the people living in the “democratic West” are going to learn as much from them. Democracy is not a given, it is a process: and we need to maintain it, we need to care about it. Activists from all over the world help their people. But they also help us.

Publishing is a sort of dating platform

The old ways of book publishing are fading away, maybe. But the new ones are still to be found, unless you are Amazon. And one of the problems is finding out an identity for publishers.

The idea that publishing is a sort of dating platform may seem banal. Of course, publishers have always been there so that authors and readers would find each other to establish a successful relationship. At least for the time that is needed for reading a book.

But it used to be that in those relationships, publishers had a lot of power. Controlling the analog technologies, they also controlled the copyright that they bought from authors to resell. Digital technologies have opened that protected environment and ask for a different distribution of power. The best thing that publishers can do is not anymore in choosing the authors and bring them to the readers. They need to serve not to impose. Thus, they could think of themselves as dating platforms designers and managers.

The complexity of matching authors and readers the right way makes publishing a very big job. With, potentially, a lot of money involved. Readers control the strategic resources: they control the time that they spend reading, they control the attention that they give to what they are reading, they control the judgment about how relevant is what they read. Authors need to conquer all that. And they are often too much focused on what they have to write to be able to find the time needed to court their readers, at least before they become their readers.

This is why there is an incredible industry to build for creating the conditions that will match the right authors to the right readers. I have the feeling that a dating platform for authors and readers, a good platform that enables the unexpected and not only the obvious will find its value.

A good platform will be designed in a way that different applications can be developed. Not only some matching software. A real human sensibility is needed: to create the right atmosphere, to create the right moments, to educate both parties. Pygmalions and architects, flower experts and poets, mentors and testimonials… There is a great job to do. (Medium)

Vedi anche:
If Book Then
Bibliotecari non bibliofili
Formule editoriali

The fascinating history of Olivetti

Many have seen the short movie about the history of the Programma 101, the first personal computer in history. It was released in 1965 and became a huge success, especially in the U.S: 44,000 units were sold. The group of engineers led by Pier Giorgio Perotto at Olivetti entered the history of computing.

The beauty of the documentary is in its cheerful and light-hearted tone. Devoid of that tragic affliction typical of Italians who look to the past regretting old glories and successes. Rather it is an educational documentary that shows how the invention came out of a precise mix of preconditions: a great goal, a clear familiarity with technological innovation, a very Italian sensitivity to the industrial design, a basically happy working environment.

Sure, one can get on asking questions about the decline: why Olivetti had managed to come out first with a desktop computer fully functional and appreciated by the market but was not able to stay ahead then? And why Olivetti abandoned the way they had helped to draw? Why Olivetti could not catch up to the times that were changing?

The pioneers are a different kind from the empire builders. Happy working environments must be cultivated at all levels. Technological leadership is never safe from the competition. The vision needed to make great thinks must be and remain great. Some of these conditions have gone over time, to the detriment of Olivetti.

But all this does not mean that Italy is doomed. Italian electronics has recently created great products: Stm’s accelerometer and Massimo Banzi’s Arduino. Italians can certainly do more in order to grow and contaminate their industrial system with innovation.

The fascinating history of Olivetti will stay in Italian history. But there is no point in regretting the past: Italians should look at history to find inspiration in order to get new important things done. It is quite possible.

Imagination and innovation. Edge and Economist

The Economist has published an important feature about the possible slowing down of innovation: Has the ideas machine broken down?

The article puts up a set of questions about productivity growth and technology innovation. But the title is very meaningful: there is such a thing as a machine for the production of ideas? Well, in a sense, yes. There is a system – science, technology remixing practices, venture capital, media relations, market – that is meant to create ideas and innovations. But it makes ideas that are sort of expected. Which is why, in a way, that kind of innovation can possibly seem to be slowing down.

Human imagination creates a different kind of innovations. The Apollo project, which the Economist quotes, was an imagination masterpiece, with money and organization to make it come true. And imagination doesn’t come as a feature of any known machine or system. It goes beyond expectations. And creates visions and experiments that are concentrated on entirely new possibilities. With a touch of poetry.

This kind of human imagination is on stage today and Edge is the place to go. Reading the great thinkers answering the Annual Question 2013 is a sort of renewable energy source for ideas.

(I thank a lot John Brockman for having accepted a piece that I have been writing: it is a great honour and an immense pleasure)

Twitter and the Italian political élite

Twitter is booming in the Italian élite milieu. Politicians, journalists, men of the church, writers, are joining the conversation. And newspapers are busy covering what the all lot says online, in a way that starts to seem quite awsome. In the meantime, Facebook stays very much more popular.

Facebook has been the evolution of the Internet ability to actively involve everybody in the mediasphere, in a time in which the passive relationship with television had stopped to be sustainable for those “formerly known as the audience”. But Facebook is not much about “pages”, it still is much more about “friends”. The maximum number of friends that one can have on Facebook – 5000 – maintains an horizontal approach to the mediasphere. Thus, Facebook is absolutely huge for everybody normal, but it is not exactly perfect for those who are accustomed to being protagonist in the old media context.

Twitter, which is much more flexible, is understood by the élite as a new broadcasting medium, with a flavour of – non mandatory – interactivity. Some Italian politicians participate in the conversation. Some let users ask questions, deciding to whom they will answer. Some use Twitter as a personal news agency. Some say “wow” and other words on Twitter that they would never use while speaking. Some just don’t get the tool and use it anyway.

But the thing is that – via Twitter – they entered the newsmaking industry and they did it by letting down the media middle man altogether. And journalists react by being on Twitter as well. Curation becomes a much more fashionable journalistic genre.

So as it happens, politicians are starting to intervene a lot on Twitter. But how do they cope with the 140 characters limit? They are hardly concise speakers. And many between them tend to grab any microphone they can find and go ahead speaking as long as they can?

The big intellectual attraction in the 140 characters of Twitter can be found in a special domain of the media industry: the production of headlines. Headlines are a subset of the news that lives in a sort of parallel universe. You can seldom find people that have been interviewed by a newspaper and have not complained about the headlines. To this kind of people, Twitter can be a revenge: it can be a medium to broadcast the kind of headlines that they would like to see in newspapers. As a matter of fact, they are succeeding.

Cosmopolitan professionals looking for opportunities

There is a kind of workers who live in a cosmopolitan international dimension. There used to be a cosmopolitan élite, mostly European or American, maybe linked to a colonial past or to a multinational company present. But it seems to me that there is something new in this space.

This is not about people that need to go away from home to look for a job. The great migrations have not stopped, of course. And they are more and more important: that’s an epic set of stories, with the painful lives of those who leave the place where they are born to try to rebuild something somewhere else. They stay linked to their roots, for some time; many send home some money to alleviate the poverty of those who remained. Sometimes they succeed having their families to join them in the new town where they arrived. That’s what happens and has always happened.

dubaiBut the fast and low cost transportation system that has been lately developed has grown also another dimension to the international job movement. There are opportunities for professionals who move around the planet looking for jobs that need special skills and no stable contract. They work for – let’s say – three months in Dubai, advising a local company for a special project, then they go back home and search for something new, in another place. They need to be known in their field. They are called in a word of mouth sort of medium by companies that need their abilities. Or they actively offer projects to any company that wants to finance them.

Of course, they are architects, engineers, software writers, interface design specialist, and other skilled professionals. I think there is more to find in this space.

It must be added that the internet has made all this much more possible and attractive. Its a sort of international job market that doesn’t need people to migrate, just to move from place to place, and keep a base, maybe at home.

I would like to know more about this kind of jobs. And if somebody wants to share information, comments are very welcomed.

Regret and move on. Italian strategy to cope

There is a lot to say about Italy, these days. It is not a country that seems to count very much in terms of what’s happening to the world. But we have found out that even a place like Italy can be far more problematic at a global scale than we thought: everything is linked, even an Italian crisis can be a global crisis.

Well, it is not exactly flattering to be a country that matters only because it can be a source of trouble.

And Italians seem to be having some new thinking about this. Usually we are good at complaining about our faults, but we are quite scarce at working united on a long term project. We are very critical about ourselves, even cynical. But we have a hard time when we need to rebuild our trust in ourselves as a whole.

Italy is a laboratory. The world can learn by looking at what happens here. We have invented fascism and we have perfected an authoritarian version of videocracy. We have also been good at fast industrializing and at fast post-industrializing. We are trying now a new experiment: regret and move on.

It is not complain and be stressed. It starts with remembering what we were. It allows us to be emotional about what we lost, which we should know very well. But it opens the door to studying our history in an effort that goes over our present passions. There can be an emotion about our future, too, which can also be better than decline: there is source of cultural energy in our deep rooted history which can be synchronized with our long term future.

Who knows Twheel?

The presentation is interesting and it makes you feel like to give Twheel a try.

Twheel is a new interface to manage more efficiently the tweets produced by Fluid Interaction. When you follow many accounts on Twitter you can lose some important messages: but Twheel reorganizes the tweets in a circle (which vaguely resembles the old iPod interface) that allows you to better handle the complexity of the information on the phone. Thus, you download the app and start it… at least that’s what you do if you don’t pay attention to the legal details.

To use a free app you must give some information. In this case, the app declares it all in a very transparent manner. It explains immediately that the application records the time that each user employs to read the contents of a tweet and of what is linked from that tweet. This clearly means that the data is fed into a server that observes everything that everyone does. Twheel adds that the data will be provided to customers, and of course it promises not to give away any personal data, except in cases where the law requires. The law which mainly refers Fluid is Finnish. But it would be of not little importance to know which law Fluid refers to in Iran, China, Syria, Russia, the United States, and so on.

Moreover, when asked to access your Twitter account, Twheel declares that they will use the account to even read direct messages on Twitter, and to write in the name of that account, and to add new followers. I was wonderng why they do so. And so I turn the question to those who pass by this blog:

1. Is your experience with Twheel’s interface nice?
2. What did Twheel write on your Twitter account?
3. Which new followers did it add to your account?

update: @twheelapp answered: “There’s an option in twheel that allows following and unfollowing users. But nothing happens without user interaction”

Roadmap needed, please

Urging European leaders to take action against the euro crisis feels like to be in front of a set of poker players who, at the end of the game, refuse to say what they have in their hands: “you show first”, “no, you show first…”. They need to agree about what to do first, second and third…

It should be their job. They should get their job done. Soon.

Why are they so slow? Politicians are elected inside their national boundaries. But they work for a supranational reality. And their job is split in two: they need to decide for international cooperation to cope with international problems, and at the same time they need to speak to their electorate in terms that seem to save their national interests. But it is time to choose.

Germany wants a political union, in which Europe decides whether or not national budget are right or wrong. Spain wants a banking union, to save its financial system and the one of anybody else in its same conditions. Italy wants a fiscal union to share some of the risk that having a huge public debt generates to public finances in times of financial turmoil. France needs to say something about who is in charge inside the country: Europe or France. The United Kingdom needs to say when it is going to get in or get out the process. All the other states need to get together and speak their voice for more integration or less integration.

If Europe is to be built, then there is no choice about what to do, but only about when to do what is needed for the integration and in which order it must be done: political first and then fiscal? banking and then political? fiscal and then…

There is only a word to define this kind of decision making: roadmap writing and implementing. One step at a time, but what the big picture clear in mind for everybody.

The roadmap is the new political metaphore. And it is a beautiful metaphore. Young people will understand it. But even old people can like it. Only politicians will be less free to do what they want when the roadmap is decided. And that is precisely what they don’t like. And that is precisely what people don’t like in politicians.