Being in the Information Technology business, I have a bunch of sort of nerdy friends (oddly, some of them would describe me the same way). As a rule, when we get together we often talk about the sorts of things that people think techie people talk about – web sites, cool applications, project we are working on, and of course Star Trek (original version, the movies and occasionally TNG).

A while ago some friends and I were talking about the first computers we owned or used. One used a Commodore 64, someone else used the TRS-80 sold by Radio Shack. It was interesting to consider how far these devices have come in 30 or so years, how ubiquitous they are now and how integral they have become to our everyday lives.

I had been thinking that the first computer I used was a mainframe at university where I used punch cards to enter the programs, but on the weekend another thought occurred to me.  I was listening to a radio broadcast about iconic brands that mentioned the Etch A Sketch, and I was thinking that surely the Etch A Sketch was as iconic in it’s day as my iPad tablet is now. And long before I bought my first iPad, before my first laptop, even before my first home computer, the first personal tablet-type device I ever owned was an Etch A Sketch.

While it didn’t have a touch screen, it also didn’t have a keyboard, and you couldn’t type on it even if you wanted to. It had a graphical user interface.

It had two knobs that let you draw or write, one that moved the cursor vertically, and one that moved it horizontally.  I recall that the original patent application for the computer mouse (actually called an “X-Y position indicator for a display system”) was a wooden shell with 2 wheels that marked horizontal and vertical positions on a graphic display. 

It wasn’t able to store and retrieve the image I created, although when I did a particularly good one I put the Etch A Sketch on the shelf like a picture frame so that nobody would accidentally erase it.  There are now artists who work using Etch A Sketches and they have figured out a way to make the image permanent, although it does require taking the device apart.

And while the image that was created wasn’t actually an electronic image but rather a physical once, it sure felt pretty high-tech when I was a kid. 

And what other kid’s toy has an tech support FAQ?  http://www.skrause.org/humor/etch.shtml

Sounds like a real computer to me…

Christy DeMont

This weekend many people watched Super Bowl XLVII (I read recently that there are three countries in the world still using the metric system.  I believe there is now only one country in the world using Roman numerals…).

Here’s what I always think about when I watch football. (Well, apart from how much easier it is to watch the game with the lights on...). In an era of instant replay analysis and myriad statistics, there is one key element of the game that is almost completely subjective.  Of course, I’m referring to the first down measurement.

Here’s the scenario – the team on offence runs a couple of plays and moves the ball 9 yards, 2 feet and 9 inches (there’s that non-metric thing again). The officials run out on the field with the sticks and chains that mark 10 yards and do a measurement.  Good metric to measure success, right?

Well maybe not – because the based data on which the measure is done has some fundamental flaws.  My issue here is that the establishment of the starting and ending points for that measure are at best an estimate and at worst a complete shot in the dark. 

Rewind back to the end of the various plays that establish these two points and their positioning. Much of the time, the progress of the player with the ball has been stopped by several large men who fall down on top of the ball carrier. Sometimes the ball carrier stays upright for a minute and is pushed backwards. Sometimes he sticks his arm out and tries to plant the ball on the ground farther down field.  The official runs up and puts his foot down at the point where he subjectively assesses the ball was when the ball carrier’s knee hit the ground.  (There are more nuances to this positioning but they are not relevant to this discussion – all involve a subjective assessment by the official.)

What happens next?   Based on where his foot is, a sideline official places the 10 yard markers at the sideline – 20 or 30 feet away.  Another estimate.  After the next few plays have been run, and the ball has been moved close to a distance that looks like it is about 10 yards, what happens? The measuring guys run out on the field with a chain that is EXACTLY 10 yards long to measure the distance. 

My point here is about the accuracy of metrics. From a business point of view I think most people agree that the idea of quantitative metrics to measure results are a good idea. They generally take guesswork, estimates and personal biases out of the evaluation of “how it’s going”.

And we all realize that good metrics are hard to come up with – ones that accurately reflect the goings on of a business and that you can actually influence by doing work better.  But if you are going to measure things, guessing at your start and end points does not support an accurate measurement.  Better to have a combination of objective and subjective metrics (and be clear about which is which) to measure your results and successes.

Questions? Want to challenge my football knowledge?  Easy enough to do - email me at cdemont@osborne-group.com.

Christy DeMont

A few weeks ago I needed a new computer and had to drag myself to the big white computer store [logo redacted]. I hate going there because it’s always mayhem in there – people packed around desks examining computing devices, staff in their blue shirts always helping someone else.  But alas, I am not prepared to fork over the kind of dough they are looking for over the internet without talking to someone, making sure I get the right connectors for my monitor, etc. 

So with the intent of going to the store at a time with the smallest amount of the aforementioned mayhem, I went off to the store a few Fridays ago.  Imagine my distress when there was a 50 person line-up outside the store.  Of course, I go on the day that they release their new “mini” device.  (Guess I should have checked the twitter-verse before I went…)

However, with bold intent, I marched up to the front of the line, indicated I was looking for a laptop, and was immediately directed into the store and to a suitable staff member to assist me in acquiring the piece of computing equipment on which I write this blog entry.  And for the record, the screen is just as dazzling as they suggest. ([logo redacted] please send cheque for marketing activities c/o The Osborne Group – you know who you are)

But all this is to say I was thinking about the mini and the notion of filling niches in the marketplace with a suite of offerings. Different people need different things – many of my friends are now toting around tablet devices but would never shell out the big bucks for a $3500 laptop.  Others use reading devices instead of toting around books.

My point in all this is that I was thinking of the offerings of the Osborne Group in the context of the mini – interim management, consulting and leadership when you don’t want a busload of people to show up, but want a “mini” - designed specifically to your budget and needs. Not a bad analogy, I think.

What do you think? Email me at cdemont@osborne-group.com and tell me what you think about this post or tell me about your work challenges.

Christy DeMont

Today, in a departure from my usual rants, I wanted to take a minute and reflect on Remembrance Day.

November 11 has always had a special place in my heart for personal reasons, and over the years I have attended annual ceremonies and appreciated the solemn recognition of the terrible cost of shooting and bombing each other as a mechanism for resolving differences.  Apart from services in Canada, I have spent memorable Remembrance Day at events in the UK and at Vimy Ridge.

Over the past ten years, 152 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan; many more have suffered physical and mental injury. According to Joshua Goldstein in the Sept/Oct 2011 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, in the 21^st Century war deaths have averaged 55,000 per year – some of the places and number of deaths include the following (these numbers come from a different source in case you are checking the arithmetic):

• 2001-ongoing: Afghanistan “liberation” – USA/UK/Canada vs Taliban (40,000)
• 2003-ongoing: Second Iraq-USA war – USA et al vs. Saddam Hussein and subsequent civil war (160,000)
• 2003-09: Sudan vs. JEM/Darfur (300,000)
• 2007-ongoing: Pakistan vs. Pakistani Taliban (38,000)
• 2012-ongoing: Syria's civil war (14,000)

But is there an upside?  According to Mr. Goldstein, yes, there is. 

First, this 55,000 number is substantially lower than the 100,000 per year that died in conflicts in the 1990’s.,

Remember this hit parade of 1990-era conflicts?

• 1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000)
• 1988-2004: Somalia's civil war (550,000)
• 1989-: Liberian civil war (220,000)
• 1991: Gulf War - large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000)
• 1991-97: Congo's civil war (800,000)
• 1991-2009: Russia-Chechnya civil war (200,000)
• 1992-96: Yugoslavian wars (260,000)
• 1992-99: Algerian civil war (150,000)
• 1993-2005: Burundi's civil war (200,000)
• 1994: Rwanda's civil war (900,000)
• 1998-ongoing: Congo/Zaire's war – Rwanda/Uganda vs. Zimbabwe/Angola/Namibia (3.8 million)

And of course larger numbers were seen during the Cold War years (180,000 per year from 1950-1999) and for really big numbers you only have to look at WWII which are 100 times larger than we saw in the first decade of this century.

Why so?  Well, first, no global/superpower conflicts – many these days are guerrilla wars, civil wars, and regional conflicts.  It just seems like there is more due to the increased access to information via tv, internet, cell phone cameras, etc. 

Second, technology is changing the face of warfare with remote drones accurately bombing specific targets – so no battalions of soldiers on the ground, less collateral damage, better intelligence about the intended targets.

Third, battlefield medical technology has reduced battlefield casualties – with the consequence of requiring more ongoing care and support for injured soldiers when they return home.

Fourth, the interest in and ability to conduct multinational economic trade seems to have lessened the desire to fight wars with other countries who might be sources or targets in trade arrangements.

And finally, peacekeeping works. Generally the presence of peacekeepers post-conflict has significantly reduced the chances of fighting starting up again.  So thank you, UN and everyone who wears the blue beret.

So as our norms about how we fight wars change, can we imagine a world largely without war?  Maybe we are making more progress than we realize, but surely less than we might.  To quote a 20^th century poet, “All we are saying is give peace a chance”.

(Link to Goldstein article http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?page=0,6; source for numbers of deaths was http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html)

I clearly have selective amnesia – I have no idea how I did any of the following things before I started using email, texting, and browsing the internet:

-       plan and book any trip

-       pay bills

-       record readings on utility meters

-       find directions to any location

-       plan and execute a wedding

just to name a few.

I’m sure I phoned people, or used travel agents, or looked things up on a map, but I have been using computers, smart phones and related technology so long that I don’t really remember any of that.

And then I wake up one day and there is a “Frankenstorm” heading our way and I’m trying to find out what to do, what the weather is going to be, where it’s going to hit, and while I still can use the technology to communicate to friends and family, the radio becomes a key sources of information. Yes, I still track storm path by looking at web sites, but local information comes from the news and updates on the radio – quick information about school openings, traffic, airline status, and so on.

Internet doesn’t work when you have no power.  Radios can be battery operated and stations keep broadcasting (as long as the station’s generators are above the storm surge).

Interesting to contemplate the tremendous value of a transistor radio and a couple of double-A batteries when all our newfangled technology requires a functioning wall socket for more than a few minutes of use.  And perhaps one important reason why we should keep on funding our public broadcaster.

Christy DeMont

“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”

This must be one of the simplest formulations of an economic rule. This phrase describes opportunity cost – that getting something that we want usually requires that we give up another thing that we also want (although presumably not as much, or not as urgently). To say it more precisely, we trade off one goal or objective against another.

In the IT world, this situation comes up all the time.  Typically, the tradeoffs you have to make are between 3 objectives:

1)   Getting a set of systems implemented that have some defined business benefit, usually revenue increases or cost savings;

2)   Meeting budget (i.e., you have a finite amount of people, money and equipment to work with)

3)   Achieving work delivery goals (i.e. getting work done within a defined period of time).

Let’s say that that you have a slate of 10 projects (objective 1) that need to be completed by your team of 15 people (objective 2) within the fiscal year (objective 3).  You and your team sit down and look at this slate of projects and determine that the work required would take the equivalent of 20 work-years. 

So you are going to have to choose between these 3 objectives, as you can’t fulfill them all. You have 3 options:

Reduce the number of projects

Relaxing objective 1 and implementing fewer solutions will cost the organization the benefits that would arise from the projects that have to be taken off the current workplan.  So the thinking here is to find the projects that make the least contribution to the success of the organization, balancing long term and short term needs.  It’s important here to guard against putting too high a priority on the urgent or short-term work over the important but long-term work.

  Increase the resources allocated to this work

Relaxing the budget constraint can alleviate the pressure, but may not always be possible if, for example, the organization has limited financial resources to work with. Other risks are taking on temporary staff to get work done and then not having the resources and skills to do ongoing management, and increasing the base maintenance demands on the team which limits the new work that can be taken on in future years.

Lengthening the schedule

The final option is to take longer to do the work – keep the projects on the list, keep the budget the same, but extend the schedule. As this means that some benefits will take longer to arrive, making this choice also has to look carefully at which projects get slowed down and implications for the business.

As you think through this process and make recommendations for changes, be sure to talk to your colleagues in the business so that they know your thinking and can support it, and to ensure that you haven’t overlooked anything in your analysis.

Questions?  Want to give me some feedback? Send me a note at cdemont@osborne-group.com.

Christy DeMont

Whenever you are planning to make changes in an organization, one of the most critical and difficult-to-do-well components is to understand the business needs. 

You need to understand what happens in your organization from the perspective of what needs to get done, not necessarily solely on how it gets done.

Of course the people who are doing their jobs every day think about their work in the context of how they do it, so the analysis and synthesis work done in business analysis is really important to ensure you have perspective on what is going on.

Too much detail and you don’t get to take advantage of the opportunities that come from making changes, too little detail creates the risk that you don’t implement a rich enough new solution or process to accommodate the business needs, and risks business users feeling un-consulted and uninvolved in the process.

A common problem in business analysis is when a process or activity is done multiple ways in different parts of the organization. A good metric for understanding the complexity of an issue within an organization is the number of different names by which it is referred.  I find that the more names that are used to refer to something, the exponentially more complicated it is to unravel.

The relationship can be demonstrated using the following formula:

T = B*D*C^N-1

where

T = the amount of time it takes to resolve an issue

D = the number of different departments who are involved in the process

C = the complexity of the issue for a single department or product, and

N = the number of different names used to refer to the activity

Why is this so?

Different names indicate one or more of the following

a)    Different uses. This could be differences in what the process output is used for, including different levels of detail, and different levels of technical description.

b)   Different audiences. Different departments will have different objectives, points of view and issues that they wish to communicate.

c)    Different timelines. Information that is used strategically, tactically or operationally will differ on the time range of data used, as well as more or less detail on geography, product, client base, etc.

If you see these things in your analysis, you should be alerted that these areas may be contentious or complicated to understand and resolve. The formula I have defined above may be a bit of a math joke, but the elements it contains are all real considerations to ensure your business improvement plans really do improve the business.

Christy DeMont 

As I get to indulge in my bi-annual Olympic madness (which for the record includes temporary Canadian flag tattoos and wearing red every day for two weeks, but I digress), I’ve been thinking about the notion of perfection, and how impossible it really is, and for many of us how unnecessary it is.

When a competition is won or lost by hundredths of a second or a thousandth of a point, I get that that first step out of the block or the amount by which you clear the hurdle can make a difference.  And don’t even get me started on the events that are judged. But there are about 10,000 athletes in the Olympics, which I estimate to be about 0.0002% of the world population. And from my point of view, for almost everyone else, done is more important than perfect.

It doesn’t matter whether you are writing a report, developing software, drafting a business plan, or painting a picture.  You have to start somewhere, and once you start, and then you get rolling, it moves along nicely.  Then towards the end of the process your productivity starts dwindling again as you spend more time with the finicky elements of whatever you are doing.  Finally exhaustion or boredom takes over or a deadline is reached, and you have to wrap up what you are doing and let someone else take a look at it.

Anyone tasked with reviewing something like this has a much easier job – it’s so much easier to edit and critique than it is to be an original creator of something.

(which, perhaps, is why writers (23 million hits) and artists (20 million hits) are described as “struggling”, and critics are described as “eminent” (10.8 million hits)).

So what’s the point?  Well, this.  Nothing you do is ever really perfect.  After every presentation I have done I wished I could do bits of it over again. Every book I have read has had a typo or a paragraph that just didn’t work. Every golf round I have played I’ve had shots that I’d like to have done better (usually lots of shots, as it happens).

None of these limited regrets means that the presentation wasn’t effective, or that the book wasn’t a work of art, or that the golf round wasn’t wonderful.  Things can be great even if they are not perfect. In fact, it’s the not perfect that probably makes it great.  It’s the fact that it’s hard and takes discipline and doesn’t come out quite right that makes it human, and that makes it great. 

And that goes for all our Olympic athletes as well.

Christy DeMont

This week the news emerged that Elections Ontario has improperly managed the data of 2 million or so Ontario voters and has “lost” our personal data. Apparently back in April, a couple of USB drives went missing from an Elections Ontario office, and they contained information collected about voters provided during the election last fall.

First, we’re going to set aside the issue of timing – that this breach occurred back in April and the news is only coming out now. This feels to me like a pretty big gap in accountability, but that’s a topic for another day

Second, we’re also going to ignore the notion that the likelihood of the data being misused is low – apparently due to the specialized software used to manage this data. While this possibly is true, I would never underestimate the capabilities of a determined hacker to be able to decode the data.  Further, what data was lost and how much damage can be done with it is not really the point, particularly if you happen to be one of the people whose data was on the drives.

But more practically, what happened here?

It seems that a number of “paper procedures” had been established but were not followed by employees.  And no audits appear to have been done to ensure the procedures were being followed. And finally, it seems that the significance of securing this data was not sufficiently impressed on at least a couple of Elections Ontario employees.

What does this mean for your organization?

First, have some security procedures – including but by no means limited to:

Personal data about customer or clients or citizens should not be put on a USB drive as a matter of policy, and if there are some exceptional circumstances, they should be depersonalized or encrypted at minimum.

Strong passwords should be required to get into any system containing personal data, and users should be forced to change them regularly.

Encryption software for laptops should be installed and activated.

Materials should be secured when users are not there – screen locks, laptops and USB devices stored in locked drawers, and so on.

Secondly, test the procedures and audit users behavior.  If that means something as silly sounding as walking around the office and checking, just do it.  If phones or blackberries are supposed to be password protected, check them to make sure.

Finally, ensure staff know the procedures, understand why they are there and the implications of them not being followed (both to the organization and to them personally) as it is at the personal level that security is most effectively implemented.

Christy DeMont

A few weeks ago I wrote an article on the real cost of fighter jets. However, before you can figure out the cost of a solution, you need to figure out what your solution options are.  And the way to figure out your options is to define your needs.

As I write these blogs, I am always struck by how much they apply generally life as well as in making business decisions – this process works if you are looking for a new computer or phone, buying a house or shopping for a new outfit to wear to the party Saturday night.

So first, what are your needs? There are, of course, entire books on how to do this for computer systems, so I am just going to offer a couple of thoughts:

1. Focus on outcomes, not on process.  Remember what you are tying to accomplish - a fulfilled order or a completed product or a comfortable outfit that goes with my blue Louboutin pumps.
2. Think creatively when identifying needs. Don’t worry so much about the current processes you follow today. Current processes are derived from system and business constraints and old habits.  Take the opportunity to rethink how you do things and look for new approaches, practices and outcomes that may be enabled by new technology.
3. Set priorities for your needs.  Here is where you must be realistic. Know which features you will give up on if you have to pick, and which ones are must-haves.
4. Don’t get caught up in sales patter and jazzy presentations.  Keep an open mind, but keep focus on what you are trying to achieve and what you need to get there. Don’t let flashy demos distract you from what you need and are looking for.

 The second piece is to identify possible solutions that meet your needs.

1. Scan the marketplace – go to trade shows, search the internet, talk to your business partners, leverage your personal alliances to find out what’s out there.  Consider your existing relationships with vendors that you might want to extend. 
2. Look for vendors who want your business – so that you are just as important to them as they are to you.
3. Consider (even for only a few minutes) all possible options. If you are looking at a software solution, consider in-house builds as well as commercial products, if only to reinforce the logic of your selection process.
4. Follow the Pareto principle – 80% of the value comes from 20% of the input. Look for a solution that meets 80% of your needs (including the critical ones) and the remaining 20% can be figured out later.

Christy DeMont