Recruiting FAIL: Update with ITCRA documents

I've put on-line the follow-up documents [links below fold] I received from ITCRA on my complaint, lodged in Aug/Sep 2012 and apparently resolved before Christmas that year. I have on record, because almost all my interactions have been via email, that I wasn't informed on the lack of Natural Justice until around six months after I lodged my grievance.

I was given an undertaking that a) ITCRA would write a Case Study from my complaint, in lieu of informing me of their determinations and actions taken, and b) I would be sent a copy.

A year on, Dec 2013, I enquired after the Case Study. My guess from the delay is that it'd never been written, as promised in writing.

It was only in February this year, 2014, that I received that Case Study.
In a separate email I was informed that the Agent had been dismissed over this matter, presumably in late December 2012.

Recruiting FAIL: The Gap between Promise and Reality

Following from my own problems with recruiters, a mate sent me the following unsatisfying exchange with a "recruiting" agent, from a supposedly specialist firm.

If you're looking for work, you'll be only too familiar with this mechanical approach where they don't even both to look at your CV and confirm there's a hint of a match.

If you're hiring, this is death. The High Priced Agency might send you warm bodies, but they've done less than you'd want, and possibly would like to believe.

This led me to spending some time researching these "experts".

It's a public company in the UK that sells franchises all around the world - they claim 67 locations and 2,500 staff.
To investors, they claim "high value, high margin". They make a motza out of the suckers on both sides of the table - just look at their financials.

Rummaging around in the company and business names registry and you don't find nearly the entities widely claimed on-line. Is that a problem under the Trade Practice Act (1974) now ACL (2010) part of the CCA (2010) or could someone just register those names and sue them for using them? This is why we have "Hungry Jacks" not "Burger King" burgers. Someone didn't register the names across Australia.

Dig even a little and you find stuff you'd rather not know. A formal warning from ACMA over spamming, a Fairwork complaint on unfair dismissal which doesn't just question the judgement of managers, but makes a case for the employee being consistently 'loose with the truth'.

Then there's the reviews by clients... A few "5-star" ratings, some which read like they were purchased from a sweat-shop in India, others that jibe totally with the rest.

Oh, and one of the original principals who's now worth tens of millions of dollars after the 2005 float is best described as "colourful", four wives, lots of bling and a sting operation for cocaine use.

---

Date: 19 June 2014
Subject: Re: UX Designer contract role
To: recrutier@progressiverecruitment.com

Dear XXXX,

With respect, the problem with most I.T. recruiting agencies is just this - a data mining program trolled the 1000's of CV's that you have online and sent me this "opportunity". If you took the time to read my resume, perhaps schedule a face to face interview, get to know me, my skills, my strengths and weaknesses, shared a cup of tea, a Skype meeting, maybe then you would be motivated to get me something that I am more suited too.

This is the problem - the gap between the many people with the skills and the actual work has been filled with huge "talent agencies" and programs developed by the likes of myself. Programs that perhaps don't reflect a person's skills or character.

I have HP-UX on my resume, NOT UX. Perhaps I could do this job with proper coaching, but would you actually take the time to read my resume and find out? Give me some Skype time?

[snip]

I realize costs have been cut world wide in a lot of industries but this whole process adds a layer of complexity that I find fraustrating. How many times a day do I need to update my resume with "keywords"? before I actually get an interview with you, then maybe the other two people and then the test?

I've been with your agency for over 2 years, maybe longer. I have applied for:

• Unix / Linux System Administration (the buzz word is "Engineer" or "Designer" these days)
• Windows Server Administration 2003, 2008, 2012 - one year relevant experience
• CISCO CCNA 2 Network Admin Certificate - with 2 1/2 years relevant experience managing a LAN / WAN and its hardware (modems, routers, cabling, switches, etc)
• Experience with all workstations - 15 years of experience building, troubleshooting, designing, managing.
• AMD and Intel architecture hardware - 4 years of in depth knowledge that makes me as good as at least a 1st year apprentice electronics technician
• iphones, android phones - very good knowledge
• Virtual machines - very good - set up at least 15
• Scripting in Perl and Shell - very good
• Programming in Visual Basic and C++ - good
• Database scripting (MySql) - good

[snip]

Sincerely,

BP

---

Hi B, 

I Hope you have been well. 

Are you looking for an exciting 3-6 month contract opportunity in the UX design space? 

My client is looking for a UX Designer who will need to work on an old product that needs re-vamping. As the sole UX Designer you will design, lead, and analyze end user needs and leverage the findings into site architectures, Wire-frames, and functional specification documentation for web sites and applications. The UX designer will collaborate closely with a product manager and developers to create the best possible user experience. 

[snip]

If this sounds like you please register your immediate interest by sending through your updated CV and a link to your portfolio/creative work. 

Kind regards,
XXXX

Progressive ICT

---

Business Names Search
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/bn/SearchBnRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=ig8ji303r_13

ORGTEL, TAS BN01642042, Registration Date 01/10/2009
http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=139699148&juris=9&hdtext=&srchsrc=1

Name STHREE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
ACN 126 409 103
ABN 86 126 409 103
Registration Date 06/07/2007
http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=126409103&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1

Current details for ABN: 86 126 409 103, ACN: 126 409 103
STHREE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, from 1-Dec-2007
HUXLEY ASSOCIATES, Business Name
http://abn.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?StartSearch=True&SearchText=126409103

Name: STHREE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
ACN: 126 409 103
ABN: 86 126 409 103
Registration date: 6/07/2007
Next review date: 6/07/2014
Former name(s): PROGRESSIVE RECRUITMENT PTY LIMITED

NOTE: There are no current entity, trading or business name registered in Australia besides "SThree Australia" and "Huxley Associates". Claims that the other entities are "Trading Divisions" within Australia can only be internal accounting arrangements, not backed by any formal entity or registration.

Only in Tasmania is there a registered trading name: "Orgtel."

---

Progressive GE (Global Energy)
http://www.progressivege.com/about-us
http://www.progressivege.com/company-details

Progressive Recruitment
http://www.progressiverecruitment.com/about-us
http://www.progressiverecruitment.com/company-details

Huxley Associates
http://www.huxley.com/company-details

Real Staffing
http://www.realstaffing.com/company-details


SThree info.
http://www.sthree.com/about-us/our-philosophy

SThree on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SThree

SThree History via Archive.org. Started 1986 as "Computer Futures", Taken Public in 2005.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130207013722/http://www.sthree.com/en/page/history/

SThree Investment Case: High Value, High Margin
https://web.archive.org/web/20130207013827/http://www.sthree.com/en/page/investment_case/

Live site
http://www.sthree.com/investors/investment-case

SThree global businesses
http://assets.sthree.com/legal/SThree_Group_Companies.htm

---

Gary Goldsmith, one of original owners of "Computer Futures". Described as "Colourful.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/378060/Duchess-of-Cambridge-s-very-colourful-uncle

Treffry v SThree Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 3697.
Odd behaviour by both employee and company is specifically commented upon.
http://www.vta.vic.edu.au/docs/News/HR%20Update%20August%202013.pdf

Senior Deputy President (SDP) Boulton found that there was a valid reason for terminaton statng that “there is evidence of dishonesty which was premeditated, preconceived, and which was perpetuated, even after it had been challenged by SThree and that Mr Treffry was warned about possible disciplinary acton”. Further to that, he noted that given the relatvely short period of employment, being about one year and three months, the fact that the conduct of Mr Treffry was clearly dishonest, it would have the potental to undermine the trust and confidence which is necessary in the employment relatonship. SDP Boulton did have some reservatons as to whether the terminaton might be correctly characterised as being one for serious misconduct. “In any event, I am not satsfied that the characterisaton of the terminaton as being for serious misconduct would be such as to outweigh all the other consideratons which have led to the conclusion that the terminaton of Mr Treffry’s employment was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable”.

ACMA, 2012. Formal Warning under Spam Act issued to SThree Australia
http://152.91.62.26/Industry/Marketers/Anti-Spam/Ensuring-you-dont-spam/sydney-businesses-failed-to-comply-with-spam-act-i-acma
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib410040/sthree_australia-s41_formal_warning-6jan2012.pdf


Progressive Recruitment Specialists Reviews - www.progressive.co.uk
http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews132341.html
http://www.reviewcentre.com/r132341_2_Progressive_Recruitment_Specia.html

---

Business Names search - '126409103'
Business Names search - '126 409 103'
Business Names search - 'STHREE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED'
Organisations & Business Names search - 'STHREE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED'

---

Business name: ORGTEL
Status: Registered
Registration date: 1/10/2009
Renewal date: 1/10/2015
Address for service of documents: Level 9 1 Market St Sydney NSW 2000
Principal place of business: Level 9 1 Market St Sydney NSW 2000
Holder Name: STHREE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
Holder Type: Body Corporate
ABN: 86 126 409 103

Former identifier: BN01642042
Former State/Territory: TAS

---

Business name: PROGRESSIVE RECRUITMENT
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 21/01/2008
Renewal date: 21/01/2011
Cancelled date: 21/01/2011

Former identifier: B2068812U
Former State/Territory: VIC

---

Business name: COMPUTER FUTURES
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 10/11/2009
Renewal date: 10/11/2012
Cancelled date: 18/02/2011

Former identifier: BN21413800
Former State/Territory: QLD

---

Business name: COMPUTER FUTURES
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 26/10/2009
Renewal date: 26/10/2012
Cancelled date: 11/03/2011

Former identifier: B2229987W
Former State/Territory: VIC

---

Business name: COMPUTER FUTURES
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 4/11/2009
Renewal date: 4/11/2012
Cancelled date: 18/02/2011

Former identifier: BN01646217
Former State/Territory: TAS

---

Business name: COMPUTER FUTURES
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 27/10/2009
Renewal date: 27/10/2012
Cancelled date: 10/03/2011

Former identifier: BN11447059
Former State/Territory: WA

---

Business name: COMPUTER FUTURES
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 5/11/2009
Renewal date: 5/11/2012
Cancelled date: 18/02/2011

Former identifier: BN05058880
Former State/Territory: SA

---

Business name: COMPUTER FUTURES
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 28/10/2009
Renewal date: 28/10/2012
Cancelled date: 24/03/2011

Former identifier: F00136100
Former State/Territory: ACT

---

Business name: COMPUTER FUTURES
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 27/10/2009
Renewal date: 27/10/2012
Cancelled date: 18/02/2011

Former identifier: BN01134048
Former State/Territory: NT

---

Business name: COMPUTER FUTURES
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 26/10/2009
Renewal date: 26/10/2012
Cancelled date: 9/03/2011

Former identifier: BN98463286
Former State/Territory: NSW

---

Business name: JP GRAY
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 4/11/2009
Renewal date: 4/11/2012
Cancelled date: 18/02/2011

Former identifier: BN01646229
Former State/Territory: TAS

---

Business name: JP GRAY
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 26/10/2009
Renewal date: 26/10/2012
Cancelled date: 11/03/2011

Former identifier: B2229974L
Former State/Territory: VIC

---

Business name: JP GRAY
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 27/10/2009
Renewal date: 27/10/2012
Cancelled date: 18/02/2011

Former identifier: BN01134050
Former State/Territory: NT

---

Business name: JP GRAY
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 26/10/2009
Renewal date: 26/10/2012
Cancelled date: 9/03/2011

Former identifier: BN98463284
Former State/Territory: NSW

---

Business name: JP GRAY
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 28/10/2009
Renewal date: 28/10/2012
Cancelled date: 24/03/2011

Former identifier: F00136099
Former State/Territory: ACT

---

Business name: JP GRAY
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 27/11/2009
Renewal date: 27/11/2012
Cancelled date: 18/02/2011

Former identifier: BN21436927
Former State/Territory: QLD

---

Business name: JP GRAY
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 5/11/2009
Renewal date: 5/11/2012
Cancelled date: 10/03/2011

Former identifier: BN11453424
Former State/Territory: WA

---

Business name: JP GRAY
Status: Cancelled
Registration date: 5/11/2009
Renewal date: 5/11/2012
Cancelled date: 18/02/2011

Former identifier: BN05058892
Former State/Territory: SA

I.T. is NOT a Profession. There are NO consequences for Failure, It's Unprofessional to not Learn.

A response to a piece on Delimiter reporting QLD and VIC government project failures.

Compare the local IT failures with these comments from Infoq. Author site.

This is best illustrated by the findings from the US Department of Defense (the DoD).[10]
The DoD analysed the results of its software spending, totalling an eye-watering $35.7 billion, during 1995.
They found that only 2 per cent (2%) of the software was able to be used as delivered.
The vast majority, 75 per cent, of the software was either never used or was cancelled prior to delivery.
The remaining 23 per cent of the software was only used following modification.
That would suggest that the DoD actually only received business value from $0.75 billion of its expenditure – nearly $35 billion of its expenditure did not result in software that delivered any immediate business value.
[10] The results of the study were presented at the 5th Annual Joint Aerospace Weapons Systems Support, Sensors, and Simulation Symposium (JAWS S3) in 1999.

Unsolicited Advise to a classmate

I've never been a politician, managed a large budget or run even a moderate sized project, so why do I have the hubris to offer some unsolicited advice to a newly minted I.T. Minister, to whom by accident, I was once briefly a classmate?

Rejecting these thoughts "because nobody else is doing them" is an option, though not a great reason.

Rejecting them "because they're too expensive" is a judgement call, but has to be measured against "Compared to What?".
Doing nothing will cost you a whole bunch, you've already have the report on that.

The core arguments in support of my observations are:

• How important to the current and future BackOffice and FrontOffice operations of your Government is I.T.? I suggest that the machinery of Government cannot operate without it I.T. systems, not simply ineffectively, but like airlines, not at all.
• There is an internal consistency in what I propose, derived from one of the toughest businesses around. The challenge is not "will this work", but "how can it be made to work for us".

Recruiting FAIL: The Non-Response of ITCRA.

I'm not impressed with the ITCRA grievance process.

As a mere 'candidate', they were happy to accept a 'grievance' from me, using that term, to communicate with me on the matter over many months and to put me to some trouble to provide them 'evidence'. When I raised concerns about maintaining the confidentiality of my private emails, they were brushed aside: Our Way or the Highway was the message.

After too many months, today I finally have a letter saying the matter is 'resolved' and now closed.
I am none the wiser about the facts of my complaints or if ITCRA viewed any/all/some of them as proven.
Did they think I was a reliable witness and weigh my evidence highly or not? I've No Idea.

ITCRA was also unhappy that I should dare to write-up a DEIDENTIFIED version of the story.

As an organisation they seem to have difficulty with the notions of Freedom of Speech, Open and Transparent Governance Processes and Natural Justice.
Nor did anyone have the decency to offer me an apology.
From that, do I infer they found NO FAULT on the part of the Agency and Agent? That I've been a jerk, wasting their time and making a nuisance of myself? I've No Idea.

If anyone has a problem with an ITCRA Member Company, my advice now is:

Don't waste your time.

They'll only jerk you aroud, waste your time and leave you very unsatisfied.

Previous posts on the matter:

http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com/2012/09/recruiting-fail-how-to-foul-up-employee.html

http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com/2012/09/recruiting-fail-part-3-itcra-complaint.html


DRAFT Complaint: 10-Sept-2012.

Mr. AAA BBB,
ITCRA Member Company Representative
XXX Recruitment
YYY Street
Melbourne VIC 3000

Dear AAA,

I am in receipt of a grievance lodged by a candidate Mr. Steve Jenkin, against a XXX consultant Mr. ZZZ ZZZ. He has certified that the information provided is correct to the best of his knowledge and that he has not provided any false or misleading claims against another company or individual and has provided additional email evidence to support the claims made. In summary the issues are:

Background (commencing in August)

• The issue is focused on a *permanent* position for a senior IT staffer and Mr Jenkin was required to move interstate.
• Agency approached Mr Jenkin, no job application ever made by Mr Jenkin.
• Job never advertised with a start date, no immediacy ever stated. Comment was made that it was expected to take 2 months to fill position [by October]

Grievances

• Misleading statements:
1. Confused an email from consultant (ZZ) to work seeker (SJ) with a written offer from the Client. Insisted this was a "Job Offer ", implying a binding contract.

2. Promised help finding accommodation for relocating interstate and none was provided. Having local accommodation was always a condition of accepting the position.

• Harassment or cyber-stalking:

1. One incident of a dozen calls/texts in 30mins by (ZZ)

2. (SJ) asked, in an email, to desist. (ZZ) repeated again later with more very inappropriate and abusive statements.

• Privacy Act breach.
1. (ZZ) used referee contact details for purposes data not supplied for. When work seeker (SJ) would not answer consultant’s (ZZ) calls, consultant (ZZ) rang referee to complain and spoke inappropriately.

• Additional Issues

1. When SJ had failed to receive a contract 10 days from first proposed start date, informed ZZ of inability to start due to personal circumstances. ZZ then harassed and browbeat SJ and seriously overstepped by continuing to demand exactly what the personal circumstances were. This was justified by saying that there was a need to explain to the Client.

2. Misspelt SJ name on contract.

3. ZZ demanded a written apology from SJ to Client for pointing this out.

4. ZZ Sent 7 emails in 15 minute period informing work SJ of Job Offer. ZZ Kept issuing recall emails for incorrect offers sent.

5. ZZ commented that his manager was continually chasing him to comply with company requirements and document all communications.

6. SJ requested 3 times in email that ZZ ask Client if 9-day fortnight [with RDO] would be acceptable during first 3 months while transitioning to Sydney. ZZ never asked Client [confirmed]. Client was happy to comply when asked by SJ.

7. ZZ deliberately misled SJ by stating the job was full-time only and RDO’s were not possible.

Formal Letter of Response: 19-Dec-2012

Mr Steve Jenkin,

Dear Steve,,

The ITCRA Board of Directors has asked me to write and thank you for raising the professional practice matter against ZZZ ZZZ of XXX Recruitment. The complaints process allows us, as an Association, to address issues and to ensure that recruitment practices achieve best practice benchmarks.

The Conduct Committee reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and asked further questions of XXX Recruitment, as the Member of ITCRA. The findings and recommendations of the Conduct Committee were discussed by the ITRCRA Directors and the following outcomes have resulted:

• XXX Recruitment were required to agree to a number of actions as a result of the Committee's recommendations and these have been committed to, with some already completed and assessed by an external quality auditor.

• The ITCRA Directors accepted the Committee's findings and the undertakings by XXX with respect to process review and consultant training.

• The ITCRA Directors raised concerns with respect to the discussions of this matter in the public domain via your blog as this could have jeopardized the process if the Member company felt the Committee had been unduly influenced prior to the matter being heard.

The purpose of the ITCR's Code of Conduct to provide a channel for complaints to be addressed and to provide improvement strategies for professional and business conduct of Members.

As explained to yo, the resolution of the matter was between ITRCA and the Member company and, as such, is confidential and cannot be made public - although the content can be used as a case study, with anonymity, for industry improvement. You would have the right to review any such case study as protection of your rights is also a priority.

The Directors wish you well in your future endeavours and hope that your experience with recruiters, in the future, is not as frustrating.

Have an excellent festive season,

Yours sincerely,
.... CEO

Email to President of ITCRA on their unsatisfactory response.

To: Russell MacDonald, President ITCRA
Subject: ITRCA complaint against XXX
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:10:36 +1100

Russell,

After many months of waiting, today I finally received a letter telling me my complaint against XXX Recruiting on multiple grounds had been resolved.

The letter is best described as "content free".

How was my complaint resolved? I've no idea, just that you've closed the book on it.

Nothing in this process has answered my complaints, nor told me what, if anything, XXX had done wrong, or if any of their malfeasance *I* perceived was supported or not.

All I can gather is they were given a good talking to and they promised not to get caught doing "it" again.

I'm a party to these proceedings, not a third party or 'the public':
  these actions were visited *upon me* and were personally quite devastating and financially disastrous for me AND I personally raised the issue to get some satisfaction from you.

Releasing to me matters that *I* raised, even under a Confidentiality Agreement, doesn't involve any abuse of process or publicly exposes anyone. I already know the names of the players, I was one of them.

If you knew *all along* that I would never be told the outcome of my complaint WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT in September???
That would have been reasonable, but your organisation has jerked me around for months on end...

That's beyond inconsiderate: it's deliberate and intentional misleading behaviour.

At the very least, I would've expected a response to the complaint I raised that comprised two parts:

 - the findings of fact on each individual issue/point raised.
    i.e. "we found a breach of the privacy act, but not harassment"
    Note: I am NOT party to the internal actions, remedies and disciplinary process.

 - if the Agency, or their agent, was found to have acted in Bad Faith or outside acceptable limits in your Professional Code, then an apology to me, at least, is in order.

Where is a letter to me from the management of XXX Recruiting saying "We're sorry, we've looked to fixing things"?????

I'm not just disappointed in the process and this unsatisfactory result, but that you don't understand the concepts behind of Natural Justice. If you asked me to provide a *lot* of personal information as evidence as part of your process, so why cannot I know the determinations you made?

*That* is the reason I approached you with a complaint: to have you make a determination and tell me what it was.

I wish that you:
 - write me a response detailed the determination, not actions taken, on each point of complaint I made.
 - direct XXX Recruitment to write (or phone) an appropriate formal apology to me.

regards
steve jenkin

Unringing the Bell: Impact of IT systems on Large Business Survival

I've posited that Telstra will be severely challenged within 15 years due to Structural Change within their Industry. They aren't fast or agile enough to adapt to the new world..

What are the factors that will prevent them from adapting? My top two:

• Management Culture
• IT Infrastructure

An underlying problem is that we don't have language or metrics to describe and quantify the many important aspects of management. In Physics and Engineering we have many concepts and terms that are measurable to great precision. The importance of those is shown by the materials revolution over the last 100 years. For a tour de force on the topic, a book that's been in print for 45 years: The New Science of Strong Materials.

Whilst "Management" and descriptions and theories about it has become an increasingly large field of study, we don't have a "Science of Management" with precisely defined and measurable terms.

This is crucially important when ownership (shareholders) and control (managers) is separated. The owners have no nuanced, standardised measures to evaluate the most critical part of the business: management. All we've got is the Accounting Standard Reports provided in Annual Reports. This is far from enough to make informed decisions on a business' future prospects.

I can't detail or quantify the many problems of Telstra's Management Culture, just waive my hands and say "it's the vibe". E.g. they not only don't do Customer Service well, they prioritise short-term cost-savings above good service and seem to go to great lengths to not resolve customer faults, at least in some areas.

Management is about doing what's important consistently well, doing what has to be done well enough and not doing at all the things that don't need to be done. [And avoiding entirely the things that should never be done.]

My Professional expertise is in IT Infrastructure. I hold a contrary view to the mainstream Management view of "IT is a Cost Centre". IT provides automated Business Processes, like employees directly responsible for all the Business Revenues: IT is a Profit Centre, not Cost Centre.

We've already seen businesses failure due to their failed I.T. systems: One.Tel is a shining example.

IT Infrastructure has, for the last two decades at least, constrained business mergers. If I recall correctly, the St. George-Westpac merger was cancelled twice due to "incompatible IT systems". Not sure how they solved that in the end.

Westpac itself is notorious for a decade long project, CS90, that was cancelled in December 1990. It was meant to be the ultimate Banking System (an 'ERP') that IBM would resell around the world for them. It was consuming 5-10% of Westpac's operational revenue.

The $10B Telstra "IT Transformation" under Greg Winn ran for around 5 years with the intention of reducing 1500 systems to 300. It failed to meet its targets and went live in 2009 with the 30% most valuable customers not migrated [from my Case Study evidence, now full of migration errors.]

The point: large businesses are inextricably intertwined with their IT Systems - they are part of the Business DNA and essential to the Business Differentiation: What we do differently that people value.

Too often IT Systems are allowed to "grow like topsy" and are never rationalised or reorganised, presumably because no immediate savings or value can be demonstrated, but mostly because nobody is responsible for everything and ensuring IT Systems are well maintained and suitable.

Leading to "Big Bang" projects like Telstra embracing of off-the-shelf ERP and CRM systems to resolve the mess. Inevitably they find that things are much more complex and intertwined than they knew, not the least because they have no correct, current System Maps and the whole was never designed or planned, it just happened. All of which suggests Management asleep at the wheel.

It will probably take Telstra 10 years to get staff trained, most, not all, data corrected in their new systems and workaround established to cater for what the new systems don't do.

But what will it be left with then? Will those systems be nimble, quick and responsive or big, cumbersome and so hard to change as to be effectively frozen?

Young, small companies start small and add functions as needed: the I.T. equivalent of "greenfields".

They don't carry of a legacy or mindset of "we have to cope with everyone and everything".

This is the commercial advantage small ISP's had over Telstra: no past, no baggage, just simple effective systems.

This will be the problem that Telstra will have to face again in 2020 as Retail Providers using the NBN challenge it. Telstra knows the pain, cost and delay in redoing their I.T. Systems, they won't be going there again anytime soon.

This is a generic and on-going challenge for all successful businesses, including those small, nimble Retail Providers: how to keep I.T. Systems from degrading into an unchangeable morass?

When Data hardens in Organisational Arteries and structures/processes ossify, a major Cardiac event will follow... More of the Same cannot fix the problems, radical rethinking is needed.

In an increasingly automated world, a problem looms for every large business: what happens to the IT Systems when you downsize?

You get to drag the big, bloated corpse of yesterdays organisation along with you. It never gets better with age...

It's easy to lay-off staff and "reorganise", but I've never heard of any organisation looking to make commensurate simplifications to their I.T. systems.

I suspect that Large Business who aren't consciously and deliberately cleaning-up and refreshing their I.T. Systems will ultimately fail due to the complexity, inflexibility and inadequacy of their Legacy Systems.

You can lay off Staff and cut whole Departments, but where do you start with the weeds that permeate your whole organisation and choke the life out of it?

Once built, it seems you can't "Unring the Bell" of legacy I.T. systems, you're stuck with them and they define what you can do, while smaller companies whizz past you on their way to Market Domination and being strangled by their Legacy systems.

---

Jerry Gregoire as CIO of Dell Computers in 1999 talked about how he tackled this problem - and won.
When he joined Dell, there was a massive ERP project underway, "One System To Rule Them All". It was late, over-budget and failing. His first action was to cancel the project and front the board...

Instead, he moved Dell to a new architecture dubbed "G2", based around a message broker.
It reduces the N*N-1 or N-factorial system interface problem to one...

All every system needs to interact with every other system is one 'message broker' interface.
It comes with a cost - you need infrastructure and rule sets to switch the messages. But at least that's a known, computable cost.

Dell Business Strategy Secrets
An ERP Package for You...and You...and You...and Even You

The Klingon Guide to I.T. Management

My mate the DBA, whom I think writes wonderfully, coined the idea of "The Klingon Guide To Management" - not everyone might be pulling in the same direction within an organisation, not all agendas and rules may be stated and overt and those you thought were your friends may be elsewise.

I only recently came across Prof Fred Brooks latest book, "The Design of Design: Essays from a Computer Scientist" (Brooks first described The Mythical Man-Month, "adding more people to a late project only makes it later", when he wrote on the lessons he'd learned being in charge of developing OS/360 for IBM in the early 1960's). He still has useful new insights on Project Management and other Computing/I.T. topics.

Chapter 4 of The Design of Design is titled "Requirements, Sin and Contracts". He lays out nicely the human frailties (even 'sins') that make Real World Project Management much more difficult that the Ideal World assumed in the Rational Theories of Project Management.

• Clients can be greedy, unreasonable, capricious and not pay or play fairly.
• The Architect and Designer may have different agendas to each other and not always act in the best interests of the Client when acting as 'agents'.
• Builders often don't have the commitment to quality, budget and schedule that the Client, Architect and Designer expect or desire.
• "All Players are honest and truthful and communication amongst them is excellent". Or: Egos never get in the way.

My DBA mate when told this, countered with: "You know what's wrong with ITIL, don't you?"

Q: "What?"

A: .... I can't remember what he said, I was doubled over with laughter, it was so good and so true.

It was along the lines of "Everyone is competent, on the same page, helpful and cares about results".

Nope! Not within a Bulls Roar. Not seen by either of us in any Real-world organisation of more than two people.

It's a nightmare in most I.T. Ops organisations:

• Big Ego's and on-going vicious internecine wars ("Office Politics") are the norm.
• Finding Competent or Engaged staff is unusual, finding both in the one person is exceptional.
• For all those of you who've rung a Help Desk, you understand "Help" has a special meaning within the I.T. Reality Distortion Field, or "It's not Help as we know it, Jim".
• Recalcitrant Clients, Programmers and Users and Clueless Project Managers are to be expected.
• Denial and Avoidance and  Blaming, Placating, Appeasing are the normal emotional responses of Management. The more Senior the Manager, usually the more extreme the disconnect with Reality.
• Project Managers often get "performance bonuses" to motivate them in achieving features, budget and schedule. What you get instead is bullying, intimidation, threats and lies directed at staff and vendors and "snow jobs" for those up the chain. Getting those "bonuses" take precedence over all other Stakeholder Requirements... Which doesn't improve the result for the Client or Organisation.

The People Side of I.T. Ops and Projects overwhelms the Technical. The only saving grace is that I.T. people are usually very poor at Office Politics, so in spite of them, things occasionally happen.

There is a real need for The Klingon Guide to Management, especially in I.T.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for it to be written.

"My enemy's enemy is my friend". Nope! They're both your enemy, destroy them both with all means available! Ahhh, if only I'd known that when a youngster.

An addendum: Another good friend volunteered two things about problems in IT Ops:

• Are they competent, diligent, helpful and prepared to listen/debate (vs arrogance)?
• Do they recognise and understand the problem? Are their responses considered and supported?
• Not acknowledging problems, being defensive, blocking or deflecting ("we didn't change anything. What did you do?") are classic responses we've seen in IT Ops when asking others to repair services under their control.
• Is the solution or facility they offer or want backed by need or evidence? Very often what gets done comes down to a battle of wills. Confidently asserting you position is what makes you right, not facts and evidence. Evidence based repair and remediation is the exception, not rule.
• One client I advised chose to ignore my written report and purchase a $1MM "special" package from a vendor - a less than 50% List Price "End of Fin Year" deal. Salesmen do deals to make their quotas, not meet client needs... My recommendation was for a $300,000 system, which they bought within a year for another project.

Recruiting FAIL: Part 3. ITCRA complaint

Lodged an formal complaint with ITCRA [IT Contract and Recruitment Association], the Industry Body for Recruiting companies.

Several of the Agents actions were serious breaches of the ITCRA Code of Conduct.

In 30 years of dealing with Agents, this guy is by a long margin, the worst I've come across. Not just incompetent  or "poor with details" such as misspelling Workseeker name on contract. Also demanded an apology as pointing this out was "offensive".
Background:
This was a *permanent* position for a senior IT staffer.
Workseeker required to move interstate.
Agency approached workseeker, no job application ever made by workseeker.
Job never advertised with a start date, no immediacy ever stated. Comment "expected to take 2 months to fill position" [by October]

Complaints.

Misleading statements:
1. Confused an email from himself to workseeker with a written offer from the Client. Insisted this was a "Job Offer", implying a binding contract.

2. Promised help finding accommodation for relocating interstate, none provided. Having local accommodation was always a condition of accepting the position.

Harassment or cyber-stalking:
3. One incident of a dozen calls/texts in 30mins.
Asked, in an email, to desist.
Repeated again later with more very inappropriate and abusive statements.

Privacy Act breach.
4. Used Referee's contact details for purposes data not supplied for. When workseeker would not answer Agents calls, Agent rang referee to complain and abuse.

Possibly Criminal over-stepping
5. When workseeker had failed to receive a contract 10-days from 1st proposed start date, informed Agent of inability to start due to personal circumstances.
Agent then harassed and browbeat client.
Seriously overstepped by continuing to demand exactly what the personal circumstances were.
Justified by saying "I need to explain to the Client".

This was uncalled for as the Client had no urgency on filling position, nor was there any advertising start date.

6. General Incompetence and lack of attention to legal details
a. Misspelled Workseeker name on contract. Demanded a  written apology to Client for pointing this out.
b. Sent 7 emails in 15 minute period informing workseeker of Job Offer. Kept issuing 'recall' emails for incorrect offers sent.
c. Commented that Agents' manager was continually chasing him to comply with company requirements and document all communications.

7. Failing to act on Instructions.
Workseeker requested 3 times in email that Agent ask Client if 9-day fortnight [with RDO] would be acceptable during first 3 months while transitioning to Sydney.
Agent never asked Client [confirmed].
Client was happy to comply when asked.
Agent deliberately misled workseeker by stating the job "was full-time only" and RDO's were not possible.

Emails/SMS's documented at:
[http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/recruiting-fail-how-to-foul-up-employee.html]

Recruiting FAIL: Part2 - Red Flags and Lessons Learned

This experience was unpleasant enough that I took down my LinkedIn account with around 300 contacts, and resolved I wouldn't look for work as a System Admin again.

Whatever I do in looking for work, it's wrong, there is no point in pursuing a strategy that's failed me time and again for over 10 years.

I took a clear decision to provoke a crisis by sending my 'problem' email.
I had accommodation organised and paid for the first week, had packed and organised myself to start on the Monday and a plan, if a little shaky, to continue.

I've learnt a harsh lesson, which means "better to abandon earlier than later":

Things go on as they start. or It will only get worse, not better.

Lesson 1: If it's important to you, get it in writing early on. More so for "dealbreakers".

I never got Slippery Sam the Agent to make a written commitment on what he was promising to deliver. He, and the company, couldn't be held to it.

Lesson 2: Relocating cities is a Big Deal. Allow time, Plan the Move and organise Reconnaissance.

Driving a few hours up the road for an interview isn't the same as moving your life. Even if single, you have to devote a decent chunk of effort to the task. It will take time to do properly.

Lesson 3: You can't make these decisions alone. Talk them over with a friend.

If I'd talked through my decisions and the way I was being treated with a friend, I may have slowed the process down and set a much better process and plan to move in place.

Lesson 4: Be wary when there's a Big Rush and you're not asked when to start, but told.

There was never any hiring date from the Agent or company. They seemed to turn it into a huge rush, but hadn't declared there was any problem that needed someone there Right Now!

There wasn't a contract negotiation, there should be at least a start-date negotiation or specified in original request.

Lesson 5: One Red Flag is enough. Two is a dealbreaker.

Agents and Salesmen will always come across as Great Friends. Which you are until they got your signature, then you're a pariah.

The first Red Flag should've been the apparent haste (Job Spec on Wed 8-Aug, Interview on Mon 13-Aug, organised on Fri 10-Aug).

The next, the lack of a specified start date.

The Red Flag, par excellence, was rescheduling my interview a) earlier and b) on the day.

Slippery Sam the Agent went on to harassment (12 calls/texts in 30mins), browbeat me and completely overstepped the boundaries by demanding I explain my personal circumstances.

That little escapade was, in retrospect, an Instant FAIL.

Agents are there to facilitate the engagement, not beat-up on you and heap on abuse.

Recruiting FAIL: Part1 - How to foul-up employee engagement.

It began, as I recall, on a sunny winters afternoon in August, a Tuesday.
22 days later it had ended acrimoniously with an SMS and my email in response, and the removal of my LinkedIn account to avoid such agents/events in the future.

Please pick up your phone and talk with me steve. Like adults, let's discuss this. At the moment, you are really damaging my relationship with my client which is not fair and not right. I have really done all I can to help you and you won't even talk to me. SMS: +6145206812. 29/08/2012 15:42:49

and

To: B and C
Subject: Harassment
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:43:44 +1000

B,

it's bad enough that against my express wishes you've been bombarding me with calls and texts - that amounts to harassment.

BUT TO CALL MY FRIEND??? What the HELL were you thinking??

Yes I'm ignoring your calls, not because I'm petulant or sulking, but because:

a) I've been doing stuff today, including taking a load of stuff to the tip (loading, driving, unloading, driving - not available to talk), and

b) because there is only ONE thing of interest you can say to me...

Which is: "This is how we can work this out..."

Unless you've got a plan to get me reasonable temporary accommodation while I find a place I can sign a lease on, then there's nothing new to be said.
I can't afford to commit to $10,000 or more in a lease on the chance I'll still have a job in 6 months.

I'm happy to work at C/O, I like C and his team, I think the work would be interesting and think I could make a positive contribution there.

There is just one thing, no more, standing between me and starting there and that's I don't have a place to stay and you haven't helped.

If I had applied for a job in Sydney via you, then it would be my problem to look after myself, pure and simple.

But that didn't happen.

YOU approached ME.

If YOU want me THERE, YOU have to make it happen.
Moving states, you of all people should know its a big deal.

So far you've made empty promises and hung me out to dry...

So - STOP HARASSING ME.

The only message I want to get from you is "It's fixed..."

Otherwise, we've said all that needs to be said.

steve

I precipitated this crisis with an email just before Noon to the Agent (B), the manager (C) and (F) the person in CO that'd sent me the contract. B was very upset that I'd sprayed a message all over CO - told by my friend G, whom he'd first contacted as a referee and then again after this note when I declined his repeated calls.

To: B, C and F
Subject: problem
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:49:41 +1000

I'd like to start by reminding you that I didn't apply for a job with CO - that you've chased me, being insistent to the point of browbeating.

You've known from before you talked to me that I had to move cities to take up your position.

I made two things very, very clear at the outset:

- I do NOT have any temporary accommodation in Sydney, not family or friends I can crash with for a week or two, and

- I required assistance to find a place. From out of town, it's very hard to find anything, especially if a constrained timetable is imposed, as you've done.

Rephrasing this: My employment with CO has always been conditional on finding accommodation, and you've been aware of this.

Two weeks ago, I was promised introductions to estate agents and assured it'd present no problem finding me somewhere to live, presumably reasonably before your selected start date.

As yet, that promise hasn't been fulfilled.
With 2 and a bit days to find a place, I really don't think I could find a place, and certainly not something that I could afford or that I would want to live in.

You've run out the clock on me. I've no idea why.

This week, there was a news item about a murder in a boarding house and I thought: "never again".

A number of times when I was contracting and working in Sydney, I stayed in these unpleasant little dives. Since the news item, I won't be forced for no good reason, to go there again.

I've not been impressed with either how you've generally communicated with me, nor the seeming absence of internal communications at your end.

So I need to spell this out:

• You need to get back to me on this.
• You need to come back with an explicit proposal, either of accommodation or something that's guaranteed to lead to it.
• I expect ONE professional communication back to me on this.
• no browbeating or harassment, this is a problem of your devising (I got 12 calls/SMS in 30mins when I walked to the Post Office)

In normal engagement scenarios, asking people move inter-city involves a bunch of things you haven't done:

• flying the candidate to the in-person interview
• making allowance for the relocation in the start-of-work date
• paying or, or contributing to relocation expenses, every airfares
• providing temporary accommodation, usually some months, while the person finds new accommodation
• providing time-off to search for accommodation and settle affairs, as needed.

regards
steve jenkin

The manager, C, responded with this, making it very plain he wouldn't help me, personally or corporately, nor attempt to negotiate a solution.

It fits my saw "your priorities are what you do, not say".

Subject: Re Harassment
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:51:44 +1000

Hi Steve,

We CO have no way of providing you with a solution for your accommodation here in Sydney and as I mentioned in our phone conversation before, although it is in Agency's best interest to match CO with the right candidate for our job posting, it is not their job either. Unfortunately we will have to miss out on this opportunity to work together.

I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours.

Cheers,
C

There had been a fuss previously with the contract. I'd been invited by F to ask questions.
The response to my questions, I found fantastic, as in beyond belief.

• I was told both B and F found it "offensive" and condescending, but was never told just what I'd written they been offended by.
• The CEO was shown my email (itself an interesting move, not entirely legal) and laughed. Said he liked my directness and saw no cause for offence.
• B blew me up for writing to "his client" without permission and instructed me to never contact F directly again.
• I eventually got B to understand that he'd not mentioned this rules earlier that day when we talked and inventing rules after the event and then chastising me for not following them was impossible logic.
• I never got an apology for this abuse.
• B demanded I write F an apology the next day, with him vetting it first.
• I did so by 09:32.
• B insisted I was to not write that he'd been involved in asking for, or vetting, my apology.
• I objected against this, as it is a deliberate fabrication.

My questions/comments on the contract:

To: B and F
Subject: Re: Employment Agreement
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:31:40 +1000

F,

Hate to do this to you, but my surname is singular, not plural:
JENKIN, no 's'. [At top and on signature line]

It happens a lot, which is why I emphasised it originally, I can't think how that may have been overlooked.

The contract needs to be redone to correct this.

I will sign and post a copy to you tonight (express post, delivery tomorrow) with the incorrect name noted. On my start day we can sign the new version.

My formal name for legal docs is "William Stephen Jenkin", but I'm called "Steve". No need to put one of my Christian names in brackets.

Questions:

0. Whom do I report to whilst my erstwhile manager, C, is away on leave?

1. Clause #3, probationary period.
The Fair Work Act sets a 6 month minimum for lodging dismal cases.
Would that be a more effective period than 3 months?

2. Clause #5, working hours.
The wording suggests fixed start/end times resulting in an 8 hour work-days or 40-hour weeks, yet ordinary hours are 2 hours less. Could you please clarify this for me.

3. Clause #5, flexible hours.
As I'll be relocating from Canberra, I was hoping for the first six months of my employment that I could work 9-day fortnights, i.e. 76 ordinary hours in 9 days with alternate Mondays off (RDO style). [An extra 51 minutes/day]

Will that be possible?

4. Clause #5 and #6. On-call duty and remuneration.
[snip]

5. Clause #10, Intellectual Property.
[snip]
Will the company advise me of all everything it does.
I can't see how in my position I could adequately fulfil that obligation.

6. Clause #10, Intellectual Property.
To be clear, the contract makes no mention of contributing to "Open Source Software". My understanding is that such work falls outside the scope of this clause.

regards
steve jenkin

The issue of RDO's was critical.
In 3 separate emails, I'd asked B if CO would consider letting me work 9-day fortnights for the first 3 months or so, so I might attend to business in Canberra. While I said it wasn't a "drop-dead", it was important enough for me to keep raising the issue.

B was very adamant that "this was a full-time job, CO won't let you work a 9-day fortnight".

Only I hadn't told him I'd guessed C's email address and had a conversation about this and a few other topics. C was more than happy to arrange flexible hours and an RDO. He didn't want "stress".

C was delegated to reply to my questions, which while apparently honest, didn't strike me as being well thought through, nor complete [whole email not included]:

2. It's been a long time since I've done 40 hours of work at CO. We regularly do more than 40 hours of work on a week. I am hoping that with you joining the team this will get better, but this is not a place where we work 9 to 5. Working hours are in general flexible with some restrictions given that as a team we have to ensure our 8am to 6pm support line has someone here to answer the phone.

3. We can manage that internally and informally. [RDO's]

The really important Red Flag occurred on the Friday after the Interview of Monday 13th.
The first Red Flag was C rescheduling my appointment 2 hours earlier. I was rung by B while I was driving up. It cost me $45 in parking, but I was able to make their changed timetable.

At the end, C raced out without properly terminating the interview as he'd run overtime discussing his technical problem and had a taxi waiting.

Subject: Re: FW: Confirmation of Offer
Date:Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:27 +1000

B,

I'm happy to accept the offer generally BUT my personal circumstances have changed slightly since the informal offer on Tuesday/Wednesday and I can no longer start on the 27th.

With C now going on holidays, it wouldn't be operationally effective for me to start on the originally advertised date, Mon 3-Sept-2012.

I'm happy to negotiate a start date when or after C returns from holidays, but realise that CO may wish to rescind this offer to me and go with a "Plan B".

Hope to hear from you soon.

regards
steve jenkin

The first Red Flag was a total of six emails from 09:43 to 10:05 on Fri 17, first confirming the job offer, then "recalling" the email as he'd made an error, and again and again... Geting the contract details right is a necessary competency for an agent.

At 16.05, I finally received a contract from F at CO, whom I'd not heard of or from before. Mess with names and questions is above.

The Red Flag extraordinaire was a dozen missed calls and texts from B in 30 minutes while I walked down to the Post Office, sans phone, to put a signed copy of the contract in the mail (express post) so it'd be there in their office 09:00 next working day. Canberra is treated as Regional NSW by Australia Post with normal mail normally taking 2 days going via Wollongong.

I then got The Third Degree from B, demanding four or five times to know just how my personal circumstances had changed as "he had to sell it to the client". I felt abused, browbeaten and upset after that little tirade.

All of which was pretty surprising as they'd never suggested a start date, never suggested there was any hurry to fill the position and then I found out C, the manager, was going to be away just after I started.

Just to show that B did know that Accommodation was Drop Dead for me, I include an email from him.
I got another call from B around 3PM the next day, Tuesday, while I was driving back from Bowral where B said he was having a little trouble getting anything for me from an a Real Estate agent.
I specifically asked that he sent me the contact details of at least one agent.

Nothing came that evening and I waited until around Noon the next day before sending my "problem" email.

Subject: Are you free to chat today?
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:39:30 +1000

Will you be free to chat today?

I have some people that can talk to you regarding accommodation and keen to catch up.

Thanks
B

One of the things I found "Not Quite Right" early on was a request that I take a look at a Performance Problem on one of their production systems as part of the Interview process. Turns out it wasn't fake data or a test, but I was in front of a console of a running production system, having someone else type my commands, trying to diagnose a live problem for them. Without any background, system maps or application briefing...

This had been my initial queasiness at the request.

Subject: Re: Interview Request
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:14:18 +1000

B,

On reflection, I'm thinking there's a mismatch between this part of the Interview process (snippet below) and the job description as given...

Still going to do the interview, but I'd like to flag my concerns with you first.

The questions they are asking in the Interview are specifically:
- Capacity Planning (circuit planning, load forecasting, provisioning) and
- Performance Analysis (scalability, bottlenecks, rearchitecting, design, interactions, ...)

The closest thing in the job description is:

"A multi-skilled technical profile is required with proven ability to monitor and troubleshoot database and web server performance."

Which includes fault analysis but NOT architecture redesign and Performance Analysis.

If they're wanting a free consult (with current data), I'm not happy with that. I've done enough consulting gigs to be wary of customers asking "just one little question", then getting stiffed on the purported contract

I'd be very happy to look at data from a year ago and analyse that, then compare my analysis with what they did and what happened.
That's completely fair to both them and me.
They don't give away their secrets and I can't be conned into a freebie.

I'm not inclined to give them high-quality consulting advice for free.

Remember that I have bailed multiple large, high-profile Govt. sites out of extreme situations before, so they might just be casting around for that.

Extremely happy to be engaged by them as a consultant for an appropriate daily fee and look at any problems they give me, if that's what they truly want

Anyway, I hope they are being straight with me or just a little naive.

That's the position I'll take until I confirm otherwise.

cheers
steve

I had paid $350 to a boarding house for a weeks' accommodation. I had organised accommodation for the first week, but decided I was going to be miserable living there in a state of permanent anxiety both for my safety and if I'd have to find a new room at short notice.

Part of the problem was the uncertainty of employment, and since 2002, I've had 3 failed attempts to make it through to permanent employment. I've become very wary of Hidden Agendas of employers and managers...

Very kindly, the boarding house allowed me a 2/3 refund, as they'd not informed me of the 14-day cancellation policy. In the end, I got through this sorry mess for under $250.

In Part 2 I will try to extract the Red Flags and my Lessons Learned...

What is Software? Why does it matter?

Software is the stuff that runs on computers.
It's invisible, intangible and isn't even 'isomorphic': exactly one form for one thing. There's an infinite number of representations of a single function, program or thing, producing the identical result.

Computers are active cognitive processing engines.
They can be electronic, mechanical, relays or "wetware" like brains.

If you don't know what you're working on and with, then:

• You can't answer: What is it that we Do?
• Nor can you talk about: What's the best way to do what we do? How do we assess results?
• Nor: What is unique to what we do Professionally? What is the stuff that is ours alone?

The wonderful Pamela Jones of Groklaw persuaded a very insightful Intellectual Property (I.P.) expert, Michael Risch, to contribute a piece: "Curing the Problem of Software Patents".

I attempted a contribution countering the notion that "Software is Mathematics" and it was lost in the noise.

I can't demand respect for having practiced I.T. for longer than 50-75% of the respondents have been alive, nor quote my "hours of experience" like pilots or enumerate the really big, really tough systems I've built, saved or worked on.

Nor can I meaningfully demonstrate the breadth and depth of my Professional Library,

nor, like professional pilots, show my type-certifications and specialist training and ratings.

On Wild Wild Web, my experience and insight is lost because the I.T. Profession has no insight into itself nor engages in any systemic introspection. If you've written a 100-line Vbasic or C programme, you've qualified to espouse your opinion on all things Software...

Discussing "Software Patents", or the Intellectual Property rights over Software, is a deep and complex issue. One that engaged the courts for over two decades of its 50 year history. Around 1970, Thompson and Ritchie of Bell Labs patented the "Set UID bit" of the first Unix system [and placed the patent in the public domain when issued.] This was before there was a clear acceptance of Software Patents.

But why does nobody comment that the very stuff in question, "Software", isn't just not well-defined, there is no commonly accepted definition and description.

My thesis is that Software cannot be adequately covered by existing I.P. regimes, because it is something completely new and different.

Computers were described in the early days as "Thinking Machines", capitalised.

They do execute the cognitive steps encoded in software, but don't yet "Think" as people might, but do small-t 'think'.

This is my hierarchy of the I.P. protections we have now:

• Things we make, artefacts. [Trade Marks and Registered Designs]
• a Creative Expression, potentially copyable, more than simple artefacts. [Copyright]
• Processes, Designs and Methods for creating 'stuff'. [Patents]

Software has elements of each one of these:

• it appears as an artefact, such as on an optical disk or USB drive, as a string of bits that can be executed directly on a real or virtual piece of hardware. The binary form.
• It appears as copyrightable source code, a creative expression of a person or team.
• The essential ideas and innovations can be described and enumerated in a Patent Specification.

But Software is only software when it is running, when it is a series of cognitive steps being executed on a processing engine.

Stored on disk, it is only latent: the string of bits could represent anything, could be interpreted or executed in many distinct ways.

Software does not arrive out of the blue: it results from conscious, directed cognitive effort.

The classic Software Engineering process includes meta-layers and processes:

• Business Case or System Description
• Requirements
• Functional Specification
• Detailed Software Design
• the source code, libraries and tool-chains to create it,
• the functional test suites
• Debugging tools and test/acceptance teams
• Version Control, Release Management and Deployment systems.
• Defect, request and upgrade tracking systems
• Project Management systems
• Quality and Performance management support.

One of the essential characteristics of modern computers is they are General Purpose Computers.

They are empty vessels capable of solving an infinite array of Problems, waiting for specific Software to be loaded and run, making them for that time perform defined cognitive tasks.

The major advance circa 1940's was the "Stored Program".

The CPU (Central Processing Unit) was capable of executing 'instructions', or micro cognitive steps, but prior to the "Stored Program", only what was fixed at construction time.

Storing "executable code" in memory, treating it like loadable and modifiable data, created a completely New Thing on the planet:

  a constructed machine that was a Programmable General Purpose Computer.

"software" can't be disassociated from the platform that it runs on.

And importantly, it only exists when running, the dynamic execution of cognitive steps by an engine marks what it is, nothing else.

The 3 basic building blocks of Software written in functional not declarative languages are:

• sequential statements [mathematical calculations and other actions]
• repetitions and loops [actions]
• conditionals [predicate logic]

These are constructs unique to Software, they are not Logic or Mathematics.

Alan Kay described writing software as "building a convincing proof".

But it is more than just proving a hypothesis, its a result that goes further:

It combines Logic, Actions and Algorithms.

The next breakthrough was I/O (Input/Output).

Whilst a CPU could process cognitive steps stored in memory and solve not just an individual problem, but all problems of a class, this had no use without being able to communicate the results or have the problem input communicated to it.

The four elements described, CPU, Memory (RAM), Persistent Storage and I/O, are common and necessary characteristics of the platform on which Software may run.

Software has the potential to embody any and all cognitive tasks of a human mind that we can precisely describe. Is there any reason it can't Learn and Adapt, fully emulating a human brain?

Already the best chess players are embodied in software. There are symbolic solvers for maths and logic problems, and automated reasoning solving Formal Proofs of problems (like Software itself).

There is a confusion between using Mathematical/Logical proofs to show that a specific piece of Software (often the source code) on a specific platform meets a Formal Specification, and hence Software must be a Mathematical construct.

I posit that Software is composed of cognitive actions and a mathematical/logical proof can be derived to show it conforms to a specification of actions.

Software can be self-modifying, the trivial current example is "on-the-fly compilation".

Mathematical Algorithms are not. 

Software can Learn and Adapt in exactly the same way that the human mind does.

This is not Consciousness. That is a whole other discussion.

Once someone has a precise, testable definition of that, perhaps it can be embodied in Software.

The Turning Test addresses this problem, roughly as "If it walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck, ..., it's a duck" [or person].

This is an extremely powerful and deep point. Nothing similar applies to any branch of Mathematics,  Logic or reasoning:

The Turing Test explicitly says we cannot tell the difference between Software executing on a machine platform and a human mind. All we can evaluate is responses and executing Software can be indistinguishable from a living person.

Importantly a piece of Software cannot directly determine upon what platform it is being run, if it is being run directly on hardware or emulated, being interpreted or a human is carefully and slowly stepping through some code examining it or understanding it.

The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has for over 4 decades attempted to understand the human brain in finer and finer detail and build Software for electronic compute platforms that precisely emulate those human behaviours. Including Learning and Adaption.

Any theory of Software must allow for self-modifying and evolving code. 

Software isn't a branch of Mathematics and Logic. It is far, far more.

• It's dynamic, not a static proof or algorithm.
• It's invisible, intangible and infinite representations exist for the same functionality.
• It performs I/O, stores results and changes its behaviour.
• It interacts with the Real World and suffers 'bit rot'.
• Software is a sequence of cognitive actions, not a proof or algorithm on a page.

My objection to Software Patents is two-fold:

• Software is enumerated cognitive actions. If you can't Patent Ideas, why can you patent thought processes that lead to ideas or solve problems?
• It's at a level above Designs etc embodied in Patents. It's a completely different entity.

More to follow...

The importance of Design Rules

This started with an aside in "Crypto", Stephen Levy (2000), about Rivest's first attempt at creating an RSA Crypto chip failing because whilst the design worked perfectly on the simulator, it didn't work when fabricated.

[p134] Alderman blames the failure on their overreliance on Carver Mead's publications...

Carver Mead and Lynn Conway at CalTech revolutionised VLSI design and production around 1980, publishing "Introduction to VLSI System Design" and providing access to fabrication lines for students and academics. This has been widely written about:
e.g. in "The Power of Modularity", a short piece on the birth of the microchip from Longview Institute, and a 2007 Computerworld piece on the importance of Mead and Conway's work.

David A. Patterson wrote of a further, related, effect in Scientific American, September 1995, p63, "Microprocessors in 2020"

Every 18 months microprocessors double in speed. Within 25 years, one computer will be as powerful as all those in Silicon Valley today

Most recently, microprocessors have become more powerful, thanks to a change in the design approach.
Following the lead of researchers at universities and laboratories across the U.S., commercial chip designers now take a quantitative approach to computer architecture.
Careful experiments precede hardware development, and engineers use sensible metrics to judge their success.
Computer companies acted in concert to adopt this design strategy during the 1980s, and as a result, the rate of improvement in microprocessor technology has risen from 35 percent a year only a decade ago to its current high of approximately 55 percent a year, or almost 4 percent each month.
Processors are now three times faster than had been predicted in the early 1980s;
it is as if our wish was granted, and we now have machines from the year 2000.

Copyright 1995 Scientific American, Inc.

The important points are:

• These acts, capturing expert knowledge in formal Design Rules, were intentional and deliberate.
• These rules weren't an arbitrary collection just thrown together, they were a three-part approach, 1) the dimensionless scalable design rules, 2) the partitioning of tasks and 3) system integration and testing activities.
• The impact, through a compounding rate effect, has been immense e.g. through Moore's Law doubling time, bringing CPU improvements forward 20 years.
• The Design Rules have become embedded in software design and simulation tools, allowing new silicon devices to be designed much faster, with more complexity and with orders fewer errors and faults.
• It's a very successful model that's been replicated in other areas of I.T.

So I'm wondering why vendors don't push this model in other areas?
Does it not work, not scale or is not considered 'useful' or 'necessary'?

There are some tools that contain embedded expert knowledge, e.g. for server storage configuration. But they are tightly tied to particular vendors and product families.

Update 13-Nov-2011: What makes/defines a Design Rule (DR)?

Design Rules fall in the middle ground between  "Rules-of-Thumb" used in Art/Craft of Practice and  the authoritative, abstract models/equations of Science.

They define the middle ground  of Engineering:
 more formal than R-o-T's but more general and directly applicable than the theories models and equations of pure Science, suitable for creating and costing Engineering designs.

This "The Design Rule for I.T./Computing" approach is modelled after the VLSI technique used for many decades, but is not a slavish derivation of it.

Every well understood field of Engineering has one definitive/authoritative "XXX Engineering Handbook" publication that covers all the sub-fields/specialities, recites all the formal Knowledge, Equations, Models, Relationships and Techniques, provides Case Studies, Tutorials, necessary Tables/Charts and worked examples. Plus basic material of ancillary, related or supporting fields.

The object of these "Engineering Handbooks" is that any capable, competent, certified Engineer in a field can rely on its material to solve problems, projects or designs that come their way. They have a reference they can rely upon for their field.

Quantifying specific costs and materials/constraints comes from vendor/product specifications and contracts or price lists. These numbers are used for the detailed calculations and pricing using the techniques/models/equations given in The Engineering Handbook.

A collection  of "Design Rules for I.T. and Computing" may serve the same need.

What are the requirements of a DR?:

• Explicitly list aspects covered and not covered by the DR:
   eg. Persistent Data Storage vs Permanent Archival Storage
• Constraints and Limits of the DR:
  What's the largest, smallest or complex system applicable.
• Complete: all Engineering factors named and quantified.
• Inputs and Outputs: Power, Heat, Air/Water, ...
• Scalable: How to scale the DR up and down.
• Accounting costs: Whole of Life, CapEx and Opex models.
• Environmental Requirements: 
• Availability and Serviceability:
• Contamination/Pollution: Production, Supply and Operation.
• Waste generation and disposal.
• Consumables, Maintenance, Operation and Administration
• Training, Staffing, User education.
• Deployment, Installation/Cutover, Removal/Replacement.
• Compatibility with systems, components and people.
• Optimisable in multiple dimensions.  Covers all the aspects traded off in Engineering decisions:
  • Cost: per unit, 'specific metric' (eg $$/Gb),
  • Speed/Performance:  how it's defined, measured, reported and compared.
  • 'Space' (Speed and 'Space' in the sense of Algorithmn trade-off)
  • Size, Weight, and other Physical characteristics
  • 'Quality' (of design and execution, not the simplistic "fault/error rate")
  • Product compliance to specification, repeatability of 'performance'. (manufacturing defects, variance, problems, ...)
  • Usability
  • Safety/Security
  • Reliability/Recovery
• other factors will be needed to achieve a model/rule that is:
   {Correct, Consistent, Complete, Canonical (ie min size)}

QPRSUCOST: Software Design has more dimensions than 'Functionality'

Summary: There are multiple Essential Dimensions of Software Design besides "Functionality".

There are three Essential External Dimensions, {Function, Time, Money} and multiple Internal Dimensions.
I'm ot sure where/how "Real-Time" is covered, it isn't just "Performance": the necessary concurrency (not just "parallelism") and asynchronous events/processing require 10-100 times the cognitive capacity to deal with, and problems scale-up extraordinarily (faster than exponential) due to this added complexity. This is why Operating Systems and embedded critical systems (health/medicine, aerospace control, nuclear, Telecomms, Routers/Switches, Storage Devices, ...) are so difficult and expensive.

Not understanding and enumerating these multiple Dimensions whilst seemingly teaching Functionality only is perhaps currently the single biggest single failure of the discipline of Software Engineering.

The Necessary or Essential Dimensions of the further Software phases of Software Construction, Software Deployment and Software Maintenance besides the meta-processes of Software Project Management and I.T. Operations are beyond the scope of this piece.

This non-exhaustive taxonomy implies that there are additional Essential Dimensions, such as Maintainability and Manageability, elsewhere in the Computing/I.T. milieu.

My apologies in advance that this piece is in itself a first pass and not yet definitive.


+++ Need to deal with "Documentation" vs "Literate Programming" vs "Slices & tools"
+++ Dev - Ops. Infrastructure is part of the deliverable. Scripts on PRD/DEV/TST must be same. Software Config Mgt and Migration/Fail-back/Fail-over are different and essential/necessary

---

Software Design:
I'm using Software Design in an unconventional sense:
  everything that precedes and defines Coding and Construction.

While noting that Software Design and Construction are closely intertwined and inter-dependent and that all Software Projects are iterative, especially after notional Deployment and during Software Maintenance.

The acts of coding and testing uncover/reveal failings, errors, assumptions, blind-spots and omissions in the Design and its underlying models and concepts.

Where do the various Testing activities belong?
Wherever your Process or Project Methodology define them to be.
Many Software Design problems are revealed when first attempting to construct tests and later in performing them. Thus creating feedback, corrections and additional requirements/constraints.


What's an "Essential Dimension"?
In Formal Logic and Maths, there's the notion of "necessary and sufficient conditions" for a relationship or dependency to hold.
It is in this sense that I'm defining an "Essential Dimension" of elements or phases in the Software  process, that they individually be Necessary and together be Sufficient for a complete solution/result.

A Dimension is Essential if it's removal, omission or non-performance results in Defective, Incomplete, Ineffective, Non-Performing or Non-Compliant Software and Systems.
Or more positively, a Dimension is Essential if it must be performed to achieve the desired/specified process and product outputs and outcomes.

A marker of an Essential is

Defective, or colloquially "Buggy", Software, has many aspects, not just "Erroneous, Invalid or Inconsistent Results".

The term is meant to be parsed against each of the Essential Design Dimensions for specific meanings, such as "Hacked or Compromised" (Security), "Failure to Proceed or Complete" (i.e. crash or infinite loop: Quality), "Too Slow" (Performance),  "Corrupt or Lose Data" (Quality), "Unmaintainable" (Quality) and "Maxed out" (Scalability).


Initial candidate Essential Dimensions.
From my experience and observations of the full Software cycle and I.T. Operations, a first cut, not in order of importance:

• F - Functionality
  
• Q - Quality
• P - Performance
• R - Reliability/Recovery
• S - Security/Safety
• U - Usability 
• C - Concurrency/Synchronousness
• O - Operability/Manageability 
• S - Scalability
• T - Testability

Relative Importance of the Design Dimensions
Which Dimension is most important?
All and None: it depends on the specific project or task and its goals, constraints and requirements.

An essential outcome of the Specification phase of Software Design is to precisely define:

• The criteria for each  Essential Design Dimensions for the Product, Project, all Tasks and every Component.
• The relative importance of the Dimensions.
• How to assess final compliance to these criteria in both Business and Technical realms.

The one universally applicable Design Dimension is Quality.

Which of its many aspects are critical for any project, sub-system, task, phase or component, and how they will be monitored, controlled and confirmed, must be defined by your meta-processes or derived through the execution of your Methodology.

Minimally, any Professionally produced Software component or product must be shown to conform both to the Zeroth Law requirements (keep running, terminate, Do no Damage  and produce results) and its written Functional Requirements/Specifications.


Quality


Zeroth Law requirements (keep running, terminate, Do no Damage and produce results)

From "The quality of software", Hoare, Software-Practice and Experience Vol 2, 1972 p103-5 

Hoare's Software Quality Criteria:

(1) Clear definition of purpose

(2) Simplicity of use
(3) Ruggedness
(4) Early availability
(5) Reliability

(6) Extensibility and improvability in light of experience

(7) Adaptability and easy extension to different configurations

(8) Suitability to each individual configuration of the range
(9) Brevity
(10) Efficiency (speed)

(11) Operating ease

(12) Adaptability to wide range of applications
(13) Coherence and consistency with other programs
(14) Minimum cost to develop
(15) Conformity to national and international standards

(16) Early and valid sales documentation

(17) Clear accurate and precise user’s documents

Security/Safety

Performance

Usability

Reliability/Recovery

Scalability

Testability

• Functional Testing or Specification Compliance Testing?
• Load Testing
• Regression Testing, post-Release esp.
• Acceptance Testing. Commercial Compliance?
• Others?

Concurrency/Asynchronousity

Operability/Manageability

What can you learn from a self-proclaimed "World's Greatest"?

Note: This document is copyright© Steve Jenkin 1998-2010. It may not be
reproduced, modified or distributed in any way without the explicit
permission of the author. [Which you can expect to be given.]

Lessons from the Worlds' Greatest Sys Admin - July 1998

Presented at SAGE-AU Conference, July 1998

Contents
Introduction
Background
Principles of System Admin
Some WGSA Attributes
About The WGSA
Sayings of the WGSA.
Some Sound Management Laws
So What?
How do you work with a "World's Greatest ..."
Some "Good Stuff" I learnt from friends.
Some of the WGSA's work
Summary

Why Microsoft is being left behind

Paul Budde recently questioned, "Will Microsoft be able to make the jump?"
[04-Apr-2010] For other comments see my pieces "Death by Success" and "Death by Success II".

He quotes the marketing "S-curve" and Summer Players by Carol Velthuis describing company performance and market maturity in seasons of the year.

I.T. Failure == Corporate Failure

Stephen Bartholomeusz writing in Business Spectator, 18 Nov 2009, on the ASIC court case over the collapse of One.Tel.

Bartholomeusz neatly summarises the root cause of the failure:

Unhappily, its billing systems didn’t work, so it piled up debtors, while its competitors responded to the cut-price strategies.

He goes on to say:

While professing publicly that the group was on-track to be cash-positive..., internally One.Tel appears to have had little control or understanding of its cash flows or the mounting issues created by its billing system

and finishes:

Whatever Rich might claim, One.Tel wasn't a successful company, unless success is measured by revenue, not cash flows or execution.

This is the first case I've noticed where the immediate cause of failure of a large, public company  has been it's I.T. systems. The root cause is poor management with an inability to execute - or to understand and control it's I.T.

The field of "Software Engineering" is 40 years old now.
How could this foreseeable and preventable failure have happened with competent professionals, especially if Software Engineering had achieved it's aims?

There is a multiple tragedy hidden here:

• Software Engineering has failed to impress it's primary market: Business Management.
• Educators and Researchers are not, as a matter of course, going to analyse this failure and use it as a case study. Compare the 1974 explosion at Flixborough or the 1970 collapse of the Westgate bridge during construction.
• IT practitioners aren't going to be informed by their Professional Societies of the causes and preventing a recurrence.
• Business Management and I.T. practice remains "Consequence Free".

If a Billion Dollar Failure isn't a notable event and worthy of preventing recurrence, then what is?
Why are ASIC, the ASX and the Federal and State Governments silent on this point?
If not their job, then whose?

Imagine if QANTAS had a fire at a maintenance facility and lost $1B of buildings, plant and equipment. You know absolutely the company, multiple regulators and all the professional bodies would actively investigate the matter.

They would be looking for "root causes" of this event, other problems, ways to fix the system, processes & procedures to prevent or early-detect this class of problem again and co-incidentally if any individuals were responsible. Not just front-line grunts, but if anyone in management  (up to the CEO) was culpable, negligent, incompetent or asleep-at-the-wheel.

The absolute tragedy here is not the loss to these investors (employees, vendors, customers, ...) but that nothing is going to change, that this massive loss bought nothing.

What is more galling to me is that nobody in the Press, Government, ASX, Investment bodies, Judicary or Regulators thinks anything more could or should be done...