This is a pitch for something new: the "Researchers' Workbench".
Australia has the wealth and inventiveness to do it, but most probably, not the political will.
Chalk that up to "the Cultural Cringe".
Showing posts with label cognitive amplifier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cognitive amplifier. Show all posts
2010/02/27
ICT Productivity and the Failure of Australian Management
Prior Related Posts:
Quantifying the Business Benefits of I.T. Operations
The Triple Whammy - the true cost of I.T. Waste
Force Multipliers - Tools as Physical and Cognitive Amplifiers
I.T. in context
Alan Kohler and Robert Gottleibsen have been writing in "Business Spectator" about the relationship between jobs and Economic Productivity.
They note that the USA has improved productivity in the last year while in Australia it has declined (+4% and -3% respectively). My take on this is: a gross Failure of Australian Management.
There is solid research/evidence that "ICT" is the single largest contributor to both partial and multi-factor Productivity, and is expected to be so for the next 20 years. This is an big issue.
Quantifying the Business Benefits of I.T. Operations
The Triple Whammy - the true cost of I.T. Waste
Force Multipliers - Tools as Physical and Cognitive Amplifiers
I.T. in context
Alan Kohler and Robert Gottleibsen have been writing in "Business Spectator" about the relationship between jobs and Economic Productivity.
They note that the USA has improved productivity in the last year while in Australia it has declined (+4% and -3% respectively). My take on this is: a gross Failure of Australian Management.
There is solid research/evidence that "ICT" is the single largest contributor to both partial and multi-factor Productivity, and is expected to be so for the next 20 years. This is an big issue.
2009/04/17
How "The Internet Changes Everything" for Journalists
Update 1: 26-May-2009
A very kind person @ ABC took the time to read this piece and to give me some valuable comments:
So where to from here?
Appears to be end-of-the-road for this approach.
How does "The Internet Changes Everything" apply to News and Journalism at the ABC - Australia's national broadcaster?
Contents: Background, How the Internet Changes Everything and Proposal
What are the sources of Good Stories?
Do Journalists have a monopoly on sources and Perfect Judgement on story 'size' & importance?
Obviously not.
But how do folk "out of the loop" gain access to the Gatekeepers of the public media?
Consider two cases and what, if anything, has changed now if they were to be repeated:
The ABC News website is clear, well structured, informative and completely useless and frustrating for someone like me who's not sending Press Releases, submitting news tips/vision, already known to journalists or a 'recognised industry expert'.
I spent a week trying to contact any journalist inside the ABC who might be able to pick up a small but important question that goes to the heart of the National Broadband Network Fibre-to-the-Premises proposal of the Rudd Government: the published pricing ($5,500/house) is 2-5 times higher than both the 1995 Optus/Telstra cable TV roll-out to 2-3M houses and recent FTTP installations.
Something looks very wrong, and asking this and consequential questions of both Politicians and Telco experts/consultants would make good copy and put the ABC at the forefront of this News thread.
But I can't get through... E-mails, web-form emails and phone calls (with follow-ups) have drawn a blank. I'm not some major 'name' or consultancy so my 30+ years experience in the field and a bunch of good innovations just don't count... Which is what I have to presume, because I've heard nothing back. Not even an automatic response.
From my position outside, it appears that internally ABC News operates as a set of independent 'silos' - groups that are completely isolated from one another. If you get through to anyone, they might reject it but offer no assistance in what to try next.
The next step is "go to the top". Which would be the newly appointed "Head of News", who shows up in media releases, interviews, in the Organisation Chart [PDF], but not yet in the 'Contacts' page - which curiously has only postal and telephone contact information. That implies there isn't an automatic system to update all relevant webpages. Writing to 'webmaster' should work - but from my experience, I'm disinclined to try.
If there are permanent electronic addresses to contact people in senior roles, they are not disclosed.
Ditto for any set of 'Editors', 'News Desks' or targeted 'Correspondents'.
Is it possible internally ABC News is this chaotic & unorganised?
Is this "Wall of Granite" exposed to outsiders accidental or intentional?
Radio is a highly personal medium: Philip Adams insight is in speaking to 'the listener'. He knows he is having a personal conversation with individuals, not a group or an 'audience' as you find in theatres and sports grounds.
People listening to radio are more likely to want to continue the conversation on-line. This is facilitated on the ABC site by web-form email, forums and even a 'Complaints' facility.
The News site even has a 'Contribute' page:
Can you see the assumption in there? It's insular and iconoclastic.
We find 'the news', you listen.
There's a secondary assumption:
News is only 'events' that can be represented in sound-bites and pictures. There is no allowance for informed contributions and bigger stories.
There is a simple test:
It is embarrassingly insular to assume that, as a publisher/broadcaster, you always know better than the entire listening audience what is going on.
That one person, using the technology well and wisely, can access and leverage community knowledge, globally, and affect a major outcome is shown by 'PJ' (Pamela Jones) of Groklaw and her influence on the "SCO case". SCO became the final licensee of the AT&T Unix codebase and sought to leverage this into a 'tax' on Linux, a re-implementation loosely based on Unix.
Lesson: One person can make a difference, if they apply themselves and the technology appropriately.
The Internet is a new thing - it's not just a faster, cheaper, better way to do the same things.
If you simple-mindedly automate existing practices, you will open the floodgates and will drown in electronic verbiage.
When the 'barriers to entry', the cost in time, energy & money, of communicating are very low then people will bombard you with messages. The sheer volume and the Signal-to-Noise ratio means the content is worthless: a small army, let alone a single person, won't be able to read everything and duplicate/irrelevant information will drown out any gems therein.
Computers also hold the key to the problem - they are Cognitive Amplifiers.
They enable one person to do the work of 10, 100 or 1,000. More quickly, more cheaply and often 'better' in important ways.
The ABC News Division employs 700 professionals.
They certainly perform very well, but are they sufficient to find and research all worthy stories locally, let alone all local interest stories occurring world-wide?
What's the price to the Organisation, the Australian Media, Government/Politics and the Australian Public of missing important stories??
There are many problems to be addressed and overcome before a useful system can emerge:
There are always going to be people who wish to remain anonymous - either completely or in the usual 'off the record' sense where they do not wish to be publicly quoted, but are willing provide a written statement and, if necessary, to stand by their comments in court.
One key technical method to address many of these problems is strong identification of posters.
This has to be of similar strength to X.509 client certificates for browsers with the concomitant off-line checks issuing them.
Off-line confirmation identity is essential - like checking the whitepages and calling the person, or sending an SMS - up to sighting 'photo id'.
Writing is a skill that must be practised.
Members of the public do not have journalistic skills, nor a sense of what journalists consider 'newsworthy', nor what is needed to successfully pitch a story - even if they have found the right person. The limited feedback I've received amounts to "just write clearly". I know how to do that in a number of domains, but have no idea what journalists want and need.
This can be addressed at 3 levels:
With the increasing numbers of retired Baby Boomers - including ex-journalists, there should be a large pool of free labour available to review, categorise and respond to the information fire hose that would be unleashed.
The Internet means people can volunteer for an organisation without the classic problems of desk-space, real-time supervision, insurance and other entitlements. Volunteers work from home, when and for as long as they like. They could even be self-administering.
At the end of the day, it comes down to just one question:
A very kind person @ ABC took the time to read this piece and to give me some valuable comments:
- We are paid to make editorial decisions ... This is our job.
- news is about immediate events and happenings and it is short, brief and factual.
- 'News' is just one kind of ABC broadcast.
Don't confuse it with our entire output.- As to your specific proposals...
- SPAM is a "dropdead" problem (my words)
- automatically generated responses are a waste of time... listener input should be read and acknowledged by a real person,
- but the problem is that we are all under time pressure.
So where to from here?
Appears to be end-of-the-road for this approach.
How does "The Internet Changes Everything" apply to News and Journalism at the ABC - Australia's national broadcaster?
Contents: Background, How the Internet Changes Everything and Proposal
What are the sources of Good Stories?
Do Journalists have a monopoly on sources and Perfect Judgement on story 'size' & importance?
Obviously not.
But how do folk "out of the loop" gain access to the Gatekeepers of the public media?
Consider two cases and what, if anything, has changed now if they were to be repeated:
- The "Erin Brokovich effect": through persistent talking & listening to ordinary householders, an apparently minor legal matter became massive. The romantic story of the film has the primary evidence, "the smoking gun", only arriving accidentally, and
- "Dr. Death" allegations at Rockhampton hospital: a set of nurses at the hospital attempted, for years, to raise their concerns internally & externally without getting any 'traction'. Meanwhile, people were needlessly being harmed, there's no media coverage and hence no political interest in investigating the claims.
Background
The ABC News website is clear, well structured, informative and completely useless and frustrating for someone like me who's not sending Press Releases, submitting news tips/vision, already known to journalists or a 'recognised industry expert'.
I spent a week trying to contact any journalist inside the ABC who might be able to pick up a small but important question that goes to the heart of the National Broadband Network Fibre-to-the-Premises proposal of the Rudd Government: the published pricing ($5,500/house) is 2-5 times higher than both the 1995 Optus/Telstra cable TV roll-out to 2-3M houses and recent FTTP installations.
Something looks very wrong, and asking this and consequential questions of both Politicians and Telco experts/consultants would make good copy and put the ABC at the forefront of this News thread.
But I can't get through... E-mails, web-form emails and phone calls (with follow-ups) have drawn a blank. I'm not some major 'name' or consultancy so my 30+ years experience in the field and a bunch of good innovations just don't count... Which is what I have to presume, because I've heard nothing back. Not even an automatic response.
From my position outside, it appears that internally ABC News operates as a set of independent 'silos' - groups that are completely isolated from one another. If you get through to anyone, they might reject it but offer no assistance in what to try next.
The next step is "go to the top". Which would be the newly appointed "Head of News", who shows up in media releases, interviews, in the Organisation Chart [PDF], but not yet in the 'Contacts' page - which curiously has only postal and telephone contact information. That implies there isn't an automatic system to update all relevant webpages. Writing to 'webmaster' should work - but from my experience, I'm disinclined to try.
If there are permanent electronic addresses to contact people in senior roles, they are not disclosed.
Ditto for any set of 'Editors', 'News Desks' or targeted 'Correspondents'.
Is it possible internally ABC News is this chaotic & unorganised?
Is this "Wall of Granite" exposed to outsiders accidental or intentional?
"The Internet Changes Everything"
Radio is a highly personal medium: Philip Adams insight is in speaking to 'the listener'. He knows he is having a personal conversation with individuals, not a group or an 'audience' as you find in theatres and sports grounds.
People listening to radio are more likely to want to continue the conversation on-line. This is facilitated on the ABC site by web-form email, forums and even a 'Complaints' facility.
The News site even has a 'Contribute' page:
If you witness a news event, the ABC wants to hear from you. We would like you to send us your newsworthy photos, videos, audio clips or even written eyewitness accounts for consideration for use on ABC News.
Can you see the assumption in there? It's insular and iconoclastic.
We find 'the news', you listen.
There's a secondary assumption:
News is only 'events' that can be represented in sound-bites and pictures. There is no allowance for informed contributions and bigger stories.
There is a simple test:
Does the system facilitate or block major public interest stories like "Dr. Death" at Rockhampton Hospital, false 'evidence' claims as in the 'Children Overboard' affair, or problems like gross waste/misuse of public money, dereliction of duty, outrageous behaviour of public officials/politicians or endemic corruption?
It is embarrassingly insular to assume that, as a publisher/broadcaster, you always know better than the entire listening audience what is going on.
That one person, using the technology well and wisely, can access and leverage community knowledge, globally, and affect a major outcome is shown by 'PJ' (Pamela Jones) of Groklaw and her influence on the "SCO case". SCO became the final licensee of the AT&T Unix codebase and sought to leverage this into a 'tax' on Linux, a re-implementation loosely based on Unix.
In the intervening years (2003 - 2007) PJ and Groklaw can be credited with unearthing and exposing many of the flaws in SCO’s case, most notably, obtaining and publishing the 1994 settlement in the USL vs BSDi case, which had been hidden from public view and played a significant role in undermining SCO’s claims to the ownership of Unix.PJ's efforts and collaboration with the global community were instrumental in SCO losing its case. No one company, even vendors like IBM, Novell and AT&T, and certainly no consumer, had all the information nor all requisite manpower to definitively dismiss the claims.
Lesson: One person can make a difference, if they apply themselves and the technology appropriately.
The Internet is a new thing - it's not just a faster, cheaper, better way to do the same things.
If you simple-mindedly automate existing practices, you will open the floodgates and will drown in electronic verbiage.
When the 'barriers to entry', the cost in time, energy & money, of communicating are very low then people will bombard you with messages. The sheer volume and the Signal-to-Noise ratio means the content is worthless: a small army, let alone a single person, won't be able to read everything and duplicate/irrelevant information will drown out any gems therein.
Computers also hold the key to the problem - they are Cognitive Amplifiers.
They enable one person to do the work of 10, 100 or 1,000. More quickly, more cheaply and often 'better' in important ways.
The ABC News Division employs 700 professionals.
They certainly perform very well, but are they sufficient to find and research all worthy stories locally, let alone all local interest stories occurring world-wide?
What's the price to the Organisation, the Australian Media, Government/Politics and the Australian Public of missing important stories??
There are many problems to be addressed and overcome before a useful system can emerge:
- SPAM
- Security/malware - controlling & avoiding upload/dissemination
- Denial-of-Service attacks and webpage and other information hacking,
- Retaliatory attacks and deliberate mis-information by 'sources'.
- Mischief makers, Gossips and Defamatory statements.
- 'Personal Agendas' and Vendettas/Disgruntled persons,
- Copyright violation and Plagiarism,
- Nuisance, time-wasting, 'serial pests' and Vexatious persons
There are always going to be people who wish to remain anonymous - either completely or in the usual 'off the record' sense where they do not wish to be publicly quoted, but are willing provide a written statement and, if necessary, to stand by their comments in court.
One key technical method to address many of these problems is strong identification of posters.
This has to be of similar strength to X.509 client certificates for browsers with the concomitant off-line checks issuing them.
Off-line confirmation identity is essential - like checking the whitepages and calling the person, or sending an SMS - up to sighting 'photo id'.
A Proposal:
Immediately, three improvements would help address my frustrations:- publish role-based, not personal, email addresses for both senior positions and the various news desks/editors/specialist correspondents that must exist internally.
- Add a new contact form for story requests, useful information and leads.
The sorts of things needed for investigative journalists. It must include topic categorisation for automatic distribution to the news desks/story areas. - Automatically acknowledge all contacts - by via email or SMS or other simple means.
Writing is a skill that must be practised.
Members of the public do not have journalistic skills, nor a sense of what journalists consider 'newsworthy', nor what is needed to successfully pitch a story - even if they have found the right person. The limited feedback I've received amounts to "just write clearly". I know how to do that in a number of domains, but have no idea what journalists want and need.This can be addressed at 3 levels:
- An on-line tutorial and example system.
Including some template questions and suggestions for ways to both condense/summarise your information and to self-assess its 'importance' and 'newsworthiness'. - A limited (5 minutes) response by a journalist to any specific questions or advice.
- The ability to pay for editorial help in constructing a pitch and a even a story.
The rate would have to be $50-$75/hour for cost recovery, more to act as brake on overuse.
With the increasing numbers of retired Baby Boomers - including ex-journalists, there should be a large pool of free labour available to review, categorise and respond to the information fire hose that would be unleashed.
The Internet means people can volunteer for an organisation without the classic problems of desk-space, real-time supervision, insurance and other entitlements. Volunteers work from home, when and for as long as they like. They could even be self-administering.
At the end of the day, it comes down to just one question:
What does the ABC consider its own and the community's on-going roles, and
how will it stay current with sociological, cultural & technological changes?
2008/11/29
Gershon Report - Review of Australian FedGovt ICT
The Gershon Review is good solid stuff that doesn't rock the boat, doesn't challenge current methods & thinking, nor show deep understanding of the field.
It has a major omission - it addresses ICT inputs only.
ICT is useful only in what it enables others to do or improve - measuring & improving ICT outputs is completely missing from 'Gershon'.
It doesn't examine the fundamentals of ICT work:
Gershon doesn't address outstanding issues of the IT Profession:
Aviation is controlled by ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau, previously Bureau of Air Safety Investigation [BASI]) and CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority). The USA's FAI publishes hard data on all aspects of Aviation - and mostly they improve on every measure every year. This isn't just due to the march of technology - the figures for 'General Aviation' (as opposed to Regular Passenger Transport) plateaued decades ago... This is solid evidence that Aviation as a Profession takes itself seriously - and that commercial operators in one of the most competitive and cut-throat industries understand the commercial imperative of reducing Known Errors.
Aviation shows that profession wide attention to Learning and Improvement isn't just about Soft benefits, but translates into solid business fundamentals. You make more money if you don't repeat Know Errors/Mistakes.
ATSB investigates incidents and looks for Root Causes.
CASA takes these reports and turns them into enforceable guidelines - with direct penalties for individuals, groups and organisations. CASA is also responsible for the continual testing and certification of all licensed persons - pilots, Aircraft Engineers, ...
There are 4 specific areas Gershon could've included to cause real change in the IT Profession - to start the inculturation of Learning & Improvement and the flow-on business gains.
Federal Government accounts for 20% of total Australian IT expenditure. It is the single largest user and purchaser of IT - and uniquely positioned to redefine and change the entire IT profession in Australia.
The ACS describes Gerhon's recommendations as "all aimed at addressing the efficiency of ICT":
Nor does the idea of institutionalising the building/improving the Profession of IT and increasing the Capability/Performance of IT Professionals.
By the DCITA/DBCDE own reports, ICT contributes 75% of productivity improvements: ICT is still the single greatest point of leverage for organisations reducing costs and improving output.
Does getting IT right in Federal Government matter?
Absolutely.
Gershon delivers 'more of the same' and could conceivably achieve its targets of 5% & 10% cost improvement
It has a major omission - it addresses ICT inputs only.
ICT is useful only in what it enables others to do or improve - measuring & improving ICT outputs is completely missing from 'Gershon'.
It doesn't examine the fundamentals of ICT work:
- What is that we do?
How is Computing/IT special or different to anything else? - Why do we do it?
Who benefits from our outputs and How?
- Computing is a "Cognitive Amplifier" allowing tasks to be done {Cheaper, Better, Quicker, More/Bigger}.
- IT is done for a Business Benefit.
Like Marketing, defining how outputs & outcomes are measured and assessed - both in the macro and micro - is one of the most important initial tasks.
Gershon doesn't address outstanding issues of the IT Profession:
- improving individual, organisational and general professional competence and performance.
- Reducing preventable failures, incompetence/ignorance and under-performance.
- Deliberate, directed & focussed effort is required to institute and maintain real Improvement of the Profession. (vs 'profession-al improvement' of practitioners)
- Are there any new ways to stuff things up?
- Is it "efficient, effective, ethical" to allow known Errors, Mistakes, Failures to recur without consequences? [see FMAA s44]
Aviation is controlled by ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau, previously Bureau of Air Safety Investigation [BASI]) and CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority). The USA's FAI publishes hard data on all aspects of Aviation - and mostly they improve on every measure every year. This isn't just due to the march of technology - the figures for 'General Aviation' (as opposed to Regular Passenger Transport) plateaued decades ago... This is solid evidence that Aviation as a Profession takes itself seriously - and that commercial operators in one of the most competitive and cut-throat industries understand the commercial imperative of reducing Known Errors.
Aviation shows that profession wide attention to Learning and Improvement isn't just about Soft benefits, but translates into solid business fundamentals. You make more money if you don't repeat Know Errors/Mistakes.
ATSB investigates incidents and looks for Root Causes.
CASA takes these reports and turns them into enforceable guidelines - with direct penalties for individuals, groups and organisations. CASA is also responsible for the continual testing and certification of all licensed persons - pilots, Aircraft Engineers, ...
There are 4 specific areas Gershon could've included to cause real change in the IT Profession - to start the inculturation of Learning & Improvement and the flow-on business gains.
Federal Government accounts for 20% of total Australian IT expenditure. It is the single largest user and purchaser of IT - and uniquely positioned to redefine and change the entire IT profession in Australia.
- Lessons Learned - Root Cause Analysis of Failures/Problems
Dept. Finance 'Gateway Review Process' on Projects.
Needs equivalent of CASA - inspection and enforcement of standards plus penalties/sanctions - Not just reviews and suggested guidelines.
Not just ICT staff, not just FedGovt but their suppliers/vendors/contractors as well.
Without real & timely (personal and organisational) consequences, nothing changes. - Standish 'Chaos Report' equivalent - real stats on IT Projects.
Without solid numbers, nothing can change. - Operational Reviews.
How well does an IT organisation do its work?
Critical Self-assessment isn't possible - exactly the reason work needs to be cross-checked for errors/mistakes/omissions/defects.
C.f. Military Operational Readiness Reviews - done by specialist, impartial experts. - Individual Capability Assessment - equivalent of on-going Pilot etc recertification.
- Research: Quantifying & standardising metrics and models for "Effectiveness".
DCITA/DBCDE on macro-economic results.
The ACS describes Gerhon's recommendations as "all aimed at addressing the efficiency of ICT":
- governance,
- capability,
- ICT spending,
- skills,
- data centres
- sustainable ICT
Nor does the idea of institutionalising the building/improving the Profession of IT and increasing the Capability/Performance of IT Professionals.
By the DCITA/DBCDE own reports, ICT contributes 75% of productivity improvements: ICT is still the single greatest point of leverage for organisations reducing costs and improving output.
Does getting IT right in Federal Government matter?
Absolutely.
Gershon delivers 'more of the same' and could conceivably achieve its targets of 5% & 10% cost improvement
2008/07/15
Bad Science or Science Done Badly?
Is 'Science', as practiced by Academic Researchers, executed poorly?
More specifically:
Is the practice of Research as undertaken by Academics, as effective as it could be?
This posits that an aspect of "Professional Research" is intentionally increasing your capability and effectiveness.
Computing/Information Technology is a Cognitive Amplifier - exactly suited to central parts of "Professional Research" - e.g. learning, recalling and searching published papers and books.
If an individual researcher can increase their "knowledge uptake" just 7% in a year, after a decade they know twice as much, given uptake builds on existing knowledge.
What is Research about if not Knowledge: Gathering, Analysis, Representation, Taxonomy/Ontology, Management and Communication?
This field began in 1995 and is broadly known as "Knowledge Management".
More specifically:
Is the practice of Research as undertaken by Academics, as effective as it could be?
This posits that an aspect of "Professional Research" is intentionally increasing your capability and effectiveness.
Computing/Information Technology is a Cognitive Amplifier - exactly suited to central parts of "Professional Research" - e.g. learning, recalling and searching published papers and books.
If an individual researcher can increase their "knowledge uptake" just 7% in a year, after a decade they know twice as much, given uptake builds on existing knowledge.
What is Research about if not Knowledge: Gathering, Analysis, Representation, Taxonomy/Ontology, Management and Communication?
This field began in 1995 and is broadly known as "Knowledge Management".
2008/05/28
I.T. Strategic Planning Failures
Sue Bushell asked on "LinkedIn": What are the most common failures in strategic IT planning and how are these best avoided? What best practices in strategic planning are most effective?
My answer:
1. There are no I.T. projects - only Business Projects.
Hence changing the premise of your question:
What are the most common business process failures around I.T. solutions?
[A: Make the business run the project and take the rap if it fails.]
2. I.T. is an Industry, not a Profession.
Proof: Professions Learn: repeating Known and avoidable Errors/Mistakes isn't consequence free, as it is within I.T.
3. The complete lack of History in I.T. - both on macro and micro scales.
4. The fundamental reason IT is used: It's a "cognitive amplifier".
Computing amplifies the effort and output of people, providing results 'Cheaper, Better, Faster'.
On the micro scale, no organisation I've heard of measures this. It's quantitative and should be calculable by any half-reasonable Management Accountant.
On the macro scale, the 'Profession' doesn't have or publish benchmarks on results (i.e. from across many organisations).
5. The 'Profession' doesn't even have a taxonomy of jobs and tasks, let alone any consistent method for evaluating and reporting the competence of, and skill level of, practitioners.
6. The almost complete disconnect between research results and practice. Enough said.
7. [Added]. The general capability of the Profession in general and young I.T. practitioners has declined greatly.
Proof: The increasing number of failed projects attempting to replace 'Legacy Systems'.
E.g. The failed A$200M Federal Government ADCNET project. I worked on the original IBM mainframe system, then found myself 15 years later sitting in the same awful basement not 50 feet away, coding it's replacement. The IBM system took 30-35 man-years (in structured assembler), just the second phase of the ADCNET system had a team of 70 for 1-2 years - and was abandoned. The best description of it is the Federal Court Judgment:
GEC Marconi Systems Pty Limited v BHP Information Technology Pty Limited
Federal Court of Australia
12 February 2003 and 14 July 2003
[2003] FCA 50; [2003] FCA 688
8. [Added] Creating Software is a performance discipline.
You have to both know the theory and be able to create good software.
Who are the Great Heros of Open Source? The guys that demonstrate they can code well.
Like Music, Surgery and Architecture, software requires head and hands to do it well.
9. [Added] Design is Everything.
This is what the Bell Labs Computing Research guys understood and what Microsoft doesn't. They invented the most cloned Operating System in the world - Unix, and then went onto build Plan 9, it's replacement 20 years later - with around 20 man-years. It was created portable and scalable, running on 6 different platforms from day 1. Of course it was incredibly small and blindingly fast. Time has shown it was robust and secure as well.
Not an accident that 15 years later Microsoft spent around 25,000 man-years on 'Longhorn', and then threw it all away! (The infamous 'Longhorn Reset' on 23-Sept-2005 by Jim Allchin)
Then spent the same again to create 'Vista' afresh from the 'Windows Server 2003' codebase.
How could Microsoft not understand what was well known 15 years prior, especially as Microsoft ported Unix to Intel in 1985?
There's more, but that will do for now.
"I.T. Governance" may be part of the Solution, but standards like AS8015 are primarily aimed at allocating blame or pushing all responsibility for failure onto I.T. and abnegating from I.T. any successes.
The 'root cause' of all I.T. failures is trivial to identify, but probably exceedingly hard to fix. These days, almost no projects should fail due to technology limitations - only practitioner and management failures.
The 'root cause' is: Business Management.
Yes, there are many problems with I.T. practitioners, but think about it...
Around 1950, Commercial Computing was born.
Some projects worked, in fact succeeded brilliantly: Man went to the moon on the back of that work just 2 decades later.
And then we have the majority or 'ordinary' projects that fail to deliver, are abandoned or under-deliver...
The first time 'management' commissioned a bunch of 'Bright Young Things' to build The Very Best Computer System Ever, they would naturally believe the nerds and their self-confidence.
After that effort failed, what would the rational approach be to the next project?
Not the usual, "do whatever you want and we'll see", but "you didn't do so well last time, how about we try smaller pieces or doing it differently?"
And when lining up for the third go-round, you'd think competent business managers (the ones writing the cheques) would put the brakes on and say "you haven't shown you can deliver results, we have to manage you closely for your own sakes."
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
And who's the cause on the third, fifth, hundredth or thousandth repetition?
The people who keep paying for the same 'ol, same 'ol.
My answer:
1. There are no I.T. projects - only Business Projects.
Hence changing the premise of your question:
What are the most common business process failures around I.T. solutions?
[A: Make the business run the project and take the rap if it fails.]
2. I.T. is an Industry, not a Profession.
Proof: Professions Learn: repeating Known and avoidable Errors/Mistakes isn't consequence free, as it is within I.T.
3. The complete lack of History in I.T. - both on macro and micro scales.
- Show me any large organisation that can even list all its current projects, which is a necessary starting point for:
- Formal "Lessons Learned" from projects and operations - known problems are avoided, known effective practices are used.
- Jerry Weinberg wrote definitive works on Software Quality Management and 35 years ago proved that focusing on Quality results in better code, written far faster & cheaper. And it is much more reliably and consistently produced!
- Jim Johnson of Standish Group, nearly 15 years ago started definitive research on what proportion of IT Business Projects fail and the causes of failure. This work is fundamental to advancing the Profession - but nobody else studies this field so his results can't be verified or refuted. Nor have organisations or practitioners, by-and-large, acted on this knowledge. People do argue that his results are suspect because other single-shot reports don't agree. But nothing happens to resolve this fundamental issue!
- Software ReUse is notable in how little it is practiced. Can it be possible that nearly ever problem is completely new? Not in my experience.
4. The fundamental reason IT is used: It's a "cognitive amplifier".
Computing amplifies the effort and output of people, providing results 'Cheaper, Better, Faster'.
On the micro scale, no organisation I've heard of measures this. It's quantitative and should be calculable by any half-reasonable Management Accountant.
On the macro scale, the 'Profession' doesn't have or publish benchmarks on results (i.e. from across many organisations).
5. The 'Profession' doesn't even have a taxonomy of jobs and tasks, let alone any consistent method for evaluating and reporting the competence of, and skill level of, practitioners.
- In a construction project you wouldn't specify "10 vehicles needed", you say "6 5-tonne trucks, 2 utes, a 20-tonne tip-truck and a bobcat".
- If the profession can't distinguish between the speciality, competence and skill levels of its practitioners, how can the business folk?
- If project plans don't identify the necessary the precise skills needed - implying some way to assess and rate the 'degree of difficulty' of individual tasks/components - then the right 'resources' can't be applied.
6. The almost complete disconnect between research results and practice. Enough said.
7. [Added]. The general capability of the Profession in general and young I.T. practitioners has declined greatly.
Proof: The increasing number of failed projects attempting to replace 'Legacy Systems'.
E.g. The failed A$200M Federal Government ADCNET project. I worked on the original IBM mainframe system, then found myself 15 years later sitting in the same awful basement not 50 feet away, coding it's replacement. The IBM system took 30-35 man-years (in structured assembler), just the second phase of the ADCNET system had a team of 70 for 1-2 years - and was abandoned. The best description of it is the Federal Court Judgment:
GEC Marconi Systems Pty Limited v BHP Information Technology Pty Limited
Federal Court of Australia
12 February 2003 and 14 July 2003
[2003] FCA 50; [2003] FCA 688
8. [Added] Creating Software is a performance discipline.
You have to both know the theory and be able to create good software.
Who are the Great Heros of Open Source? The guys that demonstrate they can code well.
Like Music, Surgery and Architecture, software requires head and hands to do it well.
9. [Added] Design is Everything.
This is what the Bell Labs Computing Research guys understood and what Microsoft doesn't. They invented the most cloned Operating System in the world - Unix, and then went onto build Plan 9, it's replacement 20 years later - with around 20 man-years. It was created portable and scalable, running on 6 different platforms from day 1. Of course it was incredibly small and blindingly fast. Time has shown it was robust and secure as well.
Not an accident that 15 years later Microsoft spent around 25,000 man-years on 'Longhorn', and then threw it all away! (The infamous 'Longhorn Reset' on 23-Sept-2005 by Jim Allchin)
Then spent the same again to create 'Vista' afresh from the 'Windows Server 2003' codebase.
How could Microsoft not understand what was well known 15 years prior, especially as Microsoft ported Unix to Intel in 1985?
There's more, but that will do for now.
"I.T. Governance" may be part of the Solution, but standards like AS8015 are primarily aimed at allocating blame or pushing all responsibility for failure onto I.T. and abnegating from I.T. any successes.
The 'root cause' of all I.T. failures is trivial to identify, but probably exceedingly hard to fix. These days, almost no projects should fail due to technology limitations - only practitioner and management failures.
The 'root cause' is: Business Management.
Yes, there are many problems with I.T. practitioners, but think about it...
Around 1950, Commercial Computing was born.
Some projects worked, in fact succeeded brilliantly: Man went to the moon on the back of that work just 2 decades later.
And then we have the majority or 'ordinary' projects that fail to deliver, are abandoned or under-deliver...
The first time 'management' commissioned a bunch of 'Bright Young Things' to build The Very Best Computer System Ever, they would naturally believe the nerds and their self-confidence.
After that effort failed, what would the rational approach be to the next project?
Not the usual, "do whatever you want and we'll see", but "you didn't do so well last time, how about we try smaller pieces or doing it differently?"
And when lining up for the third go-round, you'd think competent business managers (the ones writing the cheques) would put the brakes on and say "you haven't shown you can deliver results, we have to manage you closely for your own sakes."
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
And who's the cause on the third, fifth, hundredth or thousandth repetition?
The people who keep paying for the same 'ol, same 'ol.
2008/01/19
Human Response to Cognitive Workload
Context: This piece started as a question to a researcher in Psychology.
There's a topic I've been trying to find research results for some time.
I call it "(Human) Cognitive Response to Workload".
There is a bunch of qualitative data for "Physiological response to Workload" available - e.g. US Navy for "stokers" working in different levels of heat.
I found Prof. Lisanne Bainbridge in the UK. She's retired now. Her field is 'mental load' and couldn't point me at research in the area or help me properly phrase my question.
She pointed me at Penny Sanderston, now Prof. at University of Queensland.
What I'm interested in is any information to apply to Software Developers and other Knowledge workers:
[James T. Reason has very good work on "Human Error" and "Organisational Error". His work is used extensively in Aviation and Nuclear safety. He originated "the swiss-cheese" model of accidents.]
There's a topic I've been trying to find research results for some time.
I call it "(Human) Cognitive Response to Workload".
There is a bunch of qualitative data for "Physiological response to Workload" available - e.g. US Navy for "stokers" working in different levels of heat.
I found Prof. Lisanne Bainbridge in the UK. She's retired now. Her field is 'mental load' and couldn't point me at research in the area or help me properly phrase my question.
She pointed me at Penny Sanderston, now Prof. at University of Queensland.
What I'm interested in is any information to apply to Software Developers and other Knowledge workers:
- In the short, medium & longer term (day, week, year) how do you maximise cognitive output?
- What roles do sleep, recreation & holidays play in 'recharging' cognitive abilities?
- For different levels (degrees of difficulty) of cognitive task (or skilled manual task) what are the optimum work rates and duty cycles? (ratio of work/rest)
[James T. Reason has very good work on "Human Error" and "Organisational Error". His work is used extensively in Aviation and Nuclear safety. He originated "the swiss-cheese" model of accidents.]
2007/12/29
IBM, Outsourcing and the IT Profession
This is a reaction to Robert X. Cringely's "Pulpit" of 28-Dec-2007:
Leaner and Meaner Still: IBM's U.S. operations continue to shrivel.
There are 3 parts to my comments:
They are interlinked. Lou Gertsner set IBM on the road on "Services" and away from Mainframes. It looked promising.
IT Services look very appealing on the Balance Sheet - nearly no investment (no tangible assets) and what seem to be good profits from turnover. The ROA and ROI (Return on Assets and Return on Investment) look great - until you take some other factors into account.
Quality is not 'gold-plating' - it is central to improving productivity, reducing waste and fulfilling customer expectations. These are the drivers for growth, profitability and sustainability - not penny-pinching and cost-cutting.
IT Services companies cannot, and will not, pursue Excellence & Quality if they are not driven to it.
It is only their Clients who can hold them accountable and force a change.
Concurrently, IT has to evolve from an Industry to a Profession so that managers can realistically evaluate the performances of different practitioners. It's not hard to win new business and make good profits if your employees are 10 times more productive than your competitions.
Answering the poll question: Will IBM survive?
Lou Gertsner turned IBM around, starting 1993.
It took an outsider to do it - and the board knew that.
His legacy, after leaving in 2002, should've been a company with a solid future. Five years on, it appears not so - that can only be "Corporate Culture".
IBM is far too important to be let fail and broken up in a firesale.
But we have a perfect model for the future of Cringely's "lumbering giant": Unisys.
In 1986, Numbers 2&3 in the market (Burroughs & Sperry Univac) combined and produced a dud. It's still alive, but failing. Because enough people use their mainframes (2200's and A-series), they can't be allowed to die. Slowly withering on the vine seems to be fine.
Fujitsu is the perfect vacuum-cleaner to buy the hardware business in the final break-up.
IBM GSA and the other 'Tier 1' outsourcers operate from the same playbook - a version of 'bait and switch'. Also known as "The Value Prevention Society".
I've worked with and for all the major outsourcers in Australia. They all bid low to win contracts and adopt a dual strategy of "controlling costs" and price gouging for "variations".
'Controlling costs' is reducing staff, replacing competent staff with 'cheap and cheerful' newbies, not performing maintenance and avoiding capital investment.
What's wrong with a 5-10 year-old system? Nothing if you don't have to suffer the performance and other problems!
They routinely ignore contract provisions - like scheduled roll-outs of new desktops, upgrades and system performance targets.
The problems are at least three-fold:
- inequality of parties (Outsourcer vs Client)
- internal 'manager' performance has no upside, only downside
- no impartial umpire and effective 'stick' to enforce system performance targets
Inequality
Every company that signs an IT Outsourcing agreement signs just one. The outsourcers has done this many, many times before.
Clients also don't factor in the increased staff and reporting costs - each side needs additional staff for 'contract management'.
The Client thinks it has stitched up an iron-clad contract and they forecast a bountiful harvest... Which doesn't happen.
Service degrades, minor works become hugely expensive, major works take forever and often don't get implemented.
The business people give-up and adapt around it.
In Australia, all the major EDS contracts let around 10 years ago are now being re-tendered - with EDS getting very little of the new work.
Are they the worst? Hard to say...
Aligning internal rewards with Client Needs
Outsourcer 'managers' can only be assessed on monetary performance. With fixed price contracts, base income is fixed.
If a manager reduces costs 5% one year, this becomes the expectation for every following year - it is not seen as a 'one-off'. Without significant staff training and capital expenditure, this quickly becomes impossible without sacrificing service quality. Commercial systems are quite reliable these days. For existing stable systems, 'Do nothing' is good for at least 3 years - then you are in deep trouble.
The only ways to increase profits are to reduce expenses or increase non-base income.
Every service request is deemed a 'change' and subject to the full, heavyweight, project evaluation methodology. No project, not even buying a simple standalone appliance, takes under 4 man-weeks ($20-50,000). For the client, this stifles change/innovation (or forces it underground) and these additional costs overshadow most systems costs.
Capital expenditures are worse. Payback has to be within 12-18 months - and it has to beat 'do nothing'.
Since the 2003 slowdown in Moores' Law for CPU speed, the problem has compounded.
Take a 5 year-old file server that is now close to saturated most of the day. It is not yet 'end of life' and maintenance costs still low.
Because file open/close, read/write performance is not specified and the system is "available" during work hours, the Client cannot complain.
The Operating System (O/S) may be old and need constant attention, updates and reboots - but they are part of the normal admin workload, so not an 'additional' cost. Salaried staff as 'professionals' must work any unpaid overtime that is demanded.
Any proposal to replace the server or upgrade it has to pass a simple, and reasonable, test:
'Do nothing' is the benchmark - for zero capital expenditure and a few extra unpaid admin hours, a service is provided that brings in the service full revenue - and will continue to do so. That's a very tough argument to beat.
Only when the client funds the replacement, hardware maintenance costs are high enough, an O/S upgrade is required for security or compatibility or qualified admin staff move on will the system be upgraded. And then it will begin the same inevitable slide into entropy and uselessness.
Finding solutions that benefit the customer and reduce operating expenses are career suicide for outsourcing staff in a culture focussed on increasing billables.
For example: a major Australian bank replaced all the local file servers with small Network Appliance NAS's. These are the most expensive product per Gb available. The outsourcer had charged ~$2,500/month to 'administer' these systems. The bank paid for the change in under a year, increased availability and performance and solving many other issues to boot.
If the client gives all its IT staff to the outsourcer, who is going to seek out, design and implement new cost saving technology/systems?
Not the outsourcer - it's not in the contract and not in its (short term) interests.
The client has no IT staff - so it cannot and doesn't happen.
Audits and an Impartial Umpire
Who reports to the Client on the performance of their systems?
Who has the training/qualifications to check and asses the metrics and reports?
Who maintains & audits the basis of payments - the asset register?
Only the Outsourcer.
What are the downsides to the Outsourcer of a major failure in Prime Time?
A small number of 'service credits'.
Meanwhile, the Client suffers real costs and potentially large losses.
The Client wears all the business and financial risk with only minor penalties to the Outsourcer.
We are yet to see a corporate collapse due to an outsourcers IT failures - but it is only a matter of time.
There is a clear conflict of interest, or an real Agency Theory problem.
The outsourcer is Judge, Jury and Executioner...
There is no way to hold them to account or dispute their figures.
The huge (100+:1) variability in individual competence and the inability to measure it is one of the worst problems in our industry.
IT is not a 'Profession'. It, like 'Management', fail a very simple test:
Mostly it is "fire/blame the innocent, promote the guilty". The exact inverse of what you'd want.
People may trump technology and process, but Politics trumps everything...
And our Professional Bodies don't help.
The only real research into the causes of Project Failure are by consultancies - who are driven by the ability to sell their products, not what will benefit the Profession.
The ACM, IEEE, IFIP and friends have abrogated their responsibilities. We on the firing line, get to suffer their inaction.
Managers have to go with what they can quantify and inspect. Good managers will see through the B/S - but mostly too little, too late. Mostly, office politics, influence and self-promotion rule.
The adversarial nature of Outsourcing and the seemingly universal decline in code and service Quality stems from this failure of IT as a Profession.
Steve Jenkin 29-December-2007
Leaner and Meaner Still: IBM's U.S. operations continue to shrivel.
There are 3 parts to my comments:
- Will IBM Survice?
- Outsourcing
- IT as a Profession
They are interlinked. Lou Gertsner set IBM on the road on "Services" and away from Mainframes. It looked promising.
IT Services look very appealing on the Balance Sheet - nearly no investment (no tangible assets) and what seem to be good profits from turnover. The ROA and ROI (Return on Assets and Return on Investment) look great - until you take some other factors into account.
- Barriers to Entry for competitors are low.
EDS under Ross Perrot came from nowhere to define and dominate the field - so can the next giant in the field.
If your business model is "hire cattle and drive them till they drop" - you have no market differentiation.
Same cattle, same drivers, same pay - same 'ol, same 'ol... The cattle aren't loyal, motivated or engaged.
Writing new contracts is a matter of perception, influence and contacts.
There is so much feeling against IT Outsourcers in business at the moment, the first company to come along and tell a better story will take the field.
The change won't be overnight, but fast enough that the incumbents won't notice until too late.
- Whilst only tangible assets appear on the Balance Sheet, IT Services are driven by your Human Capital and some Intellectual Capital embodied in your processes, branding and IP, such as trademarks and patents.
What value is let in the offices when everybody has gone home? Very, very little.
What is the business risk of a large, sudden exodus of your staff? A competitor may deliberately poach enough to put you in trouble.
It's a failing of the Board not understand this and institute appropriate metrics, accounting and management rewards.
- Profit based on Operations turnover are very fragile/volatile.
Income and Expenses are very large numbers with a small difference. Expenses are mainly employees - which you may not be able to shed as quickly as service contracts expire.
Tendering for new contracts implies you have, or can quickly get, the resources to fulfill the contract. That's an extreme business risk.
The key figures-of-merit are Income/Employee and Profit/Employee.
We don't see those reported or obviously managed.
- IT Services work is Knowledge Work - it is mostly invisible and intangible.
Driving IT staff like unskilled labourers with threats/punishment to lift performance is anti-productive.
Unhappy staff withdraw and pushback. At best they aren't engaged or motivated. They 'do the minimum' - a grudging compliance.
They stop caring about their work, the customer and their employer. And if you are lucky, it stops there.
Hiring bright, capable people doing intangible work and treating them badly is not just a recipe for disaster, it is foolishness writ large.
- IT is a cognitive amplifier and this can be leveraged both within the business and internally in IT.
The only sustainable strategy to deliver improved profits is through investment. - Automating tasks.
Applying our own technology to our jobs to make tasks, not jobs, redundant.
Investing in tools and hardware to increase the both Quality of work
- Building Human Capital.
Investing in the people at the work-face to build their capability and performance.
The SEI's Barry Boehem created COCOMO - a quantitative model for estimating Software costs.
Experienced, competent practitioners not only produce better work, fewer defects, faster - they are cheaper.
- Actively reducing Errors.
Consciously reducing waste, rework and wrong work.
Quality is not about 'doing the minimum', it's a mindset where Errors are allowed, but their repetition is anathema.
High Quality performances are only achieved with deliberate, focussed intention. Not blaming and denial.
Quality Systems only goal is to make it difficult for good people to make mistakes.
Deming said it all with "Plan-Do-Check-Act", or in new-speak: "Preparation - Execution - Review & Evaluation - Improvement" - Learning is central to improving Quality, Performance, Security & Safety and Usability.
Learning systems, processes and procedures takes an investment of time, tools and technology.
Failing to build teams and their capability will decrease expenses in the short-run and will increase them in the long-run.
- Resiling from the classic adversarial stance of IT Outsourcing.
IT is a business enabler. It is now central to normal business operations. It is still where 80% of efficiency improvements arise.
Every act that hurts the client will turn-around and hurt the provider, but more.
The client is earning the income that pays for the IT.
More income, more IT, more outsourcing revenue and profits. A simple equation that seems lost on Outsourcing managers.
Outsourcing contracts need to align the internal management rewards with improving business outcomes for the Client.
What's anathema to current management - reducing Client costs - must be aggressively pursued to create a long-term Outsourcing business.
Quality is not 'gold-plating' - it is central to improving productivity, reducing waste and fulfilling customer expectations. These are the drivers for growth, profitability and sustainability - not penny-pinching and cost-cutting.
IT Services companies cannot, and will not, pursue Excellence & Quality if they are not driven to it.
It is only their Clients who can hold them accountable and force a change.
Concurrently, IT has to evolve from an Industry to a Profession so that managers can realistically evaluate the performances of different practitioners. It's not hard to win new business and make good profits if your employees are 10 times more productive than your competitions.
Will IBM Survive?
Answering the poll question: Will IBM survive?
Lou Gertsner turned IBM around, starting 1993.
It took an outsider to do it - and the board knew that.
His legacy, after leaving in 2002, should've been a company with a solid future. Five years on, it appears not so - that can only be "Corporate Culture".
IBM is far too important to be let fail and broken up in a firesale.
But we have a perfect model for the future of Cringely's "lumbering giant": Unisys.
In 1986, Numbers 2&3 in the market (Burroughs & Sperry Univac) combined and produced a dud. It's still alive, but failing. Because enough people use their mainframes (2200's and A-series), they can't be allowed to die. Slowly withering on the vine seems to be fine.
Fujitsu is the perfect vacuum-cleaner to buy the hardware business in the final break-up.
Outsourcing
IBM GSA and the other 'Tier 1' outsourcers operate from the same playbook - a version of 'bait and switch'. Also known as "The Value Prevention Society".
I've worked with and for all the major outsourcers in Australia. They all bid low to win contracts and adopt a dual strategy of "controlling costs" and price gouging for "variations".
'Controlling costs' is reducing staff, replacing competent staff with 'cheap and cheerful' newbies, not performing maintenance and avoiding capital investment.
What's wrong with a 5-10 year-old system? Nothing if you don't have to suffer the performance and other problems!
They routinely ignore contract provisions - like scheduled roll-outs of new desktops, upgrades and system performance targets.
The problems are at least three-fold:
- inequality of parties (Outsourcer vs Client)
- internal 'manager' performance has no upside, only downside
- no impartial umpire and effective 'stick' to enforce system performance targets
Inequality
Every company that signs an IT Outsourcing agreement signs just one. The outsourcers has done this many, many times before.
Clients also don't factor in the increased staff and reporting costs - each side needs additional staff for 'contract management'.
The Client thinks it has stitched up an iron-clad contract and they forecast a bountiful harvest... Which doesn't happen.
Service degrades, minor works become hugely expensive, major works take forever and often don't get implemented.
The business people give-up and adapt around it.
In Australia, all the major EDS contracts let around 10 years ago are now being re-tendered - with EDS getting very little of the new work.
Are they the worst? Hard to say...
Aligning internal rewards with Client Needs
Outsourcer 'managers' can only be assessed on monetary performance. With fixed price contracts, base income is fixed.
If a manager reduces costs 5% one year, this becomes the expectation for every following year - it is not seen as a 'one-off'. Without significant staff training and capital expenditure, this quickly becomes impossible without sacrificing service quality. Commercial systems are quite reliable these days. For existing stable systems, 'Do nothing' is good for at least 3 years - then you are in deep trouble.
The only ways to increase profits are to reduce expenses or increase non-base income.
Every service request is deemed a 'change' and subject to the full, heavyweight, project evaluation methodology. No project, not even buying a simple standalone appliance, takes under 4 man-weeks ($20-50,000). For the client, this stifles change/innovation (or forces it underground) and these additional costs overshadow most systems costs.
Capital expenditures are worse. Payback has to be within 12-18 months - and it has to beat 'do nothing'.
Since the 2003 slowdown in Moores' Law for CPU speed, the problem has compounded.
Take a 5 year-old file server that is now close to saturated most of the day. It is not yet 'end of life' and maintenance costs still low.
Because file open/close, read/write performance is not specified and the system is "available" during work hours, the Client cannot complain.
The Operating System (O/S) may be old and need constant attention, updates and reboots - but they are part of the normal admin workload, so not an 'additional' cost. Salaried staff as 'professionals' must work any unpaid overtime that is demanded.
Any proposal to replace the server or upgrade it has to pass a simple, and reasonable, test:
How much extra revenue will we make? How long will the payback period be?
'Do nothing' is the benchmark - for zero capital expenditure and a few extra unpaid admin hours, a service is provided that brings in the service full revenue - and will continue to do so. That's a very tough argument to beat.
Only when the client funds the replacement, hardware maintenance costs are high enough, an O/S upgrade is required for security or compatibility or qualified admin staff move on will the system be upgraded. And then it will begin the same inevitable slide into entropy and uselessness.
Finding solutions that benefit the customer and reduce operating expenses are career suicide for outsourcing staff in a culture focussed on increasing billables.
For example: a major Australian bank replaced all the local file servers with small Network Appliance NAS's. These are the most expensive product per Gb available. The outsourcer had charged ~$2,500/month to 'administer' these systems. The bank paid for the change in under a year, increased availability and performance and solving many other issues to boot.
If the client gives all its IT staff to the outsourcer, who is going to seek out, design and implement new cost saving technology/systems?
Not the outsourcer - it's not in the contract and not in its (short term) interests.
The client has no IT staff - so it cannot and doesn't happen.
Audits and an Impartial Umpire
Who reports to the Client on the performance of their systems?
Who has the training/qualifications to check and asses the metrics and reports?
Who maintains & audits the basis of payments - the asset register?
Only the Outsourcer.
What are the downsides to the Outsourcer of a major failure in Prime Time?
A small number of 'service credits'.
Meanwhile, the Client suffers real costs and potentially large losses.
The Client wears all the business and financial risk with only minor penalties to the Outsourcer.
We are yet to see a corporate collapse due to an outsourcers IT failures - but it is only a matter of time.
There is a clear conflict of interest, or an real Agency Theory problem.
The outsourcer is Judge, Jury and Executioner...
There is no way to hold them to account or dispute their figures.
The Profession of IT
Contributors Michael Ellis, BJ, Kevin James, Richard Steven Hack,... started a thread about the 'value'/competency of individual IT practitioners.The huge (100+:1) variability in individual competence and the inability to measure it is one of the worst problems in our industry.
IT is not a 'Profession'. It, like 'Management', fail a very simple test:
What are the personal and organisational consequences of repeating, or allowing to be repeated, a known error, fault or failure??
[Do your mistakes have clear 'consequences' professionally?']
[Do your mistakes have clear 'consequences' professionally?']
Mostly it is "fire/blame the innocent, promote the guilty". The exact inverse of what you'd want.
People may trump technology and process, but Politics trumps everything...
And our Professional Bodies don't help.
The only real research into the causes of Project Failure are by consultancies - who are driven by the ability to sell their products, not what will benefit the Profession.
The ACM, IEEE, IFIP and friends have abrogated their responsibilities. We on the firing line, get to suffer their inaction.
Managers have to go with what they can quantify and inspect. Good managers will see through the B/S - but mostly too little, too late. Mostly, office politics, influence and self-promotion rule.
The adversarial nature of Outsourcing and the seemingly universal decline in code and service Quality stems from this failure of IT as a Profession.
Steve Jenkin 29-December-2007
2007/03/20
Force Multipliers - Tools as Physical and Cognitive Amplifiers
The industrial revolution was about using Tools as Physical Amplifiers.
Prior to the steam engine, the oxen/bullock/horse/donkey/elephant was the dominat non-human power-source.
Humans can work at about 125-250W continuously (1/8 to 1/4 of a kilowatt, or 1/6 to 1/3 Horsepower). Elite athletes can produce 500W or more for short periods.
All biological systems have a short and medium term "duty-cycle" - our muscles get tired, non-linearly, and need short-term recovery and longer-term rest and recuperation. Sleep and recreation are about the nervous system/mind/brain.
From chapters of Taylor's book Scientific Management here's proof you get more out of people by making them rest! He improved average output from 12 tons/day to 47 tons/day through careful (psychological) selection and enforcing rest periods. Counter-intuitive, but well-researched.
For an 8-hour day at 125W, a total of 1KwHr (kilowatt hour) useful work is done, ignoring rest breaks.
Animals are heat engines as well. We 'burn' fuel with oxygen, releasing Carbon Dioxide and some useful work. For that 8-hour day, the energy input is probably 10,000KJ (kilo joules) [or 2500 (kilo)'calories']
Electricity sells for ~20c/KwHr in the western world. The minimum wage in Australia is ~$100/day now.
The raw "Physical Amplification" on a cost basis is ~500:1
A 500 HP bulldozer is controlled by one operator. There's a 3000:1 amplification. But machines are under 50% effective at converting their output to 'work done' compared to people.
On a cost-basis, the bulldozer might costs $150/hour to operate (40-50L of fuel, Wages, Maintenance, Depreciation).
Or 10c/hour/person-equivalent. Probably 400:1 ratio based on the operator wages.
The same comparison calculations as with Physical Tools and Machines can be done for humans and computers.
The human brain runs at ~50 watts - with around a 4MJ total energy input (1000 'calories') per day.
Like muscles, it has a "duty cycle' and requires rest and recuperation, as well as sleep and longer-term "recreation" and holidays. There appear to be no studies of "Human Response to Cognitive Workload". [Looking for the wrong thing?]
Directly comparing the human brain's I/O bandwidth, processing and storage capacity with electronic computers is difficult because they are organised so differently and probably complementary. The are best at different tasks.
45 years of "Aritifical Intelligence" research tells us that we don't understand in fine detail our brain processes and capabilities or the fully appreciate the complexity of "ordinary tasks". To recognise, not understand, human speech takes around a 1.5Ghz CPU and 256Mb of RAM - plus a very large, complex training dataset. Recognising speech, without understanding it is the equivalent of talking gibberish.
For repetitive cognitive processes that humans do poorly - computers with their methodical exactness, excel.
A $5,000 computer system that costs $10,000 over a 5-year life (excluding software) can run an accounting systems that processes 25,000 transactions/hour and is able to store, summarise and report on perhaps a decades' worth of data.
The equivalent human processing using mechanical 'tabulators', themselve 5-10 times faster than pen-and-journal, would take 250 operators just for data-entry. Consolidating and reporting the accounts requires another largish group (25?).
The yearly wages bill for the operators would be ~$4M. On-costs, leave, recruitment and training - say $25M for 5 years.
A 2500:1 amplification on a cost basis.
I.T. Systems benefits are "cheaper, better, faster, more, all-the-same".
I.T. systems embed the business processes used and their interfaces, performance and reliability define the productivity possible across the whole organisation.
Prior to the steam engine, the oxen/bullock/horse/donkey/elephant was the dominat non-human power-source.
Humans can work at about 125-250W continuously (1/8 to 1/4 of a kilowatt, or 1/6 to 1/3 Horsepower). Elite athletes can produce 500W or more for short periods.
All biological systems have a short and medium term "duty-cycle" - our muscles get tired, non-linearly, and need short-term recovery and longer-term rest and recuperation. Sleep and recreation are about the nervous system/mind/brain.
From chapters of Taylor's book Scientific Management here's proof you get more out of people by making them rest! He improved average output from 12 tons/day to 47 tons/day through careful (psychological) selection and enforcing rest periods. Counter-intuitive, but well-researched.
For example, when pig iron is being handled (each pig weighing 92 pounds), a first-class workman can only be under load 43 per cent of the day.
He must be entirely free from load during 57 per cent of the day.
And as the load becomes lighter, the percentage of the day under which the man can remain under load increases.
So that, if the workman is handling a half-pig, weighing 46 pounds, he can then be under load 58 per cent of the day, and only has to rest during 42 per cent.
As the weight grows lighter the man can remain under load during a larger and larger percentage of the day, until finally a load is reached which he can carry in his hands all day long without being tired out.
For an 8-hour day at 125W, a total of 1KwHr (kilowatt hour) useful work is done, ignoring rest breaks.
Animals are heat engines as well. We 'burn' fuel with oxygen, releasing Carbon Dioxide and some useful work. For that 8-hour day, the energy input is probably 10,000KJ (kilo joules) [or 2500 (kilo)'calories']
Electricity sells for ~20c/KwHr in the western world. The minimum wage in Australia is ~$100/day now.
The raw "Physical Amplification" on a cost basis is ~500:1
A 500 HP bulldozer is controlled by one operator. There's a 3000:1 amplification. But machines are under 50% effective at converting their output to 'work done' compared to people.
On a cost-basis, the bulldozer might costs $150/hour to operate (40-50L of fuel, Wages, Maintenance, Depreciation).
Or 10c/hour/person-equivalent. Probably 400:1 ratio based on the operator wages.
Cognitive Amplifiers
The same comparison calculations as with Physical Tools and Machines can be done for humans and computers.
The human brain runs at ~50 watts - with around a 4MJ total energy input (1000 'calories') per day.
Like muscles, it has a "duty cycle' and requires rest and recuperation, as well as sleep and longer-term "recreation" and holidays. There appear to be no studies of "Human Response to Cognitive Workload". [Looking for the wrong thing?]
Directly comparing the human brain's I/O bandwidth, processing and storage capacity with electronic computers is difficult because they are organised so differently and probably complementary. The are best at different tasks.
45 years of "Aritifical Intelligence" research tells us that we don't understand in fine detail our brain processes and capabilities or the fully appreciate the complexity of "ordinary tasks". To recognise, not understand, human speech takes around a 1.5Ghz CPU and 256Mb of RAM - plus a very large, complex training dataset. Recognising speech, without understanding it is the equivalent of talking gibberish.
For repetitive cognitive processes that humans do poorly - computers with their methodical exactness, excel.
A $5,000 computer system that costs $10,000 over a 5-year life (excluding software) can run an accounting systems that processes 25,000 transactions/hour and is able to store, summarise and report on perhaps a decades' worth of data.
The equivalent human processing using mechanical 'tabulators', themselve 5-10 times faster than pen-and-journal, would take 250 operators just for data-entry. Consolidating and reporting the accounts requires another largish group (25?).
The yearly wages bill for the operators would be ~$4M. On-costs, leave, recruitment and training - say $25M for 5 years.
A 2500:1 amplification on a cost basis.
Cognitive Amplifiers
I.T. Systems benefits are "cheaper, better, faster, more, all-the-same".
I.T. systems embed the business processes used and their interfaces, performance and reliability define the productivity possible across the whole organisation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)