Why Open Source? Google, Facebook, Amazon & Netflix can tell you: makes you money.

A long comment I had to cut down in response to this post on Open Source. Highly recommended.

---

Cameron,

Very good run-down of 'Why FOSS" - standing on the Shoulders of Giants.
Where bugs become either a Shared problem or "Other People's", not a killing 'tarpit'.

Loved the Daniel Pink video:
  we're not just about Survival and Profit at any cost.

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

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...

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

Objectives (The What)

That "I.T. is done for a Business Benefit" seems axiomatic.

But where's the evidence after 50-60 years of computing? It's not coming out our ears - just the reverse.

Businesses understand the importance of hard data and it's through analysis for marketing, but don't apply the same techniques or management principles to their I.T. Operations.

I'd like to model and quantify the Business Benefits of I.T. Operations across multiple organisations to provide baselines, benchmarks and trend analysis. The impact of all aspects of I.T. is beyond the scope of a single researcher project.

Approach (The How)

Data is fundamental input for analyses. Leveraging what's available means the outputs can be commercially reproduced and aer within the project budget (zero cost).

Three separate data streams will be mined:

• Historic "ITSM" tool data from multiple organisations.
• Detailed I.T. accounting information from selected organisations.
• Primary research in one organisation to collect and report "FTE equivalents provided" by I.T.

[FTE = Full Time Employee. Otherwise, "virtual employees". What head count and cost would be needed to provide similar services with 1965 technology.]

Importance/Value (The Why)

There propositions are to be tested:

• I.T. is done for a Business Benefit.
• Business Benefits, tangible or intangible, should be measurable.
• Organisations these days are dependent on their I.T. Operations.
• I.T. cuts acros all segments of current organisations.
• I.T. defines the business processes and hence productivity of the whole organisation.
• What you don't measure you can't manage and improvve.
• Improving the effectiveness of I.T. Operations requires reliable metrics.
• Commin I.T. Reporting Standards, like the Accounting Standards, are necessary to contrast and compare the efficiency and effectiveness of I.T. Operations across different organisations or different units within a single organisation.

I.T. is a cognitive amplifier, it delivers "cheaper, better, faster, more, all-the-same", through the embedding of finely detailed business processes into electronic (computing) systems.

For simple, repetitive cognitive tasks, computers are 1-5,000 times cheaper than people in western countries.

From this ampflication effect, computers still provide the greatest single point of leverage for organisations. The underpin the requirement to "do more with the same", improving productivity and increasing profitability.

Subtle shifts in this whole-organisation amplification ratio (e.g. from 100:1 to 95:1 or 105:1) are impossible for isolated individuals to detect unaided. But they make very large differences to the 'global' organisation output and productivity.

In retail businesse, the gross margin is often around 2.5%. Reducing whole company productivity by 5% will destroy it's profitability, and without any metrics, will be impossible for any management team to identify and resolve.

The few studies of "IT Efficiency" that are available show that IT effectiveness is highly variable and unrelated to expenditure.
My proposition is that "intuitive management" of IT is stretched well beyond it's useful limits and needs to be replaced by evidence-based management.

The value-add to business is two-fold:

• manage downt he input costs of the I.t. infrastructure and,
• quantify the "cognitive amplifier" effects across the whole organisation to make informed decisions on optimum 'global' investment/expenditure on I.T. Operations.

[There's the 1990 HBS or MIT study into "White Collar Productivity" - reporting a decrease in the first decade of PC's]

Previous Work (What else)

There is a dearth of published material/research in this area.
The "State-of-Practice" is "NEVER DONE".
There is much opnion in the area, without substantive evidence: e.g. Nick Carr and "Does IT Matter?"

"Commonsense" IT Practitioner approaches, ITIL and COBIT (others?), do not address the measuring and managing of I.T. outputs and their business effects, ultilisation and effectiveness.

The McKinsey report/book on European Manufacturers and their I.T. expenditure versus financial performance shows there is no co-relation between effort (expenditure) and effect (financial peformance).

Jerrry Landsbaum's 1992 work included examples of their regular business reports - quantifiable and repeatable metrics of I.T. Operations phrased in business terms. This work seems entirely disregarded.

Hope to find (The Wherefore)

• Model I.T. Operations performance within and across similar organisations.
• generate tools usable within organisations to collect/report their own metrics.
• Define a set of useful I.T. Operations performance and Business Impact metrics.
• Model inputs to Business and Business Utilisation/Outcomes.

Report Outline

• Analyse ITSM tool data. Derive KPI's, Internal Baselines/Trends, Cross-section Benchmarks
• Annual I.T. Operations Report
• FTE Employee equivalents - Count and Cost
• Why IT Matters to the Business.
• Gaps in Service Management models - ITIL and COBIT
• Adding I.T. Operations to Management Theories.
• Advancing I.T. as a Profession
• Further Work and Research Questions

Execution Phases

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 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.

The Triple Whammy - the true cost of I.T. Waste

Background

There's a report around at the moment that says spending on I.T. is 3-4 times more effective than anything else. [Link to come]

In the first couple of decades of commercial computing, all the "low hanging fruit" - the best returns - for I.T. were exploited. That's when 'the books', financial information and large internal databases (assets, employees, stockholders, vendors, customers, ...) were computerised.

1991 - the first IT recession - marked the end of this era. For the first time, IT staff were laid off in an economic downturn. Previously other staff could be displaced by automating their jobs with I.T.

The 2000 I.T. recession - which we are only just starting to recover from - was industry backlash (and rightfully so) to "Y2K" and the "Dotcom Bust"). The general I.T. justification before then was: "We need this, trust us". After 2000, business needed to be convinced...