Showing posts with label Complexity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Complexity. Show all posts

December 11, 2018

You Can't Eat The Elephant

So there is a popular saying:

"You can't eat the elephant in one bite."

The idea is that you need to break things down in little pieces to get them down. 

If you try to eat the elephant in one bite, I assume that your mouth would easily split in half and your face would literally explode. 

Similarly with projects, if you try to get to the nirvana end state in one fell swoop , the project explodes with complexity and risk, and you will fail miserably.

Thus, managing requirements and phasing them in chunks is critical to projects' succeeding. 

Sure, customers want to get the Promised Land immediately--where the projects have all the "bells and whistles"--but you don't want to sacrifice getting the train on the tracks for the accouterments either. 

Think big, but act small--little by little, one step at a time, you can actually eat an elephant. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

May 12, 2018

Beautiful Virus, Huh?

So this is an image of the Tobacco Mosaic Virus.

Yeah, I never heard of it either. 

It is a virus that attacks and destroys tobacco and other plants. 

Viruses are ugly and evil in that they hurt and kill other living things

Yet in looking at this molecular image, I seriously hate to say it, but it is also beautiful in a way. 

The shape, color, complexity--the design and wisdom embedded in it--what can I say, but even this too is a miracle. 

Sure, it would be better in a mortal sense if there were no viruses to make us suffer and literally eat away at us. 

Yet, surely G-d has a plan even for these nasty virus molecules.  

Do they help us gain immunity to even worse diseases?

Do they help us to use ingenuity to discover, fight, and evolve to withstand their attacks and progress our society in larger ways?

Do they help us learn however horribly to turn to G-d, strengthen ourselves, and somehow try to cope with suffering and loss in life and death.

All sickness is unbelievably horrible and the suffering it causes is truly impossible to understand, and G-d should please, please have mercy on us. 

Yet, looking at this molecular image of even this virus, there is something comforting in the supreme intelligent design and creation of it all.  ;-)

(Source Andy's photo of image by Visual Molecular Dynamics)
Share/Save/Bookmark

May 2, 2018

Computer Sentiment 1984

So I found this book in an IT colleague's office. 

It's called: "The Unofficial I Hate Computer Book".

It was written in 1984, and like the George Orwell's book by that name, it is a dystopian view of technology. 

The back cover says:
Computer haters of the world unite: It's time to recognize and avenge the wonderful advances we've made thanks to computers--excessive eyestrain and headaches, irritating beeping noises, a one-ton printout where once there was a six-page report, a "simple" programming language you can't understand without five handbooks, a dictionary, and a math degree.
The book goes on with illustration after illustration of unadulterated computer hate and associated violence. 

- Dogs dumping on it (see cover)
- Contests to smash it with a hammer
- Hara-kiri (suicide with a knife) into it
- Skeet shooting computers that are flung into the air
- Shotput with a computer
- Tanks rolling over them
- Sinking it in water with a heavy anvil
- Boxer practicing his punches on it
- Setting it ablaze with gasoline
- And on and on, page after hate-filled page.

So in the last 34-years, have we solved all the annoyances and complexity with computers and automation?  

Do the benefits of technology outway the costs and risks across-the-board?

How do security and privacy play in the equation? 

I wonder what the authors and readers back then would think of computers, tablets, smartphones and the Internet and apps nowadays--especially where we can't live without them at all.  ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

December 7, 2016

The Most Important Word Is AND

So as divisiveness continues to plague us. the option for acceptance, love, and coexistence is falling out of the favor and by the wayside. 

Division and conflict has been accentuated by the ugliness of the most recent election and representative political divide, economic and gender inequality, inner city violence, racial and religious tensions, worldwide terrorism, and global conflict from Syria to the South China Sea. 

This has even infiltrated the functioning of our government, social institutions, and free media big time, where vetting, negotiation and compromise, critical thinking, and fair, balanced, and investigative journalism have been largely jettisoned. 

There is no place anymore to go hide from bias, bigotry, and hate. 

But as the wise proverb goes things truly are not just black and white, but there are loads of grey everywhere

Many people are not good or evil, left or right, blessed or cursed.

Instead, most people are a mixture of this AND that. 

How much of the complex mix of different elements is what makes up the integrity and life of the individual, group, and organization we are dealing with.

But what's important is that you really can't just stereotype people, ideas, or actions as simply good or bad because in reality, they aren't.  

Each person and position has elements of good and bad in them...nothing and nobody in life is perfect. 

You take the good and the bad in everything from relationships to policy decisions. 

So it is certainly possible and even probable to be conflicted and confused about what we see and hear--and not only because of the bias and prejudice in how it is presented or portrayed, but rather because things are not just simple, one or the other propositions, but rather a combination of things we approve of and disapprove of. 

Our brains can have lots of trouble dealing with this complexity, because we are wired in terms of survival of the fittest, and that often means choosing a action based on split-second categorizing of people and things as friend or foe. 

As the mere shadow of the person or idea is upon us, we are asked to respond--do we run or fight it or do we lovingly embrace it as it overtakes us. 

Choose wrong and you can be badly hurt or even dead. 

But we are forced to make these quick and bold choices without always having the luxury of time, the patience, or wherewithal to stop and recognize that things and people are a combination of things we like and agree with and others that we dislike and vehemently oppose. 

If we could just keep in mind that most things are not just good or bad, right or wrong, but good AND bad, right AND wrong, then we can make more astute and fine-tuned designations of what we think something really is and isn't and how to handle it, live with it, and faithfully coexist with it. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

October 23, 2015

Does Every Problem Have A Solution?

So someone said something interesting to me yesterday.

They were going off about this and that problem in the world. 

Then seemingly exasperated by the current and desperate state of affairs, they go "You know what? Not every problem has a solution."

And that really took me aback.

As a student and then a professional, I have always prided myself on looking for a solution to every problem. 

Sometimes we get it right and sometimes we don't, but I was always taught to try!

Now someone says to me this earth-shattering news that maybe there is not a good solution out there for every catastrophic problem.

So this got me thinking...

Maybe some problems are just too big or too complex for our mortal minds to even understand or our supercomputers to really solve. 

Or perhaps sometimes things have gone too far or are too far gone, and we can't always easily just turn back the clock.

Are there some things that we can't really make right what we did so wrong for so long, despite the best intentions now. 

And in life are some things just a catch-22 or a zero-sum game--where every way forward is another dead end or it has consequences which are too painful or otherwise unacceptable. 

This sort of reminds me of the sick brutal Nazi in the Holocaust who took a women with two beautiful young children to the side and said, "Choose!"

"Choose what?" she innocently replies.

And the sadistic Nazi pulling out his gun says, "Choose which of your children will live and which will die, you have 30 seconds or I kill them both!"

Indeed, some problems have no good solution as hard as that is for me to hear or accept.  

All we can do is our best, and even when we can't satisfactorily solve those completely vexing problems to us (because some things are not in the realm of the possible for mere mortals), we have to continue to go forward in life because there really is no going back. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

October 23, 2013

Healthcare.gov - Yes, Yes, and Yes


Healthcare.gov was rolled out on October 1. 

Since then there has been lots of bashing of the site and finger-pointing between government overseers and contractors executing it. 

Some have called for improvements down the line through further reform of government IT.

Others have called for retribution by asking for the resignation of the HHS Secretary Sebelius. 

Publication after publication has pointed blame at everything from/to:

- A labyrinth government procurement process

- Not regularly using IT best practices like shared services, open source, cloud computing, and more

- An extremely large and complex system rollout with changing requirements

And the answer is yes, yes, and yes. 

Government procurement is complex and a highly legislated functional area where government program managers are guided to hiring small, disadvantaged, or "best value"  contract support through an often drawn-out process meant to invoke fairness and opportunity, while the private sector can hire the gold standard of who and what they want, when they want, period. 

Government IT is really a partnership of public and private sector folks that I would image numbers well in the hundreds of thousands and includes brand name companies from the esteemed defense and aerospace industries to small innovators and entrepreneurs as well as a significant number of savvy government IT personnel. Having worked in both public and private sector, I can tell you this is true--and that the notion of the government worker with the feet up and snoozing is far from the masses of truth of hardworking people, who care about their important mission serving the public. That being said, best practices in IT and elsewhere are evolving and government is not always the quickest to adopt these. Typically, it is not bleeding edge when it comes to safety and security of the public, but more like followers--sometimes fast, but more often with some kicking and screaming as there is seemingly near-constant change, particularly with swirling political winds and shifting landscapes, agendas, lobbyists, and stakeholders wanting everything and the opposite. 

Government rollout for Healthcare.gov was obviously large and complex--it "involves 47 different statutory provisions and extensive coordination," and impacted systems from numerous federal agencies as well as 36 state governments using the services. While rollouts from private sector companies can also be significant and even global, there is often a surgical focus that goes on to get the job done. In other words, companies choose to be in one or another business (or multiple businesses) as they want or to spin off or otherwise dislodge from businesses they no longer deem profitable or strategic.  In the government, we frequently add new mission requirements (such as the provision of universal healthcare in this case), but hardly ever take away or scale back on services. People want more from the government (entitlements, R&D, secure borders, national security, safe food and water, emergency response, and more), even if they may not want to pay for it and seek the proverbial "smaller government" through less interference and regulation. 

Is government IT a walk in the park, believe me after having been in both the public and private sectors that it is not--and the bashing of "cushy," federal jobs is a misnomer in so many ways. Are there people that take advantage of a "good, secure, government job" with benefits--of course there are some, but I think those in the private sector can look in the offices and cubes next to them and find quite a number of their colleagues that would fit that type of stereotype as well.

We can learn a lot from the private sector in terms of best practices, and it is great when people rotate from the private sector to government and vice versa to cross-pollinate ideas, processes, and practices, but the two sectors are quite different in mission, (often size and complexity), constituents, politics, and law--and not everything is a slam dunk from one to the other. However, there are very smart and competent people as well as those who can do better in both--and you fool yourself perhaps in your elitism if you think this is not the case. 

Are mistakes made in government IT--definitely yes. Should there be accountability to go with the responsibility--absolutely yes. Will we learn from our mistakes and do better in the future--the answer must be yes. ;-)
Share/Save/Bookmark

September 14, 2013

Talebearing and Other Trivialities

What do you really care about?

Your family (and close friends)--health and wellbeing, your finances, your job, your soul...

If you're a little more social and aware, perhaps you care about the environment, the dangers of WMD, human rights, our national debt, and more. 

Yet as Rebecca Greenfield points out in The Atlantic (5 Sept 2013) "the dumbest topics [on the Internet] get the most attention."  She uses the example of all the chatter about Yahoo's new logo, which mind you, looks awfully a lot like their old logo.

The reason she says people focus on so much b.s. on the web--or derivatively at work or in social gatherings--is that it's sort of the lowest common denominator that people can get their minds around that get talked about. 

Like in the "old country," when gossipers and talebearers where scorned, but also widely listened to, there has always been an issue with people making noise about silly, mindless, and mind-your-own-business topics. 

Remember the Jerry Springer show--and so many other daytime TV talk shows--and now the reality shows like the Kardashians, where who is sleeping with whom, how often, and what their latest emotional and mental problems are with themselves and each other make for great interest, fanfare, and discussion. 

Greenfield points out Parkinsons's Law of Triviality (I actually take offense at the name given that Parkinson's is also a very serious and horrible disease and it makes it sounds as if the disease is trivial), but this principle is that "the amount of discussion is inversely proportional to the complexity of a topic." (Source: Producing Open Source Software, p. 91)

Hence, even in technical fields like software development, "soft topics" where everyone has an opinion, can invoke almost endless discussion and debate, while more technical topics can be more readily resolved by the limited number of subject matter experts.

This principle of triviality is also called a bikeshed event, which I had heard of before, but honestly didn't really know what it was. Apparently, it's another way of saying that people get wrapped around the pole with trivialities like what color to paint a bikeshed, but often can't hold more meaningful debates about how to solve the national debt or get rid of Al Qaeda. 

We may care about ourselves and significant others first, but most of us do also care about the bigger picture problems. 

Not everyone may feel they can solve them, but usually I find they at least have an opinion. 

The question is how we focus attention and progress people's discussion from the selfish and lame to the greater good and potentially earth-shattering. 

I recently had a conversation with my wife about some social media sites where the discussion posts seem to have hit new rock bottom, but people still seem to go on there to either have their say or get some attention. 

I say elevate the discussion or change sites, we can't afford to worry about Yahoo's logo and the Kardashians' every coming and going--except as a social diversion, to get a good laugh, or for some needed downtime dealing with all the heavy stuff. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

July 31, 2013

Simple Sticks Showing Complex Feelings


I came across these funny YouTube videos (beware though a little racy) with millions of views.

They are done using stick figures (or the more provocative term the creators use).

The focus is on 2 friends--"Red" and "Blue" and their interactions with other varied colored figures.

I think the stick figures are a brilliant way to tell about them and their exploits, so that you focus on their inner characters and their message and not on their superficial body looks.

Also, the notion of "color" for the different people is one hand a easy way to differentiate them, but also seems to have implications for the varied cultures and colors of people throughout the world.

Apparently, there is a YouTube Channel with a whole series of these 2 minute + skits, and now I understand that this stick figure theme is being made into a full length movie.

What I like about these is the simplicity of using these colorful stick figure characters to show life's ups and downs, relationships, and feelings in a very direct straightforward (and also raw) way.

Sort of like seeing and experiencing the complexities of life boiled down in simple and unfiltered way.

While 2 minutes is entertaining, I think 2 hours of this "in your face" would have me wanting to throw these sticks in a great big bon fire, yep. ;-)
Share/Save/Bookmark

July 14, 2013

Many For The Price Of One

We were at the movie theater over the weekend and something funny happened when we went up to the counter to get our tickets.

I ask my wife if she also wants anything to eat like popcorn etc.

She says yes, and I ask the lady behind the counter where the tickets and snacks are sold for some popcorn to ring up.

She points to the next register and says "You need to get the snacks over there" (pointing about one feet over to the left). 

I look at my wife like, okay and we pay for the tickets.

Then, we waddles over to the empty counter a foot over and wait for someone to help with the popcorn. 

Well the lady who just sold us the movie tickets waddles over as well and says, "Can I help you?"

We almost cracked up laughing. 

I said, "Yes, we would like some popcorn, please."

She says, "Sure," and proceeds to get the popcorn and we pay again.

What was hilarious was the lady selling the tickets redirected us to the counter over for the popcorn, where she in turn did the proverbial, changing of the hats, and then after selling us the tickets served us up the popcorn as well. 

It reminded me of a TV episode I saw a kid where some people visit a small town and stop at the Sheriff to ask where the local inn is. The Sheriff points them down the street. Then the people go into the inn and there is the Sheriff again, but this time wearing the innkeeper's visor. After checking in, the people ask where the town pub is and then stroll over across the way. They walk up to the bar, and the bartender turns around, and sure enough it's the Sheriff/innkeeper now with a servers smock on and asks what they would like to drink.

I may not be remembering the episode completely accurately, but you get the point. 

In a small town or an organization where people have to multitask, one person can play many different roles. 

That's why very often management in interested in good employees who can "walk and chew gum at the same time"--employees need to be able to perform under pressure to get many projects and tasks done, simultaneously, and they very often need to assume multiple roles and responsibilities to get that done. 

Pointing the finger at someone else saying not my job or the ball is in their court is no longer an excuse not to get things done. We have to shepherd the project all the way through the many leaps and hurdles that may stand in the way of progress. 

When people have to perform multiple roles and jobs--due to time constraints, cost cutting, or shortage of trained and talented people--then they may have to change hats many times over the course of their day and week. 

The Atlantic (5 July 2013) in an article about performing head transplants--yeah, an Italian surgeon believes this is now possible--retells an Indian folk tale called The Transposed Heads.

Two men behead themselves, and their heads are magically reattached, but to the other person's body. The clincher is that the wife of one of the men doesn't know which man to take as her husband--"the head or the heart."

It's a fascinating dilemma--what makes a person who they are--their thoughts (i.e. brain) or their feelings (i.e. heart).   

Similarly, when a person performs multiple roles at home, work, and in the community--who are they really? Which role is them--at the core?

We tend to like doing one or some things better than others, but does what we like doing mean that is who we are?  Maybe doing the things we don't like that challenge us to grow is what we need to be doing? 

Like the lady in the movie theater--one moment she was the ticket master and the next the concessions attendant--both were her jobs.

We too are made up of multiple and complex roles and identities--we are head and heart--and all the things they drive us to do in between. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)


Share/Save/Bookmark

May 31, 2013

What Does A Robot And A Spouse Have In Common?


This is a pretty cool advance in robotics. 

The robot doesn't just perform tasks, but it interacts with the person--sensing his movements and thereby anticipating his needs. 

According to Gizmag, this advanced robot was developed by Cornell's Personnel Robot Lab. 

As you can see in the video, the robot sees the person picking up a pot and moving towards the refrigerator, and the robot "understands" and goes to pull open the fridge door. 

In another example, the robot first without anticipating the person moving his coffee cup, pours coffee, spilling it on the table, but then with the special programming, the robot "sees" the person picking up the cup to drink and putting it down, and waits to pour until the cup is in stably in place. 

The anticipatory skills of the robot are based on 120 3-D videos in its database of people doing everyday tasks and extrapolating from it to what is occurring around it. 

The robot's predictions of the person's actions are refined as the person continues to move making the robot's response that much more in tune and precise with the person it is interacting with. 

The less far out in time that the robot has to predict, the more accurate it is: for 1 second out, it is 82% accurate; 3 seconds out, 71% accurate; and 10 seconds out, 57%. 

It is pretty incredible that we are able to program a robot to watch and sense similar to the way we do, and to react accordingly. 

The challenge will be as in the show Lost In Space, where the Robot is often confounded by illogical or unpredictable human behavior, and frequently, repeats "Does not compute." 

People are not programmed like computers--they experience conflicting and complex thoughts and emotions, behave in unpredictable or seemingly illogical ways, may have difficulty making up their minds in the first place, or may change their minds, even multiple times. 

Being a robot in a human world will by necessity mean being adaptable and understanding to changing human moods, whims and desires, and being able to respond quickly and appropriately--sort of like what being married is all about. ;-)
Share/Save/Bookmark

February 25, 2012

The False Information G-d

The amount of data in the world is exploding and yet the belief in G-d is evaporating.  

A review in the Wall Street Journal (22 February 2012) of a book called "Abundance" points to the explosion of data with the prevalence of information technology. 

From the earliest civilization to 2003, all written information totaled 5 exabytes (an exabyte is a quintillion bytes or 1 followed by 18 zeros).

But this is nothing compared to the last number of years, "where the change is not just accelerating, but the rate of acceleration of change is itself accelerating."

Between 2003-2010, 5 exabytes of digital information was created every 2 days, and by next year, 5 exabytes will be produced every 10 minutes!

Similarly, Wired Magazine (March 2012) reports in an interview with George Dyson that the "Digital Universe" is growing organically and "cycling faster and faster and it's way, way, way more than doubling in scale every year. Even with the help of [tools like] Google and YouTube and Facebook, we can't consume it all."

According to ComputerWorld (13 February 2012) in Your Big Data To-Do List, with all this data being generated, there is a mistaken assumption that we have to consume it all like drinking from a firehose. The article references a McKinsey study that projects that by 2018, there will be a need for 140,000 to 190,000 additional data analysts and statistical experts to try and make sense of it all. The article suggests that instead of trying to grasp at all the data, we instead "data scoop" and "target projects that can showcase results as opposed to opting for the big-bang, big-data projects."

And tools are being developed and deployed to try to get our arms around the information rolling in around the world. For example, Bloomberg Businessweek (November 28 - December 4, 2011) describes the tool from Palantir being used by the military, Intel, and law enforcement agencies for data mining, link analysis, and even predictive analytics. 

These days, "It's like plugging into the Matrix"--in terms of the amount of data streaming in. One special forces member in Afghanistan describes it as follows: "The first time I saw it, I was like Holy crap. Holy crap. Holy crap." But the thinking is now-a-days that with tools like Palantir (and others), we "can turn data landfills into gold mines."

But while information is power, Harvard Business Review (September 2011) in Learning to Live With Complexity acknowledges "We are hampered by cognitive limits." And moreover, "Most executives think they can take in more information than research suggests they can." And harnessing data into information is constrained by the complexity involved--driven by the number, interconnections, and diversity of interacting elements.

The result is that while we are becoming in a sense data rich, in may ways, we are still information poor. And even with all the sensors, data, and tools available to search, access, and analyze it, we are becoming perhaps overconfident in our ability to get our arms around it all and in turn master the world we live in. 

The hubris in our abilities to use information technology is leading many to worship the proverbial information G-d, and in turn, they are forgetting the real one. According to the Pew Forum on Public and Religious Life (February 2010) as quoted in CNN, "young Americans are significantly less religious than their parents and grandparents were when they were young."  Moreover, a full one in four American millennials--those born after 1980--are not affiliated with any faith--they are agnostic or atheists.

Similarly, Mental Floss Magazine just a few months ago (November-December 2011) had various authored columns asking "Is G-d In Our Genes?" and another "Is G-d In a Pill?" questioning whether the age-old belief in G-d comes either from a genetic disposition in some to a drug-induced states in others.

While religion is a personal matter, and for a long time people have argued whether more people have died in wars over religion or money and power, as a person who believes in G-d, I find it most concerning that with the rise of information (technology) power in the last 30 years, and the exuberance and overconfidence generated from this, there is an associated decline in belief in G-d himself.  

While technology has the potential to raise our standard of living (in leaps and bounds even) and help solve many of our vexing problems, we cannot forget that technology is run by human beings who can choose to be good or evil and use information technology to either better mankind or the opposite, to destroy it. 

Ultimately, I believe that it is but G-d almighty who shapes the thoughts and destiny of mankind, so that one man sees just a string of bits and bytes--a matrix of zeros and ones--while another sees a beautiful new musical composition, the next terrorist attack, or even the amazing cure for cancer.  

(Source Photo: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

October 31, 2009

Complexity, plain and simple

There is the old saying that rings true to basic leadership: “Keep it Simple Stupid,” (or KISS) yet for various reasons people and organizations opt or are compelled toward complexity.

And when things are complex, the organization is more prone to mistakes, people to misunderstandings, and leadership to mismanagement--all are points of failure in the dynamics of running an organization.

Mistakes can be costly from both a strategic and operational standpoint; misunderstandings between people are a cause of doubts, confusion, and hostility; and mismanagement leads to the breakdown of solid business process and eventually everything goes to pot.

An interesting article in the Wall Street Journal, 26 October 2009, defines four types of complexity:

Dysfunctional—This is the de facto complexity. It “makes work harder and doesn’t create value…research suggests that functional complexity creeps into a company over years through the perpetuation of practices that are no longer relevant, the duplication of activities due to mergers or reorganizations, and ambiguous or conflicting roles.”

Designed—This is an odd one…why would you design in complexity? “Executives may deliberately increase the complexity of certain activities or they may broaden the scope of their product offering, because they expect the benefits of those changes to outweigh the costs.” Example cited: “Dell believes that configuring each product to individual specs, rather than creating them all the same, makes customers more likely to buy from the company.”

Inherent—I guess this is the nothing I can do about it category, it just is hard! “The difficulty of getting the work done.” Plain and simple, some jobs are highly complex Mr. Rocket Scientist.

Imposed—This is the why are they doing this to us category—external factors. This “is largely out of the control of the company. It is shaped by such entities as industry regulators, non-governmental organizations and trade unions.” I would assume competitors’ misdeeds would fall into this one as well.

Whatever the reason for the complexity, we know implicitly that simplification, within the realm of what’s possible, is the desired state. Even when the complexity is so to say “designed in” because of certain benefits like with the Dell example, we still desire to minimize that complexity, to the extent that we can still achieve the organization’s goals.

I remember years ago reading about the complexity of some companies’ financial reports (income statements, balance sheets, statements of cash flows…) and news commentators questioning the authenticity of their reporting. In other words, if you can’t understand it—how do we know if it is really truthful, accurate, or the full story? Well-publicized accounting scandals like Enron, HealthSouth, and many others since around the mid-1990’s come to mind.

Generally, we know that when something is veiled in a shroud of complexity, there is often mismanagement or misconduct at play.

That is not to say that everything in life is simple—it isn’t. Certainly advances in the sciences, technology, and so on are not simple. Knowledge is incremental and there is certainly lot’s of it out there to keep us all occupied in the pursuit of life-long learning. But regardless of how complex things get out there—whether dysfunctional, designed, inherent, or imposed—we should strive to make things easier, more straightforward, and as effortless and trouble-free, as possible.

Will simplification get more difficult as a goal as our society continues to advance beyond the common man’s ability to understand it?

Yes, this is going to be a challenge. It used to be that graduating from high school was the farthest most people went with their education. Then college became the goal and norm for many. And now graduate and post-graduate studies are highly desirable and expected for many professional careers. It is getting difficult for people to keep us with the pace of change, breadth and depth of knowledge, and the advancement in technical fields.

One of the antidotes to the inherent complexity seems to be greater specialization such as in medicine, technology, engineering and so forth. As knowledge advances, we need to break it up into smaller chunks that people can actually digest and handle. The risk is that the pieces become so small eventually that we can lose sight of the bigger picture.

Complexity is here to stay in various forms, but we can and must tackle at the very least the dysfunctional complexity in our organizations. Some ways we can do this include breaking down the silos that impede our collaboration and information sharing; architecting in simplification into our strategic, operational, and tactical plans; building once and reusing multiple times (i.e. through enterprise and common solutions); filling gaps, reducing redundancies, and eliminating inefficiencies; reengineering our business processes as a regular part of “what we do”, constantly innovating better, faster, and cheaper ways of doing things; thinking and acting user-centric, improving the way we treat our people; and of course, being honest, transparent, and upright in our dealings and communications.


Share/Save/Bookmark

October 14, 2008

The Enlightened Enterprise and the Total CIO

The Total CIO is responsible for the strategy, operations, and governance of everything IT.

The strategy ensures that we are doing the right things and doing them the right way. It’s the CIO’s vision, goals, and objectives for developing IT solutions that meet business requirements.

The operations is providing for core IT functions like voice and data communications, information, applications, infrastructure, security, and so forth,

The governance is how we make decisions about IT. Through good governance we enhance visibility of IT requirements and projects, enable better communication and vetting, share risks, and prioritize, authorize, and control IT investments.

Architecture and Governance Magazine, Volume 4, Issue 2, has a good article titled “Bringing IT Governance from Theory to Action.” (by Davin Gellego and Jon Borg-Breen)

The problem is complexity:

“Even as technology has simplified and become almost invisible to most audiences, the complexity of maintaining technology is reaching a breaking point for information technology organizations…little time is invested between the lines of business and IT to communicate corporate goals and how technology can support these goals. The mandate is simply ‘do more with less.’”

The solution is governance:

Lines of business and IT can no longer work in their respective vacuums. This new interconnectedness means that what affects one now affects all. If problems are no longer confined to one functional area, solutions can’t be either. IT governance defines accountability and decision making and simplifies the challenges of consolidation, outsourcing, and increased visibility—ensuring IT expenditures deliver real business value.

The traditional organizational paradigm was silos. Everyone works for their particular unit, division, line of business and so on. Each is functionally and organizationally independent. Each develops their own strategy, products and services, customer base, and so on. Each has their own profit and loss statement. Working with other divisions, conducting joint product development, sharing information or ideas, cross-selling, and other collaborative efforts are discouraged, shunned, minimized, and looked at with suspicion. It’s every line of business or man for themselves. A unit that is not “producing” gets disciplined, downsized, reorganized, spun off, or otherwise eliminated. A division head that isn’t meeting their targets is toast! (Interestingly enough, people traditionally work in a “division”—that very word connotes separation, distinctiveness, and divisiveness.)

The enlightened paradigm is cross-functional. Everyone works for the enterprise. Each unit of the enterprise is part of a functional whole. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Collaboration, integrated product teams, working groups, information sharing, cross selling, corporate brand, interoperability, standards, component re-use, and other unifying activities are encouraged, taught, mandated, recognized, and rewarded. Performance measures take into account not only how your division is doing, but how it is contributing to overall mission of the organization. The goals of each individual and unit are aligned to the enterprise.

In the enlightened enterprise, The CIO is not running “the IT division,” but rather is providing IT services and solutions to the enterprise. In this paradigm, the CIO requires a structured and mature governance process, so that all stakeholders have a voice at the table and can influence the decision process and ensure more successful project delivery. IT governance provides for a consistent, collaborative decision process. Governance bring business and IT subject matter experts together to communicate, make visible, align, share risks, vet, prioritize, and issue decisions.

“The most successful enterprises engage in both business and IT in investment decisions. IT governance strengthens and clarifies the connection between corporate goals and IT initiatives. And with both business and IT aware of the strategic benefits of a given initiative, the initiative has a far greater chance of company-wide adoption and success.”

In the enlightened enterprise, “no line of business or IT department is an island. What affects one, affects all.” And in this environment, it is The Total CIO who can reach out across the enterprise bringing a unifying IT strategy, a sound, reliable, secure, and cost-effective operations platform, and a governance process to communicate, make visible, share risks, and make better decisions through the participation of all the pertinent IT stakeholders.


Share/Save/Bookmark

March 4, 2008

John Zachman and Enterprise Architecture

In the Journal of Enterprise Architecture, February 2008, John Zachman, the father of EA, talks about core definitional elements of enterprise architecture.
  • Enterprise versus IT or Applications Architecture—”First Enterprise Architecture constitutes a paradigm shift and many people have not yet been inclined to make the mental, cultural, and behavioral adjustment to engineering and manufacturing the enterprise” and I love that phase—engineering the enterprise!

“Because…many of the skills required to the work of enterprise architecture are typically found in the Information Systems community, some people misconstrue the Framework intent as an Information Systems schema rather than its true intent as an ENTERPRISE schema.”

And not only is the Zachman Framework misconstrued as an Information Systems schema, but many people mistakenly confuse the whole EA with IT or applications architecture. But EA is not focused on IT or applications, but rather on the overall organization—the enterprise.

  • Lexicon—“As global communication and collaboration expands, there is an increasing requirement for semantic coherence. If people’s words do not mean the same thing, there is neither communication nor collaboration”—another good one, semantic coherence!

Without a lexicon with common definitions and standards for usage, we will not be talking to each other, but past each other.

Moreover, if we can’t even define EA elements in a common way, then how can we ever make them interoperable?

As Zachman says, “The underlying classification and components of architecture must be consistent for any interoperability (internal or external) to be effected.”

  • Classification, Taxonomy, and Ontology—“Enterprises are complex. Managing the knowledge base of the enterprise that is required for enterprise operation and change is complex. The key to managing complexity is classification.”

This is so true. We need to categorize and relate items to make sense of them. Moreover, I would say we need to roll this information up to what I call the profile level—the big picture, strategic view using information visualization—so that our executives and decision makers can quickly understand the information and come to a decision point.

“Humanity for seven thousand years has found no mechanism for accommodating complexity and change other than architecture,” says Zachman.

EA is the way to plan, manage, and measure change in our increasingly complex world. And if we don’t take control over our enterprises and their future destiny, then we will be controlled by them.


Share/Save/Bookmark

February 12, 2008

Information Integrity and Enterprise Architecture

We are in an information economy and now more than ever business needs information to conduct their functions, processes, activities, and tasks.

To effectively conduct our business, the information needs to be relevant and reliable. The information should be current, accurate, complete, understandable, and available.

Information integrity is essential for enabling better decision-making, improving effectiveness, and reducing risk and uncertainty.

However, according to DMReview, 8 February 2008, “information within the [corporate] data warehouse continues to be inaccurate, incomplete, and often inconsistent with its sources. As a result, data warehouses experience low confidence and acceptance by users and consumers of downstream reports.”

“The Data Warehousing Institute estimates that companies lose more than $600 million every year due to bad information.”

What are some of the challenges to information integrity?

  1. Complex environments, [in which organizations] constantly generate, use, store, and exchange information and materials with customers, partners, and suppliers.”
  2. Accelerating change in the business environment [and] changing needs of business users”
  3. “Increasing complexity of source systems and technology
  4. Expanding array of regulations and compliance requirements

“Change and complexity introduce information integrity risk. Accelerating change accelerates information integrity risk. Compliance makes information integrity an imperative rather than an option.”

What are the particular challenges with data warehouses?

  1. Questionable input information—“Several source systems feed a data warehouse. Data may come from internal and external systems, in multiple formats, from multiple platforms.”
  2. Lack of downstream reconciliation—“As information traverses through the source systems to a data warehouse, various intermediate processes such as transformations may degrade the integrity of the data. The problem becomes more acute when the data warehouse feeds other downstream applications.”
  3. Inadequate internal controls—these include controls over data input, processing, and output, as well as policies and procedures for change management, separation of duties, security, and continuity of operations planning.

From an enterprise architecture perspective, information integrity is the linchpin between the businesses information requirements and the technology solutions that serves up the information to the business. If the information is no good, then what good are the technology solutions that provide the information to the business? In other words, garbage in, garbage out (GIGO)!

As enterprise architects, we need to work with the business and IT staffs to ensure that data captured is current, accurate, and complete, that it is entered into the system correctly, processed accurately, and that outputs are distributed on a need to know basis or as required for information sharing purposes, and is protected from unauthorized changes.

Using business, data, and systems models to decompose the processes, the information required for those, and the systems that serve them up helps to identity possible information integrity issues and aids in designing processes that enable quality information throughput.

Additionally, security needs to be architected into the systems from the beginning of their lifecycle and not as an afterthought. Information confidentiality, integrity, availability, and privacy are essential for an information secure enterprise and for information quality for mission/business performance.


Share/Save/Bookmark