One pupil at the bottom must have missed a few days of school, because he's going in the wrong direction.
Always, an odd fish out! ;-)
(Credit Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
One pupil at the bottom must have missed a few days of school, because he's going in the wrong direction.
Always, an odd fish out! ;-)
(Credit Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Fish of the Sea
Now, I know there are people that can play two flutes at once.
The real trick would be to be able to play three! ;-)
(Credit Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Two Flutes Are Better Than One
Agile Processes As An Enabler
Acrobatic Fun
Dance Robot, Dance!
2 Heads Are Better Than 1
Swarming For Social Order and Disorder
People are selfish; they think in terms of win-lose, not win-win. The cost of this kind of thinking is increasingly unacceptable in a world where teamwork matters more than ever.
Today, the problems we face are sufficiently complex that it takes a great deal more collaboration than ever to yield results. For example, consider the recent oil spill in the Gulf, not to mention the ongoing crises of our time (deadly diseases, world hunger, sustainable energy, terrorism).
When we don’t work together, the results can be catastrophic. Look at the lead-up to 9-11, the poster child for what can happen if when we fail to connect the dots.
A relay race is a good metaphor for the consequences of poor teamwork. As Fast Company (“Blowing the Baton Pass,” July/August 2010) reports, in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the USA’s Darvis Patton was on the third leg of the race, running neck and neck with a runner from Trinidad when he and his relay partner, Tyson Gay, blew it:
“Patton rounded the final turn, approaching…Gay, who was picking up speed to match Patton. Patton extended the baton, Gay reached back, and the baton hit his palm. Then, somehow it fell. The team was disqualified.”
Patton and Gay were each world-class runners on their own, but the lack of coordination between them resulted in crushing defeat.
In the business realm, we saw coordination breakdown happen to JetBlue in February 2007, when “snowstorms had paralyzed New York airports, and rather than cancel flights en masse, Jet Blue loaded up its planes…and some passengers were trapped for hours.”
Why do people in organizations bicker instead of team? According to FC, it’s because we “underestimate the amount of effort needed to coordinate.” I believe it’s really more than that – we don’t underestimate it, but rather we are too busy competing with each other (individually, as teams, as departments, etc.) to recognize the overarching importance of collaboration.
This is partly because we see don’t see others as helping us. Instead we (often erroneously) see them as potential threats to be weakened or eliminated. We have blinders on and these blinders are facilitated and encouraged by a reward system in our organizations that promotes individualism rather than teamwork. (In fact, all along the way, we are taught that we must compete for scarce resources – educational slots, marriage partners, jobs, promotions, bonuses and so on.)
So we think we are hiring the best and the brightest. Polished resume, substantial accomplishments, nice interview, solid references, etc. And of course, we all have the highest expectations for them. But then even the best employees are challenged by organizational cultures where functional silos, “turf wars”, and politicking prevail. Given all of the above, why are we surprised by their failure to collaborate?
Accordingly, in an IT context, project failure has unfortunately become the norm rather than an exception. We can have individuals putting out the best widgets, but if the widgets don’t neatly fit together, aren’t synchronized for delivery on schedule and within budget, don’t meet the intent of the overall customer requirements, and don’t integrate with the rest of the enterprise—then voilá, another failure!
So what do we need to become better at teamwork?
Teamwork has become very cliché, and we all pay lip service to it in our performance appraisals. But if we don’t put aside our competitiveness and focus on the common good soon, then we will find ourselves sinking because we refused to swim as a team.
TEAM: Together Everyone Achieves More
An important way to share law enforcement and intelligence information in a physical setting is through fusion centers.
Government Technology’s Emergency Management Magazine, Spring 2008, states “the ultimate goals of any fusion center is to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond to natural and man-made threats quickly and efficiently.”
“Data fusion involves the exchange of information from different sources—including law enforcement, public safety, and private sector—and with analysis, can result in meaningful and actionable intelligence and information…The fusion process allows relentless re-evaluation of existing data in context with new data in order to provide constant updates.”
Fusion centers bring together federal, state, local, tribal, and private sector subject matter experts to share information, provide risk and threat assessments, and provide a coordinated response.
“Nearly every state now has a fusion center to address gaps in data sharing.” In the fusion center, there is real time video monitoring that can be panned and zoomed, GIS mapping capabilities and the ability to amalgamate information. The advantage of the fusion center is that all participant organizations have the potential of seeing and hearing the same thing at the same time—although local authorities “cited difficulties accessing federal information systems.”
Not all fusion centers are permanent; some only are formed to deal with special security events like the Olympics and so forth. But those that do function 24x7 hone the skills of the participants by having them work together in a steady ongoing fashion.
While you would think that technology would do away with the need for fusion centers, since the information can be shared virtually, and therefore participants would not need to be co-located, there are benefits to having people deal with people from other organizations face-to-face.
As a User-centric enterprise architect and one who believes strongly that the human capital perspective is under-appreciated or neglected altogether, I appreciate the need for fusion centers, joint operations centers, interagency coordination centers, and the like to share not only information and technology resources, but to actually work together, cooperate, coordinate, and build stronger ties across functional and organizational silos. This is really what “enterprise” architecture is all about—breaking down the silos and building a unified, more effective and efficient organization.
The fusion center solution acknowledges that the challenge of law enforcement, intelligence, and counter-terrorism efforts needs to go beyond pure information technology initiatives. We can’t afford to just have siloed agencies and organizations working out of their own “corners.” There is a need for people to come together and collaborate in a face-to-face environment.
Fusion Centers and Enterprise Architecture
There are several disaster preparedness exercises that test and train our government and private sector partners’ ability to respond to incidents that could have catastrophic consequences. These exercises can be supported by a robust enterprise architecture; here is a brief description followed by a sketch of how EA can support disaster preparedness.
TOPOFF
“Top Officials (TOPOFF) is the nation’s premier terrorism preparedness exercise, involving top officials at every level of government, as well as representatives from the international community and private sector. Thousands of federal, state, territorial, and local officials engage in various activities as part of a robust, full-scale simulated response to a multi-faceted threat.” [Exercises have tested responses to chemical, biological, and radiological attacks.]
(http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/training/gc_1179350946764.shtm)
Cyber Storm
“The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) successfully executed Cyber Storm, the first national cyber exercise Feb. 6 thru Feb. 10, 2006 [and a second biennial exercise was conducted in March 2008]. The exercise was the first government-led, full-scale cyber security exercise of its kind…Cyber Storm was designed to test communications, policies and procedures in response to various cyber attacks and to identify where further planning and process improvements are needed.”
(http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1158340980371.shtm)
Government Computer News, 14 April 2008 reports on the Cyber Storm II exercise in which DHS “hosted federal, state, local, and international government agencies along with more than 40 private-sector companies” in these “high-stakes war games.”
Carl Banzhoff, the vice president and chief technology evangelist at McAfee summed it up as follows: “when the internet burns to the ground, how are you going to get updates?”
“The goal was to test communication coordination and partnerships across sectors.”
Bob Dix, the vice president of government affairs at Juniper Networks said that “the greatest impediment to sharing information still is trust.”
Whether the preparedness tests are for terrorism or cyber security, the essence is to test our ability in preparing, preventing, responding, and recovering from security incidents. This involves building capability for uninterrupted communications, information sharing, and coordinated response.
How can enterprise architecture support disaster preparedness?
Of course, EA is not the be-all and end-all for preparedness, but it provides critical elements of requirements management, planning, and governance that contributes to disaster preparedness.
Disaster Preparedness and Enterprise Architecture