Innovation is not easy

A reminder that the opinions stated in this blog post are my own.

You may have seen the recent announcement from Google that they have ceased development of “Wave”.

Some have seen this as a failure on behalf of Google, or a bad misstep.

This article from Mashable.com is an example on the lighter side of the commentary.

I see it otherwise.

If a company is to truly innovate then it is bound to go into areas which are high risk – no risk, no reward – and as such the only “failure” will be the failure to learn from any experiments or projects that do not get into production.

I have no issues with Google’s approach as they attempt to innovate, and yes they will sometime do it in the full view of the public (& media) and yes the will sometimes have to call an end to the work. Not every company can afford to do this, but given Google’s current revenue per employee, stock price & profitability, who would want to argue with them about it ?

Google shouldn’t be criticised, they should be congratulated, because they have recognised that Wave is not viable. I expect that Google they will do a lessons learnt, include some good code & function in other projects & move on to spend their innovation $$’s elsewhere.

Thanks for reading

Knowing when to “Stop Digging”

(c) iStockPhoto

One of the skills in any IT Architect needs to develop is knowing when a solution that you are pursuing does not work and you need to stop, take a fresh look at the problem and start all over again.

I see it over & over in my work where a solution is pursued way beyond the point where it will solve the business problem.

So why does this happen & what can you do to prevent it ?

The “why” question is a very difficult one – there is a human tendency to, once you have put a lot of your energy into solving a problem that you don’t want to see it not used, in counterpoint to which I would say that this is not a failure but a discovery of what doesn’t work. Usually every solution has some part which works – and it comes to figuring that out when you start again.

It may not be the project team or the designer that is the cause – there can be pressure to use a particular solution that was used for, what on the surface, may be a similar problem, and this “saves” both time and money in the implementation.

The “how” question is a bit easier.

Requirements are the answer, or more to the point well documented functional & non-functional requirements.

Being an Infrastructure IT Architect, I like the non-functional ones better because in the delivery environment that causes you the most issues, however today I will share with you how I use functional requirements to ensure that I know when to “stop digging” or more to the point (& to stretch the metaphor) know where you should be digging in the first place.

I refer you to the definition of “Functional Requirements” on Wikipedia (as good as any I have found). What do you need the application or service to do.

I have simplified it down for Infrastructure services to be documented something like this (from an email system)

FR #	Requirement Description	Importance
FR-001	Support the ability to route a correctly addressed email from the user to the address or addresses email systems or mailboxes designated in the “To”, “CC” or BCC” field of the email	Mandatory

The use of Use Cases & requirements analysis is obviously part of the development of the requirements and any reasonably mature IT Architecture method will have techniques that document how to do them.

So, when you are having trouble getting to completion, map what you have back to functional requirements & you will fairly soon understand if you need to “stop digging”

Thanks for reading.

Queuing – for fun or profit ?

(c) iStockPhoto

I seem to spend a bit more time than I use to in queue’s these days.

Sure the bank I use is making it easier to be in a queue, however, this does not actually make the queue any shorter. Getting a “ticket” number, sitting down, waiting for the electronic voice to announce your number, & which teller to go to, rather than standing up, shuffling forward makes the experience a bit more pleasant, does it make it shorter or more time efficient ?

The reason I ask, dear reader, is because whenever I do my banking – about midday every Friday there seems to be only 2 or 3 tellers on duty yet a bank full of customers staring at the monitors waiting for their number to come up.

Maybe this is another situation where the main beneficiary of the system introduced is not the customer but the bank itself – they now have the ability to ensure that just the minimum number of tellers are actually on duty to meet the minimum service requirements that they have set in terms of waiting times etc. And sure this, I suppose means that these reduced costs are passed onto me, their customer, in lower fees & interest rates, & the shareholders in terms of bigger profits, which is, after all why they exist.

The bank opposite in the shopping “plaza” has not introduced a similar system, folk still get to queue the old fashioned way – normal banking in this queue, merchant banking in that one, and a service desk for inquiries & the such like. It will be interesting how this works out as time progresses, the sitting vs. the standing queue.

As a marketing tool ?

The real topic that I want to mention is that the Queuing has now become a marketing tool. I remember when Windows 95 was released there was a whole mass of folks standing outside the Auburn Harvey Norman waiting to buy it, generating hype, headlines & free publicity for Microsoft.

That however, was amateur city compared to Apple these days. It seems that Apple with the co-operation of the media marks every new product availability with a whole bunch of folks standing outside a store waiting for the magic moment when they get to file inside and stand in another queue whist the new product is made available (maximum 2 per customer).

The iPhone 4 was just released in Australia overnight and it seems odd that whist there was queuing at many a Telstra outlet at midnight, there was no online store availability, nor was there an ability to pre-order like there was with the iPad. So the ONLY place you can get one is via a retail outlet – thus pushing up the “queue factor”.

What am I talking about ? the music industry has been using queuing for as long as there has been a business in music – how often do we see folks waiting overnight to get their tickets for a concert ?

Apple, Microsoft & my bank are going to have to wait in line & learn a thing or 2 from concert promoters !

Thanks for reading

A headset

A reminder that the words in this blog are all my own.

I work from home 3-4 days a week and am on many, many teleconferences literally any time of the day or night.

One of the must haves if you do work from home is a good headset.

My headset of choice is a Plantronics CS361N, because

• It is wireless – and if you want to make a coffee run whist on the phone you can,
• It is “over the head” dual ear – I like to focus on the call if I can and despite the fact I am in a small street it is at time, not very quite
• It will last many, many hours continuously – and I have needed it, hour upon hour of back to back meetings I think in the 3 years I have had it, it has gone flat just once
• It has a mute button on the headset – which I use when I am looking for that coffee etc. and I can answer a question when asked

Yes, it’s expensive – approx AU$400 depending on where you get it from, it is worth it.

After 3 years of using it – the headset part finally broke apart – and I ordered a replacement headset, which you can do (or even a spare headset if you really want to have one). It didn’t work. after calling the help desk of the manufacturer, they replaced it, no questions asked.

Thanks for reading