Break the rules, do your own thing, but do it right

Great article from Wired (though a bit dated: it’s from 2008) on how Apple breaks almost every management rule and still dominates its chosen niches (and yes, Microsoft notwithstanding, it does dominate the PC and notebook industry in its chosen niche of high-end, super-cool-to-use desktops and laptops):

How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong

Required reading.
Filed under  //   theory  

Cloudy thinking

Bumped into this article a week back, on Yale’s delaying its switch to Google Apps. The full article is here (Mashable).

While reading it, it struck me that there’s more to this than meets the eye. Ideological issues? What are we discussing here, whether to invade China? Statements like “was met with concerns and reservations from the faculty and administration. Several felt the decision had been made too hastily and without proper University approval” reeks of an incredible degree of resistance to change. 

A university, in theory, is supposed to be a think tank and a trend setter and a research hot bed, adopting, adapting and espousing the cutting edge. Let’s not forget that the Internet’s daddy, ARPANET itself was created by professorial geeks to link up three universities and a research institute (see Wikipedia) and the world wide web was invented by a professor working as an independent contractor at CERN.

This statement from Yale does not sound like they are keeping the pioneering flag flying. It sounds more like bureaucracy at its very finest.
Filed under  //   clouds   rant   theory  

YATS!

YATS!

Ok, so I'm partial to acronyms: they make for good mnemonics. Today's acronym is special because the last letter stands for another acronym, which makes this, what, a super-acronym?

Maybe.

YATS stands for Yet Another Technology Snafu and snafu, of course, stands for situation normal all... er... up. You get it, I'm sure, everybody's been there.

At the start of the weekend, a bunch of us friends decided to meet for dinner at one of the city's more famous and better Chinese restaurants. We were four couples and, rather than get into the usual Indian hosting tussle about who gets to pay the bill (used to amuse my kids no end when they were younger), we decided to be all grown up and mature about this and opted to split the bill four ways. Two of us had plastic and the other two wanted to pay with real Gs.

(Semantic aside: "real Gs" are thousand-rupee notes that have Gandhiji's portrait on them. Unlike some other currencies, all denominations of Indian currency notes have a portrait of Gandhi (G) on them, but only the thousand rupee notes have a colloquial nomenclature that matches the initial, a 'grand' being a thousand, and hence abbreviated to a 'g'.)

(Philosophical aside: Why does the RBI print on the currency notes it issues, a portrait of the only Indian leader who can honestly be said to have had no interest in money? Perhaps we should change the portrait with each issue of notes to show a more recent politician or two, who are rather well known to be interested in money. That would have the twin advantages of making the currency more current (ha, ha) as well as stymieing the counterfeiters.)

Back to the story.

We asked the maitre d' to split the bill four ways. He said, no can do. 'Our software does not allow that. And we cannot split the bill for liquor.'

Ok-a-a-y.
The two who wanted to pay real Gs gave the other two their share and the two plastic warriors put down their cards and asked the waiter to split the bill in two.

No can do, sir. 'Our software does not allow that. And we cannot split the bill for liquor.'

Huh.

So put the entire liquor bill on one card, and put part of the food bill on that card, and the rest on the other card, so that both cards get an equal charge. A ten year old with a pocket calculator could do that faster than it took me to type out this paragraph. My neighborhood paanwalla could work that out in his head.

'Sorry, sir, our software does not allow that. We can only do an equal split on two cards.'

I thought technology was supposed to be an enabler. Here's one business that has succeeded in shooting itself squarely in the foot using technology. Unfortunately, it has plenty of company.

We ended up doing sums on the back of the bill, exchanging more real Gs with each other and generally destroying the satisfied feeling that follows a good meal. Next time, we'll fight over the bill. It's easier than lousy software.

Filed under  //   rant   software   theory  

Heads in the clouds? Unfortunately, no.

Looks like I'm not the only one with a poor opinion of CIOs (still CTOs in the Indian context). Here's Marc Benioff of salesforce.com deploring their stick-in-the-mudness:

"My message to them: We are moving from Cloud 1 to Cloud 2, and the iPad is the accelerator. Many of them haven’t even made it to Cloud 1—some are still on mainframes. They are working on MVS/CICS, or Lotus Notes, and they have never heard of Cocoa, or even that there is now HTML 5. This is unacceptable. The next generation is here. The iPad that shows us what now is really possible—and that we all need to go faster. Unfortunately, some CIOs would rather retire than go faster."

 I like that last line, so true. Read the full article here.
Filed under  //   clouds   iPad   theory  

LEEN - nope, not a misspelling

[This is the second of a number of blog entries tackling technology adoption. Click on the "ceo questions" tag to see the others.]

Time to start tackling the questions. Funnily enough, the first one is the longest one, but probably merits the shortest discussion. Er, I hope.

Question 1 was “What is my line of business, my set of core competencies and where does technology fit into that answer?”

Of course, the first two parts of the question are pretty much the sort of introspection that every company, every founder, every owner, every CEO and pretty much everybody who makes any strategic decisions for a business needs to do constantly. And, of course, precious few do so on a regular basis or with anything approaching true intellectual honesty, which is why one finds so many companies getting into disastrous mergers, overreaching on their expansion, misreading their markets, and so on. The details of this are well beyond the scope of this blog, but I’m sure they have been the subject of many a doctoral thesis and management book.

I’m more interested in the latter part of the question: “where does technology fit?” My experience has been that way too many CEOs have at best a misguided idea about this, and at worst, absolutely no idea. 

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //   ceo questions   theory  

CEO, COO, CTO - Questions you should ask yourself

I find it both amazing and dispiriting that too many businesses do not ask themselves the right questions about technology. With a view to helping them think along the right lines, I am proposing the following list of questions that every CEO, COO and CTO must find answers to before they jump into technology with both feet and while they’re paddling furiously along the tech wave. I also hope to provide some answers to these questions in later blog entries, though it will probably take me several weeks to do justice to this entire list.

So, here goes:

  1. What is my line of business, my set of core competencies and where does technology fit into that answer?
  2. How can technology enable me to do more of what I do, do it easier, cheaper, smarter?
  3. Who should drive technology adoption and adaptation?
  4. Laptops or Desktops?
  5. Windows or Mac?
  6. Microsoft Office or something else?
  7. Open source or proprietary?
  8. Printers?
  9. Handhelds / mobiles - do I need them, will they help, how, will it be worth it?
  10. Connectivity - how fast, how secure, how redundant?
  11. Website - why, what should it do, what does it do?
  12. Email - how, why, who?
  13. Security - how, what, how much, where?
  14. Servers or the Cloud?
  15. Networks - wired, wireless, WAN, LAN, VPN, WTF?
  16. Training - important or waste of man-hours?
  17. Backups - how, how many, when, how often, where?
  18. Redundancy - how much?

Okay, those should be enough to be getting on with, though I’m sure there are plenty more where those came from. Look for answers to these in the coming weeks.
Filed under  //   ceo questions   theory  

Libellous thoughts

I read an interesting article today in TechCrunch on how a newspaper published a libellous headline, which was promptly propagated across the Web, including to ‘far-flung newspaper websites as the Times of India.’ The newspaper realised its mistake within an hour, and changed the headline, but by then the damage had been done.

A second story in the same article was about another newspaper which published a false and again libellous headline in an article about Facebook, realised it and changed the headline.

In both cases, the newspapers used URLs (the link that points to the article) that also included the libellous material. So, if the headline said ‘Hooker who became an Agony Aunt’, the URL would have looked something like www.newspaper.com/hooker_who_became_agony_aunt/. (That’s only an illustrative URL, not the real one, so don’t try clicking it – ’twill get you nowhere.)

In both cases, the newspapers changed the offending headlines reasonably promptly, but took more time (‘several hours’) to change the URL.

An assistant editor of one of the papers, when asked why it took more than 24 hours to change the URL replied that ‘it was “a technical matter”, adding: “We are removing elements of that”.’ [Translation: I don’t know how to change the URL, I don’t know why it’s taking so long, but someone, somewhere is surely doing something about it. I hope.]

The author of the article that discussed this story, Paul Carr, opined that “The simple fact is that many editors have absolutely no idea how their papers work any more. “

I would modify that sentence to read:

“The simple fact is that many owners and managers have absolutely no idea how their businesses work any more. “

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //   technology   theory  

Because every blog needs a reason

I have been thinking about starting this blog for sometime, because, yeah, the world needs another blog. Over the last few years my conviction that people in leadership approach technology with their heads in the sand has been increasingly borne out by events that I see all around me. While debating with myself whether the world needs my blog or not, I came across an article on Techcrunch (see next post) that pushed me over the edge and this blog has been born.

In it, I will attempt to focus on technology as I define it, which is to say:

In most of this blog, when I use the word ‘technology’ it’s as a shorthand for personal computers, servers, networks, software, hardware, the Web, mobile phones and similar examples of the digital domain that pervades our every working and leisure moment. I am not referring to the broader meaning of ‘technology’ which would include planes, trains and automobiles and solar energy power and modern medicines and medical  imaging and robotic surgery and so on.

I hope to rave and rant and provoke and recommend and advocate. And I do this from my own perspective as a non-techie who ‘gets’ technology, enjoys it, has seen it change my life and has seen it being abused, misused and confused in too many businesses and organizations to be comfortable about it any longer.

I have named the blog for Start-up and Small and Medium Enterprises, because these are the ones that can benefit the most from technology and these are the very ones who are getting it all wrong, most of the time. It is unfortunate that they are also the ones who cannot afford to do so, and they also usually cannot afford sound advice on the matter.  The larger enterprises can afford mistakes (to a greater extent than the smaller ones can, at least) and can afford to pay for advice, its soundness or otherwise notwithstanding.

So, SuSMETA has been born. The resemblance of its name to an alluring damsel is entirely coincidental.

Filed under  //   theory  

About

Technology addict, former operations chief, serial entrepreneur, consultant, writer, blogger

metaweblog