What Would You Like With Your WT?

Wearable Technologies

Image: WallpaperHDFree.com

“Wearable Technology” is coming! It is coming in all shapes and forms. Whether you are a gadgeteer, a technologist, a fashionista, a carbon saver, or just walk the streets, you have a stake in what happens here…

From my perspective, this is a chance for technology to do some things right, right from the start.

Technology

  • Don’t make my smartphone do ALL the work. It is the hub, but protect my battery and help my pants stay up by keeping mobiles light and avoiding multiple battery packs. Distributed? Peer to peer chats where needed?
  • Standards and interoperability? Please don’t create a closed ecosystem. I don’t want to have to change my pacemaker because my smartphone died
  • Integrate, integrate, integrate! Create a whole, not a sum of the parts. I want a solution and not an architecture to plug things into. I do enough of that at work

Usability

  • Make my experience soar. Make things clean, easy to connect and easy to use. Please don’t fry my brain
  • Make information readily available at the right-time. Don’t bombard me in real-time until I ask. I have trouble concentrating as it is
  • Talk to the fashion people. I may be a geek, but I don’t want to look like one all the time. I prefer the look and feel of the image on the left.
  • Allow a device to charge others. I have run out of USB ports, especially for anything that is inside my body
  • Please make the charging wireless. My desk is a mess of wires; not sure I want to replicate it on my body

Save The Earth

  • Make use of all the things that have been touted – solar, piezo, etc. If I have to move and be in the sun to make my gadgets work, I can avoid the couch potato experience

Security And Privacy

  • Please use biometric security or whatever it takes. While I will be delighted to know my pulse after running at top speed for 3 minutes, I am not sure I want the person on the park bench to know it
  • Please have a clear visual indicator that cannot be disabled. I REALLY want to know when I am being recorded in video or audio. I need to be very careful what I do online; please leave me some space in the offline world
  • I am interested in spying on myself and myself alone. Help me not spy on other people and protect me when somebody else wants to spy on me. Difficult? Well, the size of this market with and without this feature would be an interesting clue…

There are choices in front of all the firms looking to get into this field, and believe me, there are a lot of them. The successful ones should be the ones that care about what we want. The question is if we care enough about what we want to make it a reality.

What do the 9-to-whatevers think?

The Journey From Services To IP?

Made In Indian IT Service IndustryThe Indian IT Services industry has been one of the wonders of the world over the last couple of decades, growing from nothing to $100 Billion in that time. However, today, the industry seems to be caught-up in it’s own success. With the loss of the cost play as a long term strategy, and the movement of the IT landscape towards everything on the cloud (the conclusions in this article by  are a bit drastic, IMHO, but the points are valid), the industry needs to have a long hard look at what the future holds.

A recent event report by Ray Wang that talked about IP motivated me to flesh out my thoughts on this topic. Over the past few years, this has been an oft-repeated discussion with folks at multiple firms (mostly within the BFSI sector) with interesting thought patterns emerging.

There is a large amount of trepidation in these firms with regards to creating intellectual property. The few internally developed products have not provided the returns. Even the ones purchased externally are not hitting headlines. The ROI has just not compared with the returns coming from services making it a low priority in tough times. There is also concern about competing with the customer (the customer would not want to pass knowhow which could end up in the vendors own products). The firms just don’t seem to trust their knowledge levels, execution capability and selling skills enough.

To get around this, the vendors need to think outside the box.

One feature of enterprise software (especially internal software, which is bread and butter for the service industry) is the utter lack of thought put into user experience, and to an extent, sustainable design. Zia Patel has eloquently talked about how India can capitalize on its back room innovation skills to create IP. This niche can then be exploited by the industry to create a differentiation to their services as well as products.

Another thought is to work with the startups in India. I know of several startups which began with product roadmaps. To fund these fruits of passion, they began to do services. Now they are in the “next payroll syndrome” and are unable/unwilling to chase their dreams. With their strong balance sheets, the large companies can create an eco-system of co-dependency that will help both ends of the market. There is a start in this area, but I am still not sure that the needed focus has been brought yet.

In summation, the industry needs to start looking at the future much harder than it is today. Yes, it needs to build up strong expertise across verticals and it needs to ensure that the relationships are created and nurtured. But, that is now a basic requirement, not an objective. As for the individual firms, they tend to follow each other, which reduces the chances of any real innovation happening in the industry.

Its time for the individual firms to stop focusing on each other and start focusing on themselves. What do the 9-to-whatevers think?

Does Math Have a Context?

Basic MathThroughout my engineering days as well as professional life, I always liked math. It has a certain cleanliness to it that I could not find elsewhere. Of course there came a point where it took more effort than I intended to put in to understand the intricacies. However, everything I learnt before that is still close to my heart.

So, when I decided to indulge in a newfound passion to create masterpieces for the mobile world, I naturally turned to math. The idea was to create something that would help kids understand, enjoy and excel at basic mathematics. The more I researched in this field, the more confused I got.

I realized that our learning process for different subjects is different. We learn the best when we learn within a context. Language is taught to children using action words which they can easily identify with. Right up to our learning in professional lives, our learning all comes with context. However, math is still taught in a very abstract way.

We are taught that 2+2=4. This is a “fact”. We are taught the process of solving this problem and how to extend it to other problems. However, there is no context. There is no storification. No wonder that children who do not immediately identify the beauty do not really like the subject even if they are good at it. A food for thought article I read from PBS prompted me to write this.

Can anything be done about this? Can math be storified? Can we create a context around basic math to stoke the imagination of children? In fact, does math have a context?

What do the 9-to-whatevers think?

Through The Looking Glass

secretlondonglasses_previewFinally, it happened. I had to get my first pair of reading glasses a couple of months ago. I got the lightest pair I could find given what I had read and heard about comfort levels.

I need them to read and read only. I am absolutely fine watching TV or moving about the house without them. In fact, the lenses distort the perception for anything beyond reading. What surprised me were some of the behaviors I developed.

As time moved along, I realized that I was leaving them on for some other activities. Even though the view was distorted, I was not conscious of this and went about my business. This happened until something made me realize the glasses were on and I removed them.

This got me thinking! What kind of glasses do I carry around with me in life? All perception is necessarily through the lenses of my collective experiences, but what distortions and prejudices have crept in that I am not conscious of? How aware do I need to be to have an open mind?

Applying this to a professional setting, do our built-up biases unconsciously drive our actions and decisions? What needs to happen for us to realize that we are carrying this baggage and for us to unload it? Mind you, this is not about ignoring all previous experiences. This is about identifying and filtering the parts that are appropriate in a given situation. This is about identifying whether the biases are taking us away from where we want to be.

Being aware of this seems to be the first step in building the self-consciousness to identify the biases. This will allow us to be more open to input as well as contrarian evidence. Having a confidante on the team who constantly challenges your leanings and status quo would also help. But, what helps most is our desire to do the right thing.

So, 9-to-whatevers, time to identify the lenses and figure out how to undistort the view? Let me know what you think.

Carrot & Stick

Since time immemorial, I can imagine, there has been a need to motivate people into the “right” behavior.

The first crime ever committed was probably soon after the first settlement was settled and somebody stole a goat from their neighbour.  This resulted in a verdict of “Thou shalt return the goat to thy neighbour; thine goat shall then be cooked for all”.

Punishment was probably easy to implement.  It produced results, was flexible, was (almost) costless and allowed for control of masses within limits of the available technology and philosophy.  However, it must have soon been realized that something was needed to prevent the crimes from occuring in the first place.  Also, there was something needed to make people do good; not just stop them from doing bad.  And this was a gap in the punishment theory.

Bang!  Religion was invented.  Punishment, already invented was included by default.  However, rewards for good behaviour were also included.  This allowed people not only to encourage good behaviour, but also define the parameters of that good behaviour.  Means were very limited though; the rewards could not be distributed freely.  The solution was to provide these rewards in the afterlife (or next life).  This meant no accountability and no feedback.  The required faith also ensured that any gaps in the theory could not be questioned.  A brilliant solution to the motivation problem!

Fast forward to the corporate environment.  The situation does seem to be similar here.  Punishment is easier to implement, easier to execute and requires a lower level of imagination and ability from the managers in-charge.  Loss of employment has always been a credible threat (and remains so today despite the changes in the competitive and HR landscape).

But, how does one motivate good behavior?  This is pretty much a requirement for any organization, not only to thrive, but just to survive in today’s world.  Tools similar to religion were used; lifelong employment, retirement benefits, etc.  This provided the returns on a perennial basis and enabled ‘faith’ and trust in the organization as well as employee.  As the landscape became more competitive, organizations decided they could not afford the largesse.  Individuals also found it more lucrative to sell oneself to the highest bidder in the market.  The lifetime contract was buried once and for all.

So, the conundrum becomes quite accute for the managers of today.  Motivation has become a very complicated field.  Gone are the days when motivation was limited to monetary gains and job security.  Employees as well as organizations concentrate on non-monetary methods.  Also, the expectation of the employees are keeping up with general social trends (they are the same people, are they not!) and demanding instant gratification – and that is if they are not demanding things as incentives before they perform.  Today, the concept of an annual bonus may not make sense due to this.  Even the annual appraisal is being shelved in some brave organizations in favor of a more continuous process.

What is one to do?  In order to succeed themselves, managers (ably led/supported by HR departments), need to break the mold and do things that were unthinkable a few years ago. We need to make the benefits more short term, more flexible (based on the need of the individual). We need to make them more realistic and of real use to our staff. Only then will they give 110% (defined as more that we demand). These are active thoughts in new gen companies such as Google, but for the vast majority of the corporate landscape, the answer continues to be “this will not work for us?”.

Then, the question is what will? Until we redefine the “Carrot” and continue to adjust to the needs to today, we will not be able to get the newer generations to continue working for us. It will take us, the 9-to-whatevers, to open up our imaginations, our biases, our assumptions to really make the worker of today feel Welcome!

Do We Want to Know?

Knowledge Management is everywhere. In discussions, blogs, corporate strategies, individual minds, etc. If one is unaware of or not convinced about the benefits, there is an army of consultants and vendors who can change that. I am a convert without needing any more help.

For evidence, one needs only to look at traditions passed from one generation to the next. The artisan/farmer/xyz made sure that the next generation understood and learnt the sum of their knowledge so that it may be built upon and improved. This was actually necessary for survival. Today, organizations are fighting for survival/success in a way they have probably never fought before. Every asset is being analyzed in order to increase the efficiency of usage. Knowledge is one such asset which is underutilized and can provide significant returns. The question then is, why is knowledge underutilized? To use any asset efficiently, the nature of the asset needs to be understood; the asset transformed to be usable in the manner desired; the asset used in an optimal manner; the asset maintained in a usable/relevant state and measurements of the benefits coming out of this. Let us apply this to knowledge.

The nature of “knowledge” has been well studied and classified and is constantly being refined. Most of the literature I read today relates to the transformation of knowledge into a usable state. Tools to capture explicit knowledge are widely available. There is also good direction on how to start capturing implicit knowledge; direct interaction and collaboration between the haves and have-nots being used to speed up this process. Curation and maintenance of this “library” is also an oft-touched upon topic. But what about the users of this knowledge? When there is a need for context based answers (typically quick problem-solving type things), people do approach other people. However, a large part of the problem is around re-inventing the wheel and re-learning lessons. My experience has shown me that the not built here syndrome continues to exist in this space. Large swathes of the organization (including and specially managers) do not believe that solutions created and lessons learnt by other people apply to them. Their problem is always different. (Code re-use & Service re-use anybody?). What is done to change this attitude will decide the pay-off from any KM strategy. Another issue is training. While internal corporate providers can play a just in time game with knowledge, vendor organizations and service providers need to be on the bleeding edge. They need to prepare people with knowledge in expectation of its use, not after they develop a need.

I have seen multiple organizations repeat mistakes or re-invent things because people do not want to talk to the people with the knowledge. I have also seen different groups at different levels of preparedness with knowledge (within and across organizations) which they know will be needed. Unfortunately, this depends on the attitude of individuals. We need to work on the culture to spread the “correct” version of the attitude.

We know that Po’s father would confide the secret ingredient to him at some point. But, we need the whole organizational kitchen to know it. What can be done to make it happen? Any thoughts from the 9-to-whatevers?

Getting from Data to Decisions

This blog is the outcome of thoughts, discussions and interactions which began with the last two posts on The Velocity of Information Part 1 and Part 2.Given that information needs to flow into the decision matrices and the speed is important, the thought has been dubbed with this title.

The insights obtained from these discussions resulted in the below chain of thought.

  • Data as an end state is of no use. It needs to be converted to a usable format. i.e. Information. This conversion is best done by the people who are close to and understand the data
  • Information as an end state is of no use. It needs to be analyzed and insights created. These creations are motivated from the perspective of  the results. In other words, the analysis and insights need to be drawn (or at least vetted) close to the decision makers
  • Insight as an end state is of no use. It becomes an academic exercise if it does not flow into any decision matrix. Remember, a decision to do nothing is also a decision
  • It is difficult to predict which piece of information will be relevant to which decision a priori. Therefore, the appropriate approach would be to de-couple the information creation and the information use stages. These two stages would then be connected through context

As we increase the velocity, the idea is that decision making will be more effective. The context of the decision will drive what information/insights get into the matrix and the increased velocity will improve the coverage and recency aspects.

So, the question is what does this mean. We need to dig deeper into 3 areas.

1. Information Creation

There are a plethora of tools available for this step comprising the first two layers of the proposed model. The “Business Intelligence” world is exactly about being able to extract information about data sets (which are getting ‘bigger’ all the time). The majority of this world revolves around structured data and structured analysis, but unstructured data analysis is beginning to come into its own at this point. There are strengths and weaknesses in this area which need to be addressed, but there are already several threads on that.

In my mind, the importance here is to ensure that the information extracted is rational. This means accurate, timely and correctly categorized. Categorization relates to defining the context(s) within which a particular piece of information could be useful along with the standard tagging/metadata pieces.

2. Information Delivery

This is also a critical stage of the process. This is represented by the cloud (layer 3) in the previous posts. However, this layer defines the contextual language, provides for connecting the suppliers of information to the buyers of information, is the plumbing in the scheme of things. In essence, it is a marketplace to make decision-making more effective.

3. Insight Creation

At the heart of decision making is converting information to insight represented by layer 4 in the model. This is a process which is completely manual and is often the basis of what people mean when they say “out-of-the-box”. This layer will need to have bright, experienced people who understand the context. But, the quality and coverage of the information coming into this is very important. A missed indicator or a false positive can throw the whole process out of kilter.

Therefore, the ability of these “experts” will be to create the correct contexts. What they need to depend on is the quality of information they get when they send a context into the Information Delivery system or the aforementioned cloud.

It seems to me that it is quite imperative that organizations look at what can be done to improve the velocity of information and make decision making more effective. De-coupling, as above, probably makes for a smoother implementation; technically, as well as organizationally.

However, the opportunity here is not necessarily limited to internal implementations. The power of this can be stretched a little bit. How many data-providers do we have in the world today? Can they improve the offerings by converting to information before they publish? The analytics can be done of their own accord or could be added as per the specification of the client. Further, they could publish the output (non client specific information) to somebody who runs an information mart! The information mart sets up the contextual language and provides fully baked information to clients who need it; the information could be a mix of the clients internal analytics as well as external open market feeds. The possibilities here are extremely intriguing…

So, how many of the 9-to-whatevers would be OK to take a plunge into something like this? Comments? Thoughts?