In the past several days I have run across a number of instances where innovation has been discussed with one central theme. Where has it all gone? I finally ran across the answer this morning.
The first discussion on the topic arose around why a very large IT product company would cut its R&D budget dramatically from one year to the next. My answer? It is cheaper to acquire technology from smaller companies than it is to fund the development in house. Not to say that this is always true but I was speculating on the real answer for this organization. I believe I am right given that the company announced a continuation of its acquisitive nature in the coming fiscal year.
Next up came a discussion around why a fairly large, long standing organization was not an ideal buyout target. The answer? The CEO has turned down a number of approaches from other organizations and is known throughout the tech industry to be difficult to get along with in this regard. It would seem that anyone approaching him about a buyout is rebuffed almost immediately.
Finally, today I saw an article announcing a new book by a former CTO of Cisco, Judy Estrin. In her book she outlines her concern about the lack of innovation in America in general, and specifically within the tech industries. Her conclusion? Short term vision on the part of senior management. The emphasis on short term gains, building companies to be taken over by larger ones after a short time, funding tech start ups to be bought by the likes of Cisco without any consideration for building anything for the long term was cited as a growing concern. It will be interesting to read the book but I agree with the answer. The situation applies in other areas as well, like oil. Using oil profits to pay bonuses and dividends rather than developing alternative energy sources to replace a depleting one.
Cheers to the tech CEO that would rather build his own organization than to sell out.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
How much more proof do we all need?
In my last post I made the statement that 80% of the time human error can be accounted for as the cause of major IT outages. This goes for enterprises, carriers and the government.
Today it was published that the cause of a major outage of the FAA NADIN network was due to "human error that "resulted in the wrong configuration data being loaded onto the switch". This is not an uncommon error. Noteworthy in the release of information was that the configuration error took place on an IPX 9000 packet switch. Anyone other than me know what that is?
Secondary to the outage was the fact that the backup provisions for NADIN to process flight plans calls for a system in Utah to pick up any load from the failed system in Atlanta. The problem was that the queue built up caused so many delays and re-inputs from the airlines that the system in Utah could not keep up. As I mentioned earlier it is wise to test backup systems to see what will happen when they are called upon to do their duty. Clearly this was not the case here. Now the FAA is talking about adding a third system to the mix for backup. How much do you want to bet that routing issues will be the next thing that will plague this system and none of the systems will pick up the load when needed?
The FAA's antiquated management and procurement practices make it hard for them to get things right. The good news is that in this outage planes were held up on the ground.
The 80% rule still applies but it can be overcome with smart planning and execution.
Today it was published that the cause of a major outage of the FAA NADIN network was due to "human error that "resulted in the wrong configuration data being loaded onto the switch". This is not an uncommon error. Noteworthy in the release of information was that the configuration error took place on an IPX 9000 packet switch. Anyone other than me know what that is?
Secondary to the outage was the fact that the backup provisions for NADIN to process flight plans calls for a system in Utah to pick up any load from the failed system in Atlanta. The problem was that the queue built up caused so many delays and re-inputs from the airlines that the system in Utah could not keep up. As I mentioned earlier it is wise to test backup systems to see what will happen when they are called upon to do their duty. Clearly this was not the case here. Now the FAA is talking about adding a third system to the mix for backup. How much do you want to bet that routing issues will be the next thing that will plague this system and none of the systems will pick up the load when needed?
The FAA's antiquated management and procurement practices make it hard for them to get things right. The good news is that in this outage planes were held up on the ground.
The 80% rule still applies but it can be overcome with smart planning and execution.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The Eighty Percent Rule
In the last 24 hours we have all been told of a major disruption in the air traffic control system in this country. The word is that a "communications failure" in a FAA facility in Atlanta was at fault for numerous flight delays across the country and in particular in the Eastern US. Further information indicates that a network failure between Atlanta and a facility in Utah caused the issue.
This situation reminds me of an old adage in the networking business " 80% of all network failures are caused by changes made by humans". In nearly 30 years of observations I can validate the saying. Interestingly enough one can easily prove the 80% rule by putting an embargo on network changes during a time of low staffing, say the end of the year holiday period. Year after year of doing this resulted in that period of time being the lowest instance of outages for the entire year. With no one around and no one doing any changes in the network things just ran like they were supposed to.
What does all this mean? If there is a period of critical operation then minimize changes to your environment during that period. The last thing you want to do, say if your are a candy maker, is to do a major system change during the period leading up to Halloween (Hershey did an ERP upgrade during this time and did not produce enough candy to meet the Halloween demand and thus had their worst performing quarter in their history).
My guess is that we will find out that the recent FAA outage was a direct result of a network change that went in either untested or poorly tested at best. The other possibility is the lack of testing of redundant links so that you know they work when needed.
Stay tuned on this one. I have an 80% chance of being right again.
This situation reminds me of an old adage in the networking business " 80% of all network failures are caused by changes made by humans". In nearly 30 years of observations I can validate the saying. Interestingly enough one can easily prove the 80% rule by putting an embargo on network changes during a time of low staffing, say the end of the year holiday period. Year after year of doing this resulted in that period of time being the lowest instance of outages for the entire year. With no one around and no one doing any changes in the network things just ran like they were supposed to.
What does all this mean? If there is a period of critical operation then minimize changes to your environment during that period. The last thing you want to do, say if your are a candy maker, is to do a major system change during the period leading up to Halloween (Hershey did an ERP upgrade during this time and did not produce enough candy to meet the Halloween demand and thus had their worst performing quarter in their history).
My guess is that we will find out that the recent FAA outage was a direct result of a network change that went in either untested or poorly tested at best. The other possibility is the lack of testing of redundant links so that you know they work when needed.
Stay tuned on this one. I have an 80% chance of being right again.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Management Challenge-Part time employees
This one should be easy but it turns out it is not.
The situation is this- you have someone who, for any number of reasons, wants to work part time. You like the person and they have proven to be a valuable employee. Perhaps the person is new to you and you like what you have seen thus far but a full time arrangement is out of the question. Do you agree to a part time arrangement?
The challenge is multifaceted. First, you could get a good am out of productivity out of this person even though you do not have them full time. They like what they do, they are energetic but have other responsibilities. Perhaps they are willing to take a pay reduction in order to facilitate the arrangement. If you agree you will make them happy and get a good employee as a result. The bad news is you may build up resentment on the part of other members of your staff. "Why does she/he get to work part time and I don't?" might be something you hear. As a practical matter you can ill afford to run your group or operation with a whole staff of part time employees. The other issue turns out to be an accounting/HR one. A name on an org chart typically counts as a head count whether they are full time or part time. When it comes time to "adjust" headcount you will be faced with the issue of cutting a Full time or Part time person. It will come down to a question of productivity at that point. It is sad to say but there are situations where you might be getting more from a part time staff member than you do one that is full time.
Obviously there is no clear cut answer in this situation but it is an interesting situation and one that will require all of your skills in management and diplomacy to work through when the time comes. With the population aging as it is, creating more need for caregivers, you may be dealing with this sooner than you think.
The situation is this- you have someone who, for any number of reasons, wants to work part time. You like the person and they have proven to be a valuable employee. Perhaps the person is new to you and you like what you have seen thus far but a full time arrangement is out of the question. Do you agree to a part time arrangement?
The challenge is multifaceted. First, you could get a good am out of productivity out of this person even though you do not have them full time. They like what they do, they are energetic but have other responsibilities. Perhaps they are willing to take a pay reduction in order to facilitate the arrangement. If you agree you will make them happy and get a good employee as a result. The bad news is you may build up resentment on the part of other members of your staff. "Why does she/he get to work part time and I don't?" might be something you hear. As a practical matter you can ill afford to run your group or operation with a whole staff of part time employees. The other issue turns out to be an accounting/HR one. A name on an org chart typically counts as a head count whether they are full time or part time. When it comes time to "adjust" headcount you will be faced with the issue of cutting a Full time or Part time person. It will come down to a question of productivity at that point. It is sad to say but there are situations where you might be getting more from a part time staff member than you do one that is full time.
Obviously there is no clear cut answer in this situation but it is an interesting situation and one that will require all of your skills in management and diplomacy to work through when the time comes. With the population aging as it is, creating more need for caregivers, you may be dealing with this sooner than you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)