New plan for system design

 I recently began a project to redesign and refactor a legacy data storage and processing system. This project has some serious challenges, one being that the legacy system and backend storage is based on technology that is 20+ years old (customer use Emacs to access and operate). As the engineering team gathering requirements we find ourselves soliciting the customers for more and information to provide clarification on system requirements.


Our challenge is that technology has come so far in the last twenty years that the customers have the ability to describe what they currently have, but they have no ability to describe and reconcile what they could have. In meetings the Systems Engineers (SE's), draft notional requirements we think would be useful and the customers shrug their shoulders and say things like "I guess that would be cool". The team finds themselves fighting about what is needed vs. what is extra at every Architecture Review Board (ARB) meeting. The funny thing is that most of the debating and fighting is centered on disagreements between the development and systems engineering team. The group is always going back and forth between trying to ensure we've captured the functionality of the current operational system while designing the new one.

Every time I capture a notional view of the systems functionality it receives a 30 day back and forth virtual and physical review before I'm informed that my design is premature because we haven't decided on the systems node or this message format. I finally became fully frustrated last week as I was shot down in the ARB when after several minutes of bantering I suggested rather than continuing to guess what the rest of the system looks like (we were discussing the repository node), we finally come to an agreement on what a physical view of the system is - one that attaches specific software products to the actual design. I mean six friggin months later and one actual software baseline release and the customer isn't ready to finalize the physical design. Often this is because the customer can't reach a decision with the white noise from the team constantly buzzing around (well we could do that, and maybe we try this new product instead, or do we think about this yet)... never-ending.

This led me to devising a strategy that basically forces all the SE's and developers to reach a consensus and plan on what the systems is and how it will be designed and integrated. Agree on all the derived artifacts detailing the design and then as a group submit to the customer for review. The customer willingly admitted that it's often difficult to make a decision with so many different opinions and suggestions’ coming at him from different directions. He agreed we need to bring a unified plan for him to adjudicate and approve and that even including him in the final stages of design planning would probably be sufficient to mitigate the lengthy delays. Hopefully this works and we can finalize the system design prior to releasing the 2.0 baseline.

"Goldman Sachs what were you thinking.....getting caught?"

Financial reform seems to be the new buzzword around the D.C. beltway and the renewed focus of the President's domestic agenda. Pushing this to the forefront of the media is news just being released that Goldman Sachs, the financial juggernaut survivor of the massacre on Wall St., has been caught misleading investors. As an MBA student the financial reforms being proposed by the President have me at a real crossroad; on one hand I understand that the U.S., heck why should I limit it to just the U.S., the entire world financial industry is filled with corrupt self-serving individuals, and on the other hand as an individual investor who was severely impacted by the financial chicanery surrounding the collapse of the housing market.... wait, that's all on one side of the argument.

The other side is: although I am slightly bitter about my house price, I do feel that additional regulatory legislation and a new government agency will do little to mitigate the issues affecting the financial industry. When I see the signs of the financial disaster retrospectively laid out before me by industry experts .... I think to myself, "Wow how could I have missed it." With all the evidence and analysis publicly available and with the SEC starting to clamp down... wait. Sorry. That was my dream sequence. We don't need more government to supervise and police the industry, we need the government agencies that are currently in a position to regulate and effect change to stop being political puppets and start enforcing their rules and wielding their power to influence change.

Obviously something needs to be done to ensure the market doesn't allow banks and trading firms to hide information, mislead investors and focus on short-term investments , while foregoing long-term strategies. Smart legislation and a real push to buffer the SEC from political influence and ensure their impartiality is what we need. I’d like to see strong, sound, financial markets founded on basic economic principles and monitored by independent regulatory bodies. This is especially important with the continuing migration of individual retirement strategies from traditional employer funded pensions to 401k financial market based retirement accounts. There were plenty of opportunities for the SEC and Congress to investigate the run-up to the financial collapse, but no one when to be the one to pull the stop on the money ride. This of course would run contrary to those vociferous advocates of unrestricted, unsupervised business and financial markets, why? Because of course the markets are self-regulating, the markets would never do anything to harmful to impact their ability to grow. Well a lot of the old business rules possessed a very small footnote nobody paid attention to: the market will regulate itself and remain in balance if ran transparently (all financial information publicly available to investors), and the information is true. i.e. if companies are legit and nobody tries to cheat to get ahead, far ahead, by lying or fudging the rules, do this and the the entire market grows. Well at what point did all these financial geniuses (Milton Friedman), consider the fact that many people (like children), will take advantage and manipulate the rules and guidelines to provide themselves an unknown and some would say unfair advantage that provides only a short-term benefit with a long-term risk.



Why do businesses like Goldman do it? Besides the obvious financial benefit the simpler answer is because their ego let's them believe they're smarter than everyone else, they won't get caught (and if they do the penalties will still not overwrite the immediate benefits), and if does fall down around them they can say "it wasn't my fault", "everyone was doing it", and my favorite "if you don't bail me out from my ridiculous predicament the impact to everyone else will be severe", yes when all else fails blackmail wins. Goldman Sachs will probably come through with a minor slap on the wrist. Why you ask? Within hours after the announcement of the indictment the Dow Jones lost 125 points. Can't have that happen... my portfolio alone was hit to the tune of several K, darn it maybe the markets are self regulating because I definitely don't won't to lose more money - let them go SEC ... for the love of my pension, let my Goldman Sachs go free.

The Mac vs. Windows debate

I encountered the Mac fans in my life at the oddest occasions: weddings, graduation parties, 4th of July picnics and once at a funeral, yes at a funeral. Well it was really the wake, but that's a small detail. Anyhow, I'm at the Green Turtle just about to dig into some delicious wings when the fire of debate was lit again. A simple question like "what's your email address?", was the igniter. "Well my email address is johndoe@me.com". "What the heck is ME?" I inquire. Whooooshh. It begins with a small smirk, maybe a wry smile, the questions start... "you have all these other Apple products, wouldn't it be easier for you to sync them using a Mac OS"? "I'm scared of the mouse." I reply. What kind of a weird system uses only one button to operate and interact with the OS? It's almost communist. Now the name calling, tears and apologies all follow suit as we all reach the same conclusion; I'm a coward and everyone else who doesn't assimilate with the cool music commercials crowd is simply a Techno-Snob.

I actually had a Mac once. Well it was an Apple II and I was 10 and used it to play Leisure Suit Larry and Drug Wars on its white screen with soft blue text. Very advanced stuff, but hey you know what I don't remember? I don't remember a mouse with only one button. There I was facing the barrage of logical questions regarding my poor personal IT choices and all I want to do is get more buffalo sauce for woefully under-spicy wings. Then I remembered a recent blog I read on CIO.com and I chuckled (Yes. I recognize the irony: I don't like blogging but love to read them... my life is one big contradiction). In this particular blog the author discussed the fallout resulting from a blog he posted regarding a request to his IT staff for a Mac book as replacement for his current, slow and wimpy XP-enabled ThinkPad. His blog followers response posts were, well to say the least, not nice. The blogger went on to detail the link between the Mac vs. Windows sides of the debate and their representation of the business users vs. the IT. I thought the whole thing was funny because here I was being derided by friends for not fully taking advantage of user-centered Mac computers. Mac’s designed to handle the interactions of my various technological devices (mostly Apple products), and here I am defending myself based on the fact that the Mac is too simplistic and scary.

The blogger makes a valid case when he states that the IT staff never examines requirements and customer needs from the business or user side. IT always views business needs from a technological perspective - "why wouldn't you want to do it the right way", should be my IT department’s motto. The challenge is that without putting themselves in the user’s shoes it’s difficult for IT gain a better understanding of why an increasing amount of users have transitioned to Mac's in their personal lives and now find them suitable for business activities. Without this understanding they’ll continue their narrow minded approach to resolving IT challenges and this will continue to perpetuate the "us-vs.-them" ideology. BTW, “me.com” was apparently the older Mac users email domain name. I’m avoiding my Mac friend like the plague for the next few weeks as they make out with their newly acquired iPad’s. I joked that they can now make wireless phone calls and feel what it’s like to be in 1986 (seemed funny at the time).

The joys of online learning

This week’s topic is very near and dear to my heart because as a deployed member of the U.S. Armed Forces it was one of the innovative ways that allowed me to pursue and complete my B.S. As someone who frequently moved from place to place I've attended several universities and tried many different methods of receiving instruction from a distance - sometimes referred to as "distance learning". Tele-learning (via video tapes and live video feeds), online learning, classes in tents in remote locations, self-paced coursework with examinations and then, finally, traditional in class instruction at both Maryland and Loyola... yeah!

By far the easiest and most pleasant experience has been the in-class instruction and personal interactions with instructors and my peers at both universities. I like to consider myself more adept at interacting with people face-to-face, to be able to express myself in the moment with regards to a subject, to convey my emotional response to a specific topic or discussion. This ability to convey and express emotion and personal characteristics isn't easily discerned in the words on a screen. This is exactly what makes understanding and solving the challenge of virtual offices so important - throughout the MBA program we've focused on how important personal interaction is with subordinates and teammates. How attempting to connect with the team on a personal level begins the process of building trust and contributes to increasing productivity. The same could be said of the online classroom instruction, especially when a significant portion of the coursework involves team projects with teammates located around the world.

I enjoyed meeting and working with other students located in places like Japan, Guam, Italy, and England etc... Well basically anywhere with an internet connection. Like our virtual team discussions my teammates brought diverse and unique perspectives to each project and because of the different time zones we could use a follow-the-sun strategy to complete assignments. Trust however was often an issue as it's difficult for you to gain a real understanding of the sincerity of a person’s apology after missing a deadline, or their true level of empathy when you’re the one apologizing. A distinct challenge beyond communication and building trust was that on-line classrooms require a significant amount of self discipline and wise time-management. It requires constant checking in to see if new items are posted regarding assignments; it’s also challenging to coordinate times for on-line meetings, interactive lessons with the professors and proctored examinations. Proctored exams are also challenging, especially when you only have two days to take the exam and you’re in a packed room, auditorium, cafeteria etc.. with strangers all taking different exams. I also found on-line classes often had more difficult, in my opinion, exams than traditional classroom exams. I think professors try to compensate for what they assume is a lower workload with incredibly complex exams – questions you may not have been prepared for – tough to ask questions to a proctor regarding the use of calculator’s, or whether or not a question is correct. The last on-line class I took was in a hybrid format that had two in-class meetings that allowed students and the instructors to meet each other and begin to form more of a trusting relationship – these types of on-line classes only work if you are near the location for the meetings. I see the value that on-line classes provide, but I definitely prefer the personal interactions and discussions that class room instruction provides.

Co-CIO's is an interesting trend

There seems to be an interesting new wrinkle in how organizations manage their IT organizations: the Co-CIO. I recently received two presentations from Co-CIO's at a major investment firm. Each presenter brought their own unique perspective to their shared role and their individual and combined set of responsibilities. The focus of their information wasn't specifically to address how they share control or what the challenges and opportunities were with this type of IT leadership model, but because of the intense curiosity and interest in this IT hybrid the class couldn’t stop from making inquiries. Honestly this seemed, at first, to be an anomaly born from a unique set of circumstances requiring a two-headed approach to handle but after some explanation I still haven’t gained a true understanding of why their organization chose to transition from a sole head of IT to the shared approach. Dan’s (let’s call him CIO #2, not in order of importance or decision making but based on order of their presentation), outlook on the position was that it was a natural decision for the organization to make based on their IT circumstances and requirements. Dan was sincerely surprised by our interest in the subject – odd considering we spent a significant part of our MBA program not learning about leadership by panel. Yes. Of course we spent time learning about group communication and taking into consideration all aspects of your project team, but in the end there is always someone making the final decision in certain difficult situations.




In a challenging situation that requires a clear decision, like who gets the surplus money for their respective budget – what if both parties feel that they have the better business case for the funds? Who determines the winner/loser in this scenario? Even if one party capitulates there will still be some hard feelings, right? Dan did provide a good rationale though for minimizing our skepticism when he stated that this is a new trend in the IT field and these same decision making challenges would be present if there was one CIO and two department heads. Well that’s true Dan but at least in that situation neither department head has to be the bad guy, that honor belongs to the lone CIO.



Now back to their presentations. I was definitely impressed with the breadth of knowledge and experience, both Joyce and Dan had worked at several Investment firm in both IT and Business related positions. Unlike Dan, Joyce began in a typical investment firm internship fashion and because of her intellect, motivation and willingness to challenge and confront ineptitude she moved into the emerging IT field at the right time. Dan’s background was IT-centric, but he did work outside of the Financial Services Industry for a period of time. Joyce’s presentation focused on lessons learned from her career experiences. Her stories were very poignant and entertaining and you can definitely see the leadership qualities she possesses. Dan exposed us to his viewpoint on emerging technologies and their impact and challenges for him as a CIO. Security being his overriding challenge, which is something of a trend amongst the various speakers we’ve had this semester. He agreed with my observation that security in IT has to be balanced with the user friendliness of the business consumer that the systems were built for. Excellent speakers and an all-around great in-class discussion.