In my current position one of my informal responsibilities is to try to maintain and increase employee morale. My organization believes that there is a correlation between between high employee morale and work productivity, especially in light of some of their challenging work situations. Most of our employees work individually as representatives of our company. They are matrixed as part of a project team normally comprised of many different companies brought together to work on a specific set of customer challenges. As employees working individually for long periods of time we like to ensure that they still feel a part of our organization. I make significant efforts to reach out and contact all the employees on a weekly basis, attempt group outings to professional sporting events, lunches, happy hours etc.. this is often more challenging than it sounds because we have employees from different backgrounds and experiences and finding a common activity that will build team cohesion is daunting. I still find myself meeting some employees one on one because they don't enjoy group setting's (developers are a tricky bunch). I'm soliciting input and attempting to find commonality amongst the group to see what the best types of team building activities are that will be more inclusive.
Part of ensuring that our employees are content with our organization has two purposes: one, to ensure that they remain productive and contributing members of their project team and two, to continue to maintain low employee turnover. It would probably be a poor idea to allow an unhappy employee to remain unhappy while working with teammates from several other companies. One of the hurdles in maintaining morale is that our company can only really impact our employees while the other matrixed teammates are left to hope that the Project Lead will spend time trying to build team cohesion - this often doesn't occur and we end up with the have and have-not's. Inevitably our employees are requested to remain humble and ensure that they continue to serve the clients while building inroads and collaborating with their teammates.
As much time as I spend attempting to build unity, communication and cohesion amongst our matrixed employees I have a serious challenge ahead of me with my own new team. There is disconnect between the client and the Project Team due to some avoidable confrontations in the last few months. As a new member I have the unenviable task of not only selling myself as a valuable, contributing teammate but to also try to repair this fractured relationship with the client and the team. Fortunately I came to the team with a previous rapport with both the client and members of the Project Team. I think that if I remain communicative with both sides and show my willingness to learn, listen and actively contribute to the development of the system I can hopefully ingratiate myself to both groups and repair the damage.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Cloud Computing...
I believe that Cloud Computing technology has the most direct and beneficial application for my current organization. In fact we are currently transitioning to using a cloud approach to providing application services like Microsoft Office tools, files systems and access to certain databases. This approach allows a large and geographically disperse organization to optimize the use of valuable hardware and network resources. As I support the Department of Defense we are afforded the resources necessary to host our own cloud and eliminate the need to pay subscription fees to an external partner. Though each organization does not have to pay for the servers hosting the apllications and storing the data, they are responsible for any new software applications, integration activities, new storage hardware and all licenses. The real value though is the cost savings of installing and maintaining individual CPU's and servers - technicians now remotely access user terminals to either installnew software or troubleshoot malfunctioning software. Other than dropping new network connections or fixing hardware issues such as media drives and power supplies tech's can remain in the central Tech Center and thus less techs are needed for the IT dept.
Real challenges do exist though and they mainly relate to the challenges with integrating software or hardware that isn't a part of the architectural baseline. Small changes require lengthy planning discussions, review boards, integration schedules, readiness reviews and endless amounts of documentation and that's only if the IT group likes your software/hardware. Time is invaluable in our business and these extensive lead times cost a significant amount, and because they are generally inflexible, quick reaction capabilities have to be forced down their throat by senior leadership. Security is also a significant issue, either our organizational restrictions and security constraints hinder the IT group development and integration of custom built applications or the security rules governing why we need certain applications require lengthy explanations - Jeff from Legg Mason mentioned this when we discussing security. IT basically locks down everything and then requires each individual group to explain why they need certain items and that each group acknowledges the risks asscoiated with sending email. Yes. Even why we needed Outlook had to be explained at length.
Real challenges do exist though and they mainly relate to the challenges with integrating software or hardware that isn't a part of the architectural baseline. Small changes require lengthy planning discussions, review boards, integration schedules, readiness reviews and endless amounts of documentation and that's only if the IT group likes your software/hardware. Time is invaluable in our business and these extensive lead times cost a significant amount, and because they are generally inflexible, quick reaction capabilities have to be forced down their throat by senior leadership. Security is also a significant issue, either our organizational restrictions and security constraints hinder the IT group development and integration of custom built applications or the security rules governing why we need certain applications require lengthy explanations - Jeff from Legg Mason mentioned this when we discussing security. IT basically locks down everything and then requires each individual group to explain why they need certain items and that each group acknowledges the risks asscoiated with sending email. Yes. Even why we needed Outlook had to be explained at length.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The new corporate leaders wear camo
Recently I've seen several news pieces touting the warm welcome the corporate world is providing former Junior Officers (Lt.'s and Capt.'s) who have recently left military service. I definitely think this trend is a good one for a new, revitalized, corporate America. I must caveat my blog with the fact that I may be a tad biased because I was prior military, however I think I have some strong points that stand on their own merit.
Recently Gallup polls were used to survey the importance of ethics in the workplace - they surveyed both junior management employees in the corporate world and junior military officers re-entering civilian life. Can you guess which group had over 80% of its respondents strongly agree with the following statement "ethics were more important than profits", and which group had less than 50% agree (only 20% strongly agreed). As a business student I've seen this trend in polls and surveys over the last two years so I'm not surprised, but with the extent of the damage the financial industry inflicted on the U.S. economy based on sketchy lending and insurance practices you'd think the trend would slowly be trending upward.. I'm still waiting. One of the first things we learn in the military are strong core values: core values like honesty, commitment, integrity, duty and loyalty. These values are ingrained and reinforced through continuous training and real-world examples like the battlefield where your actions in the office can lead to possible life and death consequences - can you imagine if the leadership at AIG had thought for a minute that the risk of insuring the risky loans could result in the death of themselves or co-workers they would have taken the risk? I know it sounds extremist but military leaders think about the outcomes for their decisions and action in bigger terms than simple dollars and sense.
It's not that I don't think great leadership can only be found within the ranks of the military, but I think that this background does provide a great training platform for future success. Now I do think, and the articles assert this, the challenges with military officers is learning the corporate culture and subtle ways of conducting business and achieving group consensus vs. the military way of one person telling the team what they're going to do. The military realizes that for their leaders to be successful, not only in their post military life, but also while in service require leaders to be able to become adaptable to changing situations where they may not have direct training or experience along with self-awareness this builds dynamic leaders who don't require direct order to be effective. The above referenced articles state that this common myth about prior military officers is being quickly refute by those recently entering the civilian workforce - these officers feel that have the right experience and ability to motivate employees accustomed to a less formal and direct working style. One former Army Captain now working at Google has never had any direct reports but is still tasked with gathering teams together to work on projects .. he says his experience in the military has taught him how to motivate and get individuals excited about work and new ideas and helps lure developers onto projects. Remaining results focused rather than focusing on protocol also helps bridge the gap between himself and his team.
Recently Gallup polls were used to survey the importance of ethics in the workplace - they surveyed both junior management employees in the corporate world and junior military officers re-entering civilian life. Can you guess which group had over 80% of its respondents strongly agree with the following statement "ethics were more important than profits", and which group had less than 50% agree (only 20% strongly agreed). As a business student I've seen this trend in polls and surveys over the last two years so I'm not surprised, but with the extent of the damage the financial industry inflicted on the U.S. economy based on sketchy lending and insurance practices you'd think the trend would slowly be trending upward.. I'm still waiting. One of the first things we learn in the military are strong core values: core values like honesty, commitment, integrity, duty and loyalty. These values are ingrained and reinforced through continuous training and real-world examples like the battlefield where your actions in the office can lead to possible life and death consequences - can you imagine if the leadership at AIG had thought for a minute that the risk of insuring the risky loans could result in the death of themselves or co-workers they would have taken the risk? I know it sounds extremist but military leaders think about the outcomes for their decisions and action in bigger terms than simple dollars and sense.
It's not that I don't think great leadership can only be found within the ranks of the military, but I think that this background does provide a great training platform for future success. Now I do think, and the articles assert this, the challenges with military officers is learning the corporate culture and subtle ways of conducting business and achieving group consensus vs. the military way of one person telling the team what they're going to do. The military realizes that for their leaders to be successful, not only in their post military life, but also while in service require leaders to be able to become adaptable to changing situations where they may not have direct training or experience along with self-awareness this builds dynamic leaders who don't require direct order to be effective. The above referenced articles state that this common myth about prior military officers is being quickly refute by those recently entering the civilian workforce - these officers feel that have the right experience and ability to motivate employees accustomed to a less formal and direct working style. One former Army Captain now working at Google has never had any direct reports but is still tasked with gathering teams together to work on projects .. he says his experience in the military has taught him how to motivate and get individuals excited about work and new ideas and helps lure developers onto projects. Remaining results focused rather than focusing on protocol also helps bridge the gap between himself and his team.
Is the U.S. Senate Broken?
After watching an interesting new segment on CBS Sunday Morning I'm starting to wonder if any piece of legislation that isn't titled "Humans Breath Oxygen Act", will be signed into law. This, of course, non-withstanding the eventual debate about exactly who gave humans that ability or whose now responsible for maintaining it.. I'm sure some "O2'ers" Senators from the wide open mid-western states will prove to be the swing votes necessary achieve successful passage. The news segment was focused specifically on the increasingly popularity of the parliamentary obstructionist move named the "Filibuster". The filibuster has been hampering the progress of legislation for a millenia, in fact even the famous conqueror Julius Caesar was stopped dead in his tracks by lengthy speeches by Cato the Younger, who applied this technique when blocking the political moves of Caesar.
So the filibuster in our Senate allows for Senators to speak for as long as they want on any topic until debate is ended by 60 or more Senators invoking cloture (hence, this big deal about a super-majority), and ending debate. Well in the famous Capra movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" Jimmy Stewart uses the filibuster to stop political corruption and attack graft in the Senate. It has been traditionally been used to ensure the minority part still has the ability influence legislation - not control it. In the 50's and 60's this tactic was rarely used, throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's it was employed 20-30 times a year on average. Since 2008, when the Democrats took over both the Senate and House the filibuster has been used a total of 118 times... this year we're on track to easily break that 2008 record. Wow ... your probably thinking "that's a lot of speeches and talking", well my friends you would be wrong. There is virtually no talking, other then when then the selected representative of the minority party gets up to the microphone and points out that there aren't enough votes to invoke cloture. No real hard work there. Essentially we've made the ability to interrupt and halt the legislative process easy. Wow I pay $$$ a year to a bunch of clowns to sit around and figure out how not to get things done until 2 years from now when all there hard work (insert biting sarcasm here) will be rewarded and they now possess the majority... ooh but that is meaningless unless it is a "Super-Majority" of 60 who can then push through their legislation - not legislation built through compromise and common ground that protects and provides for all (well, heck, most would be something). Yikes, as citizens we are seemingly rewarding doing nothing. Note I haven't targeted any particular party because ironically the Democrats who are now the target of the Filibuster had the opportunity to end the need for a Super Majority in 2005 when the Republicans (of course tired of being the target themselves) proposed a rule change that would require only a simple majority to invoke cloture. Interestingly enough the Democrats screamed bloody murder about the unfairness of it all.... Now Dem's are the ones proposing to change the rules, what do you think Republicans are saying?
We need to stop rewarding those Senators who refuse to compromise and cross party lines to achieve consenus legislation or I fear will be forever mired in unending debate that will result in one side of every issue being left feeling like they have no voice.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Managing Organizational IT Security
As most of my followers (all 9 of you), may know our most recent subject in class dealt with organizational security. Protecting business from internal and external threats. Our two speakers represented the same organization from two different areas of IT security. Our first speaker was responsible for tackling issues related to Internet fraud, sensitive corporate information being shared, unintentionally or intentionally, and intellectual property issues. The other guest speaker from Legg Mason was charged with the IT infrastructure security - ensuring that IT property and corporate systems are well protected from intrusions, theft and other security issues. Both representing necessary roles within a firm to ensure that the customers, corporate IT systems and the company image are protected.
I found our first speakers role as extremely challenging and difficult for such a small team monitoring such a large spectrum (the World Wide Web) and tackling issues of fraud and blackmail while handling the various language barriers with a small team of virtual novices in a poorly defined role. Their ability to build relationships with the various local, federal and international law enforcement agencies to handle the relatively new frontier of Intellectual Property on the Internet is amazing. She describe how they have to use cleverly designed web crawlers that perform intensive web searches for certain key words that may signal an issue requiring her teams legal expertise to resolve. Additionally, her team seems poised to newly define the role of IT Intellectual Property - the team seems to find new ways to investigate possible leads .. they have no formal training or professional investigators but her team finds a way to discover who is infringing, stealing or blackmailing them while attempting to remain anonymous.. They don't just use the Internet either.. they make phone calls and perform investigative type activities to discover the criminals. Sounded really cool.
The second speaker spoke to us about the need bridge the gap between leadership and the employees and that the ability to understand the real meaning of corporate strategic direction and apply this to your projects and activities. Seems like it's always about bridging the divide between business and IT, right? He also reveled some valuable insight into how organization protect their IT resources, and why. He brought the issue of protecting corporate systems through encryption of virtually every facet of Legg Mason IT: files, external drives, hardware and intranets and corporate websites. He explained that that the security modus operandi of locking down all IT and then requiring employee justification for exceptions isn't based on malice but rather is the more sound approach to ensuring that no IT resource is left vulnerable due to an oversight. Examining each individual port request, website, media accessory and access to file system ensures that risks have been weighed and activity can be tracked. Tracking playing and important part in possible legal issues and allowing firms to accurately assess the extent of a security breach that may result in loss of data or exposure of client information.
I found our first speakers role as extremely challenging and difficult for such a small team monitoring such a large spectrum (the World Wide Web) and tackling issues of fraud and blackmail while handling the various language barriers with a small team of virtual novices in a poorly defined role. Their ability to build relationships with the various local, federal and international law enforcement agencies to handle the relatively new frontier of Intellectual Property on the Internet is amazing. She describe how they have to use cleverly designed web crawlers that perform intensive web searches for certain key words that may signal an issue requiring her teams legal expertise to resolve. Additionally, her team seems poised to newly define the role of IT Intellectual Property - the team seems to find new ways to investigate possible leads .. they have no formal training or professional investigators but her team finds a way to discover who is infringing, stealing or blackmailing them while attempting to remain anonymous.. They don't just use the Internet either.. they make phone calls and perform investigative type activities to discover the criminals. Sounded really cool.
The second speaker spoke to us about the need bridge the gap between leadership and the employees and that the ability to understand the real meaning of corporate strategic direction and apply this to your projects and activities. Seems like it's always about bridging the divide between business and IT, right? He also reveled some valuable insight into how organization protect their IT resources, and why. He brought the issue of protecting corporate systems through encryption of virtually every facet of Legg Mason IT: files, external drives, hardware and intranets and corporate websites. He explained that that the security modus operandi of locking down all IT and then requiring employee justification for exceptions isn't based on malice but rather is the more sound approach to ensuring that no IT resource is left vulnerable due to an oversight. Examining each individual port request, website, media accessory and access to file system ensures that risks have been weighed and activity can be tracked. Tracking playing and important part in possible legal issues and allowing firms to accurately assess the extent of a security breach that may result in loss of data or exposure of client information.
The world according to the customer... and of course their always right. Right?
I've recently found myself presented with a new job opportunity - one with great challenges and possibly great rewards. Unfortunately these challenges involve a difficult customer who has ran off three previous occupants of this position. This is a customer who eagerly seeks confrontation and is prone to engineering flights of fancy - i.e. changing already poorly defined requirements for the architected systems at a moments notice or delaying critical design decisions until the last minute.
This customer is of course only one customer on a larger team my organization supports. Customer colleagues have noticed the rapid flight of the best engineers from the project due to the toxic relationship between the development team and, well let's call him Mr. X, yet they are seemingly powerless to remove him because of his position within his organization and because our firm refuse to expose the turmoil within the team because of the fear of reprisal in either the form of this customer simply moving to another position where he can influence decisions regarding contracts or if the customer organization decides to retain this individual in his current position. So now the customer team is attempting to stem the tide of exiting engineers by providing generous incentives to ensure the remaining team stays put. The customer team is rightly concerned that if team members continue to exit that continuity and the current delivery schedule will suffer. I'm sure bribing our developers and engineers is the appropriate way to ensure team cohesion and productivity.
Well of course I'm tickled pink that the team lead has selected me to help rebuild the developer customer relationship - of course the big hurdle can't be tackled directly (Mr. X) and thus I have to figure a way to maneuver around him and still meet the software delivery schedule. Your guess is as good as mine. This brings to light the issues with organizations who feel certain individuals have some inalienable right to employment; they have the right to manipulate, distract, delay, and generally annoy with impunity. Why do organizations tolerate this, why is management so fearful of direct confrontation - I mean.. we all don't work for the Postal Dept. right? There's a culture of tolerance (which is normally great...unless your talking about tolerating bad behavior), which creates these tense moments during technical meetings and project reviews where you wait to see who the next engineer is who breaks down and decides to seek better opportunities.. I hope I have the ability to negotiate and broker the deals necessary for the team to advance and continue to be productive.... but hey If I do decide to quit I may receive a generous bribe to stick around... Win/Win!
I often wonder, from a quantitative perspective how much time and resources have been spent to simply mitigate and lessen the impact this individual has had on this project? All of which could have been avoided by his management simply having a talk with this person, providing a warning or even providing some guidance on how to behave? Can you imagine what this individuals direct reports have to tolerate on a regular basis - why haven't they spoken up? According to the an article regarding bad behavior that managers who are held accountable for the behavior "tend to more actively promote fairness within their organizations", and "when organizations make managers accountable for promoting fairness they stop enabling individuals who confuse power with effectiveness or pursue financial ends at any all costs"... wow that pretty much sums up what I feel in this scenario. Organizations really think that avoiding these difficult subjects and issues will make it go away... really ..really? In denial much.
This customer is of course only one customer on a larger team my organization supports. Customer colleagues have noticed the rapid flight of the best engineers from the project due to the toxic relationship between the development team and, well let's call him Mr. X, yet they are seemingly powerless to remove him because of his position within his organization and because our firm refuse to expose the turmoil within the team because of the fear of reprisal in either the form of this customer simply moving to another position where he can influence decisions regarding contracts or if the customer organization decides to retain this individual in his current position. So now the customer team is attempting to stem the tide of exiting engineers by providing generous incentives to ensure the remaining team stays put. The customer team is rightly concerned that if team members continue to exit that continuity and the current delivery schedule will suffer. I'm sure bribing our developers and engineers is the appropriate way to ensure team cohesion and productivity.
Well of course I'm tickled pink that the team lead has selected me to help rebuild the developer customer relationship - of course the big hurdle can't be tackled directly (Mr. X) and thus I have to figure a way to maneuver around him and still meet the software delivery schedule. Your guess is as good as mine. This brings to light the issues with organizations who feel certain individuals have some inalienable right to employment; they have the right to manipulate, distract, delay, and generally annoy with impunity. Why do organizations tolerate this, why is management so fearful of direct confrontation - I mean.. we all don't work for the Postal Dept. right? There's a culture of tolerance (which is normally great...unless your talking about tolerating bad behavior), which creates these tense moments during technical meetings and project reviews where you wait to see who the next engineer is who breaks down and decides to seek better opportunities.. I hope I have the ability to negotiate and broker the deals necessary for the team to advance and continue to be productive.... but hey If I do decide to quit I may receive a generous bribe to stick around... Win/Win!
I often wonder, from a quantitative perspective how much time and resources have been spent to simply mitigate and lessen the impact this individual has had on this project? All of which could have been avoided by his management simply having a talk with this person, providing a warning or even providing some guidance on how to behave? Can you imagine what this individuals direct reports have to tolerate on a regular basis - why haven't they spoken up? According to the an article regarding bad behavior that managers who are held accountable for the behavior "tend to more actively promote fairness within their organizations", and "when organizations make managers accountable for promoting fairness they stop enabling individuals who confuse power with effectiveness or pursue financial ends at any all costs"... wow that pretty much sums up what I feel in this scenario. Organizations really think that avoiding these difficult subjects and issues will make it go away... really ..really? In denial much.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Death of the written word
Hello my digital followers...
Have you all heard that ink/pencil to paper is an outmoded means of communication? I mean look at where I'm entering this information... this used to be the equivalent of the personal diary. Now I type away and if popular my personal feelings regarding any subject can be shared with millions. I read an article in Fortune magazine recently that declared the future of reading is in the digital form. It extolled the virtues of digital media and its ability to be portable, shareable and easily accessible, but how do you sell it? Not just from a journalistic subscription standpoint - I mean can you imagine people paying $0.25 for access to the Washington Post for 2-3 hours? Ok, let's move beyond that aspect and get back to the comfort people have with the tangible qualities of pen to paper. Would you feel comfortable having all legal documents signed via a digital PKI certificate... I think there's a certain uneasiness with this thought, but people are becoming comfortable with wireless banking transactions - avoiding paper money entirely, so why not get rid of all forms of the written word and save some trees right? Certain banks have already begun to scan all paper checks deposited and then retain the digital copies which they send to customer via email (PDF.. got to love it). The funny part is that the entire burgeoning growth of free digital media and digital content was being pushed forward on the wings of promotional marketing (on-line ads). Well the interesting thing is that marketing research has shown that printed ads actually results in greater revenue because it sticks with readers longer - the blitz of media sponsored digital content has overwhelmed readers and become background clutter, white noise so to speak. People like the flexibility/portability of digital media but they trust paper and ink. Is this some innate personal connection from childhood or does this rest with some type of intrinsic human need to believe in what we can feel, touch and interact with - including information.
According to the Fortune article this doesn't necessarily mean that people don't want to read or access information online, but they just don't want lots of it (long-form journalism is considered impossible for some writers), readers seem to prefer short summarized articles and even in the business circles financial investors worry that financial media journals like The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times will fall apart and the critical and in-depth pieces of journalism that allow investors to draw conclusions about the information may disappear to be replaced by the Equivalent of financial Tweets. I mean can you imagine the end result: "Like I heard a wicked rumor that J&J will not meet financial earnings..LOL" follow me on Flitter for more info in 200 characters or less... The article suggests that the savior for news and information could actually be... well a digital one. The digital readers which spend a considerable amount of time attempting to resemble paper in its original form ... a simple direct approach that allows you to do something that yes ... could possibly be free if you find your article online or your book at a peer-to-peer site, but is it convenient and direct. No. People are lazy and if you offer them a cheaper, at least from a time perspective, way to receive their information they will pay for it. Something that may be challenging to receive free (think of all the registrations you have to go through to read an article.. the ads that interrupt your reading or the inability to trust the excerpts from a third-party provider). Still there are those who love the feel of a page of paper and revel in the gloss of a photo spread, but can't this too be replicated to some extent digitally?
In business it's already become a thing of the past for someone to write down notes or send inter-office memos and even the bulletin boards in the break room have been replaced with dynamically updated information on HD TV monitors (at least where I work). Oddly enough the only group not comfortable with the thought of replacing the written word are those involved with contracts and other legal issues in business. The thought that making your X could be done with a trusted key seems to really unnerve folks (well at least my Dad who thinks that cybercriminals are specifically targeting his personal stash of can't fail investment strategies and Grandmas ultimate brownie recipe). Security seems to be the final hurdle that needs to be overcome prior to regulatory and legal approval of digital forms of contracts and other legal documents because truth be told the cost benefit analysis has been done and the cost-savings of eliminating stack and stacks of paper is there in some would say "black and white".
Have you all heard that ink/pencil to paper is an outmoded means of communication? I mean look at where I'm entering this information... this used to be the equivalent of the personal diary. Now I type away and if popular my personal feelings regarding any subject can be shared with millions. I read an article in Fortune magazine recently that declared the future of reading is in the digital form. It extolled the virtues of digital media and its ability to be portable, shareable and easily accessible, but how do you sell it? Not just from a journalistic subscription standpoint - I mean can you imagine people paying $0.25 for access to the Washington Post for 2-3 hours? Ok, let's move beyond that aspect and get back to the comfort people have with the tangible qualities of pen to paper. Would you feel comfortable having all legal documents signed via a digital PKI certificate... I think there's a certain uneasiness with this thought, but people are becoming comfortable with wireless banking transactions - avoiding paper money entirely, so why not get rid of all forms of the written word and save some trees right? Certain banks have already begun to scan all paper checks deposited and then retain the digital copies which they send to customer via email (PDF.. got to love it). The funny part is that the entire burgeoning growth of free digital media and digital content was being pushed forward on the wings of promotional marketing (on-line ads). Well the interesting thing is that marketing research has shown that printed ads actually results in greater revenue because it sticks with readers longer - the blitz of media sponsored digital content has overwhelmed readers and become background clutter, white noise so to speak. People like the flexibility/portability of digital media but they trust paper and ink. Is this some innate personal connection from childhood or does this rest with some type of intrinsic human need to believe in what we can feel, touch and interact with - including information.
According to the Fortune article this doesn't necessarily mean that people don't want to read or access information online, but they just don't want lots of it (long-form journalism is considered impossible for some writers), readers seem to prefer short summarized articles and even in the business circles financial investors worry that financial media journals like The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times will fall apart and the critical and in-depth pieces of journalism that allow investors to draw conclusions about the information may disappear to be replaced by the Equivalent of financial Tweets. I mean can you imagine the end result: "Like I heard a wicked rumor that J&J will not meet financial earnings..LOL" follow me on Flitter for more info in 200 characters or less... The article suggests that the savior for news and information could actually be... well a digital one. The digital readers which spend a considerable amount of time attempting to resemble paper in its original form ... a simple direct approach that allows you to do something that yes ... could possibly be free if you find your article online or your book at a peer-to-peer site, but is it convenient and direct. No. People are lazy and if you offer them a cheaper, at least from a time perspective, way to receive their information they will pay for it. Something that may be challenging to receive free (think of all the registrations you have to go through to read an article.. the ads that interrupt your reading or the inability to trust the excerpts from a third-party provider). Still there are those who love the feel of a page of paper and revel in the gloss of a photo spread, but can't this too be replicated to some extent digitally?
In business it's already become a thing of the past for someone to write down notes or send inter-office memos and even the bulletin boards in the break room have been replaced with dynamically updated information on HD TV monitors (at least where I work). Oddly enough the only group not comfortable with the thought of replacing the written word are those involved with contracts and other legal issues in business. The thought that making your X could be done with a trusted key seems to really unnerve folks (well at least my Dad who thinks that cybercriminals are specifically targeting his personal stash of can't fail investment strategies and Grandmas ultimate brownie recipe). Security seems to be the final hurdle that needs to be overcome prior to regulatory and legal approval of digital forms of contracts and other legal documents because truth be told the cost benefit analysis has been done and the cost-savings of eliminating stack and stacks of paper is there in some would say "black and white".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)