adaptiman.com

Category: Technology

  • Lost Improvements: An Analogy to Defects

    Lost Improvements: An Analogy to Defects

    Defects are not free. Somebody makes them, and gets paid for making them.

    W. Edwards Deming

    To summarize Deming’s teaching on defects, they cost an organization thrice. First, the defect is made, which robs the organization of a “working” product or service. Second, the defect must be identified, which also takes time and resources. Lastly, the defect must be resolved, thus taking more resources away from producing non-defective products and services. If this isn’t bad enough, these costs don’t include opportunity costs which could be mitigated with improvements.

    In manufacturing (and IT ;-)), a defect happens because of a quality failure either at the source or somewhere upstream. Once a defect is built into a product, there are two ways to detect it. First, it may be detected prior to shipping. Second, the customer may see the defect, which is significantly worse from a CX perspective. To draw the analogy to lost improvements, if there is no system in place to record improvements, that’s the equivalent of allowing a defect to get to the customer. Lack of improvement causes more technical debt and operational overhead down the line and will be reflected in much of the work that is done by the organization. These defects will be visible to customers, one way or another. How does an organization create a culture of continual improvement?

    First, an organization must embrace a culture of improvement. According to ITIL4, a culture of improvement requires three things; transparency, managing by example, and building trust (CDS, 2.3.4, 2.3.8). I’ll treat these three topics in more detail in a future post, but suffice it to say that my perspective is that the former are dependent on the latter – that is, trust is the “coin of the realm” and other aspects of an improvement culture are dependent on it. For example, organizations that have a high degree of trust manifest a corresponding high level of transparency.

    Trust is the “coin of the realm” and other aspects of an improvement culture are dependent on it.

    Second, an organization must provide mechanisms for conserving, prioritizing, and executing improvement initiatives. Starting with a Continual Improvement Register (CIR) is a good first step. If systems are too proscribed, or improvement processes not defined, team members don’t feel empowered (or able) to record improvement ideas. Without improvement, the organization will continue to produce defects. Making the CIR accessible at all levels of the organization is also recommended. Appointing a small, dedicated improvement person or team responsible for prioritizing and executing on those improvement opportunities closes the loop. Communicating the status of improvement opportunities creates buy-in from the organization and keeps the suggestions rolling in. In my experience, organizations go awry in the second requirement. They may build a culture of trust and improvement, but that culture must be operationalized to realize the true benefits.

  • The Non-Technical Economy

    The Non-Technical Economy

    It seems that everything these days is about AI and how the world as we know it will end. Some are prophesying that entire swaths of our economy will be replaced by AI. Writers are lining up on both sides of the argument. As IT professionals, much has been written (or assumed) about the use of AI in IT.

    In 2019, Brian Merchant wrote, “A robot is not ‘coming for’, or ‘stealing’ or ‘killing’ or ‘threatening’ to take away your job. Management is.” Is that true?

    While most people are focusing on those things that AI can do to replace human work, there are a significant number of things that AI can’t do better than humans. Interestingly, I asked AI (i.e., MS CoPilot) for a list of things that humans do better. Here’s the list:

    1. Emotional Intelligence: Humans are naturally equipped with the ability to understand, interpret, and respond to emotions in a way that AI cannot. This includes empathy, compassion, and the ability to read subtle social cues, which are essential for meaningful human interactions.
    2. Creativity and Innovation: While AI can generate new content based on existing data, humans have the innate ability to think outside the box, imagine completely new concepts, and create innovative solutions to problems.
    3. Ethical and Moral Judgment: Humans can navigate complex ethical dilemmas and make decisions based on a nuanced understanding of morality, societal norms, and personal values. AI lacks the consciousness to make such judgments.
    4. Adaptability and Flexibility: Humans can easily adapt to new situations, learn from diverse experiences, and apply knowledge in various contexts. AI systems, on the other hand, can struggle with tasks that deviate from their training data or require adaptation to new environments.
    5. Complex Problem-Solving: Humans are capable of solving poorly defined or novel problems that require intuition, judgment, and the ability to find connections between seemingly unrelated information. AI systems are typically limited to solving algorithmic problems and can struggle with tasks that cannot be systematically defined.
    6. Physical Dexterity and Mobility: Humans have fine motor skills and the ability to navigate complex physical environments, which are challenging for AI and robotics to replicate with the same level of proficiency.
    7. Interpersonal Skills: The ability to build relationships, collaborate effectively, and navigate social networks is a distinctly human trait. AI can assist with communication but cannot fully replicate the depth of human interaction.
    8. Learning from Limited Data: Humans can learn new skills or understand new concepts from a few examples, whereas AI often requires large datasets to learn effectively.
    9. Understanding Context and Nuance: Humans excel at understanding context, sarcasm, irony, and nuanced language, which can be challenging for AI to interpret correctly.

    It’s important to recognize that AI is a tool designed to augment human abilities, not replace them. The collaboration between human intelligence and AI has the potential to enhance productivity and innovation across various fields.

    What’s interesting about this list is that most of these skills are closely related to those needed to provide excellent IT service management. As the emphasis in IT has grown over the last three decades from technical to customer-service competencies, the identification of these soft skills has been one of the ways the profession has defined and delineated itself. Take, for example, the list of skills necessary to provide excellent service desk support (ITIL4 Foundation Training, 2024):

    • Customer service
    • Empathy
    • Incident analysis and prioritization
    • Effective communication
    • Emotional Intelligence

    It would appear, at least at this moment in time, that AI will not be able to do some of the fundamental things we do in IT service management. Indeed, a survey of those industries most susceptible to “takeover” by AI include manufacturing, finance, healthcare, cybersecurity, and education. Note that these fields don’t rely heavily on stakeholder interactions to be effective.

    So why are “managers” still trying to replace us? I think the answer is that they are thinking in a binary way – either we use AI to do work or we use humans. The real answer is that AI will augment and complement humans in IT service management, not replace them. The collaboration between human intelligence and AI has the potential to enhance productivity and innovation across various fields. This is reflected in the newest ITIL4 Create, Deliver, Support curriculum which stresses the effective integration of AI, among other tools. Mature IT Managers will realize that AI is a tool that can automate steps of the value stream, but at the end of the day, customers will have better outcomes and realize more value if humans are left to do what humans do best.

  • Van Halen Breaks AI

    Van Halen Breaks AI

    I’m a huge Spotify fan. As a GenX’er, I love ’80s arena rock – Queen, Van Halen, AC/DC, Journey, Yes – you get the picture. Spotify feeds my hard rock nostalgia hunger. Spotify released a new feature earlier this year called DJ that is essentially an AI bot that examines your musical tastes and curates sets based upon them, including new selections it thinks you may like. According to Spotify, “The DJ knows you and your music taste so well that it will scan the latest releases we know you’ll like, or take you back to that nostalgic playlist you had on repeat last year.”

    After using DJ for some time, I can attest that it’s pretty good at creating sets of my favorites but pretty bad at selecting new music. For example, I can’t stand Rap, but it keeps setting me up with Rap/Hip-Hop sets which I quickly fast-forward through. DJ doesn’t seem to think fast-forwarding is disapprobation, so after a few songs, I finally get fed up and hit the “DJ” button to explicitly show my displeasure. It makes me wonder if they are selling plays of those artists which would explain why they keep pushing genres that the AI should know I don’t like.

    Several weeks ago, DJ selected a Van Halen song from their album 1984. The song was the instrumental first track on the album. Now, I had that record on vinyl when I was a kid. I know every lyric, every note, every riff. So when I heard the instrumental track 1984, I was expecting to also hear the second track on the album, Jump. I’ve always considered 1984 as an instrumental prelude to Jump. This is a “by design” artifact of “album rock” that creates associations and meaning out of the order tracks are set on the album. If you doubt me, take a look at Pink Floyd The Wall. Other examples of instrumental preludes include Yes’ Cinema (followed by Leave It) on their 90125 album and Queen’s We Will Rock You (We Are the Champions) from their album News of the World. Regarding this last example, I always get irritated when radio stations play We Will Rock You by itself. In the 80s and 90s, they would ALWAYS play them together. Somewhere along the road, radio media forgot this tacit knowledge and wisdom.

    And here’s the point. When I heard 1984, I let it run expecting Jump to play next, but it never came. Because I let it run, in subsequent weeks, DJ kept serving that song solo, aggravating me all the more. Why didn’t DJ know that those two songs were supposed to be together? Because AI doesn’t understand tacit knowledge. Van Halen had “broken” AI.

    AI will never be able to recreate the beautiful complexity of learning through living in the world with all of the experiences – personal, communal, cultural, and national – that come with it. This is why I don’t think AI is as far along as some would have us believe. Some folks agree with me. While AI may be helpful in many contexts, I don’t think it will ever replace the complexity of human reason completely.

  • Hackers Exploit Post-COVID Return to Work

    As we return to the office, cyber threat actors are changing their tactics as they did during the work from home transition. Here at TTI, we’ve seen a number of these sophisticated attacks that attempt to redirect victims to a site to enter their credentials. But the site is NOT our Microsoft login site.

    The latest scam includes pelting recipients with emails purportedly from their CIOs or other highly placed executive welcoming employees back into offices. Threat Post indicates that the fake CIO email prompts victims to link to a fake Microsoft SharePoint page with two company-branded documents, both outlining new business operations. However, if a victim decides to interact (click) on either document a login panel appears and prompts the recipient to provide login credentials to access the files.

    What can I do to stay safe?

    Whenever you enter credentials in a browser window, be sure that the address of the site is login.microsoftonline.com/… AND that there is a lock icon next to the address, like this:

    When logging on, be sure that the address of the site is login.microsoftonline.com/…

  • Just the facts, Ma’am.

    During the pandemic, my observations of employees’ productivity while working from home (WFH) have varied. Some are more productive – some less. What I crave are facts supporting or refuting TTI’s productivity.

    For example, is our increase in research expenditures this year indicative of increased productivity in WFH? Have time-off requests changed during the pandemic and what do they say about productivity? Are particular job roles more or less conducive to WFH? What kinds of social factors (e.g., family, community, health) affect productivity? What kinds of environmental factors (e.g., technology, office space, furniture) are relevant? I’m sure you have similar questions.

    I came across an article this morning that reports decreased productivity, at least in the finance industry:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-14/at-jpmorgan-productivity-falls-for-younger-employees-at-home

    Some interesting takeaways from this article:

    • Productivity slipped when JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s employees worked from home (the article doesn’t specify HOW they measured productivity)
    • Work output was particularly affected on Mondays and Fridays
    • WFH affected “organic interaction”
    • Younger workers may be affected to a greater extent because they “could be disadvantaged by missed learning opportunities” by not being in offices
    • Overall, [CEO Jamie Dimon] thinks a shift back to the office will be good for the young employees and to foster creative ideas

    As I’ve reflected on our WFH experience so far, the best productivity solution seems to be a hybrid model of work that combines WFH with WFO and takes advantage of both environments. The right mix is likely different for different people. But the bottom line is that we currently have very little in the way of supporting data to formulate a policy which is in keeping with the perspective of our Agency.

  • Technology: Then and Now

    Recently, one of the Executive Team members asked me for comments on how Information Technology has changed in the last 20 years. The Computer History Museum is a great resource for this. Here are some IT-related things that happened in 2000:

    • First Camera Phones Introduced – 0.11 megapixels with 256 color display
    • Sony PlayStation 2 Released – this was the first system that would use DVDs for games
    • USB Flash Drive Introduced
    • Y2K Bug Addressed – this was a storm in a teacup hyped up by the media

    As CIO, I tend to think about how the provisioning of IT services has changed. Here are some observations:

    IT Demand – In 2013, Forrester released a report emphasizing that IT demand had increased to the tipping point:

    “Business leaders are driving the speed of execution and adaptation to astonishing levels because customers demand such performance… Demand has irreversibly exceeded the capacity of traditional IT…Entrenched behaviors are hampering the ability of IT to accelerate the speed of delivery. Technology solutions are now profoundly valuable, but they are useless unless the people are prepared to exploit their capabilities. Behavioral inertia causes IT practices to change too slowly [emphasis added].“

    Consumerization – IT services like storage, email, and video conferencing no longer require provision by IT support staff. Users can simply create a free account with Dropbox, Gmail, Skype, or any other cloud service to fulfill their needs. This creates complexity in data security and may not align with organizational IT rules.

    Security – Security spending has doubled in the last 10 years. I couldn’t find information prior to 2010, but I don’t remember Cybersecurity being a “thing” in 2000. We paid attention to patching and virus scanning, but ransomware didn’t exist and known security incidents were much less prevalent. Data breaches and security incidents are big business since the amount of generated data users produce increase 4300% since 2009.

    Virtual Machines – VMs have actually been around since the 1960s within the context of mainframes, but the provision and management of a VM infrastructure wasn’t prevalent until about 2010. VMs and Virtual Networks form the basis of most modern IT infrastructure. This introduces new costs and capabilities that IT must acquire.

    Mobile Computing – desktop computers, while still widely used, are becoming less prevalent as laptops, tablets, and mobile devices get more powerful. This progression is mostly a function of power requirements, partially a result of devices that consume less power and batteries that hold more power.

    Tragedy of the Commons – Explosion of network devices continues to stretch the capacity of our networks to support them. This was not an issue 20 years ago. The average number of networked-enabled devices has increased from 0.08 in 2003 to 6.58 today.

    Bottom line: The infusion of IT in our daily work and lives has exploded. Customer expectations have changed. Provision of IT services requires new capabilities to be developed in shorter cycles of time.

  • CISO In a Box?

    • Nick McLarty – Then
    • Nick McLarty – Now

    When Nick McLarty resigned as TTI CISO in December, it was a significant blow to NIS because Nick was (and is) a valued and highly skilled team member. While I’m proud that Nick went on to become an Assistant Information Security Officer (ISO) for the TAMU System, I’m now tasked with providing a quality level of agency security in his absence.

    I had heard about a number of TAMU system schools (5) that had engaged in the System contract to provide ISO services – the so-called “CISO In a Box.” After talking with my colleagues in some of these schools, I learned that the service was both economical and effective. One colleague told the story of how their contracted ISO recently lead them through a TAMUS Security Audit with a highly favorable outcome (i.e., Level 2). Of course, I asked Nick’s opinion, and he enthusiastically recommended it. After these communications, I wasn’t totally sold on the service as a permanent solution but thought it would be worth a try as a provisional one.

    To this end, we contracted under the TAMUS master contract for ISO services in December. I intend to revisit the service in May and make a decision whether or not to continue the contract, or hire a new CISO. The decision will be based upon a set of performance metrics that Nick and the System Security group are helping me to identify.

    While we are still working out the workflows, the results have been promising. The contractors are reviewing and maintaining our security framework, providing consulting on security issues, and will soon take on some of the operational work Nick was doing for us. These are things like security investigations and responses.

    To our customers, the change will be completely transparent, I will ostensibly be the “Interim CISO” for the Agency, but our contractor will take care of the heavy lifting. 90% of our security infrastructure is automated, so the contractor will act in persona Nick and soon be responding to any security incidents that may arise. As they begin to respond to customers, I’m very interested in your feedback about the job they are doing.

    As always, I’m at your service.

  • Top 10 IT Issues

    Credit: Brian Stauffer © 2020

    EDUCAUSE, the mothership for higher education IT, has published their top 10 issues for 2020. Interestingly, the top three issues are Information Security, Privacy, and IT Funding.

    Another interesting issue is #10 – “The Integrative CIO: Repositioning or reinforcing the role of IT leadership as an integral strategic partner of institutional leadership in supporting institutional missions.” What’s cool about my job is TTI does this already. For example, today I was in a meeting with some key TTI stakeholders to discuss how we will coordinate our work across the RELLIS campus, specifically in relation to the other engineering agencies. This is a very strategic endeavor that only tangentially touches on IT. I’m grateful and excited that I have the ability to contribute to the organization in this way. It’s an example of TTI’s commitment to integrate technology at the organization’s strategic level. This is one thing that makes my job very rewarding and fun.