Troubleshooter - Latest Comments

Re: a new broom speaks clean

Ivor — Mon, 07 May 2012 14:00:24 -0000

I used to have a regular cartoon strip in a paper that was incredibly popular. A new editor came in and, because he hadn't commissioned the strip, immediately terminated it as one of his 'sweeping changes'. It was short sighted but I quickly realised that new editors are meant change things regardless of rationale; 'just make it look different' is their brief.
On a bigger stage, certain systems prevent any real change. Obama is the classic example; democracy has actually diminished during his watch. For all his rhetoric about change and him being a black president, the American system of government (and everywhere else on a lesser scale) is designed to resist change. He CAN'T make a difference even if he wanted to.
The call of 'change' from a newly elected member of parliament is as fatuous as an amoeba calling for all amoebas to become humans.

Re: Ten Essential Skills for an effective CIO

Brinley Platts — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:27:24 -0000

How about vision (maybe that's 8), conviction and courage Colin?

Re: Panic and carry on

Colin Beveridge — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:55:51 -0000

Indeed, although my Systems-based analysis of the Year 2000 fuel protests/ shortages focused on four dimensions: Political, Economic, Privacy and Environmental.

Re: Panic and carry on

Emma Langman — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:15:39 -0000

Cool Colin - nice to see that Great Minds think alike (even if I did end up succumbing to temptation....) www.progressionpartnership.com...

Re: 40 seconds: describe what you do in just three words

Sean Forrest — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:49:06 -0000

Engage
Protect
Execute

Re: 40 seconds: describe what you do in just three words

HKid — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:41:54 -0000

Seek and destroy

Re: The Capstans of Industry

Bob Marshall — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:34:51 -0000

Surely lightweight (or no) planning is the Agile Way? And as Agile is all the rage in government circles nowadays, things seem to have come full-circle?

- Bob

Re: Console generations do not compute?

James Holden — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:56:32 -0000

Colin you're right, we do need a 21st century Beeb/Speccy and such a thing is under development. Take a look at the Raspberry Pi project - http://www.raspberrypi.org/ .

They're aiming to sell it for $25, which is a bargain, and are aiming to get them into schools.

Re: 40 seconds: describe what you do in just three words

Andyhuntleigh — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 11:43:01 -0000

Leader that Listens

Re: Console generations do not compute?

Dale Vile — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:18:46 -0000

I am with you on this one, Colin. Computers in the home today are essentially consumer electronics, which is quite different to the 80's when we were mucking about with kit (Commodore 64 to begin with in my case).

I notice this in my own kids - they have been predominantly interested in doing things with a working machine rather than getting a machine working in the first place. And how it works has never held any interest - that is until recently....

....due to schedule clash, my son wasn't able do his preferred Interactive Media course in the 6th form, so went for boring old computing instead. Now he's writing code he says it's the most interesting of all his subjects - so maybe he is a chip off the old block after all :-)

The net of all this is that it has nothing to do with the inherent nature of kids today, it's simply about what they are exposed to and how.

Cheers
Dale

Re: Console generations do not compute?

Colin Beveridge — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:24:28 -0000

This isn't a generational misunderstanding.

the problem of falling numbers of students wishing to follow Computer Science courses is well documented.

So perhaps we should ask [and many academics do ask] why have 'computers' become less attractive as a subject over the past 30 years, rather than more attractive?

Some believe it is because of the school technology syllabus, I think that it is far more fundamental - hence my piece about the Console generation thinking differently to the Micro generation.

Re: Console generations do not compute?

Mikeb — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:23:19 -0000

Have to say I struggle to agree with this. Kids today have many more opportunities to develop from ios to flash to innumerate open source apps. As a child of the micro era I find modern development very challenging and I wonder if the problem the author discusses is just a case of generations misunderstanding each other...

Re: Quality of internal collaboration is key to external partnerships

CoCreatr — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:35:58 -0000

Yes, and there is a management hack for that.
http://www.managementexchange....

Re: 40 seconds: describe what you do in just three words

Fasttrackbusinessnetwork-LI — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:58:01 -0000

demonstrably improve telesales

Re: 40 seconds: describe what you do in just three words

Bdennaoui — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:47:54 -0000

Expand, Argue, Explain

Re: a cure for corporate dyslexia?

Colin Beveridge — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:49:58 -0000

Excellent point, Nick. Our organisations are not always as healthy as we would hope.

Re: a cure for corporate dyslexia?

Nick Spanos — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:38:33 -0000

Colin, interesting article. I agree wholeheartedly. There is another silent killer learking.

IT Anorexia which is the obsessive need to reduce technology costs regardless of the unhealty impacts on the enterprise and their ability to compete.

Re: 40 seconds: describe what you do in just three words

conny — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:36:50 -0000

Connect Cooperate Co-create

Re: 40 seconds: describe what you do in just three words

Lessmore — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:33:09 -0000

rule of praxis (Do it, delegate it,defer it or drop it in terms of what, why, when, who and how much TM.( Rule of praxis TM by GBC))

Re: 40 seconds: describe what you do in just three words

Luc St-Pierre — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:01:57 -0000

Think, create, produce

Re: 40 seconds: describe what you do in just three words

Lessmore — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:09:35 -0000

Talking to you

Re: Dynamic discussion, sans frontieres

Brinley Platts — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 07:15:53 -0000

Isn't it just like when our kids got into texting each other? Look where that has taken us.

Re: Dynamic discussion, sans frontieres

Stephen — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:37:08 -0000

I like this thought process and see gorilla marketing and consumer revolts an important lesson for branded goods...a great way to communicate too
stephen Minall UK

Re: do Organizational scars and stretch-marks last forever?

Mary Saunders aka JadeQueen — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:49:29 -0000

This is a very interesting topic.

In the body, nutrition and topical agents can make a difference in scars. A recent 60 Minutes episode spoke of using stem cells from pig bladders or from fat cells from a human's own body to make new tissue.

There was also a remarkable story about using a substance called extracellular matrix to help muscle tissue grow when they used to think it could not.

These new therapies depend on acknowledging the wounds and on being very specific and experimental about new practices to get new results.

I think this gives clues as to how organizations can learn new ways to heal. Traumas loops go on in parts of the brain other than the rational part. Replacing trauma loops with new loops can help. The rational part of the brain can lecture the creative part all day, but if it is speaking a language foreign to the imagination, it will not get far.

It is said that victims who replay their traumas with ways they can change in the future to be less vulnerable heal better than victims who re-play the same scenes. This is not blaming the victim, it is handing agency back to a victim who may have felt a loss of power. Work and visualization has to be done to get the power back.

I think of a tai chi group that had loss from theft. New security measures were introduced, including no one closing shop alone.

Re: Shotgun Wedding strategy for Government IT

G Rule — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 05:55:51 -0000

Hmm. I agree this looks pretty dubious. Tony says:

"The new strategy is likely to give departmental CIOs more power, including an ability to stop, or call time on, unnecessary projects."

Haven't they always been able to stop unnecessary projects? Duh!

"The Coalition’s strategy for savings… have worked well so far… largely because the Coalition has insisted that all projects costing over £1m be submitted to the Efficiency and Reform Group for approval."

Savings are easy if you simply stop. Yet it hasn't stopped HM Treasury authorising the COINS project - slated as a ridiculous waste of money by a Concept Viability review by potential suppliers. So I question the basis for the Efficiency & Reform Group's decisions… are they based on evidence, or on mere opinion & bias?

"A hefty chunk of those savings could come from G-Cloud… [designed to enable] departments… [to] buy-in components… they need from a choice… of commodity suppliers whose offerings and service management have been verified for quality, usefulness and security."

Establishing & maintaining the envisioned G-Cloud & related SaaS offerings will be neither cheap nor quick. There's little incentive for suppliers to participate (to cut their own throats) just as there have been ineffective incentives for suppliers in 'traditional' outsourcing contracts to engage in performance improvement.

Tony suggests that departments would "not requir[e] unique services and products" so "suppliers can avoid large upfront costs".

Oh yeah? This may be true for some very standard infrastructure services. But the applications used by eg. HMRC & DEFRA are very different. They're tailored to enable the kind of service required by the 'customers' of those departments. How similar are these requirements? Here, IMO, is the fundamental flaw in the Coalition's thinking… they somehow expect end-consumer / taxpayer / beneficiary's requirements to be forced into a one-size-fits-all frame. But evidence suggests, in service value streams of any kind, vast variation exists between individual stakeholders.

Service value streams must be designed to absorb & handle variation in stakeholder requirements. Otherwise costs are forced up by 'failure demand' - that proportion of the demand generated by the system's failure to deliver what the stakeholder wants, without error, where & when they want it, at the first attempt. Avoidable costs arise from the resulting attempts to correct this failure. Studies have shown a large proportion of 'customer demand' handled by eg. HMRC & DWP is created by their own failure to deliver 'exactly what it says on the tin'. This is where maybe as much as 80% of the resources go.

A focus on the 'cost per transaction' is dysfunctional because it confuses the means (ie. the transaction as designed) with the end (ie. the stakeholder's desired outcome … which is NOT the same thing!).

What we need are organisations that are more effective & more efficient at achieving the desired outcome (eg. accurately & timely tax collection, healthy patients, adequately-supported families, well-educated children, etc). Focusing on local optimisation of specific kinds of transaction, many of which are themselves generated by 'failure demand', will ultimately serve to increase the overall costs.

Prof John Seddon and others suggest that a focus on cutting costs (the efficiency of the means) invariably leads to the costs of achieving the desired end increasing. Alternatively, a focus on the effective achievement of the stakeholders' desired outcomes pulls reduced costs (by avoiding failure demand), improved quality (by avoiding rework), faster service (avoiding costly delays), and prioritisation of the most valuable services (reducing unnecessary scope).

It is a pity that the Coalition, the Office of the Government CIO, and the so-called Efficiency and Reform Group don't seem to understand these facts of life.