Golden Chains

I remember being warned as a teenager about the Golden Chains that bind us. This was meant to refer to the fact that you can end up getting locked into a job from a financial perspective. As you progress through your career you end up getting more and more in your pay cheque and then eventually as your spending grows and takes up the slack you cannot live without the large salary. That being the case the idea of quitting your job and taking a lesser paid job with more job satisfaction seems anathema.

IT Services organisations struggle to deliver  in an agile manner and get blamed by their customers for a lack of ability to roll out anything in less than a six month window. If that customer is a government department then the whole thing becomes exponentially more complicated. The constraints that get imposed on you begin to become completely self defeating and in some cases I preside over a situation where security considerations have wiped out any chance of a solution. If they don’t disable the process, they insist on measures that create duplicate and triplicate systems to allow for different security domains. When I worked with the defense industry I was in an environment where each person had two desktops. One on a secure network, the other on a less secure network. Never the two would meet, but I did manage to extract data from one system and migrate it to the less secure system.

If security isn’t cramping your style, then the commercials will. Customers will complain that the supplier is slow and immovable whereas, in reality, they are fulfilling their contract to the letter because if they don’t the financial penalties are astronomical. No-one wants to take the risk! The commercial vehicles that most service providers are working under currently are constructed in such a way as to ensure that the supplier will be completely risk averse. There is no way to circumvent it. I did work with one UK Government Department where we agreed to roll out a solution, get a “feel” for the volumetrics and performance and then frame a service level agreement that encapsulated what we thought was achievable based on the trial. Now that was innovative. Can I get anyone to accept that if we cut corners there are risks that need to be mitigated? Can you imagine the disbelief if I suggested that we stand up a solution that might bring the whole IT infrastructure to its knees – maybe?

Most Systems Integrators could create a solution and have it running on the live estate within weeks, but their contracts preclude them from doing so. If everyone was prepared to take a grown up view of the risks and take some joint ownership of the risks then maybe, just maybe we could get something done. I liked Jeffrey Phillips blog – Timeless Innovation – we can’t continue trying to be Innovative if we are shackled by the Golden Chains of contractual obligation. Those chains need to be broken.

Working in the Public Sector

I was reading with some interest the post by Bankervision and was struck by the fact that although I have worked for some time now alongside the Public Sector looking on from the Private Sector, the battle lines seem to continue to be held and stereotypes prevail.

The people I have met in the public sector are generally trying to do their best for the people of this country even if sometimes they are prevented from doing so successfully by various blockages and boundaries. It is true that the Private Sector only focuses on the financial rewards, but the problem is that both sectors are dependant upon each other. Call it the “Yin and Yang” of the community. The problem comes when the Public Sector wants to achieve something and the Private Sector is looking for the financial benefit. Those of us that work in the Private Sector will insist on seeing a robust business case to get on and do something … doesn’t sound great but it really makes sure that we don’t waste cash.

I think the key in all of these things is to recognise the drivers on each side of the fence. A supplier is not going to do something for nothing and I have seen favours being asked for time and time again until major suppliers just refuse to do business. This is bad for the whole business – there needs to be some priority attached to the activities and an alignment with the Business Imperatives and Principles. That’s what Enterprise Architecture is all about – how do we ensure that what we are doing is driving us to a better place rather than a “nice” place.

Hmmm … I quite like being in the middle of what is happening in one of the largest government departments in the UK. I also like being outside of it – at the moment.

Wrestle back control from the Spreadsheet Monkeys

I’m not in the least bit happy that much of today’s business is run by the Finance people within an organisation with focus on bringing costs down at the expense of customer service. Since when has customer service meant being dealt with by any form of automated system? I was fascinated to listen to a BBC report that the London Underground is piloting an idea to give tube drivers a book of quotations such that when a delay occurs they can not only give you details of the delay but then they can add a pithy saying from the Dalai Lama or somesuch. The report concluded, after interviewing Joe & Josephine Public, that people liked the sense of being dealt with by a real person rather than an automated message. COME-ON! Who got paid lots of money to work that one out?

We all prefer that personal touch but the Spreadsheet Monkeys have stripped cost out of just about every part of business so that we all get to deal with “intelligent” machines and systems. Around the corner from where I live there is an old fashioned Do-it-yourself (DIY) shop where you go in and you can only buy goods from a salesperson behind the counter. A question such as “I’m trying to do xyz, have you got something I can use?” is usually met with “Of course, you need an abc”. You can’t get that from the national and international chain stores. No-one knows nowadays how to do it.

Anyway … why do we give these Spreadsheet Monkeys so much power. Look at the current economic crisis! Tell me, who engineered that? I bet it was someone trying to save a penny or two on some spreadsheet.

OK … I’m done. Had to get that out of my system.

A Budget GPS solution

I have a friend who I worked with in the Ford Motor Company who was renowned for his ability to get a bargain on just about anything. So much so, that he became known as “Every Expense Spared” and I think he ultimately set up a website under the same name. In a hobby where cost is always high I was refreshingly pleased when I found that I had managed to put together a budget GPS solution for my flying.

I had been looking at a device that would cost almost £650 and I was prepared to spend that sort of money, but when I submitted the order to several vendors I discovered that the device could not be sold because of legal reasons that I am not going to go into here. However, the solution was based on the HP iPAQ 314 SatNav device which I discovered I could get for £130 from Amazon in the UK. As I already had £30 of vouchers on my account I was able to buy the device for just under £100 and with a 4″ touch sensitive screen it was a great purchase even as a SatNav which my partner particularly finds useful.

Then I went on the hunt for some software. I now have two alternatives. I purchased the electronic version of the CAA maps for Northern England (1:500000) and that software has the capability to be installed on a SatNav device.

My investigations led me to Pocket FMS Foundation. These people sell an annual subscription to their software including monthly upgrades for €150. The software installs on your home computer and hooks up to internet to download all the maps and weather data you couls possibly imagine. I had to reduce the amount of data that it loaded because it covered significantly more than I really needed for the flying I do.

Setting up the SatNav was a breeze. From the menu system I configured an SD Memory card with the software. I say I “configured” it, by that I mean that I selected the menu option and then did as I was told from there on out. The final step was to insert the memory card into the SatNav and press the reset button. Pocket FMS then started up all by itself and the rest was handled by large buttons on the touch sensitive screen. I can plan my flight on the computer and then everything gets transferred to the memory card – weather information, maps, my specific aircraft etc.

One of the other really great things is that it creates a log of where you have been by creating a “Breadcrumb” file. This file is really just a log of all the position fixes, but someone on the PocketFMS website has provided a neat utility that enables the conversion of the file to a Google Earth KML file. That means I can load the flight into Google Earth and see a plot of where I flew including the height I flew at. It also has a neat feature of logging your take-off and landing times based on a reaching or dropping below a preset speed respectively.

The other thing that I find helpful is that as the mapping software is designed in layers, you can choose which layers to see on the map at any one time. You have two maps to choose from whilst in flight and you can set the layers up differently for each map. When you are flying south, guess what, the names are all still right way up as well!! How awesome is that! So many systems I’ve seen are just map images and therefore go upside down when you are flying south. I can even tell the system to exclude information such as airspaces that are x-feet above or below me which removes some of the irrelevant clutter while I am flying.

So … for £225 (approx) I got myself a really awesome GPS system for in the air. You might be able to access this Google Earth KML file and see what the outcome is.

Have fun Flying.

Make it Extreme!

Over the last decade or so there has been an emergence of techniques and skills that are generally referred to as “Extreme”. We use the term in everyday life to refer to activities that push us to the limits of our abilities and test our mettle. In the IT industry we have been using the term to cover a gammut of concepts such as Agile, Flexible and Dynamic.

At the same time, and possibly driving this trend, is a counter balance that is attempting to ensure that what gets delivered to the end user is exactly what they asked for and so the methodologies have become increasingly more complex and lengthy. This has led to project timescales lengthening and the consequent knock-on effect of a mismatch between what is delivered and what was requested. Service providers in every walk of life are seen as being slow and pedantic because they are measured by the final outcome and its fitness for purpose. Users, on the other hand, are used to the current trend in web-based technologies to be able to create web pages, customise their portal interfaces and order goods online in seconds. The contrasts are marked, obvious and confusing.

Architecture – Enterprise Architecture as well – is suffering the same dilemma. On the one hand, we, as IT architects, need to be able to stand in between the business and the delivery arm of a project and assure everyone that the results of the activity will be fit for purpose and meet the needs of the supplier and the end user. On the other, providing that level of assurance doesn’t happen overnight and I am sure that we are all aware of the problems that have been created in the past by missing some vital piece of information.

The challenge is to build an assurance model that is both thorough and agile. My gut feeling on this is that this can be achieved with a high degree of success and a certain amount of discipline. It comes down to a couple of key, simple to implement ideas;

1. The need for Patterns and old fashioned building blocks and
2. The need for checklists and record keeping.

Once we have an Enterprise Architecture Framework in place (aka Reference Architecture) and then build on top of that a culture that assures each project based on a checklist of criteria, then we are getting to the point of implementing something that can be “light touch”, “Agile” but thorough. The Checklists will ensure that we quickly zero in on where the real issues are within a solution design. If that is divided up into Business, Information, Application and Infrastructure Layers then various reviews can look at each section and key Architects can be involved in discussing and reviewing the solution based on the exceptions.

The Checklist approach is part of the Extreme Architecture Assurance model and is designed so that the review can “learn” from previous mistakes and also can track each project and provide relevant metrics. It “learns” because when a mistake is made, the checklist can be updated to ensure that the problem doesn’t happen again. The checklist is also made up of simple answers which means that they can be logged on a database to report on how compliant each solution is.

Clearly this is a simplified view but is based on the 80:20 rule. 80% of the architectural issues in projects can be surfaced by a methodology that takes up 20% of the current architectural effort. We all know that it is that last 20% of effort “where there be dragons”!

Agony Aunt (or Uncle)

The Innovation space is generally considered to be the sort of place where the “boffins” (I suppose I should call them “Geeks” nowadays) sit with their technical toys and dream up ways of using their new toy to inflict pain on the masses. My team are trying to capture and process new ideas as part of their role in driving Innovation but it struck me that part of the difficulty is that some people don’t have any “solutions”. Most of us can see the problem but we can’t necessarily see the solution.

Many of the tools that assist teams like mine to capture ideas are designed to do precisely that – capture an idea. The concept of an idea carries with it that sense that someone has managed to come up with a potential solution to a problem. For some people that is where they have an issue. I’ve heard people say that there are things wrong with the way we do “this” or can’t we do “that” better, but if you asked them how something could be improved then they would probably struggle to come up with an answer.

In my world the problem is the key thing. Give me a problem and I can get a team of boffins (Okay, Geeks) to work on a solution and design something that fixes the problem. Think about it … It’s a bit like a doctors surgery or an agony column in a newspaper or magazine. You don’t go to the doctor, generally, because you know what the solution is. You go because there is a problem and you want a solution. Our Innovation programmes need to focus on capturing problems and then assembling the right teams to generate a solution or an idea. Then, and only then, does the idea get tracked through an Innovation programme.

What we really need is a “Dear Madge” column <grin>

We’re Jammin’

Innovation is only as good as the ideas that are generated and shared with other parts of the organism to which they refer. I think of innovation as something that is incredibly organic in nature – a bit like a conversation or those whacky discussions where an out of kilter concept is expanded upon and becomes more and more ridiculous as time goes by.

I’m thinking of the usual theatrical concept of a farce. Take a situation that starts out relatively simply and then gradually develops into the most complicated set of circumstances that you can imagine. Innovation should be seen in the same light. Take the germ of an idea and then through playing verbally with that idea with other people it begins to evolve and gain a life of its own. As it grows and develops it becomes something far more useful and refined.

It is rather like the musical concept of “Jamming”. Start out with a standard three chord riff and then give each member of the group the opportunity to do a solo. Get each member of the team to expand upon the initial “theme” (rather like Elgar’s Enigma Variations) and develop the musical idea. Eventually the theme will grow to maturity and there may even be material there that could form a coherent piece of music.

Jamming for Innovation is the same concept – take a group of people either in a room or with a collaboration site and allow them to play with the ideas that they have and expand upon each idea. Allow the wild and whacky – encourage it even – as it generates the offshoot ideas that may also develop into something worthwhile. It is fun to do and can develop into a culture for an organisation.

First Northwest Navigation

This last weekend I was planning to do my first navigation exercise in G-OWST a Cessna 172S with fuel injected engine. This machine can really climb and is different in that it has a fuel pump and no carburettor heat control like a typical Cessna. Another “anomaly” with the aircraft is that it has 5 underwing fuel drains (on each wing) and 3 under engine fuel drains. Unlike your regular Cessna that has 1 on each wing and 1 under the engine. I had to ask the question, evben though I knew the response; “Should I check all the fuel drains?” – guess what, Yes I should – Unless of course I am prepared to take the risk!

The plan was to fly from Blackpool, start track over Inskip and then head off to Clitheroe. From Clitheroe, turning to Lonf Preston and then to Kendal, returning to the VSP (Visual Reporting Point) overhead Fleetwood and back again.

The following map shows my planned and actual route!

 View Map

The flight was hampered by the fact that I needed to achieve a certain height (around 3000′) to enable me to be legally clear of objects on the ground and the terrain generally. As the cloud base was coming in lower than I had anticipated, I decided that it wasn’t a good idea to reduce my height even though it looked as though I could make it with height to spare. “Plan the flight and fly the plan!”.

Having identified the M6 as I flew over it, I decided that I could still work my way up to Kendal and a quick check on the map showed that I had sufficient height to be clear of any nearby objects. The trip to Kendal was a little turbulent but allowed me to get there safely and in good time. I then tried to follow the track that I would have been on had I flown the original plan, turned towards Kendal and decided that I would try and follow the plan agian back to Blackpool.

Turning at Kendal, the next challenge was the late afternoon sun that was really low in the sky. As I started to cross Morecambe Bay I became concerned that the cloud base was closing in on me again and that I had to maintain greater than 2000′ altitiude to avoid the restricted area over and around Heysham Power Station. At this point I decided that another diversion would be wise and headed back inland where I could see gaps in the cloud cover allowing me to maintain height and avoid the power station.

Once on a westward track towards Fleetwood, Blackpool Radar asked me to divert north to maintain separation with a 737 that was leaving Blackpool Airport. I was asked to Squawk 0425  and then some minutes later given the clearance to return to my original track.

I started heading south and reported “west abeam VRP Fleetwood for rejoin” and was handed back to Blackpool ATC (aka Blackpool Tower) where I was asked to squawk 7000 again.

With the BUMFICHH checks out of the way, I set the aircraft up in landing configuration (once I had reported being “west abeam the big tower” aka Blackpool Tower (not ATC)) and then turned in on finals.

This was the first time I had flown this particular aircraft “solo” and I was quite surprised at how difficult it was to get it to descend. Once I had the right indicated airspeed it still seemed to be floating quite happily at the set height, so I reduced the engine power further than I would normally have done.

The landing was nice and smooth and I left Runway 10 at Taxiway Delta, crossed Runway 25 and then using Taxiway Charlie, headed back to the flying club.

A very pleasant flight – but must try my little navigation exercise again!

Practical Innovation – The Key to Growth

On BBC’s Today programme this morning I heard a discussion that re-enforces the view that the most successful companies rank Innovation as one of their top 3 priorities. If organisations are going to remain competitive they need to excel at Innovation.

Innovation is about being creative but to make the difference it also needs that element of realism that ensures that a new idea can be put to work for the customer. For an innovation to be truly “innovative” there must be follow through. Once a good idea can be changed into something that delivers true business benefit and is aligned to the business itself , then it becomes “Practical Innovation”. So businesses need to harness their imagination to respond to the question, “what will our customers really need in the future?” and apply “practical innovation” to improve their current offerings and build new ones.

Businesses have some challenging issues ahead; our answer to that challenge is to provide Practical Innovation.

The problem with Virtualisation

Working with leading Systems Integrators has led me to an interesting conundrum around the whole area of virtualisationl. I was reminded of the problem by listening to another “Virtualisation Panacea” the other day. In my time with my previous company we did a study – Gartner have done the same – to determine whether a virtualised and thin client estate is more cost effective than a well managed thick client and discrete estate. The resounding answer was Yes BUT … marginally!

The problem centres around the fact that the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) takes into account the effort involved in managing the desktop or virtual server estate and that cost is often rooted heavily in manual effort. We all know that labour intensive operations are expensive, hence the desire to automate desktop builds, desktop updates and patches and fixes.

Theoretically the whole Virtual Server concept is a great idea – harvest the unused CPU cycles in machines that are only 20% utilised. The software (such as VMWare) and the Hardware (such a BladeFrame) solutions provide a convincing argument to go down this route and run more than one virtual server on a single physical server. Clearly this should be a benefit, however, problems begin to surface when you start looking at the costs of patching all these virtual servers.

In other words, the problem is deeply rooted in the Operating System vendor space. If all operating systems required no patches, no updates and no security fixes, then virtualisation would be a much more enticing option. I dare say that the choice of operating system will make a difference even in the current environment especially if the choice is based on the amount of patches and updates that must be applied on a regular basis.

Critically, automated software update techniques require the servers involved to be up and running at the time that they poll to find which servers need updating. Since there will be “live” servers that are “dormant” at the time of polling then they will get missed in that patching process.

Another issue is that since the operating system clearly needs the most manual intervention and attention, then software vendors should be looking at ways of de-coupling their applications from the underlying operating system as much as possible. We all know that most pieces of software that run on Windows make use of DLLs that are resident in the System and System32 directories which means that they are tightly coupled to the OS. There was a time when an application would load its own DLLs into its own directory but that caused conflicts and doesn’t really look like an elegant “re-use” type of environment.

Damm Small Linux (DSL) has come close to creating this type of de-coupled environment, but then most of the current business applications don’t run on Linux! With DSL you can configure applications to run on the desktop from special image files that could be held on a USB key. That means that the desktop can be standardised and then each user would have a USB key with their own applications loaded onto it. The Desktop OS build is now de-coupled from the applications and all of a sudden a level of automation can be built into the OS patching etc.

So virtualisation is not the panacea that we all expected it to be although some brave souls have been out and started down the track claiming some success. I think the Gartner assessment was correct that a thin client estate was almost as cost effective as a well managed thick client estate. The key is that those organisations that have claimed success in the desktop space have potentially had a less than well managed estate.

Where do we go from here … I think de-coupling is going to be key to this, except that OS vendors need to make this happen in the way that it used to happen in the mainframe world. Call me a dinosaur, but why is that world still considered to be resilient, robust and reliable?