Showing posts with label consumerisation of IT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumerisation of IT. Show all posts

Tuesday, 20 April 2010

IT and the Urban Planner - learning from the planning blitz

lewins mead, bristolPhoto of Lewins Mead by Synwell via Flickr

I love living in Bristol. It's a friendly city with so much life and culture. But Bristol is a vibrant city because of its people, not its infrastructure. It has beautiful architecture alongside monstrously ugly buildings. The city centre is choked by Byzantine one-way systems and gyratories. It has some of the worst traffic congestion and poorest public transport options in the UK. Why?
 A mate of mine is an urban planner, so he has the misfortune of listening to me winge about this. After the terrible devastion of World War Two there was a rare opportunity to rebuild our cities. Why, I asked him, did the planners get it so badly wrong?
His answer was to remind me of the context at the time. Think about Britain in the 1950s:
  1. Cities were still in a state of devastion after the war, and in urgent need of regeneration. There was a tendency to want change, and dismiss the immediate past. Bombed out buildings held too many painful reminders. Large grants from central government were available, but only if the money was spent quickly.
  2. There was excitement about new technologies. Concrete made it possible to build tall in a way and at a price which could never have been done before. The motor car was the future, and cities were planned around it. Everyone was captured by this vision. Pedestrians were removed from the ground, exciled to subways or aerial walkways where they would not impede the traffic flow.
  3. Above all, planning was a new profession. In the UK planning as a profession dates back to The Town & Country Planning Act of 1947. Planners were making it up as they went along. They had theories such as Modernism, and influential prophets such as Le Corbusier, but no benefit of experience.
Over time planners came to realise that many of their ideas didn't work out in practice. Concrete looked grey and grim in the British climate. Huge tower blocks were squalid and dehumanising for their residents. Pedestrians prefered to take their chances crossing the road rather than risk muggers lurking in dark subways.
Town planning today is rather different. Planners are not perfect, but they do now consider the human factors. They involve local people in their decisions at an early stage, paying more than just lip service to their views. Cars are no longer prioritised above pedestrians and cyclists. Zoning is out and mixed use is in. The streets come alive with pavement cafes. Sociologists work in planning departments alongside the geographers and engineers.
We are emerging from the global financial crisis but expect swinging cuts to HE and the rest of the public sector. A few relish this, from the viewpoint that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. They might be tempted to sweep everything aside and start afresh. This is what the post-Blitz planners wanted, and arguably they did more long term damage than the Luftwaffe.
How does this relate to IT? Look back again. Lets date the IT profession in the UK to 1957, the year in which the British Computer Society was founded. IT is also a young profession. Like planners, we have had no hindsight, and we made mistakes. We built inhuman systems, where the technology mattered more than the people who had to use it.
The mistakes of planners towered over us all for fity years. Each concrete block is a monument to failed ideas. They act as a constant reminder that we don't we know it all. Planners were forced to learn. In IT our mistakes are easily swept under the carpet, so we repeat them, time and time again. We haven't learnt. Don't like Pine email? Here, have Simeon. No, now we use Execmail. Here's Mulberry. Nothing really changes! We are still rolling out inhuman systems.
Things are getting better in some quarters. Consumerisation is the megatrend sweeping the IT industry, and this has introduced competitive pressures. The best private-sector firms have fast-loading easy to navigate websites. They employ User Centred Design principles to make their services easy to use. They have to. On the web your competitor is just a click away. The firms which don't make things easy don't survive.
In the public sector we have been shielded from this and haven't learnt. We are still building systems that make you tear your hair out, are full of impenetrable jargon, and require a training course before you can use them. We are getting a little better at the externally facing stuff. Our internal systems remain execrable. Do we hold our own students and staff in particular contempt?
How do we avoid this? Learn from experience. Be aware of the heffalump traps and we might not fall into them. Think about some of the mistakes early urban planners made:
Something is better than nothing. Must fill that bomb crater, doesn't matter what with. Got to spend the budget, or it will vanish at year end. This will be familar to anyone in the public sector. 
Dismissing the immediate past. Whether it is flock wallpaper or timesharing/thin clients, most generations dismiss their parents solutions but rediscover their grandparents. I'm guilty of this one. I am of the generation that has an instinctive dislike of Microsoft and am inclined to like Google. That is a form of prejudice that can blind me if not aware of it 
Overexcitement about new technologies. We are always excited about the technology at the top of the hype cycle. Is Cloud Computing our concrete? Just because we can adopt a technology doesn't mean we should. Consider when it is appropriate, and when it is not. Don't start off by thinking about the technology, think about what people actually need. 
Undue reverance for prophets. Perhaps Steve Jobs is our Le Corbusier? Question the established dogma of the future. What does "everyone know", which actually nobody knows? 
Paternalistic thinking. Involve those who will live with the systems at any early stage in your planning. Don't think you always know best, be prepared to change your plans in response to feedback. Design on a human scale. Do you even know what the user requirements are? Perhaps you are designing an email system when people really want a to-do list. 
Concentrating on grand visions. The theory may be good, but something always happens to stop us getting there. Small incremental improvements actually deliver, the future never arrives. Don't stick to an outdated plan, be flexible. As John Maynard Keynes said "when the facts change, I change my mind".
The IT profession is ten years younger than the urban planning profession. The planners were busy in the run up to the year 2000. Some millennium projects were a success, others were white elephants. That's the stage IT is at right now. Let's improve it over the next ten years.

Monday, 7 July 2008

CIOs Present & Future: Google event at the Science Museum

Last Wednesday I attended this Google event. It was an interesting format - attending were a mixed group of university students, and people working in IT. The event was rather grandly titled 'CIOs Present & Future'. I wasn't either, and was unsure whether to be more flattered if mistaked for a student or a CIO...

It wasn't all sales, but the main thrust was to explain the concept of Cloud Computing and Google to pitch their Enterprise services, especially their email, calendar & collaboration offering Google Apps (free of charge for education customers). I have been quite cautious about Cloud Computing. I am though a firm believer in the consumerisation of IT, and designing IT systems with an understanding of how people behave. These were two themes that came up throughout the event. I had several 'Yes!' moments - nodding enthusiastically to what the speakers were saying.

We started with Robert Whiteside (Head of Google Enterprise UK & Ireland) & Dave Armstrong (head of Marketing Google EMEA). Dave talked about consumerisation. Consumer technology innovates faster than enterprise technology (the iPhone was quoted as the classic example).
In the enterprise market, tools and user interfaces for traditional enterprise apps have often been constructed based on business processes (as they should be) but with no consideration of the 'human factor' - how people actually behave. Ease of use of user interfaces is a good example, but it's more than that. For example, people don't like to laboriously assign lots of metadata when creating a document.

User satisfaction for consumer technology has overtaken user satisfaction for business technology. What are your users saying?: "why can't I do this as easily at work as I can at home?". Can we benefit from this?

People are the same person at home and at work.

On the Internet, products win based on the number of mouse clicks - the 'democracy of the mouse clicks'. Those that don't get the human factor right don't survive, as people move elsewhere. Google study features in public beta, looking at logs of how people use them, and refine, enhance or scrap them accordingly.

The Big Switch by Nick Carr was mentioned several times as the tome to read on Cloud Computing. I've bought a copy, half way through so far.

We then had several of Google's customers speak. Rob Ramsey of Taylor Woodrow came first. Taylor Woodrow have bought into Google Apps in a large way. He says it made sense for them as they have a very mobile workforce. The key to successfully deploying it was to find the real wins for people. A big one was the ability for people to have separate personal and work calendars, but view them joined together in the same environment.

Barbara Colledge, Dean of Partnerships for Students of Leeds Metropolitan University was next. Leeds Met have deployed Google Apps for all their students (but not for staff). They were the first UK university to deploy Google Apps (SOAS have since done so as well, and others such as UWE have deployed Microsoft Live).

Previously at Leeds Met student mail was little used, as the quota was small and it didn't meet student requirements. The benefits in going with Google are
  • enhanced service,
  • brand association,
  • environmentally sustainable,
  • constant innovation (frequent new features),
  • additional tools
They went live with a trial of 3000 students in January and then extended it to all 30,000 students in September. Leeds Met have a history and culture of partnerships, and don't mind the risk of not doing everything in house. They did have concerns about privacy and data security. These came from staff - the Students Union were completely behind the plan. They resolved those concerns by getting the lawyers to consider it carefully.
Leeds Met now have a limited pilot for staff, but are unsure about whether to deploy for all. They are also planning to introduce email for life for alumni - this is a big attraction.

Paul Cheesborough, Telegraph Media Group finished this section. They surved their staff and found that 9/10 believed they would be more productive if allowed to bring their own home computer into work. They are now piloting a new approach with Google Apps.
Don't underestimate the frustrations of a limited email quota - this is a huge problem for people! Email is a touchstone issue which affects everyone (like car parking)
Google Sites collaboration features are another big win
Major attractions for the business are
  • lower costs,
  • more innovation (features)
  • Open APIs to customise for the business
The Telegraph haven't adopted Google Apps wholesale yet, but are at the point of making the decision.

Summary of my personal thoughts on Google Apps? More impressive that I had expected. Worth exploring further. A better fit for student use than for staff use. There are huge concerns around data protection - look at it in conjunction with Guidelines for Using External Web Services from University of Edinburgh.

We finished the first session with Dave Cliff (from the Computer Science department at Bristol!). He is trying to improve UK CS courses to produce graduates who have the skills to manage the increasingly complex 'systems of systems' which IT produces. This was interesting stuff, but not so relevant to the rest of the event. Along with The Big Switch, he also recommended Technological Revolutions & Financial Capital by Carlota Perez for a historical view of how technology develops.

After the break we had workshop sessions with a mix of the student and industry participants. The topic was 'what are the top 5 challenges facing the CIO of the future?' Our group (after interesting debate from different viewpoints) came up with:
  1. The transition from CTO to CIO. It is less about managing infrastructure than about managing information - making it both secure & available.
  2. Focus on people, look at how they work and provide technological solutions to enable them to work more effectively
  3. The ability to change
  4. Become more involved in the actual business decisions, not just IT
  5. Navigate increasingly complex compliance issues (eg data protection)
Update 14th July: A quick note in response to some comments off-blog.
I am enthusiastic about the consumerisation of IT and user-centred design/experience design. I am not enthusiastic about cloud computing (getting a third-party, eg Google, Microsoft or whoever to host services for you in their data centres). 'Cautiously interested' would be a better description.

After reporting an event with case studies from happy Google customers, to redress the balance somewhat it's worth looking at those universities who have evaluated cloud computing and decided against it.

One view from Oxford University Computing Service:

"I think outsourcing of an institution’s e-mail to a third party is fraught with problems. Probably the same could be said about documents. Maybe one role for Google Apps is to use it in addition to what you currently provide, perhaps for use on specific projects."
[I think OUCS originally looked at Google Apps for calendaring]

UC Berkley established a committee which produced a report UC Berkeley:
Exploration Of Partnership Opportunities For Campus Collaborative Tools

"the general consensus of the committee is that the campus should not contract with either vendor [Microsoft & Google] for the provision of email, calendaring and/or web storage services at this time. Serious concerns stand in the way of the campus adopting such an approach. On balance, the potential for realizing cost savings and increased functionality from outsourcing these campus services to Google Apps for Education or Microsoft Live@EDU are not sufficiently compelling to overcome those concerns." [the major concerns were around privacy & accessibility, these were described as showstoppers by some people]

"In the near to medium term (12-18 months), the result of the committees findings is that the
campus should continue to improve existing messaging services..."

"In the longer term, the committee feels that it is important to continue to track the developments in this field... As with any service offered by the campus, we need to continually evaluate if the services we offer are provided in the most cost-effective way and continue to meet the evolving needs of the campus community. Additionally, the capabilities envisioned for the collaborative tools Microsoft and Google (and others) are developing beyond the email, calendar, and file sharing space are potentially quite compelling, and may offer considerable value to the campus community."

Finally some news stories from just the last month:

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/08/docs_and_spreadsheets_goes_down/>
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-expose-viewing-habits-youtube-us>
<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/google-tests-using-your-search-data-to-tailor-ads-to-you/?ref=business>