Blog@Case Topics: failures of technologyhttp://blog.case.edu/topics/failures%20of%20technologyGregory Szorcgregory.szorc@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/gps10Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith2008-01-27T22:28:36ZIE 8 Something; Web Indigestion Ensuedhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2008/01/27/ie_8_something_web_indigestion_ensued2008-01-27T22:29:13Z2008-01-27T22:28:36Z

C'mon, I can't believe I am the first person to go with the "8"→"Ate" pun.

It seems IE8 will use an opt-in <meta …> tag to turn on standards mode. Crappy idea? Most certainly. Relevant? Turns out, not so much as you can continue to use doctype switching.

At least, as far as I can tell, that pretty much sums it up.

All of this does remind me of a quote:

There are three levels to creating software: computer science, software engineering, and this thing that people do with Java inside enterprises.

I think that that law can be generalized a little more:

… and this thing that people do within their intranets.

What follows is a fairly exhaustive list of links that you can read if you want all of the details. Admittedly, I am still working my way through this list. Hat tip to Mark Pilgrim's "pleasesirmayihaveanother" del.icio.us tag. Many of these links are pulled from there.

Starter reading:

And all the meaty commentary:

And, oh yeah, HTML5 was published as a W3C Working Draft. Seems somehow fitting to link to that here at the end.

Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithUse of EmployeeID/StudentID Considered Harmfulhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2008/01/23/use_of_employeeidstudentid_considered_harmful2008-01-24T04:53:09Z2008-01-24T06:53:02Z
(With apologies to Eric Meyer.) At Case (as with most Universities), many of our information systems are migrating away from using SSNs (internally or otherwise) to uniquely identify individuals. This is a good thing, most certainly. On the ITS page located at http://securityaware.case.edu, it recommends (down in the "5 Key Steps" area as step #5):
Plan for transitioning to using the EmployeeID/StudentID (emplid) as the primary identifier.
I would actually recommend against that. Not everyone associated with the University has an EmployeeID/StudentID (only employees – i.e. faculty and staff – and students have them). That doesn't include:
  • Adjunct Faculty
  • Emeriti
  • Alumni
  • Contractors, consultants, some temporary workers
  • UHHS individuals
  • CIA faculty, staff, and students
  • CIM faculty, staff, and students
  • Possibly some other groups I am forgetting
Instead of using the EmployeeID/StudentID as the unique permanent identifier, I would recommend using email addresses i.e. jms18@case.edu. Everyone associated with the University has an email address that can be used to uniquely and permanently identify them. (I would not recommend using the first.last@case.edu format as the unique identifier because when name changes occur (marriage, maybe other reasons, too), those email addresses do change while the userid@case.edu format does not.) Email addresses (a.k.a. usernames) are much better for uniquely and permanently identifying individuals than EmployeeID/StudentID. In addition, using email addresses gives another benefit. If you need to key some information on me, for example, and you ask me what my EmployeeID is… well… I have no idea what it is. It's just another number that I guess I was supposed to memorize, but I have enough numbers (Bank PINs, SSN, Account #'s, phone numbers, etc.) to memorize. Ask me for my email address, yea, I can tell you that. So, in addition to being unique and permanent and universal (which EmployeeID/StudentID is not), it's easier for people to communicate and remember. A couple of people I've told this to have retorted that email addresses were not appropriate because they are publicly known. That is, they were wanting to use EmployeeID/StudentID in a "shared secret" or secure fashion. That's not appropriate as the EmployeeID/StudentID is not a random number (it's an auto-increment deal in a database table). As such, it is guessable. In situations where you need to securely identify a person, I would recommend using the tried-and-true method of having them enter their credentials. If it's a face-to-face meeting, use the Case Card. If it is an over-the-phone, IM, or email centered process, I would recommend changing the process to a web-based one where persons' credentials can be used.
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithRequiring Internet Explorer Should be Punishablehttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2007/11/14/requiring_internet_explorer_should_be_punishable2007-11-14T19:53:11Z2008-01-23T23:58:42Z
From yesterday's Case Daily
For best results, employees should use Internet Explorer as the Web browser when enrolling in benefits.
Sigh... What year is it again?
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithEnterprise Softwarehttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2007/10/24/enterprise_software2007-10-24T19:01:19Z2007-10-25T18:38:33Z
I'm always up for a pile-on "Enterprise Software." Khoi Vinh kicks it off with If It Looks Like a Cow, Swims Like a Dolphin and Quacks Like a Duck, It Must Be Enterprise Software:
Shielded away from the bright scrutiny of the consumer marketplace and beholden only to a relatively small coterie of information technology managers who are concerned primarily with… the continual justification of their jobs and staffs, enterprise software answers to few actual users. Given that hothouse environment, it's only natural that the result is often very strange.
I'm in fairly firm agreement with Jason Fried's posting at 37signals — "Enterprise Software" is built to be sold not used. Its design is centered around fulfilling vague checklists that IT management brings in front of salespersons that wield glitzy Powerpoint presentations full of pie charts and impressive sounding buzzwords. This marketplace seems fairly flawed to me, but methods to change or improve the dynamics aren't clear. And, yes, I have some vitriol built up with my first hand experiences ( 1, 2, 3).
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithNew Toyshttp://blog.case.edu/gps10/2007/08/20/new_toys2007-08-20T06:03:09Z2007-08-20T06:57:55Z
I have purchased two new toys to keep me entertained for the moment. The first, a Garmin Edge 305 GPS-enabled bicycle computer. Yes, you read that right: they make bicycle computers with GPS on them. Being one who loves data, I opted for the model with both the cadence and heart rate monitor. During normal use, the unit records information every second and after the ride, you hook it up to your computer and look at cool charts of all the data. You can also upload the information to MotionedBased for more graphs and to share with your friends. You can check out my first three rides: initial ride -- easy, second ride -- short with big climb, and today's ride-- a medium length 55 mile loop (since when did I start referring to 55 miles as "medium?"). Currently, I'm "educating" the unit by riding all my usual routes. Once you have created a course, you can load it up and ride it later. You can program points on the map for alerts (sprints, summits, etc). But, best of all, you can compete against the virtual you for continual refinement. Although I've only spent about three rides and one-hundred miles with the unit, I am already very impressed. Before, my computer lacked elevation and cadence and my heart-rate monitor required me to look at a watch (I was never a fan of strapping those things on the handlebars). With the Edge 305's huge screen, I can see all of this information at once. You have two main "data" screens to display raw data. For each screen, you select the number of elements to display and can select which data points are displayed and where. I'm still trying to figure out the combination of data elements for each screen, but with about forty different fields available to display, I'm sure I'll eventually find the combinations I want. So far, I've found having the heart rate, cadence, and grade data points invaluable. When climbing, I know when to pull back (heart rate), why I'm working too hard (grade & cadence). I look forward to thousands more miles with the Edge 305! My other new toy is a desktop. After alluding to replacing my five year old desktop, my plans were hastically put into action when the always reliable desktop starting having issues POST'ing. Even if it could post, running either Linux or Windows was unreliable. Obviously, there is a hardware issue somewhere. I'm guessing it is the motherboard (memory would be my second guess), but I didn't even bother investigating since I wanted to buy a new desktop. So, I put in the orders to Newegg and friends and put together the following:
  • Antec Solo case w/ Antec Smartpower 430W PSU
  • Gigabyte P35-DS3R motherboard
  • Antec Q6600 G0 stepping quad core CPU
  • Asus DRW-1814BLT DVD Burner
  • 2x1GB Patriot DDR2 PC6400 RAM< (4-4-4-12 timings)
  • 500 GB Western Digital SE16 WD5000AAKS
  • EVGA e-GeForce 7900GS KO
I haden't built a computer for anybody in the last five years, so I had to relearn the trade a bit. The first step, as always, is learning how to sort through all the junk that is out there. If you don't overclock, (I don't, usually), you can probably ignore a good chunk of the online commentary for a given product, especially cases. So many people knock cases for not having enough ventilation. But, if you aren't running the highest-end video card and overclocking your CPU, you won't notice. Likewise, unless your case is packed, you don't need a 500W power supply. My old computer had a 400W power supply, and I crammed in 5 hard drives, two optical drives, five case fans, etc. Granted, I don't think my Gefore 4 consumed as much power as today's video cards, but still... Anyway, the primary goal for this machine was limiting the noise. Hence, the Antec Solo case, efficient power supply (I generally try to buy efficient electronics anyway), and careful selection of the optical and disk drives. When I powered on the machine for the first time, I was rewarded for my research to the sound of... nothing. This sucker is quiet. The only thing that breaks the silence is the fan on the video card, which cranks up when doing anything 3D (including the desktop on Vista). Luckily, there are some software tools that allow you to create fan profiles. Anyway, this computer is FAST. I can't believe how fast I managed to get Gentoo fully up and running! I swore it compiled all of KDE in under three hours! But, before Gentoo was on the machine, I loaded Vista Ultimate. My final verdict isn't in yet, mainly because some things I love, others I hate. First, it boots much faster than XP. Standby mode and restoration is also pretty responsive (I have it shutdown after no activity for a few minutes). The UI is also a lot more polished. Aspects are very OS X'ish, which is good. Negative points include all of the "are you sure" popups. I understand wanting to prompt the user about certain things, but no user wants to get prompted this much. For example, every time I go to the task manager and click to open the resource manger, I get prompted to continue. I clicked the friggin button myself, I know what I want! I'm sure there is a way to put the OS in "less-paranoid" mode, but I haven't investigated that yet. I'm sure there is a vast wealth of knowledge on this topic out there, I just have to look... I'm still discovering all of the hidden gems in Vista. For example, I just discovered Windows Media Center, which just rocks. All I need is a long enough cable to run to my plasma television, an RF remote, and I'll be in heaven. The feature is so cool, I may even have to invest in a Home Theater PC one of these days. But, before that, I need to build the home theater. My television is already getting lonely without the sound. Unfortunately, I'm quite the audiophile, so finalizing on the audio aspect has been a long, arduous process. Perhaps one of these days I'll finally give in and pull the plug on some of the great deals at Audiogon... Until then, I have my current new toys to keep me company.
Gregory Szorcgregory.szorc@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/gps10CAS Sucks!http://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2007/04/16/cas_sucks2007-04-16T18:11:19Z2007-04-17T03:32:52Z
In my previous entry praising Case.TV, I inadvertently caused a long thread on the demerits of CAS, our Single Sign On System. From the comments, a quote from Sean Maxwell (who was the designer (from the markup perspective not the UI perspective) of the Case.TV web site — the person I was looking for):
I hate CAS. Whatever CAS is doing I can do better and faster. I don't mind integrating with it, but relying on it is a bad idea in my opinion.
That's clear-cut enough. I had actually not heard any push-back regarding CAS before. I didn't know CAS sucked. And I hate stuff that sucks (RE: previous post — I Must Be the Most Demanding User in the World). So I'd like to hear more regarding the demerits, inefficiencies, and general suckiness of CAS from others. Too slow? UI sucks? Confusing redirects? Too much work to interoperate with? Other? As a possible counter-point to this future discussion, I did write-up The Benefits of Single Sign On, which covers "handling expired passwords", "handling disabled accounts", "increased security with two-factor login controls", "interoperability with federated identity for free" (for example, the OpenID server I integrated with CAS), etc. Things I didn't cover in that 2 year old article that are upcoming features to CAS include anti-phishing measures and security monitoring tools to detect compromised accounts. But what I want to focus on is why CAS sucks. I'd prefer it not to suck. So any feedback is appreciated so that I can attempt to make it suck less. Thanks!
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithSOAhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/11/02/soa2006-11-02T07:13:43Z2006-11-02T07:15:05ZJeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithWhat Do Others Think of PeopleSofthttp://blog.case.edu/gps10/2006/10/25/what_do_others_think_of_peoplesoft2006-10-26T03:41:23Z2006-10-26T03:50:36Z
Case is switching to the PeopleSoft Enterprise Campus Solutions to manage student information. I was browsing around Willipedia (Williams College wiki) and found their article on PeopleSoft. Some quotes:
The PeopleSoft system, which students access and operate by their web-browsers, is widely complained about, and many students refer to the system, or the perennial practice of registering for classes through it, as the "PeopleSoft Hell".
Students also complain of the program's speed. Because of the need to click through many menus and buttons to perform even the simplest functions
It is good to see what we have to look forward to. Also, if anybody from Williams is reading, I really like http://wso.williams.edu. Very simple and to the point. I love it. It is so cool that all the social networking services are located under one umbrella.
Gregory Szorcgregory.szorc@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/gps10Ubuntuhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/09/11/ubuntu2006-09-11T22:53:19Z2006-09-11T22:58:20Z
I have no "religious" ties to any piece of software or "software philosophy." Many think of me as an open source zealot, but I'm not. I think of software as nothing but tools, and I don't care how the hammer is made; it just needs to work for me. In a lot of situations, I tend to think of software as cars in that I like to be able to tinker with its innards, but it's not a make-or-break thing for me. Afterall, on my two desktops, I use Windows and OSX (epitomies of closed source systems); and I have impossibly high expectations. And, yes, I have read Mark Pilgrim's Freedom 0 and When the bough breaks; and yes, I agree with everything he says... to a point... I just want stuff that works – and Windows and OSX have always fulfilled that requirement for me and I have never been bitten by the data lockin problems that Mark has experienced (maybe I just don't generate a lot of locally stored data?). So anyways, as I was saying, I use Windows on the desktop located in my office. But what I should be saying is "I used to use Windows on the desktop located in my office." It finally came to the point where I was spending too much time grooming the tool rather than using it to get my stuff done. It was time for it to go, and go it did. I'm typing this post up via Ubuntu. I'm going to follow this post up with some others such as "What Broke the Window's Back," "Why Ubuntu," "First N Things a New Ubuntu User Should Do," etc. If you are already a Ubuntu user and have any tips or tricks to dish out, please do (for example, how to make it not so ugly).
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith"Enterprise 2.0" *Should* be Better Than "Web 2.0"http://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/07/06/enterprise_20_should_be_better_than_web_202006-07-06T19:05:01Z2006-07-06T19:18:16Z
So, I'm back from vacation and have managed to catch up on all of my email. There's been some more interesting discussions happening about bring "Web 2.0" concepts into the " Enterprise" (previously blogged about in my entry Bringing "Web 2.0" Concepts to the "Enterprise"). Andrew McAfee, Associate Professor at the Harvard Business School, has an excellent post Raising the Least Common Denominator:
And one of the main themes of this blog is that this kind of productive collaboration should be easier within Intranets than across the Internet. Enterprise 2.0, in other words, should be at least as powerful as Web 2.0. The informal and formal leaders of a company have an arsenal of tools at their disposal to shape both the processes of collaboration and their outcomes. If the digital collaboration platform turns into a shouting match or a random collection of junk they really have no one to blame but themselves.
If we're indicative of many "Enterprises," the biggest problem is the notion of "collaboration." Most people relate collaboration to email, Word documents, and meetings. So, when thinking of ways to improve "collaboration," the natural thought is to just try and create email++, Word++, and meetings++. This is how you end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on Web 1.0-style, monolithic collaboration "suites" like Oracle Collaboration Suite instead of turning to disruptive technologies that the Internet has already shown scale to the thousands and facilitate collaboration instead of just wrapping things up in complicated workflows and humdrum, clunky interfaces. There's a reason Wikipedia doesn't run on Microsoft Dynamics or Oracle Collaboration Suite. To get Enterprises to move to "Enterprise 2.0" is a huge shift in thinking. It's not email++; it is something entirely different. It's not monolithic software suites that enhance collaboration; rather, it is systems like wiki farms and iTunes that enhance collaboration. Systems that get better and better the more people use them — emergent systems that enable the Read/Write web. JP Rangaswami has a good follow-up post to Andrew McAfee's piece in Does Social Software help Enterprises Dumb Down? where he describes "enterprise immune systems." I just thought the term was great in describing the avoidance of "Web 2.0" style collaboration tools in many enterprises. The battle to bring "Web 2.0" style, emergent Read/Write properties, user-centric tools/systems to the enterprise isn't just evangelizing their properties. What is needed is a cultural shift to stop thinking about collaboration in terms of email++ and meeting++.
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithMore People Talking about Computer Help Documentationhttp://blog.case.edu/gps10/2006/06/13/more_people_talking_about_computer_help_documentation2006-06-13T19:15:37Z2006-06-13T19:33:51Z
I have mentioned computer help documentation in my blog before. With a new help documentation site accessible through the portal looming on the horizon, people are concerned that the solution is not ideal. I have to agree with them. I'm not trying to be a shameless promoter of my product. I'm just trying to raise awareness of what is best for the university. So, read the Case Forum thread, help.case.edu getting replaced and lend your $0.02.
Gregory Szorcgregory.szorc@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/gps10Don't Limit Access of Your IT Information/Servicehttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/06/02/dont_limit_access_of_your_it_informationservice2006-06-02T18:13:13Z2006-06-02T18:12:52Z
Dear Fellow IT Persons on Campus, When you are developing your new service/system/what-have-you, try to refrain from limiting the ways in which users can access the service/system/information/what-have-you. The more open you are with your data ( small pieces, loosely joined), the better. Also, the downtime/lack-of-accessibility of your system won't be affected by the downtime of the system used to access it. Don't get it, yet? If you find yourself writing phrases like "available only through" or "available exclusively through" or "you'll have to use x to access the data," you've tripped up on this concept. Still not relating to what I am suggesting? Go read this thread on the forums – help.case.edu getting replaced?. Read this quote from the Student Accounts Receivable Weblog in their entry Billing Upgrade:
Students will access QuikPAY exclusively through the my.case.edu portal.
It's great that it will be available via the Portal. It's bad that that is the "only" way it will be available. Portals exist to aggregate information and services together. Portals are not for providing exclusivity for services.
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithFor the Recordhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/05/12/i_hate_solaris2006-05-12T07:17:17Z2006-05-12T07:19:26Z
You might have noticed bunches of problems with login.case.edu, its-services.case.edu, phonebook.case.edu, softwarecenter.case.edu, etc. (its-wiki.case.edu, its-bb.case.edu, sprint.case.edu, adelphia.case.edu, blackboard.cwru.edu (redirector), backup.case.edu, backup-test.case.edu, its-stats.case.edu, dellPremiere.case.edu, shibb.case.edu, and phone.case.edu — or anything relying on login.case.edu for authentication). Our big Apache server that runs all those sites resides on the NAS. The NAS got upgraded firmware or something. This made our stuff (including the Directory Servers and, consequently, mail servers) unhappy. It's running now. But how it is running is one of the greatest feats of hackery performed. A thank-you shout-out to Dave Kovacic, Ed Rynes, Sam Harmon, and Jim Nauer for putting in 18 hours of work or so to help me get it back up and running for the time being (and being the ones that invented the ultimate h4X0r solution to band-aid it until a real solution can be formed). And For the Record: I hate Solaris and I hate it's crazy linking problems. (Oh... and if you sent me an email today (or to any of the *-admin emails I patrol), I promise to get back to you sometime tomorrow. Or just email me again.)
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithHiring Consulants to Do Your Project Does Not Remove Your Accountability for Its Failurehttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/05/05/accountability2006-05-05T19:11:23Z2006-05-05T19:13:32Z

How consultants are cashing in on pure incompetence

Oh how I have witnessed this myself.

Pulling a quote from the article:

I'm not saying that all consultants are charlatans. Neither is it unreasonable for businesses to call in experts for projects which require specialist knowledge, such as the installation of a computer system. But when retailers start hiring consultants to do the retailing, you've got to wonder.

In a letter to the US business magazine, Fortune, an American executive, Charles Yarham, explained the remarkable boom in consultancy.

"If you initiate a project on your own and it succeeds, well, that's your job. If the programme fails, it's your neck. However, if you hire a consultant and the project succeeds, it's a feather in your cap. If the project fails, you have a consulting firm to blame. After all, they're the experts."

I think of this as symptomatic of the growing trend to consolidate power, decision-making, and discretionary budget use higher and higher up the chain of command. But what is not flowing along with it is the accountability. Because, as was quoted above, "if you hire a consultant and the project succeeds, it's a feather in your cap... if the project fails, you have a consulting firm to blame."

a) I think this is a terrible trend. b) If we have to go down this dark path, the accountability should flow upwards with everything else. If one hires a consulting firm to do something, and that consulting firm overprices, under-delivers, exceeds the time table, or otherwise fails in any way, the person who hired that consulting firm should be held directly accountable. If a manager is not knowledgeable enough to not be able to see through consultants' and marketers' BS, they shouldn't be working in management. Or if the manager relied on the evaluations of his in-house specialists to evaluate consultants and the in-house staff chose poorly, they should be held accountable, too.

Hiring consultants to do a job should not remove accountability.

The other great quote from the article which is just an application and retread of a Machiavelli quote:

[The executive] having abnegated so much responsibility, how could he possibly be confident that what the consultants were telling him made sense?

Or, as Machiavelli put it: "A prince who is not himself wise cannot be wisely advised… good advice depends on the shrewdness of the prince who seeks it."

Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithI Thought the "Software Stack Wars" Were Overhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/04/19/software_stack_wars2006-04-19T18:37:23Z2006-04-19T18:41:05Z
I thought this was over. I thought the industry had learned its lesson – installing vertically monolithic tiers from a single vendor that uses "standards" as a marketing term and not a core business principle does not a) reduce cost, b) put you in a leveraging position with that vendor, c) improve user experience, or d) reduce complexity. I guess we haven't learned our lesson – Software's "stack wars". Actually, I think this is a fluff piece meant to try and revive the thinking of this architectural style amongst the dinosaurs that still desperately cling to these notions. The first commenter points out the obvious.
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithWhat I Read Over the Weekend: Bringing "Web 2.0" Concepts to the "Enterprise"http://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/04/17/web_20_for_the_enterprise2006-04-17T19:53:23Z2006-04-17T19:59:37Z

Interested in what I read about over this past weekend? No? Well... go ahead and stop reading then. Here's something entirely more entertaining.

Yes? Well, the Internet was a-buzzin' with articles, comments, and opinions on bringing "Web 2.0" concepts "inside the firewall" i.e. using them in the "Enterprise" with emphasis on how it all relates to Knowledge Management Tools/Systems.

A lot of it was in reaction to Associate Professor at Harvard Business School Andrew McAfee's article "Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration", which the author summarized:

There is a new wave of business communication tools including blogs, wikis and group messaging software — ... Enterprise 2.0 — that allow for more spontaneous, knowledge-based collaboration. These new tools... may well supplant other communication and knowledge management systems with their superior ability to capture tacit knowledge, best practices and relevant experiences from throughout [an enterprise] and make them readily available to more users.

Nicholas Carr, former executive editor of the Harvard Business Review and author of Does IT Matter?, comments in Is Web 2.0 enterprise-ready?:

No matter how technologically elegant their design, knowledge management "platforms" and "repositories" tend to quickly collapse under the weight of their own complexity. Using them turns out to be more trouble than it's worth - particularly for those employees who have the most valuable knowledge - and the platforms and repositories fall into disuse and are eventually, and quietly, dismantled. People go back to using efficient, direct conversations - through meetings, or phone calls, or emails, or instant messages - to exchange useful knowledge...

He then explains what makes Web 2.0 technologies different. "The good news," he writes, is that the new technologies "focus not on capturing knowledge itself, but rather on the practices and output of knowledge workers."

Andrew McAfee comments on Nicholas's comments in Does Web 2.0 guarantee Enterprise 2.0?:

If you believe that this migration [of enterprises using so-called "Web 2.0" tools] won’t take place, you believe essentially that companies—interdependent groups of people with a common mission and a profit motive — are less able or less likely to engage in free-form collaboration than the mass of previously indepedent volunteer freelancers that have made Wikipedia, Flickr, MySpace, YouTube,  del.icio.us, Digg, etc. so powerful and successful.

Lots of knowledge workers spend lots of their time on two activities: keeping their colleagues appraised of what they’re doing, what progress has been made, what they’ve learned/concluded, etc. and trying to locate resources within their own organizations... Blogs (like the other Enterprise 2.0 tools) can help with the first of these tasks, and in doing so also help with the second. It’s not too farfetched to envision companies in which people use Enterprise 2.0 tools to report progress, collaborate, and share the outputs of these collaborations.

In another article, Taking Web Services To The Office, Fred Wilson compares how technologies used to emerge for "Enterprises" and consumers with how they emerge now:

Esther Dyson observed in a Release 1.0 issue in 2004 (well before web 2.0 was upon us) that it used to be that technology would start with the goverment (military or space), then move to the enterprise, and end up in the consumer's hands. But, she said, these days technology starts with the consumer and moves up to the enterprise.

Commenting on this thread that is spreading is the article Knowledge Management 2.0 which discusses the growth of current KM tools versus how "KM 2.0" will grow:

Many of the failed knowledge management projects at financial services and professional services firms were top-down initiatives staffed by technology and information professionals. They required complex technology infrastructures and very long implementation timelines. One challenge was getting employees to share information through use of the system; another challenge was proving an acceptable ROI, given a very high level of investment and a difficult to measure return. In many cases no amount of management evangelism could lead employees to share knowledge in a complex and often difficult to use platform.

These "top-down" initiatives usually involve someone (called "a consultant" or a "salesperson") who is master of spin i.e. a person who can BS with the best of them convincing those with decision making power that complex/convulated KM systems will enable their "Enterprise." The easiest way to cut through these persons' BS is to make them step away from the carefully constructed Powerpoint buzzword generating machine and ask them to actually demonstrate how this system they're trying to hock will help Jane in sales find information from Greg in Engineering better than email or a phone call. Make them demonstrate the entire system from creation of "knowledge" all the way to the point where Jane retrieves it. If after the demonstration, it is still incredibly obvious that Jane sending an email to Greg and getting a response back is easier than their "workflow enabled digital repository of knowledge," tell that consultant/salesperson to take their $600,000 contract, 7-9 month timeline, and ROI estimates elsewhere.

The final article I read was a month old one written by Ross Mayfield, CEO of Socialtext, entitled An Adoption Strategy for Social Software in the Enterprise. It's a long article and should be read in its entirety (like all of the other links), but I'll pull some quotes from it.

Experience has shown that simply installing a wiki or blog (referred to collectively as 'social software') and making it available to users is not enough to encourage widespread adoption. Instead, active steps need to be taken to both foster use amongst key members of the community and to provide easily accessible support.

There are two ways to go about encouraging adoption of social software: fostering grassroots behaviours which develop organically from the bottom-up; or via top-down instruction. In general, the former is more desirable, as it will become self-sustaining over time - people become convinced of the tools' usefulness, demonstrate that to colleagues, and help develop usage in an ad hoc, social way in line with their actual needs.

I can personally vouch for that in regards to the Case Blog, Case Wiki, and ITS internal wiki.

... consider how social software fits in to the context of their job, their daily working processes and the wider context of their group's goals.

  • What specific problems does social software solve?
  • What are the benefits for this person?
  • How can the software be simply integrated into their existing working processes?
  • How does social software lower their work load, or the cognitive load associated with doing specific tasks?

That harkens back to the earlier mini-rant I did in this post regarding KM contractors/consultants/salespersons. Make them show you, not in Powerpoint or whitepapers — in an actual demonstration, from beginning to end, from creation to retrieval, how this system will help and enable and empower and empassion the users whose job it will be to use the system. If email or a phone call trumps their system...

Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithIT End User Help Documentationhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/04/08/it_end_user_help_documentation2006-04-08T21:13:37Z2006-04-08T21:15:02Z
Revisiting Computer Help Documentation
RightAnswers Self-Service is over-marketed software... Case is getting the raw end of the deal and I have a responsibility as a caring university member to share that observation.
I've long urged people to put their end user system's documentation on the Wiki, and any chance I get, I urge people to move these "Help Scripts" to the Wiki. But I don't think the issue here is a matter of PerceptIS thinking they would lose money. "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by..."
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithRevisiting Computer Help Documentationhttp://blog.case.edu/gps10/2006/04/08/revisiting_computer_help_documentation2006-04-08T19:44:20Z2006-04-08T20:41:39Z
I just completed a test drive of the new Help Desk knowledge base on campus. It is powered by RightAnswers Self-Service. I saw the product and thought, "Cool, self-service means I can change stuff, like a wiki." I was getting pretty excited. My excitement was raised when I read the following on the product page:
To keep support centers as efficient as possible in the face of mounting challenges, forward-thinking support managers are increasingly turning to self-service applications to reduce support costs while maintaining service quality
Cool, this sounds like a wiki. Let's read more.
Self-Service increases the productivity of end users by empowering them to resolve their own issues. Through Self-Service, users gain access to the information they need, when they need it.
Ahhhh... the power to resolve my own issues. This must mean I can change content if it is wrong. I am really psyched. It sounds like great software! I too can contribute to the knowledge base. Then, the following:
If a solution is not found, there is a smooth handoff from self to assisted service through integration with your existing help desk software.
WTF? If knowledge doesn't exist in the knoweledge base, a product titled "Self-Service" won't let me add it myself! Instead, I need to open a ticket to have it created. WTF?!?! Really, WTF? I don't want to get mad at the Help Desk, but I am left with no choice. Warning: I am going to make some scathing remarks. They are the result of the truth as I know it. If I am wrong on any point, please leave a comment for this entry. This system, from the viewpoint as someone who is concerned about where my tuition money goes, sounds like a scam (from the Help Desk's perspective, it is a great business move). Let me tell you why. The Help Desk is contracted to resolve X number of tickets per time Y. If there are more than X tickets in time Y, they get Z dollars for each extra ticket. Case wishes to minimize the number of tickets filed because it means the service costs less. The Help Desk wants more tickets filed because it means more profit. Case wants it's employees to be happy with support. The Help Desk wants to keep Case people happy about their service or they lose business. Nobody can argue there is common ground there. Now, for this new knowledge base system, in order to update documentation, a ticket is filed by somone at Case. X++; Subtract Z from Case's budget. Repeat. I wouldn't be complaining that much, except... The Case Wiki already provides knowledge management at Case for free. Why do we need to pay extra for something we have already? There is a simple solution here: Case tells the Help Desk to put documentation on the Case Wiki. People find said documentation. What? The information is wrong? You log in and change it yourself. No ticket is opened. No money is lost. Plain and simple. Service deployers can update documenation themselves without having to open a ticket. Users can leave comments about instructions. People can update the documentation to make it easier to follow. Another benefit is that if Case ever switches Help Desk providers, then the knowledge base doesn't disappear with the old provider. Why should Case be billed for opening a ticket requesting that the spelling in an article be corrected? Why should end-users be left out of the loop in developing documentation? Why should service deployers? The cold hard fact is that the system just isn't favorable to Case. Given the financial operations of the system and the fact that budgets are tight, somebody owes it to the financial well-being of the university to seriously investigate using the Case Wiki or any knowledge base for that matter, as long as it is Case-controlled, for help documentation. We tell the help desk provider to use that system. If, for some unforeseeable reason, we switch help desk providers, the collected knowledge isn't flushed down the toilet. So, to summarize: RightAnswers Self-Service is over-marketed software whose functionality could be duplicated and surpassed by free wiki software. Case has such software deployed and it would make financial and logical sense for Case to have a knowledge base there. Finally, I do not wish to offend anybody working for or affiliated with the Help Desk. They do great work and their service is vital. If I were in their shoes, I probably would have recommended the same course of action for the knowledge base because it is a good business move on their part. However, I am affiliated with Case, so the university's well-being is my agenda. In this matter, Case is getting the raw end of the deal and I have a responsibility as a caring university member to share that observation.
Gregory Szorcgregory.szorc@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/gps10What is a "Standard"http://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/04/07/what_is_a_standard2006-04-07T21:47:19Z2006-04-07T22:41:04Z
A lot of software in the "Enterprise Systems" market now make claims like "utilizes" or "leverages" "standards." "Industry-wide standards." "Open standards." "Standards compliant." It's "based on a standard" (← by far my favorite one – "based on open standards" – really WTF?). It's become a buzzword – "standards" – and has lost what it really was. A "standard" is an agreement to do things a certain way. They exist so client system A can work with server system B and server system C in just the same way client system X can work with server systems B and C. That's it. They're not magic. Some standards are company standards. They're developed internally to be used by multiple products within their company. Microsoft's NTLM protocol for authentication is such a thing. Other standards are developed by multiple companies (like an IBM-MS-Sun meeting) that all get together and decide to whip up a standard to do something. Some standards are done out in the open. Some behind close doors. Some have documentation. Some don't. Some just sit on a server at Harvard languishing. When people say "open standards," they are usually referring to standards that are done out in the open, open to participation by anyone, and controlled by a so-called "Standards Organization" like OASIS, IETF, or eduCause. What those organizations provide is a set of rules, a framework for participation, a framework for making revisions to standards, oversight, and some basic legal nicities. Again, nothing magical. Nothing scary. It's all simple and straight-forward. The best use for a standard is trying to figure out when something is wrong. If you have client A and it isn't working with server B, what do you do? Well, you look at what they're doing and figure out that client A is sending something to server B and is expecting something of this sort back; but server B is sending something like this back. (Go signup and lurk on the atom-protocol mailing list or RSS-Public mailing list to get overwhelmed by what this actually entails.) So then you go to the standard and figure out which one is misbehaving. Then, you yell at the people who designed the misbehaving system; you call them a moron; and you tell them that they aren't spec compliant. Or maybe you don't figure out which one is misbehaving because the spec is unclear. In that case... well, if the creators/maintainers of the standard have an open working group you can participate in, you can bring it to their attention, and they can make a revision to the spec clarifying it. If the spec doesn't have a group to work with, I would strongly (and I can't stress the strongly part strongly enough) suggest that you just abandon that technology altogether. Trust me on this one... just abandon it. That spec has already wasted enough people's time 1. Just move on. If you don't know what I am talking about, don't look into it. Anways... continuing on... That's it. That's what standards are. I hate it when people use the term "standards" as some kind of magic word. Engineer: Well, I'm not sure how well it's going to integrate. Salesperson: It's based on Open Standards *wink* so it should be no problem integrating it with your standards-compliant architecture. It's even better when their systems say "This system is standards compliant" and isn't. Like "our system uses the XMPP open standard" but it doesn't support TLS while the XMPP standard ( RFC 3920) explicitly states that TLS MUST ("MUST" in the RFC 2119 sense 2) be supported:
12.1. Servers In addition to all defined requirements with regard to security, XML usage, and internationalization, a server MUST support the following core protocols in order to be considered compliant: ... o XML streams (Section 4), including Use of TLS (Section 5), Use of SASL (Section 6), and Resource Binding (Section 7)
You can't just pick and choose what parts of the spec you want to implement and which parts you want to ignore and then claim your are compliant. You're lying. And there should be a financial penalty for lying in your marketing material because, maybe then, you wouldn't do it anymore. </ranting>


1I dare not spaketh its name. Invoking it causes the Internet to churn and boil unsettling the silt of ignorance that covers the undesirables causing them to unrest and to spew forth with wrath and pitchforks and comments. This is how blogs end. 2MUST in the IETF standards vocabulary ( RFC 2119) means:
1. MUST   This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
Compare this with the entrys for SHOULD or MAY:
3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
5. MAY   This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item. An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the same vein an implementation which does include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the option provides.)
Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smithThe Failings of "Enterprise Software"http://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith/2006/03/21/enterprise_software_failings2006-03-21T07:29:01Z2006-03-21T07:27:23Z

From an earlier toread , I now bring you the juicy quotes:

Companies are realizing that the millions they've spent on "knowledge management" systems got them little more than confusing document repositories. So folks like Socialtext can package a compellingly light tool of blogs and wikis, and sell it cheaply enough that it doesn't require budget approval from IT, and people can get their collaboration done without hassle.

No one likes talking to enterprise software salesfolks, no one likes the 3 to 6 months that the sales process takes, no one likes the 6 to 12 months that deployment takes, no one likes the costs, and almost no one likes the results. Enterprise software succeeded, though, because there weren't many other viable options.

That, of course, is changing.

I sure wouldn't want to be working in enterprise software right now. Sure, it's a massive industry, and it will take a long time to die, but the progression is clear, and, frankly, inevitable.

Jeremy Smithjeremy.smith@case.eduhttp://blog.case.edu/jeremy.smith