Author: JP

You’re right. I’ve put the next recap off for a short while, trying to give me enough time to get my head around a few things. An example:
It all started with my attending the Professionalism in IT Conference arranged by the British Computer Society early last week. I’ve been involved with the initiative for a while now, and it’s truly fascinating. Particularly when it comes to figuring out what the profession stands for. What any profession stands for.
Which leads me on to someone I met at the conference, Mari Sako. Fascinating person. She’s a Professor at the Said Business School, Oxford, who has recently written a book called Shifting Boundaries of the Firm. I’d heard of the book, seen the Table of Contents, dismissed it as too focused on Japanese issues for me.

I was wrong.

I’ve now ordered the book. What Professor Sako did was to connect some important dots for me, dots that matter in Four Pillar Land.

I was expecting a presentation on global sourcing, which I got.

• I was not surprised to hear about corporate functions being disaggregated and reaggregated.
• I was not surprised to hear about the effects of outsourcing and offshoring.
• I was not surprised to hear about a constant pressure on IT professionals to repackage their skills and knowledge.

And then I had a Road to Damascus moment …. when Mari Sako  mentioned Andrew Abbott and his System of Professions. Some of the things she said resonated differently in my head. Two key examples:

• Technology and corporate restructuring have led professions to redraw their knowledge boundaries.
  
• Change in content of professions is as significant as change in location of jobs.

Now, I’d read Abbott before, and for sure I liked what System of Professions was getting at, and thought I understood where he was going. But hearing Professor Sako speak of it in a different context many years later, I began to see something else.

Wonderful what conversations can do.

In the past I’ve interpreted Abbott as an extension of the old priests and lawyers and doctors arguments, and railed against IT  “professionals” who play the This-Is-Complex-You-Don’t-Understand-And-Never-Will card.

What I saw this time around is that social software and collaborative tools represent a real threat to those knowledge-hoarding “professionals”. A clear and present danger that they have to deal with. And keep dealing with. Which explains the reaction of a number of professions to blogs and wikis.

I’d love to see a profession-by-profession analysis somewhere. Accountancy. Law. HR. I guess you can call them professions.

I’m also of the opinion that the ratios these professions exhibit within a firm vary by culture and by market segment, bringing a different dynamic into play. So it would be interesting to see this reaction broken down not just by profession but also by geography and market.
My final twist. Maybe the Abbott to Sako to me snowball explains something else to me.

The Four Pillar world is not for people who are professionals in the traditional sense.

It is for people who have a vocation, a calling.

It is only when you have that calling that you feel comfortable with sharing information, with giving information away for free. I guess those readers who are teachers or doctors understand where I’m going with this. I could not imagine a doctor not sharing his knowledge, his expertise, his information hoard, when a life may be at stake.

We need the equivalent of a Hippocratic Oath. About ideas and sharing. About patents and intellectual property. About identity and privacy and secrecy. There’s probably something in what Larry Lessig has already been doing, something in what Cory and  John Perry Barlow et al have been doing, something in what Rishab Aiyer Ghosh et al have been doing.

We need a Hippocratic Oath.

You may have read my previous post on Google versus Microsoft. I wish I could link to the whole article and share it with you, but it’s been DRMed out of existence. The link to the teaser stub is to be found here. You may prefer to read the firecat, a special report on Google in the same issue, which for some reason is OK for me to share. To be found here. The special report is worth reading, but how I wish I could reproduce the entire leader as well.

Which brings me to the point of this post.

In my previous post I averred that Google and its ilk will succeed because of their adherence to community standards, rather than despite those standards.

Yes, I do own up to using the phrase “pinko technologies” when talking about social software. [Thanks Andrew !] But that doesn’t mean that my assertion was just a cheap shot at Microsoft.

It’s more important than that.

When we started getting real traction with blogs at the bank, one of the key questions that came up was whether we should keep blog content open or closed.

And I had a very strong hunch that we had to start with everything being open, and then  selectively closing bits as needed, in order to comply with chinese walls, prevent market abuse, respect customer confidentiality and good things like that. This was generally accepted and so it happened that way.

Start with open. Then close only when absolutely needed. This is no longer about operating systems or architectures, about protocols, about standards.

It is about information.

It is what Four Pillars is about.

It is what this blog is about.

We cannot possibly justify even using terms like “data mining” or “enterprise applications integration” in this day and age; these are constructs of closed-closed-closed approaches to walled garden design and build. And not even elegant ones at that. we have to do these things only as a result of prior bad decisions. Decisions involving building walls around our own information. Decisions we should not be repeating.

It’s our information.

As we move towards greater co-creation, as we accelerate towards better remakes of IPR, we need to bear this in mind. Information must start open. And then get closed only when it’s an imperative.

I am not surprised that “Google’s market share in search has fallen from a high of around 80% to around 50% today”, as the Economist states in its article. Google can remain market leaders even if their share falls to 15%. Why? Because the world of information is still growing exponentially as people mash and rip and co-createl. And exciting things are happening in search, reasons to be cheerful. We will have specialist blog search tools. We will have specialist image search tools. We will have specialist video search tools. Not all these will be Google. Very few of these will be Google.

And I don’t think Google are upset about it. Which is good. If they succeed with generic search (which they have) and either Gmail (which looks good) or Google Maps (which looks better) or Google Earth (which looks even better) then they will be able to go after mobility plays.

And their approach to innovation will mean that they’re only as good as their next Beta from their Lab. Which is great. Probably what keeps them motivated. Staying ahead by doing new things, challenging competition, not suppressing it.
As the Economist leader points out, Google has strong competition in pretty much every field they’re in. Which, according to many experts, keeps them on their toes and healthy and all that.

It’s not about the competition. It’s about intent. Intent to coexist with other participants in an ecosystem.

When I can’t find a flickr reference via google; when I can’t find a youtube reference via google; then I will begin to worry. Maybe.
Remember that Four Pillars support something. They are a means and not an end.

I promised a recap. Next recap tomorrow.

[Even if Liverpool lose to West Ham. I hope they don’t. I predict 3-1 to the ‘Pool.]

Bogoljubow is endlessly optimistic. He always hopes to find new strength for his creative endeavours deep in his rich natural talent.

That’s Alexander Alekhine speaking about Efim Bogoljubow, probably my favourite chess player of all time. Bogoljubow, together with Alekhine and Capablanca, became the Triumvirate, the Taylor Vardon Braid of chess at a time when chess was glorious. And, oddly enough, around the same time as TVB.

I love Bogoljubow, and not just for his chess playing. The Alekhine quote is a window into his attitude to life. Here are two of my favourite Bogoljubow stories:

When asked how many moves he “thought ahead”, Bogoljubow pondered for a second, flashed his teeth and said “Just one. The best”.

Commenting on a recent run of victories, he said “When I play white I win because I play white. When I play black I win because I am Bogoljubow.”

He knew something about simplification and about simplicity, while retaining style and elegance and brilliance. Without the corruption of marketing.

And maybe that’s what we need more of in IT.

A recent post by Don Marti about lightweighting, and a not-so-random walk following the honey trail from there to Rageboy and via him to David Isenberg’s Stupid Network, made me think harder about simplicity within Four Pillars. Thank you Don.

I quote from Don’s post:

What’s going on is that we’re somehow, against all odds, collectively giving ourselves permission to eliminate bullshit. And one example of lightweighting breeds another. Eben Moglen writes, “wrap the Internet around every brain on the planet; spin the planet. Software flows in the network.” In that example, the lightweight Internet standards process creates an environment suitable for peer production of software. And now lightweight software processes are enabling lightweighting of business processes that depend on that software and are increasingly embodied in it.

Permission to eliminate bullshit. Simplification.

I went on to remind myself of what David Isenberg had said in his famous essay, and was RageBoyed into the remake, which can be found here. Again, worth quoting from to illustrate the point I’ve yet to make:

Under the heading Stupid is Better, David says:

Stupid Networks have three basic advantages over Intelligent Networks – abundant infrastructure; underspecification; and a universal way of dealing with underlying network details, thanks to IP (Internet Protocol), which was designed as an “internetworking” protocol. Some key “two-fers” emerge from these basics: Users gain end-to-end control of interactions, which liberates large amounts of innovative energy; innovative applications are rapidly tested in the marketplace; and innovative companies attract more capital and bright people.

Critical points. All of them.

The abundance of the infrastructure issue is at the heart of the Net Neutrality debate. And is not about pino lefty politics or tree-hugging Ice Age predictors. Without this abundant infrastructure, we cannot gain end-to-end control of interactions, as David says. New forms of intermediation are fine provided value is created, derived and shared. Parasites and leeches are not fine. Neither is making scarcity out of abundance any sort of virtue. Without end-to-end “control” we cannot create the reliability and consistency of customer experience we need. And with end-to-end control, we can prevent the pirates of DRM from boarding our good ship. Yes, they are the pirates.
The underspecification issue is also critical. It is somewhere in the community standards and microformats spaces, a way of preventing vendor corruption of the standards process.

As soon as we have these two things, abundant infrastructure and underspecification, it becomes easier for us to scale things. Add things. Take things away. Something the digital world has promised but rarely made easy. Not because we wanted to prevent it, but because the lock-in merchants needed to.

Now maybe you get an idea as to why I was so hung up about the internet and net neutrality and identity and DRM and IPR and and and.

We have to solve these. Make the Machine Tools we need. Avoid building the safety devices and harnesses in the wrong place and for the wrong reasons and protecting the wrong people.

Then we have Foundation. With the right approach to Empire. A scalable way of providing the Four Pillars. With innovation as a way of life in the rooftops. With consistent and reliable service and fast time-to-market applications. Providing products and services the customer wants, co-created by the customer in the first place.

More later. To Be Continued.

I feel another Recap coming. After I see what comments I get from this post, what snowballs begin, what honey trails I have to follow.

Have you come across the works of a guy called Cass R. Sunstein? I first got into reading him when I discovered Free Markets and Open Justice maybe a decade ago; then, when I saw the ideas he exposed in Republic.com, I knew I had to track what he does, which led to my reading Why Societies Need Dissent.

[And now, wearing my Alternative Market Models hat, he continues to be very important to me, given his focus on prediction markets and wikis and blogs and opensource software. I’m looking forward to reading Infotopia as and when it comes out. Anyone out there connected enough to get me a preview? Overstock claims over a thousand reviews, Amazon over 200, so there are lots of copies out there somewhere. I am happy to pay, of course.]

What Republic.com helped me do is reinforce my thoughts about the dangers of mutual-admiration-societies and cliques in large organisations, and to adjust my behaviour accordingly. The learning was hard but worthwhile, at least partially driven by my exposure to concepts like cyberbalkanisation through Professor Sunstein’s works. Signals that I should ensure fresh thinking entered everything I did, at the very least to prevent fossilised behaviour… something large organisations are particularly good at fomenting rather than preventing. Usually by accident, not design.
And I guess that’s why I enjoy interacting with other bloggers where I work….like Sean at Park Paradigm and Malcolm at Accidental Light. We agree on a few fundamentals, a few important fundamentals; that helps build mutual respect. And against that foundation of respect, the relationship aspect of things, we disagree on enough to make the learning valuable. We differ on nationality and age and skin colour and even hair length and number of children. Great.

The payoff comes when we discuss things like alternative compensation models for artists or the future of the BBC, when our views diverge wildly and enrich conversation. The payoff comes when we discuss things like how organisations should work and what identity means, when our views converge wildly and enrich conversation.

Much of the risk in cyberbalkanisation comes from some sort of selection bias, some process whereby dissent is kept out of the melting pot of conversation. Ideas no longer have a natural selection process and atrophy is guaranteed over time. Na na na I’m not listening. Go read Republic.com; these posts touch on the issues as part of a different snowball, and should not be seen as attempts to summarise someone else’s hard work.

Why Societies Need Dissent focuses on a different evil, something analogous to instinctive-herd-meets-charismatic-leader. How normal people respond to confident collected people spouting confident collected crap. How often charismatic leaders start believing in their own propaganda.

This is something more insiduous. Cellular replication can be very healthy when looked at in the context of the body repairing itself or rejuvenating or even growing. But here we talk about cells that are intrinsically healthy in the first place, so that a fractal imitative power-law-obeying process is obtained. Evangelical churches and even terrorist organisations have gone for a cellular approach as a result, and it works.

It only works when the unit cell is healthy and kept healthy. At some level of abstraction, a cancer cell is no different from a heretical group is no different from a treasonous platoon is no different from a software virus.

Blogs can be anti-carcinogenic from an organisation viewpoint, preventing heresies and cliquism from building up by making the process of dissent more open, the option of dissent more exercisable, the outcome of dissent less blameseeking.

Blogs can prevent some of the known evils of organisations from taking any further root. How we can become grown-up equivalents of schoolyard bullies, ganging up on the weak rather than the wrong. There is an unusual behaviour that takes place in large organisations, where heads nod and tongues affirm what is being said, not because it is right, not because it is good, but because it is said confidently and firmly and fairly and stably by someone who has the ability to lead the herd.

We like conformity. Sadly, sometimes we confuse it with teamwork. Or much worse, we assume noncomformity to be anti-team and disloyal. The Road to Ruin. This, despite all superficial commitments to the valiant efforts of the Myerses and Briggses and Belbins of this world telling us that diverse balanced teams are good.

In something approaching real tragedy, many organisations go through a painful process of attracting and hiring people with a difference to make a difference; then spend forever driving the difference out of the person. Immensely frustrating for all concerned. Blogs can help prevent this.

I’ve spoken before about this, but it is worth repeating. The Lencioni Five Dysfunctions of a Team may be dismissed by many as pop psychology, but there’s some good stuff there. If you don’t trust then you can’t share concern, express dissent. So you don’t commit; execution is flawed. And the team fails.

And all for want of a Nay.

We should stop thinking of blogs as just individual soapboxes, it may be the way we learnt about them, but it’s not the way we’re going to learn from them.

They’re very powerful conversation enablers; they help people express care and concern and dissent in non-threatening ways; they help avoid mutual-admiration-society selection bias; they build trust amongst teams; they exposes heresies and cancers; they prevent me (and people like me) from believing in our own propaganda.

We have the choice of selecting from crowd wisdom or madness; we have the choice of having emperors clothed or naked; we have the choice of having rich and diverse teams or cloning cancer cells.

Blogs are but one tool in helping us with those selections.

One tool. An important tool. One we did not have before.