On Psychologists and Technologists

In my Business Strategy class on Saturday morning (!), I asked a seemingly harmless question about why economies of scale did not apply to the now defunct MBS-Melbourne Uni merger. The question apparently struck a nerve with both the lecturer and some of the students. One of the students expressed something I have long felt, not just about the merger, but during my time working at the business school.

We have great faculty in the leading edge of their field. Often, they are engaged in helping real organisations improve their business during the day while lecturing at night and somehow managing to publish research. Why then did the merger fiasco play out the way it did given the business expertise within the school? Why weren't leasons from the Business Strategy subject, for example, applied?

This was the most frustrating thing about working at MBS in general. There was consistent pattern: what I had learned in class was not being applied in the business of the business school. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the school made very little attempt to integrate the knowledge of the faculty with anything practical.

The lecturer in my class described the general phenomenon whereby those who are best equipped to fix a problem neglect their own problems to focus on those of others [he had a name for this which eludes me]. For example:

• a panel beater has a very dented car
  
• a dentist has poor teeth
  
• a doctor is overweight
  
• and the classic: psychologists are crazy
  

This is, of course, no excuse. It's not an explanation. And it isn't generalizable.

Let us consider a counter-example very near to me. Those who work in the IT industry as technologists (as distinct from those in other functions) almost always reserve the very best equipment and software for themselves.

Think about it. At a technical conference (say Java), a majority of participants are using Macs (widely considered to be the superior platform). Developers are usually early adopters of the latest and greatest. My peers were the first to use GMail and, more recently, Google Wave. We were the first to set up wireless networks at home. We do things with our laptops that are difficult and complicated, but that help enrich out lives through technology. We have bigger monitors.

Do you really think Sergey Brin, founder of Google, is really using Windows XP? Do you think Joel Spolsky is using Outlook? Get real. They fix their dents and straightened their teeth.

Unfortunately, as I previously wrote, organisations are less likely to adopt the IT practices of their staff, much to their detriment. They are missing the opportunity to make themselves as productive as their most productive employees.

So what separates technology workers from some of the other professions? I'm not sure.

First, my underlying premise may be false. Are IT workers really different from those in other professions? Certainly the perception is that they are but I have't seen the research to back this up.

Part of it may be that IT workers genuinely enjoy their field more than others. It is certainly not uncommon to use my leisure time learning new technologies and new ways of doing things; much more so than other professions who might attend a conference or two, and only when paid for by their employer.

Another explanation could be pragmatism. Can a psychologist really going to give himself therapy? Is a doctor really more inclined to diet and exercise? Installing a new Twitter client or learning a new programming language certainly seem much more attainable goals.

The main thing I can conclude is that if you are in a profession or work for a company that doesn't implement the skills you market, your outcome is probably not going to be as successful as you want. That, and technologists probably enjoy their field, on average, more than others.

Applied Managerial Economics

The Signals vs Noise blog recently cited [via Carly Bishop Cheney] — aside: Carly's home page is dozens of megabytes so you might want to skip the link on your iPhone — the following tweet:

If I get one more inquiry from someone having a huge wedding at an expensive venue asking for ‘recession pricing’ I am going to explode!

Many comments support the logic that because the expenses haven't changed, there is no reason to consider changing the prices. This is, of course, missing half of the equation. A market has a supply curve (this is your expenses) and a demand curve. You are pricing at a markup over your cost, so, indeed, you do have some room to readjust prices.

Certainly, recessions can change the demand curve so it is worth considering whether this has any effect on the elasticity of demand at your current price. If you can increase your profit by lowering prices (thus selling more of your goods or services), you should certainly consider it, but, of course, one must consider the longer terms effects of this strategy. On the other hand, you might also consider raising your prices and selling less, but at a higher price. Elasticity will determine which strategy maximises profit.

I'm surprised that there are so many comments by those who things lowering their price during a recession is such a ridiculous proposition, mainly on the basis that their expenses haven't changed.

Great Post About IT Restrictions in the Workplace

My friend, former coworkers and MBS alum has a thoughtful post following on some of the themes from a previous post. In it, he sites a great Slate article which argues for a loosening of IT restrictions:

…The restrictions infantilize workers—they foster resentment, reduce morale, lock people into inefficient routines, and, worst of all, they kill our incentives to work productively. In the information age, most companies’ success depends entirely on the creativity and drive of their workers. IT restrictions are corrosive to that creativity—they keep everyone under the thumb of people who have no idea which tools we need to do our jobs but who are charged with deciding anyway.

Ameel thoughtfully concludes that IT departments would be wise to add their own in-house analysts to match IT tools available to those in the company who might need to use them, lest services be blocked somewhat arbitrarily.

What is often missing is…:

• In-house IT Consulting: the people who liaise directly with different parts of the business and use the latest technologies to improve the way those people work
  

Without that fourth part, IT departments have a hard time keeping up with what people in the organization believe are the most effective and efficient ways of doing their work. They also don’t keep up with the latest technological solutions for various business problems.

I couldn't agree more. I'd like to think that my former team in Melbourne Business School performed that function admirably. Often, we would just connect business users with simple off-the-shelf services that would dramatically effect productivity. Three examples would be Confluence, Google Groups, and Google Desktop, but there are many more.

Minor Thesis: Inference of Enumerated Types In Java

If you're not from the Computer Science discipline, you can safely skip this post.

After doing some hard drive spring-cleaning, I came across the Latex files relating to my master's thesis at the University of Melbourne. Although I undertook a Masters of Software Systems Engineering by coursework, I was able to write a minor thesis in lieu of 2 subjects.

At the time, compilers and type analysis were of particular interest to me, having thoroughly enjoyed the Compiler Design class at McGill several months earlier. In that class, we wrote a compiler for a toy language called WIG and added features to an existing compiler for the JOOS language, a subset of Java. We used the SableCC lexer/parser, an open source compiler compiler written by another McGill student. I remember staying up several late nights before the project was due. It was great fun.

The forthcoming language enhancements in Java 5 provided a good platform for static code analysis and enhancement; a similar paper inferred generic types, for example. I had also competed a survey of programming languages class which compared functional, logic and imperative language (Haskell, Prolog and Java respectively) taught by Peter Schachte. Peter was kind enough to supervise.

With that background, I thought I would post the PDF of the paper I wrote. I'm not sure if this is the exact paper I submitted, and it certainly includes some typos and, having reread it recently, I can see that my writing needed a bit of work. It is very difficult to decipher some of the content. I suspect I used the most complex symbols and wording possible, but I had slaved through reading similar papers during my research so I must of thought that was the best way to do things.

Without any further ado, please find my paper, Inference of Enumerated Types In Java in PDF format. Note that this paper has not been published in any journal, and has had minimal peer review. It is presented for educational purposes only. However, if you'd like to chat about it, do get in touch.

Microsoft and Google Compete To Supply E-mail to America's Universities

From Time:

Students have been howling that school e-mail accounts are too small to handle their daily deluge of mail and attachments.

This is the same technology gap I blogged about the other day. Most universities are taking note:

In the 2008 national Campus Computing Project (CCP) survey, 42% of schools reported that they had already migrated or were about to migrate to an outsourced student e-mail service. Another 28% said they were considering switching.

This can only translate into corporate adoption of similar practices. Google hopes this leads to mainstream (read: corporate) adoption of web e-mail.

Even if it doesn't boost short-term profits, Google hopes serving schools for free will help broaden acceptance for Web-based e-mail and software services, says Jeff Keltner, who heads Google's Apps for Education team.

I hope he is right.

Writing User Stories - Use Your Cucumber

I previously wrote a post with some tips about running a user story workshop. It's received a fair amount of traffic, so I thought it'd be worthwhile mentioning a tool I used as a developer which made the idea and implementation of a user story much clearer. It's called Cucumber and it's a behaviour-driven testing framework for Ruby.

If you are a regular Ruby user, there is no good reason why you shouldn't be using Cucumber. If you're not a Ruby-ist, but can program, consider learning enough Ruby to use it, or find out if there are any similar frameworks in the language/platform of your choice. But - and here's where it gets interesting - if you are a business analyst who doesn't know the first thing about coding, get someone to walk you through the basics of how Cucumber works.

Here's why.

Cucumber allows you to write your stories in plain english, but also helps to systematize the ways stories are written so that their scenarios and acceptance criteria are easily (read: automated) testable. For those new to writing user stories, or even those with a bit of experience will find a few worked samples in Cucumber enlightening. It will definitely make you, your stakeholders, and your developers "speak" the same language.

Here's a quick video to get you started.

The Technology Gap: The Street vs. The Enterprise

I remember reading an article in a men's fashion magazine a few years ago. It said that because the "street" trend was to wear pants lower and lower, this caused the style of "corporate" pants to also have a low waste.

First of all, thank God for that. It was have been difficult transitioning from student clothes to corporate attire had that attire being up to my navel.

Second, this highlights the natural trend that things happen "on the street" before corporations adopt it. This is an interesting phenomenon by itself, and it is interesting how it applies to technology.

Here's a typical scenario.

At work, you probably use Windows XP. Your e-mail experience is either Outlook, which crashes often, or Outlook Web Mail. No doubt, you have mastered the art of sorting your e-mails by date then recipient to track conversations. At home, you probably use GMail. You're conversations are nicely clustered together, and when you can't find something, a quick search is all it takes.

At work, you might even be using Internet Explorer 6. At home, you might be using Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer 8 or Chrome. All of these things have the killer web browser feature: tabs. Tabs, of course, have been around for nearly 10 years. However, you likely have several windows of IE 6 open, and naturally, because you are using Windows XP, this slows down your system considerably.

Even at Melbourne Business School, I'm somewhat appalled that my Data and Decision class is designed for those running Windows XP and Office 2003. These are technologies from 2001 and 2002 respectively. I use a Mac, but the class relies on a plugin (StatPro) that only works on Windows. I refuse to buy a Windows license, so I'm running a VM with Windows 7 RC and Office 2007.

If the technology and ease-of-use gap between your corporate (and study) technology life and your home life frustrates you, you're certainly not alone. Gen Y and beyond are going to start demanding that their technology experience is not degraded when going to the office. Employers would be wise to take note; the productivity savings could be enormous.

Upgrading Internet Explorer 6 would be a good place to start.