Welcome to the £100 eco-system

Latest predictions in the IT world suggest that in 2011 there will be more mobile phones and tablets than desktops, netbooks and laptops. There will be possibly a few hundred million more, and the numbers seem to be on the increase.

I am still happy with my netbook and old fashioned mobile phone, but am looking around. In my previous post this meant that I have still have not found the killer application and device that will buy me to the innovation side yet.

Click here to see the picture source

In the last couple of weeks I attended the mobile cloud computing forum, an interesting event where several experts put forward their views on what is to happen in 2011. They all coincided with the idea that we will make much more use of mobile devices, and that there will be a better infrastructure to allow for the circulation of data to and from those devices. We are now talking about the cloud as I have been also hinting in a previous post.

Telecommunication companies now enter into the picture of the cloud by offering intelligent data out of data that circulates through their pipes. With consumers moving around, that data becomes precious. Consumers can then be better understood by their locations, their mobility and the applications they use.

Not only consumers but companies themselves can move around, some of them can go directly to consumers instead of waiting for them to turn up at their shops or their online websites. New products and services can be designed and tailored to specific users in specific locations. All of these can, in principle, be enhanced by cloud computing infrastructures. Developers can count on users being able to access information from anywhere and at anytime. Managers can rely on infrastructures to protect their data. IT managers can have more time to support businesses and less time in the day-to-day of managing IT.

All of this seems to be suggesting a new state of affairs, where consumers will use mobile devices to access data, leaving also data through the communication pipes they use. It is an opportunity for telecommunication companies, software developers and other organizations to design products and services to make use of such data. We have heard about the mashing up of data (maps, facts, purchases, facilities) so as to offer an integrated view of a location and its consumers so they both can be seen for future use.

What is the requisite then for people to access to this new reality?

This is where it gets tricky, at least for me.

After the forum and in my last classes I have explored together with various people including my students the question of what it takes to be able to participate of all what seems to be on offer. Some of the people I talk to love the world of iphone® : videoing, geographical applications, augmented reality (for instance scanning things in a book shop to compare prices, or finding restaurant offers nearby), email, etc. The Android® people seem to be on the go to have this and more. Both of these groups though have to get into contracts for phone and internet service. These contracts are not cheap. They are lengthy, and/or you have to pay for the device (tablet, mobile phone).

Technology vendors and writers have changed their language. They do not talk anymore about contracts, they talk about ecosystems. The language and what it brings are definitely sticky. As an example, two of my students presented a business idea recently at University and were asked 'where in the eco-system (presumably of the cloud)' they saw their business operating. In the discussion that followed, we agreed that we needed a better business model so that the business could benefit from the ecosystem, not giving big eco-system species (Google® ,Microsoft®) the chance to wipe it out. It seems that in the eco-system there are (big) reigning species: telecommunication companies, Google®, Microsoft®, Apple®, IBM® and others. If you want to be part of it, you need to know your place, possibly work and collaborate with the big species, whilst providing more specific and valuable services. Who knows, maybe in the future your business can be bought by them.

Being in an eco-system could be particulary exciting for developers. They can develop applications for different platforms, devices, operational systems. They can also develop applications to use data obtained from devices or flowing to devices. Developers then need to work with other people. Perhaps they need to change the language they use. They need to know who are the customers and suppliers, in other words, they need to see themselves within a business. Tricky again, because you should not talk to many people about your idea (the pace of change is very fast and technologies are there to be exploited) but exciting.

For users like me, entering into this eco-system means paying for access, with the risk that it might not give what we all want: speed, relevant content, killer applications, or even security. Those of us who are extremely careful should perhaps pair with people who are better innovators and less afraid of the eco-system. My students seem to have a knack for trying new things and do not seem to be worried for the cost that this involves. So I pair up with them, by now they might be thinking that I ask a lot of obvious questions, and might be wondering if I have not bought yet a new mobile phone.

Not to worry, I will eventually do it, but before, let me say two things. First, I am the kind of individual that still thinks that a phone is and should be a phone. Second, I think that this eco-system should be more affordable, so that I can still pay for my phone and occasionally access all these eco-fantastic applications and services. To give you hope, and following advice from one of my students, I have found a £100 mobile phone that could get me into it: Android, email, internet browser and, of course mobile phone calls, at what seems to be an affordable pay-as-you go price (still using the language of contracts here).

I decided to defer my entry into the eco-system until after Christmas 2010. I am waiting to see if prices will come down a bit. And also, I am also waiting for Christmas presents, so you'd better hurry up and maybe you will get a Christmas card in return. Just joking.

Maybe 2011 will be the year of the eco-system, maybe?

Searching for a tipping point in IT gadgets use

Last week two events happened. First time in life I decided to take an interest in Apple® products, I became curious after two of my current students bought very physically appealing Apple® laptops. They seemed very happy, and I asked myself if I had been missing something in life.

The second event is that my wife's laptop (a Dell® XPS) is in a state of agony. She keeps resucitating it with no luck. On Saturday we phoned the technical service department, they had us for 30 minutes on hold on a national rate call (0844) without any response. The only good outcome of that was the music they played. Bit nicer.

So you might think, why don't you buy an Apple® product (ipad, laptop, iphone) if you have not done so? Is it about time?

Well, I am still not sure. And it is not necessarily because I do not like them, it is because they have not got to me yet. I have not reached a Tipping Point. And possible Apple has not either.

Malcom Gladwell's The Tipping Point book is illuminating here. He explores how social epidemics occur, how masses of people decide to adopt a product, to mobilise, to smoke or even to commit suicide. He regards several key elements in a situation: Those people pioneering it, those connecting with the rest, those checking and teaching people about it, those persuading, and those finally following.

He also thinks that two other elements are necessary for an epidemic to occur: The stickiness of what is to be adopted, and the context in which it is to be adopted. Together, all these elements could constitute a system of innovation if that is what us, people, are to embrace in our daily lives.

We might think then that there is a critical mass of Apple® followers, those who see themselves as 'outcasts' and 'innovators', if not 'pioneers'; those people who want to be different. Gladwell values this sort of individuals. They are the ones that do not conform. In the IT world it is difficult to decide who is doing that. We have some technology to get us by, or preferences, and ultimately we have habits and routines. We can all be innovators in our own world, perhaps some more than others, those who like to experiments.

We seem to be missing the other types of people that Gladwell mentions. Where are the connectors, those people who make bridges between different communities, people who can act as intermediaries between innovators and the rest? Well, maybe they are the same guys that you see with Apple® products. They just love them. They keep talking about the wonders they do. But the same is true for other people, like my friend Beatriz who loves her Kindle® reader. She has got an Apple iphone® though. She sticks with the Kindle® (not an ipad®). She finds it more useful for their daily routines.

Where are those persuading the rest? Again, these guys seem to be the same who pioneer the use of products. However their message seems to be "This is what I do" rather than "How can this product help you?" They are not salespeople in the strict sense. Apple® seems to rely on setting examples. IT departments in organisations also do the same. In many cases I do not think that after admiration and awe everyone else follows. Hence, the need for good sales people. If we had to take stock from Gladwell, we might suggest that there should be some room in the Apple® and its competitors users communities for doing those things. What I found when going last week to an Apple® istore was a similar store to those of mobile phones. You might experiment with products, but the teaching, and the care might (not) be there. Gladwell sets as an example that of a children's book (I think, just finished reading the book last night), which triggered certain innovators to connect with teachers and others through small communities (no more than 150 individuals). He also uses examples of successful companies which, in order to keep a sense of community, organise themselves in units of no more than 150 people. It might be useful to think of these communities as those where the real innovation and adoption of mass change happens. I might not be knowledgeable of what IT companies do in this regard. It could well be that some communities form 'expert' forums, or 'user forums'. It would be useful to see how their message spreads across, if anyone can get invited and become a 'convert', or you need to proof yourself before doing that (by buying products and becoming an 'expert').


Speaking about stickiness, in the IT and communications world it seems that once you move from one product to another, you stick with it, at least for a good while, either because you love it (and you show it on the train, at work, with friends), or because your contract says so. This is the example of mobile phones. I checked iphone® contracts, they are over 18 months, so just to make sure you stick with it. The product itself might be sticky in its appearance, content (applications) too. Competitors are now working on making products use simple (with a touch interface for instance). How about its use in daily life?

Finally, there is the aspect of context. It is about creating conditions for people to embrace change. Conditions where it could feel safe to follow, or not to follow (for instance in the case of addictions like smoking), with a clearer understanding of the non-average (see my previous post on this blog) need to come together. We are irrational human beings, Gladwell argues, and that needs to be accepted rather than rejected. I wonder if the context of conditions for people like me in an educational setting have become appropriate to embrace change. Some minimum things are required. In the case of technologies, it should be possible to better interact with my students. I cannot see that yet. Or possibly I have not become convinced that these technologies are to bring positive improvement...YET.

My verdict so far for Apple®, Dell®, and others that might like to become the main market players is not that great. Apple® seems to be ahead of the pack in terms of the stickiness factor and with competitors following. However, we do not find easily communities of individuals and individuals themselves that pioneer, connect and persuade others. We do not find access to those communities unless we are already consumers of products. We could try the products though. However, a key element missing is that of the context of use. How we decide to use products in our daily life is likely to depend on other things that products themselves, one of them usefulness.

But who knows, maybe I am just like the rest of the people, I am waiting for others to lead me, or maybe I have my own habits which are not 'average'.

For the time being, I stick to my Dell® netbook (had to repair it once already!), and my Sony Ericcson® mobile. Still I do not follow, maybe I am still waiting for a killer product or application to convince me.

Who knows...

Service systems and the 'non-average'

In our daily lives we live surrounded by complex networks of organisations. What appears to be simple in how we book health appointments, show tickets, plane flights, dinners and so on is a complex arrangement of organisations, procedures and technologies to deliver what we ask for.

We can call these networks or systems. Their aim is to serve. Information systems and technologies help these systems provide value to their users, giving them something extra that users do not get in other ways. Nice and easy, these systems look good on paper, like this one:

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/EHSNet/images/Food_Service_as_a_System.jpg, accessed November 2010

So we access and are served by these systems. But what happens in the case that something goes wrong? For instance you got poisoned by the food produced by the above system, and /or you need to see a health specialist urgently, or you need to return or cancel your tickets?

This is where often a journey to fight these systems starts for the user...

Systems and networks have been designed to respond to certain events: purchases, requests, deliveries, events of people in life from the time we are born. Sophisticated communications arrange organisations and people within them so these events are managed. Some contingencies are factored in. If you decide to return a pair of jeans you bought off the internet you just pack it and post it at no cost. You should though use the postal address label they give you and report the 'event' (it was too small, or you did not like it after all). They can also refund money if you cancel your bookings in advance, provided you do it within a 'reasonable' amount of time (28 days) and that you have not 'used' what you bought.

That seems to be at the root of many problems in systems: Their notion of what is 'reasonable' , something which is not 'average', does not happen to you or either to them every day.

It is precisely life at its full which is not reasonable. We do not reason to get ill at a particular time and place. We do not also reason to have to change addresses in the databases of these systems to be delivered what we bought. We do not reason if payment has been taken wrongly (twice, or not take at all); we just get furious or silent. We somehow expect these systems to do the reasoning for us. That should be their problem.

But in many of these systems the expectation is that WE do the reasoning for them...because we are the users, and we are reasonable (or 'average' as I was explaining this to one of my students last week). Do not ask for silly things. Do not jump your place on the queue...remain calm and carry on. Thank you for your patience...we are sorry for the delay. Average responses by today's standards.

What do do if you, like me feel frustrated on the 'unreasonability' of any of these systems? From experience, I can suggest the following:

1. Get inside their network, by complaining, phoning, protesting, explaining that it is their problem, not yours. Many of these systems have become blind to the 'non-average' cases; their own cost reduction goals aim at transforming non-average cases into average ones. So they can send you to the call centers or the online portals. In a previous post I mentioned that this is the case for e-government systems. However, there are parts of the networks that these systems assemble where it is still possible to make your point. You may need to combine both your online and offline expertise to make your case stronger. In a way you are helping these systems to become less blind.

2. If you can afford it, pay to see those individuals who the network does not allow you to see. This is true for the case of health specialists. Sad but true. These and other networks protect their managers and those who can make decisions because their time is very precious and needs to be invested in either serving everyone else, or thinking about strategic issues. I wonder how non-important these 'non-average' cases have become so as not to be strategic.

3. Use your own networks of friends. I am not implying that you are doing this to jump the queue (although if this is a serious case you might think about it), but friends can help in sharing the pains involved, or give some extra knowledge and advice. Or if you fail in shaking up the system, at least they will buy you a drink and will tell you that there are more important things in life (if you or your loved ones are still alive).

4. Tell us of your ordeal via facebook, twitter or a blog.

5. Or do nothing, that is an average response...with average consequences. Life is a precious but serious matter.

IT-based government : Icebergs or Ice Creams?

The comprehensive spending review (CSR) of the UK government has been announced this week (Oct 20th 2010). As a summary, it provides some indication of the funding cuts and increases that the government will undertake in the next five (5) years.

I say indication because reviews and their numbers only give us indications...only that (?).

Whilst some areas have been protected from 'cuts' in the review, others are said to be intervened with the aim of reducing the deficit that public spending has had in the last few years. This can help tackling the present and potential negative effects of the global economic recession. As I have heard UK government officials say, this government has to both achieve efficiencies and improve relationships with citizens. All with the help of information technologies. In the so-called protected areas, the government is gambling on the power of information technology to help in the delivery of public services, and also in the achievement of efficiencies and economies of scale. Therefore important IT investments are to be secured if not maintained. The 'banking' mentality that it is cheaper, faster, safer and more efficient to offer information and services online than it is offline has now entered in full suite into government affairs. But as several researchers have pointed out, this sort of mentality has to co-exist with the mentalities of government. Here is a couple of examples:

• "HM Revenue and Customs's budget will be expected to find resource savings of 15% through the better use of new technology and greater efficiency, while spending £900 million more on targeting tax evasion and fraud to help collect a missing £7 billion in tax revenues" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/main-points-from-the-comprehensive-spending-review-2111727.html)

• The government has pledged to invest £530 million to support the UK’s broadband network and to enable the roll out of superfast broadband in areas that the private sector would not otherwise reach (http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/government-announces-530m-broadband-investment-10767)
  

Mmm, interesting...

Or contradictory.

About the latter, is there a way to live with this and many other contradictions that we will see emerging in the next few years in IT-based governments? Here are two thoughts:

• First, we need to stop assuming that change is about technology implementation. For many years, people have talked about socio-technical systems rather than simply technical systems. Technical systems do not exist or develop in a vacuum. They are the outcome and medium of the social context in which they are (to be) implemented.

• Second, not everything appears to be bad news, if we also conceive of government as a complex phenomenon in which different types of practices, technologies, regulations and groups of individuals intersect. Government is not anymore about a lineal process of governments delivering rules and services to citizens. It can be better seen as an iterative, unpredictable and emerging set of processes.

My hope is that these thoughts can lead us to see that things can turn into our own benefits as citizens, but also that IT companies and other actors in the business of government can and should be involved in producing the new IT-based government.

An example of the new space of possibilities that is emerging is that of cloud computing for government, which has been called the g-cloud. Governments around the world are thinking of placing their information and infrastructures to manage it 'in the cloud'; that will give ubiquitous access to information whilst reducing the burden (and cost) of its supporting infrastructure. A recent review of the g-cloud strategy of the UK government can be found in the following link: http://quocirca.computing.co.uk/2010/04/whats-the-future-for-gcloud.html

In terms of cost, the g-cloud offers flexibility and scalability, meaning that information services can be bought on demand. The cloud needs to co-exist with information management practices, rules, norms and attitudes.

At first, unless you are a 'techie', the cloud can become an iceberg, something you do not want to clash with in your job, even if it appears to be 'simple' to implement, as the figure shows:


http://communication.howstuffworks.com/cloud-computing.htm

But if we think that the cloud is just part of a new arrangement of things as described previously, and which will require a social environment to develop successfully, we can then see how we can be part of it.

How?

• Well, if you are a 'techie', try to see where you can offer your services within the architecture of cloud services. As far as I know, there are infrastructure, services, management applications and end-user applications. If governments are to make use of the g-cloud, then they will need your expertise in connecting their old infrastructures and applications to the cloud. We already know small companies that are part of bigger networks of providers which together provide cloud services.

• If you are a manager, you can then try to link your organisation's strategy to that of the cloud, so that you decide where you can make the best of your cloud use. You do not need to transfer everything to the cloud. You will need though, to prepare yourself and your people to manage information services. There is an imperative to better understand how the cloud can deliver benefits in the long term beyond the short term cost and efficiencies.

• If you just want to be a citizen, my view is that no one is asking you to become a full cyber-citizen. Governments and IT providers need you, in principle to consult on services that are to be transferred to the online world; you can voice your concerns, although the process of taking them forward is not clear yet in countries like the UK (they seem to listen to you, take suggestions on board, but then decide on what they think is important and feasible).

Regardless of the effects of what this could generate in the future, I think you can go beyond that. You can set up your own community if not join an existing one, so that you can access information and knowledge that you need. If you are an academic like me, join me in the newly set up technology and governance network. We will continue discussing effects, implications and possibilities of the new government with IT.

One last thought: Just be careful about what you wish for, you might find that what appears to be an iceberg turns out to be a fully flavored ice cream! If that is the case, there is no other alternative than enjoying it while it lasts...

HM 2.0: The next generation of hybrid managers?

I blog from my reflections on what I see, talk about or hear from my sources...yes, I have sources, I will tell you in a minute who they are.

The last couple of weeks have been busy with many things at work and elsewhere. Like everyone else who lives a 'modern' lifestyle, I have had to juggle with visits to the doctor, meetings with my 'clients', preparing plans, thinking of research ideas, responding emails, attending other meetings with bosses, driving around, and trying to have some quality time with family and friends during the week end.

A news item caught my eye: the founder and CEO of an IT company (I think it was twitter) is stepping down to leave room for a new CEO, someone who can take the company to the 'next level', in other words someone that can consolidate it and make decisions to secure its future. The article was suggesting that this is necessary. The founder might have inspired others to follow him/her but might not be capable of taking tough decisions to the possible detriment of customers. That is why a CEO is needed. Founders can still remain in the company as inspirational leaders, also as a testimony of the values that many if not all employees (should?) share.

Interesting. In my role of educator I try to inspire people to become hybrid managers, people who can talk business and IT, people who can act as translators between these two worlds. I have been in these two camps before and can tell from experience that life is hard. Not only IT can have life on its own, but businesses can also decide they want business as usual, so that IT becomes a liability rather than an opportunity or a tool. Here is we need people that values both. These hybrid managers can also be called boundary spanners to sound a bit more academic but no less important.

You might be thinking: so what are you trying to say? The indication of many IT companies that want to separate roles could lead us to think that hybrid management needs re-thinking if not separation. Well, that is only a view of what is currently happening. Separation of roles is also evident if you think of why things like cloud computing have become popular. Not only cost seems to be a big driver, but also separating the 'day to day' of IT from its planning or policy. Before you think of separating, see what the next paragraph suggests.

Will this separation work? My view is that it can, but because there is no separation, rather a fragmentation (well, this is modern life is it not?). You will still need people who can do translation between different speakers. You will still need people who can make sure that CEOs and founders are on the same page, even if they read it for different purposes. Being on the same page means thinking of customers, clients, students, patients and the like. The problem with fragmentation is that it can lead to isolation. I wonder what the agenda of founders is really about. Fragmenting? I do not think so. Maybe they just want to stop being so busy, or maybe they step down from the public eye so they get the media off their backs whilst they plan the next big thing.

My sources (former students and colleagues) tell me that they are now in temporary contracts in project management or IT research if not in setting up their own business. They have to translate ideas into projects and facilitate work between experts. Some of them think that it is difficult to make organisations flexible and responsive. Old styles of management based on command and control, and supported by pyramidal structures still inhibit technology construction: this is a consequence of fragmentation, of dividing things too much. Maybe what is needed is a more serious consideration of the power of networks and networking, so that you can let go of things whilst you co-ordinate; a network should not be fragmented. Or maybe you need people with the skills to translate, co-ordinate and develop trust in each other.

The separation of roles in IT companies could be geared in that direction, or it could be a new attempt to disguise hierarchies and mind games. Only a hybrid manager can spot the difference.

My message and question to founders and to hybrid managers is: Get back to the innovation department where you originally started, to the old days of dreaming, trying, venturing; get out of your comfort zone, get back to where you started. Maybe you need to leave your old company. Can you really let it go?

And the message to myself: Time to go back to basics, and have a hybrid , normal life.

Technology and Governance: Systems Thinking to Promote E-Participation

On the 23rd of September 2010, we officially launched the book on "Systems Thinking and e-Participation: ICT in the Governance of Society" (http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/TitleDetails.aspx?TitleId=37232), co-edited by myself and Alejandro Ochoa-Arias. It was a very important and fruitful effort for us and collaborators. We hope the readers will also find it relevant for their work on both systems thinking and e-government.

The event was celebrated with a seminar with Dr. Juan-Ignacio Criado from Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (Spain, left in the picture), and Dr. David Pullinger, head of Digital Policy of the UK Government Central Office of Information (right in the picture). As a common theme, we discussed developments on e-government considering the cases of Spain, the UK, Colombia and Ghana. All the speakers pointed out to the importance of reflecting on the values that drive the implementation of e-government, so that we can review and improve policies and plans.

From different perspectives, we considered it important to understand those individuals using electronic government services, and those designing or managing them, given that between them there might be gaps in knowledge, understanding and skills to be able to communicate and interact electronically. There are already policies and plans in place to enable more transparency, representation and efficiency. However, the 'soft' component of e-government, the people, and our values of values of dialogue, accountability and quality of life, need to be addressed. In particular, I expressed concern with the notion of the 'common good' that seems to be adopted to convince people of the importance of e-government. We all want to get on with our lives, and e-government services could help in this regard, only that getting on with life could have good or not very good implications as to how it is done, for whom, and with which consequences.

During the seminar we also announced the new Technology and Governance Network (TGN), a group of collaborators researching on the unfolding of technology policy, design and use in profit and non-profit organisations, and its potential impacts in new forms of governance. This theme is broad enough to facilitate inter-disciplinary work between researchers and practitioners, and to allow for the specific exploration of phenomena related to the interplay between citizens, technology suppliers, governments and other actors. We aim at improving existing knowledge and practices in formulation and implementation of policies and plans in these areas.

With new developments in technology (i.e. cloud computing), new policies (i.e. inter-operability), and new demands (i.e. mobile government, inclusion, information security), e-government can take new directions. It is important though to develop it in systemic ways, in other words, looking after different aspects, engaging in the process rather than in achieving outcomes, and ultimately, enabling people to see e-government as a tool to facilitate communication.

Can we teach (IT) competence?

This summer time has come with some positive news including what appears to be an increase in the number of job offers in the IT sector and some unexpected testimonials from my students about where they are working now: consulting, software development, and international relations among other things. Not only in the UK but also elsewhere, people are getting on with whatever challenges they face. Yes, life is hard, but it could be a good opportunity to learn and kick back.

Out of these news, and with a bit of time to reflect these days, I have been asking myself if we can teach competence. Why competence? Because it seems to make the difference between getting a good education and using it wisely. Competence is now an area of interest in fields like project management. In information technology competence aims to be 'measured' by the identification of different skills (or competencies) that people use to perform well in their jobs. This involves working on areas and problems which we are expected to be able to deal with, in other words to succeed.

If competence can be taught, we can then teach people basic knowledge of key areas, and help them develop their skills to work on those areas. We would be then selecting core elements of knowledge, and devising activities for students to engage practically into using these elements in addressing challenges, requirements and problems in such areas. Engagement would mean the use of skills like communication, problem solving, leadership, negotiation, planning and the like.

But there is something else I wish we could teach and reflect on. It is the willingness to engage, to try again, to appropriate problems as our own, to feel curiosity and passion about what we are engaging with. It is the attitude to life in general. We are all human beings, we have ups and downs, and this sort of attitude might come to our rescue or abandon us at times. It is this attitude to be realistic about life (it is hard!), and still engage with it. I am using here the word 'engage' heavily, because I think it makes the difference between learning and simply 'receiving'. My colleague and friend Andriani Piki has found that engagement plays a key role in how people decide to use technology to support their learning, and that those students who are engaged in learning have better marks as a result.

Can we teach engagement, can we develop it, and if so how?

From my experience I can only say that all we can do as tutors is to keep putting passion in what we teach. That helps. And if we feel we are not really engaged with what we teach, there might be little point in complaining if our students are not either.

The other thing is the openness to new things. Ideally we should all try to leave space in our minds for new ideas, and keep exploring, keep talking, imagining, and challenging what we know. For people like me it is not easy, as I am stubborn and slow to accept change. But I have my students which keep me on my toes.

These students have also taught me a lesson this summer: not to underestimate them. A couple of those 'quiet' came to graduation and when I asked them about what they were working on, I got the most amazing answers. They are doing fantastically well. Those quiet students which did not seem to engage at all. A nice surprise indeed.

Information systems courses: Where we are

This year I started developing some course material for a course on information systems. It has helped me that I lecture on several courses on this area (for many people this is not an area, it is a discipline, for others it is a field). I began searching for appropriate textbooks. My findings so far is that there are very good best seller books in information systems, with authors producing a new version almost every year including new topics, exercises, case studies and of course, online aid tools.

However, I have not found yet what I think reflects where we are now. Where we are in my view is that we have a landscape full of information systems applications, certifications, and research in both profit and non profit sectors. We are full of models and approaches that tell us about information systems maturity in stages, information systems adoption in stages, acceptance and satisfaction of information systems through different factors and elements (and their linkages). This is the ground level of the landscape.

The hills and mountains of the landscape are the ones being described by many of these best seller books. They talk about the pervasiveness of information systems in daily life, their key presence in organisations, their help to competitiveness. These books show lots of cases of successful organisations adopting and using e-commerce systems, ERP systems, CRM systems, decision support systems. They talk about database management, project management and security management. They prescribe ways of using all these systems and technologies. Of course there are many ways and approaches to do so. But the basic premise that information systems are here to stay remains, together with the assumption that they become assets in an organisation, which, like costly football players, need to be maintained, developed and protected, because at some point in time, they will deliver what they promise; and it is only a few organisations which will play by the book. Whether our students will then climb to these hills (and many will also fall down after discovering that there is more to see), or if they will remain in the grounds of the IS world, I think we are not appreciating the richness of the IS landscape.

So it seems, we have forgotten the basics of information, knowledge, and systems, oer if you include them in text books they seem to come first and never to be repeated (well you should know by now these things). You do not talk about these things when you are selecting a costly ERP or CRM system, or when you are developing web-based software which will also be accessed via mobile phones. You now need to learn the language of usability, cloud computing, social networking, e-government, e-commerce, e-marketing. You need to talk about end users, tiers of architectures, hosts and providers. The user will then see how this language can be adapted to their own realities in organisations. We know you will do that in practice.

Pity really. We need to constantly remind ourselves that only a tiny proportion of the world population has access to information technologies, and that even so, the basics should be learned so that we can use technologies better. Courses should be designed to take anyone who has an interest in information systems and technologies. They should also learn the definitions of what they are going to be dealing with. They should also be provided with a learning environment to try different things, engage in projects, and learn from what they do.

Tutors can also have the opportunity to provide context for information systems. Ideas of sociology or critical theory can help us here. Systems seem to have emerged out of the need of human communication. In organisations this communication has a dominant purpose and orientation (profit). But people need other things, we also communicate to develop ourselves and help others develop. We should also learn how to implement systems with the idea of communication in mind.

The message goes also for researchers. We seem to have adopted different models and approaches to map the context of information systems and guide action to ensure smoother or more humanly oriented systems implementation and use. We keep identifying factors, issues and criteria to know what is best to do when things do not go according to plan. We test lots of hypotheses. So what? What is happening afterwards? Are we informing managers of what to do? Are we then incorporating these findings in our textbooks or courses? Can we then venture into telling our students what is official (according to the text books) and what is really the case in organisations? Are we trying to develop them as critical and ethical individuals?

So here is the suggestion for an information systems course and textbook. It starts with basics on data, knowledge, information. It then provides a sociological context for the emergence of information systems and technologies. It then describes how is that managers think, and how this thinking is influenced by systems. Then we present official and unofficial ways of establishing IS functions and doing things like IS strategy, IS development and IS evaluation. We then move into particular applications in the supply and demand side of organisations. We continously encourage students to investigate how these ideas really happen, and how for instance a methodology like PRINCE2 is adopted in organisations. We promote group work and use simulations, the beer game, some practice with spreadsheets and databases. We assess students on their competences to develop a solution to a problem, but also on their personal take on what is the usefulness of models and approaches. We ask them to continously keep an eye on the profit and non-profit orientation given to information systems.

And we keep telliing them that they are very fortunate to be able to study and use systems and technologies. We remind them that the world out there is not what is like in the text books. We need to nurture grounded individuals.

Off to write my course material then!

The gap in the IT job market

From a number of different conversations with graduates seeking for IT jobs and with employers seeking for IT graduates, something that many would not believe is happening. There is a gap between what employers want and what graduates are offering.

Many employers want people who are committed, who are willing to engage with IT problems and who are able to go beyond their own area of comfort or expertise. They do not seem to find this sort of people when they interview or recruit. After endless assessment activities, interviews and the like, they reach a staring conclusion: Many people do not have this kind of 'X' factor. They then need to go into another round of recruitment!

Graduates on the other hand come to me with concerns about not getting a job in which they can gain experience and develop their IT and management careers. The last statistic I heard from one of them is that for every position available there could be 200 applicants. So graduates apply but find it difficult to go through the process. There are some good stories though: A graduate obtaining a position as a data administrator, another getting into teaching, and another one realising he needs to redefine his expectations. Among graduates I still find those who think that having connections will get them a job. Partly true. But partly misleading. Specially if they come to me to 'get them' a job. Or if they end up 'begging' for it. None of these work with me and with many employers. At least in the side of the world where I am now.

There is a gap in the IT job market that in my view needs to be addressed from both sides. Employers need people that can 'hit the ground running', in other words people who are ready to deliver what is expected. But we all know that it takes time, and even if you get a job candidate who is like this, then s/he might have several job opportunities. It is important to give candidates a good space to find their ways, as quickly as possible, but giving them the opportunity to put their skills into practice before hitting the ground (and hopefully continue walking).

Candidates on the other hand need to show better what they are capable of. I come across CVs that look like lists of bullet points on technical languages, tools, courses and marks (nothing on commitment, client engagement, understanding needs and being proactive in the best possible ways). More needs to be said about how people see themselves, what strengths and limitations they bring to the job, and how they have developed their career so far. Promising too much can also be a bad thing.

I also come across individuals who just 'think they deserve' something better, given that everyone (including themselves) expects nothing else but success. I went through a similar thing myself and I thought that I had done enough to 'deserve' a good job. A good friend asked me: Why are you so worried of failing? Another good friend told me: Things take their own time to come to you. I am very glad for their advice. There are lots of things that we can call 'work' that need to be done, there might be just few things we can call 'jobs'. If we only wait for the latter, we might be missing work that no one is willing to risk doing, in other words missing opportunities.

I am sure we can keep ourselves mentally active by reviewing things we have learned, by talking to people, by thinking positively and laterally (simple solutions to problems) and by valuing what we have, the people that love us and that will treat us the same, with or without a job. Good friends can make a difference.

IT and disasters

The recent events on Haiti made me remember what happened in Colombia, my home country, in 1994. There was an earthquake that devastated the city of Armenia. At that time I was working as an IT project manager and it stroke me that despite the increasing popularity of geographical information systems (GIS), there was very little effort in putting this technology to the service of disaster recovery and city regeneration. More than 10 years on, Armenia is now back on its feet, thanks to a collective effort, sustained investment and more importantly, the hard work of its people.

Last Friday (January 15th 2010) when beginning a seminar I then raised the same issue: Where are the IT experts when it comes to disasters? A few hours later I got an email from ICT4D, a collective umbrella organisation. One of the participant organisations had created a wiki with videos, photos and other items from Haiti. You can see it at http://inventory.ict4peace.org/Haiti+Earthquake+-+January+2010

Today (6 days after the earthquake) I have seen the following links that indicate that there are many people whose knowledge and software or technology products could be used to support the work on the ground in Haiti.

• http://wiki.crisiscommons.org/index.php?title=.php&title=Haiti/2010_Earthquake This is a wiki that has a number of entries with people who could contribute with software or skills; there are already organizations offering help in locating victims, mapping the different efforts that are being undertaken, and organizing events to 'think of' new possibilities. One of this events is called crisis camp (http://crisiscamphaitiwdc.eventbrite.com/), and will explore how to produce some layers of information that could be available graphically and made accessible through mobile applications. According to CNN, there are other suggestions to be discussed in the event that include:

• Creating an online locator system for families seeking lost loved ones

• Setting up an online communications tool similar to Twitter that would allow relief workers and others to talk with each other in real time

• There is another event called BarCamp, a series of events in different countries, in which possibilities for projects and ideas are discussed freely and without formal agendas. When going through the link, I discovered that these events have / will take place in Africa, Asia and South America among other regions. Interesting. There is one BarCamp scheduled for Bogota, Colombia, on the 27th of February 2010.

• The online locator system (http://www.haitiwelfare.com/) is a database (sponsored by Google) in which you can type names of people with the aim of either giving information about them or asking for information about them.

• Back to the wiki technologies. In November 6 2009 Recently I attended an event called know how now in London (http://www.knowhownow.org.uk/) in which an organisation called apropedia (http://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia) has developed a wiki to put all information about building simple and sustainable solutions. It gathers such information from all those who have experience on the ground. The idea is to offer these knowledge and in different languages to people, so they could build their own solutions for. An entry I just saw in this repository is called 'building a basic shelter'. Anyone could contribute.

So it seems, technology is there and can be made available to provide information. A key issue is to make information simple, accessible and easy to edit / update. With these and for sure other possibilities, a question that comes to my mind is: do we need some kind of co-ordination mechanism so that people can find easily links to this information? When looking at some of the above links, unless I had them referenced somewhere else, it was not easy to find. Our friends from Google should take notice of this. When it comes to disasters, maybe we need some keywords.

And another question: What about different languages? Unless you know English, you might not know how to look for this information. This seems to reflect what is happening now in the ground: lots of nationalities together, everyone wanting to help, but it seems, there is very little co-ordination. IT guys should try to promote co-ordination and user intake of these technologies /possibilities to help in disasters.

Prospects for 2010

With heavy snow now in the UK, and some time to ponder on what could be happening this year, I have ventured to add to my previous post regarding some prospects for 2010. Hopefully these will be useful to those looking to work in making IT successful in organisations.

Time to decide. Many companies are now going to decide how much IT they keep and invest on. Those who have acquired previous commitments on big projects will either go ahead with them or will shed proposals or plans for the next year. In theory, the most sensible thing to do would be to wait and see. However, some opportunities could be lost. It is like going to explore a new market, in which there were positive signs but the wind of recession has frozen them. One could say that we need to wait until the frost has gone, others would say that we should be go into the new market anyway. If recession is everywhere, shall we let it freeze us too?

New and old knowledge need to be used. Of course new technology products will come into place, but they will need to be connected to old systems. So IT professionals will have to either reutilise their old knowledge to help plug in new technologies, or will venture in exploiting the new. Iphone applications are a good example. They should allow connection to transactional systems (e.g. banks), whilst at the same time whoever wants to design a new iphone application will have to learn how to do it with a different operating system, browsers, security, etc. In both cases there are opportunities. What we do not want to see is IT professionals 'waiting' to have a clearer idea of where to go. Someone has to take the lead.

Location is going to be important again. Previous years economy led us to think we could be working anywhere as IT professionals. My view now is that location matters for several reasons. First, with companies cutting on graduate posts, training opportunities or research and development, they are now 'downsizing' and choosing cheaper locations to operate. They are also hiring new professionals where they are based. So either you stay in the location where you can be hired, or you go to a new location but make sure that you place yourself strategically so that companies see you. I met someone recently who is a SAP consultant coming from abroad to the UK. Fantastic no? I suggested this person to be in the right place. In the UK I have heard of the IT corridor that runs west from London to Reading. Alternatively with this skills you could offer your services in locations where the competition is less strong.

Network even if this means changing your habits. Many of us meet other people in specific circumstances: colleagues from degrees, from the neighbourhood, from church, old employers. It is time to give them a ring if you want to ask them how they are doing, if they know who needs and IT professional or to develop new ideas. Why not propose new things, at least to have a coffee and catch up? Many ideas do not need lots of money. Doing a business plan, going to a chamber of commerce to ask for funding opportunities, getting yourself a trainer certificate in some IT equipment and then setting up your own business from home with a partner, these are ideas I have come across by talking to my former students, some of which are still in the look for jobs. Another of my students is now writing a research paper with me, and we began looking for a PhD studentship for him, all of this whilst he and I do our jobs. Of course, working through networks and with them takes time, but this is also a change of our habits if we're used to 'normal' working times.

Substitute the perfect job for a good one. Have you considered that maybe you are not ready yet for the job you're looking for, that such a job has been frozen or that it does not exist yet? If you have done so, congratulations, this is an honest account of reality. Look for a job that allows you to keep active, to pay the bills, and meet people. Yes, you could have the best qualifications in the world, but they are yours, not owned by anyone else. Companies are on the look for talent and skills, not qualifications. Maybe qualifications gave you awareness on talents you have and skills you need to develop, so think about what else you need to do. And you could do it whilst keeping a good job. Even volunteering jobs give you the chance to learn new things and meet people. Do not underestimate what comes your way unless you are someone like a good old friend who decided to wait for over eight (8) months (and there was no recession) for the perfect job to come. Ejem, he was also sponsored by his wife...

Finally, do not think you're wasting time by trying. Trying means you are on the look, that the glass is half full and not half empty (my friend kept trying). Despair, desperation, anxiety and other feelings can negatively affect us. But there could be worse things, one of them being 'dead' while alive. I remember hearing a former military expert who lost his leg and part of one arm. He told us his vivid account of how it happened, and how in the midst of the ordeal he mentally decided that it was better to fight for life than to lose it. He survived and began a different life, not easy but with full of challenges ("One damn thing after another!"). He keeps positive because being negative can lead him to lose life. So it is a question of losing life by still being alive if we think we're wasting it. If you feel desperate, phone a friend, go for a walk, tell off relatives who want to feel pity for you and join others like you who are on the look.

Good luck to us all! I am now on the look for funding!