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.