More Toys for Schools

A Good Idea?
Please tell me our education system will improve with this (what I consider 'questionable') investment! Since I am a proud owner of Apple stock I'm all over the idea of more hardware/app sales and thus profit for APPL. But really, does ANYONE really believe the right way to improve education is to buy more stuff? How about investing in good teachers, getting rid of the rubber rooms of the union-protected lousy teachers, and stop teaching revisionist history? Education has become such a political tool that our so-called leaders in education believe they can spend as they wish and look to our politicians to support bond issues to raise taxes. Well, here in my home town, that strategy AIN'T WORKIN' NO MORE! We have a brand new school which we found the money to build (capital) but no money to run it year after year (operational). Now don't get me wrong. I believe a school was needed in this town. But there's a right way and a wrong way to plan, build and run a school. Unfortunately, the approach used here was short-sighted. Every BUSINESS person knows you must budget for both pools of money to run a business. But our politically-centric school leadership think they can go to the well year after year to get more money to keep schools open. Here, our teachers are struggling to perform with outdated laptops, the technology group can barely keep the servers up, and the on-line resources are compromised by outdated processes that do not reflect the true power of technology - that is, we have simply automated paper-based processes and procedures. Before we invest more in technology "toys" lets leverage the existing technology investments to make the most use of the technology we do have. Further, think about this: Our school technology departments are challenged to keep things running as it is; if the local public schools were to go the route of introducing a new "tool", the tech folks would have yet another platform to support. Does this make sense?

Paperless?
This article promotes the idea of "paperless" as a money-saving justification for this abuse of taxes. Really? How long have we had computers in business? Can we really claim any benefit of a paperless trend? Does it work? I work with 20 to 30 different companies every year and can tell you the idea of paperless is a joke. Why can't our so-called ivory tower academics (and real-world-challenged politicians) look to real-life data in business and see that their fantasy of ROI based on a paperless initiative is not supported by the facts. And, by the way, as a student of training, instruction, and integrated organizational learning, I submit that paperless may not be the best way for our students to learn. You and I know it comes down to the integrity, skills, and commitment of the individual teacher. I know all of you can recall those "special" instructors and teachers in your lifelong educational journey that have inspired you, mentored you, guided you, broadened your horizons, and opened your eyes. That's where our investments must be focused.

Refocus
Every day I work with technology clients to help them make good decisions related to technology. I can tell you that, more often than not, technology is NOT the answer. 90% of my profession is dealing with the "people" side of technology - that "soft stuff" that really makes a difference. Technology, as a solution, is not a solution at all; only a means to automate the solutions and processes that were established by PEOPLE. In this case the people component of the equation is the TEACHER and the PUPIL.

(NOTE: At the risk of repercussions from the academic community, I have taken the liberty - via BCC - this message to a few teachers and school administrative folks)

<><><><><><><>
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/figLfK
ARTICLE EXCERPT: (follows)
<><><><><><><>

New York orders thousands of iPads for schools

“The New York City public schools have ordered more than 2,000 iPads, for $1.3 million; 300 went to Kingsbridge International High School in the Bronx, or enough for all 23 teachers and half of the students to use at the same time.”

This reflects a trend across the US education sector which is attempting to find a way to go paperless. Roslyn High School on Long Island handed out 47 iPads on December 20 to students and teachers in two humanities classes. The eventual aim is to provide iPods to 1,100 of its students .

Apple is boosting the trend, working with textbook publishers on instructional programs and sponsoring iPad workshops for administrators and teachers.

The tablets are used to replace textbooks, as correspondence machines, and as a means to create and return assignments. The notion is that by using tools kids love, pupil attainement takes a boost, use of such tools is also thought to boost outside school learning activity.

However, as the New York Times observes, “Educators, for instance, are still divided over whether initiatives to give every student a laptop have made a difference academically.”

Some argue that the iPad may have the whizz-bang factor you might seek to impress children, but the real issues of teaching remain. Others counter the device is a powerful and versatile tool that can be of use in education, take this book-length analysis of best practises in using iPods in Italian language learning, for example.

Similar reactions greeted the introduction of the iPod into classrooms. Then an Australian research project at the Victoria Department of Education found use of the devices generated, “Improvements in all curriculum areas and also in behavior, motivation and responsibility by the end of the project.”

According to teachers, half the students reported that they learned better by doing things and liked to be active learners.

The size and portability of the device also boost usage, and that’s particularly interesting in light of Forrester’s recent report claiming adult iPad users may rush to upgrade to iPad 2.0, passing their existing device onto their children.

Multimedia savviness also boosts the appeal of these devices: the ability to pinch and zoom into visual assets was part of the secret behind the success of the iPod touch.

Chris Van Wingerden, vice president at dominKnow once explained, “The ability to zoom in and out of web content means that the experience of taking a course online is so much more intuitive than the experience on many other mobile devices.”

Following a small iPad experiment, Scott Wolfe, the principal of Fouth Mountain Elementary School observes, “I think this could very well be the biggest thing to hit school technology since the overhead projector.”

Apple meanwhile remains Europe’s biggest education supplier on strength of its joined-up approach to solutions provision in the sector.

“Apple is committed to education, we have a dedicated and experienced team, and we provide not just product, but solutions,” Apple’s director of EMEA education markets, Herve Marchet has previously stressed. “I believe we are relevant to the market.”

Paralyzed by Procedures

We often work with clients who have documentation in place. Of course, more often, we work with clients who DON'T! That aside, though, those who may have documentation, procedures documented in support of their processes, often wonder why, after all the investment in documentation, things still don't work. There are a lot of reasons for this but, simply said, just writing down your procedures will not guarantee a smooth running infrastructure. Questions we have to ask include:

1. Have you considered the hierarchical "Policy-Process-Procedure" model whereby they support a higher, overall, more holistic objective or goal?
2. Are your procedure truly written in support of the process?
3. Have you considered the interdependencies and interfaces between your processes and procedures?
4. Do you have buy-in for the processes?
5. Is your documentation formally published in a common and controlled repository, under version control and change management, and available to all those who need visibility?
6. Do you have defined process owners with authority to monitor, manage, and improve their processes?
7. Is there a chance your procedures are driven by the tool selected for automation rather than the process itself?
8. Have your procedures been tested?
9. Can you measure the performance of your processes and procedures and is there a feedback loop to drive improvement?
10. Do you encourage compliance to process and procedures?

Think about these questions in the context of the procedures our TSA personnel use at the airport security checkpoints. Here we have very well defined procedures ranging from what liquids you can pack in carry-on, the ID check, and the "stuff" one needs to put on the X-ray belt. However, ask yourself this one question: "Are we simply executing to the 'letter of the law (defined procedure)' to the exclusion of the objective of these procedures?"

I would submit that the procedures used by TSA actually get in the way of the overriding objective. If you have been through a European security check lately, you'll know exactly what I'm saying. While they have these procedures too, they haven't lost sight of the overall objective. They see the procedures as one component - critical component indeed - but just one component of an overall system designed to achieve an objective.

Put your processes to this test: "Do our processes and procedures effectively serve the overall objective?"

Due Dilligence?

Are we doing all we can to meet the needs and understanding of ITIL for our clients? I have to ask this now, after attending the itSMF Fusion event in Dallas this past week. The presentations were, in my opinion, better than previous years. We're seeing a lot of progress in applying ITIL concepts in the real world. But I am concerned that our training is not keeping pace. The reason? I overheard someone behind me in one of the sessions complaining that you can't do what the speaker was suggesting. He commented that change is not involved 'that' early in the process. Now I have no way of knowing if this individual had completed Foundations training. But I know, given the context of the topic of the presentation, this gentleman was wrong. He had a short-sighted understanding of the scope of Change Management.

Why does this concern me? As consultants, we work with customers to help them adopt ITSM concepts as documented by ITIL to drive improvement in their operations. ITIL cannot be force-fed. If our clients are not being trained properly, we, as consultants, have to deal with their lack of knowledge, lack of understanding WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THEM IMPLEMENT SERVICE MANAGEMENT! There are enough challenges in any ITSM effort without having to deal with educating our clients in the basics of Service Management as espoused by ITIL. It is both a distraction and an additional expense.

I made a point to raise this concern this past week with those leaders in ITIL who DO care. I did this simply because if one assembles a group of people to drive improvement one should expect that if those people have a specific level of qualification, they understand the basics. I recognize it is our job to help clients incorporate these concepts into a practical framework for implementation and in doing that we have to help them fully understand the key concepts. But if the basics are missing, or worse, if the basics were not addressed properly to begin with, some individuals fill the gap with their own interpretation(s). Once they integrate this in their minds, it becomes a barrier to being open and understanding the real facts. In a consulting situation it presents challenges, barriers, and possible embarrassment for the customer (imagine a workshop in which a key manager makes a statement that everyone else in the room knows is in direct conflict with the fundamental principles of a process!). It adds a level of complexity that may derail the entire service management initiative.

I find those individuals who received their certification through on-line training to have the greatest problem in understanding the concepts. They may pass the exam. But quite frankly, how valuable is the certification, really? If they don't fully understand the full scope of the concepts - an impossible expectation of on-line training - they are only making incremental progress in being good stewards of their company's processes.

One of the principles I offer to my clients is to use the same training organization for all of their training. That, at least, provides some level of assurance of consistency. In dealing with change, there are enough variable with which to contend without being concerned that "ITIL 101" is compromised.

Impact on a System

A friend of mine sent me this link (http://www.bornagainamerican.org/ ). Here's what I wrote to her about it:

I saw this guy on a show some time ago. I couldn't agree more. The one line that really sticks with me is, "...I thought I knew the rules of the game..."

None of us know the rules of the game any longer. I have a stock portfolio with which I have no idea what to do. The rules are not settled. You used to be able to make an informed decision about how to invest and be right 60% to 80% of the time. Now, the rules are changing, our social fabric is tearing and no one knows what to do. I worked my butt off as an independent only to be taxed to death. I'm not in to hiding my money from taxation. But really, the middle class now is bearing the brunt of everything and the incentives to do well are getting chipped away, piece by piece. I don't resent change. I do resent bureaucrats changing things without thinking through the market and psychological implications. If they cannot understand those issues, then maybe they should keep their asses out of the kitchen and quit messing with the fundamental architecture of our society. In this song they make the point that jobs go overseas. Well, gee, I wonder why? Tax a corporation to death, impose impossible union restrictions, and hold it up for ridicule for making a profit, and you're surprised that jobs go overseas????? There's a fundamental concept in Six Sigma that comes from Systems Theory. You cannot improve a process by pushing the burden upstream or downstream to another process. It only makes the problem invisible- for a time - and does nothing for the overall system. In fact, it will likely make the entire system worse. Edwards Deming said (yes, I'm paraphrasing - he was a physicist so I'm less precise than the language he used) that those uniformed, uneducated, untrained, hacks can do more damage than good in trying to improve a system. I use a simpler example in my training. Take a gel insert, push your finger in the middle. Does the gel get displaced? Well, maybe you should think about what is being moved "upstream and downstream"!

Not Every Organization Will Be Successful

I am constantly amazed by the number of organizations that operate with the belief that adopting this or that methodology or complying with a given standard or framework will make all their dreams come true and their problems go. There are a number of reasons not every organization that starts down the ITIL path is going to be successful. And those reasons go back to one of the quality gurus of the 40's and 50's. For your consideration I present the reasons in no particular order:

• Adopting a process framework requires change. An organization that is not open to change cannot be successful in adopting a standard or framework.
• Decisions require facts. Assumptions, soft figures, guesses, and "from the gut" intuition have no place in decision-making.
• Changing one element of a business process impacts other elements. Think of a water balloon. You cannot push down on one side of a balloon filled with water without displacing water elsewhere in the balloon and altering the shape and functionality of the balloon in general.
• The concept of constraints as they impact a system is very closely related to the above point. Regardless of where one may be in an organization, providing a service or fulfilling support, all individuals operate within a system. Ignorance of the reality of a system is just naive. One process, one individual, or one team can only be as good as the constraints placed on it by the system.
  
• Leadership, though vital to the successful adoption of any process framework, is not sufficient. Motivation for improvement must be integrated into the overall program and ultimately the fiber of the organization.
  
• Maintaining focus, momentum, and energy throughout an improvement program requires clarity. Clarity as to why we're doing this. Clarity as to what this means to me. Clarity as to how what I do today impacts the overall organization.
  
• Measurement is essential. You've heard the adage, now excessively over used. You can't improve what you cannot...what...?
• Uncertainty must be eliminated! How is it possible to eliminate uncertainty? And what uncertainty are you talking about? Process owners must feel they are working in a culture that is open to change, willing to support the entrepreneurial spirit, and will not condemn those who are working with a sincere commitment to the organizational objectives.
• Process owners must believe in and trust management. Sorry management. If your people do not trust and believe you, their efforts will lack heart and commitment. They will always be looking over their shoulder rather than forward.

Point Solutions Just Don't Cut It

Woe be to the process owner who might boast about how their process works. If that process works in isolation, it is neither effective nor efficient and one may suggest that process does not work at all. It is the job of the IT Service Manager to make certain the inputs of one process yields outputs that support those dependent processes. And thus the dilemma of organizational process improvement. If you do not deal with all the processes, can you effectively deal with one at a time?

Before we propose an answer, consider the individual process owner who is both responsible for and proud of his or her process. The level at which their process can mature (i.e. increase in capability) is restricted by constraints that lie either in their own process or within related, interdependent processes. The astute process owner recognizes these limitations yet has no means to drive improvement in the other process. How does one deal with this in an organization?

The first step is to identify the individual process limitations within the context of the overall service management organization. No one process is held exclusively accountable yet it is within the process evaluation itself that the limitations may be identified. It is not that the process is exclusively responsible for a missing element, but that it is during the process evaluation that the deficiency is often detected - that is, during evaluation, gap sensitivity is greater and more enhanced.

Quite frankly, it is nearly impossible for a process owner to recognize the deficiency; they are just too close to the process elements. Further, it is even more difficult for a process owner to exact corrective action on the gaps if there is no authority that recognizes process deficiency is an organizational liability. Thus the second step is to identify an authority that has overall responsibility for organizational effectiveness as realized in the service management framework.

Finally, it is a management responsibility to ensure the dependencies across all processes are identified and follow-up action taken to "raise all boats."

So, where does one start? Must we work on ALL processes at once? Yes and no:
1. Identify what is required to meet your customer needs
2. Determine what you want to accomplish with your service management initiative
3. Define the requirements

Now you may begin descending from the higher-level objectives to the individual processes:
4. Decompose the requirements into the individual process interdependent components
5. Map how each requirement is fulfilled by each component
6. Use that information along with budgetary and customer inputs to scope and time-line the effort
7. Charter the initiative including authority under a Program Manager who will take responsibility for seeing individual process projects through to completion.

The reality is you are building a system. You will work on a number of different processes but the efforts will no longer be point solutions. They will be:
a. Focused on meeting an overall objective
b. Tied to individual requirements
c. Coordinated around the interdependencies of each process (inputs/outputs)
d. Prioritized, budgeted
e. Authorized

How Does a Process Consultant Bridge the Gap?

It is not at all uncommon for a process consultant, steeped in the virtues of his or her best practice expertise, to lose sight of the importance of selling their ideas. At times we do live an illusion. Why wouldn't everyone recognize the value of what we bring to the table? It just makes sense, right? Well, there are those with whom we work that are, at best, suspicious and at worst highly skeptical and resistant.

One particular project to which I contributed repeatedly helps me bridge the gulf between the domains of the highly technical and management. Under the guidance of a technical architect, this project required a careful integration of a technical solution couched within several key processes of IT Service Management. This was a unique opportunity for me to use my process design, improvement, and management guidance skills as part of a rather complex technical project. I have since used the solution we designed as an example of the critical importance of adopting a best practices process framework for my clients. When engaged with highly technical client personnel, I am now able to reference the process elements that underpinned the solution. Not only has this helped gain credibility for my services, but it has enhanced the acceptance of IT Service Management principles within my clients.

Simply put, to bridge the gap:

• Gain real-world, practical experience to which you can relate and gain credibility
• Work the organization from the top-down and bottom up
• Learn to speak the language of the target audience at both ends of the hierarchy
  
• Understand the challenges of all stakeholders
• Be prepared, at a moment's notice, to diagram and talk to your solution highlighting the value all along the way in a language or context that means something to your audience
• And finally, if you are speaking with network people, perfect the art of diagramming your solution on a wet cocktail napkin with a dull golf pencil.
  

What If...We don't have a process owner?

Quite simply, you lose. You can invest as much time and effort in process definition and mapping as you wish. You can commit a team to assessments, gap analysis and process mapping exercises. You can define the objectives, KPIs and KGIs and then document and publish your process. But without a process owner you will not be able to:

• Identify a single "go-to" person to hold accountable for the process


• Know who is qualified and authorized to make changes to the process


• Update the performance and indicator metrics as business conditions change


• Mature the process to accommodate changing customer, business and IT needs


• Drive continuous improvement to the process


• Get buy-in for use of the process by those who would prefer doing business they way they always have


• Mature the process as personnel become more skilled and automation is introduced


• Expand the process scope to other business or regional segments


• Train users, customers and management in the use of the process


• Manage the process for success


• Pro-actively identify risks to the process


• Know when the process is in control and, perhaps more importantly when it is about to go out of control


• Survive an audit


• Ensure consistency in the process output


• Manage, control and ultimately reduce costs by removing process inefficiencies


• Achieve broad and effective integration of processes

Now, do you think it is important to identify a process owner? Not only is it important, it's vital. Yet one organization after another insist upon working on their processes with no clear understanding as to who will own them. Or, they appoint a single individual with process ownership responsibility across all processes. That's unfortunate, as it is hardly reasonable to expect a well qualified Incident Management process owner to be equally effective in Capacity Management.

You must treat a process as a living, breathing entity. Processes must nurtured and cared for so they will evolve and grow in alignment with changing business conditions and technology. It does no good to spend time on a process only to have it gather dust, age and progress into obscurity and irrelevance. Unlike fine wine and Italians, processes don't get better with age - particularly if they are neglected.

Save Money - OUTSOURCE!

I heard a commentator on CNBC this morning refer to the recent credit crisis as symptomatic of our "microwave" culture. You just have to love that term. It captures the shallowness and immediate gratification that has come to be accepted as the norm for many of our corporations. We see it in everything particularly outsourcing. Indeed, outsourcing can save money. But use of outsourcing as a solution does not (NEVER!!!) absolve the outsourcing organization of its responsibilities in managing the relationship and, more importantly, understanding what they are outsourcing in the first place. This is true for application development as well as data center operations. One might think that outsourcing should not only reduce costs but, at a minimum, maintain current service levels. This cannot happen under an outsourcing contract, though, for two reasons:
1. It is impossible to capture all that a dedicated internal team does in contract language that is acceptable to both parties to the contract.
2. The contract itself becomes the upper limit of the work effort.

When the manager of a development effort who does not understand the task he or she is outsourcing, makes the decision to outsource, too much falls through the cracks. The work that may have been done by a dedicated team is rarely fully understood or documented. It then cannot be translated into a contract that represents all that the team was doing for the project. It is nearly impossible to capture every nuance of effort expended by the team. Even a well-meaning manager cannot possibly account for everything in a contract. The outsourcing arrangement then, represents only a portion of the work actually being executed by the in-house development team.

Once the contract governing the work of an outsourcing arrangement is drafted and agreed to, not only does it fail to account for all the work that is done, but it becomes a limiting constraint to realizing the quality that may have been produced by an in-house development team. The reason is quite simply the nature of business. The outsourcing team will typically work only to the limits permitted under the contract. They will certainly do no less than called for, but they will most certainly do no more. Thus, while the existing service levels may suffer, improvement most certainly will suffer. There is seldom any incentive for the outsourcing team to drive improvement.

There is a third reason we accept less than optimal quality in our outsourcing arrangements. Since the primary motivation of outsourcing is cost savings (and is often done to pad the managing executive's resume with high-profile - albeit short-term - accomplishments), too few organizations will demand an internal process owner with the required skills, authority and motivation to own and improve the process. This sounds too much like overhead! I know from experience that the cost of outsourcing what you don't understand (and for which you don't have an accountable, internal process owner) is higher than taking the time to first understand the process and identify a process owner. To be successful, the process owner must then be allowed to manage the process and endowed with all the authority implied as a process owner.

How Fragile Are Your Processes?

A number of years ago I had rescued a friend stranded at the Ft. Wayne, Indiana bus station. During the course of the trip, a butterfly got entangled, literally wrapped around, the radio antenna of my car. It struck me, much later, just how fragile that formerly beautiful creature was. At the time, I was too busy driving, moving forward, to pay any, or much, attention to the butterfly struggling with the antenna. I couldn’t wait to pass a semi so it would blow off the antenna and stop distracting me. And I certainly wasn’t going to stop my forward progress to take the time to rescue the creature or put it out of its misery. I was in too much of a hurry for that.

I felt no remorse or guilt at the time. But, in hindsight, I still feel a sense of obligation and am disappointed that I didn’t’ feel any discomfort. I was so focused on the short-term act of getting from one place to another in less than 35 minutes; I didn’t really care about any peripheral distractions. I suspect I was immune to any level of emotional concern.

OK, race ahead a whole bunch of years. IT data centers are focused on their short term deliverables. While they are “attending to today’s business” what is the likelihood they will ignore the state of their processes? How likely is it they will ignore the pain of their staff, their customers and their superiors while trying to “get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’? I see these fragile processes that have been ignored for years, tangled around some obstacle and those responsible are looking the other way. Distracted, self-absorbed, or protecting their jobs and defending their turf, they won’t, or can’t, take time to address the carnage right in front of their noses.

The problem is the processes won’t “blow off the antenna.” They’ll hang on, broken and disfigured as they might be, and continue to hamper efficiency and productivity. Why do some managers take such a dispassionate stance when it comes to their processes?
• They don’t bother to put controls (and a control plan) in place to manage their processes.
• They’re too busy with day-to-day, “keep the lights on” activity, to be concerned with the processes that are vital to their production activities.
• They don’t have time or perhaps the insight, to put monitors and key metrics in place to gauge the health of their processes.
• They think process improvement is hard; perhaps the mystique surrounding legacy quality initiatives is intimidating.
• There is no perceived financial incentive to pay attention to process health.
• It’s easier to bypass an existing process rather than fix or revise it.
• There are no process owners in the organization or those present don’t understand process fundamentals.
• There is no coherent strategy to resolve issues permanently; true problem management does not exist.
• They do not recognize how the time and associated expense of repeatedly fixing issues impacts overall availability and ultimately revenue.
• They cannot justify dedicating staff to permanent fixes.
• The culture of the company does not support process documentation, process improvement, process monitoring or alignment of processes with organizational vision.

I’ll not preach about the value of being proactive. I’ll just say that, just as I ignored that butterfly, managers who disregard the tenuous nature of their processes are destined to a spiraling cycle of destruction. These processes which were functional, effective and beautiful at one time are now ignored and totally disconnected from the current needs of the organization. They have become disfigured and broken. The trip, from ‘A’ to ‘B’ will be mined with traps and hazards. Caught up in the adrenaline of fixing an issue, managers will only feel remorse much later. They will continue to handle availability events and service delivery failures as one-offs, and fail to see them holistically, as they impede production, profitability and employee and customer satisfaction. By the time they get around to thinking about strengthening their processes, it may be too late.