Detention time verses dwell time

Recently, I was asked to explain the difference between dwell time and detention time.  This is a common question that plagues the transportation industry and as such there is likely more than one explanation.  Here is how I explained it.

Background

The first question that some of you will ask is why is this even a discussion?  The answer in the transportation industry is that you generally only get paid when assets are being utilized.  The challenge becomes knowing what has moved to make money and what has just moved in general.
For the purposes of this discussion the following definitions are required for the reader to continue.

Detention Time

This is the calculation that something has actually physically not moved.  This uses the specific latitude and longitude reading of a GPS device and checks to see if the asset actually moved.  This can be very helpful to find assets that are “static” regardless of where they are.  An example of this is a dropped trailer that has been forgotten or that has been abandoned by a tractor. 

Benefit

1) See what is actually not moving, literally.
2) Find misplaced or static assets regardless of where they are suppose to be.

Challenges

The biggest challenge is to account for GPS drift.  GPS drift is when the latitude and longitude can shift due to GPS tracking precision.  GPS location is based on triangulation.  As the number of satellites change over time the accuracy of the latitude and longitude can vary.  This is called drift.  The 4 decimal place precision is roughly 11 meters.  What this means is that over time a very static GPS location device could look like it moved up to 11 meters and it did not actually move.  This is addressed by using math to account for the drift and then comparing the results against a drift algorithm.  The answer will come back with it did or did not move + or – of the drift value.

Dwell Time

Dwell time time is very similar in thinking to detention but with one large variance.  Dwell time is primarily focused on assets that have NOT left a geo-fenced area.
A geo-fenced area is when you place a boundary around a specific landmark.  This landmark could be a terminal yard, customer site or any other geo-spacial location that has a complete closed logical perimeter (circle, square or polygon).
Dwell time will tell us if an asset has NOT left a defined location.

Benefits

One of the biggest benefits to the organization is that it will tell you if an asset has not left a location.  What can cause this is if the asset has been shunted around the yard for various reason but has not left the yard.  Customers will do this with trailers specifically.  They could be using them for mobile warehouses yet from a latitude and longitude perspective the asset is moving and would not be caught by using latitude and longitude only.

Challenges

The biggest challenge facing dwell time is the interval of the GPS latitude and longitude reporting.  Let’s say that you have a device that is reporting location every 8 hours.  It is possible for a pulse to happen within the location, then, the asset leaves the location and returns prior to the next pulse.  This condition would give a false positive.  To combat this you may have to look at both detention and dwell to isolate patterns.  Another alternative is to increase the polling cycle.

Business questions answered

1) What is not moving = Detention
2) What is not moving and I do not care where it is = Detention
3) What is hanging around a yard and not making money = Dwell
4) What is at my customers and not moving or leaving = Dwell
5) Looking for lost revenue for assets domiciled at customer locations = Dwell
6) Misplaced assets = Detention
7) Dropped trailers = Detention

Visit my trailer tracking site to learn more.

Strategic Planning

This post will deal with the specific issues around strategic planning regardless of organizational size. The same rules apply for all.  I am a big proponent of planning and specifically strategic planning.  It is critically important to know how to plan so you can build the road ahead.  It provides for downstream direction and more importantly a reduction in dysfunctional behaviour.

There can be as many methodologies for planning as there are plans.  Do not let the different approaches confuse what is the purpose of the plan.

 

The information for the plan flows from the bottom up and is distilled from the higher levels to make the plan.   Once the plan is made then it must be lead from the top down.  The vision must come from the top.  It may seem simple but all to often this is not the case.  When the plan is driven from the bottom the phrase “the inmates are running the mad house” comes to mind.

What is the function of each of the areas?

Strategic

The strategy function is the high level that defines where is the organization and why does it want to be there.  The vision in short. The goals are based typically on the SMART acronym of Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and finally Time Framed.  This is typically driven from the mission.

Let’s break this down.  The goals have to be specific and not some nebulous touchy feely element.  You want to grow the company by X or you want to have all products under one group, or you will acquire companies for volume or product growth.

You need to measure the goal so you will know when you have gotten there and more importantly, what needs to be done to get there.  People do not do what you “expect” they do what you “inspect”.  The inspect portion is the measurement.  Another caution here is to measure what gets you somewhere and not burden down the system by too many measures.  I have seen firms spend more on  the measurement then on what the function brings in value.  This is a real concern and as a leader of the strategic plan you need to have your measurements be part of the overall plan and with the correct tools to measure effectively.

The goals have to be achievable.  You cannot put a goal out there that no one believes is reachable.  You want to create stretch goals that make the organization better but not so stretched that buy in to the goal will not be supported.

Realistic goals are those goals that fit the culture of the organization and the overarching team to achieve the goals.  This part of the discussion leads to comments about hiring new skills or rethinking some approach to realistically attain the goal without undo harm to the overall organization.

Without a timeline, most goals are not reached.  The interest wanes and the prospect dims.  Once the timelines are in place then you need to have regular checkpoints to see how you are progressing.  Failure to do so may surprise you when you are getting close to the deadline and you are not there.  This goes hand in hand with measurements.  Your measurements should have expected values for each of these checkpoints.

The strategic plan should be an inclusive approach from the bottom up to gather as much information as possible.  However, the final decisions have to come from the leaders in order to be executed properly.  Strategic plans can be managed to success but they are lead to greatness.  You want to give a clear picture of the plan and why you want to get there.

The strategic plan should span years and have regular checkpoints to ensure you are on track.  It also gives you time to adjust elements in order to achieve the goals.

Tactical

The tactical plan is how you break down the goals into major functions so you can achieve the goals in the timelines specified.

This part of the exercise is where everyone takes their areas of the goals and breaks them down into relevant and meaningful objectives.  These objectives are the building blocks to achieve the goals.  The increment steps to success.

Objectives will span disciplines and departments and will require coordination between the major players.  These objectives can also use the SMART acronym but have a lower context view of the issues.  You may need several objectives to attain just one part of the goal.  The issue and focus has to be on how do we deliver the parts of the solution for the goal in a structured deliberate way.

The tactical plan is typically 6 months to a year and involves shorter checkpoints.  These shorter checkpoints allow for quicker decision making and minor adjustments.

Operational

The operational plan are the short term tasks to achieve the objectives of the tactical plan.  These may projects that deliver key elements for the tactical objectives to attained.  These short term tasks are very specific and will be larger in number than objectives.  The objectives may create many tasks in order to achieve the objective.

The teams required here are more specialized and rarely cross boundaries.  These smaller units are able stay focused on the tasks and have insight into the objectives.  They will know of the goals but will have little insight into the actual progress of the goals.  They should have insight into the objectives.

What are the elements of a strategic plan?

Vision

The vision is what you want to be.  A future statement of how and what your organization will be know for.  It is a small statement that reflects a line in the sand that can be defined.  It should not be a novel with legal, politically correct statements.  If you need to have a coffee and muffin to read it, then the vision can be effective.  The vision is the point in the future.  An example is

“To be the #1 choice of our customers”

Mission

How will you get there is the mission.  The mission statement is the action item to deliver the vision.  Using the example above the mission statement could read

“We will focus on value, a superior customer experience and innovation”

Goals

Goals are the key elements to execute the mission to realise the vision.  The Goals to support the fictitious Mission and Vision above could be.

1) Reduce order process times to 1 day

2) Provide a new major release every 6 months

3) Decrease billing errors to .01 percent.

What are the impacts to the plan?

People

People need to buy in in order for the goals to be achieved the mission to be executed and the vision to be realized.  To do this you need to open communications from the bottom up.  Get the input from the operational people.  Distil this information and let it provide insight into your vision.  The vision, must be reflective of what your people can achieve.  They may need assistance to get there but that will be flushed out in the goals.

I cannot stress enough you need input NOT decisions from the bottom.  All too often I hear, well that is what the department wanted.  This is so wrong on so many levels.  How can we expect a line person to understand the entire machine.  Their insight is very helpful in how we deliver the end product or service but their view is limited to their area.

All too many projects have failed for they tried to please everyone and when you are trying to perform structural change this is not a realistic condition.  Fess up early and get the people to understand or at least know the reason why of the vision.

Remember people respond to what you inspect.  Your measurements should be sensitive to positive outcomes and not compliance.

Process

The day to day processes need to be aligned with the objectives and goals.  Failure to do so, will make the attainment of the objectives and goals highly unlikely. 

The measurement components should be non-obtrusive and the analysis of them part of the process. 

Processes may need to change to support your goals and objectives.  Ensure everyone knows why this is being done.  When processes are aligned you will get buy in and you will not get trapped in the bureaucracy of management of measurements.  I too see this often.  If the measurements are not part of the process then people start to manage the numbers and not the process.  This is very dysfunctional.  The measure has to support the end means and not just be a box to fill in. 

Tools

In most cases in order to truly be successful, the people need to have bought in and the processes have to aligned.  Typically doing this will also ensure you have tools to easily measure the outcomes and to provide this information to the people required to action this to achieve the goals and objectives.

In Conclusion

Plan the work and work the plan.  It is as old as the Romans and still very relevant.  Strategic planning is very important and should be part of any organization regardless of size.

Larger organizations will have formal processes and will have disciplines in place to adhere to the processes.  When and if you become part of these plans, be proactive, probe deeper and find out why certain goals need to be achieved.  It will go a long way in making sure your objectives meet the overall goals.

If your organization does not have a formal process, make one for your area.  The rest of the organization will follow.  If you do not have vision how do your expect your people to follow you.

Another question I get asked often is “I am only a manager how do I do strategic planning”.  This is actually quite simple.  It is a matter of perspective.

The executive branch makes the strategic plans for the whole organizations, Directors then provide tactical plans to achieve this.  Their managers will then in turn be given tasks to achieve the objectives.

Now comes the fun part.  To the organization above you are providing operational tasks.  However, to your staff you are providing strategic goals.  Then the supervisors below you are now giving you tactical plans  and the line staff are given operational tasks to achieve their tactical goals.  It is the water fall effect.

I am currently a Director.  I get my marching orders from the CFO.  I then translate them into tactical plans and operational plans.  To my staff I am providing strategic direction but to my boss I am providing tactical leadership.  You just keep doing this till you run out of reporting layers.

Information and metrics follow the same path.

The executive team decide where they want the ship to travel based on forecasts, staff input and their personal leadership positions.  They they ask the staff to ensure all the elements of the ship can be monitored and managed to arrive at the destination.

By everyone focussing on their role and contributing in a positive way the organization will achieve the plan and hopefully the plan was a good plan.  If the plan was faulty but is being followed correctly then adjustments become easier to apply.  When there is no formal process and everyone is rowing at their own pace and direction, the ship will go nowhere but everyone will be working hard.  Working hard is not the way to success, working effectively is.

Circling the dragon

This is a phrase I use frequently when I am trying to find a stubborn or elusive problem.  I am not always sure everyone understands the statement.  The short definition of the phrase is to keep chipping away on the periphery issues to get to the root (dragon) of the issue.  It also means sometimes you cannot solve the problem in one step and you have to plan your way to resolution.

I will explore both options in this post.

The graphic below shows the dragon in the midst of the OODA loop.  This is by design.  The approach to basic and pragmatic trouble shooting is to follow the loop.

Getting to the dragon by process of elimination

This approach is used when you are not entirely sure of what or where the dragon is.  An analogy would be of a dragon slayer going on a quest to find the dragon.  The dragon slayer would follow the trail and the evidence till the dragon was found. 

You need to really focus on the OODA loop here.  The first step is to clearly observe all the elements not just one the ones you are comfortable with.  Look at it from different angles and from different perspectives.  In the orientation phase of your observation you are likely seeing just a symptom of the deeper problem.  If you could see the root problem (dragon) you would take a different path to solution.  For this discussion we are going to state you are just seeing the symptom. 

Once you have oriented yourself to the observation you need to list the options (decisions) you have.  Play it out in your head what happens with this test or with this action.  Visualize the process.  This will give you what you expect to learn or gain from the exercise.  This is where I see most trouble shooters fail.  They tend to hack away at things and in doing so miss the relevant.  They also, end up wasting time and more importantly they tend to add to the problem. 

The approach of elimination is just that.  Break down the issues in systematic and measured steps.  You should have an expected result from the effort.  Sometimes the effort is to just prove what it is not.  This is OK, sometimes you need to validate the known so you can find the unknown.  As Spock use to say in Star Trek, “if you eliminate the possible all that is left is the impossible”.  There is a lot of wisdom in that.  All too often we jump on the obvious, only to find out it did not solve the problem and we have learned little from the exercise.  By taking a step back before we jump in, we can see if jumping in is even worthwhile.

Once you have played out the possible decisions you need to act on them.  I am amazed at how many people freeze here.  They have a solid basis for their approach, it is based on solid observation and alignment (orientation) with the decisions and yet they do not act.  My favourite clue for this, becomes the accountability blame game.  It manifests itself in statements like “I do not have authority to do this or I sent an email and no one responded”.  This shows lack of ownership and commitment.  If you do not act then how do you expect to solve the problem.  Hiding behind email shows lack of personal accountability and leadership.

Once you act on your decision then you need to start all over again.  What did your action do to change the situation at all?  Even a nothing change is telling you something.  If nothing happens, you may have to undo your action.  If it did in fact change something what did it change.  The exercise of “what is it telling me?” is critical in the orientation step of the repeatable loop.  Force yourself to dig deeper and in doing so you will be given different decisions to draw from.  Once a list of decisions is made act on your plan.  Once the action is done, start all over again.  Are you sensing a theme yet?

Eventually, even if it is just shear will power, you will find the dragon and reduced it to its smallest elements.  The result is the dragon is gone.  Now like all dragon slayers you have to go and find a new one to battle.  How you defeated this dragon now becomes knowledge you can use for your next encounter.

Slaying the Dragon in steps

When you know what the dragon is and where the dragon can be found you may need to take several steps to get to it.  If so, then it becomes all about the planning and execution of the plan.  It is the deeper, more mature, application of the OODA loop.  When you have found the root cause and you know it cannot be slain in one cut then you need to plan and prepare for its exorcism.  To be fair, of late, this is lacking in so many firms and people in  our industry.  We have become obsessed with the tools and the analytics but little work is actually done solving the problem.  We have better diagnostic tools then we ever have had and yet we still are falling behind in solving issues.  This is not unique to the information technology field, all one has to do is look at our health care and you will see we are more focused on the problem then we are on the solution.
In building your plan you need to break it down into its appropriate steps.  Once each step is defined you need to mentally validate that the steps are in the correct order and what is the expected outcome of each step. 

Doing so is critical to the OODA loop execution.
So once you have made your plan, you observe the environment.  This can be done by doing a baseline test and measurement.  You then orient yourself to the observations.  Has this baseline highlighted anything or shown a pattern you were unaware of?  Note these observations for future reference.  Make a decision as to the plan execution.  Execute (Act) on the first step of the plan.

Once the plan is in motion, observe what is happening.  Orient yourself to your expected outcomes.  Are the expected outcomes being realized?  If not, what have you found out?  Do you need to change the plan?  Once you have made up your mind then act on your decisions and the next step of the plan.  Start the loop again at the observe step. 

Doing so will quickly, and hopefully, predictably slay the dragon.  The key is that you must be adaptable to what you are seeing and you must be able to orient yourself to your observations.  Your decisions need to be based on what you see and what the context is of what you saw.  Lastly, without action you become the victim of inertia and in problem solving inertia or inaction is the enemy. 

In conclusion

Problem solving is about bringing solutions to bear.  There are many who can write emails and memos on the problems facing us all.  The real challenge is to bring solutions so the problem are resolved.  To the naysayers who wax poetic “there will always be dragons”, I say to them clearly and with purpose, “Lead, follow or get out of the way”.

The people side of problem solving

As of late the amount of work hitting our team has been staggering. The initial response by the team is that we are overworked. Fair enough….. or is it?

I have always struggled with this comment. My approach is and has always been, if you do it right and pay attention then you rarely have to go back and fix it. If this is a truism then the work you are doing is moving you forward not holding you back.

Since not many people give this argument much thought or at least my current team doesn’t, I thought I would take this blog to express my position or stance.

To solve a problem you have to first acknowledge there is a problem. Seems simple but it is not that simple based on the observations I make on a regular basis. Frequently, I have been known to say in passing “see a problem, fix a problem”. Typically this is something as simple as fixing a colleagues tangled phone cord when you borrow their phone. A simple gesture, but one I consistently do, just because. Other simple ones like filling the paper tray of a printer you walked by because you heard the error tones. Holding the door open for someone whose hands are full should not be something that has to be “memo’d” to be done.

Yet, as I look around I see most of us plodding along and doing as we are told. This is a huge burden for the person that is responsible for telling us work needs to be done. I can’t remember a time when my boss had to explicitly  tell me to do work. Sure, we have meetings to discuss priorities and new projects, but I would be insulted if he had to tell me do something that is clearly in my implicit mandate. An example is doing the annual Disaster Recover Plan. His job is ask what occurred, or to make a decision on if we are going to spend more money on it. He does have to “tell” me to get it done. That is my responsibility and accountability. It makes his life easier and it clears up our meetings for more strategic endeavours.

We are in the midst of a very large multi-vendor phone upgrade. It involves the lion’s share of our users and will impact the entire enterprise. It has been 10 months in the planning and will be executed over 5 weeks. We have fundamentally altered the way we use telephony. By all measures this is the single biggest project our infrastructure group as ever worked on. Saying this, my immediate expectation of my group is to be focused and to think of things that are not so obvious. Put yourself in the chair of the users.

For months I have been listening to the push backs and complaints of my team of how much work they are doing for preparation. I keep reminding them that this large effort will reduce our overall efforts in out years. The smarter ones get this, but the average ones do not. This is why I am writing this post.

Our cabling person is driving 2 hours to visit one of our closest sites to prep for the phone changes. Phones use cables, cable people put in the cable, putting in cables requires tools, cable person should be automatically bringing tools. NOT….. He wasn’t told to, and is very comfortable is stating this. Sadly, this is not such an uncommon event. I have been speaking to my other colleagues and they are experiencing the same type of behaviour. My simple response is “until there is a penalty there will be no change”. Yes I know this sounds harsh and the softer side of me says “you get more with honey then with vinegar”. But what do you do if the honey is not working? Common Human Resource procedure has the manager doing way too much work to get so little in return. So I continue to reward the good behaviour, and then acknowledge the bad behaviour. It makes for a long day at times and many visits to the human resource department.

As a person you have to want to fix the problem that is on the people side of the equation. If you or your team is not personally engaged to fix the problem, you likely will be dealing with the issue for a long time to come. However, if you are capable of creating a culture where your team cares about their job and their relationship with the larger firm, then you will be able to solve the problem right the first time.

The above picture is one of my favourites. The saying goes something like this: “Who is more committed to the breakfast meal, the chicken or the pig?”. The answer is the pig, for it has to give up its life to provide the bacon for breakfast. As of late, I am finding way too many chicken’s laying the low fat, low content eggs and spouting off about how much work they have done. Whereas, the pig cannot say anything for it is too busy being the meal.

Be a real person when solving a problem, and remember that you are likely solving it for someone else. Also, it is not important who fixed it or who solved it. What is important is that it was fixed respectfully and effectively. Spread the praise of others and do not be afraid to call out the naysayers. If the naysayers want a voice, let it be the voice of self-defence instead of their smug offensive.

My New Toy

Well I finally did it.  I supported the economy in my own little way.  I bought a brand new, gas guzzling, kick ass 4X4 truck. I am so happy.  Can you feel the testosterone?

Mine of course is better than this picture. The picture is the same colour but mine has the soft tonneau cover, bug deflectors and the window vent visors.  Are you impressed?

 

Where are “U” in the user experience?

 

This post is a result of the last few days and the constant reminding I have I had to give me team.  In the midst of a technical system failure it becomes so easy to lose track of the users, your role and the role of the people you are speaking to.  From the people, processes and tools approach I adhere to this post is clearly dealing with people issues. These issues are a direct reflection of how they interact with the tools and the processes.  I am a true believer in everyone is accountable for their actions and interactions with others.

Know your role

Support

If you are the support person and you are being asked by your superior a question then please do a baseline assessment.  The mental assessment should go something like this “who are they?”, “what level of knowledge do they have?”, “How much context do I have to provide before I give the deeper answer?”.  It should not be “WHY are they asking”.  This is insulting to the person asking the question.  If your superior has asked a question please answer it.  If you want to have an esoteric mind conversation on the “why” and “conspiracy theories” do it on your own time.  For the most part when someone asks a question they really want an answer. If this is the typical courtesy “how are you today?” then by all means feel free to lie.  But when they ask a question of you because you are the support person, then answer with facts and stay on point.

If your role is support then please provide some.  Remember that you are being asked for your advice and consul to fix a problem.  It may not be your fault or it may be.  That should not affect the facts. Also get over yourself.  Just because you know more then the person who asked the question does not mean you know it all.  You may be surprised what the user and your superior know that could make you look silly if they choose to.  Do not give them a reason to exercise that option.

Treat both the user and your superiors with respect.  You do not have to like them to respect them.  This is a great position to take with anyone you work with, play with or live with.

Speak in the language and context of the person you are speaking to.  If the end user is from warehousing don’t be throwing acronyms their way or speak in geek speak.  Try to use their language.  If you do not know and you want to be successful then you should start to ask questions of them to educate you on the problem in their language.  Picture yourself in a foreign land with a foreign language and you need to get some directions.  Break the communications down to that level. They are likely the master’s of their domain and you can learn something from them instead of telling them things that make your world easier.

End user

If you are an end user and there has been a system failure you have a role to play as well.  It is a very important role.  You are the recipient of the direct pain of not having your system working.  You need to provide more insight then “it doesn’t work”.  Or my personal favourite, “I can’t get my work done and it’s IT’s fault”.  It may be the Information technology’s department fault or it may be what you the end user did.  Either way we need each other to get the problem resolved.  Please keep the drama for your friends in the lunch room and not for the ones who are trying to help.

Please pay attention to what you do when you are using a system and/or a process.  I know us IT folks like to poke fun at the dumb users but hey users get paid to do a job too and that job is rarely a direct result of the technology.  Sometimes it is and then I personally get frustrated when for example a programmer who uses a computer all day to do their job has to have the infrastructure group setup the new monitors or keyboards.  Come on .. . .  get real.  This is tantamount to driving a car and not knowing how to put fuel in it.  Yes I know they exist out there and they are also breeding but someone needs to educate them or better yet slap them.

Leader

If you are the leader please pay attention.  First, I did not use the word manager because that is completely different and was explained in a different post.  The leader has to assess all the facts and from all the players.  Do not get caught in the drama.  Stick to the facts, assess what and who is impacted.  Find out “what changed?”.  Have all parties quantify their statements.  I use the line “what evidence do you have to support your position?”  I get amazing results from this approach.  First it disarms those who want to finger point and it also forces the team to stay on facts and not conjecture.  Following my fact based strategy will save many cycles and reduce stress.

Prove and/or disprove all the theories coming at you.  Your role is to direct the flow of information and more importantly to get the decisions made.  Sometimes these decisions are not made by you but you need to get these decisions made by the correct people. 

You also need to ensure that all parties are not crossing boundaries.  This is very common in large projects and  when people start to influence peddle like a bunch of politicians at voting time.

Be confident of your role and do not let others dissuade you from your role.  It is not good for the team or for you.

Conclusion

Each and everyone of us has a role to play and the role changes as the situation changes.  Sometimes you are the leader, sometimes you the end user and other times you are the support person.

Each and every time you enter a new situation take the time to observe the roles of others and more importantly yourself.  This goes for when we are in informal situations as well.  The best leaders have proven they were also excellent followers. 

Sample argument for a Blade Center

Here is a sample discussion paper I wrote to assist a First Nation Community in evaluating a blade center approach to infrastructure.  The name of the community and identifying details have been altered or removed.

What the following post highlights is that the model changes with blades and virtualization to the positive.  However, an organization’s thinking must change to achieve these benefits.

Issue

The Community administration’s is looking at strategies to upgrade their server infrastructure.

Background

There are currently 11 servers within the community at different stages of their lifecycle. Many are end of life and present a critical risk in the event of failure. The traditional method of creating a business case for each server is both time consuming and may be preventing future opportunities. This briefing note will attempt to demonstrate another alternative.

How does it work today?

In today’s environment when a server becomes end of life the organization is faced with several challenges. The first challenge is to understand the role of the server. Is the role of the server mission critical? Some of the servers today are considered mission critical. The more mission critical a server is the shorter its outages can be. These servers perform functions like email, accounting, grades, Firewall, printing, file sharing etc. Each and every one has its role to play and it may or may not be able to be offline. Only the organization can make that assessment.

Once this assessment is done, then the organization has to determine how big and expandable does the new server have to be to last until that platform is end of life. The recommended recycle time for critical servers is three years. If you follow this approach the first years of the server implementation the server is running well below optimum, the second year it starts to realize full performance and somewhere in its third year the server will start to become strained from overuse. This is a typical scenario and is repeated for each and every server. These ebbs and flows are constant in the industry.

To address this static hardware replacement strategy the industry is now deploying what is called blade centers. These blade centers take the best of today’s hardware and packages them so they can fulfill the needs of many servers on one hardware configuration. This virtualization of physical servers to many logical servers is well demonstrated and proven in the industry. The technology has been proven and it is being used right here on Manitoulin Island at Manitoulin Transport. They were able to consolidate over 100 pieces of equipment down to 10 pieces of equipment while at the same time expanding their services offerings.

Costing Sample

The following table demonstrate the costing model difference between upgrading 11 servers independently verses using one blade center. The blade center described is capable of running 18 servers of the type and model being utilized by the community currently. I have chosen 18 due to the fact more servers are actually being recommended by all the major vendors today. It will also allow the community to build testing environments without having to purchase new hardware.

As you can see the second year of the model the cost structure dramatically switches in the favour of blade centers. If you factor in additional servers then the case for blade center is proven sooner. The third and out years are even more favourable to blade centers.

Benefits of Blade Centers

1. Centralized control and management
2. Cost savings
3. Centralized Backup
4. Back and recovery per server is consistent and resilient
5. Annual incremental increases verses sporadic larger capital costs.
6. Autonomous building of servers
7. Integrated security
8. Improved network performance and resilience
9. Reduced support costs
10. Small form factor
11. Reduced energy costs
12. Reduced heating and air conditioning requirements
13. Industry adopted
14. Many vendors to support the platform and its implementations
15. Increase the number of servers with minimal or no additional costs
16. Increased flexibility for your technology rollouts
17. Hardware independence from your operating systems. Bigger benefit in the Microsoft world.

Burdens of Blade Centers

1. New skills are required to maintain the platform
2. Software to build the platform will need to be purchased
3. Migration project will need to be undertaken to port the existing 11 servers to a common platform
4. Organizational policy change to support central housing and shared resources
5. Governance structure for support and backup rotations
6. Annual operational dollars will need to allocated to sustain the platform

Conclusion

The cost of hardware is plummeting but the challenge of effective use of hardware is ongoing. By adopting a blade center strategy, the community can reduce costs, increase effectiveness and provide a long term platform for the entire community. Each of the current 11 servers is important and their ongoing support and functions are critical to the overall community. A proactive and long term view to their deployment will have a positive impact for the community.

Next Steps

1. Agree to the strategy
2. Build a requirements list for the platform
3. Build a RFP
4. Source the platform
5. Build the migration plan
6. Perform the migration

Stubby Pencil Principal

Technology as the tool

This post is being written to address how technology is meant to compliment the business and not complicate the business.

All too often, businesses and organizations look to technology to solve problems. However, sometimes technology is the problem. The organization must be able to articulate what the organizational problem is before a solution can be explored. Remember I am a technology person and I am saying be cautious of technology. Pay heed, truly.

Here is a true case study and the acid test I use almost every day. During the big space race of the 60’s both Russia and the USA were posed with the same problem. How will the astronauts write in their logs in zero gravity? This was/is a real problem. The countless checklists, science experiments and daily logs are a reality for this type of adventure. The USA Team through NASA started on the zero gravity pens. They Spent 10 of thousands of dollars in its research and came up with a swanky solution. The US astronauts were unaware of the great technological advancement made by the zero-gravity engineers but were happy they had a writing instrument. The soviet cosmonauts were given simple pencils and were equally happy. Both solutions worked and worked very well. Hence this is what I call the stubby pencil principal.

The lesson to be learned in the above case study is, “what is the problem?” Both teams understood the problem. The US team wanted a unique technical solution, while the Soviet team just wanted to solve the problem. Again, both worked. I liked the pencil solution for it was quick, relevant, inexpensive, easy to support and allowed the rest of the engineering team to focus on other real new problem like how to navigate back to earth without melting the humans in side.

Every day I have conversations with people and they come back to me with “how can technology solve the problem?” More times than not, I counter with, “let’s look at the current process”. Address that first.

Humans have been using tools and technology since the cave man and its early use of clubs. The tools then as they should be now were used to solve a specific problem. Craftspeople took great pride in making the tools and then allowing other craftspeople to use the tools. What changed? Simply, it comes down to respect and attitude. When we had only hand tools in the house building industry, each craftsman made sure their part was done well for everyone else would benefit from their work. Today with the advent of almost every tool imaginable and with the mindset that fast is better we get poor work from the beginning to the end. We have the capacity to do more with less but what we end up with us less with more tools.

I still love to witness good craftsmanship whether that is in woodworking, sewing, iron works, painting etc. The one thing I have consistently found is that the correct tool with the correct craftsperson creates art. The correct tool with the wrong person is considered work. The wrong tool with the wrong person produces junk.

Take the time to understand the problem, look for several options and when you are committed to a solution then put it in correctly.

I heat with wood and my wife and I enjoy the process of wood heat. You have to go into the bush, select your trees, drop your trees, cut your trees into stove length, split the wood and then stack the wood. On the surface, why bother? But in reality we have an appreciation for wood heat. We do not over stoke the fire box. We run the house at a reasonable temperature and we are always sensitive to effort required to heat. We are also aware at every stage of the next stage. By this I mean we do not rush and cut any tree, but rather the ones that can be dropped safely, handled with just the two of us and of the correct species to provide maximum heat for the problem. Of course this is not an option for everyone and I am not proposing that every heat problem can be solved with wood. What I am suggesting is that knowing the problem, respecting the options and deciding on a course of action that fits what the organization can support is the correct path.

The same goes for businesses and organizations. I tire quickly when speaking to business leaders who tell me their technology problems to nauseam but cannot express to me the business problem at all. This is tantamount to listening to an electrician telling me his hammer is broken but he cannot express to me why the house has no power.

The same is true when I see accountants using spreadsheet to send text documentation to someone. It amazes me that it can be done when a word processor would have been better. In most cases the accountant is not willing to learn a new tool and is forcing everyone to adjust. This is another form of disrespect.

The current attitude of waste and to throw more technology at problems is only creating bigger issues and forcing the real craftspeople to shake their heads in disgust. I have a saying “those who think they know really annoy the ones who do”, applies here.

Let business do what they are in business for and let technology in all its flavors support that business as a supporting actor and trusted advisor.

Have fun and be safe.

Leadership and Management

Leadership and Management

Ok this discussion could go anywhere and it is as old as time. The questions that is mostly asked is can a leader be made or are they created? I will attempt to give my perspective on this. Again, this one may turn out to be more of a rant but I feel under these times of stress and crisis it is important to have this discussion.

Leadership and management are both required for any organization to be successful. There are many business schools that cloud the issues and interchange the words. I completely disagree with this thinking. Do not get me wrong both words are very positive to me and they are very real roles. However, there is a difference and I will attempt to explain.

Just so there is no confusion, I will state that in my opinion leaders are born. You can teach leaders to be better and give them more tools to work from. I have the same opinion of trouble shooters. You can make them better with training however; they need the character to start from. My personal opinions of those experts whom believe the contrary are saying it to sell the snake oil of their training programs.

Management

Management is the care and feeding of an existing system to make it better and to be efficient. You have management of people, time, scope, quality and a whole ream of other things. In the end, a vision was created by someone or something else and it is now the management of those strategic, operational and tactical items that is important.

Management is critical for any organization to be successful. Well managed teams and organizations can weather many storms and are difficult to knock off balance. However, when real change is needed by the organization to succeed management will struggle with how to solve the problem. Recent events of the economic crisis are case and point in this. Large very well managed companies are failing to respond to the situation. It is because the management team was closed to real inputs and changing factors. Crisis of what we are facing do not happen overnight. It is a long term effect of poor management decisions not necessary poor management. The goal of management is to keep the collective calm. The graphic above is an attempt to illustrate the concept. The consensus concept is not bad; in fact, it is a great management style. However, the concept does not promote innovation or free will. That would cause management issues and those issues must be excised to keep order. This is why well managed organizations can weather a storm but rarely can avoid the storm in the first place.

Then we get into management promotion from within. This is also a two edged sword. You get the insight from someone who has history with the firm; however, this promotes a closed system. Strong management teams promote this behavior and it causes the system to become stagnant and less resistant to change.

Leadership

Leadership comes in many forms. It comes from all levels of the organization and it must start with personal leadership. This is the type of person that steps away from the crowd and asks “why” or “there has to be a better way”. Innovative and creative organizations promote this behavior at all levels not just within their management ranks. Leaders take charge and make the tough decision even in the face of personal adversity. A leader who puts themselves aside and does the right thing for the collective is the true leader. Many leaders can be confused with charismatic managers. Do not confuse the two. Look at what visions leaders leave behind. A leader leaves a lasting imprint on the organization and charismatic managers leave the group with a good feeling but not a clear vision to follow.

A leader by my definition is someone who can positively get someone to do something that they would not have normally done. Once completed it raises the personal bar as it were. By doing so, the person being led is now better for it. Some people are great manipulators and can get people to do things they would not have done. The acid test is the person doing the work better for it or just the person asking for the work done?

A leader leads from the front, is the last to eat, first to rise, the last to sleep and takes care of the people under their care first. Most management schools don’t even recognize what this sentence means and that is why it is a management school.

In times of crisis leadership must be promoted to navigate the storm not just weather it. Sadly, the world is getting lean on leaders and too rich (multiple context) on management. Leaders seek consensus but are not framed by it. Some examples of current leadership are Tony Blair, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Pierre Trudeau, Margaret Thatcher and Barrack Obama. All of these people shined in crisis and struggled in calm. The collective are quick to cling and to be lead through the storm, however, once the clear sky appears they want to return to the comfort zone. Sadly, we as a society are too quick to penalize the peacetime leader in favour of the manager who can split the financial hairs to get more bonuses and perks for the elite.

General Motors was well managed but very poorly led and hence they are on the brink of self made collapse. The management team was so use to drinking from a fire hydrant and so far removed from the product they made that when the customer went elsewhere all they could say was, “heah, we are number one and if we fall the economy fails”. How sad is that? People are still buying cars, just not theirs. Good leaders would have known to build something that will get purchased. The examples of this are many, current telecommunications companies, air lines, cable companies and hard goods manufacturers all need to learn from the auto crisis. Get out of your offices and go and talk to your customers. Learn what they need and want and stop thinking we are cows to be herded.

In conclusion

If any of you are Star Trek fans you will know the borg. The borg is management and they were powerful, however, a strong leader, Captain Picard was able to get the management (borg) to fail at its lowest unprotected system. The system attacked was to lull them to sleep. They did and the captain won. When we look at recent events and we see how simple the failure was and how pervasive the abuse was it is no wonder that leaders are excised from the management teams. Our recent ails are based on greed and selfish management teams whom have lost touch with what business they are in.

People remember leaders; leaders need management and management needs leaders. Once leadership is excised all management system will eventually fail. Look around you, are you the leader or just the manager. It is your choice and your choice alone.

My mantra is “Lead, Follow or get out of the way”. This may sound crass but take a deeper look and you will see the mantra is just stating, “Know your role”.

JAAT Logo

New company logo

Just posted it to brag.

Emergency Management

Information Technology and Emergency Management
I was recently asked to give some insight and a presentation into how Information and Communications Technology (ICT) could be leveraged for Emergency Management. So for this post I will share what I presented to the Assembly of First Nations national broad band task force.

The challenge for ICT is to balance and broker the person with content and applications.
Spring is here and with it comes its rain and hope for a better day. However, reality dictates that for most of us this is a time of year of watching water levels and checking thawing rates to determine what type of ride the journey to summer will be.

Information technology and technology in general can play a vital role in all sides of the emergency. The lead up to an emergency is the preparedness side and sadly, in the event of an emergency the reactionary side of the solution is engaged. The Management side of the proposal is directing and engaging all the stakeholders throughout the entire process.

The time tested adage of “plan for worst and hope for the best” is a good strategy in this context.

Preparedness
This is where the greatest potential benefit can be had for Information technology. It is the boring day to day upkeep of the plan and all its components. This benefit can be realized in good information management, communications portals and best practices repositories. No one group has all the answers for all the problems. Technology can be leveraged to share the wealth of these previous emergencies to aid in the ones yet to be realized. The traditional model of every jurisdiction or geographical area taking care of their area in isolation has proven over and over again to be ineffective and at times deadly.

The tools and information are available today to assist those communities with little or no expertise to follow a proven methodology to get their respective areas prepared. This type of work can be as simple as automated call out trees, support contacts, lists and locations of emergency supplies, best practices documentations and to the more complex information toolkits. Education and awareness is crucial not just for the constituents of the community but also those who are entrusted to action the emergency plan when needed.

There is a large misconception that minor and major levels of government are prepared for emergencies. In many cases this is true, however, like all of us they are only as good as the plan and the plan needs to be flexible, current and adaptable. So for those recurring emergencies like, floods, fire and black outs the current plans are normally fine. This is because they have had time to test and trial them. However, what about emergencies they have not experienced before. The classic example of this was SARS in 2003.

If you take this discussion to smaller communities you are relying on overworked individuals who may not know how to build a proper Emergency Plan let alone get the community prepared.

The preparedness side of the equation is typically heavy towards content management and plan development. The major tool that can be leveraged for this role is content management.

Emergency Response
This is where failing to plan causes failure. Information Technology needs to be tested and like all things in Information Technology it needs to be able play nicely with others. Take for example a large scale emergency that involves, fire, ambulance and policing. They all have mobile communications and what do you do if they can’t speak to each other? Truth is, this is common and control centers get jammed, confusion reigns and ineffective execution follows. You do not have to look far to see what can transpire. A good plan has proven its elements to be functioning and it must be tested.

The response side of the equation is strong to application usage, status update, issue tracking and execution of existing plans. The content management system will used as reference for current action plans. The major application being used in the response side is typically issues management.

Emergency management
This is the element that allows the leaders and coordinators of an emergency plan to keep track of events, actions and conditions in as close to real-time as possible. This allows for effective communications and coordination of resources, tools and people to deal with the emergency and the information flow to and from all parties. Simple issues tracking systems can and should play an integral part of an effective Emergency Management solution. A fully utilized portal is an excellent tool to manage emergencies especially if the scope is multi-jurisdiction and multi-disciplined.

In conclusion, this is just a small insight into the role of Information Technology and how it can help build, maintain, test and deliver the emergency response plan. There is only one other factor that is more important than technology in the case of an emergency and that is people leadership.