Ruination rumination

Way back here I laid out an idea about the impact of structure on success. Subsequently, I have found out that there is a fair amount of thought that has gone into this idea, including an expensive book by Johathan Klein, "Corporate Failure by Design." Moreover, I sorted out in my head my concern and thoughts.

As promised, I've finished a little piece that says what I wanted to say back then. The direction for the answer to the question comes out of the not insubstantial reading I've done in the literature of complexity, non-linear dynamics, and increasing returns. I believe that (a) sensitive dependence on initial conditions, (b) bifurcation and recursion, and (c) path dependence go a long way to explain the phenomenon.

The paper, entitled, Structured to Fail, is here. Check out some of the other thoughts that are housed on that page and its sister pages in the Website. [Gratuitous self-promotion to a non-existent audience? ed.]

The blind leading the bland

Impolitic as it may be, the digital identity idea I've just mulled through continues to wonder why we're not explicitly considering dig ID implementations that use technology to enhance existing systems and processes rather than replace them artificially. Not the mechanical processes, mind you: the human processes for identifying and authenticating others in the physical world we live in today. Hundreds, if not thousands of years of human evolution and technology development inform the state of the art in this activity. Tools including Gutenburg's invention, the wonders of photography, and computer technology never displaced the human processes. They gave the human process a better alternative.

So, after reading fairly pedestrian article in First Monday (Giving E-mail Back to the Users: Using Digital Sigantures to Solve the Spam Problem), the premise and solution with which I am generally in agreement, I was inspired. The first two sentences of the "Solution" section read as follows: "In real-world face-to-face communcation, we control who we converse with and when. One of the ways we do this is by authenticating the person's identity (face and/or voice recognition, or if we don't recognize the person we "size them up" and look for appearance and behavioral cues indicating whether the person is a threat or not)." These sentences inspired a question that the authors' text does not address and which may provide an interesting approach for working through some part of the digital identity issue. Here's the question:

How do blind people authenticate who they're dealing with in face-to-face interactions?

The analogue ought to be clear. Blind people can not cloister themselves in a cocoon of only pre-existing relationships, and must therefore engage face-to-face interaction (and trust) with strangers. They can not rely on visual clues to "size them up," and most of the literature suggests that the visual sense is primary. I suggest that Internet users are, at least in the moment, metaphorically blind in (first, and possibly ensuing) digital interactions. So, if we understand how blind people deal with the situation, we may be well served in the structure and mechanics of a digital identity process/solution for the masses. It is conceivable, after all, that the technology- and marketing-driven solution sets have limited connection to the human requirements of a solution.

Ticker-tape tirade

So, I ask you, what if the Yankees were to win the Series (Go Marlins!) and in the celebratory parade down Fifth Avenue, the owners, management, support staff, and fans congratulated themselves mercilessly, chanting, "Dynasty. Dynasty! . . ."? What if the players who delivered this ebouillance walked behind the parade, clad with 10 lb. weights on their ankles -- not merely not celebrated but in fact all but ignored as credit for the championship was bestowed on the skill of the coaches, trainers, scouts, and owners? What if they were so good that while not visibly recognizing their skill and talent with greater reward or liberties [yeah, yeah, remember this is a "what if. . ." ed.], management had them locked in to their dynastic endeavors without the option to change or benefit elsewhere (e.g., Boston)?"

I'm just asking. Any organizational behaviour and other "touchy feelies" are welcome to put up an answer or two. [Oops! no comments allows. Mental note: subscribe to a higher-grade version of Blogger. ed.]

A little something in the cookie jar

This is fabulous! The prime minister of Canada is being whacked upside the head by opposition and the media for buying a couple of Challenger jets, and this is his response:

Prime Minister Jean ChrÈtien yesterday defended the rushed purchase of two Bombardier jets worth $100-million, saying he had money to spend in the dying days of the 2001-2002 fiscal year.

They are, of course, putting an ineloquent speaker on the defensive and getting excellent quotes with a wonderful little trick: ask several questions in one. Everyone wants to know why they bought the jets that they probably didn't need, without the defence department's involvement, from a Canadian contractor (Bombardier) without going through the standard bidding process.

Nobody, especially Chretien, could answer that without sounding stupid. Let's think about the relevance of all this. Question 1: Did the government need new jets? If yes, then proceed; if no, scrutinize further. Question 2: If the jets were needed, why was DND not involved? This is a hard one, considering the defense department both manages and operates the fleet. No getting around this one. It's an "oops!" Question 3: If the planes were needed, why wasn't there an open bid process. Notwithstanding NAFTA issues about open opportunities and the fact tha Paul Tellier and Jean Chretien go way back, the answer has been provided quite succinctly by Chretien. WE BOUGHT CANADIAN. The Challenger may be much higher priced and have lower performance than other nation's products, BUT they're OUR products.

Besides, this is kind of minor league imperialism compared to the "Taj Mahal" Airbuses that were cancelled a decade or so ago under another prime minister with plane envy.

Trouble in "postal-dise"

An article in the Globe and Mail on October 17th, provided a bit of insight into the state of the British postal organization and the way its citizens perceive it. The story, about the Royal Mail's current branch closures experience, contrasts the public response against a similar experience undertaken by Canada Post many years ago. The simple truth is that the business model on which the vast majority of postal administrations were founded and on which they've sustained themselves, is at a juncture. Either it can persist status quo (perhaps with a little lipstick to spruce it up) and end up extinct in the not too distant future. Or, it can choose to evolve and become something more vital and relevant to the prevailing and developing social and commercial environment.

Many postal administrations are staring at this hard truth light like deer on a divider line: big eyed with wonder and stunned with the realization that this is different. Some, such as the one I work for, have seen this coming and have been preparing: morphing slowly. But change typically comes neither slowly nor suddenly. It comes like a 30-year sensation: ignored until its effect is omnipresent. In hindsight, we can all point to the many little things that led to the change and say, "Shoulda seen it coming." Whatever. It's too late by then.

More important, for people involved or peripherally watching the postal industry, is the fact that when the post office changes it will very likely change in a way that shifts its development arc significantly. Ten years from now we may all be wondering what life was like before . . . After all, how many people persist in remembering Nokia as a resource business?

The quantum shifts in the world, particularly since Gutenberg and then the industrial revolution have had only a positive or benign (at worst) affect on the postal world. Overnight courier and even facsimile proved not to be the giant-killers so many quaked about. The electronic age of the Internet is taking a little bit of time to really ramp up, but (at the risk of being over-dramatic and eventually wrong) this time it's different. The stories are only going to get more frequent and more dire.

Come to the dark side, Young Court-stalker

Elliot Noss, CEO of Tucows, has a brilliant indictment of lawyers and lawyerin' in the West here. It's not the first time it's been said, but the "evidence" rallied is compelling. I particularly liked the "lawyers are parasites" . . . not that that's a bad thing . . . motif. That Elliot's an admitted lawyer (at least by training and dint of apprenticeship) makes it all OK. Still, being a lawyer isn't so bad of itself; it's when the allure of the dark side overcomes you . . .

Feeling much less than Mile-high

So I'm NOT in Denver at Digital ID World this year, and I'm not especially pleased about it. If last year's inaugural event and the line-up for the next three days is anything to measure by, it is the conference to be at for this identity thing some of us are falling over. I have no doubt there is going to be a lot of noodling and politicing over how this nebulous idea is going to evolve for the next 12 months. That's what happened last year.


Unfortunately, austerity prevents me from attending. Which is a shame because of the people that are there. People that have something to add to the conversation and, if suitably convinced of an idea's merit, can disseminate that idea broadly. The discussion and argument creative friction, let alone the pure networking with people interested in the same esoteric knowledge space, is well worth the trip. Oh yeah, then there's the Liberty Alliance all-hands meeting that was held in conjunction with the event yesterday.


Besides, golf at Arrowhead is unbelievable!

1(down):1(to go)

Finally, as one business that obviously understands the 1:1 online marketing paradigm shows, it does not take a lot of peturbation in the airmass to upset 1:1 's lift. Admittedly a small bookstore on the left coast is not a exactly a great movement and the Amazon lawyer's story is they're not worried. Moreover, the government's power and mechanisms to compel businesses to produce records is not new. But, what is new is that some businesses are concerned about holding customer information lest they be forced to give up information their privacy policies indicate would not be released. (Maybe, although the article doesn't say, this is a driving reason behind the consumer concern as well.) Regardless, the article provides some support for a skeptical notion about 1:1 marketing that I've had for some time. That is, businesses only do 1:1 marketing and CRM in the absence of alternatives for reaching their real goal: sales. If there were a different, effective means for getting through the AIDA model to the latter part of the selling cycle without investing in elaborate IT infrastructure and software, without gathering information, and without making ACTIVE customer-relevant offers based on induction from volunteered and data-driven preferences, businesses would use it.

Don't help!

Again, another well-meaning "expert" in the identity space, has done no service to the movement toward secure CAC-type identity on a public basis. Guy Immega, CEO of Kinetic Sciences, of Vancouver, has written an editorial comment in the Globe & Mail today, in support of a national id program. A program, it should be understood, that was resoundingly hammered in a government-initiated conference in Ottawa earlier in the week.

While I appreciate and support most of what he says as I'm sympathetic to the cause, he does no service to anyone working on these sorts of initiatives with statements such as:

"A national ID card could function as a combined Canadian passport, CanPass card (for frequent cross-border travellers), SIN card, health-care card, driver's licence and even as a library card (assuming the co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments)."

This kind of frightening statement is exactly what is scaring off the majority from the notion of strong identity cards: the spectre of Big Brother and privacy invasion. Moreover, a better solution would likely involve multiple instances of such secure cards and solutions -- each for use in varying circumstances and for varying purposes -- to diversify risk. Natural evolution will take care of which, if any, such identity artifacts become multi-purpose -- and how. Better that there be several and a means of federating or simply opting in to accept them or not.

So, stop with this kind of help. Please.

Structure stricture

Maybe it's just me, but I wonder whether the impact of (organization) structure on the likelihood of success or the shape of an eventual outcome is adequately considered by (business) people. There is undoubtedly a garrot somewhere with smart people studying and publishing -- or worse, for me, a long-standing body of knowledge -- that I'm not plugged in to. I just don't see it among the people I work with or observe from afar. It's especially peculiar since the ranks of business elite is rife with MBAs and engineers, the latter of whom are particularly knowledgeable with the impact of structure on outcome.
Here's the notion-ette: All the business casing and business planning in the world will not overcome the inherent limitations imposed by structure. Sometimes, even with the best of theory, skill, and capability, you just "can't get there from here." Structure imposes constraints on the nature of outcome that have to be recognized and dealt with every bit as much as geography imposes constraints on movement (say, of armies) and the journey. But I don't see but a few special people using structure as a tool or competitive weapon. (Some) lawyers tend to be good with it at the deal level; some managers can be good at it at the organizational level; some product developers can be good at it in the development process. These are the true "shapers." The vast, average, majority appear to accept structure as a given or assume structuring to be the unimaginative application of a process or recipe to all situations.
Remember this: Almost nothing in this world is infinite or immutable. The truly successful throughout history have changed their context to suit their goals. We should all think about that when we accept a challenge.
I have a larger notion that will get better treatment in the future. Watch this space.

Izzy gone?

Not than anyone outside of Canada would know the name, but a great businessman, Israel H. Asper, creator the the CanWest media empire, sadly but not entirely surprisingly died yesterday. The eulogizing in the Canadian media is extensive today and there's no need for more. I met Izzy several times and spent time with a lot of his cronies (don't ask). The peculiar thing that reports of his death make clear to me is a distinct difference in how the Christian and Jewish immigrants to Canada of the early 20th-century European waves) identity themselves. I come from the stock of Ukrainian Christian immigrants (allegedly, 5 generations ago) and am part of the Canadian demography that identifies itself as "Ukrainian," or Canadian of Ukrainian descent. Asper, on the other hand, as long as I've known him and of him, has always been the son of Jewish immigrants, period, full-stop. Yes, they were Eastern-Europeans, but their origin was always secondary. He was proud of being Jewish, and that's good. To the best of my knowledge he didn't, unlike so many Christians, belong to Ukrainian societies and Ukrainian businessmen's clubs, etc. Doesn't really matter. I just find it interesting.