Double standards

Amidst the controversy surrounding the US Open Tennis Tournament and the double-standards in the treatment of men and women players, I feel that one thing has been left out.

Is it ever OK to scream at the umpire or referee?

I was once at a kids football (“soccer”) game when I heard a coach berating a young referee about a call midway through the match. The referee penalized the coach’s player for pulling on the shirt of an opponent and impeding his progress towards the goal. “Nobody enforces that rule anymore” the coach bellowed. Clearly, the coach knew a rule had been broken.

With great presence of mind and maturity ahead of her years, the young ref replied to the coach, “Which rules do you want me to use today and which shall I leave out?”

And this is the issue. Referees and umpires are highly trained and receive detailed feedback from their fellow officials during and after the game, from managers and mentors, and from coaches and players. The feedback improves their performance and gets them to the next level of responsibility so they can work games of the highest standard. They are trained in all the rules of their particular sport and they are trained to apply the rules consistently and fairly.

“The trouble with you refs is that you don’t care who wins!” – comment from a spectator

Referees and umpires do make mistake. The introduction of digital technology to improve the accuracy of calls and to be able to replay at a slow speed have improved the quality of officiating immensely. Nonetheless, errors do occur.

What should a player’s response be when these errors occur? Should it be to harass the official and insult their integrity? Or should the player ask, politely for an explanation of the call and if there is any way to appeal the decision?

I once gave a goal against Stanford in a championship field hockey game. The center back came to me and said, “Kevin, no, she kicked it in.” She was calm, she was sure and she was right. After conferring with my colleague, who had a better view of it, we overturned the decision. Watching the game-tape later proved we had made the right call in the end. Moreover, the player had made the right approach and neither player nor umpire ego got bruised.

What is wrong, what is not acceptable, is that coaches, managers, and players, at the highest standard, think it is OK to scream at the officials. They know that the rules specifically prohibit this kind of abuse yet they continue to do it. Clearly, these people are not going to police themselves. So, in one sense, the officials are to blame for allowing this to get out of hand.

Ask yourself in what other walks of life do you feel empowered to castigate, ridicule and insult the people you interact with? When your package is delivered next door do you rage at the FedEx driver? When the store is out of your favorite ice cream, do you harangue the checkout clerk? When your kid comes home with a “C” do you scream to the teacher about their lack of intelligence and integrity?

The Double-Trouble Standards in sports

Serena is right about one thing, her punishment was harsher than that of McEnroe, Nastase, Connors, Becker or Agassi for worse abuses. That’s not ok.

Let the umpires and referees do their job. Applaud them for taking a firm stance, and for punishing bad behavior by every player.

It’s OK to be passionate and root for your team. But next time you’re watching a game and you don’t care who wins, root for the referees. You’ll be surprised how rarely they make a bad call.

 

Posted in Business and Technology | Leave a comment

My favo(u)rite conference of the year

24464682339_760c914f24_bEach year I get to travel to the UK and attend the Defence (with a “c”) Information conference, DI’18, organized jointly by the Cranfield University Defence Academy and TeamDefence. This conference brings together MoD (Ministry of Defence), Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine civil servants and uniformed IT (ICT in UK parlance) personnel and tech industry thought leaders. The mission of the conference is to look at MoD technology strategy and direction and to see where commercially available solutions can augment MoD efforts.

It is my favorite conference because when a speaker talks about a task being “mission critical” the stakes are clearly different and measured in lives and liberty rather than pounds and pence.

The conference is organized under the Chatham House Rules which enables participants to share what they learned and allows for free discussion of the ideas presented so long as the authors of those ideas are not revealed. This means speakers are free to speak their minds and be transparently clear on their challenges, objectives, and needs.

The MoD is “a much beloved but crusty old uncle.”

Each year I learn something new about the British approach to the “defence of the realm” and I am inspired by the clarity, pragmatism, and determination that gets things done. Like any branch of UK government, the MoD is a centuries-old bureaucracy that has to account for every pound of tax-payer revenue they spend.

As was widely reported in the British press, “last year the MoD spent more on computers than ammunition” and as one speaker noted, “It is clear where the next war is being fought.”

Excellence is collaboration, impact, innovation, potential, and implementation

This year I had the distinct honor to be asked to lead the judging panel for the DI Excellence awards. These awards recognize innovators in the MoD, the uniformed services and, commercial enterprises, who come together to address specific technology needs.

Often these innovations take existing MoD infrastructure and exploit it in new, and more accessible ways, frequently they adapt commercial technologies for the rigors of the battlespace, and always they present solutions that adapt to the complex landscape of MoD regulations and traditions.

This year there were 8 entries from a total of 48 collaborators. The organizations involved included the Royal Engineers, the Royal Navy, some of the largest aerospace contractors to a startup (named after a class of sailing boat because the founder likes to race small yachts).

One team developed an additive manufacturing, or 3D-printing system, to make replacement parts in places where spares cannot be easily delivered like aboard a naval vessel or in an active battlespace.

Another group looked at minimizing the damage caused by a cyber-theft attack by encrypting each data element in a data-store with a different key forcing the bad-guys to have to brute-force decrypt millions of times anything they stole.

Not all ideas took on the offensive and defensive needs of the military. One submission took the tens of binders, thousands of pages and millions of words that describe just one of the business processes used thousands of times a day by civilians and uniformed personnel, ashore and asea, and made it instantly accessible, searchable and useable thus saving endless hours and bringing much-needed standardization and conformity.

And in this complex world of alliances and treaties, controls and licenses, the import, export, and use of classified hardware must be tightly managed. Keeping track of who has what and how they may use it is a massive, and naturally secretive, process, largely done on paper or in spreadsheets. A mistake in this process may result in an inadvertent supply of sensitive technology to potentially hostile groups. Clearly a situation in need of technology to control.

A most interesting nomination found a way to bring brilliant new entrepreneurs and innovators together to tackle impenetrable and intractable MoD challenges. Not only that but incubate those new companies and help them navigate their way through the MoD procurement and investment processes.

Team Defence is really Family Defence

One thing I found to be common amongst all the excellent nominees was a sense of pride and purposefulness. Many of the commercial partners in these teams were former uniformed members of the UK military. Their paycheck now comes from a company but they are still working their original service mission with the resources and commitment to deliver upon it.

It is a credit to the MoD, the armed forces, Cranfield University, TeamDefence and the hundreds of participants in DI’18 that this open exchange of ideas and a free flow of information is possible. It enables extraordinary solutions to unimaginable problems that save lives, ensures liberty, projects influence, and defends the nation.

Thank you. See you next year.

Posted in Business and Technology | 2 Comments

#StopPeeMailing

#StopPeeMailing

This is going to be a short, blunt post. Toilets are for pooping and peeing and not for Facebooking and emailing. The (bizarre) custom in the USA of having lavatory doors that have a 1/4″ gap all around means that one can easily see if a stall is occupied. It also means one can see the occupant thumbing away on their device (do not get me started on those that mix their business with doing their business and make throne-calls – I flush regularly when I hear them next to me). In the building where I work there are two cubicles for a male population of about 50. Often both are busy and I have found myself waiting several minutes to be finally seated. I am no expert on pooping but a couple of minutes usually gets my job done. Now sitters spend more time swiping their likes than wiping their butts. If we are going to make laws about who goes in which bathroom I’d vote for those who are not pee-mailing or poop-posting. #StopPeeMailing

Posted in Business and Technology | Leave a comment

To err is human …

Err?

… but to really screw things up, bring in the consultants.

Intense, tight deadline projects often mean bringing in an army of consultants. Now we have extra labor to carry out tasks, with their ready-made playbook for a project like ours the promise is to get the job done quickly without disrupting productivity of our existing team.

Has that ever been the reality?

And exactly who are these consultants?

One or two will be seasoned veterans on their nth assignment like this and they already know the answer. They are efficient and concise and you should trust them to get their stuff done. They can do your job so let them and you can lead the changes that will make the new stuff successful.

Several will be on their third or fourth assignment but this will be their first time at something like this. These are competent but need to be steered by you to the data and processes but after that, you can bet they will get there. But remember, you’re paying them to get trained so they can do a better job for next the assignment. Work them hard, treat them like your own people, demand a lot from them and hold them to account.

Then there are the scores of newly hatched MBAs who have completed the 16-week induction class in Des Moines, who can quote the playbook and have it, in PDF format on their phones, who will follow the process to the letter, to the template, to the schedule and who struggle when reality is the very opposite of the blind case study in the Iowan classroom they left a week ago. They seem harmless: but they drain one’s life force with their Business School BS, their checklists, and matrices, and their incessant restating of what one just said that is almost exactly perpendicular to what is meant. Don’t accept them: insist on experienced consultants no matter how inexpensive they seem.

Your own people know what is needed. Trust them to make decisions in the best interest of the business. Make sure they understand the need to deliver the business-as-usual priorities and to get the new project done too. Most leaders and many teams thrive on this kind of pressure and they’ll respect you more when you trust them to get the job done. Supplement the team with competent consultants but make sure they work for you because, if you don’t, pretty soon you’ll work for them.

Posted in Business and Technology | Leave a comment

201 days of unsubscribing

spam_can

I meant to give this update three weeks ago at the halfway point but things got busy.

On January 1st this year I decided to unsubscribe from every email that was unsolicited or that I no longer needed to care about.  Here are the results through yesterday:

Spam emails received year-to-date
Plus emails I no longer wish to get that I previously subscribed to
Un-subscribes via links in the email sent to me
Un-subscribes by replying with “Remove” – I have an Outlook Quick-Action set up for this
Un-subscribes that failed
Spam free days
2,280 246 2,021 505 87 11

My first spam-free day was March 17th and I have had two back to back spam-free days since (June 20/21 and this week July 18/19).

My average daily spam-load is down to less than 10 unsolicited emails from a first month average of over 40. Microsoft Clutter is helping in the task too but it does have about a 1% false-positive rate.

A disturbing trend I have noticed is that I am now getting an increase in spam on my new business email. Recently the company I work for was acquired and I now have an email address with their domain to RECEIVE email (I still use the old domain for outgoing email). I have not used it for anything except the receipt of business-email and yet the spammers are on to it.

I have noticed that there are many common unsubscribe services that vendors use that offer “unsubscribe from all emails” but they only offer this for the particular sender one is responding to. They should offer an “unsubscribe from all senders” option too.

Most unsubscribe services automatically unsubscribe you and then ask for a reason why. I have not provided the reason ever.

Some unsubscribe services require one to enter one’s email address as confirmation. This is annoying. Some send a confirmation email that one has been unsubscribed: this too is annoying as it defeats the purpose of unsubscribing.

There is an increasing habit for spammers to make the unsubscribe link in the smallest possible font and the latest trend to offer the link in a font color one degree different from the background color of the email making the link hard to find. A few put the link text in a graphic which requires the images to be downloaded before unsubscribing: clever but also annoying.

However, most annoying of all award goes to Oracle whose unsubscribe link takes one to their subscription page when one has to log on to unsubscribe. Bad form Larry – you can do better than that.

Watch out for the year end summary, or the first 3-day spam-free run, whichever comes first.

 

Posted in Business and Technology | Leave a comment

Contracts by Dickens!

What the Dickens?

Yesterday my principles and my pragmatism came face to face. Actually toe to toe as they eyed each other in my head deciding who was going to throw the first punch. The mental bout went the full 10 rounds and, in the end, in blue corner, Parker “the Principled” Pugalist won the day.

While all these cerebral fisticuffs seemed to last an eternity to me, they were but a hesitation noticed by the nice man from the auto-body repair shop. He was going through the contract that gave him permission to bill my insurance after my wife’s car had been rear-ended on Independence Day. He noted the damage, the estimate, my responsibility to take home personal effects, that he would be responsible for any further damage his workers might do accidentally but …

… and that is where time began to slow down, that simple word that usually precedes something contentious …

… but he would not be responsible for “acts of God.”

I had been reading ahead of him. My head had already filled the ringside seats, the referee had explained the rules, the boxers were glistening and transfixed on one another. And at the word “God” all I heard was “ding, ding, round 1, box!”

Thirty minutes later (in my head) and a breath and a heartbeat or two (in the auto-body shop) later I said (from the blue corner) “There are no ‘Acts of God.'”

He hesitated. He started to say something but no sound came. Then he stood up, we were both leaning over the counter reading the contract, and he said, inspiration flooding to him now, “A sinkhole. What if a sinkhole swallows the workshop?”

I won’t prolong the agony here. The point is, in this day and age, why do we still have anachronistic terms in our contracts? Why do they say things like “male gender terms are used throughout but apply to both male and female”, and why only two genders. Why do we insist on putting Mr before Mrs? I insist it goes the other way as my wife’s name is alphabetically before mine.

Whereas, heretofore and whereby sound like breeds of cattle. The party of the first part must be a weeklong rave. Don’t define the meaning of words other than the meaning they have “some shall mean all and all shall mean some” use the right word.  Oh, and, prohibere usura contactus in Latin, please.

Come on my attorney friends, let’s get with the 21st century and write language that reflects the modern world and do so in modern idiom and do it without resorting to the deities. Yes you’re going to have to work harder but you have spell checkers, grammar checkers, word processors and cut-and-paste. Put down your quills and type.

Posted in Business and Technology | 2 Comments

When all you have is a hammer …

… everything look like a nail. So goes the old sore. Surprisingly, seeing this happen in the world of IT ought to be rare, but is, alas, just as common as in any other industry.

A colleague forwarded an email to me today where a vendor was promoting their “modernized” tool. As if “modernized” tools were the salvation we are all seeking to solve our modern technology challenges. Did Uber change transportation by modernizing taxis? Did Amazon transform retailing by modernizing the neighborhood shopping mall?

Worse still, this vendor touted their “modernized” tool as the starting point for DevOps transformation. Hoping that the association with the hot industry term would get market traction. Just because my San Francisco Giants’ tee shirt says “Posey 28” on the back it doesn’t make me the world’s best catcher.

Successful software vendors innovate, disrupt, and, most of all, believe in their own vision (especially when it flies in the face of orthodoxy) without wavering. Me-too vendors climb on the backs of these innovators but they can never compete because they neither have the passion nor ownership of the vision.

What the world needs, especially the DevOps world, is one where vendors take a clean sheet and build (and throw away) technologies that automate the best ideas of the moment. And build and throw away again tomorrow. This is a highly dynamic space: we’re refining and improving our methodologies constantly. Velocity, complexity and quality and changing at record rates (and the rate of change itself is changing at unheard of rates), and we need vendors who can adapt at the same speed. Repackaging the old just doesn’t cut it anymore.

 

 

Posted in Business and Technology | Leave a comment