Category: society

  • Incurious George and the cult of managerialism

    Incurious George and the cult of managerialism

    “Do you not read papers?” Thundered the BBC’s John Humphrys to the corporation’s Director General during an interview over the broadcaster’s latest scandal.

    That exchange was one of the final straws for the hapless George Entwhistle’s 54 day leadership of the British Broadcasting Corporation where the Jimmy Savile scandal had seen him labelled as ‘Incurious George’ for his failure to ask basic questions of his subordinates.

    Humphry’s emphasised this when discussing the Newsnight program’s advance notice of the allegations they were going make;

    You have a staff, but you have an enormous staff of people who are reporting into you on all sorts of things – they didn’t see this tweet that was going to set the world on fire?

    A lack of staff certainly isn’t the BBC’s problem, the organisation’s chairman Chris Patten quipped after Entwhistle’s resignation that the broadcaster has more managers than the Chinese Communist Party.

    George Entwhistle’s failure to ask his legion of managers and their failure to keep the boss informed is symptomatic of modern management where layers of bureaucracy are used to diffuse responsibility.

    In every corporate scandal over the last two decades we find the people who were paid well to hold ‘responsible’ positions claimed they weren’t told about the nefarious deeds or negligence of their underlings.

    Shareholders suffer massive losses, taxpayers bail out floundering businesses and yet senior executives and board members happily waddle along blissfully content as long as the money keeps rolling in.

    If it were just private enterprise affected by this managerialism then it could be argued that the free market will fix the problem. Unfortunately the public sector is equally affected.

    Managerialism infects the public service as we see with the BBC and it’s political masters  and the results are hospital patients die, wards of the state abused, known swindlers rob old ladies and agencies continually fail to deliver the services they are charged to deliver.

    Again the layers of management diffuse responsibility; the Minister, the Director-General and the ranks of Directors with claims to the executive toilet suite’s keys are insulated from the inconvenience of actually being responsible for doing the job they are paid to do.

    Managerialism and incuriousity are fine bedfellows, in many ways Incurious George Entwhistle is the management icon of our times.

    Similar posts:

  • How do communications networks stand up to real times of disruption?

    How do communications networks stand up to real times of disruption?

    One of the big problems during and after Hurricane Sandy was how the cell phone network fell over.

    As the Wall Street Journal describes, many parts of New York and New Jersey still didn’t have mobile phone services several days after the storm.

    Yang Yeng, a shopkeeper selling batteries, candles, and flashlights on the street in front of his still darkened shop in the East Village, said his T-Mobile phone was useless in the area. The situation, he said, reminded him of the occasional cellphone-service outages where he used to live, on the outskirts of a small city in southern China.

    What’s often overlooked is that mobile networks are different products from a different era to the traditional landlines most of us grew up with.

    The older landline phone systems used their own power and the batteries in most telephone exchanges had enough juice to supply the Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS). So in the event of a blackout most services kept running.

    Of course POTS services could still be disrupted – a car could hit a pole on your street, those poles could burn down in a fire, your local exchange could be struck by lighting or a blackout could last longer than the telephone company’s batteries.

    Most importantly, in times of major emergencies those exchanges would get overwhelmed by frantic callers trying to contact the authorities or their families.

    All of the above would have happened during Hurricane Sandy, so it is somewhat unfair to single out the mobile networks for their ‘unreliability’.

    There are some differences though with modern mobile and fibre based networks that shouldn’t be overlooked when understanding the reliability of these systems in times of crisis or disaster.

    A hunger for power

    Modern communications networks need far more power than the POTS network. Fiber repeaters, cell towers and the handsets themselves can’t be sustained in the way low powered rotary phones and mechanical telephone exchanges were.

    The cost of providing and maintaining reliable batteries to these devices is a serious item for telcos and it’s no surprise they lobbied against laws mandating the use of them in cell phone towers.

    Even if they were installed, the fibre connections to the towers are also subject to the same problem of needing power to connect them to the rest of the network.

    Of course the problem of keeping power to your handset then kicks in. Many smartphones or cordless landline handsets struggle to keep a charge for 24 hours, further reducing their effectiveness during any outage that lasts more than a day.

    Bandwidth Blues

    Even if your cellphone does keep its charge and the local tower remains running and connected to the backbone, there’s no guarantee you can get a line out.

    In this respect, the modern systems suffer the same problem as the old phone networks – there’s a limit to the traffic you can stuff down the pipe.

    This isn’t news if you’ve tried to make a call on your mobile at half time at a sporting event or at the end of a big concert. If there’s too much traffic, then the system starts rationing bandwidth; some people get a line out while others don’t.

    Prioritising traffic

    Another way of managing demand during high traffic times is to ‘prioritize’ what passes over the network – voice comes first, SMS second and data a distant last.

    This is why on New Year’s Eve you might be able to call your mum, but you can’t post a Facebook update from your smartphone and all your text messages come through at 5am the following morning.

    During emergencies it’s fair to assume that if the mobile network stays up, social networks won’t be the priority of the operators and this is something not understood by those advocating reliance of social networks during disasters.

    No best efforts

    Probably most important to understand is the difference between the utility culture of the POTS operators and the ‘best effort’ services offered by ISPs and many mobile phone companies.

    Under the ‘utility model’, the telco was run the same way as the power company and water board – largely run by Engineers with a focus on ensuring the network stays up for 99.99% of the time.

    That four or ‘five nines’ reliability is expensive and the step between each decimal point means an exponential increase in costs and spare capacity.

    Over the last three decades the utilities themselves have seen a reduction of reliability as the costs of maintaining a network that has a 24 hour outage once every three years (99.9%)* over three times a year (99%) interfere with a company’s ability to pay management bonuses.

    ISPs and most cell phone networks never really had this problem as their services are based upon ‘best effort’. If you read your contract, user agreement or condition of sale you’ll find the provider doesn’t really guarantee anything except to do their best in getting you a service – if they fail, tough luck.

    As we become more connected, we have to understand the limitations of our communications networks. The assumptions those systems will be around when we need them could bring us unstuck.

    *the definition of uptime and what constitutes an outage varies, the definition I’ve used is a 24 hour blackout or suspension of supply in any given area.

    Similar posts:

  • Heroes of Capitalism

    Heroes of Capitalism

    The few times I watch television these days is either when the footy’s on or the rare occasions that I surface from my interweb connected man cave and stumble into a room where someone has a TV running.

    And so it was tonight when I happened to wander out to witness a terrible airport “reality” show – this one being an unoriginal, third rate Australian effort where Tiger Airlines shows how it stuffs around and humiliates its passengers. In Australia, Channel Seven considers this to be prime-time TV “entertainment”.

    What was striking about the show was how Tiger Airlines’ check in staff humiliated a pensioner and her young son who hadn’t printed out their boarding passes.

    The “fee” for not carrying out a basic task which reasonable people would expect would be part of an airline’s service is $25 a head at Tiger Airlines – one could ask what the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s position is on excessive fees being used to pad airlines’, or banks’, profits but that would be asking too much of Canberra’s worlds best practice doughnut munchers.

    As result the poor lady was expected to front up with another $50 – money she didn’t have. So Tiger Airlines’ check in staff wouldn’t let her board and Channel Seven’s camera crew gleefully filmed her desperate tears and shocked son.

    Eventually a bystander took pity on her and gave her $60. At least someone in the terminal had some decency and compassion, qualities neither the Tiger Airlines staff or Channel Seven camera crew have in the tiniest way.

    No doubt somewhere in an anonymous glass tower some arsehole has a job as a manager at Tiger Airlines and has a KPI that includes how many poor mothers they can reduce to tears.

    When the arsehole Tiger Airlines manager gets its annual bonus for making the required number of victims passengers weep, it no doubt goes to lunch with the Channel Seven executives – another bunch of arseholes – to slap each others’ backs and tell themselves what great heroes of capitalism they are.

    The question that bugs me is when did it become acceptable to humiliate your customers? No doubt Tiger Airlines think it’s good publicity and Channel Seven think it is good entertainment.

    We live in interesting times when our business leaders think it isn’t good enough just to take customers’ money but that it’s also necessary to humiliate them as the managements of both Channel Seven and Tiger Airlines seem to be rewarded for doing.

    Fortunately in these corporatist days we still can vote with our wallets and turn off the muck we find offensive – that’s why decent people shouldn’t choose to fly Tiger Airlines or watch Channel Seven.

    Similar posts:

  • Shifting to a better return

    Shifting to a better return

    As part of Deloitte’s Building the Lucky Country series, the consulting firm had a briefing last week from John Hagel, co-chairman of Deloitte’s Silicon Valley Centre for the Edge, to discuss how industries are responding to shifts in the workplace and their markets.

    John’s thesis is that businesses can be broadly split into into three groups; infrastructure, product innovation and customer relationship business which he covers in his Shift Index that looks at how industries are being affected by digital technologies.

    Infrastructure businesses are high volume, transactional services like call centres, logistics and utilities companies.

    The product innovators are those who develop new products, get them to market quickly and accelerating adoption of those goods.

    Customer relationship businesses focus on understanding their clients and using that knowledge to add value.

    Each of these business models require different mindsets and because most large companies try to do all three, they manage to do none well.

    One of the results of this is a lousy Return On Assets, which Hagel says have fallen in the United States to one-third of the levels of 1965 and he doesn’t see this improving as the ‘competitive intensity’ of US markets increases.

    A big feature of this decline in overall ROA is how the best performers have travelled compared to the laggards with the ‘winners’ barely maintaining their returns while the ‘losers’ are seeing their results declining dramatically.

    How Hagel sees the solution to this poor performance is through rewarding creative and passionate workers better.

    Firms have untapped opportunities to reverse their declining performance by embracing pull. To accomplish this, firms must develop and encourage passionate workers at every level of the organization.

    Additionally, companies must tap into knowledge flows and expand the use of powerful tools, such as social software to solve operational/product problems more efficiently and effectively as well as to discover emerging opportunities.

    If Hagel is right, it’s the businesses who want to micro-manage their workers while stifling innovation, initiative and creativity in their businesses who will be the great losers in this next decade as we move to the next phase of the ‘Big Shift’ where knowledge flows improve business performance.

    Starting the process of dealing with these shifts involves understand what the DNA of your business really is; if it is a transactional infrastructure business then management needs to acknowledge this and not kid itself about being in customer relationships.

    There are weakness in John Hagel’s proposition – one being that businesses can be easily pigeonholed into three categories.

    Apple is a good example of this where a company that is clearly product focused has also shown it can be customer orientated with the success of the Apple Stores.

    There’s also the question of why are there only three categories? In the breakdown the immediate thought is that there are businesses that don’t fit in any of these boxes. Legacy airlines or struggling motor manufacturers are good examples.

    Despite the criticism, John and the Center For The Edge have some good points about the future of business and it’s something we’ll explore more over the next few weeks.

    Similar posts:

  • Mosquitoes of the Internet

    Mosquitoes of the Internet

    Sydney Morning Herald urban affairs columinst Elizabeth Farrelly recently fell foul of one the big fish that inhabits the shallow, stagnant intellectual pond that passes for Australia’s right wing intelligentsia.

    As a result, Elizabeth found her personal blog infested with insulting comments from the Big Fish’s Internet followers.

    What focused their ire was Elizabeth complaining about a delivery truck parked across a bike lane. A bit like this genius.

    The funny thing with the righteous defence of the poor truck driver’s rights to privacy and blocking cycleways is where it the driveways to the gated communities for self-righteous and entitled self retirees that these commenters inhabit were blocked in a same way many of them would be reaching for the blood pressure pills.

    One of the great things about the Internet is that it allows all of us to have our say without going through the gatekeepers of the newspaper letters editor or talkback radio producer.

    The down side with this is that it gives everyone a voice, including the selfish and stupid – the useful idiots so adored by history’s demagogues.

    Luckily today’s Australian demagogues aren’t too scary and the armies of useful idiots they can summon are more likely to rattle their zimmer frames than throwing Molotov cocktails or burning the shops of religious minorities.

    Most of these people posting anonymous, spiteful and nasty comments are really just cowards. In previous times their ranting and bullying would be confined to their family or the local pub but today they have a global stage to spout their spite.

    These people are the irritating mosquitoes of the web and they are the cost of having a free and vibrant online society.

    It’s difficult to have a system where only nice people with reasonable views that we agree with can post online. All we can do is ignore the noisy idiot element as the irritations they are.

    This is a problem too for businesses as these ratbags can post silly and offensive comments not just on your website but also on Facebook pages, web forums and other online channels.

    Recently we’ve had a lot of talk about Internet trolls, notable in the discussion is how the mainstream media has missed the point of trolling – it’s about getting a reaction from the target. In that respect The Big Fish and his army of eager web monkeys have succeeded.

    The good thing for Elizabeth is her page views will have gone through the roof. That’s the good side of having the web’s lunatic fringe descend upon your site.

    Similar posts: