Was telecommuting another broken technology promise?

Is telecommuting another broken technology promise?

Telecommuting promised, or still promises, to free caged office workers from their cubicles, relieve the sardine-tin conditions on our peak hour trains and reduce traffic congestion on clogged roads. But has that promise been lost like so many other predictions of the technology age?

Banning remote workers is the latest edict from Marissa Meyer as she continues her daunting task of turning around Yahoo!.

Meyer’s move follows Google’s Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette claiming telecommuting is counterproductive and discouraged at his company.

One of the great promises of the computer age – almost up there with the paperless office – is the ability to work from home as if you were sitting in an office.

So promising is telecommuting it’s one of the main selling points for Australia’s National Broadband Network.

Having two of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies come out against remote working, particularly Google with its reputation for innovation and creativity, seems to damn the practice.

This isn’t helped by Australia’s nanny state deciding that companies are liable for remote workers who manage to fall over in their own home – twice.

Risk is the real barrier to adopting telecommuting, the risk of a compensation claim for a remote working employee falling over while rummaging in their kitchen fridge is one aspect but a more a bigger risk in the mind of a bureaucrat is that a subordinate is not under their control.

Control is almost certainly what focuses Pichette’s mind. While Google is portrayed as a company full of original thinking, non-conformist geeks in reality only half the staff, at best, fit the stereotype while the rest are the same corporate bureaucrats you’ll find at an insurance company or a quantity surveyor’s office.

In the case of Yahoo! a decade of mismanagement has left the company unsure of who exactly works for them, Meyer’s solution is to order everyone into the office so she can count heads.

The fact that some Yahoo! staff will quit, others won’t be able to get to an office and some will turn out to have been long dead (with relatives gleefully cashing Yahoo!’s cheques) is a bonus for Meyer as she looks at reducing staff costs.

In reality remote working is growing, partly because so much of the white collar workforce has been contracted out and few freelancers are interested in hanging around clients’ offices if they can avoid it.

A bigger factor is that workplaces themselves are changing as fewer organisations need to have huge office blocks. While the cubicles themselves might not go away, they are going to be clustered where the customers and workforces are rather than locked away in modern ivory towers.

That has some major consequences for our workforces and cities which the bureaucrats – both in the private and public sectors – have barely started to get their heads around.

Photo of commuters at Liverpool Street Station courtesy of Genkaku aka James Farmer through SXC.hu

Similar posts:

People like us – could poor hiring practices bring down Silicon Valley?

Are poor hiring practices putting Silicon Valley at risk?

A strange little story appeared in Business Insider a few weeks back, 9 Things Your Resume Needs if you want to be Hired by Apple or Google is a curious view into the mindset of Silicon Valley.

Purporting to be an extract from a book written by a former recruiter who claims to have worked for Apple, Google and Microsoft, the story exposes a weakness in Silicon Valley and the technological elite which may cause the very disruptions they have unleashed to work against them.

The nine items are fascinating for the elitist, US-centric view of the world they portray and each is worth investigating on their own.

If you graduated from an elite college, your chances of getting an interview vastly improve

Yes, where you went to school does matter to the tech giants. Of course there are exceptions, but McDowell says an Ivy League or other top university will get you noticed.

There’s not much more to add to this, except to note that the vast majority of students whose families can afford such an education are from the upper middle class.

The Googles and Apples like to see relevant internship experience.

If you waited tables when you were 19, that isn’t attractive.

If you are lucky enough to get into a an Ivy League school on a scholarship or manage to scrape together the money you may still not make the cut.

To the author, only those with sufficient wealth to participate in unpaid internships are going to get jobs at the top Silicon Valley companies.

Your major matters

Sorry liberal arts people or chemical engineers, you’ll need another way in to Google or Apple.

This is an interesting one, Silicon Valley boosters often talk about the creative process and how coders are artists however according to the recruiter that’s just lip service.

She encourages students to pick majors that are directly relevant to Google or Apple. Finance, accounting, marketing or computer science majors have the best shot of being noticed by a tech recruiter.  At the very least, minor in one of those fields.

A focus on finance, accounting and marketing is the same as any old corporation – you could be going for a job with AT&T, Goldman Sachs or the government with qualifications like that. So much for unique.

Dissing chemical engineering is particularly interesting as Chem Eng graduates have passed one of the toughest university degrees. Whats more, the demands of mobile computing devices means battery technology is one of the most pressing issues facing Silicon Valley at the moment. Chemical Engineers are the folk who will solve this problem.

Big tech companies like to see people giving back to their communities.

Volunteering can be a great way to buff up your resume. That said, McDowell warns: “don’t serve soup in a soup kitchen.”

Instead she suggests hunting for a sales or marketing position, or offering to help a charity with its website and design.

This is a really obnoxious statement – basically saying we want to you volunteer, but we don’t want you to help people.

Just how many sales and marketing people are needed by soup kitchens, volunteer fire brigades or community pantries is open to debate.

A bigger issue with this mentality is that it favours bureaucrats and paper shufflers rather than doers. Which again is something anathema to the public statements of Silicon Valley’s leaders.

They also like good spellers and speakers.

Writing and communications skills aren’t just necessary for media jobs. They’re important in any career you’ll have.

Well, duh.

If you are buddies with college professors, that’s a plus.

Professors aren’t just impressed by how you do in their classes.  McDowell suggests helping them with research projects, asking for help and attending office hours, or becoming a teaching assistant.

That doesn’t hurt, but it’s pretty basic vanilla advice and again it’s tough luck if you have to do a shift at the local fast food restaurant so you can feed yourself.

Show you understand multiple positions at Google or Apple

If you want to work at one of the top tech companies, it helps to have at least a basic understanding of multiple positions in the organization.  McDowell calls this being a Generalist.

On one hand this advice makes sense but on another many technical roles are not generalist positions.

Generally having a knowledge of the company’s structure and roles is going to look good to any interviewer, assuming you can get past the gatekeeper at the recruitment company.

Entrepreneurs have a better shot of being hired.

This is a funny one, if you’re a real entrepreneur then the thought of working in cubicle at Apple or Microsoft while answering to a middle manager straight out of a Dilbert cartoon ranks with getting hot pine needles thrust under  your toenails.
One of the conceits of modern corporate life is that they value entrepreneurs and the free-wheeling spirits – the truth is they don’t and the first true hint of entrepreneurialism among the ranks will be smothered quickly with a deluge of paperwork.
Funnily enough, being a successful tech entrepreneur is a path to getting a good job at a tech company although it’s more likely to happen as an acqui-hire than through a recruiter.

Good news: Your GPA doesn’t matter very much

Most people think tech companies, Google in particular, harp over candidates’ GPAs. McDowell says there is little truth to that rumor.

This is only good news if you’ve ticked most of the other boxes, which means you’ll be considered if you’re middling graduate from Stanford or Harvard but forget it if you went elsewhere, regardless of how good your marks are.

The danger of recruiters

What the Business Insider story really illustrates are the risks of relying on third party recruiters as gatekeepers to filter out new employees.

Regardless of how good the recruitment consultant is they are going to apply their own cultural filters and biases onto the selection process and as a result knock out most good candidates.

More importantly, a company risks developing a monoculture if the recruitment process is too effective at filtering out people who don’t fit a narrow stereotype.

A new breed of officemen?

Reading the Business Insider story leaves one with the feeling that many of these companies are beginning to look like IBM in the 1960s – monocultures more concerned about the colour of an employee’s tie and choice of shirts rather than the talents they bring to the organisation or the value they can add to customers.

This is probably the greatest risk of all to the tech industry, that they end up with an insular group of people with fixed mindsets.

Should that happen, then the wave of disruption Silicon Valley has unleashed on the world will end up being the industry’s undoing as smart kids working out of garages in Michigan or slums in Delhi will out innovate the staid, comfortable incumbents.

It’s also interesting to consider how many other industries are now suffering after several decades of similar recruiting practices where leading businesses are now dominated by insular, unworldly monocultures.

Image courtesy of Alexfurr on SXC.HU

Similar posts:

Can hyperlocal media work

One of the promises of the web and a hoped for future of publishing was the rise of hyperlocal websites that report news on individual suburbs, or even blocks. It appears though the hyperlocal concept isn’t working.

One of the hoped for futures of publishing was cheap, hyperlocal websites that report news on individual suburbs or neighbourhoods and get advertising from local businesses.

Last week US TV network NBC abruptly closed down its Everyblock online service, leaving loyal users angry and bemused. Right now it appears though the hyperlocal concept isn’t working.

The failure of Everyblock

Founded five years ago, Everyblock had an interesting model of mashing up local data like Flickr pictures and government information with news so residents and visitors would have an accurate up-to-date picture of what was happening in their neighbourhood.

Everyblock’s failure follows AOL’s struggle to get their hyperlocal play Patch working, although AOL reported in 2012 that Patch’s revenues have doubled.

Whether that doubling is enough to save Patch remains to be seen, it’s quite clear that some question the sustainability of AOL’s growth in revenues and page views.

All of this raises the question of why hyperlocal isn’t working.

A game for amateurs

The main reason is that there’s not enough money it –anybody who is going to run a hyperlocal site is going to be doing it for love or because there’s a dumb corporation burning shareholders’ equity on the venture.

In most communities there simply aren’t enough advertisers interested to pay the bills and you can forget any paywalling.

Most critically for local publishing ventures, the local advertising market has been suffocated by the web. Twenty years ago, the local plumber or cafe would hit most of their market by spending $2,000 on their Yellow Pages listing and probably double that with a weekly ad in the classified section of the local newspaper.

Today, a web site with sufficient SEO smarts to come up on their first page of searches for their suburbs is enough, many can get away with a free Facebook or Google Plus for Business page, despite the dangers of using other people’s services to promote your business.

For the telephone directories this change has been catastrophic while local newspapers only survive thanks to their less than healthy relationship with real estate agents.

Local market failure

The interesting thing with the evolving local media market is just how poorly the web giants have performed.

Two years ago, Google appeared to have the sector sown up with the Google Places service but a combination of poor service, restrictive rules and an obsession with Google Plus have seen the company squander their advantage, leaving their local search service underused and irrelevant.

Similarly, Facebook looked like they could take that market off Google but they too haven’t executed well.

Which leaves local businesses reliant on their own websites and a hodge-potch of services like Yelp!, Tripadvisor and Urbanspoon.

This doesn’t serve the business or the customer well.

Where to for local news?

A bigger question though is where do people go to find local news?

Increasingly it looks like social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are the place as people see what their friends and neighbours post. It’s not great, but it’s better than the local newspapers increasingly stuffed with syndicated content with a few local stories from an overworked part-timer.

It’s not clear that hyperlocal news has failed, but right now it’s not looking good. Perhaps it needs somebody with a truly disruptive model to find what works in our communities.

image courtesy of davidlat on sxc.hu

Similar posts:

Can Yahoo! disrupt the disruptors?

Business partnerships require bringing something of value to the relationship, Yahoo first has to define its strengths before searching for partners.

Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer packed out the room for her interview at the World Economic Forum this week where she spoke about some of the challenges her and the company face.

One of the areas she sees for Yahoo! is in collaborating with other tech industry giants.

Mayer also is making a point of collaborating with companies such as Apple Inc., Google and Facebook, instead of competing.

“It ultimately means there’s really an opportunity for strong partnerships,” she said.

The problem for Yahoo! is that it doesn’t have a lot to offer companies like Apple, Google or Facebook – they are steaming along on their own and have moved ahead of the areas which Yahoo! dominated a decade ago.

Generally in the tech industry partnerships are more the result of the sector’s also-ran coming together in the hope that their combined might will overcome the leader’s advantages.

It’s the same philosophy that thinks tying the third and fourth placed runners legs together will make them faster than the winner.

A good example of this is Microsoft’s tie up with Nokia over the Windows Phone. If anything, the net effect has put Windows Phone and Nokia even further behind Apple and Google in the handset market.

Even when two tech companies have united to exploit their individual strengths, the results usually end in tears. Probably the best example of this was the IBM and Microsoft joint venture to develop the OS/2 operating system which eventually sank under IBM’s bureaucrat incompetence and Microsoft’s disingenuous management.

Those two examples show how partnerships only work when each party has something valuable to contribute and all sides are committed to the venture.

Marissa Mayer’s task is to find Yahoo!’s strengths and build on them, then she’ll be in a position to enter partnerships on an equal basis.

Whether its worth entering into partnerships with the big players though is another question. It may well be that Yahoo! has more to offer smaller businesses and disruptive startups.

Entering into a desperate alliance with Apple or Facebook could possibly be the worst thing Yahoo! could do, the company is no longer a leader and now needs to be a challenger or a disruptor.

Facebook’s locking competitors out of data feeds is an example of how complacent the big four internet giants are becoming, Yahoo! are in the position to upset that comfortable club.

The value of partnerships is that we all have weaknesses and strengths, a properly thought out venture builds on the various parties’ strengths and covers their weak spots. Right now Yahoo! has more weaknesses than strengths.

Similar posts:

Democratising Big Data

Why a not for profit disrupting Google and the Big Data industry is important for business and society

Common Crawl is a not-for-profit web crawler service that makes the data collected open for all to use. A post on the MIT Technology Review blog speculates how the initiative might spawn the next Google.

One of the problems with Big Data is that it’s held mainly by large corporations and government agencies, both of which have the tendency to keep their data private on that basis that information is power and power means money.

We see this in the business models of Facebook, Google and many of Silicon Valley’s startups; the information garnered about users is as, if not more so, valuable as an utility from the product.

Initiatives like Common Crawl tilt the balance somewhat back towards consumers, citizens, and smaller businesses.

How well Common Crawl and other similar initiatives fare remains to be seen – Wikileaks was a good example of how such projects can flare out, collapse under the weight of egos or be harrassed by corporatist interests.

In search, Google are open to disruption as they tweak their results to suit initiatives like Google Plus. During the company’s earnings call earlier this week Larry Page spoke of the challenges of staying focused on the opportunities that matter, it may well be the company is more distracted from its core business than it should be.

Whether Common Crawl disrupts Google is up to history, it could just as well be a couple of kids called Sergei and Larry with a smart idea.

The imperative now though is to try and keep as much public data available for everyone to use and not lock it away for the privileged few. That will let the future Googles develop while making our societies more fairer and open.

Similar posts:

PayPal struggles with the Soviet customer service model

Just as Silicon Valley’s new businesses has challenged a whole range of incumbent operators, they too are at risk from upstarts who value their customers. This is something PayPal’s management has to face.

CNN reports that internet payment giant PayPal is looking at an “aggressive changes” to its fraud detection systems which see thousands of customers accounts frozen every year.

PayPal’s announcement follows last year’s promise by CEO David Marcus to institute a “culture change” at the company,

Our intention has always been to protect our customers. Not to mess around with our merchants.
I want to share two things with all of you:

#1 — there’s a massive culture change happening at PayPal right now. If we suck at something, we now face it, and we do something about it.

#2 — you have my commitment to make this company GREAT again. We’re reinventing how we work, our products, our platforms, our APIs, and our policies. This WILL change, and we won’t rest until you all see it. The first installments are due very soon. So stay tuned…

Screwing around merchants and buyers has become synonymous with PayPal and their parent company eBay who together are the poster children for the Silicon Valley Soviet Customer Service Model.

Reader comments to the CNN article cited at the beginning of this post give a taste of just how bad the problem is at PayPal.

Once your business attracts the attention of PayPal’s algorithms, you’re locked into a Kafkaesque maze of dead ends and arbitrary, made up rules.

To be fair to PayPal and eBay this problem isn’t just theirs, it’s shared by Google, Amazon and almost every major online company. Their view of customer service is to shoot first and ask no questions, they certainly won’t answer anything from their victim beyond a trite passive-aggressive corporate statement.

Part of the current Silicon Valley mania around web and app based services is that, along with providing free content, users will provide support for each other and that customer service is an unnecessary overhead which should be kept to a minimum.

In this respect, many of these new businesses are little different from the legacy airlines, telcos and declining department stores who have spent the last thirty years stripping away customer service with the result of locking them into shrinking commodity markets.

That failure to value customer service is the biggest weakness for companies like eBay, Amazon and Google. The very forces that favour them, the reduction of the entry barriers, also makes it easier for more customer orientated businesses to grab market share.

Just as Silicon Valley’s new businesses has challenged a whole range of incumbent operators, they too are at risk from upstarts who value their customers. This is something PayPal’s management can’t afford to forget.

Similar posts:

Samsung’s place in the market

How will Samsung respond to the challenges from Apple and Google?

Samsung’s announcement of a 7 billion dollar quarterly profit yesterday tops off a big 2012 for the Korean electronic manufacturer in which they became the world’s biggest mobile phone manufacturer after overtaking Nokia’s sales.

Android phones have been the great success for Samsung as other providers, including Google, have been comparatively slow to offer devices which give telcos the opportunity to claw back some margins they’ve been giving away to Apple over the last few year.

Despite these successes Samsung have a number of challenges ahead in 2013.

The biggest challenge is channel conflict with Google and Motorola working on launching an X-Phone which they hope will compete against both the iPhone and Samsung products

Channel conflict was always going to be a problem for handset manufacturers using the Android operating system when Google bought Motorola Mobility and now we’re seeing the effects of this.

The Koreans aren’t taking Google’s threat lying down having joined with Japanese manufacturers in a joint venture to develop a Linux based operating system for smartphones and Samsung expects to release Tizen equipped phones later in 2013.

Just on its own, the conflict with Google would be a problem for Samsung but the ongoing fights with Apple over tablet and smartphone patents continues to be a management distraction as well.

Apple’s relationship with the Korean conglomerate is a classic case of co-dependency as Samsung supply the bulk of the processors used in the iPad and iPhone. While Apple may want to kill the Samsung Galaxy tablet range, they have to be careful about going too far with a key supplier.

On the Asymco blog wonders if Apple’s announcement to bring some manufacturing back to the US may be part of a strategy to deal with the company’s dependence upon Samsung.

With threats from ‘frenemies’ like Apple and Google one of best defenses Samsung has is the companies varied range of products along with its willingness to strike out on its own into customers’ markets.

At the Computer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Samsung showed off its range of OLED TVs, laptops and other equipment alongside smartphones. That breadth of product frees the company from being locked into one or two markets.

Of course the best example of such an electronics conglomerate in the past was Japan’s Sony which is now truly lost and wandering in the business wilderness.

Whether Samsung can avoid Sony’s mistakes will be worth watching over the next few years, for Apple and Google it may determine who is the biggest competitor in the 2020s.

Similar posts: