The future is theirs: give IT to the children!

The world is conservative. We can attribute this to the “follow the world trends” ethos that many countries seem to play by when it comes to being “innovative about innovation”. Such a self-defeating culture and ethos is not good, especially in the age where money is no longer hid under your mattress and wealth is not measured by the number of cows and sheep you have.

At some point, the circle has to end. It has to be broken, smashed, purified by fire, and left to scatter into the ether and, God forbid, the children of now should not even have to know about it. I figured children are good grounds to start introducing the culture of innovation because innocence and virtue is a dynamo of breakthrough ideas with no strings attached. It seems that the older we get, the more that innocence is bled out of us by the weight of time in return for fear of failure largely disguised as a spectrum of experience.  Yet to some point we all still hold a kernel of innocence so every one of us is a potential source of innovation but the problem is that our innovative ideas are entwined with too much self-seeking desires (will it take my fortune to its zenith? Will elevate my name to such heights as those of Mark Zuckerberg?) so much so that eventually, if the idea doesn’t seem to hold potential for such regal status we convince ourselves the idea is not worth it, and just abandon ship. We have even gotten to a point where there are companies who make money off telling you that your idea isn’t good enough.

Children on the other hand still hold a wealth of innocence, virtue. And virtue is imaginative. Small wonder why children learn languages so easily. While teaching them to read and write French and if innocence is the great divide why not throw in machine languages  to the lessons(HTML5, jQuery, C)? Even the basics will be indelible and, whenever they come across a well-made web page it will instantly set off an alarm of recognition. Formula one teams start to breed their future drivers when they’re as young as 7. That used to be called social engineering (or The Matrix) but hey, we cannot escape the fact that interaction between humans and, utilisation of machines is the future of man-kind. And that says a lot coming from me, an old skool guy who would rather be home planting lilies than attend the next Linux expo.

I am convinced that Google drew inspiration from children; they just acquire the wildest, most audacious start-ups even if they are acutely aware of the possibilities of failure (they’re almost always there), inject resources into them and if it works we get things like Google Glass, if it doesn’t, they just try another one. Failure is legacy. Failure is a stepping stone which later becomes the capstone.

It would be extremely good (moral) business if big corporations with all these big solutions that are supposed to make our lives easier in the long run, were to involve more of those who will be there in the longest run; children, supposing they don’t all die young. I could tell you an array of acronyms in IT jargon; RFID, NFC, VR, LTE. In the motor industry jargon you get ABS with EBD, CST with ATC… you get where I’m going with this. Most of these acronyms are a fabric meant to sound inscrutable to the common person. But if they started to, at least, thoroughly lay individual threads bare about how these things are made up, how they work, explain the basics of their sinew to young minds even in primary school, it really wouldn’t destroy the integrity of said fabric but would at least raise the mean knowledge of the average child thus a better future for man-kind.

Children are lumps of untapped potential for brilliant ideas. If the people who hold the cards for education and influence know how to play those cards (morally) well, they would see to it that said untapped potential will be tapped sooner than later. That is innovation about innovation.

Innovation is good, innovation about innovation is even better. ..

3rd party apps: stillborn babies of a permissible love affair

It was not so long ago when applications at big corps (used to be called programs) were a niche thing but enter the digital era even the word “program” is becoming obsolete in favour of the contemporary, less intimidating, more socially appealing, I-am-keeping-up-with-the-times-thank-you “application”. One wouldn’t lose points for ascribing this norm to the kind of System on a Chip (SoC) applications are designed for. ARM based applications called “applications” and x86 based applications tend to be called “programs” and ARM-based devices (your smartphone and tablet) currently far outnumber x86 ones (your laptop, desktop), but don’t worry about all of that, it’s not rocket science trust me. This reasoning is not technically correct but neither is the use of the phrase “till death do us part” in the same sentence as Kim Kadarshian.

Above: Evernote. This application should be imposed to everyone like taxes

Thanks to the app store concept, there’s a myriad of free third party applications that are suffering the abject injustice of a lack of mass adoption. That’s not to say I am not aware of the security technicalities that directly influence such a stance-by all means I do- the issue is that they’re not considered at all. Even to the technologically informed like myself (and chances are, you too since you’re reading this blog), applications serve as another pilgrims (so to speak) at which we marvel at their laudable functionality, neoteric design, grandiose intuitiveness et al, until we discover a “slightly” better one then suddenly the former is an object of nostalgia, you get the picture?

It’s for this propensity that some evolutionary productivity applications are reduced to mere amusement tools for bragging rights just because they (at least most of them) bear the word “free” in their tags and are not native to whatever Operating System they may be being utilised on. A mockery to their hollow potential.

Certainly a number of forward thinking businessmen who value cost-effectiveness have found merit in the idea of better or similar, to what they are used to, work automation at the full expense of some poor, talented developer out there. But I imagine it’s the thought of stepping out of their comfort zone and venturing into new, strange waters that inspire doubt in them – supposing the “paid” and proven applications, they have grown accustomed to, are incapable of error. That makes more static business sense. Note, I said static. I used that term because once other big businesses become renowned for the sole reason of utilising free applications to maximise profits, the rest will follow. Pity!

If the corporate world, which is the one that drives innovation, succumbs to such a lame pretence of erudition, it’ll be a while before we can to the promise land.

Above: Pocket. Another underrated  "free" third party app. With tag-based article sharing on the horizon, it'll only get better

The other side of IT

Information technology: to those who embrace neo-luddism it’s a behemoth that is progressively paving the way that will eventually lead to the fall of intelligent life that inhabit this mud ball at the hands of its own creation. To business opportunists it’s a conduit that has opened a world of infinite profit possibilities (excuse the hyperbole here). To social sloths and gluttons, it is redemption inscribed in an 8 syllabus word that, when it manifests to any of its many physical forms, can actually be bought with money. Maybe to some societies out there it’s a curse word that, when uttered, the perpetrator is swiftly dealt with by way of death without trial, who knows? The definitions could be as miscellaneous as moods of a teenage girl during “that time of the month”; different strokes to different folks. Nonetheless, whichever it is, information technology (or Management of Information Services to you, smart guy) has a colossal amount of benefits, rather like bacon. But unlike bacon, and like most things that are supposed to make our lives easier, it brings with it a gauntlet of threats. This brings me to the title of this post; let us briefly discuss the other side of IT... the grey side.

This article, laconic as it is, is neither about the positives (colour white) nor the negatives (colour black) of information technology, but it is closer to the latter. The catch is, I will ignore the obvious negatives of information technology (languor, lack of basic arithmetic skills, ignorance to the importance of security and protection of personal information, “doctor” handwriting, lack of imagination etc) but will rather touch on the “shades of grey”.

‘If the purpose of something is not known, abuse becomes inevitable’

The predicament I see with information technology in workplaces is that it sucks up the workforce in a quicksand of illusion that has them espouse the idea that they are “intelligent”. Every Suzy that owns an iPhone and a Mac Book and knows the terms Cloud Computing, email, HTML, RAM, and strings of other acronyms that a person who works with, and also carries, a smart device is supposed to be familiar with in the first place, fancies themselves a geek or knowledgeable enough for whatever position they hold and that isn’t always the case. It’s just an illusion.

Out in the real world, the privilege of having access to, and the power to manipulate, information within an arm’s reach is also the biggest culprit for the slow death of the proactive culture. Granted this privilege did give birth to a wealth of ideas, it is also true that we will never get to bear witness to most of those because the “proactive” element now is but a silhouette of what once was. It’s just like a cousin of mine said about a day ago; 'people die with great ideas. The graveyard has so much wealth'. Sand-dog humour as it may be, this quote has truth that is nothing south of “cold-blooded”. Literally. Fading away are the days of people going out and actually look for a job instead of applying online with the hope that Suzy will forfeit some of her “information technology” indulging time to have a look at your application and, possibly, send it through for higher-level evaluation. A lot of people are aware of this fact but, you know, the “information technology” has reengineered people into avoiding thinking at all cost and desire the comfort of blind convictions because it’s “easier” that way. After all information technology is supposed to make our lives “easier”, right? Yeah, the grey side.

One of my favoured apps for its ease of use. It was easier, more natural, using just a pen and exam pad still

Karma Chameleon

With a rather keen peripheral view one thing that I can’t seem to shake my attention off of, and perhaps the biggest shade of grey, is that most modern information technology doesn’t blend in with the natural order of normal evolution of man’s ability to employ tools of external origins and use them to his advantage. In simpler terms, if it doesn’t meet the yardstick of my self-proclaimed 30 second rule (if you can’t totally master it in 30 seconds) it isn’t REALLY ready yet. It means that your utilisation of it merely validates its existence. Your life wouldn’t be significantly harder without it. Au contraire, technologies that you can’t use while half asleep (let’s see you pair two Bluetooth devices or make flight quotes online while half asleep) like you’re able to use a comb or make a speed dial call, that technology is ahead of you. It’s ahead of its time.

Out of my head I can think of those integrated fingerprint authentication/access systems and M-PESA mobile money solution as being right on time. To make an argument for the former, it doesn’t happen every day that a person leaves their hands at home so they don't have access to their office or a security room does it? And for the latter, well, just try it.

And that, folks, is a little about the grey side of Information Technology. Can you guess more?

Keep IT simple, dammit!

It seems there are some Business Analysts going around using leftist-like tactics to enchant businesses into believing that to survive in the present-day business they need an IT department of their own to run all their information related operations for them which, of course, they then offer themselves up to do the job. Got to ask yourself  why does a retail store that sells Vaseline and toothpaste need a whole department to set up and run a few insignificant systems, a website and a couple of social network pages. Opening a heater-selling business in India during summer, no less, would make more business sense than whatever answer one has to the preceding question. And yes, I am keeping an open mind.

What they need is a solution(s). Full stop!

Some time back while I was just roaming the cyber space (being an avid techno articles reader that I am) I stumbled upon an article that had 15 of some of the world’s rising entrepreneurs each giving a point about maximising the use of slates in business. It was a very compelling read but I’m not going to delve deep into that, lest I stray from my topic, anyway this was my response:

“Very informative post. I have always thought that for each kind of business sector there should be a predefined list of recommended applications and accessories for slates. That would compel companies to invest less on their website experience, technology adoption etc. just to get the better of their adversaries, but channel all that charisma more towards delivering better products. It’s a win-win situation for both companies and their clientele.”

I’ll admit: at the time I replied purely on impulse but now if I vigilantly reflect on my reply, the amount of truth and common sense encoded in it, it sobers me up. Take a moment and reflect upon this yourself; how often do you go to a local grocery store’s website to look up the price of a pack of chicken wings and, maybe, a can of Monster energy drink and how often do you take time to criticise the design of their check-out systems? Most of you most probably weren’t even aware of these things but if you answered ‘I do sometimes’ or ‘quite often actually’ fair enough, proceed to the next question. If Company A offered a better website experience than company B which has lower prices (both are your common Wal-Mart/Shoprite/Pick ‘n Pay grocery stores), would Company A’s website experience induce you to buy from them? I didn’t think so. Why then do these companies feel the need to invest huge amounts of funds and capital resources on things like websites, check out systems, scheduling of advertisements etc? I believe I speak for most when I say that if I took a couple of groceries, forwarded the due amount at the till point, (and wish I never have to work there) and got out the store that’s pretty much it. I neither care how fancy that till machine looked nor do I care if the price tags were digital (which is a wonderful thing) or old school paper.

It’s pretty obvious that websites, for retail stores at least, are becoming redundant because of Facebook pages and their more intimate nature to clients and which, paradoxically enough, costs exponentially less to run than dedicated sites but if websites and sophisticated systems are utterly obligatory then I think it’s financially and socially feasible to have a standardised blueprint for all retails (and keep it strictly vanilla please) with each retail slotting in just their logo and content. ‘Share the work, share the wealth’.

Just kidding...

(NB: The picture used in this piece of writing is not my property but that of vipdictionary.com and I used it purely for graphical presentation with no intention to infringe any potential copywrite laws and suchlike)

IT is green: Eco mentalists rejoice

In my language we have a saying; “ukuwa kwendlu ukuvuka kwenye” directly translated to “the fall of one house is the erection of another”. Whether or not this saying holds true for every aspect of our lives I can neither say nor prove conclusively but it certainly holds true for the sea saw which sees the paper industry on one end and the tech industry on the other. No matter how I look at it these two industries, in their fully evolved states, simply cannot coexist. One has to bludgeon the other to total submission and, as you might have guessed, it’s the tech industry that is going to be the perpetrator. Which should give eco mentalists an extra hour worth of sleep knowing that the tech industry is conveniently doing their dirt-no, clean work for them. The implication of this “cosmology” of mine is not that the tech industry is going to start planting trees and vegetables and such, no, it is to make known that the baselines for evolution of technology requires marginalizing the need for paper. I can sense a frown of disapproval from the paper industry’s top brass but please understand, good sirs, that harming your businesses is one of those collateral damages that can’t be helped (resorting to evil action for the greater good... if saving trees is evil, that is).

Over the past five years alone the paper industry has had to endure some rather treacherous, volatile currents from the tech industry quietly introducing eBook stores like Kobo and Amazon Kindle, and some various eReaders. That was just a first line of attack though; the second line was when, not so long ago, Apple let loose the covers off its iBooks application/concept which brought about some features that made studying experience more surreal than real. In a good way.

The assault doesn’t end there, Adobe ,too, have driven the stake a bit deeper into the heart of the paper industry by the introduction of the Ink Signature tool for their widely popular Adobe/Acrobat Reader. This means now you don’t need a pen and paper to sign documents. All of these advancements in reading technology are making it progressively harder for the paper industry to justify its continued existence. Atheists would have an easier time trying to explain the big bang theory and not look weird at the same time.

However, a combination of habit, technology limitation (those IPS, TFT, LCD, AMOLED screens are not too kind on the eyes for prolonged reading) and a lack of comprehension of the social ambitions of the eBook concept, many are not yet ready to make the transition (not even counting Luddites). I say many because the details are not specific enough for me to base my estimations upon. Mind you, a considerable number of people, eco mentalists aside, seem to appreciate this change. Schools are adopting the tablet (consequently implanting “eReading” culture to younglings), and many are at least meditating over the matter, word of mouth has it that some churches’ Pastors are already reading from (digital bibles) tablets, study material in tertiary institutions is now mostly downloaded rather than handed out and the opposite (uploading/handing in) rings true to the trend, I now read my weekly dose of the Sunday Times “newspaper” on my smartphone, it goes on and on and on...

Change is inevitable

The paper industry really only has its muscle which has been conditioned over the years by being an industry with virtually no competition and the hope that innovation somehow slows down (which isn’t happening, not in my books) against the tech industry’s orgy of concepts which gain a foothold on the paper, as an entity, with dependable (and sometimes drastic) regularity. If you ask me, for many, this is hardly a battle (if it’s a battle at all) of “substance”, but that of psychology; who can stir up the emotions of the masses the most. Can eReaders or apparatus for eReading (your iPads, Kindle Fires etc) match the novelty of real paper, the feel, the smell?

The tech industry, MY industry, is certainly putting in the effort and, by all means, harbours no egocentric intentions but the paper industry has their legacy do the talking for them.

If anything, the recent fall of Nokia has taught me that legacy alone can’t guarantee eternal success. Nevertheless, the tech industry is winning this. Eventually.

Just give us the answer, lads: and keep the steps to yourselves

I recently realized that I am neither as young nor as patient with the progression of innovation as I used to be. Yes, I love Information Technology and anything techno (that includes all the tech gizmos, new generation network solutions etc) and especially smart phones but even I have my limits and judging by my recent “why does it have to be so complicated” thinking, I think I may just be approaching the last one of those limits. What limits you ask? Well let me just put it as plainly as I can; there comes a time when you don’t want a DIY cell phone and applications (I’m looking at you, Android) but want one that is minimalistic and just works (my gaze is upon you, Windows Phone 7). That’s a niche plane though so let me humble my middle-class self and write about a technology that can run on your very first Bosch or Nokia cell phone whose size rivalled ATMs. Be at ease though as it’s still in keeping with the abovementioned issue (DIY vs. minimalistic).

Do not get confused; the bare minimum for a cell phone that is concerned in this piece of writing is a dumb phone that, at least, supports Java ME and has internet access so kindly put that Stone Age Nokia or Bosch, erm... cell phone of yours back in the shelf.

Nevertheless, the technology in question is the Unstructured Service Supplementary Data (USSD, you know, the *120*123# thingy? Yeah, that) which I find interesting how it’s given the back seat even when it’s supposed to be on the driving seat. Yet, we are constantly being bombarded with new mobile sites that sell content (forget the dedicated Application Stores) which bring no innovation in the user experience at all. I mean if downloading a “free” application is like firing up a starship enterprise, what’s the point of calling it free at all?

The thought of a neat, interactive menu independent of the browser for access to online legacy content sounds better to me than politicians making promises to the public and just as better than having to play a Harvard Computer Science genius navigating through countless pages of ads, terms and conditions, and more ads just to find the “action” (known to some as the “download/upload”) button. And did I mention that navigating through those pages takes up data? I am aware of the inconveniences, for web-based content providers at least, that having to not have those pages (particularly ads) would cause like how web-based content providers make money through these ads but if man could invent a nuclear bomb, and actually praise Steve Jobs more than he does Dennis Ritchie I’m sure he can find a workaround to that predicament without having to compromise on my idea of a neat, ad free, aerodynamic, no nonsense menu for provisioning desired content.

Even some applications could use a diet and go my USSD route. And some have already been doing for quite some time now. Like weather, news, and stock market applications (of course in exchange of visuals and sophisticated interactivity, all of which we grown folks don’t care about anymore than a Honey Badger cares about pain). I can hear developers’ cry saying: “but what good is knowing that tomorrow’s going to rain without seeing an animation resembling an actual rain? There might be some people who, though blessed with the gift of sight, might have never seen what rain looks like before”. Well... hard times!

Taking it a step further

Is it honestly not possible to get some more mileage out of this technology before deeming it an old dog that can no longer learn new tricks? My scope of Information Technology brilliance indeed knows boundaries, especially in the programming front let alone the XML language in which the USSD applications are coded, to a point where I think they might be cousins but I am an annoying optimist on this meadow so as you can presume, I can’t seem to find the word “impossible” in my lexicon.

I am also aware of a few things like how USSD is, by no means, SIM Application Toolkit but something of a silhouette really (at least for the most part) nevertheless is it so hard to integrate a USSD Gateway and an application’s direct function link back to back allowing for both “pull” and “push” based actions in a single session and said application being hosted online? That’s slightly more interactive than the ordinary USSD applications but far less complex than most dedicated applications and it should give users direct access to the “action” button which is good news to those of us who want something that just works.

Plenty of room for innovation here so off to work then, lads...

(NB: the picture I used in this post is not my property  but that of http://www.mobicents.org and I used it purely for graphical presentation reasons and not with intent to infringe any copywrite licenses whatsoever.)

Baby steps: a playground for analytical minds

You might have realized by now the assertion that every business needs to establish some noteworthy presence in the virtual world has become most analysts’ new mantra. This assertion is true and for various reasons; the web has become a stronghold for big time clientele: the web, as a promotion tool and with the right techniques, offers the best price-to-effectiveness ratio, I could go on and on but I don’t want to bore you with the obvious.

The onslaught of social networks, particularly, has enabled businesses/organisations to envelope just about all corners of their clientele in today’s socially fragmented world.

I was listening to a local radio station the other day and made an interesting observation during a diminutive conversation between a presenter and a caller so I decided to scrutinize the issue in an analytical perspective (since a business analyst’s job, which I aspire to be, is drawing trends from the general to the specific). The caller enquired about the station’s ill fated Short Messaging Service line and raised a grievance that the use of social networks and electronic mail has become the ONLY means of text-based input from the listeners’ side as not every listener is tech-savvy. As expected, the presenter blatantly replied that the radio station will see what it can do about the matter. From this data I deducted that the station has done one of two things; they assumed that they’ve established an even bigger, connected market on social networking sites and decided to ignore the older, less technically informed (or tech-savvy) audience or they have deliberately chosen to cater only for the connected audience. Whichever route they took, their choice was myopic at best factoring in that serving the mid to lower class has always been the station’s modus operandi.

I think this radio station has missed the point why social media is used as a marketing tool. It is used to reach a pre existing audience that either have their attention and finances diverted somewhere else, prefer to use these networks for communication wherever they can, or are just downright slothful to use more direct methods of contact. Let me clarify this point by means of metaphor; let’s make the word “kids” a representative for “connected audience” and  the words “cooked carrots” as a representative for “communication”. Are you still with me? Good! Now kids, for the most part, dislike cooked carrots as they do veggies in general. Despite that, though, they happily indulge in “carrot cake”. Boom! Therein lays the answer.

I’ll admit, comparing cooked carrots to carrot cakes is a dreadful comparison even by idiot standards but that isn’t the point here. The keyword is “carrot”. In a nutshell, social media is a pipeline for the connected audience. Not the end all, be all means of communication.

In general

Now, using the preceding scenario as a basis for analogy and drawing from patterns this trend is naturally designed to follow, I have come to this logical conclusion; it is not very hard for business decision-makers to confuse a new audience for a new market segment and end up involuntarily tempering with (and possibly defeating) the business’ corporate strategy. The fact that we’re at a transition phase (analogue to digital) doesn’t help much either.

I imagine a strategy in the telecommunications department of a nationally renowned company would be something akin to a fishing net which, depending on its size, catches basically every known creature that roams the sea (I shall spare a fishing rod the ignominy of comparison times). Per research, as a business analyst I am not involved in the construction or definition of the business’ corporate strategy but (and that’s a big but) this error does affect my work as a business analyst (in an Information Technology sphere) in that my solutions will not be in synch with the company’s uneven corporate strategy which would potentially end up costing the company more, assuming I’m a freelance business analyst or more resources, both tangible and intangible, will be needed.

Where the business analyst comes in

If I, the business analyst, was swift in compiling a convincing integrated report (only the strategy, environmental, and social contexts) that is in line with the company’s base corporate strategy, the company’s decision-makers should play suite and be swift in identifying this error and act upon its root course.

If it’s left unattended though, the consequences might be dire considering the high possibility and probability that this new audience (which is mistaken for a new market segment) just flows with the current of innovation (“prostitute” audience much?) meaning the company would have to alter their strategy each time something new floods the market which isn’t wise by any stretch of the imagination.

On that bombshell companies should take heed not to overlook their base audience in their corporate strategy lest they lose their most faithful clientele and end up adrift in a sea of a merciless, unorthodox market.

That’s basically my 2 cents. Leave any questions in the comments section.