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.

Pondering IT forward

The ever-accelerating adoption of mobile technology can only lead one to realise this apparent fact; our civilization at large is fast venturing into a pseudo-digital era. Fast as it may be though, it is also conspicuous that at the rate we’re adopting all this mobile technology, it’ll be a good while before we reach the “bio-technical” reality imposed on our thoughts by your common tech fantasy movies.

Nevertheless, I don’t think that’s the altitude we are plotting to reach by our adoption of technology as of yet which, in itself, is passively overlooking the significance of “green” technology (another topic for another day). Which brings about a few short philosophical questions (so to speak); are we employing all current mobile technology fast enough? What is hindering our “shift” (as I like to call it, rather than “change”) to a completely digitally-aware reality?

Naturally, utilisation of new mobile technology starts at enterprise-level, meaning they (the enterprises) are indirectly responsible of what gets the spotlight and what doesn’t, which then is gradually inculcated to the general public. As such, I’ll be delving into the business side of mobile technology.

(Note: I will leave these points quite vague)

The choices of individual members of the workforce can easily be blamed as the culprit that is overshadowing the “shift” of a sole, integrated, centralised bionetwork which, I believe, is the genesis for all change at a technological level. Let’s face it, this single bionetwork thing is proven fruitful at offices; though limited, they use an operating system and its office automation tools that works best with their designated software/hardware at the best functionality/price ratio and is guaranteed to be future proof. This mindset, it would seem, is yet to extend to the mobile sphere. This is largely to do with the lack of need of such an intersection methinks, of course, I’m not talking about executive level personnel here. On exactly that note, I think we’re already falling behind schedule and at the same time downplaying the efforts of some magnificent mobile technology manufactures and some other brilliant mobile services (of course I’m not going to elaborate on that point)

That sort of makes one wonder what would happen if we created that need; what would happen if some enterprise with respectable history for technological innovation were to step forth and set a new bare minimum that high (and sensible). Of course, simply creating the need without considering the organisational impact and some (moral) feasibility this kind of change would bring, is futile.

Yes, I foresee a fairly considerable number of benefits this “shift” would bring such as a single point of reception/administration which can possibly be a new sector by itself (think the movie Matrix), ease of future training (everything would be done in iteration format meaning deployment of new skills and keeping up with future changes would be as easy as adding a piece of a puzzle), complete elimination of fragmentation on both the hardware and software front, a singular cloud (processing, provisioning, synchronizing) etc. On the other hand, I think the initial experiment will only be benefitting the highly qualified as this would be an exercise to get right the first time if it is to transform any kind of higher level infrastructure, meaning selecting the best possible candidates for the job and succumbing to no political charity laws. I also fear the overhaul itself would almost lead to the extinction of the lower qualified human workforce. But that’s the reasoning of a fool, an intelligent person thinks like this; it would enforce better skills training on the least qualified, and in the process separate the sheep from the goat (in terms of what IT skills are more sustainable than others).

Back to those questions; are we employing all current mobile technology fast enough? What is hindering our “shift” (as I like to call it, rather than “change”) to a completely digitally-aware reality? No, we’re not adopting all current mobile technology fast enough and it is our freedom of choice (and lack of education) that is hindering our shift to a more digitally-aware reality. Well, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’ll keep the rest to myself so if I’m wrong I don’t make a total fool of myself.

(Please note: the image on this post is not my property. I downloaded it from the http://www.theverge.com/2011/07/14/microsoft-one-ecosystem-pcs-tablets-phones-tvs-windows-brand-over/ site and I, by no means, have any affiliation with the aforementioned site. For any possible damages caused or assertion to the contrary, please feel free to email me)