Principles of Holistic Information Governance

1 – Information is an organizational asset.

In the course of our employ we produce and receive information. It doesn’t belong to us, it belongs to our employers. As such, we need to treat it like any other corporate asset. Even if you use a personal device to produce the information, it still belongs to the organization.

Assets have acquisition costs, maintenance costs, residual value (sometimes), and get disposed of at the end of their useful lives. Tell me how this doesn’t apply to information.

If you do not understand this, stop reading and go away. There is no hope for you.

2 – Understand what you’re using information for.

How does information help you achieve strategic objectives? A government entity and a direct-to-consumer sales organization may use some of the same information, but they will use it differently and for different purposes.

Understanding what you’re using information for ought to help you understand what information you actually need.

3 – Understand where it’s coming from and where it’s going to.

Information doesn’t just magically appear; it comes from somewhere. You need to identify your internal and external information sources.

Most organizations don’t just fire information out willy-nilly. Information is intended for specific audiences, for specific purposes. You need to understand what effect your information is intended to have, and who you want/need it to effect.

4 – Understand when you need it.

The next person that says “I need this yesterday.” wins a smack in the head with a frozen mullet (the fish, not the hairstyle).

Information is needed at various points in business and decision making processes. Is real-time information really necessary or can you wait a few minutes or hours for it? Figure out when you actually need the information in order to make a decision.

5 – Understand who can and should be using it, and for what.

This is not just about security, though that’s a big piece. This is also about getting the information out to those that need it or to those that you want to influence with it. Think about it in terms of getting your message out to your target audiences.

Once the information has found its way to the audience, what are they going to do with it? Are they going to make a decision, buy something, receive a benefit…?

6 – Understand your social, regulatory, and compliance obligations.

Depending on what you do and for whom you do it, you have information related obligations. Some of these are imposed by statute, some by convention, and some are self-imposed. These obligations determine how long you must keep information, what you can do with it at the end of its life, and to whom you may or must disclose it when asked.

7 – Understand your information related risks (too much, not enough, disclosure, etc.).

If some of your information leaks, what’re the consequences and can you live with them?

If you’re overwhelmed by information how does it impact performance?

If you’re missing information can you still get stuff done?

How likely are you to be sued?

8 – Understand how stakeholders are interacting with it.

It’s not enough to know what your stakeholders are doing with information. You need to figure out how they’re doing it. It’s not enough to identify the types and locations of devices that stakeholders are using; you also need to find out if the interactions are passive or active.

9 – With few exceptions, information has a finite useful life.

Unless your information has historical/archival/archeological value, get rid of it as soon as you can. It’s not just about the whole discovery/litigation thing; it’s also about de-cluttering and being info-efficient.

Information is a perishable good; once it’s stale or rotted, get rid of it.

10 – Make someone accountable.

Overall organizational performance, financial performance, legal, technology … they all have single-role accountability and responsibility. As, arguably, the second most important asset of an organization, information deserves at least the same level of attention as finance, IT, HR, legal, etc.

A C-level executive needs to be accountable for how information is governed and managed across the organization.

The End

None of these ten “principles” is much good on its own; they only work as a whole. Other than the first and last, the key is to go only as deep as you need to in order to make things work for your organization. Nobody is expecting perfection; things just need to be good enough.

I’m not trying to downplay the difficulty in formulating information governance policies and procedures. However, much complexity can be avoided if common sense is applied and business objectives remain the primary focus.

PHIGs  - the slide deck …

Earlier this week, March 27^th to be precise, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that authorities need a wiretap warrant to “intercept” text messages, the same as they need for listening in on phone conversations. You can read the full ruling here and you can check out CTV’s take on it here. For you non-Canadians, CTV is one of our national broadcasters.

In essence, the court opined that text messages are equivalent to an electronic conversation and should be afforded the same level of privacy. So far so good, but what I want to know is what makes communication a conversation? To my mind, a conversation occurs when one or more parties are interactively using their words and their ears. Whether the conversation occurs on the phone, in person, over computers … whatever, makes absolutely no difference. At the same time, what excludes electronic communication from being a conversation?

Is a chat via instant messaging not an electronic conversation much like text messaging? True, the devices may be different, but it was the court that stated that the technology should not matter. Are private/direct messages via social networking sites not private conversations? Is an email thread between specific individuals not sometimes a private, electronic conversation?

My point is this …

If we’re going to hold the authorities to a higher standard when they want to “listen in” on our conversations, we need to be very clear about what a “conversation” is. If text messages require a wiretap warrant (btw, what about texts stored on the device?), then so too should instant messages, private/direct messages, and some emails.

I’m in favour of providing the authorities with the tools they need to effectively deal with crime and criminals, but not at the expense of my privacy.

Somebody asked if auto-classification and retention / disposition processing had been tested in court. I’ve not been directly involved with any cases, but yeah, these things have been tested. Sometimes they passed the test, other times not. So what? The issue was not with the technology.

The thing is, if the tools you’re using are automating or supporting policies and procedures that won’t stand up in court, the tools aren’t going to help you. The purpose of tools is to implement sound policies, not to define them. They’re tools, for pity’s sake; they’re dumb. If your policy’s flawed the only thing that automation will do is allow you to make more mistakes in less time.

Back in November of 2012 I attended a Contoural event in Chicago to take part on a technology panel. As I was listening to some of my fellow panellists, something struck me (no, not a projectile from the audience) …

Silo’s and point solutions (as concepts) were mentioned a few times. Now, the focus of the panel discussion was about how to get rid of evidence in case there was any inkling your organization would end up in court as defendant. Yes, we were advocating defensible disposition and not the Ollie North method of litigation preparation. We were five techno-numpties at the front of the room, talking about how to prepare for legal action. This, my friends, is a silo’d approach. Yes, I understand that you can’t go back and start from scratch, but you can set things up for the future so that you don’t need to scramble.

The key is to define holistic Information Governance (IG) policies. By holistic I mean policies that not only cover your keester in court, but also ensure that your information is useable on a day-to-day basis. Anyone who thinks that IG is only about risk is wrong. W-R-O-N-G, wrong.

Pop quiz: What’s more risky to your organization? Not disposing of content when you can, or not having the right information to make sound business decisions?

Governance done right not only keeps you out of jail, it also helps you run your business. An holistic Information Governance model has to cover what corporate users can do with corporate IT assets (acceptable use), who can access information, how information is organized, how and when information is disposed of, whether or not user provisioned devices are allowed, etc. IG does not only cover content that’s stored in ECM-type repositories; IG covers any and all content under an organization’s custodianship (including stuff you’ve sent off to 3^rd party storage providers), regardless of location or format. Yes, IG covers your ERP, CRM, LOB, and other systems. If you’re responsible for it, your IG model better address it.

Don’t get all freaked out and start thinking that IG is there to control the business and run the entire show. It’s not. IG is there to make sure the business has the best information possible to conduct core business activities. That’s it. IG supports the business, IG doesn’t run the business. IG doesn’t even dictate what technologies to deploy. It does, however, define what many of the functional and non-functional requirements are for managing an organization’s information.

Because I know some of you are gonna harp on the legal aspect …

Done right, Information Governance will help you prepare for litigation. Being in a position to defensibly dispose of content is a benefit of IG. But, defensible disposition should not be achieved at the expense of being able to conduct business and making good decisions. IG helps by balancing the need for risk mitigation against the information requirements of the core business. E.g.: It may be completely (legally speaking) permissible to turf those invoices, but is there information contained in the invoices that ought to be extracted and stored in a data warehouse for future use? If you approach IG in a fragmented fashion you’ll never know. Or you’ll know and never sort it out because all your stakeholder groups will be arguing about it forever until legal finally wins but compromises your ability to successfully run your business.

True Enterprise Information Governance (EIG) takes an holistic approach to identifying what an organization’s information needs, risks, and responsibilities are. Risk mitigation is balanced against business need and the likelihood that a risk becomes an issue. Information is organized so that those who need it can get it when they need it, but the information is also secure. Information that is outdated and no longer relevant is disposed of, defensibly. Information is an asset; Information Governance ensures that the asset is managed appropriately.

And lest ye think that Information Governance applies only to large corporations and governments … you’ve got another thing coming. The only organizations that don’t need IG are those that don’t use or produce information.

For a little more about my thoughts on IG, read this post from Sept. 2012; it’ll give you a bit more insight into where my head’s at.

1. We’ll stop talking about social as if it’s something new.
2. Everyone will understand the cloud.
3. No one will buy anyone.
4. Social networks’ terms of service will be transparent, easy to understand, and favour the user.
5. People will stop caring about the Kardashians, Honey Boo Boo, and the Royals.
6. RIM will be sold off in pieces, like black market organs.
7. No one will dust off an idea from 20+ years ago, give it a new acronym, and call it new / the next big thing.
8. Procurement departments will focus on value instead of cost.
9. No one will sue anyone.
10. BYOD

FYI – I work at OpenText and I used to work at Oracle. This post is neither endorsement nor condemnation of either company. Actually, I’m not endorsing or condemning anything or anyone. Except hot dogs, I really like hot dogs. I fully endorse hot dogs. Oh, I condemn sweet potatoes, beets, and Justin Bieber.

At the end of October I was in Vancouver at an Enterprise Information Management (EIM) 101 breakfast thingy being put on by OpenText. Part of the seminar dealt with OpenText’s Business Process Management (BPM) solutions (yes, there’s more than one). After the BPM spiel some guy asked if he needed workflow or BPM, or words to that effect. His question is one I’ve heard often over the years in seminars, on projects, during sales pitches, in training, etc. Many people that I’ve spoken to & overheard are thoroughly baffled by what the differences are between workflow products and BPM products, never mind trying to figure out which they need.

In part, this bafflement is caused by people not understanding the differences between processes, workflows, and activities (tasks), from a non-technology perspective. The bafflement is also caused because we (vendors) have done a crappy job in articulating the differences between BPM tools and workflow tools, and that BPM tools can execute workflows, but workflow tools pretty much suck at BPM but can execute a business process.

Before I provide an answer and my take on it, here are some definitions that I’ve been using (I didn’t make them up) for many years:

• (Business) Process – a series of related workflows that produce value for an organization. Typically involves multiple roles & multiple business units
• Workflow – a series of related tasks required to complete a portion of a process. May involve multiple roles & multiple business units
• Activity – a single piece of work that must be completed in order to allow a workflow to progress. Involves single role & single business unit

Within the context of ECM a workflow takes place wholly within the ECM toolset. A workflow is used to route content through some path, usually for some sort of approval, review, editing, and so on. Typical scenarios include routing contracts, approving and editing press releases, updating policy documents, etc. These flows may cross departmental boundaries, but they don’t cross application boundaries (i.e.: they are executed entirely within the ECM toolset.). Don’t think that just because they stay within the confines of an ECM tool that workflows are by default simple. I’ve designed SOX compliant contract approval workflows for a Canada based biotech firm that were freaking complicated, but could easily have been contained within ECM workflow from most of the Gartner ECM MQ upper right quadrant residents.

BPM is more involved than workflow. If done correctly, BPM takes an holistic approach to defining, analyzing, simulating, executing, and monitoring an organization’s business processes (yes, multiple processes because a BPMS can manage inter-process interactions) from end to end. A Business Process Management System (BPMS) contains multiple pieces, in addition to the simple ability to define and execute business processes. In my opinion, the most important pieces of a BPMS are the enterprise service bus (ESB – allows communication between various applications), the rules engine, and the ability to constantly monitor and improve.

So, back to the Vancouver dude’s question … You need both BPM and workflow if yours is an organization of a size and complexity just a little above any mom and pop pizza shop & herb outlet. You already know (‘cause I just told you) that your ECM workflow engine can’t do BPM for you. What you need to ask is if your BPMS can do workflow that leverages the content in your ECM system.

Point to Ponder: Why do you think ECM vendors have acquired BPM companies? I’m not answering for you; I just want you to think about it a bit.

If you’re an information consumer or producer, governance sucks. Think about it; all you really want to do is get the info you need or pass stuff on to stakeholders. Maybe what you need is to be able to work on something as a group. You try, but you’re info-blocked at every turn. The amount of crap one must put up with in order to create or consume relevant information, or to collaborate, is enough to drive one to drink (but in a responsible manner & you take a cab home).

Let’s start with something simple … You want to create a document & share it with stakeholders. Easy, right? Not! It used to be that the biggest challenge was making sure the content was appropriate to the purpose. Now you also have to worry about whether or not the stakeholders have the rights to see the content, how long the content will be relevant for, how many copies there are (or will be), whether or not the content could be relevant in legal proceedings, and where the hell to classify it (what is this “classify” thing, anyways?”).

Governance is all the rules, regulations, legislation, standards, and policies with which we need to comply when we create, share, and use information. Don’t misunderstand me; it’s not the results or purposes of governance that annoy me, it’s how governance is applied. The in-your-face, gavel banging, fanaticism driven approach of many of the legal, risk, and compliance crowd is the issue.

Many of these folks are trying to manage electronic content the same way that paper has been managed; that’s like trying to perform “brain surgery too, mama, with a monkey wrench” (props to those who identify the song, band, and album without using any search engines).

The Good:

• Facilitates finding what you need when you need it;
• Reduces legal risk;
• Preserves history and corporate memory;
• Secures information from inappropriate exposure;
• Facilitates good decision making.

The Bad:

• Increases complexity;
• Introduces bottlenecks;
• Prioritizes compliance obligations over getting work done;

The Ugly:

• Turns users into Records Managers;
• Users circumvent the rules;
• Perception is we’re making progress, reality is we’re not.

Why There’s Hope

If everybody would just chill for five minutes, we could get this under control in a manner that makes sense and provides the benefits that governance ought to provide. Even though the same rules apply, electronic content cannot be managed the same way as physical content.

• Users aren’t Records Managers, nor do they want to be.
• Policies aren’t the problem, procedures are.
• Pretending social media doesn’t exist won’t have any effect on your obligations.
• Some governance is better than no governance.
• It doesn’t have to be perfect, you just need to make a reasonable effort.

Most credible EIM providers (ECM for you dinosaurs) have the tools to implement effective governance in their arsenals. But don’t go to them and ask them to implement governance until you’ve actually sorted out what it is in your organization. It’s your task to develop the policies, it’s our task to advise you on how best to develop and implement the procedures.

When you and I sit down and talk about governance, if the only team you bring to the table is Legal/Risk/Compliance, I am going to shut the conversation down in about two minutes. The only way that I can help you implement governance that doesn’t suck is to deal directly with all the affected stakeholders (groups, not individuals). One of the toughest collaboration challenges an organization faces may be trying to define a truly effective governance framework that serves the needs of all affected stakeholders. If those stakeholders don’t have a voice, it’s not gonna happen.

If you’re running a real EIM solution and your users have to think about where to file content, you’ve mucked up your deployment. It doesn’t matter if you go big bucket or not, a good deployment uses auto-classification, profiles, workflow, etc. to take the governance burden off the users and put it squarely on the system. If you think classifications and retention schedules are the same thing, there’s not an EIM solution on the planet that’s gonna help you and you’re not an Information Professional.

You’ve done governance right when:

• Users focus on their jobs, nothing else;
• You get defensible disposition and it’s implemented;
• People find the information they need, when they need it;
• Information leaks are down to an acceptable level (face it, it’s not going to get to zero);
• Your corporate counsel can focus on attacking instead of defending;
• Social media doesn’t scare you;
• The only people thinking about governance are those who are paid to.

Happy Canada Day

 This photo is from this CBC News article.

This post was inspired by a broadcast on CBC Radio last Sunday (July 1^st). At least, I think it was Sunday. I was at the cabin for the long weekend (Canada Day) and kinda lost track of what day it was. The show was the usual fare about how book sellers, publishers, & authors have to adapt or die because everything’s going digital and there’s no room or need for anything physical or analog. I tuned out because I was enjoying my digital semi-isolation (no network at the cabin). Plus, I was reading A Dance with Dragons on my tablet (yes, I see the irony). Anyways, this is my post, not yours, so I’m okay with any irony or hypocrisy contained herein.

Many years ago, before I first held my son in my arms, I bought him a book. I wrote a note to him on the inside of the front cover. The note simply expressed how much my wife and I loved him, even though we hadn’t yet met. With ereaders and tablets being so popular and inexpensive today, would we (parents in general) do that sort of thing? I’m not so certain.

One of the great joys I got out of being a parent was reading to my children. I could do that with e-books, but then I’d miss the laughs of having my kids try to turn the pages with their toes, chewing on the books, and seeing the wear and tear on the books as they transitioned from infant to toddler and still read/played with the books I’d read to them in the very early parts of their lives.

As my kids got older, they received books as gifts. Many of the books, given by friends & family, had notes written inside the front covers. My kids still have most of the books, and, being the sentimental souls they are, like to look at them and read those notes. They’ll also, probably, pass those books on to their kids and point out the notes that Gramma & Grampa or Uncle This or Aunty That wrote way back when it seemed that dinosaurs still roamed the earth.

Going to a bookstore with the kids is something that my wife & I have always enjoyed. There’s just something very satisfying about seeing your children sitting on the floor at Chapters, poring over what books they’ll buy (with Dad’s money, usually) and treasure for ages. That experience can’t be replicated by scrolling & clicking through an electronic bookstore.

Real books are better than ebooks because you can share them. I received The Art of Racing in the Rain as a Christmas gift. I really enjoyed it and knew my daughter would as well. Sharing the book with her was a simple matter of just passing to her when I was done. What’s the electronic equivalent of that?

There’s a 2^nd hand bookstore that I frequent near my house. It’s a great place to buy inexpensive books and to dispose of books we don’t want any more. There’s an added bonus; when I drop off used books, I give back to the community. You see, the bookstore is run by the Sturgeon Hospital Auxiliary Volunteer Association (SHAVA). I donate books, they sell them, and profits go to SHAVA. Try that with electronic books.

When I fly I am instructed to turn off all my electronic gizmos and gadgets during taxi, take off, and landing. How the hell am I supposed to read? I know, I’ll read a paperback or hardcover book.

Don’t get me wrong; I love the convenience and weight savings of electronic content on my tablet. I really do. But I’m not willing to sacrifice some of the joys of real, hold-in-your-hand stuff that the electro-gods are trying to pry out of my fingers. Think about music – digital is great, but it doesn’t sound as good as putting vinyl on a turntable (Justin Bieber excepted because he sounds like crap regardless of format).

From a business perspective, elimination of paper is a laudable, if unrealistic, goal. Assuming all the various pieces are available, any business that still insists on clogging up processes with paper ought to be forced to listen to Justin Bieber until their ears bleed and/or their willies fall off (just like Justin’s).

With all the talk about portability and mobility I figured I’d just point out that just because you can go digital doesn’t mean you have to or that it’s the best way. Of course, not all of you are in the same situation as I am, nor do you approach life the same way. That’s cool; to each her own. But, to those of you out there who have never listened to a vinyl LP or held a real book in your hands, I feel bad for you, you don’t know what you’re missing.

WARNING: This post contains swear words. They’re there ‘cause of my mood when I wrote this in reaction to a gamification discussion. I’m all better now, thanks. 

This was originally posted on AIIM …

Of all the buzzwords & acronyms being bandied about out there, “gamification” pisses me off above all others (maybe it deserves a shiny badge). I cringe whenever I hear it or read it. It cheapens what I and others have worked our asses off to achieve in our careers. It reminds me of the fat kid in grade 6 that got a ribbon because he managed an astonishing 7 situps in 1 minute (for the record, it wasn’t me). As a professional, equating my work with games, however obliquely, insults me. Games are what I play with my friends and family.

I was raised to work hard, though I didn’t always do so as a student. At school you worked to get the grades and not spend more than one year per grade. If you were the smartest kid in school you may have gotten an exemption from finals, a scholarship, or beat up.  Professionally, you worked hard (and smart, I hope) to get your stuff done and get ahead. If you didn’t get your stuff done you were rewarded with time off ‘cause they fired your ass for being deadwood, and you deserved it. Rewarding / recognizing people for doing just enough to get from grade 3 to 4 or to keep their jobs (reward enough, I say) is sheer lunacy.

My kids don’t get rewarded for just doing stuff that’s expected of them (e.g.: cleaning their rooms, picking up after pets, doing well in school). They get rewarded for exceptional behaviour & performance; the rest is just life. I don’t get rewarded for just showing up and doing my job in an ordinary, expected way. I get rewarded when I perform above expectations. If I or my kids don’t meet expectations in our respective roles bad things happen. Such is life.

The key, my fellow planetarians, is to set the expectations early and define what one need do to earn the rewards / recognition. Apparently, doing the dishes does not automatically entitle me to “get some”, but if I don’t do them it’s automatic that I won’t? WTF is that about? Anyways …

I have no objection to reward & recognition schemes. In fact, I’ve received and doled out plenty of recognition (the positive kind) over the years. Rewards / recognition have been tangible (e.g.: bonus $, raise, promotion, time off, gift cards) and intangible (peer/client/manager figurative pats on the back). Most people, me included, are happy to receive them. But we’ve generally received them because we’ve performed exceptionally or taken on additional responsibilities. I can’t recall one instance in my career where I’ve given or received a reward for simply doing my job. It’s just not something that makes any sense to me.

Like I said, rewarding / recognizing people for exceptional performance or taking on additional responsibilities is fine. In fact, it’s a freakin’ critical thing to do because it helps to motivate people and keep them interested in their work. It can also help motivate the unexceptional to become exceptional. I truly believe that it’s a necessary thing to do and that it benefits all involved.

One of the areas that [the word I hate] is being linked to is social collaboration (which also sucks ass as a term because how the hell are you gonna collaborate if you’re not being social), especially as related to identifying experts. It works like this:

1. Say something not completely stupid.
2. Someone, who may or may not be stupid, rates your stuff (or gives you a badge or a cookie or a pin, who cares?).
3. Someone else sees the rating, and being equally as stupid, or not, bugs your ass for your opinion or for help.

Uh, WTF? I do good work and get “rewarded” by more people bugging me? What kind of psycho place is this?

Identifying experts is good. It helps those seeking advice by providing resources to tap. It helps those providing advice by making them think a bit more and pushing them to be better (and the ego stroking likely doesn’t hurt). But calling it [the word I hate] does everyone a disservice. Experts have worked extremely hard to get where they are, and many truly enjoy what they do and helping others. The folks looking for advice are likely stuck on something that may or may not be hugely important. I’m not certain that anyone involved wants their situation or efforts equated to playing games.

When I write a post I don’t write it to garner likes, +1’s, follower, or increase my Klout score (Klout is Krap, IMO). I write because I have something to say that I think and hope will benefit someone, or at least make them think. If someone provides positive feedback I appreciate it. If someone provides negative feedback I appreciate that too and try to be better the next time (unless they’re just being a dick). If someone reaches out and asks for advice, an opinion, or help, I provide it gladly with no expectation of getting a badge or biscuit. I do it because I am social just like every one of you reading this. Sometimes I write because I get pissed off and need to get something off my chest. On those occasions feel free to ignore me, just like my wife and kids do when I go all bat-shit crazy over something.

As a consumer, I love [the word I hate], but prefer to call it loyalty rewards or some such. I like going out and spending money on stuff, getting points, and using the points to get more stuff for FREEEEEE!!! I also like discounts, upgrades, and complimentary in-flight hookers (not available on domestic flights). But when it comes to me spending money that I’ve worked hard to earn, don’t equate it to playing games.

I’ll give [the word I hate] a little slack on social media & social networks. Earning “stuff” on Facebook (was thoroughly disillusioned to learn that “poking” wasn’t nearly as exciting as I’d imagined) games, Foursquare, Klout, …, doesn’t bug me, mainly because I don’t take them all that seriously (like I do my work & my family).

[Added 2012-06-20 ...

On the corporate side, there’s a few areas where I think [the word I hate] is apt:

1. Projects requiring participation of people that have “real” jobs;
2. Organizational change management;
3. User adoption.

When you pull staff onto a project they’re still typically expected to do their day jobs. They’re also generally not used to working on projects; there’s a huge change in dynamics from doing an operational role (e.g.: claims processing) to being the subject matter expert in JAD (Joint Application Design) sessions for a new claims system. Doing something as seemingly insignificant as awarding a prize for the best project name can reap huge dividends.

Organizational change management and user adoption are other areas where it pays to “play”. Adapting to new tools and methods is not easy for most people. Even if people hate the tools and methods they’ve been using, they’re used to them and some really are resistant to change. Providing people with goals, tools to reach them, and incentives for reaching them is a good thing. [The word I hate] won’t make the transition any easier, but it ought to serve to get the participants more involved and also provide them with a way to measure their progress.

…]

Give me a raise or a bonus, give me a pat on the back, ask me for my “expert” opinion / advice; I’m cool with all those things if I’ve earned them. Just don’t equate what I do professionally to playing games. Maybe I’m just a grumpy old bastard. If so, I’m perfectly fine with that. It’s not the application of game theory I hate; it’s the label we’ve given it. When applied to so many aspects of our lives I find it diminishes us, our efforts, and our accomplishments.

Note: none of this applies to people who actually play games for a living. E.g.: Bowling, darts, pool. I don’t care what channel they’re televised on, they are not sports.

In the interests of full disclosure; I use a corporately issued laptop, a self-provisioned smartphone (employer pays service), a self-provisioned tablet, and a personal laptop. My tablet, while being hugely convenient and making my life easier, is not necessary for me to live or work. This post was written using my personal laptop and tablet. I used MS Word and OnCloud to write it. The Word file is stored on Google Drive. Yeah, I believe in BYOD (Bring Your Own Device). I also think the cloud’s a good thing.

One day I’d really like to see what percentage of the overall workforce really needs to bring their own device to work, or would even benefit (need vs want) from doing so. 9-5ers, bank tellers, receptionists (can we still call them that?), gov’t front counter staff, fast food employees, gas station attendants, call centre staff, billing clerks, accounts payable clerks, refuse collection agents, … these and a whole bunch more jobs have no stake in BYOD.

Anyone whose work ties them to a desk, executing fairly structured tasks can get by quite nicely with whatever hardware their employer has plunked down for them (assumes that HW and apps are suitable for the job). Oh, they may want to bring in their tablets or smartphones, load up on apps, and do their work from the sidewalk while having a cigarette. But I really don’t give a rat’s ass and neither should you. Can you honestly tell me that someone who processes invoices is going to benefit from being able to do so on a tablet instead of on a PC? I thought not.

Don’t get me wrong; I am not diminishing the value of the jobs that people do or what they contribute to their organizations and/or society at large. What gets me is this whole consumerization of IT thing that’s going on. The next time you hear “I have such cool gadgets at home, why can’t I have them at work?”, consider this answer; “YOU DON”T BLOODY NEED IT!!!”. You know what they need? They need the right information, proper training & support, a decent organizational culture, paths for self-fulfilment, and recognition that what they do means something.

On the other hand, there are many job functions that can definitely benefit from BYOD. Most of you reading this are probably in one. I’m in one of those roles, but there’s still lots of stuff that I need to do at work that can’t get done on my phone or tablet. When I say that, I mean it’s either just not possible or so cumbersome as to be not worth the effort. Taking meeting notes, writing docs, & emailing are all pretty good on my tablet, a little less so on my phone. Running demos, drawing diagrams, entering timesheets, and doing expenses just can’t be done. That does not mean I will give up my tablet or phone. Hell no! What it means is that unless my job changes I am going to have to be content with running multiple devices to get my job done. Oh, I could just go back to using only my laptop, but that would be silly.

Assuming BYOD is the right path …

Security and privacy are major concerns. What’s going to happen if someone loses their tablet or phone? What’s going to happen if there is a discovery order or FOI request and employee procured devices are in scope? Employees who use their own devices are going to be accessing & storing corporate content as well as personal content on the same device. Some of them are going to let friends and family use those devices for all sorts of stuff. You can’t tell your employees not to because they paid for the devices. What are you gonna do about it?

One of the really nice things about having a tablet or smartphone is that I can be mobile. That means that I don’t need to be connected to my corporate LAN and I can still get the stuff I need to do my work. Not all the stuff, but most of it. It’s not just content that I’m referring to, it’s applications as well. If you’re going to make a move to BYOD it’s on your shoulders to make sure that your team has access to the content, applications, and processes that they need to do the job. If your BYOD is limited to a single platform (e.g.: iOS) you may be lucky because you’ll only need to provision apps that work on a limited set of devices. If, however, you’re going true BYOD, well … you could run into some difficulty. Not only are you going to have to deal with security and privacy issues, you’ll also have to get into the app development business, unless there are already apps available from the usual sources (which I really doubt). I’ve used apps developed by organizations that theoretically work across multiple devices; many have fallen short and the user experience simply sucks. Oh, those apps you’re going to build will have to be integrated to those line of business systems your organization runs to get stuff done. Think of them as additional UI’s and functions that you’ll need to build, maintain, and support.

Another nice thing about BYOD, depending on your perspective, is that lotsa people have their favourite device(s) with them pretty much all the time. That means they can respond to stuff from bed, the beach, while watching TV, while watching the kids at the playground (saw this woman almost get smoked by her kid on a swing while she was occupied with her iPhone – yes, I would have laughed), what/where/whenever. It’s really cool that you can get someone to respond at anytime, but remember that YOU ARE INFRINGING ON THEIR PERSONAL TIME. Granted that it’s likely their fault because they’re using the same device to watch Formula 1 videos on Youtube and respond to RFP’s but you can’t do anything about it because I bought the device so there. Nyah. Nyah, nyah! Sorry. Anyways, there are times that folks need to respond immediately, and BYOD certainly facilitates this. But, there are also time when folks need to chill without worrying about work. You’re the boss so I expect you to set the right tone and provide the right example.

So what’s my point? BYOD is a good thing in the right circumstances. Refuse collection specialists won’t benefit, but knowledge workers and field staff likely will. It’s also a pretty safe bet that if you allow your people to work with tools that they actually like and see as cool, they’ll be a bit happier and maybe even a bit more productive.

BYOD is appropriate based on the role, not the organization. In my job as a consultant it’s perfectly reasonable to allow me to use whatever device I choose. However, the same can’t be said for the people that process invoices, even though they bring as much value to the organization as anyone else. Have at ‘er and consider the following before going all BYOD:

1. Are devices your major issue? You’re freakin’ lucky if they are. Most orgs have way more serious stuff going on than what can be solved by allowing someone to do their job on a tablet.
2. Can you secure your stuff properly? My wife doesn’t want to see quarterly sales projections and my boss doesn’t want to see my wife & I [fill in the blank with whatever you want, you dirty devil, you].
3. Do you want to get into app development? You do? How many platforms & form factors & screen sizes/resolutions do you want to develop for? Oh, and support? And maintain?
4. Privacy. Closely related to the security thing. Yes, they are different. Go look it up if you don’t believe me.
5. If you go BYOD, can your users still access everything they need to do their work?
6. What’s the impact to employee working hours going to be? They’ll have the gadgets with them 24/7, will you expect them to be available/reactive 24/7? Shame on you if you will.

I’m not saying that BYOD is a bad thing, just think about it a bit before you commit.

Big data is too big for most organizations. It’s not because there is too much raw material to deal with, nor is it because of a lack of applicable tools. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the inclusion of unstructured data (which doesn’t really exist but that’s a topic for blog posts that I’ve already written). No, big data’s too big because of what’s possible.

The possibilities to slice & dice are virtually endless. Numerical data is bombarding organisations from within and without. Text based data (I’m calling it data because until it’s put in context it’s not really information) is being generated almost at the speed of thought, in quantities heretofore unimagined. Every transaction, every search request, every Tweet, and every Like generates an entry in some repository that organizations may or may not be aware of, have control of, or have access to.

That all sorta sucks, but …

But what really sucks is that organizations jump onto the Big Data bandwagon with not an iota of a clue as to what they want to do with it. Boys and girls, Uncle Chris is gonna try and wise you up.

Like any other project that involves expending time and money, you need to know what you want to achieve when you’re done. E.g.: Many years ago I worked on a service management reporting project for a big organization providing managed network services to an even bigger organization. It came down to this … approximately 17,000,000 rows/day of raw data were collected, $pooploads/mo of revenue depended on meeting SLA targets, unmet SLA resulted in pooploads-alot being lost. The specific metrics and their data sources were identified prior to spending a dime on tools. My point is, you need to figure out what the business requirements are. That was true in 2002 and it is true today.

Much has stayed the same, and some has changed over the last 10+ years. We’ve even got some new stuff we can play around with thanks to social media, text analytics, sentiment analysis, etc. But knowing at least a few of the questions we’re trying to answer, before actually doing something, is still a valid and necessary first step.

It’s really cool that we can now ask “How does [demographic of choice] feel about our support organization?” in addition to asking about how many units of blue-widget-A we sold last quarter in the mountain time zone north of the 49^th parallel. But before we ask the question we need to know to ask it and we need to know what we’re gonna do if we don’t like the answer (we should also have a social media strategy in place). We also need to know niggling little details like where the data is, whether or not we can access the data, and whether or not the data is reliable (whatever that means). Oh, we should also have some sort of governance in place to deal with all that personal and payment data we’re collecting, storing, massaging, analyzing, and interpreting to generate more profits than ever before.

I’d like to end today’s sermon with another little story …

Back in 2004 I was a project manager at a municipality. One of my periodic tasks was to compile the results detailing uptake of certain web-enabled municipal services related to planning and development. Each month I would get the results from the various sub departments, enter them into my fancy-schmancy reporting tool, compare the numbers against the projections, and then present them at a monthly meeting. We used a standard red-black-green thingy and it was all so easy. Easy until the dude in charge asked me if they were supposed to do anything about the red (bad) numbers. My question, and the take-away from this anecdote, to him was “If you’re not going to address the issues highlighted, why are you spending time and money on this?”

Big data is full of big possibilities. However, before you jump in make sure you have a plan. Understand what it is you’re trying to achieve. Have a plan for how you’re going to react to negative results as well as positive. Know that you won’t figure it all out on your first attempt, but that’s okay because a cool thing about analytics is that the more you play, the more you learn and then you discover more possibilities.