This is Manish from Udaipur

This is about life and life in Udaipur. About me and about me in Udaipur.

Category: Technology

It is not ABC!

Men are wise in proportion, not to their experience, but to their capacity for experience. (George Bernard Shaw)

What really is this “capacity for experience”? Surely, it is related to “Growth Mindset” which is a belief and preparedness to change for the better in light of new knowledge. It is also related to curiosity and ability to explore—openness with healthy scepticism. And, perhaps the most important element of “capacity for experience” is the ability to experience analytically and draw lessons which work.

The most instructive experience is, of course, failure. And, not just grand catastrophic failures—an unsuccessful rocket launch or a building collapse—but the stuff that we experience everyday: a bug, a lost sale, a bad presentation, a missed deadline, etc. They upset us, dent our enthusiasm, and might make us cynical. This is more so when such failures repeat and we do not seem to have learnt anything from these experiences.

Our default toolset to deal with failures is ABC. That is, we instinctively Accuse, Blame and Criticize. It is natural that we ask ‘whose fault is this’. So, if we are late for the meeting, it’s the cab driver who took the wrong route! We are wired by evolution to see agents and intent, and that is how we tend to deal with failures as well. Alas, it is rarely helpful, it seldom changes things for the better and it only reflects a poor “capacity for experience”.

We deal with complex things all the time. Any outcome is a result of many interconnected events. A defective report, for example, cannot simply be blamed on the developer who did not incorporate the required data correction in her code. Perhaps, the access to the API she depended on was not available. Maybe the API itself did not account for an unanticipated scenario. Resorting to ABC would not lead to a lasting solution, would not solve the problem for ever. All one might possibly have is a temporary satisfaction of identifying the ‘culprit’.

One with capacity for experience should be able to see deeper, and would know that the right thing to know and learn is not who the culprit is, but where the system failed. A great way to do that is to ask earnestly, ‘What could have been done differently?’ (WCHBDD). Maybe, we would learn to be better prepared for unexpected data scenarios, perhaps we would use better components in our solution, or perhaps we would test for more cases. While none of them would specifically guarantee that there would be no errors, each of them would make the end product better.

The key thing to appreciate here is that an outcome is result of a process, a system which is built of many parts and many stages. And, that zero defect at the end of pipe does not mean lack of errors altogether. And stuff happens—it is not possible to be errorfree. Yet, it is possible to be zero defect if we ditch ABC and adopt WCHBDD!

From Efficiency to Advantage

From efficiency to advantage. This is the story of technology, and with some lag, story of IT services industry. Doing the same thing cheaper, faster or better is no longer sufficient.

Information Technology has been a great driver of speed and efficiency. Technology ROI has traditionally been seen as a function of efficiencies and the costs. This equation drove adoption of technology by industry globally, squeezing more efficiencies as technologies improved, and reducing costs by outsourcing, consolidating, and standardizing.

The twin vectors of efficiency and costs–building and feeding on themselves–have, since a few years, landed into a new territory. The quest to squeeze more efficiencies has paled against allure of creating sustained and unique advantage for the business made possible by digital innovation. Similarly, functional cost reductions via optimizing on how activities are performed have reached limits and the specter of wholesale outsourcing via cloud, for example, disrupts the traditional cost calculus. These have become universally available and easily accessible, thus no longer are source of advantage.

This is new, and strikes at the basis of the traditional IT industry business models. Interest has waned for IT services’ pitches of providing the commoditized capabilities at a reduced cost or a more optimized setup. Businesses have a reached a point where such efficiencies have become a norm and do not provide sustained competitive advantage. They surmise that the daunting task of transforming themselves cannot be helped by mechanistic, efficiency-minded tech services companies.

There are two key frictions at play here. One is past v present, and another is present v future. And their domain is bigger than the IT services or tech outsourcing. It is impacting all areas of tech industry.

Firstly, what is valuable today is different from what was yesterday. While there is some value in getting something done in a particular way, again and again, it does not confer ‘advantage’. As technology forces a rethink of their businesses, companies try to find “advantage”, even in the supposedly mundane tasks where, till some time ago, it was all about just getting those done. That means, it is no longer relevant to assess value in terms of effort. The worth of a job must be thought in terms of “advantage” that it can garner. That’s more complicated than costs per hour, much more intimate and ephemeral. Impact of innovative technology adoption–let’s say of cloud or machine learning–cannot be assessed with frameworks of current practices. So, management techniques and business models based on selling (or saving) effort at some sort of time rate are breaking down.

Secondly, the impact of the new capabilities of technology on technology industry itself is more pronounced and profound than it has ever been. While not there yet, the asymptotic nature of technology work is starting to become visible. Algorithms are not just replacing non-tech workers, but also techies. Today’s good programmers are taking away jobs from tomorrow’s. The power shift is multi-directional with the middle getting squeezed away. This poses an existential imperative for the industry and its constituents. As it gets automated or becomes available in smart user accessible chunks, merely delivering technology would cease to be a business or a job. Instead, those who deliver ‘advantage’, via technology or otherwise, would thrive.

%d bloggers like this: