Sorcinelli.net

Random Thoughts and Musings of Don Sorcinelli

About

Tags: technology

Solving a Problem When You Can’t Define The Problem Itself

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: October 3, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Business, Personal, technology
Categories:Business, Personal, Technology

Sometimes I think we all forget that while technology helps us to solve problems, we have to first identify and clearly define the problem we are trying to solve. As consumers we often tend to purchase technology because we want it, not necessarily because we need it. We buy because it’s the “latest and greatest” or because it can do more, but these reasons don’t match up to any problems we currently have with our existing technology.

This type of conspicuous consumption has fueled economies since, well, forever. Of course, in uncertain economic times (like the present) we as consumers usually take pause and finally do ask ourselves if technology purchases are really serving a direct benefit and addressing a real problem we currently have. Ironically, however, another form of consumer (not the individual one like you or I) exists that suffers from some of the same impulse-buying and lack of forethought that we do. Their purchases, on the other hand, often run into the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars. And the people making those purchases are often themselves paid well to behave in just the opposite fashion of their spending habits. The consumers I am referring to are businesses.

As someone who has spent nearly a quarter of a century working with businesses and their technologies, I still find myself amazed by the number of times organizations acquire technologies with little to no idea of how they are going to actually use them. They spend large amounts of money investing in technologies, only look at them post-purchase and collectively say “now what?” While the technologies have changed and evolved over time, the acquisition of technology still occurs and results in a solution struggling to find a problem. Here are two such technologies I see this occurring with quite regularly lately, with one hitting very close to home on a personal level.

Cloud-based solutions. Everything seems to be moving to “The Cloud” lately. Centralized, externally-hosted solutions are intended to generally solve very specific problems, such as:
- Reducing the cost of infrastructure. Less hardware and/or software to maintain, less network bandwidth and reduced licensing.
- Reduce the cost of operations. Less human resources needed to maintain infrastructure.
- Ease access to corporate data and applications.

However, I am amazed by how many people currently consider moving to cloud-based solutions that currently are not experiencing these problems or will not see these problems occurring any time in the future. In fact, in these cases the cost of migrating from in-house to the cloud will likely cost significantly more in both the short- and long-term.

Device Management solutions. This is the one I said hits close to home for me, working in the industry directly. Typically, device management platforms today can help to solve a number of issues around mobile devices and –
- Asset tracking and reporting;
- Security configuration and enforcement;
- Application management;
- Identification and control over both corporate-issued devices and personal devices accessing corporate resources.

Here again, however, I regularly meet with organizations “post-purchase” of device management solutions only to discover that they really don’t know what problem (if any) they are trying to solve. In many cases, there is really no strategic direction/planning around mobile devices. In all of these cases, questions directed at the customer regarding what they hope to leverage from device management are met with responses like “we have no idea; what do you think?”

Technology is an enabler; it helps us to do things more effectively, or at a lower cost. Technology is not an automatic solution, however. In order for it to solve a problem, there has to be a problem in place and the technology needs to be looked at to validate whether or not it is, in fact, the solution. Whether it is a new dryer or a device management platform, the same principles apply.

Platform Fragmentation: Yes, There IS a Good Kind

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: October 2, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Business, Mobile Technology, technology
Categories:Business, Mobile Technology, Technology

The other day, I was involved in what seems to be a regular occurrence for me; a discussion on platform fragmentation. For the non-mobile, non-techie folks out there, this concept refers to the idea that a given platform (say, Android) has aspects about it that open itself up to differentiation. In theory, the differentiation could be a good thing, but usually the term is only discussed when the results are negative (especially for consumer/users). BTW – while I used the phrase “non-mobile”, I don’t mean that the ideas around platform fragmentation are limited to mobile devices. The same thing can apply to any platform.

Well, a couple of interesting thoughts occurred to me during this particular platform fragmentation discussion. First, I found someone in the discussion tried to make an argument that just didn’t fit in defense of the particular platform in question (in this discussion, it was Windows Phone 7.5). The argument was, in essence, that “platform fragmentation” only occurs if the platform causes a given application to work on one device and not the other. I found this argument to be the equivalent of something like changing the dimensions of a soccer field in the middle of a game and then calling everything that was inbounds before suddenly out-of-bounds. It just doesn’t work that way.

From my perspective, I look at a platform from a very gestalt point of view. In other words, the whole of the platform is greater than the sum of its parts. This includes all aspects of the platform. In the mobile world, this includes any OEM relationships, mobile carrier relationships and the ability of the platform (in this discussion, it was the Windows Phone 7.5 OS as a major factor in the overall platform discussion) to allow for customization by the other players in the ecosystem. Remember – unlike Apple with iOS as a platform, there is literally no other “players in the game”; their manufacturing partners have specifications dictated to them, and mobile carriers have no ability to customize other than adding software (and only with Apple’s blessing). Now, with all this in mind, it occurred on me that there can be good aspects to platform fragmentation. The first example came out of the very discussion where someone was trying to change the parameters around what defines platform fragmentation.

A platform that allows for device manufacturers to differentiate through hardware capabilities opens the door for platform fragmentation. However, that type of fragmentation enables:

Differing screen qualities
Differing audio qualities
Integration with other technologies (take DLNA, for example, allowing for streaming from the phone to other devices)

Now, if this particular form of platform fragmentation is allowed without altering the fundamental user experience (something I will touch upon in a moment), then it becomes a “win-win” for both devices manufacturers and consumers. Device manufacturers can compete through hardware and feature capabilities, while consumers have more choice without fear of a differentiator altering expected functionality. The end result – a positive type of platform fragmentation.

From a “bad” point of view, there are in my opinion several major types of platform fragmentation. They include -

Allowing for functional changes that break consistent user experiences. The scenario that was positive above becomes negative if a device manufacturer adds or removes capabilities that make application no longer function or change the way users have to perform basic tasks (turning on WiFi, for example). When this happens, moving from device to device within the platform makes for a painful new learning curve and removes the expectation of basic functionality.
Allowing for a device manufacturer or carrier to alter the basic user interface experience. Think “skinning” or “theming” here. While there can be an argument (both for and against) allowing users to change the fundamental appearance of the user interface, allowing devices to be sold with this as a default leads to a number of issues, including:

Altering the fundamental expectation of user experience;
Creating confusion through a lack of recognition of a platform. This was often the case with the old Windows Mobile platform and now occurs quite often with Android devices. Users do not even recognize and cannot identify what platform the device is running, never mind easily perform common tasks. Again, user frustration and new learning curves result when moving from device to device within the platform;
Difficulty for the consumer in determining what device is best for them within a platform. The number of returns of devices because of issues like the ones listed above lead to dissatisfied consumers.

Creating splits within the platform to accommodate hardware and features. Anyone remember the confusion caused by Windows Mobile Standard (non-touchscreen) vs. Windows Mobile Professional (touchscreen)? How about Android Honeycomb/3.x (tablet-specific) vs. the Android 2.x variants (tablet and non-tablet)? These splits result in software compatibility issues and even greater confusion/frustration for the consumer.

I guess the points I am trying to make here are, quite simply:

Platform fragmentation almost always will occur to some level with technology, especially when the technology includes an ecosystem with more than one vested interest.
There can be good forms of platform fragmentation that allow for grater choice for consumers without confusing, frustrating or hurting them.

To argue the basic definition of platform fragmentation shouldn’t be the approach when it occurs. Instead, the argument should focus on the benefit or detriment of the fragmentation in question.

Companies and Technologies Can Change For The Better

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: January 8, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Android, Apple, Business, iPhone, Microsoft, RIM, technology, Windows Phone 7
Categories:Business, Personal, Technology

I just finished posting an article at BostonPocketPC.com that was the result of a “personal experiment”. With Windows Phone 7 essentially being a “reboot” of Microsoft’s cell phone strategy and operating system and a new user focus, I wanted to see for myself in a more objective fashion whether Microsoft was truly on the right track. If you read the article, you will discover that the “subject” for the experiment was my wife Melissa – a perfect candidate to determine if Windows Phone 7 could meet her needs. Without giving away the entire article, I will say that both Microsoft and LG (the maker of the LG QUANTUM phone Melissa used) seemed to be nearly on the mark.

There always seems to be an argument for whether or not companies, like people, can fundamentally change (especially for the better). For many, the thought often appears to be that such change is next to (if not entirely) impossible. Fundamental change is either too disruptive, too costly or simply too dramatic to work. I tend to be someone who stands of the side of change being possible. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I look to history to see the successes of businesses fundamentally changing as well as the failures. Especially when it comes to technology companies, there are far too many examples of fundamental change that have resulted in success.

How many times has IBM “reinvented” itself through change? What about Apple during “The Second Coming of Jobs”? What about Microsoft “finally getting the Internet” a decade-plus ago? One thing about companies in the tech sector – there are always opportunities for fundamental business change because technology itself is constantly fundamentally changing. The key to business success is to be able to identify the change and then adjust. Ideally, you identify the technology change early and become an innovator. However, there is no rule that says you absolutely have to do this to be successful. Apple jumped on the media player and smartphone bandwagons well after the technologies themselves were taking off. Microsoft embraced the Internet well after many other companies have. The key for the eventual successes in both cases, though, was the ability to change and change well. Both Apple and Microsoft both moved to these technology spaces with offerings that people wanted and liked. Company size, by the way, is not the primary reason why these companies eventually succeeded. One can argue that no matter how much money or resources you have, you will not succeed without a compelling offering.

Microsoft took a rather gutsy approach when it came to Windows Phone 7. Essentially, there was a realization that their phone strategy that was once successful with Windows Mobile was no longer the case. The technology, user base and markets itself had evolved while Windows Mobile itself did not. Microsoft could have continued to attempt to try to evolve Windows Mobile, but the core target audience for smartphone technology had moved away from Windows Mobile. They wanted functionality, yes, but without the complexities of a personal computer. The smartphone should be a phone first, with user experiences focused on the form factors and true desires of a new generation of users. Microsoft’s decision to quite literally “reboot” their phone platform from the ground up would be costly in a number of ways, but with a newer focus and the correct vision would be more viable in the long term.

When people discuss the limitations of Windows Phone 7, I often have to remind them that this platform is not “Windows Mobile 6 + 1”; it is far more like “Windows Phone 7, Version 1.0”. To create an entirely new and different experience from Windows Mobile, the platform did start over. As for initial “success metrics” – many seem to have forgotten the iPhone 1.0 and Android 1.x – both very good platforms today and marginally better than their initial incarnations. Finally, as for the “too little, too late” argument made by many – if that were true in this market segment, Android wouldn’t have gotten very far. Remember – in a technology segment that is constantly evolving, there really isn’t a “too late”. I often say that there are no “Smartphone Wars”, only a series of “Smartphone Battles” over time. Palm (old Palm, mind you), RIM, Windows Mobile, iPhone and Android have all seen moments at the top – none have one a permanent spot though and likely never will.

Watching my wife use a Windows Phone 7 device and watching her fall in love with the phone and technology have once again that a company can change for the better. Microsoft recognized where they were and where they needed to be when it came to their phone strategy. While far from perfect, Windows Phone 7 seems to have created something that actually makes for a compelling product for a massive and seemingly ever-growing target audience. Here’s to continuing to watch as Windows Phone 7 and the smartphone market continue to evolve and how companies try to adjust – all for the betterment of the consumer.

Tech and the State of “Making Things Work with Other Things”

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: January 2, 2011
Comments: 3 Comments
Tags: interoperability, technology
Categories:Personal, Technology

The holiday season usually serves as a time to catch up with friends and family. In my case, at least a few of these contacts are a result of an age-old dilemma of technology. The conversation, be it by phone or email, eventually comes to a line like -

“So, I ‘m trying to get [fill in the technology A] to work with [fill in the technology B]…”

I would go on, but usually there are at least one or two expletives that follow and I’m trying not to be too offensive in 2011. The amazing things to me about all of this is that another year has come and gone, with lots of cool and innovative new technology, but the same old problem still exists. We still have technology that is supposed to work with other technology and it either doesn’t, or doesn’t without great difficulty.

I consider myself lucky when it comes to making technology work together. I attribute this to the following personal attributes -

I love technology.
No matter how obscure the tech, I tend to love it. The result has been a lot of “orphaned” products over the years, but I still love it.
I love figuring out how things work.
Again – no matter how convoluted the technology, I still want to know what makes stuff work.
I’m one stubborn SOB.
Perhaps this is most important. Give me a challenge and I’ll take it. Frustrate me and I’ll keep coming back.

All of this makes me the logical choice to be the proverbial Guinea Pig or just the plain old glutton for punishment, but I end up being the one trying to make things work together. Now, the problem with all of this is – it shouldn’t be this hard. It’s 2011; we’ve had plenty of time to focus not only on making “new stuff”, but also on making stuff work with other stuff. Yet by and large this is still not the case.

When it comes to technology working with other technology, the things that frustrate me the most are -

Things that there is no excuse for not working with other things. Especially when companies market how “easy” it is to make things work together.
Things that only work with other things if all of the things are from one company. I refer to this as the “Sony Effect”. You can argue this should be named after other companies, but Sony has been doing this about as long as I can remember. This is Sony – the people who brought you BetaMax and the Memory Stick. If you are telling me that I have to buy all of your stuff in order to make it all work together, well, you probably won’t find me buying ANY of your stuff.
Things that are supposed to be “standards-based” that turn out to have lots of caveats and fine print that make them no better than “The Sony Effect”. Don’t tell me you are based on a standard but only work with your interpretation of that standard. It’s as insulting to my intelligence as saying “This is blue. It may look like yellow to you, but it’s blue. By the way – you need to use our blue because the other blue stuff isn’t yellowish enough to work.”

All of this had led me to write some tips for all of my friends, acquaintances and even those strangers who ask me to help make Product A work with Product B. Consider it “Uncle Don’s 2011 Interoperability Rules to Live By”…

RULE #1: Never assume that a product or technology will work with another, no matter how much the product’s manufacturer tells you it will.
A company telling you something works with something else falls into the deep, dark. soulless void that is marketing. This void is often so far removed from reality that it bends light like a black hole. Come to think of it – the harder a company sells you on interoperability, the more you should be wary.
RULE #2: The Internet is your friend. Use it to research before you buy.
If you are buying a product with a primary purchase criteria being how well or easily the product works with other products, take the time to research the claims. Unless you HAVE to buy a new product the day it comes out (see Rule #3), there’s a good chance someone else has already gone through the pain or pleasure of making it all work together. And talked about it on the Internet. In painstaking detail. Multiple times.
RULE #3: Caveat Emptor (translation – DON’T BUY SOMETHING THE DAY IT COMES OUT).
”Shiny new” also means “untested and unproven by the masses”. If you simply MUST have it the day it comes out, then you have to take responsibility if things don’t work out. I used to be one of those “HAVE to have it” people. I now avoid being that person at all costs. I only HAVE to have it the word “have” is tangible, like I need it, not want it.
RULE #4: Finding a solution to making technology work together may not happen instantly. Deal with it.
It may take some research, some trial and error and a lot of cursing to make things work sometimes. If you don’t want to deal with that, then don’t put yourself in that situation. And no – calling or emailing someone like me isn’t a way to avoid that situation. You see, I may not have the answer either. No getting mad at me for not knowing the answer, either. Personally, I am establishing a “No Psychological Transference of Frustration Policy” in 2011. Translation – it’s not my problem if you bought, you can’t make it work and you want me to bail you out and I can’t.

Will things get better over time? Sure they will – but I doubt they’ll be entirely solved any time soon, if ever. As long as companies insist on proprietary solutions or half-a$$ed implementations of standards (or standards not even existing), there will be products that are supposed to work with other products but will not. It’s just the way things are. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go fix a phone that’s not wirelessly synchronizing with a desktop computer… Smile

page 1 of 1