Brainstorming


30
Apr 10

Clouds and The Fate of the Help Desk

As an efficiency nut there’s one thing that makes me really happy about Tablets:

The Help Desk will be going away.

It’s important to understand the meaning of the term “Help Desk”. I don’t just mean people who sit around all day with headsets, answering phone calls. It turns out there are a *lot* of people employed in IT whose job it is to just keep the lights on. Vendors, Integration specialists, Sysadmins, and the guy whose entire job it is to  click the right button to clear the printer queue. Entire countries have devoted a lot of resources to greasing the gears of computers. They all work in a Helpdesk somehow.

CTO’s and CIO’s are starting to appreciate that their function at a company isn’t about technology implementation – it’s about how technology can help their business. Who cares if your OS is running Windows or Linux if all you need is a Word processor (and Solitaire). It’s become totally irrelevant.

What matters is the applications that are delivered to the end user; everything else is just implementation dogma. The people doing these implementations are Help Desks too, they’re just a few degrees removed from the end-user and prefer snazzier titles like ‘Application Services Engineer.’

It’s gonna take awhile. The PC will be around for a long time and people still need to type. But as we shift to tiny, integrated, crash-proof devices we need help desks less and less. The intuitive nature of the computer will suggest that it’s no longer important to be adept at using them. Not only that, but as we cycle through generations of people, the technical citizens will supplant the technical immigrants


28
Mar 10

Consume Create Ratio

From the ‘Things that are neat to think about but hard to measure dept’

I’ve been trying this thing lately. Every single time I sit down at my computer, instead of running straight for a website or my email, I try and write something first. What got me thinking about this was a thought I had about how most people spend more time online than watching TV, but the majority of those people are still consuming information.

Take a look at sites like Digg, Reddit, Boingboing, Facebook, etc. You can throw up a few pictures and vote on a few stories but for the most part it’s like watching TV. You didn’t have to create anything to realize the value of those systems – you just had to ‘participate’ by going there.

So what if you could measure the amount of stuff you consumed, and the amount of stuff you created?

Then you could come up with a personal ratio. So lets say for every blog post I write I read 100 websites. That actually seems like a reasonable ratio to me. So my ratio is

1:100

But if you’re not in much of a writing mood for awhile, maybe you’ll read 1000 websites for every blog post

1:1000

Something like this would be cool to track, and I’d be really interested in seeing what the averages are.


23
Mar 10

The Need for Custom

Progress can be measured by how little we do the same thing over and over again. Once you have a process, you can wrap up each piece in a little section, hand that to someone and then press the button that says “go faster”. Things generally work this way. The first car took awhile to put together, but once some guy figured out what pieces you need to build, he realized you could automate and streamline most of the work. Doing it the same way every single time made the price way lower, the ease of maintenance much higher, and resulted in many more sales of the Model-T. As for customizing things, Henry Fords famous line was that it came in any colour, so long as it was black

On the flip side of things we have a culture of consumerism that is very motivated to satisfy their need for self expression. This desire to  be ‘different’ and express ones individuality is often the motivation behind many purchasing decisions. It influences your decision about what car to drive, or what computer to buy, what software to purchase, or what sweater to wear. Every so often a counter-culture will erupt whose whole purpose is to be hyper-individualistic, hyper-free, or to challenge the status-quo which, ironically enough, is actually a method of self expression in itself.  It’s important to note that Companies are like people in this respect as well. Corporate culture and habit dictates a lot of their purchasing and ‘innovation’ decisions.

What if the need to make things just ‘a little different’ is over. What if we have too many choices? What if we just bundle up all the bits and pieces into something reasonable and say “You can have it in two colours: black and black”

We have two very different systems on our hands. One hand suggests that in order to make a product economically viable you need to have a process which makes millions of them. On the other we have a value system that suggests we customize and change things – in order to satisfy our desire of self expression and individuality. Where one decides to offer the ‘customizable’ part is what will make or break your business (unless of course, you’re in the business of customizing).

The placement and degree of customization have a lot of big implications.

  1. The more different you make something, the more combinations of shit going wrong you have to predict and support.
  2. More permutations = decrease in instantaneous knowledge transfer. For example, if you could make your iPod work 1000 different ways, when you hand it to your friend they’ll just stare at you and blink – nobody cares if it’s just covered in sequins.
  3. Hyper customization results in a situation where you also can’t produce enough of something reliably or cheaply, which results in all sorts of messes. This is particularly interesting in software. What gets included as a feature? What ends up just being a plugin?
  4. Usability and interaction / retention can be severely impacted. Where do you draw the line between custom color schemes and layouts, and being able to personalize & express yourself through your purchases instead.

(There are a lot of things these points can be tied into as well. For example, it seems as though people are much more willing to accept less customizable control over something if they’re subscribing to a service or purchasing an object that is indistinguishable from magic)

While many industries are designed with the understanding that we need things “just a little different” it also wastes a lot of resources and in some extreme cases delays progress. While I’m a firm believer that monopolies and globally homogenous environments are a bad thing, it’s interesting that the most successfull companies I know of today are the ones that have convinced people that they dont want things different; they want things the same.

It’s the Model-T all over again. Only now you can get your iPod in a few more colours.


18
Feb 10

Carbon Computing

Being able to outsource all of your computing needs to an external provider is absolutely fantastic for developers and some businesses. While not running your own infrastructure is much cheaper, it also makes the amount of energy and associated ‘costs’ of computing very opaque.

There are quite a few issues with the transparency of costs in the cloud computing space. This includes no transparency into the cost of electricity, and where that electricity is coming from. To date, there is no public database of electricity markets, datacenters, and hosting providers which lists how much carbon per kWh of electricity is being output. In ICT this is a massive issue, because of the sheer amount of energy our industry consumes.

“Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is both a problem and a potential solution in the war against climate change. Currently, computers are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than airlines. Greenhouse gas is growing exponentially and we expect that ICT will produce double the emissions of the airline industry within five years with no end in site. ICT can provide a solution to climate change by reducing carbon emmission in the world through telecommuting and other means.”

Here in British Columbia we get most of our electricity from renewable hydro-electric power. Hydro-Electric is one of the lowest forms of reliable low carbon output electricity generation available. It goes without saying that providing computing services using energy generated this way would mean less CO2 / kWh but also less CO2 per compute cycle.

We need several things to make this happen

1) Start measuring how much power ICT is using on a per server / component basis
2) Develop resources that track carbon output per kWh in different states & provinces and provide that information as a service
3) Determine where your computing resources are located and track on a per machine level the amount of carbon being output
4) Calculate how much carbon you’re using.

Those are pretty audacious goals, but I think we really need to start keeping track of carbon output for power. By tying that into the different services we use on a regular basis, we can make carbon part of the social and actual cost of using services. Hopefully that will help buy us enough time and money to develop the carbon neutral power solutions we desperately need.