Rod Hamilton's Most Recent Posts

A few weeks ago one of my blogs resulted in my being more or less torn to shreds on SlashDot. In that blog I was commenting on the need to buy dual core desktops.

 I've thought a lot about those comments and it dawned on me that there seem to be two very radically different perspectives on technology. IT practitioners quite rightly point out that faster is better and a strong case can easily be made for more memory and greater horsepower. I certainly understand that perspective, having been in this industry for over 30 years and a developer for more than 20 years.

I was surprised by the article today relating to the archive operated by a county in Florida on the Internet. Clearly it was set up in good faith to comply with state regulations relating to disclosure. They have obviously put a lot of money and effort into making an easily searchable archive and have created Meta information that easily allows for retrieval of document images.

 It was apparent they have worked hard and invested heavily in their efforts to provide their constituents with access to documents that they are nominally entitled to see according to prevailing rules.

My comments about dual core clearly struck a nerve for some people and also highlighted shortcomings in my understanding of how gaming consumes a computer.

I certainly didn't intend to imply that dual core lacked benefits or that people who acquired them wouldn't see benefits. As we acquire new computers due to failures or staff headcount increases we will likely buy dual core. My point related to the need to upgrade to get something that was required rather than benefiting over time as purchases needed to be made for other reasons.

I've been watching the uptake of 64 bit processors and more recently the dual-core processors with considerable interest and anticipation. We've already made 64 bit computers our standard and are planning on moving to dual-core shortly. The value proposition for more computing power on a server is easy to make.

More recently we have been watching the introduction of dual-core desktops and laptops. Though we are getting a couple to try out, the need to acquire this new technology for legitimate business purposes is grey at best. The lower power consumption which improves battery life is persuasive for regular travelers, but for the average user there seems no need to make the change. In fact, with the steady increase in browser based applications it might even be possible to argue that prevailing technology is excessive.

In the early days of Microsoft they garnered their initial market share by providing compelling products at a price well below what the larger, established companies were offering. They competed with Netscape in the browser market by offering their product for free.

In recent years Microsoft has  been steadily increasing their prices as new product versions were introduced, to the point where their products are now similarly priced or even expensive relative to competing products and well above their historic prices, at least in some cases.

I find it incredibly interesting that companies like Sun are now offering their operating system for no charge, choosing to charge for support instead. It appears as if the strategy originally used by Microsoft as it forged its place in the corporate landscape might now be used against them.

At a panel discussion this morning the issue of user education was raised. Particularly, the need to describe SOA and the like. I applaud the notion that lunch and learn sessions be offered to allow interested users to understand the techniques and philosophies being used, but is it a requirement for success by IT?

Mitch Hanson of Quest Diagnostics noted it is important to educate the user community about the effort needed to deliver agile solutions. He described it as the need to differentiate between heroics and an agile process. This requirement seems more appropriate to me than one where the end user needs to understand the actual technology. It is clearly thrilling when IT works around the clock to deliver something urgent against a seemingly impossible timetable. Great care needs to be taken to ensure the bar doesn't get raised to the point where all deliverables are expected with the same speed and intensity of effort.

To manage expectations, the user community must understand what is possible and when it can be available, but I personally don't believe they need to know how the development technology or the specific development technique works. Rather, they should focus on the business objective to be addressed and the advantage they can gain from use of the new product or feature.

As I reflect on the presentations and discussions that took place on the first full day of the conference it remains clear that, though the technology we use and the techniques we apply are what we often talk about, it is the people in our teams and who we serve that are really what is important.

In the session relating to Globalization a question was posed to the audience relating to outsourcing/off shoring. Specifically, it asked whether organizations should use preservation of US jobs prevent them from hiring the best person possible for a given position.

This is clearly a controversial topic, but I figured I would weigh in with a thought or two. The IT community has become global, with much work now being done in places like India and China. By virtue of their successes, these locations are now prospering and, by virtue of that success, are becoming more expensive. I feel they are moving toward equilibrium, where their services are not materially less expensive than those offered in the , at least when consumed by modest sized organizations (those not able to readily set up their own operations in those countries).

At least one of the universities in has been ranked at the top or close to the top as a center for excellent technology education, perhaps even eclipsing MIT. There are similar top institutions in , and the like. On measure, most of us would snap up MIT grads, given the option, to gain competitive advantage. We should do the same for these top notch foreign institutions as well. Many of these people are seeking to emigrate to the , seeking opportunities. I feel this should be encouraged. Let's gain from their skills and expertise to foster innovation here. Other countries have used US dollars to build top notch programs. Why not capitalize on their investment for a change.

Randy Mott presented the measures he is taking to streamline IT across HP, offering a long series of useful insights, but one of the key things I took away relates to the method he advocates for valuing IT. As in many organizations, we don't directly attribute revenue to IT, it is generally recognized by one of the Marketing teams.

In organizations where agile development is taking place, well aligned with the business, he advocates recognizing the revenue gained as a result of the deliverables of IT projects as tangible evidence of the revenue generated. I realize this would take buy-in from the Executive and would not replace the revenue attributed to the Marketing teams (since they are receiving commissions from them) but it would expose IT value that has previously gone unmeasured.