Technology decisions limited by ability to support users
Ever had a bit of technology your use dictated to you by an IT department? Does it not even come close to meeting your expectations or requirements? Is it usually web based technology that is letting you down? This type of problem stems from what I call a ‘square peg, round hole’ philosophy in IT – when decisions of what technology to deploy is based solely on the ability to provide support, not the requirements of the project and/or an analysis of features required by the user. It seems to happen far more often with web based technology.
In a conversation with a colleague over a beer I tried to understand why this happens. Sadly I still don’t understand why, but I do better appreciate the position of people that decide to hammer that square peg in. But I think it because they don’t understand or have an actual use for the web themselves (that is a totally different post).
I believe this happens in every IT department and it stems from the environment. IT finds itself in a situation with limited resources to hire new staff even though they are tracking time on/and tasks and there is an expectation that IT needs to support everyone regardless of expertise. There is a project or group or department that has decided to use a particular technology. Reality kicks in and the service end has to learn to support the technology so a decision is made to apply that same technology to others that have similar but not the same requirements as that project group.
What happens next is ugly. The clients expect something that usually different because they may want the same features but they would apply a different priority to the features they use/need. This influences their expectations on the total experience. Take a content management system (CMS) for example. One group might put a high priority on workflow management, another on user management, another wants a templating scheme, another wants a forum, and another group really wants a wiki. A CMS can do all these things but I can’t think of a CMS that can do them all as well or anywhere near as good as specialized software.
However, CMS vendors will promise support and the ability to meet the demands of the user. This pulls on the support strings of IT. Rarely, if ever, will you find a CMS that delivers to a diverse groups expectations. What happens is that any number of groups become disenfranchised with the software and the overall project of deploying that technology is doomed to failure or mediocre success at best. The CMS vendor comes off either not being paid and/or looking really bad. The IT department comes off looking unprofessional at best which puts pressure on them to produce, and the cycle continues.
What should happen is that the IT department assesses the features as well as the priorities. They evaluate the technology providers based on that clear idea of what are ‘deal killer’ features for people. If it reaches a thresh hold that makes it impossible to please even 70-80% of the clients then IT needs to break down the technologies and groups not force them all onto one.
The web offers the opportunity for this to be easy. Web services, web sites as your API, universal log ins, etc. all make it possible to integrate different solutions on the data level. Sadly I think IT still approaches web apps as black boxes that work in silos.
The moral of the story for anyone building a web based service is that to really be a hit with medium to larger organizations you need to offer integration and openness in your apps. If you can be the folks that develop the integration tools as well as offer your product you can likely charge more based on a successful track record. At least from where I am sitting 
BBC homepage redesign
In what I think is a good example for large institution web teams, the BBC has gone and offered an update to their home page. It is very Web two point oh with some widgets and gradients, big images, and larger text so its easier to read in this web world of increasingly high resolutions. They have some cool design elements like a classic looking clock, customization, and all the other bits you would expect on a site… except advertisements. The rationale for the design is offered in a blog post.
Issues to note about the BBC in my mind are:
- It is publicly funded and the public can take an ownership view on its web presence
- They have a large team but an even larger web presence
- Their primary audience is hugely diverse and crosses generations, from pre-teens to WWII vets
What I like:
- Their blog post explains what they thinking with regards to the big changes and invites conversation
- They point out there will be continuous changes (the web is not a static medium)
- It is a big change on look not content so they try to undersell it a little as a ‘lick of paint’ not a ‘redo’
Love it or hate it, its a pretty cool public process given all things.
UWSA Town hall thoughts: policies, strategies, and growth
My ‘other job’ at the moment is President of the University of Waterloo Staff Association which represents 1800 or so staff and today I initiated the public part of a process with our members that I believe will make the organization relevant, effective, and very unique. The UWSA is not a union nor does it conduct itself much like a union. People choose to be members of the organization and pay a relatively low flat fee, we don’t do collective bargaining, and we don’t resort to arbitration.
Instead we work with the University Administration to ensure staff have a voice on policies that directly effect them as keep on top of issues like working conditions, pensions and benefits. We also assist staff in navigating those policies, understanding their pensions and benefits, and answer any questions they may have about their employer. Just recently the UWSA finished re-writing the dispute resolution policy making it more ‘usable’ and effective for both staff and administration. Major changes were presented today.
This work along with the expectations of the staff for a level of service have made it nearly impossible to function effectively with the limited resources we have (we collect $5 a month from members currently). I introduced today a strategy that would have a new constitution for the organization approved by members no later than early Feb 2008, a new full-time position of Executive Manager created, and a small increase in resources through a staggered increase in fees in the near future with a an eye on a very large reserve of resources in the future. If you would like some detail, the slides are available in a PDF.
The idea isn’t to be a union but to be a more service oriented organization that has the ability to make some serious moves to assist members if it needs to. With more resources comes the ability to offer services such as (no way near exhaustive list here): interest free loans for education and training outside of UW, daycare subsidies, larger and more student awards for members children, awards for members children not attending UW, heavier discounted tickets for things, build a community presence, etc. This list needs to be expanded and other ideas need to be considered as yet.
With the lack of UWSA blog and/or forum I invite staff to comment here. Yes the comments are moderated (keeps SPAM away) but I will strive to post all comments on the topic. Ideas and feedback are welcome.
StartUpCamps seem to be well recieved
Last night I attended StartupCampToronto which was put on by the guys behind StartupNorth. It was a really good event with some intelligent entrepreneurs and a great audience that weren’t afraid to speak up. The format was simple, five minute presentation with roughly 15 minutes for questions. They did let it go over a bit if the conversation was a good one.
It wasn’t until the last presentation that I really go excited though. A couple of students from U of Toronto came with their idea and prototype for a really easy portfolio manager. They had a grand plan for how this can work which had its issues. The crowd jumped on it and offered some great advice which I hope helps them create a successful product. That, I believe, was Simon Woodside’s motivation behind StartupCampWaterloo. When he had an idea for his company/technology it was hard to get that advice to move it along. For students and researchers or anyone else really, it can be hard for them to understand the market their technology might work in. Yes there are organizations designed to help but the community nature of a StartupCamp I believe works better for a lot of people.
A lot of the talk about entrepreneurial learning curve is that you have to fail to succeed. StartupCamp was designed to encourage people to at least try with the support of the community to offer some guidance. Could some failures be avoided by the community helping them figure out the obvious mistakes?
A secondary benefit is the community is enhanced from the fresh ideas and energy out there. With that in mind, next StartupCampWaterloo is February 26th. Looking forward to it.
