Technosis...

Reproduced from article written by Tim Egenes in MRO Today:

When considering the major issues facing most integration projects, one can make initial assumptions that appear to be reasonable at first. One such assumption is the customer actually comprehends (and can articulate) how he does business and therefore must know what a new system should do to support those requirements.

Upon closer examination, consistent methods and standards that define how the client conducts business do not actually exist. As a result, the description of how a new system should look and the goals it should achieve is vague and inconsistent.

The syndrome
Integration/implementation specialists frequently respond to this ill-defined set of system requirements in a manner that compounds the initial problem. By building what amounts to technological Band-Aids, we tend to mask rather than address an inherently flawed business process.

Any subsequent technological development based on the original continues to mask the basic problem, making it increasingly more difficult and unlikely that the flawed business process will ever be corrected.

The term “Technosis” was coined to describe this condition.

Technosis: tek∙no∙sis
Function: noun
Definition: : The repeated act of developing and implementing technical answers as tactical solutions to problems encountered as a result of inadequate, non-existent or misunderstood business requirements.

The symptoms
Technosis often occurs due to several reasons, including lack of time, infinite capability, unarticulated vision and lack of interest.

Lack of time – These conditions persist in the business world because of a misunderstanding of time. There never seems to be enough time to review and reconstruct a flawed business process. Therefore, businesses develop methods that identify errors and/or anomalies after they have been created, and make any necessary adjustments sometime later in the process. This usually results in procedures that are complex, inefficient, time-consuming and costly, and add no apparent value to the end product.

Infinite capability – The existence of tools that allow us to create elaborate and sophisticated technical solutions in a relatively short amount of time also adds to the problem. The simple fact that we have the technology created the illusion that all problems can be solved with a technological approach.

Unarticulated vision – In any activity that involves change, those conducting the activity must understand not only how the changes will work, but also why those changes are being made. However, in most cases, an articulated vision does not exist. Those tasked to implement changes are not necessarily required to understand the original problem; they are simply asked to develop a solution defined by someone else. Without this vision, it becomes difficult to maintain focus on the original problem, and a tactical rather than strategic solution results.

Lack of interest – The tendency of most individuals is to pursue only those things that hold more interest or are more stimulating to them. This includes the use and development of technology, which seems a more exciting activity than the mundane functions of business process review. So we continue to throw time, attention and money toward holding back the flood rather than repairing the dam. Again, the result is the continued development of technological Band-Aids for the symptoms that result from a potentially flawed business process.

The cure
Curing the problem of Technosis requires several simple steps: a review of business processes, the development of best practices and managing change control.

Business process review – Successful development of a strategic technical solution requires comprehensive review of all underlying business processes that effect or are affected by the system being implemented. This requires an exhaustive and complete review of all business processes no matter how insignificant they may appear.

More importantly, the review of these processes should be conducted with the participation of all functional organizations. A complete understanding of how any organization impacts a process cannot be obtained without the direct involvement of that organization in the review process and change control management.

Best practice development – Apply the principles of best practice development and continuously support and defend those principles. The establishment of functional requirements must be driven by these concepts. Moreover, the development of any solution must be guided by a consistent and well-founded methodology that demands that best practices be employed.

Change control management – The establishment of clear and consistent change control procedures must be imposed during the implementation process. This includes the establishment of clearly defined roles and responsibilities within the core implementation team. In addition, comprehensive business rules must be institutionalized to ensure that changes made to the system conform to the principals and objectives set down at project inception.

We develop and implement a technological system in order to produce efficient, cost-effective solutions and capitalize on opportunities. The end customer must be held accountable to support the implementation specialist in this process. The most important responsibility of the customer is to detail the fundamental requirements the system will be expected to support, including full description of the business logic they intend to follow. In parallel with that, business process documents that define the specific methods employed to accomplish that logic must be produced and agreed upon.

Technosis is an avoidable ailment, but it requires driving to the heart of the matter, the customer’s underlying business logic. Without this, the development of technology solutions will continue to fall victim to the insidious creep of expanding scope without ever accomplishing project objectives.

Tim Egenes is a principal consultant at MRO Software, where he is responsible for the development and integration of business processes that facilitate the control of assets assembled to deliver products and services. He joined MRO Software in 1992 after more than 20 years of experience in the aircraft maintenance industry.

Devil in the data

Whatever the choice of transaction system, IBM’s Mark Pemberton warns:
“One of the hardest things to do in an MRO environment is actually to take the data from the old systems, convert it and put it into the new system.” Older systems typically have a lower level of functionality than the new systems, “but to use all this new functionality you need the data. So in a lot of cases you have to manually create it so that you can use the new functionality. It’s a big effort. IBM has tools, and we have experience over many projects to help make it easier, but there’s no getting away from the fact that to cleanse and create data, the only people who can do that are the business, and it’s a lot of work.”

- Source: Airline Fleet & Network Management

God has created us simple - We have made ourselves complicated!

Look at the design of a lot of consumer products—they're really complicated surfaces. We tried making something much more holistic and simple. When you first start off trying to solve a problem, the first solutions you come up with are very complex, and most people stop there. But if you keep going, and live with the problem and peel more layers of the onion off, you can often times arrive at some very elegant and simple solutions. Most people just don't put in the time or energy to get there. We believe that customers are smart, and want objects which are well thought through - Steve jobs, Newsweek, 2006-10-14

posted by Kuttan

User Interfaces Based on Game Theories

What would good design be if we did not look to other arenas to help us craft the worlds within which we interact. Reading Level Design Patterns by Simon Larson, I was struck with the awsome corelations.

The icons below exemplify the following design patterns (same order):

1. Multiple paths: Each path must be supplemented by one or more paths in order to overcome bottlenecks.
2. Local fights: Break up the level in smaller areas that are more or less closed of the rest of the level.
3. Collision points: The paths of opposing players must cross at some point to create tension in the level.
4. Reference points: Always provide reference points in your level to help navigation.
5. Defense areas: Aide the players or team defending objects by making the architectural layout of the level work to their advantage.
6. Risk Incentive: Access to wanted objects in a level must be connected with some element of risk
   

Now let’s apply these concepts to user interaction design in applications. These concepts can apply equally to a store layout, a web-site or any other software applications. We are reapplying concepts to change the experience of the user/consumer (the two will be used interchangably in this article). This is important since we are desiring to captivate our users, even in the most mundane corporate application.

1. Multiple paths: Some functions are so important that they can be accessed from multiple paths. This will avoid bottlenecks and purposeless, time consuming searching.
2. Local fights: This is where the heavy lifting gets done in your application or environment. There are times to navigate and times to stop and get work done (enter data, buy something, etc). These areas should be appropriate concentrations of functionality. Not too complex, but not too simple. Often times screens and displays are designed around how we perceive what the consumers are trying to do, and the user is driven to a level that is too simple and disconnected from the way the information or experience is actually needed.
3. Collision points: Instead of colliding with the enemy, let’s have the user collide with one of the four desired connections. Bring them to the people that can help them, the tools, parts, books, documents or even desires of the heart at the appropriate moment. Don’t make the user search for the information, have them collide with it.
4. Reference points: This is unchanged. Make it clear to the user where they are and how they can recognize it when they come back.
5. Defense areas: Help the user get their job done and protect them from the lurking enemies. These can be session timeouts, data loss while navigating the back button, excessive product choice, items to large for a normal cart, or whatever the troubles that the user may encounter. This can be the creation of save points, persisting data, larger bags, rolling carts, help buttons that send a stockboy or other such tactics to protect the user.
6. Risk Incentive: In a user application or storefront, we don’t necessarily want a risk incentive, just an incentive. We must provide our users an incentive to use our applications and shop our isles. This is the most important when we role out corporate applications. Too often the corporate applications present a value to corporation or a single department, but the user and consumers of the products have no reason to use the system. Or at the very best, they are reluctant to use it.

Maybe if our products, stores and programs were more like video games, we would find greater acceptance and return on investment. And after all, that is what helps us continue to deliver to the consumer.

MRO - ERP

 

Interesting read:

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=om&id=news/omcvr508.xml&headline=ERP%20For%20MRO:%20An%20Alternative%20Perspective

 

 

Implementation Challenges

[Source: Aircraft Commerce]

SAKS Consulting (SAKS) is a well known international management consulting organisation in the aviation market. It offers a broad range of services including strategy, business process optimisation and software package selection and implementation. SAKS was formed in 2000 by five partners drawn from leading systems integrators and ‘the big four’ management consultancies. SAKS claims to have deep industry and business process expertise and aims to mobilise the right people, skills and technologies to improve business performance. It works across industries focusing on the areas of corporate strategy, supply chain, change management, ERP strategy and internet/wireless technologies.

“We are often asked by the senior management of airlines or maintenance organisations what experience we have of the overall issues and problems that we have encountered in implementation approaches,” comments Sharhabeel Lone, partner, global business strategy at SAKS Consulting. “The top three issues are a recurring factor in almost any audit that we do. The first is a lack of sustainable long-term executive management commitment. We often find that the project team is left to fend for itself when problems arise. This eventuality is hard to predict and plan for, but awareness of the issue is the first step in addressing the problem.

“The second issue is actually the primary reason for the first, and that is a lack of sufficient skill sets in programme and project management from the airline or MRO division. This affects the project team’s ability to deal effectively with the board as well as vendors and consultants,” continues Lone. “This is an area often misunderstood, or not given sufficient emphasis by the senior management team, which ultimately take responsibility for the project’s return on investment (ROI). The third issue sounds like a very ‘soft’ issue, but in spite of this, or perhaps because of this, proves to be one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome. The issue is poor change management and mostly stems from a lack of experience in implementing major change in an organisation. The change management issue breaks down into three sub-components. First, there is generally no effective change management programme. This needs to be a structured and planned series of actions built into the overall project plan. Second, there is typically poor recognition, particularly by senior management, of the need for a comprehensive and monitored process over the long term. This stems primarily from the lack of a change-management driven implementation methodology and team focus. It is mainly a result of people not understanding that these are business led and not technology-led projects. Third, there is usually a lack of skilled implementation consultants who understand both technology and process in equal measure.”

While the last comment from SAKS contains some degree of vested interest, it is generally true that most airline and MRO organisations will lack internal individuals with the skill sets in both IT and in the detailed specialist business processes. These types of people are a very rare breed. While not advocating hiring large teams of very expensive consultants, it is true that medium- to large-scale projects will benefit enormously from outside help, provided that the consultants match up to their claimed credentials. Companies will also have to go through another separate selection process for this part of the project.

The consultants bring another benefit, and that is independence. When hard questions must be asked of either the project team, or indeed of senior management’s leadership or decision making, they stand on more solid ground. They have no internal politics to navigate, no long-term career objectives to consider, and so on.

When it comes to the implementation itself, SAKS has some interesting observations based on its own experience in the aviation MRO systems market space. The question of whether a company should go it alone with the software vendor, or take the SAS approach and rely on outside help depends upon circumstances.

“There are pros and cons to a software company implementing its own systems instead of getting a consulting company to help,” continues Lone. “Either can work well. Some of the bigger software companies have set up strategic partnerships with well known consulting companies and use their consultants frequently for implementation. Other software companies tend to prefer to implement their own systems. Larger enterprises prefer to have a systems integrator to minimise both real and perceived risk. Whatever the balance, it is essential that a

sizeable number of the implementation consulting team comes from the software providers.”

It is true to say that in some instances, middle management takes comfort from the fact that external consultants act as a convenient scapegoat to point to if the project runs into difficulty. One of the big downsides, however is the blurring of responsibilities. Many times it is difficult to say whether the project has run aground because of poor data conversion and set-up, poor training or inadequate software. Fingers can easily be pointed in three directions to deflect criticism. It also requires a much stronger project management team and methodology to make sure the composite team functions correctly and boundaries and responsibilities are clear.

Value of Innovation

"Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It's not about money. It's about the people you have, how you're led, and how much you get it." --Steve Jobs

 

Cialdini's Six Laws of Persuasion

Here are Cialdini’s Six Laws of Persuasion:

 

Law of Reciprocity

Human beings, in general, try to repay in kind what another person has provided to them. If someone gives

you something you want (or perhaps didn’t “realize” you wanted), then you will wish to reciprocate because

you now feel obligated. Examples of this Law include the address labels you receive in the mail from various

non-profits requesting charitable contributions. Even though they are a minor, unsolicited “gift,”sending them

has increased contributions for non-profits many-fold, because people feel compelled to “return the favor.”

Giving free samples to potential customers is another way in which this Law is used by successful salespeople.

 

Law of Commitment and Consistency

People like to be (or at least appear to be) consistent in their thoughts, feelings, and actions. Once they have

made a stand, they tend to stick to it and behave in ways that justify their earlier decisions, even if they are

erroneous. If you make a commitment to a cause or product, however small, it then becomes easier to be convinced

to increase it. This is especially true if the commitment changes your view of yourself in a favorable

way. This is why salespersons attempt to get customers to agree with them multiple times. After saying “yes”

so often, it is almost impossible to say “no” when it comes time for the close or direct request for the sale.

 

Law of Liking

When you like someone, or believe that they are “just like you,” you are more inclined to want to please them

and, therefore, purchase whatever they are selling. This is how successful salespeople operate; they establish

rapport by demonstrating how similar they are to their potential buyers. For example, they note that they are

from a comparable background as you, or even better, they are people you know—your friends. As for those

in-home sales parties, the kicker comes when your neighbors provide the testimonials for the product. You

don’t want to disappoint them by not purchasing, do you?

 

Law of Scarcity

If you are not sure you want to buy something, the minute it becomes “the last one available” you tend to

have second thoughts. After all, this must indicate that others are purchasing it, and you might not be able to

get another one quickly, or at all, if you decide you want it later. So you take the bait to buy a popular item

that others won’t be able to get. At least that’s what you think.

 

Law of Authority

This is the law that uses celebrity endorsements or “expert” testimonials. When people you admire promote a

product or service, if it’s good enough for them, then it’s good enough for you. And if you use it, then you

might even develop similar characteristics to your heroes, such as good looks, wealth, or fame. That’s what the

advertisers are counting on.

Copyright ©2006 Global Knowledge Training LLC. All rights reserved. Page 3

 

Law of Social Proof

Why have TV sitcoms used canned laugh tracks for years? Producers wouldn’t employ them unless they actually

are successful in eliciting audience laughter and, subsequently, higher ratings. Part of the reason you laugh

along anyway in spite of your annoyance lies in how you decide what is socially “correct” behavior. If you

don’t know exactly what to do, you rely on others around you (or the virtual TV audience) to help you find the

way to properly react. You think if others are engaging in a specific behavior, it must be the proper thing to do.

Hence, you laugh in spite of yourself, or if you’re told that “everyone is buying this product or service,” even

without evidence, you may think you’re missing out if you don’t comply or conform and get it for yourself.