How do you quantify knowledge? From the Board to rank and file, there seem to be a lack of understanding in grasping with the value of knowledge, especially regarding technologists. I’ll attempt to simplify my logic.

A few years ago, after a serious car accident, I was forced to limit my driving to five miles radius around home, so extreme was my panic of being behind the wheels. Those essential trips were to doctors’ offices, hospitals and school. It took over a year of therapy, medication and self-determination to venture beyond that radius and brave Atlanta‘s heavy traffic. I undoubtedly owe my recovery to the medical professionals. Their combined final bill was over $25,000. Simply put, I purchased their knowledge, expertise and services. It was essential for my recovery.

I was reluctant to visit referred specialists: neurologists and orthopedics. I fumed at their high hourly rate of $350-450. My silent rage: why should I pay for an hour when the actual time the doctor spent with me was less than half an hour, rest being filled by their nurses and PAs? Now, my physicians were leading neurologists and orthopedics, which translated to best care. There were, no doubt, many other doctors with much less fees. The questions were: what ‘s the price of my health? Should I save money now and see other doctors even if not commanding in their fields? Would that not mean risking permanent nerve and bone damage, ultimately spiking medical bills, perhaps for life? Or, should I continue with trusted physicians, best possible care and expert knowledge? I opted for the latter. End result? Best possible and fast recovery.

Like my physicians, many technologists too command lead in knowledge and expertise in their fields. Unfortunately, people outside technology often fail to fathom the value of those expertise. What price should be put on intellectual property? Is it fair to expect knowledge-share or pick experts’ brains without engaging their services? Could I have chatted endlessly with the doctors and expected them to share all the procedures with me before becoming their patient – could I even have had access to them without an appointment, essentially $350-450? Ridiculous? Yes, it is preposterous. Just as absurd is to expect the same from technologists.

Intellectual property is valued by result, expert knowledge, credentials, to name a few. If Apple* would not let consumer test run a product before purchase but provide guarantee, technologists too shouldn’t be expected to share their knowledge and/or intellectual property without signing a contract. It is their bread and butter, as are payslips for most. Would you apply your knowledge and skills at work if your employer doesn’t pay you, even for half an hour? The irony is that technologists themselves often fail to draw the line as when to stop sharing. One of the challenge is the industry itself – technology is very fast moving, most other business sectors trailing far behind. Thus the dilemma of putting value to a product/service that has no comparison – another challenge with early adopters and visionaries, attributes of highly successful experts.

In short, it is not in any business’ interest to avail their team members’ knowledge, in essence company’s intellectual property, without a commitment. The value of those knowledge varies on result – an engineer may write a ten lines code output being exactly as expected within a couple of hours, while her/his peer may get the same result after twenty lines of codes in ten hours. Needless to say the value of their knowledge would be highly contrasting and it would reflect on their payslip. Sound simple? Interestingly, not so in many sectors. When engaging a business for their service/product, client is essentially buying the intellectual property whose combined experience/expertise may exceed 150 years – to client’s utmost advantage.

Still, if you are able to buy a Bentley with a Kia budget, please share so that I too may dip into the impossible.

.

*An example to demonstrate that just as all tangible products cannot be tested before buying, non-tangible product, intellectual property, too cannot be “tested”. Guarantees are used instead.

.

Tags: Apple, Atlanta, Bentley, code, engineer, expertise, intellectual property, Kia, knowledge, technologists, Technology, value
Posted in Technology |

Change management is a natural process following mergers and acquisitions. From the Board to operations, people are required to realign themselves with the new founded entity. The process may involve reshaping, restructuring, new hires, as well as disengaging personnel, regardless of the length of their tenure or contract. These changes are not only smart but essential – as separate entities objective and goals would have been different but as one merged entity, business needs must be redefined across the board.

Most times change management is a challenge. People fear the unknown and act to preserve their interest and long-held authority within an enterprise by resisting change. The reality though is shareholders’ interest boil down to bottom-line: profitability. Rightfully so since it is their dollars on the line when businesses bear losses. Those losses, or gains, are directly attributed to how and who run the shows, from the Board of Directors to senior executives to rank and file. As owners, shareholders appoint the Board and entrust them with certain authority to execute in the best interest of the entity – ideally. Unfortunately, too often, that is not what transpires in reality, as we have seen with AIG, GM, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to name a few.

The question then is what steps should shareholders take to protect their interest and essentially, the business? How are they assured that past mistakes will not be repeated by the Board and their executives? Owners are not involved enough to ensure success, regardless of the reason(s). On the other hand, executives who are hired and entrusted with the well-being of an enterprise must make executive decisions that exclusively benefit the business. If that process require re-aligning their own positions and/or compensations, engaging independent entities for objectivity and proficiency and/or new hires as well as disengaging people, so be it.

People mistakenly credit their positions more than what they really are. The longer a position is held, the more that misconception. Extremely few people are indispensable in the working world. The sooner people grasp this concept, the stronger and more efficient the work force will be. Carl Icahn said it best -

…….. managers have been awarded lavish retention bonuses. In my view, very few managers are irreplaceable, especially in this economy.

On the other hand, shareholders may boost their work force by assuring easy access to them by all on board, be it at AGM or direct discreet communication without the fear of retaliation and/or loosing their jobs. Not the complaint department, where it’s essentially handled by legal to avoid lawsuit, but direct access to share ideas and/or to present business proposition for profitability. Wouldn’t owners (shareholders) be open to ways their business may reach greater heights by accelerating performance, doing more with less (cutting cost), boosting efficiency? As a shareholder, I would.

Mergers and acquisitions bring forth complex problems because the competition within is doubled to protect own self interest – human nature. Shareholders must be more involved, demand more answers – at least during the months following the acquisition. One greatest tool to their advantage is technology – it should be used to strategize, partner and execute.

Tags: acquisition, AIG, Business, change management, enterprise, entity, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Goldman Sachs, mergers, Morgan Stanley, owners, shareholders, Technology
Posted in Best Practices, Business, Technology |

Not quite….yet.

Although Atlanta is home to numerous talented and brilliant minds – fresh graduates from the likes of Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University and outside-the-box thinking young entrepreneurs – the challenges facing young technology startup companies are quite steep. I’ve narrowed down some pointers which I consider foremost for  Atlanta to overcome these challenges that are hindering Atlanta’s growth as a technology innovation hub of the Southeast.

THEOLOGY

Theology, or religion, does not have anything to do with technology and yet it’s heavily embedded in Atlanta’s technology scene. Should theology be the foundation for technology and innovation? More importantly, should it be practiced in a field that require pure science? How do you decide which school of theology will be embraced and which will be rejected given ideas arise from minds that may or may not practice diverse schools of theology? Ideas thrive in openness and has little, if any, boundary. Ideas cannot be predicted or controlled. Nor can any one entity, individual or organization determine the source of next best idea. It may originate from a completely unforeseen or unheard of source – a nobody is a somebody in waiting, to quote Guy Kawasaki (?). It’s only smart to nurture and encourage ideas in an open, transparent and fair environment. An idea by itself is useless if not executed. Compelling ideas must be embraced, supported, nurtured and advocated for success and sustainability, regardless of the person’s gender, race, religion (or non-religion), social and economic status.

Atlanta’s challenge: Eliminating theology from technology scene. It’s easier said than done, but, it’s possible. When theology is embedded in organizational structures, both established and startups, it limit possibilities.

Solutions: Provide and practice an environment and build a foundation that is completely devoid of religion and politics – that is if you are an organization claiming to serve the technology community at large. Limit religious breakfast classes and/or weekly religious practices to personal choice and not be a sponsor/supporter of any one religious institution – it opens the gate for more questions than provide solutions/support, rightfully so. Otherwise, it may be perceived as favoritism and those technology institutions and/or organizations does not serve the community at large but special interest group(s).

AMBIGUITY

There is confusion and ambiguity in distinguishing between technology innovation and marketing/sales initiatives as well as “service”, “solutions” and “products”. Same may be said of differentiating between investors and startups seeking funding. Both established and startup organizations discourage and/or exclude people from “service” industry. What does that mean? Does IBM fall in that category, given a large sector of their business is service? How about technology staffing firms and companies that provide social media services? Are all of these service-oriented businesses excluded? Not exactly. Companies and individuals are randomly included (or excluded as may be the case), effectively by organizations (who themselves fall under service industry) contradicting their very own statements. It is so in both established and startup organizations.

Example: Startup Riot*. On their FAQ page, it clearly states “Who can’t attend”. Now if service industry is excluded, IBM, staffing companies (or their representatives), social media providers should have also been excluded. But, they were not. What’s more confusing is, if an industry is excluded, how can organizers expect that same industry to be sponsors? Is that not a contradictory statement? Now to be fair, I’ve not attended any of their events and am unaware of unpleasantness that may have transpired in 2008 (as an inclusive person, I’m reluctant to attend or support events/organizations that exclude people). But, FAQs pages should be designed to clarify and not confuse – that is if events are open to the general public and not to a selected few.

Atlanta’s challenge: Avoid ambiguous statements and practices that hinder growth. Embracing of certain personalities from the same industry (service, just as an example) while rejecting others of similar and/or equal strengths send discouraging message and create obstacles for innovation not to mention unfair practices.

Solutions: a) Clearly define technology innovation and marketing initiatives. Social media platforms are merely a new medium for marketing, sales, communication, branding. Usage of that platform is not technology but marketing innovation. b) Broaden investor prospects. Do not underestimate the influence and/or ability of new and unknown investors – many investors are private and maintain low profiles. c) Use “target” audience vs “exclusive”. While the former approach is inviting and specific, the latter closes the door on potential innovative minds. Innovation cannot survive (or grow) in confined and closed environment. An inclusive approach and environment energizes and motivates communities opening the door to endless possibilities – a haven for innovation.

LACK OF LOCAL SUPPORT

Atlanta technology startups have failed to gain support from local investors, enterprises and the community. I am not sure of the reason but I’ve a theory – bear with me a little.

Will every idea lead to next Google or E-bay? Absolutely not. But, there are startups who command innovation and are no less than their counterparts in any way. While Mashable, a social media guide (effectively marketing) boasts huge reader-base and corporate partnership, Regator provide an impressive platform that aggregate blog posts and categorize them according to topics and has a searchable archive of more than 3.5 million posts. With the right support and patronage, Regator may very well be next success story in the world of blogs. But, reasons unknown to me, local businesses and deep-pocket investors are attracted by similar innovative initiatives of other cities, primarily. Same comparison may be made between Constant Contact, based in Waltham, Massachusetts and MailChimp based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Of course, businesses are not expected to support local grown startups by default. But, why do companies pay twice as much (sometime more) in engaging out-of-town services/products when exact same solution is available in Atlanta at a much discounted rate? Perhaps a Venture Capitalist and/or an enterprise will be able to answer that question. I personally think, one of the reason is lack of exposure by mainstream media, be it television or newspaper. While groups or personalities from outside of Atlanta are heavily promoted in local media when they visit the city, same cannot be said of local talents of equal and/or more qualifications.

Examples: a) Mashable in Atlanta, were interviewed by local media and gained corporate partnership as mentioned earlier while Regator, a partner host, was left out of the equation. b) While on a book tour Chris Brogan received huge followings from the Atlanta technology community. It should be noted here, neither Mashable nor Brogan are technology innovators – former providing blogs related to social media while the later is the president of a new media marketing agency, according to his site. The platforms that they both use are technology innovation – they are merely utilizing these new mediums for marketing, very effectively, mind you. Now, why same exposure is not granted to local talents, be it Barbara Giamanco, Taryn Pisaneschi or smart and bright recent graduate Courtenay Bird, is beyond me. When local talents are engaged, without sacrificing quality, companies essentially contribute to economic growth and boosts innovation and sustainability.

Atlanta’s challenge: Embracing and adopting ideas and innovative solutions initiated by Atlanta startups by local businesses and investors alike.

Solutions: a) Build a strong relationship with businesses by listening to their needs. Solutions should be based on demand. b) Listen to your community and businesses. Understand what is missing and build around those needs. c) Gain the trust of local companies – Atlanta is the home to many large companies’ headquarters – and initiate reaching out to provide a sustainable solution. d) Execute ideas that meet a demand, existing or future, with a focus on sustainability. Investors look for products/ideas that hold promise in the long run and not some fly-by-the-hour-quick-cash-scheme initiatives.

In a separate post I’ll highlight few other pointers that will help expedite the growth of technology startups. Inspite of the above challenges, there are many technology success stories which prove that any challenge may be overcome with determination, persistence, confidence. Belief in yourself is the ultimate key to success. Finally, network, network, network – know your market, competitors, buyers.

Will Atlanta be a hub of innovation for technology startups in the near future?

*I’ve taken Startup Riot as an example because it’s founded on the ground of providing a platform for mainly technology startups seeking funding.

Tags: Atlanta, Constant Contact, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, idea, innovation, investor, MailChimp, Mashable, Regator, Social Media, start-ups, Sustainability, Technology, theology
Posted in Business, Technology |

Looking back on 2009, I pause on our journey – the anticipation, accomplishments, successes, challenges and disappointments – and am humbled by our growth in these challenging times. My heartfelt appreciation to our clients, supporters and well wishers without whom we would not have come this far.

The year saw expansion and opportunities from DC to California. A few alliances and partnerships were formed while others are in the making, giving us the edge to provide the very best to our clients and the community at large. While there were disappointments and missed opportunities, we are better aligned in moving forward with relationships strengthened, and products and services that are being rendered.

We gathered much knowledge from industry leaders and peers at live conferences, workshops and brainstorm sessions held across the US. I thank the organizers – Enterprise 2.0, MIT CIO, Fortune Branstorm Tech, All Things D, Future Media and many other community events, too many to name – for their tireless effort in providing platforms and tools for leaders and participants to share and grow together for the betterment of technology at large. The knowledge each person shares is priceless as are relationships formed in the hallways – I personally can’t seem to get enough of either.

Hats-off to the entire Simply Web team – internal, consultants and vendors – who silently bear with unreasonable demands, often times request for delivery prior to rollout date, and exceed all expectations time and time again. Without the diligence, smart performance and behind-the-scene excellence, Simply Web would just simply not be. I am grateful for the opportunity to be working with the very best team. My sincere thanks to our directors and advisors who allow me unconditional and unlimited access to their knowledge and expertise – they keep us grounded, extend a helping hand to rise when we fall and give us the push needed when exhausted.

I look forward to a stronger, prosperous and healthy 2010. In the meantime, thank you, 2009, for an interesting year!

Tags: 2009, 2010, Business, challenges, simply web, success, Technology
Posted in Business, Technology |

The disconnect between business and technology is so vast, it is hard to believe one’s (technology) purpose  is to serve the other (business), simply put. In other words, business needs must be understood and identified for technology to deliver. And yet, technology is often excluded during strategic business plans, mistakenly associating technology as “cost” vs strategic partner in providing solutions, in many sectors.

So, logically speaking technology is more than just tools. It is, according to Wikipedia -

Technology deals with human as well as other animal species’ usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species’ ability to control and adapt to its natural environment. The word technology comes from the Greek technología (τεχνολογία) — téchnē (τέχνη), ‘craft’ and -logía (-λογία), the study of something, or the branch of knowledge of a discipline.^[1] A strict definition is elusive; technology can be material objects of use to humanity, such as machines, but can also encompass broader themes, including systems, methods of organization, and techniques. The term can either be applied generally or to specific areas: examples include “construction technology”, “medical technology”, or “state-of-the-art technology”.

As for technologists themselves, too much focus is on tools – wikis, applications, infrastructure – rather than on strategic, smart solutions composed of people, process and finally tools. The reason is simple: the purchase of a tool, be it most expensive or most “recommended”, does not necessarily mean it’s the best solution for business in the absence of experts and knowledgeable workers. In the hindsight, those tools will ultimately be expensive waste in the company’s ledger. You may own a Ferrari but that will not make you a Formula 1™ Ferrari driver or an expert.

People

People are, or should be, knowledge workers driving innovation, outside-the-box concepts that provide cutting-edge or best solutions demanded and needed by business. People must be strategically allocated according to their individual strengths and knowledge to best serve the business. Unfortunately, the challenge in enterprises is often the people themselves. Larger the corporation, bigger the challenge. Oliver Marks, an expert in enterprise collaboration with intricate knowledge and experience at global level, talks about these internal challenges here, here and here.

On the other hand, technology staffing suppliers can be notorious for advocating “contractors” for projects of all sizes. Vendors love nothing more than providing headcounts – it’s an easy profit, as a prime contractor of a number of large corporations once told me. Sure, it’s a vendor’s dream and the best solution for many projects. But, is it so for every project? Are businesses being matched with right skilled-sets of knowledge workers? Many vendors hike up a candidate’s expertise and experience for a quick sell, often times without the knowledge of the candidate or the client. More importantly, is redundantly placing x number of contractors best option for the business? Adding headcounts without strategic plan is not a solution but a waste of resources and money. Contractors need time to adapt to projects and cultures while the project’s requirement is immediate hands-on. Additionally, bringing contractors on-board cause frictions between them and “employees”, wasting valuable time in a successful rollout. (“Contractors” and  “employees” is a topic by itself and require a separate post.)

The most pressing question to ask: how can collective knowledge be leveraged and shared in an enterprise to provide smart technology solutions per business needs on time, on budget and every time?

Process

Centralized and standardized processes and methodologies are the backbone of successful project and product rollout. Lack of which translate to confusion, inefficiency and waste. It’s virtually impossible to successfully rollout products repeatedly without implementing processes and methodologies. Processes will determine faster projects and products delivery, save time, effort and money, boost efficiency and gain more with less – primitively put.

Tools

Once right people and process is put in place, tools must be identified that is best suited for the business. It may be an out-of-the-box technology or a ground-up development.

Let’s study one aspect: determining best Content Management System (CMS) to meet the need of an enterprise running multiple (20-200) web sites with global locations.

Sometimes, when we receive new projects that do not require or have the budget for ground-up developments, our coders invariably suggest CMS that they are most familiar with: Symfony, Drupal or WordPress. Interestingly, often times without first learning of clients’ business needs or studying the entire requirements. Now, to be fair to the coders, most of them can build a site blindfolded on Drupal and WordPress. With the latter, they’ve launched (initial) mid-size, customized sites within 48 hours, to clients’ and my outmost surprise – pleasant, mind you.

Of all these three CMS, Symfony is most preferred while Drupal is the least desired. The former has clean, robust and dynamic framework while the latter is extremely procedural and has poor template system, to name a couple of drawbacks. Still, Drupal community has large followings – many have set-up shops developing sites solely on Drupal. I’ve heard arguments in favor of and against all three CMS, including comparing Symfony and Drupal to Mac and PC, respectively. WordPress, on the other hand, has their own strengths and limitations.

All three of these CMS undoubtedly have large followings and loyal users. They each have strong frameworks and all are open source. However, none of them are suitable for a large corporation that run multiple sites.

My personal preference – and favorite – is customized ground-up CMS development based on each corporation’s business needs. (Disclaimer: that is one of our core business and I can write a lengthy essay on the topic).

Selecting and determining tools should not be based on popularity, current work force abilities, one or two success stories but on business need. The question should be: is this the best solution for my business as a whole, not fragmented?

Both business and technology must work closely to eliminate this disconnection. Technologists should take on added responsibilities of understanding the business and consequently what is asked of them other than focusing solely on tools: hardware and software. Simultaneously, business people must include and share their requirements and needs with technologists from inception.

Granted, it’s easier said than done, particularly when change management remain a challenge. Connecting the dots between business and technology will eliminate waste, inefficiency, confusion while boosting more productivity with less, knowledge share and innovation.

And, it is feasible when executed from top down.

Tags: Business, CMS, Collaboration, Drupal, process, Symfony, Technology, tools, web, Wordpress
Posted in Business, Technology |