thingamy

IT or AT

Information Technology or Act Technology.

Here's a snippet from the vision statement of a shall-remain-unnamed system integrator (not unlike the other big ones' so you're in good company):

"As business systems integrators, we align our clients’ business processes and information systems to enable them to access the right information at the right time, empowering them to achieve their desired business results and create enterprise value."

This plainly says IT is for information access and delivery while action is left to the organisational hierarchy - the current murky delivery-structure of action / workflows / processes.

Why not use the technology to deliver and structure the activities as well?

Why restrict the technology?

Is it not upon time to use the technology for what it can do, not solely for what it did?

Information is good, action is better.

[Disclaimer: Thingamy is of course AT... ;)]

[Update: Chris suggested in the comments that "Action Technology" rolls better off your tongue, think I agree to that. Ah, and yes, see his result of a search on the phrase quoted above - at least three companies with exact same vision phrase, scary eh?]

[Update 2: Chris did some search and found, hey how cheeky, that quite a few do use the phrase even have their firms named accordingly! Note-note-addendum: Not that they do the same as thingamy though, still application based BPM there...]

Hugh-in-action

Eric Mattson did an interview with me in May - in which I, at some point, did an offhand remark about thingamy as software:

"Here's 30 megs, now plonk it on your laptop and run Germany with it!"

(Would get into scalability issues after Bayern and Niedersachsen I guess... :D)

That caught the eye/ear of none other than the sharp-eyed eagle-in-Carlisle who found it exemplary as a description for thingamy-the-software.

Small, simple etc. but still with some unexpected capabilities.

So now, thanks to Hugh  and streetcards I got myself a new business card to hand out:

And thingamy.com got itself a new banner:

I'm just waiting for a call from the German consulate asking "Would you be so kind to explain "Now go run Germany"!"

Hope he has a sense of humour!

documents, schmocuments and Pluto (more about thingamy)

I really dislike the terms "documents", "forms" and "files". And "planets".

Sources of missed opportunities. Instigators of late evenings at the office. The mothers of all bounced mails. The source of unimportant academic discussions with no end.

Is Pluto a planet?

Who cares unless you must categorise, position it, tree-structure it? But as pigeonholing is the preferred way... then we have to care.

Even for "information", stuff you cannot sit on, we still end up using the same method. We cheat and imagine information as "documents" or "forms", finite stand-alone objects, which makes tree-structuring / categorising / pigeonholing possible.

Thus your address have to be copied onto your Health Records, your Insurance Contract, your other... eh... forms. Then those copies have to be maintained and updated with great care.

Thus last month's sales figures will be constructed from the accounts (more or less, depending on efficiency of the post office), from a sales report, from a spreadsheet somebody did the other day, from  yet another spreadsheet somebody else did another day and from...

Hello end-of-month reconciliation headaches, hello mailing lists when moving. Hello never being quite sure everything is right in a dynamic world.

Multiple "data" objects pretending to represent one single real world object? That never worked, and it will never work.

Consequently "forms" and "documents" should be a thing of the (paper-based) past. Full stop.

That's why we do not use tree-structures in thingamy. Nor do we use "forms" or "documents".

We chop stuff and information up into smallest possible objects so no real world object need to be represented by more than one single data-object; one single address object that is "related" to your bank accounts, your employment contract, to... you. And to your spouse, your children, your dog, the property developer, the insurance company, the...

Then we use more than one method, in combination or alone, to describe such relationships ensuring that we can use the objects in meaningful ways later in any way possible:

Object built from objects: Very precise, very inflexible. A bike-object is built of precise numbers of unique objects like a frame, wheels, a handlebar...
Thingamy can build classes (the cookie cutter to stamp out unique objects) using any type of property and/or other objects.

Tags (use of multiple tags, otherwise it would be categorising): Very generic, can be used for anything, could be all-encompassing but for one reason - it requires some discipline to get precise results in a hurry. Thingamy has a tag-browsing bar (see image) that can be used in any interface, report or even in the midst of a task.

Links: Quite generic and very precise, but sometimes too structured. Perfect for iffy objects like persons. In fact a person does not even have to be an object - just a cloud of linked objects; address, medication objects, bank accounts, children...
And the links are bidirectional: Choose an address object and you'll find everyone living there, who lived there, who built it, the insurer, you know. Link or unlink objects at any time.

Containers: OK, granted that tree structures cannot be fully avoided, like for physical position of stuff when you need to pick it up: Box 43, row 14, room B, Warehouse East is an obvious one.

Who said tinkering with software should be boring?

:)

extreme business planning, again

Many years ago, in the heydays of WAP dreams I listened to many a telecoms executive gushing about the future of WAP.

And off they went spending much and many a dollar on infrastructure, hardware and advertising. Did you ever use it?

Then it was 3G.

Yet again the telecoms dreamt up huge numbers and plonked down 134 Billion $ for the licenses in Europe alone.

Know what, we did not go out and do what the telecoms marketing departments had planned for us to do.

Vodafone, the biggest spender in Europe spent 34 of those Billions on licenses and had last quarter 3.8% of their business from 3G. Of the current 720 mobile users in Europe only 5.4% uses 3G. (Source IHT)

That's extreme business planning the bad way.

When I started using the term "extreme business planning" I meant as in extreme programming, a strain of agile programming. Extremely agile. Not extremely stubborn.

This gets me to the point:

Perhaps the most dangerous part of a strategy is taking it too literally, too narrow too early - "What value am I going to deliver to what customers..."

"What's your target customer?"

"What problem are you going to solve?"

Guess you've heard it. Dangerous stuff. Very dangerous stuff. Ask the telecoms chaps!

To make it simple - there is no way you can outguess the market: How are they going to use your stuff? Who's going to be the first users? The biggest group of users? Are they going to use it all?

No way you'll know beforehand. Accept that fact and make your moves so reality can inform you as early as possible.

So what to do? Your product is ready and you just received five million in funding of which four are earmarked the "product launch":

One million goes into training the distribution channel, three into some amazing ads and TV slots precisely targeted your target market. Then you lean back and bite finger nails. Lotto style.

The telecoms can digest a miss, with pain, you cannot at all.

I wonder how many start-ups walked into this trap without the right "lottery ticket" and have never been heard from since?

Build what you think is some valuable stuff, get it out there as early as possible with no limits to who the user might be - listen attentively, find out how it's used, who uses it - tweak and repeat until it sticks in reality, then crank up, only then. That's where the funding should go, fund the time you need.

That's extreme business planning, extremely agile business planning.

In my view the only kind of planning with a reasonable chance of success. For big and small.

big or small, market leader or niche player?

Why not small company, agile and market leader?

Why must big turnover equal huge payroll?

Allow me:

When my colleague and I did one of our first LBOs many years ago (can manufacturer) we found a "tellers window" where the employees lined up for their brown envelopes with cash at payday.

That was the reality, a firm had physical constraints, people had to be employed, communication was letters, telephone and telex - outsourcing was not a concept. Not even salary payments could be outsourced to the local bank.

Those and earlier days set the "us and them" thinking, "company resources" and "outsources".

So why do we still think in "company" terms? Why the artificial borders created by former physical constraints? Any "outside" resource can be as efficient as any company resource today thanks to new technologies.

Take another look at the basis; the Business Model:

If I imagine I can create a value for some potential customers I design a Business Model: "How to use my resources to deliver that value and keep some for myself".

Now, if I strike the "my" and rewrite it to "how to use resources..." then the need for a "company" could be limited to:

1. Strategy and business model (up)keeper.
2. Contact point for customers.
3. Legal entity for liability issues.
4. Legal entity for accounting purposes.

1. Could in extremis be a one man job - given that the "resource use", the "business model implementation" could be better organised than via hierarchies as is the norm today.
2. Requires more - but with a shift from (marketing) "push" to "pull" it changes dramatically in resource use. Less of course.
3. and 4. are both virtual issues and requires no size, just the handling.

Thus you can pare down the "core" company and still scale to large sales volumes and large market shares without becoming big-as-in-big-payroll.

It's been tried, albeit limited, most often only in one direction - aka "outsourcing/franchising/partnering/distribution channel":

MacDonalds did it to a certain extent - franchising moved one wall - but the "push marketing" have cemented their bigness.
Dell started there - then they geared up their "push" (marketing) thinking and got mired in bigness.
Google started there - then got the idea that big-as-in-big-payroll was good and started acquiring.

Why not think holistic, skip the notion of "company" as we know it and go all the way?

Not "small volume, niche market and small payroll" - or - "big volume, large market share and big payroll", it could be "big volume, large market share, tiny payroll and all the agility in the world".

And it all hinges on the perception that the ultimate control and efficiency requires resources to be employed or owned. Skip that self-imposed limit and shoot for the moon.

Small, agile market leaders could be the new new :)

checkin' in

Back in office with less mushy brain after two weeks roughing it up north (Norway) and ready to get going again... testing new thingamy builds, touch base to get skunkworks going again, tidy up many blog thoughts, get onto bike seat to prepare for mt Ventoux charity ride (donations much appreciated for a good cause!) with Hamish and Thomas, pay bills, get a warm shower... many things to do!

Here's the morning-bath-roughing-it spot (blueberries included if hungry):

And the other one, this one with salt added:

Should have gone for a beard, shaving in cold water is so-so :)

art, sheep and innovation

Kathy Sierra once again inspires with her post "We can't leave innovation up to our users".

I agree and I do not agree, depending on what the product is - practical or practical and inspirational.

The innovative concept, the executable mechanism, the art has to be delivered - but the translation into feelings, inspiration and unexpected use must remain with the user.

Perhaps it is the difference between art and solving a problem?

The difference between a novel and a manual?

The difference between mere transport and an experience?

It can be one or it can be both.

Is this where the border between good software and great software lies? One solves a mundane problem and the other also entices the user to create new ways to run his business or his life?

This hardware is art, and some unexpected users found a shelter... expect the best stuff to inspire and be practical:

[Henry Moore's Sheep Piece]

:)