MIS40670 – The Soul of a New Machine – Tracy Kidder

The book is a journal record of a computer engineering team in their quest to design the next generation computer Eclipse MV/8000 at a Silicon Valley minicomputer vendor called Data General in 1980. The book was published in 1981 and won the 1982 National Book Award for Nonfiction and a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction. This book is a story of building a computer, from start to finish, told in the form of an epic journey. It goes in depth on the leaders & teams involved, strategy used, the internal politics and how they all integrated and produced a pioneer system of their time. Being an employee of software organizations for the last 17 years and having experience in working for a small pioneer company called i-Flex Solutions and witnessing it’s growth to double in size and more in revenue, I could find parallels to the growth, the people and the experiences that were at Data General when these events took place.

The plot of the book revolves around the incubation of an idea among a group of senior managers to outdo a different group which was tasked with a mainstream project in another location with in the company to design a computer which would be better than the one brought to the market by their competitor DEC. The leader of this side-lined group was Tom West and the book records how he put together a team of few senior designers who were not part of the main stream project and were in-fact thought fit for a more mundane & humble job of designing enhancements for an existing product line. It describes how West took risks in not only new technology but also thinking out of the box in relying on new college graduates (who have no experience in designing anything so complex) to make up the bulk of his design team. The book follows many of the designers like Steve Wallach, Ed Rasala as they give up every waking moment of their lives in order to design and debug the new machine on schedule.

The work environment followed by the engineering team did not follow the traditional methods of management but instead Tom West & Carl Alsing promoted the top-down management method where many of these innovations were started at the grassroots level. Instead of management coercion the team members were motivated by their leaders to work harder voluntarily to complete the project on-time. The book highlights that in order to make people give their best it is important for managers to ensure that work itself is challenging and rewarding. Many of the engineers stated in the book that, “They don’t work for the money“, meaning they work for the challenge of inventing and creating. The motivational system is akin to the game of pinball, the analogy that if you win this round, you get to play the game again; that is, build the next generation of computers.

A running theme in the book is the complex interplay between engineering quality and time to market: the engineers, challenged to bring Eclipse to market on a very short time-frame, are encouraged to cut corners on design. Tom West described his motto as “Not everything worth doing is worth doing well,” or “If you can do a quick-and-dirty job and it works, do it.” The engineers, in turn, complained that the team’s goal is to “put a bag on the side of the Eclipse“— in other words, to turn out an low quality product in order to have it completed more quickly.

The leader Tom West in the documented project practices the ‘”Mushroom Theory of Management” — “keeping them in the dark, feeding them shit, and watch them grow.” That is, isolating the design team from outside influences and, instead, using the fear of the unknown to motivate the team. The “Soul” of the new machine comes from the dedicated engineers who bring it to life with their endless hours of attention and toil. The soul is theirs, stored in silicon and microcode.

Posted in Book Reviews, iBusiness, Management | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MIS40910 – Skills for Business Enquiry – Collecting and Analysing Evidence

1.Scherer, F.M. (2001) ‘The Innovation Lottery’, in R. C. Dreyfuss, D. L. Zimmerman and H. First (eds.) Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [13MB!]

1.Scherer2001-The Innovaton Lottery

2.Orlikowski, Wanda J, & Baroudi, Jack J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions.Information systems research, 2(1), 1-28.

2.Orlikowski1991-Studying IT in Organisations

Posted in iBusiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MIS40910 – Skills for Business Enquiry – Writing Up and Presenting Research

1.  Flyvbjerg, B. (2011) Case Study. IN DENZIN, N. K. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1.Flyvbjerg2011-Sage Handbook Of Qualitative Research

2.  Fitzgerald, B. & Howcroft, D. (1998) Towards Dissolution of the IS Research Debate: From Polarisation to Polarity. Journal Of Information Technology, 13, 313-326.

2.Fitzgerald1998-Towards Dissolution of IS Research

Posted in iBusiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MIS40910 – Skills for Business Enquiry – Research Ethics

1.  March, James G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

1.March1991-Exploration & Exploitation

2.  Lazarsfeld, Paul F. (1935). The Art of Asking WHY in Marketing Research: Three Principles Underlying the Formulation of Questionnaires. National Marketing Review, 1(1), 26-38.

2.Lazarsfeld1935-The Art of Asking Why

1.  March, James G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

“Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
So goes the famous “Think different” Apple advertising campaign from1997. Coming just six years after March’s paper we can perhaps speculate that it directly influenced it. The Soul of a New Machine (which we are currently studying in the Managing Systems Development module) was released 10 years previous to this paper and tells the bestselling and Pulitzer Prize winning story of hiring recent college graduates and encouraging them to work harder and faster on complex and difficult projects, exploiting the youngsters’ ignorance of normal procedures and design concepts. How influential do we think this might have been in March’s exploration of this concept?

2.  Lazarsfeld, Paul F. (1935). The Art of Asking WHY in Marketing Research: Three Principles Underlying the Formulation of Questionnaires. National Marketing Review

Market research via questionnaire by definition is a casual research method i.e. why did I buy this brand of coffee? As Lazarsfeld points out through the paper how you ask the why is critically important on the respondent will perceive they should answer the question. The former infers to the method of evidence gathering a level of bias that needs to be corrected for if the research is too be considered independent and reliable. The lather points out the human component of do people actually act more like politicians than they would like to admit in giving answers of opinion. The paper does not necessarily address the art of asking why but does make a conscious effort to highlight the pitfalls of asking the wrong why.
Are questionnaires a viable evidence gathering tool for opinion base research? Is there built-in bias in the question construct stage to consider it invalid?

Posted in iBusiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MIS40670 – Readings: Architecture and Agility

Foote, B. & Yoder, J. (2000) Big Ball of Mud. IN HARRISON, N., FOOTE, B. & ROHNERT, H. (Eds.) Pattern languages of program design 4. Addison Wesley.

FooteYodder_BigBallOfMud_1999

Beck, K. (1999) Embracing Change with Extreme Programming. Computer, 8.

Beck_EmbracingChangeWithExtremeProgramming_1999

Foote & Yodder’s article deals with the question that why a system’s initial well defined architecture get muddled and prone to structural erosion. The article not only limits it to software architecture but takes the similar analogy to urban planning and explains the emergence of shanty towns & unplanned networks in big cities. They present seven patterns of such muddled systems

  • Big Ball Of Mud
  • Throwaway Code
  • Piecemeal Growth
  • Keep It Working
  • Shearing Layers
  • Sweeping It Under The Rug
  • Reconstruction

The interesting note in the article is that the authors don’t think that the big balls of mud are necessarily bad. The note that the “reasons that good programmers build BIG BALLS OF MUD. It may well be that the economics of the software world are such that the market moves so fast that long term architectural ambitions are foolhardy, and that expedient, slash-and-burn, disposable programming is, in fact, a state-of-the-art strategy. The success of these approaches, in any case, is undeniable, and seals their pattern-hood.”

Back’s article is a brief summary of the different concepts behind Extreme Programming.

Planning game. Customers decide the scope and timing of releases based on estimates provided by programmers. Programmers implement only the functionality demanded by the stories in this iteration.

Small releases. The system is put into production in a few months, before solving the whole problem. New releases are made often anywhere from daily to monthly.

Metaphor. The shape of the system is defined by a metaphor or set of metaphors shared between the customer and programmers.

Simple design. At every moment, the design runs all the tests, communicates everything the programmers want to communicate, contains no duplicate code, and has the fewest possible classes and methods. This rule can be summarized as, “Say everything once and only once.”

Tests. Programmers write unit tests minute by minute. These tests are collected and they must all run correctly. Customers write functional tests for the stories in an iteration. These tests should also all run, although practically speaking, sometimes a business decision must be made comparing the cost of shipping a known defect and the cost of delay.

Refactoring. The design of the system is evolved through transformations of the existing design that keep all the tests running.

Pair programming. All production code is written by two people at one screen/keyboard/mouse.

Continuous integration. New code is integrated with the current system after no more than a few hours. When integrating, the system is built from scratch and all tests must pass or the changes are discarded.

Collective ownership. Every programmer improves any code anywhere in the system at any time if they see the opportunity.

On-site customer. A customer sits with the team full-time.

40-hour weeks. No one can work a second consecutive week of over-time. Even isolated overtime used too frequently is a sign of deeper problems that must be addressed.

Open workspace. The team works in a large room with small cubicles around the periphery. Pair programmers work on computers set up in the centre.

Just rules. By being part of an Extreme team, you sign up to follow the rules. But they’re just the rules. The team can change the rules at any time as long as they agree on how they will assess the effects of the change.

Posted in iBusiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MIS40670 – IONA Case Studies

Allen provided the class with two case studies on IONA Technologies.

IONA Technologies was an Irish software company. It was founded in 1991. The company began life as a campus company in Trinity College, Dublin and maintained headquarters in Dublin, Boston and Tokyo. The company specialized in distributed service-oriented architecture (SOA) infrastructure. IONA products connect systems and applications by creating a network of services without requiring a centralized server or creating an IT stack.

IONA 1 case

IONA 2 case

The first case study described how a group of Academicians & Engineers doing research and development in Trinity College made a leap to the commercial world and formed a pioneer IT company in Ireland. The company products comprised Artix suite of neutral SOA infrastructure products; Orbix, an enterprise CORBA product for security and systems management; and FUSE, an open source family of distributed SOA infrastructure products for companies seeking an open source option for system integration and SOA implementation. IONA Technologies Limited served various customers in the financial services, telecommunications, manufacturing/distribution, government, and information technology industries. The company marketed and sold its products and services through its marketing and direct sales organizations, as well as through indirect channels, including software vendors, system integrators, original equipment manufacturers, and value-added resellers in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific Rim. The case study highlighted the challenges a rapidly growing start-up ICT company faces. In this particular case it was described how the IONA engineers were fixing product bugs in the client site and the obvious problems it resulted for knowledge transfer within the organisation. The lack of bug tracking and issue tracking processes within IONA bring to the forth the challenges IONA faced in delivering the quality products to the clients.

The second case study highlights the challenges a fast growing ICT company faces in managing the increasing workforce. It is important to manage the cost & complexity within the different team members & within the diverse teams in an organisation and this is where IONA struggled and had to pay the price. The over commitment by managers to the clients, the lack of workable processes, the quick fix mentality shows the bigger malice which had crept in once IONA had crossed a threshold and  increased in size. Also the lack of vision and strategic direction by top management made the company put it’s resources behind dated technologies instead of innovating & researching to produce and embrace new industry standards & frameworks.

Posted in iBusiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MIS40910 – Critique – Dahlander, L. and Gann, D. M. (2010) ‘How open is innovation?’

The main motivation of the paper as remarked at its outset is to clarify the definitive of “openness” as currently used in the literature on open innovation and to re-conceptualize the idea for future research on the topic. To examine whether the paper meets its objectives we have used the Levy and Ellis (2006) framework to determine whether as a state of union / literature review if it can be deemed effective.

Input:

Webster and Watson (2002) define an effective literature review as being one that “creates a foundation for advancing knowledge” and as a basic premise to this, the research must have a methodological and systematic analysis of quality literature.

One initial accusation that can be made against this piece is that the source material is one-
dimensional as it was solely sourced from the ISI database. The database as the authors’ correctly state does cover an extensive portion of the literature but excludes, as conceded, books from seminal pieces in the field from Chesborough (2003) for example. “Openness”and “Innovation” are evolving terms so why exclude reputable magazine pieces from the likes of HBR (Harvard Business Review) and keynote conferences? By only using a single source for its base material the comprehensive coverage of the subject is immediately brought into question.

Processing:

One of the challenges that emerge from examining a fragment topic is to determine what is relevant. Having chosen their search terms the authors initially returned 701 search results before having to screen out a significant amount of non-applicable papers. In an attempt to be broad over 70% of their initial search net was eliminated. Is this evidence that the original terms for the search where not of adequate focus or merely reflecting the nature of determining openness?

The paper uses backward and forward search to achieve a higher level of effectiveness which works really well. Where this is present is mapping of author contributions which showed that 244 authors contributed to the 150 papers and the low degree of connectivity amongst them.

Both the source and the current assessment efforts of “how open is innovation?” suggest that the question whilst interesting is not specific enough. A refocused question would surely enable a more cohesive and effective treatment of the topic.

Output:

In concluding the critique of this paper we go back to its stated ambition of clarifying the definition of “openness”. Rather than achieving this, it highlights topic divisions. The result of not achieving this goal means that future research is enabled with a cautionary note of focused questioning. With some respect to authors they have made a valiant effort to tackle the pruning of the roses and whilst not being progressive to the body of knowledge it has enabled the advancement of the topic by laying some beacons.

Referenced Articles:

1. Levy, Yair, and Timothy J. Ellis. “A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research.” Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 9 (2006): 181-212.

2. Webster, J., & Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), 13-23.

3. Chesbrough, Henry William. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press, 2003.

Posted in iBusiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MIS40910 – Skills for Business Enquiry – Theory and Theorizing

1. Dahlander, L. and Gann, D. M. (2010) ‘How open is innovation?’, Research Policy, 39(6): 699-709.

1.Dahlander2010 – How open is Innovation

2.  Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 361-385.

2.Wacker_1998-Definition of Theory

MIS40910 – Group ‘D’ questions/comments

Philip Burtenshaw, Conor Gleeson, Tarun Rattan, Thomas Joseph, Fiona Walsh

Q:1 – How Open is Innovation?

Does the open source technologies in software, a fair & accurate representation of open innovation? Or is it the other way around that open source technologies are forcing the companies to go for open innovation?

Either way the bigger question is “Does the current patent regime a hindrance to open innovation or open source technologies?” If a firm is using open innovation framework then does it have any right to claim a patent on the resultant output of that innovation be it be a product or services. The various open-source projects/communities act as innovation intermediaries and do have equal claim on any credits arising out of any open innovation methodology.

Q:2 – Definition Of Theory…. in Operations Management

clip_image001According to Wikipedia, Operations management is an area of management concerned with overseeing, designing, and controlling the process of production and redesigning business operations in the production of goods or services. The commonly accepted categorization of operations decisions  are related to process, quality, inventory and capacity. Most of the operations management activities like product creation, development, production & distribution are with in control of an organisation, so any theory on operations management should have in focus the efficiency & effectiveness of the internal processes of an organisations. But the article lacks in offering any framework on the measurement and analysis of internal processes while building the theories on Operations Management.

Also the nature of operations within an organisation is driven by the organisational culture as well as nature of products & services the organisation deals in. For example retail, wholesale companies will need different operation management processes to deal with their own peculiarities but the article assumes a generic approach for theory building research methods in operations management.

Posted in iBusiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MIS40910 – Skills for Business Enquiry – Rhetoric, Fallacies and Argument

1.Sutton, R. I. and Rafaeli, A. (1988) ‘Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores’, The Academy of Management Journal, 31(3): 461-487.

1.Sutton1988-Untangling Emotions & Organisational Sales

2.Stearns, P. N. (2012) ‘The history of happiness’, Harvard Business Review, 90(1/2): 104-109.

2.Stearns2012-History Of Happiness

Q1:      Stearns’ article is an enjoyable read. It is very US focussed but is none the less an interesting insight into the epicurean school of philosophy in an approachable societal / magazine format. The subtitle of the article states that the piece will explain “How the pursuit of contentment has shaped the West’s culture and economy”. However while the impact of economic changes, such as family demographics, migration from a manufacturing to a white collar workforce and globalisation are examined does this not only demonstrate that economic factors have impacted on our attitude towards happiness? Does the author offer value to the body of knowledge by adequately fulfilling the initial description of explaining how happiness/contentment has impacted on the economy of the West?

Q2:      While the methods of research and some of the observations made throughout the Sutton paper, particularly around the implicit social agreements that guide behaviour (i.e. norms), make for interesting reading is there a sense that the value is in the journey rather than the destination? It is admirable that when the hypothesis they set out to confirm was debunked that they utilised the quantitative / qualitative data gathered to develop a revised position. As they note themselves this rare amongst research publications which when not answering the question posed in the positive are often scrapped. However once the authors establish that speed of service is the primary reason customers visit these stores does it not make their conclusions, revised as they are, irrelevant? It is true that “expectations of fast service need not exclude warmth and friendliness” but when concluding that “store sales reflect store pace” and that “store pace is a cause, rather than an effect, of expressed emotions” and conceding that expressed emotions would be more powerful during longer transactions is it not correct to assume that a study where there is no expectation beyond common courtesy, of say toll-booth operators, would have resulted in similar conclusions?

Posted in iBusiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MIS40670 – The Activity Checklist

The Activity Checklist – V. Kaptelinin, B. Nardi & C. Macaulay

This paper presents a tool shaped by general theoretical approach of Activity Theory. Activity theory provides a broad theoretical framework for describing the structure, development, and context of human activity. In the 1990s, activity theory has been applied to problems of human–computer interaction by an international community of scholars and practitioners.

Two basic ideas animate activity theory:

(1) the human mind emerges, exists, and can only
be understood within the context of human
interaction with the world; and

(2) this interaction, that is, activity, is socially and culturally
determined.

These ideas are elaborated in activity theory into a set of five principles as
follows.

Object-Orientedness: Every activity is directed toward something that objectively exists in the world, that is, an object

Hierarchical Structure of Activity: Interaction between human beings and the world is organized into functionally subordinated hierarchical levels. Leont’ev differentiated among three levels: activities, actions, and operations.

Internalization and Externalization: Emphasis on the fact that internal activities cannot be understood if they are analyzed separately, in isolation from external activities.

Mediation: Emphasis on social factors and on the interaction between people and
their environments.

Development: Requires that human interaction with reality be analyzed in the context of development.

To make application of activity theory more practical, the article introduces an analytical tool, the Activity Checklist. The Activity Checklist is intended to be used at early phases of system design or for evaluating existing systems. Accordingly, there are two slightly different versions of the Checklist, the “evaluation version” and the “design version.” Both versions are used as organized sets of items covering the contextual factors that can potentially influence the use of a computer technology in real-life settings. It is assumed that the Checklist can help to identify the most important issues, for instance, potential trouble spots, that designers can address.

The structure of the Checklist reflects the five basic principles of activity theory. Since the Checklist is intended to be applied in analyzing how people use (or will use) a computer technology, the principle of tool mediation is strongly emphasized. This principle has been applied throughout the Checklist and systematically combined with the other four principles. It results in four sections corresponding to four main perspectives on the use of the “target technology” to be evaluated or designed:

1. Means and ends — the extent to which the technology facilitates and constrains the attainment of users’ goals and the impact of the technology on provoking or
resolving conflicts between different goals.

2. Social and physical aspects of the environment — integration of target technology
with requirements, tools, resources, and social rules of the environment.

3. Learning, cognition, and articulation — internal versus external components of
activity and support of their mutual transformations with target technology.

4. Development — developmental transformation of the foregoing components as a
whole.

Having gone through the article I would say that it is an excellent tool to be used during the Analysis & Design phase of a  software development project. The article “suggest that practitioners follow the items in the Checklist repeatedly at various phases of design or evaluation. A quick initial run should identify the most important potential trouble spots and filter out the rest. Further runs may result in finding patterns, revising previously made judgments about the importance or unimportance of certain issues, and formulating requests for more information, if necessary.”

Posted in iBusiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment