Tag Archives: Accenture

User Determined Computing

I’m not sure it’s a new phenomenon, but Accenture reckons it is: employees are more tech savvy than the companies they work for and are demanding their workplace catches up.

A new study by Accenture to be released next week (no link available yet; based on a PR pitch that mentions no embargo) will say that until recently all the most advancted networks and communication devices were at the office. Now they’re at home. The company calls it “user-determined computing”:

Today, home technology has outpaced enterprise technology, leaving employees frustrated by the inadequacy of the technology they use at work.  As a result, employees are demanding more because of their ever-increasing familiarity and comfort level with technology. It’s an emerging phenomenon Accenture has called “user-determined computing.”

The global study of more than 300 Chief Information Officers (CIOs) will argue that “executive and technology leaders are undertaking superficial improvements in their information technology systems rather than making fundamental changes to meet the growing demands of users.” The research will show that the high performing companies are those that are deploying the new technologies.

So far so good (and until we see the report that’s all we’ve got for detail.) I’d argue that this disconnect has existed for years and only been exacerbated by the rise of Web 2.0. But I’m a little less sure of Accenture’s argument when it says that it has launched an internal initiative of its own — what it’s rather lamely calling “Collaboration 2.0”, which involves

rolling out enhanced search capabilities, high-definition and desktop video conferencing solutions, unified messaging, and people pages (similar to personal pages on social networking sites).

A good enough start, I guess, but hardly an office revolution. And I think the term “user-determined” is misleading; it sounds as if users actually have a say in what computers, communications and software they use. Even Accenture’s own Collaboration 2.0 doesn’t sound as if that’s the case. “User-influenced”, maybe.

What do I think? I believe that most companies’ internal software systems need a major more radical overhaul — of five media companies I have had dealings with recently, one still uses the same editing software it had in place more than 10 years ago, another uses a system that has no major changes to its interface since the early 1990s, and another uses DOS WordStar.

I believe that companies need to be more flexible about how/where/when their workers work. The when and where is being addressed with telecommuting and flexible hours. But I also think that workers should be free to use everything that Web 2.0 has to offer — collaboration tools like stuff from 37Signals, Google Apps, Skype, their own hardware, whatever it takes. I know there are security and legal issues involved, but, let’s face it, what worker doesn’t use their own instant messaging program, log into Gmail on their office computer and other “illegal” moves inside the enterprise?

It’s time to let the worker work as s/he wants. If Accenture has spotted anything, it’s probably that the most productive workers are independent workers — those who set up their own systems so they’re not dependent on and held back by their employer. If that’s true, then the logical conclusion is that those employees are probably not employees anymore, but have struck out on their own either as consultants, freelancers or hitched their wagons to smaller, leaner and more flexible startups.

PS I wasn’t hugely impressed with Accenture’s own website, which didn’t comply with the most basic standards of Web 2.0. For one thing, it’s Flash-based, with no options for a quicker loading, HTML version. And the Flash doesn’t load quickly:

image

Secondly, a pop-up window greets you on your immediate arrival requesting your participation in a survey:

image

Not a good start.

Wine By Wi-Fi

The Wine Spectator Online (via Boingo Wi-Fi Insider) reports that a Sonoma, CA, vineyard is using Wi-Fi to monitor growing conditions at their site:

The system uses 40 wireless units on existing trellising posts around the 30-acre vineyard fitted with sensors that measure microclimate data such as soil and air temperature and moisture content, rainfall and leaf wetness. The data is bounced from sensor to sensor sans wires, forming what is known as a Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET), which requires less power and equipment than networks using wires or radio transmitters.

Real-time conditions in the vineyard can then be monitored on a secured Web site. Data can also be poured into a spreadsheet for long-term analysis. The information can help vineyard managers make decisions about when, where and how much to water vines or spray to control mildew.

The system sends alarms via instant messaging software or cellphone. The article quotes Bill Westerman, who works for Calif.-based Accenture Technology Labs which set up the project, as saying that the system could be used in manufacturing, retail and security. “The advantage to wireless is that it allows companies to go places where it was previously too difficult or expensive to run wires,” he said. “It can also be implanted in new products so they can automatically communicate with their manufacturer when there’s a problem.”

Internet Voting: A Minority Report?

A reader kindly pointed out this New York Times piece on the Internet voting story I posted yesterday, which highlights some other aspects of the case.

While four members of a panel asked to review the SERVE program — designed to allow Americans overseas to vote over the Net — said it was insecure and should be abandoned, the NYT quoted Accenture, the main contractor, as saying the researchers drew unwarranted conclusions about future plans for the voting project. “We are doing a small, controlled experiment,” Meg McLauglin, president of Accenture eDemocracy Services, was quoted as saying.

Another side to this pointed out by the loose wire reader: Accenture says that the four researchers were a minority voice, and that five of the six others ‘would not recommend shutting down the program’. One of the other outside reviewers, Ted Selker, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, disagreed with the report, and was quoted by the NYT as saying it reflected the professional paranoia of security researchers. “That’s their job,” he said. In response one of the four naysayers noted that they were the only members of the group who attended both of the three-day briefings about the system.

The reader also makes this observation: “One of their complaints is that the Internet is inherently unsafe, which may be true. I don’t believe that the US Postal Service (which is the current method for transmitting absentee ballots) is inherently safe either. Ever seen a bag of mail sitting in a building lobby waiting for pickup? I have.” Fair enough, but unless the bag contained ballots (something I have seen in, er, less security conscious democracies), I don’t think it’s a fair comparison, since a few tampered or misdirected ballots would not undermine the integrity of the election.

The security compromises in SERVE are likely to be at the server level, where hackers could either alter delivered votes, mimic voter activity, or disrupt legitimate voters from placing their ballot. This could be done on a scale that would undermine the integrity, or at least could be believed to do so. Remember: In an electronic election (where no parallel paper ballot is collected), a claim of largescale tampering is enough to undermine confidence in the result.

My tupennies’ worth? Although the E stands for experiment, I don’t see SERVE as a ‘controlled experiment’. The NYT says the program will be introduced “in the next few weeks” and covers seven states, and a possible 100,000 people this year. That doesn’t sound like an experiment to me. Maybe I’m missing something here, but I don’t really see how you can conduct an experiment in a live voting environment. What happens if there’s a suggestion the system has been compromised, either during or after the vote? I always thought that voting systems were either approved, credible and acceptable or not in public use. Of course it’s fine to have an ‘experiment’ where the only experimental part is, say, the user-aspects of the voting process. But security can surely never be part of an experiment in a live voting situation.

Security experts are paid to be skeptical. If they raise a warning flag as big as this, I think they should be listened to.