News Flash – Innovation is dead!

This is a theme I have heard a few times in the last few weeks, at a technology forum recently, in a BBC article and on a tech forum. So have we become so comfortable with our technology these days, that we are no longer pushing ourselves to innovate? Have we reached the peak of our technological achievements? Is the supposed tech bubble finally going to burst? Well it sure got me thinking, especially when I have set up this blog to understand the impact of people and technology on each other, I mean if it really is the end of tech I might need to close my blog … (dramatic silence). Shock! Horror!

Seriously though, it did get me thinking about what is driving this growing theme of technology stagnation? In the amazing world we live in, why would people feel we have reached a period of innovation stagnation? I learned from a development coach recently that there is 10% truth in anything someone says (yes you know who you are!) and hence felt that this was a good place to start. We have had some amazing technology developments over the decades; The Mobile Phone, Putting a Probe on Mars, The Internet – and I am sure many more I could mention, but are these really representing the end of our recent technology improvements? I mean if people are saying it, some aspect of it has to be true, because as we have also learned in our increasingly connected world, perception can quickly become reality.

I have seen some amazing developments recently, but it is not so much the developments themselves. Rather, I find something amazing has happened in the realization of these developments; they are no longer referred to as ’technology innovations’ but more simply as ’industry innovations’. The ability for doctors to operate using a virtual operating room, using robotic hands and cameras as if they were really there. Or for Manufacturers to now use 3D printers for manufacturing, or my personal favourite to have driverless cars on our roads – despite some of the recent incidents. Now these are all quite recent innovations – in my view anyway – but there are two things happening in our society that we need to be aware of.

1. Technology has now reached a point where it is infused in every industry, whether traditional or new, to the point that new jobs exist within these industries that are no longer ONLY about the core discipline (whether that be Medicine, Manufacturing or Engineering), but about how technology is being embedded into that industry. I love for example that IT managers in a hospital are not there to make sure the network remains connected, but to ensure the systems directly supporting Health Care services are running at peak performance. Or the Programmer working on self-driving vehicles, who needs to ensure the code used to speak to the ‘road aware devices’ are running properly. I believe this development has moved forward so much that the jobs of the future, for those seeking roles in the technology space, will rapidly evolve into multiple specialisations across industries. For example, you could become a Medical Engineer or a Manufacturing Programmer. I have previously talked about the concept of the changing profiles of roles, but that was merely from within an IT perspective. Where we are headed with cross disciplines - with technology and innovation playing a lead role, is even more exciting!

2. The lifecycle of innovation is actually now moving so fast that we are no longer seeing the leaps that we have in the past, in fact in many areas the life cycle of innovation is now occurring in months and no longer years, which could have led to the perception that innovation has simply stagnated. Technologists now have access to platforms and tools which help to rapidly reduce the cycle of innovation from the drawings on the back of a beer coaster, to a working model - whether software or even these days hardware. Many innovations failed to see the light of day, because our ability to promote those innovations was limited to what we can see - and the era of social media means that our world has never been smaller. What I mean by that is Innovations are no longer successful based merely on who has physical visibility of them in the real world, but now they are successful based on who can view them in our digital world. Platforms such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo are creating the funding enablers for people, anywhere in the world, who share a common interest or a belief, to connect. Kickstarter alone has supported over 100,000 creative projects raising over two billion US dollars to date a figure which I am sure would have some VC's envious! This to me, raises the view that innovation is being realised faster, broader and with a greater chance of success, because these crowdfunding platforms are not only bringing in funding, but also evidence that there is interest in that creative idea, whether it be technology based or Fashion or even food! I share this with you as I believe this growing crowdsourcing trend is accelerating our innovation journey - and businesses are starting to catch on that crowdsourcing is not only a great source of ideas, but when an idea is supported it can immediately translate into customer demand, as Lays found out when developing a new chip (Hmm Cheesy Garlic Bread)!

These two factors of technology now being embedded in everything we do, along with the speed with which new ideas can be realised are in my view, key drivers for this perception of innovation stagnation. In fact I think it is the speed with which we now see innovation occur, that gives us this perception that it has become stagnant, much like looking at a wheel that is spinning so quickly that it appears to be standing still., Technology innovation is occurring so often that we are now forced to filter out what is relevant to us. I spent an evening looking through some forums and came across some exciting products such as Evadrop, Seatylock and Phree (I should note these are ones I picked out at random, but there are many more). These are exciting innovations, which on the surface can seem small and without the impact that the arrival of the mobile phone did, however if these innovations realise their ambitions, they could change the world we live in and hopefully encourage others to open their minds to the possible.

So to answer the question ‘is Innovation dead’, well in my view… no, but I can understand why people would see that it is. The era of huge technology leaps has past and the era of constant innovation has arrived - an era where technology is embedded in every industry and where the speed with which concepts and ideas can be realised, is faster than ever. So fast in fact, that it can seem we are viewing simple development steps. Yet it is the development platforms now available, that are creating the opportunity for innovations to be developed quickly and either realise their potential or fail fast and avoid the risks of high cost failure.

Ultimately we have entered an age where we are embracing a greater appetite for risk - in trying out new ways of working or other concepts, knowing that if it doesn’t work the first time we can try, try and try again, as we continue to refine our innovations in an iterative process across days or weeks instead of years. I look forward to the next era where innovation merely becomes a class you take in school and where you learn to create new concepts and new ideas with the platforms that start-ups and other businesses are using today, so that Innovation doesn’t die, far from it, it simply becomes a way of life.

Who's watching now?

With recent news topics covering the “standoff” between the FBI’s ask for access to `the San Bernadino Killers’ phone and Apple seeking to stand up and protect the privacy of its customers with concerns this could quickly become a default ask for all devices, ironically, I am getting a sense of déjà vu from almost 15 years ago when operators were facing the same debate.

15 years ago, governments and their security agencies were asking telecom operators to share their voice and data information for people deemed a security risk or to investigate a person’s activities prior to an event that happened - criminal or otherwise. At that point, the world was up in arms as to what this would mean for personal security or for that matter privacy as  governments were able to track what people were doing and where they were going.

However, over the years this has become a norm and, although not always accepted, a balance has been established where the operators report to the public on how many times they are asked to share information by the relevant government agency. What is interesting here is that this data is quickly becoming irrelevant as we move to digital and start to reduce our use of mobile platforms like traditional voice and SMS. With these traditional platforms, operators have had visibility of the activities of individual’s voice and messaging communications, whilst in our digital world all communications are increasingly moving to IP or Internet based services. This makes it incredibly difficult for operators to keep track, if they can keep track of the information at all.

I recognize that it is not only telecom operators being asked for end user information, but also the over-the- top players like Google, Apple and Facebook among others, and that they report on these regularly to the public. However, we need to recognize that there is increasingly ony one common source when it comes to telecom services, over-the-top services and other applications and that is simply our mobile phone. A little like our wallets used to be with our ID, credit card information, loyalty cards, receipts etc, with all of this now digital it is the mobile phone, which will increasingly become the centre of security discussions.

It is therefore not surprising that in recent surveys when people are asked what they would be most worried to lose the “mobile phone” is becoming increasingly prevalent[1], versus a decade ago when it was their wallet. The simple reason for this being we store more of our lives in our phones and online that anywhere else these days. Government agencies can approach credit card companies or operators and even online providers to ask for data about an individual, but the one area they are still trying to gain access to remains the phone. The documents, photos, message exchanges all have a common source instead of trying to debate access rights with all of the individual platforms.

I raise this because at some point the “national security” card will get played by government agencies and businesses could end up being forced to comply, similarly with what telecom operators have been through already. I would like to suggest to these handset manufacturers and over-the-top providers to start collaborating together about how they can protect the majority and isolate any handset access to be limited to individual cases. Perhaps there is a unique code that is created based on mutual compliance between the vendor and a government agency for an individual handset, that is to say avoiding sharing access to all phones through a generic override code or similar, which governments could then gain access to whenever they should so choose. In combination with this, then provide visibility to the public as to how many devices the government agency requested access to and how many devices they were given access to. Now this is just a suggestion and the important point here is for the digital community to think through a proactive approach of how they want to engage government agencies rather than being forced to comply with some all-encompassing banner of national security.

Our world continues to change and we need to remember that our lives, which were once paper-based, followed by analog and mobile, are now quite simply digital. Combine this with many governments that continue to fear what they don’t understand, the result is raising concerns on information that they believe exists, but are unable to see or control. In a digital world, where the data we create and store is growing exponentially every day, of course it is impossible to track absolutely everything. However, perception can quickly become reality, as governments and their associated agencies will continue to want to gain further visibility of our digital lives. So, we either act proactively and educate through defining an engagement model which protects the majority of people and addresses data sharing when only absolutely critical for the protection of society, or digital businesses will rapidly become the victims after a few cases under the banner of “National Security” become common place.

I appreciate this is a fine balance and many people will be unhappy with the idea of giving up privacy of our personal items, some will say this must be defended at all costs, but there are precedents already and I fear simply defending will result in a outcome none of us are happy with. I for one would rather know there is an understanding between digital providers and governments as to how this will be managed in the future before it becomes a case of turning on my phone or tablet and asking myself the question “Who’s watching me now?”

---

[1] http://blog.zixcorp.com/2014/09/survey-says-individuals-would-rather-lose-wallet-than-mobile-device/

Ctrl-Alt-Del

We all know what happens when we press ’Ctrl-Alt-Del’ on our keyboards – well, at least I hope you do, otherwise you may find this article rather uninteresting (now, I know a few of you just checked by doing it, so welcome back to the story). When we perform this ‘three button miracle’, we get to see the task manager, i.e all of the active applications we see on our laptop. Imagine for a moment, that you have closed all of those active applications and you are left with a desktop with no activity. Would you continue your work by simply reopening what you closed, or would you think about how you would do things differently?

In today’s “digital world”, we are increasingly comfortable to evolve our collaboration choices, social media, applications for our phone (yes, both for fun and the more serious activities). This is often because there is a better tool for us to use, or the tools we have aren’t working in the right way, or we simply want a change. Interestingly though, most of us don’t do this in our business environments. Think for a minute and ask yourselves, “Why do we do the ‘Ctrl-Alt’Del’ magic combination”? Perhaps our application isn’t working, or our PC or tablet is running slow? Are we worried that our device is stuck within a loop and can’t move forward from? Now, consider the business environments we work in. These reasons can seem very similar, yet our response tends to be a shrug of the shoulders and we continue to push through.

As you read this, consider for a moment that you could ‘Ctrl-Alt Del’ your business. Take a moment to pause and reflect on what is working, and think about whether your processes, systems and tools are doing what you need them to do? Which ones are consuming too much time or resource? As you reflect, you may also sense a glimmer of hope – that idea that pops into your head of the “What if?.

However. then the reality of how complicated or hard it can be leaps to the front again and the hope is gone. I encourage you to force that “What if” concept back to the front just for a moment – let it breathe and consider a minor application or toolset in your business that could be changed with minimal effort and would help your business start to realise the impact a pause and change could have on your organisation.

Of course, many of you will say, “But Nathan, we are already doing this we, are going through significant change as the market evolves”, or “We have tried it before and ended up in the same place”. I tip my hat to those who have not only achieved a rethink, but equally to those who are continuing to try. Without this commitment to change, then businesses will continue to plod through using what they have.

In essence, businesses can’t simply pause and then create a change. It needs to be embraced by the leaders of organisations. Congratulating one another for doing something new, without understanding how to create the right environment for it to be continually successful will simply doom it to failure. One such example was for a start-up business unit which was a business’s efforts to pause and use a fresh approach to change direction for an area of their business where they were being challenged by competitors.

I was fortunate enough to have a discussion with the start-up business unit, working under a large parent company the other day (no, not mine!), where they were being given conflicting direction – “Go forth and conquer this market as a disruptive player!”. Sounds great, right? However, this was followed by the second part of the conversation – “You must of course remain within the architecture and capabilities of the parent business so as we maximise our assets”. Now, after being ready to jump for joy, I was left staring into my coffee cup hoping that my disappointment for their predicament didn’t show. Unfortunately, this is very common for many incumbent businesses seeking to jump on the start-up bandwagon, without truly understanding the changes they need to make in their own thinking when considering what they set out to achieve.

In the case of this business unit start-up, that change from the parent company needs to be in giving them the opportunity to be disruptive or accepting that the goal in establishing the business unit is to disrupt the broader organisation. The latter would require some serious commitment, and a jump off a sizable cliff given the risks it may be perceived to have within the business, particularly as in many large established businesses, the employees are the culture, and they represent the way of working – hence changing this overnight can be challenging.

In this case, providing that new business unit the flexibility to define its market approach, its IT architecture and ultimately its culture will help to define its success. Of course, we can say “But what if it fails?” At least, if it stays within the way of working of the parent company then the assets and people can be reintegrated into the business”. If this is your thinking, then I’m afraid you will never know what success could look like. We don’t see business start-ups wondering about how they might mitigate failure, but how can then create the best chance for success.

“Hackathons” are a great example of how businesses can create the best chance for success, and to date have always been synonymous with technology led businesses, and in particular start-up environments. The idea of throwing a problem into a room with some really bright people to design and develop with a new widget or code to address a bug in a platform is increasingly common. I would however propose that hackathons become the tool of choice for our ‘Ctrl-Alt-Del’ moment.

Once we pause our business, what are we going to do? How do we ensure we don’t go back to our old ways of working? How do ensure our staff embrace this change with us? In any organisation, there are lots of bright people in their field who are keen to get more involved and with the right tools, they can have  a phenomenal impact on helping to improve the way a business achieves its objectives. The people that make up an organisation want their business to be successful; it’s what makes it a great place to work, so leveraging their commitment and channeling that willingness to succeed through these types of tools can create a great environment for change.

This for me is why leaders really need to ‘Ctrl-Alt-Del’ their businesses and have a serious think about the way they are running their organisations. Can it be done differently? Yes, I hear some of you saying –  it is simply impossible to change your business given how long you have been working in that way, but I say give your teams a chance to embrace change, a change made of their own interest, engagement and outcome. It might start small – from how a team collaborates, or how you engage with your customers, but ultimately if it gets the business thinking about the “possible”, then that can only be a good thing … right?

We built a house!

Ok, so it’s not a physical house but we have built a new business in Indonesia. I can tell you, having previously seen my first home being built, it feels very much the same.  In any construction there are a number of key factors to consider; managing the timelines for the project, ensuring contractors don’t blow out the budget (this is a biggie), adapting to the required changes as we learn what works best and above all ensuring the customer is happy with the outcome. In the case of my first home, my customer was my wife, and in the case of building this business, our customer was the Indonesian market.

When building this business or “digital house” as I call it, we learned there are a lot of great technologies in existence that can be leveraged to build a business’ operations and business systems. And for anyone that knows me, exploring these new technologies was like placing a kid in a candy store and giving them some money to fill a basket – don’t worry I was well behaved, for the most part.

Ironically though, I don’t believe it is the strength of our technology that will drive the right outcome for our digital house, but more so the less predictable elements that will define the successful build of our house - quirky people! Whilst quirky people are not necessarily sought to build a physical house  –in the event the bathroom may end up in the kitchen and a shower in the study – we were fortunate to have some amazing people on this project. It wasn’t just their knowledge that assisted us, but their ability to think outside of the box, and consider the unusual and unconventional ways to approach the deliverables for this unique program. Simply put, they needed to be quirky!

There were a lot of unknowns in the building of this house –  from how we could integrate into the local operator’s business and operating systems and avoiding significant upfront investment to ensuring we were compliant to local market regulatory policies. Importantly we also needed to ensure that whatever we built would support the business’ key goal in serving our customers in a new and differentiated way.

I can appreciate anyone who has worked in a start-up before will be thinking, ”well Nathan, as a start-up that’s pretty straight forward and common”. However, I would ask you to consider that this is a joint venture between two incumbents that were running successful businesses in a prescribed way for a long period of time with clear views on how they felt the business should be established. This isn’t in line with a common start-up model.

The approach we took therefore may have appeared normal for a tech start-up, but for two incumbents it was a leap of faith to change the approach in addressing these challenges, whist driving the outcome that would enable a new business to grow. It wasn’t possible to simply run through a check list – what we needed was people who would adapt to the changing landscape as we learned more about the market and business environment we were operating in, and challenge what was possible (or equally not viable) and what was needed to adapt to the needs of the local operator.

What was imperative in building this digital house was the need to change our way of thinking, focusing on quick outcomes in small steps, empowering our teams and accepting that failure could and would happen.  It is very easy to slip into an approach of “that’s what we have always done” as a reason as to why we shouldn’t try something different, I can’t count the number of people who were happy to tell us “that won’t work”, or “you can’t do it that way”.

This is where we get to the next critical factor - you need people that are committed, and almost stubborn, to ensure that they stay true to the journey that is being defined. You also need an understanding boss who will give you the flexibility to pull this together without losing faith in what we are able to achieve (thanks Boss!). There were times when we would question ourselves – “are we doing the right thing?”, and “should we back off and simply accept that near enough is good enough”. I am glad we didn’t as the outcomes we have started to realise are down to that commitment to the goal.

Equally, the team knew we would not make all the right bets to address both our current and future requirements. As such, we needed to make sure that we had some flexibility moving forward. By taking a cloud platform approach to all the technologies that we introduced offered us the flexibility to evaluate functionality, without feeling we were committed to the tools that we were using in the long term. Yes, there would be a revised integration effort if we changed out an element of our architecture. However, that was better than being stuck with a physical platform for five to seven years that we would have to keep customising to the point that it could no longer be changed out without a complete new build.

 The cloud approach has also meant that our costs for the platforms are directly correlated with the growth of the business. Yes, there is a case of initial capacity, however this is minor compared with the scale we can grow these platforms to as demand increases. Lastly, the hybrid nature of our cloud environment, which extends from Indonesia across international markets, ensures that we can be compliant to evolving regulatory requirements in Indonesia whilst leveraging the benefits of different cloud platforms.

Another key aspect has been the way that we have engaged our suppliers. Every conversation has started with, “how do you interface into other systems?”, “what use cases can you share about that integration”, and “what best practices have driven the development of your systems?” The reasons for these questions were because we knew that to maximise the value of the technology we were using, it was more important to have systems that would naturally talk to each other and had done so before, versus our own team having to build a system to translate between two systems – as if we were trying to help translate between two completely different languages.

To this end, it became clear to us we were building a “digital ecosystem” or a collection of technology partners that would need to interoperate to ensure we could serve our customers in a valued and differentiated way. This ecosystem may evolve over time as we find different technologies that will help us serve more effectively in the future. Fortunately, by remaining true to the approach the team has taken, will help to ensure all new members of the ecosystem understand the requirement for interoperability.

We have now established a Service Provider in Indonesia with no network assets, nor any voice infrastructure. Admittedly, we have had to build a private cloud to meet local market criteria, however the majority of our technology is cloud based. We are developing a culture where the teams succeed or fail together, and where we do fail, we fail fast, dust ourselves off, understand why we fail and then move forward again – but always as one team.

We are also now serving customers and gearing up to expand our portfolio, but the house is clearly built. To that end, in building our digital house; the operating license is our foundation, our walls are the tools, platforms and processes we have created, the roof is the governance we use to always make sure there are no leaks in what we have built, the windows our experience centre to show customers a view of what we can provide, and the interfaces connecting our systems together is the cabling. We can now see where we need to improve the house - where the walls need finishing and where the roof needs to be maintained, but none the less we now have a house!

However, our digital house is still just a shell. It’s the people who work in it that are making the digital house our digital home, and ultimately will be the ones who welcome our customers and partners in as we seek to change the customer experience and serve the Indonesian market with our version of kopi and thee.

This article is dedicated to the Implementation team from the past year that had the patience to work with us, the passion to drive us to complete our goals and never accept near enough as good enough. We recognized that this success will always be bigger than any one person and that we all should reflect on the role we played in realising the building of this house. I would especially like to thank the team for putting up with my crazy ideas, passionate discussions and occasional singing in the corridor!

Are we ready for Government 3.0?

I always enjoy writing about what I am seeing in our increasingly technology influenced world. I am sure you would agree that some of the things are exciting and have improved our way of life while others a little less so. This blog explores a subject that urgently needs to be examined and I believe, action needs to be taken, before there becomes a gaping hole in the way we live our lives.  I know dramatic, but read on.

As our world becomes more “technologically digital”, the role of government needs to evolve. Of course some of you will say governments are already on that journey, you only have to look at their efforts to have twitter accounts or even a Facebook page (yes they exist and some are quite scary!) to see they are at least trying!  OK fine, I’ll give you that, they are evolving.  But let’s call this “Government 2.0” and define it as: “governments providing online services, as well as access to, information”. What they really need though, is to evolve to the next stage, in the digital world and begin to understand (and hopefully take action) there will be laws that need to be either written or rewritten to support this evolution. Easier said than done, right?

Think for a moment about how quickly we see new innovation compared to what it was 10 or 20 years ago.  Today the rate of technological change means that governments are struggling to keep up. Ultimately this has led to, or will eventually lead to, governments establishing new ministries (state departments) focused on technology. Now, I am not talking about evolving a telecom regulator, I am referring to the need for dedicated ministries (not a shared government portfolio) focused on protecting businesses, people and even government from digital conflicts or disasters. This requires a rethink of existing laws, policies, education and state run programs. Admittedly, some governments have started down this path, but think about the Secretary of State, or the Secretary for National Security, I believe it is time to introduce the Secretary of Technology as a core government department to address the broader role Technology is playing in our daily lives today.

Here’s a thought for you - at the rate of change, to our digital world, we are led by world leaders, Supreme Court judges and others who have not been born during the digital age – not a bad thing but does place them at a disadvantage.  Also bear in mind that governments have attempted to influence the digital world on their terms by either blocking out online information, ignoring it, or feebly attempting to engage through casual posts, etc. only to become very upset that someone has the audacity to respond to something they have posted negatively, as if their view is beyond repute (?). Now I want you to consider a Google vs. Apple court case going to the Supreme Court in the US for resolution. How do you think this will play out?

Trust me when I say that my aim here is NOT politics.  I have no political stance other than to have you, as my reader, appreciate that we do need to evolve our thinking. In fact, I think we need Governments to evolve to a 3.0 operating environment similar in a way that we now see the web moving into a Web 3.0 iteration. Consider for a moment the briefings that government panels have on natural resource availability, the environment, national security, etc.  Shouldn’t there be one for technology updates? Our technological world is evolving in months now not years, and soon I expect that will be weeks. Consider thumb print technology identification, commercial air drones, self driving cars, etc. all of which are already and will quickly become common place. Do our air and road laws need to change? Does Personal security need to be driven more by governments or global organizations to ensure standards for personal devices?

Don’t get me wrong, governments are attempting at different levels to stay ahead of this but, as an example, do you think blocking an IP address to protect citizens from inappropriate content is enough? Should people have the choice to have content removed if they don’t like it? Or chase down that disruptive influence? Think about recent government interventions when they have simply “disconnected” the web…really?  We all know astute web users who can find alternative ways to stay in touch with the outside world, through satellite, mobile phone, remote vpn’s, etc.

Now, it is not all doom and gloom. I have been impressed (scary but true) with the Californian state government empowering individuals to request their social media presence be deleted when they reach 18; or in Europe where the European Union has legalized the right to request that search results be removed by those who perceive their privacy has been or will be breached. Lastly the growing debate around Data Sovereignty is seeing some exciting discussions led by governments as to hat policies and laws are now required. Of course these are great steps, but are we just painting over the cracks. There is a bigger issue forming and that is the need for awareness and education. This is going to be critical if we are all going to live in this digital world. Would we need the Californian law if our children and even us, as adults for that matter, were taught the power of the net and the responsibilities for self that go with it?

We need to educate the public and create the appropriate laws for things like:  stalking someone through the web.  Does this have the same legal implications as it does in the real world?  In both cases it certainly has the same damaging emotional toll on the victim.  How about defamation? This is something we are familiar with in print media, but it is more so now on the web than ever before – especially in Social media circles. What if children and adults understood that all acts online were actually treated in the same way as if they were in the real world? (Imagine having to ask permission from your friends each time you wanted to share something of theirs on the web … look out Facebook!)

I do hope this has given you some food for thought and I hope that there are some government types or thought leader types out there who will contribute to this discussion.  I would love to hear about a government who has formed a Technology Ministry or department that is able to consider the rapid evolution of technology, the increasing role it has in our daily lives and the need to protect and educate everyone on what is and isn’t appropriate. Of course some will say the web is an open place and should be self regulated, however we must always bear in mind not everyone has the same level of technology understanding and education.  To ensure the web is a part of everyone’s life, we need to be able to provide people with the same level of safety and self awareness they have come to know in the real world.  I strongly believe governments and other such institutions need to evolve hence it is not a question of if but more how long we will have to wait for Government 3.0.

The web is a highway; I wanna ride it all night long

Ok I don’t mean literally but, I would like to know that I can access the internet for content, services and socializing, wherever, however and whenever I want. Doesn’t everyone? However, this reality is under threat from the growing relationship between Content and Service Providers in the form of a discussion called Net Neutrality.

Net neutrality is a topic which I don't think is really going to go away and is something that almost everyone has an opinion on. Although, I don’t believe these views are really addressing the core problem. What I mean by that is, they are focused on demand for high capacity content exceeding the network’s monetary ability to supply along with its inability to dynamically scale to match the unpredictable nature of content. What we really need is a new approach, one which protects the customer experience in how they can access the internet both from usability, cost and prioritization, but doesn't get in the way of the education, commercial value and social aspects of the web.

Just recently I read again that video is dominating the web, but what is interesting is video downloads are still not used by everyone. Despite these downloads growing in demand, there are always different profile requirements. People could simply want to read the news, access their online services such as banking, government services or simply communicate with friends. However, with high demand services in the form of online video, gaming and content sharing growing this can place high strains on networks. Now, currently the content owners are happy as they have the ability to monetize their services either through direct payment or subsidized through advertising. You could of course ask the question why now is this a problem? The likes of Google, Microsoft and even Baidu, have been around for a long time. Yes, but it is the acceleration of demand, for high volume video content, that has changed the game and what is elevating the topic of who should have access to the multiple highways making up the web and ultimately who should pay for it?

Network providers would argue that everyone needs to pay for their content. Naturally, one would think, that it is a lot easier for an established player to pay an access fee on networks to reach their customers as compared with startup firms. As expected with startups, every dollar that leaves the company can detract from a dollar invested in their new solution or offering they have created, thus creating a canyon sized gap between the big players and those introducing new concepts and innovations. As you can assess, this then is not a viable option for the ongoing evolution of the web.

The OTT (Over The Top) players would say well let's open the network and force operators to treat all content equally. This of course would leave the operators in a dilemma of trying to balance the scale of required support for the volume of traffic, the costs for managing that network combined with the prices that customers are willing to pay. The OTT option is simply not viable. Either operators would eventually be run into the ground or be faced with expensive customer service costs as best effort becomes synonymous with not good enough.

I would therefore like to propose a third option. Associate price based upon the load on the network. We could do it the same way that many major European roads fees are, paid by drivers, based on the weight of their vehicles. By doing so, we will encourage the right behaviour, as they will all understand that I am getting what I am paying for. If a customer wants to watch something in real time, whether that is video or gaming, they either pay an incremental fee or the content owner allocates parts of its revenues to the operator carrying that traffic. This will encourage content providers to think with operators in solving the problems regarding how they can optimize traffic, avoid expensive replication of Internet live streams and ultimately think through the problem leveraging the creative force of the OTT community. Of course someone will say, there is already a mechanism to pay more when you want to download more, isn’t it as simple as paying a higher price for buying a faster broadband connection? This may be true when it comes to the local connection piece of the equation however, remember this is a mesh of highways and it is those who are pulling down the large files that can clog these highways. I believe we need to provide users with a choice, three choices actually. One, pick the slower lane and you will receive your file when it is ready (paying lower costs), or two, if you simply must have it now, pay for it be downloaded faster (pay higher costs). The third option is to have your content provider subsidize you for the download (costs vary). In the end we will all need to work out a model which protects the user experience whilst not inhibiting the access and personal choice on how to download content. This does not mean that network providers are let off the hook, network providers must be held accountable for the quality of the user experience to whomever is the paying party to ensure they are equally held accountable in driving innovation to improve the network experience for each customer, as well as maintaining healthy diversity in how we access content to ensure competition and therefore choice.

We need to remember that the Internet has become a utility. It is one of our most important commodities and it requires, OTT players and network providers alike, to figure out how we can not only continue to ensure its survival, but also leverage it as a source of innovation and service creation. It is an innovation and resource that everyone can and should benefit from. Bottom line is it shouldn't matter whether you want to read a newspaper, watch a live football game or socialize content with friends. For all of us, the web has become the all important highway for information, collaboration and fun. The web is a highway and well, if you are like me, then you’ll want to continue to ride it all night long too!

Lost in Translation

I love technology, but if there is one thing I have learned over the years, it is that it is really irrelevant how much you know about the functionality of a particular widget.   The decision to buy a service is no longer about how “shiny” or “rich” a service is, but how it can be relevant. We have reached a tipping point where the traditional buyers of procurement and IT are no longer front and centre in the buying decisions.  These individuals are being replaced by the Business Unit owners and customer facing functions, a shift which requires a fundamentally different type of conversation and one which is causing many challenges for numerous ICT related industries.

“Big bets”, or big changes, are increasingly a thing of the past, especially as ICT services become more on-demand. This change gives customers the ability to transform much easier than in years past. Therefore, businesses need to evolve their thinking toward a new approach of differentiation…one towards relevance as it pertains to the business and the new decision makers.  We need to shift our language from the bits and bytes to understanding the challenges and opportunities that exist and what it can mean for the business. As businesses start to become more granular and focused, on tracking outcomes from individual initiatives, their expectations from suppliers equally change.

One of the things I love about my job is the opportunity to listen to business owners regarding their ambitions for their business, their key challenges and where they would like help.  In speaking with them, I begin thinking about the role I can play for that person in translation and/or understanding of what he/she is trying to achieve and the solutions out there that could help to solve their business challenges. If you are going to be meeting new business people there are three key tips I would suggest you do ahead of time. First, learn about who you are meeting with, what are their priorities and key goals? Secondly, how do they actually measure success for their business and industry? Finally, how can you help them to bridge from your understanding of feature and functionality with the insights of the above?

Let me be more specific, I am not talking about simply writing a script to accomplish what I’ve suggested above. You need to truly embrace and understand these questions and make them part of your approach to doing business. If you are able to do this and can then change the way you have a conversation, this will leave you feeling like you have had a positive impact on someone’s life and or business. Now this is not to say I will stop talking about technology. I simply love technology, but I love it for the same reason I write these blogs. I want to know the impact technology can have on people and to understand how we as individuals can influence and shape the evolution of technology. Technology plays a growing integral part of our daily lives, from the watch on your wrist to the self driving car; our lives will continue to be impacted hence the need to understand how we want technology to add value versus trying to make the functionality of a new widget work for us.

 I am reminded by a great Simpsons episode (stay with me now) where a techie is attracted by Homer Simpsons offer of fast internet but when the techie asks: “I'm interested in upgrading my twenty eight point eight kilobit internet connection to a one point five megabit fibre-optic T-1 line. Will you be able to provide an IP router that's compatible with my token ring ethernet LAN configuration?” – Now you could be forgiven for thinking and those things are what? - but in basic terms he is looking for an internet upgrade and one that will not require him to change any hardware at his home thus keeping his costs low so as he can visit the comic book store and buy more magazines (seriously!). Now of course the obvious question is, “well then why not say that?” I often find myself having to remind people that functionality is great but unless it has relevance to the person you are trying to sell to (or in the case of this Simpson episode – buy from) then there is not much point in starting a conversation.

In the case of Homer Simpson and similar for many businesses, there is a need for a new type of translator – one which can help people and businesses translate features and functionality to demonstrable business benefits, in the language of the customer or partner. This is something that I love to do and moreover enjoy seeing that “light go on” when the translation has been successful and everyone around the room gets excited about the outcome they are then working towards. Without these translators of the future, it is going to be akin to a meeting of two foreign countries, where gestures and pictures is all that is able to be used to explain anything which will ultimately result in a loss of translation moment and leave many people with that Homer Simpson expression as their only answer … “Can I have some money now?”