My Photo

Recent Posts

Search This Site


Further Into CenterBeam

Powered by TypePad
Member since 08/2003

Banner_custfirst


Shared Values, Shared Success

Kevin Francis

President and Chief Executive Officer

CenterBeam, Inc.

Good afternoon everyone. I’m delighted to be here today because I believe this is the most important group of business people in the world at the most important moment in economic history meeting on the most important topic. We – all of us right now – are riding atop the biggest business opportunity of the century, and the most important topic is success. I want to share with you what I believe to be the key to success in a shared services economy.

Just in case your toes aren’t already curled in excitement about our times and this opportunity, let’s review where we are.

There are three megatrends converging to create an amazing opportunity for us.

Download a .pdf of Kevin's Speech

Strategy Maps

Harvard Business Review

Fast Company

Execution

The Support Economy

Pour Your Heart Into It

What Is Lean Six Sigma

Rudy

Does IT Matter

Achieving the Best Perspective: Patch Management and the Myth of Sisyphus

The myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus offends the ancient Greek gods and he’s condemned to rolling a heavy rock up a hill, watching it roll down again and then rolling the rock back up the hill again. Forever.

Patch management. Microsoft releases Office 2003. Two weeks later they issue the first “critical” patch for it. The rock rolls back down the hill.

The French existentialist, Albert Camus, used this myth as an emblem for his philosophy of courage, strength and even joy in the face of an apparently meaningless and futile life. Like Sisyphus, there are far too many IT professionals devoting themselves to constantly patching systems. Their careers are entangled in the relentless chore of patching software.

Of course, applying every patch is a chore more honored in the breech than in the observance. According to a recent poll conducted by Silicon.com of its readers, less than a quarter of those surveyed claimed they applied every published patch. The vast majority said they needed to balance patch management with more important IT issues and this is completely understandable – until something goes wrong.

The most simple-minded hacker doesn’t even have to search for new ways to exploit system. Instead, he watches for security patches, reads the documentation of why the patch is necessary and builds exploits for these holes knowing that the odds are good that they’ll be able to find – and compromise – unpatched systems. Other patches, such as the first o­ne Microsoft issued for Office 2003, make files created with the new version of Office compatible with the previous edition of Office. And this, of course, is a not-so-incidental feature that Office 2003 users will want to have now, not in the next release of the product.

The burden of patch management falls heaviest o­n the shoulders of IT staff at mid-size companies. Large enterprises can reasonably scale resources to meet this chore. Small companies, those few who even find out about new patches, simply don’t have the resources to apply to patching until the rock rolls back over them and they’re faced with a security breech or applications that just don’t work. Mid-size companies are trapped in-between. They know the best practices. They know they don’t have the resources to implement a best practice. And, therefore, they know the deep, existential angst born from the futility of their situation.

What’s to be done?

Three Different Approaches Up the Hill

Not to oversimplify too much, but there are three broad approaches to successfully managing patches.

1. Acquire software that needs less patching. It is a very common for companies to have a policy of never buying a “.0” release of software because they know it is a new, major release, and that the “.1” version will roll up patches, bug fixes and other loose ends that were never tied up with the “.0” release. The “.1” release will include many of these fixes, except for the most recent o­nes that were identified after the “.1” release was released for production. Then, more bugs will be identified in the “.1” release and these will need to be patched. Conservative software adoption is a good plan, but merely delays and doesn’t eliminate the patching chore.

2. Become more efficient or get more resources to implement a “best practice” patch management solution. This is an admirable aspiration, and may even be achievable in cases where IT departments are flush with cash (isn’t yours?). It will incur a substantial investment of staff time and money. The IT team will need to constantly scour the market for new products, evaluate likely candidates, integrate the new tools into IT process management, and train the staff using the tool. This approach not o­nly assumes there are resources available to do this, but it also assumes that this is the best use of resources.

3. A third approach is to leverage a simple economic principle that IT staffs are becoming very familiar with. There is an opportunity to share the cost of best practice patch management rather than shoulder the entire investment. And the economic principle is as old as the practice of communities coming together for a barn raising.

A company investing in a “best practice” patch management system can calculate the return o­n its investment against, say, the 2,000 seats under its management. The economics of this path for a company managing 100,000 seats is, obviously, very different. Fixed costs such as the purchase of the software and staff can be amortized over a much larger population and substantially drive down the cost-per-seat. So, some companies are starting to split the cost through relationships with outsourced IT management companies. A company’s IT staff can stay focused o­n strategic IT issues, issues that are tightly focused o­n their own unique business processes and outsource the common, generic management chores.

IT: Competitive Edge or Doing the Dishes? A Question of Perspective

Strategic IT is focused o­n giving a company a real competitive edge. Amazon, Wal-Mart, and many others have successfully applied IT resources to win in their respective markets. Critical IT are the systems and activities applied to aspects of the IT system that don’t help a company achieve a competitive edge but, when they break, there’s heck to pay: Email and word-processing are examples that quickly come to mind. These two applications don’t give a business a competitive advantage, but when they’re broken -- heaven help you.

For an IT management outsourcing company, best practice patch management is a strategic IT initiative. It is a source of customer satisfaction and revenue. Patch management is core to the raison d’etre for an outsourced IT management company. Therefore, an outsourced IT management company has a completely different perspective o­n patch management than corporate IT staff. For an outsourced IT management company, not using the best possible tool is an opportunity cost, not documenting the successful installation of every patch o­n every machine is a business risk, and not staffing this function with the best possible IT talent is just plain foolish. It’s a matter of perspective.

A few years ago, when I was leading a very large company, I made a point of meeting every employee and finding out more about them and whether or not they were happy with their job. By far, the happiest person I met pushed the mail cart through the building, delivering the mail to everyone. So, I asked him, “Why are you so happy?” He answered that he was happy because such a critical corporate function had been entrusted to him. He said he was probably the most important person in the company. If it weren’t for him, paychecks wouldn’t be distributed, invoices wouldn’t be mailed out and checks from customers wouldn’t be collected. I congratulated him and thanked him for his good work and inspiring attitude and learned an important lesson: It’s all about perspective and how a different perspective can become an important business advantage. In the case of patch management, some of us are pushing a rock up a hill, over and over again, and this is a consequence of o­ne perspective. And some of us find tremendous reward from helping lift that rock off the shoulders of others and give them the chance to enjoy the view from the top of the hill.

The Customer Comes Eighth?!?!

Recently, the magazine “Across The Board,” published a cover story headlined “The Customer Comes Eighth,” – nothing could be further from the truth.

Normally, I don’t spend my time criticizing magazine articles, but as Across The Board carries with it the weight and reputation of The Conference Board, an organization I’ve admired and participated in for many years, I feel compelled to speak up. When I first saw the headline on the cover, I was perplexed and intrigued. Perplexed because I couldn’t believe The Conference Board would endorse such a wrong-headed position, intrigued because I was eager to learn about the line of thinking that leads to this belief.

Mr. Kleiner’s thesis that we should invest our energies across a matrix of intra-corporate relationships is all well and good. In fact, I believe in the inherent goodness of teamwork and have enjoyed the extremely satisfying esprit d’corp of working on high-performance teams. But the greatest satisfaction comes from being on a winning team. As I’m a businessman, the desired outcome is winning customers and delighting them with my company’s goods and services. I can think of no other reason to be in business. In other words, teams are means to an end.

At a time when the public is scrutinizing corporate behavior, ethics and values, it is critical for all of us in business to have absolute clarity of purpose and focus on values – the right values. I’m concerned that Mr Kleiner’s article promotes behavior that can have disastrous consequences, the type of behavior we’ve read about in media coverage of Enron and other notorious companies.

Putting the customer first is like having a compass that will always point your company to the promised land of success. You still have to make the journey, but you’ll always know the destination.

IT Really Does and Really Doesn’t Matter

"A screaming comes across the sky…" --Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow

A singular event in May churned the waters of the information technology community and the ripples continue to spread outwards to its distant shores. That month, the Harvard Business Review published an article by Nicholas G. Carr, “IT Doesn’t Matter.” Almost instantly, large waves began to crest over the rails of the remaining boats afloat in IT’s already troubled waters. Mr. Carr posited that some parts of information technology are destined to go the way of electricity and locomotives. He wasn’t really breaking any news, but he was caught writing down what many knew in their hearts to be true but didn’t dare say aloud.

The article was like a blow landing on a bruise. The IT community, wracked by a historic economic downturn (recession? depression? correction?), did not suffer Mr. Carr’s insights in silence. Almost immediately, the protests began. A blizzard of buzz began creating deep drifts of denials and dodges, trying to obscure the truth of his thesis.

Simply put, Mr. Carr wrote that IT is no longer a monolithic business function. Almost thirty years down the road, IT could finally be parsed into distinct functions that create a strategic competitive advantage – or not, but are still critical.

Shocking, eh?

Most of Mr. Carr’s vociferous critics either only read the article’s headline or conveniently neglected to mention that he also described how, sometimes, IT can create competitive advantage. In fact, he detailed the dramatic competitive advantages achieved by United Airlines, Federal Express, Mobile Oil, eBay, Reuters, Wal-Mart and Dell. But his point is that these companies are the exception rather than the rule. Few companies are ingenious enough to sharpen IT to a corporate competitive edge. Instead, most companies are simply supplying necessary datatricity to millions of information workers. And this is a good thing.

Much to the delight of the shareholders of Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, and Oracle, IT has become a ubiquitous and critical service. Today, datatricity is simply the price of admission to most of our contests of capitalism. For a brief and fleeting moment, the benefit of word processing may have given a company a new way to win, but now it is simply the way documents are done. Microsoft Word isn’t the IT engine behind Federal Express’s package tracking system. And so forth.

Today, IT departments are consumed by the chore of keeping the datatricity flowing. The millions of personal computers in service today are simply a necessary evil. Quite evil, in fact. Either because we didn’t think far enough ahead, or because we simply weren’t smart enough when we were inventing this infrastructure, we’ve ended up with an interlocking system of networked personal computers that are accidents waiting to happen. They must be constantly patched. They must be constantly resurrected from the Blue Screen of Death. And the networks they are attached to were never designed to handle really handle sophisticated / simple concepts like commerce, security or privacy.

And we’re in denial about it. In 211 BCE, the Romans felt secure because they believed Hannibal could never cross the Alps, much less during the dead of winter. Their heirs, in 2003, find cold comfort in their hope that a sixteen-year-old sipping his cappuccino at Starbucks won’t exploit RPC 135 and sack their corporate data treasury. Which leads us to another issue.

It is shameful that so many people have to know what RPC 135 is, much less how to protect it from the modern day Carthaginian army comprised of teenagers with too much time on their hands and too little respect for others. Yet, this is what it’s come to. Thousands upon thousands of highly-skilled, dedicated IT professionals spend 150% of their work week playing whack-a-mole without even the slightest chance of winning. Meanwhile, in their copious free time, they are helping out colleagues staring at frozen computers or accelerating deployment of an enterprise resource planning system so their company can run more efficiently.

Once upon a time, textile mills were located along rivers that would turn the water wheels that turned the looms. (In an instance filled with infinite irony, the long-lost but once heroic Digital Equipment Corporation was headquartered in just such a mill.) Today, the turbines of industry are turned by the information created on personal computers and passed along the network that winds its way throughout the world of commerce. But businesses are still building mills on the river banks of information.

And some companies are beginning to say, “Enough.”

The irresistible gravity of capitalism is beginning to pull down the temples built to the gods of IT. The baptistery has been spilled out and grass is growing in the nave. Good business sense is beginning to look at IT as a simple make / buy / lease decision rather than a complex staffing requirement. CFOs, and even some CIOs, understand there simply isn’t a competitive upside to having a legion of engineers figuring out how to patch 4,000 computers with MS03-039, but there is considerable downside if they don’t.

Good technology combined with a good idea can be a force multiplier and create economies of scale. For example, once a critical patch has been issued and IT engineers have devised a way to administer that patch, there isn’t any appreciable difference between patching 1,000 or 100,000 personal computers using today’s automated tools. In theory, a company could leverage that economy of scale across multiple businesses. In theory, those multiple businesses would benefit from that single company achieving that economy of scale. In practice, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Companies such as CenterBeam are leveraging brilliant IT engineers and modern IT automation and management tools and have created a state-of-the-art IT management service that is being steadily scaled throughout North America, becoming ever more efficient as it grows. CenterBeam’s success validates Mr. Carr’s thesis: Infrastructure IT is becoming just another utility for business and just as it doesn’t make any sense for businesses to build, staff and maintain their own electrical generation plants, it doesn’t make any sense to build, staff and maintain their own plants to generate datatricity.

IT doesn’t really matter and IT really does matter. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." As we watch the mentally vapor-locked IT pundits continue to splutter and fume and blast Mr. Carr’s article, it’s painfully clear they are unable to pass Mr. Fitzgerald’s test.

And in a world of water wheels, I’m delighted to be leading the next General Electric.