Posts Tagged value
Twitter ‘As-is’ Service Quality Escape Hatch
Whether it is the all-too-familiar “fail whale”, or the depressing “API Limit Exceeded” message in TweetDeck, users are finding it difficult to deal with deteriorating service levels that are rendering the service unusable for any serious social networking.
Of course, Twitter is “free”. As such, we are told that it is offered to us “as-is” and, since you get what you pay for, expectations that it will be there when you need/want it; fully-functional and void of yo-yoing, syncopating starts and stops; is simply asking too much.
In today’s post by Thomas Wailgum, “Twitter Rage: Can you Really Complain About Outages?”, he makes the point:
Think about it: The fact that I’m not paying a cent for the Twitter service means that I don’t have much ground to place “buyer-seller” type expectations upon the immature service. (This isn’t Salesforce.com downtime or disruptions with internal enterprise systems.) My outrage is tempered by my acceptance of the “free deal” I have with Twitter: You get what you pay for.
While a conventional “buyer-seller” arrangement is not evident, a binding contract is a bargain where the parties each get something for good and valuable consideration. Indeed, as the Twitter Terms state “… You may use the Services only if you can form a binding contract with Twitter…”.
Twitter’s Terms go on:
In consideration for Twitter granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Twitter and its third party providers and partners may place such advertising on the Services or in connection with the display of Content or information from the Services whether submitted by you or others.
So, the bargain is that you get access to and use of the Services and Twitter gets all of the ad revenue, content, demographic information, and the ultimate financial value of their property that appreciates on the backs of the millions of users that expect to be able to have access to and use of the Service. Seems to me to be reasonable “payment” for “services” rendered.
And, of course, there is that “AS-IS” escape hatch. Thus, there is no warranty and I (or anybody else) cannot make a claim for damages. Fine.
But, as far as expectations go, I am not as willing, anymore, to give Twitter an easy “Pass” because they are growing so fast and are not yet mature. The Twitter value proposition is diminishing as my time is being squandered on a service that is not getting better because too many interfaces are sucking the life out of it and too many users are being added to the pile.
I hope it gets better.
Luckily, we, as users, have no obligation to stay with the “service”. If it gets bad enough, we’ll be gone and “AS-IS” will become “AS-WAS”.
Tell me what you think.
©2010 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved
Reports of CIO ‘Death’ Premature
CIOs Must Have the Ear of the CEO
The Chief Information Officer is not a second-rate executive position as some would claim. Also, CIO, does not, as the saying goes, stand for “Career Is Over”. And the CIO position is certainly not “dead”, contrary to rumors to the contrary. As Mark Twain once said, “rumors of my death are premature”.
There is this notion that CIOs deserve a “seat at the table”. The “table” in this sense is the CEO staff, as a peer exectuive with the CFO, COO, and assorted VPs of Operations, Sales, etc. Much is written in blogs (included my own), magazine articles and discussed in forums about the justification for this belief. The main idea is that CIOs have to be more ’strategic’. Supposedly, the mechanism for becoming more strategic is most often termed “alignment”.
Let me so bold as to suggest that things like ‘contribution’ and ‘value’ go right along with ’strategic’. There are plenty of tactical issues with managing a business. Things are dynamic, a flow, requiring a dexterity of seamlessly migrating through issues of business performance: sales, product quality, customer satisfaction, supply chain, etc. Information Technology is clearly threaded through these and other areas of the business. However, the trick is to demystify and ‘dis-abstract’ this stuff so that you are not spending half of the monthly strategy meeting talking about who should be allowed to get a Blackberry or an iPhone.
So, the big picture has something to do with not being the “moron in the room”. True executive ”peers” suffer fools badly. The thought that there is somehow a special microscope for CIOs is nonsense — unless it takes one to see the value that the CIO is delivering. It is more about culture and being in the “club”. The one thing about clubs full of highly-ambitous people is that they are territorial and very picky about letting others inside.
Prior to being hired for a CIO position a few years ago, the HR executive told me that the company was thinking about slimming down the number of direct reports to the CEO. Thus, they were considering having me report to the CFO. My response: a non-starter. If they were trying to reduce the number of CEO reports, I had just the solution: have the CFO report to me.
After an awkward chuckle or two, the HR executive was back to his senses. I wasn’t asking for a seat at the table. I expected one. It is all about grabbing a chair and acting like you belong there.
-
Bottom line
quit whining. If you do not have the business-savvy to earn the respect of fellow business executives, then you deserve to be seated in the gallery.
For more on this topic: Business Solutions: Death of the CIO?, by Nadia Cameron; The Death of the CIO–Again, by Brian Watson; Is the CIO a “pinnacle” position?, by George Tomko; and
What Do CEOs Want from CIOs?, by Maryfran Johnson.
Image: Arvind Balaraman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
©2010 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved
Does Business Intelligence Require Intelligent Business?
As I started to develop this blog post, it occurred to me that my working title, “Does Business Intelligence require Intelligent Business?” might have been previously used in some other publication. So, I Googled it.
I did find some very close variations, but not exactly in the form of the question that the title poses.
I was led to a white paper, “business intelligence is intelligent business”, by Gerry Davis, Regional Managing Partner, Asia-Pacific for Heidrick & Struggles. In the opening paragraph, the problem is summarized thusly:
“Collecting information about customers is relatively easy. Analyzing customer information for potential cross-sells, increased revenue streams, and improved service is more challenging. But getting the information to the front line in a timely manner and thus providing further competitive edge is proving increasingly difficult for many corporations.”
As we look at this statement, there are three main points: 1) collecting is “easy”; 2) analyzing is hard; and 3) disseminating it is very hard. Perhaps a bit oversimplified. But, in reality, most users will need this to be oversimplified to be able to overcome all their biases about IT, systems in general, any extra “work” that will automatically be assumed and fears about job security. This is said this way, not to be unkind, or even to be negative, but to make sure that the focus is on the right “problem”.
Read the rest of this entry »
Using Consultants: Rolling the Dice?
Posted by gmtomko in Collabs, Uncategorized on May 19th, 2009
Nothing represents a game of ‘chance’ more than a pair of dice. Even with “loaded” dice, the outcomes are far from certain. Very often there is money on the line, significant money. So, I couldn’t think of a better subject –gambling on the roll of the dice– to compare with the use of consultants for high stakes decisions, intitiatives, etc.
Very often, consultants come to the same conclusions as the company’s own internal analysts. There is a perception that a prestigious consulting firm can 1) validate and therefore ‘certify’ the solution as the correct approach; 2) provide risk-averse executives with a scapegoat if things go bad; 3) increase commitment of the organization’s leaders to justify the large consulting bill.
But, at the end of the day, does any of this lower the possibility of rolling “snake eyes” with respect to the issue or opportunity that is being addressed? Does the lovely PowerPoint presentation leave you ready to “let it all ride” on the next roll?
As the truly great consultant would say, “it depends”. Perhaps, surprisingly, that consultant would actually be correct.
Read the rest of this entry »
Do Consultants Deliver Value?
I think that this is a top of mind question, now, because the economy has cast more people out ‘there’ from traditional employment scenarios and into creating their own businesses and personal brands. There is a lot of experience for sale and, relative to a large brand name consulting company that brings in newly-minted MBAs from elite schools, an interesting differential in value propositions that needs to be considered.
Ultimately, there is a fundamental question to be answered: “Do Consultants Deliver Value?”
I certainly can’t answer this question alone. And, such a broad question invariably leads to more questions:
- Do you use consultants?
- If so, why do you use consultants – because of the lack of internal expertise; because of the lack of internal ‘bandwidth’; because a strategy, project, etc. needs a boost of credibility?
- If not, why not?
- What do you look for in a consultant?
- How do you determine ROI for a consulting engagement?
- How do you hold consultants accountable after they are gone?
- Is it all about the size of the engagement or the perception that it is less risky to engage a name brand?
Please take a moment to post your answers and comments. What further questions would you ask to clarify and provide the data points to answer the larger question? My aim is to consolidate the responses into a formal post that not only represents my opinions on the matter but those of my colleagues and contemporaries. All contributions will be carefully cited.
Also, feel free to take a look at some of the following references to help frame your thinking:
Read the rest of this entry »
Follow Us