So long Maplins. You should have been brilliant.

Maplins is in trouble.  The company, which is a year older than me, employs over 2000 people across 200 stores and is in administration.  I am angry about this: not because I’ll particularly miss it, but because the company was uniquely positioned to capitalise on the rise of the Maker Culture and failed this new community completely.

It used to be the place to get electronic components and tools from: I daresay everyone who was remotely interested in electronics in the 80s and 90s will have had experience of using their one-time-extensive catalogue to learn, and pick stuff to buy. They used to employ people who knew the anode end of a diode from the cathode, and why that matters.  When I needed advice on which transistor to use for a project, for example, someone in store would be able to advise me correctly.  The transistors were pennies, but I’d buy other stuff from there because the experience was great, unique and not something I could get elsewhere.

I reckon it was around 3 years ago that my local store lost the last of their staff with electronics knowledge.  Since then, trying to buy components felt like you were inconveniencing them, and recently they’ve moved to having self serve drawers badly stocked and jumbled up.

The staff are typically enthusiastic, and would undoubtedly say they’re “into tech in a big way”, but asking a technical question will be met with “you need to ask X, he’s our tech guy, he’s even built his own computer” or alternatively, the answer “have you Google’d it?”

Maplins in 2014 started advertising their experts as their unique selling point: in 2014 they started a campaign suggesting maplins was the answer “when your tech know-how runs dry”

There is literally no reason to visit the place.  It’s not the experience, it’s not the convenience, it’s not the stock and it’s certainly not the prices.

The UK has a maker industry to be proud of.  The Raspberry Pi is utterly fantastic, British designed and British assembled.  I often want another for a project despite already having a brace of them.  My choice is to either drive to Maplins to find that they’ve got a battered boxed one in stock for £46.99 including a 16GB Micro SD, or order the same on Amazon Prime same day for £31.96 + £8.28 for the card.  I don’t really need the card, but Maplins never carry stock of their advertised £36.99 Pi 3.  The nearest store with stock is a mere 170 miles away, and you can’t order for delivery.

They’ve tried to appeal to the mass market and compete with random electronic tat you’d find in gadget stores, Menkind, Red 5 – or for a lot less on Amazon or ebay.  That doesn’t appeal to their core, and store locations are typically out of town centres so won’t be impulse purchases.

They used to be the go-to place for cables and connectors, but prices are so incredulous that it is cheaper to go to PC world, which is saying something.

They’ve dabbled with smart home, but staff appear to not have been trained beyond a demo script, so the value add of being able to speak to an expert and leave knowing how  you’ll set something up is

Their market position was to be the experts who could advise you on consumer technology.  They based their USP and advertising on their expertise: https://www.marketingweek.com/2014/05/02/maplin-launches-first-tv-campaign-to-promote-its-tech-expertise/ , but then failed to retain the people who could deliver this promise.  This could have worked, and would have differentiated from PC World, Amazon, ebay, and the online experience.  They were going after the mass market of consumers who didn’t know technology.

Whilst all this was going on, the Pi was going from strength to strength and a slow evolution was happening empowering people to build fantastic things.  Maplins were relegating the hobbyist geek to an unwanted draw on their time, reducing stock of components, and not valuing expertise.  The equivocated with geeks: they stocked 3D printers, but once again didn’t have the expertise to translate stock into sales.  Staff could print a demo, but when asked about designing your own models and what software is needed, simply no-one knew.

Some of their stores are unfit for purpose: the Leeds regent street store is a huge warehouse of a place, always cold, always empty, and always with a lot of wasted space.  As mentioned, location is an issue too for mass market footfall.

Interestingly, PC World have started advertising that their staff take technology home to understand and use it…  Maplins have lost that “expert” war, and if they are to continue, they will need to work out what their target audience and USP is.

What would I do?  Focus on makers, focus on experience, and focus on enabling and supporting a maker community.  They have the locations to be community maker hubs.  They don’t have the expertise, but they have enthusiastic staff some of whom would be willing to learn.  Their competition is specialist retailers, Pimoroni, The Pi Hut, and the online bazaars, but Maplin can fill a gap here, and use that community to move more technology into the mainstream…  They could have stock, run events, be the place to go to learn and practice things.

I am thinking of the Games Workshop model, but for Makers rather than Battlers.

 

When is Two Factor Authentication not Two Factor Authentication?

There’s been a lot of noise in the popular technology press around the recent unfortunate hack of a Wired contributor’s digital life, which saw his iPhone wiped, his iPad wiped, his MacBook wiped, his gMail account wiped…  All to get at his Twitter account.

It all started from Apple allowing a me.com email address to be reset with practically no security required: just card billing address and the last 4 digits…  Just think how many accounts you’ve created on the web that show that information.  Amazon shows the last 4 digits of a payment card, as do the majority.

Still feeling smug?  It’s a chilling reminder to all of us that:

  • We need to use better passwords, and not recycle stuff
  • Social engineering renders passwords obsolete
  • The cloud is not suitable to be your only storage
  • Passwords are really not suitable as a security mechanism any more

On the back of this, many articles have said “TURN ON TWO FACTOR AUTHENTICATION”, sometimes in caps, for GMail.  There’s even been education as to what 2FA is, which is good.

But for clarity, 2FA is using 2 factors of security: those factors are, “what you know, what you have, what you are”.

GMail 2FA security, when using the web and when turned on, relies on you giving Google your mobile number, and them sending you an SMS when you want to log in.  You then enter the SMS, and you’re in.

SMS costs money: why are Google giving this away for free?  Could it be that they’ve now added a phone number to your profile, making you more attractive to advertisers?  Or is it out of the goodness of their heart?

And what about applications?  I collect mail from offline clients, as I’m not always connected to the net/cloud/whatever.  I also like a backup that I’m in control of.

GMail allows you to enable two factor authentication using application access (for POP/IMAP access, calendar access, Google Drive access) by setting up application specific passwords.  These are passwords that are not intended for humans so are long, complex and nigh on impossible to remember.

But it’s a password.  And if it’s compromised, it’s compromised anywhere but only for that application.

And a happy ending for Mat: he got his most precious data back… for $1700

Devices, the Internet of Things and Privacy

For quite a few years, the concept of putting domestic appliances on the internet has been something talked about, and that a few have hacked at, but there was never really a big push to make consumer products internet enabled.  Sure, there’s been a few notable exceptions, especially around the PVR world, and there’s many competing, conflicting and downright difficult-to-use home automation products, but nothing has really got people’s attention in day to day life.

Nest came along in 2010, founded by 2 senior Apple engineers.  They take “the unloved products around your home and make simple, thoughtful, beautiful things”, and so far this has led to a connected smoke alarm and thermostat.  And an infrastructure to connect your home to your devices, seamlessly, simply.  And apps to control and inform.  And people, and the media, noticed.  And they have delivered product and service.  This is good.

A lot of clever people have joined Nest because of their absolute focus on making stuff better, making technology disappear and just work – like the iPod did.  This is making fairly advanced technology part of the day to day for the masses and Nest seem to be on a roll.  There’s even a beta SDK to connect your apps to Nest devices

So why did Google want to buy them, and for $3.2Bn in cash?  I’d say it’s definitely not for the products, which have shipped but in relatively low numbers.  The intellectual property is interesting, for sure, but the humans behind it are even more interesting to the big G, in my view.  What’s more, there’s the infrastructure, SDK, apps – or put another way, a total platform – which ends up in people’s pockets and people’s houses.

Think what Google knows, especially if you have a GPS enabled Android device.  Think what Google Now does, which is anticipate your needs before you realise them.  Now to that mix add a connection into your house. If you’re taking a trip, they could automatically turn down your heating.  As you approach home, and you hit the point where it’ll take as long for you to get home as it does for your house to heat up, your heating system could fire automatically.  Say you’ve got a relative visiting who has their nest set warmer, your system could automatically turn up the level.

Google already knows where you are, but it doesn’t know how much fuel you use, or how many times you burn the toast.  Arguably, that doesn’t matter.

I think it’s the platform that Google have bought, along with engineers in the Jobsian mindset of making sure something is absolutely the best it can be at achieving its purpose.  Coupled with home automation and the realisation of the internet of things, it makes sense.

But this will come at a price.  Every connected device is another little bit of privacy given up for what purpose?  Ultimately, Google is an advertising company, existing to help others sell you stuff.  I already worry about the data they have around me and my family, and adding this next level of my home into it is not a happy thought.

Even if it’s not Google, what will the Internet of Things mean to privacy?  We’re giving over data for convenience again…

I recently watched Wall-E again, where one company grew from making Yoghurts to controlling the world…  We’re going towards that world, with Google being the wannabe evil empire.  What astonishes me is that Google themselves recognise this, and appear to be quite happy with the moniker, even naming one of their shell companies “by and large

Separated by uncommon language

Techies.  Propeller heads.  Geeks.  Nerds.  The great unwashed.  ‘Them’.

Suits.   Overhead.  Clueless. Management.  Style without substance.  ‘Them’.

Business is Business, but it can’t run efficiently without technology.  And technology without business purpose is simply playing.  Getting business people to work effectively with technology by understanding the art of the simple, the possible and the stuff of technical nightmares is not easy.  Guiding technologists to think about the application of the stuff that drives them – what it does for top or bottom line, how it differentiates, why it’s unique – is a question of getting people to appreciate different perspectives and is a critical part of stakeholder management for success in any endeavour.

I have met business people who proudly claim technical ignorance, and do not see this as a handicap but – in some cases – a badge of honour.  That’s not healthy.  I can somewhat see an argument for not limiting your horizons, but I don’t subscribe to it.

Some technologists are idealists, who think that just doing something because it’s cool means they’ll get paid without understanding the applicability or the context in which something cool might happen.  The meme “1. Do something inexplicable 2. ??? 3. Profit!” is supposed to be humour, not a mantra for life.

A successful organisation needs those driven by business, and those driven by technology: a balance of both is key, along with a mutual respect and understanding.  Ideally, it needs a function who can quickly rationalise both perspectives, and form the bridge between the vision and the execution.

It is extremely noteworthy that the astounding ideas for business that I’ve been involved with have not mostly originated from business people, but from technical people who have stepped out of their comfort zone.  Innovation drives ideas, and on balance my experience says more innovation comes out of the technical field than the business field – and that technical innovation leads to disruption, meaning you need to clearly need to bring business focused stakeholders on board.  The more disruptive, the wider the supporters’ expertise needs to be.

Business people complain that technologists rely on jargon, and do this without any hint of irony: the realisation that business is just as crammed full of jargon, and is just as unfamiliar or impenetrable to someone not in on the lingo, is sometimes not made.

Mix into this the fact that the lines of demarcation between sales, sales support and presales are incredibly fuzzy and it’s a recipe for a dynamic, changing and exciting place to be.  Some people will like this, others will feel incredibly uncomfortable an insecure.

An approach I’ve had success with in the past has been to forcibly mix the business and technology experts into an “expert team” around a particular challenge or business area with the objective to deliver differentiation and client value.  A little more direction is needed, and of course good governance and control, but the results can be highly interesting and unexpected.

Business needs techies.  The techies need the suits.  Don’t just deal with it, embrace it: vive la différance!

The Cloud and The Conservatives

Financial Service institutions are, traditionally, quite conservative in their approach to technology replacement.  I do realise that there will be myriad exceptions here, and that technology has enabled revolution in financial services, but I still stand by my assertion overall.  And a major reason for that conservative approach is that once something works, it becomes part of critical infrastructure rather quickly and then is difficult to change because of the risks involved around failure, technology or reputation.

As an example, let’s pick authorisation systems for card networks.  Quite a few organisations will still say they’re running authorisation on Tandem NonStop hardware, despite the fact that Tandem hasn’t existed for years and the solution is, to be blunt, hugely expensive. There’s better value solutions on commodity hardware out there, but who wants to be the person who killed an organisation’s presence on card networks?

But yet, against this backdrop, BBVA has signed up for Google Apps for Business. First of all, let’s be clear: this is just for communication and collaboration, not the highly specialised stuff a bank needs to do.

Still, I find this simply astounding. A globally recognised bank, with over 110,000 employees, is trusting Google with all their internal communication and collaboration.

The details of the deal must be quite something, and I’d love to see what’s in them.  There’s little hints that things might not be quite as standard as Google would like us to believe, though…  Will this be private servers, or the standard Google fayre?  BBVA are developing a “High Performance Desktop” for their Intranet and Google Apps will be a part of this: my question is how?

How have they solved the issues around EU data protection?  Or US PATRIOT ACT? Or regulatory compliance?  How will they ensure that stuff that isn’t meant to go onto Google doesn’t end up on there – such as client financial details?

Or the fact that Google is rather in the habit of mining messages for their own purposes?  We don’t have to worry, because Google “won’t be evil”, but a bank’s internal collaboration on product, clients, plans, strategy, issues, challenges, etc will be passing through a company that exists to discover those trends and make money from them.

To me, that’s the most worrying piece.  And I’m similarly amazed that the press really isn’t all over this like a rash.

Enterprise Mobility: Making it real

Enterprise mobility will get rolled out proactively, reactively or simply by stealth but one thing is for sure: it is happening, and it will happen in every enterprise that is still around in 5 years time. It is a natural consequence of the consumerisation of IT, and it is up to an enterprise to choose how to roll with it.

I pick two inflection points that led to the IT department losing the ability to simply say no: first, wireless networking and secondly the iPhone. Both are disruptive, both make life for their users easier by changing their work habits to the point that changing back is not an option, and both bring their own challenges to IT particularly around security.  When someone with authority gets a taste of the benefits of such disruption, watch the fur fly…

So, mobility is coming just like wireless networks now permeate every corner of enterprises and BYOD is embraced.  The benefits brought by mobility depend on how much the technology is really adopted, but some examples:

  • Improved customer service, optimising every contact to provide the right information needed
  • Better supply chain logistics by elimination of waiting time in human-centric processes
  • More productivity through elimination of system dependence
  • Location/spatial aware innovation
  • Decision making anywhere
  • Better adoption of straight through processing approaches, driving efficiency, data quality and better decision making

There is a common theme to these benefits: the situation that employees -or clients – find themselves in is brought into sharp focus by the availability of an always on, always connected, rich device.  Because of the limited real estate on screen, the interaction must be optimised to put the right piece of information and the right options in a small area.  That implies an in-depth knowledge of the situation, and the task at hand.  Such focus is essential to succeed, and is an intrinsic part of mobility.

So what’s the way forward?

  • Identify a champion team: an exec sponsor who loves innovation, a technologist who loves delivering the Next Big Thing, a realist to keep things moving forward through the hype cycle…
  • Identify current inefficiencies that block or interfere with your most valuable team members doing their job: think situation-led, but don’t ignore process.
  • Run an innovation dragon’s den – perhaps shortlisting ideas, and having someone champion them.  Vote, agree the ideas to go forward, and start!
  • Set objectives for a proof of concept, including KPI metrics and success criteria.
  • Start small, but evangelise and keep an eye on the biggest picture

Of course, this doesn’t solve the problems associated with a heterogeneous device population or app distribution, but it’s a start.  More on addressing the issues in a future article.

But most importantly:

  • Forget fighting enterprise mobility: embrace it, and it’ll make a positive impact to growth and productivity.  Fight it, and you’re trying to stop the tide.
  • Think different: think always on, always connected, location aware, but most importantly situation and user centric!
  • Pragmatism rules!

Nurturing the Innovators

So, we can embrace the Millenials, or we can mold them into the existing way of doing business.  Given that creativity is now the biggest leadership quality that CEOs are looking for, I think the right approach to take is obvious.

Yet pragmatism is, of course, the way forward. Things won’t change overnight, but an organisation will only maximise benefit from the right time to market for their ideas…

My view is that leadership must be open to embrace new ideas and value creativity in reality, not just talk about it!  That means someone in the board/SMT/LT must make it their job to ensure such innovation is brought out and captured, but also handled effectively and progressed as far as it is logical to take it.  An important point is to ensure there’s no fear of failure here: many ideas will fall by the wayside, and the sooner something that will not work is stopped, the better.  Ideas are free, they can give you a lot, but they can cost you a lot, too.

Is it possible to measure creativity? Because if it’s not measured you won’t get it from a board member, however the measure must be right.  It’s not just about value: a more holistic approach is necessary. The key piece is to ensure that we not kill the whole thing we’re trying to achieve: more creativity!

And yes, a process is necessary – but that should be lightweight and able to flex.  Ideas need a team behind them, and that team must share the vision of the idea: that can only be initiated by the source of the idea, the creator.  There is no single way to push every inspiration to its natural conclusion, but control and measurement are pretty much a guaranteed way to ensure they die.  Spend 15 minutes watching that link, it’s worth it, but 3 things that’ll kill creativity are surveillance, overcontrol and competition.

That is rather at odds with corporate culture in many organisations.  Of course we cannot remove these things, but they can be approached using my favourite word: pragmatism.

I like using competition to kick start ideation, but to make the prize repeatable: if there’s things that are deserving of winning, allow them to win.  I ended up with 3 winners the last time I ran an innovation drive using competition.  And the idea that ended going furthest was from the shyest, and the least business aware person!

Another important point is to allow the source to take the role they wish in the development of their innovation/disruption.  Many techies will not want to think about the business applicability, but to get attention and funding there needs to be some relevance and resonance with business: the innovation lead must ensure the source is involved, driving as they want to drive, but is getting the support and mentoring they need to advance to the next stage.

I have run innovation processes, and have been astonished by some of the ideas that have come out.  The more disruptive, the less attention paid to the status quo, the better.  Some are truly revolutionary, and others are small evolutions, but all have been worthwhile of attention.

Creativity rules.  It will come for free from the new workforce, who don’t have the fear of failure.

Put the pieces in place to ensure the ideas that are born are given the change to live – and die.  And watch the difference to your business creativity, vision and value.

We’re the old guard now…

Many strategists and senior managers in the IT world are graduates of the 90s.  One thing I think everyone can agree on is that the pace of change in business and IT has only increased.  What does that mean for the direction we’re taking and advising?

Remember the passion with which we evangelised the difference the web would make?  Remember the blank looks from senior management?  Remember how TCP/IP was just one of myriad network stacks, and the pain with Windows 3.11?  Remember how Windows 95 proved we were right?

Maybe you remember Marble, the UK’s first Internet-only credit card, beating Egg by days (no pun intended)?  Or being asked to pay for internet banking?  Perhaps you remember the promises of SOA, or CORBA?  Or your first Google search, replacing forever AltaVista in your heart?

Remember the bemusement, or slightly indulgent tolerance, when you advocated to senior management that the world was changing significantly and never be the same again due to the web?

The people who were born when I was studying for A-Levels are now my colleagues.  Call them the Digital Natives, call them the Millennials, call them whatever: the nomenclature is immaterial.  They’re bringing their passion, their evangelism, for their way of doing things, which “isn’t how we do things”.

They’re bringing their own devices.  They’re bringing their peer groups that they listen to.  And they know who to ignore.  They’re using whatever services they want, wherever they run.  They’re expecting service provision in seconds, any where, any time, any device.  They’re disrupting business through IT in exactly the same ways we all were and causing headaches for: security, risk, process, governance, regulatory compliance and more.  And they will drive the future, whether we embrace it or not.

So…  What’s the right approach: bemusement, amused tolerance, or adoption?  The high level trends are well known, but what about the innovation coming from individuals?  How should we propose to mentor and encourage such things, and encourage people to continue to create and disrupt but in the right way?

My view later.

 

And so it begins…

In the age of social networking, powered by LinkedIn, FaceBook, Twitter and many, many other contenders, I have finally got around to setting up my blog on a vanity domain.

Yes, I know.  I am aware of the irony.

Despite this, the blog is forward looking, not backward looking.  Themes to come are:

  • Retail banking, particularly payments
  • Cloud impacts on a traditionally conservative business
  • Consumerisation of IT, particularly around Mobile and BYOD
  • Big data made real
  • Digital Living with Millennials

So enjoy, get involved, comment, link and let me know your opinion!