It Seems To Me

Thoughts and Rants on Technology, Business and Politics

I have become fascinated of late by the millions of people who spend a significant amount of time each week in blogging, writing, coding, recording, and all manner of publishing for little or no financial remuneration. On a recent episode of The Podcast Brothers Tim and Emile interviewed Doug Kaye of IT Conversations. Doug said that he was experimenting with an open source production model in which volunteers help with the acquisition, assembly, production and publication of content. At this point it struck home to me that the open source movement has moved beyond the great software developers who have built Linux and Firefox.

Consider these other great "open source" movements:

• Wikipedia offers 500,000 articles in English — compared with Britannica's 80,000 and Encarta's 4,500 — fashioned by more than 16,000 contributors. Tack on the editions in 75 other languages, including Esperanto and Kurdish, and the total Wikipedia article count tops 1.3 million. Behind the scenes there is a group of about 200 people who are in constant communication. They discuss standards, policies, sharing information about what is going on and play the role of an informal editorial body.
• iPodder.org recently passed 5,000 podcasts actively tracked in the directory. Many of these podcasts, such as Adam Curry's Daily Source Code, or the Richard Vobes Show are 30 - 40 minute productions presented five days per week. Creating a podcast is a non-trivial activity. It takes time, money, and effort to prepare, record, produce and publish each of these shows. Although Adam may have an ulterior motive to help promote his burgeoning company, most other podcasters are fuelled by some other motivation.
• over 10 million people have posted reviews on Amazon.cam. Thousands upon thousands of these reviews are detailed and well written. Such writing take time and effort — for no apparent financial reward.
• And of course there are the millions of blogs that are created by amateurs for no reward other than the satisfaction of having a presence on the Internet.

What amazes me is that the millions of people involved in these ventures have the motivation and the inclination to invest their time to do so. We are in the midst of an Open Source generation in which people are giving of themselves and adding value to our everyday lives in millions of small ways.

As I was growing up and entering the workforce I got the message that if you worked hard you would get ahead. Those who worked the hardest would climb the farthest on the corporate ladder. Your progress would be the source of meaning and satisfaction in your life. People worked long hours with the expectation that their careers would move ahead.

In the last few years the source of meaning appears to have changed. It seems to me that people have become wise to the limited space at the top of the corporate ladder and have redirected their interests and their time outside of work. The Open source movement allows people to contribute to ever increasing connected world in whatever way they can. Whether it is adding entries for Wikipedia, adding functionality to software, or editing audio content for IT Conversations, there is a creative outlet for everyone online. And I believe that the world is a better place for it.

Subscription based services are generally considered to be good business models. Once you have a customer hooked on a subscription it is much easier (and cheaper) to retain them than to acquire new subscribers. It amazes me, then, when I discover subscription based services that have no mechanism to notify me that my subscription is about to expire and no easy method to renew my subscription.

I used to have this problem with Audible.com. At one time I was subscribed to at least a half-dozen NPR shows from Audible with various expiration dates. My subscriptions would frequently expire and I would only discover it after a few days (or weeks) when it occurred to me that I was missing some regular content that I had come to expect. I would faithfully return to their web site to renew but only after being frustrated and finding that I had inevitably missed an episode or two. Thankfully, Audible has upgraded their systems to provide renewal notices.

This week I encountered the same negligence in subscriber retention with Spy Sweeper software. I purchased Spy Sweeper more than a year ago and have stayed current with the latest spyware definitions and scanning engine. As a result, the latest version 3.5 of the scanning engine is already installed on my system.

Recently I noticed that Spy Sweeper was prompting me every day that new spyware definitions were available. When I told it to update, nothing would happen. After a few weeks of this unusual behaviour I took a closer look and discovered that my subscription had expired.

It is a little disturbing to me that there was not a more visible notification that my subscription, and thus my protection from the latest nasties in spyware, had expired.

Nevertheless, upon my discovery, I went to their web site to upgrade. I completed my purchase only to discover further that there is no way to update my current subscription on the installed software. The only way to apply my subscription renewal was to reinstall the software and enter my new key code. This is ridiculous! — not to mention cumbersome. I happen to be travelling a lot these days and only have access to a dial-up connection. In order to extend my subscription I have to download the software again over a slow connection and reinstall.

I wrote to the help desk at Webroot asking if it was true that my only option was to reinstall the software. I also suggested that they add an item to their development roadmap: an interface that makes it easier for the end user to extend their subscription without reinstalling the software.

They responded to my inquiry with the following canned reply, serving only to exacerbate my disappointment in the company:

Hello,

We are sorry that you are encountering difficulty with our software. You will need to uninstall your any versions of Spy Sweeper and upgrade to the newest version of our software.

To uninstall, close spysweeper by right clicking on the spy sweeper icon in your system tray (by the time clock) and click on close, select the start button, select control panel, select add/remove programs, locate Spy Sweeper and, select the change/remove button, once the uninstall finishes please reboot your computer.

We have sent you an email containing your key code and a link to download the software. During your download please disable all firewall software/web accelerators/download managers because this may interfere with the integrity of the downloaded file.

Save the file to your desktop and once the download is complete open that install file by double clicking on the saved file on your desktop named sspsetup1_.exe

If you are having problems locating the file after downloading, click start, search, for files or folders, on the left choose "all files and folders", search for "sspsetup" This will locate the file for you. Double click on the file and follow the directions to install the software.

If you continue to have any difficulty with our product please re-open this ticket or call us.

Sincerely,

The Webroot Team

Spy Sweeper received editor's choice on PC magazine. I guess the PCMag Labs never ran the software long enough to let the subscription expire.

Yahoo! is now reporting my sites as the first three entries that it returns when searching for Heather Hollick. I have to assume that Yahoo! is giving priority to the keywords embedded in the web page and is correctly listing these pages high in the search results.

Unfortunately, my results in Google are still dominated by sites where my name occurs but have a higher number of links pointing to the site.

It looks like Microsoft Search returns results somewhere in the middle. My CV site, along with this blog are returned on the first page. Unfortunately, Living in London does not appear in the first few pages of their search.

Until I discovered this anomaly in Google, I used it exclusively as my search engine. Now I realize the effect of their bias: they will return the most popular sites — not necessarily the most relevant. I think I will be using Yahoo! search much more often.

I currently maintain three web sites that define my primary web presence: this site; hhollick.com, where I present my CV in full detail; and Living in London, where my partner and I chronicle our adventures as expats on assignment in the UK.

You would think that if someone were looking for Heather Hollick on the Internet, that these three sites should be at the top of the search results. Yet, much to my dismay, I cannot get the two blog sites to appear in either Google or Yahoo! searches. There are plenty of instances of my name appearing in obscure comments on other people's blogs, but my blogs are not returned. Go figure!

I am grateful that my CV site is at the top of the results for both search engines but what do I have to do to get the blog sites to appear there as well? I have tried adding my name as part of the HTML meta tag for keywords but to no avail.

I have been told that I can go out to a bunch of other blogs and post comments, linking back to my own blogs as a reference in the comment. Right! I do my share of commenting when I have something to say but I don't want to get caught up in the senseless circle of linking to other people just so they will link back to me.

I don't care if my sites are popular. I am not trying to break into the A-List, or even the B-list of blogging. But when someone is looking for me on the internet, and searches using my name, it seems to me that the search results should return the three sites that define my primary presence on the web.

I guess I will have to try plastering my name all over the blog posts. So, from London, this is Heather Hollick signing off.

Be careful out there.

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.

Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.

Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.

Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.

Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

—Calvin Coolidge

As I continue my job search here in the UK, I occasionally check the online job boards for positions that might appeal to me. The job openings listed on these sites are almost exclusively posted by head-hunters and recruiters. The dynamic between these agencies and the client company presents what I consider to be a most unfortunate hiring scenario.

Inevitably, the recruiters and agencies are inundated with a deluge of CVs for each position. They whittle the stack down to a few candidates who match the job description in every detail. That is, they have 3 - 5 candidates who have previously done this exact job, in this exact industry. These square pegs are offered to the client for a fit into a square hole.

What is wrong with this picture? Why would you hire someone who has done the exact job in the same industry? Employees perform best when they are challenged—when they are stretched to grow into new areas. Instead of square pegs in square holes, you should hire people for whom your position is the next step in their career development. Identifying this potential is much harder than checking of a list of requirements but it is absolutely essential to find the people who will grow your business while they grow themselves.

The dysfunction of the recruiter / client relationship is that the recruiter is forced to put forth vanilla candidates that precisely match some sterile list of requirements. There is no room to find the dynamic, ambitious, energetic candidate who can master a new environment quickly and thrive in the new role.

And yet, I remain optimistic . . .

A favourite quote

Most people don't realize how important luck is. For example, Rembrandt was lucky that just about everything he did was good.

flew from Heathrow to San Francisco yesterday. As with every other trans-Atlantic flight that I have flown on United Airlines, the flight attendants came through the cabin about 70 minutes into the flight with hot towels.

This is a 10 hour flight! Why don't they bring the the hot towel 70 minutes before we land rather than an hour after we take off? After nine hours in the cramped, dry, cabin I would relish a hot towel to clean my tired face. Instead, they bring the towels at the beginning of the flight when I am still fresh and awake.

I have submitted suggestions to United Airlines on the timing of their hot towels, but to no avail. I am left to conclude that there must be some kind of reasoning to their logic. It remains for me to figure it out. Could it be that:

1. There is no way to warm the towels on the plane? Perhaps the hot towels are delivered to the airplane prior to takeoff and if they waited until an hour before landing the towels would be cold.
2. The purpose of the towel is not to wipe your face but rather to disinfect the seatback tray table? They distribute the towels as soon as the plane has reached it's cruising altitude and it is safe to lower the table for cleaning.
3. There is a typo in the In-Flight procedure manual. Where it is supposed to say "Distribute hot toddies to passengers one hour after take-off" it incorrectly says hot towels.
4. There is some legitimate reason for handing out towels at the beginning of the flight, the essence of which escapes me?

At this point I am assuming that the answer is 'b.'

ast year I had the opportunity to watch The Fog of War, the Errol Morris documentary interviewing Robert McNamara. I can't really comment on the Vietnam War since I grew up in Canada and was too young to understand much of what was going on at the time.

However, I heard an excerpt from the film recently in which McNamara made a haunting and prescient statement. He said,

We are the strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe that we should EVER apply that economic, political, or military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn’t have been there. None of our allies supported us: not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can’t persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause we had better re-examine our reasoning.

What else can you add to that?

Now that the dust is beginning to settle on Carly's ouster from HP, it is interesting to see the analsys on where she went wrong. There are plenty of missteps and shortcomings to blame: from the missed earnings targets to the languishing stock price to the intense struggle with the Compaq merger.

But all of this critique begs the question of why Carly was hired into HP in the first place. Carly Fiorina was the first CEO of Hewlett Packard hired from outside the company. Her charge was to turn around the slumbering giant. But all leaders seek to drive change. Was Carly's selection for the top spot any different?

A recent commentary in Business Week reveals the extent to which she had a deep mandate from the board to transform the culture. Sam Ginn was the head of the HP Board CEO Search Committee at the time. According to Business Week, Ginn made it clear very early in the interview process that "The first thing we have to do is get rid of the HP Way."

The famous "HP Way" is deeply rooted and decades old. It is a casual, slow moving culture that some would say looks backwards rather than forward. Carly rose to the challenge of changing it. Waking this slumbering giant would not be easy and could not be undertaken half-heartedly. Incremental changes never have enough "escape velocity" to ensure that the changes won't evaporate back into the same old same old. Sometimes the best way to instigate a deep cultural change is through dramatic — even traumatic — events. The Compaq proxy fight and the massive reorganisations that she championed woke the giant. Carly's five years of confident, if not brash, leadership showed the employees of HP that there was another way to do business. Her smooth, articulate style got people looking forward rather than backwards.

In light of her goal to transform the culture at HP, her tenure there was always destined to be short. Leaders who effect dramatic change are always followed by ones who can restore operational stability. Rarely are these two leaders the same person, and Carly's weakness as an operational leader all but limited her long term role as the CEO.

As an outsider, I don't know that the culture has changed. My guess is that the culture today is not the same as it was 5 years ago. It is too soon to tell if any changes will snap back to pre-Carly norms. It seems to me that, if Carly's mission was to change the culture at HP, then she may have, in fact, succeeded.

I finally finished Bill Clinton's biography today. It took my over 6 months to get through this lengthy tome. It was a long, slow, haul but rich and satisfying all along the way. Clinton comes from roots similar to my own and shares my idealistic outlook on life in his passion to make the world a better place.

The highlight of the story comes in the final pages when Clinton explains his core beliefs about life and politics. With his interpretation of "a more perfect union" in the preamble to the US Constitution, he says that our fundamental mission is . . . 

to widen the circle of opportunity, deepen the meaning of freedom, and strengthen the bonds of our community.

One could argue whether this is the best definition of "a more perfect union." One could argue a lot of things but these ideas resonate with me. In many ways, much of my life has been in pursuit of the same ideals, albeit on a much smaller scale.

But it seems to me that the forces that have risen to power in America of late are antithetical to these principles. The circle of opportunity seems to be shrinking in America while the meaning of freedom is being challenged to its core. And the bonds of community, especially the global one, have been all but shattered. It will take more than a few field trips by Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice to repair them.

Over the last few years I have sold more than 35 items on eBay. In addition to being great fun, I have redeemed a few pennies on the dollar for some of the gadgets and toys that I have "repurposed."

My online reputation is extremely important to me and I have worked very hard to maintain an impeccable record on eBay. I answer all inquiries promptly and ship immediately, usually the same day. I only post items when I know I will have the time to respond to inquiries quickly and ship immediately after the close of the auction. I have returned payment to buyers in the past who reported that the product arrived defective. I always leave positive comments for buyers when appropriate and have received dozens of accolades in return.

Last summer I was clearing out a bunch of old DVDs. A customer bought a copy of Short Circuit for a lousy $3.75 (with $3.50 shipping). I shipped it immediately and was happy for the extra shelf space on my DVD rack.

Three months later she posts the following negative comment on eBay:

DVD does not play properly! Would not buy from this seller again!

This is news to me. If the DVD didn't play, why didn't she contact me? She had my email address. I would have refunded her money immediately. I even would have let her keep the damn thing since it isn't worth the trouble to return it. (I will still refund her money as soon as she confirms her email address to me.)

Some DVD players can be finicky and Short Circuit is not exactly a Criterion Collection disc. It is not unreasonable that it did not play on her machine. Instead of allowing me the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to refund her money, she slammed me on eBay with a negative comment. Thanks!

My online reputation is precious to me and negative comments weigh heavily on people's perception of a seller. I know that a single comment is not going to ruin my career on eBay but I am astounded at the thoughtlessness of this petty buyer. With one click of the mouse she has tarnished my reputation without giving me the opportunity to make it right.

Go figure!

he advent of Tivo marked the beginning of a dramatic shift in the way that media is consumed. Sure, VCRs have been around for 30 years, but Tivo allowed for time shifting on a massive scale. People tried to explain the virtues of the personal video recorder in a myriad of ways: pause live TV, instant replay, never miss your favourite shows, etc.

For me it was simple: without Tivo there was about a 5% chance that, at any given moment, something would be on television that I wanted to watch. However, with Tivo, the odds changed dramatically. Now the odds are 100% that there is 100 hours of stuff that I know I want to watch. My shows . . . my time.

The iPod, and its numerous siblings, are now transforming the audible world in a similar fashion. Audible.com, online content, and podcasting have made it possible for me to preload hundreds of hours of content onto my iPod for listening on my time. The same basic formula applies: before the portable MP3 player, there was a 5% chance that anything would be on broadcast radio that I might want to listen to. With my iPod there is now a 100% chance that I have hundred's of hours of content waiting for me.

The media world is taking note. Dennis L. Haarsager captured the essence of the shift in a fantastic article called My Time:

We media professionals have always thought of ourselves in terms of functional divides — electronic vs. print, radio vs. television, local vs. national. Those dualities in turn govern how we organize ourselves, how we produce and distribute content and even how we think about our careers.

Out in the real world, however, a different sort of divide is emerging for media users — real time vs. non-real time. Broadcasters operate mostly in real time, but our listeners and viewers increasingly consume the programming on what might be called in ad copy, My Time — that is, whenever they choose.

It seems to me that the shift to My Time has passed the tipping point. USA Today reports that 10 million iPods have been sold to date, 8.2 million in 2004 alone, and nearly 5 million over the recent holiday season! Paul Saffo, research director of The Institute for the Future, says in the USA Today article, "This is all part of the shift from mass media to personalized media."

Indeed! The world is shifting from mass production and mass media to mass customisation and personalized media. It works for me.

The January 29th, 2005 edition of The Economist had an excellent article (subscription required) describing how the low cost airlines are making it possible for people to live and work anywhere in Europe. Of course, this concept is not unique to Europe. In the US, Southwest Airlines began a revolution that expanded the idea of commuting from cars, buses and trains to include airplanes as well. Here in Europe, many people now live in one country and work in another. From the Economist article:

Europe's low-cost airlines have done more to integrate Europe than any numbers of diplomats and ministers. They have helped to create a new generation for whom travelling to another European country is no longer exotic or expensive, but utterly commonplace.

I was almost 40 years old before I made my first international call outside of the US and Canada. When I was growing up, Europe and Asia seemed so far away and international telephone calls were prohibitively expensive. Besides, back then it wasn't like I knew anyone in those countries.

Today the world is a much smaller place. In my last job I led teams with members in Belgium, London, France, India and Australia. I now make international calls for pennies a minute. And services like Skype make it possible to talk to fellow broadband users anywhere in the world for free. Email and blogs make it possible to stay connected with friends and family regardless of location.

Global air travel has become affordable enough that even physical distances are becoming less relevant. I made my first trans-Atlantic flight (from San Francisco to London) in the spring of 2000. Prior to that trip I stressed for days over the imminent jet lag and worked a myriad of techniques to stave it off. Now I live in London and commute back and forth to San Francisco on a regular basis. I made four trips in the summer and fall of 2004 and I have two more scheduled in the next month. It is just not that far any more. I get on a plane in London and ten hours later I am in San Francisco. If I am lucky I have had a decent nap on the plane and, when I land, I am off and running eight time zones away.

Technology has made it possible to bridge space and time, shrinking and virtually eliminating geographical distances. The next time you hear someone say "Where are you calling from? It sounds like you are in the next room," remind them that technology has made the world a smaller place. You are not as far away as it seems.
 

I have worked in the technology industry for almost 15 years. Throughout that time I have become fascinated with technology and its ability to increase productivity. I bought my first PDA (the HP 95LX) back in 1991 to keep track of a mountain of tasks. The little marvel helped me stem the flow of ToDo's that had previously been slipping through the cracks. Ten PDAs later I am as big a fan as ever of technology's ability to help people and organisations function more effectively.

The hardware and software vendors have capitalized on this potential. The gospel of productivity is woven into the marketing message of every company offering goods and services in the technology sector. The reality is that technology cannot stand alone to improve an organisation’s output. A number of other key elements must synchronize with the technology to deliver sustained productivity. A well defined organisation with clear roles and responsibilities must also be in place. Processes must be a natural part of the environment using industry standard methodologies where appropriate. Finally, the culture must be imbued with an attitude that technology is to be leveraged and exploited. All of theses elements can deliver world class organisational efficiency with sustained improvements in output. When they are in balance the resulting organisation is a powerhouse of efficiency that learns and becomes more productive as it grows.

I have expanded each of these ideas into an article titled The Four Pillars of Productivity. A pdf version is available here.

My name is Heather Hollick, and I would like to welcome you to my little corner of the world. This is the place where I muse and rant on things that interest, intrigue or irritate me. I place a high value on diversity of thought so it is important to me that visitors here provide their own feedback and reactions to the ideas presented. Your input is expected!

I have more than 20 years experience in the high tech, health care and consulting industries. Most recently I spent four years with Cisco Systems in Silicon Valley. I have an MBA from Univeristy of California at Berkeley and a Master's Degree in Applied Mathematics from Purdue University.

I have a deep passion around productivity and working effectively. I am particularly interested in the appropriate use of technology to spur individuals and organisations to higher levels of efficiency. I have recently written an article called The Four Pillars of Productivity that summarizes some of my thougths on the subject. The article is available in the downloads section of my professional CV site.

I also have an affinity for electronic gadgets. I am on my 10th PDA (HP iPaq 4704), my fifth iPod (White 4GB Nano), and my second digital camera (Canon S500) and countless other electronic nick-nacks. I somehow hope that all of these electronic wonders will make my life easier. Alas, if that were only true.

I was born in southern Ontario, Canada and moved to the US with my parents after my sophomore year in high school. After living in the US as a permanent resident for 27 years, I was naturalized as an American citizen in April of 2003. My partner and I have recently moved to London and are chronicling our adventure in our blog called Living in London.

Thank you for stopping by. Feel free to send me an email or leave a comment on the site.