Many companies have grown organically that while beneficial has some operational costs to consider. One of the most challenging happens to be managing complex systems. This includes appraisal and diagnosis especially triage in the case where applications critical to the business are having issues.
Generally speaking almost all the organizations that I have had experience with typically have the same set of problems:
So why these basics? It actually comes back to my training at Toyota. In order to diagnose what is wrong, you need to know what is normal. So the basic process that I go through includes:
Following this basic formula holistic diagnosis and analytics can be automated and evolved over time.
So what sorts of scenarios does this cover? Some of the basic ones include:
When presenting a business with this sort of proposal it is daunting and in many cases especially from the operations-side of the house considered redundant. However it is not to say that the analytics are designed to replace existing investments, rather it is a way to look at what exists and identify/plug gaps.
For example many businesses have raw infrastructure data in the form of CPU, memory, disk, network activity, web traffic, etc. However this data is almost never compared to business application operations which track groups of activity in relation to one another. For example I have often ask an operations expert what is the link-traffic for a user who is inquiring about their account? They can give me all sorts of raw data but cannot put it together. If I ask the specific application expert they can tell me the path but not the application components. If I ask a developer, they can tell me the functionality and application components, but rarely can tell me the actual business case. When put in this light the problem is very clear: each domain is responsible for their individual area of responsibility. However in most cases there is no one to put them all together.
Once put together a business can actually see for every business activity, it's impact to their technical infrastructure, personnel, and operations. They can also then put important business events such as quarterly close, specific product promotions, and anything else together and view a complete high-level view of what happens to their organization when that occurs: how busy is their application, how many users are actually assisting in the endeavors, are reports being executed before/during/after the event, how many business operations are being executed, what partners are being used the most, etc.
Being able to answer tough questions means diagnosing and analyzing complex applications and systems in a different and more relevant perspective. It also means being open to the idea that while you may have existing tools and perspectives available, it does not mean you can answer tough questions.
]]>Mobility is one of the most obvious forms of innovation that has fundamentally changed the game. Apple and Google are new yet they have had such a deep and meaningful influence that one can scarcely have discussions in the local conferences without coming across a conversation about these devices and advances in the mobile marketplace. Also it's not just the developers and handset manufacturers looking at this market with a new eye. Even the American carriers such as AT&T and Verizon are doing so with services such as smartphone payments and others. It is clear that businesses small and large are looking at this market much more differently than they did a mere 5 years ago.
Gaming is another major area of innovation. While traditional games such as Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Red Dead Redemption and others have legions of faithful followers, it is the changes as a whole in the gaming world that offers studies in innovation for other industries. Companies such as Valve's Steam gaming service is an excellent model demonstrating what people expect for paid software deliveries. Gaming platforms such as Microsoft Xbox whose ability to include services such as Twitter, Facebook and NetFlix demonstrates a greater diversity of offerings for existing platforms while at the same time fundamentally challenging long held views of what consumers expect platforms to be. Even games such as Zynga's Farmville who came onto the Facebook scene not too long ago has done well in demonstrating what casual gaming can do on a non-traditional platform.
Finally another area of innovation happens to be growing era of social networking. I simply call it social innovation. These are the various ways of discovering and engaging others along various dimensions of interest whether it be personal interests, professional interests, political interests, hobbies, news, or any combination. In this emerging area it is clear that consumers desire and expect to be able to consume what they want, when they want, and interact how they want to in a manner that they personally deem safe and secure. What one person thinks is perhaps too public may be considered highly restrictive to another. In this new digitally-based socially connected network, who you know is really a powerful factor. After all, it's not a site you are necessarily visiting, as opposed to people that individuals find interesting or value that drive the activity.
While there are certainly many other areas of innovation, all of them represent some universal truths about the marketplace: they are new ways of looking at old problems, the entrepreneurs in these areas are bold, brave and fast, and the consumers they are tapping into are not brand new generations but rather existing generations. These new innovations are really about how to reach people in ways that they understand, in meaningful and valuable ways, and simplifying significant degrees of complexity.
It is certainly a wonderful and exciting time!
]]>We focused on Data-as-a-Service mostly because the professionals I were speaking to had issues around data and were curious as to how Data-as-a-Service or DaaS could help address many concerns traditional companies now face.
If one looks at the internal arrangement of any company that has been around for a bit, their data ecology is a mix of islands within the corporate environment: RDBMS like Oracle and SQL Server in a variety and number, file-based data such as Excel spreadsheets and the like, electronic communication such as email, etc. On these islands lay valuable pieces of data, keys, details about accounts, customers, strategic initiatives, etc. Historically speaking obtaining valuable information from these data islands spread throughout the ecology has been tremendously painful and labor-intensive requiring an organization to place significant investments into things such as data warehousing. While effective on a number of levels, in today's age of lightning-fast changes being able to get to valuable information that not only resides within but about the data ecology is absolutely essential to survival.
This is where the concepts of services particularly around DaaS are very powerful. From a high-level the DaaS allows an organization to not only have access to required information, but also places powerful discovery and self-evolving mechanisms that had not previously existed into the hands of the organization. There are a few key concepts that help make the DaaS work:
I have had the opportunity and privilege to work on such a platform in my career. Having a reasonably strong background in databases I can say the transition was not an easy one. All the newer dimensions require significantly more consideration and realization than a simple database perspective. For example with a DaaS one can see the changing patterns of behavior and ask questions and gain insights into complex questions not really addressable before. In one of my previous experiences working at a large telecom the question arose about how long would it take for data elements of a particular marketing campaign to reach all the necessary parts of the organization. As with most typical organizations, the answer was not really precise since it was a culmination of asking each division and then aggregating the responses. In many cases the divisions were not 100% certain of the timing themselves. With my primitive platform in place, we were able to look up the information in a few minutes and provide a more comfortable, provable answer to the organization in a rapid manner. The cost savings along were well worth it; 2 mins of a single individuals time vs. 30mins for 1200 people of varying levels. Other questions such as how the ecology handles volumes, what volumes mean in relation to business operations, the amount and volume of meaning inconsistencies and what savings could be achieved are just some of the more typical operational questions. However with a DaaS in place, higher value insights can be gained such as missed opportunities for new products/services based on customer activity, competitive standing based on social responses and replies with regards to existing products/services, capacity planning for bursting or planned progessions, and many others.
It was at this point my colleagues were thinking it would take them years to build out a DaaS. I responded that a DaaS does take effort, but not necessarily time. It is an equal mix of the deep technology which would be a blend of building it and using vendor tools, and the expertise and knowledge of technical and busines staff. From a tools perspective, solutions such as those provided by vendors such as QuePlix for data virtualization and Kapow for integration to leverage existing domains can quickly get an organization with significant existing assets to DaaS basics very rapidly. The core characteristic is the commitment from the organization. Any undertaking such as DaaS is something fundamental to the culture not just a dalliance.
Then I pointed out the shifting landscape of competitive pressure due to the economic crisis. Those with stronger, valuable, flexible and more timely interactions with their data ecologies are the ones that typically engage their customers more meaningfully. Whereas those with less capabilities quickly find themselves losing opportunities to competitors. From a career standpoint many of the new technologies related to the DaaS such as cloud concepts, big data, distributed data, and the like are some of the most in-demand skills not just hands-on, but in management, deployment, architecture, etc. As more and more companies realize the value of DaaS along with other strategic approaches, they are moving to embrace them in order to stay competitive and survive.
]]>In every professional engagement the pursuit of a goal along commonly accepted wisdom has not always benefited the individual. Rather another way to view professional interactions is based on the concept that individuals can meet and interact with others in meaningful and enlightening ways that create a sense of fulfillment and enlightenment.
In more simpler terms it is a way to view events and outcomes as learning and enrichment events as opposed to conflicts. There are skirmishes about all manner of things, egos that get bruised, reputations being tarnished, etc. Or so individuals believe. In truth all of these conflicts amount to no more negativity toward ones overall lifestyle than a random rude comment from a passing stranger.
Interestingly there are in fact many companies that do not fall prey to such views. Many innovative companies such as Toyota and Google create balanced perspectives while competing with others in the marketplace. For example fostering camaraderie among their employees to promote a sense of teamwork that teaches respect for others even while disagreeing, and humility where everyday customers who know less about topics than their specialist vendors are thanked and respected as experts on what they want rather than berated or belittled.
In even the young entrepreneurs of today's hyper-competitive marketplace, they exhibit strong mentoring and collaborative beliefs that result in them working together and sharing insights. Yet these would be considered highly inappropriate actions and in some cases undesirable characteristics by many professionals and mangers in today's established companies.
For companies, disagreements will always continue but the successful organizations will be the ones that can learn to tap into and harness the changing perspectives in the future generation of talented professionals.
]]>
Through a recent discussion on teamwork a wonderful idea that I had almost forgotten from a previous company resurfaced - "dissent and commit." This embodies the idea that professionals can disagree on a course of action and at the same time they also agree to fully support and commit their energy to a course of action that the majority decides upon.
This is a wonderful approach that allows constructive dissension and acknowledgement of disagreement while maintaining positive momentum in the form of commitment to the majority-based decision. This allows for the opportunity in critical decision making instances for groups of professionals within organizations to make progress in spite of differing opinions.
Most organizations typically approach decision-making in the same manner as they always have: hierarchical top-to-bottom edicts. This approach while proven to be fine for a small population of problems has been also proven to be highly ineffective for rapid changing out-of-the-box problems.
As professionals and organizations struggle to adapt to change, their ability to recognize their shortcomings and to put aside conventional wisdom to more effectively team and collaborate on issues that impact their organizations, customers and careers will define who not only just survives but thrives in the future economy.
]]>I halted the conversation and pointed out the trend I was seeing; most of the points were along why things could not be done rather than what could be done given what was available. I mentioned how creative and innovative people follow their passions and dreams, accomplishing what they can with what they have. I called this ability "rising to the highest levels within your own limits".
The most common and consistent examples of doing this are actually in video gamer communities. These are individuals who are doing what they love - playing video games. They are not getting paid to do it. In fact they are often times paying the gaming companies money for the privilege to play. They are under tremendous constraints: they do not have access to the source code, they do not have direct access to key designers, they do not have any direct say into the product other than community influence, and they are not always regarded as leaders as opposed to consumers.
However these games actively nurture creativity and innovation. The first and most common example is the ability to share information among members of the community at hand. Some of them come in the form of forums which most are familiar with. However some take on significantly more. One such endeavor would be for a World of Warcraft site called World of Logs. The site offers graphical analysis widgets of raw logs to the player community to create wonderful dashboards that display game specific critical information in dashboards that rival many professionally done sites for companies. The information is not only displayed in a fixed format, but along contextually relevant dimensions for the community such that the most important information can be quickly and easily found. The fact that developers passionate about a game have applied technical skills, development practices and social networking paradigms typically found in only some of the most innovative companies is truly remarkable. Also consider the fact that the site is heavily constrained: limited budget, limited time, limited people, limited resources, etc. as compared to their corporate counterparts. Their passion and high constraints results in a highly innovative and creative approach in a subject that interests them that rivals and arguably surpasses many corporate attempts at analytical delivery.
Another example happens to be knowledge sharing and collaboration. Again the context is a game called Dungeons and Dragons Online. Similar to World of Warcraft, DDO as it is commonly called, appeals to a different type of gamer. While smaller in size than World of Warcraft, the DDO community is no less passionate than other gaming communities and equally innovative in their solutions. One of the best examples of sharing can be seen in the site DDOWiki.com. The paradigm is the same as Wikipedia only applied to a game setting. Here the community discusses game updates, class strategies, crafting, questing, items, and many other topics. It is often referenced by the community as a stable source of information related to many subjects within the game. As it's popularity grows, community members continue to expand and grow the content of the site. What is very remarkable happens to the diversity in age of the community members that consume and contribute. While it is indeed true that many younger adults are present, so are in fact many older individuals ranging in ages from their 40s to their 60s. Clearly the ability for a wide range of not only ages but experiences to rally around a common source that they are passionate about and to contribute their bits of knowledge and share it with a larger population is very insightful and inspiring.
These two examples are by no means the only ones around. In fact there are many examples of such innovation across the web. They are not only limited to games but to many other subjects as well.
I ended our conversation by pointing out that these communities are not being paid a salary to do what they do. They are doing it because they love it. They work in very constrained conditions. However what they produce is of high quality, leverages important social networking dimensions of velocity and engagement that allows them to grow, and demonstrates practical application of what many companies would consider advanced product development concepts and practices.
Hence in an age when companies are looking for different and transformational solutions to their problems, to expand into markets, and reach out to new consumers one has to be careful about drawing lines and boundaries about what is possible. Look in unconventional places and what one will find are numerous examples of solutions whose reliance on "non-traditional" lines of thought allow them to address their problems in whole new ways. It is the ability to learn from these examples and incorporate them into one's viewpoint that can make the difference in thinking and acting differently than other professionals when confronted with challenging problems.
]]>
One of the most common topics happened to be innovation. The general view was that innovation was seen as very complex and difficult concept to implement in any organization. Many of these individuals were seeking my advice on how to best innovate within their organizations or for themselves.
In my experience innovation means many things to people. A rather simple and easy way to be innovative in my experience is to see and act differently. This sounds easier than it really is for most professionals since most subscribe to a set of rules and conditions that have been honed through years of experience in the industry. For example, many professionals learn to look at options that they think can be delivered. This is pretty normal; look at your toolbox containing items such as budget, time, talent, material, etc. and then come up with a plan that is well known and has a high rate of "predictable success".
"Predictable success" is a term I use as a measurement that most businesses use on tasks that they have a need to feel "good" about. It is something that you see project managers measure, directors use on pretty slidedecks, and investors look at with interest. This is not to say that this is incorrect or not needed, rather this measurement is not the kind used for innovation.
I want to point out that innovation is about failure. Not just once or twice but a lot of the time. This is one of the most singularly frightening aspects about innovation to an organization and individuals. Failure is not considered a good thing. It is considered a weakness. So rather than fail, most companies will put out solutions that are "good enough" based on what they think their customers want. This is where things get really fuzzy. Most companies are really bad at figuring out who their customer is, let alone what they want.
For example let's look at the iPhone. When it first came out many in the telecom and handset industry thought it was "just another smartphone". Sure it was pretty. However I had heard numerous professionals with decades of experience saying things like "I looked at it. Not impressed." or "Nothing new there. It will not do well." or "I do not think this thing from Apple is going to do well." Several years later the iPhone is a huge hit and considered highly innovative even in spite of the fact that many of it's features are not really that new.
Innovation is not about being 100% new, but rather doing something in a new way that delights people. That is why the iPhone does better than other smart phones. It is also the same reasoning that can be attributed to FaceBook or Google. I call this being "delightfully different". It also sounds like a characteristic but it is really an intrinsic measurement, one of the most visceral. If you do something that people really like it shows on satisfaction, engagement levels, commitments, sales, etc. If not, then these remain relatively flat.
For most professionals adhering to "predictable success" in delivering solutions means not being "delightfully different" and vice versa. Again this is mostly due to their years of indoctrination. However being innovative does not take a lot of effort. It does take an effort on the part of the professional to be open-minded. Closing off any avenue of thought means eliminating whole realms of possibilities. This is not what people have to foster. Rather they have to look at the challenge, then determine an ideal way to deal with it, then using their toolbox find a way to make their idea a reality.
A case in point happened on a recent project where we were assigned a proprietary toolset from a vendor. All the normal approaches were not delivering results and jeopardized the entire project. I and a few others looked at the problem differently. We totally ignored what the toolset was capable of doing. We instead focused on what we needed to get done. The basic problem was that what was in place was not capable of doing the required workload in the time we needed. The answer was simple from that view, get the stated units of work to complete in the timeframe requested. The challenge: the current vendor toolset did not do this. The solution was easy once framed in this light: extend the vendor toolset to do what we needed. The end result was a deliverable capable of not only meeting the initial expectations, but delighted the business, technology and operational folks since it met all of their requirements under huge growth expectations with minimal time and money. Where almost all professionals get stalled is not looking at the problem in the most basic of forms and being open-minded about how to solve it.
This is where I explain to professionals those "fancy" management concepts about innovation apply. Once the challenge has been identified the organization needs those "innovators" to come up with solutions. It may fail once, twice, a dozen times before the ideal solution is delivered but it will be delivered.
Being innovative from a professional standpoint is as varied as their career objectives. I usually pose thought-provoking questions. For example: "Why use a document library? Why not a wiki?", or "Why use a file folder? Why not create discovery?", or "Why delete data, why not keep it all?" The answers are startling in terms of how engrained they are in tradition as opposed to possibility.
So why be innovative at all? As I point out to so many of my colleagues it is about their career. Times have changed so much that what they consider normal is now obsolete. For example most system administrators within a legacy organization are used to dealing with maybe a dozen servers where their counterparts in more innovative companies are used to dealing with hundreds if not thousands at a time. The mindsets, the skillsets, the possibilities for businesses even in this narrow area is huge. Mobile development is totally different now than it used to be. Android and iPhone are now whole new career options as are the user design experience, application domains, and many other dimensions to mobile. It is so new, most being less than 4 years old, that one would think that being "new" would be a liability, but in fact the opposite is true. Those with more experience are finding it hard to adjust with their more innovative counterparts growing at the expense of their counterparts.
Professionals may not like the change in the market, however it is now an expectation from many employers. To compete now and in the future, professionals will now have to be innovative and the first step in that new world is with their own mindset.
]]>
At the core of the promotion happens to be the difference between leadership and management. Managers are mostly the ones given appointments usually based on seniority-based systems; time-in-grade, years of service, etc. Leaders on the other hand have earned their appointment via merits that which are generally achieved more quickly regardless of their tenure within an organization. In innovative companies, management positions are awarded via deeds and accomplishments based not only the past accomplishments but continuing accomplishments and future expectations.
Most organizations make the mistake of making their management appointments with the expectation that managers make good leaders. In truth this is rarely the case. Managers tend to be very involved in the day-to-day operations, rarely trusting those that report to them to actually get things done without their direct involvement. This results in a higher cost and ineffective solutions to an organization. Leaders usually assign tasks and let their teams get them accomplished with very wide latitudes and operational freedoms resulting in lower cost and transformational solutions that provide definitive competitive advantage for the organization.
Leaders with good teams demonstrate significantly different characteristics than managers with good teams.
| Managers | Leaders |
|---|---|
|
|
While it is quite possible to see some behaviors that appear to be similar, these are from my experience infrequent. Characteristics are usually commonly found through the individuals within the designated teams. The differences when compared are quite stark. Some more common industry comparisons help. One example would be comparing say Slideshare.net with say an internal group within a larger company tasked with sharing documents. Slideshare is in fact much smaller personnel wise than some of the divisions within larger companies yet they deliver a far better experience than anything an internal team can do generally speaking. At this point in the analogy my point is usually proven in that professionals quickly point out "budgets", "different mission statements", "different goals", etc. In truth the only things that matter are that both entities have missions, they both have budgets, they both have goals. The only difference happens to be the characteristics of the teams and the culture they create to develop these teams. This is not to say the environments are not challenges but in essence, teams under great leaders are in fact very similar to entrepreneurs yet being on the inside of an organization rather than being on the outside and on their own.
In the end leaders are made not appointed. They are born through alignment of words and deeds that focuses not on the past, but the present and future. Every organization has managers to get the day-to-day done, but they often seek leaders to take them to the next level in the marketplace.
]]>We arrived around 6am in the morning to a pair of massively long lines: one group for customers who successfully "reserved" their iPhone 4s and another for "first come, first served". After the store opened the "first come, first served" line did move initially well. The questions from customers were pretty much the same "Are there going to be enough iPhones?", "Will the wait be long?", "If the wait is long should we come back later?" The answers were vague: "Are there going to be enough iPhones?", answer: "We have no idea of the inventory levels and will not know all day. Nothing I can tell you about that." Next... "Will the wait be long?"/"If the wait is long should we come back later?", answer "We are trying to move people along as quickly as possible. No idea about how long the wait will be. It will be pretty long judging by the number of customers."
Around 9am the "reserved" line was moving along, and the "first come, first served" line pretty much stopped. When asked why that occurred, the Apple store reps mentioned that they changed the ratio to favor the "reserved"... 10 reserved were being let in, to every 1 of the "first come, first served". Around 12pm as sandwiches were being handed out, the "first come, first served" did not move at all. Sending some friends over to the "reserved" line, yielded purely visual results of them moving about 50feet after 30mins of observation.
At this point the crowd in the "first come, first served" were growing restless. Many simply wanted an to know if iPhones would still be available. The answers were vague though several store employees "believed" that there were enough iPhone 4s.
At 7pm after being served lots of water and dinner the "reserved" line continued to process and the "first come, first served" line were told that all iPhones were "sold out" and that they could stay if they wanted to be on a "priority list". The list would guarantee an iPhone 4 would be made available to them when it arrived. When a new shipment would arrive none of the Store reps could say; anywhere from tomorrow (where we could stand in the "reserved" line and wait to get an iPhone 4 after several hours) to up to 4 weeks or more out. Almost all of the "first come, first served" refused the "priority list" mostly because of the ambiguity of receiving the device.
Overall the experience was quite fascinating. People were willing, including ourselves, to stand in a line for up to 14hrs. What I did notice about the customer experience happened to be:
The customers in both lines who included college students, business professionals, teachers, grandmothers, families, construction workers, airplane stewards, truck drivers, retired military professionals, and more were very social and polite engaging each other in the lines. Many of the individuals that we spoke to had "never done anything like this" - wait in line for hours for any device. They were quite amazed at what they were doing.
Interestingly individuals from both lines had quite a lot of suggestions to improve the process. One of the topics that arose as a common idea was the concept of dedicated days for customers. Most thought that Thursday and Friday should have been for the "reserve" customers and after those initial days Apple stores could have organized themselves for the "first come, first served" crowds. The approach of processing both sort of made the "first come, first served" crowd feel like they were a lower priority and importance to Apple than the other line. In certain cases heckles and jibes were exchanged. Nothing rude but generally reflecting the mood of being treated differently based on classes of customers openly by Apple.
Overall though the combination of appeal for the iPhone 4, coupled with a very good staff at the Apple stores and how they reached out and engaged the customers did outstanding work. Even if after 14hrs not everyone managed to get an iPhone 4.
]]>One of the major topics we discussed happened to be what we called the digital generations. These are generations that have significant exposure to the likes of the Internet in their lives which sets them apart from earlier generations.
One of the key differences we noticed was that the current and future digital generations are looking to extend what would be the classic human network not only into the real world but the digital world. This desire is not really surprising. However the degree of impact it has on individuals is very significant. I am not simply talking about what many would consider isoteric discussions but rather a very pragmatic and practical shift between generations. For example it is not uncommon for both generations to reach out to their network of contacts to ask questions. What is fundamentally different between the two is the degree of reach, immediacy and value. Earlier generations tend to reach out via email or phone after they have debated on whether to ask the question. This means they obtain feedback in what can be hours to days. However, using more immediate mediums such as Twitter or Facebook, those of the digital age get answers within minutes to hours. This means that they can make decisions more quickly and potentially with better quality since they can reach more people more quickly. This ability to "crowdsource" answers is a powerful extension for young professionals. It enables them to navigate through issues at a far faster pace than prior generations using mediums that while technically not out of reach from older generations, philosophically are unattainable due to the widely different attitudes. This appears to a business that younger or more digitally adept professionals are able to move more quickly and decisively with what appears to be less information than others which is a must to maintain competitive advantages in highly pressured markets.
Another intriguing point that I and many of my colleagues have noticed as well is the fundamental difference in learning between digitally adept individuals and prior generations. Whether it be crowdsourcing with their social networks, sharing and collaborating using technologies such as Google or BoxNet, catching up to news via Twitter, learning new things via YouTube, Vimeo, and podcasts, the digitally adept share a common ability to absorb, navigate and filter multiple streams of information and derive value that is interesting to them. The fundamental behaviors that I see are reflections of common requirements in a professional world: problem solving, information seeking, education synthesis, learning, and practical application of knowledge. They are learning these skills in addition to their traditional education by performing them intuitively to meet their needs in a digital world. A very simple and specific use case would be wireless networking. This is a task that most older professionals explore very rarely; most will be happy with a wireline cable connection. Yet wireless is a more common task especially with regard to gaming consoles for the digitally adept. They search the web for answers to questions that they have, troubleshoot problems and finally achieve the end result they were looking for which is to play games or watch movies wirelessly. The end result is that someone who is perhaps younger or digitally adept is actually much more experienced with technical issues that many older individuals find daunting and quite foreign. This learning follows them in the industry where they are capable of learning concepts much more quickly since they have a very strong base of understanding with which to grow from which may not always be the case for their experienced counterparts.
The differences we noticed between the generations is how comfortable the digitally connected generations are to technology. They do not see it as something bizarre or foreign. Rather something that is a part of their life. This fundamentally different view of the digital world gives them insights that prior generations are simply lacking. These insights make them more comfortable in the industry where technology for many companies is still viewed with suspicion and fear. More importantly by moving past these prejudices they are able to come to solutions more quickly, with greater confidence and in many cases with better perspectives of what really matters to people.
]]>