Profits and Ethics: Partners in Success

 

     I am going to start this blog with something I know is not true -- but, since I WANT it to be true, I will make it my postulate.

All companies want to do GOOD in hand with doing WELL.

     Doing good makes a positive impact on the community, society, the environment, and every aspect of life you can think of. Doing well involves making the company a commercial success.

     The way our economic systems are structured, it is easy for a company to turn away from the path of trying to do good in order to do what appears to be the most profitable process. The "bottom line" is the result of adding all kinds of numbers and projections together, subtracting costs, adding income, getting interest from positive cash flow, etc.

     In such a situation, it is easy to say "if I increase my costs, I will decrease my profits". Increase the number in the spreadsheet and it will give you the number you are expecting. So, doesn't that prove that your surmise is correct? Yes -- but only if all the numbers are completely independent of each other. There are usually dependencies among the numbers but they aren't always easy to recognize and companies (and their boards, owners, and stockholders) want stability and projections that they can rely on. Possible, but unproven, dependencies are not given enough weight to override that change of number in the spreadsheet.

     Let's take a number that is in every company's spreadsheet -- salaries. Increase salaries, decrease profits. That's what the numbers say -- once again, assuming independence between the numbers in the spreadsheet.

     The search, for the lowest salaries to be paid, leads to many things. How do you succeed in paying people less? Outsource to other locations that have lower wages. Pay just enough that there are enough desperate people willing to work for the wage. Eliminate safety measures, increase working hours without additional pay, intensify the working hours so the body and/or mind is always working at peak output and left drained and exhausted at the end of the day (crippling their ability to positively interact in any family unit). Lots of ways to wring the sponge.

     Lower wages equals greater profits -- that's what the spreadsheet says.

     But does that mean that higher wages equals fewer profits? You might assume so but here come the interdependencies. How much does attrition and turnover cost? Nothing directly -- but REPLACEMENT of those resources cost something. It costs a lot of something. Lower wages will lead to higher attrition and turnover (not that wages are the only criterion for such events). So, when you decrease that number in your spreadsheet, be sure that you increase the numbers for recruiting and training, and decrease the factors involved with productivity. And the more you decrease the salary number the more the other numbers have to change. A 30% attrition rate will cost more than twice that of a 15% attrition rate because you are not only increasing recruiting/training but constant turnover is a terrible thing for productivity.

     Productivity is related to more than salaries, of course. There are many factors and I won't even attempt to capture a majority of them within this blog. The takeaway is that productivity is a huge factor in profitability of a company and that concentrating on only one number independent of other factors is likely to be a very large mistake.

     Increased salary not only has an effect on productivity numbers but it also is a contribution to sales numbers. The more people who have money to spend on products, the more money enters the economic system so they can buy your products. Ignoring the distribution of people who have how much money -- the greater the number of people who can afford to purchase your product, the more you can sell. "Trickle up" is a real thing.

     Beyond that salary number, there are many other factors that involve treatment of employees, communities, and surrounding world. Some of those "soft" factors include equal treatment, positive purpose, comfortable work environment. good communication, and so forth.

     Profitable businesses recognize that racism, sexism, genderism, Xisms, and anti-Xisms all are counter-productive and hurt profitability. That can be shown easily within the spreadsheet based on productivity and sales. You don't want to turn away potential customers and, since creativity and abilities are well distributed within all of humanity, isms within the company will decrease the ability to produce and to compete.

     Closely related to "isms", harassment also decreases productivity and morale. Different from the "isms", harassment can, and does, occur within various groups and not "just" between groups. Positive treatment -- encouragement, acknowledgement, elimination of obstacles lead to improvement both within the individuals involved but also morale, productivity, and positive interactions with the customer base.

     The bottom line of this blog is that numbers within a spreadsheet are not independent. Doing the "right thing" can increase productivity, morale, positive interactions with the customer base -- which in turn leads to greater profits and dividends.

What's in a Number? : Quantitative versus qualitative

 

     We like absolutes. If a person is above age B then they are mature enough to vote, or to buy and drink alcohol or whatever. If they are below age B, then they are NOT mature enough to vote, or whatever.

     People know this isn't true. Such characteristics -- maturity, life lessons, family background have some correlation to age. An older individual will hopefully be more mature, and have more experience, that that SAME individual was at an earlier age. But comparing individual X at age B to individual Y at age B is entering the "apples to oranges" type of situation. Each person will develop at different rates depending on experiences, home environment, environmental (if you are growing up in a war zone you will certainly develop more quickly in certain ways -- or you will be on the casualty list). And development occurs in different aspects at different rates. One person may develop physically very quickly while their social maturity is very slow to develop. And another person may do the opposite -- they may have the physical aspects of someone small and weak but have considerable social abilities and maturity.

     Another number in great use is the Body Mass Index (BMI). Yet, it is generally acknowledged by health professionals, that the number (or number range) is only accurate for about 80% of the people. A BMI is calculated by the formula of weight divided by height squared -- or kg/m(squared). But not all weight is equal. A bodybuilder with lots of muscle will weigh more -- be more dense -- at equal size. A bodybuilder, or athlete with a lot of muscle, will have a higher BMI. The same is true for people with "big bones" (used a lot as an excuse but still can be true and depending on genetic heritage). The BMI calculation calls upon a certain composition of the body -- so much muscle, so much fat, so much bone. If any of these are not in the "expected" range, the BMI number will differ and not easily able to be used for any charts or evaluations.

     So, if people know it isn't true, why do we use these numbers? They are simple. Some people in the world don't know their precise birthdate but most people (especially in areas of the world where they have heard of, and use, BMI) know what their chronological age is. They have access to a scale to weigh themselves and a ruler to measure their height. It is simple -- and simple means fast and easy.

     Could it be done more accurately? Sure. For aspects associated with age, a team (I would never recommend just ONE evaluation) can evaluate various development criteria. A person may come out of such an evaluation with a range of "ages" -- some higher than their chronological age and other aspects lower than their chronological age. Which is cheaper and faster -- a battery of tests by experienced professionals -- or looking at a calendar? Not hard to guess, is it?

     The BMI is an attempt to give a fast and easy determination of body fat composition. But there are other ways to determine that much better than the BMI formula. One method is called a displacement test. Put someone into a tub of water and measure how much the water rises on the edges of the container. Calculate the volume displaced which is the volume of the person. Then use this volume along with the weight to determine density. Density can then be used to determine composition. A person with high body fat will have lower density. A person with "big bones" or a lot of muscles will have higher density. There are other types of tests which vary in accuracy depending on the experience and ability of the tester -- body calipers and so forth. The end aspect is that all they require extra time and extra experience and training. Some are less convenient and require special equipment. But they are much more accurate. Which is cheaper and faster?

     This would be a great big "who cares" if it wasn't for the fact that these numbers are integrated into laws, and insurance actuary tables, and health advisory brochures, and so forth. The numbers can still be useful -- but ONLY if their limitations are recognized and acknowledged. A bodybuilder that is given higher insurance premiums based on being "too fat" according to their BMI should be given the option of paying for a more accurate test (probably saving themselves a lot over the term of the insurance policy).

      And, when you read a news article, it is useful and much more fair to recognize the limitations of numbers. That person of "mature" age may truly be more fairly evaluated as a child. Everyone is different but it is easier to categorize them according to the numbers.

     Do you know other numbers that do not always work well but are used because they are easier?

The macro and the micro; boundaries of possibilities

 

     There is a well-known meandering about "see this piece of dust, what if it were a world for very small people living inside it ... and what if we are that piece of dust to some place so vast we cannot comprehend it." The Ant-Man movies kind of echo this type of suggested microworlds though not the macroworlds (not yet, at least). (For that matter, Dr. Seuss' "whoville" is in the same category.) 

     Is such a microworld really possible? Not from the science that we accept at present. We have experimental evidence in support of a hierarchy of matter and energy. From a wooden table to a quark, from matter via relativity to energy and back.

     But the nature of science is to create multiple questions every time we decide upon a tentative answer (all are susceptible to replacement, or enhancement, upon new discoveries). As Arthur C. Clarke said in his "third law" -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". This can be inverted to indicate that "what appears to be magic, may be explained at some future time by use of technology advanced beyond the current status".

     The word "magic" bothers some people -- so it is fine, as far as I am concerned, to call it "future science" but that would be cumbersome, so I will continue to call it magic.

     If one considers the things around us, how many would have been considered magic 500 years ago? Sure, one thinks of computers and smartphones but even a sewing machine would have aroused amazement (hopefully not burning at the stake). Washing machines, microwaves, refrigerators, electric bulbs, asphalt, and so on and so on.

     Arthur C. Clarke also has a less famous "first law" which indicates "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong".

     Turning around and facing the future, the only thing that I can be certain of is that it will be different. Hopefully better for more people -- but definitely different. Assuming that the Jenga stack of technological society survives and continues, imagination is literally our only limit.

     I am most fascinated at the "hows". How does the mind really work? Just how do microbacterial colonies within our digestive system adjust our bodies, our moods, even how long we live? In structured medical studies, the "placebo" (perhaps sugar water or tablets) group often still improves -- how? Science recognizes a relationship between matter and energy. Is there a relationship between mind and how matter and energy are perceived (and, perhaps, manipulated)?

     During periods of introspection (I don't allow myself to linger long as I have to live in the world that most recognize), I will think of that table and break it down to molecules and bonds and then down to atoms and particles and I get lost in amazement that my hand is able to hold a baseball. How does all this interact to make it possible? How is one set of organized atoms and particles able to interact with another set of organized atoms and particles? Most of it is "empty" space. How does one grouping act as a solid -- and interact with other solids?

     I'm not a physicist and have only somewhat more knowledge about it than most educated laypeople. I am sure that, on a mathematical basis with formulas and theorems, there are approaches to answers to these questions -- possibly involving valences and the way bonding energies interact. But, for my "money", all of this is still in the region of magic. It is something that happens every day and few think twice about it but it still ends up in that area of magic (or "future science").

    To quote Buzz Lightyear -- "to infinity and beyond".

Plots: The high and low points of life

 

     Have you ever picked up a book about a favorite character and said "what a lot of things that happened to this person!"? Maybe you have watched a movie and said to yourself "if they had only done this one (probably very reasonable) thing then the next hour of activity would never have happened"? Or the "if they had only used 'common sense' the story would not have occurred"?

     The reality is that most people live ordinary lives -- lives where many things happen to make one day progress to the next -- where it might be possible to use a rubber stamp in a journal rather than having to jot down the whole day. But people typically do NOT write down everyday happenings. They note "special" occasions -- a wedding, a vacation, a birth, a first step (lots of first steps happen all the time -- but it can still be a miraculous first step for each individual), etc. In fact, people write down such ordinary days so seldom (or, if they do, don't keep them around) that it is a real find for an archeologist to recover such.

     What was a "typical" day for a serf in thirteenth-century France? What did a queen do throughout the day in 17th century Netherlands? What did a person of the Iroquois nation do on a winter day? Life may seem boring, and habitual, to the person living it at the time but armchair adventures can be exciting to someone reading about the everyday happenings of a different culture, place, or time.

     In history, we normally learn about (often from only one point of view) big, "important", events -- and they are important. They are also only a very small slice of what has actually gone on with the various billions of people who live, and have lived, on the planet. If we ever invented a "time machine" (for many reasons, likely a very bad idea), the person would probably want to be able to speed up through sleeping periods, restroom breaks, and most of the events of each day.

     And so it is with books, stories, and movies (and podcasts and other media). I would never want to be within 100 yards of some of the detectives (amateur or professional) that I read about. The odds of something happening to me would increase tremendously. Yet, I continue to read them (invoking the "suspension of disbelief" often needed while reading fiction) because I know that it MIGHT have happened to SOMEBODY at some time. It may be incredible but it isn't truly unbelievable (even though, originally, those words meant about the same thing). "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" -- Arthur Conan Doyle narrating as Sherlock Holmes.

     Or take a "soap opera" -- or daytime serial. Having all the things occurring to a particular person, or family, as it occurs in constant procession is so unlikely statistically that it would be much better to buy a dozen lottery tickets. "Reality" programs on television may portray potentially real activities, events, and achievements -- but they're rarely (if ever) packaged up so nicely in someone's daily life. The movie "The Truman Show" lets the viewer take part in the every day of someone -- but I'll bet they arranged a number of events per day to allow a little adrenaline to flow.

     A book about the life of someone who lived in Roman times might be of interest to people. A book about the life of "Joe Neighbor" who lived an ordinary life and wasn't noted for much would have a very difficult time finding readers. This is why books are about things that happen rather than things that just occur. There needs to be a plot to make it different from all of the things that happen all the time.

     Does this apply to personal life also -- not just "recorded life"? I think so. Although there are certainly cultural differences that make a huge difference in approach. Japanese "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down" versus the US "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". A person who gets noticed will be thought about. In one culture, the positive attention will be associated with being a team player who can consistently be relied upon -- while in the other the positive attention may come from being outspoken with individual contributions.

     Unfortunately, just like in a novel, a person will get noticed for negative actions also. If you strive to be noticed for positive actions then not only will you be thought of but those who work with you will want to continue to work with you.

     In meetings, affirm and attribute contributions -- add to others' comments but make sure they get primary credit. Just doing what you should be doing will fall into the same "plotless" situation as an everyday journal. But people being aware of consistent reliability and responsibility is good. Listen well before speaking.

     Be assertive but stay away from aggression (many have great difficulty understanding the difference between the two). Both will get you attention, but your peers will appreciate assertiveness much more than aggression. Once again, attitudes towards groups will affect the way people are perceived. A member of one group may be perceived as aggressive while the very same behavior of someone in another group may be perceived as assertive. Life is messy.

Remote/Hybrid working: skills aren't new but they need to be refined

 

     One of my sons just unsuccessfully completed a year at college which shifted their curriculum from in-person to online. (They shifted ALL responsibility for success to the student -- difficult for any student but, for our student on the autistic spectrum, it was a disaster.) Another son (different college) did OK -- but hit snags (how do you do an astronomy lab course from home?). Our third younger son repeated a course FOUR times because the department was so concerned about potential cheating that they decided that teaching and learning was unimportant. (How can anyone learn if they are not told what they have gotten right or wrong?)

     The above three personal examples (all real -- not theoretical examples) directly pertain to the problems associated with a transition to remote/hybrid jobs. The first is associated with proactive versus passive communication. The second indicates that remote/hybrid work may require additional equipment/infrastructure. The third is an example of how fear of the employee not doing their job properly can actually sabotage the work.

     While I do not consider myself an "expert" in any area, I have had 24 years of experience working and managing remote work. Three years were as a remote employee, 20 years were as a remote executive (VP of Engineering) working within an all-remote (telecommuting) company, and one year as a manager during enforced remote work during this pandemic. My experiences may be of benefit to others.

     Remote work does not require any different skills than that of in-person work. It does require different application of those skills. It also may require duplication/enhancement of infrastructure to allow in-office work to be done remotely. The primary reorientation of skills is that tasks that used to be passively collaborative must shift to proactively collaborative AND self-determined.

     What would be an example of passive collaboration? The "water cooler" is a great example. Off-task casual exchange of information sometimes leads to great ideas as well as getting "unstuck" from problems that may be happening within the group or for an individual. Another is "walking the aisles" -- poking a nose (managers or fellow peers) in to cubicles to see what is happening, how things are going, and discuss any obstacles that need to be overcome.

     All of the passive collaboration needs to be shifted to proactive collaboration. This is useful in an in-office environment also -- people were just able to "get away with" not doing it when they encountered each other face-to-face on a regular basis. While not a new skill, not everyone is good at it as it requires active participation from both sides. One side has to check, the other side has to ask and be able to receive. All can be learned -- but it's a lot easier to describe it than to do it.

     I call out three areas that need to be refined/improved. (I make no claims that this list is exhaustive.) As I said earlier, all of these skills are very useful in a "regular" work environment -- they become a necessity when working remotely (hybrid, of course, is a mixture of remote and in-office so I am concentrating on remote needs). These are:

1. Communication: As mentioned above, you cannot get away with passive communication. If you want to know something, you have to ask. If you need something, you have to ask. Regular, prescheduled, checkin points are important -- but keep them short and only as needed. Three 20 minute remote sessions are more effective than one hour-long session. Stay focused.
   
   Include informal sessions. "Water cooler" talk. Some may be managed team members only. Others may include managers and above.
   
   Feedback. No surprises. Minimum of quarterly, short, feedback sessions on how the team member is perceived and possible discussion thereof.
   
   
2. Requirements/specifications:
   Clearly agree on -- have a written version -- expectations. How will the team member be evaluated?
   
   For projects/assignments:
   Agree on acceptance criteria. In the case of Agile/SCRUM, this is per User Story.
   
   
3. Checkpoints:
   Trust will make or break a remote arrangement. But, until points 1 and 2 are agreed upon and everyone is following through as agreed, it is very useful to have checkpoints. (Once again, an Agile environment will have this built-in.)
   
   Experience includes overall work experience and experience working remotely. The less experience, the smaller the granularity of checkpoints needed. Perhaps agreed upon checkpoints (defined as demonstrable progress towards goal) every two weeks for someone with very little experience. Perhaps at the 1/3, 2/3, and final point for someone with moderate experience. Very experienced people may need no checkpoints.

     The process of working remote -- or managing remotely can cause anxiety. I won't say that anxiety, or any reaction, is unreasonable. All feelings are legitimate. You feel the way you feel.

     This blog only addresses work aspects. Working remote has personal aspects that must be addressed -- but there is no "one size fits all" situation and I am not trying to address them here. These needs are real. Communication is key both between workers and within the in-office and remote environment.

     The needs are not new. You have the same end goals. You have the same processes. You have the same needs for training and communication. The differences are primarily that of perspective, practice, and implementation.

Book Reports & Business plans: Decomposition, fewer words, Creation, more words

 

     I am in the process of writing a book. Not my first book but each book is different and the requirements and orientations are different.

     Once upon a time, back in the dark ages when I was in public school, one of the regular assignments by English teachers (probably true for teachers all over the world in whatever language they write in) was to read a book and do a "book report". (I believe they still make this assignment.) This book report was to be two parts -- one part a summary of the book and the second part a reaction and interpretation of the book.  Book reports were not usually assigned until a person had progressed to "books without pictures" (sometimes teachers would get very stringent about this and not allow a book that just had occasional illustrations). As the reports were often expected to be 1000 words (longer as one got older), this would mean reducing a book which might be (once again, usually longer as one got older) 40,000 words for a middle-grade book to 70,000 to 200,000 words down to 1,000 words.

     How do you summarize a 200,000 (or more) word novel into 1,000 words? First, you have to recognize the climax. What was that end result that all the early parts were leading you towards? (Non-fiction books are not easily summarized because the details are, hopefully, the parts that you want to remember -- getting rid of them defeats the purpose.) Next, note the most important characters -- just the characters that are important in moving to that climax. Finally, what are the important events that lead toward the climax. There will be subplots and side events and environment and all kinds of things that don't directly lead to the climax. It takes a lot of discernment and work to cut it down to 1,000 words. And learning that ability to discern and reduce is why the lesson is assigned.

     A "condensed book" (or severely abridged book) must contain the summary but also keeps scenes (perhaps modified) associated with the relevant important events that convey character development and environment. Some new authors (longer published authors have more control -- sometimes not to their benefit) end up with condensed books after their editors have finished with them. The advantages of a condensed book is that it conveys the general ideas of the book but can be read in a much shorter period of time.

     The third category of reduction is an analysis -- such as provided by Cliffs Notes® -- which provides a summary enhanced by analysis of what is going on within sections of the book and why. The existence of these is sometimes a bane for English teachers who are trying to get students to learn the skills of discernment, reduction, and analysis (the analysis portion is that other part of the "book report" beyond the summary). But they are available to teachers also and direct plagiarism is relatively easy to spot (so don't do it for assignments).

     But what about the "other direction"? The author-to-be has latched onto an idea from the magic idea cabinet and wants to create a 200,000 word work of art that will be cherished for the ages. Different authors approach this in different ways. I treat it as a reversal of a reduction. I determine the climax and then decide on what events could reasonably lead to that climax and the characters involved. Then (difficult for me -- some authors have other difficult areas) I need to take that summary and put all of the personality development, environmental interactions, humor, personal interactions and details needed to make it an interesting, page turning, newly written classic.

     Of course, it isn't that simple (although, with some authors' output, it appears to the reader that it must just flow out of their fingers without any conscious effort). I'm far from that point (I hope to be there someday) but the art of writing is somewhat analogous to other arts -- music, painting, sculpture. As you practice the skills, the brain establishes them as additional extensions of the mind and body. What used to be a conscious process becomes a subconscious flow. An immersion of the mind into the world being described allows a conduit from that world to the transcription of print, music, sculpture, video and so forth.

     A business plan has many parallel tasks to that of creating a book. The plan has a climax (a marketable product). In order to reach that climax (product), a series of events must take place (design, creation, marketing, sales,...). And it will require a set of characters (or personnel) with different attributes (skills/functional departments). Alas, unlike a book, you cannot write in all of the surrounding details -- those surrounding details are the obstacles to your achieving that climax. Murphy has a lot of input into those surrounding details but, within that business plan, the more details and possibilities that are considered will make the plan better. And how to deal with potential problems may be more important than the unhindered steps to the product.

Luck: factors not under our control

 

     Luck. "I make my own luck". "There is no such thing as luck". "Luck seems to always happen to other people".

     Luck is, in my opinion, the label of those factors not obviously under our control. Hitting a stop light, delaying our arrival, keeps us from being in a serious traffic situation. We need a carton of milk and, while at the store, we meet the person of our dreams. We are looking for a job, have prepared our "elevator speech", and find ourselves literally in an elevator with the head of a company for which we would like to work. Fill in with your own favorite anecdote.

     If luck is truly not under our control, there is a temptation towards nihilism. "Nothing I do matters." "It is all a matter of luck." "She/he has all the luck."

     But, notice that I said not obviously under our control. If we did not have our "elevator speech" prepared for that encounter then the lucky event would turn into an unlucky event. If, during our trip to the store, we focus solely on the milk and don't look at, or talk to, anyone else then the "person of your dreams" and you may pass each other and never have the opportunity to meet again.

     Events not under our control will always exist -- there will always be a factor of luck present. But preparation can reduce the significance of the factor of luck. Whether you call those factors "perspiration", "preparation", "hard work", "tenacity", "toil", or "cause and effect" -- the amount that luck, or events outside our control, affect the paths of our lives can be minimized.

     Some  areas of preparation are "obvious". If you want a better chance to pass a test, study, study, study. If you want to do well giving a speech, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.

     Reducing the factor of luck in meeting people requires you to be present physically, mentally, and emotionally. That's easier for extroverts but introverts can still be true to themselves and learn how to be present for the times needed before retreating to recharge. But there can be multiple areas that need attention. You must be present -- but you also can benefit from being present in a more optimal environment. Your living room is not such a place.

     The best place will be somewhere your natural inclinations and abilities best shine -- where you can be the best you that is possible -- and a place that has people that will appreciate you and people you will appreciate. If you don't like to read, don't hang out in a bookstore or the library. If you don't like to drink, don't try meeting someone in a bar. If you don't like to exercise, don't expect to meet that person in a gym. Be places where you want to be. Other people, of like interest, will also be there and they will be glad to meet you.

     Preparation for possible outcomes in situations can help in multiple ways. Cars don't have flat tires nearly as often in current times but allowing extra time for traffic or mechanical problems is making allowance for factors out of control. If you visualize multiple audiences and multiple reactions when preparing for a speech, it is possible you will prepare for one of the outcomes that happen. But, even if something else happens (which is not unlikely), the preparation will allow you to be better able to adapt to the change in circumstances.  Preparation helps flexibility.

     We cannot eliminate the factor of luck but we can greatly reduce its potential impact.

What is a Technoglot?

I am a geek, a dweeb, and a nerd. On the other hand, I have lived almost 50 years in the land of the "normal" and I have survived and have even thrived at times. I also started off with a love of languages -- studying French in high school, continuing with German and Russian in college or after, and working on Farsi and Spanish nowadays. In high school and college, I learned the basics (or more) of about 14 computer languages from assembler to JCL to COBOL to FORTRAN to LISP to C. I have also been involved with music (violin and voice), art (lithography and drawing), and "crafts" (which can also attain the level of art, in my opinion) such as weaving and woodworking.

Language shapes thought and thought shapes language. This is true of all languages, be they "natural" languages, computer languages, or the languages of music, art, and craft. The inclination of Russian speakers to enter into the passive form or the propensity of the French to fall into allusion and metaphor reflect (or mold?) the way they are perceived and interact with the world. A programmer starting from the object-oriented world will look at problems from an object-oriented viewpoint as someone starting from a "structured" language environment will have their own orientation.

And here we start to show the differences between languages. What does "object-oriented" mean? How does it differ from "structured"? What is allusion? What is passive? Even when we believe that we are speaking in the same language, our history, education, experience, and environment changes what we actually hear and understand. An Inuit may have more than a dozen words for "snow" and Greek may have five (or more) words for "love" but in order to translate that to a language which does not have those words you end up with a definition that is not always able to be used directly within the context of a sentence or thought. English has grown to be the most widely spoken (not necessarily first language) language in the world by its extreme inclusionistic attitude; if you don't have the word in English then adopt it.

Communication is the process of producing information, transporting it, and understanding it. This happens with speech which is created, spoken, and heard. Or with sign language which is created, formed, and seen. It also happens between a user and a computer which is essentially a task of translation from one medium (screen display, keyboard, mouse) and language (symbol, letter, position) to/from storage and analysis. It also happens directly between computers in a method of communication protocols.

Protocols consist of the syntax and semantics of a language. I have worked with protocols most of my life -- from learning English as a baby, to learning to program, to more than 20 years of design and implementation of protocols allowing both data and signalling communication between microprocessors (or computers, if you prefer). In this area, I have published books on Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) (see "ISDN Implementor's Guide" at amazon.com) and Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) architectures ("ADSL: Standards, Implementation, and Architecture") which help to explain how these protocols work and can be used. From my work on these, and dozens of other data, transport, and signalling protocols, I have a sound foundation for understanding and defining other protocols that may not even yet be created.

Yet computer-to-computer protocols are still "easy". Why? Because the same definitions are used for the sender (transmitter) and receiver. If communication fails, it is because something was not implemented correctly or the definition of the protocol was faulty. So, it is altered until it does work.

But the the same is not true for user-to-computer and people-to-people communication. Why? Because people do not use the same language as other people or computers. Even people who are both, in theory, speaking the same language really are not. This is because their understanding (as opposed to hearing, seeing, or feeling) of the language is based on their own viewpoint which, in turn, is created by their history, education, and environment (physical, societal, and cultural).

So, back to the beginning and the title. What is a technoglot? It is someone who "speaks tech". In these blogs, I will strive to help understanding of technology for the non-technologist and to communicate ideas from one language to another. I hope that you have fun and that my blogs are useful.

Catalyst: Sometimes presence is all that is needed

 

     Catalysts are used in all kinds of chemical events. The presence of the catalyst allows other reactions to happen -- or happen more efficiently. At the end of the process, a catalyst is unchanged -- though it sometimes is directly used as part of a series of reactions during the process. In physical chemistry events, catalysts are often metals.

     Catalysts are called enzymes in biochemical events. The enzyme may be a protein or it may be ribonucleic acid (RNA). A simple description of the action of an enzyme would be that it acts as a specific carrier, or receptacle, where components may gather. (It is not always initially clear as to how a catalyst performs its task -- but finding out how sometimes has significant benefits with new processes and understanding.) The close proximity within the space of the receptacle speeds up, or causes, the further reactions between components. Afterwards, the enzyme is still available for the gathering of more components and continued processing.

     Catalysts can also exist in living events. Most events that come to mind immediately are not catalysts because, although they may cause considerable effects, they change in the process. A deluge may cause a mudslide or a flood but the form of the water will continue to change. It is not a chemical change but it is a physical change.

     A process that is not a catalyst can produce a catalyst. An earthquake may cause a river to be dammed which will form a lake. The lake will potentially not change (the level may change due to rain or drought) but the very presence of the lake will change the ecosystem with some animals, and plants, better able to survive and others less able to survive.

     A rock sticking up from a lake bottom will still be a rock sticking up from a lake bottom after a boat has hit it, causing the boat to sink. The dropping of a seed by a bird may start the process of a huge tree growing and the tree may become the center of a community.

     As you can see from the last few examples, the definition of a catalyst stretches from a physical, or biochemical, substance to that of things existing, whose presence causes changes to the area just because of their existence.

     In the area of social interactions and in business, a speaker can be a catalyst for change. Whether it is an "I have a dream" speech or a "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech -- words do have the power to cause others to create change. These can be considered as transient catalysts. The speeches do not change but they continue to exist only in recorded forms.

     But what about a person who just exerts a presence? An adult sitting (awake) in a room of children will usually have a quieting effect on the group. The presence of a  leader, or managerial observer, will often cause debate and discussion to be of a more constructive level. Perhaps it is because of an awareness that the person is capable of more than static presence -- that they can have active responses -- but the presence still matters.

     Finally, a leader can be a nexus of active example. Since they are no longer remaining in the same state, perhaps it is not proper to call them a catalyst. But, by being an active part, in isolation, their presence and activity may encourage others to participate.

The Burden of Responsibility: cleaning up the messes?

 

     In every family, in every team, in every group there will be someone who is least tolerant of messes, unfinished tasks, and unaddressed problems. That does not mean that that person is a "neatnik" or even extremely responsible. Just as within companies who just don't think they can live without ranking their employees, it is always within a range. For employee ratings, the "low end" might be someone in the top 5% of the population while others are in the top 4%. In the case of responsibility, it may mean that, for that person, the "straw that breaks the camel's back" is when there are 34 unwashed socks scattered across the floor rather than 40 unwashed socks (or an infinite number of unwashed socks).

     In the above cases, the responsibility is self-assigned. It is self-assigned because the person's characteristics are such that leaving the tasks not done causes greater inner turmoil than any efforts needed to take care of the problem.

     It is all relative. But responsibility includes assuming the duties of resolution of a problem. Those that recognize, and cannot stand to continue, a problem first will be the first to try to resolve the problem. They scoop up all of the unwashed socks and put them into the clothes washer (hopefully they also add detergent and turn it on). They pick up that book left on the floor that everyone keeps carefully stepping (or not so carefully, sometimes tripping) over.

     Responsibility is also closely tied to reliability. Responsible implies that you have authority, and will be held accountable, for what you are supposed to do. Reliability says that if you say you will do something then, if at all possible, you will do such. A person can be reliable without being responsible because a person can do things for which they have no authority or accountability. It is difficult to imagine making someone responsible if they are not also reliable. It would be a scenario of planned failure -- giving authority and accountability to someone who is unreliable.

     As is true of almost all internal change -- it cannot be imposed from without. There has to be a desire, within a person, to change. Thus, someone who is not responsible is not likely to become responsible unless something occurs to make them want to become responsible. Although there are non-military situations that force individual improvement and responsibility within the group -- there are more examples of such, in our society, within the military.

     In the movie "An Officer and a Gentleman", the character played by Richard Gere -- Zack Mayo -- is used to floating along, grifting, taking the easier paths. But his goal of feeling self-worth and belonging is a sufficient motivation for him to choose to change. This is the purpose of "tough love" -- creating a situation within which a person can choose (or not choose) to change. In the movie, it is either change or eviction from the military. In a family, the penalty may be eviction from the family support network. Personally, I think the latter is the harder to execute as the military already is structured with its firm rules and required behaviors. But, in either case, the change may be pressured from without but it must be the choice of the person to change.

Digital property: An opportunity for a marketing advantage

 

     I am in the process of downsizing -- primarily because the next place to which we move will be smaller (that place may be leaving the US) but also because having less means less to move, less to store, and less to be aware of. It is a form of simplification but some of that clutter is moved to the digital space rather than true elimination.

     I have had thousands of books (my highest total was around 3,500) and I have had hundreds of laserdiscs and, then, hundreds of DVDs (with a few Blu-Ray tossed in). My music library has been a more gentle transition as CDs became prevalent before I collected much -- but I still have a hundred LPs and 1,000+ CDs. I have moved from one format to another -- being blessed to have sufficient resources to be able to play this "keep up with technology" game. Moving all to digital is obviously the most compact (as of now) method for storage of text, graphics, audio, and video media.

     So, I am making what I expect to be the final transition of media for my collections. I have already found new homes for a couple thousand of my books and plan to find homes for almost all of the rest (I will retain a hundred or two of my most cherished ones). Our children have agreed to take some of them -- though the more recent generations have the wise tendency to not have lots of bulky things. (They have done the same "keep up with technology" game as I have -- but with videogames.)

     As I find homes for my physical media, some are "replaced" with digital copies. It is somewhat nuts for me to do that as my wife (who is much more practical and reasonable than I am in many ways) rents and borrows movies and books. But, as is true of many in my generation, I have been raised to consume and accumulate and recognition of that situation does not make it easy to live one's life differently.

     I mentioned above that I expect to continue to have a couple of hundred books. But CDs are hard to find new homes for -- and our children have not made a decision as to whether they want the CDs. I am keeping them for the time being. One thousand CDs weigh about 250 pounds (113.4 kg).

     A previous blog talked about the Houseboat Philosphy which expands on the idea of a houseboat (on Lake Union in Washington, to be specific) requiring the gross weight to stay below a certain limit. If more comes on, something goes off. 250 pounds of something that I have backed up in digital content seems like extra weight.

     But here we come to the "rub". All of the content I have imported into iTunes is now in Apple accessible format. If I get rid of the CDs and Apple (not likely but totally possible) decides to stop supporting audio media then I have lost my music collection. I was poking around a certain enormous online shopping site on which I have been a customer for 25 years. I was thinking about possibly dropping audiobook service. As I was looking through the possibilities, I came across the "by the way" fact that if I closed my account, I would no longer have access to any digital content -- a thousand (and still growing) books would no longer be "mine". If Apple decided to stop hosting digital movies, my 1000+ movies would be gone.

     If I have physical copies of books, records, CDs, DVDs, (laserdiscs, LPs) then they are mine. I can sell them, loan them, give them away, lose them, do a "Fahrenheit 451" on them or anything else I want. If I have a digital version of that content that is hosted by a company with its own format or theft control code then I am really only "leasing" the content. Digital books often cost the same as paperbacks -- but I have only very limited loan capabilities. If I die, my account must stay alive -- albeit as a "zombie" account -- for any of my family to continue to access "my" digital content and that is at the discretion of the digital storage provider.

     It is totally reasonable for a digital service provider to place restrictions on content such that it cannot be duplicated without additional royalties and service charges. It is also totally reasonable that, especially if the price is the same or greater, I should have the same ownership attributes for my digital property -- to give away, loan, or sell. I am certain that the companies can find someway to satisfy both needs. They just need incentive to do such. A company that finds a way to do that will immediately have a significant marketing advantage over all the other digital content providers. If no company will step up to the challenge, then legislation may be needed to protect property rights for the consumer.