Applicable to business – Page 16 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Dear Trudy. My baby doesn't even notice my Post-Its.™

My baby doesn’t even notice my Post-Its. How can I make clear it has to stop crying?

November 18, 2016 by Trudy
trudie-660x386

Dear Trudy,

My four months old cries day and night. I’ve put up Post-Its in its crib with a kind request it stops that. But now I begin to realise it doesn’t even notice them. How to make clear that I am not positively inclined to let this disregard pass just like that?
Regards,
At Wits’ End

Dear Wits’ End,

Probably your baby does not want to be micromanaged by Post-It. A lot of people take that badly. It isn’t your cleaning maid for one thing! So please try to take a more gentle approach. E.g., next time don’t write “Please don’t cry” but rather “How can we manage to agree to not cry after 2AM ;)”

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Plusquote, nevertheless good to have been ousted

Of course referring to the little guy’s family name. Here, because of his sound advice on how strategic planning should be done:

You engage, and then you wait and see.

First off of(f) course, he wasn’t particularly little it was just that his generals next to him, were long.
Second, he’s right, about the above approach. Reminder: Some later giant took the above and expanded, explained, it more in the style of his countrymen’s need for rambling-on notation. And quoting some latter-day possibly (!) overrated general, “Plans are nothing, planning is everything.” which again is the same thing. In the core, right. Also for business today; how could anyone pretend to be able to predict even the nearest of future better than such an eminent strategist ..? If, then despicable.

Third, did anyone mention that the abovementioned frog, and all others involved except some who couldn’t handle the truth (sic), found William II superior to some other, now much revered, general (Et moi je vous dis que Wellington est un mauvais général, que les Anglais sont de mauvaises troupes et que ce sera l’affaire d’un déjeuner) that just sat there and was almost annihilated by the French if it hadn’t been for the protraction and depletion at Quatre Bras and other places (Hougoumont, much?), by others mainly, so Blücher could arrive in time.

Enough for now, with:

[Myopia, caused; Amsterdam]

For members, useful insights

I’d suggest making this available widely; beyond membership only. Because it ties in so well with, e.g., this and many other issues at this.

Yes, I may be biased; just like everyone if only for having been member of this. Which (subject) plays a much more prominent role in your lives than you think, certainly in the nearest of futures. Beware.

And be aware of:

[Your ethics reasoning: All corners, leading nowhere, abandoned; Fabrique Utrecht]

Move; to Canadaya ..?

While discussing the options for those in developed countries that would not necessarily agree with the outcomes of recent or pending elections, of course Canada was on the table. Not quite in the Tim Horton / Hudson’s Bay / Blue Jays style, but rather as evac site. Not the Thinking Class leaving, but the retreat of the Others [needless to say, the 1%-and-up aren’t anywhere anymore already; they escape no matter which way the wind blows] is what we have seen with/before/at the Elections in this case; back into the countryside as if the cities aren’t the major country elements these days (‘states’ and electoral colleges as artifacts, makeshift solutions to early-days haphazard nationwide (then, more height than width) comms).

Or still, nevertheless, this here old (Spring) post may provide an option.
Which is perfectly possible; aren’t they where they’d retreat in the first place? But that would bring the ‘risk’ [ P(X)=1 ] that it turns out that the ones not retreating into the billyhills, can perfectly do without the retreaters [many letters in common with traitors], or even fare better.
Calling into question whether the pres that will ‘represent’ all, does, for all or doesn’t, for a majority (!) thus undermining the very idea of validity of the representer in that position and the systems/schemata of elections that brought him there despite the majority not wanting him.

Interesting.

May still bring the near-(sic) Yucatan arrangement closer.

Oh well, plus:

[Defensible against those so utterly bluntly lied to, but also my next / client offices; Breda]

First Rule of Risk

First rule of risk: Never underestimate risk. Even when you follow this rule, and even when your estimates seem ‘proper’.
Where of course, the propriety of your estimates is in grave doubt, either on the “This has never happened to us so / Come on, get real, [we’re not a target because we’re of no interest to anyone] what are the odds!? / Ho hum, there’s the boy cried wolf again”,
or on the “I’ve been reading this thing about CYBER! Arrrgh! In the Inquirer so why aren’t all staff hiding under their desk and we didn’t yet have the Marines take over and destroy the office to defend it ..?” FUD-side.
[Side note: You did have ‘consultants’ over (office (culture, motivation) destroyed, seems like a preventative measure?), but be aware that’s the opposite of Oorah]

Because when every nanosecond brings the possibility of an ‘event’ (how’s the repeat of sampling with (! … is it?) replacement over so many draws working out in your frequency estimations..!?), one can be sure that a 99% chance of something not happening, will result not in the virtually certainly not happening every time, but in the certainty that the 1% will strike, repeatedly, and a strike will endure much, much, much longer that the inception of it. The ‘event’ isn’t measured in nanoseconds, but in days, weeks, months and sometimes even years (think the, near-certain, reputational damage). So, your estimates are too low, all too low.

But since the detractors are always downplaying your estimates due to their other-directed agendas, do follow the First Rule of Risk …

[Your in-house security gurus are quite like that, yes, being the absolute rookies at the BlahBlah Seat At The Board Table — probably available only when the Board is out — or any level they’re relegated to]

When it comes to Risk, Appetite is Tolerance

Previously, with many others I believed that Risk Appetite would have to be the starting point of discussion for anything Risk within organisatons. The appetite, following from discussions on Strategy being the choices of directions and subsequent steps that would need to be taken to achieve strategic objectives, i.e., where one sees the organisation ending up in the future. Very clearly elucidated here. Backtracking, one will find the risks associated with these possibly multiple directions and steps — in qualitative terms, as NO valid data exists (logically necessarily, since these concern the future and hence are determined by all information in the universe which, logically, cannot be captured in any model since then, the model would have to be part of itself, incurring circularities ad infinitum and already, the organisational actions will impact the context and vice versa, in as yet (for the same reason) unpredictable ways.
And then … This risk appetite, automatically equated with the risk tolerance by the Board for risks incurred bottom-up by the mundane actions of all the underlings (i.e., including ‘managers’, see yesterday’s post), then suddenly would have to be in quantitative terms… [Yes, bypassing tolerance-as-organisational-resilience-capacity]
As all that goes around in organisations, through the first 99.9% of Operational / Operations Risk, and then some 10% industry-specific risks (e.g., market- and credit- for the finanical industry), not measured but guesstimated by hitherto outstandingly some that have least clue and experience [otherwise, they would have been much better employed in the first line of business themselves… The picture changes favorably (!) where we see some organisations shift to first-line do-it-yourself risk management… finally!] with what the chance and impact figures would be. As if those were the two only quantities to be estimated per ‘event’… As if any data from anywhere would be sufficiently reliable benchmarking material — If you believe that nevertheless, you should be locked up in a treatment facility… Yes sometimes it’s taken to be this moronic… No need to flame bigger here, as that was already done here.

But wait where was I. Oh, yeah, with the bypassing of tolerance defined as what the organisation could bear. The bare fact being, that no-one can establish a reliable figure for that. What the Board can and want to bear … Considering that the Board would have to be all-in, i.e., not only all of their bonuses since ever under clawback threat, but also all of their earned income incl salaries and personal wealth — if any of the Board would not want to risk all they ever had and have, bugger off this is what you signed up to. Considering also that strategic decisions are about wagering the existence of the company on choosing right or else, this wagering the well-being and wealth of all employees however unable to bear loss by mere fact of never had the ability to create some reserves, the previous consideration isn’t exaggerated. You wager others’ very existence, you wager your own ‘first’.

Summa summarum:
Risk Appetite is what the Board lets happen as Risk Tolerated Already.

Plus:

[And away goes your grand hallway down the drain; [non-related] Haarzuilens, Utrecht]

Positive Performance Plans — Done That, part I

Regarding the latest spat on dumping personal performance plans, P-KPIs et al.

Which one shouldn’t. Even at the most negative end of What Gets Measured Gets Done, there is some truth like, some grains. Where no measurement and reward (sic I) for performance, may not entice too many to be worth their salt (sic II). In today’s total-information society, it’s the free riders, the freeloaders, that escape unharmed with their booty. ‘Hedge fund manager’ like. Possibly to be villified by history as the worst atrocities of humanity ever, but that remains to be seen as history commnly is written by the winners and forward-looking one is not (can not be) sure who that will be.

But change is in the wngs, and is needed indeed. Too many are still driven by assembly line (i.e., geriatric) target setting and (micro)management. Don’t get me started on the latter or I spam you into oblivion with bold 80 point [Expletive starting with an F] You’s.

From the Other Side, there’s renewed talk of personal development through not To Do lists but Have Done lists.

Now, can these be deployed to structure human activities’ objectives ..? Having biweekly open discussions about ‘production’ even when the employee is somewhat free to decide what to work on as long as it’s slightly related to a long-term organisational goal that everyone shares — the Original idea why people banded together in companies, taking that label from the military where already it denoted comradeship and protection towards a common achievement.
Even where proxies are needed, as e.g., project-style work with deliverables only after some time, at milestones and deadlines. Even where managers’ understanding needs to be raised through the (their) roof to capture the content innovation and disruption of the Knowledge Workers doing the creation of work/deliverables/-content and actually understanding how that ties into the total achievement – / required. Even when those ‘managers’ need to grasp the idea that much time is spent very maybe not being worth the salt, to in a blink of an eye arrive at some final nugget worth all the salary previously invested (‘thrown overboard on useless loafing’ which is required for the nugget to materialise). Enabling work at home for many; much more efficiently and with the very same productivity if not much more in the end (when all have become accustomed to the idea(s as here before)).

Yes, this leaves overall performance to ‘managers’, to integrate and achieve, and to report, and to translate downwards to personalised (individualised and adapted to individuals’ personal capabilities and development goals) general work directions. No more forty hours sitting in a cubicle — brains dying of boredom all around but “you don’t get paid for not being bodily present less than forty hours (plus/plusplus) even if you aren’t in the least productive overall”. Such is life. The organisation doesn’t give a [expletive starting with an s] about how you get [same] done, as long as your group delivers… Managers are of the work force, not above it ..!

I’ll work on this topic later, to develop the organisational structures to support this…
Oh, and:

[Where Museum is splendid form and function; Teylers’ Haarlem]

Commoditised exploits

What was first; the exploits or the use of them ..?
When now, we have this kind of reasoning, aptly, there already was this, too.

So, … What now ..?

20161025_163321
[This being the state of (the best of … ;-[ ) Duts design nowadays. Yes the rest is worse, much worse. Law of handicap of head start; Zuid-As]

Fuzzy Vocabulary (Cross-)Boundaries

When discussing Risk …
There will always at some stage turn up a discussion (or multiple, if you’re Lucky; not) about the meaning of certain key words. Which is a pity, because … no, not because it distracts. Though it does, the main issue is that the secondary, meta, discussion about vocabularies is never / rarely resolved.
At strategic levels, talk is about risk appetite and risk tolerance, and foremost about business opportunities (of which the exitement is) spoiled by “risk managers” that point out the world might not be perfect and hence one is all but certain not to achieve the objectives. Smart business leaders push forward anyway, at best keeping the risks in the back of their heads while sanding off the rough edges of progress at that goes along all quite well. When strategies turn out to fail: Well, such is life as it has been since the dawn of humanity.
At tactical levels, talk is about risk portfolios and … not much, really; mostly project and program risks. Of the Boy Cried Wolf kind.
At operational levels, quasi-(sic!) quants do their stuff and come with all sorts of fabulous fables of formulas that wouldn’t stand scrutiny at the most basic of math levels. What idi.t would translate ‘High’ to ‘5’ and then multiply it with some other ‘4.5’ to arrive at a ‘22.5’ “risk” ..!? Heat maps are the reflection of the own moronic brain functioning onto what are supposed to be Managers’ levels of understanding. Though the outcome is correct, the origin of the reflection should be kept in mind instead of forgotten.

And all talk about ‘risk’ (‘operational risk’, even worse), ‘impact’, ‘High’, as though these were somewhat the same thing for all involved, disregarding most of time- and situation-variance or rather completely -determination. Right. Wrong. Just regurgitating definitions from ISO standards demonstrates to not understand the nature of the problem…

Any theoretical science logical-AND linguistics specialists that can help? And:

[Tinguley in a picture is quite different from the message of it …; Stedelijk Amsterdam]

The legacy of TDoS

So, we have the first little probes of TDoS attacks (DoS-by-IoT). ‘Refrigereddon’.
As if that wasn’t predictable, very much predictable, and predicted.
[Edited to add: And analysed correctly, as here.]

Predicted it was. What now? Because if we don’t change course, we’ll achieve ever worse infra. Yes, security can be baked into new products — that will be somewhat even more expensive so will not swarm the market — but for backward compatibility in all the chains out there already, cannot be relied upon plus there’s tons of legacy equipment out there already (see: Healthcare, and: Utilities). Even when introducing new, fully securable stuff, we’re heading into a future where the Legacy issue will grow for a long time and much worse than it already is, before (need to be) huge pressure will bring the problem down.

So… What to do ..? Well, at least get the fundamentals right, which so far we haven’t. Like this, and this and this and here plus here (after the intermission) and there…

Would anyone have an idea how to get this right, starting today, and all-in all-out..?

Plus:

[IRL art will Always trump online stuff… (?); at home]