Category: Business

Fun using Microsoft Copilot (Bing Chat with GPT-4)…

Posted on by The Information Badger in AI & Robotics, Business, Information Technology, Leadership & Management, Life, Online Services, Tech for social good

The 2024 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting at Davos ended last week.  It’s where business, government, and civil society leaders meet to discuss global issues, share ideas, and collaborate to find solutions – according to the PR machinery. The Badger’s always rather sceptical about Davos as it seems to have similarities with the annual senior leadership/management conferences that big corporations hold. The Badger attended many such corporate shindigs during his career, but he always returned a little unconvinced that they really made a difference. The conferences had themes, presentations, speeches, and breakout workshops involving attendees, but, in reality, the most important topics were addressed quietly and privately by a small group of corporate stakeholders behind closed doors. Davos, an event for powerful and wealthy elites with enormous egos, appears little different.

One of this year’s Davos themes was ‘AI as a Driving Force for the Economy and Society.’ The mischievous Badger thus asked Microsoft Copilot (Bing Chat with GPT-4) the question ‘Does Davos actually make any difference?’ The 150-word answer, mostly contextual fluff, culminated in ‘The effectiveness of the meeting is subjective and depends on the perspective of the attendees and the outcomes of the discussions’. Hmm, this is surely validation of the Badger’s scepticism! He then asked, ‘Is AI more hype than substance?’ Copilot’s answer ended with ‘While there is certainly a lot of hype surrounding AI, it is clear that there is also a lot of substance to the technology. AI has the potential to transform many industries and change the way we live our lives. However, it is important to approach the technology with a critical eye and to be aware of the potential risks and challenges associated with its use.’ The Badger smiled; it was the type of benign answer he’d expected.

The Badger’s next two questions were ‘Will AI replace lawyers?’ and ‘Will AI replace software engineers?’, ostensibly because both professional groups are crucial to the functioning of the world today and also relevant to Davos’s ‘AI as a Driving Force for the Economy and Society’ theme. In both cases Copilot answered that AI will likely augment their work making them more efficient and effective, rather than replacing them. Increased efficiency and effectiveness implies the need for fewer people in these professions, but time will tell whether this is the case.

After some fun asking more questions, the Badger sat back and considered again whether Davos makes any difference to life for the vast majority of the global population. No, it doesn’t, because it’s just a talking shop for billionaires and elites and has no executive power. It’s the constant and speedy advance of diverse technology, and AI in particular, that makes the difference for most of us. Davos is, therefore, not the dog that wags the technology tail changing our lives, it’s the other way around…

I read the news today, oh boy – The Post Office and Horizon…

Posted on by The Information Badger in Business, Information Technology, Leadership & Management, Public Institutions

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was playing as the Badger read some of the recent information about the UK Post Office scandal (here, for example). At the heart of the scandal is the Horizon software from Fujitsu and the fact that between 1999 and 2015 the Post Office wrongly prosecuted (and convicted) over 700 sub-postmasters for theft, false accounting, and fraud when there were shortfalls at their branch. The shortfalls were, in fact, due to faults in Horizon. The miscarriage of justice is huge and, in the Badger’s opinion, a national disgrace.

In 2020 a statutory public enquiry was initiated to establish a clear account of the Horizon failings at the Post Office. It’s ongoing, and lots of material from its public hearings can be found here. At the heart of the scandal, however, is more than just software faults, it’s also the actions of government ministers, senior Post Office executives and employees, and Fujitsu, over more than two decades. As the first line of the final track on Sgt. Pepper’s, ‘A Day in the Life’, rang out while the Badger read Computer Weekly’s guide to the scandal, he greatly empathised with the wronged sub-postmasters who must have read the news every day for the last twenty years and thought, oh boy!

The Badger’s maintained some peripheral awareness of this debacle for a long time, not because he’s ever worked with or for the Post Office or Fujitsu, but because his lengthy career in building, leading, and delivering major IT systems has baked a professional curiosity into his psyche. Basic questions about the contract, the software development process, testing, acceptance, readiness for Go-Live and rollout, and the linkage between service desk and fault identification and fix, have long bubbled in the recesses of his mind. The public enquiry might ultimately answer such questions in due course.

But here’s the thing. Software and systems always contain faults. When the Post Office first introduced Horizon for use in 1999, it was at a time when software practices were mature, organisations were focusing on ensuring their systems were ‘Millenium Ready’, and there was significant momentum in outsourcing and offshoring. If the evidence was that Horizon had at that time a large number of outstanding faults, then the professionalism, competence, and motivations of everyone involved in its Go-Live/rollout decision are questionable. This decision, after all, started the ball rolling on the woeful events and disgraceful corporate behaviour that ruined innocent people’s lives over subsequent decades.

Horizon is still in use with the Post Office today. This is a reminder for us all that many systems that make our world function today use software written decades ago. Faults will always happen, and most organisations deal with them and their consequences professionally, responsibly, and fairly. The Post Office debacle, however, makes you wonder ‘or do they?’

Expect the unexpected; when the unexpected happens, respond rather than react…

Posted on by The Information Badger in Business, Delivery, IT Project Management, Leadership & Management, Project Management, Psychology

The very first Project Management training course the Badger attended early in his IT industry career seemed of questionable merit. It was a residential course for Project Managers drawn from across all the business sectors in which his company  operated. Attendees arrived on a Sunday afternoon and ultimately departed mid-afternoon on the following Wednesday. At the time, it was common for people to be actively performing a Project Manager role before attending any associated training course, and so everyone on the course was already actively managing software and systems projects under a variety of contractual arrangements.

Most of the course sessions focused on the process and practice of managing a delivery/development lifecycle, risk, finances, and the basics of contracts and change control.  The format was rather dry but provided some useful reminders. At the end of the course, however, most attendees questioned whether being away from their projects had been a useful use of their time. There were, however, two overwhelmingly positive points of feedback, namely a) the usefulness of meeting peers and sharing experiences, and b) the closing, hour-long, Q&A session during which a senior business leader answered wide ranging questions from attendees.

Whilst the Badger came away rather ambivalent about this course, it had provided a useful reminder that Project Management is as much about people, as it is about structure, lifecycles, processes and practices. In fact, the primary thing that has stayed with the Badger from the course ever since are the wise words of the senior business leader in the closing Q&A session. When asked to give one piece of advice that everyone present should take on board, they said ‘Expect the unexpected, and when the unexpected happens, respond rather than react’. They explained that no one can avoid the unexpected, that some people are better at dealing with it than others, and that some people react emotionally, feel anger, panic and fear, become agitated, and initiate  knee-jerk moves to action that compound matters and alienate others.  Others respond rather than react. They stay calm, focus on the facts and what they can control, assess the options before progressing a plan of action, and unify and encourage those around them.  The business leader told the audience to remember to respond rather than react.

Throughout his career, the Badger encountered many leaders and managers who had to deal with the completely unexpected. Many reacted rather than responded ! This was a constant reminder that everyone is different, and that being a leader or manager doesn’t provide immunity to the core traits of your personality. Perhaps that first Project Management course was of more value than seemed at the time, because it sowed the seed of awareness that to be a truly successful leader or manager, then you must learn how to respond rather than react to the unexpected…

This item contains nothing generated by Bing Chat…

Posted on by The Information Badger in AI & Robotics, Automation, Business, Ethics & Regulation, Information Technology, Life, Risk, Technology

The Badger’s been experimenting for some time with Bing Chat, an integration of the GPT model developed by OpenAI with Microsoft’s search engine. It’s been both fun and thought-provoking. The capability is impressive, which is why there’s been massive interest in the technology in the 6 months since the public release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Many of the Badger’s interactions have made him chuckle, roll his eyes in annoyance, or better appreciate its use for good or evil, but every interaction has, in truth, reinforced why Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, calls on US lawmakers to regulate AI. This capability  has enormous scope to develop further. It’s already engaging the public and changing the way things are done, and it will continue to do so in the future. The Badger, like many, sees many pros and cons, but the primary outcome of his experimentation has been to crystalize the realisation that he must deal with how this impacts his content-producing activities like the writing of the blog you are reading now.

AI is destined to affect the activities and jobs of white-collar workers across a wide variety of industries (see here and here, for example). Indeed, the Badger can think of many functions and jobs that could be impacted by AI-centred automation in the IT industry alone. With perpetual improvement to make the profits stakeholders expect at the core of any business’s survivability, it’s inevitable that AI will speed up the drive for organisations to do more with less people, especially as employing people is expensive. Working in IT or tech industries doesn’t provide immunity from this impact, as BT’s recent announcement highlights. BT is cutting more than 10,000 jobs due to new technology and AI over the next 6 years. For employees in any organisation, therefore, this isn’t a time to stick your head in the sand; it’s a time to scan the horizon, think about how your livelihood might be impacted, and assess your options for countering the threat. All is not completely bleak, however, because AI seems unlikely to replace jobs requiring human skills such as creativity, judgement, physical dexterity and emotional intelligence. If these dominate your job, then the immediate threat is limited.

Experimenting with Bing Chat brings much of the media debate and commentary on AI to life. It’s made the Badger think seriously about intellectual property, ethics, and things like the transparency of content origination in a world where services like Bing Chat cannot be ignored. The Badger believes people deserve to know if any of the content they read online has been generated using a service like Bing Chat or Google Bard. Well, if you’ve read this far, then you can be confident that what you’ve read has been created entirely by a human being. It contains nothing generated by Bing Chat or any other similar capability.

Bigbug, AI, and common sense…

Posted on by The Information Badger in AI & Robotics, Automation, Business, Drones, Ethics & Regulation, Leadership, Risk, Transformation

After a day of strenuous activity in the garden, the Badger settled down to watch something on the television that wasn’t full of doom and despondency. Nothing grabbed his interest as he flicked through the channels, so he scrolled Netflix for a film that wasn’t full of gory action or Marvel superheroes and came across Bigbug from director Jean-Pierre Jeunet.  Netflix describes the storyline as ‘Humans have ceded most tasks to AI in 2045, even in Alice’s nostalgic home. So, when robots stage a coup, her androids protectively lock her doors.’  Intrigued, the Badger hit play and watched this off-beat, quirky, sci-fi comedy to the end. It proved to be thought provoking.

Millennial or Generation Z digital natives will easily relate to the film’s backdrop of a society in 2045 based on automation, AI, and robots, because much of the technology portrayed – AI, drones, sophisticated sensors, the Internet of Things, machine learning, driverless cars, and so on – is a progression of what exists today. Indeed, Bigbug’s 2045, only 22 years away, cannot be deemed unrealistic when digital technology has already revolutionised life in the last two decades. While watching the film, the Badger wondered why we would tolerate the development of a society where AI and robots could dominate, control, and potentially destroy the human race. The answer seemed quite simple; humans are fickle and predominantly focused on the short term and convenience.

There’s no doubt that the pandora’s box of AI-centred systems is already open, and open letters signed by people like Elon Musk, and danger warnings from Geoffrey Hinton, the godfather of AI, will not change that. The genie is out of the bottle, and it’ll never go back in. Its simple common sense, surely, that if we create systems with the potential to be more powerful than humans then we must be clear on how we retain control over them? Unfortunately, common sense seems a bit thin on the ground these days. History shows that action to constrain and control the use of new technologies normally happens retrospectively, and AI seems to be no exception as we realise that it could, to put it provocatively, become a self-inflicted, weapon of mass human destruction!

The Badger found Bigbug’s technology-centric world of 2045 unattractive, but not outlandish. No one can predict the future, but it’s a certainty that AI-centred technology is rapidly changing human life as we know it, and presenting risks for our longer-term existence. The Badger thinks that we should never allow ourselves to become subservient to any technology that can lead to the decline and eventual eradication of our species. Surely that’s only common sense and the time has come to deal with the AI elephant in the room…

Problematic underperformers – the dog must wag the tail!

Posted on by The Information Badger in Business, IT Project Management, Leadership & Management, Project Management, Risk

As the first day of a conference broke up, attendees moved to the venue’s bar to network, gossip, and share thoughts about the day’s sessions. A young project manager, however, sat alone in the venue’s lounge looking as if the world rested on their shoulders. The youngster smiled weakly and raised a hand in recognition as the Badger walked by. ‘Why so glum?’ the Badger asked before sitting down in an adjacent chair. ‘An underperformer is proving to be a problem that’s jeopardising the success of my project’ came the morose response.

The youngster explained that a person on a team on the critical path of the project was seriously underperforming, proving impossible to manage, and putting at risk the timely completion of contractual deliverables. The person had apparently been troublesome from the outset, but their team colleagues were now vocally grumbling because this individual was always late for work, always left on time at the end of the day with their work unfinished, and always blamed others for their poor productivity and low quality output. The individual also complained about everything! Performance management processes were in progress, but the person was using every nuance, ambiguity, and avenue for defence in the system to frustrate their execution. The young project manager asked if the Badger had any thoughts.  

The Badger stated that a rule of thumb which had stood him in good stead throughout his career was that ~10% of individuals on a project were underperformers.  Most were good people who were either in a role unsuited to their talents, or juggling with challenging personal or family situations, or both. Most did not poison a team’s spirit or damage overall output. A small proportion of underperformers, however, were truly work-shy individuals, with poor capability and often obtuse personalities, and somehow they had slipped through in the company recruitment processes. These individuals often distracted management, poisoned morale, and destroyed team spirit and the productivity needed for a team and project to succeed. The Badger said that he’d learned that these individuals must be dealt with by those in leadership positions in line with formal processes, but swiftly and decisively if positive project dynamics were to be preserved.

The youngster whined that diversity, harassment, and anti-discrimination policies made their ability to take swift, decisive, action more difficult. The Badger shook his head and simply reinforced two points, namely that a) their primary responsibility was to deliver to their client on time, to budget, and in line with their contract, and b) that allowing a poison apple to infect the fruit in the whole barrel was a leadership failure!

Later that evening the youngster bought the Badger a drink in the bar and said they’d made some phone calls and removed the problematic individual from the project. ‘I’ve learned’, they said, ‘that leadership involves decisions, judgements, and the dog wagging the tail, not vice-versa!’  Quite!

Big Tech: Is it in turmoil?

Posted on by The Information Badger in Business, Change, Human Resources, Information Technology, Transformation

The Badger joined a local community group on Facebook during the pandemic. This week he left it because postings have become dominated by niff-naff and trivia.  Although it’s been interesting to see how posts to the group have changed over time, the Badger’s now got better things to do than see content that ranges from requests for spare cardboard boxes to cat-sitting!  What’s this got to do with Big Tech in turmoil? The link is subtle, but it’s real; it’s the act of change and leaving.

Big Tech – a convenient phrase for companies that provide online services that the public uses in daily life – has been announcing significant job cuts over the last six months. Meta, for example, has recently announced further major layoffs to take effect by the end of April and May 2023, and, as the Badger writes,  Amazon have announced a cut of another 9000 jobs.  According to Computerworld, the pace of job cuts will rise across the entire tech sector throughout this year. It’s a view that the Badger shares.

Many have commented on the reasons for these layoffs – see, for example, here – but fundamentally it’s really simple. Big Tech is having to change to adapt to a new world, market, and economic reality. Change is painful, just look at Twitter, especially for those who lose their jobs with their employer. What’s happening with Big Tech, however, is just part of the circle of life for any commercial organisation, large or small, in any market sector.

Big Tech is not immune to having to deal with decisions taken during the pandemic on staffing levels that haven’t worked out. Nor is it immune to the cutbacks and changing behaviours of the consumers, businesses, and advertisers that underpin their business models. It’s not immune to ever-growing competition from peers and rivals, tightening regulation, inflation and rising costs, and the need for adopting cleverer automation to keep operational efficiency at a peak. The latter alone drives a need for fewer people. The pandemic, geopolitical events, and changing world markets have made some kind of reset in Big Tech companies inevitable with some employees, as always, part of the fallout.

So, is Big Tech in turmoil? No. It’s just going through a part of the circle of life that all businesses go through. It’s worth remembering that when big oak trees shed their acorns, some of those acorns go on to become new oak trees. Some of those losing their jobs will start new businesses that flourish, and others will go on to spread their knowledge and experience more widely through taking new jobs outside the tech sector. The Badger believes there’s a certainty for those being let go in Big Tech’s reset, namely, that they as individuals will cope. Why? Because as the dominant species on our planet, humans are fundamentally resilient, adaptable, and resourceful.

Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes…

Posted on by The Information Badger in Business, Leadership & Management, Learning, social media

Many years ago, after completing the turnaround and handover of a troublesome major project to a difficult client, the Badger went on holiday in sunnier climes for some rest and recreation. His family had insisted on complete digital disconnection from the world of work during the break, and so the Badger was fully refreshed, keen to catch up with colleagues, and champing at the bit for another challenge on the first morning back at work after the holiday. Shortly after settling into a backlog of emails, however, the Badger’s phone rang – the CEO wanted to see him straight away. With some trepidation, the Badger immediately went to their office in another part of the building.

The CEO greeted the Badger jovially, ushered him to a sofa, and then got straight to the point. A major contract on the company’s routine monitoring list had suddenly escalated as having serious delivery and contractual problems. The CEO said that they were being inundated by different opinions about what had gone wrong and what action was needed. They used a phrase uttered by Clint Eastwood in the film ‘The Dead Pool’, namely ‘Opinions are like a**holes, everyone’s got one’’, to highlight their frustration that opinions were making it difficult to get to the facts they needed to decide a course of action that was in the company’s best interest. The Badger left the CEO’s office with a new task, namely, to establish the facts!     

Having been involved in many problem situations, the Badger had already learned many things, two of which were pertinent to his new task. The first was that the cause of problems rarely sits with just one of line or project management, inter-business unit rivalry, financial controls, people issues, plans and processes, client relationships, requirement and engineering flaws, or contract ambiguities. It’s normally a combination of many of these factors. The second was that having a good grasp of the overall facts was essential to formulating a recovery strategy and action plan that had solid foundations. To get to the facts meant cutting through the opinions, half-truths, distortions, agendas, and finger-pointing of others, by being the completely objective grown up in the room.

So, if you find yourself having to make important decisions during the maelstrom of an escalating problem, then be steadfast, focused, and do what’s needed to ensure you take these decisions based on facts not opinions. Good leaders and managers remember that Nehru once said ‘Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes’.  Nehru died in 1964, but these words remain relevant in today’s world dominated by the clamour of instant opinion from social and mainstream media.  Long-live decision-making based on facts, because without this the future is one of perpetually worsening  chaos!

Walking out of a meeting with a client…

Posted on by The Information Badger in Business, Delivery, Information Technology, IT Project Management, Leadership & Management, Learning, Project Management

‘Meetings, meetings, meetings!’, a delivery leader exclaimed irritably after a session with a client who had given them the verbal hair-dryer treatment about an imminent milestone and its associated payment. ‘They don’t want to pay, even though we’ll have met the milestone in full’, the leader grumbled before berating themselves for not having walked out of the meeting. The Badger smiled. Memories of his own difficult meetings with clients came flooding back.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive training in meetings and negotiations that companies provide, it’s real experience in difficult client meetings that hones your  approach to getting the right outcome. The Badger’s approach developed over the years to have essentially three things at its core. The first was that the client is not always right, and that being in command of irrefutable facts, and using them calmly, consistently, and assertively rather than petulantly and confrontationally, is crucial to getting the desired outcome. The second was mental resilience, to have as much background to the client’s position as possible, and to decide tactics that are unwaveringly focused on the desired outcome, before the start of the meeting. The third was to always have a walking out option in the kitbag as a weapon of last resort, but not for use to assuage personal ego or frustration.

Had the Badger ever walked out of a client meeting, the delivery leader asked? Yes, but rarely. One occasion was some months after a system with a fractious delivery history had become operational with a client’s end-users. The meeting was to a) formalise that the delivery contract’s deliverables had all been delivered, and b) that the client would make the final payment due and close the contract. It should have been a formality, because the client’s staff had already confirmed everything had been delivered to contract and to their satisfaction. Item (a) was indeed confirmed at the meeting, but the client refused, without giving any reason, to pay the outstanding money.

During a break, the Badger and his team agreed we were wasting our time because the client had no intention of paying. After the break, the Badger asked the client to confirm that although no contractual deliverables remained, they would not pay the money due. They confirmed this, and the Badger got up and left followed by his team. The shock on the client’s team faces was palpable. It was not something they’d anticipated!  Payment was received three days later after the Badger’s CEO phoned the chairman of the client’s Board of Directors to complain and threaten litigation if users continued to use the system.  

With a twinkle in their eye, the delivery leader looked at the Badger, grinned broadly, and said ‘I was wise not to have walked out. If I had, the client might have thought I was a petulant, over-sensitive, snowflake with no backbone’.  The Badger laughed aloud…

Think differently about your performance appraisal with your boss…

Posted on by The Information Badger in Business, Delivery, Education, Human Resources, Information Technology, Leadership & Management, Learning

The reactions of people who’ve just had a performance appraisal with their boss varies enormously and also highlights how different we are as individuals. Personal reactions, of course, cover a wide spectrum. The Badger’s experience, however, is that while a person’s demeanour and body language says a lot about their reaction, most people share little more than the odd comment about their appraisal with others. There are always, of course, people who think they’ve been treated poorly and say so to anyone who will listen. In the Badger’s experience, such individuals tend to be self-centred, averagely talented, poor listeners, and they normally have egotistic or narcistic personalities.  These individuals, and those at the other end of the spectrum who are just downright lazy, unproductive, and permanently negative,  tend to share their displeasure widely and keep HR functions busy with claims of unfair treatment.

A youngster in their first job since leaving University 15 months ago whined to the Badger this week that their appraisal had been a shock and unfair. The youngster, hungry for rapid career and salary progression, unfortunately failed to recognise that they haven’t adjusted to working life as well as their peers. The Badger explained this, and in the course of doing so remembered some wisdom from a training course he attended many years ago. On that course, a behaviour expert, building on the sport coaching work of Tim Gallway, emphasised that we should think about individual performance using the simple equation ‘Performance = Talent – Interferences’. If someone has 100% Talent, then their Performance is never 100% because there are always Interferences from personal and/or organisational factors. Personal interferences come, for example, from lifestyle, health, family and/or caring responsibilities. Organisational interferences come, for example, from skill set mismatches with work role, adequacy of role definition, relationships with leaders and work colleagues, organisational bureaucracy, and factors like organisational dynamism and workforce stagnation if business growth is poor.

The behaviour expert’s key message was that everyone has Interferences, so no one can ever perform at 100%! Interestingly, they used the same equation to describe the performance of a company. In this case, Talent represents a company’s portfolio of  products and services, and Interferences are largely the policies, processes, and  controls that influence the delivery of the portfolio to clients. Bigger companies tend to have more Interferences than smaller ones, and no company ever performs at 100%, although clever accounting and expectation management often masks this!

So, think about your performance appraisal in the terms above. Your Talent is constant, so your Performance dips when Interferences rise. Eventually Interferences will reach a level that makes you feel like doing something different with your life. It’s very empowering when this happens, because it definitively changes the way you approach your appraisal with your boss.