Facebook: High School Science Club Management Faces Modest Challenge
November 4, 2020
Imagine running an elite high school for really smart people. Now think about having almost half of the people in school think you are a dork. Sound cool?
According to “49% Facebook Employees Don’t Believe It Had Positive Impact On World” seems to suggest that the senior management of ever lovable Facebook has this hurdle to surmount, crawl around, tunnel under, or leap over. The write up states:
Facebook released the results of its internal half-yearly “Pulse survey.” One of the key findings reported by Buzzfeed is that only 51% of employees believe that Facebook is having a positive impact on the world. The survey was taken by 49,000 Facebook employees in a period of two weeks in October.
How does one manage this “half don’t get with the program” issue? The write up does not consider this management question. But we learn:
Recently, the company has been working on various issues with the platform. The company first got rid of anti-vax content, then aimed to remove misinformation about the holocaust. The social media giant also took two good initiatives for flu shots and making U.S. citizens aware of voting. While those are all good things, the issues run deeper.
The challenge, however, is not limited to employees. If “Most Americans Think Social Media Has a Negative Effect on the US” presents accurate data, Facebook faces a larger management task.
Even more intriguing is Facebook’s growth runway. “Facebook Makes More Money per User Than Rivals, But It’s Running Out of Growth Options” asserts that Snap and Pinterest seems to be in “double digit year-over-year growth in users, revenue, and average revenue per user.” The reason? Advertising strategies.
“Move fast and break things” may apply to running a company in an manner that keeps half of the employees in a happy place. Maybe if management buys lunch, more people will feel good about the company’s innovative approach to making the world closer together. Maybe?
Stephen E Arnold, November 4, 2020
A Failure to Understand Google and History: First, There Is No Google History for Real Googlers
October 30, 2020
I read “Creative Director At Google Stadia Advocates Streamers Paying Game Devs And Publishers.” The write up explains why game streaming is a good thing. A Googler involved in Stadia, Google’s effort to be a player in the big money world of online escapism, wondered publicly if “Twitch and YouTube users should be “paying the developers and publishers” of the games they stream.”
The write up includes this point:
Meanwhile, I’m just wondering why Hutchinson doesn’t just go read his own employer’s 2013 study that shows just how beneficial let’s plays and game-streaming is for the industry. He might also want to realize that Google’s YouTube has an entire wing of it’s service called YouTube Gaming, built around game-streaming….But it’s probably time to educate Hutchinson on the actual facts that his own employer has made clear in the past.
Observations:
- Googlers are a-historical; that is, there is no history. This is not the Wu thing about the “end of history.” The past is a non-event.
- Googlers making statements illustrate the lack of a cohesive intellectual fabric at the Google. Googlers see the world through a lens crafted by a single Googler or a small group of Googlers clumping.
- Google lawyers, not those working on products, are responsible for figuring out what happened in the past. But those analyses are only germane to legal issues in the here and now.
This article, its reference to a 2013 Google study, and the observation of a single atomic Googler vibrating in bonus space underscore a lack of understanding about the company. The past — like the Googler who died of an alleged overdose on a yacht with an interesting person or the attempted suicide by a jilted friend of a senior Googler — don’t exist. Google invented Google. That’s for sure. However, the silliness of historical events, a record of actions, and the “actual facts” are not germane.
Google is a now outfit. History is for the non-Googleys.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2020
Technical Debt with Cats: Lots of Cats
October 29, 2020
Cats are fine. Lots of cats can trigger a different reaction. I liked “Technical Debt: Why It’ll Ruin Your Software.” I ignored the cats and focused on the information payload of the article. The author does a good job of explaining what a number of people [a] ignore, [b] do not understand, and [c] miss the connection with cost and time over-runs.,
I circled three items in the write up:
First, I circled this passage:
The moment John chose the faster and easiest solution for him was the moment that the Technical Debt was inserted in the code.
The idea is that in order to “get ‘er done,” the Corona virus of cost, complexity, and chaos was let loose. The “faster and easiest” method is everywhere. Like a person with an addiction the individual will not admit, there is no single step toward remediation. The remediators will use the same method.
Second, I noted this diagram:
The chart makes clear what people under pressure often ignore. Costs are rising, and they may not be controllable. How much change has the core of Google search undergone in the last 20 years. Who wants to dig into the guts and deal with some of the interesting problems which exist? Answer: No one who wants a promotion and a chance to start a VC firm.
Third, the future is smart software:
In a realistic and respectable world, machines should take care of these situations, and not us.
Yep, and software will be just wonderful.
Stephen E Arnold, October 29, 2020
Amazon: Emulating GeoSpark?
October 28, 2020
Despite pandemic-related networking challenges, analytics database firm GeoSpock is making its move. Tech in Asia reveals, “UK-Based Database GeoSpock Bags $5.4m to Expand Further into Asia.” Lead by nChain and Cambridge Innovation Capital, this investment round brings GeoSpock to over $32 million in capital raised to date. It seems these and other investors see merit in the company’s claim to offer “the most advanced analytics database,” tailor-made to provide analytics, visualization, and insights for today’s ultra-connected world. Reporter Doris Yu writes:
“The company plans to use the new funds to improve its product and technical capabilities, as well as accelerate the development and adoption of its database in the market, according to a statement. What problem is it solving? ‘With the emergence of connected vehicles, smart cities, and the deployment of internet of things (IoT) sensors, the amount of data produced globally has exploded,’ the company told Tech in Asia, adding that traditional databases are ‘too slow and cumbersome.’ GeoSpock said it aims to produce a ‘cost-efficient, scalable, and fast database.’ … GeoSpock CEO Richard Baker said the company aims to disrupt the US$386 billion IoT big data analytics market. It works with customers on a subscription basis and charges for compute nodes that are available for use. With the increasing adoption of digitization throughout Asia, the company said its expansion plans will initially focus on Singapore and Japan as it develops teams and partnerships across the region.”
GeoSpock already has footholds in Asia, where it is working with both public and private organizations on smart city, automotive, maritime, and telecommunications projects. Launched in 2013, the company is based in Cambridge. GeoSpock now employs about 40 folks worldwide, but expects to hire more technical and customer-service staff in Singapore and Japan within the next year.
What’s interesting is that there is a company called GeoSpark Analytics. Coincidence?
Cynthia Murrell, October 19, 2020
Content Management: A New Spin
October 27, 2020
What do you get when a young wizard reinvents information management? First, there was records management. Do you know what that was supposed to do? Yep, manage records and know when to destroy them according to applicable guidelines. Next, there was content management. In the era of the Internet, newly minted experts declared that content destined for a Web site had to be management. There were some exciting solutions which made some consultants lots of money; for example, Broadvision/Aurea. Excellent solution. Then there was document management exemplified by companies like Exstream Software which still lives at OpenText as a happy 22 year old solution.) These “disciplines” generated much jargon and handwaving, but most of the chatter sank into data lakes and drowned. Once in a while, like Nessie, an XML/JSON monster emerges and roars, “Success. All your content belong to us.” On the shore of the data lake, eDiscovery vendors shiver in fear. Information management is a scary place.
I read because someone sent me a link, knowing my interest in crazy mid tier consulting speak, to this article: “The Problem with Books of Record and How an EMS Could Help Solve That Problem.” Now here’s the subtitle: “Execution management systems are a new category of software that unlocks value in the hairball of enterprise IT landscapes. Here’s how.”
The acronym EMS means “execution management systems.” Okay. EMS is similar to CMS (content management systems) but with a difference. Execution has a actionable edge. Execution. Get something done. Terminate with extreme prejudice.
Another clarification appears in the write up:
To be a book of record, the data would be in one place, always current and complete. Today’s business systems often have data stored, redundantly, in many places, with many elements incomplete and possibly out of date.
Okay, a book of record and the reference to the existing content chaos which exists in most of these “management” systems.
I am now into new territory. The filing cabinet has yielded to the data lake which suggests dumping everything in one big pool and relying of keywords, Fancy Dan solution like natural language processing, and artificial intelligence to deliver what the person looking for information needs. (The craziness of this approach can be relived by reading about the Google Search Appliance or using an enterprise search system to locate a tweet by a crazed marketer who decided to criticize a competitor after a two hour Zoom meeting followed by a couple of cans of Mountain Dew.)
The write up explains:
Solutions like Celonis’ EMS (execution management) exist because few vendors have focused on all these information handshakes. To create a really efficient business environment, the devil is in the nooks, crannies, handoffs, manual steps, integrations, systems changes, queues, and more. Execution management is about documenting, understanding, integrating, streamlining, optimizing and reengineering how work gets done. Put simply, Celonis’ tools, in short, document processes, mine what’s happening from the underlying systems to see what kinds of tortured paths are being followed to get work done and then, via benchmarks, best practices and smart automation capabilities, straighten out the flow.
Is this a sales pitch for a company called Celonis?
The firm, according to its Web site, is the number one in the execution management system space. I believe everything I read on the Internet.
Several observations:
- Automation is a hot topic. Hooking information to workflow makes sense.
- The word choice or attempt at creating awareness with the EMS moniker could be confusing to some. For me, EMS means emergency management solutions.
- Founded in 2011, Celonis has ingested (according to Crunchbase) more than $300 million in funding. Investors are optimistic and know that the trajectories of FileNet and FatWire are in their future.
The information management revolution continues. At some point, the problem with information in an organization will be solved. On the other hand, it may be one of those approaching infinity thing-a-ma-bobs. You can’t get there from here.
Some corporate executives experience stress when dealing with content and information challenges: Legal discovery, emails with long forgotten data, and references to documents which no longer “exist.”
Net net: Stress can lead to heart attacks. That’s when the real EMS is needed.
Stephen E Arnold, October 27, 2020
Mindfulness Meets High School Science Club Management Methods
October 23, 2020
I read “Silicon Valley’s Corporate Mindfulness Hypocrisy.” I found my “mind” full of thoughts. The main point is that consulting savants are booking engagements and billing for educational sessions which teach employees how to be mindful. (No, I don’t know what that means, and, to be frank, I am not particularly interested in the snake oil coated academic guruish explanations.
The essay contains an interesting sentence:
Corporate mindfulness is a poor substitute for organizational change. By reframing structural and systemic problems as an individual-level pathology, by putting the onus of responsibility all on individuals – telling them, “Just do this mindfulness practice” –is akin to victim-blaming.
The bound phrase which I noted is “organizational change.”
Why on earth would a Silicon Valley company making money, keeping the funding sources at bay, and employees working from home want substantive change.
The purpose of high school science club management methods is to institutionalize anti-adult behavior. Entitlement, money, and Clubhouse fame are goals. The other stuff like the well being of the lucky people who get paid to filter content that semi smart software cannot be trusted to block is not a big deal.
In my opinion, HSSCMM are the norm, and they seem to be working for some outfits. Change is hard. Let the employees learn how to channel their inner demons. The top dogs want to check out the new Porsches.
If you don’t get it, you don’t belong to the science club, and you probably won’t be noticed.
What’s the science club saying about the upcoming Congressional hearings in late October? Scary, right?
Stephen E Arnold, October 23, 2020
Google: Simplifying Excellence
October 22, 2020
Almost everyone knows Google. I spotted an eclectic write up in Entertainment Overdose (an estimable publication). The article “Eric Schmidt, Who Got YouTube for a Premium, Assumes Social Media Networks Are Amplifiers for Idiots” contains a quote. This is an alleged statement attributed to Eric Schmidt, the overseer of Google until 2018.
Here’s the alleged pearl of wisdom:
The context of social networks serving as amplifiers for idiots and crazy people is not what we intended.
But it happened with YouTube, right? Who was running the company at this time? I think it was Mr. Schmidt.
It seems that Mr. Schmidt’s social world view is divided into those who are not crazy (possibly Google employees and those who share some Google mental characteristics but are in some way in touch with reality) and those who are crazy. Crazy means mentally deranged, which may be a bad thing. Plus, the “crazy” group uses social media as “amplifiers.” This seems to suggest that anyone using social media falls into the crazy category. Is this correct?
Note the “we”. The royal “we” appears to embrace the senior management of Google.
Now check out the Rupert Murdoch “real” news Wall Street Journal for October 22, 2020. The story to which I direct your attention is called “Google Ex-CEO Hits DOJ As Antitrust Battle Looms.” [When the story is posted to wsj.com, you will have an opportunity to purchase access. Until then, hunt for the dead tree edition and look on Page A-1.]
The write up reports that Mr. Schmidt said:
There’s a difference between dominance and excellence.
Is the idea may be that operating like a plain vanilla monopoly not acceptable. This suggests that monopoly delivering “excellence” is a positive for everyone.
Is YouTube dominant or excellent? Are those who post links to children’s playgrounds to the delight of individuals with proscribed tendencies idiots? (There are other, more suitable terms I believe.)
Quibi and Its Open Letter: An Idea Probably Not Considered
October 22, 2020
I spotted Quibi’s “An Open Letter…”. The write up states: “…we are winding down the business and looking to sell its content and technology assets.”
I circled this passage: “… we’ve considered and exhausted every option available to us.”
Every option. That’s a categorical affirmative. No black swans, please.
Think of this brilliant observation: “The price of inaction is far greater than the cost of a mistake.” Who said that? Maybe Meg Whitman?
How will those who bet about $1.75 billion on quality content delivered to a mobile device react to my idea which I don’t think the dynamic team of Katzenberg and Whitman thought about?
But here’s the “script” of the overlooked idea. It is very Hollywood-Silicon Valley with graphics, audio, and jazzy Hollywood techniques.
KATZENBERG: We need to do a follow up to my 1992 smash cartoon Aladdin.
WHITMAN: What’s the title?
KATZENBERG: Aladdin 2: Magic Just Happens.
WHITMAN: Dear Jeffrey, what’s the title?
KATZENBERG: Picture this:
1. A poor but motivated duo (that’s us, the dynamic management and creative duo of Katzenberg and Whitman) lose a brief red ink battle with the sinister Dr. Tik Tok.
2. At a yard sale, we (that’s us, the dynamic duo of Katzenberg and Whitman) are looking for quality knick knacks. Whitman spots a copper lamp.
3. A coffee shop in Westwood, perspicacious Meg stroke the lamp.
4. Flash of light. A magic genie appears and orders a cappuccino
5, The dynamic duo gets one wish: To undo the Titanic failure of Quibi.
6. Poof. The genie makes Michael Lynch, founder of Autonomy plc, the cause of Quibi’s failure.
7. A court room: A “Law and Order trial” and — Mr. Lynch guilty.
8. Cut to.. A charity event to fight global warming at the Top of the Mark. The dynamic duo pays investors back.
WHITMAN: Winner!
Yes, an idea possibly not considered. But it may be too late for a quick bite. Lights out.
Stephen E Arnold, October 22, 2020
Let Us Not Quibble over Quibi
October 14, 2020
I am not a video type. Sure, we create a short video every couple of weeks. That’s part of our learning process and a flaccid attempt to keep some of the younger members of the team semi happy. One of the future video stars called my attention to “Apple Has No Interest in Purchasing Failing Short-Form Video Streaming Service Quibi.” My reaction was, “Bad Apple.” Not Apple the fun loving app store operator; bad apple as in the phrase “one bad apple spoils the barrel.” The Quibi thing is the exact opposite of TikTok: TikTok relies on user created content within a surveillance shell. Quibi produces 1980s Hollywood content in chunks of 10 minutes or less. No surveillance, no nation state lobbying to keep the programs flowing. No international PR visibility.
The loss of the Apple dream is not surprising. I recall reading “So Here Are the Real Reasons Quibi Failed.” To refresh your memory that May 2020 write up identified these Semel Yahooesque issues:
- Name quick bites to Quibi
- No sharing in the Rona era of sharing
- Mobile sharing.
The write up also dances around the subscription angle, which remains a problem or an opportunity.
The write up does nail the Quibi management team’s explanation of failure on a billion dollar scale: The pandemic.
The reasoning seems to be that Quibi was designed for people with jobs who commute and want Hollywood 1980s style content.
Maybe.
The reality boils down to many missteps, including the odd couple of Katzenberg and Whitman or more colloquially The Meg and Jeff’s Management Review YouTube program.
Who will care? Probably the investors and at least one of the DarkCyber research team. I am not that empathetic fan. The Quibi caregiver on the DarkCyber research team is, however, lamenting what looks like the streaming equivalent of the 2004 flop “The Alamo.” Remember it?
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2020
Bad Decisions Explained: Was This a Good Decision?
October 14, 2020
DarkCyber tracks a number of topics related to cyber crime. Why do some individuals abandon the straight and narrow and practice crime, regular or deluxe? The reasons are explained in “Common Causes of Very Bad Decisions.” Here’s an example of the reasons:
An innocent denial of your own flaws, caused by the ability to justify your mistakes in your own head in a way you can’t do for others.
DarkCyber’s jargon for this characteristic is HSSCMM or the high school science club management method. Could examples be found in the management actions at companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, or Google? The article does not illustrate each “cause.” That’s too bad.
Here’s another reason for a really terrible decision:
Too much extrapolation of past successes leads to overconfidence, stubbornness, and a narrow view of future risks.
It would have made the write more than an earthworm list if some examples had been included. But “color” and “case examples” are not part of the document. The reader is left to insert the missing information. In today’s business environment there so few bad decisions, the lack of detail is understandable.
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
