Called out on Cloud Computing

Anything Goes!: Cloud Computing has me in a cloud!

I saw this post by Matt (at least I think this is Matt’s blog) about cloud computing, and realized that I may be guilty of an over-simplification in class.  Matt rightly points out that there are a  number of terms that seem to be used synonymously – cloud computing, utility computing, grid computing, etc.  What’s the difference between these terms?

In my mind, the difference is similar to that of insourcing, outsourcing, and offshoring.  Yes, there are differences between the terms…but do they really make a difference?  In the case of insourcing, outsourcing, and offshoring they key issue is that a company is hiring someone else to performa key business process.   I’m sure for supply-chain experts these distinctions may be critically important, but for me the commonalities between the terms are more important than their differences.

In the same way, there are some key differences between cloud computing, utility computing, and grid computing.  (Technically, the example of renting storage and processing space from Amazon is utility computing).  I’m not sure that the differences between them are as important as their similarities, though.  The key issue here is that we’re seeing a shift in computing the hardware and software companies use to run their businesses are not owned by or located at the company.  Rather, they are owned and managed by third parties and companies simply pay for the rights (or ask for the rights in some cases of grid computing) to use the computing resources.

We business school types love to invent all sorts of cool-sounding terms to make it sound like the concepts we study are far more complex than than really are.  Nevertheless, I do thing the core concepts are relatively simple and its this understanding of the “big picture” that is most important.  We don’t want to miss the forest for the trees.

So, congratulations to Matt for noting the imprecision in my examples.  I regret that it may have caused him and others confusion, but I really appreciate the pushback.

Questions I am asked

Last Friday (prior to the so-called financial apocalyse of today), I spoke about my use of Web 2.0 to BC’s parents weekend.   I got some questions about my appraoches that tend to crop up again and again, so I thought I’d address them here.

1) You’re an IT prof.  Will the Web 2.0 tools work in other settings?  To answer this question, I use the example of Alan Kafka, a geosciences prof here at BC.  He started experimenting with wiki methdos in the classroom after a talk I gave to the faculty.  He emailed me to let me know that he had similar positive results as I have.  I joke that it doesn’t get much slower than geosciences, so we’ve covered all ends of the spectrum.

2) Do students still need to come to class if everything is online?  Actually my experience is that it is MORE important to be in class regularly in a Web 2.0 setting.  Yes, it is easy to miss class from time to time and catch up easily becuase of all the information online.  On the other hand, there is SO much information online that it quickly becomes impossible to filter the important infomration from the unimportant stuff.  Students who have tried not attending tend to score in the 30s on my exam.

3) Do young students perform better than older students?  In the beginning, yes.  Students who are under the age of 23 (having had Facebook in their college years) are already immersed in the Web 2.0 culture.  Older students (i.e. older than 23) usually take a bit of catching up – but it doesn’t take long.  The tools are so user-friendly these days that it’s easy to get the hang of it.

Crowdsourcing, Groupthink, and the Wisdom of Crowds

Jonathan Healey asked an interesting question following my recent lecture on crowdsourcing.  He wondered at the difference and relationship between these similar concepts such as crowdsourcing, groupthink, and the wisdom of crowds.  I asked for his permission to post my response here.  My response is was as follows:

First, it should be noted that crowdsourcing, wisdom of crowds, and groupthink were developed completely independently from one another.  Any attempt to bring them together into a single, coherent understanding is being done after the fact (by me).  So, the end result might not be as clean as either of us would like.

• Crowdsourcing refers to a business process that involves turning some portion of one’s business to a “crowd” of people.  Here, I’d define crowd as a group of people for whom this business process is not an official part of their job.  So, Best Buy crowdsources internally through prediction markets.  P&G crowdsourced externally, to non-employees.
• The “wisdom of crowds” describes the conditions under which groups make consistently better decisions than any individual in the group (and group think the conditions under which group make consistently worse decisions than individual in the group.)
• Groupthink describes the conditions under which groups make consistently worse decisions than the individuals who comprise that group.

So, crowdsourcing is a process.  The wisdom of crowds are the conditions you want to have when crowdsourcing.

How Wall Street Lied to Its Computers – Bits Blog – NYTimes.com

How Wall Street Lied to Its Computers – Bits Blog – NYTimes.com

Yes, I promised not to comment on new stories, but this one seemed good enough (and obscure enough) to make an exception.  This blogpost from the NYT talks about many of the same issues we discussed in class last week – garbage in, garbage out.  It talks about how analyists put optimistic and incomplete data into their computer models which yielded (you guessed it) optimistic and incomplete forecasts.  No matter how fast we crunch the data, what we can learn from it is only as good as the quality of that data and the assumptions we make about it.  Computers can give false hope and reassuring predictions, when that’s what their owners have trained them to do.

Can you help Julie?

Julie’s MI703 Thoughts: If you build it, they will NOT come!

OK, so Julie posted this little vignette about her effort to pioneer Web 2.0 tools at a non profit that did not succeed as she had hoped.  My challenge to someone in this class (including Julie) 1) why did the people not adopt the technology last time 2)  can Julie do anything to make attempt #2 more successful?  3) What is most important to consider when championing a new Web 2.0 (or other IT) tool.

Jenni From The Blog: What’s that password again?

Jenni From The Blog: What’s that password again?

Jenni tapped into a personal passion of mine.  Well, OK, passion in the absolute geekiest sense of the word – it’s something I’ve done research into.  My doctoral dissertation looked at how people managed a portfolio of information systems to do their job.  One of the challenges that people faced when trying to use IT in their job was remembering all the different passwords.   What made this particular setting difficult was the portfolio of systems each had different password requirements (e.g. 6 characters, one had to be a letter) that expired at different times (e.g. one every three months, another every 5).  The result was a mess.  People resorted to posting their passwords on the workstation or logging in once then allowing their co-workers to use the system.  It either defeated the whole purpose or security, or people stopped using the IT becuase they couldn’t remember the password.

Of course, there’s also the opposite problem: other online services requiring one single password for all services (e.g. Microsoft, Google).  I went to experiment with Microsoft’s HealthVault, a new system for patients to manage their medical information.  Not only did they force me into using a very strong password, but then that password would also apply to my other services (e.g. Hotmail, Xbox).   The last thing I wanted was to be using my extremely complex password every time I checked my mail…and if I accidentally left the system open, then people could see my medical history.  I stopped at the password.

One of the real contributions of the “Flat World” was the fact that technology became easy to use.  What we need now is a better process for how to operate different IT applications as a single user.  I don’t have the solution, but I do think its a real problem.

Best Buy Leverages the Wisdom of Crowds

Business – WSJ.com

This article is right on point with our discussion in class this week.  It talks about how Best Buy offers a so-called prediction market to leverage the collective wisdom of their employees.  I think a key point is that they offer employees a modest reward for succeeding (although a bit too modest if you ask me).  Its basically an efficient mechanism to ask employees to offer feedback on particular company initiatives.  Finding out what the front line employees think in a reliable way can be a powerful information tool.

Talking Business – Stuck in Google’s Doghouse – NYTimes.com

Talking Business – Stuck in Google’s Doghouse – NYTimes.com

Credit Where Credit’s Due…Trevor beat me to to punch on this one.  Check out his comments at the link below.

http://swanbergcis.blogspot.com/2008/09/has-google-replaced-microsoft-as-next.html

This is a nice article about the potential monopoly power of Google.   The line I like best is the one that notes (paraphrased) that monopolies can’t help from acting like monopolies.  Google defends their monopoly power by arguing that they don’t take certain competitive actions against competitors because it’s all in the “algorithm.”  Nevertheless, Google will tweak their algorithms in ways that are best for Google, and others must pay the price.  Simply because the competitive moves are automated, doesn’t necessarily make them an improper use of monopoly power.

Of course, I love Google.  The challenge here is that IT works better when systems are integrated, but you need competition for innovation.    I’ll have to think on this more.

Commentary from Carrie: Facebook for Spies

Commentary from Carrie: Facebook for Spies

I have a highschool friend who I recently reconnected with on Facebook. She now is a lawyer for the UN, travelling to such places as Liberia and Eastern Europe to monitor elections and such.    UN employees have recently become big adopters of facebook as a way to keep up with the people that they meet in their travels.   People in these types of organizations (spies, UN lawyers) really benefit from the addition of these electronic social networks, becuase they provide tools for the far flung, loosely organized organizations they are a part of.  I wonder, though, if this means that ttraditional organzations will become more loosely organized and far flung, becuase these tools create new opportunities to monitor and track the less formal strucutres in the organization.  More on this in a couple of weeks.

The Incredible Inedible – Google « Scottamcgavin’s Weblog

The Incredible Inedible – Google « Scottamcgavin’s Weblog

Scott’s post reminds me of a forward-thinking doctor I have had a chance to work with.  The doctor said that the culture of the medical field is that if the doctor doesn’t know the answer to a particular question, the doctor will make up some excuse to step out of the exam room to go look it up in his office.  Now, with computers in many exam rooms, the doctor will sit down with the patient and Google the answer online.  The doctor finds the answer while also serving as a role model for how to search for infomration. 

I had a statistics question when I was writing my Ph.D. dissertation, so I went to an expert.  He did the same thing, sat down on Google and tracked down the answer.  I believe it was Einstien who said, “why would I memorize [the periodic table] when I can look it up.”  Google takes that sentiment to a whole new level.  Nowadays expertise isn’t about knowing the right answer but knowing where to look…and knowing its the right answer when you find it.