Cable-Monkey Speaks

Innovation From All Sides

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:41:00 +0000

Over the last few years, Innovation and Disruption seem to be making the rounds along the conference circuit. Those speeches effects can be found in the actions of CIOs around the country making innovation teams, and disruption evaluation projects. Unfortunately, most attempts to harness innovation and disruptive methodologies seem designed to run afoul of the same processes that have killed innovation in the past.

Decades ago, when explaining how to productively brainstorm, Alex Osborn made the case that quantity of ideas coming out of a brainstorming session was more important than the quality of the ideas. The less restrictive the bounds on presenting ideas, the more ideas presented during a brainstorming session. And, with more ideas, and less restrictions, one might actually find that golden nugget of an idea that can change everything.

Establishing a defined innovation group seems to fight that freedom that actually leads to challenging ideas. By establishing a group dedicated to washing a fleet of cars, no one else feels empowered or has the responsibility to ensure that the cars get washed. Washing cars is someone else’s job and I heard that Bob got in trouble for washing his own fleet car. But, for any organization, presenting a good image is everybody’s responsibility. The analogy holds, and generating ideas that can improve an organization is everyone’s responsibility.

And, any innovation group has to be ready to present their ideas to management. Those ideas have to be actionable and there’s always a pressure to produce – on a timetable. Anyone that will produce a truly innovative idea loves knocking around ideas for improvement. Hopefully, an innovation team enjoys doing that even more. But when those ideas have to be codified and reported up the management chain on a defined timetable, an enjoyable exercise becomes one more task that has to be addressed for the week. Given that most innovation teams are composed of managers and subject matter experts tasked with a great quantity of work, this makes “innovation” work even more onerous. Formalization of innovation can quickly make an enjoyable and rewarding exercise into a painful and soul-killing experience.

Innovative ideas can be the lifeblood of an institution. But they don’t have to be big ideas to have big effects.

Recent readings in the Harvard Business Review all point to creating value for customers as being the criteria for which new ideas should be judged. And creating value for customers, whether they are students or consumers, comes from understanding their needs. Understanding the needs of our constituencies is not owned by upper level management, or even the most technically astute among us. The needs of our constituencies are best understood by our constituency itself. They may not be in a position to design solutions, but they know what they need.

And, in the case of a public university, our constituency consists of every student, staff, or faculty member that ever steps foot on campus. They can be the font of innovative ideas that propel universities forward. Innovation teams may be necessary, but not as the creators of innovative ideas, but as the people that make those ideas a reality. An environment that fosters creativity doesn’t need to be much more than an environment that doesn’t crush it.

Innovation teams can serve a vital role in that environment – but they don’t own innovation.

I was walking across UF campus some months ago with my daughter and talking about her future. We tossed around the normal topics: school, her future, career, insecurities and son. But in the midst of the discussion we crossed one of our many green spaces and I pointed out one of our wireless access points that we have mounted in one of our campus blue light phones.

I thought I had found a great teachable moment. I told her the story of how that installation came to be. Folks from networking had a problem, they reached out to folks in telecom, a member of UFPD chimed in with a solution, and finally working with grounds we had delivered Wi-Fi to the space. It wasn’t really any one group’s job but an idea had taken hold and everyone made it happen. I avoided terms like “leveraging original investment” and “maximizing return on deployment”. I didn’t want to turn her off the conversation with jargon. And then she asked a question.

“Where’s the camera?”

She had been paying attention and wanted to know with all the infrastructure in place, why hadn’t we put a camera there as well. Wouldn’t we want prospective students to see how much fun it was playing Frisbee in the field? Wouldn’t we want to have a live camera where students came to protest? With all the work we had already put into the location, putting up a camera seemed simple… to her.

None of the highly paid technical professionals that worked on the project had considered the possibility.

With that, I went to work getting a camera in place. It hasn’t gone online yet. There have been holdups and roadblocks. But good ideas don’t die an easy death.

And good ideas can come from anywhere. Listen to everyone at your institution, that’s where the next game changing idea will come from. The groundskeepers will know some of the secrets of an institution that an executive will never understand. Whether that knowledge can be acted upon or not, will be the province of administrative personnel but do not discount the input of the rank and file.

Often, they understand “you” better than you do yourself.

Embedded with the Enemy

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 19:24:00 +0000

For two years I was honored to serve as the chair of the Program and Content Committee for ACUTA. My primary responsibility was to coordinate the committee‘s mission to procure quality speakers and intense educational content for these who work in Information Technology in higher education. In the midst of those responsibilities, for the 2016 Annual conference in San Diego, I thought to assemble a random student panel to answer questions for our attendees.

Like most of my good ideas, this one resulted from equal parts inspiration and desperation. We needed to fill a speaking slot at the conference on short notice and San Diego State University was overflowing with students. I thought a chance to interact directly with students might give our attendees (mostly back office information technology and telecommunications staff) a chance for some entertaining feedback. It was a hit. We held student panels at each event following until the end of my term.

From each panel, I took away insights into what students really wanted – not what a magazine reported that they wanted, what they truly desired. It was invigorating for a back office staff member to hear how technology was affecting student lives.

And, if you’ve never heard a student directly thank you for your work in maintaining some obscure piece of infrastructure, then you haven’t lived.

But, rallies fade and insights can grow stale. Once returning to the office, direct and energizing interaction disappeared and feedback was once again reduced to reports, customer surveys, focus groups, complaints, refinement requests, trouble tickets, project proposals, six sigma, performance appraisals…

And then I started graduate school in the Fall of 2017. I was a student.

And overnight I stepped into a role I thought I understood, in a technological environment that I know I understand.

And immediately, I stumbled. Loss of Wi-Fi meant something completely different. I was limited in where I could work on group projects. I tripped during registration. I registered for classes in one web site, found out what books I needed in another, and actually took classes at another web site. I followed procedural forms from yet another web site in order to make sure my class fees were paid.

As a service user, I was left wondering why it was so hard to get the services I needed. While working, I was busy patting myself on the back for being part of the team that delivered those services with minimal downtime and short response time. I had never lived it from the user perspective. And living it, is a completely different experience.

And now, I was interacting with students on a daily basis. In conversation after conversation, I was learning what was truly important to our student body: easy use of systems, calendars, and ubiquitous campus Wi-Fi in the exterior of buildings. Student Pokemon Go players became an unpaid cadre of Wi-Fi testers now that they knew they had some one’s ear. They’ve directed me to multiple sites where Wi-Fi needed to be reinforced and the students had a demonstrated need.

With all of the efforts we take to solicit student opinion, the simplest solution seems evident. Become a student. Many institutes of higher education offer free classes as a benefit but I don’t think that we truly realize the gains that come from having employees become students. The employees become invested in the institution. The institution has value and the students are no longer complaining kids, they become our peers.

And, as UF begins the effort of rolling out two factor authentication to our general population, I’m glad that, as a student, I was able to bump my head against the student side of adaptation before the general population. Luckily, my professor was kind enough to allow me to have my phone with me during our secure testing procedures. His rules did not allow for any phones or anything other than a laptop, but without my phone I cannot log in to any university system. He and I worked it out, and I was able to report back on a probable pain point in our upcoming deployment.

They aren’t the enemy, but there’s no better way to understand the students on your campus than becoming one of them. And, staff enrollment is an underutilized option that institutes of higher education have available for both professional development, and student outreach. We shouldn’t ask whether classes will help our employees in their roles, but rather acknowledge how the act of taking classes at our colleges inherently make them better employees.

Staff involvement in our campuses pays dividends.

Making the Rules and Breaking Them

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 14:44:00 +0000

Designers study incredibly hard to memorize the rules of their craft. Architects and codes, plumbers and the Uniform Plumbing Code, electricians and the NEC, IT professionals and current best practices, and my personal favorite – engineers and the laws of physics.

But, aside from the laws of physics (theoretical physicists notwithstanding), the rules of any craft are just rules. Professional organizations work diligently to keep those codes/standards up to date, but this means those same organizations are constantly rewriting those same codes/standards. If organizations constantly rewrite the rules, how can they expect anyone to respect them?

Codes have the power of law behind them and any contractor can explain why it’s important to respect those codes, and the inspector enforcing them. But, telecommunications standards and IT current best practices have no such champions or strength. They only have their own practitioners to stand as their standard bearers (pun intended).

Practitioners have a vested interest in following standards. Contractors can tout “standards compliance” as a market differentiator. Standards for one trade often mark the handoff to another trade so if work isn’t standards compliant, the next trade can’t do their work. And, standards allow tradesmen to work together peacefully instead of rewriting technical manuals each time a new professional is hired.

But, practitioners of any trade rarely control the purse strings for any project or organization. In all but the smallest organizations, dedicated management professionals exist whose primary responsibilities are safeguarding the budget and timeline of the project/organization. Standards often threaten both budget and timeline, for good reasons, but threaten nonetheless.

· Install one cabling drop in each room instead of two. (budget/timeline savings)

· Install Category 5e cabling instead of Category 6 (budget savings)

· Defer maintenance on server hardware (budget savings)

· Design a building without adequate Telco Room coverage because connectivity is not needed on day one. (serious budget savings)

To address this, designers must recognize that they have a vested interest in being able to explain the reasoning behind their standards. Unfortunately, far too many tradespeople do not understand the reasoning behind the standards of their fields. Inspectors will learn the rules and then point to the rulebook if challenged. This strategy can work well for a code enforcement official but will eventually fail for all other trades. Adherence to any non-mandated rule set will eventually fall to the pressures of budget and/or time.

But, understanding the “why” behind a standard can do more than fend off an over-eager manager, it can bring non-tradespeople into the fold. When a tradesperson approaches a management question as an opportunity to educate, they generate a dialogue. Those questions lead to more and the tradesperson becomes a part of the design/management team. A tradesperson that is a management resource will be sought out. A tradesperson that is an obstructionist is to be avoided.

In designing a library storage facility, a project manager questioned the Wi-Fi design that required numerous access points in an area where hardly anyone would be working. Multiple e-mails and meetings had taken place with the network design team becoming personally offended that their design was being questioned. The project manager and networking design team seemed to be at an impasse. But, with the building owner present, a quick discussion concerning future RFID systems for book tracking and the need for Wi-Fi settled the issue. In fact, the Wi-Fi design became more robust with the full support of the project manager. Instead of relying on the standard to enforce the design, we explained the design and in the end, strengthened the standard.

And finally, management deserves the right to ask questions and confront longstanding practices. After all, that is their job. Along with a fair amount of bumbling, they will often question longstanding practices that might benefit from being reconsidered. And, if a tradesperson cannot defend that practice with a response more nuanced than “it’s the standard”, maybe that practice deserves to be abandoned.

Without knowing, the UF police department has contributed to my own work at UF by questioning some of the basic premises of Ethernet design. I’ve been able to deploy Wi-Fi in some locations I considered impossible because I didn’t step outside my own understanding of the rules. Stephen Shapiro said, “Expertise is the enemy of innovation.” Learn to listen to people outside of your trade. A different perspective can be invaluable.

But, all of this requires that we, as professionals, understand why we do what we do. It is not enough, to memorize the rulebook. We need to be ready to explain every standard and the ramifications of their abandonment. We need to know why we should stand our ground, and when.

Only then, can we understand what we have to gain by breaking the rules.

Attendance and Associations

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 15:07:00 +0000

Times are tough in higher education. Of course, times are always tough in higher education but many institutions are cutting expenses like never before. And, when administrators look to cut expenses, they often discover maintenance and professional development.

Maintenance draws attention because failure to maintain only becomes evident when the failure becomes critical. Most don’t care about bridge maintenance until the bridge collapses. A manager’s ability to keep up with maintenance isn’t the subject of many awards or headlines. “Things still work” doesn’t jump off the screen or gather many clicks. For the manager who can find a way to make maintenance work sexy, write the book: there are many of us waiting to read it.

But, I would like to discuss the latter topic, professional development.

Most organizations maintain a portion of their budget to fund the professional development of their staff. This pays dividends both in increased employee morale and the increased skill set of that same staff. But again, professional development can be cut with little immediate effect. Loss of professional development dollars only becomes evident when staff leave. Skillset stagnation may never become evident. Projects take a bit longer, some decisions are made poorly, and processes may never evolve. None of these scream for immediate attention and are well hidden.

And in the arena of professional development, nothing gets cut faster than participation in professional associations.

Administrators, as a whole, prefer funding for training classes in IT. Tying training dollars to a defined skill set definitely makes for an easier management argument. Does the organization need a new skill? Pick an employee and fund training for the new skill. Test the employee’s skill when they return. Rinse and repeat.

An organization can measure the value of training in the contents of the training, and the applicability of those contents to the needs of the organization. The employee occupies a relatively passive role in the evaluation process. We can evaluate the effect of the training independent of the employee.

The value of participation in a professional association is harder to define.

I participate in two separate associations: ACUTA (www.acuta.org) and BICSI (www.bicsi.org). I’ve attended events held by a few others. I’ve found them infinitely more professionally rewarding than training. But this truism holds.

You get out of a trade association, what you put in.

Most associations hold training events, seminars, annual conferences and the like and a number of people (yours truly included) work very hard to populate those events with engaging speakers and training opportunities. I’ve seen many great speeches and walked away inspired and educated. But, the true value of those associations lie in the membership and without becoming actively engaged, that value will never truly be realized.

Many attend association events, eat the appetizers on the showroom floor, attend the speakers and go home. They have only scratched the surface of what is available for their membership dues. Speakers and vendor interaction make up the most documented reasons for attendance of association events. Compared to defined training events, association events often come up short from an administrative perspective. The image of employees going off to vacation on the company dime haunts many a manager.

But for those who engage with other members, volunteer on committees, participate in association outreach (listserv, social media, and so on) the association becomes a pivotal professional and personal resource.

Considering a new product/consultant/technology, avoid sales literature and consult other association members.
Stuck on a problem, avoid sales literature and consult other association members.
After reading an article on what your peers are doing, reach out through the association to see how a solution performed in the field.

I’ve done all of these multiple times and the University of Florida (UF) has benefited from it. In addition, I have shared some of our pioneering efforts at UF with other schools. We all move forward when we help each other.

Look for your trade associations. Join them. Participate. You’ll be amazed at the benefits. Someone out there is ready to help solve your problems, and someone out there is waiting for you..

A Difference in Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:48:00 +0000

Experience can be a great teacher.

But, the true test in learning from experience is a function of our ability to appreciate the events of our day to day lives. Every day has life lessons to give but most of us spend our time observing only the events that support our current beliefs. I could use this as a point to begin discussing politics but I truly believe that this blindness to the events around us impairs us all.

For a great read, I would suggest “How We Know What Isn’t So” by Thomas Gilovich.

I was thinking about this a few weeks ago while on a walk-through of a new construction project.

A large group of us had finished walking the halls of the building and we were hammering out a few last minute details. I was looking over floor plans when I noticed a number of cabling drops had been removed from the final prints. I was lamenting the loss of connectivity when the construction manager (CM) jumped in with a vigorous defense of their removal from the plans.

The tenants only planned to house one staff member in each room. Extra cabling was useless and unnecessary. In rooms planned to support more than one staff member the extra cabling was left in place. In short, the building plan was a lean, mean, and efficient machine delivering connectivity to each desired location without wasting cable. I got the sharp impression that I and others of my type were a drain on the project trying to wring out any “free” facilities that we could.

This isn’t the first time I had experienced the cost-cutting aggressiveness of value-engineering but I think I learned something from the CM that day.

I explained that his cable drops could be in the wrong place. I was told to run longer jumpers. For maintenance, nothing is more annoying at the host than long jumpers.

I explained that his cable drops didn’t account for a change in the room use. I was told to run additional drops later. Cabling drops placed “just in case” were a drain on the project and a waste of money. The first new cabling run will be requested within a week of occupancy.

I explained that some rooms had no cabling at all. I was told that they would never need cables. Any room large enough to be an office will one day be an office.

My shoulders slumped and I shook my head.

I’ve learned these lessons over years of maintaining buildings both on campus, and in a private capacity. But, as I walked away I wondered why the CM hadn’t learned the same lessons. He made a few great points about taxing a construction budget to the point where construction is cancelled. For him, it meant very little to add changes later and come back to do additional work. He had learned different lessons in his career.

And that’s where, for just a moment, I learned a lesson again in perspective.

The CM works on large construction projects. For him, every job is large, involved, and complicated. For every job, impact to budget and time can be measured and used to calculate whether a job should be move forward. Coming back to install cables is a trivial need when you spend your life constructing buildings.

When maintaining a building and responding to user requests, installation of an additional cable can be a multiple week stumbling block of managerial approval, PO generation, cable installation, and finally making a final patch connection. The pain in lost productivity can be soul-crushing.

Different perspectives.

I don’t know that he was aware, but I was actually paying attention that day. Often, my interaction with building construction project managers and construction managers is in an adversarial role. They want to build a building. I want UF standards followed. But, for just a moment that day I truly understood why construction personnel thought the way that they did.

With any luck, it will help me the next time I have to explain why that second cabling drop in a 10’x12’ room is necessary.

Whatever Happened to Customer Service, Pt2

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:57:00 +0000

In general, alarmist rhetoric and reminiscing over days long gone rarely produce effective results. The alarmists keep being alarmed, regardless of what actions may be taken. Reminiscing tends to ignore the realities of the past and replaces them with a blurry happy landscape that would have been unrecognizable at the time. With this in mind, I looked over my last blog post and was a little disappointed in my choice of titles.

Customer service hasn’t taken a dramatic dip in recent years. In the last year alone, I have encountered multiple service staff that have gone the extra mile in resolving my issues. A firm but helpful account representative of Alachua General Hospital comes to mind. She dealt with a very frustrated patient who had been repeatedly ignored, shuffled from department to department, and cut off multiple times. She took the issues at hand, calmed the patient, and resolved three weeks of multiple contact attempts in ten minutes.

And, the customer service ethic of the past was not the shining beacon that our older population would have us believe. My father often argued with everyone from salesmen to insurance agents. I don’t think he was experiencing the joy of the good old days back in my good old days.

But, technology has allowed companies to put more distance between themselves and their customers. And, in the name of the bottom line, a number of them do so.

I won’t reiterate my distaste of phone trees here but I would like to share my experiences of the last few weeks.

I was fortunate enough to attend the Fall BICSI conference at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. While there, the staff of the MGM performed their duties admirably. At no time was there a moment when a staff member was not attending to a customer’s wishes. The staff answered all questions quickly and efficiently. In addition, after dealing with a customer’s immediate needs each staff member was quick to point out other services that they were ready to render.

I asked about the kiosks for printing out my boarding pass at the hotel itself (a wonderful amenity). Not only did the lovely woman at the desk point them out, she asked if I had secured transportation, pointed out the shuttle stops, and offered to have my bags delivered to the airport. For those suspicious of her as a suggestive sales technique, all services were bundled with the room and incurred no additional cost to me.

Following that, I found I needed a receipt for my stay. I am currently engaging in my third attempt to request a receipt from the MGM accounts receivable department. The MGM phone tree (no tree necessary to book a room) bounced me around to where I could leave them a message so I did so. I have e-mailed their friendly support address twice and today I will try calling again.

Technology cannot be the problem though. Technology has made communication easier than ever. Customer service levels should be at an all time high.

As a counter point to my experiences with the MGM Grand, I contacted Blizzard Entertainment at the World of Warcraft support lines. I had received an e-mail informing me that my new account was established and ready for use. I do not play WoW so I was concerned that someone was using my e-mail account for some nefarious purpose.

I submitted a trouble ticket through their online system. My ticket was acted upon and I was notified in less than an hour that there would be no difficulties with my e-mail address. I was impressed. At no point did I make direct contact with a person but Blizzard addressed my complaint quickly and efficiently. I spoke with friends that play WoW and the description of their customer service experience echoed mine.

So, technology has opened up methods of communication that were never available in the past. As organizations become larger, customer service agents become more specialized in order to better cater to the needs of their clientele. But, the general service agent has been replaced by technology that still isn’t mature enough to meet the needs of a customer base.

Companies know the weakness of these systems well. Salesmen will never be replaced by a web form or phone tree – a smart company will never let technology stand in the way of a customer given them money.

I can get a reservation with a hotel without sitting on hold.
I can buy a computer without sitting on hold.
I can get any cell phone service without sitting on hold.

But, Blizzard shows that technology alone doesn’t hinder a company’s ability to address customer demand. Blizzard handles millions of customers remotely year after year and never directly interacts with them. A Blizzard customer would be hard-pressed to tell you where the Blizzard offices are located.

The WoW business model relies on customers to maintain their monthly payments. WoW is not a product that customer requires and there are not long-term contracts. Customers with negative experiences can simply stop payment and walk away – and they have. Customer service requests to Blizzard reflect a customer’s inability to play the game and that is a direct threat to their business. Blizzard trains their staff to deal with problems quickly and directly. Any delay in addressing a customer complaint translates into an opportunity for that customer to break their addiction to the game.

So, we cannot blame advancing technology for any perceived change in customer service. Technology introduces a distance between a customer and the service representative that can adversely affect that relationship. But, tacit company approval is required before that relationship begins to suffer.

So, as always, if a company has poor customer service, the company is to blame. It just becomes more annoying when the company is so good at getting you in the door before they decide to ignore you.

Whatever Happened to Customer Service, Pt1

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:18:00 +0000

I hate phone trees.

There really is no better way to communicate how I feel on this topic. I hate calling customer service. When I make a call and a machine answers the phone I just sigh. I punch “0” hoping for the operator anyone else. I hope to reach someone who can actually solve my problem. Eventually, I’ll follow the rules and hope for the best. Usually, the best isn’t very good.

Many smart people work on creating these trees. Vendors make a great deal of money designing these trees. Phone trees, they claim, allow a user to answer a few questions and appropriately route their own calls. Operators and receptionists are no longer necessary. Efficiencies improve. According to surveys customer satisfaction remains steady and companies can cut costs.

It’s very hard to argue against phone trees.

I work in IT and there are times when I’m the one on the other end of that phone tree. I have taken calls from UF staff that need help. They may have been routed to me appropriately or not, they don’t care. They just want someone to fix their problem or provide them service. If I can’t help them, the last thing they want is to be thrown back to the tree.

Usually, I never send them back to dispatch. I know enough people in IT here at UF that I can usually find someone to fix their problems. I listen to their story from beginning to end and make the next step without them. I find someone who can help them, then forward them along.

But, before I send them on their way, I always make sure they have my direct number. If I send you to someone who doesn’t solve their problem, they can call me back directly. Every single time I am thanked profusely. I’ve had a number call me back just to thank me for not letting them loose back into the system.

No one wants to be cut loose.

At UF, we’re currently working on developing a webpage for users to submit problem reports and service requests. There are a number of powerful tools that are available for creating these front ends and we have one at our disposal.

A well-crafted front end to a help desk can be used to route users to the appropriate support staff. Self-diagnosis of a problem can help a user cut through levels of red tape and cut directly to the support staff best suited to solve their problems. Utilization of the web form can be used to gather statistics concerning the incidence of problems in our environment.
A well crafted front page can be a valuable tool for routing users and gathering information.

A well crafted phone tree can be a valuable tool for routing users and gathering information.

But phone trees, in fact all user-managed entry portals, work based on the same fundamental premise. Every phone tree communicates the same message to the user.

My time is more valuable than yours.

It's A Standard, That's Why.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:00 +0000

Organizations write codes to protect people. Organizations write standards to ensure quality. Codes have the strength of law. Standards do not.

I’ve attended a number of construction meetings over the years where I wished that standards had more bite. I wished I could point at my printouts and demand people follow the rules.

Now, I’m not so sure. When I’m training my staff I try to convey not only the standards applicable to the topic but the logic behind those standards. Bodies create standards to serve specific purposes and solve specific problems. When a standard does not serve that purpose, we should set it aside. There is a time to not follow a standard.

That statement alone has gotten me more than my fair share of bad looks. But, standards do not arise in a vacuum. There is always context.

At UF, our Telecommunications Standard once required three cable drops at every outlet location. The standard was written down and delivered to every contractor that did work on UF campus. A number of smart people put their heads together to come up with that number. Their work should be respected.

When challenged on that requirement, we have a number of options. Those that don’t truly understand the standard or feel like discussing it rely on the document itself. The requirement itself cannot be challenged because it is a component of a University standards document. Everyone should respect the document. After all, a standard is a standard.

Unfortunately, work is rarely that simple. Most work, when done according to standard, costs more. Project managers are always under pressure to cut costs. And a cabling consultant rarely gets the last word in any project. Notes are lost. Requested changes somehow don’t make it to the next set of drawings.

But, when we understand the reasoning behind a standard, we can change the adversarial nature of a planning meeting into one of mutual understanding.

We need three cables for network, phone, and one spare.

What about an outlet for a network HVAC connection located above the ceiling. Can we only install two cables for that outlet?

Sure. Or, maybe not.

At this point a cabling consultant can discuss the topic with the project manager from a common point of reference. Maybe the project manager is making a reasonable request. If so, a consultant should feel confident enough to step away from the standard. If the request is unreasonable, the cabling consultant should be ready to explain why the request is being rejected. The project manager is not there to destroy the telecommunications plan – the manager needs the plan to work. They are operating under other constraints. The IT consultant should always bear this in mind.

As a consulting professional, we need to be able to explain the logic behind any standard we are trying to enforce. In a meeting with project managers, owners, and tenants, it is always in our best interests to convince others that standards exist for their benefit.

As a contractor I always tried to convince customers to place two cables at each outlet location. I would explain the reasons why. Sometimes I was successful and sometimes I wasn’t. In those instances where I installed fewer than the standard number of cables, I was often called back.

Each time I was called back to install additional cables for these customers, there was no malice. Each customer knew that I was looking out for their best interests and more work followed.

I’m sure I’ve said it in earlier blog posts, but we have a responsibility to treat others as the professionals we often claim to be. Stomping our feet and pointing to a piece of paper to justify our requirements does a disservice to our role in the industry.

Our credentials do not grant us any magical insight and the information we have means nothing if we do not share it.

Great Expectations

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 20 May 2011 00:28:00 +0000

A few years ago I was invited to a presentation by my boss on managing by expectation. The presentation was well done but didn’t have much impact on me. I was already a believer.

The theory goes that we can guide an employee to better behavior by “expecting” more from him. The converse holds as well. We can guide an employee into mediocrity by “expecting” too little. Having high hopes for an employee can help them while expecting them to barely work will result in them barely working. Using expectations fall into line with common theories on team-building and generating an appropriate esprit de corps.

Unfortunately, in my time I have seen the negative effects of this theory more often than the positive.

A few years ago, my workplace converted all of our cabling documentation to a new format. I was in charge of overseeing the transition and training the staff to use the new system. We migrated the data with more ease than we expected. I set up a few training classes to introduce staff to the concepts. We prepared to move forward.

Just prior to implementation, my supervisor came to me to ask what else we could do to help people interact with the new system. Management held concerns that staff would have too much difficulty interfacing with the new system.

In response, a staff member of mine created a line by line procedure with screen shots to guide staff in how to execute one task in the system. Our management was giddy. I followed up by crafting ten more documents that explained line by line how to insert documentation into the system. We had dummy-proofed our system.

Years later, staff still use those documents. It doesn’t make me proud. Years later, we have staff that have interacted with this system on a daily basis for years that still cannot carry out routine tasks without referencing the procedural docs. We had told our staff it was okay to be dummies.

Procedural documents have an important place in training staff but this kind of documentation carries an implication of ineptitude that I find insulting. Documents written at this level communicate that the staff cannot be trusted to know when to press the [enter] key.

On some levels, people even discuss this openly. We are currently in the process of implanting a new software package that will radically change how we process work orders, change requests, and service requests. The package is not easy to understand but those difficulties could consume a number of blog posts on their own. I’m more worried about a repeatedly voiced concern that we need to keep things simple for the front line service desk. We need to keep things simple since they are not full-time employees. Truly, what can we expect from them? Full-time staff could produce better results. We need to make things simple for them.

I think that in management there’s an appeal to writing procedural documents for every task. There is an appeal to treating your employees as buffoons and not expecting too much from them. Procedural documents shield a company from liability and produce the illusion of consistent results. By making sure we cater to the least common denominator we ensure that we have fewer problems with HR. No one wants to have a meeting with HR, a union rep, or lawyer and try to explain that you are not effectively training your staff.

But, in doing so, we stifle the productivity and creativity of our staff. I have watched it happen. I’m sorry to say, that in my time I have helped it happen.

More and more, I’ve tried to lay out my expectations for a project, provide procedural documentation, and then encouraged staff to lay them aside when they think they have found a better way. I judge them based on results.

It’s a difficult balancing act. Sometimes I micro-manage and sometimes I give a bit too much freedom. I tend to see-saw a bit more than I should.

But, I’m still much better off than if I had directly addressed every aspect of every task they need to complete. I do not need a buffoon working for me. Even more, I never want to take part in turning any of the creative people that come to work for me into one.

Continuous Improvement

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:41:00 +0000

I just spent the last week attending the ACUTA conference in Orlando, Florida. Not only did I have a wonderful time, I met a number of amazing people and plan on keeping in touch. As a bonus, the facilities had me thinking about future vacations and I think I’ll be checking out the Hilton Bonnet Creek for a visit to the mouse within the next five years. My boy needs to get a few years under his belt to truly appreciate a day in Walt Disney World.

While there I attended a number of lectures and there were some wonderful speakers. Before leaving for the conference, I was thinking about the phrase “continuous improvement.” Honestly, I tend to be rather cynical concerning new management buzzwords. ISO 9001 came and went without much effect on the rank and file I manage. ITIL is now making the rounds around my office and I wonder how much of the core philosophy we will truly embrace. Continuous Improvement is one of the newer phrases I’ve heard repeated around my upper management. I find the idea appealing.

As a creature of habit, I find it very easy to fall into a rut of just “doing my job.” Day in and day out my team has a number of tasks that need to be accomplished. I make that easier for them either by arranging training, smoothing over political difficulties, or coordinating their activities to respond to upper management. That’s my job. But, focusing on the job does not give much opportunity for continuous improvement.

At the conference, I was attending a panel of past ACUTA presidents and I heard something that stuck with me. I would like to properly credit the speaker but I don’t recall panel member was speaking. He advised that when working, we should be constantly seeking out the problems and coming up with solutions. If we aren’t doing that, our jobs can be outsourced.

There is an implied threat in that statement but also an opportunity that I think does a great job of defining what continuous improvement means. Working within an organization provides an unparalleled opportunity to truly understand the needs of a customer base. An IT department that truly understands their customers, whether they be professors, students, doctors, or plumbers, has a chance to not only respond to customer requests but to anticipate them with a level of accuracy that cannot be matched by an outside agency. By working within the organization, we can identify the problems and provide the solutions. This means going beyond our job descriptions and beyond our direct managers and embracing that our jobs mean to serve our customers, whoever they might be.

At the conference, one of the most common questions is “What do you do?” We all work in IT/Telecom but we all know that means different things to different people. I found myself always giving a two part answer.

I manage a team that centralizes network support for local building networks – my job.

I invented our documentation/labeling scheme for networks and constantly tweak our systems management and Pinnacle database for error correction – what I do.

The first line is a good summary of my job description. I show up day after day and make sure that our new network deployments go smoothly. Sometimes, like all IT workers, I show up after hours and replace critical systems so users don’t experience the downtime associated with maintenance. I train staff and attend meetings to keep projects going smoothly.

But, that second line is where I make a difference.

Over the past ten years we have identified and solved problems that no one knew existed. By constantly improving our documentation, we have raised the bar, both for our own performance and for our customer’s expectations. I will never forget the day one of our core engineers (switch and router jockeys) publicly complained that the jumpers plugged into his router were not labeled. Some of my staff were understandably defensive. I loved it. Just one year prior, he wouldn’t have considered that a failure at all. With one very loud complaint, he publicly validated the utility of a process he disdained just one year earlier.

Each step along the way of refining our documentation methods we have identified problems and solved them. We have looked at what many consider “the cost of doing business” with an eye to what we can do to remove those barriers. This is something we can do as members of an organization that would be problematic for an outside agency. Along the way, we’ve created a system that truly sings.

This year we’re turning our attention to our Outside Plant cabling system. By the end of the year I expect we’ll have an accounting of our outside spaces and pathways that will let us document the conduit path of newly installed OSP cabling. Installation of our OSP cabling has been outsourced for years. UF personnel are leading up this documentation project.

In identifying and solving problems that are less evident to outside agencies, we have found our own path to continuous improvement.

I have to admit, I’m a bit less skeptical of this latest buzzword.

Taking Responsibility

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:02:00 +0000

Employee evaluations are due again at the University of Florida. I’ve always enjoyed talking to my staff. I enjoy seeing them move ahead in their careers. I even enjoy watching them move on to bigger and better things. When I cannot provide them with the opportunities they deserve I can’t be anything but happy when they find those opportunities elsewhere.

But, there is something judgmental in a formal evaluation that I do not enjoy. Giving advice as a friend carries completely different connotations than advice as a manager. A manager’s advice always seems to carry a bit more menace. Not only can I discuss the consequences of improper behavior but I can bring them to bear as well.

I am not a naturally cheerful person but I am a bit of pushover sometimes. I truly believe that proper behavior rewards itself.

This brings me to the point of this blog post. I’m finding that a number of my evaluation and workflow discussions revolve around a simple idea: responsibility.

Most people address responsibility by enumerating the tasks that a person can be held culpable for not fulfilling. Current legal systems and HR systems seem to support this notion and the idea filters into almost any conversation about a new task. Yesterday, I enjoyed watching a conversation between our networking and facilities managers. One of our buildings had a plumbing problem and they were debating who should be responsible for following up on the work order with our physical plant departments. No one wanted to be responsible for following up. Our facilities rep kept dodging the question until finally our networking manager asked if anyone thought networking should be following up on plumbing problems in our main building. The issue was tabled.

I tend to think of responsibility as empowering. I think any project manager worth their salt believes the same.

A project manager for a new construction project will never lift a hammer. They will never lay drywall. But, they know that they are responsible for every facet of that project. While that responsibility carries culpability, it also carries status. That project manager can intrude on any tradesman, any inspection, and any schedule associated with the project. That responsibility justifies almost any action that may be necessary to complete the project. Except for regulatory restrictions, almost any process can be set aside if it interferes with the progress of the project.

We have all dealt with staff that like to say “That’s not my job” or “I can’t do my job because John won’t do his.” In a situation like mine, we’ve dealt with them for years. If you accept responsibility for a task, people like this are not the roadblock they appear to be. It is your job to find a way over, around, or through them.

There’s a speech I often give my staff. I’ve asked them to repeat it back to me when I need it.

Whenever they begin to claim that they can’t continue a task because of someone else I ask a simple question.

Was this person a responsive in the past?
No.
Did you expect them to be a better employee today?
No.
Is the sky blue?
Yes.
Is water wet?
Yes.

Then tell me, who is the smart guy for expecting things to be different today? Did you expect the rain to not get you wet because it’s not fair? No, you carry an umbrella. Be the smart guy in this exchange and adapt. We all have our responsibilities and roadblocks. Responsibility means finding a way past them, not finding a way that absolves us of blame. Get it done. Move forward.

I can’t count the number of times I have done things that were not my job in order to move a project forward. Sometimes others don’t approve but the project keeps moving. No one complains when the project is a success.

The good employee, the good manager, is the one who finds a way to get it done. Keep moving things forward. And that is what I mean by taking responsibility. Those that take responsibility don’t just accept culpability; they take that power that comes with it. They take that culpability and transform into an empowering force to get things done.

They don’t accept responsibility, they take it.

Joys of Data Entry

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:00:00 +0000

There are times that I feel I am at my most creative when I work alone.

When I work alone, I am not bound by other's past failures. When I am cheerful, I don’t realize how monumental a task I have broached. When I cannot build on the work of those that came before me, I am not hindered by their missteps. And there are conventions in Telecommunications industry of which I am completely ignorant.

A few years ago, when we first started documenting the physical infrastructure of the University of Florida there were only a few student laborers and myself. I don’t think any of us truly appreciated the breadth of the task we were undertaking. In the beginning, we were only tasked with documenting OSP fiber cables. Now, piece by piece, the breadth of that project has grown to encompass every physical aspect of the UF building networks. We have grown as well. From a group of student laborers and me, we have grown to include over 20 full time staff members.

In the beginning, each individual staff member held complete responsibility for documenting their own work. Any one person that deployed a new circuit held responsibility for documenting every component of that circuit. With only four staff members, we clearly could not hand off our documentation to any other group. In addition, by deploying a new labeling standard we were in a position where no one else could understand the significance of the labels we were creating. No one person was expected to be an expert but each staff member was expected to be able to navigate a plethora of systems managed by other groups. By documenting the physical cabling infrastructure we interfaced with our networking core group, our facilities group, all local IT support personnel, and UF’s physical plant division.

As VoIP began to take hold on our campus, we experienced the now common struggle of integrating our telecom staff with our networking groups. I am sad to say that over time, the majority of our telecom staff has been let go. But, as the few that are left have been brought into the fold, there is an interesting idea taking hold.

A number of us that grew out of the telecom industry are asserting that we could increase productivity by removing data entry and documentation responsibility from the field technicians and move it into the hands of data entry specialists. The idea has some merit. Data entry specialists can be expected to know the ins and outs of our documentation systems and should have an easier time sorting out system problems. This would free up our network technicians to focus on solving network problems and focus on delivering new network services. If we had more staff to begin with, we may have gone this same route.

Our own core networking group has student staff dedicated to updating their logical diagrams and router documentation. But, we didn’t, and I’m glad.

I am certain that the separation between those that do the work, those that update the documentation, and those that use the documentation does irreparable harm.

For our core group, logical diagrams are often out of date. An engineer that does work may forget to hand off the documentation work. The doc team, for all of their good intentions, has no follow up capability because they don’t know what each member of the core group is doing. The most reliable documentation they maintain is based on dynamic querying of the devices that they manage.

For our telecom group, this means that a technician hands off notes from a work order to a customer service rep to enter into their billing system. The CSR enters what they are given but have no true understanding of activity in the field. Where there is confusion between the technician and service rep, the technician must be available to clear up the problem. In a situation where they must call back a technician to explain, the department then has to account for those hours since each technician’s hours must be billable.

So, a documentation specialist calls a technician/engineer for clarification.

The technician/engineer is not responsible for documentation so they delay in answering questions.

This rewards the service rep for “figuring” it out.

This corrupts the documentation.

The documentation then has no value for the field technician.

The field technician does not document their work.

And the cycle goes on, and on.

Our staff who spent time working in telecommunications lament the days where others performed data entry and documentation. In their minds, the older system worked. Their tasks were simpler, and they weren’t hounded for documentation mistakes. Where before they handed folders off to data entry specialists they are now expected to document their own work and account for any errors they create in the system. The transparent nature of this model makes it appear less credible than its telecommunication predecessor.

Our current system constantly checks itself for documentation errors. Those errors are assigned as work orders and corrected. Current error counts are public record and currently stand at .47% of our total record count of 50,000 records. But, the old system never reported errors because it had no method for discovering them. Therefore, it was perfect.

The paradigm shift from specialized data entry staff to distributed data entry can be difficult for staff. Any change can be difficult. There are those here that still bemoan the expense of labeling a cable. But, for our application, holding individual technicians responsible for their own documentation has paid dividends over and over again. Not only can individual technicians document their own work, they invest the documentation with value through their own use.

Unused documentation is not worth having.

Age and Progress

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:11:00 +0000

I just read the most recent edition of BICSI news. It had a wonderful article in it concerning Ray Gendron, a former president of BICSI and the progenitor of BICSI Cares. For those who don’t already know, the BICSI Cares committee collects money at each BICSI conference and donates it to a local children’s charity based in the location that is hosting the conference.

Let me start by saying, these guys are good. They are the definition of good: both in how they operate and in their goals. At my first conference, I was approached a number of times and asked, quite politely, if there was anything I could spare. I can be a pretty cynical guy so I kept my money to myself and my head down. They wouldn’t leave me be.

My boss showed up and laughed while he explained things to me. For just a little bit of money, the BICSI Cares committee would put a little sticker on my badge that would let everyone know that I had made a donation. Then, they would leave me be. I laughed out loud at the thought: a charity protection racket.

This is where Ray enters the story. The next morning, the morning of my RCDD exam, I wandered down the hall and approached the BICSI cares committee booth to get my sticker. I walked up and an older gentleman asked if I wanted to make a donation and I pulled a twenty out of my wallet and started to hand it over. At the last second, I pulled it back.

“You know,” I offered. “I’m testing for my RCDD today.”

“Good for you!” He reached out and shook my hand. There was warmth to his smile and genuine cheerfulness. It had a childlike quality that made me smile. “What do you think your chances are?”

“Fair to middling,” I said. “I’ve got a deal for you. You can have this twenty now, or forty tomorrow if I pass.” To this day I don’t know what possessed me but it seemed funny at the time.

The old guy drew himself up and looked me up and down. He smiled even more and stuck out his hand.

“I’ll take that bet.” He stuck his hand out.

The next day I went back and paid my forty dollars, happily.

For the next two years I happily went back to the booth to make my donation the first day of each conference. Each year he remembered me and would call out to me before I got to the booth. He would stop my donation and ask a simple question.

“You testing this year?”

“Yes, sir.”

“I’ll see you tomorrow then. Don’t forget us.”

I didn’t. That man was Ray Gendron. I can’t say that I really even knew him and a number of people have already sung his praises in more public venues than my little blog. But I wanted to share my story of a man who genuinely appeared to enjoy life.

I’ve known another man who had a similar impact on my life.

My father has an older friend who he hunts with from time to time. They were much closer years ago and I’ve known him since I was a child. He’s in his eighties now.

Warren isn’t a powerhouse of a man. I’ve never really thought of him as a great leader, or visionary, or anything that marks a man as important. But he has always been a good friend to my father and a good friend to me.

I work in information technology and the only real constant I have to work with is change. One of the most frustrating aspects of my job is dealing with entrench bureaucracy and people who are frightened by change. Because of this, older persons get a bit of a bum rap in my industry. As we get older, things seem to get more static. Old ways are more comfortable and new ways of doing things just seem trivial.

But, as a child, Warren took me to his study to show me his new Nintendo gaming system. He had a childlike glee to his eyes as he sat me down to play. He explained the ins and outs of the game we were playing (Metroid for those who care) and talked about life.

“You’ve got it good Sheard T”, he would tell me. “We never had toys like this when I was a kid and they’re only gonna get better.”

His wife rolled her eyes from the kitchen. She didn’t approve, but then again neither did my Mom. We all wasted too much time on video games. But in Warren I saw a man who wasn’t afraid of new things – change.

A few years later I was a teenager and I sat down with Warren at his kitchen table. We were talking about how things used to be in the great nation of America and Warren started laughing.

“Sheard T,” he smiled. “Don’t talk to me about how things used to be. I was there and it wasn’t as great as people keep sayin’ it was.” He told me about separate but equal. He told me about friends passed over for promotion. He told me about all manner of injustices and he did it without ever losing his smile.

“That was yesterday Sheard T. It wasn’t all bad but don’t let anybody tell you it was all good. We fought in World War II but we did some bad things too.” Then he told me about all the good things we had today. The KKK was a shadow of what it used to be. Women could be anything they wanted to be.

I started to protest. Things weren’t that rosy. Warren waved me off. “It’ll never be perfect. Just keep workin’ at it. If you do it right, it gets better all the time.”

Last year, I stopped by Warren’s house on a cross-country drive to visit family. We talked about family, he played with my kids, and we generally got reacquainted. Somewhere in the conversation I let my vision roam over the living room and smiled.

Underneath the TV there was a Nintendo Wii.

I pointed it out to Warren and he just smiled. His eyes twinkled and he leaned in to me.

“Do you want to see the PS3? It’s in the other room.”

These men have both taught me valuable lessons. They didn’t mean to but just by watching these little pieces of their lives I’ve learned to appreciate where I am and the opportunities available to me. I don’t lose myself in nostalgia.

And each night I tell my little girl, the best is yet to come.

The Fallacy of Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:44:00 +0000

In 1988 I was sitting in calculus class when I learned something that has stayed with me ever since. I’ll paraphrase Mr. Massey without his permission.

“It is a pity,” my teacher began, “that we use numbers for so much but few people understand what they mean.” He proceeded to draw out on the chalkboard how our grades for his class would be calculated. He drew boxes representing four exams and a final box to represent the average of those exams.

“We like to use numbers to communicate. Numbers have power. If you put a number on something, we like to think we have a better understanding of what’s happening. The entire field of statistics is based on this premise, but consider the following.”

He drew in the grades of two students. Both students received grades of A, B, C, and D. One received them in ascending order while the other received them in descending order.

“Which one has a better understanding of the subject matter?”

Obviously, the student that started slow and finished the semester with an A had a better understanding of calculus. His point wasn’t lost on any of us. Both would end up with the same average grade. He then went on to explain how we would be graded on a different scale where later exams would have heavier weight. He reserved the right to nudge our grades upward if he believed we deserved it.

I was thinking of this a few years ago when the University of Florida’s Human Resources department redesigned their method for performing annual performance appraisals. Each year managers across UF are expected to file performance appraisals for their staff members. There would now be a greater emphasis on not only expecting those appraisals to be done but there were now more criteria on which a staff member could be evaluated. Each criterion would be based on a number of 1-5 and then summed to a final score of 5-25.

We were guided by numerous presentations and exhortations to treat performance evaluations as a chance to discuss performance with our staff. The assignment of numbers was less important than the chance to truly communicate with our subordinates.

I carried out the evaluation of my staff and moved on with my work. It wasn’t very shocking that six months later I was asked to defend my request for a raise for one of my subordinates. Apparently, his performance numbers were lower than a number of other candidates. As an explanation, I offered up that I am a critical supervisor and expect a great deal from my staff.

Comparison of performance numbers assigned by different managers is problematic at best. Some supervisors are best friends with their staff. Some managers have difficulty criticizing staff and some subordinates do not respond well to any criticism. Communication is key, but reducing that interaction to a number implies an impartiality that simply does not exist.

Both examples serve to illustrate the dangers of relying upon numbers to reflect and evaluation of performance. Unfortunately, in any significantly large institution there comes a point where we must rely upon numbers to record performance. People need to remember what assumptions lie behind all of those numbers. When we forget those assumptions, we put ourselves in a position where we are relying on “fuzzy Washington math.”

Organizations are constantly looking for metrics in order to evaluate their own performance. Managers look for appropriate metrics in order to justify budgets, request new staff, defend their policies, and for any number of other reasons. Managers need information in order to make decisions and there need to be metrics in order to inform those decisions.

When organizations spend so much time concerned with litigation, metrics can be used to not only inform but defend decision making. Efforts to remove someone from an organization are usually greeted with calls for documentation. Has the employee been counseled? Have they been informed of their sub-par performance? Is there record of their sub-par performance? And, the power of numbers here cannot be understated. A steady record of low appraisal numbers recorded over time has as much impact as a record high performance numbers.

But, as time has passed, the metrics used for evaluation have evolved. More and more, recorded opinions of management are giving way to more objective criteria: how many tickets resolved, average ticket lifespan, customer survey based information. I believe this trend has serious power and great potential to help management make informed decisions about the organizations they run.

As long as we understand the assumptions behind those numbers, all is good. Without true understanding though, numbers can lead us more astray than forward.

Category 6 revisited

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:21:00 +0000

Once again, my own stubborn pride has kept me in the middle of a debate concerning Category 6 UTP cabling. My earlier blog posts, Why I passed on Category 6 and Category 6 and PoE, as well as some public comments have generated criticism from a number of sources. I’m happy to say that all debate has been civil and I’ve found some new perspective on the question.

I’m happy to stand behind my past comments. For the University of Florida, Category 5e cabling remains our minimum standard for new telecommunications cabling installed on campus. Category 5e supports the data rates we need at a lower cost than Category 6. Category 6 provides no tangible benefit for the increased cost.

During our debates on the topic, the participants fell into two camps that were oddly split along departmental lines. Those that worked in building construction and held RCDD’s firmly believed that Category 6 needed to be the new minimum standard in our Telecommunications Standard. Those that worked in supporting building networks stood by the assertion that the extra money for Category 6 purchased nothing that we, as end consumers, needed.

I won’t go over the arguments either for or against either position. I’ve detailed them rather well in my past blog posts. Instead, I would like to focus on the resolution of the debate.

In the end, the UF Telecommunications Standard has Category 5e listed as the preferred minimum level of UTP cabling that will be accepted for new building construction. The wording is appropriate for a standard born of compromise but doesn’t really do a fine job of presenting a coherent vision for the University of Florida network.

As a final attempt to sway opinion, our Inside and Outside Plant Coordinators requested the opinion of Mel Lesperance, the BICSI southeast regional coordinator. I don’t know Mel very well personally but I have known him by reputation for many years. The question was resolved before Mel fielded his opinion but as a parting shot, his opinion was forwarded on to the committee.

Mel wrote an elegant piece supporting the requirement for Category 6 in new building construction. Nothing in the piece changed my opinion but I was moved by the professional demeanor of the paper Mel wrote. He presented all of the arguments I’ve previously mentioned in a simple and direct manner. Given that he was stepping into a known area of contention, he did so with distinction.

But, he didn’t present any new information. Personally, I’m no stranger to agreeing on all the facts but still holding a differing opinion than my colleagues. His message did prompt me to take another look at my own beliefs and ultimately led to a small epiphany.

I’ve often said that my position is a little unique within BICSI. In my profession, I represent an end customer that has a direct need to have someone with extensive cabling knowledge. Few organizations that are not dedicated to the cabling industry have a need for people with such expertise. But, as an end customer, I also sit in on discussions concerning the role of networking electronics, end user electronics, and the design of our data center. That puts me in a rather unique position; I sit in the role of an end user.

Mel’s eloquent support of Category 6 was presented as the position of a cabling system designer. As an end user, I can state that we will not ever be using 1000BaseTX electronics. By referencing our campus video group, I can state that will not need to distribute analog television signals across our academic buildings. With no need for either of those applications, Category 6 offers no value for its increased price.

Cabling designers and architectural engineering firms do not have that luxury; they cannot say with any certainty what their customers will do with the cabling plant they design. A designer may ask the end consumer what his needs are but we have all had the experience of a customer changing his mind. I know what applications I will need. Designers cannot hope to have an understanding of a customer’s needs that rival’s my own understanding of the University of Florida’s current and future application.

Given that, it behooves a cabling designer to specify Category 6 cabling. Their customer may be one of the few in the country that uses 1000BaseTX. Their customer my want to use the UTP cabling plant to distribute analog television signals. And if they don’t need it today, they may tomorrow. If the cabling plant does not support their application, the cabling designer may quite appropriately be held to blame.

But, before I give the impression of a changed man, we still don’t need Category 6 at the University of Florida. I would bet that most other customers don’t need it either. But, if I was designing a cabling system for another consumer, I might specify Category 6; sometimes it’s better to be safe.

On Certifications

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:44:00 +0000

In my few years of management, I’ve done my fair share of interviewing and hiring. Even before the current troubles with the economy, there have always been a number of applicants for the positions in our department. The University’s movement toward a centralized network support model has always drawn a love/hate relationship from the IT professionals that currently work on campus. A number of them worry about Computing and Networking Services (CNS) moving in and taking over their duties. At the same time, others are looking to sign on with us to improve their careers. The two groups are not mutually exclusive.

When passing through dozens of resumes are crossing my desk, I’m usually looking for reasons to exclude someone from the interview process instead of bringing them in. A piece of paper is a poor report of someone’s skills and there isn’t anywhere near enough time to interview them all. On that topic, it is hard enough to judge an applicant given a fifteen minute interview – but that’s for another time.

The easiest ways to exclude people include setting up minimum educational/certification requirements. We’ve done this for architectural firms that apply to do work on campus. They are required to have an RCDD on staff in order to be eligible to design buildings for the University of Florida. We required it in an attempt to ensure that architects understood the issues surrounding low-voltage cabling requirements. It has paid some dividends but the results have highlighted the flaws in establishing certification requirements for staff.

Not everyone that holds a certification holds an equal amount of skill, expertise, or commendable work ethic.

Certification/education requirements are easy ways to establish a minimum criterion but, once established, often act as a defining requirement. If someone needs to have a CCNA to be considered for employment, holding a CCNA requirement often becomes a justification for holding the job after the fact. CCNA certification becomes the established proof that the employee holds the skills necessary for the job.

Unfortunately, this is often not the case. Certifications and educational requirements do not communicate effectiveness in job duties. Those with higher educational degrees have known this for years. Holding a college degree usually signifies that the individual is capable of learning, not that what they learned in college is truly applicable to the employment. For years, programming firms have snatched up graduates with engineering degrees thinking that an engineering degree proves that the staff member is capable of the ordered reasoning necessary for programming.

Certifications have often seemed to be more applicable to the tasks performed. Different organizations that offer certifications target their tests more to the individual job requirements of the fields they serve. One would think that the certifications would have more applicability to the actual tasks at hand. In general, I don’t really think so.

I personally hold a number of certifications. I have an RCDD from BICSI, accompanied by their NTS and OSP specialty. For three years, I held a CCNA from Cisco. Just to be complete, I also have a BS in Psychology and a BA in Criminal Justice. Yes, I’ve been at UF a long time.

I had to study a long time for every certification exam listed above but I think it’s important to understand what these tests truly reflect. Each Bicsi certification exam represented an ability to memorize an incredible number of facts. Truly understanding the principles of low-voltage transmission can make this feat much more manageable but the test itself truly concerns memorization skills. Those who hold an RCDD should be able to communicate amongst themselves using a shared language that they all understand. But, the certification itself does not guarantee understanding.

I found the CCNA more demanding in regard to working skills. The questions on the exam seemed less concerned with my ability to memorize facts than my ability to use those facts to solve the networking problems that they presented. But even then, after passing the exam I would say that I had an introductory level of knowledge. I was ready to learn how to work on a network.

I think the important thing to learn from my experience is this: certification does not imply professionalism or expertise. When a professional is asked to defend their claims, they should be ready and willing to do so. Anyone who claims that they should be believed because they have a degree/certification is only admitting that they cannot truly defend their claims.

A true professional is ready to explain their understanding to all. In fact, as people, we have a responsibility to do so.

Entertainment and the Trades

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:10:00 +0000

I have always been a movie buff. When I was a kid, I was a sucker for anything new coming up on the silver screen. About the only movies I shied away from were horror films. And now, even those can keep my attention if they’re done well. Aliens grabbed me: a tight storyline, action, and a genuinely chilling antagonist. I like stories in almost all forms. It’s led me to become quite the storyteller myself. I can bend a number of ears telling longwinded stories whether they concern work or play.

I’m pretty sure I picked this up from my father. Without a doubt, my dad is the quintessential tale-spinner. I sat at his feet listening to every big fish story he ever told. I remember sitting around a campfire listening to him and his pals swapping deer stories until late in the night.

Any good story starts with the suspension of disbelief. A person has to be able to believe the tale that is being spun regardless of how incredible the story may be. The storyteller’s job is to make this happen. He can use a number of tools to make the story more realistic: rich details, an engaging story, and so on.

And here’s where I bring it back to a technical question.

Hollywood pays a great deal of money to technical consultants in order to make their movies more realistic. By making sure that their movies follow the guidelines of reality, Hollywood makes their movies more respectable. The practice isn’t new. Technical consultants on Star Trek would make up appropriately scientific verbiage to fit in where the writers needed.

So in today’s movies, we are getting progressively more technical storylines that rely more and more on truly creative consultants.

While watching Sneakers, I worried a number of movie-goers by laughing out loud during the middle of the movie. The cast had snuck into the ceiling and were navigating the building using the crawlspace. I don’t know that I have ever seen such a clean ceiling.

In a Sandra Bullock film, a number of spies were chasing poor Sandra to get a “disc”. Unfortunately, she never thought to copy the disk. Or, maybe she could have distributed copies across a number of servers that she showed mastery over earlier in the movie.

In Jurassic Park, the perky young girl was excited to see the computer boot up with its neat clean interface. “I know this, it’s UNIX.” Every knowledgeable IT guy in the world groaned.

I suppose my point is that we all need to be careful what we learn on TV. What I’ve observed above is just a small sample of IT snafus in films. I expect that same circumstance applies to other trades. I wonder if plumbers roll their eyes every time someone navigates a crawlspace. I expect electricians shake their head every time someone gets electrocuted. I’m sure even English teachers get annoyed at something they’ve seen in a film.

But, a number of us learn how the world works through the stories we’re told. How much does everyone learn about the law from all of the various “Law and Order”s and “CSI”s. How much has America learned about healthcare from “ER”, or even worse, “Grey’s Anatomy”.

In all of our various fields, we need to understand that out coworkers and customers may have a number of misconceptions. It is everyone’s responsibility to help repair the damage inflicted by the storytellers.

But if the movies are good enough, I think the misconceptions are worth it. After all, we can’t expect writers to know all the facts of our trades.

So consultants, start earning your pay.

Category 6 and PoE

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:57:00 +0000

In reference to an earlier blog post, Why I passed on Category 6, I laid out some of the background for my opinions on Category 6 cabling. In short, it’s a great cable that never really had a home in the data networks.

I wouldn’t be addressing the topic again except the University of Florida (go gators!) is in the process of reviewing their Telecommunication Standards. I’m happy to say that I am a part of that process.

The most recent revision of the UF Telecommunication Standards was published in 2005. Many things have changed since in the past 4 years and the revision committee is in hot debate concerning a number of topics. Of critical interest is the decision concerning what cable is to be placed in new construction projects on the UF campus. The current revision of the UF Telco Standards require a plenum rated UTP cable of at least Category 5e classification.

The new version of the standard will relax the prohibition against using nonplenum cable. I’m happy to discuss the logic behind both decisions but the debate concerning the use of plenum v/s non-plenum cable has been simpler than the old argument.

While the standards currently require a minimum of Category 5e cable, most new buildings have been constructed with Category 6 cable serving as the UTP cable of choice. Beyond any technical discussions, we can easily trace the evolution of this defacto standard.
· Architecture and Engineering firms habitually install the most popular cable in new construction. With none of our new buildings being IT centered, the choice to specify Category 6 must seem simple
· Our own department of Facilities Planning has the responsibility for the construction of new buildings. While they are often looking for ways to spend money they often look to the UF stakeholders to point out ways that designs can be made to best fit UF.
· Our own IT representatives to Facilities Planning focus on issues different than cable selection. OSP issues and documentation take a front seat in any discussion concerning new construction.

So, regardless of our own local standard, all new buildings since 2005 have been installed with Category 6.

This leads us to the current discussion in which our standards committees are debating whether to increase our requirements for new network cabling to Category 6- and yes, it is a debate.

All of the older arguments have been brought out to justify the requirement for Category 6 as the mainstay of network cabling on this campus. They have been joined by a new one: PoE plus is going to require Category 6 in order to function at full capacity.

Most of the time in this industry, our principal form of education comes from our vendors. In order to sell us their products, they want to keep us informed about the latest advances in technology. In IT, this strategy works. There is always a need for the next best thing. In cabling, the world moves a bit slower but this marketing trend seems to hold. A number of cabling installations are sold on their ability to “future-proof” the building and prepare for the next application. The latest argument seems to stem from this kind of thinking.

I’ve heard this argument from a number of sales persons in the last few weeks. They have held seminars on the topic. A number of our UF staff are convinced that by clinging to older cabling standards we may be constraining our ability to serve our constituency.

But, where is the evidence? Various Google searches and requests for whitepapers have come back empty-handed. In fact, a search of online periodicals seems to imply that PoE plus is designed to work over Category 5 with Category 5e being more than capable of supporting the next standard: PoE ++?

In short, more smoke and mirrors. You need Category 6 because it is certified to run gigabit. You need Category 6 to run 1000BaseTX which is the way future electronics will be constructed. You need Category 6 to run PoE plus. All patently false.

I still hold that Category 6 is a great cable. It is a great cable without a purpose. It serves better for analog video but now more and more video is going digital.

There are times I feel trapped in the past. If any reader can tell me why Category 6 is the better cable, please pass on the information. With a good argument, I can be converted.

Until then, I will hold on to my outdated cabling. When Category 6A cabling comes down in price and 10GBaseT cards become standard in desktops I may change my tune.

Why TIA/EIA 606-A is a Wonder

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:08:00 +0000

In May of 2002 the TIA published TIA/EIA-606-A, the administrative standard for telecommunications infrastructure. To say that I am a fan of this standard is a bit of an understatement. 606-A lays out a consistent method of identifying and labeling physical infrastructure components that can be applied to almost any communications plant, from a single home to a multinational campus. Without going into the details, the 606-A standard defines names by a constructing a string composed of individual chunks of data that build from the specific and gradually expound as far as necessary. The standard details a number of specific examples but the premise is simple. The entire standard builds from this elegant idea.

Again, I’m a fanboy. Committees of volunteers create standards. Multiple opinions combined with multiple points of views combined with multiple points of self-interest. Yet, 606-A comes together with a unified message and a clear set of criteria that is indicative of sole authorship. The standard accomplishes this by never defining the absolute requirements of the naming convention. 606-A communicates naming formats by using variables for each chunk of data that a name should hold. The use of variables sometimes leaves the reader thinking he’s back in high school algebra but the use of variables is what sets the standard apart: ease of adaptability.

I was lucky enough to get an advance copy of the administrative standard. I’m not even sure if I ever completely read the approved standard. I’ve worn out my advance copy many times over. My supervisor handed me an advance copy of the 606-A standard and the rest is history. I’m not sure if he ever read the advance copy.

At first the standard, like most, makes for a boring read. No one writes these documents in an attempt to get on the best seller list. Still, the more I read, the simpler my own professional problems seemed to appear.
• Identify the components you wish to administer
• Name those components
• Label those items with labels that communicate their names
• Write down any documentation you need and associate it with those names

Simple. These few simple principles apply to any form of administration. The rest of the standard deals with appropriate means of naming telecommunications infrastructure. There are some tips on what kind of information a user may want to document concerning their infrastructure but it observes that requested information may vary from customer to customer. This treatise on useful telecommunications information may be useful to the novice but can be skipped by the more experienced.

In short, if you haven’t read this standard, do it. TIA/EIA is working on the next iteration of this standard and by my advance reading, it has none of the advantages of its predecessor. The new 606 standard reads as if it were created by a committee. It allows a number of different options for data center management and in doing so ensure that there is no standard after all. In their defense, attempting to standardize the administration of a data center is as difficult as standardizing the physical layout of a data center.

For now, leave the 606-B until the committee can lock down an appropriate administrative standard. I don’t envy them the task. Reread your copy of the 606-A and make modifications as appropriate.

Why I passed on Cat 6

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:52:00 +0000

In January of 2006 I was attending the winter Bicsi conference. Each time I go I always walk away having learned something new that I can bring back to my job. Just as important as the educational sessions are the opportunities to compare notes with my peers and see what’s new in the industry. That year it was each vendor’s new Category 6A cable. The IEEE had just passed the new 10GBaseT standards and the conference was buzzing.

I try not to be too cynical, but I couldn’t help but think of five years earlier when the TIA had finally approved the standards defining Category 6 cable. The conference had been buzzing then and I was a new RCDD fresh off my exam. I was riding high and ready to take my place among my more established colleagues.

No one was talking about the technical specifications of Category 6 UTP cabling: those had been relatively set for years. The bandwidth specifications were well known and the TIA standards were considered a bit overdue. The technical advantages were so obvious that they weren’t even discussed.

A few months later I was asked to be one of the principal authors of the new Univeristy of Florda Telecommunication Standards. And, surely enough, one of the questions that we needed to address was what minimum cable we would accept for new construction on campus. The older version of our standards required Category 5e cable. It almost seemed a forgone conclusion that we would require all new cable installed at the University of Florida be Category 6 UTP.

But, before making the change, I searched high and low for technical reasons to support the added expense. Now, I’m not an engineer, but I can read. I read every article, sales sheet, and white paper I could get my hands on. I was new to writing standards documents and I was earnest (and a little concerned) about doing a good job. Aside from technical differences between Category 5e and 6, I was looking for applications that required Category 6.

In the end, I could only find two advantages to installing category 6.

First, the additional bandwidth of Category 6 made it a much better medium for analog video traffic than Category 5e. This wasn’t an application we were very interested in. Our video needs were served very well by dedicated coax.

And second, 1000BaseTX, the new standard that was being trumpeted by the cabling manufacturers required Category 6 cable. 1000BaseTX was a hot topic at the conferences and seemed to be the principal argument for the installation of Category 6. But, 1000BaseTX only transported data at 1 Gigabit speeds, no faster than the already ratified 1000BaseT protocol. Pundits crowed that 1000BaseTX products would be cheaper and quickly dominate the electronics market. Unfortunately, 1000BaseTX products were incompatible with current 1000BaseT electronics. Watching the electronics market for a few months showed no great adoption of 1000BaseTX.

So, our first draft of the new UF Telecommunications Standard required only a minimum of Category 5e. This created quite a stir and I was called upon a number of times to defend the decision. This defense led to a number of spirited discussions at conferences and training events over the course of the next few years. I have enjoyed all of them and learned a great deal. None of them however, has changed my mind on the subject.

So, now I see the new standards for Category 6A in the process of being ratified. I hear words like futureproofing and emerging applications. I see a new IEEE specification that takes advantage of this amazing new cabling. I see everything I saw five years ago. So, while I applaud the creation of new technologies I have to wonder where I can best advise my employer to spend his money.

I’ll watch the electronics standards and see where the market moves: 802.11n looks interesting. Amazingly enough, 802.11n works fine with Category 5e cables.