Student

We often assign a number to evaluate the value of things, but is everything measurable? Is the value of IT measurable? Paul Strassmann, the CIO guru, once argued that IT is just as basic as the accounting department, it is nearly impossible to attach dollar values to an IT investment. Yet, we still use ROI to evaluate an IT project because without a metric, it is hard to keep track of the performance, the success, the failure, and/or the impact of the investment. Such numbers and value attached allow us to compare in quantifiable measurement with respect to the set goal. IT investment is risky and often require large amount of investment. A successful project can have a long return on investment period; yet a failure can cause the company money and time. Even with a high probability success rate, the outcome is still 50-50. Thus, the value of IT is subjective. There is no real formula in calculating the value of IT, but what one thinks about the possible cost and benefit IT can bring. 

https://www.cio.com/article/2438921/it-organization/everything-is-measurable.html

In the article by Aaltonen, the author talks about how we can innovate with metrics and how to deliver metrics that are useful to the organization. A quote that stands out to me is “a good metric is often one that you can interact with, that is, take actions and see immediately how the readings change. this is because, instead of merely observing how the world is, we learn much more from observing the changes that result from our own actions“. This quote relates back to an important concept we learned from Project Management: see, feel, change. It is important that the metrics give a tangible representation of a concept, instill in end users the urge to take necessary actions, and create changes that stick. Another important concept discussed in the article is that we should not focus solely on quantitative measurements. By focusing solely on what we can only measure, we can potentially lose sight of the entire customer experience. Therefore, in developing useful metrics, we also need to pay attention to systems thinking and consider how our metrics will impact the entire system.

With that in mind, a recent report by MIT Sloan and Google indicates that our current Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for customer experience are no longer accurate for today’s digital environment. Customer experience experts often have trouble justifying their efforts with revenue growth even though everyone knows that great customer experiences lead to increased revenue. Some useful KPIs that effectively measured customer experience according to this article are: Customer Lifetime Value (CLV), Customer Acquisition Cost, and Net Promoter Score (NPS). This relates back to the “Everything Is Measurable” article in that even though it is difficult to measure customer experience, it is not impossible. By understanding the object of measurement (customer experience) and the meaning of the measurement, measuring customer experience is not impossible. 

Source:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zqhicbealro0z26/The%20beauty%20and%20perils%20of%20metrics.pdf?dl=0

https://www.cio.com/article/2438921/it-organization/everything-is-measurable.html

https://www.cmswire.com/customer-experience/are-your-customer-experience-kpis-fit-for-today/

Metrics are important for every business, but not only businesses they are just important for measuring anything. For example, when people try to measure how good a player is in the NFL, they look at the metrics and statistics on him and what he has done throughout his career. These same metrics will eventually be used to determine if he is eligible for the Hall of Fame. The article discusses that what is more important, is finding what these metrics actually mean or if the data actually means anything realistically. It is true that since it is less expensive to gather data nowadays, companies will basically gather data and metrics on almost everything, and worry about evaluating it later. The NFL has so many metrics for every situation; for example, they might be able to tell me that a certain quarterback has a 5-0 record when leading by 21 point going into the second half. Now, to me, that doesn’t really mean anything because, not only is five games is a small sample size to begin with, it is also very hard for any team to come back from a 21 point deficit in any situation; therefore, to me it doesn’t really say anything about the quarterback. However, some people may disagree with that and think that it does mean something; either way, the NFL still shares certain metrics like these with their audience during the games and before the games and leaves it up to them to decide if they want to factor it into who they think will win or what they think of certain players. My point here is that I think certain metrics can actually be important to some and less important to others. What do you guys think? Do you think there is a possibility for different viewpoints on metrics? Or is one person just wrong because they aren’t seeing the relevance? What should companies do about this?

Source: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zqhicbealro0z26/The%20beauty%20and%20perils%20of%20metrics.pdf?dl=0

The structure of an IT organization is integral to the types of values it can provide to the company. According to the article “The Built-to-Purpose IT Organization” by Colleen Young, there are three main options for line management structures of IT organizations: technically aligned, business unit aligned and business process aligned. These options, respectively, increase in the value IT provides to the company’s business operations and overall strategic goals. Business process aligned IT structure offers maximum value to the company as it tailors IT services to serve the needs of specific end-to-end business processes. At my current job at a global consumer packaged goods company, I work in the IT function that supports IT needs of R & D, which gives me the opportunity to witness first-hand the effectiveness of a centralized, business process aligned IT structure. My manager, the R&D IT service manager has built a partnership with R&D people and has extensive knowledge of R&D business processes. Thanks to this effective collaboration, we are able to efficiently find opportunities to use technologies to optimize R&D operations. 

Another reflection I had when reading the article was that the three structures don’t have to be mutually exclusive. My company has technically aligned teams (security, infrastructure, etc.) as well as business process aligned teams such as my team, or Marketing IT, Supply Chain IT, etc. and this model has been working successfully. Based on this framework, IT organizations can have a hybrid or a mixed structure combining two or three of the above options to maximize value creation.

A number of lawsuits have recently been targeted at Apple for allegedly slowing down processors on older iPhone’s for the purpose of improving battery life without explicit user consent. Users argue that the messages they received for these updates were misleading, and were not informed that their phones would be slowed down. Apple recently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that they cannot be found liable as providing updates to the iPhone is similar to a building contractor updating/remodeling a kitchen. They also argued that plaintiffs are incorrect for stating that they  “did not give permission” slow their phones down  and provided proof they in fact did, via the iOS license agreement.

While this specific case only affects individuals who own older iPhone’s and take issue with the aforementioned update, it does fall under a much broader controversy within the tech industry: do we really own our own devices? When people purchase physical devices, they tend to believe that they own that device and can do whatever they want with it. However, more and more, manufacturers are starting to view smartphones and other devices as “portals” to use services, in a similar way to cable companies who own the cable boxes that people have within their homes. Companies are legally required to inform users what they can and can’t do with their devices, but many times this information is buried away in dense “User Agreement” contracts and obscured in legalese. Apple is using their own license agreement as proof that they are not liable for iPhone slowdowns in this very case. 

What does this say about the future of smart devices? Where does society draw the line and what manufacturers can and can’t do with devices that were purchased by consumers? Can companies continue to add more and more permissions within their user agreements, or is it unjust to make it as difficult to discover and understand as possible? Or is it on the responsibility of the user to read and understand everything before agreeing to use a device?

Sources:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/28/apple_iphone_batteries/

https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/30/apple-compares-ios-updates-to-kitchen-renovations-in-motion-to-dismiss-iphone-slowdown-lawsuit

The article I will be discussing in this post describes the way technology has changed professional skiing events like the X Games. Only a decade ago, skiers and park professionals were drawing their ideas for jumps and other elements on paper. There was very little information to go on when deciding where to place these jumps or what angles to use. However, now that the skiing industry has integrated more and more technology into its operations, professionals use tools like Google Earth and Google SketchUp to create 3D models of the mountain and its terrain before building the park. These models enable the designers to analyze the terrain and find the best spots for jumps, rails, half-pipes, etc. In addition to helping them analyze and plan the park construction, technology is utilized during the construction of the park. The snow groomers are equipped with self-leveling lasers that ensure the edges are perfectly square. These details are very important as some jumps launch skiers more than 70 feet in the air and the smallest imperfections in the snow can cause serious injury. Technology has eliminated a lot of the guessing and failure in the design process through its accurate, to-scale models and the ability to create and test full parks before actually building them. Just one example of how high-tech solutions can be found in very low-tech industries.

Article: https://www.sporttechie.com/how-the-x-games-uses-technology-to-build-snow-terrain-parks/