The iPad And "Closed" Workspaces

In case you missed it, Markos Moulitsas (aka "kos") has a wonderful review of the iPad. But its actually more of a "day in the life" of an iPad user, which I think makes it more valuable for anyone thinking about buying one. The part I found most interesting was his discussion of the relative reliability of "open" hardware  (i.e. PCs) versus "closed" (i.e. iPhone or iPad) hardware:

My Mac, while not perfect, is far more solid than my PCs of old. While the software isn't locked down, The hardware homogenization of Apple's lineup means fewer hardware-related crashes. And given how few third-party apps I run, my software-related crashes are kept to a minimum. The day HTML 5 fully kills off Flash will be the day that 95% of my infrequent crashes are eliminated. Currently, I reboot my MacBook Pro about once every 2-3 months . . . .

On a network level, we've also learned to appreciate the benefits of locking things down. We've experienced this both in deploying virtualized workspaces as well as our desktop management system. The key seems to be allowing the right amount of user customization while keeping the overall system highly standardized.

From a lean perspective, standardized tools means less error and lower variability when carrying out standardized work. It also reduces a great deal of waste for IT engineers, avoiding the time consuming process of fixing problems caused by user downloaded applications.

Will Increasing Complexity Lead To Collapse?

Clay Shirky writes a facinating post describing the erosion of complex business models. He recounts a talk he gave to TV executives worried whether online video will generate enough revenue to cover production costs. Drawing on Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies, Shirky examines whether media will simplify, or instead collapse:

Early on, the marginal value of this complexity is positive—each additional bit of complexity more than pays for itself in improved output—but over time, the law of diminishing returns reduces the marginal value, until it disappears completely. At this point, any additional complexity is pure cost.

Tainter’s thesis is that when society’s elite members add one layer of bureaucracy or demand one tribute too many, they end up extracting all the value from their environment it is possible to extract and then some.

The ‘and them some’ is what causes the trouble. Complex societies collapse because, when some stress comes, those societies have become too inflexible to respond. In retrospect, this can seem mystifying. Why didn’t these societies just re-tool in less complex ways? The answer Tainter gives is the simplest one: When societies fail to respond to reduced circumstances through orderly downsizing, it isn’t because they don’t want to, it’s because they can’t.

His conclusion is probably right. But I think the argument has two problems.

First, increased complexity doesn't necessarily create drag on the system. Put differently, increased complexity sometimes costs less than the status quo. My favorite example is virtualization. The back end is indeed complex, requiring advanced and well-designed software. But virtualized servers actually use resources more efficiently. And a properly configured Citrix desktop environment is faster and easier to work in than a thick client environment. Complexity is more efficient.

Second, improvements need not add complexity. Managing from a lean perspective, I'm always looking for ways to simplify. Those who identify and eliminate waste from a system make it less complex.

In other words, the best solutions are elegant, reducing complex problems to simple yet correct answers.

So on a fundamental level, I agree with Shirky: success lies ahead for those who can add value by making things simpler. The future is poetry, not prose.

Imagining Personal Computing In The 1960s

Circa 1969, here's how folks foresaw personal computing and the internet:

Funny how they assume technology will change but gender roles won't.  Not to mention hairstyles and interior design.

But pretty well predicted, really -- folks certainly envisioned the basics of modern e-commerce and email. And the video even showcases one of my personal favorite innovations: three monitors.

(hat tip Kottke and Andrew Sullivan)

The iPad: For Techies Or Ordinary Users?

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="152" caption="Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press"][/caption] David Pogue writes an interesting dual-view review of the iPad.

In 10 years of reviewing tech products for The New York Times, I’ve never seen a product as polarizing as Apple’s iPad, which arrives in stores on Saturday.

“This device is laughably absurd,” goes a typical remark on a tech blog’s comments board. “How can they expect anyone to get serious computer work done without a mouse?”

“This truly is a magical revolution,” goes another. “I can’t imagine why anyone will want to go back to using a mouse and keyboard once they’ve experienced Apple’s visionary user interface!”

Those are some pretty confident critiques of the iPad — considering that their authors have never even tried it.

In any case, there’s a pattern to these assessments.

The haters tend to be techies; the fans tend to be regular people.

He goes on to provide a helpful review -- from both perspectives.

At our firm, we're wondering who'll be the first to purchase an iPad. Our money is on the techies, though most of them are content to wait for the next generation. And Pogue makes a compelling case that this technology is geared less toward the traditional early adopters and more toward ordinary users.

Serve It Up Precisely

Chuck Hollis thinks IT managers have paid too much attention to costs for hardware and software, and not enough attention to internal IT processes. He argues in favor of less precision and more speed, since the "time to serve" -- the time infrastructure is requested to the time of deployment -- determines the business advantage of implementing new IT infrastructure. "Time to serve" is another way of describing lead time, which is, indeed, something we rarely hear about when evaluating IT initiatives. And in discussing IT costs, we rarely explore how much of these costs are the result of internal wasteful processes. Instead, the discussion focuses almost exclusively on costs for hardware, software, and training.

However, I disagree that "time to serve" is improved by reducing precision. In many projects, resources are spent fixing bugs, troubleshooting, training because of poorly designed systems, and modifying existing processes so they are compatible with the new infrastructure. Less precision just exacerbates these non-value added processes, or waste. On the other hand, waste -- and therefore costs -- are reduced the more an IT project fits an organization's needs.

Interestingly, he concludes:

Over the last year, I've sketched out what I believe to be the dominant model for next-generation enterprise IT: the private cloud. What makes it a "cloud" is that it's built differently, operated differently and consumed differently. What makes it "private" is that it's under the control of the enterprise IT organization.

But new models require new metrics to judge their effectiveness, and drive continually improvements.

As cloud computing matures, and our assumptions about hardware and software change, will we see new focus on internal IT processes?

D. Mark Jackson

Ninja Email Laws

Time Management Ninja offers “9 Laws for Work Email.” They're all worth checking out. My favorite is "Keep it Short," with the suggestion that all emails be less than five lines long. But I particularly like this insight:

Do not expect an immediate response – In our hyper connected world, email is the new snail mail. Once upon a time, email was considered fast. Wanted a quick response? Send an email. But it has since been demoted down the communication response priority list. If you need a more immediate response: call, text, or come see me. Many people check email only 2-3 times a day and are turning off their work email on breaks and weekends.

It's just impossible for busy people to reply quickly anymore. Handhelds aren't the solution, and by contributing to the volume of sent email, arguably they're part of the problem. And constant checking and responding to emails is poor workflow. If you need an immediate response, better choose a different medium.

If you find these rules useful, be sure to visit Merlin Mann's series of posts on email best practices.

D. Mark Jackson

A Seamless Web

Just how wired are we? Here's a personal illustration from San Francisco's Financial District. There's a bus stop across from my office building. But I can get a better seat going home if I walk to an earlier stop about a block away. While waiting for the bus, I usually have five to ten minutes to clean up my email mailbox using my iPhone. Once on the bus, I quickly start up my laptop and launch Outlook. My bus travels around the block and stops in front of the office. By this point, my iPhone has synched with Exchange. And while waiting outside my office, my laptop connects to the office wi-fi and syncs Outlook with Exchange. I head home with my email fully synched, including the work I did at the bus stop.

Of course, I didn't come up with this intentionally. Rather, I only realized it was happening one day as I observed my Outlook synching at the second bus stop.

Okay, this feels like an ostentatious use of technology. And I'll admit I can connect to wireless broadband on my laptop, making this exercise unnecessary. But this experience underscores how connected our urban space really is. It's also one of those rare instances of technology working better than expected. I just have to savor that.

D. Mark Jackson

Capture Clearinghouse

With the explosion of iPhone apps, note taking applications, and digital dictation software, there is (maybe literally) a million ways to capture ideas. Too many. A fundamental principle of GTD is to have a good system for capturing ideas whenever and wherever they occur. You don't have to capture much -- just enough to recall the idea later for full processing.

The problem with having so many capturing tools available is that they scatter your information, when the whole point is to ensure your ideas get timely developed and not lost in the wave of oncoming information.

How do you corral your information if it's spread across separate applications for entering time, recording expenses, managing tasks, and capturing everyday notes?

My solution is to make my Microsoft Outlook inbox the clearinghouse for almost every input. During my daily mailbox reviews, I translate these captured thoughts into projects, transfer information to lists, add to project support material folders, or otherwise appropriately process it.

I recommend making every one of your capturing devices point back to your email inbox. For example:

• Blind copy yourself on emails so you can follow up on assignments (Waiting Fors)

• Email yourself text notes from your handheld

• Use ReQall or Jott to email yourself audio notes

• Use Google Voice to transcribe voicemails and send them to your inbox

• Email yourself URLs from websites for further browsing

• When away from your desk, write a time entry in an email to yourself from your handheld

• Forward emails from other email accounts if they require action

• Email yourself notes from Evernote or other note taking applications, if they require follow up

• Record digital messages and immediately email them to yourself (or use Dragon Dictation to transcribe from your handheld)

Of course, using your Outlook inbox as a clearinghouse makes the most sense if you use Outlook as your list tool. For example, I customize Outlook for managing my projects list, next action lists, and reference lists. If you use some other application to manage your lists, you should make that application your clearinghouse instead.

There's also a few key inputs that don't go directly to my inbox, such as notes on my legal pad. I also collect pieces of paper, such as receipts and business cards, which need follow up. For these items, I make sure to process them during my weekly review.

But for day-to-day capturing, my inbox is it.

D. Mark Jackson

Spring Clean Your Mailbox

I'm not immune from Exchange server warnings that my mailbox is approaching the limit. Time to clean it out again.

This is the checklist I follow to get it done:

Mailbox Checklist

I realize some of these folders need an explanation, something I promise to write about soon.

With the exception of the last two items, the list is in ascending order of difficulty and descending order of payoff. That way, I can still get things down to size quickly, even if I don't make it all the way through the list.

I consider this a critical part of my personal 5S program.

On a related note, our technology team thought hard about the appropriate limit for mailbox sizes. If the limit is too low, users end up saving almost everything as a PST. This creates records management and backup issues. And IT should be solving problems, not passing them along to users.

But if the limit is too high, we end up saving too much data on the Exchange server and users feel little pressure to manage their email -- until, that is, it gets really out of hand.

And limits are relative. A heavy email user runs up against the limits sooner.

We decided on 750 MB per user, with warnings beginning at 600 MB.

I get between 100 and 300 email messages daily. I also use Tasks and Calendar extensively. I don't store any documents in my mailbox, except attachments, and I try to keep those kinds of saved messages to a minimum. Keeping my mailbox below 600 MB feels about right, and a well organized mailbox runs around 300 MB to 400 MB. Although I regularly manage my inbox, the upper limit provides some incentive to clean out less frequently used folders, such as my junk e-mail folder and rule storage folders.

It's actually helpful to have this reminder that storage isn't infinite (yet).

D. Mark Jackson

The Future of Legal Education: Online?

Ralph Losey persuasively argues that online education will replace bricks-and-mortor education, including law school, as the dominant form. The major advantage of online courses, he claims, is that they are asynchronous, meaning:

A student can logon to study at the time when they are most alert and receptive. They can do so in an environment of their choosing, one that they have found to be most conducive for learning. They may choose to study alone, or in a group.  Some may learn best in a crowded coffee-shop. Others may prefer a quiet room by themselves. For some the preferred time to learn may be in the morning. For others it may be late at night. Online learning can happen anywhere and anytime.

Traditional institutions that ignore this trend -- even our most venerable top universities -- risk being left behind.

This resonates with me. I studied for the California Bar exam while living in Virginia, entitling me to use the study course's audio tapes, rather than having to attend the live lectures.

Granted, it was the bar exam, but it was one of the most intense learning experiences in my life. Since I devoted my days entirely to bar preparation, I could plan all my activities around my personal preferences and natural rhythms. For me, this meant taking practice tests in the morning, studying outlines in the morning and early afternoon, and listening to the lectures in the late afternoon when I didn't have the energy to do much else. I could listen lying down on the sofa when particularly exhausted. I could take breaks at will. I could clear my head with a run. This freedom allowed me to absorb a huge amount of material in the most personally effective way.

This wouldn't work for everyone. Some people need that mandatory lecture in order get on task in the morning. One can't really do class projects and study groups without personal interaction. People learn differently through dialogue. And how do you do the Socratic method in a WebEx session?

But let's leave aside whether this education is better, in the sense of being more convenient, cost effective, and otherwise efficient.  Will online education make for better lawyers?  Or will something essential be lost in translation?

D. Mark Jackson

Don't E-Disagree

Here's what Don Lents, chairman of Bryan Cave, has to say about electronic communications versus business travel:

“You should never engage in a disagreement electronically,” Mr. Lents said he advises [lawyers at his firm]. “If you are going to disagree with somebody, you certainly don’t want to do it by e-mail, and if possible you don’t even want to do it by phone. You want to do it face to face.”

...

“That’s an important message that does not necessarily come naturally to a lot of younger people today who have grown up with so much of their communications being by texting and e-mail,” he said. “I tell our younger lawyers, if you think you are going to have a difficult interaction with a colleague or a client, if you can do it face to face that’s better, because you can read the body language and other social signals.”

“In texting and e-mails or even videoconferencing, you can’t always gauge the reaction and sometimes things can have a tendency to be misunderstood, or they can ratchet up to a level of seriousness that you didn’t anticipate,” he added. “In person, you see that somebody reacting in a way that you didn’t expect. Then you can stop and figure out what’s going on, and adapt.”

Genchi genbutsu in action. Human interaction is so complex and dependent on subtle cues. Especially when two people disagree. I can't think of a context where it is more important to go see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation.

D. Mark Jackson

K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Software)

I had an enjoyable conversation today with a trusts and estates lawyer. She is very good about generating regular email newsletters for her clients, and I was curious about the application she uses. I was somewhat interested in the product myself -- it had a lot of appealing features. Not only did it have extensive email functions, it included a customer relations management tool and some interesting database features.

To my surprise, this attorney hated it.

She described spending many hours trying to learn all the complicated features and still needed to invest additional time to get the desired results. She was set to "downgrade" to a product with fewer features.

I think a lot of lawyers can recount similar experiences, especially those willing to experiment with new technology. They waste a lot of time learning how the tool works, only to discover that it works poorly or does a lot of stuff they don't need it to do. They discover the product is feature rich, but the features are incomplete and awkwardly executed. And, of course, each new feature entails potential conflicts and bugs.

The converse also seems true. Simple but well executed applications are a joy. Elegant solutions are satisfying.

When I got the iPhone, for example, I initially was disappointed by the inability to customize. And, when compared to my BlackBerry, certain features seemed to be missing. Over time, however, the missing features have translated into improved usability, flatter learning curves -- and frankly, fun. What I really need is included and done well.  As a result, I'm more efficient and less frustrated.

Heavy technology users want to customize applications and they reflexively search for new features. We think of customization as a way to better match the application to our idiosyncrasies. We want features to maximize utility. But in reality, this isn't about optimization. Usually we customize and employ features just to make applications work, as compensation for poor design.

Technology consumers should resist their initial impulses -- our instincts have been mistrained. Forget about the nifty features. Find something simple that actually works.

D. Mark Jackson

Barbarians at the Gate

Earlier today, U.S. Director of Intelligence Dennis Blair put "cyberattacks" at the top of his prepared remarks to the Senate:

The threat of a crippling attack on computer and telecommunications networks is growing, America’s top intelligence official told lawmakers on Tuesday, as an increasingly sophisticated group of enemies has “severely threatened” the sometimes fragile systems undergirding the country’s information systems.

. . . .

“Malicious cyber activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary sophistication,” he said.

The decision by Mr. Blair to begin his annual testimony before Congress with the cyber threat points up the concerns among American intelligence officials about the potentially devastating consequences of a coordinated attack on the nation’s technology apparatus, sometimes called a “Cyber Pearl Harbor.”

I have no special insight on this issue, other than to note that lawyers are not immune.  Indeed, lawyers may be especially vulnerable, given the increasingly collaborative nature of law practice, the large amount of sensitive data for which we are responsible, and our increasing dependence on network connectivity.   My (rather safe) prediction is that security will demand an increasingly large chunk of law firm IT budgets.

D. Mark Jackson

It's the Network, Stupid

It's official in my book.  At least for the near future, network performance is the limiting reagent for computing:

"Carrier networks aren’t set to handle five million tablets sucking down 5 gigabytes of data each month,” Philip Cusick, an analyst at Macquarie Securities, said.

Wireless carriers have drastically underestimated the network demand by consumers, which has been driven largely by the iPhone and its applications, he said. “It’s only going to get worse as streaming video gets more prevalent.”

An hour of browsing the Web on a mobile phone consumes roughly 40 megabytes of data. Streaming tunes on an Internet radio station like Pandora draws down 60 megabytes each hour. Watching a grainy YouTube video for the same period of time causes the data consumption to nearly triple. And watching a live concert or a sports event will consume close to 300 megabytes an hour.

Debates over the 16 nm node barrier and other theoretical limits of Moore's Law are certainly more interesting.  But in terms of what really constrains our ability to use technology, I think network issues will predominate.

Most people I know are reasonably happy with the speed of their computing devices, especially with newer devices.  But who doesn't wish for faster connectivity?

It's interesting how the size of operating systems are leveling off, or even getting smaller, and virtualization is helping to maximizing existing infrastructure.  Homegrown processing power is a sideshow.  The network is the main event.  Witness the rise of web apps, cloud computing, internet media, gaming, and an increasingly mobile or remotely-based workforce.  The trends don't bode well.

I'm not sure why industry was unprepared for this.  It's not as if these trends were unforeseeable. How we solve this emerging problem should be interesting.

D. Mark Jackson