The Next Big Thing
Posts about next generation technologies and their effect on business.

Why is the service research agenda important?

decisions.pngI continue to think about the characteristics that will make up jobs of the future and the kind of services research the NSF needs to define – and why??

 

During our discussions last week, we talked about measures of quality and risk for services, but primarily from the service provider and sometimes from the service consumer’s perspective. What about for an outside entity, like the government? They have expectations of services as well. If the government doesn’t define and encourage new jobs for its constituents, the tax base erodes and power is lost. If enough power is lost than a revolution takes place by people who will redefine the power base and power structure.

 

That is why the service research agenda is so fundamentally important. As the economy moves to be ever more service-oriented, we need to understand and shape what will be needed for stability. Not just of the services themselves but for the ecosystem that the services depend upon.

 

The context recognition that is the foundation for automation of knowledge work actually requires stability to function. If the system is chaotic, context becomes very rare. Having a viable research agenda is not nearly as altruistic as it first seems.

Bring Your Own Service – two years later…

BYOS.pngA couple of years ago I wrote about how bring your own service was part of the future we’ll need to understand. I just saw that Gartner put out a release saying that personal cloud will replace the personal computer as the center of user’s lives by 2014.

 

We’ve probably all seen how the specifics of the device are less important for the people (let alone organization) to worry about. A good example of this trend I came across recently is Aereo.

 

I was looking at Aereo as part of my personal cloud, enabling me to capture television broadcasts and watch them on almost every device (except it still didn’t work with my Xbox One) as long as I am within the stations coverage area. This kind of a centrally available approach to a leveraged TV service is likely to be disruptive.

 

The diversity of services being offered is expanding and based on the meeting I attended last week with the NSF talking about service innovation research, there are a number of industries that are going to be disrupted by this more service-oriented view of the world. Questions remain though about the risks and quality expectations as well as how to communicate the changes to all the affected parties.

Service Innovation Workshop with NSF

SaaS.pngJust finished up a very interesting couple of days at a workshop to develop a research agenda for service innovation. The objective was to define a roadmap for future service innovation research and education for the NSF as well as academic and industry partners.

 

This was a very diverse group of about 60 people that broke into working groups to look at service innovation from a number of angles. One thing that almost all the groups appeared to rally around was the thought that the service modeling techniques currently in use (and simulations) are not up to the task of bringing diverse groups to a consensus and (more importantly) action.

 

We tried to avoid the typical trap of spending the entire meeting defining ‘service innovation’ and instead focus on areas where NSF funded research would do the most good (e.g., automation, incorporating knowledge into service system design, skill definition and education for next-generation service innovation) -- generating value.

 

There was one area where I had a bit of concern: the goal of human-centered service systems. I don’t have too much of a problem where the humans determine the value and consume the result (focusing attention on the unique), but if humans are on the critical path of executing the service, there had better be a good reason since I still view that human attention is going to be scarce.

 

We did get into an interesting discussion of if it is attention or understanding intention that is scarce?!?

 

There was also an interesting idea coming from the DIY space that if you can be a consumer in the future you can be a producer in the future. We’re not there yet, but it does show the level of disruption that might need to be embraced.

 

One great outcome for me was the opportunity to meet a number of like-minded people who have problems where I and others at HP can help address.

Component skills of future roles?

 

juggle.pngThe other day I focused on the changes for education and automation… But what about our expectations? There is a great deal of concern about the elimination of jobs. Is the foundation of that really based on our inability to embrace the super-human capabilities that will be enabled and how that will change the roles we play?

The same automation that eliminates jobs also gives us significantly more capabilities – skills where humans excel. No matter how much we automate, there will likely always be work opportunities where human skills will be valued – until Skynet takes over.

 

We can now cultivate a network that spans thousands where just a few decades ago our network of ‘friends’ would likely be measured in double digits. The value of our flexibility, intuition and relationships will likely continue to be valued.

 

What are the component skills of the jobs of the future? Here are a few ideas:

  1. Change management – Individuals that can help others embrace change and transition to new modes of operation. They will need to be experts at context transfer.

  2. Transcendental optimization – Those that can move beyond just simple tweaking (that can likely be automated) to breakthrough optimization approaches.

  3. Disassemblers – What you shut down can be as important as what you start. These skills will focus on how to shut down existing environments.

  4. Strategic futurists – Roles that focus on envisioning the future and can convey that to others effectively.

  5. Ethicists – Functions that focus on the ethical and legal use of technology.

  6. Unique recognition – Although most situations can be handled in a standard way, those that can recognize when something is unique or at a critical inflection point will be crucial.

  7. User interface design – Although there will be less user interfaces required, the need to share that information and focus attention to greatest effect will be critical.

  8. Evangelist – Every good idea needs to be marketed effectively to be embraced.

  9. Modeler – All models are wrong but some are useful. The ability to effectively abstract complexity out of systems is a critical skill.

  10. Juggler – Keeping a number of balls in the air will continue to be crucial.

  11. Fixers – Abstraction is what makes many types of technology useful to the common folk. Sometimes though it doesn’t work and extraordinary measures will be required. Those who can do this best, will always have a job.

These can be aggregated together into thousands of new functions. What do you think?

 

Strategy, Execution and IT

strategic thinking.pngRecently, I was looking at a video about business strategy and execution from the Strategy+Business blog. It talked about the five major questions a business strategy needs to answer:

  1. What businesses should we be in?

  2. How will we add value to that business?

  3. What is our target customer?

  4. What’s the value proposition for those customers?

  5. What are the capabilities we need to be distinctive for those customers?

It also discussed how easy it can be to confuse what it takes to execute a strategy with the strategy itself (e.g., a plan).

 

The video made me think about the role of IT today and how it may be perceived. Do we look at our various investments from the perspective of answering these kinds of questions or do we just look to cut costs. That difference in behavior is one of the greatest differences between an IT organization that is crucial to the business and one that is just an enabler of the business.

 

Many times I’ve mentioned the need for portfolio management within the applications of an enterprise and the fact that it may be as important what you turn off as what you turn on. In a recent discussion with an analyst about Enterprise Architecture they really downplayed the role of the current situation analysis and listening to this video just reinforced how much this value added assessment of the current portfolio can be, since by turning off those systems you free up resources to actually be strategic.

 

The business should be able to relate to a decision based on this strategic perspective, since that’s likely how they think about what they deliver to the market.

 

When planning for the future it can often require an active decision to totally break from the past approach and try a new one. This can be very risky, but there are also risks hanging on to changes that are long overdue – because we’ve always done it that way.

 

Search
Follow Us
About the Author(s)
  • Steve Simske is an HP Fellow and Director in the Printing and Content Delivery Lab in Hewlett-Packard Labs, and is the Director and Chief Technologist for the HP Labs Security Printing and Imaging program.
Labels