Prisoner of T5 ...

On average, I find myself on a plane at least twenty times in a year. There's a lot I dislike about flying. In no particular order my pet dislikes are: flying coach, British Airways and airport queues at customs (especially NYC & SFO where it is particularly abysmal).

I don't suffer from jet lag (I use the starvation trick when needed) and I generally find airport security pretty quick and responsive. Though I'm a smoker, I've always gone outside the building to smoke, so the movement of airports to non-smoking has been no skin of my nose.

Well, that was until today.

I arrived early at Heathrow Terminal 5 (an airport I rarely use as it's mainly BA), sat down for a quick bite to eat and then decided to go out for a smoke - obviously you can't smoke in the airport.

So I went to security who said I had to be escorted through. Kidding? I have been through every one of the world's busiest airports plus a whole host of smaller airports and I've never once needed to be escorted from departures to outside the airport. I was then told by security that I had to get permission from the British Airways customer support person - damn.

Being incredibly polite I asked the lady from BA whether I could be escorted outside to have a cigarette. "No" was the reply because there was less than three hours until my flight.

So, let us be clear ... I'm currently a "captive" inside T5 departures lounge unable to leave until I get on my flight? I'm held against my will, a prisoner of BA!!! I feel a protest song coming on ...

"Free, Free, Free Simon Wardley ..."

Joking aside, my dislike of British Airways has hit an all time low.

[Addition]

Well, it's BA so what do you think happened. Yes, my flight has been delayed close to departure by just under two hours. Still not allowed out to have a smoke - a cruel and unusual punishment.

Responsibility

I'm traveling on a research trip in the U.S. and whilst my topic is one of organisation and the impact of change, I cannot help but notice the current "confusion of responsibility" that appears to be occurring in the mainsteam media.

All business activities evolve and all organisations are in a constant competitive struggle. One of the impacts of this change is that previously successful models are often replaced, for example the current shift from software products to software services. Unfortunately, organisations who have built around the previous model often face internal barriers which create an internal inertia to making the change necessary for future survival. Without this inertia, external disruption would not occur and today's giants of industry would generally be tomorrow's giants of industry.

Disruption is simply a consequence of management failure, it is the responsibility of management to ensure the organisation not only survives and competes today but also tomorrow. However, management doesn't operate in a vacuum and the inertia is often exacerbated by the actions of the financial markets i.e. it becomes difficult to change a successful model even though that model has a limited lifespan precisely because the financial markets are short term and see only short term value.

The pressure that the financial markets create is immense for any large organisation and ultimately those financial markets share a heavy burden of responsibility for failures caused by the pressure they exert. However, the short term view of the markets is such that this is not seen as their responsibility and long term failure is solely put down to management.

Unfortunately, the financial markets are very adept at blaming others for what is ultimately their fault. The current economic crisis caused by irresponsible lending, a merry go-round of debt re-capitalisation and excessive exposure are all the responsibility of the financial markets. Whilst you can point fingers at consumers, that's like saying a toddler shouldn't have eaten the candy you gave it and blaming the government is like blaming a parent for not providing some rule to govern your irresponsible choice.

The financial markets are entirely responsible for the economic crisis. They're equally responsible for many company failures through short-term attitude. They're also responsible for acting in a dishonorable manner when it comes to the Fed Bank - through the exploitation of quantitative easing for financial gain to the using of Fed money to recapitalize rather than increase lending.

The U.S. Gov and Public should realise that the Financial markets act on a short term basis without consideration of the long term consequences. They act with the persona of an adolescent, always blaming others, threatening to run away, demanding less rules and pointing to a lack of rules as a reason for their own reckless behaviour. They discount the long term to a frightening degree.

Short of grounding the child (the fiscal equivalent of nationalisation), the Gov should understand that the financial markets are an offspring of society and despite the threats they have to operate within its rules. Those rules should and can be gamed to encourage more longer term responsible behaviour.

The financial markets won't magically learn responsibility, that behaviour has to be taught and encouraged. Left alone, they'll just get upto the same old tricks.

Mystic Me 3.0

It's time for a spot of bleary eyed crystal ball gazing.

Last year, my predictions were fairly reasonable with 7 hits covering the commercial release of PLED TVs to our beloved government economists saying that 2010 would be worse than expected.

The jury is still out on house prices [Update : the December 2009 figures showed the first annual increase in house prices - 2.5% - since May 2008.] whilst we await the land registry report but alas two of the predictions were wide of the mark. The FTSE 100 failed to drop below 3,500, only hitting 3, 512 - no cigar there then - and Yahoo wasn't sold.

So, with the usual added vagueness, looseness of terms and general get out clauses, yawn with delight for :-

Mystic Me Predictions for 2010.

1. The number of mergers & acquisitions in the cloud computing and open source industries will reach fever pitch, surpassing previous years.
2. The first examples of people trading on variability in cloud infrastructure prices and the early formation of brokerage concepts will appear.
3. There will be no let-up in end user confusion surrounding cloud computing as would be thought leaders will embark on an orgy of term redefinition. Expect lots and lots of heated debates on how cloud isn't cloud computing isn't utility computing.
4. The distorted creative destruction meme of modern society (i.e. "out with the old, in with the new") will get ahead of our desire to consume technology. Despite many predicting the death of the book, paperbacks will have a surprisingly good year.
5. RPI in the UK will rise sharply and the FTSE 100 will drop below 3,000 during the year. Judging on past performance, the MPC will keep interest rates low because they're barking mad.
6. Under howls of protest, banks will be given more taxpayers cash. This will be despite being bailed out, given free cash through quantitative easing and then splashing lots of dosh on bonuses. The tired arguments that "no-one saw this second crisis" coming and that we "can't let the banking system fail" will be trotted out to order.
7. Despite independent estate agent surveys suggesting that house prices have risen a gazillion percent in the last minute, Land Registry house prices will continue to drop in the U.K.
8. Environmental forecasters will be befuddled by Arctic summer ice disappearance exceeding the worst predictions of current climate models.
9. There will be legal attempts to claim and quantify ownership of social networks as company IP.
10. The new Doctor Who will be pants and the attempts to spice it up and make it more gritty will look rather sad.

The king was in his counting house ...

... handing out our money.

This was the year that Mervyn King & Alistair Darling managed to spectacularly fritter away billions of taxpayers' money.

I was never opposed to lending money to banks but quantitative easing (QE, a dishonest way of printing cash and giving it away in truckloads to the usual cronies) was disgraceful. If you're going to print money then at least have some direct investment, don't just hope that the export economy and money supply will magically solve our problems. 

QE combined with low interest rates may be bully for banks, shareholders and homeowners by creating an influx of cheap foreign capital but in a mainly import led economy it will hit the cost of raw materials and inbound goods whilst squeezing the spending of savers. The net effect is a trade - inflation and a weakening internal economy in order to maintain stock and house prices. Great for banks, the wealthy and those in unsustainable debt but sucks for ordinary people and pensioners who were not responsible for this mess. As I've said many times before, this will just make the recession deeper and longer. However, it's a bit like boiling frogs - throw them into hot water and they try and get out but put them into tepid water and slowly raise the temperature and they won't notice. In this case, the frogs are called savers.

The amounts of money to boil our own is huge. The tally to date is that the taxpayer has been exposed to £1 trillion of potential debt through cash injections, state guarantees, quantitative easing and other interventions. As a result of this, the taxpayer is expected to lose anywhere between ten to a hundred billion. All of this is to prop up an industry which will spend the next few years trying not to pay tax because of "losses". 

Why is it that when the taxpayer acts as a lender of last resort, we have to make a loss into the bargain? When the hard up resort to loan sharks, you never hear tales of some financial wheeze where money is given away.

Of course, it's different because we couldn't let the banks fail despite no-one explaining why not? Still that doesn't mean we have to be 'soft' and being the lender of last resort should be a time of piracy. For some reason the city, unlike the poor, got let off the hook.

We could (and should) have demanded equity equal to any loans plus the loan capital plus punitive interest rates, but we didn't. Where's our pound of flesh and 2000% APR?

We could (and should) have invested heavily in social housing, bought out the building industry when it was on its knees and grew our state owned banks by providing liquidity into the economy. 

We didn't. We're not going to. Our institutions are soft.

What did happen was that Meryvn & Darling were cheered by the financial giants like a pub landlord who has wiped the tab clean for his heaviest drinkers. Naturally, the taxpayer got lumbered with the bill and the underlying causes of the mess (huge debt, delusional valuation, excessive gambling, economic instability) have been unresolved.

Expect more bad news to come.

At least Darling has got a dubious excuse in trying to mess things up for the Conservatives. If only some of the largesse had been spent on things that really matter, like combating global warming (which from the Copenhagen Accord laughingly only gets £60 billion a year by 2020).

A wasted opportunity but then that's how I feel about New Labour - a decade of disappointment. 

Whilst the noughties have been personally good for me, in general it failed to live up to the expectations. Unless of course you consider that WAGs, myspace house parties, wii fit, 4x4's, an endless war on terror, draconian legislation reducing civil liberties, excessive celebrities and a highly materialistic and self serving environment are the pinnacle of human nature.

To summarise the noughties, you'd have to say "nought for the environment, nought for social mobility and lots of noughts for bankers".

On a positive note, Doctor Who was utterly brilliant.

[Update - Nov '12 - Mervyn is still in power but will apparently be leaving in 2013. Depressing how things turned out.  Some typo's and tidy ups needed in this post ... cleaned up]

FlashForward

I rarely watch T.V. series, however FlashForward was recommended to me. I have to say it's outstanding.

The principle behind the story is fairly straightforward. The entire world experiences an event which causes everyone to see the "future", six months ahead.

Of course, it's not quite that simple. The "future" seen is that of an alternative world (from the many world principle) and therefore doesn't necessarily represent the character's current future but instead another timeline where the character may have made other choices in their past.

This creates a continuous drama of whether the future visions are right or wrong and an obvious illusion of choice where people try to change (or make happen) a future which is not necessarily theirs.

This paradox is illustrated with one particular character Dr. Olivia Benford. In the "current" world Olivia is married to a recovering alcoholic, Mark Benford. However, in her "future" vision she is with another of the characters Dr. Lloyd Simcoe. The paradox is that the "future" vision is that of another timeline, hence there are three obvious possibilities for this other timeline. Either :-

• She is married to Mark (as per the "current" timeline) but has an affair with Lloyd
• The interpretation of the vision is incorrect (i.e. Lloyd is just staying in the house for some other reason)
• Her timeline is different in the other world i.e. she attended Harvard, met LLoyd and was never married to Mark (or divorced him due to his drinking etc).

This is the deliciousness of the series which has many examples of these paradoxes woven into the plot. You're kept guessing whether the visions being seen are a possible future of the current timeline or not.

All the time, the characters in the "current" world are making choices based upon the belief that their "future" visions are correct and in some cases they are even trying to make them happen (even when those visions aren't possible because of other past choices).

Of course, there is also the subplot of what caused the event, will it happen again and several other plot lines. I hope they don't mess this up like Lost which became a repetitive bore.

For the time being though, it is utterly brilliant.

Benefit Busters

I was really excited to hear about a program on Channel 4 which was going to look into how "the government is attempting to revolutionise the benefits system".

Promising an "all out attack" and a "no nonsense Yorkshire lass", I was imagining how those MP's were going to squirm.

Imagine my disappointment to discover that instead of hitting some of the biggest piggies in the country, it'll instead focus on the most vulnerable members of our society ... yawn.

According to the BBC, the amount of benefit fraud in the UK was around £2.6 billion in 2007, approximately 2% of a £130 billion (or thereabouts) yearly budget.

If the investment houses aren't making a better than 2% profit on the £175 billion quantitative easing program, I'd be gobsmacked.

This is the sort of benefits we can ill afford. Get your act together C4.

On tiredness ...

Terms often have relative meanings. Pre-Harry (our newborn), my definition of tiredness was :-

bleary eyed and a feeling of exhaustion.

Post-Harry, tiredness means :-

waking up to discover I've put my iphone in the fridge and the butter in my briefcase.

It's impossible to describe how all the tiredness, messiness, anxiety, stress, the "I can't cope!" moments and uncertainty are paid off in a single smile - but they are.

How is Fatherhood?

It's a wet nappy of exhaustion, chaos, confusion, anxiety and uncertainty punctuated by sporadic burps of bliss.

The weak minded live in the gutter ...

Today, my weekly shop was delivered with a free copy of the Times. This single act falsified the old adage that the "best price is free".

Had they attempted to charge for it, I would have refused. Since it was free, I ended up wasting precious time. This gutter rag is so poisonous, that its use to wrap fish and chips would cause a major health scare.

Whilst I don't agree with ad hominem attacks, the first opinion piece I read deserves no quarter. Magnus Linklater's miserably titled "Don't try to teach pupils who can't learn".

Magnus' argument, I use that word out of generosity not merit, is that it is not worth trying to educate those from the most deprived backgrounds. As someone who was brought up in his early life on a London council estate but managed to get to Cambridge through good state school teachers, I feel tempted to tell this old fart to stick his head in a pig.

However, I'll show restraint (but not much).

Magnus' drivel questions whether those from deprived backgrounds have the ability to absorb academic subjects. His polemic would have us investing in enthusiastic children from suitable backgrounds (i.e. those in the middle to upper classes) whilst the rest of us learn vocational skills.

Magnus would reinforce the social divide by depriving those from deprived backgrounds because of their background and regardless of ability. He theorises that perpetually consigning a whole class of people to vocational work would be in their interests. Stuff and nonsense.

He conflates ability with background and resurrects the old arguments used in eugenics. However, the poor are not somehow defective and ability is not the preserve of the rich.

We have a disgraceful lack of social mobility in this country. This is the problem we need to solve.

I will however agree with Magnus that there is one case where the perpetually weak minded live in the gutter. It's in the press and Magnus' shockingly poor analysis provides plenty of evidence of this.

Social Capital

In the U.K. we have a severe shortage of social workers. We also have lots of highly intelligent, skilled but unemployed bankers. Can't they do something useful for once and retrain? It'll be a good investment for the future, and we might even forgive their investments in the past.

A Christmas Message

According to Bob Philips, there are three stages of man:-

• He believes in Santa Claus.
• He doesn't believe in Santa Claus .
• He is Santa Claus.

Festive greetings and a happy new year!

It's not who says it that matters ...

Though I've talked about commoditisation and worth in the IT industry for the best part of a decade, I consider myself a late arrival to the utility computing field (or what is now called cloud computing). I only actively became involved (as opposed to just talking about it and using virtualisation, large scale SANs etc) in 2005 when I directed my company towards building a utility computing service.

I was also a late arrival to the open source world, only becoming involved in 2000 when I ran Fotango. Furthermore, I was a late arrival to the field of 3D printing, only taking a real interest in the subject in the late 1990's.

I was late because lots of other people were involved much earlier, decades earlier in every single case.

However, some people are later than me. This doesn't mean that I'm right and they're wrong. This doesn't mean that I have some great insight and they have none. It doesn't even mean that I have some right of superiority. All it means is that I've been involved for longer and that act in itself is meaningless.

Good ideas come from any direction and unfortunately the field of cloud computing is just as awash with half-truths, thought leadership posturing and nonsense as it is with good ideas. There does appear to have been an unseemly scramble by some to set themselves up as the digerati of cloud computing, the purveyors of knowledge and the oracles of our time.

Don't let others decide for you what is right or good, decide yourself.

What I find uncomfortable are blog posts such as Daryl Plummer's and Reuven Cohen's follow on which could easily be taken as to mock the ideas of those who are late to a field (the instant experts, the pretenders vs contenders). Now, I've met Reuven and he seems a pleasant enough fellow but I don't agree with this approach of "I'm the expert" vs "Cloud posers".

As I've said before "in my simple world it's the idea that's important, not the source".

Silence ...

A number of people have asked me why I'm being so quiet on Twitter and the Internet in general. Thank you for being concerned, however the simple reason is that I've moved home and my broadband provider (Tiscali) has taken almost four weeks to spectacularly fail in connecting my home to the internet.

As soon as I'm finally connected, I'll blog the whole sorry episode and play catch-up with the internet world.

For me, Tiscali is a name that does not conjure up the idea of "Superfast, reliable broadband" in the same way that Mercedes is a name that does not conjure up "trailblazing innovations".

For the people, by some of the people ...

The one thing that we don't seem to hear a great deal about on this side of the pond is the policies of the presidential candidates. The election seems to have almost become Obama vs Palin and whether the U.S wants someone who's black in a position of power or someone who's a woman.

Well, I'm not an American, so I have no vote and my voice counts for nothing. I don't even know the issues at stake. However, I recently heard someone say that they couldn't vote for "a rootin' tootin' hockey mom". Why not? Surely a government by the people, for the people should have all walks of life in charge or is a Yale or Harvard degree becoming mandatory for office these days?

By pure coincidence, I read in the FT how Andrew Lahde, founder of California’s Lahde Capital, rounded on the US “aristocracy” who were able to pay for their children to go to Yale and then a Harvard MBA. He apparently said that “these people who were truly not worthy of the education they received rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government.'

This all reminded me of when I first visited San Francisco. I was staggered by how segregated the community was between poor and rich. The divide was sharp and crystal clear. A 15 second crossing separated the "American dream" from the "American nightmare". It certainly gave meaning to the old phrase of "from the wrong side of the tracks."

I wish I could go back and ask the person I heard saying they wouldn't vote for a "a rootin' tootin' hockey mom" whether they had the cash to pay for their children to go to Yale and Harvard?

For the people, by the people ... be careful not to lose this ideal and never dismiss someone just because they have a fairly ordinary background.

Chuffed to bits ....

Just noticed that my talk at FOWA was mentioned by Carl Bate (author of 'Lost in Translation') on the CTO blog, and a quick bit of ego surfing shows that I'm also in Caroline McCarthy's article on CNet and Mortlemania.

Much appreciated.

What a Lehman ...

According to today's announcement by Barclays Capital, ten thousand Lehman employees plus the business they created is worth $250 million whilst their office and two data centres are worth $1,500 million.

That's going to bruise a few egos. Thanks to Leon for spotting this.

Deepest, darkest ...

I arrived back today from my week long trip to deepest, darkest southern France. No internet, no phone and completely off the grid for a whole week.

I had a fabulous time.

The food and wine was outstanding, being not only better but also cheaper than the fare served up in UK establishments and supermarkets. Trips like this provide a sobering reflection on how the UK is still fervently rip-off Britain.

The pace of life was slower, more friendly and overall appeared more healthy. There was little of the bling bling narcissism and rap-a-long grotesques which litter our culture.

Concerns over the credit crunch appeared far and few between. Few eyebrows were raised at the news that Lehman bankers, analyst and traders who had gambled and profiteered profusely were about to lose their jobs. However, there was genuine concern for the large number of secretaries, cleaners, security guards and others who would also lose their livelihoods and are probably least able to cope. It was disappointing to note that the UK press seemed only to concern itself with the former, those most responsible for the problems and not the latter, those most likely to be seriously affected.

A week away from reading the popular press shows how the bling bling nature of our lifestyle certainly seems to permeate everything. This lack of caring for the weakest and the worship of all things Mammon is an American import we would do well to lose.

Other imports which we should also consider returning include the abundant slaughter and torture of our language. On arrival back in the UK, I was immediately struck by how many businesses were a "solution" to something.

"SeaFood Solutions", "Coach Travel Solutions" ... the list is endless. However I'm perplexed as to what the problem is that SeaFood is a solution to, and how a coach solves a coach travel problem. This massacre is not however confined to commercial enterprises, as Professor Van Gore eloquently explains in the New Statesman :

"We will broker the skills need of employers and employees within the city at whatever level is required; that is, we do not just concentrate on skills at university level but actually do the necessary brokerage work."

I think he means that they will help graduates find jobs. If only people would take a more simple approach to life, then maybe we would all understand what is going on and the consequences of all this complex financial instrument collapse would never have happened.

By the pricking of my thumbs ...

... something silent this way comes.

I'm guessing that the creators of the silent electric sports car capable of 125mph are expecting us all to develop a supernatural sixth sense in order to avoid being knocked down.

Silent cars ... supernatural powers ... fiendishly evil, if you ask me. I'd suggest ducking the inventors and if they float .. well, burn 'em, they're witches!

If no-one has the answer ...

... where are the good sources of information?

Well, the problem with information sources in any emerging field is usually one of independence. Whilst many sites may talk about the subject, there is always the danger that you are being led to a specific conclusion: buy our product, research report or consultancy services.

As with most things in life, you should always take advice with a good pinch of salt unless there are compelling reasons to believe in the independence of the source or you have some personal trust relationship with the source.

Whilst there are many experts in the field, these are the people that I most strongly trust the opinions of:-

Enterprise 2.0: Euan Semple, Jenny Ambrozek, Andrew McAfee and Dion Hinchcliffe.

Cloud Computing: James Urquhart, Jesse Robbins, Artur Bergman and Rich Miller.

Social Media & Networks: Suw Charman-Anderson, Tara Hunt and Gavin Bell.

Future Technology: Tim O'Reilly, Matt Webb, James Duncan and Cory Doctorow.

This, of course, is simply my view. It's neither right nor wrong but instead a reflection of those things that matter to me.

Your view is probably completely different but then that's the beauty of freedom, participation and expression in the Internet age. No-one has the answers to an uncertain future and you have to decide where the good sources of information are. Don't let others make those decisions for you.

That said, there are some good people out there trying to bring you independent resources for information on particular subjects. Two of my favourites include the E2.0 portal by Simon Oxley and Nick Barker and Enterprise 2.0 Open by Bjoern Negelmann et al.

Merv swerves but will weebles wobble?

The primary objective of the monetary policy committee is to deliver price stability which means low inflation. Secondary to this, its objective is to support the Government’s economic goals.

Unfortunately there is a lot of pressure (by vested interests) on Merv "the swerve" et al. to consider dropping interest rates at a time when they are running behind an inflation rate that is still growing.

Personally, I think Merv has done a grand job (except for the swerve) and the blame for current crisis is firmly with the city. Despite all the caterwauling this is not the time for the MPC to wobble from its prime directive.