About 2,000 years ago, the way to communicate across distance – if you had means – was to employ a human messenger.  Lacking that, you may use smoke or fire relays to communicate along specific “lines of communication.”

About 100 years ago, the rule in pre-WWII U.S. (for residential use) was party lines, nicely captured in this article.  The phone in this image was designed by someone who never considered that a user would need or be able to “dial their own number.”  Instead, you would pick up a phone and hear a voice.

Following WWII trunk lines, switches, and accepted protocols for area codes eliminated the need for operators to complete a call: their whose job became more sophisticated than just manually making connections (disclaimer:  both my mother and grandmother worked as telephone operators in pre-war Manhattan). The user interface disappeared and the professionals evolved.

Their job was replaced by a dial tone and phones that let you enter your own numbers. The numbers were nationally translatable such that you could theoretically dial any phone on the country. You still needed an operator for overseas calls, but eventually even this requirement disappeared as other countries signed onto protocols and became accessible.

Why is the state of today’s dial tone? Where do we still need human assistance to connect? Is the assistance available?  How often do we give up, failing to reach our party?

Last week the Bride tried her hand at buying health insurance online and came away a little older. We wanted to use AARP, as they resold an Aetna product.  She signed in to AARP, authenticated there and was sent to an Aetna link. At this link, we find that our Google Chrome  browser is not supported.

And here is where our dial tone broke. 

She opened a different browser and pasted the current link. The problem, we’ve lost the ‘breadcrumb’ and now Aetna thinks we’re coming directly to them. No discount from AARP. Worse, she has now ‘created’ her account – not associated with AARP –  and cannot undo this without speaking to an Aetna representative.

We appear to live in a “thin client” world, but in fact this presumes we all have browsers that are supported, broadband access, Adobe products, (sorry, iPhone users), etc.

Our interface today continues to confound, even as we extend the form and nature of our interactions. It’s as if we were sold a new “phone” every year or so, warned that the previous model would somehow let robbers into our homes – except they now steal our very identities rather than our jewelry.  

Each new “phone” would have new features for richer connections, but mysteriously wouldn’t connect us to certain numbers.

As we add browsers, Macromedia, QuickTime, Windows Media, and update each  based on vendor production schedules and security breaches – are we making more or less difficult to establish a global dial tone?

Are we converging or diverging?  Perhaps both at once – at least it can seem that way.  As our browser experience becomes more complex, our sharing of fragments – our chatter – becomes simpler.

This is what social media means to me. It raises the dial tone. I can reach/search/listen to a global conversation. People can engage using their cell phones, any browser, a myriad of apps designed against an open API, etc.

As of this writing, Twitter has achieved a party line for millions. Someone asked yesterday “does anyone know the username for the owners of Twitter?” others chimed in immediately to offer assistance, and it became obvious to me that no operator is needed to help us connect using this particular dial tone.

Also it apparently lacks a Y chromosome, is considerably younger, and uses a Mac.  But I suppose the “analysis” that gets me most is this absurd over-the-top silliness:

“Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.”

All courtesy of this place.  Spiffy.

First of all, I wish for all a Happy Thanksgiving – despite world events that focus our attention on those under seige.  For myself, I remain the luckiest person I know.

Along those lines, I can’t wait to see what is next for me. On the bright side, my holiday calendar is opening up nicely!

[slideshare id=791284&doc=what-i-did-1227799445311312-8&w=425]

Enjoyed a rather remarkable conversation yesterday.  A gentleman associated with an enterprise social software firm put a question out into the ether regarding adoption of such products.  To be specific, he used Twitter to pose the question.  The “tweet” was then visible to anyone who had already signed up to follow his musings, and anyone who searched for key terms contained in his message.  (To be more interesting, you can establish an RSS feed so that when anyone tweets and uses keywords you care about – you can get an alert.)

This gentleman is in the list of people I follow, and I saw the question.  Paraphrasing:  if we deploy enterprise social software, are we establishing another stovepipe?

I could not resist, and charged in with my response.

“EXACTLY why I’ve been vapor-locked over the adoption of enterprise social software.”

He responded.

“Still major benefits from siloed E2.0, but how to connect it more broadly?”

And then something curious happened.  Another person, who follows my messages, chimed in.

“My issue is that enterprises think, in regards to social software, that their problems are somehow different or distinct.”

At one point, specific questions were posed and direct, thoughtful answers provided.

“web 2.0 silos. Thinking along 2 lines: (1) They’re not connected to anything internally. (2) Many employees not on the sites”

Response:

“(1) They CAN be connected to sites internally (most of them have public APIs & services)” and “(2)The emergent and open nature of Web 2.0 software allows for employees who need the information to join the site as needed.”

From there, the three of us had a conversation that touched on the need for corporate information preservation in the face of litigation, the complex nature of enterprises, and finally the notion that enterprises need to comprehend their role in their own value networks. While connecting people and information within the enterprise is essential, connecting to information generated by your suppliers, customers, partners, competition, etc., is also vital for keeping aware of trends/changes/risks/opportunities.

All of this reminded me of a recent NYT article that discussed commensal bacteria:

“Since humans depend on their microbiome for various essential services, including digestion, a person should really be considered a superorganism, microbiologists assert, consisting of his or her own cells and those of all the commensal bacteria. The bacterial cells also outnumber human cells by 10 to 1, meaning that if cells could vote, people would be a minority in their own body.”

There is no question where my body ends and these bacteria begin, but is it useful and enforce the distinction?  Similarly, is it useful to establish information systems that exclude the people who help us do our job – but who are not employed by our firm?  Understanding how to connect to and collaborate with these colleagues and potential colleagues may be as important as coordinating internally with fellow employees.

All in all, this was a very successful meeting.  Three professionals, from a total of two firms, came together to check assumptions and learn from one another.  We used a Web 2.0 tool outside our firewalls, and there is even a record of our conversation – searchable from any browser.  It took up very little time, as we focused on common questions and ideas.  (There was no status report or financial impact statement on the agenda.)  One of our number had never before interacted with the other two – yet the meeting only contained people interested in the topic.

Oh, and I believe there were others in the meeting, having sidebar conversations as well.  As they could see “our” conversation, they likely offered their own perspectives privately.

If only there were a catchy name for the infrastructure and culture that allowed us to come together like this.

Today, a security clearance from the Department of Defense still earns you a “Visitor, Escort Required” badge from the Department of Homeland Security. Or most intelligence agencies. The reverse is also true.

The reasons why aren’t important. The organizational histories are reasonable, there are no villians.

However, a systemic view of national security quickly points up the folly of the current patchwork regime, with its redundancy and lack of organizational trust. If we need to share information quickly across the system of national security, then it is time to consider the behaviors that are nothing more than dysfunctional at the system level.

The DoD Information Sharing Strategy speaks of sharing information with unexpected partners, driven by unanticipated events. Perhaps it is time to reconsider also the list of expected partners, due to events that are becoming increasingly anticipated.

What if? What if instead of business people being told to justify their plans to security, security had to advise the business regarding the operational impact of their new patches, firewall rules, badging policies, etc?

What if instead of a security audit for operations, there were an operations audit for security?

What if the business people had the last word?  Security would make their case for new restrictions on information flow, advising on the risk rather than deciding to avoid it.  Business then, advised of the risk, can decide upon avoidance, mitigation, or acceptance based on the effect on operations. 

What if the relationship between Operations and Security were reversed? 

I’d like to see what would happen…