Everything In Between

The brutally honest, first-person account of Meitar Moscovitz’s life.

Archive for December, 2006

The Ultimate Meta Web Site?

leave a comment

My inbox chimed with a very interesting notification today. Apparently, maymay.net has made it into AbousUs.org’s database. For thsoe of you who have never heard of AboutUs, don’t worry, neither did I until today.

AboutUs claims to be

a wiki whose goal is to create a free and valuable Internet resource containing information both about websites and other related data. The site was pre-populated with information about many different websites and thousands of updates are now being made by people each day.

This strikes me as an interesting (and vague) concept, not because of its novelty (after all, Yahoo! did very much the same thing before even Google got into the information harvesting frenzy) but because of its methodology. The site bears an obvious resemblance to Wikipedia in more ways that one. It runs the same software (MediaWiki), is a wiki, and openly calls for help from the global community to keep its information accurate and growing.

But really, how meta can we usefully get, right? How long do you think it’ll take before a web site proclaiming to be a valuable resource for information on web site directories pops up?

Written by Meitar

December 26th, 2006 at 9:23 pm

The world’s not flat; imagine that

one comment

For posterity, this year I got:

More interesting than gifts, I found it interesting to watch my younger brother’s reactions to Christmas in general. It’s been many years now, but he’s been growing up and it shows. I’ll admit that I dislike family Christmas tradition, but that should be little surprise as I dislike most family traditions. I don’t really put a lot of effort into anything I don’t truly enjoy wholeheartedly. (A weakness and a strength, if you ask me.)

By the way, for the interseted or just plain curious, here’s a collection of clips from this year’s Christmas.

Post-Christmas gifts lead to a huge amount of fantastic conversation with my nearest-aged brother, who suffered through my prophetic evangelizing on my soapbox. It was one of those discussions where everything I said made sense because he (and later my mother) let me make my points without fighting against them until they had been made. By the end, I felt like my brother and my mother for the first time truly understood why I am so much the way that I am. That was the best thing I could have asked for for Christmas, if I’d ever think to ask for anything like that. Telling that it’s not a physical item.

Shir’s right in saying that I should probably find a way to write down most of what that discussion entailed, which I’ll certainly do but probably not as succinctly as I talked about in that discussion. I’m not concerned, however, because that stuff is so integral a part of me that it oozes from my pores whether I like it or not. It’ll get recorded, in time.

And, call me crazy, but I still don’t really feel that comfortable saying these things to people who aren’t my family and that I care for on some level, because, like Galileo, it has the potential to utterly destroy your world view if you don’t take it constructively. And things that destroy your world view are very easy not to take constructively. Afterall, who wants to create a new world view from the shattered pieces of an old one?

That’s no fun at all.

Written by Meitar

December 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pm

Posted in Personal

The ROI of Knowledge Sharing (Part 1)

3 comments

Define success. Success means growing, making things easier, doing more in less time, etc. There are entire industry movements dedicated to figuring out how to be the best at being successful. Heck, there are even acronyms (imagine that!) for it in all sorts of speech domains, such as in business, where ROI (Return on Investment) is huge, and in productivity, GTD (Getting Things Done) is a huge fad right now. What I think people often misunderstand or fail to realize is the very simple fact that success is much harder on a large scale than on a small one. Why is this the case?

Well, obviously, success on a large scale means accomplish “much more” than success on a small scale. Also, success on a large scale often means working with more than one person where collaboration is a must. So what are the tools people use to accomplish this success?

The most well-known tool is management. Implement a structure in an organization that is overseen by people whose job it is to make sure success happens on varying levels of scale. The larger an organization gets the more managers it needs, not because of personnel (technology advancements and process improvements in Human Resources have significantly the amount of employees a company can keep track of) but rather to ensure that this army of personnel is not going to lose sight of whatever is deemed the successful goal in their appropriate “big picture.” For CEOs, this means the company’s bottom line. For regional managers, this means their region’s bottom line. For individual supervisors, this means success completion of the task their division was handed, and so on and so forth.

Clearly, this is an important and necessary part of doing business. But I theorize that businesses and large organizations tend to see the act of adding more management to their organization as an act of ensuring a return on their investments which is probably overestimated. A manager is someone you have to pay (often a lot more than other forms of employees), and whose job actually adds to the complexity and opaqueness and beurocracy of an organization. At some point, this must be more harmful than helpful.

So what else can be done? I would suggest that an often very underestimated and underutilized area of increasing ROI is by improving knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing between employees. Why? Because it builds on the concepts and proven methodologies of small-scale success wherein many small successes brings larger success naturally, rather than forcefully. I see the largest contributor to small-scale success (most explicitly evident in personal successes, probably the smallest scale you can get) as the increase of knowledge. My own experience has taught me that I am more productive now than I was one year ago because I can do more than I could do one year ago, and I can do more now than I could then because I know more about the world and the objects within it.

Applying this to a larger scale is simple in theory but difficult in practice. In theory, the more smart people an organization has working for it, the more collective knowledge is stored within that organization. In practice, this is actually a huge problem that the solution called management is attempting to alleviate because smart people tend to be very insular and self-driven. This leads to a phenomenon I have begun calling knowledge fracturing which ultimately results in siloed and specialized skill sets with little ability to expand beyond that specialization. This is so significant a problem in large organizations that entire industries and bodies of knowledge have been created to help alleviate workflow problems and help facilitate communication.

Now, this is good, because a prerequisite to knowledge sharing is communication. You can’t share what you know if you can’t communicate with someone who can listen. But this is only the first step. Certainly, an organization can ensure better ROI with communication tools, but the next level–which I have yet to see anyone focus on too obviously–is knowledge sharing; communication with the intent of making available the information one has accumulated to the point that enables one to share the information about one’s job function or skill set.

This is a concept that is actually extremely scary to most people. There are two oft-cited rebuttals to this. The first involves a concern for job security. If everything that I know about how to do my job and why is written down for fellow employees to see, what need is there for me? I maintain that this actually makes you as an employee more valuable, rather than less, because suddenly you are a teacher, a reference guide, an invaluable “go-to guy.” The more you share, the more clearly people understand what you know and what you’re good at. Sharing, at its roots, is all just about showcasing what you’re good at. How can that be bad?

The second involves a concern for an organizations information security, wherein too much knowledge sharing can actually be security breaches and information leaks that are unacceptable to the organization’s policies. Obviously, while this is an important issue, it is not a direct argument against the validity of knowledge sharing but rather an objection to a side-effect of it if it is done carelessly. As with all things, I think most people will agree that care should always be taken in everything you do. This is just one more example.

So why does knowledge sharing actually increase the overall ROI of an organization? I theorize, based solely on my own experiences, that the majority of time and expense that is not directly spent on progressing an organization’s goals are spent trying to navigate a system or accomplish a task that is only difficult because it is not understood. If it were understood, the procedure would take less time, or the company would not need to hire a consultant, or whatever the situation may be. The point is that if you know what you’re doing, you’ll do it more effectively and more efficiently.

Successful knowledge sharing increases the productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency of your organization by enabling your staff to accomplish orders-of-magnitude more than they would otherwise have been able to.

With that as a foundation, let’s next explore how an organization might go about successfully sharing knowledge. And as you may have guessed, I have one word that: wiki.

(I have not yet written the next part.)

Written by Meitar

December 21st, 2006 at 2:17 pm

Corporate Culture Shock

one comment

Since I began my new job, work has been an interesting rollercoaster of extremes. I keep wavering between feeling anxious and feeling bored, the two opposing sides on either side of the flow channel. This is rather frustrating. Half the time I’m not being productive because I am trying to make sense of something I very obviously don’t understand and don’t have any reliable resources from which to learn about the thing, and the other half of the time I’m not entirely sure if I what I’m doing is correct because it seems like such a little amount of work (because it’s easy to do).

That said, I have been learning a lot lately. I’ve gotten to put my hands on software I’d never have otherwise gotten to touch (like Solaris 9 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux), I’ve learned more about Subversion and how to use it than I thought I would have in the little time I’ve used it, and my practical networking knowledge with regards to things like VPN routing have been substantially increased. Even more interesting than all of this new technical skill, however, is all that I’ve experienced on a cultural level.

I am now certain that what I am experiencing is intense culture shock. Let me explain.

The first thing people notice when you move to another country is probably the way people speak. Specifically, the two things people most often comment on is the language being spoken, and how it sounds (accent, common sounds, etc.). Similarly, the first thing I noticed when I got hired was the way people spoke, and what they were saying. The heavy use of acronyms are not new to me, but at the amount of company-specific technical jargon is hard to decipher when there is no Wikipedia to search. And farbeit for there to be a single, updated glossary that is easy to reference, either, or have someone offer to expand an acronym without you asking for them to do so.

Even more bewildering than the array of new acronyms, however, was the use of what I have come to call businessese. This is a language whose apparent sole purpose is to make whatever you are saying sound very important and hard to accomplish. An example would help clarify this.

The other day I was asked to review a written document. It was written by a colleague of mine. Our mutual boss, probably wanting me to get familiar with the look and feel of the documentation, sent it to me and said something like this in an email:

Meitar, here is [document X]. Please ensure it is ready for delivery to the client.

What he actually meant was something like this:

Meitar, here is [document X]. Please proofread this for any errors and then let us know so we can pass it along to the client.

My lesson from this experience, and from numerous similar experiences lately, is that people in the corporate business world don’t tend to actually say in plain English what they want you to do.

Another interesting point of fact I’ve encountered lately is the incredible difference it makes in the technical arena when you communicate with precision. This is difficult to do, because there is often an unacceptable latency if you speak with too much precision. This is why acronyms are so useful, if you know what they mean. In other words, if you already know what a web browser is, there’s no need for me to specifically name your web browser when I tell you to go to a particular web page. But if you didn’t know what a web browser was, then I would more likely get my message successfully delivered to you if I told you to type a certain string into the address bar of a particular program, say Firefox, instead of saying “go to this web address in your browser.”

This is also nothing new to me, but this week I am working with two colleagues who are utter opposites of each other in this respect. One colleague, whom I’ll call Descriptive, speaks slowly and clearly when he talks and assumes just enough technical familiarity with the subject to speak somewhat concisely, without sounding condescending. He is also quick to offer expansions for acronyms or further explanations of specific sequences of actions when he senses they are needed, as well as omitting them when he notices the listener is loosing focus. It’s very obviously a skill.

The other colleague, whom I’ll call Snappy, speaks so quickly I can’t tell when he’s taking a breath (if at all). He absolutely never expands acronyms, nor does he provide any sort of context for what he’s saying, such as a window’s title or an a filesystem location. He reminds me more of the character Nick Burns from the SNL skits of “Your Company’s Computer Guy” than anything else. I don’t doubt his technical ability at all (he’s very obviously quite skilled), but after mere days, I find myself dreading the prospect of working with him in the future.

There are thus two ultimate conclusions I can draw from these obervations (at least right now). Since I know that I am far too much in love with precision and clarity (and usability) to tolerate any confusing imperfections in what I create, I have the potential to become very well-liked for my helpful nature if I learn enough that I can actually answer questions when they arise. This bodes well for me.

Concerning, however, is the possibility that all this businessese nonsense will ultimately get to me. I truly, truly despise it and try hard not to cringe whenever it rears its head. I can’t understand for the life of me why my bosses don’t talk like humans nor can I understand why the majority of amazingly bright people (many of whom are more technically adept than myself) can’t be bothered to make the slightest effort to think more than one or two steps ahead of themselves. There are, of course, exceptions, but the fact remains that these are exceptions and not the rule.

I am notorious for conjuring up utopian visions in my head and then not settling for anything less. Here we go again.

Written by Meitar

December 6th, 2006 at 3:52 pm