originally posted at blogs.sun.com/pdiamond on May 03, 2007:
If you saw this story in today's SF Chronicle, you will have seen the problems DIGG got into when it tried to censor something its users didn't want censored. Without getting into the discussion of DRM (digital rights management) and whether you agree with the recording industry being able to protect their content (a TOTALLY different topic, with lots of passionate opinions), I think this story shows something broader about Web 2.0 - what do you do when (or if) the crowd is not "right" or "wise"?
This has come up elsewhere in discussions of MediaWiki and how anyone can put erroneous information out there, and until now I had always bought the argument that the erroneous information would get quickly corrected by "the crowd" and therefore little harm done. But this incident points out, what if alot of people want to put out information "we" (whoever "we" are) don't want them to? You remove one reference, they add another. What if there are more of "them" then there are of us?
I guess it's just an extension of free speech, but the implications are vast. Because of the reach of the internet, a determined bunch of people can reach alot of folks with information we may not want them to have - such as how to build IEDs to blow up more people? (Probably already out there somewhere, but hopefully not easily found today?)
This free, unfettered access to the digital world may have some very mixed blessings...
Comments:
Hi Paul, I don't want to over simplify this, but it seems to me, it's not as bad as it seems. Web (n) only amplifies what is already there. And I'm with TBL, being optimistic, believe that there are more good things people want to do with web that the bad things. It's like with electricity, machinery, radio or anything else. Uses and abuses. It is also true that web opens new markets and old markets need to adapt. Businesses need to be smart (or influential) enough to innovate, or protect them selves; or close the shop and go somewhere else. If you have a community, you set the rules. If the community does not like them, you can adapt, or - close the shop. (Online) businesses and communities may need more powerful tools to protect themselves. Trust circles could be one. Not being naive (as in the issue with the HD-DVD code) is another.
Posted by Jiri Kopsa on May 03, 2007 at 11:26 PM PDT #
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Wisdom of (tag) Clouds
originally posted at blogs.sun.com/pdiamond on Mar 21, 2007:
Am I the only one who doesn't "get" tag clouds?
I understand that they can be used to represent the tags users have provided for various information, and that they show larger/smaller font based on the frequency of individual tags being used. Because of this, I can get hints as to which tags have been found to be useful by more people.
I also understand that there are many different sites or apps which support tag clouds - technorati, del.icio.us, flickr, etc.
What I don't get is how "we" - the creators of the new, full-participation web which has lots of names - are going to leverage multiple different sets of tag clouds, as well as search technology and browsing capability, to help "us" - the users of the new, full-participation web - to store and find things more easily.
But that's probably just me being me - I'm sure you get it!
Am I the only one who doesn't "get" tag clouds?
I understand that they can be used to represent the tags users have provided for various information, and that they show larger/smaller font based on the frequency of individual tags being used. Because of this, I can get hints as to which tags have been found to be useful by more people.
I also understand that there are many different sites or apps which support tag clouds - technorati, del.icio.us, flickr, etc.
What I don't get is how "we" - the creators of the new, full-participation web which has lots of names - are going to leverage multiple different sets of tag clouds, as well as search technology and browsing capability, to help "us" - the users of the new, full-participation web - to store and find things more easily.
But that's probably just me being me - I'm sure you get it!
Motorcycles and lane sharing
originally posted at blogs.sun.com/pdiamond on June 23, 2004, got lots of comments (below):
Having just finished jury duty in a trial involving motorcycle which shared (or split) lanes, I realized that there were many people who did not realize that it is legal in California to do this.
Originally I thought this was restricted to 40 mph or below, and no more that 10 pmh than traffic. It was pointed out to me in a comment from a reader, this is referenced at CHP site, where it says that it is permissible but must be prudent. Presumably "prudent" is subject to interpretation by any officer of the peace. What I don't know is whether other drivers understand this, and are OK with it since it does remove one vehicle, at least temporarily, from the regular flow of traffic.
The next time I do this, I hope I am dealing with an informed and tolerant public
Comments:
I see people in cars always try to stop lane-splitting motorcycles while in traffic. This makes 0 sense! Would a car driver rather have the motorcyclist sit in traffic and take up a car-sized spot in the traffic instead, hence making the traffic line even longer? This only shows that the vast majority of adults are still the same as they were in elementary school..."If I can't have it, neither can he/she!"
Posted by Moazam on June 23, 2004 at 05:18 PM PDT #
Only in California is reckless driving considered OK, because there is no specific law against it.
Posted by Unknown on June 24, 2004 at 02:48 AM PDT #
an aside to add; i'm in northern california. awhile ago i was pulled over for splitting traffic on the street - tooling through the stopped cars at a red light. (and i see riders doing this all the time.) the cop was on a bike said that, while it's legal on the freeways, it's not legal on surface streets. he explained that the reason it's allowed at all is to accommodate air-cooled bikes (which can't sit still for long while running). makes perfect sense, but i have to say i'd never heard the exact rationale before. anyhow, i managed to get away with a warning - but can no longer claim innocence.
Posted by -ch on June 24, 2004 at 01:26 PM PDT #
I had heard that Santa Clara county was more aggressive on ticketing lane splitting than other NC counties. I have NOT heard that it is illegal on city streets, and in fact was on a trial where Los Altos police testified that it WAS legal on El Camino Real (which is VERY MUCH a city street)
Posted by Paul Diamond on June 24, 2004 at 04:10 PM PDT #
Paul, Where did you hear the precise mph figures -- from a highway patrolman? I'm pretty sure it's not codified in the California Vehicle Code. Scott Mace
Posted by Scott Mace on July 08, 2004 at 12:27 PM PDT #
Scott - mph did come from CHP, and I think you are right that there is nothing codified. In fact I am not sure that the legality of lane splitting is codified - I think the interpretation may be (not sure; unfortunately the trial where I was on jury did not get into this level of detail) that since it is NOT prohibited, it is legal. I think there are then interpretations which are developed by different traffic enforcement agencies - CHP, county / city police, etc.
Posted by Paul Diamond on August 11, 2004 at 09:07 AM PDT #
UPDATE! I asked a CHP M/C officer today, and he said lane splitting IS legal, is in the code (somewhere), and there is no speed limit. i.e., if traffic is 0 mph you can pass at 55 or 65, assuming that is speed limit! He also said that would be pretty dumb (agreed) and you might get a ticket for driving unsafely. He said 10 mph faster than traffic is a good rule of thumb. Basic premise is you can lane split if it is safe. If you get bumped by a driver, the assumption is you were not safe and you will likely be found to be at fault
Posted by Paul Diamond on August 30, 2004 at 01:54 PM PDT #
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles? Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.
Posted by Unknown on August 31, 2004 at 09:30 AM PDT #
I think the biggest misconception about lane splitting is the reason for it. Most motorcycles are air cooled. They do not have radiators and therefore will overheat when sitting in traffic. To avoid overheating, motorcycles are allowed to move passed traffic and keep air moving over the engine.
Posted by Bill Roark on July 10, 2009 at 06:34 PM PDT #
This latest comment reminded me - I took a MSF (motorcycle safety foundation) advanced training course several years ago, and they pointed out (as I have read since) that the California code does NOT prohibit lane sharing. What they said was the law enforcement has the right to ticket you for reckless driving, and that if you get into an accident while lane sharing the odds are good you will be cited. So it's caveat lane sharer.
Posted by Paul Diamond on July 10, 2009 at 06:44 PM PDT #
Having just finished jury duty in a trial involving motorcycle which shared (or split) lanes, I realized that there were many people who did not realize that it is legal in California to do this.
Originally I thought this was restricted to 40 mph or below, and no more that 10 pmh than traffic. It was pointed out to me in a comment from a reader, this is referenced at CHP site, where it says that it is permissible but must be prudent. Presumably "prudent" is subject to interpretation by any officer of the peace. What I don't know is whether other drivers understand this, and are OK with it since it does remove one vehicle, at least temporarily, from the regular flow of traffic.
The next time I do this, I hope I am dealing with an informed and tolerant public
Comments:
I see people in cars always try to stop lane-splitting motorcycles while in traffic. This makes 0 sense! Would a car driver rather have the motorcyclist sit in traffic and take up a car-sized spot in the traffic instead, hence making the traffic line even longer? This only shows that the vast majority of adults are still the same as they were in elementary school..."If I can't have it, neither can he/she!"
Posted by Moazam on June 23, 2004 at 05:18 PM PDT #
Only in California is reckless driving considered OK, because there is no specific law against it.
Posted by Unknown on June 24, 2004 at 02:48 AM PDT #
an aside to add; i'm in northern california. awhile ago i was pulled over for splitting traffic on the street - tooling through the stopped cars at a red light. (and i see riders doing this all the time.) the cop was on a bike said that, while it's legal on the freeways, it's not legal on surface streets. he explained that the reason it's allowed at all is to accommodate air-cooled bikes (which can't sit still for long while running). makes perfect sense, but i have to say i'd never heard the exact rationale before. anyhow, i managed to get away with a warning - but can no longer claim innocence.
Posted by -ch on June 24, 2004 at 01:26 PM PDT #
I had heard that Santa Clara county was more aggressive on ticketing lane splitting than other NC counties. I have NOT heard that it is illegal on city streets, and in fact was on a trial where Los Altos police testified that it WAS legal on El Camino Real (which is VERY MUCH a city street)
Posted by Paul Diamond on June 24, 2004 at 04:10 PM PDT #
Paul, Where did you hear the precise mph figures -- from a highway patrolman? I'm pretty sure it's not codified in the California Vehicle Code. Scott Mace
Posted by Scott Mace on July 08, 2004 at 12:27 PM PDT #
Scott - mph did come from CHP, and I think you are right that there is nothing codified. In fact I am not sure that the legality of lane splitting is codified - I think the interpretation may be (not sure; unfortunately the trial where I was on jury did not get into this level of detail) that since it is NOT prohibited, it is legal. I think there are then interpretations which are developed by different traffic enforcement agencies - CHP, county / city police, etc.
Posted by Paul Diamond on August 11, 2004 at 09:07 AM PDT #
UPDATE! I asked a CHP M/C officer today, and he said lane splitting IS legal, is in the code (somewhere), and there is no speed limit. i.e., if traffic is 0 mph you can pass at 55 or 65, assuming that is speed limit! He also said that would be pretty dumb (agreed) and you might get a ticket for driving unsafely. He said 10 mph faster than traffic is a good rule of thumb. Basic premise is you can lane split if it is safe. If you get bumped by a driver, the assumption is you were not safe and you will likely be found to be at fault
Posted by Paul Diamond on August 30, 2004 at 01:54 PM PDT #
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles? Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.
Posted by Unknown on August 31, 2004 at 09:30 AM PDT #
I think the biggest misconception about lane splitting is the reason for it. Most motorcycles are air cooled. They do not have radiators and therefore will overheat when sitting in traffic. To avoid overheating, motorcycles are allowed to move passed traffic and keep air moving over the engine.
Posted by Bill Roark on July 10, 2009 at 06:34 PM PDT #
This latest comment reminded me - I took a MSF (motorcycle safety foundation) advanced training course several years ago, and they pointed out (as I have read since) that the California code does NOT prohibit lane sharing. What they said was the law enforcement has the right to ticket you for reckless driving, and that if you get into an accident while lane sharing the odds are good you will be cited. So it's caveat lane sharer.
Posted by Paul Diamond on July 10, 2009 at 06:44 PM PDT #
Choosing Winter
originally published at blogs.sun.com/pdiamond Mar 21, 2006 - still true (more so?) today (even though spring has NOT arrived just yet, and it has rained for 40...er 4 days and nights:
With spring having arrived, after a weekend skiing at Squaw Valley, I am reminded of why I have lived in California for many years, and would not move back to NY for all the ...(fill in the blanks).
Here we get to choose winter, and when spring gets here, it gets increasingly unlikely that our weekend plans will get rained out. Maybe that seems pretty trivial or superficial to some, but I'm sure there are others (5" of snow in Indianapolis today?) who appreciate this point.
With spring having arrived, after a weekend skiing at Squaw Valley, I am reminded of why I have lived in California for many years, and would not move back to NY for all the ...(fill in the blanks).
Here we get to choose winter, and when spring gets here, it gets increasingly unlikely that our weekend plans will get rained out. Maybe that seems pretty trivial or superficial to some, but I'm sure there are others (5" of snow in Indianapolis today?) who appreciate this point.
Stock Options - Why not expense them?
originally published at blogs.sun.com/pdiamond June 24, 2004:
Just came from the rally in Palo Alto to oppose FASB ruling that stock options should be expensed. For those who do NOT have access to stock options, the answer seems pretty simple:
* "These people are making lots of money off stock options, taking advantage of opportunities we don't have and inaccurately reflecting their expense on their companies' bottom lines. Of course they should be counted as an expense when they are granted"
I'm sure alot of this is also reflective of the abuses which have been widely reported, of CxOs making million$ while their companies went down the tubes.
Now here's another view of reality - for those of us who have
* made some money (thank you, Netscape) and
* not made any yet (I am still optimistic, Sun),
it also seems pretty obvious.
All those options we have been granted which we do NOT exercise, because they are "underwater", e.g.:
* Netscape /AOL options at $75 when the stock price was $20,
* current Sun options at $12 (and I know many people with options well above that price) with the stock a little over $4,
are irrelevant to anyone. They are no more expense to the companies which granted them than they are profit to the employees who are not exercising them.
If and when they are exercised, then let's talk about how the companies should expense the benefit received by the employees. I admit to being ignorant as to how this is handled today. This seems to be a much more relevant issue than trying to assess some current value on some theoretical future benefit, which in many cases will either not happen, or will occur at a totally unpredictable level.
the following comments were provided:
It simply isn't true that underwater options have no value - they do, and there are well established methods for estimating just what that value is: ever heard of the Black-Scholes formula? I actually have a teeny bit of financial experience, and I'll say flat out that there's no question that options ought to be expensed at their present fair market value. If you think your options are truly worthless just because they're underwater, why aren't you ready to throw them away? On the very slim chance that you are, I'd be perfectly happy to take those "worthless" pieces of paper off your hands. The bottom line is that the issue isn't whether there's a cash expense of any sort at issue, but whether present shareholders' future earnings per share are at risk of dilution from option grants outstanding, which they surely are in the case of both Sun and AOL. PS - Either there's something wrong with your blog's preview function, or this post is about to have its paragraph breaks zapped for no good reason. Of course, we'll know which alternative is correct by the time you're reading this ...
Posted by Abiola Lapite on June 25, 2004 at 12:20 AM PDT #
Abiola. You are correct there is some value today to a Sun stock option at $60/share. However, if that value is less than the value when the option was awarded, the decrease in value must be accounted for. Nothing I have seen has suggested any method for this. An unrealized gain on behalf of the awarder? If an option expires without exercising (which could very well happen to that $60/share option at some point), how then should it be accounted for if it was expensed before? The fact is, under accrual based accounting, expenses should be realized when they are incurred. For an option, that shoud be when it is exercised. This would be a very reasonable method. Any other method must require a rectification in case the value differs from the original expense.
Posted by Mark Harrison on June 25, 2004 at 02:43 AM PDT #
Mark,
You're right that expenses should be generally realized when they are incurred, but I see no reason why that should preclude the expensing of options, any more than the fact that a lot of capital expenditure is paid for upfront precludes its amortization over a period of many years.
For public companies like Sun and AOL with long trading histories, and therefore plenty of volatility data to work with, it is simple enough to carry out an initial estimation of the value of a given option grant at the time it is made; this can then subsequently be periodically re-evaluated on, say, an annual basis, just as as with goodwill and valuation reserves. The stock (pun intended) argument, typically made by those who stand to gain the most from options schemes, that there are no good ways of valuing such financial instruments is simply nonsense, as much trickier derivatives are valued all the time on Wall Street, and just because an option is underwater doesn't mean it has no value and shouldn't be accounted for.
Finally, I know for a fact that all of the top-tier investment banks routinely take into account the value of options outstanding when they make their calculations of how much companies are worth, just as they do the same with warrants outstanding; I know this because I used to work in one, and this was part of my job. The current status quo does nothing to fool professional investors who know enough to read SEC filings carefully from cover to cover, but for the average Joe buying MSFT or SUNW it is nice to have this information upfront rather than hidden in an obfuscated manner in the back pages of an EDGAR 10-K report.
Posted by Abiola Lapite on June 26, 2004 at 07:34 AM PDT #
Just came from the rally in Palo Alto to oppose FASB ruling that stock options should be expensed. For those who do NOT have access to stock options, the answer seems pretty simple:
* "These people are making lots of money off stock options, taking advantage of opportunities we don't have and inaccurately reflecting their expense on their companies' bottom lines. Of course they should be counted as an expense when they are granted"
I'm sure alot of this is also reflective of the abuses which have been widely reported, of CxOs making million$ while their companies went down the tubes.
Now here's another view of reality - for those of us who have
* made some money (thank you, Netscape) and
* not made any yet (I am still optimistic, Sun),
it also seems pretty obvious.
All those options we have been granted which we do NOT exercise, because they are "underwater", e.g.:
* Netscape /AOL options at $75 when the stock price was $20,
* current Sun options at $12 (and I know many people with options well above that price) with the stock a little over $4,
are irrelevant to anyone. They are no more expense to the companies which granted them than they are profit to the employees who are not exercising them.
If and when they are exercised, then let's talk about how the companies should expense the benefit received by the employees. I admit to being ignorant as to how this is handled today. This seems to be a much more relevant issue than trying to assess some current value on some theoretical future benefit, which in many cases will either not happen, or will occur at a totally unpredictable level.
the following comments were provided:
It simply isn't true that underwater options have no value - they do, and there are well established methods for estimating just what that value is: ever heard of the Black-Scholes formula? I actually have a teeny bit of financial experience, and I'll say flat out that there's no question that options ought to be expensed at their present fair market value. If you think your options are truly worthless just because they're underwater, why aren't you ready to throw them away? On the very slim chance that you are, I'd be perfectly happy to take those "worthless" pieces of paper off your hands. The bottom line is that the issue isn't whether there's a cash expense of any sort at issue, but whether present shareholders' future earnings per share are at risk of dilution from option grants outstanding, which they surely are in the case of both Sun and AOL. PS - Either there's something wrong with your blog's preview function, or this post is about to have its paragraph breaks zapped for no good reason. Of course, we'll know which alternative is correct by the time you're reading this ...
Posted by Abiola Lapite on June 25, 2004 at 12:20 AM PDT #
Abiola. You are correct there is some value today to a Sun stock option at $60/share. However, if that value is less than the value when the option was awarded, the decrease in value must be accounted for. Nothing I have seen has suggested any method for this. An unrealized gain on behalf of the awarder? If an option expires without exercising (which could very well happen to that $60/share option at some point), how then should it be accounted for if it was expensed before? The fact is, under accrual based accounting, expenses should be realized when they are incurred. For an option, that shoud be when it is exercised. This would be a very reasonable method. Any other method must require a rectification in case the value differs from the original expense.
Posted by Mark Harrison on June 25, 2004 at 02:43 AM PDT #
Mark,
You're right that expenses should be generally realized when they are incurred, but I see no reason why that should preclude the expensing of options, any more than the fact that a lot of capital expenditure is paid for upfront precludes its amortization over a period of many years.
For public companies like Sun and AOL with long trading histories, and therefore plenty of volatility data to work with, it is simple enough to carry out an initial estimation of the value of a given option grant at the time it is made; this can then subsequently be periodically re-evaluated on, say, an annual basis, just as as with goodwill and valuation reserves. The stock (pun intended) argument, typically made by those who stand to gain the most from options schemes, that there are no good ways of valuing such financial instruments is simply nonsense, as much trickier derivatives are valued all the time on Wall Street, and just because an option is underwater doesn't mean it has no value and shouldn't be accounted for.
Finally, I know for a fact that all of the top-tier investment banks routinely take into account the value of options outstanding when they make their calculations of how much companies are worth, just as they do the same with warrants outstanding; I know this because I used to work in one, and this was part of my job. The current status quo does nothing to fool professional investors who know enough to read SEC filings carefully from cover to cover, but for the average Joe buying MSFT or SUNW it is nice to have this information upfront rather than hidden in an obfuscated manner in the back pages of an EDGAR 10-K report.
Posted by Abiola Lapite on June 26, 2004 at 07:34 AM PDT #
Something old vs. something new?
originally published at blogs.sun.com/pdiamond Aug 21, 2007:
Today I am reminded how hard it is to communicate, and how much work there is in supporting communities. We are working on improving the support for several of our technical communities at Sun, and yet we are struggling with how best to communicate and collaborate within our own team.
Combined with that is the challenge to prioritize between bringing improved functionality (aka web 2.0) vs. addressing the "boring" old issues our users face every day - how do we help them do what they are doing today, while trying to also show them new ways which will some day be more useful?
My concern is that it is very easy to see how much new exciting technology is out there, while losing sight of the users' everyday concerns. It's a version of the old "win the battle, lose the war" - we can successfully deploy new stuff which gets ignored or rejected because there is no obvious relationship to the old problems.
Maybe this will all look better after some lunch...
this got one comment, from an long-time friend I had not heard from for awhile...
Hi Paul
Glad to see you're still focussing on ways of improving productivity and usefulness!
MADP lives......
Mike
Posted by Mike O'Donnell on September 13, 2007 at 09:03 AM PDT #
Today I am reminded how hard it is to communicate, and how much work there is in supporting communities. We are working on improving the support for several of our technical communities at Sun, and yet we are struggling with how best to communicate and collaborate within our own team.
Combined with that is the challenge to prioritize between bringing improved functionality (aka web 2.0) vs. addressing the "boring" old issues our users face every day - how do we help them do what they are doing today, while trying to also show them new ways which will some day be more useful?
My concern is that it is very easy to see how much new exciting technology is out there, while losing sight of the users' everyday concerns. It's a version of the old "win the battle, lose the war" - we can successfully deploy new stuff which gets ignored or rejected because there is no obvious relationship to the old problems.
Maybe this will all look better after some lunch...
this got one comment, from an long-time friend I had not heard from for awhile...
Hi Paul
Glad to see you're still focussing on ways of improving productivity and usefulness!
MADP lives......
Mike
Posted by Mike O'Donnell on September 13, 2007 at 09:03 AM PDT #
A fitting farewell
originally posted at blogs.sun.com/pdiamond, with due gratitude to James Gosling for the image as well as his support for Sun's employees over the years:
Anticipation
originally posted at blogs.sun.com/pdiamond January 20, 2010:
Ever feel like something exciting is just around the corner, yet sad about the changes as well? I lived in the UK for 3 years while working for IBM, and made some great friends there. At the end of my time I was SO excited to be coming back to SF, yet so reluctant to leave my friends. Not too different from my current feelings, and that of many of my colleagues.
Ever feel like something exciting is just around the corner, yet sad about the changes as well? I lived in the UK for 3 years while working for IBM, and made some great friends there. At the end of my time I was SO excited to be coming back to SF, yet so reluctant to leave my friends. Not too different from my current feelings, and that of many of my colleagues.
Not to bury, but to praise
originally posted at blogs.sun.com Aug 31, 2009:
I have not been a frequent blogger at blogs.sun.com (putting it mildly), but i thought today was an excellent day to write what might be my last entry in this venue. Assuming the proposed acquisition by Oracle goes through as planned, it is not clear if this blog will continue or have to morph elsewhere.
Why blog today? Because someone at Sun did something good today, which reminded me of many things I have appreciated at Sun over the time I have been associated with it. Today's good thing? Enabling the people who have put lots of time into their Sun blogs to agree to share IP rights (my expression) with Sun, so there is no confusion as to how much of their content the authors can move to other media/locations. This is a very reasonable position, IMHO, but no surprise given the very mature attitude Sun has maintained about blogging from day one.
Other things I have liked about Sun? When I was at IBM (for MANY years), the expression "respect for the individual" was widely repeated, but seemed to lose some of its meaning over the years. At Sun I have not heard this phrase, but I have seen quite a bit of that behavior. Sun's benefits have been excellent - anyone who does not realize that probably has not spent lots of time at other companies. There are aspects of the benefits package and approach which have demonstrated Sun's commitment to its employees beyond what some would call "just doing business" - it seems to me there was more behind it.
Also, my experience in being laid off by Sun back in 2007 - I found some issues with the overall process, and sent an email to Bill MacGowan the VP of HR. I felt these were issues which could be addressed to improve the process for the individual, the organization they were a part of and Sun overall. I got a reply within 2 hours of sending the email, and Bill got me in touch with the manager of the layoff process. She spent an hour listening to my suggestions - all this for a then-departed member of Sun. That was a strong reason for me to re-join Sun when the opportunity presented itself.
There are probably several other examples I could give, but you get the point - for all its flaws and foibles, Sun is/was an excellent company to work for and I appreciate the opportunity to spend the last 10 years associated with it. Hopefully this is not a eulogy, but just a comment as Sun moves into its next stages as part of Oracle.
I have not been a frequent blogger at blogs.sun.com (putting it mildly), but i thought today was an excellent day to write what might be my last entry in this venue. Assuming the proposed acquisition by Oracle goes through as planned, it is not clear if this blog will continue or have to morph elsewhere.
Why blog today? Because someone at Sun did something good today, which reminded me of many things I have appreciated at Sun over the time I have been associated with it. Today's good thing? Enabling the people who have put lots of time into their Sun blogs to agree to share IP rights (my expression) with Sun, so there is no confusion as to how much of their content the authors can move to other media/locations. This is a very reasonable position, IMHO, but no surprise given the very mature attitude Sun has maintained about blogging from day one.
Other things I have liked about Sun? When I was at IBM (for MANY years), the expression "respect for the individual" was widely repeated, but seemed to lose some of its meaning over the years. At Sun I have not heard this phrase, but I have seen quite a bit of that behavior. Sun's benefits have been excellent - anyone who does not realize that probably has not spent lots of time at other companies. There are aspects of the benefits package and approach which have demonstrated Sun's commitment to its employees beyond what some would call "just doing business" - it seems to me there was more behind it.
Also, my experience in being laid off by Sun back in 2007 - I found some issues with the overall process, and sent an email to Bill MacGowan the VP of HR. I felt these were issues which could be addressed to improve the process for the individual, the organization they were a part of and Sun overall. I got a reply within 2 hours of sending the email, and Bill got me in touch with the manager of the layoff process. She spent an hour listening to my suggestions - all this for a then-departed member of Sun. That was a strong reason for me to re-join Sun when the opportunity presented itself.
There are probably several other examples I could give, but you get the point - for all its flaws and foibles, Sun is/was an excellent company to work for and I appreciate the opportunity to spend the last 10 years associated with it. Hopefully this is not a eulogy, but just a comment as Sun moves into its next stages as part of Oracle.
Re-orgs
In my sun.com blog I posted several entries addressing thoughts on corporate re-organization - here's a copy of those, for future reference:
Titled "Re-orgs - a case in point" dated 6/10/04:
I was at IBM in the late 80's, early 90's when they decided that they needed to change from primarily a HW Product sales company into a company with more emphasis on SW and Services.
This was clearly a large change, since implementing SW for customers generally means longer projects than installing HW, with a shift in the pattern of revenue recognition (lower at first, more annuity-based). IBM Executive Management felt that they needed to educate their employees as to the significant changes this would mean for their business. They put all managers through training which included explaining how the business results would likely suffer in the short term before the changes had time to mature and bring increased revenue and profit.
What they did not do was explain to their employees and stockholders that this "investment" in change would have a cost which would show up in near-term quarterly earnings. When their quarterly results showed "disappointing" numbers, they tried to explain it with standard talk about the economy and other factors, with no reference to this investment effect which they had PREDICTED as part of their management training.
Once the shift had time to mature, the company thrived.
Conclusion I drew from that experience - any company that does a shift from product sales to annuity sales, should be very careful how they report the likely effects, or else people can be surprised for results which were entirely predictable. This is not based on any more information than just the basic difference between the types of businesses.
this got one comment, from cousin Alice Smith:
Income recognition rules have vastly changed since then. GAAP is much stricter, so the head on investment is understood by the decision -makers, and the big investors, but never by the average shareholders. Strict accounting rules are an obligation of the management and failure to be upfront results in Enron and Worldcom debacles.
Titled: Re-orgs and their value, also posted June 10, 2004:
(I later reposted the same entry, Titled: "Re-orgs redux", posted July 9, 2008 - see below for comments)
I have seen many (20+?, 30+? not counting) re-orgs over the years in several companies, and there is a question these have all raised. Did the management holding the re-org identify what was NOT working and how the re-org would solve it, rather than just determine that something was not working and a re-org "seemed" to be the right way to fix it?
The reason for asking this is that clearly there is a high cost of any re-organization - everyone has to learn the new org, their new roles and responsiblities, and usually there is an accompanying new business model or plan which has to be developed, learned, and executed. Frequently new systems need to be developed - compensation, job classification, etc. - to support the new organization as well.
Before spending all this time/effort, doesn't it seem like more work should go into what is the problem with the previous organization? There are always good reasons why a different organization, with a different model, can POTENTIALLY be successful in some new approach to the business. In fact, when the previous organization was put in place there were obviously lots of people who thought IT would be successful!
This is avoiding the tough questions as to why the previous business model did not work. The answer(s) could be several - poor management is one, but there is also:
* the old organization was not given enough time to be successful (there are always start-up costs)
* the old organization/business model was not appropriately staffed/supported to succeed - this failure can easily be repeated with a new model
* the old organization/business model was implemented hastily by people who did not have prior experience with what they were trying to do, so there were some major flaws in it - this is also a problem which can easily be repeated by trying yet another re-org
What would be interesting would be to see one of these businesses hold their management accountable for making the current model succeed, and to have the stamina to NOT reorg without very clear identification of what the flaws were in the last plan
this entry got 3 comments the first time, 2 more on the re-post:
I will say that speaking in general about changes, the why is less powerful than the what. Second, a change, to be really effective, must bring the action into another class frame instead of going to another state of a system. Third, to address the today ever changing world, the right org to find is an highly adaptative one. We are still in a old model that we try to strech to a high speed changing, but it just can't do it.
Posted by jjmahe on June 10, 2004 at 04:31 PM PDT #
Regardless of why a reorganization is initiated, the worst management sin is to assume that "OK, we're done" and not start thinking ahead to the next reorg. When, what, why. Because if history has taught us anything..... Of course it's simpler to ignore the problem until it becomes urgent, but management isn't paid to ignore issues.
Posted by Geoff Arnold on June 10, 2004 at 04:55 PM PDT #
I don't recall if Sun always reorg'd in July, but it's been that way for many years. I assumed this was because Scott was determined that Sun would never become stale, like DEC or Wang or ... The downside is, as you say, that there is -significant- overhead involved, and loss of traction, each time a reorg is effected. I used to muse about what it would be like to go 2 years without a reorg, but .. that never happened in my tenure.
Posted by Gene on June 10, 2004 at 06:47 PM PDT #
after re-post, the following comments:
In all my reading, I have come across comments in research that supports your position. By not holding team accountable, by operating a culture with little to no trust, by being unwilling to challenge a peer (at Sun this veneer is called being nice) there is no accountability.
If you read the book "Five dysfunctions of a Team" you will see a great parable on this very subject.
Posted by Dave on September 05, 2008 at 01:22 PM PDT #
You are absolutely right about the costs, but the real reason for frequent re-orgs at Sun is we reward failure by moving the senior executive to a new position and bring in the next one who has a great idea. To cover the tracks of the previous failure, the new executive re-orgs to his better model. Sun has allowed a Frankenstein organization to be created.
The real answer is to make a executive live with his org for a minimum of 2 years and give it a chance to work. A re-org should only occur if the first year is way off (>10% off number) or caused major alignment issues. Orgs have been around forever and are not that hard to figure out; if a unit doesn't perform, get rid of the executive, not the organizational structure (at least until you have real proof that the org was the issue, not the executive)
Posted by Gary on September 05, 2008 at 02:30 PM PDT #
Titled "Re-orgs - a case in point" dated 6/10/04:
I was at IBM in the late 80's, early 90's when they decided that they needed to change from primarily a HW Product sales company into a company with more emphasis on SW and Services.
This was clearly a large change, since implementing SW for customers generally means longer projects than installing HW, with a shift in the pattern of revenue recognition (lower at first, more annuity-based). IBM Executive Management felt that they needed to educate their employees as to the significant changes this would mean for their business. They put all managers through training which included explaining how the business results would likely suffer in the short term before the changes had time to mature and bring increased revenue and profit.
What they did not do was explain to their employees and stockholders that this "investment" in change would have a cost which would show up in near-term quarterly earnings. When their quarterly results showed "disappointing" numbers, they tried to explain it with standard talk about the economy and other factors, with no reference to this investment effect which they had PREDICTED as part of their management training.
Once the shift had time to mature, the company thrived.
Conclusion I drew from that experience - any company that does a shift from product sales to annuity sales, should be very careful how they report the likely effects, or else people can be surprised for results which were entirely predictable. This is not based on any more information than just the basic difference between the types of businesses.
this got one comment, from cousin Alice Smith:
Income recognition rules have vastly changed since then. GAAP is much stricter, so the head on investment is understood by the decision -makers, and the big investors, but never by the average shareholders. Strict accounting rules are an obligation of the management and failure to be upfront results in Enron and Worldcom debacles.
Titled: Re-orgs and their value, also posted June 10, 2004:
(I later reposted the same entry, Titled: "Re-orgs redux", posted July 9, 2008 - see below for comments)
I have seen many (20+?, 30+? not counting) re-orgs over the years in several companies, and there is a question these have all raised. Did the management holding the re-org identify what was NOT working and how the re-org would solve it, rather than just determine that something was not working and a re-org "seemed" to be the right way to fix it?
The reason for asking this is that clearly there is a high cost of any re-organization - everyone has to learn the new org, their new roles and responsiblities, and usually there is an accompanying new business model or plan which has to be developed, learned, and executed. Frequently new systems need to be developed - compensation, job classification, etc. - to support the new organization as well.
Before spending all this time/effort, doesn't it seem like more work should go into what is the problem with the previous organization? There are always good reasons why a different organization, with a different model, can POTENTIALLY be successful in some new approach to the business. In fact, when the previous organization was put in place there were obviously lots of people who thought IT would be successful!
This is avoiding the tough questions as to why the previous business model did not work. The answer(s) could be several - poor management is one, but there is also:
* the old organization was not given enough time to be successful (there are always start-up costs)
* the old organization/business model was not appropriately staffed/supported to succeed - this failure can easily be repeated with a new model
* the old organization/business model was implemented hastily by people who did not have prior experience with what they were trying to do, so there were some major flaws in it - this is also a problem which can easily be repeated by trying yet another re-org
What would be interesting would be to see one of these businesses hold their management accountable for making the current model succeed, and to have the stamina to NOT reorg without very clear identification of what the flaws were in the last plan
this entry got 3 comments the first time, 2 more on the re-post:
I will say that speaking in general about changes, the why is less powerful than the what. Second, a change, to be really effective, must bring the action into another class frame instead of going to another state of a system. Third, to address the today ever changing world, the right org to find is an highly adaptative one. We are still in a old model that we try to strech to a high speed changing, but it just can't do it.
Posted by jjmahe on June 10, 2004 at 04:31 PM PDT #
Regardless of why a reorganization is initiated, the worst management sin is to assume that "OK, we're done" and not start thinking ahead to the next reorg. When, what, why. Because if history has taught us anything..... Of course it's simpler to ignore the problem until it becomes urgent, but management isn't paid to ignore issues.
Posted by Geoff Arnold on June 10, 2004 at 04:55 PM PDT #
I don't recall if Sun always reorg'd in July, but it's been that way for many years. I assumed this was because Scott was determined that Sun would never become stale, like DEC or Wang or ... The downside is, as you say, that there is -significant- overhead involved, and loss of traction, each time a reorg is effected. I used to muse about what it would be like to go 2 years without a reorg, but .. that never happened in my tenure.
Posted by Gene on June 10, 2004 at 06:47 PM PDT #
after re-post, the following comments:
In all my reading, I have come across comments in research that supports your position. By not holding team accountable, by operating a culture with little to no trust, by being unwilling to challenge a peer (at Sun this veneer is called being nice) there is no accountability.
If you read the book "Five dysfunctions of a Team" you will see a great parable on this very subject.
Posted by Dave on September 05, 2008 at 01:22 PM PDT #
You are absolutely right about the costs, but the real reason for frequent re-orgs at Sun is we reward failure by moving the senior executive to a new position and bring in the next one who has a great idea. To cover the tracks of the previous failure, the new executive re-orgs to his better model. Sun has allowed a Frankenstein organization to be created.
The real answer is to make a executive live with his org for a minimum of 2 years and give it a chance to work. A re-org should only occur if the first year is way off (>10% off number) or caused major alignment issues. Orgs have been around forever and are not that hard to figure out; if a unit doesn't perform, get rid of the executive, not the organizational structure (at least until you have real proof that the org was the issue, not the executive)
Posted by Gary on September 05, 2008 at 02:30 PM PDT #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
