Updates from April, 2013 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • araskazemi 10:20 on 29 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    Så hackades Logica 

    I found this article interesting: Så hackades Logica – via Hetaste IT-nyheterna från IDG.se

    Över 16 gigabyte data blev bytet när minst två stordatorer hos Logica hackades förra året. Det blev en mardröm för it-företaget.
    Link to article: Så hackades Logica

  • araskazemi 17:05 on 27 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    “Så praktiserar Volvo IT säkerhet till döds” 

    I found this article interesting: “Så praktiserar Volvo IT säkerhet till döds” – via Hetaste IT-nyheterna från IDG.se

    “Upplägget påminner om systemet för planekonomi som rådde inom det forna Sovjetblocket”. Det skriver redaktör Håkan Ogelid.
    Link to article: “Så praktiserar Volvo IT säkerhet till döds”

  • araskazemi 21:50 on 23 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    The Consumerization Of The Enterprise Is Over 

    I found this article interesting: The Consumerization Of The Enterprise Is Over – via ReadWrite

    At the point that a trend becomes obvious and mainstream, it is no longer a trend. It is historical fact.

    So it is with the consumerization of the enterprise, a buzzy phrase for the infiltration into workplaces of gadgets and services purchased on the sly or openly by employees.

    These renegade tools arrived without the sanction of traditional IT departments, upending everything from the design of networks and security protocols to the very hierarchy of corporations. Also known as BYOD, or “bring your own device,” it’s less of a deliberate move than a belated acceptance of reality.

    Now Shell, the energy giant, has announced it is allowing its 135,000 employees to bring their own devices to work, and offering them access to the tools and technologies they need over the Internet—the cloud, if you prefer.

    Ken Mann, Shell’s enterprise information security architect, explained this as a recruiting decision as much as a technology move—an acknowledgement of the inevitability of the consumerization movement.

    “We’re going to have a lot of people turning over, and we want to be able to attract and retain talented and young staff,” Mann said at the CA World conference in Las Vegas earlier this week, V3 reports. “They don’t want to come into a locked corporate environment.”

    Shell has always been something of a future-forward organization, employing futurists long before many technology companies did. So consider it a harbinger of what will happen to other companies of its size. They will either embrace similar strategies or find themselves unable to compete for talent or customers.

    The consumerization of the enterprise is no longer an open question. It’s a fait accompli. Which makes it, for me, not a very interesting thing to think about.

    What’s next? I think it may be the flip side of this trend, what I call the enterprisification of the consumer. Business-class tools, gigantic “big-data” databases, and massive amounts of computing power will be in the reach of the smallest of businesses, sole proprietors, and ordinary technology users. Just as consumer tools are bleeding into the business world, technology that we’ve classically thought off as walled off in the enterprise world will become cheap, accessible, and widespread.

    The consumerization trend will keep happening, and we’ll note its progress from time to time. But we need to start thinking about what’s next, not what’s done. And with Shell’s full embrace, the hard work for advocates of consumerization is done.

    Photo by Flickr user Gerry Dincher, CC 2.0

    Link to article: The Consumerization Of The Enterprise Is Over

  • araskazemi 17:05 on 20 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    Experiment shows that a blast of Black Sabbath makes plants bloom http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/19/black-sabbath-radio-gardener-chris-beardshaw

  • araskazemi 18:05 on 19 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    The Three Elements of Successful Data Visualizations 

    I found this article interesting: The Three Elements of Successful Data Visualizations – via HBR.org

    Now that we’ve discussed when data visualization works — and when it doesn’t, let’s delve into what makes a successful data visualization. Although there are a number of criteria, including ease of comprehension and aesthetics, I’d like to explore the three that designers most often overlook.

    1. It understands the audience.

    Before you throw up (pun intended) data in your visualization, start with the goal, which is to convey great quantities of information in a format that is easily assimilated by the consumers of this information — decision-makers. A successful visualization is based upon the designer understanding whom the visualization is targeting, and executing on three key points:

    • Who is the audience, and how will it read and interpret the information? Can you assume it has knowledge of the terminology and concepts you’ll use, or do you need to guide it with clues in the visualization (e.g., indicated good is up with a green arrow)? An audience of experts will have different expectations than a general audience.
    • What are viewers’ expectations, and what type of information is most useful to them?
    • What is the visualization’s functional role, and how can viewers take action from it? An exploratory visualization should leave viewers with questions to pursue; educational or confirmational visualizations should not.

    2. It sets up a clear framework.
    The designer needs to ensure that everyone viewing the visualization is on common ground about what it is representing. In order to do so, the designer needs to set up a clear framework, which involves the semantics and syntax under which the data information is designed to be interpreted. The semantics involve the meaning of the words and graphics used, and the syntax involves the structure of the communication. For example, when using an icon, the element should bear resemblance to the thing it represents, with size, color and position all communicating meaning to the viewer.

    Lines and bars are simple, schematic geometric figures that are an integral component of many kinds of visualizations: lines connect, suggesting a relationship. Bars, on the other hand, contain and separate. In studies, when people have been asked to interpret an unlabeled line or bar graph, people overwhelmingly interpreted lines as trends and bars as discrete relations — even when conflicting with the nature of the underlying data.

    There is one other element to the framework: Before everything else, make sure your data is clean and you understand its nuances. Does your data set have outliers? How is it distributed? Where does your data have holes? Are you making pre-judgments about the data? Real-world data is often complex, of diverse types from diverse sources, and not always reliable. Getting to know your data will help you select and appropriately use a framework.

    3. It tells a story.
    Visualization in its educational or confirmational role is really a dynamic form of persuasion. Few forms of communication are as persuasive as a compelling narrative. To this end, the visualization needs to tell a story to the audience. Stories package information into a structure that is easily remembered which is important in many collaborative scenarios when an analyst is not the same person as the one who makes decisions, or simply needs to share information with peers. Data visualization lends itself well to being a communication medium for storytelling, in particular when the story also contains a lot of data. Minard’s graphic of Napoleon’s march on Moscow in 1812 is an exemplar. With newer technology freeing designers from the paper-based paradigm of images, even more compelling narratives can be constructed.

    Storytelling helps the viewer gain insight from the data. Information visualization is a process that transforms data and knowledge into a form that relies on the human visual system to perceive its embedded information. The goal is to enable the viewer to observe, understand and make sense of the information. The difference between information visualization and traditional storytelling in film, theater or television is that the information and story conveyed in information visualization environments are much more complicated. Design techniques that prioritize particular interpretations in visualizations that “tell a story” can significantly affect end-user interpretation.

    Visualization designers need to dig into the data in order to gain an understanding of it, and also to connect with the visualization’s audience. Good designers know not just how to pick the right graph and data range, but how to be a compelling storyteller through the visualization.

    Link to article: The Three Elements of Successful Data Visualizations

  • araskazemi 19:20 on 18 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    Första Sailfish-mobilen kommer i maj med ”skandinavisk design” 

    I found this article interesting: Första Sailfish-mobilen kommer i maj med ”skandinavisk design” – via Swedroid

    I slutet av november förra året presenterades ett nytt Linux-baserat operativsystem för mobiler. Plattformen heter Sailfish OS, är utvecklad i Finland och bygger på en gren av MeeGo som heter Mer. Sailfish OS kan köra Androidappar och har ett gränssnitt som till stor del kontrolleras genom svepgester.

    Utvecklaren Jolla har nu meddelat att den första mobilen med Sailfish OS släpps nästa månad. Hårdvaran kommer enligt Jolla ha en ”modern skandinavisk design” och de som tidigt anammar operativsystemet kommer få särskilda modeller av telefonen som producerats i begränsad upplaga. Vad tror ni om Jollas chanser och är det några som skulle kunna tänka sig att prova på Sailfish OS?

    Link to article: Första Sailfish-mobilen kommer i maj med ”skandinavisk design”

  • araskazemi 11:45 on 18 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    Engineering serendipity in companies. “We’re all in that business” http://nyti.ms/12qDdxn via @larsz #socbiz

  • araskazemi 17:35 on 15 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    User Management in Your WCM System #wcm #pmot 

    I found this article interesting: User Management in Your WCM System #wcm #pmot – via Real Story Group Recent Blog Entries < Real Story Group

    In our WCM selection advisory services, user security and entitlements continue to come up as tricky issues.  These are certainly not new challenges, but vendors address them in different ways, and certainly customers vary in their requirements here. 

    So to provide a little education, below I’ve excerpted bits of the front matter from our Web Content & Experience Management Report.  The front matter is where we explain all the features against which we evaluate individual tools.   Hope you find it useful.  And as always, I welcome your feedback in the comments…  

    Authentication & Authorization: Who’s Authorized To Do What

    There are two key issues here:

    • Authentication: Are you who you say you are?
    • Authorization: What are you allowed to do?

    Most Web CMS packages will tie into existing corporate directory systems (such as LDAP servers) for authentication, while providing authorization (what some call “entitlements”) within the CMS itself.

    Let’s deal with authorization first. Many people can be involved in the production of even a departmental website. Since one of the key advantages of WCM is to distribute management capabilities directly to individual specialists, implementing a new CMS can lead to new people becoming involved in this process. 

    In any case, you need a system to manage internal access and permissions that is much more robust than that required to support only one or two webmasters or editors

    Users can be assigned privileges based on the role they play (the types of things they can do) or the group to which they belong, which defines their authority and, typically, the scope of the content areas they can edit. It is possible (and indeed not uncommon) for a user to make up a group of one.

    Consider the following chart of Groups and Roles for a generic enterprise.

    Example Groups Example Roles
    • HR Managers – Can only add and modify jobs and career info
    • Product Managers – Can update catalog content only
    • Graphic Designers – Can create and modify image files and templates site wide (may also be a role)
    • Librarians – Manage classification systems and metadata vocabularies
    • Germany — users who can only touch the content on your German site or subsite
    • Super user – Performs any function in the system
    • Editor – Contributes and approves content
    • Author – Contributes content
    • Department coordinator — adds and removes users and privileges for that department (only)
    • Intern – Adds metadata to site content

    Note, however, that many vendors do not have notions of groups in their system, or have groups, but they are really roles.  That’s fine if you have just a handful of contributors, but once you start getting above 30 or 40 named users, it can become very cumbersome to manage.

    So ideally your system lets you assign a combination of Groups and Roles. Using the chart above, let’s say that Nancy serves as an Editor in the Project Manager Group. She approves the additions and updates that Authors have made to catalog content.

    Almost all CMS packages ship with generic roles already configured for your use. These products then typically enable you to modify those roles as necessary. However, not all CMS packages allow you to create completely new roles, and among those that do offer this capability, they may not be able to circumscribe functions in exactly the way you would like. For example, you may want your Interns to add and modify metadata, but have no other privileges, or for Managers to initiate workflow tasks, but not be able to author content. Ask prospective vendors to show you just how to make the roles and groups you think you need.

    On the other hand, if you have very simple needs, stay cautious about products that offer highly granular control mechanisms. These can be hard to manage and the novice administrator can accidentally create problems, typically around locking editors out of sections to which they should really have access. This leads to staff annoyance and more trouble tickets for your help desk.

    Finally, if you have a very distributed organization, look for the opportunity for delegated user management, where individual departments can control user persmissions — for just their department — but not be granted “god-like” superuser controls.  In some platforms, you have to have the highest security permissions to manage users, but most customers don’t want (or need) that.  

    [This report section continues with a discussion of authentication — an important topic, for another time…]

    Link to article: User Management in Your WCM System #wcm #pmot

  • araskazemi 09:37 on 14 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    Fil dr i pedagogik: Målstyrning inom #skolan motarbetar sitt eget syfte. Förutom att den är anti-demokratisk så bryter målstyrning mot svenska värderingar http://www.newsmill.se/node/49509

  • araskazemi 18:35 on 11 Apr, 2013 Permalink | Reply

    Does Money Really Affect Motivation? A Review of the Research 

    I found this article interesting: Does Money Really Affect Motivation? A Review of the Research – via HBR.org

    How much should people earn? Even if resources were unlimited, it would be difficult to stipulate your ideal salary. Intuitively, one would think that higher pay should produce better results, but scientific evidence indicates that the link between compensation, motivation and performance is much more complex. In fact, research suggests that even if we let people decide how much they should earn, they would probably not enjoy their job more.

    Even those who highlight the motivational effects of money accept that pay alone is not sufficient. The basic questions are: Does money make our jobs more enjoyable? Or can higher salaries actually demotivate us?

    Let’s start with the first: does money engage us? The most compelling answer to this question is a meta-analysis by Tim Judge and colleagues. The authors reviewed 120 years of research to synthesize the findings from 92 quantitative studies. The combined dataset included over 15,000 individuals and 115 correlation coefficients.

    The results indicate that the association between salary and job satisfaction is very weak. The reported correlation (r = .14) indicates that there is less than 2% overlap between pay and job satisfaction levels. Furthermore, the correlation between pay and pay satisfaction was only marginally higher (r = .22 or 4.8% overlap), indicating that people’s satisfaction with their salary is mostly independent of their actual salary.

    In addition, a cross-cultural comparison revealed that the relationship of pay with both job and pay satisfaction is pretty much the same everywhere (for example, there are no significant differences between the U.S., India, Australia, Britain, and Taiwan).

    A similar pattern of results emerged when the authors carried out group-level (or between-sample) comparisons. In their words: “Employees earning salaries in the top half of our data range reported similar levels of job satisfaction to those employees earning salaries in the bottom-half of our data range” (p.162). This is consistent with Gallup’s engagement research, which reports no significant difference in employee engagement by pay level. Gallup’s findings are based on 1.4 million employees from 192 organizations across 49 industries and 34 nations.

    These results have important implications for management: if we want an engaged workforce, money is clearly not the answer. In fact, if we want employees to be happy with their pay, money is not the answer. In a nutshell: money does not buy engagement.

    But that doesn’t answer the question: does money actually demotivate? Some have argued it does, that there is a natural tension between extrinsic and intrinsic motives, and that financial rewards can ultimately depress or “crowd out” intrinsic goals (e.g., enjoyment, sheer curiosity, learning or personal challenge).

    Despite the overwhelming number of laboratory experiments carried out to evaluate this argument — known as the overjustification effect — there is still no consensus about the degree to which higher pay may demotivate. However, two articles deserve particular consideration.

    The first is a classic meta-analysis by Edward Deci and colleagues. The authors synthesized the results from 128 controlled experiments. The results highlighted consistent negative effects of incentives — from marshmallows to dollars — on intrinsic motivation. These effects were particularly strong when the tasks were interesting or enjoyable rather than boring or meaningless.

    More specifically, for every standard deviation increase in reward, intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks decreases by about 25%. When rewards are tangible and foreseeable (if subjects know in advance how much extra money they will receive) intrinsic motivation decreases by 36%. (Importantly, some have argued that for uninteresting tasks extrinsic rewards — like money — actually increase motivation. See, for instance, a meta-analysis by Judy Cameron and colleagues.) Deci et al’s conclusion was that “strategies that focus primarily on the use of extrinsic rewards do, indeed, run a serious risk of diminishing rather than promoting intrinsic motivation” (p. 659).

    The second article is a recent study by Yoon Jik Cho and James Perry. The authors analyzed real-world data from a representative sample of over 200,000 U.S. public sector employees. The results showed that employee engagement levels were three times more strongly related to intrinsic than extrinsic motives, but that both motives tend to cancel each other out. In other words, when employees have little interest in external rewards, their intrinsic motivation has a substantial positive effect on their engagement levels. However, when employees are focused on external rewards, the effects of intrinsic motives on engagement are significantly diminished. This means that employees who are intrinsically motivated are three times more engaged than employees who are extrinsically motivated (such as by money). Quite simply, you’re more likely to like your job if you focus on the work itself, and less likely to enjoy it if you’re focused on money. This finding was true even at low salary levels (remember, as per Gallup and Judge et al, there’s no correlation between engagement and salary levels). Now, a skeptic might ask if this is just a correlation showing that people who don’t like their jobs have nothing to think about other than the money. This is hard to test. Yes, that could be one reason; another could be that people who focus too much on money are preventing themselves from enjoying their jobs.

    This research also begs the question: Is this a money-focused, engagement-eroding mindset one that employees can change? Or is does it reflect an innate mindset — some people happen to be more focused on extrinsic rewards, while others are more focused on the task itself? We don’t know. But my guess is that which you’re focused on depends mostly on the match between your interests and skills and the tasks you’ve been given. And in theory, your mindset should be malleable — the brain is remarkably plastic. We can try to teach people that if they focus on the task itself and try to identify positive aspects of the process, they will enjoy it more than if they are just focused on the consequences (rewards) of performing the task. The analogy here is that it’s much more motivating to go for a run because it’s fun than because I must get fit or lose some weight.

    Intrinsic motivation is also a stronger predictor of job performance than extrinsic motivation — so it is feasible to expect higher financial rewards to inhibit not only intrinsic motivation, but also job performance. The more people focus on their salaries, the less they will focus on satisfying their intellectual curiosity, learning new skills, or having fun, and those are the very things that make people perform best.

    The fact that there is little evidence to show that money motivates us, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that it actually demotivates us, supports the idea that that there may be hidden costs associated with rewards. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we should work for free. We all need to pay our bills and provide for our families — but once these basic needs are covered the psychological benefits of money are questionable. In a widely cited paper, Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton reported that, in the U.S., emotional well-being levels increase with salary levels up to a salary of $75,000 — but that they plateau afterwards. Or, as Arnold Schwarzenegger once stated: “Money doesn’t make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million.”

    But one size does not fit all. Our relationship to money is highly idiosyncratic. Indeed, in the era of personalization, when most things can now be customized to fit our needs — from social media feeds to potential dates, to online shopping displays and playlists — it is somewhat surprising that compensation systems are still based on the premise that what works for some people will also work for everyone else.

    Other than its functional exchange value, pay is a psychological symbol, and the meaning of money is largely subjective. For example, there are marked individual differences in people’s tendency to think or worry about money, and different people value money for different reasons (e.g., as a means to power, freedom, security, or love). If companies want to motivate their workforce, they need to understand what their employees really value — and the answer is bound differ for each individual. Research shows that different values are differentially linked to engagement. For example, income goals based on the pursuit of power, narcissism, or overcoming self-doubt are less rewarding and effective than income goals based on the pursuit of security, family support, and leisure time. Perhaps it is time to compensate people not only according to what they know or do, but also for what they want.

    Finally, other research shows that employees’ personalities are much better predictors of engagement than their salaries. The most compelling study in this area is a large meta-analytic review of 25,000 participants, where personality determined 40% of the variability in ratings of job satisfaction. The more emotionally stable, extraverted, agreeable or conscientious people are, the more they tend to like their jobs (irrespective of their salaries). But the personality of employees’ is not the most important determinant of their engagement levels. In fact, the biggest organizational cause of disengagement is incompetent leadership. Thus, as a manager, it’s your personality that will have a significant impact on whether your employees are engaged at work, or not.

    Link to article: Does Money Really Affect Motivation? A Review of the Research

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc