One of the first harsh lessons I learned right away is that this type of remote is not forgiving to a novice.  If you don’t know what you’re doing, be prepared to have a lot of patience.  Despite the wizard’s attempt to outline the steps needed to get my equipment working and trying the remote out with a simple “All Off” activity, the wizard tool (Pronto Configurator) kept giving me a “There is an error with the configuration data. No valid configuration can be generated.”  Suffice to say, I wish that it would have specified what exactly the error was, and a great deal of restraint went into:

• reinstalling the software,
• installing ProntoEdit Professional to take a look at the code database (but not necessarily knowing what to look for),
• performing a lot of code “learning” for the code database, and
• being bewildered as at some point, the “My Database” set of codes wouldn’t populate with entries and I could not open alternate databases such as the One1R database.

After spending nearly 12 hours (spanning three days) tweaking and testing and revising, I was finally able to call my little project done!  Based on that experience, here are some lessons learned:

• Where possible, test out and stick with the Factory Database codes.  Only teach the codes that really don’t exist in the database and always duplicate the component before you start adding or changing things around.
• Expect a lot of trial-and-error when looking for a code set from the Factory Database.  Sometimes the codeset ID will map to a device’s model number, and other times, not at all.  I found that relying on the Component Type helped somewhat, but it would be useful for Philips to include information such as “Codeset xyz works with ACME G-500 and likely similar devices.”  That way, a user can at least test out codesets for devices that you might recognize as part of a product family.
• Think long and hard about your “Activities” (which are in essence your use cases).  I ended up making four Activities that involved multiple devices and mapped buttons that coordinated all of the devices in concert, but I also added four Activities to correspond to each piece of equipment.  Those activities’ sole purpose was to mimic all of the commands possible with just the device remote.  Where a hard button would not cover a command in an obvious way, I duplicated it on the list of additional “Screen Functions.”  This goes a long way in keeping me from reaching for the original remote.
• Make sure you download this little piece of software (here) provided by Philips.  It should save your sanity if you get the “There is an error with the configuration…” message.

Two hardware improvements that should be made:

1. The silver scroll wheel is a great idea, and its implementation is most of the way to where I think Philips should be.  Instead, I would suggest that the wheel either take the form of a thumbwheel next to the screen (scroll and click, like a Blackberry), or else to simply lower the profile and introduce raised bumps for the cursor arrows.  I found that pressing the cursor arrows usually shifted the scroll wheel to another Activity that should not be active.
2. Along the same lines for the scroll wheel, introducing a discrete instead of a continuous wheel (with slightly more resistance/friction) to give more feedback on the menu item selected and also let the user know of accidental movement of the scroll wheel.

Recommendation: Change the scroll wheel to be more flush with the remote’s surface and introduce a bit more tactile feedback.

It’s clear that a lot of thought and effort was put into aligning this product with the marketplace offerings and distinguishing it from the rest of the Pronto lineup of products to offer consumers a great choice.  With some touchups on the minor hardware and software issues, this would be a no-brainer choice for a universal remote without a touchscreen.

A recent WSJ article (may require registration) brings more attention to a lesser-known capability of cellphones: connecting your phone to a computer as a USB modem to gain access to the Internet, a.k.a. tethering.  This feature was critical to me in a fairly common setting in the consulting life: having spotty or no Internet access on the road or at the client’s office.  And I’m arguing now that wireless carriers should include this value-add service in all of their wireless data plans for free, not to charge a monthly fee for it separately.

A natural question of course is “Why should wireless carriers want to give this away for free if it’s so important?”  I would pose that it gives two big benefits to the carriers:

• Improved sales of higher-margin smartphones and use of data plans.
• A new software-based monetization opportunity.

By continuing to push so-called “unlimited” plans for cellphones, I think the carrier that makes their marketing more compelling by formally including tethering as a capability would improve their sales and retention rates.  At the same time, the carrier would have an opportunity to either sell configuration software to ease support of the tethering function, or else use the configuration software as an avenue for advertising, cobranding, or bundleware opportunities.

To give some context, I used to work at a client’s offices where I had to share a single desktop computer and Internet connection with multiple people throughout the day because it was a very locked-down environment.  Since I couldn’t use my own laptop to get things done, I found that I couldn’t keep up with either client project deliverables or extracurricular work that I’d be doing as well all while sharing a single computer.  That’s when tethering came to the rescue.  After buying myself a smartphone and fussing with the configuration for a while (drivers, registry edits, and the like), I finally got connected!  IM, e-mail, the Web, and online resources were available to me again after nearly 2 months straight of maddeningly working off of one computer.  It felt like a breath of fresh air.

Recommendation: Carriers should legitimize a value-add service that they have a hard time controlling as a part of their data plans to improve their sales and image as well as opening a new incremental revenue stream for themselves.

Wolfram Alpha is a great way to find a fact and do some analysis about it. You might think that after 19 days of being available to the public that I would understand what it’s all about as a user. Just like Mathematica, I think this product is a tad ahead of its time. This quote from their site: “Wolfram|Alpha’s long-term goal is to make all systematic knowledge immediately computable and accessible to everyone” is now much more meaningful after having used the service: “immediately computable” means a whole world of analysis can be at your fingertips, and “systematic knowledge” is another phrase for data and facts.

Now, there are some recognized shortcomings but by-and-large, as a proof-of-concept, it’s fantastic! The above link should bring you to a query state that lists the following major US specialty retailers: Staples, Office Depot, and OfficeMax. Now what I was trying to do was to find information quickly about this particular sector of retailers, provide a basis to generate an estimate on the size of the market for office supplies, and see data points relative to each other. And of course, it did so beautifully.

There’s plenty more work to follow, however. I think there are two key high-priority enhancement projects Wolfram Alpha should consider for their next release cycle:

1. a simplified and standardized (mathematical?) grammar structure, and
2. a fact-drilling capability.

The first suggestion would greatly help users understand how to structure their input and reduce the incidence of the “don’t know how to handle the input” page appearing to users. After all, I can’t think of a single language that doesn’t have syntax with which to standardize expressions and context. And at the same time, I don’t think one system can understand every single kind of expression and context from a myraid of users without extensive effort into a (in my opinion) futile effort.

The second suggestion would be a means to offer transparency to the facts presented by the engine. Similar to Wikipedia and to the tradition of citations in written works, Wolfram Alpha should consider a way to cite every single fact in its database. After all, each one should be verifiable in its own way, and the source content would go a long ways to confirming that work. Good luck to the Wolfram Alpha team, I wish you the best of success!

Recommendations: Put in a grammar/syntax structure to help users understand how to input their queries, while keeping it at a minimum. And don’t forget the beauty of the Web being built on hyperlinks, so link to your facts where possible!

My perspective comes from lots of hands-on experience with each of the three groups. Creative folks need time to let ideas marinate and mature into thoughtful assets. Technical folks (good ones, anyway) need scope to build the best possible product (if only I had a dime for every time a developer’s asked me “Well, if I do it this way it can work okay, but I think it’s better to do it this way because [insert comment about future capabilities or cool functionality]“, I’d be rich!). And of course, we can’t forget business folks, whose tolerance for time seem to fall lower every day. How can you get the three groups working together?

Recommendation: Building mutual respect and condensing each group’s issues into soundbites for the other groups is my approach to handling any initial situation. Project managers must have a strong curiosity for new domains and the nuances of each group’s work and background, which will help them argue for each side. This kind of position will guide a project to success for all stakeholders since it strikes a good balance and effectively negotiates a lot of tension out of the situation. However, when I’m in between a rock and a hard place, I have to side with the money but not without a fight for quality and extensibility. Doing right by the client is my mantra and I would never sacrifice that until I’m kicked out of the building.

What do you think?

I’ve personally seen demonstrations or used the following tools:

• ActionMethod
• Microsoft Project
• Danube Scrumworks
• Rally

but they all serve some subset of functionality that could be addressed by a better integrated and streamlined tool.  Consider the following scenarios:

• The project is starting up, and you’ve identified all of your stakeholders.  Where does someone set up resource assignments for WBS planning?  Where does someone set up mailing lists for the team?  Where does someone set up collaborative workspaces for documents and deliverables?
• The project is in flight, and a new resource has joined the team to assist with a new stream of work that arose because of scope changes.  Where does someone make assignment changes on the planned tasks?  How does someone get the person up to speed quickly with his/her respective peers?
• The project is closing down.  How does someone close a collaborative workspace, draft/issue a final status report, and archive deliverables with a minimum of effort?

In many cases, all of this work is distributed across physical machines, distinct programs, and perhaps even in analog form (as opposed to digital copies).  Managing projects to success should be about the project management, not the tool management.

Recommendation: Combine or integrate:

1. ad-hoc organizational modeling
2. sophisticated communications tools
3. work breakdown structures, and
4. collaborative workspaces and their deliverables

to foster a project-oriented work environment.  Has anyone seen such a beast?

The real question is “What has changed that raised the FDA’s inept ire?”. General Mills has been making this claim for more than a decade, but the FDA never seemed to have a problem before. I think it is safe to assume that every member of that organization should have been exposed to some form of Cheerios advertising or perhaps consumes the cereal themselves, so I’m not so sure that ‘new developments’ would be a sufficient answer to give.

As a business analyst, I can only hope that recent organizational changes have been made to better carry out the part of the FDA’s stated mission of

“helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health”

and a division of the FDA is now devoted to media monitoring activities. Otherwise, this is a sad indictment on the government’s state of affairs, which highlights ineptitude, lack of awareness/relevance, and an inability to enforce real change.

Recommendation: Just as many companies’ PR divisions monitor a myriad of media channels to ensure that their brand is secure, so too should the FDA ensure that their “enforcement activites” have actual consequences by enabling or building a Media division that covers radio, television, Web, and print channels (and more in the future with the maturing of the mobile channel and other platforms as well). The Media division would then be a “first line of defense” to pick up these claims, acting as a public rights advocate and triage expert by:

• acting as a first responder to marketing claims as soon as they are published in the wider mediums,
• queuing up severe violations in a prioritized fashion and publishing this list on some government publication medium,
• creating marketing guidelines on language and visuals for the layman marketer and business owner to follow, and
• making all of this transparent to the public.

The public should be confident about the FDA and how they are in fact doing their job, and considering that the FDA is funded by tax dollars, we should demand efficacy.

The trick is how to write a good requirement, for any number of situations. Part of the answer is to follow this convention:

The [your words here: system, actor, function, dependency, etc.]
must [your words here: do, process, store, etc.]
to [your words here: accomplish a goal, serve a purpose, etc.].

and to focus on the “what” (substance) of the need as opposed to the “how” (design) of the need. In addition, there are 8 key criteria that each requirement should satisfy to be considered well written.

As a business analyst, you should think about addressing the following points to evaluate how well written the requirement is:

• Necessity €“ A “must have”. Conversely, it helps to avoid gold-plating and gives you a prioritization tool during the build phase of work.
• Unambiguous-ness €“ Use assertive words without vague terms. This also helps the writer/stakeholder focus on the “what” of the product/service/result as opposed to the “how” and proactively reducing interpretation issues.
• Testability €“ Can be verified by inspection, analysis, or demonstration, which means that there’s a qualifying attribute to almost everything based on the idea that you know it when you see it.
• Conciseness €“ Conveys what is required and is easy to read yet. If you end up writing a page-long requirement, it’s time to make it more atomic.
• Consistency €“ Does not contradict other requirements and uses a known vocabulary that should be defined for the layman (or at least the wider group).
• Completeness €“ Does not require you to look at additional text to know what the requirement means. At the same time, requirements may be related to each other, which then requires the writer to add a separate requirement that talks about interaction between multiple requirements.
• Feasibility €“ A requirement that can be implemented. Typically, time is a factor, but cost and available resources will all ultimately play a role in what you deem feasible or realistic.
• Traceability €“ Has a unique identifier and is tracked through the development of the product/service/result. Along with testability, this attribute plays a role in ensuring that things do not get lost in the cracks.

The above list was adapted from here based on my own experience, and there is a wealth of material on the Web and in print that follows these conventions (or their spirit). Unfortunately, despite the volumes dedicated to this topic, it still frustrates users and is a task that is taken lightly because it is time spent with seemingly less tangible benefit up front. I have had many experiences where the team will ask “What did (insert name) mean when he/she wrote this,” which resulted in time wasted, potentially incorrect coding to occur, and costly testing time and effort down the line that reveals something “wrong” with the system but is hard to define or pin down.

Recommendation: Do the work upfront, and you’ll save time and headache later. As a business stakeholder, focus on the “what”, and allow technical subject matter experts worry about the “how” (which they are supposed to do anyway). Well-written requirements based on necessity, unambiguousness, testability, conciseness, consistency, completeness, feasibility, and traceability will save the day.

The “what” is particularly tricky, since the “who” is actually composed of a larger public mindset whose perceptions of acceptable behavior, taste, and content continuously change. What is innovative can become intolerable very quickly. Consider the following example, bottled water. Earlier in the millennium (by the way, has society agreed on a name for this decade yet?), bottled water was very popular. Now, it’s shunned as wasteful and damaging to the environment.

Recommendation: The best way to meet this challenge is to adopt an all (versus the alternative “nothing”) approach. Making an implicit contract regarding censorship and moderation with the wider public is a futile effort if the objective is to broaden appeal to the widest possible market. Thus, letting everything in based on a very small and specific functional criteria set is probably the best and easiest method for Apple’s goals. Otherwise, you’ll have to adopt a continuously evolving (and large) censorship filter that adapts to users on the fly, based on sentiment analysis and international thinking (one common fallacy is that the US should be the arbiter of taste, but what about every other country that has access to the App Store?), which is the alternative. Apple is definitely in between a rock and a hard place.

Some food for thought:
Social networking “fatigue”, from 11/2/2006
The emergence of an older generation of users, from 8/20/2007
Survey numbers on the impact of social networking applications, from 4/12/2008
A more personal story, from 3/15/2009

Shouldn’t a significant enhancement be made to allow different strata of friends? The idea is that you have that inner circle that should be unfiltered and broad, and then groups that extend outward but allow you to control the level and messages at a finer level. There are political correctness issues here, of course: what happens when someone finds out that you’ve put them in the “not-so-close” group? What if you update one group accidentally with information that you didn’t mean to disseminate? What if a friend stops being such a close friend and you decide to move them to another group?

Does the functionality benefit outweigh the political risks and social downsides? Recommendation: Allowing people to have better control of their network would likely drive the adoption of a single social networking platform as a destination. At the same time, this sort of functionality would also likely encourage the dissemination of even more information, thereby increasing the value of the platform as an investment. I think that the first platform to do this will have an almost-win-win on their hands, but they’ll have to be very: 1. brave, 2. savvy about pitching this functionality, 3. gradual about monetizing this capability.

It was quite fortunate that there was minimal drama involved, but I still think that there are several improvements that could be made to clarify this “life process” (for lack of a better term, moving your belongings, like managing your financial identity, is only modestly documented and difficult to work with).

Recommendation: The American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) should aggressively distribute information through the hands of landlords, rental car companies, and home improvement stores regarding moving tips such as recommended boxes, ways to wrap items, and how to carry large items.