The teachers are right, technocracy must be fought

In a February newsletter, Yukon Teachers Association President Katherine Mackwood reportedly used the term “autocrat” to describe the Yukon Government in its efforts to force a new computer system onto her membership.

While I wouldn’t disagree with her assessment and description of the current political regime as such, in this case I think a more precise term to apply would be technocrat, in regard to the specific subset of public servant responsible for implementing new technologies within the government. And it could be argued that, although the technocrats are technically subservient to the “autocrats,” they wield more power simply by the nature of their control over the system that support the organization’s overall operations.

I’ve written many times about the dangers that organizations face when they let their geeks usurp operational control through their secret knowledge of its arcane, technological underpinnings. It’s all too prevalent, however. I’ve know system administrators who have intentionally obfuscated their role in an organization to ensure job security and to provide themselves with the leverage to win any argument that threatens their technological reign. I’ve known high level managers and public servants terrified to deal with their organization’s geeks because they recognize the power they hold.

The evolving first rule of management in contemporary society seems to be: don’t piss off the geeks.

Too often, as a result of this, business decisions get made based on the artificial constraints that internal technocrats enforce based on their interests in the systems they govern, rather than the organization’s interests in its constituents.

As portrayed in a story in the Yukon News (Teachers protest new computer system), the current plight of Yukon’s teachers seems like the classic case of such: the technocrats are attempting to enforce a system with little regard for users (in this case, the teachers) or even the integrity of the organization itself.

It’s alarming how, time and again, technocrats fail to consult with and win buy-in from end users prior to implementing new systems. The typical end result is a simple: suck it up or we’ll just turn it off, leaving you disabled.

It’s nice to see, in this case, a cohesive group like the Yukon Teachers Association fighting back against the technocratic mentality that threatens to imperil the rights and abilities of teachers to perform their work.

I wish them luck and look forward to their success.

State of the internet: Turning pre-teens into potty mouths to make a buck

A couple of recent articles on the New York Times website seem to contradict one another.

“Cat-and-Mouse for a Trashy Trailer”, published on February 24, laments the spread of explicit movie trailers across the internet.

Another piece, published days earlier, examines just the opposite situation.

In “WhoseTube?” OK Go’s lead singer explains why his band’s music videos have trouble escaping the hallowed Walls of Google.

While seemingly at odds, the the two articles together actually represent all that is wrong with the modern internet.

Everyone’s favourite unregulated online space has been invaded by buck-thirsty business interests. These aliens from another market have cast matters of no profit like artistry and good taste aside.

The result is an online media culture that’s evolving almost by accident, shaped not by social activity – as you might expect in a social media climate – but by what best suits the general ledger.

Google Buzz: the social media shitmix

Back when I was a high school student in North Vancouver I’d sneak into my parent’s liquor cabinet some Friday afternoons after school.

I’d pour a small (theoretically imperceptible) amount from each and every bottle there into an empty yogurt container (an example of the three R’s recycling at it’s finest).

But I wasn’t the only one who did this; most of my friends did, too.

We’d meet later in the woods on the mountainside or just on a suburban street corner somewhere to share and sample one another’s concoctions. They were all, invariably, awful.

We had one name for every recipe: shitmix.

It occurs to me that with Buzz, Google has succeeded in creating the equivalent of digital shitmix. They snuck into the liquor cabinet of their competitors and produced a nasty blend that neither smells nor tastes quite right.

A splash of Twitter, a healthy pour of Friendfeed, some Facebook, FourSquare, Brightkite, Yelp. That can’t be good for you all mixed together indiscriminately.

Like shitmix, everyone wants to sip Buzz. But unless you’re desparate for a cheap drunk with a wicked hangover, the drinking ends there.

Life after files and folders

It’s silly.

We still use this rigid system of files and folders on computers almost 4 decades after it was conceived of in a lab.

Even back then it was only a moderately good concept. Better options existed.

But like the combustion engine, it’s a bad idea we seem to be stuck with.

Fortunately, the end is in site.

What I call the “library model” of document management is gaining traction. It’s the electric engine of the computer industry.

On Windows Phone 7 and underpant flashes

I’ve been ruminating about the flash that seems present throughout the Windows Phone 7 platform (as opposed to Flash, which isn’t anywhere), growing concerned that by hiring a designer from Nike, Microsoft may have been slightly misguided in their intent to deliver a positive mobile experience. Flash over function, as it were.

Then I came across this post tonight: “Information Resolution on the Windows Phone 7 Series“. The basic premise is that Microsoft’s interface design may have introduced too much of what Edward Tufte refers to as, “computer administrative debris.”

It’s like when my son watches figure skating, he keeps laughing at the flashes of underpants and misses the grace of the dancers. Windows Phone 7 may have just a few too many flashes of underpants in there.

Where is Northwestel’s network management practices disclosure?

Reading Michael Geist’s blog post, Canadian ISPs Fall Short In Meeting Net Neutrality Requirements, this morning I was reminded of the CRTC’s net neutrality decision last year, requiring Canadian ISPs to publish a disclosure of their network management practices.

The point of this publication is to make customers aware of what sort of traffic shaping and bandwidth adjustment practices ISPs might utilize to control access to the internet. For example, Bell limits access to P2P applications such as BitTorrent during certain hours.

I looked through Northwestel’s rather lamentable site this morning (which, it should be noted, features an ever-increasing number of dead links and broken application features–who’s managing that site, anyway? Anybody?) but came up empty handed.

Anyone seen or heard of Northwestel’s network management practices disclosure? They are required to have published it by now, and I’d be interested to read it.

iPhone is officially old skool

I’m loathe to admit it but the Windows Phone 7 (what happened to Windows Phones 1 through 6?) officially makes iPhone’s interface feel old school, particularly in the home screen department. I get a really nice feeling from what little I’ve seen of the platform, but it’s hard to judge a device until it’s in your hands. One thing’s for sure: I love how Microsoft has contextualized information on the device rather than segregated it to individual apps. That’s my concept of Relationship Technology in action.

I certainly hope that Apple has some user experience surprises up their sleeve in the forthcoming iPhone OS 4.0. They need to differentiate from the copycats like Android and meet Microsoft’s new challenge.

Is recycling in the North really a good idea?

I’ve been having trouble with the whole concept of recycling in the North lately. As in: is it really a good idea?

The first two R’s I have no problem seeing the value of: reduce and reuse. Yeah, they just make sense on so many levels.

But recycle? In some ways, it doesn’t seem to fly for the far North. For example, I’m having trouble grasping how the concept of shipping garbage thousands of kilometres to undergo a toxic material retrieval process makes sense. It seems we’re just trading visible garbage (landfill) for invisible garbage (air pollution).

I’ve been doing some research on the subject but have come up largely empty handed. Does anyone know of any research that has been conducted on the subject of long-range recycling and its effects on the environment?

I’m particularly interested in learning just how much pollution is generated through the process of recycling materials in an environment such as Whitehorse. How do we measure the air pollution generated by thousands of people driving their Yukon beaters down to idle for fifteen minutes at Raven once a week, of the heavy machinery used to manage and compact the garbage at Raven, of the trucks that carry the garbage thousands of kilometres to be recycled?

What other negative environmental impacts of recycling in a northern community might exist?

And then how do we compare that to the potential impacts on the local environment if a recycling program weren’t in place?

In other words, how do we measure the total value of a northern recycling program against its environmental impact?

The recycling paradigm seems to be an established fundamental aspect of urban environmental management; but does that paradigm extend to the North?

So many questions…