Managers Typology: The Professional

Steve Jobs
Source: Wikipedia

In previous posts I classified Customers e.g Customers Typology: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - Part 3: The Ugly and Customers Typology: The Social . In other posts I classified Consultants e.g Consultants Typology: The Consultant who knows everything. The post Mangers Typology: The Captive was the first post classifying Managers. 

The Professional manager is an expert. His expertise, knowledge and understanding in the subject matter could be better than the knowledge and understanding of the employees he is managing. 
They would ask for his professional opinion and guidance and will not disagree with his technical decisions.

Is the Professional a good manager?
There is no definitive answer to the question above. The answer depends upon the manager's skills and characteristics and the circumstances. 

a personal example
I was a successful manager in the first time I was promoted to a management position.
Of course Management Experience was a skill I lacked. It was not the only Management skill I lacked.   

I was an IBM Mainframe Systems Programming Group Manager. I had more than a decade of technical experience as a Mainframe Systems Programmer. I had a profound understanding of IBM Mainframe Operating Systems, including Internals. 

I was lecturing on Mainframe Operating Systems and I published articles in local and international professional journals.

My profile was a very good fit for the organization requirements. 
Most of the employees, working in an excellent Systems Programming Group, left for another job in another place. The former Manager left after the majority of the people working in the department left. 

The Organization had to find a Manager who could maintain the Operating System and related Hardware and Software. The Organization required a Manager who could select new inexperienced Systems Programmer and could train them and be perceived by them as a Professional authority. 

The Results
The systems operated better than expected. The inexperienced Systems Programmers studied in a course specially designed for them and did a good job. 
A major Operating System migration Project was completed according to schedule. 
Completing a large IT project is important, but the quality of the project is even more important. This migration project was executed without any significant bug or any significant problem.  

After two years: an unsuccessful Manager
The crisis was over and after few years the Operating Systems Department was mature and functioning well. 
The new circumstances required a Systems Programming Department Manager with different skill set. The new skill set included skills such as internal organization Political skills, Internal and external  Sales and Marketing skills etc.

My skills set was not adequate for the new role so I was no longer a good manager. 

I am not the only one
It happened to other Professional Managers as well: when the skills set is no longer adequate, they are replaced by a Manager who is more suitable to the new management focus.
Steve Jobs was one of them. Jobs was forced out of Apple on 1985. Jobs was a co-founder and a CEO of the company. 

He was replaced by John Sculley. Sculley was the President of Pepsi-Cola. 
No doubt that, as far as professional Computers skills are concerned, Jobs skill set was superior. Sculley was a marketing expert, Sales expert and better Politician than Jobs.

Apple of 1985 required a CEO with Sculley's skills set.

Another Example
One of my customers had two main Business Lines. Two IT managers manage the systems of the two Business Lines. They left the company few months before I was hired by the new CIO. 

I do not know if one of these two managers was a good IT Professional, however he cooperated with a deputy. His deputy replaced him when he resigned. 
The former deputy new a lot about the systems and the people responsible for each of them. The systems were documented properly.
I received updated and correct information about the systems.

No doubt that the other Manager was a good Professional, however nobody could tell me about the Systems, the Interfaces between them and who is responsible for each system. 

There was not real deputy (I did not know if someone was formally a deputy. If there was a deputy, he did not know much about the systems). 
The Manager was replaced by someone whose knowledge about the Systems and the responsibilities of the systems was very limited.
I received an incomplete, an inaccurate and sometimes incorrect information about the systems.

I discovered that the manager was performing technical tasks instead of the people who should do it. There was no "natural Deputy", workers' roles and responsibilities were not properly defined and no documentation was available.

It was one man's show. When the man left no show remained.
   
The bottom line: The second manager was a Professional Manager but lacked management skills. The consequences were awful.

Summary
 A Professional Manager could be a successful manager when the focus is on Professional and/or Technical issues.
His fitness to Management positions when other issues are more important than Professional issues is subject to his skills in other domains. Excellent Professional Manager could be a bad manager when the focus is on non-professional issues.        

IOT: Streaming Analytics is an Enabling Technology

Nobody is able to predict accurately. IT is less predictable than other industries because it is a"moving target". 
My "Vendors Survival" posts titled: Vendors Survival: will X survive until y (ten years from the year the post was written)? X is a large IT vendor such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, IBM. HP etc., could be wrong. Actually I wrote explicitly that my predictions could be wrong.
Even predictions for the next year could be wrong. Even leading analysts firms predictions could be wrong.

Based on this idea I wrote a post titled: Gartner's 2015 Strategic Predictions: Trivial, Over Estimated and Interesting.
Gartner's prediction about IOT as a Strategic Technology was included in the Interesting group i.e predictions that are not trivial and I believe will be important few years after the prediction. 
In 2017 it seems that Gartner's IOT Prediction was not a wrong prediction. There are plenty of Things which are Internet entities e.g cars, medical equipment etc. 

What differentiate IBPMS from BPMS?
Another old post titled: BPMS Next Generation: IBPMS, explained the difference between BPMS and IBPMS: IBPMS includes a new Use Case named Intelligent Business Operation.
The implications of Intelligent Business Operations is convergence with other technologies. Business Intelligence and Analytics, especially Real Time Analytics, are significant technologies related to  Intelligent Business Operations.

The Forrester Wave™: Streaming Analytics, Q3 2017  
This interesting Research note was written by three analysts: Mike Gualtieri, Srividya Sridharan and Elizabeth Hoberman. 
Reading this interesting Research Note reminds me of the distinction between BPMS and IBPMS.
The similarity between Intelligent Business Operations Processes and IOT data Streaming Analytics is the need to Analyze in Real Time and respond immediately and automatically to events. 

For example, Fraud Detection in the Banking vertical is based on Real Time Analytics. 
It is crucial to notify a customer that a suspicious withdrawal of large sum of money from his account just happened. 

Streaming Analytics is not limited to IOT, however, "Streaming Analytics are particularly suited for Internet of Things applications..." (the suffix is a quotation from Forrester's Research Note).
Real Time Streaming Analytics of IOT data is important because the technological limitations of IOT devices. These devices are not computers such as Servers, Personal Computers or Smart Phones. 

IOT devices are not able to analyze deeply the data they receive and the data they send.
Real Time Data Streaming is an Enabling Technology which analyze the IOT data immediately as it is reaching a computer. 

The Largest DDoS attack
DDOS attacks are Denial of Service attacks. A server which is overloaded with too much data is not able to handle it and stops providing its Services. if it is due to DDOS attack some people deliberately send large amounts of irrelevant data.

The largest DDoS attack in history was based on attacking many IOT entities and forcing them to send a lot of data. Many internet sites collapsed.
For more details read: DDos attack that disrupted internet was largest of its kind in History, experts say.

Advanced Data Streaming could identify an event like DDoS attacks, as well as other events, and immediately alert.  

The Streaming Analytics Vendors
According to the Forrester Research Note the leaders in Q3 2017 are: Software AG, IBM, Tibco Software, SAP, SAS and Microsoft.

Vendors Survival: Will IBM Survive until 2027?

The entrance to IBM's Headquarter in Armonk
Source: Hebrew Wikipedia

IBM's earnings declined every quarter in the last 20 quarters. This trend is surely a warning sign which raise the question: Will IBM survive until 2027?
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway was one of IBM's larger shareholders. Buffet sold the shares after losing in his IBM investment. He said he hopes that he will not lose in his Apple's shares investment.  

The early days
According to Wikipedia, "The company was originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company and was renamed "International Business machine" in 1924". 

The first Mainframes
On April 7, 1964 IBM announced its first computer system family: the IBM System/360. 
IBM System/360 was the first IBM Mainframe.

Thomas Watson Jr. was the company's president. 
He was warned that he will not be able to compete with the market leader NCR. Few years latter IBM replaced NCR as the market leader.

Personal notes on the 1970s
I started my career as a COBOL Programmer on IBM System/360 computer. IBM was then the market leader. IBM's Business model, as well as other vendors model, was simple: Buy an expensive computer and the vendor will supply the Software free of charge. It was one stop shop for all computers Hardware and Software.

IBM's Operating Systems were functionally limited. I worked as a Systems Programmer for a large Service Bureau serving a lot of Public Sector Organizations.
We had to extend and change IBM's Operating System in order to address issues such as Security, Tape Management and Spooling. 

IBM was a Theory Z organization like DEC and similar to large Japanese companies: employees are never fired. They may change their jobs but will rewarded for working always for the same company. 

The age of Arrogance
The 80ths and the beginning of the 90ths were IBM's arrogance age.
For example, the organization I worked for and IBM bid together in an RFP in the beginning of the 90ths.

The RFP was defined for Open Systems i.e UNIX, RDBMS, Hardware Platform independence etc. 
While writing our bid IBM's employees brought a strange White Paper. It was about SAA.  Was SAA successful architecture or a failure? the answer is irrelevant in the RFP's context. SAA connected various IBM platforms such as Mainframe, AS400 and IBM Unix. 

Instead of this paper I wrote a small paper about CICS like products on UNIX. They could be deployed on IBM's UNIX as well as on other UNIX platforms including HP-UX and SUN Solaris.

Would IBM cooperate with a small company?
In the arrogance age the answer would probably be "no".
A small company offered cooperation with IBM on the emerging PC platform. The small company, named Microsoft, offered cooperation based on its Windows Operating System.
IBM preferred its OS/2 PC Operating System.  

The Software Age
The PCs revolution included another game change concept: Software revenues were more significant than Hardware revenues.

IBM, HP and DEC had to adapt and change their Business Model. IBM adapted. HP adapted and DEC failed. 
Microsoft become the market leader. IBM was still one of the leading vendors. However, it was no more a vendor who is capable of provide all Hardware and Software functionality. 

IBM had to acquire other companies and to focus on specific markets, such as Middleware, in addition to its Proprietary Platforms, such as Mainframes and AS400 computers.

IBM Global Services
Additional way for competing was by offering Professional Services in addition to Software and Hardware products. IGS (IBM Global Services) was  a leader in the Professional Services market.

The SOA Age
After 2005 SOA emerged as a Mainstream Software approach. The four leading SOA Ecosystems were IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and SAP.

Cloud, Social Networks and Smart phones 
 New concepts and new market leaders. Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon became the IT market leaders. Microsoft is also a leader in the Cloud Computing market thanks to its "Cloud First" approach.

would IBM Survive until 2027?
A company that survived since 1911 will probably continue to survive in the following ten years. IBM is a large global company who has many customers and many products.  It is a leader in markets such as IBPMS, other Integration and Middleware markets, BI and Big Data. 

Its proprietary markets such as the IBM System i (the AS/400) will not disappear in the following ten years.
As far as the Mainframe is concerned, IBM's work is excellent.
The Mainframe is alive and kicking more than 60 years. Its capabilities are extended supporting modern software such as Java and Linux. Its Security and Availability are still higher than other platform's Security and Availability and its Workload Management is unique. 
Many Large Enterprises are still using Mainframes for Core Systems. 
Recently, IBM announced new Mainframe generation z14.  
However, the Mainframe is a Niche platform and organizations are gradually migrating to Mainstream platform such as Linux and Windows. 

The Problem
Survival is important but the vendor position is also important. IBM's position is not as good as it was few years ago. 

The problem is that IBM does not lead any significant new technologies market.
It seems that IBM could be a leader in the Public Cloud Computing Infrastructure As a Service (IaaS) and Platform as a Service (Paas) markets. 
However, Amazon's AWS is the market leader (more than 40%) followed by Microsoft's Azure and Google. IBM is following Google, however its market share is small. 
Salesforce is a leader only in the PaaS market.

Innovation
The computing market is dynamic and evolving. The times are constantly changing. Innovative company position could be improved. 
An interesting article published in February, 2017 depict a possibility of IBM regaining its old time position as the chip market leader instead of Intel.
The scenario is based on acquisition of other Power Consortium members (Power is IBM's chip).
The acquisition targets are Networking Infiniband and Networking Hardware vendor Mellanox, The graphical processors leader Nvidia and FPGA maker Xilinx. 

For more details read the article: The Case for IBM Buying Nvidia, Xilinx and Mellanox.


      

Managers Typology: The Captive

Picture Source: Wikipedia

In previous posts I classified Customers, e.g. Customers Typology: The Social.  In other posts I classified Consultants e.g. Consultants Typology: The Consultant who Knows Everything.
In this post series I will try to classify Managers.

Why should I post about Captive Manager if I already wrote about The Captive Customer and about The Captive Customer who Knows Everything?


There are similarities between a Captive Customer and a Captive Manager, but they are not identical. 
The following real Case Study would clarify the differences.  

Tale of two Managers
Two Senior IT Managers were working for a large customer of mine.
The first Manager was a Microsoft's Captive Customer.
Whenever he had to chose a Microsoft's  product vs. another vendor's product he automatically selected Microsoft's product. 
If you read my post The Captive Customer, you understand why this selection method is wrong.

The other Senior IT Manager was also a Captive. However, he was IBM's Captive Customer. Whenever he had to chose a IBM's product vs. another vendor's product he automatically selected IBM 's product.
If you read my post The Captive Customer, you understand why this selection method is wrong.

I am sure that the difference between a Captive Customer and a Captive Manager was clarified. The Customer (the company, the company's CIO as well as other Senior Managers) were not Captive Customers.

Additional Disadvantages
Two Captive Managers cause additional disadvantages not cites in the post The Captive Customer. 

Every major selection process between Microsoft's product and IBM's product was a political war instead of professional decision.

Every non-strategic product selection by one of the two Captive managers ignored other systems or enterprise considerations. 

J2EE (now JEE) vs. .Net
Unfortunately, The company had to decide which Front End should be deployed in a strategic Endeavour including Core Systems?

The first Manager's answer was .Net.
The second Manager answer was J2EE (afterwards it was renamed to JEE).
As you already know it was a Political War.

As a Consultant I had to present my opinion. 
I was sure that for that enterprise J2EE Front End was the right solution.

The main arguments supporting my point of view were:

1. .Net was still in Beta. 

2. The Back end was based on IBM Mainframe and IBM software products.

3. I doubt if .Net of that time could support large implementations with thousands users.


JEE vs. .Net war
Few years after my customer's decision there were a lot of almost religious wars between J2EE supporters and .Net supporters. The war in that Enterprise was a trailer of the future wars.  
I am an independent consultant and not a Technology Religious Consultant.
Sometimes I recommended J2EE and sometimes I recommended .Net.
Each recommendation was based upon the specific Customer characteristics and objectives.

The Microsoft's Captive Manager argued fiercely for .Net.
I had no choice so I fought for J2EE in the specific context. 

I had to quote and write for J2EE and against .Net.
I had to answer any articles against J2EE. 
.Net supporters work was easier: they send everything I wrote to Microsoft Israel and received an answer written in Israel or in Redmond. 

Actually, I could do the same because IBM and SUN Microsystems offered me their help.
I told them that I do not need the kind of help .Net supporters received, but I appreciate if they email me anything that could help me. 
I told them I prefer neutral sources and not vendors based sources.

The end of the War
I found an article in which a senior Manager in Microsoft's .Net development team was interviewed. He said that .Net (still in Beta) is not yet mature for Large Enterprises. I quote the article including that manager's name.

No one, even in Redmond, could have a convincing argument refuting my point. J2EE won the professional war. However, Microsoft's Captive Manager won the political war. 
The customer implemented .Net Front End.

Few Years after
I was working for other customers. I read that my ex-customer failed in implementing .Net Front End in the large Endeavour. They decided to switch to J2EE Front End.