Bring me a rock!

There is a recurring story about "bring me a rock" that is deeply embedded in the collective consciousness of all failed and un-failed IT professionals. The story is about a boss asking an IT professional to bring him/her a rock and each time the IT professional delivered a rock, the boss said that that was not the rock that he or she had asked for. This back and forth goes on ad infinitum until the IT professional is fired due to his or her utter inability to deliver the right software product. The story ends with the IT professional blaming the boss for not accurately defining the specifications of the rock that was originally requested.

I have issues with this story. A product definition with detailed and proven specifications is an absolute requirement for a functional product. However, that does not absolve IT professionals from the responsibility of understanding the business issues and concerns and incorporating them in the product design. Often I come across IT professionals, who define tight boundaries between IT and business. Well, if IT is not business then IT better not be part of the business. If I could define my specifications accurately, then I'd rather outsource all my technology to vendors with larger pool of technology skills, better specialization and economies of scale. The only reason that IT continues to be part of several businesses is because of its deep understanding of business and business needs. Successful IT organizations are very good at analyzing business issues and designing solutions that directly deal with those business issues. They engage effectively and aggressively with business teams to solve operational and strategic business issues thus blurring the boundary between IT and business. If they can't do it, then it may be more cost-effective to outsource and close down the internal IT department. Not having requirements is a pretty bad excuse for not designing a product right. In the same vein explaining project delays on requirements gathering does not make much sense. The onus of creating business value is on IT.

Google’s Approach to Privacy Issues

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

— Google CEO Eric Schmidt

Do we have to make the need for privacy a filthy thing?

Eric Schmidt is one of the sharpest technology CEOs. He brings a calm and measured approach to managing the turbulence in technology industry. But Mr. Schmidt is not my pastor and I don't expect a moral sermon from him on my need for privacy and confidentiality. Recently, I was watching Maria Bartiromo interview Eric Schmidt on CNBC, when I heard Eric Schmidt make this comment after explaining Google's approach to privacy.

Let's do some thought experiments:

1. An employee is diagnosed with cancer and her search pattern reveals her identify, likely diagnosis and related concerns. Should her employer and colleagues know about it before she is ready to announce it?
   
2. One Mr. Eric does not want anyone to know about the church he attends. However, his search for directions reveals the church he attends. Should his search pattern related his church remain confidential as he desires?
   
3. A drug-addict decides to transform her life. Her search pattern reveals her identify and her addiction. Do we want this information to remain private to her?
   

There are some complex issues here:

1. Do people realize that when they do a Google-search, they are sharing their private information with a very large corporation?
   
2. Do people realize that Google mines this data and the pattern of their search not only reveals their identity but also their personal matters and concerns, which normally they would not share with anyone else?
   
3. Do people retain their right to the ownership of their private information after they have shared it with Google? US courts say no!
   
4. Do people realize that no search warrant to access their private information is required by a Government agency, if such information is obtained through a third-party like Google?
   

Eric Schmidt realizes that the strategic issues that Google is facing are intertwined with significant moral issues related to people's privacy. But do we have to conveniently make the need for privacy a filthy thing?