Random reactions

It's Politics, Not Technology

Large ICT initiatives in the private sector have a poor rate of success. The current government is showing that it is possible to attain equally poor levels of achievement in the public sector.

Chancellor Gordon Brown wants very much to help poor people. He has offered to pay people who are moving from benefits towards work on a sliding scale calculated to make it worthwhile for poor people to get a job.

Brown made two huge mistakes: He made qualification for the scheme too complicated, and he left the administration to an integrated technology system that was, to all intents and purposes, automated and unsupervised.

This is Gordon Brown's error. Up to 2 million people may suffer to varying degrees from this error. The fact is that some companies and some governments get it right. When they do, the benefits are very large. When they get it wrong, it is usually down to a senior decision maker who doesn't take the project seriously enough to get into the details, oversee the implementation, test and re-test prior to lighting it off, and having a plan B. Yes, Chancellor, I'm talking about you. Your job is looking inwards at the ship of state. It is Tony Blair's job to look outwards. You should leave Africa to Geldof, and to a lesser extent to Tony Blair. It's not that the problems of developing countries are less important than the UK's benefits schemes. It's that it's not your job.

If the UK makes a similar mess of the ID scheme, people will die.

Why Citizens Don't Trust Governments

Outside Defence, the biggest use of technology by government seems to be CCTV. I say seems because the data is not held together. There are more than 4 million cameras recording what goes on in the UK.

The technology was sold to the public on a popular premise--preventing crime. Politicians argued that the presence of cameras would serve as a deterrent. In practice, this hasn't happened. Cameras are used in solving crimes, but not enough--too much footage to watch. However, nobody is talking about changing the way the UK uses CCTV. Nobody, for that matter, is talking about changing the way the UK deals with crime. Incrementalism is the order of the day in a situation that would seem to me to call for a broader-based approach.

Some types of crime are going down, but some types are going up. Interestingly, the types of crime that are decreasing are those least likely to be caught on camera. Those that are increasing are precisely those most likely to be videotaped. I don't see anyone (other than the website "Watching Them Watching Us" at www.spy.org. The news links in this post come via their website.) who seems to have noticed this.

The same website says, "The Home Office has now published "Home Office Research Study 252 Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: a systematic review" which is a meta-study review of all the available research into the effectiveness of public CCTV surveillance.

'Overall, the best current evidence suggests that CCTV reduces crime to a small degree. CCTV is most effective in reducing vehicle crime in car parks, but it had little or no effect on crime in public transport and city centre settings.' "

If the UK government cannot use tried and tested (video's been around for quite a while) technology to address an issue of high importance, why should we trust them to use newer technology on issues that are not as visible to the public eye? I would submit that they have yet to make the case.

Something that worries me

I have no doubt that I'm coming late to this party. I'm sure it's being discussed at length across the web. However, in case others haven't noticed...

Google is great! Their motto is do no evil. I think we all had better hope that they live up to it.

Google has a downloadable tool that will index your computer and allow you to find things using the Google search engine. I haven't done this yet, but my friends and colleagues say it works wonderfully.

One friend told me that now, when he uses Google to search the web, the results include files and emails from his own computer as well as the results of the web search. I kinda sorta think that this means Google can search his computer any time they want.

Can someone tell me I'm wrong or paranoid about this? Could someone point me to the discussions others have been having about this topic?

Britain, Productivity and Management

Okay, I'm doing this post because I'm too old for Saturday morning cartoons (well, because I can't find Bugs Bunny on British telly).

The UK is in the middle tier of world economies, in tems of growth. It really should be in the top tier. It is in the middle tier because of poor productivity, which overcomes a variety of huge advantages over other countries.

Why does the UK have poor productivity? My answer is poor management. William Lewis of the McKinsey Global Institute has written a book called The Power of Productivity: Wealth, Poverty and the Threat to Global Stability. Tech Central Station recently published an interview with Lewis. For me, the money quote is this:

LEWIS: Just because people are not educated does not mean that they are incapable, which is a mistake educated people in the West often make -- and not just the West but probably in Japan as well. These people can be trained on the job to accomplish quite high skill levels and quite high levels of productivity. And that's basically good news because if the World Bank and everybody else had to wait until we revamp the educational institutions of all the poor countries and then put a cohort or two of workers through it, we are talking about another 50 years before anything happens. That's not acceptable and it's not necessary, thank God.

Obviously, Britain is not an emerging economy. But with increasing coverage of NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training) lads and ladettes, it's important to note a couple of things:

1. NEETS can be trained to be as productive as anybody. The problem is elsewhere
2. American companies are more profitable in Britain than British companies, despite making (and re-making) foolish mistakes about British habits, tastes and business practices. And it's not just Americans--European companies operating in Britain boast higher margins as well.

Americans make these higher profits with British workers. The reason is that they train these workers. American companies train their workforce because they have to in America, due to inferior education--they have had the NEETS to work with for much longer than Britain--and it's the only way to get the job done.

I see dozens of British managers every month as part of my job. I find them intelligent, committed and willing to adopt modern practices (sometimes too willing). But they are, by and large, hard men, determined to be as focussed on the bottom line as Chainsaw Al. They forget what happened to him and the companies he served. They tend to view employees as costs, not assets. They are willing to push their workers, but not to train them.

We (and every developed country) have NEETS because we have not succeeded in making education keep pace with the new world we are busily creating. Until that reform is accomplished, companies will have to hire for aptitude and train for skills. America has done this. Britain has not. That accounts for the difference.

All the Mysteries Explained

What is a Lango? Why is the SWP inviting a racist holocaust denier to play jazz for them? Why did the chicken cross the road? (Ask the Funkasaur). And just how white is Britain? As always, the answers are there on the Britblog.

Road (to perdition) Pricing

Tim Worstall posts on someone buying black market water in India from 'furtive municipal employees.' Tim notes accurately that pricing water rationally would lead to conservation.

As is so often the case, Rational Thinking on Markets is best left for areas, technologies and products/services that act in well, markets. Water in India doesn't quite qualify, and pricing it at cost of provision (let alone introducing a margin of profit) would kill millions and lead to farm failure. Think Enron/energy/California. Deregulating half a market gives the other half a little more power over a public good than is healthy.

Which leads us naturally to Britain's topic of the week, road pricing. Alistair Darling wants to use high tech to charge us for road usage. Were I a Brit, I would offer the quaint observation that my taxes built and maintained the roads. But I'm a resident Yank, so never mind. If congestion really bothers y'all so much, have at it. There are several points that I hope are discussed before implementation:

1. Transportation taxes currently provide the UK government with three times the revenue spent on transportation. Redirection of this revenue during any phase-in could improve public transportation to the point that citizens could make a rational choice when road pricing occurs.

2. Certain roads should be free. Free roads can then be a tool to direct growth (new housing, economic development), and can change over time.

3. Create a market--issue an annual credit for road usage to all, and let those with a surplus sell miles to those in need.

4. Current tax policy is a market force for fuel conservation. I'm not one of those in a panic about greenhouse gases, but does New Labour want to throw away this tool?

5. Price alternative means of delivery--there are lower tech methods of providing this monitoring and taxing 'service.' What are the costs/benefits of satellite surveillance as opposed to other forms of provision?

6. Would the platform be American satellites or Galileo? Have you thought it through?

7. If implementation coincides with National ID scheme, there's going to be an awful lot of new data generated about citizens. Correlations might be quite interesting to an analyst like myself. However, they might be of even more interest to a nanny state trying to coerce optimal behaviour from a blessedly bloody minded bunch. I'm not sure that the social consequences of such research are in the interests of UK citizens.

I managed to get through all seven points without screaming at my computer--"Are they all crazy? Don't even think of doing this!" Because, you see, I want to make a rational contribution to the debate... I feel like standing on a street corner and muttering 'It's people. Soylent Green is people...'

Weekend Warrior

Quick reminder in response to an email--I'm a weekend warrior at blogging. 90% of my posts are Sat/Sun/hols.

About the Author 2: Top Movies

When Time released their list of the top 100 movies in history, it reminded me of something I think of every time I see the list: Why some movies that I think are no-brainers are never included. Here are three virtually perfect genre movies:

Witness

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Pretty Woman

You could add a dozen others. Leon, subject of my previous post, is a candidate, as are The Magnificent Seven, Cat Ballou, Rollerball and Support Your Local Sherriff. I think the only thing they have in common is commercial success. But Time's list contains commercial successes--Godfather, Goodfellas, The Lord of the Rings. I confess to being mystified. I do like challenging movies--but films like Queen Margot or Dersu Uzala, Koyannisqatsi--never even nominated. I don't geddit.

About the Author 1--Luc Besson's Leon

As I am getting more visitors from people who don't know me (family and friends are great, but one hopes for a wider audience) I have decided to occasionally post information that may be relevant to those trying to put my comments in a wider context. I have created a category called About the Author, and I hope to populate it with quirky stuff that tells the reader something about me.

The DVD last night was Luc Besson's Leon, archetypal European homage to a certain genre of films. Leon is the hitman, Nathalie Portman the obligatory damsel in distress. Great movie.

The reason I mention it is that my wife didn't understand why I loved the movie, and understood even less my explanation. I told her it showed a man acting rightly.

I grew up unhindered by the presence of men in my life--father working, women teachers, etc. I tried to figure out what a man should be from the media--books, tv, movies, etc. But the books and movies I chose were mostly westerns and science fiction, and the men were all self-confident, with clear (and very fixed) moral compasses, quick of decision and often of trigger. Not much help to a confused kid.

It was only when reading books and seeing movies about criminals who were trying to change that I was able to see any shades of grey that resembled the fog around me. So I learned ethics from criminals. Explains a lot, maybe. But Leon, a mafia hitman, acted rightly under stress. Leon learned to read in the month before his death. Leon loved and was loved by a 13-year-old girl without in any way taking advantage of the situation. Worse heros are out there.

Europe in Britain

It hasn't been a good week across the Channel. Obviously, Europe will dodder on, but... I remember writing in 2002 that the Euro had a good chance of failing before 2009. I see no reason to change that now. Italy, which would be the new Argentina without the Euro, wants to get rid of it. Germany, which threw away the best currency around to join the Euro, can't yet admit the truth.

And yes, there were referenda. My wife (who is French) thinks the major reason for high turnout was that the French were enamoured of being the centre of attention, however briefly. They posted a vote of no confidence in a remote and disconnected government. I'm speaking of the French government, not Brussels. Chirac responds by appointing an aristo who looks and sounds like an aristo.

Rejoice, Britain. Get your house in order, make firm and fast friendships with the former communist countries. Guide Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. Make ready an alliance that looks like an American doughnut--with a large hole in the middle. Then seize the day.