The airlines took my advice!

Last week, talking about overbooking, I suggested “Change the rules so the airline can charge passengers for their seats whether or not they show up.”

The airlines took this exact step … years ago, long before last week’s column. They must be psychic.

Strangely, I did know this, from personal experience, when I wrote the words. But this fact seemed so utterly preposterous that I figured my memory must be faulty — a not entirely unreasonable proposition.

Imagine we were talking about sporting events rather than travel and the Cubs double-sold seats on the theory that not all fans show up. It would be a scandal. (If the Minnesota Twins did the same thing, nobody would notice, but never mind that.)

Which leads to another possibility: Let scalpers get into the airline ticket game. I’m not sure it would be any worse than the current system.

Time to get down to business …

I figured there might be more ways to apply recent air travel debacles to IT practices, which is how, in my desperate and perennial search for IT-related topics pulled from current events, I ran across a genuinely interesting and very relevant analysis, titled “How the Airlines Became Abusive Cartels,” (Robert Kuttner, The New York Times, 4/17/2017).

Read the article, ignore the inflammatory headline, and you’ll come to this intriguing statement: When weather or mechanical problems or crew delays cause cancellations, the airlines have great difficulty accommodating passengers because there is not enough slack in the system. Leaving a few empty seats would increase the system’s efficiency overall.

Which sounds like a very important idea to incorporate into your IT governance practices.

The challenge starts with prediction being a statistical exercise, especially when predictions are about the future. And IT governance done right, like airline ticket-holder management done wrong, relies on accurate predictions. In the case of IT governance, the predictions are about project milestone and completion dates.

This is because a well-managed EPMO (enterprise program management office) tries to schedule each project launch as soon as the individuals needed to staff the project team will be available … when they roll off a preceding project, either because they’ve completed a milestone and so aren’t needed any more, or because the project has completed and doesn’t need anyone any more.

But actual project schedules and completion dates, like airline take-off and landing times, are stochastic, not deterministic. They’re based on uncertain predictions, not clockwork certainties.

Which means that unless the EPMO builds slack into its project master schedule … the master timeline that shows, for the next three to seven years, which projects will start and finish and when they’ll do so … any project that’s at all late will throw the plan into chaos, just as a blizzard throws the entire U.S. air travel system into chaos.

But what does “build slack into the schedule” really mean?

The most obvious form of slack is to simply leave a couple of weeks between one project finishing and the next one launching. This will harm your employee utilization metric … if the metric is defined so as to make 100% utilization the optimum. So fix that while you’re at it. Make 80% or 90% utilization the target. Otherwise you’re doing your best to always be out of capacity — a condition that guarantees you can’t respond effectively to emergencies.

There are other useful forms of slack, too, and smart CIOs will do their best to make sure they’re all present and accounted for. Examples:

  • Versatility: Employees who can take on multiple roles provide flexibility to accommodate projects that need a particular set of skills which, due to a project going long, aren’t available in the planned form of the originally planned team member.
  • Retirees and established contractors: Retirees already know your company, culture, applications portfolio, tools, and so on. They can come in ready to work and delighted to pay for their next vacation. The same may be said of contractors you work with a lot. Keep both handy in your Contacts folder.
  • Avoidance of exotica: Build as much of your technical architecture as possible out of popular platforms and popular COTS and SaaS packages and you’ll have access to a bigger pool of talent than if you build it out of even the best little-known components. This makes outside contractors more useful as a source of slack.

Which means you’ll be less likely to need to bring in specialists who might, if they and you are unlucky, be booted off the flight from where they live to where you are.

‘Tis the time of year we’re supposed to give thanks. I’d follow suit, but KJR isn’t about following suit. In that spirit … among the curses of my personal existence is that when I hear just about any four-syllable word or phrase, not setting it to the tune of Oklahoma! is close to impossible. See if you can avoid it.

Halitosis! makes most toothpastes hide away in fear.

It drives your friends away, and your pastor pray

That he sees you in his rear-view mirror …

No? How about:

Folger’s coffee! Is hot, black, bitter, and has caffeine.

It doesn’t taste as good, as coffee should,

But it’s better than drinking Mr. Clean …

See? It’s like a monstrous earworm generator.

Speaking of earworms, you’ll be delighted to know researchers are working tirelessly to figure out what separates earworms from other music. Science marches on. Maybe they’ll find a cure for this horror that afflicts so many.

Don’t bet your life savings. That isn’t how the world works. You and I both know what will really happen: Marketers from around the globe will take advantage of this research to stick their messages ever more firmly in our heads.

If only they’d use their newfound powers for good.

Speaking of using newfound powers for good, last week we raised the question, what ever happened to inexpensive end-user computing (EUC) tools? This used to be a thriving software market segment, with products like dBase, Paradox, FoxPro, Access, DataEase, R:Base, and DataFlex competing on price, features, and performance for the hearts of end-users and independent developers around the world.

Now? There are products, but except for Access, which Microsoft increasingly treats as a forgotten stepchild, they’re too expensive to encourage widespread use, and they lack sufficient market presence to instill confidence in their staying power.

Except, that is, for the worst-explained product in the history of computing, SharePoint.

SharePoint folders! are just like shared folders but more slow.

Their taxonomies, reproduce like fleas, while their contents grow and grow and grow …

MAKE IT STOP!!!

Sorry. Where was I? Oh, that’s right, SharePoint, winner of the Rodney Dangerfield Can’t Get No Respect award ten years running.

Aside from the sludge-like performance of most implementations, the biggest problem with SharePoint is how few people know what it is and can do. Mostly, it’s deployed as a document management solution, without the document management. Which is to say, its taxonomies are managed just like server-based shared folders — they’re mostly ad hoc rather than designed and enforced, so what’s the point?

SharePoint has a raft of other features, which some enterprising training company might profitably list in order of declining visibility. Lord knows I’m not qualified to do this, except for being confident of what the last, least visible features would be: SharePoint provides a reasonably competent set of EUC development tools.

It lets users: Define tables (which for some unaccountable reason SharePoint calls “lists,”); join tables together (SharePoint calls this “linking lists”); create forms (SharePoint does call them “forms,” so that’s something); and define workflows.

And it has integration capabilities.

Not that yours truly understands any of this in enough depth to speak from authority. My personal experience with SharePoint is pretty much limited to using it for sharing project data and documents.

Is SharePoint the best tool for EUC app dev? From a features-and-functionality perspective, almost certainly not. But when evaluating software, features and functionality aren’t the entire ballgame. Whatever its flaws, SharePoint has three significant advantages.

The first is that you’ve probably already licensed it, so the incremental cost of making it available for EUC app dev is going to be less than licensing something else.

Advantage #2: If you already have SharePoint, you have SharePoint administrators and help desk staff who are accustomed to it. You won’t be starting from scratch.

The third advantage is much the same as when you have a repair job to do and the only tools available are a Swiss army knife and a roll of duct tape. They might not be ideal, but they’ll still give you a better result than Band-Aids and chewing gum.

Which is to say, SharePoint might not be the best tool in the drawer, but it probably does achieve the exalted state of good enough.