computers should be less friendly

There has been a lot of “fall out” in the enterprise blogging space around a MITSloan article entitled “The Trouble With Enterprise Software.” Up until recently most of the posts have been attacking some of the facts and slinging random bits of statistical evidence around however, Thomas Otter has really summarized what people who actually use and work on the software see as the problem. He highlights the major hurdle SAP has to overcome and it’s not lines of code:

I look around here at SAP, I’d say fighting complexity is our biggest competitor. Sure we have much to learn about simplification, and we must get significantly better at reducing and managing complexity. But if there is one thing that I loathe more than unnecessary complexity it is the oversimplisitic. ERP is complex, so is the Belgian tax code. Many of those that damn SAP and Oracle for its complexity seem to suspend business reality when discussing the next great start up that will blow us away.

This is exactly why customers buy SAP software. We need it to run our businesses. Yes, it costs more then we like but anyone with half a brain realizes that navigating the Brazilian tax code without it would basically put you out of business in Brazil. If you follow my blog at all you realize I think most things are too complex but, this is more on the outside the user facing bits. I don’t want to know anything about the Polish payroll rules all I want to do is pay my employees. If my ERP system makes that easier by guaranteeing compliance then it’s a win.

Just to throw some geeky fuel on the statistical fire counting lines of code to determine “complexity” is dumb. I could reverse a string in 3 lines of confusing recursive C++ code. Or I could write 10 lines that are easier to follow and run at about the same speed and a maintenance programmer would understand it immediately. Which one is better?

Jason Calacanis recently reveled in his accurate prediction that Google they will release an office suite in 2006. Kudos on the call but, I don’t think he is right about their next move — that Google will build an OS but, that also depends on the definition of an Operating System.

I think Google’s next move as Jason, astutely observes is to create “reoccurring revenue” for PC makers like Dell/HP by getting them to install something that isn’t MS Windows, however that something won’t be a Google OS. It will more likely be an Open source OS like, Ubuntu with a revived Google Pack installed on it. I think the simple reason for this is Google has been involved in Linux development for a long time but, in the area of the kernel not on the front end. Why should Google do any work when they can just piggy back on another great initiative.

The pack will have to have some interesting additions to really put the squeeze on MS. I think the obvious choice is “your desktop PC anywhere you are” — the current notion of “your” PC will become irrelevant, meaning, having everything on one piece of hardware you own won’t matter. You can see Google starting to do this now with Google Applications. With the addition of the elusive G-Drive mounted as a “virtual HD” sprinkled into the “Pack” you have a very flexible totally portable desktop environment. Imagine going to any machine in a business and signing in and getting all your preferences, all your documents, installed programs, right there for you! The great part about this it wouldn’t cost Google much, as they would be using currently available OS solutions, FF, Linux, etc. As more people buy PCs with the “Google OS/Pack” on them, more people will reap the benefits of the “anywhere desktop,” creating a runaway snowball effect.

So, I don’t think Google will build an OS in the strictest sense, I think they will extend existing technologies, the Linux desktop out to a their servers and their incredibly powerful data centers down to the desktop.

Maybe a lot of people have this rule, but a quick google didn’t find anyone else talking about it. So here is my Rule of Mom.

“If you can’t explain what you are working on to your mom, then you don’t understand it.”

I’ve found this simple rule to be true over many years and many different subject areas. I can still remember my Mom asking me how college was going and what I was working on in a particular class and only being able to explain in the same lifeless math jargon it had been explained to me in. Needless to say after that conversation my Mom didn’t understand that class any better then I did and my grade certainly proved that out.

Maybe this person isn’t your Mom but, you should have them around somewhere — it’s a great check on your understanding level. You can identify this person by when they ask what appears to be an innocuous question, “How does email work?” you end up flailing around for a decent explanation that doesn’t include phrases like, SMTP, POP, sendmail, IMAP, etc. “A football team is a team of football players,” explaining something technical with more techno-babel just means you don’t know what you are talking about. Being able to explain chemistry to another chemistry person is certainly fine and well, and kudos to you as chemistry is a mystery to me, but real in depth understanding is when you can explain chemistry to someone who doesn’t know the meaning of the word titrate.

A somewhat similar idea is talked about in advertising as the “elevator pitch,” but with this it just means you are good at summarizing something down into talking points — which is a different skill distillation. This doesn’t actually mean you really understand what you’re talking about, you’re just very good at crafting a high level, 60 second sound bite, version of what the subject is.

To build a well designed well thought out system you need to have a low level knowledge of the tools and technology but, you also have to be able to stand back and decide if you’ve built a steaming pile of nothing or something truly noteworthy. They both might be technology marvels but, you have to be able to step back and have that “explain it to your Mom” view before you can tell the difference.
To explain email to someone how has no clue what SMTP or even telnet is, is truly a bottom up in-depth understanding of that subject.

I’m still working on explaining REST to my Mom.