Total Immersion

Microsoft’s always going to have a hard time presenting a convincing green story for desktop computing. Its not that the story itself is un-sound: power-saving features are useful as far as they go, and Microsoft as a company is keen to be a good corporate citizen. The elephant in the room however may be summed up in a single, horrible word – bloat.

Microsoft’s story has been a fascinating one, one of the great success stories of the IT industry. There have been several key bets made along the way, which Messrs Gates and Ballmer have stuck to doggedly. This is not the place for a full précis of the Microsoft story, but it’s worth highlighting one of the bets: Moore’s Law, the principle (to paraphrase) that processor capabilities would continue to double ad infinitum.

In practice, this has been characterised by the long-standing truth well known by anyone who has spent the past couple of decades in the industry: that if you want to take advantage of the latest Microsoft software, you’ll have to upgrade your machine. The conversation has repeated with the same regularity as Moore’s Law itself – the bemoaning of how slow everything is running, and the wry nod from those who have seen it before.

Of course, this self-fulfilling prophecy has been of huge benefit to both Microsoft and its hardware partners – companies such as Intel. I very much doubt whether the Wintel alliance was deliberately stuffing software into the operating system just in order to shift more processor units, but one thing’s for sure – neither side was calling ‘stop’. We have also lived through the office bloatware wars, where Microsoft, Lotus and WordPerfect duked it out to see who could out-bloat the competition. (Microsoft won, as we all know)

The attitude throughout from Microsoft – and I know this very well, having asked them on various occasions – has been, “If you want to take advantage of the latest innovations, you’ll need to use the latest technology.” I remember a very public debate I had with Martin Taylor, Microsoft’s ill-fated “Get the Facts” General Manager where he told me that most desktop users wanted far more than just email and word processing. It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now.

And so, to Green. While Microsoft might not have been underhand in promoting the “new and improved” –  it’s a technology company, after all – neither can the company claim to being particularly green. Fundamental to this is the fact that the power consumption of a device is only a small percentage of its overall carbon footprint. Bottom line: replacing or upgrading a machine undermines any benefits that can be had from ‘new’ power saving features.

What can Microsoft do about it? Well, perhaps that operating system that has been derided as the most bloated of the lot – Windows Vista – could hold the key. At the heart of Windows Vista lies a perfectly sound operating system. There are two issues however – the first is in disk space taken up by installed, never to be used apps; and the second is in the memory requirements for unnecessary run-time services. It should not be beyond the ken of the bright sparks in Redmond to bring out their own tools to monitor what’s really necessary, and strip out anything that isn’t?

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? Trouble is, it goes right to the heart of Microsoft’s core philosophy, and fear – that people might stop buying its software if there is insufficient “new and improved” about it. That’s a fair worry – but it’s happening anyway, as we see Microsoft having to extend support (yet again, with hastily invented acronyms no less) for Windows XP. The same principles could be applied to Microsoft Office – which has already seen a usability overhaul with 2007, now, how about a performance boost? What additional benefits can be achieved offloading tasks to Windows Live services? Etc, etc, the list goes on.

It’s a changing world we are in. While Moore’s Law may continue to apply, many organisations are finding they have more than enough processor power on their desktops to do their day to day work. If Microsoft is really serious about greening the desktop, it has an opportunity to use its position to drive some fundamental changes. The question is, does it have the strength of character to do so? The alternative may be business as usual for Microsoft, but it certainly won’t be green.

For anyone who’s interested in either topic, I’m going to be presenting on the role and impact of business governance in relation to virtual worlds, in a few weeks at the ISGIG conference in Pisa. What an irresistible topic - here’s my outline so far:

There is (currently anecdotal) evidence that immersive environments such as Second Life are losing their mainstream popularity, as potentially are such social networking sites as Facebook. All the same, together with such technologies as telepresence, the potential for such collaborative technologies is great, in terms of how it enables stronger relationships to develop with the subsequent impact on productivity; virtual worlds also offer the opportunity to interact physically and collaboratively, for example to demonstrate a product prototype. But there are plenty of downsides – not least the potential for abuse which is leading many corporations to ignore, if not avoid such technologies. This presentation considers the benefits and challenges of socially enabled virtual worlds, gives examples of where organizations are using them for corporate benefit, while minimizing the governance risks and operational challenges they cause. Where are the boundaries between real and virtual worlds, and how do they interface with social technologies? What are the problems of doing business in a virtual world, and how is that affected by real word business and regulations? Also, if Second Life is indeed losing its sheen, what’s Third Life going to be like?

Unfortunately Second Life doesn’t run on the OQO 01+ but if anyone’s interested, you can contact Nathan Neumann, I’ll be in there sporadically.

I’ve been road testing my new acquisition - the OQO Model 01+ UMPC running Windows Tablet. I’ve been hankering after one of these for a while, but it is only recently that price has dropped to a justifiable level (340 quid + VAT from Expansys). So, what’s so good about it?

1. It really is a real Windows computer.  Not a PDA, or some other device running Symbian or Linux, but a fully fledged Windows PC.  This isn’t some Microsoft hugging statement, more a simple question of broad application support, specifically for voice recognition (see 3) and mind mapping. Bluntly, the things I want to do with this device, I can.
2. I can get it out on the Tube.  Indeed, I can get the OQO out just about anywhere.  It is all very well checking a map on a laptop, but it is a bit of a drag having to walk the streets with a 15 inch computer screen open in front of you.  Much of the challenge is logistical (see 8), but equally, the London Underground is not seen as a place for laptops - journeys are shorter, and the potential for theft is reputedly higher (see 7).
3. It really does work as a voice recognition Dictaphone.  This was the main reason for justifying the purchase of the OQO, as a proof of concept: I am very surprised that such a capability has not been tested publicly before.  It’s not perfect, but it does indeed work: I shall be writing more about this in a future post.
4. It is a tablet PC.  If XP Tablet edition is installed, the benefits that apply to tablet PC’s also apply to the OQO.  This includes quite reasonable handwriting recognition: some people prefer to write than type, and indeed it is a lot more friendly in meetings having someone scribbling on a tablet, then tapping behind a laptop.
5. It really is very small.  This may sound like in stating the obvious, but it is true.  The advantage of size is that it can be taken places where a normal computer could not go: it can fit, for example, in a jacket pocket.  Yes, you absolutely know it’s there, but it’s not half as obtrusive as a full-size laptop.  So if, like me, you sometimes find yourself with that dilemma of whether to take a computer or not, for example to a meeting - then you still can, taking all your files with you.
6. It can be taken on holiday. Yes, yes, I know, it should be necessary to take computers on holiday.  However, those working in smaller companies don’t always have the luxury of choice; equally there are plenty of uses of a computer that have nothing to do with work.  The convenience of the OQO means that it can be put into the bottom of the case and forgotten until it should be needed.
7. It more surreptitious than a laptop. Because of (4) it is easier, nay possible to put an OQO into the glove compartment of the car, and it is less of a theft-magnet in general than a fully fledged laptop. From a near distance it looks like some obscure games console.
8. It can be used standing up, or while walking. My train ride home yesterday involved an hour’s standing in a tightly packed carriage, but I was still able to finish off the day’s affairs by completing a report and closing down my email. It does require two hands to use the keyboard or pen, however.As another example, a pretty standard thing for me to do on a flight is to get back up-to-date with my e-mail.  With the OQO on Tuesday, I was able to upload my e-mail as soon as my plane had landed and the seatbelt light had gone off, which for me was a real boon as I could then go straight to my car in the knowledge that all those pesky messages had been sent to area.
9. It can be powered by a portable battery. A couple of years ago I bought a 12V extension battery from Brookstone in the US, for the express purpose to act as a backup power supply for my gadgets when I was out and about. The extension battery is completely inadequate for laptop use, but it can power the OQO via the latter’s own 12V adaptor input. Together with (6), this makes the OQO a much more suitable device for camping trips etc, when access to mains power may be sporadic.
10. It looks good. This is very much “last but not least” - but I did get a buzz when the usually dour security staff at Gatwick struck up a conversation about it. Having technology as a talking point doesn’t have to be limited to Mac fanboys, you know!

What’s there not to like? Well. I wouldn’t suggest the OQO as a desktop replacement - with the caveat that I have bought what is now an old model, the OQO is underpowered compared to what multicore desktops can do. Having said that, my virtualisation experiences have led me to believe in the model of smaller computers that are scaled to suit the workload, and the OQO 01+ is an adequate base for office and email use, running on XP. Even so, the screen size is a decidedly limiting factor when it comes to usability - I have found myself frowning when starting to use it, as though some part of my brain is trying to understand if the OQO is just a normal sized computer, but a little too far away.

A second issue is around power. The first OQO I was shipped had a faulty power supply, which I understand is a common fault; the battery when fully charged can power the device for up to 2 hours only, though there is a double capacity battery available (Expansys was shipping spare batteries for 20 quid each, so I bought two of these instead). Finally, a battery “feature” is that, if fully discharged they need to be plugged in for sometimes up to 24-48 hours before they will trip back into charging mode. Nice.

Having said all of that, as a proof of concept (to me) it is keeping  its end up admirably. I would love to see an OQO-sized brick that could be inserted into a laptop or desktop form factor like a hard drive, and I am surprised, given its clear usefulness, that we do not see a wider audience for the OQO - I would speculate that this is because few have the luxury of two computers. From the research we conducted last year it was clear that PDAs wouldn’t be replacing PCs any time soon - as costs continue to tumble I expect to see the UMPC form factor to reach a much wider market, not to replace the laptop, but to extend the web of mobile computing still further.

I wrote this review of Bluetooth and infrared keyboards a while back, and then promptly forgot to do anything about it, so here it is. A word of warning - I have had issues with the (increasingly locked down) drivers for the Freedom Keyboard. Still, while I’m loving my OQO (review to follow), I can still see a place for these things. I hope its useful!

A while back, I remember seeing a sketch by Eddie Izzard. The detail eludes me but roughly speaking it covered the cyclic nature of being cool. One could progress from totally uncool, to slightly cool, to cool, to - put one matchstick in the corner of the mouth - very cool, to - put another matchstick in the other corner - totally uncool again.

So it is with technology-related PR, and nowhere is this more starkly illustrated than in the press releases associated with IT security. I have written about how hard it can be to incite a sometimes apathetic audience into action about very real threats; equally, many IT managers will agree how difficult it can be to get funding for security-related purchases. IT security companies have a vested interest in both of these issues: they are obviously not working altruistically. However, in my experience the majority nonetheless do want to deliver value to their clients.

Such desires may be reflected in IT security PR, which often needs not only to explain what a company does, but also why it matters. Frankly, when a “bad thing” is reported in the media it can be gift for any company that offers products in that area – but what to do when there is no bad news to piggyback on? The answer is to put out awareness-raising press releases, to augment the more standard ‘customer win’, ‘expands in Europe’, ‘new partnership’ fodder. It is here, just as with Eddie Izzard’s sketch, that we find the line which should probably not be crossed.

What are the different kinds of press releases? I would grade them into four categories:

· Best practice activity. A vendor may have put together a set of guidelines explaining how to deal with an issue. While it is a fair assumption that it may reference their product or service, it may also contain some sound advice. Press releases saying that a vendor has documented some best practice are little more than treading water in PR terms, but they are innocuous enough.

· Publicising research findings. A security vendor may conduct a study to highlight the scale of a given problem. This is useful when although the area is known about, there is general complacency that the issue has already been dealt with, or that it only happens to other people. Indeed, this is often the kind of activity that we get called in to help with – anonymous surveys may be the best way to talk about an issue that nobody is supposed to have.

· General awareness raising. These tend to be more educational, to highlight that a problem or threat really does exist. A good example of this would be PR surrounding man in the middle attacks, which are a valid candidate for awareness raising. The only downside is that sometimes such press releases assume the audience knows what is being talked about, which is more than a little counterproductive.

· Publicising specific examples of where things have gone wrong. This is probably the worst kind of awareness raising press release. At best, it draws attention to an example of where the threat has been realised, or malpractice has been found in that, “I told you so,” kind of way. At worst, it can only be construed as ambulance chasing, using some unfortunate soul who has found themselves wanting, and attempting to bask in the reflected publicity.

Don’t get me wrong. In general, I like receiving press releases. I may not read all of them, end to end, but I am not embarrassed to admit that I cannot keep on top of everything that is going on, all the time. So, if I am told about a threat that I did not know existed, nor indeed, a product which in some way can resolve that threat, I can add this to my catalogue of knowledge. Equally, however, I make no bones about the fact that I detest ‘ambulance chasing’ press releases. While I concede that it can be useful to use such incidents as examples, they should be used as no more than a passing mention to support any of the other kinds of awareness raising. Consider the difference in the following two statements:

· “The HMFE were foolish, and should get their act together,” said Charlie Farley, vice president of security firm Ultrasecurix. “By using technologies such as ours, it would never have happened in the first place.”

· “Ultrasecurix would like to announce the latest iteration of our product. “It has been redesigned from the ground up to deal with the latest generation of threats,” says Charlie Farley. The many features include… which enable comprehensive protection. “Situations such as those am highlighted at the HMFE only serve to highlight how things are changing and the need to stay vigilant.”

OK, the latter requires the company to have actually done something, which should maybe be the prerequisite in the first place. If, however, you feel the need to put out awareness raising press releases, remember the first three kinds before settling on the fourth. The bottom line is, if you can’t be constructive and add value in the first few paragraphs, then please don’t bother at all.

A random thought, prompted by a discussion with APC a few years ago. I was surprised to discover (having clearly been a poor student in O Level Physics) that the amount of heat output by a rack of processors, storage etc was exactly equivalent to the amount of power that went in. I know, its so obvious it hurts. More recently, there are plenty of stories of office blocks being heated using computer equipment. The question - as I sit in a relatively warm room,  no doubt due to the two computers pumping out hot air right now - is whether such a strategy could also be adopted by the “connected home”?

Which begs the next question - which is the more efficient heating device - the computer  or  the oil-fired radiator - and why? It would be funny if, at some point in the future,  processor cycles were seen as a knock-on benefit of our silicon-based wall heaters…

It is always dangerous to speculate, particularly in this industry, which sometimes seems to be more founded on speculation than practical reality. Consider, for example, Power over Ethernet (PoE) - essentially offering a way of delivering power through an Ethernet cable. Today, there are a multitude of different devices that can be attached to a network that – WiFi repeaters, video cameras and so on — whose location may not be near a power socket. It makes sense, therefore, that the wire used to connect the device to the network is also the wire supplying the power.

Where PoE has really come into its own, is with VoIP phones – telephone handsets that use a network-based infrastructure rather than a traditional PBX. Voice over IP handsets are exactly the kind of devices that can benefit from power over the net, just as old-fashioned analogue handsets are powered by the PBX. The alternative is to have a transformer next to every phone, which occupies a socket and is one more thing to go wrong.

The downside of PoE is, of course, in the “P”. I’ve written before about how hard it is for hardware vendors in general, and networking vendors in particular, to claim any sort of green credentials for their equipment. The fact that PoE is delivering power, makes it a bit of an anathema to green – particularly as the latest iteration of the standard enables more power, not less, to be delivered over the Ethernet ports. According to the marketing, such power increases are required to support the increasing complexity of VoIP handsets. Colour screens, bigger processors, more memory – all of these things will take their toll and become more of a draw on the corporate power supply. That’s all very well, but it’s not very green, is it?

On the surface, then, Power over Ethernet can hardly be held up as a poster child for green IT. That’s not necessarily the end of the story, however. Let’s consider some of the plans, and likely developments in the PoE space: not least that it may well become built into switches by default, rather than as an exception. From a systems architecture (and indeed, from a manufacturing) perspective, there is little difference between powered and unpowered Ethernet ports. One of the larger network vendors told me that the chances were most of their switches would build in PoE to all ports, at some point in the future.

In principle, that’s still not very green – but there’s more. There are no concrete examples yet, but vendors are also talking about incorporating power regulation directly into network switches: put simply, enabling the switch to regulate supply according to demand. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine the automatic power-down of devices outside certain hours, or indeed, when no data signals were detected (pretty obvious for IP phones, for example). To take this one step further, it is within the realms of possibility to produce handsets that require only a trickle current when in standby mode – and which could signal their requirements to the switch.

Taking such thoughts to their logical extreme, would it be possible to furnish an entire building with a highly regulated, low-voltage, direct current power circuit based on flood wiring (that is, the networking sockets on the wall)? In principle yes – though indeed, there are a number of hoops to be jumped through first. Not only are there the technological hurdles such as the ones above, but also some basic truths, such as the fact that most network wall sockets are not actually enabled: they may connect to a patch panel somewhere, but this will not necessarily be connected to a switch.

All the same, while it may not yet be possible, there is certainly potential. Such a circuit might, for example, be able to replace the currently obligatory raft of telephone and PDA chargers that litter our offices – indeed, I discussed such a thing with one of the senior guys at network wiring specialist CommScope (who brought up the “not-all-ports-are-wired” issue – thanks Ian). Perhaps it might never happen, but it is often only in hindsight that we understand how technologies are to be used: in this case there has already been a precedent set with the charging potential of USB. Why not the same with the network? Such an infrastructure would be able to support a broader range of devices, far more straightforwardly than relying on the mains: as my colleague Tony Lock has pointed out, consider the efforts of the thin client vendors such as Wyse, who are bringing out devices with power requirements small enough to be powered by PoE alone.

Indeed, it can be dangerous to speculate. But equally, just as many technologies also have a downside, so there may be some upsides of PoE we are yet to experience. Just perhaps, and even taking into account the cost of manufacture, Power over Ethernet might just offer an opportunity for networking to demonstrate its green credentials at last.

This is certainly not a formal review but I was doing some investigations into how to share files between team members, potentially on different (i.e. Windows and Linux) platforms. Groove is the peer-to-peer standard on Microsoft Windows, but there are free alternatives - having tried a few, Collanos Workplace seems to be the one that has remained on my desktops. It passes the test of “just working” (though I seem to remember it did need some Linux config tweaks), its not overcomplicated to use, etc. It does suffer a bit from some of the same assumptions as Groove - workspaces lack the ability to sync with local folders for example, which means backups in the traditional sense are difficult (and no, p2p doesn’t mean no backups necessary - if you screw up on one peer, you screw them all.) But overall, its a good as any a place to start for offline remote team co-ordination.

Apologies but I can’t find the original list of products I was trialling, but there are plenty of them. I do remember that competing platform Collaber had firewall issues so no dice.

Incidentally, for Windows document sharing, Foldershare (now acquired by Microsoft and integrated into Windows Live) does appear to be a very useful little tool. It does enable any normal folder to be just “shared”, simply and effectively, so its worth a look. Equally incidentally, the caveat with all such products is they can tend to lack scalability - if you want to put tens of megabytes into the folder at a time, remember how much available bandwidth you have, and how many peers you’re sharing with.

I’ve been reading with interest the whole “influence 2.0″ debate, as characterised by Jonny Bentwood and Duncan Brown. For “interest” read “vested interest” of course - as an analyst, I have the dubious tag of forming part of the “influencer community” - which at first glance (to me anyway) doesn’t smell too good - for “influencer” one could read “schmoozer”, “evangelist” or indeed the (slightly gangster-like) “persuader” - like I would be going and seeing some hapless organisation and convincing them that they should adopt a certain technology “if they know what’s good for them…” When influencers of any description are not doing their job as well as they could, they are at best acting like advertising hoardings, and at worst, pimps. Frankly, I’d like to be neither.

Which brings me to a parallel debate - that of “independence”. The concept of an independent IT analyst firm is a tenuous one at best. Most often, the term is used to describe smaller, “boutique” analyst companies, to differentiate them from the big guns (Gartner, Forrester and IDC). But surely these companies are independent as well - or aren’t we all in a bit of a pickle? More fundamentally, given that we are actively working within the realms of the IT industry, can we really be claim to be independent of all technological influences? Of course not. By nature, all IT industry analysts share a common assumption - that information technology can add “value” (a nebulous concept) to organisations and individuals. This assumption is by no means proven - we remain, in historical terms, still on the banks of the primeval technological swamp from which we emerge - but we operate on the basis that there is more goodness to be had, the further we can get up the slope. Or perhaps we are still in the swamp, looking for the bank. But I digress.

To base one’s opinions on such an “onward and upward” assumption is very different from saying that technology offers some magical salve, to solve all ills. That elephantine businesses will be able to pirouette, and consumers will surf on electronic waves… this is of course, pure and unrepentant schlock peddled by those who want to sell their products or consultancy services. The massive difficulty for all involved in in IT is caused by a lack of foresight - it is obvious now (for example) how much of a global game-changer the internet has become, or the social effects of mobile phones in both western and developing countries; what’s not so obvious is what are the next “big things”. The IT industry can be seen as a multidimensional betting shop on steroids - Californian venture capital companies and Wall Street, startups and gorilla incumbents, businesses of all sizes and in all sectors - and indeed, industry analysts - are placing their chips on whatever technologies they believe will give them the biggest return. Virtualisation, SOA, agility, social networking, compliance, green - these are all squares on a roulette table - roll up, roll up!

The IT industry is rife with agendas, and nobody working in technology today can claim any kind of independence from the core assumption above, that somehow, technology can make things better. This is as true for individuals as for companies - careers can be based on the depth of learning about specific technologies or delivery techniques (from my own experience I found it easier to get a job as a UNIX expert than as an “IT manager and all round good egg”). However, there is a world of difference between “technology can make things better” and “technology will make things better”. The can-will distinction becomes nothing to do with the technology, and everything to do with how it is selected, deployed and operated.

And so, to the third i-word in the title of this post - “impact”. Impact is a pretty hard thing to define, but a very easy thing to appreciate, particularly in IT. Most organisations are littered with the detritus of technological failure - applications that were never used or were superseded, servers and storage that were over- or under-sized, network and security devices that failed to be implemented usefully. In a conversation (I’ve mentioned this before) with a Chief Information Security Officer, he was berating security vendors who didn’t hang around for long enough after achieving a sale, to actually ensure the product was configured and operated correctly. Why should they - sales people are measured on their quarterly “number” of sales achieved, and not on whether their customers appreciated the solution once implemented. The agenda item of, “Don’t quit until the product delivers the originally stated benefits,” is often sadly lacking in the T’s and C’s.

Industry analysts, too, can be taken to task when it comes to the follow-through. Historically, analyst companies were set up to help organisations with procurement: to buy products, compare functionality, define a shortlist of suppliers and negotiate contracts. All well, good and useful but while analysts have move upwards into IT strategy, the heritage of the analyst industry also tails off post-deployment. James Governor has talked about Redmonk as being “make-side” rather than “sell-side” or “buy-side” - which is a great perspective in itself; it also illustrates the procurement-oriented focus of most other IT analyst firms.

Trouble is, procurement is not where the real action is, in the companies implementing technology. The procurement stage is just one in a series of stages, each of which involves multiple stakeholders (not just the CIO!). The benefits ascribed to a given product area may be correct in principle, but they will be highly dependent on the business and architectural context, and on a whole set of non-technological criteria, assumptions and activities - as a grouping, we can call such things “best practice.” Get the best practice right, and there is a far better chance of the technology achieving a positive impact for the organisation. Get it wrong, and the impact may be negative or - and this is just as bad in my books - no impact at all.

So - while it is important to be influential (no point in saying something if nobody is listening), it is equally necessary to have a positive impact on the whole of the IT delivery and operational process, not just the time spent at the shops. Analysts can’t escape the fact that much of the IT industry is driven by agendas - and terms such as “market sizing” are squarely aimed at vendor and their stockholder agendas rather than those of end-users. Meanwhile however, the big advantage of a focus on best practice is that, in the (often-strained) dialogue between organisations and their IT suppliers, “best practice” is one agenda that both sides can fundamentally agree on - the vendor really does want to see its technology being successfully used even once the salesperson has received that stonking bonus, and the business stakeholder and operator will both confirm they are happier if the technology is actually achieving what it set out to do. Promoting best practice might not be as sexy as evangelising the latest and greatest technologies (and we love gadgetry as much as the next guy) but it is far more important than any transient attention paid on whatever’s currently “hot”.

When IT industry analysts flutter round the 60-watt bulb of procurement like tropical moths, they will all be clamouring for a share of the light. When the sun comes up the next morning however, it is the people in the ongoing decision making roles that need the most help - and who, also quite frankly, are often a darned sight more interesting to talk to than those who claim to have the ear of the CIO. I’m not going to claim to be technology-independent, but I can wholeheartedly and categorically state my desire to have maximum influence on ensuring the positive impact of IT through adoption of best practice. That may be outside the remit of influence watchers today, but so be it - I can cope if they can.

As I was driving to the National Motorcycle Museum to give a presentation on archiving this morning, I listened to a constable from a Welsh police force on Radio 4, backing up the soon-to-be-announced (or has it been already) statement that there was too much bureaucracy in the UK police force. For anyone who has difficulty (as I do) spelling bureaucracy, it is helpful to remember that the first part is “bureau”, i.e. “desk” - which is exactly where our local bobbies seem to spend much of their time.

The constable was explaining the overheads involved in stopping a group of individuals and asking whether or not they had any knowledge of an incident (say, a punch-up round the corner on a weekend evening). Each conversation needs to be registered on a form, which takes 10 minutes to fill in - one can only imagine the number of such conversations that take place in central Cardiff on a Saturday night.

Now, of course we need to balance any statements about “overheads” with equal remarks about protecting the rights of the individuals that are stopped and questioned - but that doesn’t seem to be the point here. Rather, one is left with a feeling of, if police officers have to talk to the public for anything other than passing the time of day, there will inevitably be more time spent documenting the conversation than holding it in the first place.

This point was reinforced by an IT professional at the archiving event, who happened to be from a city-based police force. I have to ask - is this as far as technology has come - if we still need our police officers to be filling out sheets of paper in triplicate? I had a bit of a chat about the alternatives to form filling - voice recognition, for example. To support the average copper, with the average regional accent, such technologies are still not yet ready for prime time, I am informed. “Police officers need technology to just work - not to sit through hours of training the software for it to understand them,” I was told. This seems such an utterly fair statement given the 20 years of innovation we have seen since I kicked off my career - that technology should just work - so why is it not true?

The answer, I believe, lies in the gap between technology companies and systems integrators. Some of the things that end-users see as fundamental are not baked into the base software, but are left to partners to implement: an example in the voice recognition context would be the level of training required to support it. Surely there are mechanisms that can integrate with how people work today - passive voice recorders, local accent filters, document scanning etc - that could be used to make such technologies “just work” when used by people on the front line of the business?

I’m not totally despondent - but its situations like this that serve as a constant reminder of, even with all the innovation going on, just how far we have to go with technology before we work out how to close the gap between the wonderfully clever capabilities it offers, and the real needs of its users.