Innovation Bingo

Posted on September 25, 2016 by Frank SAPAA

On September 21, 2016, the Edmonton FMI Chapter hosted the following session (detailed description found below in the ‘blog-annex’: Fostering Innovation in the Public Service When Money is Tight. Part of the conference was a game entitled ‘Innovation Bingo’. The objectives of the game were as follows:

Help participants assimilate knowledge about innovation.
Assist in networking with other participants, particularly those outside of ones normal circle of associates.
Win some prizes.

How the Game was Played

As part of the pre-conference notes and as a physical hand out, each participant was given a bingo card (see the last two pages of the pre-conference notes: FMI-2016-09-21-Innovation-PreNotes or download Innovation Bingo.
Instructions were provided on the card, informally at each table by event leader and then en masse at the start of the session.
The card was alluded to a few times by the moderator and during the conference.
The card had two sides:
- Personal Information: name, birth month, interests, and needs.
- Bingo card proper.
At the end, prizes were distributed but only if the individual was willing to share the results of their card.

Assessment of the Game

The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the game:

The game itself provided a reasonable ice breaker at table.
Individuals did not actively use the card outside of their table and there was limited interaction or discussion with the card.
The room itself however appeared to be well engaged and networked suggesting that the card and game provide some social license that eased initial conversations.

Conclusions and Future Use of Innovation Bingo

An en masse ice breaker game can work at the table level.
Room level coordination requires greater coordination which would detract from the program.
Conclusion: ‘Bingo’ games of varying forms can be used in other FMI events but should be downplayed and use for fun things such as prize distribution.

Blog Annex – FMI Event Description:

Fostering Innovation in the Public Service When Money is Tight.

Public servants are expected to be innovative while working in a risk averse environment. This inherent conundrum is compounded during times of fiscal restraint when ideas are solicited but resources to execute few. This session will investigate innovation in the public services from a number of facets.

What is innovation, how do you get it, how do you keep it and when should you ignore it? Next, how to propose, implement and sustain an innovative idea or culture in an environment that is less than ideal. Finally, thoughts and strategies of making the case for innovation during times of fiscal restraint; after all, never let a good crisis go to waste.

Six PoC Questions for Success

Posted on July 28, 2016 by Frank SAPAA

Proofs of Concept (PoC) are great. They allow one to test a small component and then apply success (or failure) to future endeavours. Certainly the all time champion of the PoC are the Myth busters. Adam and Jamie would start each myth with a small-scale test before going big (and with the obligatory BIG explosion).

To Hack or to Formalize a PoC

PoCs come in many sizes. At one end is the developer who experiments and comes up with a workaround or a more elegant way to achieve a result (aka a good ‘hack’). On the other end is an organization that incrementally works toward a final objective. For example sending a series of Apollo missions into space with each one adding on to the knowledge and experience of its successor. This blog considers more than a midnight pizza fueled hack-a-thon but much less than sending humans into the unknown.

Buzz Aldrin Apollo 11 – the beneficiary of a series of Proof of Concepts.

The Scientific Process (sort of) to the Rescue

One of human’s greatest achievements was the development of the Scientific Method which involves (courtesy of dictionary.com):

noun; 1. a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

The following Six PoC Questions for Success is loosely based on the above method. The intent is to help an organization understand why a PoC is a good idea and the result. At the same time, this is ‘just-enough’ formalization. After all, it is important to let the brilliant folks develop ‘elegant-hacks‘ without too much paper work.

1. What was the Business problem being addressed?

Why was a PoC identified? Generally this is to address a specific business problem. Pure research is okay as an objective for a PoC. That is developing technologies or techniques with no immediate application but future potential value for an organization.

2. How is the problem currently being solved?

The answer to this question is that it is often not solved, done through intuition or completed via a manual/semi-automated process. This question helps the organization understand what to do the with the results of a PoC. If the manual process is only slightly more costly then a fully automated variety, why bother with the complexities of automation?

3. The Question

In effect this is the hypothesis portion of the scientific method. Ideally this question should be a simple Yes/No. If the nature of the question changes through the PoC process, that is okay – but the evolution of the question should be included as part of the final report. Thus we may have started asking question X but we ended up answering question Y. The reason is that X was too big/small/wrong and Y was answerable.

Defining the question is important so your PoC team does lose its way and they have a touchstone to come back to. A bit of formalization around how they can change, extend, shrink or otherwise amend the question is important.

4. What were the results at the end of the project?

This question should have two parts, a) and b). Part a) is the predicted result. By including a prediction, the PoC can stay focused on the intended result. This is not to discount secondary benefits or chance discoveries but it does help to ensure that a PoC does not become its own self-sustaining cottage industry. Consider keeping part a) secret from the PoC team if you want the benefits of the double blind effect.

Part b) is what happened, what were the results? This should support the response to the question answered above. Ideally the result is Yes or No but it might be Maybe. Of course everyone wants a momentous discovery every time. However failure should be seen as a positive result – such a result may have saved an organizations considerable time, talent and treasure.

5. What are the next steps?

This should be a very practical listing of how to use these results. Examples of next steps may include refining a subsequent PoC, engaging in a larger scale test or moving the resulting solution to production.

6. What is the Future Vision, What is Possible?

Question five focuses on the practical and immediate application of the PoC results. Question six let’s the team blue sky a bit and extrapolate findings to larger contexts. This is part of the fun and value of the PoC – the larger application of something new.

No Explosion – Using the Six Questions

Sorry, unlike the Mythbusters, there is no end of blog explosion. Instead, these questions are a handy reminder of the things to consider when a PoC is being suggested. Let me know your thoughts on the six questions. Would you add a question or take away one or more of them?

Cycling on a Grade – Part II of II

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Frank SAPAA

In a previous post, I introduced Cycling on a Grade, a method to estimate the relative difficulty of a ride. The primary factors for this first portion were ride distance and relative speed.

Continue reading →

Audit Question Log

Posted on June 26, 2016 by Frank SAPAA

An idea that I have been kicking around for a few years is why organizations don’t maintain a list of audit questions they have been asked in an Auditor Question Log? Such a log contains the questions, responses and the organization’s supporting policies or documentation.

Continue reading →

Cycling on a Grade – Part I of II

Posted on May 24, 2016 by Frank SAPAA

Describing cycling ride difficulty poses challenges due to the need to assess individual abilities and bike conditions. Current grading rubrics cater primarily to experienced cyclists. To address this, a Cycling Grading chart inspired by skiing is proposed, categorizing rides by distance, speed, duration, and elevation, enhancing clarity for new cyclists.

Continue reading →

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Gears

Posted on May 1, 2016 by Frank SAPAA

This week I ran a cycling program for my bike club called: “We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Gears“. I have talked about gears and cycling for a number of years but this is the first time I pulled together a program that dealt with the topic en masse.

Audience and Do we Need Another Post?

A quick Google search indicates more than 500,000 hits on this topic – so why another post? Firstly as a reminder for me when I do this instruction in person. Secondly because the audience for this post is the person who is keen to learn but is trailing behind in a 20KM ride and the thought of riding 50KM seems absolutely daunting.

As always, if you have improvements (e.g. Phrank has no idea what he is talking about, don’t listen to him), comment away! As well, take a read of the 500,000 or so other resources on the internet; including some of the better ones I stumbled across, see the conclusion section below.

The Big Gear is Connected to the Little Gear

Bikes typically have two sets of gears: front and back. The front one is called the crank or the chain rings and the rear one is the cassette. The numbers of gears vary: 2-3 front rings 5-9 cassette rings are common. Looked at on angle, both sets of gears look like a cone with the top loped off. The front one has more lopping and a wider base and the rear one less so on both accounts.

The little gear on the crank is the first gear or number 1 with the reverse for the cassette. From there the numbers ascend until you run out of gears to count (e.g. 3 on the crank and 9 on the cassette). The chain connects the front and the back and transmits the power.

You Can Count on Your Gears

If you look at a bike, the first gear in the front, the small one, is closer to the bike. From there the second and third are further away from the bike. Just like in a car, a first gear is good for climbing hills. Similarly, the first gear on the rear is also number 1 and it is also good for climbing hills.

Here is the tricky bit, watch carefully….

If you look at the rear cassette the cone is reversed or inverted from the front. That is the big gear is close to the rim and the small (first) gear is furthest away from the bike. This gives the bike its mechanical advantage. For example, if you divide the number of teeth of the front gear by the number in the back you get a ratio of roughly how many fully pedal strokes it takes to turn the rear cassette once. The following graphic does a better job of showing this ratio. Assuming this configuration exists, for every turn of the front crank, the rear hub would turn somewhere between 0.8 and 4.0 times.

Mecahnical Advantage of a 3 ring crank X a 9 ring cassette.

mechanical Advantage of a 3 ring crank X a 9 ring cassette. This gear configuration is for illustrative purposes only, your gear ratios will likely vary from the above.

The Missing Gears

The good news is that you paid extra for that 27 speed bike… the bad news, using all 27 is inadvisable. Chains like to run in rings that are mostly parallel to each other. They can handle a bit of an angle but not too much. A cross geared bike will not only wear faster but is more susceptible for the chain jumping from one ring to another. This is why it is important to get used to shifting through both the front and rear gears – so you can maximize the 27 gear POTENTIAL of your bike.

Proper and Cross Chain gearing. Image courtesy of REI.com.

Cadence, Torque and a Little Downstroke will Do Ya

In an early blog, The Art of Riding Bikes, there is a discussion of the importance of cadence over torque. Torque is the big strong guy grinding up the hill. Cadence is the 90lbs lady passing him on the hill pedalling in a seemingly effortless manner.

You do need to apply torque to the pedal, some force is needed. The analogy I use is: ‘apply as much force to the pedal as you would to a soccer ball being kicked to a two-year-old’. Now, unless you like kicking balls hard at small children, this means a relatively light amount of effort.

Because the effort is less, something needs to compensate to provide power to the bike – this is where cadence and gears come in. Try to keep your cycle strokes the same with a consistent force allowing the gears to compensate for the terrain or wind. How many strokes? Aim for anything between about 70-120 per minute with an ideal of about 90. Your legs will tell you if you have too many revolutions per minute or if you can add a few more to the mix.

Put the Peddle to the … Little Metal Thing on your Cycling Shoe

The peddles are how we convert the up and down motion of your legs to the circular motion of the gears. What is the best pedal to use, the answer is one you are comfortable with. Before you stick to the tried and true flat pedal (available on kids bikes everywhere), to think about and consider adding toe clips, baskets or cycling cleats to your pedal ensemble. They will help you transmit more energy with very little or no additional effort on your part.

At this point in the discussion I usually get dubious looks about attaching a bike to the bottom of one’s shoe. To start, you will probably fall over due to unclipping at least once (ish) and it will take practice. Some very good riders I know have forsaken the clip and they do fine. A basket or cleat will take you further but you have to comfortable and trusting in the relationship.

A Shift in Cycling Style

Putting all of the above together takes practice. Shifting needs to become simple muscle memory that you no longer think about. To do this you need to get on the bike and start riding and shifting through the gears – both the front and the rear. On a flat stretch, consciously practice working from the first gear front/back to the highest gears (e.g. 3/9) in the rear.

By becoming comfortable with shifting you can then better anticipate and be shifting up or down an instant or two before you need to. By doing so, you can maintain that constant cadence and torque discussed above which in turns allows you to cycle for longer time periods and thus distances.

Alas you will run out of gears on some future hill that is a bit too steep. At this point you have one of three choices. Firstly get off and walk. Due to a missed gear, a steep hill or other reasons (my dog ate my homework and so I had to walk my bike); sometimes the walk is the best answer.

Your second option is to traverse the hill. Assuming the path way is wide enough, cut an angle back and forth across the hill rather than straight up it. This will add some distance but cut down the angle of attack.

Send Your Nether-regions a Post

The final hill climbing technique is the post. This is where you stand in the pedals and lift your tender bits off of the seat. As an added bonus, the method also allows for blood to return to the pelvic floor thus reducing the discomfort of a allow a saddle to come in contact with your No-Sunshine Zones. Posting is a short-term solution as you are switching from low-torque-high-cadence model to a high-torque-low-torque model.

Conclusion, Further Reading and Good Links

Once again, this post is meant to be used as a memory jog for me and a learning aid for the people I am standing in front of. If you want to learn more, the internet has a plethora of material including posts that are a lot more technically accurate than the above (including strange algebraic symbols).

See you on the road!

REI

I ripped off their graphic so the least I can do is point out an excellent article on their website: https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/bike-gears-and-shifting.html

Coach Levi

Very good article cover many of the same topics as in the blog:
http://coachlevi.com/cycling/complete-beginner-guide-to-bicycle-gears-shifting/

Wikipedia

When in doubt, what have the wiki’ites to say about the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_gearing

Still More Links!

Bike Gears: How Do They Work?

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/product-news/using-bikes-gears-efficiently-148101

Gearing 101 Tutorial: A bit technical and much more detail then the above. http://www.cyclingsite.com/lists_articles/gearing_101.htm

Don’t Shrink from Mental Illness

Posted on April 17, 2016 by Frank SAPAA

That reminds me of the time I spent 18 months in a psychiatric hospital… … pause … … as the director of Finance.

I have used the above line and it is interesting watching people’s reaction as they anticipate the end of the sentence For that millisecond they are evaluating me and potentially re-assessing me in their own mental model. Of course it is also a reflection on me in that I belatedly made clear that I was not a patient.

In other words, mental illness is something that society is still trying to figure out. While we applaud Celebrities who come out of the closet, we also cross the street to avoid the disheveled and pungent homeless man screaming at his own personal demons.

The Shrink

Jeffrey A. Lieberman, has written a good book about the history of mental illness (Shrinks: The Untold Story Of Psychiatry). While not without its own flaws (more on this later), it does give a good overview of the evolution of the professions aligned to treat mental disorders.

As a past-President of the American Psychiatric Association and a physician practicing since the mid-1970’s, he is well placed to provide observations on the evolution of the practice. Two common themes struck me in this book. Firstly the quiet desperation for both those afflicted and those trying to help the mentally ill and secondly the earnest-quackery involved in those attempting to alleviate this desperation. A few examples of theories/quackery are worth pointing out:

Animal Magnetism: invisible energy coursing through thousands of magnetic channels in the body.
Orgone Theory: a hidden form of energy uniting all of nature’s elements. Treatment include sitting in orgone accumulators.
Psychoanalytic theory: A therapeutic method, originated by Sigmund Freud, for treating mental disorders by investigating the interaction of conscious and unconscious elements in the patient’s mind and bringing repressed fears and conflicts into the conscious mind, using techniques such as dream interpretation and free association.

The Greatest Quack

The last also had the greatest credibility for longest time. Psychoanalysis is part of our understanding of the human mind (e.g. the concepts of unconsciousness or the ego). It was also the first theory that provided some hope to alleviate the quiet desperation. As a result, Lieberman spends a good portion of the book discussing the rise and eventual fall of psychiatric theory as the preeminent treatment modality in American psychiatry. This includes the fight for and significant changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; DSM-5 being the most current version.

Much of the criticism for psychoanalysis was its disinterest in empirical evidence. Because adherent saw Freud as a modern prophet and psychoanalysis as perfect gospel, testing or even questioning the precepts of the theory were vigorously fought against, at least in the United States. In time, some brave souls (and an anti-psychiatry movement) dethroned psychoanalysis. As an aside, like other treatments, psychoanalysis and talk therapy does have its place – for example in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The American Experience is Too Narrow

Unfortunately this is also where Lieberman could have made a ‘good book’ a great book had he spent less time on the American based politics of mental illness and more time on a global perspective. While the DSMs were being created, other great psychiatric stories were being played out. For example, the use of psychiatry in the former Soviet Union to muzzle dissidents, the role of mental illness in non-Anglo/euro cultures or even a larger history of mental illness and whether it is a relatively new phenomenon or not.

A more complete discussion on the alternatives to psychiatry would have been interesting as viewed from an insider’s point of view. Although Lieberman spends sometime discussing the concerns of anti-psychiatry, in the end he primarily dismisses them in the context of current treatments.

The Hope for the Desperate

Despite these short comings, this is still a good book which sheds hope to the mentally ill because of treatments developed primarily (but not exclusively) over the past 40 years, including:

Pyrotherapy for advance syphilis. Discovered by Julius Wagner-Jauregg.
Lobotomies which did not actually cure the mentally ill but did make them easier patients to house and manage. Not currently used as a treatment.
Electroconvulsive therapy which applied a general electrical shock to the brain. Still in use and effective for some conditions.
Psychopharmacology is the most common treatment currently with a myriad of drugs some developed for uses widely different from treating mental illness.
Talk Therapy. Evolved out of Freudian psychotherapies, it has evolved from the therapist being an unemotional observer to the therapist being an empathetic partner in exploring issues.

The Mind versus the Brain and the Read

Psychiatry has centred around a dichotomy of the mind versus the brain as the source of mental illness. Lieberman does a good job of merging these two extremes into current thinking that mental illness is both. As well, Lieberman demonstrates great compassion about the plight of those afflicted and the social stigma it carries.

Overall Lieberman has done a good job of providing an American focused history of mental illness and its current state of affairs. A book for those with interests in general and medical history as well as a general read about mental illness.

Can We Stop and Define Stop?

Posted on April 4, 2016 by Frank SAPAA

This week I will be going into an operational planning meeting. Like most of the operational planning meetings I have attended, three questions are being asked:

What do we want/need to start doing
What do we need to continue to do or finish and
What should we STOP doing?

The first two questions are relatively easy to answer and there is a plethora of information on How, Why, When, Where and What to plan. In this blog, I want to focus on the Stop question, specifically:

What does “Stop” Mean in the Context of Operational Planning?

How Many Stops have been Really Stopped?

In my career, I have been in dozens of planning meetings and I cannot really recall something identified as ‘should be Stopped’ that was actually stopped. At the same time, over my career, I have stopped doing many things that I used to do with out the ‘thing’ being part of a planning meeting. Why is it so hard to identify a process to stop and then actually stop it?

Stopping to Define A Process

A quick stop for a definition and in this case the word ‘Process’ which is one of these wonderfully loaded terms. Fortunately the good folks at the International Standards Organization can help: (source: http://www.iso.org, ISO 9000:2015; Terms and Definitions, 3.4.1, accessed 2016-04-02):

3.4.1 process: set of interrelated or interacting activities that use inputs to deliver an intended result (Note 1 to entry: Whether the “intended result” of a process is called output (3.7.5), product (3.7.6) or service (3.7.7) depends on the context of the reference.).

Assuming that an organization wants to stop a process, the challenge of doing so is built into the definition – when you stop something, you must deal with the inputs, the outputs and the impact on the inter-relation between potentially numerous activities.

Starting to Use a Process Focused Way of Stopping

Fortunately the above definition also gives us a methodology to evaluate what processes we can stop, change or that we are stuck with. The Process Focused Way of Stopping uses a 2 x 2 matrix which asks two simple questions: will Inputs or Outputs Cease or Continue? Inside the resulting matrix is a gradient between the extremes of fully stopping or continuing to deploy inputs and outputs. The four themed quadrants can help an organization understand the challenges and execution of stopping a process and interrelated impacts on the organization of doing so.

The Four Quadrants of Stopping

Or how to manage the “Law of Unintended Consequences“.

Full Stop!:
- Inputs Stop, Outputs Stop
- Business Example: Nokia, formerly a pulp and paper company that evolved into an electronics/cell phone company.
- Organizational thoughts: abandoning or decamping from a process.
- Risks/challenges: if a downstream process requires the output, a new and not necessarily better process may spring up to fill the void
Automation:
- Inputs Stop, Outputs Continue
- Business Example: Automation of airline ticketing and reservation systems over the past 40 years.
- Organizational thoughts: automation is central to productivity enhancements and cost savings.
- Risks/challenges: over automation can backfire, for example, being able to talk to a human is now seen as premium support for a product instead of simply directing customers to a website or a phone response system.
Costs Without Benefits (Yikes!):
- Inputs Continue, Outputs Stop
- Business Example: A mining company paying for site remediation long after the mine has been closed.
- Organizational thoughts: Generally this is the quadrant to avoid unless there is a plan to manage the risks and downside costs (e.g. a sinking fund).
- Risks/challenges: Organizations may land here as a result of the Law of Unintended Consequences..
Status Quo:
- Inputs Continue, Outputs Continue
- Business Example: any company that stays the course in their product line; this includes companies that should have changed such as Kodak.
- Organizational Thoughts: this is a typical reaction when asked to changed processes. Lack of organizational capacity and willingness to change supports general inertia.
- Risks/challenges: As Kodak discovered, a lack of willingness to internally cannibalize and prune an organization may lead to external forces doing it for you.

How to Start Using a Process Focused Way of Stopping?

‘So What?’, how can this model be used? At a minimum I plan to bring it with me to the next planning session and when someone identifies an activity to ‘STOP’ I will point to the quadrant the thing falls into. This is not to prevent good organizational design, new ideas or planning; but it is to focus on the practicalities of planning and execution.

Limits of the Model

The model has its limits. The first is that is micro-biased. It assumes the organization, processes, outputs, and the like remain relatively constant. If your company is bought and the division shut down, the model is mute. The other limitation is technology. AI is seen as an automation tool but what happens when it becomes a game change at the macro level.

Nevertheless, hopefully you can start using this Stopping Model the next time you begin a planning meeting!

ITM Triangular Conceptual Model

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Frank SAPAA

The following graphic has been kicking around in my head, in various incarnations for a few years. It considers the inter-relationship between Information, Technology and their Management or Governance.

ITM Triangle

Definitions: Information, Technology and Management (ITM)

Before looking at the whole model, what are its components? How do you separate information from technology or from management? One the one hand you do not; there is a continuum in which very few things are strictly one thing or another and lots of bulging between the triangle points where the business of an IT Department happens. Nevertheless, there is nothing like a good definition and these are from COBIT.

Triangle Points

Information: An asset that, like other important business assets, is essential to an enterprise’s business. It can exist in many forms. It can be printed or written on paper, stored electronically, transmitted by post or by using electronic means, shown on films, or spoken in conversation.
(Information) Technology: The hardware, software, communication and other facilities used to input, store, process, transmit and output data in whatever form
Management: Plans, builds, runs and monitors activities in alignment with the direction set by the governance body to achieve the enterprise objectives. and/or
Governance: Ensures that stakeholder needs, conditions and options are evaluated to determine balanced, agreed‐on enterprise objectives to be achieved; setting direction through prioritization and decision making; making; and monitoring performance and compliance against agreed‐on direction direction and objectives.

Central Core

There are a lot of things going on inside an IT department but generally they rely on people and the application of knowledge.

IT People: individuals either employed by, contracted to or otherwise contribute to the objectives of the organization and its IT goals (note, this is not a COBIT definition). A central leadership roles found in IT departments is the CIO:
- Chief Information Officer: The most senior official of the enterprise who is accountable for IT advocacy, aligning IT and business strategies, and planning, resourcing and managing the delivery of IT services, information and the deployment of associated human resources. For brevity this also includes the potential differentiated functions of a Chief Technology Officer or a Chief Knowledge Officer.
Knowledge: The intangible awareness of how to do something (e.g. through user manuals, guides, etc.) or the application of ability and other intangible properties to a problem. Knowledge is brought to an organization by the people who join it but there is also often a localized set of abilities unique or particular to a well run organization as well. According to Merriam Webster (no COBIT definition), knowledge includes:
- a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
- b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one’s information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge>
- c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
- d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>

Client/Environment Results

Outside of the triangle are the clients and consumers of service who tend to think about ITM in silos. For example, my computer is not booting (technology), I need a report that will tell me… (information), why is IT so “@Q#!$%*” expensive (management/ governance). The reality is more subtle and holistic and increasingly all three need to work together to provide quality service to the organization. To this end, how the client interacts with IT can be broken into one of the following four means:

Application: what most users think of when they think about IT. COBIT defines these as: A computer program or set of programs that performs the processing of records for a specific function
Information System: what most users manipulate when they are using an application. COBIT definition: The combination of strategic, managerial and operational activities involved in gathering, processing, storing, distributing and using information and its related technologies.
Governance/Management: How you know how to allocate scarce resources to prioritize business problems. The actual individuals and committees that perform the management/governance functions described in the above definitions. For example a corporate IT steering, project or program steering or working committee.
Utilities: generally invisible to users, until something goes wrong. Collectively, the software, hardware and other technologies that perform particular computerized functions and routines that are frequently required during normal processing (adapted from COBIT).

Triangle and Real Life

The benefit of using a triangular model is that each point interacts with the other two. That is there are gradients rather than a set of discrete locations. Thus an application is an example of technology but generally it consumes, transforms or outputs information. Information in isolation is generally not usable without technology or governance (e.g. It needs a report to deliver it and standards to understand it).

The model can also help IT folks view their craft holistically. ‎ Working in one area or another may create blind spots for the other two. Thus someone working in the app development space may forget the information imperatives or lose sight of the business needs for the application. A business user may over-simplify the role of information management or the challenges of building technology to deliver quality and timely information. Finally, while things such as data science are gaining traction the need a suitable container to produce it and the oversight to apply or use it is not diminished.

The So-What Factor?

Nice triangle, but will it get me funding for a data center upgrade, a new ERP system or better business intelligence (BI) tools? Yes, in a way. The Triangle can be used to demystify why expenditures and efforts in all areas are necessary. As well, the triangle may be used as the basis for things like a heat map of where to invest the next dollar. If past years have seen good efforts in BI tools, have the transactional systems kept pace in feeding these systems? Is there good oversight on master data records or big data to know who owns what and what do you do with the data when you find it?

What are your thoughts on the ITM Triangle? Does it cover sufficiently what your IT area does, are their gaps or is too high level?