You are Keeping Score! Whether You Like It or Not!

Posted on July 22, 2024 by David Holcomb

You are Keeping Score! Whether You Like It or Not!

As a youngster, I was told, “don’t be judgmental.” The Bible verse Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” was used as a guideline. Along with judgmental-ness, “holding a grudge” was also forbidden. “Just let it go” or “forgive and forget” were the common refrains. Phew, good thing I am neither judgmental nor a grudge holder. Wait, maybe I am; perhaps we all are.

Each day, we receive hundreds of transactions. These transactions include social media posts, road signs, music, odors from the cubicle next door, television, streaming content, conversations, etc. More subtly, transactions include the flicker of a light bulb, a sound from your car engine, or a sticky key on your keyboard. We judge these transactions all the time. Don’t believe me? What do we do when we get the TV remote?

Click . . . Judge . . . No,

Click . . . Judge . . .Next,

Click . . . Judge . . .Watch!

We have to be a little judgmental to live.

Well, what about the “holding a grudge” thing? It’s a little different. We “keep score” of these transactions in what I call “ledgers.” These ledgers work like an accounting ledger. The positives and negatives generate a ledger balance we use to process subsequent transactions. Positive balances guide us toward accepting the next transaction; negative balances guide us toward declining the next transaction. So, we hold a grudge in the form of negative balances and declined transactions. I guess, we are all “judgmental grudge holders” – bummer!

Wait! Let’s not be too hard ourselves because we also value good relationships and positive ledger balances. Knowing we have this process can help us optimize it. When evaluating an important decision, I like to say, “this is a ‘check myself, before I wreck myself” moment.” It helps me consider the ledgers for alternatives and rightsizing. This practice is still under construction for me, but I encourage you to give it a try.

Before you jump into biases or archetypes, as I call them, hold off. We will cover them in a future post. Believe it or not, biases and archetypes are not the same. These ledgers are dyadic or between two entities. In contrast, biases/archetypes are based on characteristics or attributes of a group or individual that we have deemed positive or negative and are built through what I call the “Old MacDonald method, E-I-E-I-O” of education, indoctrination, experience, introspection, and observation. As I said, stay tuned for  coming posts.

Meanwhile, please take a moment to be sure your ledgers are where you want them to be. Also, evaluate this concept in your daily life and see what happens. Check back in with your thoughts.

Until next time!

Note: Originally posted in drawnoboxes.substack.com in Jan 2023.
Posted in Human Algorithm Project, Philosophy | Leave a comment

Demystifying Data Quality: Why Process Matters More Than You Think

Posted on July 15, 2024 by David Holcomb

Demystifying Data Quality: Why Process Matters More Than You Think

In the day-to-day use of data in an organization, we often hear about “data quality” as the gold standard. But what exactly does it mean for data to be of high quality? Let’s break it down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Data as the Artifact of a Process

Imagine a dataset as a treasure chest, but instead of gold coins, it holds bits of data. Every piece of data, whether it’s sales figures or customer demographics, is like an artifact unearthed from a complex archaeological site—the process. Just like artifacts reflect the culture and practices of ancient civilizations, data reflects the processes that produced it. Interestingly, the process will reflect the culture and practices in place at the time as well just like the archeological artifacts.

2. Blame the Process, Not the Data

Ever heard the phrase, “Don’t shoot the messenger”? In our case, don’t blame the data—it’s not wrong, but rather, it’s the process of collecting it that goes astray. For example, if a sales report shows unexpected figures, it’s likely due to flaws in how sales data was collected, not because the data itself is faulty.

In one case, a noted physician complained that the hemoglobin data was wrong when it came back from the lab. He contended such results should be removed to avoid confusion. My contention was that the process had a problem; if the data were removed, it would not be measured. I posited the question, “If a patient had to have blood drawn an extra time, would you expect a higher or lower patient satisfaction score?” A wry smile came from my colleague, along with his agreement.

3. The Quest for Conforming Data

Data quality isn’t just about having a bunch of numbers—it’s about how well those numbers match our expectations. Think of it like baking a cake: you expect a fluffy cake when you follow the recipe exactly. Similarly, data quality should measure how closely the data conforms to our expectations and standards.

With this conformity issue in mind, actual measurements of quality may surprise the hardened skeptic. In a university setting, the organization had 1.3 million student records spanning 20 years. The common thought was the student data was a mess, filled with duplication and inaccuracies. After doing an analysis, we determined the accuracy level to be 99.7%, with only about 4,000 student records not conforming. This finding led to excitement, and a movement was quickly afoot to resolve the 4,000 identified student records.

4. Editing What You Know, Auditing What You Don’t

Here’s a practical approach: “Edit what you know, audit what you don’t.” It’s like proofreading a paper—you correct the parts you’re familiar with (like fixing typos in your own writing) and audit the unfamiliar (checking sources and references). In data terms, this means ensuring accurate entries (like converting kilograms to pounds correctly) and auditing anomalies to spot errors or deviations from the norm.

If you have ever seen the content of the “state code” field in many databases, you can understand the concept of “edit what you know.” In one case, a state code of “GE” was found in the state field. We found this entry meant “Georgia” because the field was being truncated and the individual was typing “Georgia” in the field rather than “GA.” Because the work was separated by state, Georgia was the only state the individual was inputting. Others in the group were using the correct abbreviation. Interestingly, the associate was set to retire in a few weeks. We would have been left with the question, “Did she think the abbreviation for Georgia was GE?”

5. Data Ownership: Who’s in Charge Here?

Just like every artifact has its guardian, every piece of data should have its owner. Those who create and modify the data should also be responsible for its quality. Imagine if the archaeologist who discovers a rare artifact also ensures its preservation and accurate documentation—that’s the essence of data ownership. Improving the data will improve the process and make the process owner’s job easier. They have a vested interest and solid WIIFM (“what’s in it for me”). In short, “He who owns the process, owns the data.”

Putting It All Together

So, as you discuss data usage, remember: data quality isn’t a mystical concept—it’s about understanding the process generating the numbers. By focusing on improving processes and taking ownership of data quality, you’ll uncover valuable insights without getting lost in a sea of numbers.

And remember, even high-quality data has its quirks and surprises—just like uncovering buried treasures. Embrace the journey, and who knows? You might just find the insights that change the game.

Until next time!

Dr. Dave

Posted in Data into Dollars, Leadership & Management, Philosophy | Leave a comment

Uncivil Civics

Posted on May 29, 2024 by David Holcomb

 

 

 

 

 

 

Committee hearings in Senate and Congress,

Excellent chances for us to make some progress.

It’s Reps and Senators, with Experts, oh my,

Facts and experiences and how they apply.

 

But what happened next was simply amazing,

Everyone came out with their guns a-blazing.

Experts got hammered with partisan queries,

Name calling, insults, conspiracy theories.

 

Spewing their talking points when they should inquire,

Their post-game review, “We put them under fire.”

They’re snarky, They’re snippy, decorum is gone.

They’re hoping the talking heads will ask them on.

 

Time to change the behaviors we reward,

Okay to disagree but don’t sow discord,

We need to weed out these divisive cynics,

The ones perpetuating our uncivil civics.

 

Posted in Poetry, Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

COVID as I Remember It

Posted on May 21, 2024 by David Holcomb

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was the best of times, then perhaps the worst,

A Hollywood-style dystopian earth.

Zoom from home, long isolated days,

All in, no out, universal malaise.

 

Temporary protocols to “flatten the curve”

Offered as the “new normal” with vigor and verve.

Stay six feet apart whether indoors or out.

Sanitize those hands, mask that snout.

 

Trump’s “Warp speed” got us the shot,

Biden said, “Take it whether you want to or not.”

The data were mixed just asked most scientists,

But hold all questions on how strong the science is.

 

Just two shots and you were “vaxxed,”

Protected from the spread, but then came the facts.

It just didn’t work. A booster is needed,

Ask Pfizer, ask Moderna, you must be treated.

 

We humans like to think that we have the final word,

But Mother Nature’s the one that immunized the herd,

For virtually nothing, we shut down our nation,

We should’ve heeded the Great Barrington Declaration.

 

So, to all you Elites, “What the heck?”

Expect a few questions, not a genuflect,

You can be wrong, believe it or not,

Humility’s the medicine, take the shot.

 

“Thanks” to those who played the foil,

Blackballed, black-listed, unrecognized toil,

It wasn’t fair to you and it wasn’t fair to us.

Stay humble, stay righteous, and keep the trust.

Posted in Poetry, Politics | Leave a comment

Security – Cybersecurity, Home Security, Border Security – It’s All the Same

Posted on January 15, 2023 by Dr. David Holcomb

How are we doing security our treasure?

Do you have a lock on your front door? Do you have a password for your email account? People will secure their treasures based on their relative value, whether corporate assets, homes, or homeland. You secure these treasures to reduce the risk they will be taken or used without your permission.

“Security” is all about reducing risk. In the late nineties, Welke and Straub presented the four stages of the “security action cycle.” The first two stages focus on preventing loss, whereas the second two focus on minimizing loss from the intrusion. The four stages are::

  1. Deterrence: Taking action to dissuade a bad actor and prevent a violation.
  2. Protection: Implementing measures repelling the bad actor’s advance.
  3. Detection: Monitoring the environment to uncover the bad actor.
  4. Remedies: Returning to the pre-violation state includes containment, eradication, and recovery. Limiting the damage, seeking restitution via legal action, and repairing any damage done by the bad actor’s intrusion are included in this stage.

The risk is reduced when a company, person, or country acts early in the cycle. If you deter the bad actor, you will need less repelling, detecting, eradicating, and recovery. The earlier you stop the attack in the security action cycle, the less loss. So it is important to incorporate the learning in the protection, detection, and remedies stage back into the earlier stages.

Consider the example of cyber security. The security action cycle offers a solid framework for evaluating and putting context to the initiatives in a cyber security program. For example:

  1. Deterrence: A company may post security certifications, membership in a consortium, or recent legal action against previous bad actors on their website. Companies can deter insider issues with good policies and training.
  2. Protection: Firewalls, passwords, and physical barriers are all examples of protection strategies.
  3. Detection: Monitoring for abnormalities, known patterns, or thresholds can identify intrusions. Additionally, security guards may walk the beat to detect intrusion physically.
  4. Remedies: The organization must contain and eradicate the bad actor. After stopping the attacker, the company can begin cleaning up, restoring service, and seeking other remedies, including legal action.

Securing your home with locks, fences, passwords, lights, and even electronic security monitoring systems is standard fair. We will secure our perimeter without a second thought. Our barbecue grills, swing sets, lawnmowers, and deck chairs were purchased and built for our use or for the folks we allow. Keeping people out of your house and off your lawn is typical.

  1. Deterrence: A security system sign in the front yard, a guard dog sign on the fence, prickly bushes under the windows, and lighting work well here.
  2. Protection: We all know locks, fences, and those prickly bushes mentioned earlier are all protection steps. Some folks have protective dogs or security personnel.
  3. Detection: In the home, motion detectors, observant or nosy neighbors, cruising police, and that previously mentioned dog can detect the intrusion.
  4. Remedies: If the intruder uses your backyard swing, the problem will likely have little serious consequence, and remedies have less value except not to allow it to happen again. More serious events, such as a break-in burglary, require more action, including cleaning up, restoring service, and pressing charges. After such an event, some may feel insecure and solicit support and reassurance from family members that the house is safe.

Regarding the U. S. border policy, partisanship will result in flaming content. First, I believe in legal immigration and a goodly amount of it. The key to this post is the process and rules to enter the border gates should be clear and based on the desired results in the long term. The individual will not be a bad actor if the rules are followed. However, if the rules are not followed, the individual would be a bad actor because the process and laws are not being followed. So we can use the security action cycle to minimize bad actors entering our country inappropriately. Consider:

  1. Deterrence: Promoting the proper process to actors desiring entry, so they do not become a bad actor is the first step. Sharing the penalty for breaching the border should disincentivize bad actors.
  2. Protection:  In many countries, borders have natural barriers, artificial barriers, and guards to keep bad actors out. These barriers can act as deterrents as well. Interestingly, North Korea has guards to keep internal actors from leaving and or coming into the country.
  3. Detection: Once someone crosses the border illegally, the country’s massive size makes detection difficult if not detected early. Surveillance by border guards, drones, and other technologies can aid in the detection of those breaching the border.
  4. Remedies: A key to any illegal activity is following through on the associated penalties. The penalties should be associated with the crime. In the case of one that breaches the border, eradication could be deportation from the U. S. Repeat offenders should receive harsher sentences than the first offender.

We can use the security action cycle to determine a company, country, or person’s performance in securing an environment in each stage. A few questions:

  • How would you rate your company’s cybersecurity plan for deterrence, protection, detection, and remediation?
  • How about your performance securing your castle?
  • What rating would you give your country’s border security plan for deterrence, protection, detection, and remediation?

I am guessing we all have some work to do.

Until next time.

Dr. Dave

Posted in Data into Dollars, Leadership & Management, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders were “Terrible” & “Stressful”

Posted on January 6, 2023 by Dr. David Holcomb

COVID-19 offered a unique opportunity to study the perspectives of working in the office versus working from home. In a qualitative study, I interviewed 14 people who had moved from office to home because of their company’s response to COVID-19. The participants reported stress and difficulty early in the process and missed dedicated space, connectivity resources, technical support, and each other.

All participants reported the initial phases of the move from in-office to remote were rocky due to space.  First, all participants reported missing a dedicated place for working. COVID-19 “stay-at-home” orders forced workers and the rest of their families, including children, to “work from home.” Finding enough space for school children, college students, and adults to work throughout the day was tough. Parents of young children had to provide lunch and other attention in addition to their work schedule. One participant described having adults, high schoolers, and college students “either in class or working on four different computers and four different corners of the house and all that.” Another called the experience “terrible” and “stressful” as she recounted tending to her young children while trying to work.

All participants also mentioned connectivity resources and technical support. When in the office, connectivity was provided and optimized for the personal computer technology given to the worker. Internet connectivity became the worker’s responsibility when working at home and generally was the regular home Internet service. The connectivity technical support included the worker’s Internet company and the corporate IT department. When in the office, the potential exists for on-site technical support but working from home, the worker must coordinate the support among the providers.

Eleven of the 14 respondents mentioned “informal communications” when asked what was missed. The respondents missed the presence of people, breakroom chats, and casual conversations. The relationships coming from these informal communication channels required a more “intentional” approach when working remote. “Presence” can also increase the speed of work-focused information as well. Individuals can no longer overhear conversations or look over the cubical wall for help with work tasks. Participants also noted effects on onboarding new employees, products, and processes.

More and more companies are adopting work-from-home. Workers enjoy the reduced commute and ability to respond to family needs. Companies enjoy reduced real estate costs and an increased resource pool. With these positives, workers and organizations must determine how communications, knowledge sharing, and presence will occur in the future workplace. Fortunately, organizations and workers are better equipped technically and logistically, and other services, such as schools and colleges, are open.

Other themes emerged throughout the study that I will cover in future posts.

Until next time!

Dr. Dave

 

Posted in Human Algorithm Project, Leadership & Management, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2023 – A New Outlook

Posted on January 2, 2023 by Dr. David Holcomb

During 2023, I plan to increase posts on my research, observations, and thoughts on the application of findings. After completing my first doctorate, a Ph.D. in Business Administration focused on organizational behavior, in 2009, I started this blog with great hope. Unfortunately, I did not stick with it. I am going to try again!

During this time . . .

From 2009 through 2022, I continued researching human behavior and specific exchange theory and negotiated latitude. These laid the framework for what I call the “Human Algorithm Project” and “Ledger Theory.” Between 2019 and 2022, I picked up my studies in technology and completed a second doctorate, a Ph.D. in Information Technology. I researched cybersecurity, technology architecture, risk management, data warehousing, business intelligence, and remote work in this program. In addition to my studies, my occupational pursuits allowed me to implement data warehouses, business intelligence tools, predictive & prescriptive analytics, exchange theory principles, a SaaS product, and multiple cloud solutions.

Of course, I will reprise some of my previous posts as they are still relevant. The topics will be as broad as my research and experience encompass information technology, remote work, organizational commitment, organization design, human behavior, social exchange theory, data warehousing, business intelligence, analytics, and business architecture.

I look forward to sharing and hearing from you.

Until next time!

Thanks, David

Posted in Data into Dollars, Human Algorithm Project, Leadership & Management, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Human Algorithm Project!

Posted on December 13, 2022 by Dr. David Holcomb

Welcome to the Human Algorithm Project!

The Human Algorithm Project aims to craft a framework explaining the dynamics of commitment to decision-making and relationships. The human algorithm considers biological, chemical, environmental, and relationship factors to understand how we respond to the increasing transactions from other humans, media, the Internet, and entertainment.

Until Next Time.

Dr. Dave

 

Posted in Human Algorithm Project | 1 Comment

Org Chart – Obsolete when the ink dries?

Posted on September 13, 2014 by Dr. David Holcomb

Change is a constant in business today. While chatting with a colleague, he said, “Modern management realizes as soon as the ink is dry on the org chart, it’s time to change it.” I quickly retorted, “a thoughtfully considered, properly designed org chart would not need to be completely restructured constantly.” I continue by describing the concept of “schizoid incoherence,” which is the point an organization reaches when they are halfway between the current organizational structure (Org-A) and the new organizational structure (Org-B).

Schizoid incoherence, as its name implies, is a time of confusion. The organization is moving from one structure to another, and the members of the organization are not sure which organizational structure to use to get things done. Imagine if the organizational structure changes again before the movement from Org-A to Org-B is complete. If the organization introduces Org-C, members become further confused. If an organization continuously changes its structure, the organizational member will have little hope of realizing the efficiencies behind the proposed designs. A-ha – my point is made – proper consideration of the goal will yield a better, more sustaining organization chart.
A second and more serious issue surrounding schizoid incoherence is the swirling conjecture. In organizations where constant org chart changes are the norm, the rumor mill is extremely active and members are constantly wondering who they will report to next. This conjecture and swirl occupy a great deal of time. The result can be a drain on productivity.

What is the answer? Define the type of organization you want; I refer to this as business architecture. Your organization chart should structure the resources within your organization to get the work done efficiently. Some companies need geographic presence, while others do not. Some have many levels of hierarchy, and others will be flatter. Some are adhocracies to tackle specific issues, and some are hyper-stable structures to repeatedly do a very distinct transaction. Some organizations have high customer touchpoints, and others have fewer contacts with their customers. Some organizations are service-oriented (highly people-intensive), while others are product-oriented (highly physical resource intensive). In all cases, the facilitation of communication, cross-functional touchpoints, and customer interactions must be considered and satisfied.

Finally, I agree that change is an undisputable fact of business. The organization must be able to change to meet the customer and market demands for its products, services, and resources. This change does not necessarily mean you need to change the org chart; if you do, you need to thoughtfully make changes in the org chart to minimize disruption and schizoid incoherence. Most importantly, if you make the changes, communicate them explicitly with a specific date and insure the members attempting to use the legacy structure are pointed to the new design.

Until next time.

Dr. Dave

Posted in Leadership & Management | Leave a comment

Structural Indifference – Success is NOT the absence of failure

Posted on September 19, 2012 by Dr. David Holcomb

I have been in many organizations and seen a diversity of cultures. In several, I have observed environments where the fear of failure has stymied innovation.  Having a healthy attitude toward failure is important to avoid fool-hardiness; however, if failure becomes the focal point of management, success becomes defined as the absence of failure. I refer to this construct as “structural indifference.”

So you may ask, “why is structural indifference so bad?”  Assume you are in an organization exhibiting structural indifference. Imagine a risky, high-profile project comes up – would you volunteer?  Imagine you are given a very doable task, but the time frame is such that to be successful, you will have to take shortcuts, completing the task in a less-than-optimal way and not making the outcome reusable for other functions.  Do you:

  1. Deliver the less optimal way or
  2. Take the chance of being late and doing it the best way?

In an environment of structural indifference, leadership has built structures that cause indifference toward success and innovation and hedge toward preservation and anonymity.

Structural indifference is dangerous.  First, decisions become more difficult and require high-level executives.  You will hear people say, “We need to get VP Smith’s approval on this.” If you make a decision and something adverse happens, the initiative is met with swift scorn.  Because of this threat, decisions are escalated up the ladder to VP Smith.

Second, the behavioral response to a problem is irrational. When problems occur, the first concern is who to blame versus what actually happened. Following the blame-storming session, the leader will often issue extreme edicts to “prevent this from ever happening again.” These edicts exacerbate the issue by causing more exceptions to be approved by the leader. This spiral usually leads to more edicts, more exceptions, and so on.

Finally, those who play the game by doing nothing have little to no failure and are rewarded highly. This situation will annoy innovators, and the true high performers will soon depart. The caretakers that remain will react to what is required but little more.  The boat will continue to float but never move faster.

How can you reverse structural indifference? It is not an easy proposition. You must break down the structures that encourage this indifference.

  1. Overt power-sharing:  Leaders must ensure decision-making power is shared with lower levels of the organization and support those decisions.
  2. Right-size responses to problems: stop the edicts. Stop the attempts to save face by immediately prescribing blame and ask about intent before assuming it.
  3. Don’t assume leaders have leadership skills: Many of the executives I encounter need an executive coach and, frankly, a watchful eye.  Inspection is important. If the only story you hear is the “Blame-Stormer’s,” you will overestimate their leadership ability. If you have a leader who prescribes praise to their people during success and stands up for the blame when things go wrong – you have a winner.

Structural indifference is a tough cycle to break. At its core is trust and confidence in leadership.  Building trust and confidence take time.  Start the change today.

Until next time.

Dr. Dave

Posted in Leadership & Management, Philosophy | Leave a comment