Technology and Culture

Opportunities exist to combine product innovation and organizational experience to move beyond today's technology.

Challenges abound when confronted with integrating transportation security. One challenge involves aligning an organization's technology and culture. More than a few CIOs wonder how they will get their organization out the information technology adoption curve. I consider automation, transportation and physical security technology in the information domain.

In integrating transportation security you have to ask: What is the culture/personality of your organization with respect to this information curve? What happens when organizations look in the mirror?

For many organizations the person(ality) they see probably looks more like Sybil than any single individual: some days it's Thomas Edison ready to invent novel solutions and other days it's a first child's parents where often no level of risk is acceptable.

Over a decade ago "Crossing the Chasm" named various categories of people (organizations) with respect to technology adoption (innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority and laggard). I have always looked at projects and companies in terms of culture and competence. Education, mentoring, experience, tools and funding can affect competence (for those willing to learn); culture, forget about it. Or consider trying to change it at your own peril. Being realistic about culture will have a big impact on an organization's technological evolution.

New technologies need to be used for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and homeland security to meet current needs for improved mobility and security.

In this case are we required to change the culture of these organizations? What does the future look like, and to what extent will new technology need to be implemented? Is not to do so today only putting off what needs to be done tomorrow?

Technological evolution

I think people realize it's difficult to ignore (technological) evolution. Further, federal funding for ITS and homeland security make it easier to go forward. While helpful in making the decision to go ahead, it also is where the danger lies. If an organization gets funded for products or services where there is not a match between technology and culture there's a good chance that the investment may be wasted.

Many objections to technology adoption come from the fact that the benefits are not understood (or proven) and the return on investment doesn't exist or gain acceptance. This goes away when a grant provides the funding. The logic of "if we don't get the funding it will either go away or someone else will get it" holds sway.

Someone needs to go back and look in the mirror to see if the organization matches the level of technology. If the system is off-the-shelf and already in use by their counterparts in the industry (both must apply) then there's a good chance for success. If not, then the organization needs to understand its ability to absorb.  For the more conservative organizations product must match the culture. For these organizations they have to buy proven products, not technology.

Often with ITS and homeland security some part of an organization needs to be early adopters. Another part can be the late majority, and will always get a finished, push-button product and hopefully the training to go with it. Fortunately more and more "technology" is getting to this point.

If the early adopters don't exist recognize it and follow others. Be careful when looking at analogs in the private sector; make sure you are comparing organizations with like cultures. In many cases consultants or integrators help but can't replace the need for this competence. Inherently you can support it or you can't, the middle is a no man's land. Just decide either way. And organizations also need to do things on the proper scale, meaning small at the start, even in the context of large projects.

So let's take some examples. In the world of homeland security initial funding has gone for some basic things. This includes fences, ammunition, vehicles, bulletproof vests and people. This makes a great deal of sense because these items are immune to any adoption curve.

Funding screening equipment at airports also fits based on the criteria above. Authorities are getting more of something they already use. Not withstanding the room to use them, a reduction in the number of lanes of people that pass or the floor rating to hold the extra weight of the machines. "Technology" and culture match.

Hotel USA

How are we doing in the area of commercial vehicle and cargo movement and port and border security that is tied so directly to our economic well-being? In this area there is the concept and opportunity of "Hotel USA." This idea has merit in many ways. It's a familiar way of looking at people and goods coming in and out of the U.S. It is customer centric. Hotels provide good service or people don't come back. We need to make it easy for goods and people to come and go while keeping tabs. Like a hotel, we need to make sure the people on the premises are those that belong.

 So how will technology and culture match in this case?

One would have to say it will be a challenge for the government to be customer centric. This challenge is being taken up in parts of government (some eGov initiatives for example) but it needs to become pervasive.

The challenge lies in funding, technology and product choices and making sure they align with organizations and the needs of users. "Hotel USA" provides an opportunity to be innovative particularly in the areas of authentication

(Identification) and authorization. ( priviliges). Hotel USA provides an opportunity to incorporate product innovation (if done correctly) and more beyond the way we do things today. And we have to!                     TME