Posted on

Rule 1: Clarify your purpose

One of the wonderful aspects of western society is that if you’re willing to work and have acquired a decent set of relevant skills, you can always find a way to make a living. I’m sure that there are exceptions, but I believe that, by and large, this actually is the case for many of us. Once you get to that point, the question becomes what you want to work on. What’s the work that feels worthwhile to spend your life energy on?

There are many answers in our culture, including making a ton of money, having a career that leaves others in awe or finding ways to get into the public eye so that you can build a reputation. Others view work as a necessary evil that we should spend as little time on as possible. Instead, we should look for ways to minimize the time allocated to work and spend time on other activities, which may include recreation or volunteering.

During most of the bigger vacations, such as summer and around Christmas, I often meet people who are incredibly happy to be away from work for a while. When you probe a little, the way many talk about their job, colleagues and responsibilities isn’t very positive. The vacation is viewed as an escape from the “living hell,” as someone called it, or the “prison” that I heard others refer to. I often wonder why one would stay in a position that one clearly hates or isn’t satisfied with. Why not choose a life that you don’t want to escape from?

That brings me to the first rule for thriving in a digital world: clarify your purpose. We’re all driven by a set of extrinsic and a set of intrinsic motivators. The extrinsic motivators are those that give some form of external reward, ie a form of reward-driven behavior. Your intrinsic motivation comes purely from within and doesn’t expect an external reward. Conducting the work brings its own reward because it aligns with your values, your purpose and what you experience as meaningful.

After I left academia to spend close to a decade in industry, in several vice-president level roles, I worked more hours than I had ever done in my life before that. Nonetheless, I couldn’t stop writing research articles. I kept at it during late evenings, weekends and vacations and even though my productivity dropped dramatically from when I was in academia, I still managed to publish 4-6 papers per year. I realized that writing research papers is my way of making sense of complex, chaotic topics and I relish the intrinsic reward of creating models or frameworks that help me understand and create order in the chaos. One of my intrinsic motivations is to use research to create novel insights and share those with others.

'You can’t figure out what your purpose is by sitting in a chair and thinking'

From this experience, I learned that I was unable to clarify my purpose and intrinsic motivation by sitting in an ivory tower and reasoning through things. I had to actively experiment with different roles, activities and contexts to experience what works for me and gives me energy and what works less well and drains the life out of me. Some people figure out early in life what they want to focus their life on, but many are less clear. My advice to those is to experiment more. You can’t figure out what your purpose is by sitting in a chair and thinking. You have to go out there and do stuff. As Steve Jobs said in the closing of his 2005 commencement speech at Stanford: stay hungry; stay foolish.

The reason why I believe that clarifying your purpose is so important in a digital world is threefold. First, the competition is, in many ways, much tougher as we’re all connected in a global network. Rather than competing with the others in your village, town or city, you’re now competing at a world level. As the saying goes, if you’re one in a million in China (or India, for that matter), there are still a thousand people just as good as you. To be successful, you need to operate at the top of your abilities. And you won’t be able to do that unless you’re completely aligned towards the work. That only happens if you’re intrinsically motivated and 100 percent in the game, which requires alignment with your purpose.

Second, digitalization allows for the automation of not just blue-collar work but even more so of white-collar work. ML/DL models are already better at diagnosing medical images than radiologists. NLP algorithms are better at scanning documents than lawyers. Autonomous-drive algorithms already are better than most drivers in all but a very small set of situations and soon will surpass humans in all contexts. The consequence is that every job or task that’s repetitive and can be described in a process will be automated. The repetition allows for the generation of data that ML/DL models need for training and the process will give a basic structure for algorithms to operate in. To stay relevant, you need to put your energy into the tasks that require all of your human skills and abilities.

The third reason is concerned with self-actualization. Maslov’s pyramid is a well-known framework for reasoning about this and once the basics are in place, which is the case for most of us, the focus is and should be on growing as a human being and as a professional into your full potential. Anything less than that is a waste of human life energy. That requires you to understand in which directions you’d like to grow and then take ownership of that journey and not allow excuses, such as blaming others, to get in the way.

I believe that all of us have come into this life to accomplish something. Something that will leave the world in a better place after you shuffle off this mortal coil. Everyone I meet wants their life to have meant something. For all but the lucky few, however, we don’t wake up one morning with a completely clear understanding of our purpose. It requires active exploration and, at some point, choosing a purpose that, based on your best understanding of your intrinsic motivators and what you experience as meaningful, is your best approximation. That purpose might change over time, but at least, for a while, you have a north star to sail by.

My professional purpose in life is to help accelerate the adoption of digital technologies in the software-intensive industry. I believe that technology, by and large, is a force for good in the world and solely responsible for the amazing progress that humanity has made over the last century or more. At this point in time, digital technologies are the most important technologies as they hold so much unexploited potential. For all the criticism of large corporations, it’s companies that bring technologies to market and through that create the associated societal benefits. So, where I can help accelerate the introduction of new technologies into our society by industry, I help improve the quality of life for humankind and help reduce unnecessary human suffering. And this professional purpose is why I chose to run Software Center, why I’m on the board of several companies and why I invest in startups. To the best of my understanding, at this moment, this is the best use of my time and energy.

I realize that some or even many may completely disagree, but it was never the intention to convince you of my purpose. The goal is to convince me of my purpose and it works for me to guide my actions and how I allocate my time. And, believe me, coming to this point and being able to clarify my purpose to myself took me many, many years.

My challenge to you is to clarify the purpose you choose for your life. What actions are you taking to that end? And if you even have the slightest spiritual side to you, what’s the reason that you’re here, in this life, and are you living up to that purpose? In a world where the opportunities are seemingly infinite, you need direction to ensure that you’re using your time and energy in the best way possible so that when you come to the end of your life, you can be satisfied with how you’ve used that amazing gift of life. As Robert Byrne famously said: the purpose of life is to live a life of purpose.

 

Posted on

Free webinar 10 May – System Architect Development Program

High Tech Institute organizes a webinar on 10 May 2021, 5 PM (GMT+2) in which the new System Architect Development Program, called ‘System Architecting Masters’ will be introduced.

 

The essentials for leadership in highly demanding development environments

The nine months long System Architecting Masters (Sysam) program focuses on practical no nonsense system architecting, as well as the essential leadership skills that are vital to exercise this role as system architect in technical development environments.

Sysam offers a deeply immersive, rigorous experience for professionals in research, development and engineering organizations who are committed to driving meaningful change within themselves, their teams, and their organizations. Check out the entire description here.

For whom?

Professionals in a technical development and engineering environment with:

  • at least five years of experience
  • at least half a year experience in a system architecting or system engineering role or a leading position that requires you to communicate with a team, customers and management
  • an ambition to bring your leadership skills to a higher level and improving your overall effectivity

Indicators
Sysam helps you to avoid common pitfalls in system development and engineering. You might recognize some them the mentioned below.

  • timing is a problem. Projects run late and over budget;
  • products do not meet the requirements the client needs;
  • technical decisions are done too much separately from other important aspects of the business;
  • technical leaders are not visible enough in the organisation;
  • it is not clear where the responsibilities of the system engineer or system architect starts and ends;
  • systems do not meet the stakeholders expectations, not only from a functional, but especially from a quality point of view.
Webinar outline

 

Posted on

10 rules for thriving in a digital world

Digitalization often focuses on new products, solutions and service opportunities through the use of software, data and artificial intelligence. Although this is an entirely relevant and valid viewpoint, many tend to forget that it’s not just the offerings that change. The people that work in a digital world also need to change. Our priorities, norms, values, practices and routines need to change as we transition from the traditional to a digital world.

During my engagements with large numbers of people working at a very diverse set of companies, I frequently run into mindsets and viewpoints that clearly are set in the old world, rather than a digital one. When you’re not reflecting on the philosophy with which you approach your professional life, you may easily end up becoming irrelevant and outdated. This limits anyone’s professional opportunities.

This year, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the differences between the traditional and the digital world from a personal and professional perspective. What does digitalization mean for the typical professional out in industry? How should we adjust the way we work and operate? One way I thought might be helpful to address this is by stating a number of rules on how to act, based on my experience. Together, these capture the essence of the requirements for thriving in a digital world.

1. Clarify your purpose

In a fast-changing world, some things move more slowly. Being clear on what you believe your purpose is, on what it is that gives meaning to your life, helps you set direction and guides your actions. Although your life purpose may evolve, it will do so much more slowly than everything else and provide you with an anchoring point.

2. Focus on outcomes

Once you’ve started to formulate your purpose, the next step is to look towards operationalizing it by selecting tactics. These tactics, however, are hypotheses on how you believe you can realize your purpose best. It’s critical to focus on the outcomes that you’re looking to achieve, rather than the tactics that you currently use, to ensure that you’re indeed delivering on the intended purpose. These outcomes are preferably expressed in quantitative, measurable terms.

3. Instrument and use the data

In a digital world, collecting data by instrumenting devices and processes has never been easier. So, rather than relying on your fallible perceptions and memories, focus on measuring what matters and tracking quantitatively that you’re indeed progressing towards your desired outcomes.

4. Automate repetitive tasks

A digital world is a programmable world. Any repetitive task that you perform regularly or periodically should be automated. The goal is to free up your time for the novel and unique work worthy of your attention and unique skill set.

5. Lean into the future

As the speed of change all around us is constantly increasing, you need to lean into the future, rather than try to hold on to the past. This requires a curious, experimental mindset where you open up and allocate time to exploring new ideas, technologies and products to understand why and how these might be an improvement over the contemporary. It also requires the courage to let go of old ideas, old ways of doing things, old relationships, to create space for the new. Change is continuous, dynamic and unpredictable and it wants you to embrace it.

6. Build skills, not position

In a digital world, hierarchies are increasingly fluid, constantly changing and focused on current needs. Relying on positional power to accomplish your goals is therefore risky as you may lose that position at any point. Instead, focus on building skills, becoming an expert in some and proficient in others to create as many opportunities as possible and, consequently, deliver on your purpose.

7. Think holistic

In a stable world, you can afford to focus deeply on understanding one aspect or component as its context won’t change very much. A digital world is dynamic and highly interconnected and as everything is changing at the same time, focusing on one aspect or component tends to lead to the wrong conclusions. Instead, you need to think more holistically and increase the scope of your attention. Even if your interest is the specific aspect or component, you need to understand its context as this context will change continuously.

8. Be proactive

Never wait for others to tell you what to do. Always be proactive, initiating action based on your best understanding of the right course of action, considering purpose and outcomes. And when you really don’t know how to take things forward, be proactive in asking for advice from those around you.

9. Empower those around you

Rather than looking to control the people around you, agree on the outcomes that you’re both looking to accomplish and then empower those around you to select the strategies and tactics they feel are best. Then evaluate them based on outcomes. When purpose and outcomes don’t align, despite your best efforts, then let go of the person. It frees both of you up to pursue your respective purposes and reduces suffering all around.

10. Engage with your ecosystem

Traditional business ecosystems were very static, meaning that a partner stayed a partner, a competitor stayed in that role and your customer is the same as yesterday. In a digital world, business ecosystems are in continuous flux. Your supplier becomes your competitor. You become your customer’s competitor. You partner with companies that you never heard of a month ago. By continuously engaging with your ecosystem, you can detect the changes early on and you can identify when the time is right for you to reposition in your ecosystem.

Operating as a professional in a digital world requires a new mindset, a different set of priorities and, in some ways, a new toolbox. These ten rules aren’t concerned with new skills or capabilities, but rather with more fundamental behavioral patterns. Digitalization is of course concerned with new products, solutions and services, but it’s also defining a new paradigm. And unless you adopt this paradigm, you’ll struggle to thrive in a digital world.

'The digital world requires a new system of beliefs, a different paradigm'

Gandhi said: “Your beliefs become your thoughts, your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, your actions become your habits, your habits become your values, your values become your destiny.” Everything starts with your beliefs and the digital world requires a new system of beliefs, a different paradigm. So, my question to you: do you have what it takes to be successful and thrive in a digital world?

Posted on

EMC knowledge overcomes problems in motion systems

Initiates in electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) will undoubtedly know Mart Coenen. His experience in the field can be traced back to the early eighties when he set up the first EMC training at Philips. In the meantime, he’s earned his spurs with clients such as the Port of Rotterdam and ASML. He still talks about his specialism with undiminished enthusiasm – just ask any of the participants in the training “EMC in Power Electronc Systems” at High Tech Institute.

 

Trained as an electrical engineer, Mart Coenen started his working life at the Philips Natlab. At that time, there was no legislation or regulation in the field of EMC, but within Philips, they felt it was important for the employees to have a thorough knowledge of the subject. “Together with Jap Goedbloed, I set up the first EMC training course in 1981. At first, it was an internal training at CTT, but soon it was extended to a national course organized by Pato, later PAO. By now, this is perhaps the longest-running course they offer,” Coenen proudly says. In 1988, he became involved in the international standardization of EMC. To this day, he’s still active in all kinds of committees dealing with the laws and regulations concerning EMC, ESD and electrical safety.

Mart Coenen - Trainer EMC for motion systems

Mart Coenen is part of the trainer team, together with Ramiro Serra from the TUE, Mark van Helvoort from Philips Healthcare and Ernest Bron from Analog Devices.

In 1994, Coenen started his own company, EMCMCC, driven by a lot of work with smaller clients, which he couldn’t (or wasn’t allowed to) serve under the Philips’ flag. He worked for the Rotterdam Port Authority, which was forced to automate its container transshipment processes due to the many strikes. From his own company, he also worked as a consultant for ASML, where he was involved in the 450-mm wafer project. For every movement in the process, the exact location of the wafer had to be determined. This was difficult because the disturbances in the system caused measurement errors. “Within nine months, we developed an entirely new concept, which was implemented. Partly because of this, there were fewer disturbances, and therefore, less calculation work was required to determine the exact location. As a result, the manufacturing process of wafers could be scaled up from 200 to 400 wafers per hour.”

Tracking

“During my work, I’ve noticed that people often believe that when a system is CE/EMC approved, it will work properly. Nevertheless, you regularly see operational problems arising, which often lie in the area of EMC,” Coenen emphasizes. “After all, EMC system approval is no guarantee for a reliable operational system. It’s important to be alert to what happens if a system is temporarily disrupted and to realize what consequences this disruption can have on the system. Is it a disruption that has no influence at all? Or one in which there’s a temporary outage but everything continues properly after restarting? Or is a hard reboot of the system necessary, or do parts even need to be replaced? It’s important to realize that the process doesn’t always continue properly. It may be that even the smallest temporary disturbance is inadmissible. For example, if you produce wafers that require an accuracy of 2 nm, then a temporary deviation of 20 nm is unacceptable because that would mean that you have to throw away the exposed wafers. Of course, as a customer, that’s not what you want. A suitable solution has to be found for this type of problem.”

The tricky thing is that the signals are often in an area where regulation is lacking. For both the mains and the inrush currents, everything is fixed, but this isn’t the case for signals in moving systems. This type of signal is typically in the frequency range between DC and 150 kHz. On the one hand, you have the electronic signal controlling a displacement. On the other hand, there’s the signal from a sensor, which retrieves information to determine the location. These two signals can influence each other. In motion technology, you’re bound to the signal frequencies you need for the displacements. These frequencies can cause disturbances that get picked up by the sensors. The trick is to learn how to deal with them.

'It’s the search for a solution and eventually finding it that gives me a pleasant adrenaline rush.'

“Even after all these years, the EMC field is still attractive to me. There’s always that challenge to get something working. And if it doesn’t work, there’s the challenge of searching for the right solution. Sometimes the solution is obvious, sometimes it’s more difficult. It’s the search for a solution and eventually finding it that gives me a pleasant adrenaline rush every time. Also, the field is still very much in motion. More and more is happening via the Internet of Things, with an increasing number of sensors generating data. Still, we have to keep asking ourselves what the reliability of this data is and how useful it actually is. I’m also following these developments with interest.”

Hands-on

During the “EMC in Power Electronic Systems” training, part of the portfolio of High Tech Intitute partner T2Prof, participants gain insight into the problems that can occur in motion systems and learn what to do about them. Coenen: “In this training, we focus on the area that falls outside the norms and teach our students to create a reliable system that is operational 24/7. Although this training is relatively new for High Tech Institute, as a teacher for CTT, Pato, Mikrocentrum, Avans and Fontys University of Applied Sciences, I’ve already gained a lot of experience. My experience is that students find the material very difficult at first, but if you offer them the right theory during the course and let them practice it themselves, they can put what they’ve learned into practice very well afterward.”

Check out the training

Training EMC for motion systems

'There are demos and students can do their own simulations on setups. '

The training is intended for mechatronics engineers, electrical engineers and system architects who in their work have to deal with low-frequency disturbances (from DC to about 150 kHz) caused by motion and energy conversion systems. Students learn about systems thinking and how to anticipate problems they encounter in practice. Coenen: “In addition to signal theory, which is based on physical laws, network theory and knowledge about the behavior of cables, there’s also a hands-on part. There are demos and students can do their own simulations on setups. It’s important that during the training, they learn what they can measure and how they should do it. I’m looking forward to introducing the students to the EMC in Power Electronic Systems together with my fellow teachers Ramiro Serra from the TUE, Mark van Helvoort from Philips Healthcare and Ernest Bron from Analog Devices.”

In November 2020, the team of experts delivered the very first 3-days training to a group of 10 participants. When asked if they would recommend the course to others, participants responded with an emphatic 8.3 points out of a possible 10 and gave the lecturers a score of 8.4. Respondents also offered several praising comments. “Good to receive the theoretical background and the setups were very useful,” one of the trainees commented. Another pointed out that the training exceeded his expectations. Other positive comments: “Love the number of demonstrations” and “Background theory was very helpful. Nice demos! Good interaction.”

This article is written by Antoinette Brugman, tech editor of Bits&Chips.

Recommendation by former participants

By the end of the training participants are asked to fill out an evaluation form. To the question: 'Would you recommend this training to others?' they responded with a 8.3 out of 10.

Posted on

Essential training for technical leadership in highly demanding development environments

System Architecting Masters program
High Tech Institute is starting an intensive System Architecting Masters (Sysam) training program for system architects and system engineers. Ger Schoeber and Jaco Friedrich offer aspiring professionals a robust program of training and coaching on their own projects for nine months.

The System Architecting Masters program consists of three intensive blocks of training of four days each with several months in between for assignments on the job, coaching and peer review. Half of the training itself consists of essential system engineering and system architecting topics. The other half consists of intensive exercises with practical situations, such as convincing stakeholders and being able to turn resistance into buy-in.

There are several months between the four-day training blocks, during which Schoeber and Friedrich coach the participants. Intermediate sessions are also planned where the participants exchange experiences with each other.

To ensure quality, the number of participants in Sysam is limited to a maximum of twelve. This also ensures that participants can effectively exchange experience about their projects.

If you want to enhance your leadership skills and push projects a big step forward, check out the entire Sysam program.

Posted on

System architecture and leadership – practical and no-nonsense

High Tech Institute is launching an intensive System Architecting Masters (Sysam) training program for system architects and systems engineers. Ger Schoeber and Jaco Friedrich offer aspiring professionals a robust nine-month program of training and coaching on their own projects.

 

Central to the new System Architecting Masters (Sysam) program are the current projects of participating system architects and system engineers. “The goal is both to contribute to the competence growth of participants and, at the same time, to add value to the participants’ ongoing projects,” says Ger Schoeber, who has been training system architects for more than 20 years.
Schoeber likes to put his nose to the grindstone. He works four days a week at Lightyear as a group leader and domain expert in systems engineering and spends one day on another passion: his systems training courses at High Tech Institute. “It’s very nice to help people grow in their experience through training,” he says. “The satisfaction for us as a training institute is even greater when we see direct effects in the improvement of actual industrial projects.”
Schoeber teaches Sysam together with Jaco Friedrich, who as a full-time trainer of leadership skills mainly sees technicians. Friedrich has trained several thousand professionals in high tech. “High-tech companies recognize effective communication, giving feedback and influencing without power as essential skills of the system architect,” he says.

Ger Schoeber (left) and Jaco Friedrich (right).  

Check out the training

 

CAFCR and NASA

The nine-month Sysam program consists of three intensive training blocks of four days each, with several months in between for assignments on the job, coaching and intervision. Guest speakers share their extensive experience in system architecture, systems engineering and complex development. Half of the training consists of essential systems engineering and system architecting topics. Schoeber draws on two sources, Gerrit Muller’s CAFCR framework and the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook.
“CAFCR is all about putting yourself in the shoes of the customer and stakeholders, looking at the system architecture from five perspectives,” explains Schoeber. “Only two of them are about technology, about the solution. The other three are about the customer perspective. That, in my experience, is where the great value of the CAFCR framework lies.”
“The functional view, the F from CAFCR, is about the specification, the requirements: what does the customer actually expect from the product or what do the stakeholders expect from the system, regarding functionality, quality and performance? The application view, the A from CAFCR, requires you to look at the broader context. In which environment is the future subsystem or system located? How will it be integrated, deployed, used, and so on? If you have a good picture of that, then you understand what is or isn’t useful. That enables you to better align the requirements with the actual need.”

'CAFCR allows us to come up with solutions that will help customers even more. '

The first C in CAFCR is all about customer objectives. “What’s his business? How does he make his money? What’s the reality of his customer or the colleague who’s going to integrate my subsystem? If you understand that better, you can better see what he needs to improve his business. CAFCR forces us to not only look at the technology but also at the specifications and the rationale of the requirements. It allows us to come up with solutions that will help customers even more.”

The CAFCR model by Gerrit Muller: www.gaudisite.nl

 

In addition to CAFCR, Sysam uses the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. “A systems engineering handbook provides guidance on how to set up, roll out, complete and execute activities in a product creation process,” Schoeber points out. “Developers often use the V model, with on the left side the system definition – from concept of operations, requirements, architecture, design to engineering – and on the right side the system realization – from engineering to integration, verification and validation. NASA’s recently updated systems engineering manual takes this approach and also very frequently integrates short-cycle feedback loops, which is also the basis of agile thinking. The latest revamp has also made it very accessible, readable and applicable.”

Practice in practice

The other half of the training consists of intensive exercises with practical situations, such as convincing stakeholders and being able to turn resistance into buy-in. Friedrich: “Practice takes time. When engineers experience it in a training course, they immediately see the value. The added value is in the experience. What seems easy on paper is not at all easy in practice. By practicing, participants step out of their comfort zone and actually experience how things can be done differently. This gives them self-confidence and motivation to apply it immediately. And it turns out that this practical approach also successfully results in participants doing their work differently. After the training, they often say that they should have done it much earlier.”

'It’s about learning to deal with risks. So, leadership instead of science. '

One of the typical pitfalls that Friedrich deals with while training is daring to take a position, even though not all the facts are known yet. “It’s about learning to deal with risks. So, leadership instead of science. This also includes the ability to manage a team. How do you make time to deal with the big picture? The ability to delegate tasks and responsibilities in an inspiring way is a prerequisite for further growth. Influencing stakeholders and setting parameters take time and mental space. The architect must learn to create this space for himself.”

There are several months between the three training blocks of four days. During this time, Schoeber and Friedrich coach the participants. Intermediate sessions are also planned where the trainees share experiences.
To guarantee quality, the number of participants in Sysam is limited to a maximum of twelve. This also ensures that participants can effectively share experiences about their projects. Because everyone is engaged in their own practice from the beginning, the training program is effective from day one. “This means that they recoup their investment in the very first year,” says Schoeber. “After that, it’s all profit.”

This article is written by René Raaijmakers, tech editor of Bits&Chips.

Posted on

Your money isn’t real

Last week, my spaceship got destroyed, I read about NFTs and I pondered about bitcoin. Allow me to explain how this is all related. As I mentioned in an earlier post, occasionally I play Eve Online, an open world set in space. The most valuable areas in the game in terms of resources and loot are also the places where there are no rules. In this dog-eat-dog world, any player can attack you, kill you and take all your valuables. This is exactly what happened to me – which made me really sad and upset. Until I remembered that we’re talking about a few flipped bits in a computer in, I think, Iceland.

This weekend, I read about NFTs or non-fungible tokens. According to Wikipedia, these are cryptographic tokens that represent a unique digital asset, such as art, digital collectibles and online gaming assets. Who cares, you might ask, but when NFT-based art pieces are starting to get sold by Christie’s to the turn of 3.5 million dollars and NFT sales last year totaled about 250 million (up 300 percent from the year before), it’s obvious that there’s a group of people that considers these NFTs valuable.

Last week, I also read that Tesla has added 1.5 billion dollars in bitcoin to its balance sheet. A decentralized digital cryptocurrency. A bunch of numbers on a computer. Difficult to calculate numbers, admittedly, as it’s cryptographically ensured and hence bitcoin mining, but still. A car company buying some numbers to the tune of 1.5 billion? What the heck’s going on here?

None of these assets are real as in we’re unable to physically touch or hold them. And during my run this morning, I realized that this is nothing exceptional. Many of the things we use in our day-to-day existence aren’t real. The prime example is money, of course. This asset plays an enormously important role in our lives and industry, but of course, it isn’t real. Even if you hold pieces of paper or coins, their inherent value doesn’t represent the actual value. Money works because we’ve created a common, inter-subjective illusion of the value of money that makes society work.

As a society, we’re constantly creating new forms of value. With digitalization, these are becoming increasingly virtual. This is great from an environmental perspective as increases in living standards are becoming less correlated with an increased use of physical resources.

The statement that more and more value is created in digital form may sound obvious, but many of us only realize the new form of value way too late to do something useful with it. I remember that an uncle of mine, who ran a very successful plumbing company, showed us his new mobile phone in the early 1990s. My father could, for the life of him, not understand why anyone would want such a device. This was when he drove 60,000 kilometers per year and he could have used all that time in the car to get half his job done with a mobile phone.

Human needs haven’t really changed over the millennia. We all want to feel safe, compete in hierarchies of our choice and learn and develop. However, the form this takes changes continuously. We have mobility needs evolving from sandals to shoes to horses to cars to trains to airplanes. We want to communicate with loved ones and this has evolved from speech to letters to phones to email to video conferencing and Facebook. This relates to the late Clayton Christensen’s notion of the job a product is designed to do. It’s never about the product, eg a truck, but always about the job that you’re looking to get done, eg transporting goods. And when a better way of doing that job is created, we move on.

'Many don’t realize the importance and relevance of new ways to create value'

One of my concerns is that I, and many with me, don’t realize the importance and relevance of new ways to create value, especially through digital assets. Interestingly, when software was first introduced and started to scale in the 1970s, there was a large movement among the programmers of that age that software should be freely shared with everyone as one couldn’t or even shouldn’t have to charge for non-real assets. The open-source community still maintains part of that culture.

Part of the problem of recognizing the value of new digital assets is that early in the creation of a new asset, there often is a religious fervor around it. Try to criticize a cryptocurrency like bitcoin to those holding these in their portfolio and see what their reaction is. There’s an incredibly strong belief among the supporters that bitcoin isn’t just an incredibly valuable asset that will only increase in value. It also is a way to break the control of governments and banks over oppressed citizens. For those of us that don’t feel that oppressed and aren’t calling for the revolution, it’s easy to get put off by the political aspects of a new digital asset and miss the actual value it provides.

The second challenge is that both customers and companies often feel that the new digital asset is viewed as fishy and unethical. For instance, still in the embedded-systems industry, the collection of data around the use of products and the monetization of this data is viewed as wrong and hence the collection and use of data is deprioritized until it’s obvious that everyone in the ecosystem accepts this as the normal way of operating. The problem is that by that time, all the business opportunities resulting from the data have already been captured by others and you’re playing a catch-up game to try and limit the damage to your business.

The third challenge is that by making the digital asset valuable, other, more traditional technologies and assets are made less valuable. This typically affects existing power structures and hierarchies in existing companies. If mechanics and electronics are commoditizing and software, data and AI are increasingly differentiating, we need to prioritize resources differently, outsource technologies that used to be differentiating, reorganize around the differentiating technologies, and so on.

Digitalization brings with it new digital assets that are valuable in ways that for us skeptics and traditionalists are hard to understand and appreciate. Categorically rejecting these new forms of value creation, however, puts you at a significant disadvantage because, by the time you realize their value, all business opportunities have been capitalized on already. Instead, we need to develop hypotheses on how and why new assets might be valuable, validate the underlying assumptions and experiment with these assets to better understand the community driving this forward. In a digital world, nobody can afford to be an analog dinosaur.

Posted on

“It’s not the products we make, but our people that are our greatest asset”

Dutch high-tech is full of talented engineers. But how do companies ensure they keep this talent in house? For Sioux Technologies, it’s all about putting an emphasis on the people, and keeping them happy and challenged with interesting projects, life-long learning and custom training opportunities. Recently, Sioux and High Tech Institute organized a customized software security training with Duncan Stiphout.

Whether you’re fresh out of college or have been in the business for decades, there’s always something to learn. From personal to professional, social to technical skills, staying sharp is key – especially in the high-tech industry.

For Sioux Technologies, this fact is absolute. “We’re a high-tech solutions provider. We don’t make end-products; we deliver services, modules and submodules to our high-tech customers and partners,” describes Duncan Stiphout, group leader of the system control software department and people manager at Sioux. “For us, knowledge and expertise really set us apart. It’s not the products we make, but our people that are our greatest asset – we just prefer to keep calling them people,” he jokes.

Here at Sioux, or anywhere else for that matter, not everyone has the aspiration to become a senior system architect,” says Duncan Stiphout. Photo by Bart van Overbeeke.

Over the last 20 years, Stiphout has learned a lot about people and growth. For the first half of his tenure, he served in highly technical roles – starting as a software engineer right out of college and working his way up to a software architect. “At some point in time, I got a taste of the project management side of the business. And I’ll be the first to tell you, that stuff isn’t for me,” he recalls.

For Stiphout, being responsible for continuous planning and management just didn’t feel like the right fit. A little bit of chaos, as he puts it, is a good thing. “What I learned though, was that was ok. Here at Sioux, or anywhere else for that matter, not everyone has the aspiration to become a senior system architect,” he says. So, roughly 10 years ago, Stiphout decided he’d like to find a role more suited to him – even if he didn’t know what that was at the time.

Hapiness manager

Speaking with his people manager, Stiphout began looking into the various options that best suited him and his career – both inside and outside of Sioux. That’s when a new people manager position opened up and caught his attention. “I talked to some managers and colleagues about my interest in the position and I received a lot of good feedback. A number of people had already worked with me and appreciated my communication style and that I could help guide and lead them in their personal career paths,” says Duncan Stiphout. “I also think that situational management is one of my core strengths and something that I rather enjoy. So, I jumped at the opportunity and took the chance with both hands.”

'My main focus lies in keeping my group challenged and happy in their roles as they further develop in their careers.'

Taking this new position was a big step for Duncan Stiphout. After all, he was stepping away from his more hands-on technical role and moving toward a manager’s role focused on growth. Not only his personal growth, but also that of the business, and now, of his colleagues. “Now, my focus isn’t only on projects but also on the happiness of others. I guess you can call me a happiness manager,” laughs Stiphout. “In this role, my job focuses on recruitment, retention and competence management. My main focus lies in keeping my group challenged and happy in their roles as they further develop in their careers.”

Function house

To keep its people happy and on the cutting edge of technology, Sioux has fully committed to life-long learning opportunities for employees. In fact, the company offers each of its workers an annual personal training budget of 6,000 euros to use at their discretion for everything from books to seminars and training courses. “This really helps us get the best out of our teams, and that’s a big part of my role – helping people find ways to improve themselves and keep them interested,” highlights Stiphout.

In practice, of course, this can take on many different forms – especially as employees grow within the company and climb up the ladder. “When we get new engineers, we help them look at their goals and map what we call their function house. Essentially, this highlights the opportunities and expectations for every level, from junior and senior software engineers to designers up to system architects,” illustrates Stiphout. “What we’ve found is that very early in someone’s career, many engineers are mostly interested in technical courses and improving their technical skills. Once someone reaches the level of designer, however, they often turn toward personal or soft-skills trainings dealing with influence and leadership.”

In the name

To offer employees leading-edge training, Sioux has several options available, offering internal coaching and in-house training, as well as turning to training organizations for their expertise. Stiphout: “We really see the value of training for our people. Of course, it’s difficult to calculate, but I believe there’s a real return on investment when my team members return from good trainings. You can see how inspired they are to try what they’ve learned, or how perspectives of events or their skills have changed as a result.”

Choosing the right training, though, can sometimes be a little tricky for a company like Sioux, so they really try to do their research to see what trainings have the best reviews and what could prove to be most valuable for their teams. “There are a number of different training organizations around, especially in software development – which, despite our multi-disciplined teams, is still a very big part of what we do at Sioux. For a lot of them, though, the trainings focus less on the high-tech domain, and more on other areas, for instance, administrative systems software,” explains Duncan Stiphout.


Photo by Bart van Overbeeke.

“That’s one reason we rely heavily on High Tech Institute and also why we look to contribute our expertise in helping design some courses – with a few specialized trainings, like the System Architecting (SysArch) and Multicore Programming courses, which are instructed by Sioux colleagues. Their reviews are outstanding and their portfolio offers a relevant training for every single level, from junior engineer to senior system architect. We find that so important because it perfectly matches our high-tech ambitions. Which makes perfect sense as ‘high tech’ is already in the name.”

Check out the SysArch training

Customization

In addition to sending employees to multiple training courses with High Tech Institute over the years, Duncan Stiphout has also worked with them to plan in-company editions of trainings for larger groups at Sioux. “Of course, they offer off-the-shelf courses, but when looking to make it in-company, the team at High Tech Institute offer the chance to tweak and customize a training to fit our specific needs,” says Stiphout.

'Sometimes, it means that we need to be critical of customer's demands.'

“Recently, I started working with Jaco Friedrich to customize an in-company session of the ‘Leadership for architects and other technical leaders’ training as a follow-up to the system architect’s training. In our work at Sioux, we’re really aimed at building customer intimacy and offering the unique perspective of our technical leadership. Sometimes, that means that we need to be critical of their demands,” explains Stiphout. “But learning how to better communicate that critique is extremely important and we believe that it’s something that distinguishes us from our competition. That’s why we’re looking forward to a continued collaboration with Jaco and the rest of the team, to offer our group at Sioux the chance to really build and enhance these skills.”

This article is written by Collin Arocho, tech editor of Bits&Chips.

Posted on

What it means to have a platform

Recently, I participated in a discussion set in the automotive realm. At some point, the conversation turned to platforms. After a while, I realized that there were several definitions of platform getting mixed up. Having worked with platforms since the 1990s, it has been really interesting for me to see how the very notion of platforms has evolved. Here, I’ll discuss three types: platforms for reuse, for DevOps and for ecosystems.

Initially, the primary role of platforms was to share commodity functionality between different products in a product line or portfolio, ie a platform for reuse. The train of thought was that if we could avoid each product team building the same functionality over and over again, it would allow for higher R&D efficiency as the product teams could work on the product-specific, differentiating functionality whereas the platform team would serve all product teams.

Having done work on software product lines for the better part of 25 years, it’s clear to me that this simple argumentation can work, but that there are many ways to mess up the benefits platforms can provide. Especially the coordination cost between platform and product teams and the difference in priorities between them can cause so many inefficiencies that the benefits of reusing functionality can easily be nullified.

My main lesson about platforms for reuse is that the focus shouldn’t be on (perceived) efficiency but on speed. Product teams should focus on maximizing speed and where a platform can help to move faster, then, by all means, use a platform, but where the platform slows product teams down, it should be dropped like a hot potato. Making the use of the platform optional for product teams drives the right priorities for the platform team as well.

During the last years, the meaning and use of platforms shifted because of the increasing adoption of continuous deployment of software to products in the field. When product software was released maybe once or twice a year, it was entirely feasible to spend a significant amount of manual effort on customizing the latest version of the platform software for a specific product and integrating it with the latest version of the product-specific software. When the release frequency goes up, however, the amount of manual effort required becomes unfeasible. This leads to platforms for DevOps. Here, the platform is the superset of the functionality in all products and the software for each product is automatically derived through configuration of the platform software.

When it comes to platforms for DevOps, the main challenge I’ve seen companies struggle with is the transition from customization to configuration of software. Especially in the automotive industry, OEMs tend to demand all kinds of customizations that, truth be told, often add little business value. If it really isn’t possible to avoid customization in all contexts, the ambition should be to define an interface between the platform and the customization software that strictly separates them. This allows for the independent evolution of the platform software in products deployed in the field.

'Many aspire to have an ecosystem platform but few have realized one'

The third type, which many aspire to have but few have realized, is an ecosystem platform that customers, partners and third parties can extend through a set of APIs. For their own purposes, to serve verticals not served by the platform provider or to provide solutions not covered in the platform for a broad audience. Every company I interact with aspires to provide the iPhone of their industry, but operationalizing this ambition is a hard, up-hill battle in most cases.

The typical tension in companies aspiring to provide an ecosystem platform is between that nascent platform and the existing product business. A software ecosystem needs scale, meaning that the same ‘apps’ are deployable in as broad an installed base as possible. This requires that each product in the portfolio provides the standard ecosystem APIs, which limits the autonomy of product teams. In addition, the prevalent product mindset focuses on including as much useful functionality in the product as possible whereas a platform mindset requires us to yield certain domains of functionality to the ecosystem to make sure that partners and third parties have a sufficiently appealing business case.

Platforms are great but discussions easily get confusing when different platform definitions are used without the participants being aware. I’ve tried to provide some structure here. For most companies adopting DevOps, the product-centric way of working is no longer feasible and a platform-centric approach is required instead. This has great advantages but calls for a careful strategy and way of operating as there are several pitfalls in the road ahead.