Author: admin
Innovation as Risk Taking
by Evalueserve A special Summit for the Future Report by B Vijayalakshmi, Hedda Pahlson-Moller, EvalueserveApril 10, 2006 Innovation: The DNA for Growth You can’t solve a problem on the same level that it was created. You have to rise above it to the next level – Albert Einstein This quote by Albert Einstein clarifies the common misconception about innovation. Innovation is not only about developing a product or service from scratch but is also about adding value to an existing product or service. Organisations across the world have focussed on innovation in order to achieve the competitive advantage required for creating and sustaining growth. The effect of globalisation on the world economy has also played a significant role in fostering innovation. Organisations soon realised that without innovation they faced the possibility of extinction. Research and development (R&D) and innovation go hand in hand; however, R&D is only one aspect of innovation. While innovation is about introducing a new idea or process to the end customer or developing and improving an existing product or service, R&D is about conducting original investigations to gain new knowledge for improving products or services. Risks and Rewards come in a package Innovations and the risks associated with them are directly proportional. On the other hand, the rewards of taking these risks are high. All resources employed for successful innovation are subject to some form of risk. These resources vary from the capital employed to the use of raw material, time, manpower and technical skills. A successful innovation is subject to various external and internal factors. (Figure 1) These factors include government regulations and support, availability of skilled labour, the firm’s internal management and its sources of capital. India and China attract large investments in R&D due to the availability of highly skilled manpower. The UK has an average innovation performance as its firms are less inclined to change. Therefore, they lag behind other geographies such as the US in adopting new and innovative business practices. Collaborations such as that of Tata Consultancy Services in India with Stanford University for research in data privacy are examples of pooling existing expertise. Government involvement is a key factor as it influences all other factors. A government’s fiscal measures and macroeconomic policies promote access to capital. It has a role in developing science and technology centres, and associations. It also has a role in encouraging R&D in institutes that provide the support system required for innovation and R&D. The government is also responsible for providing funds for quality education and sourcing the required human capital. This can be seen in the United States where the government has increased the number of H1B visas in order to increase the skilled labour pool for its IT sector. Extent of Risk in Different Stages of Innovation There are four stages in a product’s or service’s life cycle. Innovation can take place at any of these stages as can be seen in Figure 2. However, innovation or the introduction of a new product or service in a new market will always involve a considerable amount of risk. These risks will vary, depending on the stage of the life cycle in which the innovation is implemented. Innovations can be classified into four distinct types. Breakthrough innovation, which is the first type, involves the generation of a complete new range of services or products for a new market or user. Breakthrough innovation is always implemented in the introduction stage of a product life cycle. In this type of innovation, a firm will succeed in attracting the right financiers and customers only if it invests adequate time and resources for the same. However, when an innovation is introduced, it can have two consequences: it may face outright rejection or it may be well received and go on to be a resounding success. Yet, there is no way of estimating the time that an innovation will take to ultimately become a success. The second and third stages in the life cycle of a product or service are growth and maturity, respectively. If a firm decides to innovate in the growth and maturity stages, it can do so either by introducing the product or service to a new user or market (geographic innovation) or by introducing a substitute product to an existing market (substitute innovation). Geographic innovation helps to increase the market share for a firm while substitute innovation helps to increase its product line. Both types of innovations are less risky as compared to breakthrough innovation. This is so because by then the firm would have developed a greater understanding about its innovation. It would not only have awareness about the product’s success, but would also be aware of market needs. The decline stage marks the final phase of a product’s or service’s life cycle. In this stage, an organisation usually faces a financial crisis, and its product or service may be on its way out from the market. An incremental innovation, which is the fourth type of innovation, can be most appropriately implemented at this stage. Incremental innovations refine existing ideas, products or services by adding certain features or characteristics. Yet, it involves some amount of risk because an innovation is at all times a risky proposition. Therefore, by implementing innovation in the decline stage, the organisation is taking a calculated risk. The innovation may earn a temporary reprieve for the product, or the money expended on the innovation may not fetch any returns. Incremental innovation can occur in both the maturity and decline stages of a product’s or service’s life cycle. Most organisations opt for incremental innovation in three circumstances – to tackle increasing market competition, to change product features as per a felt need or to boost revenues. AboutEvalueserveEvalueserve is a global knowledge services firm that provides high value-added research services to leading edge clients worldwide. Our clients include global consulting and market research firms, investment banks, Fortune 500 corporations, as well as SMEs in financial services, telecom and technology, pharmaceuticals and biotech, and various other sectors such as automotive, oil and gas, FMCG, Retail, etc. Evalueserve’s client executives are located in the North and South America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. The client executives are supported by its multi-lingual research team of 750 professionals, based in Gurgaon India. Contact: Hedda Pahlson-Moller, hedda.pm@evalueserve.comwww.evalueserve.com Club of AmsterdamThe Club of Amsterdam is an independent, international, future-oriented think tank involved in channelling preferred futures. It involves those who dare to think out of the box and those who don’t just talk about the future but actively participate in shaping outcomes. We organize events, seminars and summits on relevant issues and publish findings & proceedings through various off-line and online media channels. Our goal is to become a global player and catalyst for innovation in industries, science and society. The Club of Amsterdam is a not-for-profit foundation registered in The Netherlands.www.clubofamsterdam.com Download the full report as a *.pdf: click here
China’s Future, Your Strategy
by Rohit Talwar, CEO, Fast Future 9th March 2006The Asian Development Bank has forecast that China could be the world’s largest economy as early as 2025. Given an event horizon of less than 20 years, how should we be responding?Could 2006 be the year when individuals, companies and governments across the planet will start to embrace the likely breadth, depth and style of long-term impact China could have on everything from investment flows through to scientific research and voting models for the United Nations? I’m in the midst of writing a book on China’s future and thought I’d take the opportunity to draw on the interviews and research to date to share some of the key views emerging. In the thought piece below I’ve tried to outline some of the key perspectives emerging on China’s future and posed a series of critical starter questions for those charged with developing China Strategies for their organisations. A Nation on the MoveThe question should not really be “why take notice now?” – but rather “Why have you taken so long?” Wherever one looks, the evidence is inescapable that China is a country on a rapid development path. When reviewing official statistics, government plans, investment commitments, analyst projections and company forecasts, three key macro drivers emerge: China’s growing economic power and presence in global markets Development of domestic consumption An increasing capacity for innovation. A number of key trends and long term plans underpin these macro drivers, for example: China has experienced a period of prolonged GDP growth – reaching 9.9% in 2005. In 2000 China set a goal of raising GDP from one trillion (US dollars) to four trillion by 2020. Current estimates suggest this could be achieved as early as 2015 Continued economic growth is estimated to have taken over 200 million Chinese people out of poverty in the last 20 years In 2004, per capita income in China was $1290 – compared to $41,400 in the USA A goal has been set of achieving technological self-sufficiency within 15 years China plans to spend $17.4Bn constructing airports in the next five years and predicts that its aircraft fleet will rise from 863 today to 1580 by 2010 and 4000 by 2020 China’s share of world exports is due to rise from 6% to 10% by 2010 China’s luxury goods market is forecast to grow 10%-20% annually until 2015 – overtaking the USA to become either the largest market (Goldman Sachs) or second largest (Ernst & Young) after Japan, with 29% of total world luxury sales By 2020 the Chinese middle class is forecast to double to over 40% of the 1.3 Bn population e.g. 520M people – almost twice the size of the USA. Clearly, it would be misleading to focus only on the positive indicators and assume that China’s path to progress will encounter few obstacles. In practice the next twenty years are likely to be the most challenging for China’s leaders. The way in which they plot and navigate the course will have profound implications across the globe. So what could the next 20 years look like? In researching China’s possible trajectory, summarised below are three dominant stories that prevail on China’s future – the government view, the doomsayers’ perspective and the business pragmatists’ outlook. The Government ViewThe line adopted by most government officials is that whilst the pace of change may not slacken, the focus will shift. Many, particularly in central government, recognise that a more sustainable approach is required and this is a key pillar of the latest national five year plan. Key priorities include reducing environmental damage, addressing the social concerns that led to over 87,000 incidents of unrest in 2005 and tackling the growing income gap between rich and poor – this has risen to 0.4 on the Gini scale. At the same time, they argue that a pace of change that delivers around 8% GDP growth will be critical to taking more people out of poverty and driving domestic demand. Around 25% of all China’s exports are sent to the US and the threat of punitive import tariffs is a growing cause for concern. Hence a policy priority is to reduce GDP reliance on exports. This year will see the start of a concerted set of initiatives to grow domestic demand sustainably over the next 10-15 years. Should China give in to US pressure to revalue the currency, most believe this could significantly impact global demand for Chinese goods and services. However, they feel it would also create inflationary pressures in the US in particular. Furthermore, a cheaper dollar could accelerate the rate at which Chinese companies acquire foreign assts. DoomsayersThe Doomsayers perspective argues that, in the worse case scenario, China is heading for a collapse far longer and deeper than that which affected Japan in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. Critical concerns are social unrest and the sheer scale of environmental degradation – encompassing air pollution, deforestation, acid rain and large scale river contamination. Politically, they argue that concerns on human rights, limited democracy and censorship will prevent the economy realising anything like its full potential. Operationally, the concern is that bureaucracy, corruption, inefficiency, poor resource utilisation and general underperformance of State-Owned Enterprises represent a timebomb which – when it goes off – will act as a long term drag on China’s performance. Economically, the view is that historically, no country has been able to sustain such growth on a long term basis, and eventually China’s bubble will burst. Concerns are also raised about the robustness of China’s financial infrastructure and the relative immaturity and volatility of its financial markets. For example, the Financial Times recently offered a relatively bleak outlook on China as an investment market: “…China is still a market for the brave. It still has underdeveloped capital markets. There remain concerns about the banking systems. Corporate governance worries persist. And there is the ever-present concern about a flare-up in relations with Taiwan.” Business PragmatistsMost of the business people interviewed whether Chinese or expatriate expressed a mixture of disappointment and surprise at quite how negative some of the China commentary has been – particularly from the US. A common perception was that while all of the issues raised are very real, the Chinese government is aware and talking quite openly about most of them. Indeed, many expressed a high level of faith in the ability of the current government to deliver. There is also a growing perception that the analysis models and assumptions being applied by western economists may not be appropriate for China and may need to be reworked. Very few expected a smooth journey and most expected one or more fairly severe but short recessionary periods over the next twenty years. Energy supply was seen as a major potential hurdle along with rising traffic congestion and air pollution. Strong concerns also exist about rising labour costs and a shortage of well trained Chinese senior and middle management. However, the general sense was one of real optimism based both on their own business outlook and that of those around them. A number of people raised the point that over $170Bn of foreign direct investment (FDI) has gone into China in the last three years and this is starting to pay significant dividends. Most expected the annual level of FDI to remain at $50M or more for at least the next decade. On a twenty year timescale, despite rising income levels, most expect China to remain a relative low cost economy with average earnings at least 50% lower than those of the USA. The opening up of the domestic market and growth of the innovation and knowledge economy were seen as major opportunities and growth drivers. All sectors of the economy are expected to experience significant growth with areas such as education, healthcare, leisure, transportation, energy, environmental technologies and personal financial services expected to see particularly strong growth. Most believed that for those not already in China, there was a relatively limited window of opportunity to start learning about and acting on the China opportunity. Those who delay were expected to find increasingly strong Chinese competitors and face much higher costs of entry and bigger survival risks. ConclusionsFaced with these differing perspectives, for those responsible for China, the priority should be to focus on accelerating the internal learning process, with the aim of answering at least the following five questions: What are the size, shape and outlook for our sector in China? What are the relevant government plans and policies that apply to the sector? What are the broader ‘environmental’ factors that could affect our business and our ability to operate in future? What have we learned from our own experience in China? Who do we know with experience of the China market that we can learn from? How do we create a learning dialogue on China inside the organisation? There may be an understandable temptation to start with an analysis of competitor activity in China. However, a broader analysis of the market and operating environment may provide useful lenses through which to assess competitor actions. Entering the Chinese market may feel like trying to mount a moving train while blindfolded. Developing early insight may just free up one eye! Download this article as a *.pdf: click here
UN Global E-government
by United Nations Readiness Report 2005 From E-government to E-inclusion Executive Summary An imperative of development today is to employ information and communication technologies (ICTs) to level the playing field for all. The cross-cutting nature of technology provides opportunities and enables delivery of much needed economic and social information to remote areas of the world with the promise of leapfrogging traditional development cycles. Access to information and communications is considered crucial for poverty reduction, since it contributes to new sources of income and employment for the poor, improved delivery of health and education services and competitiveness of the economy. However, harnessing the full potential of the benefits of the global information society is possible only if all nations and the peoples of the world share this opportunity equally. Further, the existing spread of information technologies to a select group of people in the world is worsening disparities between the e-haves and the e-have-nots. There is a danger that far from fomenting cohesion through opportunity, unequal diffusion of technology will reinforce traditional inequalities leading to a further weakening of social bonds and cultural cohesion. Exploring the interlinkages between e-government and human development, the UN Global E-Government Readiness Report 2005 presents an assessment of existing disparities in access to, and use of, ICTs around the world. It comprises two parts: Part I presents the UN Global E-Government Readiness Survey 2005, while Part II of the Report delves deeper into the access parameters of disparity. The UN Global E-Government Readiness Survey 2005 The E-Government Readiness Survey 2005 assesses more than 50,000 features of the e-government websites of the 191 UN Member States to ascertain how ready the Governments around the world are in employing the opportunities offered by ICT to improve the access to, and the use of, ICTs in providing basic social services. Employing a statistical model for the measurement of digitized services, the UN EGovernment Survey 2005 assesses the public sector e-government initiatives of Member States according to a weighted average composite index of e-readiness based on website assessment; telecommunication infrastructure and human resource endowment. The UN Global E-government Survey 2005 finds that a large number of countries solidified their online presence further, venturing into higher and more mature areas of e-service delivery. Many introduced further e-participation features. The total number of countries online increased to 179, or around 94 per cent of the United Nations Member States. Twelve countries were not online, compared to thirteen last year. Most developing country Governments around the world are promoting citizen awareness about policies and programmes, approaches and strategies on their websites. They are making an effort to engage multi-stakeholders in participatory decision-making, in some cases through the use of innovative initiatives aimed at greater access and inclusion. According to the E-government Readiness rankings in 2005, the United States (0.9062) is the world leader, followed by Denmark (0.9058), Sweden (0.8983) and the United Kingdom (0.8777). As in 2004, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Estonia, Malta and Chile are also among the top 25 e-ready countries. Steady progress in ICT diffusion, human capital development and Member States’ egovernment websites in the last three years led to an improvement in the egovernment readiness world average to 0.4267 in 2005 compared to 0.4130 in 2004. As a region, Europe followed North America, while South-Central Asia and Africa brought up the rear. In e-participation, though many countries expanded their participatory services, a few remained limited in their provision of relevant and qualitative tools for user feedback. According to the E-participation Index 2005, the United Kingdom, as in previous years, was the leader, followed by Singapore (0.9841) and then the United States (0.9048). From among the developing countries, Mexico, Chile and Colombia were among the world leaders in participation services. Fifty-five countries, out of 179, which maintained a government website, encouraged citizens to participate in discussing key issues of importance, but only 32 Member States explained what e-consultation was, why it was important and where citizens should provide inputs to the government, while only 28 countries gave the assurance that the government would take citizens’ inputs into the decision-making process. Approaches to e-government programme offerings varied from country to country. The ‘how’ of what countries chose to display on the websites was a function of the ‘what’ they wanted to focus on and ‘why’ they wanted to focus on the issue. The pattern that emerges is that for effective e-government development, political commitment to harnessing the benefits of ICTs, a well thought-out vision, and doable objectives are important markers for successful e-government development. E-government appears to have a strong relation with income per capita. Resource availability appears to be a critical factor inhibiting e-government initiatives in many countries. Part of the reason for the high e-readiness in most of the developed economies is past investment in, and development of, infrastructure. Notwithstanding the progress, there remains wide disparity in access to ICTs, and consequently to e-government offerings between, and among, regions and countries of the world. Governments in the developed countries are far advanced in the provision of services and their outreach and access to citizens. A serious access-divide exists across the world between the developed and the developing countries. Of particular concern are the countries belonging to the regions of South and Central Asia and Africa which, together, house one-third of humanity. Africa, as a whole, had a mean e-government readiness at two-thirds of the world average and 30% of North America. Many of the 32 least e-ready countries, which belonged to Africa, showed little relative progress in 2005, compared to other countries many of which were far more advanced than Africa in their outreach and access to citizens. From E-government to E-inclusion Part II of the UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2005 builds upon the message of the previous UN Global Readiness Reports in advancing the conceptual underpinnings of the nexus between technological advancements, the role of the government, and human development. It points to the need to align development thinking with the paradigm of the Socially Inclusive Governance for the Information Society which is a multi-pronged approach to promoting ICT-led real access, with a special focus on the benefits of technology to women and the disadvantaged in society. The Socially Inclusive Governance for Information Society Framework is a ‘vision’ for restructured thinking about developing an inclusive information society based on the appreciation of the capabilities of each and every person; the dignity that economic and social choice brings; and the freedom to partake it all. It is a call to developing countries for shedding the emphasis on connectivity and access and substituting it with a focus on inclusion for all groups in the population. It is a call to focus on programmes and policies aimed at the diversification of the ICT base, such that those with low income, women, disadvantaged groups and those living in rural areas are systematically included in the impending benefits from newer technologies. The Framework propounds the notion that to build an inclusive society, e-government should expand to e-inclusion. The cornerstone of the Socially Inclusive Governance Framework is a focus on the reduction in inequality of opportunity. As such, the imperative for progress towards a socially inclusive government is access-to-all. Participation is possible only if political, economic, technological and social barriers are removed and access to these opportunities is equitably distributed. opportunity of feedback, as they promote access to government and are the perfect conduit for citizen-government partnership to promote public value, and therefore, inclusion. Inclusion and participation through ICTs, or e-inclusion, then becomes the key tool at the disposal of a socially inclusive government. E-inclusion goes beyond e-government. It means employing modern ICT technologies to address the issues of access-divide and promote opportunities for economic and social empowerment of all citizens. To further the analysis of disparities in access to ICTs, Part II of the Report provides an assessment of the existing access-divide in the world. Access-divide comprises, among others: income divide; telecommunication access-divide; education access-divide; language and content access-divide; lack of access to the people with disability; gender access-divide; and rural-urban divide. It illustrates that the majority of the developing country population faces a grave challenge from the new technological revolution. Whereas some of the developing countries which have in place the right mix of reforms, institutions and programmes will no doubt benefit from ICTs, most are likely to be mired in a cycle of low income, poverty and a growing disparity in access to modern technology. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the current gap in the access to, and use of, ICTs between and within countries, it should not be cause for inaction. ICTs provide a unique opportunity for achieving higher standards of living and greater economic and social empowerment of the millions around the world. This, however, requires a new set of complementary and comprehensive approaches to reach the vision of information society. Recommendations The first imperative is to recognize the importance of providing equal opportunity for participation in the information society. Governments need to fully understand the vast potential of ICTs as a tool and the benefits and opportunities that can accrue in the current age if ICTs are effectively applied to human development. Second, commitment and leadership for an ICT-led development agenda for equality is a prerequisite. This requires a political commitment to ensure that each step taken towards meeting the goals and objectives of the country is inclusive of the values of the majority of the society, including those at the fringes. Third, there is need for a vision to develop a socially inclusive development strategy, which aims at the empowerment of each according to his/her capabilities. A vision which is grounded in the reality of the national level of development, availability of physical and human infrastructure and financial resources should allow for the setting of objectives for the economy and society in a way that reorients and maximizes the public value. Fourth, a country needs to have a resolve, to harness the potential of the information society. The policies and programmes of the government need to be restructured with the role of ICTs blended, and integrated, into governance systems and development plans. Fifth, the formulation of a development strategy based on effective and indigenously appropriate utilization of the ICTs in each sector is required so that the market, the government and the citizen have a mutually beneficial and equitable role to play. This needs rethinking the interaction between the state and the citizen towards a partnership, which actively promotes participatory decision-making. It includes redefining institutions, processes and mechanisms whereby information is supplied and information is demanded. Governments need to formulate a national strategy based on a realistic diagnosis of the economic, financial, and human resource availability, and of the infrastructure, human capital, financial and social needs required to attain the objectives – but a strategy based on the holistic concept of e-inclusion and actively aimed at promoting access for all. You can download this document as a *.pdf: click here
Your Voice on eGovernment 2010
by European Commission Information Society and Media Stakeholders of eGovernment in Europe had the opportunity to let their voice be heard on future eGovernment policy through an online consultation run from the 4th October to the 7th December 2005, at the website “Your Voice in Europe”. Executive summary From October to December 2005 an online public consultation was held via Your Voice (http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/) on future eGovernment policy towards 2010. In total, 403 respondents (citizens, public administrations and businesses covering all the European Union Member States and a number of countries from outside of the EU) answered questions about: inclusive eGovernment citizen involvement, participation and democracy high impact services efficient & effective eGovernment key enablers. About 92% of the respondents agreed with the suggested approach to focus eGovernment policy on a small number of priorities with high impact. The responses to the questionnaire strongly support objective-setting as formulated in the Ministerial Declaration adopted at the Manchester Ministerial Conference on 24 November 2005. Priority focuses for inclusive eGovernment policy towards 2010 were: the increase of the access and the use of public services by active promotion and more accessible solutions; the design of public policies and services by eGovernment in such a way, that no citizen and businesses risks being excluded; and a better access to market, tenders and business opportunities in the public sector to SMEs. The most significant main barriers to progress mentioned were: lack of interoperability; organisational barriers and the lack of ease of use. The preferred priority actions, according to the respondents include: proactive approach to be used by public administrations; training of public administrations, and exchange of good practices on inclusivity strategies and solutions at EU level. Concerning citizen involvement, participation and democracy, there is in general the opinion (64%), that eParticipation and eVoting can help or most likely help closing the democratic deficit. As main barriers are mentioned: lack of trust and security, insufficient access to information and communication technologies and lack of leadership. Main actions should be providing of solutions for eParticipation by a choice of channels (e.g. TV, cell-phone…), exchange of experiences and solutions as well as the creation of awareness. Citizens mobility and social security, citizens mobility in work and public eProcurement are the main high impact services on which eGovernment policy should focus by 2010. The respondents have seen as main barriers again the lack of interoperability, organisational barriers followed by national legislation. They recommended as main actions the exchanging of experience on technical and non-technical aspects, support by the structural funds and CIP and provision of incentives to share in developments of solutions.In electronic public procurement, 50-99% public procurement take-up was mentioned most frequently as target by 2010. Main actions in this area should be harmonised electronic signatures to enable the replacement of paper documents and changes in national legislation. In efficient & effectiveeGovernment, the most important objectives to be achieved by 2010 are stated to be improving the quality of services, based on user satisfaction and reducing the administrative burden for businesses and citizens. As main barriers, lack of interoperability,organisational barriers and insufficient skills of the administration were identified. As main actions, good practice sharing, development of innovative and transformative eGovernment solutions at EU level as well as activities for stimulating the use of open standards and pooling software were recommended. The European eGovernment policy should focus on electronic identification and authentication, good practice and solutions sharing and organisational change as key enablers. 88% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the use of national electronic identification schemes in secure and trustworthy transactions with eGovernment services in other Member States should be enabled. As main barriers in realising electronic identification & authentication for public services across borders were seen the lack of interoperability, national legislation and lack of awareness of benefits. The main actions should be: mutual recognition of electronic identities provided by Member States, a federated, multilevel e-Identity model, and a framework for interoperable electronic documents.Changes in EU legislation do not play a strong role in the proposed actions in each of the areas. […] You can download the full report as a *.pdf: click here
Microsoft’s Vision for an Identity Metasystem
by Microsoft Corporation Contents Digital Identity: The ChallengeWhat is the Identity Metasystem?Identities Function in ContextsThe Laws of IdentityRoles within the Identity MetasystemComponents of the Identity MetasystemBenefits of the Identity MetasystemAn Architecture for the Identity Metasystem: WS-* Web ServicesMicrosoft’s Implementation PlansWhat We Learned from PassportConclusion Digital Identity: The Challenge For users and businesses alike, the Internet continues to be increasingly valuable. More people are using the Web for everyday tasks, from shopping, banking, and paying bills to consuming media and entertainment. E-commerce is growing, with businesses delivering more services and content across the Internet, communicating and collaborating online, and inventing new ways to connect with each other. But as the value of what people do online has increased, the Internet itself has become more complex, criminalized, and dangerous. Online identity theft, fraud, and privacy concerns are on the rise, stemming from increasingly sophisticated practices such as “phishing”. The multiplicity of accounts and passwords users must keep track of and the variety of methods of authenticating to sites result not only in user frustration, known as “password fatigue”, but also insecure practices such as reusing the same account names and passwords at many sites. The root of these problems is that the Internet was designed without a system of digital identity in mind. In efforts to address this deficiency, numerous digital identity systems have been introduced, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. But no one single system meets the needs of every digital identity scenario. And even if it were possible to create one system that did, the reality is that many different identity systems are in use today, with still more being invented. As a result, the current state of digital identity on the Internet is an inconsistent patchwork of ad hoc solutions that burdens people with different user experiences at every Web site, renders the system as a whole fragile, and constrains the fuller realization of the promise of e-commerce. What is the Identity Metasystem? Given that universal adoption of a single digital identity system or technology is unlikely ever to occur, a successful and widely employed identity solution for the Internet requires a different approach—one with the capability to connect existing and future identity systems into an identity metasystem. This metasystem, or system of systems, would leverage the strengths of its constituent identity systems, provide interoperability between them, and enable creation of a consistent and straightforward user interface to them all. The resulting improvements in cyberspace would benefit everyone, making the Internet a safer place with the potential to boost e-commerce, combat phishing, and solve other digital identity challenges. In the offline world, people carry multiple forms of identification in their wallets, such as driver’s licenses or other government-issued identity cards, credit cards, and affinity cards such as frequent flyer cards. People control which card to use and how much information to reveal in any given situation. Similarly, the identity metasystem makes it easier for users to stay safe and in control when accessing resources on the Internet. It lets users select from among a portfolio of their digital identities and use them at Internet services of their choice where they are accepted. The metasystem enables identities provided by one identity system technology to be used within systems based on different technologies, provided an intermediary exists that understands both technologies and is willing and trusted to do the needed translations. It’s important to note that the identity metasystem does not compete with or replace the identity systems it connects. Rather, it plays a role analogous to that of the Internet Protocol (IP) in the realm of networking. In the 1970s and early 1980s, before the invention of IP, distributed applications were forced to have direct knowledge of the network link, be it Ethernet, Token Ring, ArcNet, X.25, or Frame Relay. But IP changed the landscape by offering a technology-independent metasystem that insulated applications from the intricacies of individual network technologies, providing seamless interconnectivity and a platform for including not-yet-invented networks (such as 802.11 wireless) into the network metasystem. In the same way, the goals of the identity metasystem are to connect individual identity systems, allowing seamless interoperation between them, to provide applications with a technology-independent representation of identities, and to provide a better, more consistent user experience with all of them. Far from competing with or replacing the identity systems it connects, the metasystem relies on the individual systems to do its work! Identities Function in Contexts The identities held by a person in the offline world can range from the significant, such as birth certificates, passports, and drivers’ licenses, to the trivial, such as business cards or frequent coffee buyer’s cards. People use their different forms of identification in different contexts where they are accepted. Identities can be in or out of context. Identities used out of context generally do not bring the desired result. For example, trying to use a coffee card to cross a border is clearly out of context. On the other hand, using a bank card at an ATM, a government-issued ID at a border, a coffee card at a coffee stand, and a Passport Network (formerly .NET Passport) account at MSN Hotmail are all clearly in context. In some cases, the distinction is less clear. You could conceivably use a government-issued ID at your ATM instead of a bank-issued card, but if this resulted in the government having knowledge of each financial transaction, some people would be uncomfortable. You could use a Social Security Number as a student ID number, but that has significant privacy implications, even facilitating identity theft. And you can use Passport accounts at some non-Microsoft sites, but few sites chose to enable this; even where it was enabled, few users did so because they felt that Microsoft’s participation in these interactions was out of context. Studying the Passport experience and other digital identity initiatives throughout the industry led us to work with a wide range of industry experts to codify a set of principles that we believe are fundamental to a successful, broadly adopted, and enduring digital identity system on the Internet. We call these principles “The Laws of Identity”. The Laws of Identity The “Laws of Identity” are intended to codify a set of fundamental principles to which any universally adopted, sustainable identity architecture must conform. The Laws were proposed, debated, and refined through a long-running, open, and continuing dialogue on the Internet. Taken together, the Laws define the architecture of the identity metasystem. They are: User Control and Consent: Identity systems must only reveal information identifying a user with the user’s consent. Minimal Disclosure for a Constrained Use: The identity system must disclose the least identifying information possible, as this is the most stable, long-term solution. Justifiable Parties: Identity systems must be designed so the disclosure of identifying information is limited to parties having a necessary and justifiable place in a given identity relationship. Directed Identity: A universal identity system must support both “omni-directional” identifiers for use by public entities and “uni-directional” identifiers for use by private entities, thus facilitating discovery while preventing unnecessary release of correlation handles. Pluralism of Operators and Technologies: A universal identity solution must utilize and enable the interoperation of multiple identity technologies run by multiple identity providers. Human Integration: Identity systems must define the human user to be a component of the distributed system, integrated through unambiguous human-machine communication mechanisms offering protection against identity attacks. Consistent Experience Across Contexts: The unifying identity metasystem must guarantee its users a simple, consistent experience while enabling separation of contexts through multiple operators and technologies. To join in the discussion of the Laws of Identity, visit www.identityblog.com. Roles within the Identity Metasystem Different parties participate in the metasystem in different ways. The three roles within the metasystem are: Identity Providers, which issue digital identities. For example, credit card providers might issue identities enabling payment, businesses might issue identities to their customers, governments might issue identities to citizens, and individuals might use self-issued identities in contexts like signing on to Web sites. Relying Parties, which require identities. For example, a Web site or online service that utilizes identities offered by other parties. Subjects, which are the individuals and other entities about whom claims are made. Examples of subjects include end users, companies, and organizations. In many cases, the participants in the metasystem play more than one role, and often all three. Components of the Identity Metasystem To build an identity metasystem, five key components are needed: A way to represent identities using claims A means for identity providers, relying parties, and subjects to negotiate An encapsulating protocol to obtain claims and requirements A means to bridge technology and organizational boundaries using claims transformation A consistent user experience across multiple contexts, technologies, and operators Claims-Based Identities Digital identities consist of sets of claims made about the subject of the identity, where “claims” are pieces of information about the subject that the issuer asserts are valid. This parallels identities used in the real world. For example, the claims on a driver’s license might include the issuing state, the driver’s license number, name, address, sex, birth date, organ donor status, signature, and photograph, the types of vehicles the subject is eligible to drive, and restrictions on driving rights. The issuing state asserts that these claims are valid. The claims on a credit card might include the issuer’s identity, the subject’s name, the account number, the expiration date, the validation code, and a signature. The card issuer asserts that these claims are valid. The claims on a self-issued identity, where the identity provider and subject are one and the same entity, might include the subject’s name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address, or perhaps just the knowledge of a secret. For self-issued identities, the subject asserts that these claims are valid. Negotiation Negotiation enables participants in the metasystem to make agreements needed for them to connect with one another within the metasystem. Negotiation is used to determine mutually acceptable technologies, claims, and requirements. For instance, if one party understands SAML and X.509 claims, and another understands Kerberos and X.509 claims, the parties would negotiate and decide to use X.509 claims with one another. Another type of negotiation determines whether the claims needed by a relying party can be supplied by a particular identity. Both kinds of negotiation are simple matching exercises; they compare what one party can provide with what the other one needs to determine whether there’s a fit. Encapsulating Protocol The encapsulating protocol provides a technology-neutral way to exchange claims and requirements between subjects, identity providers, and relying parties. The participants determine the content and meaning of what is exchanged, not the metasystem. For example, the encapsulating protocol would allow an application to retrieve SAML-encoded claims without having to understand or implement the SAML protocol. Claims Transformers Claims transformers bridge organizational and technical boundaries by translating claims understood in one system into claims understood and trusted by another system, thereby insulating the mass of clients and servers from the intricacies of claim evaluation. Claims transformers may also transform or refine the semantics of claims. For example, a claim asserting, “Is an employee” might be transformed into the new claim, “OK to purchase book”. The claim “Born on March 22, 1960” could be transformed into the claim “Age is over 21 years”, which intentionally supplies less information. Claims transformers may also be used to change claim formats. For instance, claims made in formats such as X.509, Kerberos, SAML 1.0, SAML 2.0, SXIP, and others could be transformed into claims expressed using different technologies. Claims transformers provide the interoperability needed today, plus the flexibility required to incorporate new technologies. Consistent User Experience Many identity attacks succeed because the user was fooled by something presented on the screen, not because of insecure communication technologies. For example, phishing attacks occur not in the secured channel between Web servers and browsers – a channel that might extend thousands of miles – but in the two or three feet between the browser and the human who uses it. The identity metasystem, therefore, seeks to empower users to make informed and reasonable identity decisions by enabling the development of a consistent, comprehensible, and integrated user interface for making those choices. One key to securing the whole system is presenting an easy-to-learn, predictable user interface that looks and works the same no matter which underlying identity technologies are employed. Another key is making important information obvious – for instance, displaying the identity of the site you’re authenticating to in a way that makes spoofing attempts apparent. The user must be informed which items of personal information relying parties are requesting, and for what purposes. This allows users to make informed choices about whether or not to disclose this information. Finally, the user interface provides a means for the user to actively consent to the disclosure, if they agree to the conditions. Benefits of the Identity Metasystem Microsoft recognizes that the identity metasystem will only gain widespread adoption if participants filling all roles in the metasystem stand to benefit from their participation. Fortunately, this is the case. Key benefits of the identity metasystem include: Greater user control and flexibility. Users decide how much information they disclose, to whom, and under what circumstances, thereby enabling them to better protect their privacy. Strong two-way authentication of identity providers and relying parties helps address phishing and other fraud. Identities and accompanying personal information can be securely stored and managed in a variety of ways, including via the online identity provider service of the user’s choice, or on the user’s PC, or in other devices such as secure USB keychain storage devices, smartcards, PDAs, and mobile phones Safer, more comprehensible user experience. The identity metasystem enables a predictable, uniform user experience across multiple identity systems. It extends to and integrates the human user, thereby helping to secure the machine-human channel. Increases the reach of existing identity systems. The identity metasystem does not compete with or replace the identity systems it connects, but rather preserves and builds upon customers’ investments in their existing identity solutions. It affords the opportunity to use existing identities, such as corporate-issued identities and identities issued by online businesses, in new contexts where they could not have been previously employed. Fosters identity system innovation. The identity metasystem should make it easier for newly developed identity technologies and systems to quickly gain widespread use and adoption. Claims transformers can allow new systems to participate even when most participants don’t understand their native claims formats and protocols. Enables adaptation in the face of attacks. New technologies are needed to stay ahead of criminals who attack existing identity technologies. The metasystem enables new identity technologies to be quickly deployed and utilized within it, as they are needed. Creates new market opportunities. The identity metasystem enables interoperable, independent implementations of all metasystem components, meaning that the market opportunities are only limited by innovators’ imaginations. Some parties will choose to go into the identity provider business. Others will provide certification services for identities. Some will implement server software. Others will implement client software. Device manufacturers and mobile telephone players can host identities on their platforms. New business opportunities are created for identity brokers, where trusted intermediaries transform claims from one system to another. New business opportunities abound. A benefit we will all share as the identity metasystem becomes widely deployed is a safer, more trustworthy Internet. The metasystem will supply the widely adopted identity solution that the Net so desperately needs. Participants in the identity metasystem can include anyone or anything that uses, participates in, or relies upon identities in any way, including, but not limited to existing identity systems, corporate identities, government identities, Liberty federations, operating systems, mobile devices, online services, and smartcards. Again, the possibilities are only limited by innovators’ imaginations. An Architecture for the Identity Metasystem: WS-* Web Services Microsoft has worked for the past several years with industry partners on a composable, end-to-end architecture for Web services. The set of specifications that make up this architecture have been named the WS-* Web Services architecture by the industry. This architecture supports the requirements of the identity metasystem. The encapsulating protocol used for claims transformation is WS-Trust. Negotiations are conducted using WS-MetadataExchange and WS-SecurityPolicy. These protocols enable building a technology-neutral identity metasystem and form the “backplane” of the identity metasystem. Like other Web services protocols, they also allow new kinds of identities and technologies to be incorporated and utilized as they are developed and adopted by the industry. To foster the interoperability necessary for broad adoption, the specifications for WS-* are published and are freely available, have been or will be submitted to open standards bodies, and allows implementations to be developed royalty-free. Deployments of existing identity technologies can be leveraged in the metasystem by implementing support for the three WS-* protocols above. Examples of technologies that could be utilized via the metasystem include LDAP claims schemas, X.509, which is used in Smartcards; Kerberos, which is used in Active Directory and some UNIX environments; and SAML, a standard used in inter-corporate federation scenarios. Identity Metasystem Architectural Diagram This figure depicts sample relationships between a subject, identity providers, and relying parties, showing some of the technologies used by the metasystem and by specific systems utilized through the metasystem. The Security Token Server implements the WS-Trust protocol and provides support for claims transformation. Relying parties provide statements of requirements, expressed in terms of the WS-SecurityPolicy specification, and made available through the WS-MetadataExchange protocol. The Identity Selector implements the consistent user experience. After being invoked by an application, it performs the negotiation between relying party and identity provider(s); displays the identities of “matched” identity providers and relying parties to the subject (e.g., the end user); obtains claims; and releases them to the application under the supervision of the subject. Microsoft’s Implementation Plans Microsoft plans to build software filling all roles within the identity metasystem (while encouraging others to also build software filling these roles, including on non-Windows platforms). Microsoft is implementing the following software components for participation in the metasystem: “InfoCard” identity selector: “InfoCard” is the code name for a WinFX component that provides the consistent user experience required by the identity metasystem. It is specifically hardened against tampering and spoofing to protect the end user’s digital identities and maintain end-user control. A visual “Information Card” in the client user interface represents each digital identity managed by “InfoCard”. The user selects identities represented by “InfoCards” to authenticate to participating services. “InfoCard” simple self-issued identity provider: “InfoCard” also includes a simple identity provider that enables individual PC users to create and utilize self-issued identities, enabling password-free strong authentication to relying parties. A self-issued identity is one where the user vouches for the information they are providing, much like users do today when registering with a Web site. We are implementing the simple self-issued identity provider to help bootstrap the identity metasystem; we believe self-issued identities will continue to be accepted for certain classes of services. Identities hosted in the simple self-issued identity provider will not include or store sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers (or other national ID numbers if these are developed) or credit card numbers. Self-issued identities are not intended to provide the full range of features that a managed identity provider can offer – the market is wide open for companies to provide managed identity solutions to consumers. Active Directory identity provider: This is a managed identity provider integrated with Active Directory. It includes a full set of policy controls to manage the use of Active Directory identities in the identity metasystem. Active Directory Federation Services, a new Active Directory feature shipping in Windows Server 2003 R2, is the first step to integrating identities in Active Directory with the identity metasystem. “Indigo”: The code-named “Indigo” Web services run time provides developers a way to rapidly build and deploy distributed applications, including relying party services in the identity metasystem. The identity metasystem preserves and builds upon customers’ investments in their existing identity solutions, including Active Directory and other identity solutions. Microsoft’s implementation will be fully interoperable via WS-* protocols with other identity selector implementations, with other relying party implementations, and with other identity provider implementations. Non-Microsoft applications will have the same ability to use “InfoCard” to manage their identities as Microsoft applications will. Non-Windows operating systems will be able to be full participants of the identity metasystem we are building in cooperation with the industry. Others can build an entire end-to-end implementation of the metasystem without any Microsoft software, payments to Microsoft, or usage of any Microsoft online identity service. What We Learned from Passport Microsoft’s best-known identity effort is almost certainly the Passport Network (formerly .NET Passport). Microsoft has learned a great deal from building one of the largest Internet scale authentication services in the world, and applied these hard-won lessons in developing the Laws of Identity, the identity metasystem, and several of our products. Passport was originally intended to solve two problems: to be an identity provider for the MSN and Microsoft properties, and to be an identity provider for the Internet. It succeeded at the first, with over 250 million active Passport accounts and over 1 billion authentications per day. As for the second original goal, it became clear to us through continued engagement with partners, consumers, and the industry that in many cases it didn’t make sense for Microsoft to play a role in transactions between, for instance, a company and its customers. Apart from its input to our thinking on the Laws of Identity, it is worth mentioning that operating the Passport service has helped Microsoft gain a deep understanding of the operational and technical challenges that large-scale identity providers face. These experiences have helped us ensure that our identity products meet the needs of large-scale deployments. The identity metasystem is different from the original version of Passport in several fundamental ways. The metasystem stores no personal information, leaving it up to individual identity providers to decide how and where to store that information. The identity metasystem is not an online identity provider for the Internet; indeed, it provides a means for all identity providers to coexist with and compete with one another, with all having equal standing within the metasystem. Finally, while Microsoft charged services to use the original version of Passport, no one will be charged to participate in the identity metasystem. The Passport system itself has evolved in response to these experiences as well. It no longer stores personal information other than username/password credentials. Passport is now an authentication system targeted at Microsoft sites and those of close partners – a role that is clearly in context and with which our users and partners are very comfortable. Passport and MSN plan to implement support for the identity metasystem as an online identity provider for MSN and its partners. Passport users will get improved security and ease of use, and MSN Online partners will be able to interoperate with Passport through the identity metasystem. Conclusion Many of the problems on the Internet today, from phishing attacks to inconsistent user experiences, stem from the patchwork nature of digital identity solutions that software makers have built in the absence of a unifying and architected system of digital identity. An identity metasystem, as defined by the Laws of Identity, would supply a unifying fabric of digital identity, utilizing existing and future identity systems, providing interoperability between them, and enabling the creation of a consistent and straightforward user interface to them all. Basing our efforts on the Laws of Identity, Microsoft is working with others in the industry to build the identity metasystem using published WS-* protocols that render Microsoft’s implementations fully interoperable with those produced by others. We believe that many of the dangers, complications, annoyances, and uncertainties of today’s online experiences can be a thing of the past. Widespread deployment of the identity metasystem has the potential to solve many of these problems, benefiting everyone and accelerating the long-term growth of connectivity by making the online world safer, more trustworthy, and easier to use. Microsoft is working with others in the industry to define and deploy the identity metasystem.
Release the power of cultural diversity in international business
by Finn Drouet Majlergaard How come that companies, who have been doing business internationally for decades suddenly fail? And how come that companies who wouldn’t have had a chance 25 years ago suddenly become a global success? This paper deals with the links between cultural awareness, corporate strategy and performance. It is based on my 15 years of experience in international business management, academic research in this field and experiences from our company Gugin, who helps corporations in Europe, US and Asia improving their international businesses. But lets look at why it has become so important to take different cultures into consideration. Globalisation Cultural awareness has become important due to increased globalisation. The global political structures have changed. We do have a United Nations that almost all countries respect and honour and the post war division of the world has changed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. New countries have been born and we have a more diverged political picture. We create political/economical relations in new ways e.g. the ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting) process, which is a direct result of these changes. By 1992 East Asia accounted for 24 percent of global production. By comparison, the EU accounted for 35 percent and North America for 28% of global production. According to World Bank figures from 1991 – 1993 growth of real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in East Asia averaged 8.7 percent. On the basis of growth rates recorded during 1978 – 1991, many economists including those from the World Bank projected that East Asia’s GDP would overtake that of North America and EU in 2010. Economically we are emerging as well. Europe is turning towards larger entities with common currency, one Central Bank and merges and close collaborations between stock exchanges. ASEAN is another good example however different. But since its foundation in 1967 a lot has changed. Evolving relations between the EEC/EU and ASEAN have lead to a lot of initiatives, such as joint ventures in the exploration of AEAN resources, the possibility of EEC participation in ASEAN manufacturing activities and the mobilisation of capital for financing ASEAN projects. Technologically the Internet has made it possible for companies to market themselves virtually everywhere and enabled the companies to establish inexpensive global infrastructures. And when you need to go abroad it is less expensive than ever before, so we travel much more than 20 years ago. So from both a political, economical and technological point of view we are encouraged to discover cultures we have only little knowledge about. For the adventurer it is good news but for international corporations it might as well be bad news. We have been working with two types of companies: Those who want to expand their international business in either Asia or Europe and those who have tried and faced a lot of challenges they didn’t predict or could even imagine. We like the first group very much, because we can help them become successful before they make any serious mistakes, however it is more interesting to look closer at the last group – those who tried and didn’t have their expectations met. You can download the full article as a *.pdf: click here Finn Drouet Majlergaard (41) is the founder and managing partner of Gugin International Business Development operating globally with offices in France and Denmark. He holds an MBA from Henley Management College and is currently studying DBA at International School of Management. He has worked internationally through his entire professional life with companies like IBM, CSC, Arthur Andersen Business Consulting. He is a regular guest professor at Bangkok University and Copenhagen Business School but he spend most of his time helping companies around the world to succeed internationally. He has an unorthodox way of thinking and he likes to provoke in order to get his messages through. Finn will be speak at the Summit for the Future on Risk in the “Cross Cultural Competence” session.
The Top 10 Elements of Good Software Design
by www.hacknot.info25 Software ArchitectureYou know you’ve achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take awayAntoine de Saint-ExuperyMuch is spoken of “good design” in the software world. It is what we all aim for when we start a project, and what we hope we still have when we walk away from the project. But how do we assess the “goodness” of a given design? Can we agree on what constitutes a good design, and if we can neither assess nor agree on the desirable qualities of a design, what hope have we of producing such a design? It seems that many software developers feel that they can recognize a good design when they see or produce one, but have difficulty articulating the characteristics that design will have when completed. I asked three former colleagues – Tedious Soporific, Sparky and WillaWonga – for their “Top 10 Elements of Good Software Design”. I combined these with my own ideas, then filtered and sorted them based upon personal preference and the prevailing wind direction, to produce the list you see below. A big thanks to the guys for taking the time to write up their ideas. Below, for your edification and discussion, is our collective notion of theTop 10 Elements of Good Software Design, from least to most significant. That is, we believe that a good software design … 10. Considers the Sophistication of the Team that Will Implement It Does it seem odd to consider the builder when deciding how to build? We would not challenge the notion that a developers’ skill and experience has a profound effect on their work products, so why would we fail to consider their experience with the particular technologies and concepts our design exploits? Given fixed implementation resources, a good design doesn’t place unfamiliar or unproven technologies in critical roles, where they become a likely point of failure. Further, team size and their collocation (or otherwise) are considered. It would not be unusual for such a design’s structure to reflect the high level structure of the team or organization that will implement it. 9. Uniformly Distributes Responsibility and Intelligence Classes containing too much intelligence become both a point of contention for version control purposes, and a bottleneck for maintenance and development efforts. They also suggest that a class is capturing more than a single data abstraction. 8. Is Expressed in a Precise Design Language The language of a design consists of the names of the entities within it, together with the names of the operations those entities perform. It is easier to understand a design expressed in precise and specific terms, as they provide a more accurate indication of the purpose of the entities and the way they cooperate to achieve the desired functionality. Look for the following features:The objective of the designed thing can be described in one or two sentences completelyThe interface requirements of the entities are stated preciselyThe contracts between an entity and its callers are stated precisely and contract adherence is enfored programmatically (Design by Contract)Entities are named with accurate and concrete terms, and specified fully enough to form a suitable basis for implementation7. Selects Appropriate Implementation Mechanisms Certain mechanisms are problematic and more likely to produce difficulties at implementation time. A good design minimizes the use of such mechanisms. Examples are:Reflection and introspectionDynamic code generationSelf-modifying codeExtensive multi-threadingSometimes the use of such mechanisms is unavoidable, but at other times a design choice can be made to sacrifice more complex, generic mechanisms for those easier to manage cognitively. 6. Is Robustly Documented As long as a design lies hidden in the complexities of the code, so to does our ability arrive at an understanding of the code’s structure as a whole. As the abstract structure becomes apparent to us, either through rigorous examination of the code or study of an accompanying design document, we gradually develop a course understanding of the code’s topography. A good design document is used before or during implementation as a justification and guide, and after construction as a way for those new to the code base to get an overview of it more quickly than they can through reverse engineering. Captured in abstract form, we can discuss the pros and cons of different approaches and explore design alternatives more quickly than we can if we were instead manipulating a code-level representation of the design. But as soon as the abstract and detailed records of a design part company, discrepancy between the two becomes all but inevitable. Therefore it is essential to document designs at a level of detail that is sufficiently abstract to make the document robust to changes in the code and not unnecessarily burdensome to keep up to date. A good design document should place an emphasis upon temporal and state relationships (dynamic behaviour) rather than static structure, which can be more readily obtained from automated analysis of the source code. Such a document will also explain the rationale behind the principal design decisions. 5. Eliminates Duplication Duplication is anathema to good design. We expect different instances of the same problem to have the same solution. To do otherwise introduces the unnecessary burden of understanding two different solutions where we need only understand one. There are also attendant integrity problems with maintaining consistency between the two differing solutions. Each design problem should be solved just once, and that same solution applied in a customized way to different instances of the target problem. 4. Is Internally Consistent and Unsurprising We often use the term “intuitive” when describing a good user interface. The same quality applies to a good design. Something is “intuitive” if the way you expect (intuit) it to be is in accord with how it actually is. In a design context, this means using well-known and idiomatic solutions to common problems, resisting the urge to employ novelty for it’s own sake. The philosophy is one of “same but different” – someone looking at your design will find familiar patterns and techniques, with a small amount of custom adaptation to the specific problem at hand. Additionally, we expect similar problems to be solved in similar ways in different parts of the system. A consistency of approach is achieved by employing common patterns, concepts, standards, libraries and tools. 3. Exhibits Maximum Cohesion and Minimum Coupling Our key mechanism for coping with complexity is abstraction – the reduction of detail in order to reduce the number of entities, and the number of associations between those entities, which must be simultaneously considered. In OO terms this means producing a design that decomposes a solution space into a half dozen or so discrete entities. Each entity should be readily comprehensible in isolation from the other design elements, to which end it should have a well defined and concisely stateable purpose. Each entity, be it a sub-system or class, can then be treated separately for purposes of development, testing and replacement. Localization of data and separation of concerns are principles which lead to a well decomposed design. 2. Is as Simple as Current and Foreseeable Constraints will Allow It is difficult to overstate the value of simplicity as a guiding design philosophy. Every undertaking regarding a design – be it implementation, modification or rationalization – begins with someone developing an understanding of that design. Both a detailed understanding of a particular focus area, and a broader understanding of the focus area’s role in the overall system design, are necessary before these tasks can commence. It is necessary to distinguish between accidental and essential complexity [Brooks]. The essential complexity of a solution is that which is an unavoidable ramification of the complexity of the problem being solved. The accidental complexity of a solution is the additional complexity (beyond the essential complexity) that a solution exhibits by virtue of a particular design’s approach to solving the problem. A good design minimizes accidental complexity, while handling essential complexity gracefully. Accidental complexity is often the result of the intellectual conceit of the designer, looking to show off their design “chops”. Sometimes a “simple” approach is misinterpreted as being “simple-minded”. On the other hand, we might make a design too simple to perform efficiently. This seems to be a rather rare occurrence in the field. As the scope of software development broadens at the enterprise level and attracts greater essential complexity, the reduction of accidental complexity becomes ever more important. 1. Provides the Necessary Functionality The ultimate measure of a design’s worth is whether its realization will be a product that satisfies the customer’s requirements. Software development occurring in a business context must provide business value that justifies the cost of its construction. Also of significant importance is the design’s ability to accommodate the inevitable modifications and extensions that follow on from changes in the business environment in which it operates. But it is necessary to exercise great caution when predicting future requirements. An excessive focus upon anticipatory design can easily result in wasted effort resulting from faulty predictions, and encumber a design with unnecessary complexity resulting from generic provisions which are never exploited. Terms like “product line” and “framework” may be warning signs that the design is making high-risk assumptions about the future requirements it will be subject to. It is easy to overlook the non-functional requirements (eg. performance and deployment) incumbent upon the design. Taking different “views” of the design, in the manner of the “4+1” architectural views in RUP, can help provide confidence that there are no gaping holes (functional or otherwise) and that the design is complete.
Asian Leadership in Trade and Associated Risks
by Evalueserve World Trade: Emergence of Asia Asia’s journey from the 1997-98 financial crisis to being one of the world’s most dynamic regions in terms of trade, development and investment activity, can best be termed as a ‘Renaissance’. The world’s centre of economic gravity is shifting towards Asia, as it currently accounts for 27 percent of international trade. This growth is mainly driven by the exemplary performance of the emerging Asian countries, including China, India, Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. The share of these emerging Asian countries in world trade increased from 13 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 2004. The Asian region is gaining significance in merchandise as well as commercial services trade. Asia’s share in world merchandise exports and imports stands at 26.8 percent and 24 percent, respectively. The value of Asia’s merchandise exports and imports shot up by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively, in 2004. The growth in exports from the region can be attributed to strong demand from the US, and intra-Asian trade, stoked by a recovery in electronics trade. Exports of commercial services increased at a fast rate of 27 percent in 2004, while imports were up 25 percent during the same period. Asian countries, such as India, China and the Philippines, are the most preferred destination today for outsourcing of business services, such as transaction processing, customer care centers, medical transcription, IT services and application development, high-end analytical services, R&D services, etc. Other commercial services, such as transportation services were strong in 2004, while travel receipts recovered by 31 percent during the year from exceptionally low levels in 2003 (due to the spread of SARS). Intra-regional trade as a share of total trade went up sharply to 41 percent in 2004, primarily due to intra-industry trade as a result of greater vertical specialisation and relocation of production processes. This is evident in the electronics sector, where capital intensive processes (like production of microchips) are carried out in high-income economies like Singapore and Korea, and labour intensive processes (like assembly of personal computers) are located in low income countries, such as China. Asia has integrated into a global production chain with some cities like Hong Kong and Singapore becoming the hub of manufacturing and trade. The dynamics of growth and development in Asia is a perfect illustration of how countries have used trade as a means of achieving greater degree of integration with the international economy. Region-specific factors have provided the stimulus for this growth. Download the full report as a *.pdf: click here