Just Connect?

Is 2015 the year in which the much discussed Internet of Things (IoT) is becoming mainstream?  I was prompted to muse on this question by watching a friend remotely check and then reset the temperature of his home via their smartphone from our restaurant table.  Also that same evening saw me extolling the benefits of my health wearable device and demonstrating how to review my statistics via an app on my smartphone.  This is certainly different from the initial smart sensors on goods and within warehouses that help track stock levels and triggered replenishment orders.  My first encounter with IoT was in the smart meter space in the energy sector.  This is where meters enhanced with sensors are deployed to enable the providers to remotely monitor energy usage real-time and use that feedback to optimise their delivery model.

IoT 2 - shutterstock_254834209 (2)Indeed defining the term IoT can be problematic.  I like this definition from a McKinsey article, that it is “the networking of physical objects through the use of embedded sensors, actuators, and other devices that can collect or transmit information about the objects. The data amassed from these devices can then be analysed to optimize products, services, and operations”.   In 2011 when IoT first hit my radar I remember many articles from analysts predicting that by 2020 the market for connected devices would have reached somewhere between 50 billion and 100 billion units.  Generally analysts today seem to be talking about a reduced but still material 20 billion or 30 billion units by that date.

To enable that scale to be reached we need to look beyond the “Things” and indeed even the connectivity aspect.  Ultimately the old mantra of “it is all about the data” is at the heart of the key ingredients required.  It is not just about getting the data to a store in the cloud.  It is about doing so in a way that reflects the information privacy and security dimension within a framework of enabling technology standards.  I don’t think we will realise the promise if we end up with an IoT that is more the “Internet of Proprietary Things”.

I picked up on the proprietary angle in an article by Matt Honan in the magazine Wired:  “Apple is building a world in which there is a computer in your every interaction, waking and sleeping.  A computer in your pocket.  A computer on your body.  A computer paying for all your purchases.  A computer opening your hotel room door.  A computer monitoring your movements as you walk through the mall.   A computer watching you sleep.   A computer controlling the devices in your home.  A computer that tells you where you parked.  A computer taking your pulse, telling you how many steps you took, how high you climbed and how many calories you burned – and sharing it all with your friends…. The ecosystem may be lush, but it will be, by design, limited.  Call it the Internet of Proprietary Things.”

Many see a darker side to the IoT vision.   They see a world where you are constantly tracked, monitored and the data about you monetised without your permission on a massive scale.  Indeed some go as far as seeing the IoT as enabling a far more effective and efficient surveillance by the state, yet with the added twist that we seem to be volunteering to have it.

Cyber Surveillance - shutterstock_95308294 (2)

The threat seen is that we end up being monitoring by every device in our lives from our cars, to our household white goods, to a massive range of smartphone or wearable type apps and to the more understood spend trail we leave with credit and debit cards.  This set of data points will then be correlated, analysed and without the relevant protections on privacy sold on to businesses without you being explicitly aware and agreeing.

There are a number of articles around that counter this point by making a link from IoT in this regard to social media.  I think the point they miss in doing so is that social media is for those that are suitably wary about presenting a curated view of yourself.  As the world becomes ever more digitized and people tracked by a growing myriad of devices it will almost certainly leave fewer and fewer opportunities to decide not to participate.   It’s one thing to curate the view of yourself that is broadcast on social media.  It would seem to me to be quite another to see how much curated content will exist in the world IoT might create.  I think it is vital that the IoT promise is achieved by having an appropriate model of regulation to ensure privacy remains an option.

Images sourced from Shutterstock.
This blog post was previous published on the Business Value Exchange.

Digital Zoom – Part 2

It seems clear that cloud computing in public, private and/or hybrid guise will become the norm for corporate IT over the course of 2015.  However, to deliver the promised pricing and supply elasticity it will be critical for suppliers to have achieved scale.   As a result it seems very likely that suppliers sometimes called the “hyper scale cloud players” will become an even more material presence in the corporate sector.  The key three players of the “hyper scale cloud” club would seem to be AWS, Azure and Google.

However, scale alone will be insufficient as it will not just be all about lower cost per unit consumed.  During 2014 it has become increasingly clear that management of cloud services, particularly integrated management of multiple cloud platforms is going to be a key differentiator for suppliers.  The recent collaboration announcement by Accenture and Microsoft on their Hybrid Cloud Platform initiative is arguably recognition of this point.  Many analysts are also rightly seeing the management imperative as being tightly linked to one of automation.  Automation will be critical to deliver the essential real time monitoring and self-healing facilities as well as enabling the required cost economics to operate shared platforms at scale.  Responding successfully to these imperatives will require bold investment strategies and the associated financial means to invest and await the returns in future years.  To help manage the investment implications I also think we will see more partnerships announced as well as a willingness to enter into joint ventures.

Digital Zoom - shutterstock_96758821 (2)

In the software arena I think 2015 will see big winners in those with analytic tooling that can enable access to digital stores, increasingly across multiple data silos.  The software architectures will have to accommodate the mobile device favoured by data consumers and deliver a highly contextualised interaction model.  The key challenge is going to be how to make money quickly enough to fund the required software development in a way that matches the flexibility and fragmentation of the demand.

Pace will be a critical factor and it will continue to be one of the key threats to the enabling infrastructure both in terms of meeting the function demand but also in being able to iterate rapidly to remain current.  This last point brings me to my first New Year’s resolution scarily early.  At a recent CIO webinar the topic of DevOps came up as one of the key tactics technology providers will need to adopt to achieve the required flexibility and speed of action and reaction.  My resolution is to address my feckless knowledge gap and educate myself on DevOps as I was somewhat embarrassed on the call to be largely uninformed on this topic.  I will return to this topic to update on my progress or lack thereof in early 2015, but if useful to you too here is an excellent DevOps focused site!

Post was original made on the Business Value Exchange site.
Image is via Shutterstock.

Digital Zoom – Part 1

As always December is a good month to find opinions being shared on what 2015 will bring in terms of technology trends.  My good intentions are always to commit my thoughts to writing early in the month.  Typically each year I fail to act and reach the middle of January before sitting down to write.  This year I aim to break the trend!  However, my other firm resolve to get the Christmas cards into the post early has once again proved fruitless.

I think 2014 was the year in which the “drive to a digital world” really gathered pace and became all pervasive. How that digital content is being consumed is key and many analysts are arguing that more time is being spent consuming data via mobile applications than via the web.  A good articulation of this argument has been made by Benedict Evans in his post entitled “Mobile Is Eating The World”.  It seems that the drive to a digital world and mobile devices are completely intertwined.  It is clear that success in 2015 in virtually all business spheres will depend on how adeptly companies continue to adapt their business model and offerings to the digital world.

Digital World - shutterstock_69191626

The expectation that services can be consumed at the total convenience of the customer is now deeply embedded, certainly in the societies of the G20 countries and arguably globally.  That “anytime, anyplace, anywhere” mantra (yes I am old enough to remember the famous Martini advert!) is conditioned I think by the importance of brand recognition, context and trust.  It seems to me that people are becoming slowly more aware of the risks of the digital world, particularly the ability to trust content and to rely on privacy for data and identity.  A Forrester analyst Heidi Shey recently blogged that “Today, about a third of security decision-makers in North America and Europe view privacy as a competitive differentiator.  Forrester expects to see half of enterprises share this sentiment by the end of 2015″.  The detail of the research is behind the Forrester pay-wall but the summary is worth a read.

Clearly to enable the hyper-connected digital world we will need to see the underlying infrastructure continue to evolve at an ever increasing pace.  I think the argument that the digital world is made real through an ever growing population of devices and sensors combining to enable contextual data consumption is right.  A very persuasive summary of this argument was given by Satya Nadella back in March 2014 early in his tenure at Microsoft in his “Mobile first, Cloud first” strategy messaging.  The Internet of Things (IoT) concept will become ever more real and valuable in 2015. It will require underlying cloud based services to enable the collection, collation and presentation back in a value adding form and context.  The rapid proliferation of wearables technology is just one visible sign of the devices landscape that will enable the digital world and realise the IoT promise.  The sheer number of mobile phones (often quoted as being over 7 billion now in use) with the “there is an app for that” assumption is bringing the connected digital world into the consumer mainstream ever more quickly.

We are all now expecting that the different data units required to enable a transaction or consumer experience to take place will be seamlessly collated and enacted.  The initial “wow that is clever” reaction to data being combined to enable something that was once slow and painful to execute will increasingly be replaced by impatience and frustration if it is not so.  I tried to explain to someone the other day how hard it used to be to renew car road tax as opposed to the online seamless checking of the various key components required for validation delivered by the DVLA website. I felt ancient!

So in short I see 2015 as the year where the IoT concept becomes visible to the mainstream.  It will be the year where the difference between a strong digitisation strategy and an average one will translate to material competitive advantage.  It will be the year where brands that demonstrate the quality of their content and deliver a superb customer experience combined with an appropriate contextualised respect for data and identity privacy will win.

All very exciting might be your reaction, but what does that mean for those of us in the technology sector then?

Post was also published on the Business Value Exchange.
Image is via Shutterstock.

Engagement Drivers?

Many companies gather employee feedback at this time of year wishing for an engagement score that is an improvement over the previous results.  I find that people often confuse employee satisfaction with employee engagement.  High satisfaction levels with a current employer do not necessarily indicate that the workforce is actively striving to deliver to the corporate goals with a high degree of emotional investment and willingness to “go the extra mile or more”.  Indeed I have sometimes seen a team deliver demonstrate fantastic commitment to the cause whilst simultaneously being extremely ambivalent about the company itself and its declared vision.  There needs to be a binding force that propels the team to collective and collaborative success, but that is not always a positive endorsement of the corporate goals.  People are complex but team dynamics arguably even more so.

Perhaps the most frequent cul-de-sac I see companies rush into at high speed is to confused engagement with a multitude of technological enabled interaction channels.  This particular vice seems most likely when the senior management feels it has to engage with the younger segments of its demographic.  A fixation on terms like “Generation Y” or “Millennials” and the imperative to focus on digital world based interaction above all else.   Clearly taking advantage of the opportunity presented by social media to engage with the workforce is today an essential step.  However it is equally important to have the compelling content to stimulate debate and sell the key messages to the team.  At the risk entering a world of clichés the right approach is to have a well-articulated and compelling set of messages conveyed via a communication strategy blending a range of channels to enable individuals to engage, absorb and contribute in the manner most relevant and comfortable to them.

Engage - shutterstock_223446205 (2)

Identifying the behavioral drivers for individuals, teams and entire organisations, and effectively aligning those to the corporate objectives is a key part of the workforce engagement puzzle.  Over recent years I have seen a rising number of situations where a key component of a successful engagement strategy has been placing those actions and desired goals beyond personal or corporate gain to having a positive impact on society itself.  In short to have a clear link to a clearly articulated corporate social responsibility commitment.  I am not discounting the criticality of having an employee engagement strategy with integrity that ensures convergence of vision, values and actions.  I am arguing that the truly high performing organisations with highly engaged and motivated employees frequently seem to create a balance between the drivers of the individual, the company and the society within which they sit.  My musings along this line of thought were triggered by reading an excellent interview with Adam Grant a professor from Wharton Business School discussing his recently published book “Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success”.  I think his material does hit on some key themes which need to be contemplated when considering what exactly does employee engagement mean and how is it used as a force for good.

 

Image via Shutterstock, Engage – 223446205

Context Is All

Earlier this week my eye was caught be an email I received entitled “Eight New Tech Job Titles”.  One of the most unusual job titles I have come across in my career is “Chief Monster” which was used for a while by Jeff Tayler the founder of monster.com.  Although I believe that role title was unique I do tend to keep an eye on what role titles are emerging in the corporate world and so of course I clicked on the link.  Nothing particularly startling in the eight titles listed but the “Chief Analytics / Data / Science Officer” entry did catch my eye, not least because I had recently for the first time encountered someone who carried the title “Chief Data Scientist”.  The chap was presenting on a webcast and worked for a large US retailer and the context was a session on “big data” on which he had some very interesting views.  I would share the link to the webcast but it is behind a subscription service paywall.

However, first it is perhaps worth defining the term “big data”.   In general it seems accepted to refer to the exponential growth and availability of structured and unstructured data, a key dynamic of the digital age.  People typically refine that broad definition by referencing some concepts I believe were first articulated by Doug Laney in 2001.  He defined “big data” in terms of the characteristics of volume, velocity and variety.  I recently came across an excellent IBM infographic entitled “The Four Vs of Big Data in which they had added veracity.  The infographic is an excellent summary and it would be foolish of me to try and restate it here.  I did register that within it is an arresting statement that by 2015 IBM believe that there will be 4.4m new IT jobs created in the big data field; note to self, can this old dog learn some new tricks to reinvent himself?

So you can imagine that on coming across my first Chief Data Scientist I had a number of questions to pose to him.  I’m sure you will all have seen the various statistics about the exponential generation of data both in terms of the social media type context such as 30billion pieces of content shared on Facebook every month or facts like there are 6 billion mobile phones in use or that by 2016 it is forecast that there will be 18.9 billion network connections or that today each day there is estimated to be 2.3 trillion gigabytes of data created.  Sadly I didn’t get to pose any of my (in my view!) insightful questions, however others admirably stepped into the breach.

The first question set to him was by a CIO musing on the number of “challenging” data warehouse projects in her past (snap!) and was focused on his approach to handling the complexity implicit in the big data arena.  The data is arriving at speed from multiple sources both structured and unstructured and to be of value it is necessary to process the data sets (link, match and cleanse at a minimum) before you can start to meaningfully connect/correlate relationships to turn data into information into insight.  I liked his initial answer; “Frankly if it was at all easy no one would be interested in paying me to hold a role with such a fancy job title!”.   I liked his second point even more which was “It is easy to get over excited about the neat new analytic tools, how much processing power you need or whether you can leverage cloud based analytic engines.  What is absolutely critical is domain knowledge, you have to understand the business context in which the data is created and in which it is being interpreted to create business insight and ultimately competitive advantage.”  However, driven by the questions being posed he did then actually proceed to talk at length about technology tools at which point I will confess to losing interest quite quickly.

Of course what was extremely familiar was the message around needing to be able to use the power of the technology to create a context for the data whilst taking due note of the implications of the “four Vs” so well-articulated by the IBM infographic.  This is the core message that CIOs and their teams hear all the time.  It is those that internalise and act upon it that typically become the success stories and the technology capacity seen as an innovation engine for the business enabling competitive advantages.  To get a sense of the size of the prize around big data and some case studies on success stories I recommend a read of the report Big Data In Big Companies by Thomas Davenport and Jill Dyche.  To reflect on the gestation time for trends in technology to become deployed innovations in the business world I suggest reading the 2011 McKinsey report “Big Data The Next Frontier For Innovation, Competition & Productivity”.  I remember reading this report in late 2011 when preparing a presentation  on the Internet of Things and pondering whether it would be more than hype by 2015; I think we can declare yes at this point in time.

Digital Literacy – A Corporate Perspective?

A recent blog post by Vincent Rousselet entitled “A Tale Of Digital Literacy”  resonated greatly with me.  I particularly liked the discussion on whether Instagram was a force for ill between his daughters!  However, it starting me thinking about two questions: what exactly is the definition of digital literacy and how does that relate to the corporate IT?  A quick meander around the Internet courtesy of the ubiquitous Google and I found this excellent blog post by Cindy Plunkett, “What Is Digital Literacy?” .  There is a wealth of excellent material on this site and on many others debating the societal imperatives in the digital age.  I particularly liked the quote from Alvin Toffler I came across on what being illiterate in the twenty first century means, namely “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those that cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn”.

shutterstock_110678570

I do despair of those in the corporate world that equate mastery of the digital world with knowing all about the latest and greatest technology, generally focused on the latest end user device. I tend to label the technology fad obsessed senior executive as being a devotee of the “Magpie Approach” to technology.  These technology enthusiasts sadly confuse the allure of the latest shiny thing with considered adoption of technology to derive business benefit with an appropriate assessment of the associated risks of being an early adopter.  Now I am not arguing that being an early adopter of a new technology is a bad thing, what I am arguing is that sitting at the pointy end of technology advances is a high risk strategy that needs to be underpinned by a clear sighted assessment of the risk to reward equation.  Generally my heart sinks in the corporate context when I hear people enthusing about the latest tablet, smartphone, laptop, application or business solution.  In my view once people view technology with the same perspective most of us apply to a new pen or other commonplace tool they are probably taking a balanced view. If they enthuse first about the business benefits that the new shiny IT object can deliver and then make a passing comment to exercise their inner geek, my alarm sensors see nothing worthy of triggering an alert!

Digital literacy in the corporate context needs the senior executives to be focused on leverage exciting benefit from the unexciting and the workforce trained and empowered to make effective use of the technology tooling. Clearly a sense of buzz generated from shiny new devices can be a powerful motivator as part of the adoption process within the business change programme, but it should just be the means to an end not the means in itself.  So ultimately I am arguing that the digitally literate senior executive is someone that understands the value to be gained from the digital world but is not unduly driven by the glittering latest shiny new technology.  I am arguing that once you view technology as a tool to be deployed in the digital age to enable and empower your business, then that is when as a business leader you are digitally literate.

Image via Shutterstock.com

This post was previously published on the Business Value Exchange.

Who Are The Visionaries Of Transformation?

“So what is the right team to mobilise to deliver a technology enabled business transformation then?”  This was a question posed in an email I received shortly after my last contribution to the BVEX site.  Just to be irritating I answered the question with a question of my own; “thanks for reading and posing the question but could you not use the comment feature on the site?!”.   A critical part of the answer lies within the wording of the question, specifically “business transformation”.  My starting point on mobilising any transformation initiative is to understand how the business will engage, how actively and to confirm that it has a clear view on the benefits to be obtained and how they will be measured.

Once I have those parameters defined then I can start to look at the skills balance the team needs to have to be successful.  As we will all appreciate the enabling technology must be deployed effectively to provide a solid base before we can then drive the required organisational and/or individual behavioural changes to use it.   However, I am extremely wary of having transformation programme leads that are fans of technology or even worse fanatics.  My best results have been achieved when the programme lead views the technology as simply a tool and maintains a dispassionate perspective,  much like most of us would regard the choice of different types of pen.  They just need to understand the technology to a sufficient level to be able to lead those in the team for whom that is their specialist skill.

My primary focus for the transformation lead is to find someone able to communicate the vision underlying the intent and make the business change meaningful to those delivering, engaging or being impacted.  Once you catch the imagination of people with the vision then they will commit and provide the persistence that is often needed to achieve success as there are always, repeat always, bumps in the road with any programme with a significant technological dimension.

shutterstock_104678735

Personalising the transformation and visibly living the values set is critical and in terms of business engagement, if you can have your CEO provide that role model then you have materially de-risked your programme.  You want to build a cadre of committed individuals driving towards the desired outcomes and impact on the business.  A key success factor that enables that peer group pressure is well defined measurement;  tracking the right metrics both in terms of the delivery of the programme but also in terms of the business benefits derived as you embed the business change.  Clearly there will be people that need a deal of persuasion within your programme team and the wider business.  It is vital to have a strong focus on the organisational change key enablers as well as having strategies to handle the resisters, including those that are hidden or passive.  I recently found an excellent exploration of this area by McKinsey entitled “Tapping The Power Of Hidden Influencers” which is well worth a read.

My key argument is that you absolutely need to mobilise a team that can deliver the enabling technology to scope, budget, deadline and quality.  However, to derive the business benefits from that enabling technology you need more than “just” those qualities, you need a team equipped to drive the organisation and behavioural change skills by moving engagement into commitment and then into enactment.  The tendency of technology enabled business transformation programmes to fail to deliver the business benefits, even when they succeed in delivering the technology dimension, highlights the multifaceted team that success requires.  Even if you do mobilise the optimal multi skilled team you must have answered an even more fundamental question, are the leaders within that business environment are committed to the change and ready to lead from the front as compelling role models?   So in short even before start thinking about the optimal skills mix and mobilise the team make sure you have verified that those commissioning the transformation understand clearly what the journey will entail and are able to holistically articulate the destination.

 

This article was first posted on the Business Value Exchange.

Image via Shutterstock.com.

Success To One: Failure To Another

The very moment I sat down my dinner guest’s agitation could clearly no longer be contained.  “A failure, a failure?  I have delivered a £15 million IT transformation project to scope, to budget and to deadline!  A miracle based on the company’s track record over the last few years!  A failure!” he declared bitterly.   By the main course the agitation had subsided somewhat and the facts had become clearer and I was beginning to see the nub of the divergence between what he saw as his team’s big success and what his CEO’s viewed as failing.  The critical word was the often misused “T” word, transformation. shutterstock_84273679 The project was extremely complex and had been a real challenge to deliver across many sites integrating together a number of vendors whilst managing a seamless transition from the legacy platform.  However, it became clear the longer we talked that there had indeed been virtually no focus on the wider business benefits beyond that directly derived from the new technology solution.    The more I asked annoying questions using phrases like “benefits value chain”, “stakeholder engagement” and “holistic business case” the more obvious it became that whilst the CEO clearly felt he’d invested in a full blown business transformation initiative, his company had actually mobilised and enacted a technology refresh project.  There appeared to have been no shared vision of the outcomes expected from the investment and certainly nothing evolved from that vision into measurable successful delivery of the business value.  It was clear to me that the project team had worked extremely hard and had delivered what can depressingly be a rare event; a technology refresh project within budget to scope and deadline. I am sure we have all come across variants of this tale during our careers, perhaps even been to some degree in the position of my friend as we learned our trade and worked up to a CIO position.  Whenever I hear the word transformation I am now pre-programmed to question the scope, the stakeholder engagement and how success will be recognised at the end of the project.  To some extent this is based on bitter experience as I carry some scars from earlier in my career, don’t we all if we are honest? But it is also because there are so many cautionary case studies in the technology industry that arguably there can be no excuse to repeat the history of others.  Yet there seems to be a steady flow of new examples of transformational woe and these are not errors made by the slightly dim and deranged, these are errors made by highly capable business and technology leaders.  The sparkle of a technologically  challenging project can still blind us to the real business drivers and indeed to the truism that mostly the technology is the easier element.  The hard part is driving behavioural change in individuals, in teams and in organisations.  Indeed I think we can argue that technology mastery whilst often a key element to delivering business change is not the most critical aspect.  That label is reserved for the often over-looked element of excellent project management, a viewpoint argued by this interesting article published recently by Forbes.  However, equally I could offer up examples of talented managers that don’t seem to grasp how to deliver programmes that do have material technology components but which also demand the ability to deliver a holistic vision and achieve organisational change leading to enhanced business value.  So the “T” word needs to be treated with respect and the right team mobilised to truly deliver transformational change rather than just change.   Post was previously published on the Business Value Exchange. Image provided by Shutterstock

Buyer Beware?

A recent interim role opportunity advert listed among the required skills “extensive mergers and acquisition (M&A) experience” but on further discussion the need really seemed to be focused on systems integration.  Clearly the ability to plan a sensible integration of two or more corporate IT landscapes into a strategic coherent whole is critical in a M&A context, including re-conforming previous decisions on delivery models still meet the needs of the organisation.  However, there is equally value, potentially more value,  to be gained from engaging the CIO prior to the deal being struck rather than simply to handle the consequences.  If the acquisition is not a technology company it can be very easy to ignore hidden value or costs within its IT assets, a relatively trite example being that buying a company today with only Microsoft XP deployed on very aged computers will very quickly present a potentially material investment cost.  In a previous role I was taken along to a newly acquired company in Germany by my regional CEO on the Monday morning we took possession.  The employees joining the company were there bright and early in the very smart office but there was no IT kit on any desk as the detail of the deal had failed to actually acquire those assets; hard to believe but a true story.  It was this incident that made it very easy for me to insist on the IT team being engaged with any acquisition deal right from the start and being part of the final buy decision review process.

If anyone is needing convincing of the criticality of IT and its leader on successful M&A then point them at this excellent McKinsey article from 2011, Understanding the strategic value of IT in M&A.  If M&A is all about finding synergies then the McKinsey statistic in this article that over 50% of those synergies tend to relate to IT probably wins any debate on why CIOs should be actively engaged from the twinkle in the eye stage through to the fully integrated with no seams showing outcome.   This argument holds true if you are part of the divesting team equally and a compelling articulation of the strength of the corporate technology and how it is designed to enable rapid and low cost integration could well help close the deal.

I do struggle to understand why the CIO role in M&A is open to question but at a recent industry event I found a number of CIOs that were feeling excluded from the decision process and very concerned at the potential consequences that they would inherit and have to resolve.  The common pitfall it seemed to me listening to the debate was to express the imperative in technology terms rather than using business language and describing the concerns in terms of business outcomes that would be thwarted as well as the clear attention grabber of how much money getting the IT assessment and integration plan wrong could require.  I’m not sure it can really be that simple, but then again perhaps it might just be that straightforward?

Some Statistics – 2013 Review

Many thanks to all those that took the time to read my ramblings in 2013!  WordPress.com prepared a 2013 annual report for my blog which I thought might be fun to share.

Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 1,400 times in 2013. If it were a cable car, it would take about 23 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.