X : Do you think mapping can be used in the environmental field?
Me : Do I think that understanding your landscape, the chain of components, the user needs and the flow of capital whether money, risk or carbon is useful? Hmmm ... what were you planning on using? Stories?
X : Do you know much about the field?
Me : I spent three years working in the field, I built a nation state risk assessment system, I have a masters in the subject, I've kept an eye on the topic for the last twenty+ years and given dozens of talks. I know enough to get by. Why?
X : You're not an expert?
Me : No. I know my limitations. Three years experience in a field, a masters and an interest for twenty years doesn't make you an expert ... at best it makes you a junior journeyman. Experts have been learning and working in the field for twenty years+
X : How long have you been mapping for?
Me : Every day roughly for the last sixteen years. I use it all the time.
X : By your own definition, you're not an expert.
Me : I wouldn't consider myself to be.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
X : Can a graph be a map?
Me : All maps are graphs but only some graphs are maps. In a map, space has meaning ... however ...
Me : ... if you collapse all possible paths (i.e. all options) to only those shown on the graph i.e. there is no possibility to wander off the defined paths and to explore the space then in that very special case ... the graph is also a map as the space is exhausted of meaning.
However, most "maps" that I see - mindmaps, business process maps, systems maps - are not in fact maps but graphs. The options are not exhausted, they provide no means of exploring the space and the landscape does change.
"only pay when the data warehouse is in use, not when it sits idle" ... I think I hear the sound of a plethora of home grown CIO projects and vendors going "pop" at the same time - techcrunch.com/2021/11/30/aws…
X : Thoughts on hybrid cloud?
Me : Do you mean consuming different services from different providers or the same services from different providers or mixing public and private?
X : All them.
Me : Consuming different services from different providers is still relevant.
X : Example?
Me : Sure. I might consume office services from MSFT and compute services from AWS.
X : What about compute from MSFT and AWS?
Me : Added complexity to protect against one of the hyperscalers failing? More likely that your own company will fail.
X : But I've got this tool ...
Me : ... that seemlessly bridges the two? You've disadvantaged yourself though lowest common denominator, added complexity and It is far more likely that the tool and the company providing it will fail rather than either of the hyperscalers.
“We are a leading cloud computing provider" ... AWS? Alibaba? No? Ok, MSFT ... no? Must be Google but that's pushing it a bit ... no? Don't tell me Oracle or IBM are smoking crack and claiming to be No.1 again? No?
Is this going to turn out to be one of those "enterprise class" hosted VMware or OpenStack environments that are trying to be cloud? They are great places to send your legacy to die in whilst you rebuild in AWS Lambda but you've got to get out before it hits the fan.
I don't get slamming of Cab Office. This is a small time player making a loss in a brutal infrastructure game with massive giants. I'm not sure we should have any Gov systems (including legacy) in such volatile environments in 2021 unless we're very close to switching them off.
I can understand deplatforming people for racist, homophobic, antisemitic, islamaphobic or misogynistic views but ... deplatforming because they are critical of your policies? How on earth do they hope to learn without challenge? ->
When I helped write the "Better for Less" paper with others (it was for Francis Maude) ... the concept of challenge was critical. It's at the heart of spend control and the heart of mapping. The problems we saw, the over dependence on external consultancies / vendors was ...
... because of a lack of challenge. This lack of challenge cost Government billions. In one example, well ...