Sebastien Roblin Security, Middle East Tehran and the movie Top Gun share a strange connection. The Tomcat could theoretically fire up to six Phoenix missiles in rapid succession at different targets—an ability that was actually tested once. The result? Four hits out of six launches. Tomcats usually carried larger numbers of more conventional AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles and medium-range AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missiles. The F-14 also had a twenty-millimeter cannon, a feature Navy Phantom fighters lacked. However, like the early models of the F-15 entering in service at the time, the F-14 was a pure air-to-air platform and was not built to carry air-to-ground munitions. All in all, the Tomcat was fast enough to intercept Soviet bombers, had radar and missiles capable of detecting and shooting them down over long distances, and the maneuverability to dogfight and defeat agile enemy fighters. This combination of capabilities became the gold standard of a new generation of aircraft including the F-15 and Su-27. Additionally, the Tomcat of course had the reinforced landing gear and arrestor hook necessary for carrier operations. Let’s just get this out of the way: Maverick. Iceman. Charlie. Are you done swooning yet? For many, the 1988 film Top Gun caused the F-14 to embody everything cool about fighter jets and the pilots that flew them. And the Tomcat was cool—entering service in 1975, it was arguably the first operational fourth-generation jet fighter that successfully combined the characteristics of high speed, high maneuverability, and sophisticated avionics and armament that are now standard today. However, there’s a profound irony in the Tomcat story. The Tomcat is one of the U.S. fighters that has seen the most sustained and intense air-to-air combat of its generation. And yet, American F-14s only shot down five hostile aircraft. The Tomcat, however, chalked up its extraordinary combat record in the service of one of the United States’ bitterest rivals, Iran. Defending the Fleet Read full article
Key test will be to sustain the agility that has driven the online retailer’s success
Lockheed Martin's (LMT) F-35 Lightning II is a 5th Generation, single-seat, single-engine fighter jet.
Despite our best intentions, conversations can frequently veer into difficult territory, producing frustration, resentment, and wasted time and effort. Take David, one of my coaching clients. Recently appointed to a business school leadership role, he was eager to advance his strategic agenda. Doing so required building his team members’ commitment to and sense of ownership over the proposed changes. When people were slow to step up and take on key tasks and roles, David felt frustrated by what he saw as their unwillingness to assume responsibility. For example, when he spoke with Leela, the head of the school’s specialized online master’s degree programs, he shared his plan to increase enrollment in these programs to boost revenue. He believed that the programs could accommodate 20% more students at the same staffing level with no loss of student satisfaction; Leela disagreed. David argued, and when Leela pushed back with concerns and counterarguments, he batted them away. Nothing got resolved. David believed that if he “won” an argument — through logic, force, or stamina — that meant his conversational partner had accepted his argument and would proceed to act upon their agreement. Instead, his team members left unconvinced and uncommitted. David’s conversational inflexibility made it near impossible for him to lead change. Instead of motivating and facilitating progress, he exasperated and exhausted his team. To have more-effective conversations, he needed to add more tools to his conversational toolbox and learn to use them skillfully. Below are eight strategies David put into practice, all of which you can use to get conversations back on track and then move them forward. Shift the relationship from opposition to partnership. In the midst of a difficult conversation, it’s easy to see your conversational partner as your opponent. Try repositioning yourself — both mentally and physically — to be side by side with the other person, so that you’re focused on the same problem. David told me that trying to convince his team to follow him felt like trying to break into a fortified castle. “How are you trying to get in?” I asked. “I’m trying to break through the wall with a battering ram. It’s the only way in!” he said. David realized that instead of approaching conversations like a frontal assault on a guarded building, it was better to knock politely on the castle door, where he was more likely to be welcomed inside. He now uses the metaphor of “coming around to the same side of the table” to remind himself to seek to build an alliance when a conversation gets stuck. Further Reading HBR Guide to Dealing with Conflict COMMUNICATION Book Harvard Business Review 19.95 Add to Cart Save Share Reframe your purpose from convincing to learning. Conversations often go off track when we try to get someone to adopt our view or approach. When our purpose is to make another person see things our way, they are likely to resist — and arguing blocks learning and sends conversations into a ditch. No matter how well-spoken and logical we may be, we can’t understand and solve the problem without exploring how the other person sees it. Whenever David fixated on persuasion as his conversational objective, he became ineffective. As Leela explained, “There’s a lot David doesn’t understand. It would be better if he would work with us rather than trying to ram his plans through, but he doesn’t seem to be interested in learning about our experience and expertise.” Consciously shifting into a learning mode helps us gain the insight we need to be creative, to collaborate, and to move the conversation forward. Loosen your grip on your own viewpoint, at least temporarily, so you can make space to take in your partner’s. David employs the mental trick of being a fly on the wall, a neutral, objective third party who’s witnessing the conversation. From that mental perch up, he’s not trying to convince and he doesn’t have the urge to defend his viewpoint. He doesn’t feel invested in either side, so he can accurately see what and how each is communicating. Verbalize your intention. Transparency helps facilitate productive conversations. Share your purpose and what you hope to achieve with your partner. For example, you might say, “I’d like each of us to get all of our concerns out on the table, so that we can be confident we’re not missing anything.” Ask what they’d like to get out of the conversation. Be explicit, not just about the topic and desired outcome of the conversation but also about process. For example, David said, “I want to remain open-minded and nonjudgmental. Will you let me know if I slip up at this?” Avoid assumptions. Ask someone who’s just had a difficult conversation what went wrong, and they’ll likely describe what they believe was in the other person’s mind: “He’s totally focused on his own career and couldn’t care less whether the team succeeds.” Or, “She’s after my job. She wants me to fail.” The assumptions we make about another person’s intentions usually reveal more about ourselves than about what’s going on in their mind. Making assumptions also limits our effectiveness because it prevents us from fully understanding the situation and narrows the range of solutions we consider. Examine the other’s perspective with openness and curiosity. To understand your conversational partner’s perspective, switch off defensiveness and turn on curiosity. Avoid asking leading questions such as, “You don’t want to become known as the difficult person in the office, do you?” Rather, try asking open-ended questions like these: “How does this affect you?” “What’s at stake for you?” “What is this conversation like for you?” “What do I need to understand?” “What would help us to get on the same page?” Thank them for their responses without rebutting what they’ve said. Acknowledge your part. It’s very easy to identify what the other person has done wrong, and much harder to identify one’s own contribution to the problem. But acknowledging your part demonstrates how to take responsibility and encourages others to do the same. By asking open-ended questions and listening with detachment, David came to see that his desire for fast results led him to cut off discussion too quickly, giving his conversational partners the impression that he wasn’t interested in their ideas. Learn your A-BCDs. University of Washington psychologist John Gottman identified four communication behaviors that derail conversations so consistently that he refers to them as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse.” With a mnemonic modification to Gottman’s formulation, I teach clients to avoid torpedoing conversations by “learning your A-BCDs,” by which I mean learning to Avoid Blame, Contempt, Defensiveness, and Stonewalling. In the absence of Leela’s enthusiasm for his plan, David rolled his eyes with exasperation (an expression of contempt) and barked, “Oh, come on. How are we supposed to get things moving if you won’t take on responsibility?” Here he was blaming her for the delay, while she still felt he hadn’t heard or responded to her concerns. When she raised her eyebrows at his outburst, he realized that he’d slipped up on his stated intention to remain open-minded during the conversation, which he acknowledged with a self-deprecating “oops.” Defensiveness shows up when we deny responsibility for our own contribution to the difficult conversation. Leela contended that David should involve an assistant dean in the planning process. David felt defensive at what he interpreted as a suggestion that he was cutting out important players. He said, “If we have to talk with everyone, we’ll never get anywhere.” By defending his approach with a blanket statement about how involving more people will block progress, he signaled that he’s not open to input on how to move the process along. Stonewalling can take a number of forms, including passivity, avoiding a certain topic, refusal to participate in or contribute to discussion, or withholding relevant information. If you find yourself engaging in any of these behaviors, refocus on what you’re trying to achieve and remember that examining difficult issues with openness and curiosity, while sometimes uncomfortable, is key to having productive conversations. Discuss the four behaviors with your team and agree that you’ll hold each other accountable for avoiding them. Seek input to problem solving. Humans are motivated to preserve and protect our self-image, so feedback can be difficult to receive. We tend to reject information that threatens our identity (e.g., “The customer reports that you were impatient and uninformed”) and, therefore, we don’t learn from it. Executive coach Marshall Goldsmith recommends the simple and effective practice of “feedforward.” Instead of digging into what has happened in the past, tell the person what you hope to learn or achieve, and ask them for their suggestions. For example, David eventually asked Leela, “What can I do to invite greater participation in the change process?” She was so surprised the first time he tried this that it took her a few minutes to respond. Then she said, “I think it would help if, before moving to a decision, you ask if there’s anything else anyone would like to add and give people time to respond.” David appreciated the suggested tactic and added it to his tool kit. Practicing any of these techniques will increase your ability to have productive conversations about even the most difficult or contentious issues. Then try out a second technique. The goal is to incorporate all eight into your repertoire, increasing your conversational agility and improving your ability to influence your colleagues.
Strategic Agility is the next frontier of Agile management
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ALXN) announced that researchers presented encouraging data on Strensiq at the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS) Congress in Austria.
Shares of the chinese specialty online retailer Vipshop Holdings Ltd. (VIPS) rallied 1.42% in New York after-hours trading on May 15 after posting better-than-expected results in the first quarter of 2017.
AUSTRALIA revealed details of a massive shipbuilding strategy Tuesday, its largest peacetime naval investment, with plans to construct dozens of new submarines and frigates to shore up its defence capabilities. Prime
As the scale and complexity of the cyber threat landscape is revealed, so too is the general lack of cybersecurity readiness in organizations, even those that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on state-of-the-art technology. Investors who have flooded the cybersecurity market in search for the next software “unicorn” have yet to realize that when it comes to a risk as complex as this one, there is no panacea — certainly not one that depends on technology alone. Spending millions on security technology can certainly make an executive feel safe. But the major sources of cyber threats aren’t technological. They’re found in the human brain, in the form of curiosity, ignorance, apathy, and hubris. These human forms of malware can be present in any organization and are every bit as dangerous as threats delivered through malicious code. With any cyber threat, the first and last line of defense is prepared leaders and employees, whether they are inside an organization or part of an interconnected supply chain. And yet organizational leadership all too often demonstrates outright technology torpitude. An unprepared, lethargic leadership only amplifies the consequences of a security breach. The scale of the Yahoo breach disclosed in 2016, combined with the fumbling response, cost the company and its shareholders $350 million in its merger with Verizon and nearly scuttled the entire deal. Insight Center Getting Cybersecurity Right Sponsored by Accenture Safeguarding your company in a complex world. To prepare for and prevent the cyberattacks of the future, firms need to balance technological deterrents and tripwires with agile, human-centered defenses. These vigorous, people-centric efforts must go beyond the oft-discussed “tone at the top” — it must include a proactive leadership approach with faster, sharper decision making. As cyber threats grow exponentially, comprehensive risk management is now a board-level priority. Indeed, the iconic investor Warren Buffett highlighted cyber risk as one of the gravest concerns facing humanity during Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting. Firms must recognize and react to three uncomfortable truths. First, cyber risk evolves according to Moore’s Law. That’s a major reason that technology solutions alone can never keep pace with dynamic cyber threats. Second, as with all threat management, defense is a much harder role to play than offense. The offensive players only need to win once to wreak incalculable havoc on an enterprise. Third, and worst yet, attackers have patience and latency on their side. Firms can be lulled into a dangerous state of complacency by their defensive technologies, firewalls, and assurances of perfect cyber hygiene. The danger is in thinking that these risks can be perfectly “managed” through some sort of comprehensive defense system. It’s better to assume your defenses will be breached and to train your people in what to do when that happens. Instead of “risk management,” we propose thinking of it as “risk agility.” The agile enterprise equips all organizational layers with decision guideposts and boundaries to set thresholds of risk tolerance. All employees should not only understand what is expected of them regarding company policy and online behavior but also be trained to recognize nefarious or suspicious activity. The key attribute, particularly when it relates to cyber risk, is the concept of sense something, do something, which makes all people in an organization a part of a “neural safety network.” For example, the defense against the SWIFT banking hack, which saw some $81 million be stolen, was launched by an alert banking clerk in Germany who recognized a misspelling. When we say all employees have to be risk agile, we mean all. C-level executives, board directors, shareholders, and other senior leaders must not only invest in training for their firm’s own employees but also consider how to evaluate and inform the outsiders upon whom their businesses rely — contractors, consultants, and vendors in their supply chains. Such third parties with access to company networks have enabled high-profile breaches, including Target and Home Depot, among others. A skeptical executive could push back on this idea — won’t that cost a lot? The fact is, cybersecurity training is vastly undercapitalized, and the lack of investment in quality cyber education programs is manifest in the sheer volume of breaches that continue to be rooted in human failure. Worse, the volume of breaches is woefully underreported — even when they are identified early because firms are reluctant to amplify reputation risk. In a 2016 survey conducted by CSO magazine and the CERT Division of the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University, respondents reported that insiders were the source of “50% of incidents where private or sensitive information was unintentionally exposed.” Insider threats can include malicious activities but also mistakes by employees, such as falling for a phishing scam. In short, there will be some investment required in enhancing personnel readiness. But it can be cost effective over time, particularly when compared to implementing cutting-edge cybersecurity technology that may become obsolete. To be clear, technology is a critical piece of the cybersecurity puzzle, but just as with a car containing all the latest safety technology, the best defense remains a well-trained driver. Moreover, businesses slow to adopt stronger security measures may find themselves pushed into it by regulators. The latest regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Financial Services, for example, requires that covered businesses “provide regular cybersecurity awareness training for all personnel.” This is just the tip of the iceberg of what is likely to come from other states and government agencies around the world, which are increasingly harmonizing their view of a “carrots and sticks” approach to cybersecurity compliance. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and self-teaching algorithms may represent the latest trends in hot IT investments, but technology exists for and is utilized by people. Corporate leaders would be wise to understand that the future of cybersecurity lies not in a single-pronged approach or miracle tool but in solutions that recognize the importance of layering human readiness on top of technological defenses.
Привет, Хаброжители! Наконец-то у нас вышла книга Дженнифер Дэвис и Кэтрин Дэниелс — Философия DevOps. IT-принцип «agile» стал мантрой цифровой эпохи. С ростом проектов, переходом от монолитных приложений к системе микросервисов, увеличением и накоплением продуктов возникают вопросы, которые требуют совершенно иного подхода. Теперь наибольший интерес вызывает находящаяся на стыке разработки и операционного управления методология DevOps. DevOps — это не просто набор техник, это философия. Разработчики, зацикленные на пользователях, должны уделять внимание поддержке и ее запросам. Сисадмины должны сообщать о проблемах продукта и вносить свой вклад в улучшение процесса работы. Но налаживание связей внутри компании — это лишь первый шаг. Чтобы продукт стал простым и удобным, придется вложить время и ресурсы в его доработку. Конфигурация через центральную службу, внедрение простым копированием, отсутствие внешних зависимостей, обдуманные метрики вместо мусора в логах — вот лишь часть задач, которые придется решать на этом пути. Читать дальше →
The ransomware crisis could have been more dangerous – I’ve seen something similar take babies’ heart monitors offline. We are ill-equipped, ill-prepared and out of time Related: Ransomware attacks: 29,000 infections in China as working week begins - live updates During a panel discussion last week at the Heart Rhythm symposium in Chicago, a physician asked me why I was raising the alarm over cybersecurity as a public health hazard. Twenty-four hours later, almost 20% of UK public health trusts had suffered a criminal ransomware attack. It’s too early to tell what harm may have been done, either via the direct tampering of medical devices, delayed care from turning patients away, or avoidable mistakes. After 10 to 12 hours, independent security researchers (@HackerFantastic, @kafeine, @MalwareTechBlog, and others) cooperated in a prompt, agile and open manner, analysing the attack, preventing its spread and equipping people to respond and recover. Continue reading...
Оставим в стороне книги и маркетинговые изысканя про agile-методологии и встретимся 23 мая в питерском офисе Wrike поговорить о реальном применении скрама в IT-разработке. Участники поделятся как успешными, так и не сработавшими практиками, обсудим, как проходят скрам-ивенты в различных компаниях, какие техники и инструменты применяются. Встреча будет интересна для практикующих scrum-мастеров и сочувствующих. Помимо докладов, планируется дискуссия по темам митапа в неформальной обстановке. О программе и докладах