“…[C]ulture is actually the fiber that brings us all together so that we can execute against the strategy once we have it.”

• BPM Institute (ongoing)
• FMT Systems' Ask Us Anything series (January)
• Rocky Mountain Oracle Users Group Training Days (February)
• Collaborate 2012 (April)

UPDATE!!

I wrote the post below at the end of November 2010. At that point I neither personally knew anyone who had experienced TSA's enhanced pat downs nor had I gone through the "pleasure" myself. The post then was as much my attempt to make sense of health and invasion of privacy issues as it was to share what I had discovered from my research into the matter.

As of 28 April 2011 that has changed.

To discuss whether or not TSA has the Constitutional right to grope US citizens inappropriately, seems pointless. As long as the executive and legislative branches of our federal government support TSA's activities, the enhanced pat downs (groping) will continue. What is more interesting to me as a process professional is the inconsistency of performance by TSA agents among various US airports.

I've talked with several colleagues and friends about their encounters with TSA. There have been a couple of experiences of my own. Also in this intervening time between November 2010 and May 2011, I had a delightful travel experience with Amtrak, unexpected to be sure, but wonderful nonetheless.

One colleague described his enhanced pat down "as thorough as any examination that I've had from my physician during a physical. The only difference was that I had my clothes on." The mother of a friend of mine described her TSA enhanced pat down as very respectful and conducted by the agent using the back of her hand. Further, at no time was this septuagenarian subjected to invasive touching by a TSA representative. Yet another colleague described her enhanced pat down as "uncomfortably intrusive." Of the two pat downs I've received, one was distinctly invasive and humiliating. The other involved the back of a hand and the agent didn't touch my breasts or genital area.

Suffice to say, there is no evidence of a standard process for enhanced pat downs! If you don't believe me, watch this video of a woman describing her two very different experiences of TSA's enhanced pat down process. On a side note I am fascinated that AOL Travel News uses "Rant" in the article's title. Yet watching this video I saw not so much a person's rant as a woman who was crying over the humiliation she endured at the hands of a TSA agent.

Is the lack of standardization due to TSA's inability to manage processes? Or is it an agent training issue? Perhaps it is both. Whatever the problem is TSA has demonstrated, so far, that it is incapable of finding a solution. Instead, TSA has been busy installing flat screens in large airports that play a message from its director extolling the virtues of the full body scanners and the absolute necessity of invading travelers' privacy.

I have made my decision to curtail my travel on airplanes whenever possible. This will require some planning on my part, but for short trips, I believe it will work. In case you're asking yourself, "Why would she do this?" I'll tell you.

Recently I travelled by rail. It was amazing! I showed the Amtrak agent my identification. Boarding for the train was called. Passengers stepped onto the train cars. The train rolled down the track. There were no lines, no full body scanners, no TSA agents waiting to grope me. It was a pleasurable travel experience and one that I am looking forward to having again, just not at an airport.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Published on 30 November 2010

The media has jumped on the flying public's anxiety over the new scanners and pat down procedures with a ferocity rarely seen in recent journalism history. As a result, there is a fair amount material available on the matter. For several days now I have listened to the furor over this issue, read numerous news articles, blog posts, comments to many posts, and watched several YouTube videos. There is no doubt in my mind that we are observing, in a very public forum, the breakdown of a public relations and airport security process.

In case you've been incommunicado with your computer, television, or newspaper for the past several months, the federal government has allowed Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to purchase scanning machines that provide a “picture” containing a high degree of detail about the form and contours of an individual's body, i.e. even though clothed, the image makes a person appear naked. It is possible for a traveler to refuse a scanning experience. However, in doing so, that person tacitly agrees to an "enhanced" pat down procedure.

Discussions have revolved around both the scanning machines and the pat downs. Concerns have been voiced regarding the scanning machines:

• effectiveness of the scanning machines regarding airport security

• invasiveness regarding the “nude” appearance of
  the scanned images

• storage ability regarding the images taken

• safety in terms of the radiation dosage,
  especially for certain populations – pilots, flight attendants, frequent fliers, and others[1]

As for the pat downs, various individuals have commented on the:

• demeaning nature of the "enhanced" pat
  downs

• inappropriate behavior of some TSA officers

• necessity of "enhanced" pat downs for children

In addition, many journalists, bloggers, and commenters have raised questions about whether or not these changes in airport security could be considered a Fourth Amendment violation, resulting in unreasonable search.

Effectiveness

Security experts are questioning TSA’s approach to airport security. Take the comment from the Netherlands’ Schiphol Airport Security Chief,

"If you look at all the recent terrorist incidents, the bombs were detected because of human intelligence not because of screening ... If even a fraction of what is spent on screening was invested in the intelligence services we would take a real step toward making air travel safer and more pleasant."[2]

American security consultants, such as Bruce Schneier, have similar observations.

“Exactly two things have made airline travel safer since 9/11: reinforcement of cockpit doors, and passengers who now know that they may have to fight back. Everything else — Secure Flight and Trusted Traveler included — is security theater."[3]

Other security pundits cite the Israeli[4]method of handling terrorist risks, i.e., profiling, as much more effective.

Am I in favor of racial or ethnic profiling?

No, it is an unacceptable activity in a democratic society. Do I favor profiling questions based upon an assessment of risk? Yes, remember that Timothy McVeigh was an American white male!

Is my sense of security increased due to TSA’s activities? No, not really.

“The current security system in which everyone is a suspect is bound to be ineffective and burdensome. No system can perform efficiently when one is looking for a needle in a haystack by checking each straw individually.”[5]

Flying is risky, but not nearly as risk filled as driving an automobile. Do I want to be on that single flight that has a terrorist that was missed by intelligence services and TSA? No, I don’t. There are no guarantees in life, nor do I expect my government to provide one to me regarding airport security. In the words of a Thanksgiving holiday traveler,

“I just want to know if the TSA workers actually believe they are keeping people safe by feeling us up if we opt out of the full-body scan,” said Cara Eshleman, a baker from Arlington County who is flying out of Reagan National Airport on Wednesday and plans to opt out if she is directed to a full-body scanner. “It's too bad I already bought my ticket. If I'd have found out about this before, I wouldn't be going anywhere for the holidays.”[6]

Am I willing to trade my civil rights, privacy, and liberty for security theater? Absolutely not! It would appear that I am not alone.[7]Yet, TSA is busy assuring the public that “78% of poll respondents approve the use of full body scanners.”[8] What TSA conveniently glosses over is that the referenced poll was taken in January of this year, well in advance of the new procedures being put into place.

Invasiveness

If I have committed no offense, broken no law, nor behaved in a suspicious manner, how is it justifiable that I should be subjected to a machine that produces an image in which my body appears naked? This is just wrong on so many levels! Although TSA openly admits that the scanners are an invasion of people’s privacy, they justify the necessity by invoking images of bomb carrying terrorists boarding an American airplane.

"I just don't think the government has the right to look under
people's clothes with no reasonable cause, no suspicion other than purchasing a plane ticket."[9]

“I am concerned about the exposure and I am equally concerned that someone saw my precious daughter as if she were naked. I was then put through as well and was humiliated and felt as though I were in a peep show. Before this trip, I honestly felt the scanners were a good idea and a price to be paid for travelling - after living it first hand, I have to say it is flat out WRONG[10]

Some people who experience these scanning machines feel violated. Still TSA basically holds the position that if someone feels violated, “too bad” it’s a small price to pay for security. I disagree. Price of this degree of invasiveness is too high.

Storage

The scanning machines can and do store images! TSA has already admitted that it requires all purchased body scanners to have the ability to store and transmit images for “testing, training, and evaluation purposes.” The agency also contends that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.[11] Right! In its reply[12] to the House of Representatives questions about privacy, TSA also states,

No cameras, cellular telephones, or other devices capable of capturing an image are permitted in the image viewing room. Any official or employee who fails to follow these strict procedures is subject to serious discipline up to and including removal.[13]

Given how unforthcoming the agency has been regarding these new procedures, can I really believe that some passengers’ images won’t end up in someone’s private file or on the Internet at a future time? The answer is probably not! In addition, the verbal remarks to buxom passengers attributed to TSA officials don’t fill me with much hope that anyone’s privacy is really respected by the TSA’s employees.

One traveler observed, “I will bet that we will catch more TSA employees guilty of inappropriately forwarding full-body scans of celebrities or attractive women than we will terrorists.”[14]

Safety

As frequent flyer who spends more than 70,000 miles each year, over roughly 45 weeks, in the air, this concerns me enormously.

Over the last several years I have listened to my fellow passengers question whether or not the security measures that the American flying public is forced to endure really work. I fly out of small airports on regional jets most of the time and, due to my frequent flyer status, often sit next to pilots or flight attendants on their way to work. Many of them tell me that I fly more than they do. That being the case, I have a health concern about radiation from a backscatter full body scanner.

TSA maintains that the health concerns are minimal and that most people are exposed to more radiation from their cell phones. This doesn’t allay my unease about the scanners. I want scientific proof! Not only that, but I find the cell phone reference specious, especially since I use a headset to keep my phone away from my head and my phone typically rests on a table at least 3 feet away from my body.

Demeaning Pat Downs

In the few weeks since the policy came into effect, the ACLU has received hundreds of complaints from travelers who have been subject to these invasive and suspicionless searches.[15] Interestingly, the 900 complaints that the ACLU claims to have received exceeds the test sample size of both polls claiming that most Americans don’t mind the scanners but have issues with the pat down procedure.

Below are some of the comments that travelers have reported to the ACLU.[16]

• “I am upset, humiliated, degraded and feel abused and criminal, when I am guilty of nothing.”

• “In all of these years and the thousands of flights and millions of airlines miles I have never been so humiliated. If my choice is to risk having my genitalia spread all over the internet and my body exposed to unknown radiation or to have my testicles bounced and my buttocks stroked I will not fly any commercial airline.... our humanity and our dignity are being violated. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!”

• “I opted out and was sexually molested in public. The method used to search my body was on par with a sexual massage by a stranger of the same sex. My penis was touched by a man. My anus and groin were rubbed by a man. My scalp was rubbed by the same person. How can this be acceptable...? These TSA agents are not qualified to deal with the psychological or ethical responsibility of this technology.”

In fact, during testimony before lawmakers in Washington, D.C., TSA’s new administrator agrees that the new pat down procedures are more invasive.

“I'm frankly bothered by the level of these pat-downs,” Sen. George LeMieux, R-Fla., told Pistole. “I wouldn't want my wife to be touched in the way that these folks are being touched. I wouldn't want to be touched that way.”

Pistole, who has been subjected to a pat-down himself, allowed: “It is clearly more invasive. But the procedures are necessary,” he said, “to detect devices not seen before.”[17] You saw it, ladies and gentlemen, “…necessary to detect devices not seen before.” Comments like this one have led some
to wonder if cavity searches are next on TSA’s agenda.[18] I wonder if Pistole has children. If he does, what is his explanation to them about a stranger in a TSA uniform that may touch them in private places and that it’s OK? One father said it best.

“We spend my child's whole life telling him that only mom, dad and a doctor can touch you in your private area, and now we have to add TSA (agents), and that's just wrong.”[19]

Inappropriate Behavior

In addition to the flying public and lawmakers’ perceptions that TSA’s new pat down procedures are demeaning and certainly more invasive than the previous procedure, what about inappropriate application of the new procedure by TSA officers?

I was the only female in a crowd of men. Even though I was not next in line, I was called over to the body scanner. As I got closer to the scanner, I could clearly hear him say ‘[G]ot a cute one, some DD's.’ ... I was appalled and decided at that point to ‘opt out’ of the scanner.... I was then put through the pat down procedure which I only can only describe as sexual assault.[20]

“Simply, I was sexually assaulted. My breasts were caressed in an almost amorous manner. And on the second canvassing of my groin, single-finger pressure was applied to my labia majora - the plane of which was near-broken, during which the agent made a wildly off-color remark.”[21]

Standardized procedural, as well as sensitivity, training could possibly mitigate much of this issue. Oh wait, according to a report released by the GAO[22], TSA does not have “a standard process to identify and coordinate the necessary computer support” for its computer based training of TSA officers!23]

Clearly TSA needs not only a better understanding of process and procedures, but also better training and execution.

Constitutionality

In an extremely lengthy blog post an author on Flopping Aces reminds the reader that, according to David Leach (first US air marshal under the Nixon administration), that various U.S. courts have agreed that:

“... yes, it was a violation of the fourth amendment, but it was acceptable to the courts with two provisos. One, that it be applied universally so there’s no chance of any discrimination, and two, that the search be limited to looking for weapons and explosives.”[emphasis added][24]

Let’s look at that first proviso, “be universally applied.” If I am to accept the truthfulness of the complaints registered with the ACLU, universal application of these new procedures is nonexistent. Talk to any private pilot, and s/he will tell you that there is NO screening of persons or luggage prior to boarding a private plane. Further, for those individuals fortunate enough to have access to private aviation, whether through company or government access or due to personal wealth, there is NO screening of anything. Again, I question the universal application of enhanced screening and pat downs.

Summary

It’s easy to say, “You don’t like TSA’s rules, don’t fly. Use an alternative.” According one of the polls[25] taken over this last week, some 48% of the respondents intend to do just that. They are going to stop flying. I don’t believe this is a realistic solution. The disruption to our economy could be serious were people to act on this sentiment.

So far, our elected officials seem to have allowed TSA to issue edicts, in the name of national security, without much discussion or inquiry into preserving the civil rights of the American public. To be fair, the American public, by and large, has unquestioningly followed along with each restriction of rights – until now.

TSA appears to have bypassed the process used by nearly every other federal organization that wants to change regulatory guidelines, regulations, or operational procedures.[26] In doing so, they have lost, not only the willing compliance of many citizens, but the confidence of the American flying public that they are acting in our best interest.

Rationality and a conversation about reasonable risks needs to occur. Why couldn’t we as a society engage in a national dialogue about where we are going to balance civil liberties and national security? That is, in part, the purpose of the Federal Register – to allow for discourse and discussion about federal rules and regulations. We could start there.

[1]http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1777-full.html#203670

[2]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/12/airport_security_scanners/

[3]http://www.schneier.com/

[4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/what-israel-can-teach-the_b_408720.html

[5]http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/22/do-body-scanners-make-us-safer/israel-doesnt-use-scanners

[6]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112303954_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009122902788

[7]Interactive: 61% Oppose Full Body Scans and TSA Pat Downs; 48% Will Seek Alternative to Flying”

[8]http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-01-11-security-poll_N.htm

[9]Resisting Scanners

[10]Passengers' Stories of Recent Travel/

[11]http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

[12]TSA reply to House of Representatives – 24 Feb 2010 page 3, question 8, paragraph 3

[13]Ibid

[14] “Note to TSA: Let me keep my shoes on”

[15]http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-reports-more-900-complaints-month-over-enhanced-tsa-security-measures

[16]Recent Travel Stories from Passengers

[17]“New Airport Pat-Downs Are MORE Invasive, TSA Boss Confirms”

[18]"Why Cavity Bombs Would Make TSA Irrelevant"

[19]“A whole new fear of flying”

[20]Recent Travel Stories from Passengers www.aclu.org/passengers-stories-recent-travel/

[21]Ibid

[22]"Transportation Security Administration’s Management of Its Screening Workforce Training Program Can Be Improved," Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security

[23]Ibid, pg 5

[24]“The TSA conundrum: When security ugly and hype meets legal reality”

[25]Zogby Interactive: 61% Oppose Full Body Scans and TSA Pat Downs; 48% Will Seek Alternative to Flying”

[26] Petition for Suspension of TSA Full Body Scanner

I have been talking with clients and seminar participants about data quality for nearly two decades. Originally the discussion was about transactional ERP systems. If you “put garbage in, you will get garbage out.” Then the discussions were in the context of business intelligence. If your organization doesn’t have clean data, its business intelligence initiative will not succeed. Analytics and reporting need good data.

Over the last couple of weeks I have begun looking at data quality as a process. There is nothing like “cleaning your own house” to make this notion vividly real.

Like most companies small, medium, and large, we have a CRM application. This application has been used by our Marketing, Sales, and Administrative staff for a decade now. The database holds our leads, accounts, and contacts information.  The application has the features and functionality that you might expect a CRM application to have.

We also have definitions and processes for handling CRM information, including lead generation, lead to sales conversion, business development, to name a few. What I didn’t realize until a few weeks ago is that in all of our focus on customers, process, and internal efficiency, we neglected to ensure that our processes supported data quality. The result is that we have an unacceptable percentage of “dirty” data (DD) in our CRM database.

I have a couple colleagues — one who works with me and another who doesn’t — that have listened to my venting about the company’s DD issue. They have assured me that my discontent over the discovery about our data is quite normal and to be expected (Thanks! @bouncingthots).

The venting is over and now I am moving toward action. As I pondered how to clean up the DD and ensure that this situation doesn’t occur again, it hit me. Data quality is a process! Perhaps others know this already, but now I understand it too.

It’s time to gather the troops and redesign our CRM processes along with some internal controls so that data quality is assured!

In the next several blog posts, I plan to discuss different aspects of personal change. In this post I talk about how change can support personal development and growth. Change can also be about making decisions regarding a personal direction or having the courage to discontinue an engrained habit or being open to different ways of believing, working, or living.

Organizations have similar challenges regarding change. I plan to address that topic after this series of posts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the challenges with the small business environment, whether it’s an entrepreneurial or lifestyle model, is that the small group of people operating and guiding the business are philosophically in tune with each other. Their skill sets might be varied, but their worldviews probably fall within a narrow range.

Yet, like businesses, people must “grow or die.” In the case of people, sometimes it's a physical death, other times it's more figurative.

In the late 90’s and early 2000’s a significant amount of my professional focus involved computer-based and distance learning. That focus evolved from my work as a writer and soft skills trainer earlier in my career. It probably won’t  surprise you  to hear that when the internet matured enough for a serious discussion about “e-Learning” to arise, I was in the thick of it. From one perspective I saw this emerging facet of training and education as an extension of, albeit in a slightly different direction, the distance and self-directed learning discussions from the 80’s. From another point of view, I saw something that had the possibility of developing a really different, more engaging, approach to learning.

Around 2002, I encountered a person, through a volunteer organization, that was interested in this same “e-Learning” arena. However, she had arrived in this field by travelling a very different path from mine. In addition, her personality and approach to work was poles apart from how I functioned. Further, she and I were advocating for a similar program within the volunteer organization and, at the time, neither of us knew about the other’s efforts.

Sounds like a recipe for a potential disaster, doesn’t it? It very nearly was, except for one little item. We chose to find strength, and ultimately a friendship, through our differences.

When she wanted to jump in and just get moving, I wanted to plan and proceed with an orderly pace. While she was voluble, I was quiet. Where she was spontaneous, I was deliberate. Her work background included applications development and technical topics. Mine was more in the area of business and management. Through all of our conversations, negotiations, and passionate disagreements, we maintained our respect for each other and our opposite points of view and our diverse approaches to problem solving.

As a result, I became a better person than I had been before working with her. Our work together taught me many lessons that helped me manage my staff better. I became a more dispassionate listener due to our many discussions over the years.

I guess you could say that she was and is one of the grains of sand in my shell helping to form the pearly shape that my life and work has become. I can only hope that I have done as much for her.¹

It is a commonly held thesis among many that most people tend to like those who agree with them. It’s easier and more conducive to harmony, right? Yet, it is those individuals with whom we cross paths that disagree with us, at times passionately, who are most likely to broaden our horizons.

Thank you Anne for taking the time to help me grow and being part of my world!

[1] For all of you marine scientists out there, yes, I realize that parasites, not sand, help oysters create a pearl, but the sand "story" is so much more interesting, right? http://www.economist.com/node/12795573?story_id=12795573

Every so often potential clients ask how FMT is able to compete with “the big guys.” After all, FMT Systems is small compared to the large multinational consulting firms. So how does a firm like ours compete effectively?

It is about focus and knowing what we do better than anyone else. In our case, the focus is business process. While it is true that FMT works with clients in a variety of ways – software consulting, education, training, metrics, business intelligence, and such; the central focus of all those activities is: Process. It is all about how we help our clients design business processes that make doing business with them simpler and more satisfying for their customers.

Here’s an example. Several years ago in the mid-90’s we worked with a boutique architecture firm in the Bay Area. This firm was competing for work that was also attractive to large multinational firms. FMT’s client was successful by having business processes that were focused on making its clients happy. One of the processes that the firm’s clients liked best was the ability to log in to a secure area on the firm’s Web site and access all the relevant documentation for a particular project, including specifications, renderings, building plans, and such.

Today online access to project documentation might be considered mundane. In 1996, it was a client exciter! Suddenly clients were no longer asking, “Did the delivery service driver get caught in bridge traffic? Did she have an accident? How long will we need to wait to see changes?”

In addition to showing its clientele how customer focused the firm was, this process change affected the bottom line. It eliminated 90% of the firm’s delivery service charges and printing costs. Since this business process also shortened the cycle time for approval of revisions, billing went out more quickly reducing receivables aging and improving cash flow. Last but not least, the firm generated more business with their client base because they were perceived as “easy to do business with!”

Now we (architects and business process consultants) could have approached redesigning the project documents delivery business process from the viewpoint of reducing costs and maximizing revenue, but it is doubtful that the developed business process would have made their clients as happy as this customer focused process redesign did.

One of the critical issues with ERP implementations and upgrades, as they are currently handled, is that they are frequently viewed as technical exercises only. When they need to be opportunities for improvement, not just an organization’s IT business processes, but also to refine those processes such that they increase customers’ ability to transact business easily with an organization.

Too often an organization’s employees concentrate on the mechanics of simply trying to automate a business process within the constraints of software that the organization misses the opportunity to improve the business process from the perspective of a “user experience” that is satisfying, and not frustrating.

Further, using ERP software to implement best practice for a business process begs several questions.

 “Whose best practice is this?”

“How long ago was it considered a best practice?”

“Is there a recent innovation in best practice that is not included in the ERP software?”

“From the viewpoint of customers who transact business with us, is this best practice for our organization?”

Expecting ERP software to improve an organization’s business processes can be fraught with disappointment. It is better to redesign with customers’ ease and satisfaction in mind and address software automation later. The good news is that with the rise of SaaS (software as a service) and BPM (business process management) software, automating business processes that incorporate the customer’s view may get easier.

SHAMELESS ANNOUNCEMENT:

FMT’s Marketing Director periodically requests that I let you know about some of our activities, especially those that involve me directly.

“Technology and Training: What Works Best for ERP? ” (Webinar)

Panel Discussion — BI/EPM Critical Success Factors, RMOUG Training Days

“When You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know”, (Discussion of business process and ERP), RMOUG Training Days