The case study puts the convenience of fully connected systems in question, stating that in an over-networked world, vulnerable systems can easily be targeted. Specifically, it talks about a hacking-issue occurring in a cheese factory that fortunately ended in a monetary extortion. But what if the hackers could alter the manufacturing sensor and lead to food contamination? A listeria case would be a serious health hazard. A cross that the company would hardly get over.
We are now starting to understand the implications of an overconnected world. Efficiency is good for our P&L, but it comes with some costs. As everything in life, balance is critical. And it’s our job to draw the line, wherever we consider appropriate.
So, what are some elements of those products that should never have access to the Internet?
Definitely, I would keep the information that is critical to sustain the company’s competitiveness (and even survival) off the grid. A good example could be the key knowledge such as sacred family recipes. An important factor is to consider whether that information is stable/ecstatic. Having things online may make sense if the stored data is the input of another process or the data dynamically changes based on the output from a prior process. However, storage by itself doesn’t justify keeping information online.
Besides, there are some processes – especially the ones involving not only information management but also its translation to the physical world (activating a robot, changing the temperature of a thermostat, hacking sensors etc) – that should require an in-depth risk assessment and for which manual, in-person verification should be needed.
We all seemed to handle the risk associated with information privacy and data management pretty well until one day, ligitalization of industry through IoT and robotics muted the risk beyond mere information breaks, crossing the boundaries and directly affecting the physical world. The spaces that could risk public safety if hacked are endless – healthcare systems, energy grid, military robotics or even public lighting and water supply.
Any of these industries is extremely vulnerable to hacking or just internal system errors, and the implications are unmeasurable.
What is worse, there are no proven solutions to prevent hackers from hacking these systems, nor are expected any time soon. Hence, even if connectivity may lead to enormous advances in control and efficiency, I believe that the most critical systems should remain offline.
As per what Chad the CEO of the Newhouse Cheese company should do, my answer is clear. Regardless of the missing financial implications of deciding either way, I believe that the most fundamental job of a CEO is to keep his company alive. So, Peter should take every critical system offline or properly set due in person controls.
This reminds me of Nasim Taleb’s popular content of antifragility: a property of systems in which they increase in capability to thrive as a result of stressors, shocks, volatility, noise, mistakes, faults, attacks, or failures. In a world where dangers are ubiquitous and consequences unmeasurable, robustness is not enough anymore. There is no such a thing. All companies should control the downsides of hacks, while being capable of capturing the upsides of technology. Back to the origins, balance.
If Sara Wilund, deputy to the COO had stayed quiet, the conversation would never have happened. The company would never reassess the situation. They would remain tricked, in the dark, waiting for the next hacking crisis while throwing money to combat the incompatible, the uncertain. Un-digitalizing the company would never be on the table. But, fortunately, she spoke up. She spoke up when she was not supposed to (who invited her?). In an engineering, masculin and senior environment she had everything against and she still had the courage to do it. She challenged many assumptions associated with her position and identities. This makes me reflect on the concept of expertise and seniority. In an ever changing world, where innovation is constant and loops are much shorter, there is no such a thing. We shall put everything in question, regardless of the external voices. As Sara did, we ought to trust ourselves.
Given the outcome, what Sara did was much more than just an anecdote. It was a culture shaping exercise that shakes the status quo. Those that remind us that what we know is very little. This is something I try to have very present also in my course project, where teammates of different cultures and backgrounds are working together with a goal. The different approaches are palpable from the first minute, but I try to speak up myself, while giving space for the rest to do also. It is in the interest of all of us.
