The BBC article on Davos 2011 lays a great deal of emphasis on Leymann Brothers failing.
But an earlier article on Ernst & Young is more to the point: but it still misses a critical point.
It is not just that there are so few global audit firms, it is also that more than one ( 1 of 4, 2 of 4, 3 of 4) use the same software vendor for audit.
This is not the same as all using Microsoft Excel. Spreadsheets as such are not designed for risk management and reporting. As with Enron, Leymann Brothers was a GRC failure: Governance, Risk and Compliance. It was not just fraud.
The problem begins all too often with what it takes to become a partner in one of the Big Four. An audit partner. These firms spit out a great many articling students, auditors and managers before one of them becomes a partner. This is not like a criminal law firm where a barrister is seem and heard in court as part of the record.
It has been said of justice in modern Bulgaria that it is often hard to tell who is acting as prosecutor, who as judge and who as defense - based on their actions. There is much more hope for justice in Bulgaria than for an end to problems in the global accounting firms.
Software can play a role here just as it can play a role in "following the money" in the more pedestrian variety of wrong-doing. But the audit software in use now is more "handy" than it is "smart". But what expert will review the design, maintenance and evolution of that software?
If Airbus and Boeing were using the same software for autopilots - and only equipped with one such system - an international aviation body would intervene. But this is audit. And we are dealing with some high flyers and egregious behavior.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Health care costs and financial risk management
Once again MedAssets has claimed the KLAS #1 spot ( they acquired the company that held the spot.)
MedAssets likes to claim that they have "Cutting-Edge" solutions - by which they mean that you can use some of their modules in a web browser.
But what they cannot tell you is that any of the algorithms being used have a single patent or are the result of the work of a single PhD in Computer Science or related field. Nor can they point to a single peer-reviewed publication of a scientific nature.
This lies at the core of the high cost of health care: the medical field is the most backward in computing, more backward than insurance companies or university administration or the global audit firms.
There is a parallel in the 2008 financial crisis: the utter inadequacy of the risk managment software for both auditors, insurers and bankers - and that is a story which is not going to be told. Part of it can be investigated by looking at the lack of patents held by the the "leading" software vendor in that area, the lack of PhD's in their employ, and their practices of stifling competition through what I have termed "predatory partnerships".
Both fields have top software vendors acquired by large companies - but those "innovators" in software were accountants in both cases - and with an appalling lack of engineering staff.
Fundamentally, accountants do not understand computing as an applied science or as a branch of electrical engineering. They just don't get it. Important revolutions in computing were totally ignored by both niche leaders. Software is sold by "financial" folk to other "financial" folk.
Just try to imagine that the airlines were operating using aircraft developed without regard for wind tunnel results, air foil science and without those "leading vendors" hiring PhD's. Warfare prevented this: the early passenger aircraft are linked closely to air warfare and military engineering. That is not the case with software for either healthcare or financials with almost the sole exception of derivatives. Just check the hiring - read the open position descriptions as they appear advertised on the web.
The lessons learned in software at NASA have not been passed on to either the audit firms, the banks, the insurance companies or the healthcare providers.
In what is perhaps the most egregious folly, both major hospital systems and major health insurers use the self-same software. Oh - but it can now be used from a web browser, so it is "cutting edge". It is the patient's wallet that is slit open by the "bleeding edge".
To get just one clue, look at the Minnesota fiasco. Then look at the Leymann Brothers audit firm (could we let another global audit firm fail?) Ask one question: were they using the same audit software vendor as the failed Enron auditor? Ahem.
MN Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22HealthMatch%22+SSi+Albion+ACS+Minnesota
MedAssets likes to claim that they have "Cutting-Edge" solutions - by which they mean that you can use some of their modules in a web browser.
But what they cannot tell you is that any of the algorithms being used have a single patent or are the result of the work of a single PhD in Computer Science or related field. Nor can they point to a single peer-reviewed publication of a scientific nature.
This lies at the core of the high cost of health care: the medical field is the most backward in computing, more backward than insurance companies or university administration or the global audit firms.
There is a parallel in the 2008 financial crisis: the utter inadequacy of the risk managment software for both auditors, insurers and bankers - and that is a story which is not going to be told. Part of it can be investigated by looking at the lack of patents held by the the "leading" software vendor in that area, the lack of PhD's in their employ, and their practices of stifling competition through what I have termed "predatory partnerships".
Both fields have top software vendors acquired by large companies - but those "innovators" in software were accountants in both cases - and with an appalling lack of engineering staff.
Fundamentally, accountants do not understand computing as an applied science or as a branch of electrical engineering. They just don't get it. Important revolutions in computing were totally ignored by both niche leaders. Software is sold by "financial" folk to other "financial" folk.
Just try to imagine that the airlines were operating using aircraft developed without regard for wind tunnel results, air foil science and without those "leading vendors" hiring PhD's. Warfare prevented this: the early passenger aircraft are linked closely to air warfare and military engineering. That is not the case with software for either healthcare or financials with almost the sole exception of derivatives. Just check the hiring - read the open position descriptions as they appear advertised on the web.
The lessons learned in software at NASA have not been passed on to either the audit firms, the banks, the insurance companies or the healthcare providers.
In what is perhaps the most egregious folly, both major hospital systems and major health insurers use the self-same software. Oh - but it can now be used from a web browser, so it is "cutting edge". It is the patient's wallet that is slit open by the "bleeding edge".
To get just one clue, look at the Minnesota fiasco. Then look at the Leymann Brothers audit firm (could we let another global audit firm fail?) Ask one question: were they using the same audit software vendor as the failed Enron auditor? Ahem.
MN Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22HealthMatch%22+SSi+Albion+ACS+Minnesota
Win the Future: a flawed centrist speech, a flawed global vision
Obama's second SOTU is being praised - but that same day a question was posed to the chair of his committee of economic advisors (CSPAN-3.)
One might ask whether the displaced Bushmen need jobs. After all, the diamond miners will have jobs. Did those Bushmen "lose" their jobs in being forcibly relocated? Should so many retirees in USA and Canada be in such low-paying jobs?
Consider Kenya and its coffee co-operatives. Is the aim to make Kenya number one? Is the objective "full employent in Kenya"? (The day after SOTU-2 Obama was in WI preaching "being number one" as the space-age challenge.
Per capita, America is the number one energy consumer. But we are told that the answer is more energy.
Consider DC current for our many devices. One innovation failure is that our homes are not cabled for low voltage DC. As a result, we heat our homes with transformers. Every cell phone sold, is another transformer.
In the race to #1 there is not always a clear winner. But suppose that Google does have the best, most innovative, search engine strategy. Suppose that Facebook does have the best social networking strategy (neither is obvious from the standpoint of innovation.) The question of the business model of each is simple: advertising.
When Obama remarked that corporate profits are up, he did not remark that this is consistent with low-paid low-benefit unsafe manufacturing jobs being in the throd world. It is. They are.
The US two-year tech colleges for IT are not teaching the innovations. A remarkably high percentage of their "grads" get jobs. Experienced older IT workers who have a proven track record as innovators are unemployed - a high percentage not mentioned by the sputnik-innovator-advocates.
Bill Gates was not an innovator. Period. He told egregious lies to Ricoh and IBM. Is that innovating?
Many American IT corp's have a history of suppressing innovation: Sun may have been one of the worst. Obama did not mention IBM, a true innovator of long-standing. He did not mention M.I.T. There is more to Boston that bio-tech.
The money government spends on education will be largely mis-spent except from the point of view of the re-election of Obama. But after his second-term, he is sure to turn his attention to the global.
A democratic and innovative China as #1 might ensure the long term stability and prosperity of America - that might be a win-win game. We do not know.
Germany as #1 in Europe is no more tha answer for Europe than is France as #1 - or a crime-ridden and corrupt Russia.
The USA should be be focussed on being the winner. That is too short-sighted. That is not a long-term vision.
If US life-expectancy remained lower than Norway or Sweden but world-wide life-expectancy for those over age 40 improved, would the US be the loser?
Recent science suggests that the perceived "own" group may limit the charity and altruism of most of us. Consider what a President Palin would mean in a North America with melted Arctic sea ice and a weak Canadian claim to the high arctic. Just ask yourself what the Teddy Roosevelt response would be if control of the high arctic were viewed as required to be #1 or to "win the future". But neither Canada nor Mexico nor Cuba found mention in SOTU #2.
Aside: will that 2 years of college get bright, illegal Latinos out of the low-paying jobs - such as teaching? Will the investment in IT mean another lost investment in a replacement system for the IRS?
The software skills needed for scheduling high-speed trains are not taught in most IT training colleges. Nor for scheduling buses. Nor for scheduling speeches. The number of IT grads from 4-year programs who can answer a simple question about costraints in programming is in the single digits. It is a fallacy is that innovation comes with the PhD. The words "post-doc" were not in the speech.
The neglect of electronic medical records in reducing the cost of healthcare was not mentioned. The dismal state of the software provided by the leading American innovator in healthcare pricing software is simply unknown to the public although the company was purchased by a publicly traded corporation. This is the software used by the most hospitals - and the same software used by the biggest health insurers. It was designed by an accountant. Innovative accounting has never been the answer.
The crisis in the accounting firm for Leyman Brothers passed without mention: the software used to track risk at that audit firm is on a codebase that I have had the misfortune to learn. Another failure in software innovation - by an accountant (in this case, an auditor.) The failed head of audit at Enron - a client - is now the head of audit at which great Chicago insurer? He remains their software client.
The two software suites dominating both those markets are from recognized "innovative" firms and yet neither shows any sign of having absorbed a major applied science innovation in CS more recent than 1973 in 2005 and 2009, respectively. The winners, each #1 in their niche, are part of the problem as they cater to industries notorious for not addressing their IT problems - and placing the cost on their customers premiums, industry-wide. Only an international board of inquiry of IT innovation experts reviewing actual code could demonstrate the extent of this infrastructure "challenge".
Universities are 10 to 15 years behind the innovators. Healthcare and insurance and banking (regardless of the derivatives-hype) are how mnay years behind the US universities?
Facile gab about innovation investments is not itself innovative or insightful. It is politically expedient.
Cisco advertises on the web that robotics bio-interfaces is "pure research". Advisors to the White House confound science and techniques in the same breath. No amount of such foolishness is well-advised. But a serious conversation in a public forum about IT failures and deficiencies is both over-due and unlikely. The relevant codebases are not open to public audit or confidential review.
That three of the more innovative programming languages are only recently UNICODE compatible, that RDF is only now coming to Drupal - these two simple facts will be unknown to the hip President with the BlackBerry and able to talk about String Theory and Game Theory.
The elephants in the room, low levels of personal savings and the Mortage Interest Deduction were not mentioned. That those with no savings could buy a house for no money down and use the deduction to get a better deal than renting is a fact and a fact that howls to be addressed. It has no voice.
One might ask whether the displaced Bushmen need jobs. After all, the diamond miners will have jobs. Did those Bushmen "lose" their jobs in being forcibly relocated? Should so many retirees in USA and Canada be in such low-paying jobs?
Consider Kenya and its coffee co-operatives. Is the aim to make Kenya number one? Is the objective "full employent in Kenya"? (The day after SOTU-2 Obama was in WI preaching "being number one" as the space-age challenge.
Per capita, America is the number one energy consumer. But we are told that the answer is more energy.
Consider DC current for our many devices. One innovation failure is that our homes are not cabled for low voltage DC. As a result, we heat our homes with transformers. Every cell phone sold, is another transformer.
In the race to #1 there is not always a clear winner. But suppose that Google does have the best, most innovative, search engine strategy. Suppose that Facebook does have the best social networking strategy (neither is obvious from the standpoint of innovation.) The question of the business model of each is simple: advertising.
When Obama remarked that corporate profits are up, he did not remark that this is consistent with low-paid low-benefit unsafe manufacturing jobs being in the throd world. It is. They are.
The US two-year tech colleges for IT are not teaching the innovations. A remarkably high percentage of their "grads" get jobs. Experienced older IT workers who have a proven track record as innovators are unemployed - a high percentage not mentioned by the sputnik-innovator-advocates.
Bill Gates was not an innovator. Period. He told egregious lies to Ricoh and IBM. Is that innovating?
Many American IT corp's have a history of suppressing innovation: Sun may have been one of the worst. Obama did not mention IBM, a true innovator of long-standing. He did not mention M.I.T. There is more to Boston that bio-tech.
The money government spends on education will be largely mis-spent except from the point of view of the re-election of Obama. But after his second-term, he is sure to turn his attention to the global.
A democratic and innovative China as #1 might ensure the long term stability and prosperity of America - that might be a win-win game. We do not know.
Germany as #1 in Europe is no more tha answer for Europe than is France as #1 - or a crime-ridden and corrupt Russia.
The USA should be be focussed on being the winner. That is too short-sighted. That is not a long-term vision.
If US life-expectancy remained lower than Norway or Sweden but world-wide life-expectancy for those over age 40 improved, would the US be the loser?
Recent science suggests that the perceived "own" group may limit the charity and altruism of most of us. Consider what a President Palin would mean in a North America with melted Arctic sea ice and a weak Canadian claim to the high arctic. Just ask yourself what the Teddy Roosevelt response would be if control of the high arctic were viewed as required to be #1 or to "win the future". But neither Canada nor Mexico nor Cuba found mention in SOTU #2.
Aside: will that 2 years of college get bright, illegal Latinos out of the low-paying jobs - such as teaching? Will the investment in IT mean another lost investment in a replacement system for the IRS?
The software skills needed for scheduling high-speed trains are not taught in most IT training colleges. Nor for scheduling buses. Nor for scheduling speeches. The number of IT grads from 4-year programs who can answer a simple question about costraints in programming is in the single digits. It is a fallacy is that innovation comes with the PhD. The words "post-doc" were not in the speech.
The neglect of electronic medical records in reducing the cost of healthcare was not mentioned. The dismal state of the software provided by the leading American innovator in healthcare pricing software is simply unknown to the public although the company was purchased by a publicly traded corporation. This is the software used by the most hospitals - and the same software used by the biggest health insurers. It was designed by an accountant. Innovative accounting has never been the answer.
The crisis in the accounting firm for Leyman Brothers passed without mention: the software used to track risk at that audit firm is on a codebase that I have had the misfortune to learn. Another failure in software innovation - by an accountant (in this case, an auditor.) The failed head of audit at Enron - a client - is now the head of audit at which great Chicago insurer? He remains their software client.
The two software suites dominating both those markets are from recognized "innovative" firms and yet neither shows any sign of having absorbed a major applied science innovation in CS more recent than 1973 in 2005 and 2009, respectively. The winners, each #1 in their niche, are part of the problem as they cater to industries notorious for not addressing their IT problems - and placing the cost on their customers premiums, industry-wide. Only an international board of inquiry of IT innovation experts reviewing actual code could demonstrate the extent of this infrastructure "challenge".
Universities are 10 to 15 years behind the innovators. Healthcare and insurance and banking (regardless of the derivatives-hype) are how mnay years behind the US universities?
Facile gab about innovation investments is not itself innovative or insightful. It is politically expedient.
Cisco advertises on the web that robotics bio-interfaces is "pure research". Advisors to the White House confound science and techniques in the same breath. No amount of such foolishness is well-advised. But a serious conversation in a public forum about IT failures and deficiencies is both over-due and unlikely. The relevant codebases are not open to public audit or confidential review.
That three of the more innovative programming languages are only recently UNICODE compatible, that RDF is only now coming to Drupal - these two simple facts will be unknown to the hip President with the BlackBerry and able to talk about String Theory and Game Theory.
The elephants in the room, low levels of personal savings and the Mortage Interest Deduction were not mentioned. That those with no savings could buy a house for no money down and use the deduction to get a better deal than renting is a fact and a fact that howls to be addressed. It has no voice.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Demagogue Issa
Here is a bit on Darrell Issa who may consult and may confer in the name of oversight and reform. As slippery as an eel on Jan 25 in his first day as chairman. Now to go after the most corrupt White House ever.
Or is that the most confused due to Republican Senators' holds on White House appointments?
Or is that the most confused due to Republican Senators' holds on White House appointments?
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Huffington Post
The arrival of Howard Fineman may have been an uptick for huffingtonpost.com but it still ranks below Fox News which almost has a Science link on its home page.
There is a Science page for HP but you have to look for it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/science
Here's a sample from today's page:
Remember: "we can't go on bowing down before the scientific method." Oh, that would be which of Mill's idols?
I am working on a model of a browser for science feeds with some concept mapping and some annotation features as an alternative to what remains my best tool: OneNote.
If you have a package better than OneNote 2003 or 2007 or 2010, I would love to hear about it.
There is a Science page for HP but you have to look for it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/science
Here's a sample from today's page:
We have a problem. We can't go back to old-time religion in familiar ways, and we can't go on bowing down before the scientific method. What is a person to do?What I suggest is the NYT Science pages as a place to hang a link.
Remember: "we can't go on bowing down before the scientific method." Oh, that would be which of Mill's idols?
I am working on a model of a browser for science feeds with some concept mapping and some annotation features as an alternative to what remains my best tool: OneNote.
If you have a package better than OneNote 2003 or 2007 or 2010, I would love to hear about it.
Monday, January 17, 2011
doppelgänger island
So I'm swapping mistaken identity incidents with our Claire when it occurs to me that my doppelgänger in Victoria may have sometimes called in sick when I was not working a day-shift. On those days I was often downtown at a cafe, a bookstore, the library or walking the shoreline of the strait or bicycling to U Vic. On any day on which he called in sick, a fellow government employee might have seen him gadding about.
Transpose to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
"Excuse me, but isn't that James MacPherson from the Receivables Section?"
"Jinks MacPherson? Looks like him to me ... Now why would you be asking? - or would I be poking my nose where it don't belong?"
Transpose to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
"Excuse me, but isn't that James MacPherson from the Receivables Section?"
"Jinks MacPherson? Looks like him to me ... Now why would you be asking? - or would I be poking my nose where it don't belong?"
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
