17 February 2020

A magical journey, the Panama Canal Railway

A year ago we had the opportunity to take the Panama Canal Railway journey from Panama City to Colon. It was simply enchanting.

The Panama Canal Railway provides a sightseeing trip from Panama City to Colon. The service was excellent, and the views spectacular. The Panama Canal Railway is primarily a freight line, moving containers from Colon to Panama City and back. Economically it can make great sense to off-load contains in one port and load then onto other ships at the other end of the canal. This allows a homogenous shipment to be broken down and distributed to ships going to a range of ports on the other side of the canal, and saves the cost of sending the ship through the canal. 



There is also a daily "commuter" rail service from Panama City to Colon in the morning with a return trip in the evening. This doubles as the tourist train.

The train leaves Panama City promptly at 7:15am (return is at 5:15, promptly). The train travels through the lush forest along the side of the canal, and bursts out at the town of Gamboa (as in the video above, though sadly it was not a sunny day), and the line then passes beside the canal for most of the remainder of the journey.

Possibly the most magical part of the journey is then the train feels like it is gliding over the middle of Lake Gatun, the lake that enables the canal to exist. With no tides, and no danger of the water level rising, the train tracks are flat and straight, and the train seems to float across the lake. It is easy to imagine the train laying floating track in front and rolling it up behind, as it makes its way across.

Sadly at the Colon end of the trip. the train slowly rolls past a stinking acre of rubbish that may be burning depending on the rain, but certainly is being picked over by Panamanians and vultures.

Approaching the northern terminus there are great views of the new bridge, built to open up the Caribean coast west of Colon.

The price is $25 per adult, and is well worth it. 

21 January 2020

Convincing Boards to focus on Cyber Security is no easy task, when...

Convincing Boards to focus on Cyber Security if no easy task, when those working in the business have priorities, responsibilities and rewards specifically structured to make Cyber Security a lower priority. Convincing Boards starts from the "middle" and must work both "down" and "up", and it will not be an easy or fast process.

I recently spoke to the CRSA (Control Risk Self Assessment) Forum in London, hosted at the IRM's offices (with thanks to Carolyn Williams), and very ably organised by Paul Moxey. My desire was to highlight the challenges that management (operational to the C-suite) face, and the decisions that must be taken, many of which lead to a de-prioritisation, or even ignoring, of Information Security.

This is not to suggest that Information Security should be de-prioritised, far from it. But the purpose was to highlight the difficulties that the Risk Professional will have in gaining the internal support to both raise and then to gain resources required for effective InfoSec.

To encourage the participants to consider (and actually, engineer scenarios in which InfoSec would lose out to other priorities) I provided two "role-plays". A very quick caveat; neither case represented a real company or actual situation, but was built from a wide range of situations I have been party to or have been the Internal Auditor or Risk Manager associated with elements of the case.

Role-Play 1: "Complex project choices"

The first looked at project level issues and delivery concerns leading to a situation in which InfoSec, while critical, was actually "pushed into the long grass" by each group that considered the case.

You can "enjoy" the role-play case study here.

The constructed problem centres around the competing constraints facing any business when it comes to systems implementation. The various strains on all members of a project team, including the leadership, sponsor, and steering committee, require to balancing of resources and priorities. Sometimes individual incentives outweigh the needs of the business. While this is not acceptable, it is a reflection of the reality of motivating people, and in some cases, focusing those people on outcomes that they are responsible to deliver.

When participants received the "role-play", there were more than a few people saying "I've worked on this project".

The premise was fairly simple; the project is in its final stages but has run over budget (Quelle surprise) and over time: and the user community's level of frustration is rising to breaking point. The infrastructure model is not adequately integrated into the corporations secure environment, and the additional time and cost will push the project further over budget and time.

The groups were then asked, each playing a specific role, to provide a recommendation, as a group.

As expected (and constructed), not one of the groups said that project implementation should be delayed until security concerns were addressed. In one group, the person playing the role of the IT Infrastructure representative threatened to "call Internal Audit" to which there was a response, "So you plan to stab your colleagues in the back?"

Others proposed setting up a working group to assess and recommend addressing the security and infrastructure issues after the project, while acknowledging that this would become, in effect, a new project fight for resources against all other projects. But it wouldn't impact their ability to deliver what they were required to deliver.

The final takeaway for participants was that it will be difficult to gain the internal allies required to address security if their support will be counter to their own needs, responsibilities and rewards.

Role-Play 2: "The C-Suite and External Expectations"

Likewise, at the C-Suite level, internal and external expectations can be such that investment in Cyber Security becomes a secondary consideration behind meeting the short-term demands of shareholders, markets or owners. This Role-Play set out to demonstrate the push and pull of competing requirements, again against a backdrop of systems implementation coupled with quarterly reporting needs, in challenging market conditions.

Take a look at the Role-Play here.

The four participants (the COO, CFO, CIO and Director of Communications) each have competing priorities, yet all are also keenly interested in ensuring company success.

Read the Role-Play and decide for yourself how these individuals should respond, and challenge yourself to find a way for them to agree to invest in greater Cyber Security, or to make a recommendation to the Board to do so.

Once again, while all but one of the groups could bring themselves to abandon their roles' self-interest, they did all recommend that the CIO push Cyber Security to the top of his or her agenda for the coming quarter. The outlier group suggested that the business "take the hit" this quarter and focus on Cyber Security, while also communicating the markets that they were doing so to improve the company's ability to protect and server customers in the future (though they did not agree fully on how to avoid the potential ramifications of announcing that they would focus on Cyber Security and the potentially associated assumption that their systems were not secure).

Summing up:

In both, or either case, do you recognise your company, or a company you have worked with in the past?

If so, be assured that it is possible to convince Boards, but only once the required groundwork has been completed. In the two Role-Plays above, it is too early, and there are too many competing priorities. But there is hope in each, in that the need is recognised, and there are ways out.

Gaining Board agreement on Cyber Security requires time and planning, with careful messaging along the way. In addition, before the Board can "buy-in" to investment in Cyber Security, key stakeholders within the business must also "buy-in", as it will be their alternative expenditure and investment plans and programmes that may suffer or be put on hold to accomplish improved security.


Role Play 2: "Shareholder Expectations"


Shareholder expectation generally revolves around the meeting of targets, primarily revenue and profitability targets that ensure either a dividend flow (private companies and utilities) or sustained growth in the share price. Senior managers, "C-Suite" executives and Directors know this and know that their bonuses and futures (in this company and in any others) depend on a track record of delivering to shareholders' expectations.

Welcome to the mid-year session of the Exco as it prepares for the upcoming earnings release season. Things seem to be on track, and the 1st Qtr results were in-line with expectations. The share price has responded roughly as expected. This quarter however, could be a little more difficult. Trading conditions are worrying the Marketing director, while internal costs are not dropping as quickly as budgeted. The new system is going to be at least two months late, possibly three, pushing benefits into the 4th Qtr.

You now have to make some decisions:

1. The COO. You have numbers to make, promises to keep. The numbers that you received from your senior managers are promising, but you don't believe them "I've seen numbers like these before, and they are always overly optimistic". Your CIO is constantly late with delivery, system outages have become too frequent, and the IVRs never seem to match the problem. To compound things, someone in IT changed the “404” error page to redirect to the Dictionary.com definition for “liars”.

2. Head of Corporate Communications. When dealing with crises and missed targets in the past, your motto has been "Bad news is good news, good news is no news" and the spin spin spin. But you feel things are reaching a point where your own credibility is coming into question. If things continue as they are, you're afraid the only professional option left to you will be to apply to become the Director of Communications at the White House in Washington.
                
3. CFO. You've managed to, just, get the numbers right for the 1st Qtr results, but this quarter will take a small miracle, and missed targets have been shown to severely limit the longevity of CFOs. The numbers expected by the markets (or owners) are possible, but there better not be any down-side surprises. There are costs that can be shifted into out-quarters, and revenue that can be brought forward, if we tweak our revenue recognition policy.

4. CIO. You know that the existing systems need replacing, that infrastructure is supporting the users, but the Security guy(s) are telling you that a serious architecture review is needed (again, "review" means they know there are problems but are too afraid to tell you everything), and the company simply cannot continue to avoid significant new investment. Your proposals for Security investment themselves will increase the overall IT budget to the equivalent of 12% of revenue from the current 10% of revenue, a level that is already at the high end of the scale for this kind of business.

Time to have your conversation, and come to an agreement that the CEO will be able to defend at the next earning call/shareholders meeting.


Role Play 1: "Complex Project Choices"


Scenario: A new system is in the final stages of development, and should "go-live" in three months. Testing is ongoing with the usual bugs and use-case mistakes. The project is projected (for the third month in a role) to come in at exactly 109% of budget, thus avoiding the need to go back to the Board for authorisation for additional spend.

The COO has committed to the Board that the system will go in on schedule. Internal Audit has given an "adequate" grading on a review of the project to date.

IT infrastructure has just reported that the servers will be ready, but that they will not be within the secured domains used by other corporate systems. To do so will require a re-architecting project. However, they do not think there is a major security threat, though when pressed, they've admitted that it would be possible, under "extreme" circumstances, for a hacker to gain access to "some" data. Re-architecting the environment will take an additional 4 months, and will add £275,000 to project costs, taking the project well over the 109% of budget.

You are now meeting to "discuss" the situation. You are:

1. Project manager. If you do not get this project in on time and within the allowed budget, you lose your bonus (20% of your salary), and you probably will not get that next project. Worse, you’re regular steering committee meetings with the sponsor (and team) are becoming a nightmare of complaints about timing, internal resources being diverted to testing, costs, etc.

2. IT infrastructure. You don't completely trust your own people's assessment, as there have been breaches before when some data was stolen. You also know that the 4-month estimate is probably optimistic. A few people in your IT team know too much about your systems, hoard that information, and honestly, you would have “moved a few on” if they didn’t hoard their knowledge. Can you trust them to fix the architecture in anywhere near to estimated time or budget?

3. Operations Manager from User Community. Your people have been crying out for this system for years, budgets have been cut, headcount reduced, and people are reaching a breaking point, with absenteeism escalating. Meanwhile, the project continues to demand more of your frontline experts for “testing”.

4.  Strategic Planning. Your models show that this system is going to boost profit by 5% annually, with an immediate 2% this year, to a profit-line that is already stressed. Missing the targets is not an option, as the cost of future external funding through equity or bond issuances will be impacted by the company’s evidence of being able to meet market expectations.

So, what do you all agree to recommend and do?