Taking on systems one blockchain at a time

No Comments »

Systems professionals with a deep understanding of the regulatory environment in healthcare (or banking, frankly) are best equiped to devising and adapting the most favorable attributes of blockchain design to suit industry data-processing needs. To that I might add that a deep understanding of optimal process would also come in very handy.

We have long struggled in heath care to determine  what "optimal" workflows really look like. Hospitals and clinicians look to the software vendor to provide efficient data-processing solutions, but software companies rarely have any real understanding of HOW care is best provided. Mostly, the vendors just know what functionality is MOST POPULAR with their customers--hardly a good substitution for optimized processing of data based on optimized understanding of care.

The resulting systems, no matter how beautifully tricked out with functionality, are incredibly rigid and are difficult to modify, or worse, transfer into newer systems as growth and market evolution inevitably demand. Our legacy systems really can't keep up with the enormous data growth we expect to see in information processing. Add to that the cost of cut-over into next-gen systems, seen against a background of exacting regulatory oversight, and suddenly you understand why banking and healthcare entities would rather "fight than switch," at least as far as systems go.

This is where, I believe, blockchain might be a truly innovative disruptor. One of the curious aspects of blockchain is that the history of the transaction becomes part of the record, whether it's a banking record, a unit of currency, or a healthcare record.

If we were to tuck the history of the transaction right into the transaction itself (and provide interested stakeholders in a shared use of and access to this history), it's easy to see that an organization's core processing system might well be "set free," to a certain extent, from maintaining the large (and ever-increasing) sea of information. Instead, the processing system will focus more on the transformational aspects of the entity's business and the "value-add" that the organization brings to the data.

Banking and healthcare are two marketplaces where regulatory oversight is significant and increasing. Whatever benefit we might see in blockchain, and I suspect there is great potential value there, we need to be keenly aware of HOW we best accomplish our work in healthcare, and how we do so WITHIN the given regulatory environment. Professionals with experience in these critical areas will be most suited to developing and exploiting the promise of blockchain.

Cashing In on Process...

No Comments »

We all know that security organizations benefit greatly from properly documented procedures. After all, who among us has ever forgotten that one item we went to the grocery store for in the first place? Lists work...

There are a number of issues that you might want to focus on in the world of policy and procedure, so here's a place to start. Take the time to actually document functional procedures. This means taking stock of security controls that you employ, and drafting procedures that reflect how things actually get done.

This can be easier than it looks, but with a structured approach, you should be able to find a good many of the day-to-day procedures lurking in your organization. Don't be surprised to find that there are lots of opportunities for standardized behaviors... and lots of evidence that things are happening in a "customized" approach pretty much everywhere.

Organizations worry about the time and expense of documenting standard work processes, but these same entities will invest extraordinary amounts of time looks for small economies of scale to achieve modest but real increases in productivity. Think of standardized work as just another way of achieving predictable outcomes; ones that can actually help your organization's bottom line.

Training versus Education

No Comments »

For all the effort we put into securing our corporate systems from a technical perspective, it's still the case that the bulk of the effort associated with a comprehensive security posture relies on helping our people understand their role in security efforts day by day.

For this reason, security training programs have been implemented far and wide, but does training really fit the bill? When we talk about training, we are really referring to rote repetition of concepts, ideas, and steps in process. This can be very helpful when teaching your staff the value of a check-list to ensure that each step was completed, but what about when the end-user needs to actually interact with the situation and make a decision?

This is where education takes over... When we teach ourselves how to evaluate the evidence at hand and make a decision, that's the heart of real education. The best way to educate your workforce on security concepts is to give them the tools and information, and then step back and let them teach themselves.

This requires more preparation on the part of the instructor, but it will empower your workforce to evaluate the situations they encounter every day and make effective choices... and wasn't that the whole point of the exercise in the first place?


Is your change-management process working? Do you even have one?

No Comments »

Do upgrades to your corporate systems happen because of deliberate reflection and defined testing, or do changes get introduced “on-the-fly?” The latter is more common that we all care to admit, but it can be a costly way to do business when an untested change causes an entire system to behave in unexpected ways--sometimes things even cease to operate. 

The value of the productive hours lost is part of the real cost of poorly-implemented changes to systems, so make sure that all changes are planned, approved, tested, and documented, along with some form of a back-out strategy. You never know... things don't always work out quite the way we expect, now do they?

Consider forming a Change Management Committee and make sure that senior members (who might be construed as stake-holders) from across your organization participate in its activities.

Finally, communicate, communicate, communicate: Make sure that everyone who needs to know about an upcoming change actually gets the memo. Surprises can get ugly.

Have You Defined Standards for Each System?

No Comments »

Unlike policies and procedures, which are mandatory in nature and apply to all members of the organization, a standards document is specific to the information system that it belongs, and sets forth goals for implementation of that system. 

As we all know, there’s more than one way to implement a system, and keeping track of how your organization has chosen to set up controls in each application is a great idea. Still, core concepts of security implementation at your organization can be identified and codified for each system, regardless of the endless variety.

These standards documents can be as detailed or as high-level as you wish, but they will always be specific to the system and will be advisory in nature. Make sure that your security teams can demonstrate how day-to-day activities relate to the code of behavior in each standard.

Who Owns the Data vs. Who Maintains the Data

No Comments »

In the age-old battle of data and systems administration, organizations must understand who actually owns the data contained in the applications. Data center staff may well administrate the programs and the operating system upon which the programs depend, but their role in ownership is limited.

Access to sensitive data must be authorized by the department or group who create and maintain the actual content of the system. They alone should decided who gets access to the system, since they know all their departmental players, and are best suited to determining who has an actual business need for access.

Systems maintenance staff are the perfect choice for maintaining the software that runs the application, the operating system that supports the application, and the hardware that houses the application. They are not the best folks to decide who gets access to the data.

Are Your Policies Just Credenza-ware?

No Comments »

How often are your policies and procedures reviewed and updated? If you’re having trouble answering this question, chances are you’ve got a credenza-ware problem, a not-uncommon malady in our current business environment.

The cure for this condition is to decide at what intervals policy and procedure documentation will be reviewed, and by whom. Even if no changes are to be made, a quick review and validation that everything is up-to-date is a powerful tool. Keep the date of last review and revision handy too.

The reason for this is simple—anyone can pay to have policies built to satisfy a regulatory requirement, but if you want to get true value out of them, you have to see your corporate policies, standards, and procedures as something more like a mirror, meaning that they reflect a commonly understood reality of your corporate life.

Envision your policies as hierarchical, with a few broad policies at the top, and more specific sub-policies and procedures supporting them. Then take the time to allow your standards and procedures to flow from the initial design that you’ve chosen.