Economists have long understood the corollary concept of Coase's ceiling, a point above which organizations collapse under their own weight -- where hiring someone, however competent, means more work for everyone else than the new hire contributes. Software projects often bump their heads against Coase's ceiling: recall Frederick P. Brooks Jr.'s seminal study, The Mythical Man-Month (Addison-Wesley, 1975), which showed how adding another person onto a project can slow progress and increase errors.

What's new is something consultant and social technologist Clay Shirky calls "Coase's Floor," below which we find projects and activities that aren't worth their organizational costs -- things so esoteric, so frivolous, so nonsensical, or just so thoroughly unimportant that no organization, large or small, would ever bother with them. Things that you shake your head at when you see them and think, "That's ridiculous."

Sounds a lot like the Internet, doesn't it? And that's precisely Shirky's point. His new book, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, explores a world where organizational costs are close to zero and where ad hoc, loosely connected groups of unpaid amateurs can create an encyclopedia larger than the Britannica and a computer operating system to challenge Microsoft's.

Shirky teaches at New York University's Interactive Telecommunications Program, but this is no academic book. Sacrificing rigor for readability, Here Comes Everybody is an entertaining as well as informative romp through some of the Internet's signal moments -- the Howard Dean phenomenon, Belarusian protests organized on LiveJournal, the lost cellphone of a woman named Ivanna, Meetup.com, flash mobs, Twitter, and more -- which Shirky uses to illustrate his points.

The book is filled with bits of insight and common sense, explaining why young people take better advantage of social tools, how the Internet affects social change, and how most Internet discourse falls somewhere between dinnertime conversation and publishing.

Shirky notes that "most user-generated content isn't 'content' at all, in the sense of being created for general consumption, any more than a phone call between you and a sibling is 'family-generated content.' Most of what gets created on any given day is just the ordinary stuff of life -- gossip, little updates, thinking out loud -- but now it's done in the same medium as professionally produced material. Unlike professionally produced material, however, Internet content can be organized after the fact."

No one coordinates Flickr's 6 million to 8 million users. Yet Flickr had the first photos from the 2005 London Transport bombings, beating the traditional news media. Why? People with cellphone cameras uploaded their photos to Flickr. They coordinated themselves using tools that Flickr provides. This is the sort of impromptu organization the Internet is ideally suited for. Shirky explains how these moments are harbingers of a future that can self-organize without formal hierarchies.

These nonorganizations allow for contributions from a wider group of people. A newspaper has to pay someone to take photos; it can't be bothered to hire someone to stand around London underground stations waiting for a major event. Similarly, Microsoft has to pay a programmer full time, and Encyclopedia Britannica has to pay someone to write articles. But Flickr can make use of a person with just one photo to contribute, Linux can harness the work of a programmer with little time, and Wikipedia benefits if someone corrects just a single typo. These aggregations of millions of actions that were previously below the Coasean floor have enormous potential.

But a flash mob is still a mob. In a world where the Coasean floor is at ground level, all sorts of organizations appear, including ones you might not like: violent political organizations, hate groups, Holocaust deniers, and so on. (Shirky's discussion of teen anorexia support groups makes for very disturbing reading.) This has considerable implications for security, both online and off.

We never realized how much our security could be attributed to distance and inconvenience -- how difficult it is to recruit, organize, coordinate, and communicate without formal organizations. That inadvertent measure of security is now gone. Bad guys, from hacker groups to terrorist groups, will use the same ad hoc organizational technologies that the rest of us do. And while there has been some success in closing down individual Web pages, discussion groups, and blogs, these are just stopgap measures.

In the end, a virtual community is still a community, and it needs to be treated as such. And just as the best way to keep a neighborhood safe is for a policeman to walk around it, the best way to keep a virtual community safe is to have a virtual police presence.

Crime isn't the only danger; there is also isolation. If people can segregate themselves in ever-increasingly specialized groups, then they're less likely to be exposed to alternative ideas. We see a mild form of this in the current political trend of rival political parties having their own news sources, their own narratives, and their own facts. Increased radicalization is another danger lurking below the Coasean floor.

There's no going back, though. We've all figured out that the Internet makes freedom of speech a much harder right to take away. As Shirky demonstrates, Web 2.0 is having the same effect on freedom of assembly. The consequences of this won't be fully seen for years.

Here Comes Everybody covers some of the same ground as Yochai Benkler's Wealth of Networks. But when I had to explain to one of my corporate attorneys how the Internet has changed the nature of public discourse, Shirky's book is the one I recommended.

This essay previously appeared in IEEE Spectrum.

Lots being written about the Cloud, most of it quite dark and gloomy.  In fact I’m surprised, that Hoff hasn’t got a preso spooled up called “The Toxic Cloud” or something similarly ominous for his next speaking tour.
That said, the Economist does a great job distilling the issue into a simple statement -

Cloud computing is a trade-off between sovereignty and efficiency.

Let me ask you -  if you had to put your money on one of those horses, considering your average profit-preoccupied business, which would it be?  I’d put my bottom dollar on the thoroughbred named “Cost Center Reduction”, to place.

WHO ARE WE TO STAND IN THE WAY OF “PROGRESS”?

I’m always fond of Jack’s rule that the role of information risk management boils down to three deceptively simple premises:

• Reduce Risk.
• Reduce Loss.
• Create Operational Efficiencies.

So it would seem antithetical to the charter of the Chief Security Officer to stand in the way of progress as embodied by “cloud computing” (not to mention dangerous to long-term job security).  And I think that this presents opportunities to discuss strategies for managing risk, strategies that aren’t too theoretical and have practical application (though actual “cloud” use by enterprises may be rare at this point).

ON RISK REDUCTION IN THE CLOUD (or, How To Learn From the Shortcomings of PCI DSS)

The good news is, there’s already a well-established model for managing the risk around outsourcing the processing of “confidential” information.  The bad news is, that model kinda sucks it.

The Payment Card Industry, known as the “PCI” or “meal ticket” to many in the industry, faced a similar problem with the introduction of GLBA.  As I see it (and I’m not at all close to the PCI, at all, so this is all just abstract soliloquy) the PCI had one of two choices when faced with the prospect of other people managing their sensitive information:

1. Accept the *massive* amount of GLBA risk their business creates and spend a TON of money to build out the infrastructure (both process and IT) to manage the consumer data themselves (in conjunction with the banks, of course) and never have it grace the computing systems of the retailer.  Or,
2. Transfer the GLBA risk down to the retailer and have them bear the majority of the risk (and cost of reducing risk to a level that might be tolerable to the US Government).

(Martin, you may recall our Twittering about PCI a while back.  This is the crux of my view on the subj.)

Now fortunately, the CSO’s of the world are going to be a little more “invested” in protecting the information they are stewards over, and unlike the PCI, will remain primarily responsible for the C, I, & A of the data in the Cloud.  The cool thing is, this actually presents a great opportunity to start building a meaningful model for co-management of risk!  In fact, we can take the PCI model of contractual risk transference but modify where it goes all wrong, and start working to create something better.  And we can start by euthanizing some faulty assumptions.

JUST HOW INFORMATIVE IS PCI DSS?

What might be the.greatest.mistake of the standards compliance mentality is the assumption of value for the past-state measurement.  That is, I believe that the CSO needs more than some “past-state” assurance in order to understand their risk.    If you look at the concept of “PCI compliance” it really is an examination of a past state of nature that is assumed to be relevant to current and future states.   Many people (myself included) are not at all convinced that this past-state is nearly as informative as those who mandate it’s measurement believe it to be.

That’s not to condemn past-state measurements as completely non-informative,  they most certainly are useful.  It’s just that no self-respecting CSO sleeps well because they were deemed “PCI compliant” 10 months ago.  They sleep well because they have good visibility into current-state information and confidence in their strategy concerning future-state (based on that visibility and the outcomes of sound IRM models).

MOVING PAST THE VULNERABILITY SCANNER INTO INTELLIGENCE AND WISDOM

So realizing this new importance (to me, at least) concerning visibility and IRM models, I’m lead to the conclusion that if we are to manage risk in the Cloud, we’ll have to move beyond “PCI Compliance” or the concept that some regular “audit” of controls in place at the host is all we need to understand our ability to manage risk.  No, the CSO must have good information concerning current and probable future states.   This is that “visibility” I spoke of above.  In fact, we’ll need significant amounts of piercing, transparent visibility.  And in order to gain that visibility, our insight into Cloud Risk Management must include significant provisions for understanding a joint ability to Prevent/Detect/Respond as well as provisions for managing the risk that one of the participants won’t provide that visibility or ability via SLA’s and penalties . These SLA’s must be expressed in measurable terms (more visibility), and those metrics must have their roots in the things that help understand how we manage risk (those aforementioned IRM models).

THE CLOUD COMPUTING SECURITY SILVER LINING (sorry couldn’t resist)

As I mentioned earlier, I do see an opportunity to create insight.  The need for visibility and IRM models would allow us to create a “guidance” if you’ll allow me to use the term.  Not a standard or a “best practice” to audit by, but simply a reference document that says “if you’re going to put information on somebody else’s systems and still hold some significant responsibility for that information, here’s the considerations, why they are considerations, and how you might go about collaborating on the management of risk”.

And I think that if we undertake this journey, there is going to be a lot of growth and risk management innovation along the way.  But keen insights into what it means to manage risk will be necessary, and secure and forthright collaboration will be of absolute importance.

I say that last bit because, if these pundits are right about the utility of a hosted computing model - the Cloud will happen regardless of the CSO’s ability or desire to manage it.

A similar arrogance is happening in CEP-land, where, it seems, each and every financial services event processing application is now a “CEP application” just because someone in capital markets puts “CEP” in the same paragraph. I find it ridiculous that the same market of folks who have helped destroy the global economy are now the world’s self-proclaimed authorities on complex event processing. Amazing, if you really think about it, isn’t it?

I read many posts these days by folks in the capital markets trading world, claiming their message routing application is “CEP,” or their algo trading application is “CEP,” - feeds and speed, typical of what “turns on” the financial services folks. As an editorial note: I recall when I worked for a software company, folks on the same team who worked on Wall Street would look down on folks with many years of IT experience outside of financial services. Some would say “he is only a security guy” in their attempt to put down anyone who does not have trading floor IT experience on their resume. I found it all quite ridiculous and foolish.

My resume, for what it is worth, has a number of financial services companies, including either assessing, architecting or building large scale security systems for S.W.I.F.T, Chase or SBC. This experience does not seem to “count” with the trading floor folks, since security is more about getting things right, not just supporting a form of gaming or gambling with other peoples money, with more feeds and speeds the better.

Of late, as I have watched the CEP/EP space evolve, and unfortunately, I see a similar type of “capital markets virus” spreading into CEP-land. Folks on the trading side of financial services seem to think that whatever they say or do is right, and whatever others outside of the trading side do is wrong. These folks are quick to ridicule others who have far more experience than they do, outside of the trading floor of capital markets.

After all, mostly what they do on the trading side is route orders - and if a little old lady in a small town in Iowa loses her life savings because of a bad investment decision, it means little to the folks on the trading floor, the market folks are into feeds and speed - just keep the beast alive. Place your bet on this market or that one! Away we go, faster and faster!!!!

I am sometimes a little sad to observe the same audacity in the CEP world. Instead of focusing on the hard complex problems that require accuracy, the original set of problems defined when the phrase “complex event processing” was minted, the capital market folks have hijacked the term for their marketing purposes in algo trading and order managment systems. These same people ridicule others who are working to solve the (originally stated) complex event processing problems, problems the capital market traders seemingly cannot understand, since they have never worked on complex network or security management problems.

Nevermind, that these “ultra low latency” systems cannot accurately detect a complex money laundering scheme or an elaborate fraud. Nevermind that these “CEP engines” cannot accuracy insure that Average Joe does not lose his hard earned money in a fraud scheme.

I have no problem with folks in capital markets using the term CEP, but they should not ridicule those in technical areas that are not focused on keeping the “trading beast” alive so people can lose their life savings in a blink of an eye; but instead focused on solving complex problems such as the class of problems called out when the three letter acronym “CEP” was created.

I say today is a good day for two reasons:  1.)  BT’s CSO Jill Knesek wrote an article called “Keys to establishing an end-to-end security strategy” which begs some discussion within context, and 2.)  Sara Peters on Twitter last night wanted to know why I thought “risk management” requires more than what most “best practices” around the subject suggest the effort requires.

WHAT SHOULD WE BE REFLECTING ABOUT?

Jill Knesek’s article gives us a rough outline of how to develop a security strategy.  It’s fairly high-level, Pragmatic CSO-ish type stuff.  It gives us a nice outline of

• Get a seat at the table
• Process
• People
• Technology

Nothing earth-shattering there.  But it is a very nice broad CISO-level taxonomy about what we have to reflect on.  The need to reflect is driven by something Jack told me long ago,

“The amount of risk we have is a function of the decisions we made and our ability to execute on them from some point in the past”.

As an Aside:  So Sarah if you’re reading, this quote does much to explain why I said I disagree with much of what our industry calls “risk management”.  We tend to define the process of risk management as essentially a tactical “issue whack-a-mole” exercise. Find the issue.  Analyze the “risk” around the issue.  Fix the issue.  Repeat. This hamster-wheel-of-pain, while sometimes an effective tool for the CISO, is incongruous with addressing root causes (the ability to match a tactical issue to the strategic shortcoming that created the issue is up to the expertise of the analyst or consultant).  It is only Kaizen without (good) Hansei, if you will.

Back to what Jill is writing - the sorts of things we should be reflecting about can be thought of in context of her outline.  Namely:

1. Once you have a seat at the table, what is the nature of that relationship?  Who are you reporting to and what are their concerns? What and how are you reporting and how might that be addressing their concerns?
2. What processes are in place?, How do you know that those are the processes that should be in place? If they are, what kind of job am I doing at those processes?
3. What is the quality of the skills and resources I have from a people perspective, and how do I know if they are adequate?  How do I know that the training they petition me for will effectively reduce organizational risk?
4. Are the Technology solutions I have in place effective, are we managing them effectively, and what sort of States of Knowledge could they provide me with (to make good decisions and execute upon them, from above)?

This, for the CISO, is Hansei.  The continuous management of it is Kaizen.  Not to particularly pick on Jill’s article, but creating a “risk register expressed in ALE” might be fine if you’re trying to explain to the board what your “first 100 days in office” will be like - but these sorts of lists are usually not very strategic in nature, and as such, depending on the outcome of that risk register (and the models used to create it) it might not actually be useful.

WHAT IS NEEDED FOR REFLECTION?

So what is needed for this sort of CISO-level Hansei?

The CISO must understand the

• Current State of Nature

turn that into a

• State of Knowledge

and use that to create a

• State of Wisdom.

CREATING A STATE OF NATURE FOR THE IRM PROGRAM

This Current State of Nature determination be done by applying analytical methods to a program audit.  We must understand questions like,  “What is in that program and how is it structured?”  before we can answer questions about “how (good/bad) are we at managing risk?”

There are many ways to structure an IRM program, but as an example - below is a graphic shared with me by Adrian Seccombe.  For those who know Adrian and the Trust Model - this is classified as “white” so it’s OK for public display and consumption.  But here’s what Adrian is trying to build at a high level:

So regarding Adrian’s program diagram:

1. Is a governance framework.  Think ITIL.
2. Is a risk framework.  Think ISO 27002 using FAIR as an analytical engine.  To be fair (pun) I believe this is really issue management, and it’s a process, but that’s OK.
3. Reg compliance should be self explanatory.  That’s essentially what GRC products do for you.
4. With architecture, I think Adrian is inclined towards TOGAF.
5. Security is the ISMS in place (27001, ISM^3, PCI, whatever…)
6. Are the processes that drive execution
7. Monitor (audit) is creating a State of Nature and Evaluate is creating a State of Knowledge from that State of Nature around items 1-6.

EVALUATE - CREATING A STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE IRM PROGRAM

That evaluate is Hansei/Kaizen.  Evaluation, done effectively, will drive actual organizational risk exposure.  Evaluate will even answer those four questions we raised in the “What Should We Be Reflecting About” section above:

1. Once you have a seat at the table, what is the nature of that relationship?  Who are you reporting to and what are their concerns? What and how are you reporting and how might that be addressing their concerns?
2. What processes are in place?, How do you know that those are the processes that should be in place? If they are, what kind of job am I doing at those processes?
3. What is the quality of the skills and resources I have from a people perspective, and how do I know if they are adequate?
4. Are the Technology solutions I have in place effective, are we managing them effectively, and what sort of States of Wisdom do they provide me with (to make good decisions and execute upon them, from above)?

If we could have a nice metric (or set of metrics) that answers these questions, we might call it something like “My Ability To Manage Risk” or MATMR for short.

GETTING TO A STATE OF WISDOM

What’s then missing is how you create a State of Wisdom around the State of Knowledge developed - your “MATMR” metric.  That is, given the current State of Knowledge - how can I be most effective?  This State of Wisdom requires proper models for what risk is, and what you can do to manage it applied in a probabilistic manner (because we can’t intrinsically *know* the future, we can only say with some degree of certainty what the desired course should be).

So the outcome of Hansei/Kaizen should be to create a State of Wisdom about Risk Management.  This is why reflection must be relentless - because your wisdom must be similarly abundant.

This is no small part of the reason RMI exists, why we build software and help organizations understand the things they do.

Italian free space optics test hits 1.2 terabits per second (in Italian, Google translation): Researchers in Pisa, Italy, along with colleagues from two Japanese institutions, crossed 1.2 Tbps in a test. Free space optics typically uses infrared lasers, and can work over a distance of kilometers.

More Canadian Wi-Fi health fears: This time in an island in Montréal. One of the concerned citizens: "This is something that is really under the radar. People do not know that long-term health hazards are associated with wireless technology." They don't know that because all verifiable, repeatable, well-conducted, academic tests so far indicate that there's no such health hazard associated with EMF. The concerned folks are raising an alarm about Wi-Fi being broadcast island wide, but are not paying attention, obviously, to the AM/FM radio, satellite radio, cellular, cordless, and thousand other wireless uses that are bombarding them right now, often at far higher signal levels.

Wi-Fi in a tub: I'm not going to say anything more.

QuickerTek adds antenna to 300 mW ExpressCard for MacBook Pro: Users of Apple's higher-end laptops can drop $200 to get a 300 mW Draft N (802.11n) ExpressCard and 5 dBi external antenna with a mounting clip. That's a lot of power, and it's important to recall that have a louder signal doesn't mean that distant base stations can necessarily hear you better. Draft N devices typically pair better listening (receive sensitivity) with higher transmission power, however.

Mac product ties location settings to Wi-Fi position: Centrix has updated its $29 Mac OS X location preferences program NetworkLocation to take advantage of Skyhook Wireless's Wi-Fi positioning data. You can now tie the package of settings that control what email account you use, iChat status, programs launched, disks mounted, and other factors, to where you're currently at.

In the case of phishing, it is relatively clear. The developers believe the PKI book. The PKI people believe in the efficacy of digital signatures to prove stuff. The cryptographers believe in the perfection of mathematics, and the security world believes in the completeness of their own learning. They are all wrong, but only at the large level of generalisations, not at the detailed level of particular claims. Any one of the claims, in isolation can be shown to be true. But, generalising these brittle claims to be solid building blocks is a completely different question. Few of the claims are strong enough to partake in a general model without severe support; the general model of secure browsing is the best evidence of how it is secure in name only.

How then is it built? By accident or by design, a series of claims meet together in a holy ring of righteous architecture. Each of the proponents claim loudly that their part is strong, but the ring has no strength. Eventually, one of the claims in the links is broken. For phishing, the browsers never did have the potential to show authenticity; not only did they not have the security strength to do it (c.f., Skype v. CSRF), they didn't even do it in practice (recall the lost padlock?), and their recent efforts to show authenticity (c.f. colour debate) reveal how far they are from understanding even the goal, let alone the implementation. Once that link was broken, and money was made, all the others revealed their weaknesses, as crooks systematically worked to breach the lot.

If we look at the wider financial collapse, now underscored by the nationalisation of the worlds biggest financiers of mortgages ($ 5.3 trillion.... or is it $ 5.4 ?), we see the same pattern. The bankers believed in their product. The originators believed in their origination, the securitizers believed in their free market and accurate price, and the holders believed in the assets. The CDO, the subprime, the other 100 special names, each was a contract. Each was clear in and of itself. But, when placed end-to-end, in a line, with a bunch of other agreements, the claims that were good in isolation were not strong enough to participate in the super-claim made of the overall edifice.
The financial system was built like a bridge; each piece rested on the previous one. And then, the clever architects bent the bridge around ... and around again, until the first piece met the last. The elegant keystone of finance was to finally lift up the first one to rest on the last.

Thus, the banks themselves invested their capital in their own product.

HANSEI - WHAT IS “RELENTLESS REFLECTION?” - And why we’re talking about it in the context of Risk Analysis.

Recall from yesterday’s post about how I got to thinking about the concept of Hansei-Kaizen, “relentless reflection” and “continuous improvement” and how we might apply that to risk management.  It’s a concept born of Toyota and is, in some way, the foundation for “Lean” production.

Call me biased, but I think that Hansei - the act of ‘relentless reflection’ made structured is the analytical function.  And I hate to debate (post-mortem) the father of Toyota quality success when he says that Hansei is the “check” in Plan/Do/Check/Act, but I think that Hansei also applies to the “Plan” of the P/D/C/A or Deming cycle.

You’ll recall the P/D/C/A cycle can be thought of even as an implementation of Scientific Method, in that it is Observation & Hypothesis Creation (P), Experiment (D), Analysis (Check), and Act (Revise/New Hypothesis, etc…).  Well then as such, the Hypothesis creation involves creating a model or creating an expected outcome for data using the currently accepted model.

So in our industry there is an opportunity for Relentless Reflection in both the Observation and Hypothesis (Plan) creation steps, and the Check step.  We create an estimate for control strength, or probable losses in the context of risk- then we go to Experiment step.  That hypothesis can be put it into production, have an audit, have a penetration test, whatever, in the context of the Do step.  BTW - using Hansei/Analytics in Plan is one way that strong analytical functions can really make penetration testing more useful - as a means to test the estimates and inputs into a model.  It’s Penetration Testing 2.0!  (<- tongue fully in cheek, yes)

Those who are versed in the reasons to merge Six Sigma and Lean together are probably already seeing where I’m going with this today.  But before you think that a simple DMAIC function is all that is needed to create proper “Hansei”, let me encourage you to keep reading.

Now if the analytical function can said to be “reflection”, why must it be relentless?

One word.  Change. There are essentially four separate “landscapes” or sources of change that we face (more on those tomorrow).  But anyone who has tried to manage system compliance, log management or policy exceptions knows that change is possibly the most difficult thing we security professionals must manage.  And when you think about it, there aren’t too many other business functions like information security where significant visibility and insight about the environment is needed for “complete” information (get bullish on Log Management is my recommendation).

HANSEI STEPS ADAPTED TO INFORMATION SECURITY

This is one of those quality control concepts that we can mangle adopt.  At Toyota, Hansei-Kaizen includes the following basic steps:

1. Initial problem perception
2. Clarify the problem
3. Locate area/point of cause
4. Investigate root cause (using an ask why 5 times approach)
5. Countermeasure
6. Evaluate
7. Standardize

Now it’s important to note that part of this includes the concept of Go See For Yourself, called “Gemba“.  Gemba can be translated as “the actual place” or “the place where virtue or truth is found.” At Toyota this might mean going to the shop floor to see the issue at hand in the production line.  But for us, that’s a problem because we live in the virtual world.  There’s usually not much use in hanging out in the wiring closets to try to see the problems.

But if you combine the concept of Gemba with the concept of “Nemawashi” –the process of discussing problems and potential solutions with all those affected- we can forge a similar concept using risk analysis.  That is discussing the issue and the risk associated with an issue (what some people would call “risk management”) with the business/LOB/data owner and let them accept authority and the risk decision.  We, the risk analyst, our goal is simply to perform items 1-5 (presenting countermeasure options that include transferring or accepting risk).  By going to the line of business and involving them, responsibility is shared.  Also, if you structure organizational behavior right, personal risk is transferred!

This sort of approach is also in harmony with concepts like “mutual ownership of problems,” or “genchi genbutsu,” (solving problems at the source instead of behind desks), and the “kaizen mind,” (an unending sense of crisis behind the company’s constant drive to improve).

One of the criticisms I have with the way most people try to implement DMAIC into “Lean”

REQUIREMENTS

Now to get this done, I really see three significant requirements.

1.)  A change in political structure.

2.)  Models that provide consistent, defensible analysis.

3.)  A Quantitative approach.  This means using actual units of measurement (not just amorphous percents, ordinal scales, etc.)  for risk and it’s subsequent factors.  Sure there are times when Q&D qualitative approaches are acceptable, but policy should be to have quantitative analysis whenever and wherever possible.

That last item - the quantitative approach - is really quite important.  And the reasons why will be discussed further in tomorrow’s post:

“What should we be reflecting about? & What is needed for reflection?”

P.S.  Your comments and suggestions, as always, are welcome.

P.P.S  Those who may be familiar with Lean/SixSigma/Kaizen sorts of mashups may be thinking - “hey, an Analytical step is built into SixSigma”.  Well, yes there is some prevision for analytical functions based on statistics, but I find SixSigma geared towards creating a State of Knowledge about operational processes, not towards creating a State of Wisdom for CISO’s around security & risks “big questions”.  In otherwords, the analytical function in DMAIC is in the context of Kaizen, and a different step than “reflective” analytics.