The Grill: Ingo Elfering

Computerworld - Ingo Elfering talks a lot about opportunities. That's not surprising, considering he has built his career on developing transformative uses for IT. In 1987 he founded his own company, MedicalData Service, which developed software for the medical community. SmithKline Beecham bought Elfering's company in 1997 and hired him as part of the deal. A native of Germany, he came to the U.S. with his wife in 2000 when a merger created GlaxoSmithKline. Last November, Elfering became vice president of business transformation for the company's Core Business Services. He now holds dual American and German citizenship and was named one of Computerworld's 2010 Premier 100 IT Leaders.

Title: Vice president of business transformation
Organization: GlaxoSmithKline's Core Business Services unit
What futuristic technology would you love to see become reality? More intuitive user interfaces.
What did you want to be when you were in high school? I was always fascinated by technology. Literally I wanted to become a rocket scientist. But I started my own company at 16.
What new place would you like to visit? Although I'm doing a project in Nigeria, I've never set foot in Africa; that's on my list to change in the not-too-distant future.
What's the best piece of advice you've ever gotten? There are two. Hug your problems, because they're opportunities for improvement. And you can change only yourself, but you control that 100%.

You describe yourself as "an innovator and change agent." How do those characteristics show in your day-to-day job? We do these big projects around innovative things, or big programs that take years to accomplish or are global in scale, so you have to drive change, but more important to me is to be open every day and look externally. Bring innovation in everything you do, not just the big projects. Scan the market externally in your own field, but also in other businesses. Opportunities can come from the strangest places. I was reading about mobile phones and banking in Africa, and a little while later we started [a project using mobile phones] in Nigeria. People buy our products and they scratch off something on the side of the box, and they see a number that they can text to a service center for us, and we can track that number and show it's unique and that the product is produced by us. It's a great way for us to ensure patients that what they're getting is genuine medication.

You're in a very specific industry. Do you think CIOs need deep industry knowledge, particularly when working in specialized fields? It helps a little bit, but more important is the ability to embrace change. I think your ability to learn is more important than specific industry knowledge, and a part of that is because your knowledge, particularly in IT, can change very quickly. There is something about the speed of innovation that's particularly important in IT. You have to continue your education and stay up to date and find new innovations and opportunities. When you do that, you really have something to contribute to the business. If you can translate what the business opportunities are and how IT can support that, that's where people can make the real difference.

So many companies, even small ones, are global today. What are the top challenges for IT when working across different companies, countries and cultures, with all their different regulations and requirements? The regulations and requirements and the global scale, they do bring their own specific challenges, like how do you make something comply to different privacy regulations around the world and be in compliance with all of them?

But I think in the project environment, the more challenging aspect is the cultural differences. If you have a team spread out across four or five different locations, you can't just walk down the hall anymore and talk to somebody or get everybody into a huddle in the morning. And even if everyone speaks English, they might not talk about the same thing. We had a meeting where there was a lot of confusion about what we meant by a word. We spent half an hour explaining what the word was and our meaning around it.

What was the word? Sourcing.

So how do you deal with cultural differences in a global team? I have a personal benefit. I've worked long enough in the U.S., and I'm German, and I've worked in nearly every European country, so I'm more attuned to the cultural differences. And what my experience taught me is you have to have that internal awareness, and ask lots of questions and be someone who teases out these differences and says, "This is what I think you're talking about," or, "There might be an understanding gap here." That really becomes helpful for teams.

Sounds like this is helpful for all teams, not just ones from diverse locales. Absolutely. My sourcing example was with people from the U.S. and U.K. They all spoke English. But there were at least six different definitions of what sourcing means. I sometimes joke about this because when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and you have to understand when you're looking at a nail or when you're looking at a screw. You have to train yourself to constantly have that awareness. You have to always ask questions, and you can come down to a deep understanding of what's really meant or why something is really happening.

You've talked about driving change during this recession. What about driving change in a good economy? In good times, you should have even more of a desire to drive and implement change because you are less forced and maybe have an opportunity to invest. You might have some upward pressure and growth you can build on. I've seen the need to innovate and change constantly. So it's not a question of when; it's how. The tools might vary slightly whether it's an upturn or downturn, but technology changes and innovation keeps happening, and you should be driving that and driving it forward, and you do it all the time.

— Interview by Computerworld contributing writer Mary K. Pratt (marykpratt@verizon.net)

Read more about Management and Careers in Computerworld's Management and Careers Topic Center.

This independent paper from senior analyst Jon Collins at FreeForm Dynamics considers how Web-based security threats are evolving, within the context of IT trends including mobile, home computing and other forms of remote access that could potentially increase the attack surface of the companies. It defines the scale and types of threat, what to look for in a corporate web security solution and compares the different types of technological approach available to companies and the processes that need to be considered for effective protection.

Read now.

Security is not an option. This KnowledgeVault Series offers professional advice how to be proactive in the fight against cybercrimes and multi-layered security threats; how to adopt a holistic approach to protecting and managing data; and how to hire a qualified security assessor. Make security your Number 1 priority.

Read now.

Social-networking sites have revolutionized how businesses use the Internet. Instead of relying on faltering newspapers to find job candidates, companies can access thousands of potential employees through Facebook and Twitter. But social-networking sites have also left businesses vulnerable to new security threats. So are they tools to be used or security traps to be avoided?

Read now.

Judges grill lawyers on summary judgment limits

Photo: Peter Jones/Reuters

Chief Justice Warren Winkler, seen in this file photo, questioned lawyers whether the summary judgment procedure actually saves time and money. "No one here is telling us these summary judgment motions are cheap."

Drew Hasselback  Jun 23, 2011 – 4:06 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 24, 2011 6:35 AM ET

A group representing trial lawyers questions whether a liberal interpretation of Ontario’s new summary judgment rule actually will make it easier for litigants to get faster access to justice in the province’s court system.

“We can’t get too hung up on efficiency, speed and expedition at the expense of justice,” said Allan Rouben, counsel for the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association.

His point was questioned by Mr. Justice Robert Sharpe, who asked whether it is possible to get justice without the need for a trial. “Do you accept that?”

“Absolutely,” Mr. Rouben replied, though he added that there are instances where summary judgment may not work, such as complex matters involving product liability or professional negligence.

Mr. Rouben also argued that there is a flaw in the argument that summary judgments might save litigants costs. That might be the case if the motion is successful, but he said the procedure has the exact opposite effect if the motion fails and the litigants must then foot the bill for a full-blown trial.

The argument was one of several from five intervenors the Ontario Court of Appeal invited to make submissions at three days of hearings on the use of the province’s new summary judgment rule.

Last year, Ontario amended its court rules to empower judges to make final decisions on lawsuits at an early stage of the proceedings. On what is known as a motion for summary judgment, a judge can now make significant findings of fact. That empowers the judge to decide whether the matter requires a full-blown trial, or whether it can be decided on the bench at the end of the motion.

The court reviewed four matters this week. They represent many of the typical disputes Ontario litigants bring before the courts: a battle over real estate rights, a disagreement over the interpretation of a contract, an attempt by investors recover funds from a fraud, and an allegation of negligence.

The position of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association differed from that of the other four intervenors who made presentations on Thursday.

The Ontario Bar Association, the County & District Law Presidents Association, the Attorney General of Ontario, and the Advocates’ Society made submissions that were generally supportive of Rule 20.04, the summary judgment provision of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure.

Lawyers for the Advocates’ Society described the new summary judgment procedure as a “highly desirable rule change” and a “terrific advance” that seeks to remedy delays, expense and malaise in the civil justice system.

“We urge a large and liberal interpretation of the rule,” argued David Scott, counsel for the group.

The five-judge bench challenged the lawyers on several points, a sign that shows how the court is trying to figure out whether it should limit the summary judgment power in the series of rulings it will release following this week’s appeals.

Mr. Justice Robert Armstrong wondered about the latitude given to a motions judge to limit the scope of cross-examination in “mini-trials.” This is a new procedure where a judge can ask that live witnesses to attend court during the motion and answer questions to help clarify some facts. Motions are usually argued using only documentary evidence, so judges are empowered to keep a tight rein on what questions can be asked during the procedure to keep summary judgment motions focused. “When I used to be where you are, I didn’t like trial judges getting into that,” Judge Armstrong said as lawyer Patricia Jackson was making arguments on behalf of the Advocates’ Society.

Mr. Justice Paul Rouleau wondered whether a case could become a “train wreck” if parties invest significant cost and time in arguing the motion, only to have the motions judge order that the matter proceed to trial anyway. And Mr. Chief Justice Warren Winkler at several points questioned lawyers on whether motions for summary judgment really are shorter and faster than trials. “No one here is telling us these summary judgment motions are cheap.”

The hearings over and the five-judge panel has reserved its rulings.

Financial Post