As a consultant, I do most of my calls and writing in my home office.  But occasionally I like to work outside the home, and usually journey to my local Starbucks.

A few weeks ago I was working there when I received a jolt (not from the coffee).  A popup indicated that I had less than 10% (or thereabouts) of power left on the battery of my nice, new, HP laptop.

It suggested that I plug in if I wanted to continue working.  Naturally my eyes tracked along my power cord to the wall outlet…  yep, still plugged in.

I did what anyone would do – I pulled the plug and reseated it – still no power to the laptop… my systray battery icon did change to “Plugged in – not charging.”  Hmmm.

So, I tried the other outlet on the double-plate.  Same thing.  I moved to another outlet altogether.  No luck.  I pulled and reseated the cable at the laptop – still no luck.  I tried a reboot – I reseated the battery – everything.  Ultimately, I wrapped things up, did a graceful shutdown, and went back to my home office, where a curious thing happened.

Upon bootup, my icon indicated that I was now charging!  I was greatly relieved, as I had a lot of work for the day.  However, I called HP to report the problem.  After some measure of troubleshooting, the tech recommended sending the laptop in for warranty service.  They’d send me a shipping box, and I’d have the laptop back in about 7 or 8 days from time of shipment.

I didn’t really want to do that:  I do have a backup laptop, and a “whole-drive” backup to an outboard drive – but my other laptop is older, slow, and cranky (you know what I mean).  Therefore, I resisted sending in the HP, and decided to monitor the situation.

Next visit to Starbucks, guess what?  I was plugged in, and at 100% of battery:  However, after about 30 minutes of work, I noticed I was at 92% power – wha…?  I again had to wrap up earlier than usual, and come home.

Once again, I began charging immediately upon plug in. 

Now here’s where it gets really interesting, and it involves a little nightlight:  Upon my next visit to Starbucks, I verified that I was 100% charged – but after logging in to the laptop, I held off signing in to Starbucks’ network (for WiFi access).  I went and got my coffee and chatted a bit.  Upon return to my table, I was still at 100% power, and the systray icon indicated that I was plugged in.  I logged into the network – and guess what?  I immediately lost power –my battery began to click down, and my adapter lost its warmth – it went cold.  My icon no longer indicated that I was plugged in… 

I plugged the nightlight into the same outlet – and it lit.

Now, how is it that my laptop could not get power from an active outlet?  A couple possibilities:  Is Starbucks employing a measure of intelligent power management, and shutting power to laptops?  This would require something like this, and I’m doubtful:

1.       A laptop that occupies a wall outlet for some specified time is surveyed by Starbuck’s WiFi system:  a machine code or other device ID is surveyed and captured, and then reported to the intelligent power management system. That system then shuts off the outlet.  (Subsequent disengagement, and plug-in of a non-monitored device, returns active power to the outlet).

- Or -

2.      There is a characteristic in standard power that must be in place for typical laptop adapters to work.  Certain Starbucks locations could filter, alter, or “season” their power with something that creates a confusion, or a protection, in the laptop adapter – and the adapter enters a “protective” mode, and power is not passed to the laptop.

I only know this:  I consistently cannot get power for my laptop at my local Starbucks.  Each and every time – and it’s only upon access to WiFi.  Everywhere else, I have no power problems.

Lest you think I’m being paranoid, consider this article.  And here’s one specifically about power.

I’d welcome readers’ thoughts on this, and reportage of any similar experiences.

Starbucks – are you listening?  I may call Starbucks for comment… but business travelers may want to pack an extra battery… or go to an alternate location like another coffee shop or the public library.

NP:  Jimi Hendrix, Axis:  Bold As Love, vinyl.  Perhaps Hendrix’ most cohesive, best, studio effort.

And now for something (not) completely different (old-school Monty Python fans will understand):  

(Please see Pt. I if you haven’t). 

Squarely within the concerns expressed in my prior article regarding my local Starbucks, I read yesterday that U.S. Airways suffered a power loss at a data center.  This loss took their website offline, grounded hundreds of flights nationwide, and consequently stranded thousands of passengers. 

U.S. Airways released the following statement yesterday:

US Airways is experiencing a computer systems outage that has impacted usairways.com and the airline’s airport computer systems.

Early reports indicate that the systems outage is the result of a power outage near one of the airline’s data centers in Phoenix.  Some airport computer systems are coming back online now and we are working to restore operational order.

We strongly encourage our customers to check their flight status before arriving at the airport by calling US Airways Reservations at 1-800-428-4322.

It’s not completely clear from this statement if the power outage involved utility mains – that is, elements of power outside the scope of their control – or something “near” the data center like its own internal power and associated management.  But – what of reciprocal systems?…  redundant data and process, geographically dispersed, and therefore not on the same substation, within the same power grid, nor same data center? 

I’m frankly surprised that a major airline could go offline like this – and I rather suspect the problem was “local” (that is, located within systems and controls of the airline itself).  However, I honestly don’t know – but the redundancy criticism is certainly valid.  My gosh, if an endeavor like an airline can’t maintain its continuity of business in the face of a mundane local power outage – instead suffering a national impact – I think something is seriously lagging.  Recognize:  Local power at one data center had national impact.

But here’s a lesson for everyone, from HelpDesk staff to senior executive class:

Survey your backup equipment, UPS devices, battery statuses, and configurations.  If you manage people who do those things, survey those people, and get them on it.  Take nothing for granted.

June 12^th:  On this day in 1979, Bryan Allen flew a human-powered aircraft over the English Channel, the Gossamer Albatross.  The flight took 2 hours and 49 minutes.

A few days ago my local Starbucks lost power.  The sun was shining and it was around 2 in the afternoon.  Suddenly, all the lights went out, the refrigerated cases went dark, and… yes, internet connectivity was out.

What I learned that day, and the next, was interesting to me, and I hope it can provide a lesson for all of us.  There had been a tremendous rainstorm the day prior to the outage.  As it turns out, upon this next day’s outage, one of the baristas mentioned that they had received a call from the local utility company earlier in the day that the power might “go down” in order to work on a station.  Huh.

Unfortunately, there was not only the one effect:  That is, an afternoon’s loss of power.  Something else occurred:  Next day, the ‘net still wasn’t available  - nor the next.  Apparently, a hard crash had affected some measure of my local Starbucks’ backoffice (if I may deign to call it that – I haven’t seen it).  And, for whatever reason, it was on Day 3 that internet connectivity was restored for customers.

On one of the days during ‘net unavailability, I worked at Starbucks, writing away.  I watched customer after customer walk out of the store upon hearing of the outage.  So, there was a definite business impact.

I’m wondering if Starbucks has a simple UPS with configuration for a graceful shutdown of equipment in the event of outages?  Perhaps it’s a calculated cost – they’d rather suffer a hard crash, with dispatch of a tech to fix whatever server, router, or measure of corruption has occurred.  (A barista also told me that she spent considerable time on the phone with someone from Starbucks who attempted to talk her through various resets and restore points – to no avail).

But – one also has to consider the lost business over the course of days due to the outage.  Even if it was a wash, it’s better to expend a little $$ for some measure of protection to equipment in just securing the environment for business reputation – and the secured environment for customer convenience of internet access and use.

Next:  Part II.

June 11^th:  On this day in 1911 the Tigers, trailing the White Sox 13-1, came back to win 16-15.  Never, never, never give up.

(Please see Parts I and II, below)

Well, as you may remember, I wrote a letter to Starbucks.  After all, they want to hear my concerns (according to the website, “…We’re here to listen”).

However, 2+ weeks after the letter – nothin’.  No call, no e-mail, no letter.

So, I asked “Helen,” the original barista to whom I had made the complaint.

“Hey Helen, were you guys informed that I had written a letter to Starbucks Corporate Headquarters?”

Helen (coyly):  Mayyyybeeeee….”.

In the course of our short conversation, Helen informed me that “we’re discontinuing the practice” of counting money on the food-counter, in view of customers.

But, within 3 days, a barista was counting a huge pile of money on the same counter.  When I asked about it, the store manager, Jackie, informed me that tips would not be counted there any longer, but money at the end of shift changes would be.

When I asked if there wasn’t an office in the back, Jackie told me there was a desk.  Well, this would seem to be the natural place to do some accounting of money.  But no – apparently, it is corporate policy that money is counted out in the customer area.  Seems rather tactless, but what do I know?

Well, I know that large sums of money, over time, can inspire temptation and ultimately theft.  It might be beneficial to keep a tenet from The Weave firmly in mind: 

In the realm of risk, unmanaged possibilities become probabilities.

I spoke to the owner of several Tim Horton’s coffee shops.  He was incredulous:  He said that the only time customers saw money was when TH made change in selling coffee and pastries, etc.  Registers were emptied by whisking away the inside of cash drawers, and empty ones making replacement.  That seems reasonable.

Imagine going into AutoZone, and they’re counting stacks of money on the counter in front of you.  Or Sears.  Or WalMart…  or, anywhere else.

Starbucks’ practice is a temptation for sure.  Counting stacks of money in customer view can embolden a thief, who may don a mask and time a return trip.  In my case, I witnessed a large stack of money totally unattended for a lengthy period of time.  Technology (cameras) notwithstanding, it remains poor business practice.

And that is my point in wrapping this series.  I’d welcome your comments.

NP (now playing):  Jethro Tull, War Child.

                                                                                                    September 7, 2010

Starbucks Customer Relations
PO Box 3717
Seattle, WA 98124-3717

Dear Sir or Madam:

I wish to make you aware of what I believe to be an ongoing bad-business practice at one of your shops.  It concerns the [address] location.

I do most of my work at Starbucks:  I am a book author, writer (paid technical blogger), and IT consultant by profession.  I am a steady customer:  Some weeks, I am there working every day; other weeks minimally three times. 

I have professional standing for both a complaint, and positive suggestion, that I’d like to make.  (You may review my standing by Googling The Business-Technology Weave).  Absent treatment of this complaint, I will have to find another location for my business writing.  I do not wish to do that.

This past Sunday, September 5^th, I was using my laptop, writing my latest article for my blog, when I noticed a large pile of cash on the counter (to one side of the food display, opposite the cash registers).  The pile was about 6 inches high – there was also quite a bit of change on the counter.  The money was attended only sporadically, when a barista performed some measure of counting.  In the course of my several hours of work, the money was there, and primarily unattended – I believe there was a period of at least an hour where no one touched the money at all. 

I have noticed this situation several times in the past and a thought occurred to me:  It would be easy enough for someone else to notice the situation, and time a return trip from the restroom, swipe up the cash, and exit the store.  (In fact, given the regularity that money is unattended on this counter, someone could build courage over the course of weeks, and time a theft).  I was the only customer seated in the back on this day, and when I left, the money was still there – making a theft even easier.  There were three baristas (that I noticed) on duty, and most frequently they were bunched toward the front of the store, near the drive up window and the cash register opposite. 

When I’m writing, I’m focused on my laptop largely to the exclusion of my surroundings.  Thus, if the money disappeared, suspicion would fall on whomever was seated toward the back of the store:  On this day, me.  I decided to speak to a barista about it.  I chose someone I know fairly well and that I speak to often.

Our conversation was as follows, and I assure you this is very nearly verbatim:

“Hey, Helen; may I make a kind suggestion?” 

The barista answered “What?” 

I said, “This pile of money makes me uncomfortable; no one is watching it.  Would you be able to…” 

I was interrupted, “Dave, I’ve been extremely busy.”  The response was snappish.

I said, “But if someone was to breeze by and snatch this, I or anyone sitting back here alone would naturally be under suspicion.  This situation makes me very uncomfortable.” 

The answer was very curt, “I will take that under advisement,” and the person turned away – leaving the money yet unattended.

I left the store about 10 minutes later, and the money was still there.  The baristas were again bunched at the front of the inside counter area, toward the drive up window.  No one was even facing the pile of money, about 20 feet away.  I don’t think there was even a direct line of sight to it.

If common and, perhaps, corporate sense is violated concerning the day’s profits, it leads a reasonable person to wonder what other violations may be transpiring at the store.  Frankly, money is dirty and I’ve seen food and drink mixes prepared at the same counter that the money was directly on.

Please, it is not my intention to get the barista in trouble and that is why I do not mention the name, or even gender, of the person.  I enjoy talking with, and the service from, Helen, Janice, Sally, Tim, Jerrold, Sharon, Martha and the other personnel at the store; I also know several other customers and enjoy the atmosphere.  My letter is sent so that the manager of the store – Jackie (who was not there on the 5^th) – can train staff to a better level of standard regarding simple business security.  Perhaps the manager herself needs training.

I’m not privy to Starbucks standard business practices, but is there no office in the back in which to count money?  Is there not, at the very least, a table?  Certainly there must be a private area, away from general public traffic, for the handling of large sums of money?  That would be my first suggestion – and one that comports with common business advisement and secure practices.

Lastly, if a customer makes a good-faith suggestion, in the kindest of tones, service personnel should listen and at least be courteous.  A snappish response was a surprise to me.

Clients pay me to advise them regarding security.  My counsel:  In the realm of risk, unmanaged possibilities become probabilities.

For the [store name] Starbucks, there already exists risk – of theft.  It is certainly a possibility that someone can take the money – totally unobserved.  Given the unmanaged possibility, I believe the risk of theft is too high for sloppy handling of money at this store.  Given the economy and unemployment, the sight of money is too large a temptation.   Large sums of unattended money also puts customers at risk.  This practice is witless.

If for some reason you believe the practices at this store to be proper, or if you determine that my concerns are off-target or my observations of the 5^th inaccurate, then I need to know that so that I can make a couple decisions.  Otherwise, I’d like to know what is being done to address the problem at this store.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns regarding the [store name] Starbucks store.

Best regards,

David Scott

Author

I.T. Wars:  Managing the Business-Technology Weave in the New Millennium

Blog:  The Business-Technology Weave

[phone number] (mobile)

Octorber, 24th:  On this day in 1836 the match is patented .

 I’ve stumbled on something rather disturbing regarding Starbucks’ business practices.  First, let me say that Starbucks is not a client of mine:  Therefore, I’m free to speak without fear of divulging any client confidentialities – I would never speak about clients here anyway, without express permission, and an identified reason. 

Also, my recent observations and engagements with Starbucks are from a purely business point-of-view on my part.  There is nothing personal here, and I harbor no animosity against Starbucks – in spite of some rather interesting customer engagements I experienced.  I merely observed an ongoing bad business practice, and expressed some polite concern.

Let me now set the stage (all names have been changed, save mine):

As readers (hopefully) know, I’m a big proponent of security in business and data environments.  It would be difficult for any of us business and IT pros not to be – hardly a news bulletin. 

Security not only includes computer systems and associated content (central and dispersed), but physical security aspects as well.  In fact, the protection of business and all associated assets includes manifestly physical protections:  Locked rooms, sign-in and sign-out logs, locked safes and cabinets, careful handling of money, appropriate accounting of money, and so on. 

In protecting a business, we also must recognize that customers and staff are also assets, and best business practices are central to protecting those people.  Physical business security promotes safety and ongoing surety. 

Any security should also harbor a basic, rather simple, concept:  We shouldn’t tempt thieves.  We don’t want to make ourselves a target.  Therefore we don’t “front” certain light, transportable, easily carried and hidden assets.  Like money.

Well… most of us don’t.

A few weeks ago, this writer was laboring mightily on behalf of this blog when I noticed something peculiar:  There was a large stack of money on a counter.  A pile of bills.  Unattended.  It was at least 6 inches high.  Further, it was on the counter next to the food and drink display case, and this counter itself is used to prepare food and drink.

I’m no prude, but my first thought was:  Money is dirty.  It is generally kept well-clear of surfaces where food is handled.  Starbucks uses plates, of course, but still…  I approached the counter and spoke to the nearest barista (Starbuck’s preferred term for their customer service folks, for the uninitiated).  Very politely I said, “Hey Helen, there’s a big stack of money here…”.  I was about to continue that it made me uncomfortable, but Helen snapped, “Dave, I’ve been extremely busy.”  I understand being busy, so I merely continued, “Well, it makes me uncomfortable to see it here unattended…”.  I was informed that this is where the money was always counted.  (This, despite a desk and computer in the back, where I would presume the accounting information would eventually be entered…).

I very politely asked to speak to the manager, “Jackie.”  I was told that she was in the Bahamas. I returned to my work.  But presently, with the money remaining on the counter for over an hour (and still there upon my departure), I decided to make contact with Starbucks corporate headquarters.  Under the Customer Service tab on the website, I was heartened to see that they’re “here to listen” and that they want me to enjoy my trip to Starbucks every time I visit the store.  They provided a physical address:  Starbucks Customer Relations, P.O. Box 3717, Seatle, WA  98124-3717.

I wrote a very nice letter.  I will post the letter tomorrow, and then pick up this series with Part II, and Part III, where I’ll detail Starbucks subsequent interactions with me, and what they told me about the handling of money vis-à-vis business security.  There are also a number of other violations of standards as indicated in The Weave, and general common sense business-dictates.  I’ll detail those too – there are some great lessons…

You won’t want to miss the discussion of their business posture.

Until tomorrow…