This week I learned that one of the most important changes in the use of information technology in the workplace is the way that people think about information technology. This sounds simple, but is in fact quite complex. Twenty-five years ago, computers were Star-Trek style miracle machines, and IT staff (then-called Data-processing staff) were viewed as geniuses who could unravel the mysteries of the magic ball and make wonderful things happen.
Now, computers have largely lost their mystique. Computers run mundane household items like microwaves and toaster ovens. Computers are a fixture in every office, and some workers even have more than one computer at their desk. More than one computer! Imagine describing the proliferation of computing technology to your average worker a quarter decade ago. Try to explain that people “program” settings on their Tivo, or download free-ware from the Internet, or carry cell phone computers in their pockets. It’s unbelievable. People today, are in contact with computers nearly every waking moment, while workers of the past saw computers at specialized work facilities or not at all.
The wide dissemination of computing technology, however, has shifted the balance of power in IT strategy from IT managers to executives. Twenty-five years ago, the IT staff were in charge of computers. They worked with executives and paid attention to their ideas, but they held the ultimate trump cards. After all, they reigned supreme over a black box regime that executives and general workers could not infiltrate. It’s not as if executives could hop on the internet and perform their own research on new technologies, feasibility or costs. IT managers dominated in the IT arena, because they were the only people with access to knowledge about IT, and they were experts in their field.
As a result of IT department dominance, key IT components like maintenance load and application backlog were incorporated into companies’ IT strategies. Of course, the executives never cared about application backlog or maintenance load; they were more worried about user satisfaction and tangible returns to the company. The IT gurus, however, kept these core IT concepts in mind during collaboration with executives, and at least attempted to temper executives’ demands accordingly.
Now, there are many more executives and workers using computers, and the concepts of tangible benefits and user satisfaction overwhelm application backlog and maintenance load in any collaborative setting. Computer end-users feel make demands of their machines (and the associated IT departments) without recognizing that machines don’t work without people – there are thousands of machines and only dozens of IT staff tasked to program and maintain them. Computer end-users expect satisfaction from their work applications, because they receive satisfaction from the computer applications at their homes, on their cell phones or in their kitchens. They are a deluge of demands, and they are ill-informed of the actual work needed to maintain their office systems.
After this week’s research, I have a better understanding of the concepts that underlie IT strategy planning from an IT perspective. I have a better idea of how to estimate the IT costs and workload that come from implementing these strategies. Upgrading a team’s cell phones to Blackberries may only cost $2 per month per handset. However, the additions to the maintenance load may be significant and drain company resources that would be better expended elsewhere.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Session 4 - Technology Out of Isolation
This week I spent a lot of time thinking about developments in technology, integration into existing systems and the impact of that integration on existing bodies of rules and regulations. For example, based on a great discussion posting by a classmate, I began to think about the effects of technological innovations on the physical organization of workplaces. For example, workers are becoming more mobile by using Blackberrys, notebook computers and WLANs to connect with their offices from a variety of internal and external locations. This increased mobility, however, has not been well-translated into a mobile workstation. I remember hearing once about a platform for the passenger seat of your car that turned your car into a mobile office. This is a great idea for workers who work on the road, but how would this translate into an office environment where workers move about the building to complete various portions of their daily tasks?
The next time someone suggests a technological improvement, I will definitely try to imagine how that piece of technology fits into the larger process of daily interactions and activities.
The next time someone suggests a technological improvement, I will definitely try to imagine how that piece of technology fits into the larger process of daily interactions and activities.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Session 3 - My Warm Fuzzy Data Blanket
This week reinforced several key lessons in data management that I strive to remember but always forget:
1. Use unique identifiers
2. Make every piece of data queryable and extractable
3. Don’t take shortcuts in either of the previous steps
This week also led me to consider something that I had not thought about before – people like data. People like the idea of having large pools of data underlying their decisionmaking process. I recently finished the book “Blink” by Malcom Gladwell, and he spent a chapter discussing a large military decisonmaking simulation. On the blue side, military bigwigs invested millions of dollars in a datacrunching toolset designed to reveal all the intricacies of the enemy’s decisionmaking process and deliver a surefire victory. On the red side, there was a crotchety old general who was big fan of thin-slicing (making instinctive decisions based on limited amounts of data). The crotchety general won the exercise while the datacrunchers were still playing with their databases.
One of Gladwell’s main points throughout the book is that lots of people thin-slice, but people are not necessarily comfortable with decisions made through thin-slicing, because they cannot explain the detailed process of how they came to the decision. Data is comfortable and gives people a warm fuzzy feeling, even when it lends no new insight to the decisionmaking process and becomes a resource-consuming waste of time.
I think that people like to carry around lots of data – even data that they never use – because having data in your pocket is like having two extra tubes of lipstick that you never wear, or a handful of expired credit cards, or bonus cards to stores that you never shop at. You hold onto everything that was useful at some point, because it might just be useful at some point in the future. In the meantime, you continue to live and breathe and make decisions without it. Of course, in today’s world, it is very likely that someone will steal your data before you have the opportunity to need it again, and they will find plenty of uses that you never dreamed of.
1. Use unique identifiers
2. Make every piece of data queryable and extractable
3. Don’t take shortcuts in either of the previous steps
This week also led me to consider something that I had not thought about before – people like data. People like the idea of having large pools of data underlying their decisionmaking process. I recently finished the book “Blink” by Malcom Gladwell, and he spent a chapter discussing a large military decisonmaking simulation. On the blue side, military bigwigs invested millions of dollars in a datacrunching toolset designed to reveal all the intricacies of the enemy’s decisionmaking process and deliver a surefire victory. On the red side, there was a crotchety old general who was big fan of thin-slicing (making instinctive decisions based on limited amounts of data). The crotchety general won the exercise while the datacrunchers were still playing with their databases.
One of Gladwell’s main points throughout the book is that lots of people thin-slice, but people are not necessarily comfortable with decisions made through thin-slicing, because they cannot explain the detailed process of how they came to the decision. Data is comfortable and gives people a warm fuzzy feeling, even when it lends no new insight to the decisionmaking process and becomes a resource-consuming waste of time.
I think that people like to carry around lots of data – even data that they never use – because having data in your pocket is like having two extra tubes of lipstick that you never wear, or a handful of expired credit cards, or bonus cards to stores that you never shop at. You hold onto everything that was useful at some point, because it might just be useful at some point in the future. In the meantime, you continue to live and breathe and make decisions without it. Of course, in today’s world, it is very likely that someone will steal your data before you have the opportunity to need it again, and they will find plenty of uses that you never dreamed of.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Session 2 - Tricked by Technology
This week, I learned that technology is an overarching term that refers to any number of products. New advances in computerized lathes have little bearing on office operations. New advances in car system diagnostics are hardly useful in my office. I won't be suggesting implementation of oil drill analysis software at my next office meeting. Why not? As the technology enthusiasts argue, all of these technologies involve a computer and my office uses computers, therefore my office should find a way to implement these technologies.
When the discussion revolves around computer-assisted car maintenance or oil-drilling, the difference between relevant and irrelevant technologies is easy to discern. When the conversation turns to popular technologies like instant messenger or traditional IT like operating systems, the line between relevant and irrelevant is blurred. In terms of a case study from the textbook, not every trading company needs to collocate its services with the NASDAQ servers, and not every trading company needs to invest in InfiniBand technology to speed data transmissions. These innovations only produce a competitive advantage for companies competing in a very sophisticated sector of the trading market. Other trading companies competing in other market sectors may operate quite profitably from servers on a cheap 10 acre farm in Indiana.
Similarly, touch screens are very useful and fun, but only in some products. For example, touch screens are great on handheld iphones where users are wiggling their fingers to access phone features. Touch screens are probably less appropriate as a replacement for office workstation screens. Can you imagine lifting your arm to touch your desk display whenever you want to click your mouse?
Any company considering using touch screen technology first needs to consider the advantages of touch screens and how the company can capitalize on those advantages. For example, touch screens are useful for handheld devices, where finger-wiggling is usually easier than manipulating a tiny keyboard. Touch screens are also useful for simple “what you see is what you select” interfaces like hotel information kiosks. Touch screen kiosks streamline navigation and avoid frustration that users might feel while trying to maneuver an unfamiliar trackball or type on an unfamiliar or foreign language keyboard. In a corporate environment, touch screens might be a useful interface for a conference room presentation platform, so that standing presenters can access files without bending halfway over to grab a mouse or type on a keyboard. This usage capitalizes on one of the main advantage of touch screens to encourage more professional-looking presentations.
It is important to note, however, that touch screens are not direct substitutes for computer monitors. A touch screen might be integrated into a computer monitor, or it might be shaped to resemble a computer monitor, but replacing all of a company's monitors with touch screens is probably a very expensive, very bad idea. Similarly, a wholesale replacement of a company's meetings with WebMeetings may be a bad idea, and replacing a company's intranet with a Facebook interface may be a bad idea. In the latter cases, the badness is less evident, because many users tout WebMeeting and Facebook as excellent technology. In terms of corporate implementation, however, the important question is whether the technologies represent an improvement in the company's operations and profitability. If they are merely cool new substitutes for current measures, then companies might be better off leaving them alone.
In the future, when people are discussing cool new technologies, I am going to try and determine what exactly makes that technology more useful that its predecessors in its coolest context. Then I am going to try and determine where in the world that context exists – this will help identify other areas where the technology may be useful. I am not going to think of similar-looking technologies and assume that the latest greatest coolest gadget is a substitute for everything of similar shape and function. I promise.
When the discussion revolves around computer-assisted car maintenance or oil-drilling, the difference between relevant and irrelevant technologies is easy to discern. When the conversation turns to popular technologies like instant messenger or traditional IT like operating systems, the line between relevant and irrelevant is blurred. In terms of a case study from the textbook, not every trading company needs to collocate its services with the NASDAQ servers, and not every trading company needs to invest in InfiniBand technology to speed data transmissions. These innovations only produce a competitive advantage for companies competing in a very sophisticated sector of the trading market. Other trading companies competing in other market sectors may operate quite profitably from servers on a cheap 10 acre farm in Indiana.
Similarly, touch screens are very useful and fun, but only in some products. For example, touch screens are great on handheld iphones where users are wiggling their fingers to access phone features. Touch screens are probably less appropriate as a replacement for office workstation screens. Can you imagine lifting your arm to touch your desk display whenever you want to click your mouse?
Any company considering using touch screen technology first needs to consider the advantages of touch screens and how the company can capitalize on those advantages. For example, touch screens are useful for handheld devices, where finger-wiggling is usually easier than manipulating a tiny keyboard. Touch screens are also useful for simple “what you see is what you select” interfaces like hotel information kiosks. Touch screen kiosks streamline navigation and avoid frustration that users might feel while trying to maneuver an unfamiliar trackball or type on an unfamiliar or foreign language keyboard. In a corporate environment, touch screens might be a useful interface for a conference room presentation platform, so that standing presenters can access files without bending halfway over to grab a mouse or type on a keyboard. This usage capitalizes on one of the main advantage of touch screens to encourage more professional-looking presentations.
It is important to note, however, that touch screens are not direct substitutes for computer monitors. A touch screen might be integrated into a computer monitor, or it might be shaped to resemble a computer monitor, but replacing all of a company's monitors with touch screens is probably a very expensive, very bad idea. Similarly, a wholesale replacement of a company's meetings with WebMeetings may be a bad idea, and replacing a company's intranet with a Facebook interface may be a bad idea. In the latter cases, the badness is less evident, because many users tout WebMeeting and Facebook as excellent technology. In terms of corporate implementation, however, the important question is whether the technologies represent an improvement in the company's operations and profitability. If they are merely cool new substitutes for current measures, then companies might be better off leaving them alone.
In the future, when people are discussing cool new technologies, I am going to try and determine what exactly makes that technology more useful that its predecessors in its coolest context. Then I am going to try and determine where in the world that context exists – this will help identify other areas where the technology may be useful. I am not going to think of similar-looking technologies and assume that the latest greatest coolest gadget is a substitute for everything of similar shape and function. I promise.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Session 1 - Reflective Learning
1. What did you learn in the preceding week? (Not a list of facts, but rather, what can you take from the lesson, what has value to you?)
This week, I learned that one of the first steps in implementing a technological solution should be determining whether the solution is intended for internal users or external users. This means, for example, when someone comes up with the idea of adding a company website, they should consider whether they are talking about an internal Sharepoint site or an external site intended for the company's customers.
I also learned that many technologies are cool and fun and interesting, but cool and fun and interesting are not necessarily synonymous with useful. For example, many people are proponents of IM in the workplace, and argue that it speeds communication with teammates and lowers production costs. I find myself asking what sort of workplace requires instantaneous hands-on communication? Why don't the employees simply take the time to express themselves more clearly at designated times instead of creating a stream of inane chatter?
In the Lufthansa case, one of the main reasons that notebooks were successfully integrated into the workplace was that the purpose of the notebooks was clearly defined. The pilots union and Lufthansa representatives agreed that the notebooks would be used for training, storing references, etc. I do not think that the notebook project would have been as successful if Lufthansa decided to change the nature of their purpose. For example, pilots might balk at carrying a notebook if the notebook were equipped with a GPS tracking system to determine their exact location and track whether they arrived at airports 1-2 hours before their flights. Similarly, pilots might protest if the notebooks were used to track the amount of time pilots spent reviewing required references during wait times at the airport. At that point, the notebook becomes more like a leash and less like a useful training or communications tool.
I think that IM in the workplace can be made into a leash instead of a communications tool. It can allow other employees to constantly intrude into personal workplaces with no real benefit. After all, if a user logs in as invisible in order to prioritize communications to work more effectively, then he or she is essentially reducing IM to the same level of functionality as e-mail.
2. How do you connect what you learned this week with your personal experience or what you already knew?
The increased stress on emotional intelligence in managerial training now makes sense to me. The push for IM, Blackberry, Web-conferencing, etc, also makes more sense to me.
3. How could/would you apply your new knowledge?
The next time I propose a new workplace technology, I will focus specifically on how that technology should be used, and the specific benefits to be gained from that usage. I do not think "It will speed communication." is sufficient.
This week, I learned that one of the first steps in implementing a technological solution should be determining whether the solution is intended for internal users or external users. This means, for example, when someone comes up with the idea of adding a company website, they should consider whether they are talking about an internal Sharepoint site or an external site intended for the company's customers.
I also learned that many technologies are cool and fun and interesting, but cool and fun and interesting are not necessarily synonymous with useful. For example, many people are proponents of IM in the workplace, and argue that it speeds communication with teammates and lowers production costs. I find myself asking what sort of workplace requires instantaneous hands-on communication? Why don't the employees simply take the time to express themselves more clearly at designated times instead of creating a stream of inane chatter?
In the Lufthansa case, one of the main reasons that notebooks were successfully integrated into the workplace was that the purpose of the notebooks was clearly defined. The pilots union and Lufthansa representatives agreed that the notebooks would be used for training, storing references, etc. I do not think that the notebook project would have been as successful if Lufthansa decided to change the nature of their purpose. For example, pilots might balk at carrying a notebook if the notebook were equipped with a GPS tracking system to determine their exact location and track whether they arrived at airports 1-2 hours before their flights. Similarly, pilots might protest if the notebooks were used to track the amount of time pilots spent reviewing required references during wait times at the airport. At that point, the notebook becomes more like a leash and less like a useful training or communications tool.
I think that IM in the workplace can be made into a leash instead of a communications tool. It can allow other employees to constantly intrude into personal workplaces with no real benefit. After all, if a user logs in as invisible in order to prioritize communications to work more effectively, then he or she is essentially reducing IM to the same level of functionality as e-mail.
2. How do you connect what you learned this week with your personal experience or what you already knew?
The increased stress on emotional intelligence in managerial training now makes sense to me. The push for IM, Blackberry, Web-conferencing, etc, also makes more sense to me.
3. How could/would you apply your new knowledge?
The next time I propose a new workplace technology, I will focus specifically on how that technology should be used, and the specific benefits to be gained from that usage. I do not think "It will speed communication." is sufficient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)