taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (02/08/87)
Coincidentally with this discussion, and the discussion on interfaces, there is a debate currently active under the 'COMPUTERS AND PRODUCTIVITY' topic of NWI regarding the failure of management and executive staff to take full advantage of information technology. The following is excerpted from one note: >11 (of 13) NORMAN KURLAND Jan. 14, 1987 at 20:20 Eastern > >6 (of 6) ROAD WARRIOR Jan. 10, 1987 at 12:34 > > My first observation would be that some opportunities for > increasing productivity have not been used that way by the users. > One example would be word processing. In my observations, > managers have not used the increase in speed and capability to > have one secretary generate more documents or support more > people. Those with typewriter supported secretaries are much more > careful about revisions and may revise a document once. Those > with word proc are very casual about the number of revisions. > I've noticed the same phenomenon over the past few years both > with graphics and compensation analysis. The potentially > increased productive time that could be made available has been > used to do more iterations. I find no evidence that more > information, per se, leads to better decisions. > > I find Adam's (?) observations on PARTI to be out of touch with > my experience. I've talked to NETI about using PARTI on some of > our systems, but after my experience here with it I would clearly > not buy it for a business setting. I find it quirky, > unpredictable and too obtuse for the person who doesn't use it > several times a week. PARTI is the messaging and "static" data conferencing system used by NWI. Previous discussion on it centred around the desire on the part of "business users" for a "numbered menu interface", an interesting assumption in view of the fact that neither of the two major commercial "electronic mail" systems in Canada have had any kind of menu interface attached to their messaging to date. I find much merit in ROAD WARRIOR's (from ghoulies and ghosties and three legged beasties, and people who choose strange "online handles", good Lord pr'sairve us!) point about the misuse of information technology by management level workers. Too often this is as a result of lack of experience (which itself results from a taboo regarding the use of a keyboard. Keyboards are "woman's work", or at least clerical, and not appropriate to the dignity of an executive.) I worked in a government office where the regional director would not clear his mailbox because his computer wasn't good enough. So we got him a better one. Then his software wasn't good enough. So I got him a better program. Then he wasn't too sure about the operations of the computer. So I set up his computer *and* made the communications disk self booting *and* wrote a "script" for his program which automatically dialled *and* signed him on *and* gave his password *and* gave the read command *and* turned on the printer *and* saved the session to disk just in case he forgot anything. He still doesn't use it. My point in bringing in this, at first glance, unrelated topic is that the use of *any* system is always said to be limited because "its interface isn't friendly" or "I can't see who I'm talking to." It is said that Xerox could not sell the dry photocopier technology to the business machine giants of the day because it was felt that carbon paper fully filled that niche. The use of any technology is accepted by the general public long after its usefullness has been amply demonstrated. The hesitancy to admit that a new application has merit goes beyond all reason and logic. Trial balancing is done, at most, monthly, yet no accountant would accept the statement that the procedure is "too obtuse for the person who doesn't use it several times a week." That messaging and data conferencing is currently used foolishly by some, as is word processing, is no reason to deny that it is a useful tool. During the World Logo Conference, almost nothing went as planned. In that sense it was an unending string of disasters and not a very useful event for those participating. It did, however, allow a group which could not afford to organize anything more involved than a simple weekend retreat to invite and interact with experts and fellow users from all over North America, and twelve other countries besides. Aside from the fact that we could not have accommodated the participants we had on-line at the site in Paradise Valley, we could not have afforded to bring in the speakers that we had, nor could most of the speakers and other participants have afforded the time and expense involved in coming to the site. All of the problems heretofore listed; aversion to typing, slow speed, lack of "body language contact"; we saw, and, yes, there are skills to running an online meeting just like a "face to face" meeting. However, all the benefits discussed; contribution by the "meek", concentration on ideas rather than dominance, greater scope for, and of, response, comfort of environment (I prefer Mozart, Denny); we witnessed as well. There is an unfortunate and paradoxical parenthesis to all of this. The higher on the corporate ladder, the more opportunities to travel to meet with others. At the same time, those at lower echelons often have a greater need to exchange specific information and ideas. Therefore, the use of either "static" or "real time" data conferencing, as well as messaging, would be a real boost in terms of providing low cost communications (do you realize what a conference call costs?) to the workers. Executives, however, as well as being unexperienced with the technology, may not wish to acknowledge the usefulness of something which may argue against travel "perks".