The Stupidity of
Technologies
“Naked Technology”
’Another way of looking at the stupidity of technologies:
even when
they work, they are not used effectively
Giancarlo Livraghi – stupidity.it – gandalf.it
The problem isn’t only that information and communication technologies are often poorly conceived and don’t work as well as they should. It’s also that they are badly organized and applied.
This is an excerpt from chapter 19 of The Power of Stupidity.
In well run industrial applications the prevailing trend is to proceed with efficiency objectives – and, when automatic production equipment doesn’t live up to quality standards, good factory managers know how to step back to more reliable resources – while they continue to experiment with potentially better innovation.
But, when it comes to information and communication technology, most companies find themselves stepping out of their areas of competence – and into a messy, confusing proliferation of available tools.
It’s a proven fact that large investments in ICT technologies without precise objectives and a clear idea of process lead to an enormous waste of money – in addition to technical failures, all sorts of organizational problems and loss of quality.
This was explained in 2002 by the chairman of a research company generally dedicated to praising the value of information and communication technologies. Years go by, business enterprises and other organizations become more familiar with the use of ICT – but, to a large extent, the problem remains. And, in several situations, it’s getting worse.
Naked Technology
Injecting technology into a company
without process and organizational change
creates waste and chaos
This article was published by George F. Colony,
Chairman of the Board and CEO, Forrester Research,
on August 7, 2002(Unfortunately it is no longer openly available in the original website)
I’ve been analyzing technology spending in Global 3,500 companies for more than 20 years. One dynamic has remained consistent: many companies spend on technology and fail to generate returns or positive impact on their business. Paradoxically, they expend time and money and increase confusion and pain
This disconnect accelerated in the years 1998 to 2000, when large companies engaged in a historic tech orgy. Forrester has calculated that the tech overspend in that period was $65 billion in the US alone
The result? Bewildered CEO and CFOs who felt burned by the dollars lost (and who are now slowing capital spending to a trickle), lost credibility for IT, lost stature for vendors, hardware for sale on eBay at 10 cents on the dollar, and pressure on operating margins. Oh, and by the way, you also get one toxic technology recession.
Why do these imbalances between tech spending and return persist? My answer will appear to be ridiculously simple – but here it is:
Deploying technology without changing process and organization will create little impact – and it often brings negative consequences. Naked technology wipes out productivity improvements, hurts return on investment, and dulls the bright edge of well-conceived strategies.
Whether it’s the stirrup, the PC, or electricity, technology has always required change in the way humans work. You don’t farm the same way with a plow as you did with a hoe. General Motors didn’t organize its robotically driven Saturn production line the way Rolls-Royce structured its hand-built assembly process.
But companies continually deploy naked technology. Why?
* It’s easy to write a check to a vendor, take delivery, and implement. It’s a magnitude harder to rethink the way you work or the structure of your organization.
* Technology cannot change business organization and process – that’s up to operating units. But IT and business units are often misaligned, or worse. Maybe IT brings in CRM – but the lines of business never get on board.
* Companies and management may lack the guts, ability, or vision to change org and process.
* At economic moments (e.g., 2000), technology looks like a sure thing that you must have now. Naked or not, it’s welcomed to the party.
What do we see happening several years later?
To a large extent, “more of the same” – if not worse.
