Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact email@example.com.
Most of us havent had too much direct experience with really bad technology. Technology that doesnt fit, technology that irritates, technology that confuses, yes, but really, really bad technology, on the scale of the exploding Ford Pintos or more recently SUV-flipping Firestone tires? Not really.
Far more common is the less tragic technology badness that sneaks up on us. Were in a good organization, forward-looking, filling a niche in the market, with supportive customers, a revenue stream, happy employees upstanding members of our business and social community. And then bad technology happens.
That new Accounts Receivable system is mailing dunning letters to our paid customers. That hot-shot performance management system delivers alerts to a mailbox nobody ever reads. The inventory management software puts a flashing low-inventory warning on a managers screen and then over-writes it with 40 other less urgent messages before she gets back from lunch, and customers are waiting weeks instead of days for deliveries.
Its been said that if you build a fool-proof system, somebody will build a better fool. In one light, this is a useful observation, but in another way it all too conveniently exonerates technology and technologists from most culpability for end results. It seems to imply there is no bad technology, only deficient people. Being the self-appointed high priest of balance I find it hard to maintain this one-sided view, or its opposite. Technology in our day-to-day business lives is a complex thing. Its value emerges from a complex web of systems, procedures and practice.
Over the years weve gotten noticeably better at the systems development part of the equation. Weve got project management and requirements tracking, quality assurance and documentation, real-time training and 7×24 help desks, and a raft of methodologies thicker than a biblical plague of frogs. And over the years, weve also come to understand that is not enough. So more recently, weve added process re-engineering (I can almost hear the rivet guns; cant you?), best practices, and continuous improvement. And guess what? We still have much, much more bad technology than wed like.
Should we scrap the development and process focus? Absolutely not. Wisconsin, the Dairy State, suggests the milking stool as a metaphor. Milking stools work in the uneven and irregular floor of a barn because they have three legs. Those three legs will make a stable (if not always level) platform regardless of the surface. Systems and process are two legs of good technology. Business practice is the third.
Its unfortunate that the term best practice has acquired so much currency, because best practices are so rarely about practice and so often about process. No matter how much we as managers want to ignore the difference, describing an activity is just not the same as doing it.
My intuitional statistics tell me that the probability of bad technology being the result of bad systems has declined significantly. The probability of bad technology being the result of bad process is declining every day. The probability of bad technology being the result of bad practice hasnt changed a bit and is very high.
Some of the tactics to address practice are already well known if not always broadly implemented. Good training and coaching are a start, but only a start. Practice happens in real-time, and to influence it you have to be there in the moment. How many companies have technologists doing job observations or internships with the people who use their systems? How many companies reward their support staff based on innovative resolutions as opposed to shortened talk times? How many companies have effective digital and cultural support for real-time collaboration between technologists, users, executives and managers?
Good technology requires good performance in systems, process and practice. Bad technology requires a misstep in only one of those. Given the rigid binary/digital foundations of our technology, it doesnt even have to be a particularly big misstep. To really make a dent in the Bad Technology pile, well need to invest as much effort in that third leg of good technology as weve invested in the other two.
Byron Glick is a principal at Prairie Star Consulting, LLC of Madison Wis. Prairie Star specializes in managing the organizational impacts of technology. He can be contacted via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org
or via telephone at 608/345-3958.
The opinions expressed herein or statements made in the above column are solely those of the author, & do not necessarily reflect the views of Wisconsin Technology Network, LLC. (WTN). WTN, LLC accepts no legal liability or responsibility for any claims made or opinions expressed herein.