On 23 Dec 97 at 3:40, Jeff Kell wrote:

> The key phrase here is "IT Management" - in some institutions
> they are computer literate and thus qualified to steer the
> course of IT in general; but in [increasingly] other
> institutions they are merely MBA grade suit-and-tie managers.
> I did not intend to make a blanket condemnation of *all*
> management, just trying to draw attention (through the "good
> old days" example") that in many institutions there are IT
> decisions being made by non-IT literate managers.  Sometimes,
> not always.  At least you should have your option for input to
> the process.

I believe that our philosophies are fundamentally at variance.
I see my profession as that of the typewriter repair man.  Our
function is to get the machines working, whoever built them and
whoever uses them.  Whether they are used to type invoices or
love notes is of no interest to me.  The intelligent use of
information is not limited to those with a computer science
degree.  And if it takes a B.Sc. to be able to determine how to
get your information then there is something very wrong with the
way we handle information to begin with.

The problems that you are describing are not user problems, they
are technical problems.  To continue the metaphor, current
computers and software packages with their incompatible
communications interfaces, their platform specific command
syntax and their general fiddlyness are like typewriters before
the universal adoption of the QWERTY keyboard.  Each one is
alike enough to be usable by anyone that has ever used one, and
each one is different enough that changing platforms or software
causes a major drop in productivity.

The problems that you discuss are the result of this widespread
dissimilarity.  But this will all go away.  It is the nature of
technology that to become truly useful it must first disappear.
Today, anyone can place a long distance call to anywhere in
North America if they have access to a telephone.  This was not
always the case.  I can get in any North American or European or
Japanese built car and operate it.  This was not always the
case.   I can carry a telephone in my pocket and make and
receive calls while walking around my neighbourhood.  This
was not always the case.  But it is the case now.

So to it will  be with computers.  The web is the beginning of
the end of platform distinctiveness.  The browser wars will
decide what the computer UI equivalent to the QWERTY keyboard
will be.  And we will all adjust and be happier and more
productive for the change.

In the meantime, I will continue to aid my users to the best of
my limited ability, whatever my personal feelings are. And if I
can demonstrate that there exists a way which is less of a
burden for me to support and provides the user with the same
usefulness without a tremendous investment of time or money on
their part then I will.  But I will not insist, nor will I wash
my hands of the problem.  My company means more to me than that.

By the same token, no one screams louder than me when I believe
that a decision is wrong headed and unlikely to produce any
useful result.  Nor am I particularly gentle in my treatment of
people that go beyond the point of reasonableness trying to
evade using our central systems.

I have a simple rule of thumb. If it is source data then it
belongs in the databases on the 3000.  If it is derived
information then it belongs on the end user's work station.  If
it's something else then we'll negotiate where it goes but I
don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other.
Having gone through the central / distributed data fashion fad
cycle twice now I have come to the conclusion that this division
provides the greatest value for each dollar invested and results
in the lowest amount of user discontent.  Hardly scientific, but
it works for me.


Regards,
Jim
James B. Byrne           Harte & Lyne Limited
vox: +1 905 561 1241     [log in to unmask]
fax: +1 905 561 0757     www.harte-lyne.ca