Monday, September 10, 2012

Hype, technology & the importance of people

Browsing in a second hand book shop some years ago, I found a battered management book. Published at the start of the eighties, it argued that IBM would become the world’s dominant corporation because of its dominance over information technology. Ten years later, very similar arguments were being applied to Microsoft.

Both IBM and Microsoft benefited from a technology shift. Both rode a wave of success. Both remain successful corporations. Neither achieved that long term commercial dominance forecast by the popular management pundits.

The creative destruction unleashed by the application of new computing and communications technologies is huge, dramatically altering the business landscape. However, it is not the first such shift, nor will it be the last.

To illustrate, the invention of the internal combustion engine had equivalent effects and in much the same time horizon as the IT revolution. Over the first two decades of the twentieth century, entire industries vanished as new ones were born. The human landscape was reshaped. How we lived, where we lived, what we ate all changed.

The rolling effects of the internal combustion engine revolution continued for decades. New industries and activities continued to be born. New fortunes were made. The motor vehicle, aircraft, the shopping complex all became natural and apparently fixed features of the human landscape.

If you look at the hype surrounding the internet as the latest manifestation of the computing and communications revolution, there is a huge focus on winners and losers and on the fads, fashion and social implications of the new technology. I am as fascinated with this as anyone else, yet it helps to keep a sense of perspective.

From a practical personal and business viewpoint, the key thing is the way we use the technology to achieve our objectives. We know that a lot of the froth and especially the kit will vanish. That’s just a fact. What is important is how best to take advantage of it all.

My local tennis club is a good example. I play tennis badly, but enjoy the game and the social interaction. Like many of us, I spend far more time in front of a computer than I really should. I need to get out to do something physical and to talk to people.

My tennis club has an on-line presence. I use that to find out what is going on and to make court bookings. They have a simple system that I can use easily. That’s important. However, that’s not why I go back, that’s not why I am such a supporter.

In simple human terms, there are people behind the technology. I am called Jim. If I have a problem, I can call a human. They recognise me when I come to play. We chat.

The technology helps the club because they get more cash up front, have fewer cancellations, make the courts accessible to more people, Yet it works because it helps me as a customer do the things that I want to do without taking away the things that I value.

I think that we all need to remember this when we consider how we might use the new technology to our own advantage. In the end, it all comes back to people.


Evan said...

Hi Jim, I do agree.

I also think that the channel does influence the communication. u do c this happening.

Jim Belshaw said...

Thanks, Evan.

Anonymous said...

Part of an article in yesterday's Daily Tele:

Recent polling by Essential asking punters to nominate their preferred form of social media found that Twitter is preferred by a grand total of 1 per cent of the population.

One third of us favour Facebook, 20 per cent rely on texting while 37 per cent still rely on trusty old email to connect with the outside world. Interestingly only 8 per cent say they are logged off permanently.

There are big differences based on age with over-55s favouring email and the 18-34 year group opting for Facebook.

But the consistent finding across all genders and demographics is that just 1 per cent of us rate Twitter as our chosen tool.

- full article now online at

I just thought the stats were interesting...

And Jim, that's now twice in a row I've referenced an article from yesterday's DT. In view of your overriding thought that it is the human interaction which is important, please understand that the reasons I was reading the DT yesterday was that a) its physical size allows for reading while eating breakfast on a small table at the local cafe and b) the newsagent had already sold out of the Fin Review ;)


Anonymous said...

And are you presently demonstrating 'the importance of people'? If so, point taken.


Jim Belshaw said...

Interesting, kvd. Sorry not to respond quickly, but I've been away. I forgive you for reading the DT!

While I have been demonstrating the importance of people, I've also been focused on getting a shift in the technology focus to people and the way they use technology.

I'm not surprised at the low twitter figure. Twitter faces some very particular problems at the moment. My feeling is that it has settled into a niche that is itself a niche.