Tech Writing Archive

Through The Fog User To Technology

Through the Fog – Connecting the user to technology

Jon Collins, 3/5/03

The history of information technology has not been without its problems. Even its name is a give away – the “information” in IT suggests that our focus has been more on storing stuff than on what we can do with it. There have been some remarkable advances in technology – even the processing power of the average mobile phone would have filled a room just a few decades ago – and these have been accompanied by mind boggling leaps of understanding. The Internet, or at least the Web, bears witness to how, when things come together, they do so very fast indeed and with dramatic impact. Don’t be fooled by the current downturn (we’re not allowed to use the word “recession”), the Web was and still is a remarkable, world-changing advance in both technology and our ability to harness its power.

All the same, despite these leaps and bounds, it feels sometimes that we are still sloshing around in the primeval slurry of technology. For organisations large and small, there are no right answers. The latest enterprise offerings provide infinite scope for customisation and enhancement, but first we must understand what it is we want to achieve, a task that seems impossible without spending the GDP of a small country on management consultancy. The flip side, of packaged applications offering a one-size-fits-all approach, requires us to somehow squeeze and pummel current working practices to fit the intricacies of the product. It’s not all bad news: at either end of the scale, the products (in isolation or combination) do just about everything that might be required of them, however there would appear to remain a gap between need and reality. The question of functionality seems to be largely solved, meaning that today, the issue lies not with the question, “what can I do with the computer?” but with, “how can the computer best fit with the way I want to work?”

This issue is not new, but it remains the unsolved problem of computing, namely how machine integrates into the very human environments that require them. People need to interact with computers, and people need to interact with each other. So – is this about user interface design and collaboration software? Well, sort of – but remember, this is an unsolved problem. Nobody (well, perhaps Bill Gates) would maintain that the Windows interface is the epitome of user interaction design, an example of perfect harmony between man and machine. The same could be said for PalmOS, or any number of mobile phone input mechanisms. Nice try, but no cigar. Similarly, users of groupware packages such as Lotus Notes or Microsoft Outlook know too well that the term “collaboration” is a misnomer for “email and calendar sharing”. All of these things have a long way to go if they really want to make their users’ lives easier.

The problem lies squarely in the user interface. Fortunately for the IT industry, computer users are a loyal bunch, otherwise they might have binned the whole lot years ago. Companies talk in terms of “leveraging assets” and “maximising the return on investment”; what they really mean is, “we’re stuck with it now, we can’t afford to replace it so we’d better make the best of it.” And, truth be told, is there really anything that can be done outside the research labs? Funnily enough, yes.

Here at Quocirca, we’re not great believers in silver bullets. We would be, you understand, but we’ve seen too many, and the vampires are still there. However, things are moving forward. Rather than putting all the money on a single horse in the race, it is worth looking at how the race is evolving. In previous Through The Fog articles, we have looked at the evolution of voice technologies, and how these are coming of age given the arrival of hardware platforms that can actually support them. We have also looked at predictive text messaging and MMS. And more recently, we’ve been road testing Tablet PC’s and their suitability for various application types, and looking at peer to peer collaboration tools such as Groove Networks. And it is in these areas where things have been getting interesting, and indeed disruptive in no small measure.

First, the Tablet PC. At first glance, a gadget-lover’s must-have, with the I’m-a-laptop-no-I’m-a-workpad gimmick available at the flick of a screen. Second comes the handwriting recognition, which works like a dream, picking up genuine handwriting rather than some reductionist character set. Out of the box the applications seem useful but not compelling, making one wonder whether the Tablet really is no more than a gadget. Surely there must be more that can be done with this device other than its operation as a keyboardless version of a standard laptop?

Indeed there is – if applications such as Mind Manager are anything to go by. Traditionally, Tony Buzan’s mind mapping techniques (think spider diagrams on speed) have translated into adequate, yet somehow lacking, on-screen applications. Mind Manager is one of these, its capabilities for managing and sharing multiple maps notwithstanding, there is still nothing quite like getting out a fresh piece of paper and a pack of coloured pens to really get the best out of mind maps. After all, they are all about stimulating the right side of the brain, and the combination of a computer screen, keyboard and mouse will not have the stimulating effect for everyone. Enter the Tablet, armed with the latest version of Mind Manager. Maps can be drawn as they were meant to be drawn, they can be edited with the swish of a stylus and then can benefit from all the additional facilities that electronics can provide. So far, so good.

Second, Groove Networks. “Invented” by Lotus Notes founder Ray Ozzie, Groove takes all the best elements of peer to peer file swapping packages (think the now-martyred Napster and its offspring, Kazaa) and uses them as a foundation for a business information sharing environment. All the standard stuff is there, such as shared files, calendar management and discussion lists. But these are just scratching the surface. In addition, there are numerous plug-in tools including document reviewing, meeting management and project planning. Drill down further and there are visual modelling, CRM and, you guessed it, collaborative mind mapping tools available.

Groove is not without its problems, for example the way in which files are shared makes it an uncomfortable tool to use in low-bandwidth environments. However, like the Tablet PC it does make possible things that were uncomfortable to do, for example enabling both office and home workers to access a single pool of information. Also, because there is no server, a multi-user Groove environment delivers a level of availability out of the box: if you lose your hard drive, those vital files are just a download away.

The Tablet PC and its synergy with Mind Manager, or the application of peer to peer networking with tools like Groove networks, are not just examples of how technologies can evolve, and neither are they the only examples, but they make the point. By putting new interaction mechanisms together with new collaboration mechanisms we can start to present ways that will help us towards the delivery of real solutions in this as-yet uncharted human layer of the technology stack.

At the enterprise level, we only have to look at the amount of discussion at the moment around business processes. Barely an analyst report nor a marketing brochure fails to mention the P-word, as it is rightly understood that it is these that define the activities of the business, and hence what needs to be automated in order to deliver business value. But can life really be as simple as dragging and dropping a few business processes from an online repository? The answer is a resounding “no”,

Let’s consider. In 198x, Mike Hammer and James Champy published what they called “a manifesto for business revolution” At its heart was a simple premise, that delivery of value happened across organisations, and not down them. By concentrating on the process rather than the organisations structure, it would be possible to vastly improve organisational efficiency.

Of course, Hammer and Champy had invented nothing new. It is the same principle that is espoused in TQM, in agile manufacturing and so on. What the pair managed to do however, was to capture the hearts and minds of the business. Of course this was no different to quality management, but quality is for clerks, not for directors and VPs. Business Processes, now there’s a more attractive term. And it worked.

Companies like iLog claim to enable you

More powerful products of the genre, such as Notes, only come into their own if they have had sufficient time spent to configure them to mee the needs of the organization.

In both cases, interactions can occur on the macro level or on the micro level. Let’s consider some examples of how people can interact with others and with computers at a macro and micro level.

The solution lies in the user interface of an application:

meets the needs of the business process.

enables the user to interoperate in the most appropriate way

To put it another way, that’s what application vendors are talking about when they mention “business processes”. Unfortunately for them however, things are more complicated than that.

There have been some good efforts from a number of companies, notably IBM in the 70’s, HP in the 80’s and just about everybody in the 90’s.

We can consider this at two levels:

The macro level, which is defined in terms of processes, activities or tasks. You too can spend a happy workshop trying to work out what the difference is, before realising that its how you apply the terms in your organisation that counts. Don’t worry, we’ve all been there.

The micro level, which is defined in terms of interactions. Usability is king here, and this is a black art, you only have to attend a usability event to realise that computers are of secondary importance.

In summary, let us look at where we are.

Since the arrival of the first computer, information technologies have been targeted at solving business problems. They haven’t yet succeeded in automating the organization, though they have made useful tools.

Services provide a common thread to link business and technology. We should use the concept of services in our quest to achieve what has thus far proved unachievable.

As we move on, we shall look at concepts of processes versus patterns, dynamic versus static. Only by balancing the what with the how, can we succeed.

Technology at the macro level is starting to have an impact, at least if you believe the marketing. Companies like iLog with their business rules engines certainly think so.

Meanwhile, at the micro level, there is still a long way to go. Perhaps this is a good thing: if anyone ever really worked out the answer, we’d all be out of a job.

Voice recognition

M-Urge

Focus 5

Let’s face it, we don’t even know how to model some things, never moind how to autopmate them – mind mapping is one example of a relatively recent approach which then drives automation mechanisms. We can only imagine what software could look like if it was actually fitting the real needs of inter-human communications. Throw voice recognition into the pot and new directions start to emerge. Not only input but output mechanisms – how to present data – computer associates’ visualisation techniques were valid perhaps when they were presented in 1999, but maybe before their time.

Technology doing aggregation

McClewen

The medium is the message –

Meta-activity – training people to use certain thinking techniques and amplifying knowledge of strategies at hand, entrains best practice. Populist orientation.

Matrix of human minds sharing concepts with eachother – human layer