The average corporate computer has become so complex and so powerful that most “knowledge workers” are only able to manage a fraction of their capabilities. Once beyond simple word processing, basic spreadsheets and e-mail, most users are totally powerless over their machines. Personal computer operating systems and applications were built by geeks who are perfectly at ease with things like file formats, database connection, and macros. End users aren't. WordPerfect and Lotus 123 provide all the power they are able or need to use.

What Have We Wrought?

Why has the iPad become the darling of so many business users–particularly senior management types? There's a reason and it not just because Steve Jobs understands marketing better than anybody else. And it's not because it's the best designed product. In fact, it isn't really designed all that well. I use one daily but it always feels a little awkward in my hands in a typical business situation. I find it most satisfying to use when I am reclining in an easy chair or lounging in bed. It is even too heavy at a pound and a half to comfortably hold in your hands in an airline seat. The reason it has made serious inroads into the business world is because it does a couple of things relatively well.

o It provides a relatively easy way to access e-mail–both corporate and personal. I say relatively easy because there are a lot of things about accessing and replying to e-mail on an iPad that are not great, but it provides a significant improvement over BlackBerries and other smartphones.

o It provides the ability to view information from a soft copy in a format and size that is similar to what the user would experience with a hard copy.

o It is extremely portable. This is key. The aforementioned benefits would be meaningless if the device could only be used while physically plugged into the corporate network. Ubiquitous wireless connectivity was a necessary precondition to widespread acceptance and use of these devices.

Mediocrity is OK

What is interesting is that iPads don't really do these things very well. The e-mail clients provide a limited subset of the functionality of a real e-mail client. Editing and replying to e-mail is a pain. Cut and paste is kludgy and “typing” on a virtual keyboard is less than satisfying. Yet we are willing to overlook the shortcomings because the convenience outweighs the drawbacks. The second bullet above describes viewing information. Not doing anything with it, I may have the ability to load a spreadsheet from an Internet site or an e-mail attachment but that is about the limit of functionality on these devices. I know there are applications available that allow users to create and edit spreadsheets and documents. I have used these applications and suggest that only the hopelessly device-enamored or desperate user will be willing to do so. And they certainly won't be doing complex what-if scenarios or building pivot tables.

Simply Amazing

This is an incredible phenomenon. Corporate users are willing to pay a premium (some would say exorbitant) price for a device that does two or three things in a manner that could not be characterized as excellent. What's going on here? Are we witnessing a rebellion against computer systems that are too complex for the average user or are we just learning to use only computing devices for those few things that we really need to perform our corporate functions. I suspect it is a little of both. Senior level managers require immediate and continuous access to information that allows them to make proper, informed decisions. I remember watching a keynote at a conference in the late 1990's. The speaker held up his new BlackBerry and said, “This will change your life.” I think few in that audience understood the full implications of that statement. Today's 24×7 connectivity has transformed the world of business. Most of us literally are always at work. iPad-like devices are just an extension of that continuous access to information the BlackBerry and other smartphones provide. In that respect they aren't a PC replacement–they are simply tools that do a couple of things adequately and provide continuous access to information.

Luddites in the Workplace

I was in a meeting recently. About half of us were carting our four-pound laptop computers. The other half were using iPads–propped at an angle using a nice leather carrying case so that they could use the virtual keyboard for note taking. That group eyed those of us with laptops as if we were a bunch of wacko luddites who just arrived in a horse and buggy. It was an interesting dichotomy. But what made it really interesting was that those with the iPads also carried hard copy of the documents we were to review–printed in color. I was able to examine and edit the documents on my laptop. The iPad bunch were using pens (What's a pen?) to edit theirs.

?Good Enough? is Good

The point here is that “good enough” technology is just that. There is a place in the business world for devices with limited abilities. They can be useful for accomplishing those few things they do but should not be considered as a replacement for full-functional machines. Widespread acceptance and purchase of MP3's does not foreshadow the demise of high-end digital recording studios. Just as lightweight computers will not “kill” the PC–although they will certainly lead to a reduction in PC sales.

Data, Data Everywhere

There is a larger lesson to be learned here. Information systems do not need to be complex to be useful. Business suffers from information overload. We collect data so efficiently that we are able to track and classify sales or claims trends to the time of day, to the day of the year, to concise geographic regions. We can do all this in real time. If we wanted to we could create variable premium automobile insurance policies based on where and when I was driving. Presumably I am a higher risk driving at 2 a.m. on January 1st in suburban New York City than I am driving at 11 a.m. on June 23 in Butte, Mont. It is an entirely valid question as to whether it is more efficient to base rates on an aggregate of data for large groups of individuals or to base them on individual behavior. It is an entirely different discussion as to what is a morally responsible way to base rate structures. Certain high-risk behavior such as smoking, excessive weight, or excessive alcohol consumption may be considered fair game for modifying health insurance premiums. But consider the day when a newborn's (or in utero fetus') DNA is examined and is virtually denied health insurance because of a genetic predisposition to some disease. That kind of thinking invalidates the whole concept of a risk pool.

Information overload is not about collecting every possible data point. It is about what we do with it. Desktop applications now place extremely sophisticated business intelligence (BI) tools in the hands of knowledgeable workers who have the ability to slice and dice that information in a myriad of ways. On the surface this seems like a good thing. But do we really want Melvin in operations creating reports and scenarios from raw data? Traditionally data modelers and analysts provided data that was already joined and presented in such a way that business users requested reports against that data–they were not expected to model it themselves. And that's not such bad idea. There was an incident way back in the early days of spreadsheets. A firm was responding with a bid proposal that had been built on an early DOS-based spreadsheet system. Unfortunately one of the formulas in the spreadsheet was not configured correctly. After the firm won that contract, they discovered the error and also discovered that they would lose a lot of money if they were forced to fulfill their obligations. So what did they do? Naturally they filed a lawsuit against the maker of the spreadsheet program–and lost. The moral of the story is that understanding a business process does not necessarily equate to understanding how to represent that process in a business system. IT departments do not exist simply to keep the network and desktop lights on. The biggest value that IT brings to the table is to translate business requirements into systems that provide the business with those requirements. Providing business users with overly complex systems is not effective. Do we need to use Photoshop when all we are doing is resizing images–or AutoCad to arrange office furniture?

Lightweight Apps

Google Apps–online versions of applications that provide the basic functionality of fat-client office suites–provide just about all the features any of us really need in our day-to-day work. “Good enough” thinking would provide these or similar products for traditional knowledgeable workers. Notepad with a spell checker would probably keep me happy. (I actually use the “free” Works Office suite on a few of my machines.) We have spent the last 15 years moving from stand-alone applications to multiple-tier applications to distributed, service-oriented applications. If distributed applications are a good thing, why are we still using expensive (both in terms of money and computing resources) fat-client productivity applications on our desktops? We are stuck in that model because there has been only one player in that game for the last 15 years. Maybe it's time we joined the good enough revolution and reassessed all of our corporate computing needs. There will always be a need for high-end, sophisticated applications. But for most of us we can probably do our jobs more efficiently with a solution that is good enough. Is that good for you? TD

Please address comments, complaints, and suggestions to the author at [email protected].