Making Information Technology Work for You…Finally
We’re not sure if our vague title is a good one because regardless of the formality of their other “information” systems, every firm and organization already has at least one relatively inexpensive, web-based, management information system (MIS). That system is e-mail, including the messages and the myriad of hideous, inconvenient, and awkward Word, Excel, and pdf documents that are so often attached to said messages.
The low cost of e-mail-as-information-system isn’t the issue. At issue, is whether greater benefits can be realized by using more appropriate web applications that can be implemented at very low marginal cost: both financial and human-effort-related costs. The systems/applications are cheap and easy-to-learn.
E-mail as the Central Nervous System
It’s our contention that most managers, including “IT” managers, don’t recognize e-mail for what it is.
It is the metaphorical central nervous system of their firms and organizations. (We have in mind the somatic nervous system, whereas transaction processing and data-processing, in general, remind us of the autonomic nervous system.)
Without that recognition of e-mail’s crucial role, there is no reason to search for a substitute that is superior at certain information processing, transmission, retention, and retrieval functions. (Oh well, we guess we’ll consider it our little secret, share it with that handful of people who read blogs on the internet, and continue to profit from that realization.)
We ask: if senior managers both in and out of “IT” did recognize the true use of their firms’ e-mail systems, how would they justify silly, fear-of-litigation-based, 60-day e-mail “retention” policies? We don’t think that they would. In which case, they might stop tossing the proverbial baby with the bathwater.
By that we mean senior managers under-estimate or completely ignore the long-term benefits of retention because (1) the seemingly private, personalized nature of mail, (2) the form of those messages obscures their informational content, or (3) they may conclude that the attachments are saved; so, what’s to lose.
We argue that volumes of qualitative information, including valuable institutional details and histories and assumptions, are lost when messages are deleted or when Word documents are deleted or purged when an employee quits, is fired or is transferred or when oxymoronically-named “retention” policies are ruthlessly applied to messages on a mail server.
No, we don’t think that would happen if those messages were viewed for what they are: an inelegant, qualitative information system and database, rather than mere correspondence.
Of course, almost all organizations–particularly large, multi-locational ones–have other systems that collect and transmit enormous sets of data over the internet. Sometimes those systems transmit information, too, but transmission of valuable information is probably a much smaller activity than most assume). In that sense, we would disagree with those who argue that modern times present some danger of information overload, because there is rarely information overload, but without a bit of experience and a clear thought-process and a bit of self-confidence, it is quite easy to become overwhelmed with irrelevant data, (or so we’re told). That “overload” that some folks face is similar the old adage about “not seeing the forest because of the trees.” With respect to irrelevant data, it’s more of an issue of not being able to see the beautiful maple forest because of all the weed sumac trees.
To be clear, there’s a time and place for and value to data processing, but too often folks–who should know better–conflate data processing systems and information systems. In fact, most firms don’t refer to data processing as “data processing” anymore–many call it “information technology” or “IT” or some such thing. Our point is that not all data and records are informative. In fact, we would argue that most records in such misnamed “information systems” are irrelevant for the typical and important operating and investment decisions that middle- and senior managers make. (In our experience, that information comes from e-mails and attachments and not through either silly, esoteric dashboards or the mass of details recorded via millions of transactions.)
Again, data-processing is valuable for a variety of purposes, primarily record-keeping and book-keeping purposes, but “processing” data doesn’t necessarily convert it to information–if it is never considered as a factor in a decision. (One our pet peeves involves that fact that few systems designers begin their projects by asking: what decisions do you make and what decisions could you make (or make better) with more refined information?”
We mention data processing because we think that if a manager can’t distinguish between data-processing procedures from information sets and systems, then it likely that such a person may also ignore the importance of e-mail as the central information system because the content of those messages aren’t viewed for what they are: fields and records in a large, unwieldy, and self-deleting database. (Self-deleting where such retention policies exist.)
We are very interested in helping firms and organizations make optimal decisions with the “optimal amount” of relevant information, and we’re especially interested in developing control systems that systematize, facilitate, and motivate such decision-making by subordinates. (FYI: in our mind, information systems are a type of control system. When they are well-designed, they help organizations accomplish their goals; so, they meet our definition of control. Also, note that we put “optimal amount” in scare quotes because that determination of optimal, in and of itself, is a very subtle issue that has strategic, tactical, and oft-ignored behavioral implications.) The crucial management issue is: when given the organization’s goals and strategies and resources and constraints, what systems–including information systems, and mechanisms are available to efficiently and consistently implement those plans to maximize the organization’s long-term value. Unfortunately, the MIS portion of that problem is often delegated and not properly considered, e.g., “I don’t know much about computers. That’s an IT issue.”
It is also unfortunate that because e-mail serves other purposes like communication to assist with implementation and coordination of plans, etc., and because it is the default and de facto key management information system, we contend that little consideration is given by any type of manager to finding “better” replacements for e-mail’s information transmission role, including the easy storage and retrieval of all of the institutional knowledge and details found in messages sent and received among peers, superiors, and subordinates.
But, no worries, we have a solution.
A Better MIS than E-mail
That above-mentioned lack of consideration is shameful because nowadays, surprisingly affordable, very user-friendly, open-source software and web applications exist that better serve the MIS purpose.
Those applications allow organizations of any size to very efficiently and effectively create and use internet-based information systems, and those surprisingly-inexpensive methods have the potential–nay, the high probability–to provide tremendous long-term benefits.
- The best part is that there is very little–actually, nothing for most employees–to learn. If they can write e-mails, create MS Office documents, and attach files, they already have the expertise that they need to use a different platform. (We’re amused by the fact that it doesn’t seems that most developers of those systems appreciate their usefulness of them as the front-end of databases because they tend not to be employed by large organizations.)
Note: we’re not recommending the wholesale elimination of e-mail. Instead, we recommend replacing it for certain functions with web-based publishing systems that, for example, will automatically notify intended recipients that new content is available, which if you think of it, is very similar to receiving an e- mail message. (Here’s one sign your firm may need a different system: if important topics generate an nearly endless chain of messages and replies. Those chains should be communicated and stored outside of an e-mail system but we don’t mean in MS Office-based documents. We mean web-based publishing systems.
- The other best part is that everything that employees write or comment upon is searchable (by themselves and others) because it is stored in a well-protected, centralized, free, open-source database. (We use MySQL to store our musings.) If permissible, that access is immediate and permanent. So, what is assumed and discussed today is not lost in the future. That means that institutional knowledge can be saved and cheaply re-used thereby mitigating the age-old problem identified by George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
- The other best part is that form of the qualitative data and information and the resulting database is dynamic and adaptive (and informal) so that information creators and providers, say, financial analysts or salesmen, can (rather unconsciously) add to and change the structure without any interference or delay by “IT” department administrators. Responsible users with the correct level of permission can re-categorize content and add new keywords or fields (as easily as they add new “records” that fit existing fields, topics, and categories).
Note that the last bullet is enough to send most “IT” managers into apoplexy.
The sad fact that many such “IT” managers would never permit such evolutionary processes when learning occurs and/or as the environment changes is the huge opportunity cost of their rigid, bureaucratic nature and processes. (We ask as an aside: how many “IT” folks start projects by asking: “what decisions do you make?” or how many consider the behavioral implications of system structure and design? How many pro-actively ask whether information requirements have changed without prodding or requests by others? Maybe they should write the acronym, “iT” or just plain “T” because in our mind, there is little emphasis on providing information–lots of data, to be sure, but not much info.)
Despite our well-reasoned and convincing prose, we’re skeptical that large, bureaucratic organizations would ever consider using such excellent systems as a replacement for some current functions of e-mail. (So, we’ll focus our marketing efforts on small and mid-sized firms that, with any luck, will grow into intelligently-managed, profitable, grateful, and generous large firms.)
Obviously, many large organizations spend millions if not hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars on data processing, but, again, we don’t data collection and transaction processing. We mean the actually-used management information systems, and are we writing about intelligently generating, saving, and accessing both qualitative and quantitative information. That means making every word that would have otherwise-appeared in an erstwhile MS Word document is immediately searchable by anyone (with permission) by posting it to a central database using a web form/editor that looks very similar to Word. The future is now–if your firm and staff is ready for it.
If fact, the recommended procedures aren’t much different than writing this post or reading this post or searching our site or receiving an RSS feed on particular categories or topics or tags.
That’s why we see the capture, transmission, retention, and retrieval of both standard and non-standard qualitative information as a huge benefit to firms hooked on something as ineffective as e-mail.
With inexpensive form-generation software and with (automated) scripts, it is quite easy (and cheap) to capture quantitative information as well as standardized, qualitative information and data. How inexpensive? You would be amazed!
Contact us for more information.
We’ll likely add to this post and continue to revamp it in the near future.
Copyright © Spero Consulting 2009
