Viewpoint
and generating information. Despite the physical
aspects of the technology—mainframes, punched
cards, hard-copy printed reports—the emphasis was
on information and its business applications primarily for report preparation, transaction processing, and
business processes (such as bookkeeping). Users
trusted IT experts to deal with what they viewed as
complicated technology. Although managers did not
understand the technology, they were aware of its
business benefits and paid for it as a cost center.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, online processing was still mainframe-based and closely guarded by
IT professionals. Minicomputers were increasingly
reliable and affordable as business computers, with
bigger companies using them in distributed IT
strategies. When PCs appeared, their relatively low
price enabled greater access for whole companies and
individual users alike. Consequently, end users were
more familiar with IT and began acquiring and
developing their own applications. Hardware, software, and telecommunications vendors took note.
By the 1990s, they had changed the name of the
field from IS to IT as they pushed the latest technology solutions. This shift transformed the IT function
from information provider to technology promoter.
The vendors then began bypassing the organizations’
IT leaders, approaching users directly.
This marketing approach also included the hidden cost of complexity, leading to user resistance and
weakening the traditional IT-user relationship. Many
users were indeed intimidated by “too much” technology [ 4]. Technological complexity also reduced
user satisfaction with the related information, along
with respect for IT personnel. Despite vendor
promises that their hardware and software could do
whatever users said they wanted, users often found
the technology actually made it more difficult to
generate information. Many users blamed IT personnel—ironic because IT personnel were often not
involved in and frequently recommended against
such deals. As a result, many business managers even
today do not realize the business benefits of their
organizations’ own technology. Consequently, they
may minimize the IT budget, treating IT as purely
technical support, ignoring the information compo-
nent (the I in IT) [ 2]. Ironically, the CIO of a large
manufacturer with $6 billion in annual sales told us
that in executive meetings he is regularly asked to fix
dysfunctional video projectors because he is viewed
as the number-one technology expert in the room;
the CIO of a major city in Michigan said the same.
This lack of understanding and appreciation may
be partly the fault of IT personnel using technological terminology when interacting with users, at least
in part because they don’t know a better way. This is
not just an IT phenomenon. For example, most purchasers of costly technology-related consumer products like cars, TVs, and PCs do not want to know
how they are produced or the scientific principles on
which they depend. They also react unfavorably to
technical manuals, often refusing to read them [ 4].
One lesson is that IT personnel must learn to interact with users to identify information needs without
mentioning the latest technical enhancement. Only
later, and independent of users, should IT personnel
deploy their technological skills to identify the technology needed to support an organization’s information needs.
This approach reorients the traditional sys-tems/business analyst function in the direction of
information services, embracing users and managers
as partners. IT departments could then identify
opportunities to add value by delivering additional
information, rather than trying to limit themselves
to developing new ways to deliver more data.
Consider how a business organization approaches
its potential customers. It typically employs marketing specialists to conduct market research, aiming to
identify what drives and excites their needs, as well
as how much they are willing to pay for products
and services (perception of value). These specialists
do not invite potential customers into the organization’s technological deliberations. Only after the
market is understood in multiple dimensions are
R&D specialists assigned to work on products. Likewise, only after first “studying” their customers
should IT “marketing” personnel (business analysts)
transfer their findings to IT R&D specialists (
designers and programmers) who evaluate the internal cost
of addressing these needs by developing systems. IT
