|
re: .0
Your basenote intrigued me. I also printed it and will read it
more closely. The changes we have seen over the past few years
cry out to be put in some type of context. I've included an
essay I wrote over a year ago to help myself try and put some
of these megatrends in context. I'll let you judge whether
its worth anything. (With the readers in this conference, I'm
sure I'll get brutally honest opinions as well.) Mods, if you
think this doesn't apply or add to the discussion, feel free
to move or delete it.
Digital as Information Utility
Glenn Hamilton
1.1 Introduction
I would like to explore the oft-discussed model of Digital
as Information Utility.[1] We must theorize as to what
it might mean to be an Information Utility, since there
is no such enterprise currently in existence (at least
to my knowledge). This invention necessitates the use of
analogy so that we have some basis from which to progress.
Using analogy requires that we take some liberties with
terminology.
1.2 The Power Utility as Analog
We should begin by asking a fundamental question: in a
power utility (one possible analog), where is the most
intellectually interesting, high-margin work accomplished?
At (or near) the generation of the power, rather than
the delivery grid. Scientists and engineers are gainfully
employed in hydroelectric or nuclear engineering projects.
Others devote time and resources toward "alternative", more
"efficient", less "wasteful" sources of power generation.
Technological and political debate rages, synergies
develop, brilliant minds are stretched.
In contrast, the grid that delivers the power, while
interesting during its construction, over the long run
becomes static and uninteresting. Many people (we could
call them "infrastructure technicians", though this term
does not really do them justice) are employed in repairing
and incrementally improving the grid. To repeat, however,
the most important work and most of the brain power is
expended at the power source.
____________________
[1] Jack Smith, Management Memo, Dec. 1991
1
Extending the metaphor, during the early days of
electrification, the design of the user interface (wall
socket) was challenging, as was the wiring and the delivery
of power to the home. Later, some of the best minds in the
world were occupied designing interesting appliances (in
modern parlance, applications) to take advantage of the
power delivered by the new (at that time) infrastructure
and user interface. Now, with admitted exceptions, the user
interface, the infrastructure grid, and the applications
are essentially well known, well-traveled paths. Well known
and well-traveled paths are not those taken by explorers;
nor are they paths that typically lead to breakthrough
thinking. Explorers tend to climb the deadfalls and cut
through the thickets.
1.3 Infrastructure Technicians, Appliance Makers, Power Engineers
If we intend to apply the utility metaphor to Digital's
business, I would argue that we determine as early as
possible whether we want to be infrastructure technicians,
appliance makers, or power engineers. Perhaps we wish
to be all three. More likely, in the coming years we
will transition between two or perhaps all three of the
foregoing expertise sets. In all probability, a necessary
though insufficient condition of continued profitability
will be such transitions.
To be infrastructure technicians or appliance makers, we
should continue to do as we are currently doing: shedding
costs rapidly to become more efficient at technician-like
enterprises, and, like the phone companies (the ultimate
infrastructure technicians), spinning off value-added
services from our incrementally improving information
delivery grid.
Additionally, to be appliance makers we must develop or
acquire the critical skills needed to design, develop,
and deliver commodity applications and hardware. In this
schema, companies like Dell and Zeos (as well as Apple)
are in the appliance manufacturing business. (I would
also lump Microsoft in this category, since they have
won the right to develop the user interface for the new
appliances.) In addition to the phone companies, Novell,
3COM, Banyan, et. al., and the CATV companies are all
infrastructure technicians. The Dow Jones News Retrieval
2
service, Time-Warner, Paramount Pictures, and a plethora of
independent developers (producers), magazines, and related
media companies are the power generation engineers. They
create the information that is subsequently delivered by
the infrastructure grid.
It seems reasonable to suggest that we are in the early
maturation stage of the development of the information
delivery grid infrastructure. Evidence of the related
stasis can be seen in our drive to simplify and focus
our product set; it can also be seen in the anemic growth
of high technology companies. At this stage, it is still
possible to spin off significant revenues from our learning
of the workings of the infrastructure itself, the user
interface, and the design of appliances. This will probably
be true into the early years of the next century. To be a
viable enterprise well into the next century, however, we
must move closer to the power source.
If we wish to be power engineers, we must make risky,
expensive investments. The shift in capabilities that we
must undergo is breathtaking. IBM's investment in Time-
Warner (imminent as I write this) is an example of the leap
that must be taken; Sony's purchase of a movie company is
another. Both of these corporate decisions, in my view,
represent recognition of the need to move closer to the
power source-that is, the mass generation of information.
1.4 Effects of the Changing Information Delivery Infrastructure
The metamorphosis of the delivery infrastructure (not
unlike a creature in a John Carpenter film) is well
underway. A multitude of information delivery capabilities
(satellite, CATV, Internet, and permutations and
combinations thereof) provide, or in some cases, force
feed, consumers with massive amounts of information.
Moreover, the sheer velocity of the information continues
to distort both the social and business fabric. This has
been well documented for at least 25 years [2]. Twenty
years ago, Toffler [3] eloquently restated the problem.
Since the early 1970s, analysts, futurists, pundits,
consultants, and science fiction writers have expounded
____________________
[2] McCluhan, The Medium is the Message, 1967
[3] Future Shock, 1972
3
on the agony and the ecstasy of the information economy.
We are alternately treated to Orwellian, technophobic,
nightmarish views and the equally unlikely "high-tech,
high-touch" world of Naisbitt and Aberdeen [4]. What are
we to make of this information assault? Maybe the more
important question for us is: wherein lies the opportunity?
1.5 Information Overload
Part, or maybe most, of the confusion is that our society
(including the business community) is experiencing
information overload. The quality of the information we
receive is generally not good, while the quantity and
velocity are overwhelming. People have simply not evolved
fast enough to develop filtering mechanisms. Furthermore,
in polar opposition to an engineering first principle,
the form in which we receive information is improving at a
much faster rate than the content; the information on my TV
screen seems much more accurate than it likely is. If it's
in the computer, it is, a priori, true.
I believe that one of the reasons for the "high-technology
recession" is that we have not yet learned how to provide
"context-full" information. Our expertise has been that
of infrastructure technicians; we can (and do), seemingly
without end, increase the efficiency with which our grid
delivers information (measured in MIPS and multi-gigabit
throughput), but we have not delivered information in a
context that makes it indispensable, as electrification is
indispensable, to the lives of our customers. I disagree
with those who say the future belongs to the people who
design the perfect user interface; I believe that wealth
and fame will go to the people who solve the information-
context dilemma. It is only through the appropriate context
and filtering mechanisms that information becomes knowledge
and wisdom. Without the context and filtering, what we get
is a maelstrom.
The maelstrom is guarded against in a business context by
the security blanket of bureaucracy and its inseparable
companion, "analysis paralysis".
____________________
[4] Megatrends, 1983, Megatrends 2000, 1986
4
1.6 Gutenberg and the Other Information Explosion
In order to see how a previous information explosion was
controlled through the provision of context, we need a
historical perspective. In the years after Gutenberg's
invention of movable type, humans experienced another
information explosion. The effect was, as it turned out,
benign. In fact, it was better than simply benign. On
balance it was beneficial to humankind, driving as it did
a love of learning (the Renaissance) on a scale not seen
since.
Within 50 years of the invention (c. 1450-1500),
substantially all of the world's written work was in
print form and being disseminated. The invention rapidly
increased the velocity of information (relatively
speaking). The difference between then and now was that
the world was able to develop a context within which to
place the information. This context consisted of three
phenomena. One was the translation (100 or so years
prior to Gutenberg's invention) of the classics into the
vernacular so they were accessible and understandable
(read: user-friendly) to average people. [5]
A second phenomenon was to be found in the information
itself: the books first translated and disseminated
represented the highest intellectual achievements of
human history to that point; i.e., they were high quality
information.
The third phenomenon was a prevailing "thought-world" [6]
that helped limit and interpret the information; moreover,
the institution that provided this "service" (primarily
the Church), was in its heyday. The institution was trusted
and respected. My point is not to argue for or against the
institutional interpretation and limitation of information,
nor is it to suggest that the institution's interpretations
____________________
[5] A History of Knowledge, 1992
[6] Neil Postman, Technopoly, 1992
5
were for the better or worse. The point is to suggest only
that there was a limitation. [7]
Contrast the foregoing with the situation we have today.
The information glut (and, I think, the technological
nature of much of the information) does not support
understanding (i.e., it is not, for the most part, user-
friendly). Also, in a relative sense, the information
is not of high quality (witness the growth of tabloid
newspapers and television and their latent effect on the
mainstream media). In what I believe to be an irony of
Kafka-esque proportions, the information we need is not
user-friendly, while the information that distorts our
lives is eminently accessible.
Finally, our institutions are suffering; they are generally
not trusted as they once were to limit and help us
interpret the information we receive. There is no dominant
context or "thought-world" within which to place the
information that we generate and disseminate. In short,
people are unprepared to filter out the information they
need from the incessant noise.
It should be noted that the historical analogy breaks down
here in the sense that information had a much longer shelf-
life in the 16th century than it does today. The short life
cycle of information complicates matters to an unknown,
but probably significant, degree. Unlike the previous
information explosion, the cells in this one seem to be
malformed; one hopes those cells are not malignant. But it
is only with the perspective of five centuries that we can
say the previous information explosion was benign.
____________________
[7] It is interesting to note that educational
institutions also began to take root during this
period. Their purpose? The limitation and focus of
the information available in book form.
6
1.7 Digital's Challenge
Digital's task, thankfully, will not be to solve society's
information glut. But it surely must be our task to help
our customers assimilate the information in their business
domains. A daunting task indeed, since we also are being
assaulted by information and are reeling from the effects.
If we wish to be power engineers, however (or information
engineers, as it were), we must take responsibility for
the side-effects of the information we generate. We must
learn to focus and limit information, just as a nuclear
power engineer must take into account what will happen
to the waste by-products of the fission process. We must
develop, in partnership with our customers, relevant,
viable "thought-worlds" or contexts within which we and
they can turn information into knowledge and wisdom. We
must solve the information-context dilemma. [8]
If we are to solve the information-context problem, we
shall have to do so in a stepwise fashion. Since people
have lost faith in the abilities of large institutions
to help them adequately manage their lives, it is very
unlikely that they will allow the overt institutional
management of information flow. This would, in the eyes of
most people, be an especially egregious form of censorship.
Yet, if we return to the utility metaphor, perhaps there is
still a way to focus the information.
A power utility typically owns the resources from the power
generation source all the way to the user interface of the
appliances in the house. (This may be an arguable point,
since they don't actually own the wires and wall sockets
in a house. However, since they have set the standards by
which a house can accept electrification, they may as well
own the wires and the interface.) The utility provides, in
theory, an unlimited supply of electricity to the house;
it is up to the owner of the appliances within the house to
determine the usage.
____________________
[8] Another example of a relevant thought-world that
(usually) accomplishes its purpose is American
jurisprudence; it is a system that, via a well-
defined process, specifically limits and provides
a strict context to information (e.g., the rules of
evidence). See Postman, Technopoly, 1992.
7
The owner or user of the appliances interacts with
the utility by deciding how much and when to use the
electricity. We could say, then, that the utility is not
pushing power at the appliances, so much as the appliances,
under control of the user, are pulling exactly the needed
amount of power for some task they are accomplishing. The
utility, then, makes available a virtually unlimited amount
of power to the appliances, but the user determines how
much to use and when (and more importantly, the economic
necessity of the task requiring the power).
This, it seems to me, is a model we need to explore in more
detail. In the jargon of the economists, the utility would
be in a demand pull environment, rather than a service
push environment. How, for example, do energy consumers
make intelligent choices? After the energy shocks of the
1970s, businesses were built around the concept of giving
advice on the wise use of energy. These companies, for
all intents and purposes, partnered with homeowners to
determine how much energy they really needed, where they
could save energy, use less to accomplish the same tasks,
etc. This partnering resulted in a thought-world. Without
the help of institutions (the government and, for that
matter the utilities, were far behind) a thought-world that
helped focus and limit the use (and need for) power was the
result.
1.8 Conclusion
In sum, we must be prepared (both financially and in terms
of of skills) to continue to agressively spin off revenues
from our existing infrastructure. The more important point
however, is that we must be prepared to invest profit to
pay for a long term transition to a business that generates
information.
If people are, as the evidence suggests, staggered by the
information onslaught, we need to provide the capability
for an information demand pull environment[9], as well as a
____________________
[9] This is, for the most part, a technical problem, and
eminently solvable in the infrastructure. The real
problem will be in deciding to what extent we want
to be in the information generation business and
8
partnering capability with our customers that has, as its
guiding philosophy, the development of a context for our
customers' information requirements, and a determination of
how we can get that information to those customers, exactly
when they want it, in the form they want it, and in the
measure they want it.
____________________
in developing the skills and knowledge necessary to
help our customers develop thought-worlds for their
business domains.
9
|
| I'm delighted by the number and depth of responses to this so far.
I especially like the point (.4) that we need a transition plan for
getting wherever we choose to go. Someone told me recently that Bob
Palmer uses the metaphor of changing the engines on a 747--but not
having the option of landing it first, we have to keep flying. Right
on. And, I like the point (.15) that commitment to excellence for
customers is vital.
I certainly see Alpha as a great part of what keeps us flying at all.
We ought to be very grateful for the foresight (I first heard this
enunciated by Sam Fuller, I think it was at least 10 years ago) to go
to 64 bits; we are ahead of a bunch of others, and HP has been
reported recently to have a catch-Digital effort in response. And we
certainly have no option about continued commitment to excellence in
everything that we do for customers.
My view here was longer range, which of course makes it barely relevant
to anything in the here and now. However, if you don't plant an acorn
you might look around someday and wonder why no oak when it's too late.
The information utility paper kind of fascinated me. Especially the
remark that of course it fortunately won't be Digital's job to deal
with anybody's information overload. I'm kind of sensitized to the
phrase "of course" which I hear as a marker for switch-off of the
critical faculty. Maybe we should turn this over, as actually I
think the author started to do right in the same paragraph. What if
we started from the premise that just as Digital technology is no
longer scarce and Equipment is fast waning as a measure of human
weath and well being, information too is getting to be an embarassment
of riches. After all, we have all these educated people who can
think fast and type fast and are connected to us by high bandwidth
fibers and satellites and phone-cells. What we used to have a
librarian specially trained for may soon be pretty much availble
from any number of $1 a minute consultants over the networks of the
world, some of whom probably will not have quite finished graduating
from High School and some of whom probably live in the Equatorial belt
in relative poverty, keeping the cost per minute really low for their
information-tailoring services. After all, I just want my information;
I don't care if it came by way of Bahia, Brazil.
I like the point about trucks and planes continuing to cost a lot while
information and communication keep getting cheaper. I just wish I
thought we had a natural advantage at Digital in building something
that is more like trucks and planes than what we actually have
experience doing.
The one thing we have at Digital that I think might hold its productive
value well over a long time is--how shall I say this--committed,
growing people. At our best, we have kept our people in touch with
customers and suppliers and each other (at our worst unfortunately,
we've had people sadly isolated) and in a maelstrom of contending
ideas we all grow. And at our best we commit ourselves to promising
what we can deliver and then stretching as need be to deliver on it.
And in a world where Digital technology and Equipment and even
Information are all ubiquitous and cheap and getting moreso, we may
be fairly rare birds if we keep striving toward more excellence in
the human dimensions.
For example: how did Sam Fuller have the vision so long ago (or
whoever suggested it to him first....) to move to 64 bits this early?
How did Gordon Bell and Alan Kotok (I hope my credits are not too far
off the mark) much earlier see the possiblity for a 12-bit micro-
controller for core memory testers that could also be sold as an
independent computer (some say the first RISC machine)? Both of these
were kind of "in the tea leaves" but Digital people saw and acted.
(And to pick a nit with MMarland: words *are* commitment sometimes.)
And how did we have enough others so that one or two or a few peoples'
visionary ideas gathered force quick enough and we got it done? What
allowed the team to share the ideas and volunteer as quick as needed?
Gordon used to articulate the principle that we should sell what we use
and use what we sell. In those days, I think he meant hardware and
maybe software. Today, I think the principle still applies that if
we're doing it for ourselves we'll get good at it and stay good at it,
and if we aren't we won't. But today I think the center of gravity is
shifting away from what I call "stuff" and toward something else that
we are using and should be selling. I'm groping here, as I was groping
in my base note. Wetware? Too vague a term and not quite on target.
Something like: ad hoc development and learning.
Something like: muddling through difficult situations without actually
killing each other or ourselves, and making it come out well despite
great hazards. Something like: living our working lives as creative,
contributory adventures. Something like: cooperating and teaming
to serve customers and go the extra mile, when we are tempted to find a
good excuse and let George do it. I'm not being articulate I'm afraid.
Whatever it is, there was a time not long ago when someone had a few
bumper stickers printed up that said I love Digital (with a read heart
for "love") and by popular demand a whole bunch more got printed. And
whatever it is, there was a time not long ago when people with a
college degree would work as a secretary or a Chip Fab technician
because this was the one company, the one and only company, that the
person wanted to work in. To some extent this was the wish to climb
aboard a winner but I don't think that was all of it. I think we
were doing something for customers that made peoples' blood warm up
a little bit. We made a difference in customers' lives, and that
was no accident. That was what we were committed to doing. And while
we were at it we would open plants in inner cities and make sure women
and minorities had as near a fair shake as we could contrive. And when
we considered opening in South Africa Jack (white) took Jim and Bob
(both black) and looked it over and decided, on the grounds that there
were strict laws against putting black people in positions of
authority, that it just wasn't right and we wouldn't do it.
What do you call all this? I can't seem to quite pin it down.
Whatever it is, if it could be bottled and sold we should bottle it
and sell it. Since it can't be, we should find out what else we can
do with it and sell that. I think it's in the area of "consulting
services" maybe--but I'm not sure we wouldn't have to change the
definition of "consulting services" to make whatever-it-is fit.
And then yes, of course we need a transition plan that keeps us flying
as we transition. But if it comes out of the essence of this company,
I don't know that the transition has to be awfully slow or tedious.
If we really became articulate about what the essential greatness of
the company and our people has been and still is, maybe all we need
to do is re-state (as an act of committed speaking you see...) who
we are and what we stand for. I imagine we can still sell a lot of
hardware and software and information as accessories to it
Russ
|
| Digital was a place that empowered people. Young engineers with good
ideas were given a chance to change the world. We were a company with a
can do spirit yet we didn't take ourselves too seriously.
I remember interviewing in 1981 as I was finishing school and being
drawn to Digital like a magnet. One of my interviewers explained the
reason Digital was so successful was that we had software. It wasn't
very good, but at least we had it.
We had authenticity and integrity. Engineers from all over the company
talked openly with each other and with customers. We weren't afraid to
try new things, make mistakes, and learn from them. We talked about
them, even argued about them, and learned together.
We were decentralized. Authority was pushed down into the lower ranks
as far as it would go. The hierarchy was flexible. You could have as
much authority as you convinced other people you had.
We tolerated a lot of chaos and ambiguity. People could try almost
anything if they convinced others to go along. We built a network that
allowed people from all over the world to work together to solve their
problems.
I remember joking the reason competitors couldn't figure out what DEC
was doing is that we didn't know ourselves.
We valued diversity. We were egalitarian. Secretaries could train
themselves and be promoted to technician or engineer. We judged each
other by our ideas and abilities, not our lifestyles or credentials.
We were informal. Engineers could wear blue jeans and sleep till noon and
still be valued employees. We respected what each person had to
contribute.
I remember meeting Ken with a group of new hires and someone
asking Ken what they should do if they had an idea for how to do
something differently. Ken looked him straight in the eye and
said: "Scheme,... do everything you can to convince people your
idea is right. But don't just have one idea, have ten because
nine out of ten times you will lose."
This doesn't mean everything was rosy. Digital is a huge decentralized
bureaucracy and different parts had their own norms. But somehow Digital
succeeded in bringing out the best in a lot of people.
What went wrong?
There is no simple answer. Part of it was inevitable and part was due
to our own inattention. As we became bigger and more successful, it was
much harder to remain personally connected. We tried to be more like a
big company (IBM?!). We separated engineers from customers. We tried
to look more "professional". We tried to do it all ourselves (locking
customers in to proprietary versus open solutions). We made some
strategic mistakes: misunderstanding the importance of PCs and why
people would want computers at home; investing in capital intensive
automation and super computers; over-valuing our software compared to
the emerging PC market; allowing personal empires to squander precious
resources. As our growth slowed, it became harder to remain open and
flexible. We had to get better control of our spending and assets, but
this hurt morale and creativity.
It hurts. We've lost a lot. But it's not too late. The problems are
much bigger than just us. The whole economy is suffering. We can still
create a healthy future.
What will it take? I don't claim to have the whole answer,
but would like to offer some ideas for your consideration.
It will require letting go of the past and no more blame. If you see
something that isn't right, be gentle on the people but hard on the
problem. Propose a constructive alternative. If you're not sure what
it is, give it time to emerge. We are all victims of a system that
isn't working. We all need to be supported to help transform it.
It will require courage to face our past mistakes and toughest problems
squarely. What is the reality, and how can we respond? What works, and
what doesn't?
We need to dream beyond the current limitations to the future we want.
---
Finally, I'd like to share my own vision. It's up to all of us to
try and see reality clearly so we can respond with what is needed.
As I've written in previous notes (2827.18 and .20), part of our problem
is we are not thinking whole. In our pursuit of short term gains,
we often undermine our own longer term prosperity.
We need to think in terms of minimizing waste instead of maximizing
short term output and minimizing cost. This is the essence of SIX
SIGMA and other TQM approaches. Waste includes any duplicated effort,
unnecessary steps, or even variability that may require future
corrective action. We need to consider waste across the entire
system including those to whom we deliver our services and those
who will come after us. No more shifting-the-burden.
No more low value differentiation.
In our economy, it is possible to grow more food per acre using
industrial agriculture practices that sacrifice the top soil and pollute
the ground water. Approximately half the top soil of the North American
continent has been lost to erosion in the last 200 years and the rate is
increasing. Food production is starting to decline.
Timber prices are low due to a glut on the market while at the same time
we are running out of old growth forests to cut.
Fish stocks are depleted around the world due to over fishing.
Fisherman either have to get out, or invest in the latest large scale
equipment (huge drift nets and sonar) to compete. But this investment
depletes global fish stocks even more.
"The waste-heaps, polluted waters, sterile and eroded soils, the forests
devastated by clear-cutting, the toxic chemicals, the radioactive waste,
the thinning ozone layer; we see all this, yet we continue creating
these chemicals, clear-cutting the forests, polluting the waters, piling
up enormous waste heaps, destroying wetlands. Even though the
industrial bubble is already dissolving, even while the end of the
petroleum basis of the economy is in sight, even now the commercial-
industrial world insists that this is the only way to survival."
[Thomas Berry]
My second major point is that we live in a closed interdependent
system with finite limits, yet our economic and cultural ideas were
formed in an age when you could cut as many trees as you wanted, catch
as many fish as you wanted, and burn as much oil as you wanted because
there was always more where that came from. When our ancestors came
here, this was a vast open continent which required a lot of equipment
to tame and settle. Today we are running out of the very things which
are most critical to sustain us.
In many households, both parents must work to make ends meet. As each
generation takes for granted what was a luxury for their parents. We
have to work even harder to pay for it all. Our rural communities are
designed such that having two cars is often essential. Telephone
answering machines, VCRs, dishwashers, day care, they are becoming
the norm.
In the current recession, hundreds of thousands of college educated
professionals are being laid off, part of the most educated work force
ever assembled. The economists aren't exactly sure what to make of it.
It looks like a recovery, but the job growth isn't there and
inflationary pressure still looms. Corporate America is still shedding
workers. Many look to consumer spending to lead the recovery.
"This recession is not simply an economic recession of any one nation
or even of the entire human community. It is a recession of the
entire planet in the most basic aspects of its functioning. The Earth
simply cannot sustain the burden imposed upon it. The air has become
too polluted to sustain life in its former vigor. The water of the
planet is toxic for an indefinite period of time. The soils of the
Earth are saturated with chemicals. The limitless consumption by the
industrial nations and the increase in population of the non-
industrial nations have brought us to an impasse for which only a
drastic remedy can be in any manner effective."
[Thomas Berry, The New Political Alignment]
Our challenge is not growth, but how to reduce consumption while still
meeting every one's needs?
"While some would claim that the computer is a symbol of what's wrong
with our technology, our society, and our attitude towards the
earth,...Most of us will never give up our PCs, much less the rest of
modern civilization. Computers are integral to our work, vital to
managing our complex society, and just too much fun to forego. The PC
is am empowering invention, one that gives us new freedoms that, once
tasted, are difficult to live without.
And there are good reasons to set computers apart from other products of
high technology. Unlike cars and nuclear power plants, computers can
emulate and replace a wide range of other technologies at less cost to
the environment. For example, working at home and sending computer
files by modem to your office is more environmentally benign (as well as
more healthy and more satisfying) than commuting to work three hours a
day by car." [Steven Anzovin, The Green PC]
Can computers really be part of a sustainable future? I'd like to
try. This is my vision. Digital should lead the revolution toward
sustainable information technology. Affordable systems that empower
ordinary people. Systems that don't require complex administration
or learning to operate. Systems that perform their task well and
just work, and work, and work. Systems that serve communities
instead of alienating people.
We should be pushing the envelope of telecommuting. Our flexible
decentralized culture and networking strengths make us a natural.
Hundreds of Digital employees have begun this already on their own
initiative. Employees who work at home need computing and network
services. ETV, what are we waiting for!
Reduced working hours? Absolutely! Imagine the talent we could attract
by offering people a 30 hour work week with good benefits. Enabling
employees to give more to their families and communities while consuming
less is a profound step in the right direction.
We should not be afraid to use other peoples technology when it's the
best for the job (Macintosh and PCs). We should build on it to create
solutions better than it alone can provide.
We already have a leading resource recovery program. Let's leverage
this into a corporate asset. Let's focus our best efforts to build
products that consume less energy, last longer, are manufactured
responsibly, and are easy to disassemble and recover when their useful
life is over.
Have you noticed how we are having more trouble maintaining our own
internal systems? The printers and copiers seem to be down more often.
The dial-up lines seem out service more of the time. Our information
bases were designed to control and protect information rather than make
it easy to maintain. We're supposedly entering the Information Age, but
the value of information is making the right information available when
and where it is needed. Businesses throughout the economy are having
the same problems we are. If we could apply our knowledge of
distributed systems and network management to address this, we
would truly be leading the information industry.
While I'm not advocating we change our name, the name I would choose
is something like:
Sustainable Information Technology, Incorporated (SITI ?)
Is this real? Are we the right people to do it?
We are one of the few complete systems companies with the global reach
and perspective to do it. Much of what is needed resonates with the
best of our past culture. I think we are hurting for lack of a
compelling big vision.
I'd like to know what you think.
- Peter
P.S. Thanks to the previous noters for their stimulus to write this.
|