1.6 Technology s Global Challenge

1.6 Technology’s Global Challenge

The new frontier for technology in the twenty-first century will be that of global information proliferation. The impact of ubiquitous technology on societies with a slower rate of adoption is a growing concern for business leaders and is rapidly becoming a political issue. Governments are weighting the benefits of using technology as a lever for progress and economic viability over the stigma associated with technology’s adverse effect on local cultures. The world’s perception of new technology as a mechanism for cultural erosion, more specifically as a tool to propagate western ideals, influences the depth to which governments will employ technology as a part of the social infrastructure. The dichotomy between technology’s benefit and adverse effects on culture makes the applied use of technology by local governments more a political decision than an economic one. Technology’s direct application to the advance of education (as discussed in section 1.1), its ability to transform small businesses and its use as a medium for cultural exchange must have an express goal of increasing the quality of life and an implied goal of being used as a mechanism for economic growth. Society in general assumes that the continual evolution of technology and its effect on everyday life leads to an increase in our quality of life. Naturally, ‘quality of life’ is a relative expression, being open to a wide range of interpretations. On the whole, however, the quality of life is accepted as the contribution to a positive progression of society.

Technological progress is a process of replacement and renewal, which implies that for new technology to add value, it must make previously unknown things possible, or older technology obsolete. Put simply, the effect of technology is causal: for every winner there must be a loser. Unfortunately, in most cases the losers only become apparent when viewing the transition from a historical perspective, such as the agricultural technological process of shifting the agrarian workforce to an industrial production workforce in the twentieth-century United States. In this case, US farmers actually lost their vocation or career, although the productivity per acre improved, as well as the volume of production, which increased with technology. Farmers were thus what the industry calls ‘tech-losers’. As Postman observed, as the ubiquity of technology spreads progress across the globe, it also creates these two categories of people: tech- winners and tech-losers:

This was the question, by the way, that gave rise to the Luddite movement in England during the years 1811 to 1818. The people we call Luddites were skilled manual workers in the garment industry at the time when mechanization was taking command and the factory system was being put into place. They knew perfectly well what advantages mechanization would bring to most people, but they saw with equal clarity how it would bring ruin to their own way of life, especially to their children who were being employed as virtual slave laborers in factories. They resisted technological change by the simplistic and useless expedient of smashing to bits industrial machinery, which they continued to do until they were imprisoned or killed by the British army. ‘Luddite’ has thus come to mean a person who resists technological change in any way, and it is usually used as an insult.^[37]

Technology thus creates tech-losers, people who cannot be integrated into the changing technological environment, or fear losing their lifestyle due to the progress of technology. By the same token, tech-winners are people like Bill Gates:

who is, of course, a winner, knows this, and because he is no fool, his propaganda continuously implies that computer technology can bring harm to no one. That is the way of winners: they want losers to be grateful and enthusiastic and, especially, to be unaware that they are losers.^[38]

Postman also has strong views concerning schoolteachers and their constant enthusiasm for the idea that there should be more computers available in schools. In Postman’s view, computers in classrooms do not add value to the education given to children. What would indeed add value is better wages and better training for teachers who are actually performing the difficult task of educating future citizens. However, schoolteachers, whom Postman clearly identifies as tech-losers, are the first ones to enthuse for an increased investment in computer technology. If there is no data supporting the idea that computers in classrooms do add value to the educational process, then why spend even more money on them? Postman uses as a case study the $100 million investment on computer technology in the state of Maryland in 1996. He wonders if the state of Maryland had decided instead to spend the same amount of money to increase the number of teachers and pay more to the existing ones in order to reduce teaching loads, how teachers would have reacted:

One might think that most teachers would support such an investment, but we hear very little from them on the score. In fact, many teachers are thrilled by the thought of a $100 million investment in computer terminals. Bill Gates must love this sort of stupidity.^[39]

Postman’s caustic observations indicate that our perception of the ‘goodness’ of technology reduces our ability to place its application in a wider context. There is little supporting evidence to substantiate the perception that knowledge is increased by the use of computers in the classroom other than the fact that they enable students to gain access to additional sources of information, that is, Internet sites. The perception is based on the preconceived notion that information on the Internet has a qualitative value. Without a comprehensive study of the Internet’s contents, the quality of information is only a myth, whereas the quantity is indeed a reality. That said, one could argue that giving schools access to a comprehensive university library would have the same or greater effect as that of the computer, as Rasmussen points out:

Although information technology may undoubtedly be a good tool in education, it is at the same time evident that it may develop into a dangerous direction in the case of exaggerated use. Collection and processing of data may be an end in itself or another excuse for not trying other forms of education.^[40]

Conversely, one value proposition is clear: computers in a classroom do allow students to study independently of a teacher, effectively allowing teachers to spend more time with students with special needs. In either case, computers in a classroom offer students a glimpse of the skills and tools that they will need to develop and acquire later in life, such as word processing, spreadsheets, search engines and familiarity with source materials. The by-product of their computer experience will be an increased awareness of the world and a keen understanding of how to communicate via the Internet with other world citizens.

The emerging generation of students possess a greater understanding of how the nations of the world may turn to the Internet to influence their progress. Richard Meier postulates that information technologies such as the Internet can be used as a two-way bridge between the newly aware digital population and the technologically challenged nations.^[41] His ‘technological gap theory’ seeks to explain changes in the pattern of international trade over time. It is based on a dynamic sequence of technological and product innovation and diffusion. Technologically advanced countries with a high propensity to innovate are able to achieve trade advantages by offering sophisticated new products, initially unobtainable from other sources, on to the world markets. Over time, however, the technology is diffused and adopted by other countries which are then able to supply the products themselves. As less digital populations acquire interaction community technologies, they can use them to facilitate the distribution of aid to highly targeted areas of need. Meier additionally identifies six distinct areas in which technology can be used to reduce the ‘technology gap’ and eventually the socio-economic gap:

• Eleemosynary exchanges: Matching donors to needs in a coordinated global network consisting of governments, charities and other action groups, pinpointing populations which require assistance, thus reducing the time between need and relief.

• Micro-enterprise formation: Providing access to micro-capital markets to stimulate investment and loan activity in small businesses.

• Interactive learning: Supplementing education by connecting teachers, sharing research materials, providing remote lessons and access to hard-to-find source materials.

• Famine prevention: Prompt distribution of foodstuffs using expert systems and predictive weather satellite data to deliver emergency subsistence immediately.

• Social justice and political stability: Facilitating a higher degree of social communication, thus increasing the awareness of human rights.

• High-level entrepreneurship: Educated local entrepreneurs can readily assess opportunities and match talent to facilitate small business growth.

Freeman rightly points out that access to technology alone is not a viable solution; it must be part of a more complete solution. In his words:

What the post-war experience demonstrates therefore is an extremely uneven process of catch-up by developing countries, depending upon their technical capability and on imports of technologies. But the import of technologies is very far from the costless diffusion of perfect information assumed in pure versions of neo-classical economic theory. Technologies cannot be taken ‘off the shelf’ and simply put into use anywhere. Without infrastructural investment in education, training, R&D, and other scientific and technical activities, very little can be accomplished by way of assimilation of imported technologies.^[42]

It is clear that technology does not have a curative effect on social, economic and educational deficiencies. Technology must be used within a comprehensive social agenda, economic plan or educational curriculum. The application of technology to global problems is not limited to information or communications technologies. A host of new technological offerings that are not necessarily connected to information systems possesses the power to influence global social development (and business growth). They include: automatic replenishment, biometrics, compact long-lasting energy sources, digital high-definition TV, edutainment, hybrid fuels, pen-computing, personal security technologies, smart cards and eMoney, smart cash and cash registers, smart maps and tracking devices, the next generation of PCs, wearable technology and wireless technology.

However, as discussed in section 1.4, the intention of these technologies may not be the use which generates its long-term value propositions. Value propositions change with society, and many factors contribute to the successful renewal of a technology to influence socio-economic progress. Czerniawska and Potter identify two primary obstacles facing the application of technology:

The first is a lack of imagination. Look at the press today (1998); some 90 per cent of its reporting on the information revolution revolves around the Internet and the World Wide Web. Look at where today’s talent is going. It is flooding like lemmings into the sexy subjects of multimedia, developing web browsers and so on. In short, it is moving into the technological plumbing as if this were the next gold rush. Changes to people’s lives are not made by changes to technology but by the application and exploitation of that technology. We do not see the training, the university courses, the enthusiasm for understanding how this technology can be exploited.^[43]

The shortfall in imagination with regard to the application of technology can be attributed to some extent to the high premium industry has placed on the creative aspect of technological innovation. Research laboratories such as IBM’s Hawthorn lab in New York have in recent years turned their attention to the applied side of innovation, working closer with customers and users in their design research. This process in effect endeavours to build applicability into the innovation and design processes. Unfortunately, this marriage of applied and design sciences has not proliferated throughout the software industry, as also noted by Czerniawska and Potter:

The second [obstacle facing the application of technology] is the software industry. Whereas factories and machines are the building blocks of economic life in the physical world, the building blocks of the virtual world are software programs. And the problem with software is that its development is essentially an art: people redesign and reinvent with alarming regularity. The industry is new. It has yet to develop specialist roles such as architects, structural engineers and quantity surveyors; it has yet to develop the concept (although people are trying) of reusable parts.^[44]

In this sense, one of the problems facing the industry’s ability to create an inventory of reusable component parts is the lack of specificity on what the components will build when brought together. The lack of a final product coupled with the problem of keeping components technologically up to date is discussed by Pacey:

Most inventions have been made with a specific social purpose in mind, but many also have an influence which nobody had expected or intended. The reality is perhaps easier to comprehend by thinking about the concept of technology-practice with its integral socio-components. Innovation may then be seen as the outcome of a cycle of mutual adjustments between social, cultural and technical factors. The cycle may begin with a technical idea, or a radical change in organization, but either way, there will be interaction with the other factors as the innovation comes to fruition.^[45]

From a business perspective, the new-found global character of technology presents a myriad of opportunities on which to capitalize, requiring a pragmatic approach to strategic initiatives. As businesses large and small operate globally as international commercial entities, the business processes which define firms’ value propositions will become less defined as organizations outsource, affiliate, collaborate and engage in new forms of co-opetition. This level of business redefinition will cause organizations to examine the underlying business processes, from a value perspective, not in the classical sense of a benefit, but with a focus on total cumulative process value. When firms engage in this business realignment, individual processes will experience a progressive assimilation due to the new capabilities which technology brings to execution processes and, more importantly, subprocesses. Progressive assimilation is when a business process is modified by – or becomes so closely aligned to – the preceding or adjacent process that some of its functionality is replicated or engaged in a similar function. This state of process operation is often overlooked when processes are continually being revised to accommodate changes in the business environment. Organizations operating or anticipating operating in a global environment must not develop specific rules on how to conduct business in each geography, but adopt an operating philosophy in which individuals in the firm understand the express goals but are granted latitude in crafting solutions that conform to the idiosyncratic characteristics of their local business environment. When developing globalizing business plans, three interoperating factors must be considered:

Think global:

• Economies of scale (reduce cost of service)

• Brand strategy (reduce cost of sales)

• Service aggregation (increase revenue)

Act regional:

• Tailored services (increase customer satisfaction)

• Co-opetition with partners (increase customers)

Look local:

• Interoperation with partners (increase service)

• Merge brand/products (commoditize, customize and optimize)

The key to developing comprehensive business strategies that leverage technology, people and resources is to shift the analysis of adding value within a firm to a global perspective. As Capra succinctly puts it:

The great shock of twentieth-century science has been that systems cannot be understood by analysis. The properties of the parts are not intrinsic properties, but can be understood only within the context of the larger whole. Thus the relationship between the parts and the whole are reversed. In the systems approach, the properties of the parts can be understood only from the organizations of the whole. Accordingly, systems thinking is ‘contextual’, which is opposite of analytical thinking. Analysis means taking something apart in order to understand it; systems thinking means putting it into the context of the whole.^[46]

Basically saying that Aristotle would have been a lousy businessman, Capra believes that the evolution of technology must be seen in the context of not only how much it can contribute to a business’s profitability, but also in a global context, which is the way in which businesses derive value. As we shall be seeing in the next four chapters, in a global context businesses derive value from:

• Structure, people’s skills and other business activities

• The changes occurring in the global business environment, such as disintermediation

• The shifting attitudes of cross-cultural customers

• The extent to which the convergence of the above factors will influence design.

Let us now proceed to an analysis of the structure of businesses, people’s skills and management practices in an appraisal of modern corporate bureaucracies.

^[37]N. Postman, Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century: How the Past Can Improve our Future (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999) p. 46.

^[38]Ibid.

^[39]Ibid., p. 48.

^[40]L. B. Rasmussen, ‘Consequences of Information Technology. The Design of Inquiring Systems and Culture’. In L. Yngstr m, R. Sizer, J. Berleur and R. Laufer (eds) Can Information Technology Result in Benevolent Bureaucracies? (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1991) p. 64.

^[41]R. L. Meier, ‘Late-blooming Societies can be stimulated by information technology’, Futures, Vol 32 Number 1 (2000) p. 168.

^[42]C. Freeman, ‘The Learning Economy of International Inequality’. In D. Archibugi and B. Lundvall (eds) The Globalizing Learning Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) p. 156.

^[43]F. Czerniawska and G. Potter, Business in a Virtual World. Exploiting Information for Competitive Advantage (Basingstoke: Macmillan – now Palgrave Macmillan, 1998) p. 22.

^[44]Ibid.

^[45]A. Pacey, The Culture of Technology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983) p. 25.

^[46]F. Capra, The Web of Life (London: HarperCollins, 1996) pp. 29–30.