In the course of discussions the question was asked “Is their Good Technology and Bad Technology?”. I thought this was an odd question and paused momentarily. Now perhaps it was the fact that I had recently gone through the increasingly security conscious immigration process past all those pistol-packing officials (seriously has an immigration officer ever pulled their weapon and threatened, let alone shot, a prospective immigrant because they had filled in the wrong box on the form?!), but I was reminded of the unshakeable mantra of the National Rifle Association here in the United States – “Guns don’t kill people!”.  Now call me a timid Brit, but my natural aversion to firearms always induces my silent response to this claim “…. but they sure make it a lot easier”.

The same I fear is true of technology. Like guns, technology has no morals, murderous intent or values – it is just stuff. There is no good technology or bad technology but there does appear to be an awful lot of bad implementation! Good technology applied badly usually ends up with the technology getting the blame, usually because it cannot answer back!

Like Darwinian Evolution the good implementations survive, bad ones decay. As Anthropologist and Intel research fellow Genevieve Bell told me some time back – “Technology succeeds when it meets a need that people care about!”. If the technology deployment doesn’t meet a need – it is doomed to extinction. If it doesn’t do anything that people care about, it is equally doomed. Think about that the next time you get seduced by the flashy new toys from the technology sector. Find the need. Find the people who care – and you will succeed!

There I was, gently digesting and deliberating after a hearty meal, when a young nephew comes up and asks me a question. Now he is a studious lad, takes an interest in the world around him and asks questions of adults when he doesn’t understand what is happening. “Can you explain to me” he says, with an angelic smile which disguises the demon lurking inside, “why governments have spent so much money to save the banks, but don’t want to spend the same amount to save the planet?”.

Wow! This boy has a future attending shareholder meetings and asking those awkward questions! Why indeed I pondered, considered the rather lacklustre performance in Copenhagen, compared to the enthusiastic approach to throwing taxpayers money into the financial system. I started to gently explain how important the financial system was to the effective operation of the world economy when I immediately realised that I was going to get caught in a temporal infinite loop worthy of a Doctor Who script – if we don’t save the banks we won’t get to save the planet, but if we don’t save the planet, do the banks even matter? Clearly I was going to have to come up with some killer analysis, and fast. I admit that I failed. At any rate I failed to come up with a simple enough answer to satisfy the innocent (or maybe not so innocent!) inquiry of a pre-teen citizen of the world. Fortunately, the more immediate demands of chocolate and other arriving relatives distracted him from my indecision.

It is a simple question, and attempts to deliver a simple answer appear only to highlight the short sightedness of our elected leaders. I would love to have an answer to satisfy such innocent simple curiosity.

Answers on a postcard please!

“So the question I have for you” he said, leaning back in his chair with the start of a wry smile on his face, “is this – we’ve done all this stuff for our Gen Y workforce – But what has Gen Y ever done for me?”.  Shades of Monty Python and the Romans!! It is a difficult question to answer, because many of the usual benefits about innovation and morale, recruitment and retention, productivity and collaboration are all difficult to measure, there is lots of soft benefits, but not a lot to wave at the CFO come budget time.

Now clearly, since actions speak louder than words, he believed that what he had done was necessary or it would never have happened, but the current conditions often require us to go back and measure and document the benefits. “What has Gen Y ever done for us?” is a very good question and I would welcome your answers (on a digital postcard please!). And don’t bother to mention the roads, or the sewage system – I’ve already got that on the list!

One of the benefits of travelling is that you get to read a lot – and on a flight down to Melbourne (where the weather, mercifully, has returned to something a little more normal) I read avery thought provoking article in Wired regarding the use of geosocial applications (applications which automatically provide information about your location). The writer, Mathew Honan provides a good summary of the benefits but, for the first time in my experience, also drives home the dangers of revealing too much about where you are – like where you are NOT (the negative space thing). For example, tell the world you are going on a trip (and even provide proof of how far you have got) and announce to the world that your house is now empty, time for a little burglary perhaps?

Sure, a smart hacker can gain this information from your cellular carrier, but should we really make it that simple, especially as the law enforcement authorities expect an increase in “acquisitive crime” during economic downturns?

This article might just make you more cautious about revealing too much!

Protectionism has been in the news a bit recently and is an understandable, emotional response to the tragedy of people losing their jobs. But in today’s global economy it simply is not an option. You can protect your own industries but don’t complain when you suffer as a result of other countries doing the same. The technology industry especially is global and that is the end of it. 

The current economic gloom is depressing enough, without the feeling that someone else is having a much easier time of it!

Now this might seem an obvious thing to say, but judging from the questions I get asked, it is worth saying again, and again, and again!  First understand what you are trying to achieve, who is going to use the environment, from where and for what purpose. Understand what you mean by success, and how you are going to measure it. Understand your capabilities (in a technical sense) and those of your users. Understand the likely scale and growth of your requirements – is it a short term trial or a long term deployment that will grow and (hopefully) grow and grow?

Then, and only then, are you ready to start looking at technology platforms.  Choose a platform too early and, since most of us find it tough to admit we made a mistake, you will end up trying to push a square peg into a round hole – with all too predictable results.  Apart from anything else, the market is still evolving at a fairly rapid pace, with new products coming out of beta and existing products becoming more stable and scaleable all the time.

Do yourself a favour – leave the technology decision till last!

Social and anthropological research shows that social groups are unstable beyond a couple of hundred (actually 150 or so in the case of Dunbar, or as much as twice that  in the case of the more recent Bernhard-Killworth, see this wiki entry). So any concept of having a relationship with 60,000 or more is a little unlikely! 

Perhaps that other comic genius Groucho Marx was right when he said “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member!”.

In fairness, the goofy glasses are pretty high tech these days, with fancy LCD shutters turning on and off at warp speed to control what images I receive and confuse my brain. But at a couple of hundred dollars a set would you want to leave them on the sofa for the next teenager to sit on? I think not. They are heavy, they are ugly and they are definitely not cool!

Over the next few weeks I will be looking at and commenting on a whole variety of 3D technologies and giving my verdict, but on this one I’m prepared to stick my neck out and give it a full blown raspberry!

What do you all think? Will they catch on? Will I be forced to appear in public with goofy glasses as penance for my stupidity and lack of imagination? We’ll see!

But this does raise a rather challenging question in my mind. We can all agree that tweets about drinking coffee, going to the bathroom and the rest are instantly forgettable. In the same way, the classic newsphoto “feelgood” image that Janis captured will remain for years. The ability to beam that picture around the world within seconds is the kind of capability that professional news gathering organisations have striven for for decades. But with capability comes responsibility. There is a fine line between the uplifting – OMG look at that, everyone survived a plane crash! and the all too possible alternative of bodies and wreckage. How would we feel about the image then?  Would we have wanted to see such an immediate and shocking image, or would we prefer the sanitized report that would appear after careful editing on the evening news? 

Don’t get me wrong, I have no criticism of the image or the decision to post it, but it does make you think about where we are today. In a research meeting yesterday, one of my colleagues described our current state as having access to “Star Wars technology with Gutenberg’s controls!”. He has a point!

Technology has given us the ability to create powerful images and distribute them around the world within seconds, but are we ready to consider the implications and act as our own censors? Are we as viewers (in whatever sense) ready for the content that we could find arriving on our screens without warning. Amidst a moment of uplifting “feelgood” that will be shared by every airline passenger it is a sobering thought.

Nick is right, scanning the news sites there are numerous conundrums and apparent contradictions. Leaving aside the inevitable speculation about Steve Jobs’ health (he has now been elevated to the status of “National Treasure” by Maggie Shiels, the BBC’s technology reporter based in Silicon Valley) there is a big row brewing over the decision to build a third runway at London’s Heathrow airport. Without wishing to get into the politics of the decision, it does seem somewhat at odds with the heavy and increasing emphasis we see on environmental issues – one of the recurrent themes of CES for example. 

Over the past couple of days (and throughout the night (at least the night in my part of the world!)) we have been running a series of online research meetings here at Gartner, something that in previous years we have done face to face at some central location. Like many companies we are examining the real need for travel and investigating the potential of technology to substitute for travel. Whilst face to face meetings will not go away, it seems clear that the current economic conditions are going to cause organisations and individuals to change their behaviour. The end result is likely to be a reduction, at least for a period of time, in international travel for business purposes, which kind of undermines the decision to build a new runway!

It would be interesting to hear from anyone the extent to which their travel is being impacted by the current conditions and what steps they are taking, and technologies they might now be considering, to replace the need. I look forward to some feedback!