These are not too unfamiliar words that most users of computerised systems have uttered and systems professionals heard. It is not uncommon to have beautiful system designed and shelved simply because the user does not accept it, or is not too keen to use it.
Computers are proliferating business organisations and entering every walk of our life. But a closer look will reveal that man is still not at ease with this device. He is perplexed, foxed, fidgety and sometimes angry when dealing with this creature. Though the computerisation scenario in our country may look very euphoric, if we look deep into what is happening in most of the companies trying to introduce computers, it will be evident that deep inside, this technology is still foreign to us. When everything in the office was being done manually, the manager was so used to changing methods by simply instructing his clerk to do it in a different way. Today, though several manual processes have been replaced by computerised processes, the manager has not changed his habbits. . He suddenly tells the programmer to change the method of calculation and expects things to change immediately, just as he used to tell his clerk in the manual system. When the IT dept cannot react so quickly to his changed need as his faithful clerk used to in the manual setup, he finds it unacceptable. There is more cause to his displeasure. The user has seen so many computers do almost anything so he expects the software to be changed immediately to suit his revised requirements. He is surprised that it cannot be done so quickly. &quot;What is the use of the computer then - we don't want computers.&quot;
For a long time, man was used to doing things manually. With the onslaught of machines came the Industrial Revolution. The industry changed and these changes brought with them their own cultural shocks. The turmoil of Industrial Revolution cannot be forgotten. Man took considerable time to get used to the industrial culture and the idea of work being performed by machines several times faster than man could do. As centuries passed by, machines and mechanical thinking started seeping into man’s mind-set. Slowly, man got used to the industrial and machine culture. He knew how to deal with machines.
Then came computers. As the industrial culture was deeply ingrained into our mental makeup (or mind-set), we thought that the computer was just another machine. Armed with our decades old knowledge of machines and of the methods of handling the introduction of machines, we went about adopting the same old approach to tackle the introduction of computers. What we did not realise was that it was not just the introduction of one more new machine, but a dawn of a new era altogether, a change from the industrial era to the information era. We did not realise that just as Industrial era required a new culture, new thinking and new approach, Information era also demands that we give up old ideas and methods and adopt new ones to deal with computers and computerisation. Technology changes very fast but it takes generations for man to change his basic outlook. The main problem of acceptance of computers today is historical, psychological and cultural. We haven’t changed our outlook from the machine age to the age of computers. We have now got so much used to the machines of the industrial age that we look at computers too as some kind of a machine.
Technology changes very fast but it takes generations for man to change his basic outlook. The main problem of acceptance of computers today is historical, psychological and cultural. We haven’t changed our outlook from the machine age to the age of computers. We have now got so much used to the machines of the industrial age that we look at computers too as some kind of a machine
I have analysed and found two very basic problems in man’s perception of computers. Man has made two fundamental mistakes while understanding computers due to which, however hard he tries to be at ease with them, he finds himself jittery and confused. The first problem has to do with his very mental make up which has been shaped and groomed in the machine age and is unable to fit or adjust itself in an age of computers. His very concepts of machines which have been developed and formed in the machine age, fail miserably when applied to computers The second one deals with his understanding of computers itself. Man has made three basic mistakes in his understanding of computers. There is a very subtle difference in the way he should look at computers. When he realises this distinction, there will be a marked difference in his comprehension of computers, and his understanding of computers will be much more clear. What is this subtle difference that man has to see? How should a machine age man now look at computers and how should he change his outlook in order to see computers in the right perspective? We shall try to find answers to these questions in the following paragraphs. First Let us look at some historical and psychological reasons for this state of affairs.
The main reason why there is so much confusion about computers is that we think that the computer does the magic for us. It is not the computer which works for us but the program running on it. The computer output depends on the program which is run on it. When astrology program is run on the computer, it tells your fortune, when payroll is run, it prints your pay-slip and when accounts program is run, it maintains your accounts. What gives you the desired result (output) is the program or software which is running on the computer. Hence the real machine is the software and not the computer. Computer is only the fuel that runs the software machine. Just as the fuel in the car gives the piston the strokes one after another, the computer only kicks off the execution of each instruction of a program one after another. Just as what happens after the fuel ignition in an engine - whether it moves a motor, a railway engine, or drives a generator - depends on the rest of the machinery, what happens after the kicking off of the instruction depends on each statement individually and the program (software) as a whole. Moreover, whether a machine is running on electricity, diesel or petrol makes little difference to its user, say the car driver or the passenger. Similarly, running the same program on one computer instead of another gives you exactly the same result, may be a little faster or slower.
As we see the same computer perform different tasks, the computer has wrongly attained an image of being very versatile. We think it is a machine which can perform several tasks. What is versatile is not the computer but the software. Very often we expect results the moment the computer arrives. But today in most cases, the software does not come ready made with the computer. It has to be developed, tested and implemented. But we do not know that the real “machine” or the software is still not there and has to be developed. We are used to seeing one machine perform one task. E.g. car performs motor task, etc. Since we wrongly look at the computer as the machine performing our task, we get bewildered to see the same machine performing so many tasks. Somewhere it is keeping accounts, somewhere else paying your employees the salary, somewhere replacing your astrologer to give you your forecast, somewhere designing a machine, somewhere else controlling a factory, and so on. This leaves the common man awe-struck, and really confused. This gives rise to his unrealistic expectation from the computer. He feels the computer can do anything. With such an image of the computer in our minds, we start expecting results instantly. We expect computers to perform miracles at the keystroke. We expect the computers to react and perform instantaneously. But when it does not, we get frustrated. In my article in Computers Today in Aug. 1988, I had written, &quot; ...&quot;. We mistake it to be flexible also and expect it to adopt to our ways, whereas we do not want to change. This confusion will be removed if we see that it is one software performing one job just like a machine. Just as the same fuel somewhere drives a car, somewhere a train or ship and somewhere else it drives a turbine to generate electricity, the same computer can run different programs to give different results. Considerable amount of confusion about computers and computerisation will be removed once we start looking at the software as the 'machine' instead of the computer. The moment man realises that the &quot;machine&quot; he has to get used to is the software program doing his job and not the computer equipment, most of his problems will be solved.
Another misconception is that the computer is a far superior and versatile machine. The fact is that the other machines are far superior to man in the physical functions of man that they substitute, whereas the computer falls far short of man and his brain in the mental functions which it attempts to automate. The normal machine of the machine age attempts to automate operations which man would have to do by physical labour. Machines serve your physical needs - they reduce your physical strain. Machines automate physical functions of man. A car does something which your legs would be doing otherwise. A lathe does the work of your hands. A machine does the physical task several times faster and better than humans can do it. It is much faster, untiring and far more accurate than man.The machines have a clear edge over humans and we are immensely satisfied by the results. There is a clear benefit. On the other hand, a computer attempts to automate the mental functions of man. Computer attempts to reduce your mental and intellectual work. The computer attempts to automate the function of man's brain, but it falls miserably short of the human brain. Although the Computer does the calculations more accurately and much faster than the humans, it fails miserably when it comes to other mental processes like decision making or logical thinking. The computer just cannot do the mental activity. When there is a change in the working procedure, all you have to do is to tell your clerk and the change is affected. A human brain can quickly comprehend the changes and change the methods. The human being quickly adopts to the changed environment. Whereas if the activity is on the computer, it cannot be changed very fast. The Software machine needs to be changed, then it has to be thoroughly tested. The whole process is quite time consuming. These are some simple facts that man has not come to terms with. Man still sees it as the same machine and expects it to give similar benefits that machines gave. (Difference between Industrial Revolution and information Revolution). The computer can post and print a thousand ledger entries in no time which a man would take days - but where a human being could detect a common sense error, the computer fails miserably. This is simply intolerable to man.
There is more reason to add to the confusion. We said that the computer was not the machine but the software was the real “machine”. The software which we have so far called the &quot;machine&quot; is not really a machine, at least not the same machine of the industrial era that we are so used to. It is a different concept altogether. We are so used to the machine age that we expect computers to behave exactly like any other machines. Man has over the centuries got used to the machine of Industrial age. This is the reason why children adopt to computers much more easily than elders - because their minds are not trained to think 'mechanically' (i.e. in terms of mechanical sequence of movements or actions) like it is in case of elders who have the mechanisation culture seeped into their very mind-set which they have to unlearn. (Ref. to CT art.) Software machine is different from the Industrial age machine. Therefore, we need to look at software not just as any other machine but in its right perspective. A look at the differences will help us to look at software in the right perspective.
Machine is not visible, Fuel is visible Normally you can see the machine, whereas the fuel acts behind the scene and is not visible. You can actually see the machine perform, you can see the physical movements, and thereby easily understand its operation, limitation, etc. In case of the computer, you can see the &quot;fuel&quot; (computer) but not the machine. In any case you cannot see any physical operation of the machine. It all happens behind the scene and you only see the result - how it happens remains a suspense to all but a few. Hence the entire operation is very bewildering, confusing and mystifying. In case of computers, as the 'machine' (software) is invisible but only the 'fuel' (computer) is visible, we think that the computer is the real &quot;machine&quot;. Software Machine Automates Mental Process which is not Uniform We saw that the machines serve your physical needs - they reduce your physical strain. Machines automate physical process, computers automate the mental process. A car does something which your legs would be doing otherwise. A lathe does the work of your hands. The computer attempts to automate the function of man's brain. While physical process is the same for all human beings, their mental processes vary from man to man. While physically we all do things in the same way, mentally we work in different ways. So whereas the same machine can serve all humans equally effectively, the software machine has problems satisfying all. To automate the mental processes, you need a machine which is flexible to accommodate different mental styles and mental make- up. In the case of the car, it has the same basic human need to satisfy, that is to move from one place to other. In the absence of the car or any other transport machine, everyone would be doing it the same way - by walking across. The computer is used for various diverse tasks, and for each task, there are umpteen different ways that different people would do it manually. Therefore the device to do it should be very flexible to take care of diverse requirements.
We saw that the computer is used for various diverse tasks, and for each task, there are umpteen different ways one could be doing it manually. Therefore, to satisfy the varying requirements, the fundamental prerequisite of the software machine is that it should be flexible. The software machine gives you the flexibility and modifiability to enable you to change its specifications so as to tailor to a particular requirement. The cost we pay is that there are no standard methods and procedures and no standard software. To satisfy varying human mental processes, the software machine needs to be very easily modifiable and hence its behaviour can be easily changed. The behaviour of the machine depends on its every character of instruction. A change in one character, word or full-stop can change the program completely. Hence it is so easy to change the specifications and there are so many variations. This is very unlike other machines where the specifications depend on hard physical objects like plugs, carburetor, steel pipes, etc. which cannot be altered or modified so easily. As computer has to satisfy various and varying mental processes, it cannot be as rigid as the machines. The prerequisite is that it should be flexible, versatile, modifiable. To satisfy varying needs and mental styles, man has been able to make an equally flexible device which is the software machine. Let me take a crude example. Imagine that different people had different body structures and different ways to move - some walked, some hopped, some flew and some walked on hands. Imagine what would be the plight of the car manufacturer. He would have to provide flexibility in the product to provide for the different styles and body structures of individuals. People would have to tailor the car to their requirements or amend their ways - maybe change sitting positions, use body parts in a different way - to make the maximum use of the car. Cars would have to be tailor-made and no standardisation would be possible. In spite of that people who could fly naturally would say that the car was of no use - it does not help them with all their tasks. Now because there is a standard way there is no problem. Not so for the computer. The manual functions it automates are not performed in the same standard way by all. Though standardisation of procedures is now becoming a reality, one of the major hurdles to computerisation is the differences in everyone's ways of working.
[We saw that the main hurdles to the acceptance of computers were the three basic misconceptions in our outlook towards computers. We also saw how the software machine is different from the other machines. Moreover, we saw that to automate the mental process we need a flexible machine like the software.] However, this flexibility has been the major cause of low acceptability of computers. Flexibility of the software machine has given birth to some major problems and complexities which are characteristics of the software machine only and are unheard of in case of other machines. We get frustrated with computers because we have never seen such problems in other machines of industrial era. Let us discuss these problems one by one.
i) A working Program can Go Haywire by Small Modification The flexibility or modifiability of the software machine has actually become a problem. A machine cannot be changed so easily as the specifications depend on hard physical objects like plugs, carburetor, steel pipes, etc. which cannot be altered or modified so easily. So we are used to seeing a machine perform the same task consistently for ages. But in software machine, it can be changed so easily by changing just one character in the program. So a program which is working perfectly today may stop working or start giving undesired results tomorrow with a small change in the program. In the versatility and flexibility of the software machine, it has lost consistency as it can be changed easily. Imagine similar thing happening in a car. Imagine a car made of components whose shape can be easily changed. The characteristics and the behaviour of the cars would easily change with the change in shape of its components. You may suddenly find your car going left when you turned your steering right or hitting somewhere when you did nothing wrong. Each day you will see your car behaving differently, probably because someone changed the shape of one component without your knowledge. You will be frustrated, particularly having seen your friend's car working perfectly. Sounds ridiculous! But that is exactly what is possible in the software machine. A program which was working to your satisfaction can easily get disturbed by a small change in the program. This is more common in companies having their own developed software than those who use packaged software. So when man sees other person's computer performing but not his, he gets frustrated. Also the behaviour of the software keeps changing (because there are so many parameters and each one alterable so easily). So when he finds a computerised system behaving differently, he gets frustrated. [He only sees it as the computer machine performing, what he does not see beyond that is that it is a different software machine sitting inside.] This leads not only to frustration but also mistrust. The following is a very common situation in offices: All is working fine. Computerised system running fine. Suddenly next day, a big goof up by computer. User cursing computer dept. Reason for goof up - a) Minor change in requirements - Amendments carried out to improve the system - created a bug in the system and crashed. or b) Another possible reason - software team thought of an enhanced version, changed the program but new version had bug. ii) Lack of Descipline Because the software is so easily alterable, the user of this tool needs to exercise strict descipline not to alter it left and right. In our analogy of the car, a person who is more desciplined in his use of the car and does not make frequent arbitrary changes will find his car serving him well. A desciplined user of such a car will not only minimise changes on the fly, but will also test the car well every time he makes a change to ensure that the change has been done correctly, and that the car is behaving as desired. Another person not doing so will wonder what was wrong with his car and curse his car, when actually the fault did not lie with the car but with him, with his habbits and attitude. iii) Innumerable machines, No Standardisation One outcome of flexibility and modifiability is that there are innumerable variations of the same software machine. There must be so many different types of software to keep a company's accounts. Whereas in case of machines, there are a few brands, e.g. brands of cars, etc. There is standardisation. As there are fewer variations, we know their behaviour better. In case of other machines (say a car), all machines are mainly alike , at most there are a few standard brands (or variations). But each of them performs exactly as per its specifications. In case of the software machine, there are thousands, almost millions of machines. In Financial Accounting package itself there must be thousands of variations worldwide. Each Financial Accounting package made on this earth is a different machine. iv) Lack of Trained Personnel (&quot;mechanics&quot;) As there are few variations in the car, there are more trained people who are trained as car mechanics. The mechanics have full knowledge of the machine. Now car mechanics have only a few brands to learn. In our analogy of a modifiable car, you would not have trained mechanics to look into any car. There would be no car experts. Every mechanic would first have to learn the car insides before he would diagnose because he would be only having the general principles and no knowledge of the specific car he is repairing. In case of software machines, there are no standard machines and hence less trained personell on these machines. The software personnel have the basic skill but if they were to diagnose a program, they have to first understand it and then diagnose it. Solution to the problem appears to be the standardisation of procedures. When all offices will have the same way of keeping accounts, same formats, same rules, there will be standard few software packages, tested and proven. Skills would be high because people would have to learn the same package both to operate and maintain. v) Lack of Familiarity and Adaptability (Lack of Standard Protocol/Man-Macine Interface) This is the most critical problem caused by easy modifiability and lack of standard software. We shall therefore discuss it at length.
v) Lack of Familiarity and Adaptability (Lack of Standard Protocol/Man-Macine Interface) This is the most critical problem caused by easy modifiability and lack of standard software. We shall therefore discuss it at length. Unlike the computer, where the same computer appears to perform several diverse tasks, the same machine of the industrial age always performs the same task. As a result, we know the behaviour of the machine very well. Moreover, machines have changed very little over the years - at least what they expect of human beings has changed marginally. As a result, man has learnt (although the hard way) what are his responsibilities and what is expected of him while using a machine. He knows under which situation it is useful and under which it is not. He knows what to expect from the machine and what he needs to do to get the best out of a machine.
Fig 1 is an illustrative diagram to show how man has changed his lifestyle, thinking, behaviour, expectations and attitude to suit the machine. The figure shows two parts which have to fit together. In fig 1a, because of the odd shape of the two parts, they are unable to fit together. The part on the left represents the machine of machine era and part on the right represents man. In the three figures 1a to 1c, you will notice that the part on the left remains almost the same in shape. The part on the right in each figure has slowly changed to match the part on the left so that in fig 1c, the two parts match together. Whereas machine remained the same over the years, man has changed slowly to coexhist with the machine. At least the user interface of the machine has changed very little over the years, whereas man has changed his style to fill the gaps and developed a compatible interface with the machine. In fact man has got so used to the machine that he does not even realise how he has adapted to it, how he has changed his habits and lifestyle to take advantage of the machine.
In case of computers, there is no standard machine and the user interface has also changed over the years (from centralised batch processing to distributed end user computing). As a result man has not so far been able to develop a suitable interface (Fig.2). In figure 2, the part on the left in the three figures (which represents the machine of the information age (computer)) keeps changing constantly and hence the two parts do not match. In case of computers, because of modifiability of software, the same software behaves differently from time to time. So man can't easily get used to or familiar with its behaviour. He finds it difficult to get used to the software machine because there is no standard machine. As there is no standard machine, there can be no standard protocol. Each one has to design his own interface the hard way and therefore takes more time to utilise his machine. As there is no standard 'software machine', there is no standard man machine interface. Man has not got familiar or has not adapted to this machine.
If this diagram has not been able to convey enough, we will soon take an analogy of an aeroplane and a car from the machine era, which will make it amply clear. I was once discussing this issue with a friend. I said that we fail to use computers effectively because we are quite ignorant about computers. We do not have enough computer awareness. His immediately response was, &quot;Why do I need to know about computers in order to use it.? You are asking for too much from the users. When I travel by aeroplane, I do not know how it works. I do not know its internals or its aerodynamic principles but I can still make full use of the aeroplane to the best of my advantage. I may not know how my car works. But that does not stop me from getting the most out of my car. Then why do I need to know about computers to effectively use it. Why is the computer so demanding?&quot; His arguement sounds very logical and justified on the face of it. But there is a flaw. The arguement that we do not know anything about aeroplane or motor car is not really true. We know far more about them than we know about computers. The funny thing is that we are not even aware of what we know about aeroplanes and cars and what we do not know about computers.
We may not know anything about the internals of a car or an aeroplane, but we certainly are very clear of what is expected of us to use them effectively. We at least know that the aeroplane cannot be used unless there is a long airstrip and a big open space to take off. We know that however far is the aerodrome, we have to take a taxi and go to the airport to avail of the services of the aircraft. We know that the aircraft benefits us provided we take the pains to get up early, labour our way to the remote airport, go through the inconvenience of security checks, etc. We know what is our responsibility, we know that the aircraft is not going to pick us up from our residence, that we have to slog our way to the far off airport, we have to check in, etc. We know that a car can pick us up from our house and take us to the airport, but it cannot take us from Bombay to Delhi in two hours. We know that a car cannot be used effectively unless we build good roads. We have learnt to benefit from their merits and live with their shortcomings. We are not aware of the pains we take in order to take advantage. We are so used to the machines now that we immediately know that if we have to go to a distant city (say to Delhi from Bombay), we must take a plane, if we want to go shopping in town, we must take the car. If one doesn't own a car, he should look for the right bus route, should walk up to the bus stop, should stand at the right bus stop and wait till the bus comes however great be his urgency. Or he should walk up till the taxi stand. If we have to deliver a message to a friend a few blocks away, we would rather walk up to the friend than take the car. We are now so much used to these machines that we know immediately when to use which machines. We take these decisions subconsciously in split seconds (or within moments).
Would you call that knowing a lot about cars and aircrafts? Yes. Because in case of computers we do not even have this basic awareness. In case of computers we do not even know our responsibility. If we were to draw an analogy with computers, what we do is expect the aircraft to reach us to our office a few kilometers away, or sometimes want the scooter to reach us to far away towns. What is worse, we are not ready to even go to the airport and expect the aeroplane to come to our house and pick us up. If it doesn't, we curse the &quot;aircraft&quot;. This leads to frustration. We don't realise that the &quot;aircraft&quot; is not designed for such services. If we expect service of a car from the aeroplane, then something is wrong with our expectation. This exactly is the scenario with computers. Man does not know that he has to change his methods and practices to effectively use the computer. In other words, man has not been able to design the right interface to computers. He has not been able to evolve the right protocol to use a computer. He does not know what are his obligations. It is possible to design a software and write a manual on how to use the software. But no software developer designs the manual interface or writes a manual for it. It is not possible because it differs from organisation to organisation. So each organisation has to reinvent the wheel. It is not uncommon to see computerised systems made which look excellent on the screen, perform all functions but fail miserably on implementation. Most often the reason is that the manual system interfacing with the computerised system was not designed or suitably amended. Same old methods were used on the computerised system, and the same discipline continued as was there in manual system. Look at the pains we have taken to use technology of the industrial age. We built roads to use cars, air-strip and airports for aircrafts, long rail lines for railways, etc. We built tall transmission towers and insulated wiring to use electricity. Electricity can be very useful, but at the same time it can also kill. When this technology was introduced I am sure there must have been a great deal of resistance to use it. But now we do not complain. We make the safety provisions and use it. There are mishaps when lives are lost. We no more blame the technology for such mishaps. But for software implementation we do nothing. We do not want to do anything nor do we want to change our ways to use the technology of information age. We only blame the technology if it does not give results. We do not know our responsibility. We have got a new tool but our methods are the same old ones. I will take a real life example to illustrate this. The case is of a very simple application like payroll, which most companies start their computerisation with.
One business unit of a company I was working with was in oil exploration business. It had rig sites at remote locations where only mode of communication was wireless and radio telex. The salary was prepared by the accounts clerk manually. He used to get data related to attendance and other employee details from sites directly on wireless. Most often, the attendance came piecemeal one by one from sites. Sometimes, having sent the data, the sites would send in corrections quite late. Sometimes they never sent the data or the data sent was incomplete or unclear, and the accounts clerk used to call up the sites on wireless to get data or clarifications. In the manual system, this did not create major problems as, in the worst case, salaries of a few employees were held up due to non receipt of data, or lack of clarity. Most of employees got their salaries on time. When I joined them, the system had just been computerised. Now accounts clerk gave the data to the computer operator (who incidentally was in IT department. Distributed end user computing was the buzz word then, so the computer had been shifted to the user department, but so had been the computer operator! ). In the new set up, the same old practices continued: data used to come piecemeal, there were last moment corrections by sites, some data was not available (particularly for the new recruits) for which the accounts clerk called up the sites on wireless. Salary processing essentially being a batch process, used to be run and re-run several times due to last minute changes. In a manual system it was easy to correct individual cases where corrections came in, whereas in the computerised system, all salaries had to be processed together. So even if one employee's data was not available, everybody's salary was stuck. As a result, all employees started getting salaries late. There was a big hue and cry. There were complaints from sites that they were not getting their salaries on time. Very senior people spent time meeting and trying to analyse the cause for the delays. All that only resulted in the cut off date for attendance getting advanced to 20th of the month! Still complaints from sites did not stop. Nobody knew who was to blame - the sites, the accounts department or IT department. Naturally as most often happens, in such a situation, the blame fell on IT and their computerised system. Everything was fine before the computerised system, so naturally the system was the culprit. I could easily see that this was a case of old methods being used with new tools. I will cut a long story short and describe here how the methods, procedures, reponsibilities and descipline were changed to adopt to the new system: 1. Personnel department was made responsible for providing and ensuring the accuracy of all attendance data and employee additions/changes. They would give a signed paper. 2. Cut-off date was given to Personnel department by which to give the monthly data. It was made clear to them and all site employees that any changes in data coming after the cut-off date will be incorporated in the next month. 3. Accounts department was made responsible for providing and ensuring the accuracy of all financial data like loans and advances/recoveries. 4. IT department was to ensure that their programs worked as desired, i.e., that given the correct inputs, the salary would be calculated correctly. Immediate effect was that salary preparation which was earlier taking more than 10 days was now taking 3 days, with scope for further improvement. No longer did the accounts clerk have to make last minute calls on the wireless, no longer did sites insist on last minute changes. This is a simple example where the system was made successful not by changing the system, but by changing the manual interface.
It will be interesting to analyse what they gave in order to get the benefits which they got from successful computerisation. What they gave was their willingness to change their expectations and their thinking. They were ready to postpone the effect of last minute changes to next month. They changed their behaviour and style of working. They were willing to own responsibility and be accountable. They change their attitude to work - no longer was there a casual way of giving data. They realised that giving accurate and timely data was most important. Apart from what they gave, the computer demands something more from the user for effective use. What are your responsibilities in case of computers? Apart from changes in behaviour, attitudes, expectations, thinking, etc., there are certain things required to be done when the computerised application software is being developed. In a computerised system, you would need to think in advance what you want, give details specifications so that there are minimum changes after programming. In a manual operation, you would start and keep instructing your clerks to change methods wherever you notice a flaw. They themselves are also capable of making improvements in their own methods. As testing is difficult and modification is easy, one small change in the program renders the product untested and needs re- testing because you can never say what will be the effect of the change on the rest of the program. By avoiding changes after programming you would avoid risk of malfunctioning after tampering with a tested program. You would need to give a detailed set of instructions, called program, absolutely error free in all respects. The instructions should have correct syntax and should have the right order so as to give the desired output until the last dot. Once the system is in use, you need to give the data together and timely, as we saw in our example of payroll system. You need to change the working environment and the style. You need to reallocate duties. Whereas initially the emphasis was on the accuracy of posting, calculating, now the emphasis has to be on the accuracy of coding, timeliness of input data and daily checking the accuracy based on some control checks. Whereas manually you kept on posting and left the checking work to the end of the year, here you need to check the accuracy daily to ensure no work at year-end. Computers demand that you change your working style, your thinking. In short, you need to change your 'Industrial culture' to 'Information culture'.
We think that this is asking for too much. We think that computer technology asks for too much from us. But do we realise that even other technology which we have put to effective use asks for too much and we have given it - airstrip for aircraft, roads for cars, rail lines for railway, tall transmission towers and fail-safe insulation for electricity, etc. It is only when we do so much that this technology helps us not otherwise.
The problem of acceptance of computers is evolutionary. Man will evolve out of it. The evolution can be faster, the faster we correct our outlook. We need to look at computers in the right perspective. We have to give up old methods and approach of dealing with machines and adopt new ones. We must recognise computer as an entity different from a machine, and devise altogether new and fresh methods of dealing with its introduction in our lives. In other words we have to evolve an entirely new approach towards computers, probably by first unlearning what we learnt in the industrial age. Our encounters with computers will be far less frustrating if we appreciate the following: Software is the machine and not the computer. Do not expect the same result as a normal machine. Keep in mind that the software is not the same kind of machine that we know of and are so familiar with. Do not expect it to be similar to other machines. Expectation leads to frustration. Acknowledge that computer and software are far inferior to humans, whereas the machines outperform the humans in the physical activity. Once we are clear of this fact, we will stop expecting the moon. Acknowledge that man has changed his life style to take maximum advantage of the machines. He has got adjusted or adopted. Ask yourself what do I need to do to make the maximum of the Computer technology. Most important of all, acknowledge that humanity and the world is in a state of flux. It is in the process of change and a change is always unsettling. Soon standards will emerge or evolve and water will settle. The world is going through the turmoil of change from Industrial age to Information age. The Industrial revolution had its own upheavals, doubts, problems. We are now going through the same phase of scepticism, criticism, doubts with respect to the Information Age. Soon we will know what to give in order to get the most of computers. Soon we will stop complaining about giving what we have to give as the benefits of what you get will be obvious - as clear as the benefits of electricity.
by Prem Kamble http://www.pukamble.co.cc TURMOIL OF THE INFORMATION REVOLUTION COMPUTER ACCEPTANCE PROBLEM
The same machine of the industrial age always performs the same task.
As a result, we know the behaviour of the machine very well.
machines have changed very little over the years - at least what they expect of human beings has changed marginally.
As a result, man has learnt (although the hard way) what are his responsibilities and what is expected of him while using a machine.
He knows under which situation it is useful and under which it is not.
He knows what to expect from the machine and what he needs to do to get the best out of a machine.
man has changed his lifestyle, thinking, behaviour, expectations and attitude to suit the machine
the same computer appears to perform several diverse tasks
INDUSTRIAL ERA - MAN MACHINE INTERFACE Fig. 1: Machines are standard and have remained more or less the same over the years. Man has changed his lifestyle to develop a compatible interface with computers. Machine Man Fig 1a Fig 1b Fig 1c Machine Machine Man Man
COMPUTER ERA - MAN MACHINE INTERFACE Fig 2a Fig 2b Fig 2c Computer Man Computer Computer Man Man