The always astute Martin Glassborow has an article on his blog titled “This Changes Everything … Honest!” In it, Martin bemoans vendors who push technologies as miraculous solutions – the notion that if you’ve got a problem, all you need to do is buy a widget and bingo! the problem is gone. The meat of Martin’s argument is as follows:

Actually if you try to do this without a huge technology change; you may reap more benefits. The problem with large technology changes is that you often fail to do anything with the legacy tail; you simply deploy new stuff onto the new technology. The legacy just sits and moulders, costing money to maintain and manage. Of course you could simply just decide not to maintain the legacy, which will save you money in the short-term but when it breaks, you could find yourself spend even more money trying to fix a system which no-one really understands. If you try to change the process before rolling in the new technology, you will probably stand a greater chance of dealing with the legacy tail.

So don’t expect miracles from a change in technology!

Without process change, technology changes are probably just cost!

People Trump Processes Trump Technology

It’s the final sentence that I find most important in this – “People Trump Processes Trump Technology”; i.e., people trump processes, and processes trump technology.

It’s like rock, paper, scissors, but with a trump card.

In my book, I spend an entire chapter talking about the human and technical layers within a backup solution, and so Martin’s argument struck very true with me: it doesn’t matter how excellent the purchased technology is – if you don’t have people and processes established to integrate with the technology in a synergistic function, you won’t get anywhere.

Or to put it another way, there is no silver bullet. There’s no one piece of technology that you can deploy which will magically solve your issues if you can’t integrate it properly within your operating processes. In fact, I’d suggest that technology at most only ever forms 40% of the total solution – and that’s an absolute maximum percentage. The rest comes from people, and processes.

This is why so many large scale technology purchases fail to actually achieve anything within organisations. Companies that pursue an aggressive technology change strategy without addressing core issues – personnel and processes – repeatedly fail to achieve anything, and lurch from one silver bullet to the next, cursing each failed solution. This isn’t always their fault – it’s easy to believe a slick salesperson who suggests that their technology will resolve all your issues when you’re reluctant to face those core concerns.

If you want to take some honest advice from someone who has worked in the systems integration space for a decade, consider this: there are no silver bullets. You can’t solve a problem just by buying a specific piece of technology, and anyone trying to tell you this is either lying or misguided. Instead, if someone is pitching a piece of technology, or a suite of technologies, as able to solve your problems, and they don’t understand your business, they can’t be believed.

The important question is: do you understand your business? You need to – you have to, in order to understand what part people and processes need to play in solving any issue you’re currently having. Remember: they’re 60% of the solution. The technology is certainly the easy part of the solution, but it’s not a silver bullet.

 

On my personal blog, where I normally babble on about anything that strikes my interest at any given time, I recently wrote a piece about the coming internet censorship storm in Australia. If you’re not aware, it would seem that the Federal government is only weeks away from introducing into parliament a law mandating internet censorship for all in Australia. This is dangerous and repressive, and primarily uses the specious argument of “protecting the children”.

Americans may have at least had a vigorous debate about the notion of universal health care recently, but Australia is struggling to get any real debate about internet censorship going for one key reason: those leading the charge against the censorship are focusing too much on the individuals at the heart of the debate, and not the points of the debate, as discussed in this Search Networking article here. As a result, the real points of the debate are often going unheard.

As I’m a member of a minority group in Australia with rights not yet equalling those of the majority, and where those rights have been only starting to come anywhere close to parity in the last 5 or so years, I’m well aware of the danger of a government secretly censoring the topics it currently considers to be inappropriate for its population. Or to be blunt, as I write in the piece:

Had this internet censorship bill been introduced even 20 years ago, I most likely would still be largely living in fear, and laws would still vastly discriminate against me and others like me.

If you don’t live in Australia and think this bill doesn’t matter to you, you could very well be wrong. Many western democracies tend to look at what governments in different countries get away with and use those actions as precedents. If you want to read what I had to say on this topic in full, or mistakenly believe that mandatory internet censorship is probably a good idea, then please jump across to “An argument against internet censorship“.

© 2012 The NetWorker Blog Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha