Technology developers usually sell their products in terms of the benefits they will deliver, and it is principally these promises that early adopters literally buy into. However, when there are failures, the technology is usually said to have failed.
A good example of this transfer of blame can be found in the world of IT training, where various technologies were embraced to deliver course content, but were later rejected when students failed to learn.
Initially, many local training providers embraced computer-based training (CBT) or e-learning, believing they could deliver content and achieve results easily and cheaply. However, when one implementation after the other began to fail, the blame was placed squarely on the underlying technologies, which had ostensibly failed to deliver.
Blaming the technology was easy. It removed blame from all those who had made the decision to implement it in the first place. But were they so wrong about the technology? It would appear not, especially when one considers the successes achieved in other parts of the world.
Blended approach
The world needs to change its mindset about using technology-based tools, whether they be for educating humanity or destroying it.
Warwick Ashford, technology editor, ITWeb
At a recent gathering of IT trainers in Johannesburg, Norman Auerbach, Kalleo learning solutions director, pointed out that in successful staff programmes run by IT multinationals IBM and Cisco, over half the content is delivered using e-learning.
Faced with this fact, one would have to reassess what caused local e-learning implementations to fail, if the blame cannot in fact be placed on technology.
Auerbach believes the reason so many e-learning projects have failed is a lack of understanding of the enabling technologies. He says CBT has been successful wherever it has been recognised merely as a component of the learning process.
In other words, e-learning has been successful wherever it has been implemented as part of a "blended" learning approach backed by a methodology that includes tracking and performance monitoring. As a just in time, quick-fix solution, it was always doomed to fail.
Having spent some time working in the IT training industry, I would have to agree with Auerbach`s analysis. However, looking through several articles on the Internet, it appears this phenomenon is not confined to IT training. In fact, it seems to be fairly widespread.
Resistance to change
Why is this phenomenon of blame transfer so common? Could it be that technology is routinely implemented without those doing the implementation truly understanding what the technology is designed to do?
Undoubtedly, the usual lack of teamwork, lack of commitment by those involved, unrealistic expectations, and the usual resistance to change are all contributory factors to the failure of projects, but a lack of understanding is arguably the single most common factor.
I have read several articles about the failure of technology in modern warfare, but most concede that it was not the technology itself that was to blame, but the inappropriate use of that technology. In most of the hi-tech wars involving the US, technology was put to use in circumstances for which it was not developed.
The inappropriate application of military technology was the mistake, but when things went wrong, the technology was blamed.
Fortunately, some have learned the lesson, and the lesson is this: technology must be developed to meet real world needs, be aligned with real world processes, and most importantly, be used for the specific purposes for which it has been developed.
When it comes to technology, it is extremely important for developers to understand how people engage in specific processes so that the result is as close to real life as possible. The resultant technology must also meet real world needs.
The solution
Push technology is an example of technology misalignment. Theoretically, it was a good idea to customise the delivery of news content based on the personal profiles of users. Now while the idea seemed to be a good one, it ultimately failed because it did not take into account that in reality, people like to read about different things at different times.
The problem, then, is a common one and I am sure you could think of several more examples of your own. But what is the solution?
As with many of life`s problems, the solution involves a change of attitude. The world needs to change its mindset about using technology-based tools, whether they be for educating humanity or destroying it.
As much as technology has to get real about users, processes and needs, those charged with implementing solutions need to get real about the technologies at their disposal, and apply them only in appropriate ways.
Next time you encounter a project involving the implementation of technology that has not been a success, hopefully you do not assume the technology has failed, but will first ask if the architects of the project have failed the technology.
Share