This afternoon I am providing an analog model for a very digital problem, expressed well by blogger Paul Gillin at http://innovations.ziffdavisenterprise.com/2008/05/the_collaboration_paradox.html.  He discusses very well the dilemma experienced by well-meaning individuals when they try to leverage collaboration within the workplace using technological tools which only few people will commit to using.  An interesting construct, this, but it comes as no surprise to someone who has a few tinges of gray in the beard, it is merely a long-standing problem dressed in new syntax.

Here's the model: in my prior life experience, I happened to be employed in the automotive industry, which is a sub-culture that would be fascinating to examine, if there were enough of it still in existence to provide statistically-significant information on (a culture that led to its own destruction through equal parts hubris and the condition I describe here) - I suppose one could make an argument that a species on the endangered species list is statistically-significant, at least for mortality rates.  The analog to today's Web 2.0 issues is none other than the Deming et al-led quality putsch (not a typo - explanation to follow).

During the latter part of the 80's and the early part of the 90's, quality was a hot topic.  A root cause for the concern within the auto industry was that W. Edwards Deming's ideas that had been summarily dismissed in the American auto industry were taken to heart by the Japanese auto industry, and their subsequent improvements in quality and reliability established a tableau of dominance that, though today it is false, provided Toyota, Nissan and Honda the ability to march right into Detroit, Dearborn and Pontiac and eat the lunches of their respective rivals.  The American companies began frantically to try to compete against this, and thus began the difficult situation.

Dr. Deming's principles had to do with having quality as a focus, using statistics to control processes, and having a continual and relentless focus on quality (recursive reference intended).  In typical entrepreneurial fashion, hundreds of companies sprang into action with slides created in Harvard Graphics (remember that software?) and programs ginned up by the best minds in marketing.  Deming's principles were dutifully copied out of the texts, printed up on cards to be handed out to all workers, and then Kitsch, Schlock and Missedit, LLC bundled all that together into quality initiatives.

I'm not on a tirade against marketing, per se, but the problem of taking a no nonsense and simple way of getting better and wrapping 'flair' around it was further exacerbated by the shortsightedness of those in charge of implementing quality into the processes.  About every 18 months, there was a new program from a different company, and the only common thing they had were those quality principles printed out (to be fair there WAS a little variation - some of them also had content from Crosby).  It became a joke amongst the very employees who were supposed to be implementing the things discovered.  What we saw was that the 'young bucks' who were at the lower to middle-management tiers went with gusto into the brave future, while those at the top and those who were actually performing the tasks where quality was supposed to happen were lukewarm or hostile about it.

There were many recurring jokes that sprang up - what color is the binder this month, what color is the banner they hang next month, if I break three parts out of four today but only break one out of four tomorrow do I still have to go to the weekly meetings, etc. - and the net effect was that a very needed functionality was diminished by both the lack of understanding about the importance and relevance, and by the multiple catchphrases that came through.

The typical management conundrum is all about motivating employees, so one year a program was introduced where one of the steps was that rewards begin to be given to those suggesting cost-saving and quality-enhancing ideas.  So the regular suggestion program suddenly had a dearth of ideas, and the ones that were circulating out there were being held until there would by a reward for giving them, and given the delays in the program, it is incalculable how many dollars were wasted in processes that were known to be faulty, but were being allowed to run as they were so that someone could be paid.

The long and short of it that now, finally, with QS9000 and other no-frills Deming-esque concepts having been accepted in the industry, American cars are just as good as their Japanese and German counterparts.  The problem is that few believe it.  Even when the quality rankings are posted, and the results of the polls are released showing that the new crop of American cars and trucks are just as good, or even better in some cases, people just have a hard time believing that the quality issues are solved.  Even now when I drive past my old stomping grounds, I see vacant fields where once there were facilities on both sides of the road, and I realize that intrinsic human nature trumps flashy new things.

Echoing what was in the blog post I mentioned, the problem wasn't with the concepts discussed within the materials, it was that each new thing was slightly different without having a core of change that was relevant.  When you see 'Zero Defects' in red letters, then in black letters, then in yellow letters, each with a different font and each with its own cloud of hows and whys, it is easy to lose track of what is important and focus on the minutiae, thus losing the point.  The need was for a revolutionary change in the way that things were done, not a change in how they were written.

I see this today in my work in IT.  For example, we had physical folders where programming changes were logged and tracked.  There was a filing system for the physical files, and a Q&A database (remember that one?) that tracked the changes, and could report on them.  The decision was made to take that system paperless, and so now it actually takes a lot longer to process changes than it did before, and there are no reports that have been enabled in it.  The net results is a loss of productivity, not a gain.  The application of technology for technology's sake is meaningless - there must be a fundamental benefit to it, or it is as nothing.  

So, every time I get into design criteria and workflow planning and all the other things that are portions of the work I do, the burning question I try to remember is, "Am I improving the life of the users?"  If I cannot save them time, resources, or any other things they find to be useful, then I know what I do will fail.  It will not provide them the incentive to improve anything, and they will politely (or not so politely) refuse to use the digital blood, sweat and tears I have provided them.  This is something that should be borne in mind for those who want to integrate technology into the lives of the masses.  They don't find everything as fascinating as IT'ers do - in fact 20% have never e-mailed (per pcworld.com re: Parks Associates study); they will only use it if it improves their life in a very real way; and once you have given them a tool to use that they have developed an affinity for, they will most likely not use the 'new' version of the old tool.  This is human nature - when we find something we can use, we will use it.

Newness is not an incentive, utility is an incentive.  Making my life easier is definitely an incentive, while making yours easier I couldn't care less about (not personally - I tend to find value in helping others, but the human race as a whole has put that on the back burner).  These are the concepts we need to design and develop to.  When we ask the whys (a precept of troubleshooting is that by asking 'Why?' up to five times, you arrive at the root cause of a difficulty), we often will discover that we are doing things that violate the Pareto principle.  It's fine for researchers to live on the bleeding edge, but the weight of the masses will determine what is actually viable, so any changes have to be loaded with value.

One thing here is outstanding - why my choice of the word putsch above.  This is a challenge to you - look up putsch in a good dictionary and synthesize how a power grab might be related to the quest to change the focus of a large group of peoples' work.