Sunday, September 02, 2007


INATT - It's Not Not About the Technology

INATT is pessimistic and self-defeating, even if it's not intended to be. It denies that there can be improvements, incremental or radical, in the ability of technologies to accomplish important goals. I disagree categorically with this. . . .

I think I may have even said this last week. In that case it really wasn't about the technology. But more often than not, It's not about the technology alone. as Andrew McAfee says.

IMHO technology is going to steam roll a lot of people and companies in the coming decade. Many are in denial. We are in an age where generations and generations of platforms have accumulated and we are drowning in technical debt. And we have generations of people that are accustomed to doing everything on computers, cell phones, and the Internet. These people will be the majority in 10 years.

Of course business execution aside from technology is crucial. The problem is that technology is becoming more and more crucial to business execution. INATT denies the freight train coming towards many businesses.

I predict that more and more companies will be coming to terms with the fact that it is about the technology like Amazon did. What happens when there is the Amazon of your industry?

Via Stefan Tilkov.

1 comment:

Sarge said...

Some years back two coworkers were complaining about politics. One of them griped that the President was a rich, old, white guy. They other quipped that Presidents are always rich, old, white guys.

Presidents and CEOs of corporations appeart to operate under similar filters as presidents of countries. The problem isn't their wealth or ethnicity, but the fact that most people become set in their ways over time. That's not always a bad thing: boards of directors choose "gray hairs" for their stability.

But revolution takes a revolutionary approach and for reasons beyond the scope of a single comment revolutionaries tend to be younger. We've all seen executives who are so set in their ways that even evolutionary changes are blocked. I see no way that Amazon could have happened as part of an established company.

The problem is that lots of revolutions fail. Statistically that's just the way it works, just like most mutations aren't beneficial. But investors and directors don't take a statistical view; they try to minimize their losses even at the expense of their gains. "Courageous" is not a term one often associates with CEOs.