| CIO Blogs
IT Blog Awards |
Subscribe
RSS news feed
Add to Technorati FavoritesRecent Posts
- Wave! You are live and online!
- New Game Changers for the Internet; Opinions differ on value!
- Do Turkeys vote for Slow IT?
- The Internet of Things just got a little closer
- The Washington Template
- Secure ID – gets a work around with support from key vendors
- The Ideality of the Cloud
- Situational Software - The ‘Killer Application’ for Enterprise 2.0?
- Guest post on Sustainability by Colette Lewiner, Global Leader of Energy, Utilities & Chemicals, Capgemini
- Where the work should be put? Time for Phase 2 in the Off Shore debate
Navigate
Search the blog
« Googlenomics; and OAuth MashUp security | Main | HP and Capgemini try not to have ‘clouded judgement’ – what a pun! »
Tech Predictions 2009: the end of the user
User. To quote Wikipedia ‘Users in a computing context refers to one who _uses_ a computer system’. Already we are lost. Already, we have a split between the user and the computer. Here, in the word user, we see the essence of the business/IT divide in all its perpetual wonder.
Despite frequent calls for a replacement term – I particular like Jimmy Guterman’s ‘don’t call me a user’ request for a user-generated superior term to user – the word stubbornly persists.
On the other side of the user coin is the term ‘IT system’. If only there was a deep wishing well one could throw all these coins into and magic up a new more valuable currency for the digital economy.
Well, having taken on the mantle of a fairy godmother once already in this the season of the pantomime, I would like to offer as an alternative - ‘participant’:
As a participant in an information system to achieve a goal, it's the combination of the information in my head and the information in the computer that counts.
What’s interesting is by changing this one concept one almost automatically has to consider different management practices.
Organisations which see themselves as ‘users of IT’ tend to use management practices based around techniques such as:
- Optimisation of the parts
- Theory X management
- The Organisational Model
- Business Processes
- Stability & Predictability
- Change Management
- As-Is and To-Be Grand Designs
However, the organisations that see themselves as information systems – i.e. which do a 'find and replace' on the word user for participant across their corporate consciousness – might just find themselves starting to naturally adopt management practices such as these:
- Optimisation of the whole
- Theory Y management
- The Social-Enterprise Model
- Value Systems
- Agility & Innovation
- Adoption Engineering
- Agile planning and execution
In the turbulent times ahead, perhaps above everything else agility is going to be key. And agility needs participants, not users.
So, here is a tech prediction for 2009 – or to be more precise a social-technical prediction – 2009: the end of the user and the year of the participant!
ps - you might wish to try out using participant instead of user for a day, and see where it gets you...
Posted by Carl Bate on December 4, 2008 in
Strategy
| 
Digg this | 
Seed Newsvine
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.capgemini.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/718
Comments
# on December 4, 2008 2:01 PM, Rick Mans said:
I was triggered by your title since I thought it was about ambient computing (or iPodification) concerning closing the gap between man and machine so that in the end there is only the man and the machine is fully integrated in the man his environment.
Isn't participant just another label for user to make users (or participants ;)) feel better? However I do think that users will increasingly participate in the systems they work with (read/write) instead of just using them (read).
# on December 4, 2008 2:16 PM, Carl Bate said:
Hi Rick - sorry to disappoint :)
I see your perspective but I actually don't think it's another label - I really do think it's a fundamental distinction. It's part of the difference between IT and IS - the understanding of people and computing as part of an information system whole. And of course, the distinction fits perfectly with ambient computing ;)
# on December 7, 2008 10:08 PM, Gert Helsen said:
As J.P.K Briffaut stated almost 15 years ago: "The difference between information technology and information systems is the same as that between telecommunication technology and telecommunication systems: technology is the means, and systems are the ends."
In others words technology drives the development of new information systems. Technology is the foundation for building information systems.
Users are the ones that actually use this technology. Typically this is seen as request-reply: the user requests something from the system and gets a reply back containing the requested information.
When the user becomes a participant - I really like that word - this typical pattern will evolve: the user will still send requests and replies to the system. But on top of this the system itself will send requests (to other systems or even back to the user). The systems are becoming users themselves.
As a consequence communication will flow in all directions between all the participating systems and humans.
Therefore I believe that you are right stating that it is the combination of the information in my head and the information in the computer (and other computers !) that counts. Also the information from other human participants could and will count.
It is the task of the system to retrieve and make use of all the relevant information.
That's why in my opinion automatic information retrieval and information extraction systems will become even more important than it is already today.
# on December 9, 2008 12:32 PM, Mark Nankman said:
I think you are absolutely right about this. User is a concept of the prehistoric web and actually meant nothing more than Requester. The term User lacks meaning in the current Web context. I like the term "Participant", but I have also seen people suggest the term "Player" but that one basically is a special type of participant. Another interesting derivative of participant is "Customer".
You convinced me. From now on, I will use the term Participant.
# on December 9, 2008 12:41 PM, Carl Bate said:
Hi Gert - that's exactly it - people and machines as participants in information systems. Now we're talking!
# on December 9, 2008 12:45 PM, Carl Bate said:
Mark - thanks - and nice builds - I think we'll start to adopt useful distinctions around types of participants.
It would be most interesting to hear how you get on with Participant - perhaps a post in the new year?
# on December 30, 2008 2:06 PM, Mark Smalley said:
I always thought of a user as "a convenient way of transporting an incident to the helpdesk" but I see I'm going to have to change my ways ;-)
Seriously, I'm a paradigmologist with a fetish for IT management process models (see my url). In the past 10-20 years we've seen the scope of process models slowly creep towards the business. Starting with ITIL to help improve maturity of IT Operations. Then ASL for Application Management. And a couple of years ago, BiSL as guidance for Demand Management. And ISO 38500 for Corporate IT Governance. (I'm by no means complete here but I hope you get my drift.) We've certainly made much progress but we're still not getting the Return on IT that we could be if the Participants really participated. And I'm not just talking about participants-previously-known-as-users but also other kinds of participants. Like participants-previously-known-as-nerds.
So I'm reinforcing your prediction by adding that next step in process improvement will focus on really involving people.