Information Research Weblog

The 'public prints' over the holiday period have brought us accidentally related news - a pity, really, that one or two journalists had not read the words of another before enthusing over the possibility that the value of investment in information technology might now be discovered. Both the Financial Times and the Sunday Telegraph carried news of Bill Gates's investment in the Centre for Information Work Productivity (we can only be glad that the word 'knowledge' was rejected!) at MIT. The aim of the Centre is to discover, through a study of 100 companies, best practice in the application of IT and to measure its impact on the bottom line.

No matter that it has all been done before - members of this list will recall, I'm sure, Strassman, P.A. (1990) The business value of computers, New Canaan, CT: The Information Economics Press - which signally failed to uncover the magic formula. Strassman found that investment in IT failed to deliver increased 'management productivity' until that investment exceeded 50% of total investment in management productivity - if my memory serves me right and his scatter diagram of the relationship of spend to productivity showed no trend line at all, but a fog of points.

The reason, of course, is that investment in IT (including the software that Microsoft is so anxiuous to sell) will have no impact at all unless the information managed by the software and the technology is appropriate, timely, accurate, etc., etc. - and very few companies are interested in spending the amount of money required to get that right.

There's another reason why IT spend may fail to deliver - and that was conveyed in an article in The Observer on the extent to which people are fleeing the city and its stresses for a more relaxed life. It noted:

A recent American study found that even in the boom year of 1993, nearly half of all US employers laid off workers. That pattern has been mirrored on this side of the Atlantic. And if employers are no longer perceived to be loyal to us, even in the good times, why on earth should we be loyal to them?

Good question! I recall a study by Dahl, but can't locate the reference, which showed that the principal driver of improved productivity was staff motivation. Mmmm.

Another information-related topic hit the newsprints - the increasing totalitarian slant of US institutions. Clear Channel is a media giant I'd never even heard of, but one of its Board members is Thomas O. Hicks, who helped Bush to become a millionaire. The report says, "Clear Channel is accused of drumming up support for the war in Iraq, while muzzling those who oppose it. When Natialie Maines, singer of the Texas band The Dixie Chicks, commented that she was ashamed of the president, Clear Channel country radio stations were the first to drop the band from playlists." New York Times writer Paul Krugman is reported as saying: "We should have realised this is a two-way street. If politicians are doing favours for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favours for those politicians?"

Also in The Observer was the keynote address to journalists by Tim Robbins at the National Press Club - read it here. If you weren't worried before, you'll be worried after reading it.

Have a good week!

[I tried mailing this to the log, but for some reason, my messages don't seem to be getting through to Free-Conversant - can't understand why. Perhaps I'll start using one of my other e-mail systems]