The LAN Wo/Man Cometh
Donald L. (Skip) Conover

[presented at the ENA Conference, Philadelphia, PA May '88]

"Connectivity" is this year's buzzword in the office automation industry. The convergence of computer, telecommunications and office automation technologies has vastly increased the importance of understanding what hardware, software, and people networking can mean for the firm. But it seems to me that, for many, gaining that understanding is harder than passing the bar exam.

Law firms are besieged by an army of local area network (LAN) vendors and consultants, to name just one relevant product category. Have you heard a sales pitch? One favorite tactic this year is to sell fear, and to obfuscate. Rather than explain the costs, benefits, and organizational implications of their products and services, a common approach is just to say, in effect, "We know everything, or at least more than you can hope to know, so just rely on us to make your LAN decisions."

Have you seen some of the recent advertisements? A two-page number in the May 9, 1988, issue of _Network World_ (pp. 24-25) depicts a phonied up photograph of a manager flying out of an office window, his suit in flames, an apparent scream emanating from his mouth. The caption reads, "Rare photo of manager leaving work after discovering the LAN gateway he bought won't adapt to the future." Yes, it is funny at first, until one considers the implications. The copy for the same advertisement is a study in obfuscation. Here is just one paragraph, to establish the flavor:

"For example, we've designed new LAN-to-mainframe
products that take advantage of IBM's 3174, 3725/20 and
new 3745 controllers with direct LAN attachments. Whether
you're using Token Ring (TM), Ethernet (R), or other
compatible LANs, our IRMALAN (TM) workstation and gateway
software gives your LAN users IRMA (TM) familiarity, APA host
graphics, API support, Mods 2-5 emulation and up to five host
sessions."

The biggest problem with the scare and obfuscate approach is that it does not address the issues of organizational change and individual behavior, which are left after the new system is installed. I recently visited a sizeable Washington firm, which has a LAN installed. A review of its electronic mail records showed that a majority of those assigned user access had never used the electronic mail system, and most of the rest had not been on the system for more than 3 days. This is not "shift[ing] the focus from personal to organizational productivity," as Peter Keen would have it in his 1986 book, _Competing in Time_. This is "paving over the cowpath," to quote a recent _Wall Street Journal_ article, which described the failure of many computer systems to live up to their promised productivity gains.

What do you think?

[note: a group of ENAers will be attending the "Enterprise
Networking" conference on connectivity in Baltimore in June
with Skip to pursue this idea.]