THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUSINESS CULTURE
by Catharine Vinson


Imagine a company whose principals are respected medical
researchers, statisticians, and computer scientists. Imagine
that this same company has been designing computer-based man-
machine systems since the mid-60s and has been using them online
since 1968. Imagine that the company provides businesses,
industry, health-care providers, government agencies, and other
public and private organizations with proprietary, computer-
based "human performance assessments" of personnel and patients
scattered over the globe.

Since the majority of the reports are categorized as expert
medical consultations, imagine that broadly-based input into the
consultation/diagnosis is needed quickly, and that both data and
the resulting assessments must be held absolutely confidential.

Finally, imagine that this organization has relied on
telecommunication systems to receive, process, and send *data*
for more than 15 years. Its management and staff are "old
hands:" the vagaries of line noise and the eccentricities of
cryptic communication protocols can't hold a candle to the
nuisance of oily chads, Model 33 TELEX/TWX terminals, and the
sensitive "feelings" of huge mainframe computers given to
mainframe to a stand-alone microcomputer environment?

-------->*<--------

As you've probably guessed, computer conferencing bombed within
this organization. Ultimately, neither the savings in time and
dollars (both the corporation's and its users') nor the ability
to draw on a larger talent pool for the programming "conversion"
offset the resistance to using the green screen to communicate
with people, instead of as a tool to display data transmissions.

Instead of creating a climate of participation, many-to-many
computer-based communications created dissension, to-the-death
power struggles, and more paranoia than the TV-series "Dallas."
The computer conferees were accused of plotting to take over the
company, stealing trade secrets, or wasting time "talking" on a
machine. The traditionalists were viewed as narrow-minded prima
donnas intent on making everybody's life miserable and turning
back the clock unnecessarily.

Computer conferencing came close to wrecking the organization.
and software, work. Ultimately, it's the *human configuration*
that determines how well an organization can integrate CC into
its communication and power structures.

Everyone who's involved in planning and implementing CC systems
in organizations can reel off typical sources of resistance and
has developed more or less effective ways to overcome--or go
around--the obstacles. So, I won't list them. Instead, I'll
add a few that don't seem to be stated as often. They are the
ones that hampered acceptance of CC in the company I've
sketched. I think some of them may turn out to be significant
obstacles blocking greater use of CC in other business
applications and settings.


SECURITY
========

The simple worry over eavesdropping or unauthorized persons
"breaking" into conferences. Installing a private CC system
that bypassed packet-switched networks like Tymnet and Telenet
didn't do much to allay that fear. It seems that people don't
=============

If "Mindspeak" doesn't appeal to many corporate types, "speaking
one's mind" is positively anathematic!

At the risk of being pessimistic, I don't think the majority of
*organizations* are all that committed to distributed decision-
making and participatory communications. The "God Squad" in an
organization gets a little uncomfortable when the "peons" are
Too, CC tends to generate so *much* paper; a lot doesn't get
read or isn't read carefully. Information overload also breeds
paranoia. Seeing a lengthy queue of waiting messages that
he/she can't possibly wade though quickly turn murmurings of,
"*What* are they up to?" into mutterings of, "No good, I bet!"


IS-THIS-FOR-REAL?
=================

I think this may be one of the most serious obstacles to
business-based teleconferencing...at least it has been at the
company I described (and among some of its users, too). Nobody
questions an electronic signature on a telegram or a TWX. Some
*do* question a "handle" or a conference note signature. The
protest range from, "He/she wouldn't say that; it must be a
forgery" (!!) to "Before I'll act on his/her suggestion/order, I
want it in *writing*." (!!!)


The objections and obstacles I've listed could go on, but
basically they all seem to be express people's fears about
weeks. CC pulled together the talents and efforts of people in
Canada, Missouri, England, Texas, California, and Washington,
D.C. Some of the people knew each other well; some had never
met. The dollar savings were substantial. The final product
was outstanding. But the "bottom line" was "boo-hiss," a lot of
fussing and paranoia, a defensive retreat to "old" ways of doing
things. The final product has never seen the light of day.
Frustrating.

The whole CC experience with this company was frustrating. Here
was what appeared to be a "perfect candidate" for computer-based
communication systems. There was a perceived need to find more
efficient and cost-effective ways to bring together human


resources to create a needed product. The skills to install and
effectively use a conferencing system were in place. Yet, the
"experiment" failed.

The failure just may prove that a line I read in one of John
Naisbitt's books contains more truth than I originally gleaned.
To paraphrase:

Teleconferencing is too rational to ever take hold.

Computer-based communication systems proved too rational for one
company--an organization of scientists who more than anything
pride themselves on their "rationality," but ultimately
demonstrated that all of us are simply human when our egos are
involved. The ego has figured out ways to deal with telephone
tag and endless meetings in-the-flesh; it has not yet learned to
cope with a green screen. Until it does, the ideal of many-to-
many, participatory computer-based communication systems will
remain just that: an ideal.

-----

Author's note: Catharine Vinson (a.k.a. Grendel) is a
professional writer from Houston, Texas. She is also a Helper
on Parti on The Source.