Q: You said earlier that organizations are “conditioned” to think a certain way in terms of looking for IT solutions?

Rick Schaffer: Yes, there is this mindset out there, I see it all the time, that if we just replace old inefficient systems with...what amount to new inefficient systems...we’ll be more efficient.

Q: Why would anyone think like that?

RS: I guess if you don’t know automobiles have been invented, a faster horse seems like a good idea. I think it’s part of the cultural evolution and then de-evolution of the way we think about computers and how we use them to solve problems.

Q: How about a brief history of time?

RS: Well, in the sixties and seventies computers were these behemoth machines in locked rooms that only a select few knew how to operate. They were a mystery to most of us and the “experts” controlled everything about them.

Q: And then came the personal computer revolution, right?

RS: Right. And that shifted everything of course. Pretty soon we had applications like Excel, and Access and FoxPro, and on and on. So in the eighties and nineties people who were sharp, but not necessarily experts with years of training, could create applications or tweak things and essentially get computers to do what they wanted — control was effectively dispersed from that small group of experts to this huge middle-band of users and developers.

Q: And you see that as a good thing?

RS: Oh yeah, a great thing. The more widely power and control is dispersed out among those who need to get the work done, the more efficient things work. Layers generally add complexity, and complexity generally adds inefficiency — especially within organizations.

Q: And the PC revolution helped to collapse some layers?

RS: Yes, specifically the layer of the all-knowing expert whom everybody else is dependent on to get something done.

Q: Okay, so what came next?

RS: What came next was the ubiquity of the Web and the need to move processes and systems to the Web. And guess what?

Q: What?

RS: We reverted back twenty years and added that all-knowing expert layer right back on top.

Q: In what way?

RS: Well developing for the Web wasn’t like using Access or Excel or all those other applications — it was complicated and mysterious to most of that middle-band of user-developers I talked about. So collectively we just kind of threw up our hands and handed the keys back to a small group of experts — Web experts this time — and let go of much of the power and control we had gained up to that point.

Q: So how does this relate back to “conditioning” and how organizations think about solving problems?

RS: Well, given this history, think about today. A need or problem arises in an organization — let’s just say simply, County X has a need to share data between several divisions and a few locations. Okay. How do they think about solving that need?

Q: Well they only know what they know, so they would probably naturally fall back on old models.

RS: Right. Let’s buy a faster horse. Or let’s be really forward-thinking and move everything to the Web. And to do that, let’s hire a few all-knowing experts and they will essentially determine the course of everything moving forward. Most of the control goes right back into the hands of the few.

Q: Are both of those options essentially dead-ends in your opinion?

RS: It really comes down to finding a solution that specifically addresses your real-world needs, instead of just doing what you’ve always done or doing something just because you can. Action is not always progress — and I’m not sure organizations always get this. More value should be placed on thinking needs and problems and potential solutions all the way through.

Q: We’ve gotten a little esoteric here. How does this directly relate to someone in an organization trying to solve a problem or need with their IT system today?

RS: What I am saying to them is this: Layering on what is essentially a newer version of your old technology may not be the answer. Handing control back over to a few experts just so that you can utilize the power of the Web may not be the answer. More complexity may not be the answer!

Q: And more simplicity may be the answer?

RS: Yes! There is another way and it means asking this: What can we solve simply by sharing the data in question — wholesale, via the Web — and handing total control of that data over to end users by giving them a simple toolset to work with it?

Q: Sounds like you want to give control back to that middle-band of user-developers you spoke of?

RS: Yes, back to where it’s most effective at getting the job done.

Q: But is simpler really better? Don’t complex needs, in reality, typically require complex solutions?

RS: First of all, what we find is that most needs are not that complex — it’s the way people try to solve them that usually adds the complexity. And yes, simpler really is better — we demonstrate and prove it every day.