This might be of some interest on Futurework as well...
M -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein Sent: January 25, 2002 8:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [CI]: Design Principles for ICTs My work in Cape Breton Island sounds somewhat similar to Don's except being perhaps somewhat more "experimental". The job was to see if ICT's could be used to help to recreate an economic base for communities whose previous economic base (coal, steel, fishing) has disappeared. I won't go into the details on this, I've written quite a lot about it in various places, but one idea from that work might be of interest. As we worked to develop locally "sustainable", employment creating ICT applications, an opportunity emerged to develop and manage the support (remote training, help desk, administration) for the broader regional/provincial/national Internet Access program being developed by the Canadian Government. All the conditions were there--we had a very large pool of fairly skilled (and trainable) currently unemployed people, we had the technical infrastructure, we had a post-secondary institution eager to provide technical and administrative back-up, we had access to a quite large pool of start-up funding (from funds assigned to support training/living support for the formerly employed folks). What we lacked was the "opportunity"--the contract to undertake the job. Without that initial contract everything we did was just a dress rehearsal, but with that contract (this was 1996), I could see some real long term opportunities for doing this commercially in the longer term. But we couldn't get that first contract. And the reason that we couldn't get that first contract is interesting... The "default" position for the allocation of these contracts was that they went through "nornmal" channels--and of course, the normal channels for "start-up", "technical" contracts was that they would go to the usual suppliers, and the usual suppliers were those who had already done that kind of thing--almost without exception, firms that were already established in conventional (metropolitan) locations and linked into existing firms with good contracting lobbying skills etc.etc. Our challenge, which we never managed to overcome was to "shift the default"--open up the bidding /expectations to unconventional sources/locations like ours. The current "default" perspective is one that supports centralized management, concentration of work in metropolitan regions, the use of conventional approaches to work design/organizational structuring. But of course, we know that the technology now and increasingly allows for dramatically different ways of structuring work/organization/jobs. Some of that is starting to creep in--in the US, 9.11 has resulted in some rethinking of how work could be restructured using technology so as to avoid the need for metropolitan/high rise office concentration. But mind sets/conceptual "defaults" run deep and strong and they don't change easily--so that I think Don, is the on-going challenge for the kind of work you are (and we were) trying to accomplish. Mike Gurstein Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. (Visiting) Professor: School of Management New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Don Cameron Sent: January 24, 2002 3:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CI]: Design Principles for ICTs Hello Horace, You wrote: "I agree that, short term, new uses of ICTs have both real and potential "bad effects" as well as providing positive opportunities, I disagree that there are "inherent threats" (snip). Perhaps our differing perspectives are really nothing more than a matter of scope. I certainly agree that in the global sphere of humanity your points are sound. ICT is positive development tool and as such has benefited millions (if not billions) of people around the world - and yes, the same can be said for many other technological developments. However my perspective is not (currently) global. I am working for the development of several small communities, where your summation is demonstrably false - a matter of perspective. Humanity may benefit from freeway's born of the automotive industry, however the thousands of small towns by-passed and subsequently dying may not see it this way. Similarly those towns who grew from rail, and subsequently lost rail services as a result of cost restructuring might not agree about the inherent benefits of rail to humanity. Threats exist whether we wish to acknowledge them or not. It is the degree by which we address and manage threats that determines long-term benefits and gains. I have been involved in quite a number of community ICT developments, and without exception those that have proved sustainable are those that grew from a base of awareness. What do we want to do? What are the opportunities? What are the threats? The projects that have failed are those based on the rather optimistic view, that 'technology in itself equates to a better life' (usually projects that were imposed on a community by some external entity). This perspective of 'inherent gain' might (or might not) be true for the masses, however for a single small community aiming to further economic and social opportunities, this perspective is not representative of reality. The first step in negating threats is to acknowledge that they exist. Only then can we reduce the impact. Rgds, Don _______________________________________________________________________ This listserve is a free service offered by the Vancouver CommunityNet For more info on services offered by VCN see http://www.vcn.bc.ca/groups/ _______________________________________________________________________ This listserve is a free service offered by the Vancouver CommunityNet For more info on services offered by VCN see http://www.vcn.bc.ca/groups/
