People usually mean one of two things when they say INATT; one of them is correct but somewhat uninformative, and the other conveys a lot of information, but is incorrect and even dangerous. The correct-but-bland meaning is "It’s not about the technology alone." In other words, a piece of technology will not spontaneously or independently start delivering value, generating benefits, and doing precisely what its deployers want it to do. Technologies have to be managed in order to do any of these things; they’re not magic bullets or miracle cures.
This version of INATT is clearly accurate, but how often, and to whom, does it need to be said? I very rarely come across anyone these days who thinks that technologies are magic bullets. All the companies I work with know from ample experience that IT efforts need to be managed. They may not handle their deployments perfectly, but they’re well past the stage of setting out a new piece of IT, then sitting back and waiting for the benefits to accrue. This version of INATT might be a useful reminder to managers who are underestimating the amount of change management required to succeed on a given project, but it’s not really news to them.
The other meaning behind INATT is "The details of this technology can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion." If true, this is great news for every generalist, because it means that they don’t need to take time to familiarize themselves with any aspect of the technology in question. They can just treat it as a black box that will convert specified inputs into specified outputs if installed correctly.
This perspective is dangerous because it essentially denies two important facts: that technologies can differ from each other in salient ways, and that they can change over time. Losing sight of either of these can lead to confusion, or worse. For example, it’s well established that IT can help integrate the enterprise, but do they all do so in the same way? INATT, taken to the extreme, would cause a company to treat IM and R/3 the same way (after all, they both integrate the enterprise and enable business processes). A lot of my work, for example these articles, is an attempt to articulate the managerially relevant differences across technologies. The second version of INATT encourages listeners not to keep such differences in mind, and I think that’s the wrong idea.
INATT, version 2, also encourages the view that there’s nothing new under the sun – that one generation of technology aimed at addressing a business problem is the same as all other generations. So (for example) we need to collaborate and share knowledge better, but it’s not about the technology. We’ve been disappointed with our past results in these areas for reasons that have nothing to do with the technologies we were using, and there’s nothing about any new technologies that gives us better chances of success now.
This sense of INATT is pessimistic and self-defeating, even if it’s not intended to be. It denies that there can be improvements, incremental or radical, in the ability of technologies to accomplish important goals. I disagree categorically with this. A lot of my writing on Enterprise 2.0, in this blog and elsewhere, has stressed that the IT toolkit available to help with collaboration, innovation, and knowledge sharing has recently become a great deal richer and better. This was also one of the points I tried to make in my recent debate with Tom Davenport. INATT works against my goals in this area, and I’ve started to cringe when I hear it.
Sometimes, at least in part, it is about the technology.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Andrew,
Is it worth it to keep going in this discussion?
I think that people who do not want to see, just don’t see it. It get worse when we try to make them listen.
Of course technology is a tool. Only theorist treat technology as a self sustain science. I am glad they exist, because after them, we can make use of the new developments. However people is served by the technology in the deep sense.
As managers, we have changed. As society too. Internet (just a part of the IT) has killed some industries like:
The newspaper.
The regular mail.
Now lets say that web 2.0 is about multimedia. What would be America with a TV on-demand trough the Internet? What would be the iPhone (cell phones) over IP?
Only a blind would deny these. What is worth it to make these people explain.
Don Quixote said, “Sancho the dogs are barking it is signal we are walking”
Mario Ruiz
My experience from several roll-outs of technology for information handling and collaboration is that people supposed to use it do not put aside enough time to “play” with the tools. Traditional business culture does seldom encourage (in practice) this kind of activity. Eventually 4 hours are set aside for education and after that you are supposed to be up and running. Education and “playing” is not the same thing and I belive that the latter is important for sustained use (and collaboration development). The trends that we see in the “new” companies, allowing people to set aside time for their own projects will eventually make a difference. The “organic” development of the web-tools is also much more appealing and designed as something that can be fun to use. Will people above 30 give it a chance? Will they find it interesting enough to invest the time and energy required? I’m pessimistic. Habits are not changed easily. Especially without cash feed-back.
Andrew has hit the nail on the head (again) with this insightful and informative INATT discussion (also chalk up an FLA – 5 letter acronym – to Mr McAfee.
INATT v2 also wrongfully dismisses and discounts the impact of technology innovation and, just as importantly, the synergistic, cumulative and collective impact of technology innovation. For example, the collective impact of IP convergence, display technology, broadband, JAVA and other lightweight frameworks, Open Source, grid computing and virutalisation, zero cost storage, etc. The convergence of these technologies underpins (enables) their explosive adoption and use; which in turn allows people to evolve its use, thus creating new products and new markets.
Dismissing W2.0 and E2.0 as a passing fade is a mistake. Check it out, live it, embrace it and figure out how you and your organisation or social groups can leverage the technology and join the social evolution/revolution!
I agree that it IS about the technology however it’s also important to remember that to get the technology right, the technology has to come second to the understanding of the problem that the technology is going to solve or the benefits it is to provide.
It seems obvious today but companies still create cool technologies and then try to apply them to some need. The challenge they generally run into is that it’s really hard to keep things simple when you aren’t focusing, almost exclusively, on the problem you are looking to solve. It’s the simplicity of doing exactly what is needed and nothing more and nothing less that makes for the greatest technology. You can’t get there if you are focused exclusively on the technology.
Andrew, just discovered your blog. Very well done.
I have a different perspective on INATT. A vendor perspective which is, I think, rare.
INATT means that itÂ’s not PRIMARILY about the technology, itÂ’s primarily about solving the business problem. Yes, I agree that the technology plays in important role in deciding how to address that business problem, but a SECONDARY role.
Our vendor clients (very) often think itÂ’s really about the technology, and they get into big trouble attempting to translate that into business solutions. They think that the technology is the main reason their product should be purchased, but thatÂ’s not how buyers think.
Buyers are trying to solve a problem. Sometimes itÂ’s a technology infrastructure problem, in which case technology plays a strong role, but not the primary role. If a buyer needs lots of additional storage (easily managed, easy to share, easy to backup, etc.), then thatÂ’s the problem to be solved. Technology is an enabler, not the driver for the buyer.
When itÂ’s an application-level problem, the technology plays a distant secondary role. If a buyer needs to understand the real-time changes in inventory levels at multiple warehouses, and predict demand from these changes, then thatÂ’s the business problem to be solved. Technology, along with business processes, along with professional services, along with integration, along with management insight all play secondary roles in solving the business problem. ItÂ’s the whole package (the SOLUTION), and technology is only a component.
So, I like it when I hear INATT, because (from a vendor perspective), we understand that it’s really about solving the business problem instead. We, as marketers, want our clients to focus on solving the business problem so that more buyers will listen – and buy.
While the first version of INATT might be “old news” for organizations that have gone through a number of software implementations, I still find that a surprising number of CEOs think that installing software will solve their problems. Ex. a professional services company that where the salespeople have a very ‘insular’, internally competitive and externally aggressive mindset – who believe that simply installing CRM will be the solution. In many contexts, reminding people of the first version of INATT is important and useful; otherwise, the result will be disenchantment with technology.
INATT in the second sense can also mean “it’s not about the bells and whistles of the technology” – it’s the essence of the tool that is important, not the detailed bits of functionality. I agree with that. Have we all become more productive through using the latest version of Word as opposed to the first version? No. Even an increase in user-friendliness of software products has often been negated by an increase in functionality and therefore complexity for the end user. Similarly, when looking at blogs, wikis etc, INATT in this sense means we shouldn’t get hung up on features, we should concentrate on implementation and take-up.
It’s about time everything go open standards but is it really possible? Everybody says J2EE is based on open standards but the truth is all vendors have their own intepretation of open standards.
They have successfully made it uniquely ‘their platform’ so that the customers still have to use their solutions, their consultants, their vendors and their solution integration team.
Edmund Ng
The strongest INATT supporters are the consultants and some pundits whose interest is to sell coaching and training services. There is a certain bias here! For some reason, there is a parallel debate about the structure. So, I recently wrote a companion post to yours here which advocates the position that (a href=”https://traction.tractionsoftware.com/traction/permalink/Blog426″>Its Not Not About the Structure INNATS>.
By the same line of reasoning that collaboration success is driven in part by choosing the right technology and in part by other factors — the training, process fit, technology use pattern, and stakeholder support (and I argue that culture has little to do with it if you get the other four factors mentioned here correct) — some structure and some creative freedom must balance to achieve consistent positive results from an E2.0 workspace, be it blog or wiki, or whatever.
I agree that sometimes we too easily dismiss technology, but this is usually in reaction to vendors who DO seem to think they have the magic bullet. Technology of course DOES matter when it changes the fundamental economics of a system – for example in Wikinomics, Tapscott and Williams draw attention to Coase’s law that says that firms “will tend to expand until the costs of organizing an extra transaction within the firm become equal to the costs of carrying out the same transaction on the open market.” In this case, it is about the technology opening up new value producing avenues. Read more about this at http://www.collaborativeye.com/wikinomics/
INATT in the second sense can also mean “it’s not about the bells and whistles of the technology” – it’s the essence of the tool that is important, not the detailed bits of functionality. I agree with that. Have we all become more productive through using the latest version of Word as opposed to the first version? No. Even an increase in user-friendliness of software products has often been negated by an increase in functionality and therefore complexity for the end user. Similarly, when looking at blogs, wikis etc, INATT in this sense means we shouldn’t get hung up on features, we should concentrate on implementation and take-up.
I think it IS about the technology. Without technology we wouldn’t be having this discussion while we are sitting at home (or work, or wherever).
Sometimes people can forget though, it isn’t ONLY about the technology. Once the basic framework is in place, its time for the end users to move in and put it to use. If no one uses your shiny new piece of technology, then it is just as good as a doorjamb. Thats why usability and appeal are equally as important as the technology that runs the thing.
Dear Andrew,
INATT – isn’t exactly right in my humble opinion. Only when a number of positive usages come out of a technology, people can use it, or can say “usable technology”. Technology takes a long time in the research phase to eventually come out ready for the consumption of the general public. But i think its a little disrespect to the people who work years to bring a technology in the usable format. Just think about Solid State drives – its a brand new technology explored right now which will eventually replace all the cylindrical disk drives.
My point is – technology should always be hailed, but in order to use the technology – there can be numerous determinant factors behind. Whats a labrat today may eventually open the gates for a whole new world of invention in the future.
Best Regards.
Technology had been a big influence for all of us no wonder why many people are into technology, technology had affected our way of living as we can see every house and store has technology in it.
I agree with that. Have we all become more productive through using the latest version of Word as opposed to the first version? No. Even an increase in user-friendliness of software products has often been negated by an increase in functionality and therefore complexity for the end user. Similarly, when looking at blogs, wikis etc, INATT in this sense means we shouldn’t get hung up on features, we should concentrate on implementation and take-up.
Find more jobs: http://www.staffingpower.com/
I think it IS about the technology. Without technology we wouldn't be having this discussion while we are sitting at home (or work, or wherever).
Sometimes people can forget though, it isn't ONLY about the technology. Once the basic framework is in place, its time for the end users to move in and put it to use. If no one uses your shiny new piece of technology, then it is just as good as a doorjamb. Thats why usability and appeal are equally as important as the technology that runs the thing.
I have come to a simple conclusion: it's not about technology or being able to manipulate tools better than anyone else!
nice work and very interesting post thanks for sharing you can join me at
http://www.technologiez.net
You gave good information about the technologies but in my blog you can find best latest information about the latest technology which would be nice for you and also you will get full details about the gadgets.
{ 2 trackbacks }