Comments on: It’s Not Not About the Technology

By: itjobs1

itjobs1 — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:13:48 +0000

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/

By: Just another assessment of the E 2.O Conference: How Beautiful it is, and How Easily it can be Broken « Fredzimny’s CCCCC Blog

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:26:43 +0000

[...] and usable technologies. I know that E2.0 is not about the technology. But it’s also not not about the technologies deployed. They had better be appropriate to the goal(s) of the initiative, and they had better be freeform, [...]

By: How Beautiful it is, and How Easily it can be Broken : Andrew McAfee’s Blog

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:25:58 +0000

By: Explosives Automation

Explosives Automation — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:44:02 +0000

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.

By: energy saving devices

energy saving devices — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:38:50 +0000

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.

By: ZTR Man

ZTR Man — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:41:29 +0000

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.

By: izlekop

izlekop — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:20:30 +0000

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.

By: Dave Kresta

Dave Kresta — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:57:01 +0000

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/

By: Jordan Frank

Jordan Frank — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:34:15 +0000

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.

By: Edmund Ng

Edmund Ng — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:41:28 +0000

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