Seeing To It

"14. All things are the same, familiar in experience, and ephemeral in time, and worthless in the matter. Everything now is just as it was in the time of those whom we have buried." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditation IX

If I began with the thesis statement that Twitter actually existed (other than its name) many years ago, would you believe it? Before I go to that point, at least a passing comment is needed to address the seemingly endless stream of FUD coming out of the security segment of the IT world regarding social networking and the associated softwares. The simple fact of life is that the only absolutely secure software is one never installed, and the only safe network is one powered down. There are varying degrees of security and hardening, but it is more guaranteed by the policies and implementations of technology than by any one software.

To Twitter... when discussing e-mail practices with a colleague, he expressed some confusion at my empty e-mails. That definitely begged for more clarification, and he went on to say that a lot of the messages I send don't have a subject body. The reason for that is that in an age of information overload, there is no need to overstate information. Here are two potential examples of messages:

1) To: People
From:ctuite@bsu.edu
Subj: CM02 will be taken down for maintenance at 17:00 today.

or the second, more standard:

2) To: People
From:ctuite@bsu.edu
Subj: CM02 down for maintenance

To my co-workers - this afternoon, the CM02 server will be brought down so that some maintenance may be performed.

There is some background information needed here. The audience is a group of co-workers who know the terminology. They are also extremely busy - I've said before that we first overclocked the machines, then we overclocked ourselves. Therefore, why would there be a need to stick to the standard business format of a subject line, then a more expansive restatement of the message? A quick blurb is not only acceptable, it must also be preferred, given the audience and environment.

Now consider something put out on Twitter. Is it not just a subject line without the message attached? Does it not make sense to compress information to a form where speed and efficiency are maximized? Why is it that so much ado is made about a relatively simple application of an existing technology? The answer is found in a coat of new paint. The content of the new paint is much like ths old, but it appears to be something new, so the eye is drawn to it.

The point of this is that a mature approach to information science has to take a look at the practicalities and assets involved in any solution. There are many things capable of distracting decision-makers that amount to nothing more than a new coat of paint, albeit an expensive one. The key, just as when you paint a house, is to make sure that you don't paint the doors and windows shut, thus rendering them inoperable.

Whether an ERP solution that forces business processes to change, regardless of their deirability/efficacy, a security system that straps things down so tightly that an e-mail asking for a free software enhancement is blocked, or a social networking policy that hampers your ability to communicate with associates and customers, changes we make to put a new coat of paint of things may hamper more than they help. We need to make sure to examine what is done to understand how much is new, and how much just has that new coat of paint.