« Student Publishing and Privacy, Take Two | Main | Button-o-rama »
May 23, 2003
Saws & Hammers, Take Two
It seems like Bonnie B. is implying that my dissatisfaction with the "everything's a weblog and weblogs are everything" mentality means I want people to spend big money on enterprise software. Maybe she didn't read my follow-up or the comments to that follow-up where I pointed Lindon at dozens of open source options, as well as the commercial ones?
Anyway, Bonnie asks "Why administer a half-dozen different systems if you can offer the same functionality with a single system?" Ah, but that's a misleading question. It presumes the "same functionality" exists, and that ability to achieve the "same functionality" is precisely what I'm questioning.
When you shoehorn a technology into a purpose for which it wasn't designed (e.g., driving a nail with a saw), you may eventually reach the same goal, but you're not getting the same functionality. I might eventually drive the nail into a board with a saw, but my experience would be much improved by using the right tool. The price for the difference in functionality is often paid in frustration and lack of effectiveness.
Bonnie recognizes this in the next paragraph, complaining about the situations where institutions are "trying to use [the product] for lots of things it's not very good at." Of course, Bonnie's complaint is the same argument I made to James about his vision for a weblogs -- he was talking about using them for things they're not very good at. In fact, I began using the "don't drive a nail with a saw" adage several yearsa go while providing training for my company's commercial solution, precisely to discourage customers from "trying to use it for lots of things it's not very good at."
When introducing a new technology like weblogs to users -- particularly to educators inexperienced with using technology in their teaching practice -- I've had the most success by introducing the technology in the context for which it was designed. Inflating the value of the technology -- trying to shoehorn it into functionality for which it wasn't designed -- while you introduce it is a recipe for disaster. In my experience, the users' frustration level goes up, effectiveness goes down, and they turn away from the tool quickly.
This is true regardless of the whether you're talking free or commerical tools or about tools with general or narrow purposes. It's not about price or purpose; it's about application. When you misapply a technology, the users' frustration and resignation occurs whether the institution has spent six figures on the software or downloaded an open source app for free. There's a point when attempting to "get the most bang for your buck" (by hammering those nails with the saw you already have) ceases to provide a return on your investment and becomes an obstacle in and of itself.
[NOTE: the timestamp on this post was changed on this to reflect post time, as opposed to draft time. I really dislike that MT defaults to initial draft as the timestamp. :-/ ]
Posted May 23, 2003 04:50 PM
Comments
Hi Greg --
Reading your comment to my post, and your own post here, I realize I haven't clearly articulated my main point. What I meant (and, so,should have been saying!), instead of "the same functionality," is "the functionality required by the job/user." It's an important distinction -- and I agree with you that blog tools probably don't provide identical functionality to all the other tools James listed -- but I still disagree with your contention that they shouldn't be used for any of those things because of that. I elaborate a little back on my site...
But certainly, blogs have their limits -- is there anything less efficient than carrying on a conversation across blogs and across blog comments? :-)
Comments by BonnieB . Posted May 24, 2003 09:21 AM
Oops -- truncated the URL under my name in that last post! Use this one...
Comments by BonnieB . Posted May 24, 2003 09:24 AM