Reading about ethics for this class made me think about part of an interview that I caught on NPR recently. It was probably a rerun of this one: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4568035
The interview was with Frank Warren, who has created a blog where he posts other people's secrets, http://postsecret.blogspot.com/. The one that I remember hearing on the radio was "all the people who knew me before 9/11 think I'm dead." Deontologically (can the word be constructed that way?), that person is behaving unethically. It's a lie, it harms the insurance companies, probably family and friends...but, who knows? Maybe with a consequentialistic point of view, that person feels that he or she has done the right thing because of some hard-to-understand situation.
Ok, so what does this have to do with IT? Unfortunately...nothing, really. I thought it would be an interesting read for you, and I had planned to search the postcards for computer or IT related secrets that I could use as ethical or unethical examples...but, it looks like the posts aren't really searchable...and now I have to go back to work (which is the ethical thing to do, and, just in case anyone is wondering, I wrote this post on my lunch break, and not on work time, because I try to be ethical with that kind of thing).
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Progress for Week of Nov. 22
We probably don't have a post due, since we are out of class for the holiday, but I thought I would post, just in case.
Working on our team project, I have found TechSoup.org to be incredibly helpful, especially the learning center. From there, and later from WebJunction, I came across TechAtlas, which seems like it would be really helpful for some libraries. With a free registration, it gives you some automated tools for some parts of technology planning, such as the technology inventory. According to their website "TechAtlas helps nonprofits [or libraries] map out technology - step by step."
The lecture posted last week was also very helpful. Some of it was a good review for things we learned in LIS5053, such as the different ways of gathering data. I found the "Analysis of System Use: Questions to Be Answered" and the "Analysis of System Users: Questions to Be Answered" very useful.
Working on our team project, I have found TechSoup.org to be incredibly helpful, especially the learning center. From there, and later from WebJunction, I came across TechAtlas, which seems like it would be really helpful for some libraries. With a free registration, it gives you some automated tools for some parts of technology planning, such as the technology inventory. According to their website "TechAtlas helps nonprofits [or libraries] map out technology - step by step."
The lecture posted last week was also very helpful. Some of it was a good review for things we learned in LIS5053, such as the different ways of gathering data. I found the "Analysis of System Use: Questions to Be Answered" and the "Analysis of System Users: Questions to Be Answered" very useful.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Diverse readings this week
System reliability, server logs, standard making...
I'm having my own issues with system reliability this week. My wireless connection on my laptop is not working. Sounds like a small thing, but we've now spent at least 9 total hours trying to fix it. As I went through the process of checking all the online help, downloading new drivers, beating my head on my desk, I thought about Butler's comments on individual and collective mindfulness. As a user, I was finding it very difficult to remain "mindful." Right now, at this time of the semester, I do not WANT to exhibit "mindful attention to abnormalities and alternative possibilities" (Butler 2006, 218). I just want everything to work! Yet, facing the dreaded tech support call, I knew that I should try everything I could to fix the problem because they would probably immediately ask me if I had tried the suggested steps online.
Well, they didn't. After three long hours, my wireless still doesn't work. I am now very, very good at installing and uninstalling drivers, however. Unfortunately, my computer now seems to be much less *reliable* that it was before. On Monday, everything worked fine except that I couldn't connect to the Internet via my wireless card. Now, all the "updates" and new drivers and everything that has been changed is causing all kinds of error messages to appear, and it's requesting me to migrate programs and all kinds of useless things. Now, my system is so slow it is basically unusable.
Our topic this week is technology environment management. This whole experience with tech support (nice, but useless in this case) and my computer problems has really brought home to me how little we notice our technology environment until something stops working. As Butler explains, we are so focused on our normal goals and procedures, having to stop and be mindful is very difficult (Butler 2006).
I'm having my own issues with system reliability this week. My wireless connection on my laptop is not working. Sounds like a small thing, but we've now spent at least 9 total hours trying to fix it. As I went through the process of checking all the online help, downloading new drivers, beating my head on my desk, I thought about Butler's comments on individual and collective mindfulness. As a user, I was finding it very difficult to remain "mindful." Right now, at this time of the semester, I do not WANT to exhibit "mindful attention to abnormalities and alternative possibilities" (Butler 2006, 218). I just want everything to work! Yet, facing the dreaded tech support call, I knew that I should try everything I could to fix the problem because they would probably immediately ask me if I had tried the suggested steps online.
Well, they didn't. After three long hours, my wireless still doesn't work. I am now very, very good at installing and uninstalling drivers, however. Unfortunately, my computer now seems to be much less *reliable* that it was before. On Monday, everything worked fine except that I couldn't connect to the Internet via my wireless card. Now, all the "updates" and new drivers and everything that has been changed is causing all kinds of error messages to appear, and it's requesting me to migrate programs and all kinds of useless things. Now, my system is so slow it is basically unusable.
Our topic this week is technology environment management. This whole experience with tech support (nice, but useless in this case) and my computer problems has really brought home to me how little we notice our technology environment until something stops working. As Butler explains, we are so focused on our normal goals and procedures, having to stop and be mindful is very difficult (Butler 2006).
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Risks for IT Projects
Recently, I agreed to join a small group of organizations to help test a prototype of a reporting system. The contractors/software people hope to develop a web-based program that will meet some very specific requirements...mostly requirements set by a national organization that wants data and reports from local groups from around the country. The actual users, those who will have to input all the data, do get to do user-testing (hence, the small group that I joined). They will have a real say about how easy the program is to use. However, it doesn't seem like we will have much input as to what the program is actually intended to do.
Therefore, reading the Baccarini, Salm, and Love article this week, I started thinking about the risks involved in this project. As I read, a few potential risks really jumped out at me. First of all, under "technology and technical issues," "application software not fit for purpose," seems like a very likely problem (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). From everything I have seen of the proposed software, it *adds* work to the staff at the organizations, without actually adding any value. They will be able to create reports for the national organization, but they will not actually be able to manage their data with this program. Essentially, two databases will have to be maintained--one that lets the program do day-to-day work, such as tracking customer information, progress, etc, and one that is just used to fill out forms to be sent somewhere else. Much of the same information will have to be kept in both places. I would say that this would lead to "low user satisfaction." The program seems really easy to use, just a duplication of effort.
I think this stems from "Incomplete requirements," (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). The authors discuss how getting too little information during the analysis phase can lead to creating a product that doesn't meet objectives. In this case, I think the product is designed to meet the objectives of the bigger organization--I just don't see how they will convince local organizations to use it as it is currently designed. I know that they did have some discussions with the front-line users before putting any software together. However, I get the impression that once they realized the scope of what an organization really needs in order to manage its data, they shied away from that side of things.
Finally, I want to mention "developing wrong software functionality" (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). In this case, I don't think that it is so much a question of software that "may not meet the purpose for which it is intended," (288), but more that it won't meet the purpose for which it is expected by the front-line users. I think users will be told that this program will make reporting so much easier, and they will therefore expect it to make all reporting easier. However, it will really only be useful for the reports required by the one national organizaiton.
I hope that the group can all work together to develop something that really is a value to the local organizations and the national organization. They seem very willing to listen, but, like any project, they are limited by time and money.
Therefore, reading the Baccarini, Salm, and Love article this week, I started thinking about the risks involved in this project. As I read, a few potential risks really jumped out at me. First of all, under "technology and technical issues," "application software not fit for purpose," seems like a very likely problem (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). From everything I have seen of the proposed software, it *adds* work to the staff at the organizations, without actually adding any value. They will be able to create reports for the national organization, but they will not actually be able to manage their data with this program. Essentially, two databases will have to be maintained--one that lets the program do day-to-day work, such as tracking customer information, progress, etc, and one that is just used to fill out forms to be sent somewhere else. Much of the same information will have to be kept in both places. I would say that this would lead to "low user satisfaction." The program seems really easy to use, just a duplication of effort.
I think this stems from "Incomplete requirements," (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). The authors discuss how getting too little information during the analysis phase can lead to creating a product that doesn't meet objectives. In this case, I think the product is designed to meet the objectives of the bigger organization--I just don't see how they will convince local organizations to use it as it is currently designed. I know that they did have some discussions with the front-line users before putting any software together. However, I get the impression that once they realized the scope of what an organization really needs in order to manage its data, they shied away from that side of things.
Finally, I want to mention "developing wrong software functionality" (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). In this case, I don't think that it is so much a question of software that "may not meet the purpose for which it is intended," (288), but more that it won't meet the purpose for which it is expected by the front-line users. I think users will be told that this program will make reporting so much easier, and they will therefore expect it to make all reporting easier. However, it will really only be useful for the reports required by the one national organizaiton.
I hope that the group can all work together to develop something that really is a value to the local organizations and the national organization. They seem very willing to listen, but, like any project, they are limited by time and money.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
