82,927
edits
Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Wrong. Far from accelerating negotiations, [[technology]] gave us free rein to indulge our yen for pedantry. Negotiations got longer. The issues got more prolix. We argued about trifles because we ''could''. We danced on the head of a pin, because we ''could''. | Wrong. Far from accelerating negotiations, [[technology]] gave us free rein to indulge our yen for pedantry. Negotiations got longer. The issues got more prolix. We argued about trifles because we ''could''. We danced on the head of a pin, because we ''could''. | ||
And technology lowered the bar: certain contracts, which previously could not justify their own existence, let alone | And technology lowered the bar: certain contracts, which previously could not justify their own existence, let alone human negotiation, could now be thrashed out in infinite, infinitesimals detail. We argued about not just trifles, but pavlovas, puddings, flans, flummeries and even fricking self-saucing ''sponges''. '''Because we could'''. | ||
''That’s what lawyers do. [[It is not in my nature|It is in our nature]]''. | ''That’s what lawyers do. [[It is not in my nature|It is in our nature]]''. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
''Lawyers don’t want to simplify.'' Lawyers don’t ''want'' to truncate. ''That is not their nature''. It is ''contrary'' to their nature. ''That is not what lawyers will use technology for.'' Lawyers will use technology to find ''new'' complexities. To eliminate ''further'' risks. To descend closer to the [[fractal]] shore of [[risk]] that it is their sacred quest to police. | ''Lawyers don’t want to simplify.'' Lawyers don’t ''want'' to truncate. ''That is not their nature''. It is ''contrary'' to their nature. ''That is not what lawyers will use technology for.'' Lawyers will use technology to find ''new'' complexities. To eliminate ''further'' risks. To descend closer to the [[fractal]] shore of [[risk]] that it is their sacred quest to police. | ||
If your principle goal is to simplify, technology will help you. But if your goal is livelihood preservation through confusion, obfuscation and distraction, technology is your weapon. Thus has it ''brilliantly'' enabled lawyers to showcase the sophistication and complexity of their syntax. In a nutshell: We use technology to ''indulge'' ourselves.<ref>There is a serious point here for people (like me) who argue that technology implementations should be driven as far as possible by users at the coalface. And that is to bear in mind that the interests of users at the coalface are not necessarily aligned with those of the organisation for which they are working.</ref> | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||