Friday, February 27, 2009

If web 2.0 is the answer, what was the question?

Web2.0 is not the holy grail. Web 2.0 will not provide instant harmony or longlife.
IT does not deploy itself. It does not establish its own trajectory magically solving the ills of inadequate relating.
Tis a means to an end and not an end in itself.
While it is more than 'just a tool', it is not 'the' answer.
This rant was provoked by a proposal that web 2.0 would help to resolve dysfunctional team dynamics.
Its a bit like outsourcing IRD to a place where the people aren't, thus minimizing attacks on staff.
Web 2.0 the answer? Yeah right.
Show some respect; get the trust, empathy and unconditional positive regard right first and the people might relate better.

He aha te mea nui o te ao?
He tangata! He tangata! He tangata!
What is the most important thing in the world?
It is people! It is people! It is people!


  1. The proposal was NOT that web 2.0 was a panacea for the problem:

    One of the members of the dysfunctional team kept on looking towards technology as the solution "we must all learn the computer systems".

    My point was that the current computer systems dominant in healthcare (email, MS Office, standalone clinical databases) and most other organisations, including universities, do not afford collaboration and in fact actively act against it. In many cases the reliance on these technologies is the pathology contributing to the dysfunction.

    So instead of pouring more precious resources and time into learning dysfunctional technology, put the money into systems that DO promote collaboration, and help create working and learning environments that can sustain trust, empathy and unconditional positive regard. It's simply dumb to graft these human attributes onto obsolete technology that is merely going to undermine them.

    Sure - technology is not 'the' answer. But neither is a dichotomous focus on 'people first - then technology'. Like it or not we live in an extended mind where the relationship is enactive and symbiotic (umm ... ANT sort of ?). Current debates are far beyond simplistic notions of 'people are more important than technology' etc. See eg. Kai Peseta on Launching IntelLEO an Extended Intelligent Learning Organization

  2. Thanks for the clarification, I should have trusted more.
    Latour expands the AND as in...people and technologies... He has a really good analsysis expanding on how guns dont kill people, and people dont kill people but that its an AND effect.