Less is More Copyright 1990 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 13, Number 3, Fall 1990. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its dateappear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu LESS IS MORE by Robert C. Heterick, Jr. ************************************************************************ Robert C. Heterick, Jr. is Vice President for Information Systems at Virginia Tech and Chair of the 1990 CAUSE Board of Directors. He is author of the CAUSE Professional Paper, A Single System Image: An Information Systems Strategy. ************************************************************************ I think it was the German architect Mies van der Rohe who made "less is more" a catch phrase nearly fifty years ago. The most recent version of this maxim is trenchantly presented in George Gilder's latest book about the computer industry, Microcosm: the Quantum Revolution in Economics and Technology. Casual reading of the financial pages these last five years is enough to confirm that the action has shifted dramatically from the mainframe to the workstation. Gilder's analysis offers a compelling explanation of why this is so. Over thirty years ago Herbert Grosch observed the driving economic principle of mainframe computing: power tends to increase as the square of the cost. Had we all been as observant, or listened more closely, we would have better understood the paradigm shift from the manure strategy -- spread it around and it doesn't smell so bad -- to the rise of the computer czar. As late as 1980 we were still observing this "square law of mainframe computing." Something happened at the opening of the decade of the 80s and, while firmly anchored in Silicon Valley, it wasn't the "power to the people" vision of garage tinkerers, but rather a shift from economy of scale to the economy of the microcosm. We should be paying close attention, as the signal flags for a new paradigm shift in technology management have been hoisted. Thomas Kuhn, observing the growth of science, first called our attention to the idea of paradigm shifts. Certainly the approach to chip technology chronicled by Gilder is representative of that kind of intellectual revolution in which the old (if anything dealing with information technology can be called old) way of thinking about the design of computers was confronted by a revolutionary new Weltanschauung. Unlike the bumps and starts that Kuhn discovered in the growth of science, rather than moving from simpler to more complex constructs, information technology seems to be moving from complexity to simplicity. Kuhn's taxonomy developed the idea of "normal science" as puzzle solving, generating anomalies which lead to crisis and ultimately to revolution. It is clearly arguable that Kuhn's analysis of science can be translated in toto to technology, much less to management. However, the parallels are striking. The anomaly/crisis stages were clearly reached over a dozen years ago as we began to confront the limits of physics in placing discrete components on circuit boards. Problems of heat dissipation, the finite length of circuits, and the requirements for ever more expensive and scarce natural resources seemed to define a natural limit to the power to be exploited in computers. The revolution was the move to the microcosm and the near exclusive use of the most naturally abundant resource we possess -- silicon. Translating the Kuhnian taxonomy to management perhaps strains the analogy too far. But then again, perhaps not. The quantum revolution in science occurred early in this century. Hindsight informs us that its reverberation in technology occurred twenty years ago. We would be less than realistic not to expect a tertiary ripple in management. The more interesting question may be why it takes so long to be recognized. A ubiquitous digital medium and the technological capacity to place extraordinary power in the hands of every knowledge worker will force us to shift paradigms again. This latest manifestation might be called the "chief information officer," although that term has been applied so indiscriminantly, and is used to cover such a multitude of dissimilar management environments, that it may well lose its value before we can come to grips with our changing condition. Clearly, the technology leads us beyond digital computers and digital telephones to digital photography, digital printing, and digital television. It seems equally clear that the "information age" is the melding of disparate activities under the coalescing force of a ubiquitous digital medium and the technology that undergirds that medium. Microprocessor technology presents the case for simplicity in design -- less is more. Surface mount technology, very high density microprocessors in parallel, and RISC architectures are on the crest of the current wave. On the software side we have been much slower in shifting to the complementary notions of simplicity -- object- oriented constructs, specialized client-server architectures, and ideas from artificial intelligence in general. When it comes to managing information technology in higher education, we appear positively antediluvian. In an era in which the cost of chip technology is decreasing at about 25 percent per year -- and the cost of higher education continues to outstrip the rise in just about everything other than medical care -- we should be aggressively seeking targets of opportunity for that technology. That suggests a campus information architecture that brings into close working relationship, and an even closer strategic planning partnership, information sources, control mechanisms, and distribution channels. In the academy that means libraries, computing centers, communications networks (voice and data), printing and publishing activities, as well as broadcast and closed-circuit television. Too often we still seem embroiled in academic vs. administrative computing, librarian- vs. user-directed bibliographic searches, and campus vs. office wiring standards. These types of discussions betray the notion that digital information technology is strategic to the institution, substituting instead what Gerald Weinberg called "The First Law of Change": Cucumbers get more pickled than the brine gets cucumbered. Tactical approaches won't solve strategic problems. The struggle of the cucumber can only delay, not change, the outcome. Struggling against inevitable change leaves us the object rather than the agent of change. The music of the microcosm is a refrain of pluralism, decentralization, and cooperation. Too often the words we hear don't match the music. In much the same way Kuhn observes scientists trying to "save the theory," we find ourselves hanging onto the old management structures. The missing element may well be our failure to truly believe in the ubiquity of our digital technology. For years we followed a functional approach. Computer technology was deployed to support the functions of the institution, roughly and quite arbitrarily, segregated into academic and administrative to fit the management model of the institution with chief academic and business officers. The czar model developed as we matured and recognized that the computer was insensitive to whether it was being used to forecast the weather or produce pay checks. But it isn't just the computer anymore. It is a whole series of digital technologies that define our organizing principles. To leverage information technology we must recognize and capitalize on the interplay of the silicon foundation under our ivory tower. While many are willing to talk pluralism and decentralization, they aren't quite so ready to believe in cooperation, viewing instead themselves enmeshed in a zero sum game. Cooperation within the institution comes only grudgingly, with protectionism a local as well as national folly. Inter-institutional cooperation is generally viewed as a win-lose strategy. One clear lesson of the microcosm is that we live in a global village and information technology is not a zero sum game. Microprocessor technology has clearly demonstrated that it is the idea, not the physical embodiment in artifact, that has enduring economic value. The surrogate of the library as a physical place, the computing center as a collection of machines, and the network as an assemblage of wires are weak concepts in the age of the microcosm. Viewed holistically, the information triad of libraries, computers, and communications can play the role of Maxwell's Demon in unleashing the latent energy of the talented people in our educational system. A focus on the client served rather than the action enabled is far too limiting for the age of the microcosm. Listen to the music. The melody is simple. Less is more -- more or less. ************************************************************************ For further reading: Gilder, George. Microcosm. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Weinberg, Gerald M. Secrets of Consulting: A Guide to Giving and Getting Advice Successfully. New York: Dorset House Publishing, 1985. ************************************************************************