Mysteries of Online 4: The Bits Are Bits Fallacy
February 5, 2009
In a meeting last week, a young wizard said, “Bits are bits.” The context for this statement was a meeting to move an organization’s databased information and unstructured text online. The idea was that the task was trivial.
In fact, the task was a mixture of trivial and non-trivial sub tasks. So, bits are not the same because a zero and one may not behave like grains of salt. The ones and zeros may look the same, but one of the mysteries of online is that many factors bedevil the would be online entrepreneur. Google, for example, wants out of its AOL deal. Obviously the bit wizards at Google know that AOL bits are not Google bits here. But the GOOG dumped some serious coinage into the online company direct mail spam made famous.
Bits are bits just like penguins.
Here’s my list of factors, which is not complete and represents my thoughts to myself:
- Digital objects have stages. The source may be transformed, indexed, tokenized, and manipulated by two or more sub sub systems. Get these processes wrong, and weird behaviors become apparent. What’s wrong? Who knows. A person or persons have to figure it out, find a fix, and implement it. As this process goes forward, it becomes apparent that the bits are a tad mischievous
- A fancy search system cannot locate a document or other object. Indexing systems may skip malformed documents, indexes may not update, and other issues annoy users. What went wrong? Who knows. A person or persons have to figure it out, find a fix, and implement it.
- A document returns a 404 or file not found error. The document used to exist because it is in the index. Now the document has gone walkabout. What’s wrong? Who knows. A person or persons have to figure it out, find a fix, and implement it.
Causes
I wish I had a fool proof way to prevent errors caused by this “bits are bits” fallacy. Much of he frustration generated by search, content management, and business intelligence systems have their roots wrapped tightly around the facile assumption that electronic information is no big deal. Electronic information is a big deal and for many organizations electronic information may be their undoing. The reason? Many assume that once a file is in electronic form, the rest is easy.
Nope. the rest is hard, often expensive, and many times conceptually beyond the mental stage on within the would be online product will perform. Those with technical knowledge often know how to ameliorate the “bits are bits” issue. In my experience, the boss explains what is required. The tech staff asks some questions. The boss answers, The tech staff shake their heads and do what they can to meet the requirements. Often–well, many times–bosses don’t listen or defer to a committee with MBAs, art school graduates, and consultants. The results are often stunning in their impact on users.
Here are some search related examples:
- One government agency involved in police work has an insecure system. One could access the system and search for information that is not generally available to the public.
- On government agency spends $6 million for a news service that is used by fewer than 60 people. Most users rely on Google, but the clunker system keeps on getting funding.
- One government agency used a search system and discovered unauthorized content on secure servers. Some of the content was rich media if you get my drift.
I know of commercial examples as well. take a look at the news media’s Web sit4es. Which one is user friendly? The Chicago Tribune’s for fee service. The New York Times’ system? What about the Wall Street Journal? if bits were bits, these outfits would not face some of the challenges that plagues these sites.
These sites sort of work, but they limp along.
Resolving the Mystery
My view for the purposes of this short article may strike you as radical. But here goes. My hunch is that organizations will be more and more eager to get out of the information technology business. The shift is evident and will accelerate. The big winners will be vendors who offer solutions that allow the customer to have some hardware in its offices, but this will be for psychological purposes, a bit like a child with a blanket. The executive don’t want the burden of making technical decisions. Outsource the systems and pay attention to the real business of the organization–trying to stay in business.
instead of a highly diverse technical ecosystem, I think customers will support a three or four vendor ecosystem. I think life will be increasingly difficult for many hardware and software vendors, consultants, and executives. These folks will find themselves victims of the bits are bits fallacy. Once customers find out that bits are not bits, the revelation will force some changes that accelerate the emergence of the limited ecosystem.
Finally, I think technology will fall from the mountain top it has held for the past 40 years. Technology will be important, jut not the driver. No Web 2,0 consultant swizzle will take the place of running a profitable business. That takes human ingenuity and technical competence. The bits are bits folks will find life becoming difficult.
My hunch is that the bits are bits fallacy has contributed to the present economic climate. We have ourselves to blame. The bits, at least until Skynet becomes a reality, do our bidding. Uninformed decision making coupled with the dismissive attitude toward technical issues has:
- Made search dissatisfying
- Created information systems that users can’t manipulate
- Produced business intelligence outputs that are stupid or just plain wrong
- Fostered an information technology environment in which change costs so much the customer cannot change.
Bits are, therefore, not bits.
Stephen Arnold, February 5, 2009
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
