NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/econ/9561

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!network.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!convex!canright
From: [e-mail] (Robert Canright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Book on computer industry's effect on economy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Jan 93 17:52:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.canright.726083564
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Lines: 54
Nntp-Posting-Host: neptune.convex.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kelly Schwarzhoff) writes:

>I tried searching through melvyl and gladis (UC and UCB's electronic card
>catalog) but I had problems trying to categorize what I was looking for.
>What do you say when you're looking for economic statistics of the computer
>industry's effects? Do you have any suggestions as to which papers I could
>look for?

Regarding electronic card catalogs:  What I meant by computerized
literature searches is going to that office of the library that runs lit
searches and having them run the search.  A typical lit search runs about
$30.  There are a variety of data bases --INSPEC is one example for
engineeering-- that are tapped & searched.  College libraries have people
that know how to do that.  They take information from you-- key words--
& check the data bases for them.  It's like fishing.  There is also an
element of luck in finding what you want.

>> What do you mean by that? Everyone knows there is a lot of marketing
>> hype in the computer industry that doesn't come true. Every so often
>> one sees an article "exposing" some of the fluff to be false. Is that
>> what you're talking about.

>True, there is a lot of hype, but to say that computers has made business
>more unproductive is a bit of an exageration, wouldn't you say?

Not at all.  E.g., in conjunction with bad management computers can waste
enourmous resources.  Take presentations as an example.  Computers make
attractive reports & presentations possible, so some companies demand more
and more fancy presentations.  It's not at all infrequent for a manager to
spend 80 to 90% of his time with presentations.  Progress becomes secondary
to the appearance of progress.

Also, computers allow individuals to royally screw up.  Companies believe
in computers -- they are assets-- but people are expenses and many
companies get cheap labor that causes quite a lot of harm when armed with
a computer.  Remember:  American corporations lie & cover up quite a lot.
Published accounts, even in business periodicals, are unreliable.  I think
we are near the breakeven point where computers do as much harm as good for
a semi-competent user.  The key to productivity with computers is a good
work force.  Just because a corporation says "People are our most important
asset" doesn't mean the corp. believes or truly practices that.  We are in
the middle of a big shake-up in American corporations.  Misuse of computers
& their users is one symptom among many in ailing corporations.

>Besides, in my essay I'm trying to concentrate on the positive effects.

I suggest concentrating on the wealth created by the industry:  the number of
companies, the number of employees, the number of millionaires @ Microsoft,
the contribution to US exports, the growth of the computer industry
compared to older industries like aerospace.  These are concrete positive
effects.  Quite a  lot of other positive effects are too buried in bologna
to be reliable.... Or course, you have to follow your inclinations...
>--
Bob Canright