The world of business is an incessant cycle of change. Various factors fuel this and there are competing elements offering resistance (friction). This persists over time within organizations. There is some tendency to cast the innovation element as the next generations and the friction as the old fogies. There was a great examination of generational influence on International Youth Day 2023. Nonetheless, the progress and friction elements need not be generational within any micro example.
There is a sound argument regarding the resistance. If it ain’t broke, why fix it? The reality is that any innovation or change presents cost. There is cost in terms of purchasing the latest software, purchasing the hardware capable of running it, training, staff, and others to use it, and even in facilitating acceptance by the customer
In the technology world, I have observed us locked in a never-ending cycle of software capability. There was a time when the fully functional version of Microsoft Word came on a floppy desk (5.25 inches - 160k, later increased to 360k). With it, one could generate and manipulate vast documents.
In the 30 years since, the additions and “improvements” to Word have been nominal at best. The space required now to install this program on a local computer is more than 4MB. I remember when a 20MB hard drive seemed an insurmountable volume of space.
Nonetheless, the program has become larger, more feature-intensive, and capable of catering to very small niche audiences with various themes, formats, and niceties. Nonetheless, in the legal profession, its ability to address and accomplish core needs is simply unchanged since the early 1990s. And yet, capabilities increased, system demands increased, and a vast array of software and hardware innovations have passed through the collective consciousness of millions of consumers and users.
As software has become more complex, greater volumes of memory have been required, and more rapid processors. In truth, these improvements drive perception and interaction. The trend has been towards turning tools into playthings. Computers have increasingly been about gaming, and social interaction, rather than research in production.
The “improvements“ afford opportunities for early adopters to expend significant sums in pursuit of the latest and greatest. Those who balk at spending $1000 each for 36-inch curved monitors, to replace perfectly functional and usable, existing tools, are accused of leuditism, and limited vision.
There are some who see such spending as wasteful and others who see progress. Imagine a state agency throwing away 400 perfectly usable computer monitors and spending $200,000 of your money on such monitors. Again, some would see progress and the friction might see only waste.
Conversely, this week, the news broke of the Japanese government, breaking its vows of “until death do we part“ with the venerable floppy disk. Japan has been a traditional innovator in the digital transitions. Tools (toys), such as the Walkman, cassette recorder, and others will be forever associated with the names of various Japanese innovators and manufacturers.
Despite this innovation tendency, Japan appears to be among the last to part company with the floppy disk. See Japan Declares War on the Floppy Disc. This was a tool that became available in the early 1970s. It started as an 8-inch version, which shrunk to the 5.25-inch disc version. Those two actually flexed or "flopped." The discs were magnetic and they would spin in a computer "drive" while a head read or wrote the surface data.
Yes, we all carried data around with us on these discs. they were prone to problems, sometimes were fragile, and we often times had at least dozens of them to hold our volumes of data. We thought the new day had dawned when Sony pioneered the 3.5-inch floppy in the 1980s. It had a hard plastic case and a built-in slide that automatically covered the disc surface when not in use. And it held over a megabyte of data.
We were ecstatic. We early-adopters rushed to the product, and I remember the old friction saying "do we have to buy new computers?" Transitions from tech to tech were challenging. I remember when computers did not have "USB" ports. That stands for Universal Serial Bus. In no time now, you will not be able to find a computer that has one, as the world moves on to the "micro USB," and the "universal" in the first one becomes a punch line.
Today, the Japanese divorce from the 1.4 MB floppy. They will no longer require submission of documents on such media. While we might laugh that they have persisted in that process, there was a time when practice in Florida workers' compensation required that all motions were accompanied by a floppy disc with a proposed order. Back in the day, this agency was incapable of generating and issuing orders effectively and efficiently.
That was before the idea of an emailed document attachment, before flash drives, and the steps between the mailing of floppy discs and today have been both many and expensive. Much hardware, software, training, and angst have been involved in the transitions between the "mail us a floppy" and the modern era of judges merely generating and issuing orders. That long road requires our comprehension, and the innovations and changes demand our respect.
The BBC article regarding Japan divorcing the discs notes that they are anachronistic. There is a lesson there of clinging too long to a technology, a paradigm. It is entertaining to consider anyone still using antiques, but here there is evidence of an innovative and forward-thinking tech society that clung to 1980s technology through the entire first quarter of a new millennium.
There are lessons here. Tech can be embraced too long and the Luddite tendencies afforded too much deference. Yes, what we have is familiar, comfortable, and desirable. Yes, the new tech can be expensive, confusing, and intimidating.
By the same token, significant money can be wasted on toys and improvements that are not productive or efficient. Spending tens of thousands of dollars on "the next thing" should meet with rational consideration of need, impact, and efficiency.
In short, we must each fight both our inner child and our inner Luddite when it comes to technology. There must be progress, lest we fester and stagnate. There must be caution, lest we waste your money in pursuit of toys for the sake of toys.
So, if it ain't broke? You decide. There is merit in avoiding "progress," but there is detriment at some stage. In all a happy medium will afford reasonable progress at a reasonable cost. Innovation is not evil, but there is merit in not answering every marketing dog whistle that sounds. You don't want to be in Japan's floppy shoes, but you cannot afford to waste resources either. I still shudder each time I see a $1,000 computer monitor.
