Using the
investigative tools of a good “de-tech-tive” (Ohler, 2010), we have a methodology
to assess the physical characteristics, enhancements, reductions, predecessors,
implications, contexts, biases, benefits and impacts (Ohler, 2010) of virtually
any innovation or technology. Two technologies I’d like to assess are the smart
phone and PowerPoint – in part, because my professional life revolves around
these two innovations. These two technologies have become part of the “ground”
of my professional life because I use them virtually everyday, whether on the
road or in the office. I don’t get paid to understand them; I get paid to use
them as part of my arsenal of tools in managing people and communicating
effectively. What may be even more important is that I never think about the
person or people who are affected by my use of these technologies. It’s almost as if I’ve placed a higher
priority on my communication than on their understanding. So, let’s bring them
to “figure” and make an assessment on the “how?”, “why?” and “to what extent?”
The smart
phone is an innovation that over half of American adults own; over 27% of the
world’s 5 billion cell phones are smartphones.
It is a wonderful amalgamation of technologies – all in one little
package, small enough to fit into a pocket. Physically, they consist of a
small, printed circuit board that has a PCS radio, a WiFi radio, a GPS
receiver, a processor for calls, an ear piece and mouth piece for a phone plus
a microphone and speakers, a processor for data, electronic RAM (random access
memory), silicon traces, glass (not just any glass, but special glass with a
thin layer of liquid crystal in it to detect touch), plastic, an antenna, a
camera, and some very sophisticated software. It’s difficult to imagine but the
average smart phone has almost 1,000 times more processing power than on the
original lunar landing module (Apollo 16).
The smart
phone takes cell phone technology to a whole new level. It provides for not
just phone calls, but e-mail, scheduling, contact databases, internet surfing,
and application use : so far, more than 700,000 applications across four main
operating systems (Blackberry, Apple, Android, and Windows). It amplifies our
mobile experience for communication modes.
At the same
time, however, it diminishes our face-to-face contact with people. The more
modes of communication we have at our disposal at one time, the less inclined
we are to travel to go see someone. Presentations can take place simultaneously
with a call in progress.
The smart
phone’s predecessors were the “plain old” cell phone – you know, the thing that
you could carry in your pocket but only made phone calls and sent and received
text messages. And the plain old cell phone replaced the plain old phone; that
device that was bolted to the wall in the kitchen, and which limited your
mobility to about 15 feet.
What do the current
versions of smart phones imply for the technology? The office, as we know it
today, may not exist in the next 5-10 years.
In fact, by 2014, mobile internet usage will overtake desktop internet
usage. The class room is changing, the “gathering place” is changing, and the
office will follow suit. These smart devices are rapidly becoming one’s
information, entertainment, communications, and social media hub.
What are the
social expectations that produced our desire to have this smart phone? The
social environment of the office has placed an expectation of
location-independent productivity on the average front-line worker. One must
choose between carrying a plethora of devices (a cell phone, a PC, a camera, an
mp3 player or an iPod, a wireless modem card, a Kindle, and a GameBoy) or
carrying a smartphone.
Smart phones
favor those with money – they’re much more expensive than a regular ol’ cell
phone. They also favor those who have sight and who have working hands and
fingers. Certain functions can be
performed with the voice, but to get maximum productivity out of a smart phone
requires a tactile operating environment.
Who gets left out? Clearly those
without money, those without sight, and those without the use of their hands have
been excluded from using the technology.
The qualities
which drove the creation and adoption of smart phones were their compact design,
their multiple functionality (keyboard, camera, reader, video watcher,
web-surfer, and a phone), and their mobile nature.
Smart phones
connect us to information and media sources we didn’t have access to – except
on hard-wired networks. They connect us to audiences and communities we didn’t
have access to. But smart phones simultaneously disconnect us from physical
presence – audiences, meetings, the office, communities, friends and family.
Now a look
at an older technology: PowerPoint. It is a much older technology than the
smart phone, but is every bit at the center of productivity in corporate
America. Physically, it can exist on paper with multi-colored ink, or it can
exist electronically on the screen of a PC, Tablet, smart phone or screen.
PowerPoint
enhances our communication and our ability to communicate complex concepts with
phrases and pictures; however, it can diminish our ability to write critically and
clearly. Too much gets communicated with cryptic phrases, acronyms, and “ducks
and bunnies” pictures, graphs, and visual aids.
The
predecessor to PowerPoint was the “slide deck”. I use to travel with my slide
deck in my slide carousel. Flying between meetings, I would arrange the slides
to fit the presentation I wanted to make. The predecessor to the slide show was
the sepia slide with an overhead projector. Unfortunately, I also remember
those days of using the sepia slides to make presentations.
An
implication for PowerPoint is the ability to share point-to-multipoint in a
conference environment, where each person is viewing a shared PowerPoint –
appearing simultaneously on everyone’s computer or tablet- while the presenter
is talking on a conference bridge.
The social
expectations in the business world for using this technology are unspoken but
nearly universal. Rarely does a meeting take place without someone asking the
question, “do you have a deck for us to follow along?”
PowerPoint
is biased toward those with sight, as well as those present in the meeting or
with a video-share sight. Who gets left out? Those without sight, those who
aren’t present in the room, and those who don’t have a computer or tablet or who
don’t have access to an electronic exchange for video connect.
The benefits
of PowerPoint which drove its creation and adoption were that a predominantly
hardware and firmware-based presentation technology was reduced to software.
This new software is highly editable, and is almost completely hardware-independent.
PowerPoint
connects us to a presenter through concepts, thoughts, data, and trends, but it
can disconnect us from the printed word, from critical writing and from
scholarly articles. Especially in the corporate world, where billion-dollar
decisions are made with the use of two to four succinct PowerPoint slides. Here
brevity is king and verbosity is a liability.
Being able
to assess technology in this manner gives me the same platform that Socrates’
students had. Upon hearing his wisdom, they could apply it to themselves, and
once internalized, could turn around and ask the probing questions of those
around them. Ohler’s de-tech-tive assessment
tools now give us, as media psychologists, the job to ask the questions of
“how?”, “why?”, and “to what extent?” in order to bring our innovations into
focus, lest they “roll over us” (McLuhan, 1964) completely unawares.
References:
American
Cell Phone Usage Statistics – 2011. Retrieved on 11/10/12 from: http://signalnews.com/american-cell-phone-usage-statistics-2011-686
McLuhan,
Marshall (1964). Understanding media: The
extensions of man. Critical Edition, Terence Gordon (Ed.). Berkeley, CA.
Gingko Press, Inc.
Mobile Phone
Statistics retrieved from Digital Buzz on 11/10/12 from: http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/2011-mobile-statistics-stats-facts-marketing-infographic/
Ohler, Jason
(2010). Digital Community: Digital
Citizen. Corwin. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Processing
Power for the Lunar Landing Module. Retrieved on 11/9/12 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
No comments:
Post a Comment