The BOX. (information systems professionals' preoccupation with technology)

This column has pretty much lambasted the technology freaks in the world. It's as good a time as any to explain why. First, we have to determine exactly what the "BOX" is. For purposes of this column, the "BOX" is anything and everything except application software. You may not agree with that wide ranging definition; but about the only thing that you can really control is the applications. Operating systems, netware, database managers - all that stuff is pretty much static once you've made a choice.

So what's my problem? I simply do not understand why so much time and effort are given to things that are out of your control. Most of the "BOX" components are "gotta haves;" and there are only marginal differences in capability from one manufacturer to another. Cost is still an overall factor; but, once again, the marginal cost of one configuration vs. another (same capabilities) is relatively slim. Why all the fuss? Why is there so much techno-babble? Why so many magazines, and books, and articles about this stuff?

I think it's because the technology is sexy. Applications are really kinda boring. It's pretty tough to get fired up about Accounts Receivable. But the newest Frazzits from Whosit? Now there's something we can really bandy about the water cooler. Lots of "Have you seen's" and "What do you think of's" are possible. You just can't do that very well over an Aging Report.

The fact of the matter is, though, that all the "BOX" stuff doesn't amount to a hill of beans without the applications. There's really nothing that you can do with a computer unless it has some kind of application. And yet, very few are paying attention to the most important thing they have.

I've had the opportunity to work with a new bunch of people lately. A diverse group of developers who work only on in-house projects. Frankly, I'm amazed. Conversations revolve around physical files, databases, hardware, and code. At least the code part is a move in the right direction. There is no logical data model. There is no accepted development methodology. There is no concept of phased planning (or any planning for that matter). There is a good deal of frustration. A considerable amount of griping and moaning. Given this particular group of relatively young folks, and the organization they work for, I fear that they may be a good representation of many in-house shops. And if so, so what?

Ask yourself these little questions. Who really pays for your work? In almost every case, in-house development is completely overhead. The users pay directly through charge-outs, or indirectly by generating the revenue, or both. Whatever way, you are not self supporting - in most cases. What do the buyers want? To get THEIR work done in the most efficient and effective means possible. If a hammer and anvil gets that done, then that is, indeed, what they want. We seldom if ever build an application for our own use. Why, then, do we expend so much energy on bells & whistles? Why do we worry about junk like platform, and megahertz, and (god forbid, the most ridiculous measure I've ever heard) MIPS? You have your job to build applications, not add hardware.

For more than twenty years I've heard users complain about the time and expense of in-house development. ...