Subject: Re: User Views
From: John W Noerenberg <jwn2@QUALCOMM.COM>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 17:05:09 -0800

At  2:28 PM 3/5/93 -0800, Marty Leisner wrote:
>In message <> you write:
>>> lower productivity in computers (no productivity gains since the 
>>> introduction of the IBM PC in '81)
>>> marty
>>What exactly do you mean by this statement?  That computers haven't made
>>Peter Webb                           
>They had a slew of articles (in the NY Times, Fortune, etc.) on the lack of an
>in office productivity since the introduction of the IBM PC...

No productivity increases?!

As long as we're slinging around news clippings, from Oct 92 IEEE Spectrum:
"Recently 53 engineers at Digital Equipment Corporation -- spread across
Massachuschetts, Arizona, Colorada, Singapore, and Germany -- collaborated
on the design of a new disk drive.  Most had never met and phoned each
other rarely.  Yet, Digital estimates that this dispersed group finished
its project one year sooner and needed 40 percent fewer people than would
have a team assembled in one building."

"'Electronic mail gives us about a 30 percent gain in productivity,'
estimated David Ditzel, director of advanced development at Sun."

If you treat a computer as a fancy replacement for a typewriter, I can well
understand how it might not aid productivity.  But that's not what happened
at Digital or Sun.

There's a paradigm shift underway in our world.  Computer networks are
allowing people to communicate in new ways -- more effective ways.  Better
communication leads to better information, more informed decisions, more
efficient use of your resources, hence higher productivity.

john noerenberg
noerenberg.j (Applelink)
We should listen.  But we won't be deceived
by words such as Indispensible, Unique, and Great.
Someone else indispensable and unique and great
can always be found at a moment's notice.
--When The Watchman Saw The Light, Constantine Peter Cavafy