When humans should take back control
Computers are wonderful tools but they are just that, tools. The ultimate responsibility for the tasks of the world remains with humans. And when humans abdicate that responsibility, chaos or worse can happen. Although much of the present financial crisis is the result of greed and mistaken ideology, an over-reliance on complex computer models has also played a significant role. Even the computerized handling of trades has caused some problems. The financial blog Bespoke notes:
Even though the NYSE’s stock has plummeted 77% from its highs in 2006, traders on the floor are becoming popular again, as investors want actual humans to handle trades during these troubling times. The Financial Times has an article on the topic today that is definitely worth reading. As long as everything runs right, computers and automated trading are great. The process is faster and more cost-efficient. Unfortunately, the system works until it doesn’t work, and when it breaks, the effects can be disastrous.
Less serious than the breakdown of worldwide finance but very common is the total incapacity of a store to function when the computer system goes awry. How many of you have been shopping when all transactions and business came to a screeching halt because the cash registers lost their computer network? Nobody seems to have manual backup. Actually, the clerks probably wouldn’t be able to make change anyway because they couldn’t add and subtract without a calculator.
An example of a related problem is given in Paul Murphy’s post, Words of Doom: “We have new software”, where he describes how a new computer system at Home Depot totally bollixed a purchase he tried to make.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
These same problems are revisited every few years and no fundamental change seems forthcoming. Basically, it is a cultural flaw which insinuates itself at the very moment least needed. To elaborate, I think it stems from the fact that truth and accuracy have never had a very secure place in the American pantheon. Although expediency is at first glance highly desirable, it is frequently coupled with the “don’t sweat the small stuff” attitude. That’s too bad, because the devil is in the details. Using popular formulae to expedite procedures is fine–if you understand ithe derivation, the dynamics and the results they produce. It seems that there is a sad lack of understanding of the underlying fundamentals. If you apply these formulae, or templates without understanding the process they are supposed to affect, you simply mess thing up! I know that this a snotty attitude, but it’s true. And the truth does not have to be popular or pretty.