Thanks to Gen Y, You'll Never Have to Buy Computers Again for Your Employees
The precise timing of forecasts is not my specialty. I often get the general direction right . . . but the timing is admittedly tricky.
I think my worst miss was back in the early 1980s when I was invited to speak to a national convention of pharmaceutical industry sales people. I told them that within five years there would be only half as many of them in the industry. It was already pretty obvious that promoting the use of drugs through one-on-one conversations between sales reps and doctors was a fairly inefficient model, given the growth of HMOs and generic drugs. I was sure that some company would re-think that operating model, take the plunge and score a big win.
Needless to say, they have never invited me back. And, for 20 years, the size of pharmaceutical sales forces industry-wide continued to increase. Although the industry is starting to consolidate and rethink significant parts of the cost structure, I continue to shake my head at how off I was on the timing.
With that warning, I’m going to try again. I think that within five years, maybe sooner, most companies will no longer supply computers for their employees. Workers will be expected to show up, computer in hand. Technology will be personal.
Generation Y workers entering the workforce today already “own” their own technology. It is as much a part of their personal being as wallets are to their parents. Computers are their address books, calendars, photo albums, music machines, and note pads all rolled into one. They don’t want to use the corporate computer, which in many cases is less sophisticated than the one they own. Y’s in our focus groups frequently commented that they had to “unlearn” how to do something in order to use the company’s old systems.
Soon the concept of corporations supplying computers (and cell phones) will be as outdated as the clothing allowances of the 1950s or company calculators of the 1970s. All tomorrow’s employees will ask is that business “beams them in.”
In many ways, this will be a blessing for corporations. The IT community devised the phrase “end-user computing” to describe what was a big trend in the 1980s: equipping business people with tools not only for accessing corporate applications, but also for enhancing their work and their communication with colleagues. Corporations then tried to control end-user computing with standards and administration systems, but it’s been a headache -- and a major expense -- ever since.
Sophisticated IT leaders today recognize that the assumptions underlying the management of this set of dispersed activities have become obsolete. My colleagues Nick Vitalari and Bob Morison, along with James Cash, retired Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, will be conducting a major piece of research this fall, working with a group of leading CIOs to explore this evident transition.
It’s clearly time for corporations to extricate themselves from end-user computing. Instead of dictating the boundaries, companies should think in terms of “participating in the network.” Instead of determining which technologies to adopt or reject, they need to devise appropriate ways to connect and authenticate useful technologies of many kinds. Instead of focusing on maintaining tight control, they must focus on enabling productive collaboration, both within and across the corporate boundaries.
The biggest barrier to this transformation may well be attitudinal. The impulse to control employee computing runs deep. What about hackers? Employee error or malfeasance? Government regulations (like Sarbanes-Oxley) that demand we be ever-so-careful with the management of key information? Security and privacy are always key concerns, but now is not the time to take an arbitrary and restrictive stance. The shift from control to collaboration is well under way in technology architecture, business management, and individual and group behavior. It’s time to encourage, not impede, employees’ ability to collaborate with colleagues, customers, business partners, and prospective customers and employees.
Now, let me make a confession: I first made this prediction five years ago. Nonetheless, I think (soon) you can tell your employees to buy their own computers.
What do you think?
HARVARD BUSINESS ONLINE RECOMMENDS:
Getting IT Right (HBR Article)
The New CIO Leader: Setting the Agenda and Delivering Results (Hardcover)
What It Means to Work Here (HBR Article)
Sign up for the Harvard Business Publishing Weekly Hotlist, a new weekly email roundup featuring the top highlights from HarvardBusiness.org.
- Comments (4)
- Join the Discussion
- Email/Share
Tamara J. Erickson is both a McKinsey Award-winning author and popular and engaging storyteller. Her compelling views of the future are based on extensive research on changing demographics and employee values and, most recently, on how successful organizations work. 
Comments
This is a very interesting concept. Sure it can save firms IT capital or does it?
It's true Y'ers as well as most IT professionals love their own technology. However, what about the interoperability of possibly 20 different systems? How about a performance standards of each system or software performance on these systems.
For example, if I have a workgroup of 20 people and they each have their own system. Let's say 5 have lower in processors, 5 have Windows XP Home, 5 have Mac OS 10 and 5 have Windows Vista Tablet PCs. Operating systems require updating for protection as well as the need to collaborate with corporate servers.
Enterprises can rely on individuals to update these systems for protection or ensure they are updated via Global Policy. The former is not likely, therfore putting the enterprise at risk.
What about intellectual property protection? What are the controls personnel leaving the firm? Or, how will you control corporation information once the employee leaves for the day? I'm sure there are legal issues on both sides.
I could go on, but I see many issues that must be addressed and with only a little critical thought, I question that any IT savings would exist and at what cost. An organizations most important asset is its people, however number two is its data.
My experience is a firm that does not protect its data will not be around long. I look forward to this study and future responses.
- Posted by Richard Darin Cretice
September 11, 2007 8:11 PM
A number of significant issues that are touched on but not given enough consideration here:
Even where entire organizations are driving their employees towards SOX compliance, the employees continually drag their heels. Alot. Imagine leaving them to their own devices. Imagine trying to audit a heterogenous computing environment. Collaboration is nice, but the Law doesn't care much about it. Executives WILL be sent to jail for non-compliance.
Security. Computer users (even college students today) are woefully uneducated or, even worse, apathetic to proper patching policies, password policies, etc. I did some research when I was a graduate student on visual passwords, and as part of that research, I analyzed trends and patterns in traditional text passwords. The results were apalling. Also, can you really depend on someone to take it upon themselves to properly encrypt sensitive data? Really? These are rhetorical questions of course, but definintly worth thinking about.
Application deployment and vendor interoperability. Essentially, client applications for vendor products or even internal applications do not run on multiple platforms. Java was a great idea, but I never see this deployed properly in any environment. Exceptions to this are simply just that; exceptions.
In summary; I'm of the opinion that you may be giving Gen Y entirely too much credit. This opinion is based solely on my own personal experience.
My background:
A BS in Data Telecom Networks, an MS in Human-Computer Interaction Design. I was an adjunct lecturer at the business school of my University during my years as a graduate student, teaching on security/technology/business and I currently work for one of the "Big 4" Accounting firms in an advisory capacity. All my clients have been Fortune 500 companies and my work has focused primarily on IT Process Improvement. I'm also 27, so I count myself as being close to "Gen Y".
- Posted by David Carter
September 12, 2007 11:25 AM
I don't think Gen Y will stand for paying for the computer that we do corporate work on, but I definitely agree that we want to use our own computers. I envision a deal where perhaps the company pays me a one time reimbursement, or perhaps, a leasing agreement for the time I spend using my computer for company work.
When I started my new job a few weeks ago, the organization gave me a laptop, which I was very excited about because it stated, "Here, work from anywhere, we trust you." But the laptop was just set up to access the work computer remotely, so I use my personal laptop to work remotely instead because it has everything on it (And you're right, it is a better computer). And with two completely different screens that I can switch between, it's the convenience of having two computers in one spot.
- Posted by Rebecca Thorman
September 12, 2007 11:56 AM
I rather not be too voluminous on the subject... because I am trying to be productive..
I don't see it happening because of the technolgies that are involved at a large enterprise to protect its assets. These are touched on in previous posts.
However, in smaller boutique environments, this could be a reality where the atmosphere is conducive. However, I think that in those realities, the concept would be closer to a "benefit" plan for the employee to be compensated for their computer purchases.
Kind of like expecting a janitor to show up with their own vacuum cleaner, this isn't going to happen without "something" extra. Technologies change rapidly and the requirements as well. So it's not like buying a car to get to work which will always get you there.
- Posted by Russ Hensley
September 12, 2007 4:01 PM