By Suzann Dodd, Contributor
ALTHOUGH IT'S almost knee-jerk to dismiss critics of IT as being technophobic, the fact is, unless one is vigilant, productivity can drop alarmingly.
The secretary who could pound out 20 letters before lunch on a typewriter might be reduced to 10, the accountant who could have easily completed a task in a day, now needs a week. And although everyone seems busy, nothing is being produced.
In one company, the accounting department is segregated into one room, which contains three ancient computers with monochrome monitors. Productivity is high.
In another, the accounting department has state-of-the-art networked computers and productivity is much lower.
WHY?
Sites such as yahoo.com, skilljam.com flipside.com, et.al., offer myriad games. One can sit on the net and play for hours. Delphi.com, About.com, etc., have forums in which one can debate with people all over the world.
These are just examples of what happens when one allows unlimited Internet access to employees who really do not need it.
Yes, there are those who never go on the net. But these employees are dying out as people begin to appreciate its value.
Further, considering the cost of Internet access, the only time some people can afford to get on is at work.
'Multi-tasking' is not a real option. Try to type a letter while downloading pages on the Internet. If you don't crash, you will notice a slowness and the likelihood of a glitch where you lose your work.
Employers have to be vigilant. S/he has to ensure that the Internet (as well the games which come with the computer), are not used in lieu of production.
There are employees who do find many useful items on the net which assist the business, so these should not be stifled. But those who do not need access shouldn't have it.
There is another issue which requires note: the fact that many persons do not read their own e-mail but have someone else do so, often printing it to hard copy.
This defeats the nature of e-mail, turning a computer into an expensive fax machine.
Many people write e-mails to get an instant response. Treating it as snail mail and 'getting around to it' instead of getting to it is a handicap.
Persons who use e-mail as it should be utilised will realise you haven't a clue and use it against you.
HOW?
Suppose I know that a secretary or someone else reads your mail or puts it into exposed hard copies? The embarrassment factor is live.
Suppose I put important information into an 'attachment' knowing that you won't get it? I can declaim I sent it and prove it. That you have been denied it is your fault.
Become functionally computer literate.
Suzann Dodd is an attorney-at-law.
