EDITOR’S NOTE: the following is my reply to a comment regarding technology being either a “game-changer or Sci-fi.”
Subash Chandar, which brings us back to John Elkington‘s “Triple Bottom Line,” – https://bit.ly/3ToqhdQ.
If you don’t understand conflicts like the one you correctly describe, success will be elusive.
That is why using an agent-based development and implementation model is critical to success, rather than continuing to use the tech-led equation-based model. Technology is the last piece of the puzzle – not the first. If we keep putting tech first, it will become Sci-fi.
Here is an excerpt from the review of my 2004 paper stating that technology is irrelevant:
“Yes, Jon Hansen has expressed the view that technology, in isolation, is “irrelevant” in achieving successful outcomes in procurement and eProcurement initiatives. He emphasizes that the effectiveness of technology depends significantly on how organizations manage its implementation, focusing on internal ownership and strategic oversight rather than relying solely on technological solutions. Hansen argues that without proper organizational management, technology serves merely as a tool and cannot guarantee success on its own.”
What is your takeaway from the above?
30

Tahj
December 5, 2024
If you are invited to a bbq/cookout and you ask the host what type of meat you should bring, host says ‘you know, meat for a bbq…’
you go to the store and select little smokies.
you show up to the party, the host says, ‘what’s this man…I told you to bring meat, lol…’
You say, ‘I did bring meat, I asked and you didn’t specify what TYPE of meat!’
No different with tech right, is the client/customer specifying and listing out the exact requirements, needs, and pain points for the tech solution (‘bbq/cookout’). The tech is there, how do you want to present and implement it (how and what type of meat does the bbq host want presented for the guests (end users/company). 🤔 🤷🏼♂️
piblogger
December 5, 2024
You will enjoy reading today’s post – People And ProcureTech: The Complexity Behind Simplicity