I'm declaring today a good day to hate technology. I spent the better part of my afternoon configuring my older HP “All-in-One” Printer to work with my wife's Mac in our home office. I could not get the Mac to connect to the printer, and the longer I tried the more frustrated I became. On principal I refused to pay $35 per hour to talk to an HP technical support person over the phone to help me fix something that should not be broken.

I'm not a Luddite or a technical dummy; most days I embrace technology. I have a degree in computer science, and worked at the beginning of my career as a software development engineer. I still know my way around a computer, so to get the printer to work, I looked at port numbers, changed static IP addresses and a tried a number of other obscure technical fixes, none of which worked. Technology should not be this hard. Today I hate technology.

My struggle with my printer is emblematic of a number of issues legal departments today face when incorporating technology into their business processes, and forewarns of the frustrations they may encounter. Take note.

Problems Most Often Occur in the Gray Area between Systems: Most problems occur with the interoperability between systems – in my case between a Mac, router and printer. While each device individually worked fine, together, they didn't. Corporate legal departments also seek to integrate disparate systems, connecting content management systems and e-mail archives with work flow and other technologies. Be careful. The more touch points between systems, the greater the risk of problems.

Advances in Usability Get Overwhelmed by More New Complexity: Over the past couple of decades engineers have made major strides in “human factors” research, making computers easier to use. Why are they still hard then? While computers are getting easier, manufacturers are adding complexity even faster. Printer manufacturers, for example, are always trying to add more features to these devices including integrated web applications and image management capabilities. Many providers of legal technology are taking the same tack, creating “Cadillac” products with extra bells and whistles. Legal departments should ask themselves how much of this new complexity they need, or would they be better off with a simpler “Chevy” that works and does the job well. Quite often a Chevy does fine.

Technology Vendors Too Often Focus on Meeting the Design Spec, But Not the User Need: Technology sometimes does exactly what it is supposed to do, but this “supposed to” functionality is not very useful. In engineering parlance this is a classic dilemma between verification and validation. Corporate legal departments need to ensure that any proposed new technology not only does what it is designed to do, but more importantly that the system enables the business to run better.

It's Not You: Users (especially those in the legal department) are often self-critical when technology doesn't work. “It must be my fault,” they think to themselves. “I must have pushed the wrong button or I should have read Appendix B in the manual.” Don't believe it; it is not you. Technology is still too hard to use. Fortunately, I recognized this when struggling with my printer. At the end of the afternoon I gave up, junked my older printer, and spent $100 to buy a new, easier-to-install system. This was part rational business decision, part emotional release. By tomorrow I will get over my frustration and be my old technology-embracing self again. Today, however, I hate technology.

Read Mark Diamond's previous column. Read Mark Diamond's next column.

I'm declaring today a good day to hate technology. I spent the better part of my afternoon configuring my older HP “All-in-One” Printer to work with my wife's Mac in our home office. I could not get the Mac to connect to the printer, and the longer I tried the more frustrated I became. On principal I refused to pay $35 per hour to talk to an HP technical support person over the phone to help me fix something that should not be broken.

I'm not a Luddite or a technical dummy; most days I embrace technology. I have a degree in computer science, and worked at the beginning of my career as a software development engineer. I still know my way around a computer, so to get the printer to work, I looked at port numbers, changed static IP addresses and a tried a number of other obscure technical fixes, none of which worked. Technology should not be this hard. Today I hate technology.

My struggle with my printer is emblematic of a number of issues legal departments today face when incorporating technology into their business processes, and forewarns of the frustrations they may encounter. Take note.

Problems Most Often Occur in the Gray Area between Systems: Most problems occur with the interoperability between systems – in my case between a Mac, router and printer. While each device individually worked fine, together, they didn't. Corporate legal departments also seek to integrate disparate systems, connecting content management systems and e-mail archives with work flow and other technologies. Be careful. The more touch points between systems, the greater the risk of problems.

Advances in Usability Get Overwhelmed by More New Complexity: Over the past couple of decades engineers have made major strides in “human factors” research, making computers easier to use. Why are they still hard then? While computers are getting easier, manufacturers are adding complexity even faster. Printer manufacturers, for example, are always trying to add more features to these devices including integrated web applications and image management capabilities. Many providers of legal technology are taking the same tack, creating “Cadillac” products with extra bells and whistles. Legal departments should ask themselves how much of this new complexity they need, or would they be better off with a simpler “Chevy” that works and does the job well. Quite often a Chevy does fine.

Technology Vendors Too Often Focus on Meeting the Design Spec, But Not the User Need: Technology sometimes does exactly what it is supposed to do, but this “supposed to” functionality is not very useful. In engineering parlance this is a classic dilemma between verification and validation. Corporate legal departments need to ensure that any proposed new technology not only does what it is designed to do, but more importantly that the system enables the business to run better.

It's Not You: Users (especially those in the legal department) are often self-critical when technology doesn't work. “It must be my fault,” they think to themselves. “I must have pushed the wrong button or I should have read Appendix B in the manual.” Don't believe it; it is not you. Technology is still too hard to use. Fortunately, I recognized this when struggling with my printer. At the end of the afternoon I gave up, junked my older printer, and spent $100 to buy a new, easier-to-install system. This was part rational business decision, part emotional release. By tomorrow I will get over my frustration and be my old technology-embracing self again. Today, however, I hate technology.

Read Mark Diamond's previous column. Read Mark Diamond's next column.