The rise of the technophile - why IT teams will have to learn to love personalisation
Since law firms started providing IT systems and services to their employees, those firms have dictated which device would be used. Over the decades of in-house IT systems and services, the nature of those devices has changed very little. A large proportion of the static working population have used desktop machines for years – yes, they are smaller, much more powerful and have a much wider range of services, but they remain fundamentally the same. The user gets a screen – flat and much larger, a processing unit – now small and often hidden away, and a keyboard with a mouse.
July 20, 2011 at 07:03 PM
6 minute read
As employees become much more particular about the technology they use, BLP's Janet Day argues that IT teams will have to learn to love personalisation
Since law firms started providing IT systems and services to their employees, those firms have dictated which device would be used. Over the decades of in-house IT systems and services, the nature of those devices has changed very little. A large proportion of the static working population have used desktop machines for years – yes, they are smaller, much more powerful and have a much wider range of services, but they remain fundamentally the same. The user gets a screen – flat and much larger, a processing unit – now small and often hidden away, and a keyboard with a mouse.
Other users, who justify the additional costs on the grounds of travel, flexibility or seniority, receive notebook PCs, which have become increasingly lighter, cheaper and more powerful – the lifecycle of notebooks definitely obeys Moore's law.
But the walls are coming down around that carefully prepared citadel of privilege – the IT team are no longer the force majeure arbiters of what device can access the system and how a user is required to access it. The drivers behind this change are complex and worth considering.
First, there is accessibility. Traditionally, PCs were expensive items – this is no longer the case. Even trendy handheld devices come at a price that might make them an eye-wateringly expensive Christmas gift, but they are in that category. Users, therefore, can and do know which device they prefer to use.
There is also a certain amount of expectation – users expect to personalise the device, although corporate IT teams have traditionally fought against that. But why should a user not be able to choose different wallpapers, access their chosen music or even download applications which they use regularly in their daily, if not corporate, life? While this was a cause of complaint for the previous working population, for Generation Y and, more so, the millennials, it is an absolute requirement.
Then, of course, we move to the tricky issue of ease. Traditional Microsoft Windows-based PCs have never been easy – they are fine when working with loaded software, but use them to connect to an internet visible service while travelling and the myriad of issues experienced by the amateur user are such that only the dedicated stick at it on a regular basis. Fast forward to today when holding an iPad (or indeed any one of the devices appearing almost daily into the consumer space) in your hand, and ease of use has come to be regarded as a given.
Instant on means your email is there (the fact that what you can do with it is limited seems not to create a frisson of concern). From the comfort of your sofa you can browse the internet, view and purchase products and services, listen to music or watch a movie, and maybe even play Angry Birds – all that without the angst of having to make the connection work.
So against the utopia of the corporate agnosticism in relation to the user device, why are most organisations taking their time about employees bringing their own devices (regardless of whether it is self-funded or part of a flexible benefits package)?
It is tempting to answer that question with the issues surrounding security – which are currently the focus and fear of all corporate IT teams. Data loss, data leakage and accidental or malicious data theft are the middle-of-the-night worries for chief information officers (CIOs) worldwide. Of course, this is a real concern – but there are ways of managing or moderating the risk. Virtualisation creates ample opportunity to limit the amount of information a user is able to access locally on their device. And consider if the device is personal rather than corporate – may it not be that the user will take greater care of it and be less likely to lose it?
Here, fear, uncertainty and doubt can be a block on more flexible office tech. If the IT team loses control of device selection, if the clean corporate network suddenly becomes a dirty corporate network, then does the 'complex and difficult' environment of corporate IT become straightforward – and are CIOs and their teams therefore seeing enforced change affecting them which they did not originate? Frightening stuff – nearly like being a user when corporate systems are upgraded.
The difficulty here for many IT teams is that we are now managing the unknown – and it is unknown in such a wide variety of ways that its unsurprising take-up has been less speedy than you might have imagined – although be aware, it is happening. The users have embraced the device variety because for the first time they feel they are in charge. So it behoves the IT team to embrace these changes as well – still mindful of their responsibility for a secure computing environment.
Consumerisation and virtualisation are irrevocably linked – and will become a dominant corporate IT issue. The winners should be everyone – the corporate with its data still held in controlled ivory towers, the user happily skipping along the road with a device they like (even if they have to work hard to make it do everything they want) and the IT teams – who are still the custodians of good, valid data and the ever-increasing demand for accessibility. IT teams still have the responsibility for providing and maintaining all the systems – they provide the bubble of access to the corporate information tools that users need.
Ignoring the changes in this market sector would be akin to sitting Canute facing the waves and hoping that the tide is a myth – it did not work for Canute, and it will not work for IT teams. We should therefore get on and make this change work better for all. Be aware, this is the beginning of a period of change – there is much more to come.
Janet Day is director of IT at Berwin Leighton Paisner.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for Hard-Line Approach to Region
BCLP Mulls Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250