| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Technology and The Right
Since getting their behinds handed to them in the last two election cycles, people on the Right have been taking a long hard look at why they've turned into such losers. One of the areas of concern that have popped up as a result of this introspection has been the role of technology in politics. Technology, many are now convinced, is super-terrifically important. "After all," they argue, "just look what Obama did with his web site. We need to do that!"
So now, the politicos are all jumping onto the technology bandwagon. Being good politicos, they are going about it wrong.
There has been a rush of political consultants to learn technology, so they can bill themselves as "technologists" (They aren't). There's been a stampede to get Twitter accounts and Facebook and MySpace profiles. Everyone is throwing around cool-sounding terms like "Web 2.0" and "Social networking software".
All of this generates a lot of heat, but, unfortunately, very little light.
Primarily, that is because the people engaging in this discussion, for the most part, don't have any clue about technology. Oh, they know the buzzwords, and they have a grasp of what some current technologies do, and maybe even have some good ideas about how to use tech here and there.
But they don't know technology. What they know, to some greater or lesser degree, is how to use some products of technology. But how to architect it, design applications, or how to implement them…they don't have a clue.
On the other hand, I don't look at technology from a political point of view. I've worked with computers for twenty-seven years, starting programming when I was a high-schooler. I've been a full-time, professional developer, database architect, web designer, and systems analyst for the last 12 years.
So, from that point of view, I offer up the following bits of advice to the politicos.
MANAGEMENT BY MAXIM
Outside the pure tech world, technology is never a driver. Technology is a support function. It can tell you how to do something. But it can't tell you whether you should do something.
The first step in implementing any technology should be the requirements of your business or organization. What problems do you face, and how do you overcome them? What processes should you implement? What information would you like to store or query? What strategies would you like to implement? What objectives support those strategies? What business tactics will allow you to achieve those objective?
Note, please, that none of these questions have anything to do with technology at all. These are all questions about the goals and means of the organization. If you don't know the answers to these questions technology is useless. To the extent that it helps you, it's a result of luck, and nothing else.
Jon related an interesting and amusing tidbit to me over the phone this morning. He noted that everyone in the politics business was getting Twitter accounts.
Why?
What does getting a Twitter account do for you? How does Twitter achieve your organizational goals? How will you use it to further those goals? What is the desired outcome of using Twitter? It's not enough that all the cool kids have a Twitter account. Its use has to be in service of some organizational objective, or it's just a waste of time, no matter how much fun it might be subjectively.
Business requirements are always the driver for technology, not the reverse.
You must construct the business maxims you desire to implement first. These are derived from the strategic goals and objectives of your organization. From those business maxims, you and your technologist then derive IT maxims that describe the information you need to access, the software and hardware you need, and the human and physical infrastructure to support it. This is known as Management by Maxim.
The nice thing about this is that you don't need a technologist, or even have any deep understanding of technology to oversee this process. You do, however, need to know 1) what the organization's strategy, goals, objectives are; 2) the problems your organization faces; 3) the business processes you'd like to implement; and 4) how to document them clearly.
The job of the technologist is to take that documentation, and design the hardware and software technologies that support your business requirements.
If you aren't implementing technology this way, then you're doing it wrong.
A good primer on management by maxim can be found in Broadbent and Weill's article from the Sloan Management Review, which is available for free online here, in PDF format.
WHERE THE BOYS ARE
The technology boys (and girls), I mean.
Let me be frank.
If someone has spent 20 years as a political consultant, and the last four years as a web designer/programmer on the side, then that person is not a technologist. If you're looking for a technologist somewhere inside the Beltway, then you're looking in the wrong place.
Real technologists work in the field full time. Real technologists have a history of creating IT/ IS solutions in fields other than politics or government--and that includes the beltway bandits. Real technologists have probably done very little, if any, work in politics at all. Real technologists work at Yahoo! or Telligent, or at private consultancies in Omaha (and San Diego!). They do nothing but technology, and they do it for all kinds of organizations.
That means that, to find effective tech guys, you are going to have look outside northern Virginia and southern Maryland. You will not know these people personally. They may not, in fact, particularly care about or support your politics. And you should not care.
They don't need to know politics. What they need to learn, they will, because that's what they do. They go into a retail sales or construction business, and they learn as much of the business as they need to learn to provide technology solutions. They are professionals at it.
You don't need activists to create your IT solutions. You need professionals who will implement your business rules, and support your strategic goals with the appropriate technology. You don't need to care what they believe, only that their solutions work to effectively promote your organization's strategy.
Be warned: You will have to pay them real money. They are worth every penny.
CONCLUSION
Technology is massively useful. But only if you harness it to support your goals. Without a strategic vision, you're implementing technology in the dark, without any guarantee that it will ultimately be helpful. Technology is merely a tool to help your organization succeed. If you want to use technology to get you to where you want to go, you need to have a very clear idea of where you want to go in the first place, and to map out the process for getting there. Only then does technology have any real use for you.
Anyone who tries to sell you technology without forcing you to go into details about your strategy, processes, and objectives, isn't someone you want to buy technology from.
- DaleFranks's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
Very smart
But bad news for the inside-the-Beltway snake oil salesmen (and women).
Excellent Points!
I made some similar points yesterday in a post in my own blog. I'm an adjunct English professor, and I'm known for using technology in my classes. I've seen the same thing with colleagues who decide they need to use technology and don't bother to consider what tool best meets their needs. In the last year and a half, the big "thing" has been Second Life. It has a lot of potential in some fields, but it's not appropriate for all subjects.
Very good points
Way back in the early 80s when I got a graduate certificate in information systems managment, the classes were full of eager youngsters (now tech consultants) who all wanted to bypass the boring process analysis and get right into coding programs. Our systems design prof pointed out that he made a six figure income correcting the mistakes of people who were so focused on the technology they overlooked the process.
Thank you for emphasizing strategy & business requirements
LoL, I've been waiting for you to get here since May, 2008 - what took you so long? I have 20 years of IT experience in now-obsolete programming languages (C, C++), systems analysis and business process management. I currently perform Business Process Improvement and Reengineering and create business cases, functional requirements, use cases and test cases for several major projects a year at a global technology corporation in California. I've posted regularly on The Next Right under both lagomorph and GOP_Rebel on strategic planning, business requirements, enterprise business modeling and Business Intelligence. None of my posts on any of these topics has been promoted, so now that yours has made it to Page One I'm gonna cry like a girl (which I am, LoL).
In my posts on leveraging Business Intelligence as "Conservative Intelligence", I suggest that the conservative information network could be viewed as a giant enterprise information system - if it had the data warehouse to aggregate the information. Of course now it's a spaghetti network of unintegrated blogs, surveys, social networks and APIs either collecting no data whatsoever, or collecting redundant and/or disconnected data that doesn't lend itself to comprehensive analysis and reporting.
I attended a conference call for Top Conservatives on Twitter this weekend, and was astonished to discover that it was heavily attended by 20-30 volunteers who are fully employed technology professionals including project managers, CIO's, tech CEO's and PHP, XML and Java programmers. These are my people. They get me. If you're interested in the #TCOT conference call notes, contact me on Twitter with your email address.
I think there's value to every effort including creating a millionTwitter and other social media accounts and thousands of "recreate/rebuild/reinvigorate the party" websites, but without an underlying set of guiding principles, core values, goals and objectives, these efforts will continue to be random, disjointed, and less effective than if thousands of decentralized activities revolved around one centralized mission.
The main challenge, in addition to the requirements, is credible, consistent and committed leadership. Saul Anuzis has been the RNC candidate most engaged in the #TCOT movement thus far, but Michael Steele is coming along also. The type of party leadership either of these gentlemen would provide helps us by offering a real champion or sponsor. We have leadership without authority in the form of Hugh Hewitt, who's brought thousands and thousands of new Twitter users online through his Townhall blog and talk radio show. #TCOT is 100% volunteer at the moment, and it will be fun to see whether the professional technology volunteers are capable of pulling off deliverables of as high a quality and value as the so-called "political consultants". Personally, I think we can all learn a tremendous amount from each other that will not only help the RNC and conservatism in general, but will also help our individual careers - and that is all good.
Point of disagreement
Bunk. Real technologists are everywhere. I could personally give you a list of 50 top tier developers all in the Metro DC area. Half of these are working on massive data mining/predictive analytics for various agencies, projects that approach a Google level of complexity. Although I will admit that a lot of them have Google, Akamai, Yahoo etc. on their resumes. By the way, all the companies you mention have healthy staffing in the DC area, not to mention Oracle, IBM, SAS, etc. etc. Hit up the next 2600 meeting in Pantagon City, I've got good money that says you'll find about ten people who can code circles around you.
Sheesh. I should write a primer on finding talent for all the people moaning about how you can't find technologists in the DC area...
I should write a primer on
Yeah. I think my point was to get out of the inside the Beltway mindset, especially since candidates nationwide can utilize local talent, rather than trying to seek out some DC help.
On the subject of primers...
In object-oriented analysis and design, the goal is to reuse objects, to mix and match them appropriately for various needs. The topic of primers prompted me to suggest that it might be valuable to consider producing consistent deliverables around the nation with local talent.
Is there a benefit to having the ads/websites/blogs/petitions/what-not in Maryland have a consistent look, feel and overall message as the ones in Washington State and Colorado? Is there a benefit to going with a common set of requirements throughout, and then tweaking the requirements for your particular client's needs? This requires an additional skillset to produce and maintain the documentation. Storing project templates in a common but secure repository is another consideration.
I also have some concerns about campaigns, causes and movements employing technical staff who don't necessarily share the values of the client. At a minimum, the staff should agree to and sign both intellectual property and nondisclosure agreements which would allow the client to legally retain confidentiality and information propriety. For those of us who are professionals, this is a de rigeur part of our business. For amateurs, this could produce wails of "Oh, you're repressin' me!" like the serf scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
You make some good points, but..
I think that would come off as a little too "manufactured." The idea is a good one but abstract it a bit. What I mean is that I see little value in portability of look and feel, but certainly consistancy of data structure would be a good thing. Designing a common schema and a service enabled interface to front it could be a start.
P.S. Not saying a widget etc. repository would be a bad thing, just that it's probably more important to make sure we're all on the same page schema-wise first.
I suppose this would be OK if we make the assumption that everyone working on the project would be paid/full-time personnel. However, what if we were to choose to augment a full-time effort with part-timers, like an open-source development effort. I don't know about you guys, but I grew up in the open-source community where information sharing barriers are virtually non-existant. I guess what I'm saying is "yes" to the NDA and "no" to the IP agreement.
Unfortunate but necessary
The internet is powered by masses of people clicking and talking about what they clicked. The GOP is at a disadvantage because they are outnumbered on the web. The typical Republican hockey mom or employed male doesn't spend as much time trolling around on YouTube or facebook as the dirty college students or obsessive middle-aged socialist.
The problem is compounded by a bad salesmen (McCain) and an ambiguous message (global warming AND big bailouts from Bush, really?).