Editorial
Authors: T. Stewart
Year: 2013

There are two sets of papers in this ‘virtual’ issue of Behaviour and Information Technology (BIT ). The first group deals with the complex and often fraught world of software development and the second with the, sometimes unpredictable, world of technology adoption. I do not believe that the UK is alone in this, but large public software development programs seem to be very difficult to get right. In some ways, the sheer scale of public projects makes them difficult to manage but I believe the problems go far deeper. In many large-scale Information Technology (IT) projects, senior management is more focussed on resource deployment and costs than on technical delivery. Compare this to major buildings, also extremely complex technical constructions. Whilst these also often suffer from delays and problems, I do not believe that anyone thinks that the architect should worry about when people take holidays or whether the latest load of concrete has been delivered. The architect may have a team who oversees the construction but there are specialists on hand to deal with the day-to-day project management. The IT industry is slowly learning this lesson with the role of system architect now being recognised as important if the final system is to deliver but it is still difficult to have the final quality of the delivered system taken as seriously as time and money. As I have argued before, usability often suffers in this scenario, especially when it is regarded as nice to have, rather than an essential aspect of, a working system. I have explained that a project manager is likely to get away with a statement like ‘it’s not as easy to use as we would have liked but we didn’t want to delay the project’. Whereas what he or she should say is ‘we could deliver a system that won’t work but we thought a slight delay was acceptable to deliver an effective system’. One aspect of large systems is that the waterfall model is made worse by tightly written contracts. As the UK-based Institute for Government, said in March 2011 (www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk) ‘Most government IT therefore remains trapped in an outdated model, which attempts to lock project requirements up-front and then proceeds at a glacial pace. The result is repeated system-wide failure.’ Although it is not perfect, the user-centred approach (based on ISO 9241-210) is gaining traction as a means of improving systems. One aspect of this approach is that design teams should be multidisciplinary and include the end-user’s perspective and that designers should have more understanding of the business problems the system is intended to solve. These themes are picked up in the first section. As I write this editorial, the world (or at least parts of it) is waiting for Apple to announce its newest iPad and iPad mini. Thinking back to the previous section for a moment, one of the late Steve Job’s great strengths was that he never appeared to let the kind of business issues that bedevil big IT projects get in the way of exquisite design. Of course behind the scenes the situation might have been quite different but his extreme focus on creating delightful products paid huge dividends (although not literally as many Apple stockholders complain). When the first iPad was launched (was it really only in 2010?), I predicted its success in terms of ‘usability, usability and usability’. Following the ISO 9241-11 definition of usability, it was going to be effective (there were already thousands of iPhone apps which could be used right away), it was efficient because millions of iPhone users already knew how to use it and it was satisfying to use because that is what Apple do. Despite some criticism from technologists who could not see what the fuss was about, I was right. In terms of adoption, Apple is a master of whipping up demand in their followers and the App store now has hundreds of thousands of Apps, which every new ‘i’ device can immediately tap into. This and the ease with which you can purchase new Apps is in my view at least as important for Apple’s success as its beautiful products. The papers in the technology adoption section discuss the enthusiasm of Mac vs PC users and also report an interesting comparison on tablet take-up in Korea, where the iPad and the Samsung Galaxy tab were released simultaneously. Am I excited about a new iPad or iPad mini? Not really because, as I wrote not so long ago, the first-generation iPad mini screen is good enough for my ageing eyes and I find it hard to imagine any benefit from it being lighter or thinner. But then I did buy it when it was launched to replace what then seemed like a heavy and clunky first-generation iPad (which I now use to entertain my grandchildren, whose growing strength outpaces their desire to be careful with technology!).