Training in new technology vital

that the likelihood of catching big bass was higher in winter than in summer. We were thus excited by the prospect.
As soon as we entered the fray Alan started bragging about his new equipment in particular the new two bass casters that he had recently imported from South Africa.
He read to me the technical information about the length of throw afforded by the bass casters.

He said one could throw up to 50 metres. This was a serious competitive advantage I was advised.
The first challenge Alan faced was that he was not very knowledgeable on how to use a bass caster.
He spent a reasonable amount of time trying to just tie the line onto his new acquisition.
After a long battle he succeed but he encountered serious challenges from line entanglement.

In the meantime I was enjoying my fishing and Alan was slowly getting frustrated with his technology.
After whitewashing him the whole day I told him subtly that it is not about the technology but how the people use the technology.
Before the end of the day Alan abandoned his bass caster. Alan failed because he used technology he was not comfortable with.
What was supposed to be a tool for competitive advantage became a serious threat to his competitiveness.

Technology, if well managed, can be a tool for making fishing a pleasurable experience but in this case it became a source of discomfort, embarrassment and frustration.
Use of up to date technology is supposed to make fishing easier but lack of appropriate matching skill set can make the task at hand a mammoth one.
Allan was unable to make maximum use of available new technology because he lacked basic training in its use.
Staff training in new technologies is very important otherwise the intended benefits will not be felt. Training must be user targeted and appropriate.

Alan was mistaken to think that technology is all that matters in fishing. In addition appropriate technology in fishing does not replace other good attributes of a fisherman such as: passion, innovation, effective planning, high concentration levels, patience and persistence, good personal judgment, etc
Regardless of the fact that Alan failed dismally in using the bass caster, it is the future in bass fishing.
The sooner I jump into the usage of bass caster the better. It is useless to resist technology.
This is similar to the challenges people are facing with information technology.
Though purchasing computers is expensive, companies are in a habit of purchasing high tech computer technology, which is either grossly under-utilised or not utilised at all.

Computers were ideally supposed to create paperless offices but I see companies employing more and more people as filing clerks.
Most management meetings will not end without discussing information technology/systems. Information systems are now at the heart of every business, do managers realise this?
The common challenge facing companies is not the ability to purchase a good system but the ability to define what you require from the system.

I once worked for a retail bank, which bought a system that was more suitable for a merchant bank.
Inevitably the system failed not because it was the fault of the vendor who supplied the system but the users who were too lazy to define their system requirements.

Most of the time managers and staff write generic requirements when they define their requirements.
The moment of truth comes during trial runs. They start realising the shortcomings of an already purchased system.

Bluntly people are often too lazy to sit down and write their systems requirements.
When designing information requirements, there is a tendency to ask for generic information at the expense of strategic information.

Another challenge found in designing a system is determining the ownership structure of the system.
Some believe management must own the system. Some believe the system is owned by IT department.

At systems design it is recommended to involve all employees and management.
This is known as participatory design or co-operative design stage. The participatory design is an approach to the assessment, design and development of technological and organisational systems that places a premium on the active involvement of workplace practitioners (usually potential or current users of the system) in design and decision-making processes. (http/cpsr.org/issues)
Ideally this noted stakeholders would assist in finding out whether the system will be compatible with existing practices or future practices.

More often than not the people who use the system are not consulted at design stage.
The desired system needs to answer the information requirements of the organisation. Desired output/functions/reports must be clearly articulated.
In addition, systems design must be in congruent with the corporate strategy. How many supervisors and employees know the strategic direction of their company (not in detail)?

I trained employees from a certain company recently. They told me that every time the management comes from strategic retreat in Nyanga, the managing director would promise that their respective managers would relay what they discussed in Nyanga.
They said this would be the last time the issue of strategy will be discussed with employees.
Why do we expect the employees to assist in designing a system if they are not aware of the desired destination?

If managers and employees are not clear about the quality of information they need, they end up with piles and piles of database, which they do not use for decision-making.
Any data which does not aid decision-making is waste. Though the conventional thinking is that you need database from a computer, in most cases it is not necessary.
Most of the information is superfluous. In most cases 10 indicators are adequate.
However, people get carried away and lose focus. A car is good for transport but in unskilled hands it is a danger to society and the driver himself.