RSS feedsFew would attempt to argue that computer technologies in general, and PCs in particular, have not had a profound and beneficial impact on staff productivity across firms of all sizes in virtually all sectors. The business PC came of age with the arrival of spreadsheet software in the form of Lotus 1-2-3 in the distant days of the mid-1980s.
Since the advent of this ‘killer application’ PCs have steadily become ever more firmly cemented onto corporate desktops and into FDs’ budgets. The benefits offered by these now ubiquitous devices are unquestionable, but for more than two decades the PC has been lacking a new killer app that could have a truly profound impact on worker productivity.
But fear not. If a series of technology patents filed by Microsoft in the US at the end of January ever go into production, it is possible that there will be just such a technology revolution for the corporate PC.
However, we do not believe that it will be a bloodless revolution. In fact, if Microsoft’s latest ideas for computer-based staff monitoring technologies come to pass, we predict claret all over the corporate carpets. The firm’s new patents sketch out details of a system that very closely monitors employee computer use. The system, as described, would log actions such as web pages visited or words typed. But, and here comes the scary part, it will then correlate this data against biological monitoring data such as heart rate, breathing, body temperature, facial expressions and blood pressure taken from staff via wireless sensors.
In fact, the idea of the personal computer has taken on a new and very sinister meaning in light of the software giant’s vision for an Orwellian future of computer users under constant electronic surveillance. Imagine if office workers were routinely connected up like laboratory guinea pigs to PCs that monitor every move they make. What if these computers spied on core bodily functions and even attempted to gauge workers’ mental states, so they could “help” them?
According to the patent application, the technology can automatically detect “frustration or stress in the user” and then, also according to the patent, help to alleviate these stresses. The problem that we can envisage is that such technology is very likely to make most users’ frustration and stress levels go through the roof just by being switched on.
So what are the likely implications of this technology if it ever goes into production? Let’s guess here that the Microsoft marketing maestros will come up with a snappy name like BigBrother 2013 for the product. Perhaps it will have an equally snappy marketing strapline along the lines of “total paranoia equals total awareness” or “just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean that we’re not out to get you”.
Now, let’s suspend our disbelief and set aside the obvious concerns over personal freedom. Surely, it could be argued that such a system has the potential to offer compelling benefits? Companies will be able to sweat their assets more effectively as their assets sweat. Workers will be forced to constantly ensure that their productivity is maximised. The technology would allow firms to expand home working programmes safe in the knowledge that those toiling remotely will be monitored to ensure that they are not spending the day watching reality TV.
Even if workers did agree to be wired to these monitoring devices, a chorus of doubt has been sounded by legal experts over whether such monitoring would fall foul of UK and international laws. Even if one country allowed implementations, the waters will be muddied by the international nature of businesses. Multinational companies would have to navigate a minefield of privacy laws and regulations across the countries in which they operate. How, for example, would a US firm stand if it tried to monitor staff in the UK using technology located in a data centre in India? And what would be the reaction of unions and workers’ councils to moves to wire up their members?
Let us suspend our disbelief still further and consider what would happen if these issues were overcome. At this point companies would need to look at costings. It would fall to FDs to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of deploying the monitoring systems. What should an FD do if the IT team emerges from the bowels of the server room advocating the adoption of such technology? What is likely to be the value of such a system? What ROI projections would be offered?
The bottom line is that such a system could only operate in a corporate environment if there are workers left to be monitored. As with many technically viable, but ill-conceived, ideas the biggest problems will certainly come from the human factor; from conflicts arising when the hardware and software meet what is sometimes described as the “wetware”. While there is little doubt that it would be technically possible to facilitate the monitoring described in Microsoft’s patents, companies considering deploying them should prepare for a mass exodus of their best staff.
