Closing Speech to the ACS Canberra Branch Annual Conference 2015 - 10 September 2015
Hello, everyone.
The opportunity to present to you this afternoon at the close of our conference is welcome and humbling. I know that you’ve had a long day filled with great speakers and fascinating insight. And it’s especially tough for me to follow Dr Karl.
However, I’m going to ask you to listen for a short while. I know that I stand between you and drinks! I promise to not take too long and perhaps the dryness of my talk will whet your appetite.
I want to speak with you about what I, as an educator of future military leaders and future IT professionals, see as the direction of IT in the future. Or, at least, what I think it ought to be. It’s a riff on the conference theme. Rather than ICT Shaping our Future, I’m thinking about Shaping our ICT Future.
There are three central points I would like to have you recognise.
- We need to ensure that we’re bringing everyone along for the ride that technology is offering us
- We need to convince the world that things are fundamentally different in our technology-enabled future, and
- We need to pursue recognition for IT professionals as specialists that require formal accreditation to practice.
I will address those three things in turn.
The world we live in today is a fascinating and weird place, and information technology is contributing a lot to the weirdness, in my view.
Twenty years ago, I had the good fortune to be on a project that delivered computerised immigration systems to Papua New Guinea. At the time, some of the middle managers in the PNG Immigration Division felt that just the presence of a computer on their desk
would solve their administrative problems. We tried to assure them that the PC would be a window into a means of working, but that they would still have to do the work. To this day, I’m sure some of them did not get it.
Why mention some culture shock and disconnection from twenty years ago? Because I was reminded again last week that we do not always bring everyone along when we implement IT systems.
Last week, it was revealed that the Royal Commissioner for the Trade Unions Governance and Corruption commission had his e-mails printed for him as he didn’t use the computer. The Royal Commission is being conducted, as many (most?) legal matters are these days, almost entirely electronically. The images we see of it in operation show much video recording and conferencing. I believe that all the evidence briefs and arguments are recorded and presented digitally. Yet this lengthy and detailed commission is being run by a man who has his e-mails printed for him to read.
While I sound critical of Dyson Heydon, it’s not him that’s really my target here. My target is the notion that we’ve left behind senior decision makers and judgment makers in the irresistible move to a technology-based society. I’m not questioning the intellectual capacity of the judge, but I do wonder if he’s sufficiently well-versed in modern technology-enabled activity to be able to judge on the communications he will hear about in the course of the commission’s inquiries. What does a man who has e-mail printed out make of SnapChat, for example? What would he understand of autocorrect fixing text messages? Would he understand the significance of the ease of pressing Reply All instead of just Reply?
Do any of these things make a significant difference in the commission’s inquiries? I don’t know. Frankly, I doubt it. But I am concerned that the commission, being operated electronically, and inquiring into who said what to whom in an electronic age, is being presided over by someone who is technologically-inhibited.
There is any number of other less-high-profile examples of this problem, mostly framed by the blinkered view of the technology advocates. Expectations that sending a text is a suitable confirmation mechanism when dealing with the elderly, for example. Locating Terms and Conditions for almost anything only on a website when not everyone yet uses the Internet. Saying “Oh, we’ve got an app for that”, when there’s only an app in the iTunes store that’s not available on the other platforms. (I should declare a particular sensitivity to that one as a Windows Phone user!)
IT professionals can become laser-focused when introducing technology to make things easier, or more powerful, or better in some way and fail to account for the fact that not everyone can or will adopt the technology. There are two parts to the resolution of that issue that I want to highlight as my first point:
We need to do better at helping everyone, not just those inside the tent, to understand, adopt and exploit the technology we make available as it progresses. We are not doing our professional duty if we don’t keep everyone aware of and benefiting from the bounty that technology offers us.
And on the flipside of that coin, we must continue to account for those members of society that cannot or will not access the current technology trends. While it’s frustrating to have to accommodate legacy modes of operation, a lot of the time, those people who do not adopt cannot adopt. That inability should not forfeit their right to participate in our society.
Ok, moving onto the second point.
We hear a lot these days about everyone learning to code. I am an advocate of that idea, though I express it differently. I want everyone to learn computational problem solving techniques. Yes, I know. That’s not really as sexy as “Learn to Code”.
The point is, so much of our society is underpinned by and driven by technology these days that the means of navigating through the complexity it presents is more and more a matter of solving problems using computational approaches. Don‘t get me wrong, human problems are messy and don‘t surrender to simple computational processes. However, more and more, the things that we do are embodied in complex systems manifested in technology. Those things and the problems they are addressing are subject to computational problem solving techniques. And the younger members of society that are going to be facing the next order of problems within that technology-enabled society are going to need to be proficient in those techniques.
So the Learn to Code mantra rings out. People who are reluctant to hear the message say that we don’t need all those programmers! And they are right. But, as Mike Cannon-Brookes, co-founder of Atlassian, said recently to Business Insider, “We don’t teach people English because they’re all going to become poets”. The same applies to coding.
We need to be bringing on the next generation with foundational understanding of how to deal with complex problems that are solved with computational approaches. They don’t all have to be coders, but they should all grasp the concepts of decomposition, iteration, condition, messaging and interfaces, just as we expect them to grasp the concepts of sentence structure, tense, punctuation, grammar and dialogue when we teach them English.
So, that’s my second point: it is critical that our future societal members have computational problem solving skills. The National Curriculum has already got a Digital Technologies pathway that covers the fundamental areas. It is already being rolled out in the ACT for example and our InTEACT partners are leading in that implementation.
However, the implementation program in other states, like NSW, lasts until 2026, I believe. More urgency is needed to get that curriculum into schools and bring these insights and skills to our children.
Finally, let me talk briefly to the pervasiveness of IT and the consequent risk to society that it represents. The reason I emphasise the pervasiveness and risk is to highlight the need for real professionals to take responsibility for IT implementations. Just as we don’t allow just anyone to build bridges, or conduct brain surgery, fly planes, or sign off company accounts, we can no longer allow just anyone to be designing, building and implementing IT systems for us.
We need to have the IT discipline formally recognised as a professional domain and have the government legislate that only accredited professionals can take responsibility for IT systems. Ideally, of course, the Australian Computer Society would be responsible for accrediting those professionals, just as Engineers Australia is responsible for accrediting Engineers, but frankly, any appropriate professional oversight body would do to be charged with accrediting professionals to work in the IT profession.
Now, not every IT job necessarily needs to be undertaken by an accredited professional, just as not all accounting tasks are undertaken by certified accountants, or building jobs done by certified architects or licensed builders.
But the designs of complex systems, safety critical systems, embedded systems, national infrastructure, and national defence ought to be overseen and certified by accredited professionals. The testing and acceptance of those systems in development and implementation ought to be signed off by accredited professionals. Major systems that operate the government administrative engine and equivalent systems in major corporations ought to be overseen by accredited IT professionals. If we do not, we are simply not taking the importance of these complex systems seriously.
One cannot commission a plane or a ship without sign-off by relevant accredited professionals, but we’re prepared to accept the air traffic control systems, maritime navigation systems, and road traffic control systems without similar oversight. The extent to which they are relied upon is simply too substantial for us to continue to allow them to be implemented without disciplined oversight by properly educated, morally constrained, accredited professionals.
So, my third point is that, as we move into the future, shaped by IT, we ought to be ensuring that the vanguard of complex IT systems is overseen by individuals who have proven their capability to do the work and to act with the best interests of all of us in mind. Those individuals would prove themselves by being accredited by a recognised professional association, empowered by legislation to award that accreditation. The Australian Computer Society stands ready to act in that role and our future needs that role filled.
Let me quickly sum up those three points again.
As we move into the future, relying more and more completely on information technology to facilitate everything in our lives, we have to ensure that we bring everyone along with us, while accommodating the needs of those who cannot adopt the leading edge as it moves forward.
To ensure that the future shaped by IT works efficiently for us all, we must instil computational problem solving capabilities into everyone, just as we instil reading, writing and arithmetic. The Learn to Code mantra might over-simplify the idea, but the implementation of the Digital Technologies component of the National Curriculum cannot be completed too soon.
Finally, Australia, and indeed the world, must formalise the accreditation of IT professionals and restrict the conduct of significant and complex IT to the purview of those professionals. Our future is too dependent on the correct operation of inter-dependant complex IT systems to allow them to be implemented without the surety of oversight by people trained to understand that complexity.
Thank you for listening to an old curmudgeon belly-aching.