Technology Final Paper

Joe Bisque

English Composition 106

December 10, 2009

Technology: A New Way to Lose Money

As employees sit at their desks and their boss walks by, most will minimize the web page they are surfing, close the email that they are typing, or cancel the text message that they were about to send. Since the rise of Information Technology (IT) after the conclusion of World War II, companies have been searching for better, quicker communication tools that can increase the speed at which information can be remitted. Such technologies include email, text messaging, video conferencing, social networking websites, and many others. These technologies are meant to improve our current lifestyles and work efficiencies. But do they? While the development of communication technologies is beneficial in many respects, an increasing amount of research is showing that the misuse of these technologies can cost companies large sums of money.

One of the first astounding inventions for quick communications between companies was the fax machine. This machine allowed its users to transfer documents to one another over the phone line in a matter of minutes. This was exceptionally fast compared to the traditional ways of the postal service, which could take at least three, if not more business days, which slowed down the daily operation of a business. Not only was it one of the first ways to speed up the communication process, but it also was a great stepping-stone for further technological development.

With all of the advantages to sending a fax to another company instead of sending documents through the postal service, there are also some disadvantages. The average time it takes to send a fax is about three to five minutes (Godwin-Jones). If an employee is communicating with other companies, this delay can cost the company unnecessary dollars per year just to send the faxes. Another disadvantage to sending a fax is the danger that confidential information can be unintentionally delivered to personnel other than the intended recipient. When a person sends the fax, it simply waits on the printing tray on the receiving end; when an employee is waiting to receive a fax, other faxes might be coming through at the same time, forcing the employee to sort through all of the incoming documents. This is not only a needless task, but it also subjects the company to a certain amount of risk that information could end up in the wrong hands. Additionally, the fax machine led the way to the current circumstance of communication overload.

Shortly after the development of fax machines, email became a popular way to communicate quickly and conveniently. A recent survey of three hundred and thirty business email users in a variety of occupations reveals that on average, a person spends forty-nine minutes every day checking and replying to their messages (Lyman). Gartner, the researcher conducting the survey, found some interesting conclusions:

“Besides obvious “spam,” or unsolicited marketing emails from outside companies, Gartner found 34 percent of email messages were what it called "friendly fire" or "occupational spam" — well-intentioned but unnecessary messages from co-workers. These can include messages sent to wide mailing groups but relevant only to a few users in the group, widely circulated jokes or chain letters, or extraneous acknowledgements such as "You bet," or "Thought so," especially when intended for one person but sent back to all recipients of a group-wide message (Lyman).”

Once they are done reading and responding to their emails, it takes employees, on average, twenty-four minutes to get back to work. Hewlett-Packard conducted a study to determine the mental effects of electronic distraction. They had workers take an IQ test prior to and following electronic distraction and found that the average decrease in the scores was ten points following the distraction: twice as much as a person tested while under the influence of Marijuana (“Managing Information Overload”).

The trend of sending short notes via cellular phones, or texting, has also caught on quickly. This means of communication has its drawbacks, too, though: according to BBCNEWS.com, forty six percent of cell phone users text each other, and “sixty five percent have sent a text message that was misunderstood by the recipient or sent to the wrong person”(BBCNEWS.com). This can be a costly message when it is being sent to clients. Additionally, according to a recent survey done by a college student at the University of Michigan – Dearborn, statistics show that people in white collar professions text friends and family while they are supposed to be working”(“Technology: A New Way to Lose Money”).

Initially, email could only be read through the computer, but following the trend of texting came the usage of BlackBerry’s and other mobile devices that allow their users instant access to email, even on the go. It used to be that when a person stepped out of the office, clients and coworkers were not able to reach him or her. Now that cell phones have these capabilities, people are able to keep in touch with each other continuously. While this can be beneficial when travelling, it can also be misused. Similar to text messaging, emails from cell phones can be confusing and misunderstood, and messages can also be constantly sent to friends and family members. The constant “ding” or “buzz” notifying the recipient of incoming email messages interrupts meetings, distracting others and potentially lessening productivity.

Facebook, founded February 4, 2004 by a couple of Harvard college students, has become one of the biggest global networking sites on the Internet. Along with this popularity comes a major problem: a large number of American workers are becoming “addicted” to constantly updating and searching their pages as well as their friends’ while at work. Facebook is not the only website that has this impact. The Internet, in general, has become a major distraction for employees. Instead of doing research to better the company, they can quickly become distracted and start searching for non-work related topics (BBCNEWS.com).

On average in the United States, companies lose close to $600 billion per year due to the loss of work time caused by employees browsing the Internet for non-work related items, checking spam email, text messaging, and other electronic distractions. Intel recently released data containing the information that admits that they alone lose $1 billion annually due to electronic interruptions (although this also includes the interruptions of the servers not working properly, computer software failing and other IT related issues) (“Managing Information Overload”). As Intel demonstrates, companies that use computers and advanced communication technology lose money not only by lowered employee productivity, but also from the time spent to resolve the issue of lowered productivity.

Over the past few decades, there have been great advancements in communication technology, increasing the speed at which companies can share information with one another. Fax machines, emails, the Internet, cell phones, and social networking websites positively contribute to the daily operations of businesses around the world, but they also negatively impact them by costing companies billions of dollars in loss of productivity. Companies are losing money every day due to their employees checking and replying to spam emails and sending text messages to their clients, friends and families. Although communication technology is beneficial in many ways, there is room for improvement in the regulation of wasted time from the very devices that are meant to save time.

Works Cited

"BBC NEWS | Technology | Facebook 'costs businesses dear'" BBC NEWS | News Front Page. 11 Sept. 2007. Web. 28 Nov. 2009.

Godwin-Jones, Robert. "Emerging Technologies: Messaging, Gaming, Peer-to-Peer Sharing Language." Language, Learning & Technology 9 (2007): 13-14. Print.

Lyman, Jay. "Linux News: News: Spam Costs $20 Billion Each Year in Lost Productivity." LinuxInsider: Linux News & Information from Around the World. 29 Dec. 2005. Web. 28 Nov. 2009.

"Managing Information Overload." Trends 6.10 (2009): 32-34. Print.

"Technology: A New Way to Lose Money." Online interview by Joe Bisque. 16 Nov.

2009.

Three Pictures During Interview

During my interview with Fred, my dog kept on interrupting our conversation.

I believe that the animals helped relax my nerves when it came time to asking him questions about the office life.

His wife gave me great input as well. The interview went really well and I gain interesting knowledge that I will further use in my paper.

Revisions for my Journal Summaries

After I submitted my journal summaries, I had to go back through the paper and change a couple of things. One of the biggest changes that I made was the layout of certain paragraphs. I had to change around different sentence structures as well as switch some paragraphs with one another. The main reason why I did this was to give my paper a more easy flowing feeling. The original seemed to be too abrupt when transitioning from topic to topic. Other changes that I made to my paper was, of course, were grammatical and punctuational mistakes. When I type out any paper for the first time, it seems to be almost complete. It is not until I reread it that I truly understand where certain commas and semicolons need to be placed to also help with the flow.

Organic Foods: True or False

After reviewing the scholarly journals written in the Scientific Status Summary, Food Marketing Institute, and Organic Materials Review Institute, one can find interesting facts and information based on organic foods. Consumers have been in an organic food intake mentality since the late 1980’s. An average consumer would likely think that the words on the packaging stating that it has been organically produced is more beneficial to your health, but in reality, they provide no more nutrients that that of traditionally produced foods. Organic foods truly are different than traditionally produced foods due to the specific regulations set by regulating societies and can have some benefits from eating them. Along with those benefits, there are some faults that need to be addressed to make the average consumer more aware of their purchases.

Organic foods have been farmed since the start of the fertilizer. It was not until the 1930’s that farmers began to use fertilizers to enhance their growing capabilities. Farmers were only able to produce one crop a year in their soil, but after the introduction to fertilizers, they were now able to produce two crops per year out of the same soil. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, scientists began doing research on the water pollution that was being established from the run-off of the fertilizers used on crops. There were also two energy crises happening during this time that lead farmers to reduce their usages of fertilizers and other chemicals in their growing processes. As soon as the alertness of the problems that the fertilizers produced were taken into consideration, pesticide regulations were established and consumers began demanding food that was grown with environmentally friendly substitutes.

In 1989, Sixty Minutes did a special on the chemical called Alar. Alar was sprayed onto the crop to help control the growth, to make the harvest easier and to enhance the color of the crop. Sixty Minutes informed their audience that Alar had caused tumors in mice. Overnight, the purchasing of organically produced food soared. This was the start of the organic craze.

What consumers of today do not realize is the fact that organic food has no nutritional benefits compared to conventionally produced food. Consumers believe that organically produced food will help their nutrition intake. According to the Food Marketing Institute, the only benefits from eating organic foods are the reduced and approved usages of pesticides and fertilizers. The pesticides and fertilizers that organic crop growers use have to be approved by both the National Organization Standardization Board (NOSB) and National Organic Program (NOP). In the article written in the Scientific Status Summary called “Organic Foods”, the authors talked about the pros and cons for eating organic foods. They were basing their information on the research done by Borne and Prescott in 2002. They compared the nutritional information from scientific studies that have been performed on organically produced food and conventionally produced food. The studies showed no definitive differences between the two and concluded that there are no actual nutritional benefits in eating an organically produced food when compared with traditionally grown foods.

The organically produced food is beneficial in one primary field. The pesticides and fertilizer that the farmers are required to use are environmentally friendly and contain no additional growth hormones to enhance the crop. The consumers feel better when purchasing the organic food due to the lack of pesticides and fertilizers compared with the conventional foods. A study shows that babies who are brought up on organically grown and processed baby food has “significantly lower” amounts of organophosphorus (OP) pesticides. The objection to this argument is whether the OP pesticide actually harms the infant. When purchasing organic foods, not only does the consumer spend more money compared to traditionally processed food, but also the foods may not last as long while sitting in the cupboard. “In October 2002, USDA’s undersecretary for food safety warned that organic foods’ lack of preservatives make the vulneralble to bacteria and parasites.” Although this has not been scientifically proven, the NOSB and NOP assure that the farmers are regulated on the processes to produce and distribute organic foods.

Organic foods have always been known to the consumer as the “healthier” choice while comparing it to conventionally grown foods. Little to the consumers’ awareness, the organic food has no additional nutritional value. Looking at traditionally grown food, the downfall is mainly the lack of regulations that they have in regards to the usages of pesticides and fertilizers. All pesticides and fertilizers that are used in both organic foods and traditional foods are environmentally friendly, but the organic foods are regulated on exactly what and how much are allowed. According to the multiple scholarly journals that have been written on this subject, the consumer does not benefit nutritionally from one or the other. The only way really to gain a healthier income of the food is to limit and control the intake of a daily diet.

Godin Vs. Shirky

VS.

Listening and watching both the Godin speech and Shirky speech, I noticed a couple of significant differences between the two speakers. Along with those differences, I noticed a couple of similarities. Godin and Shirky were both aiming towards the same goal; try to persuade the audience towards their specific means. What I mean by this is that, for example, Shirky was trying to have his listeners not only understand the powerfulness of the internet, but also understand how it is evolving. He wanted his people to understand how important the amount of information and swiftness of that information gets to certain groups or individuals. Godin had that same type of speech, but was going in a different direction. He wanted people to understand the importance of the internet and other forms of communication, but along with the communicating, he wanted to have people understand the importance of tribes or groups.

Both of the speakers did a good job in communicating their beliefs to their audience. Godin took a more humorous path, while Shirky used more of a scenario and real-life situation path. Godins' speech, to me, was more catchy than Shiky's simply due to the humor. Although Shirky did put in a couple funny comments in his speech, he did however grab his audience by giving specific examples from real life situations. Both were effective methods to have their audiences harnessed in with attention. And both speakers did a good job with presenting their information.

Screen Shot of my MacBook Pro

After looking over the screen shot of my desktop on a typical day, I noticed that I have a lot going on. I am extremely busy with school work and I am always trying to keep my self sane by watching Travis Pastrana's Nitro Circus show. As I looked down at the bottom of my screen, I can see all of my photography icons to allow me to edit my pictures that I take. When I think of composing in a digital space, I think that it can be a lot busier than typical pictures. Typical photographs are more one direction, but when you have pictures being posted up on the internet, they can be extremely complex and show a lot of things going on at once. To better understand the digital composing process, we need to understand that the internet is a very fast paced information source. So, in turn, the photographs in the digital world are more complex and are multi-directional. A person cannot just look over a picture on the internet and completely understand it, the person needs to understand the context around the picture to better understand what it is about.