Some years ago (December 1998, according to my email archive) I participated in an online discussion on the ISWORLD mailing list, about what an information system really is. I posted this story, which I had heard told somewhere but never found a source for:

A CEO with hotel chain A found himself having to spend a night in a hotel from hotel chain B. Naturally, he was very curious as to what kind of information systems they had, and resolved to keep an open eye for competitive use of IT. As he approached the reception for first time, the woman behind it smiled at him and said "Welcome back, Sir!"

Flabbergasted, he said "But…it is 12 years since I was here last! How could you know that I have stayed here before, what kind of advanced information systems do you have that can store and find the fact that I was here 12 years ago?"

"Well, it is really very simple", she said. "When the doorman opened the door to your cab, he asked if this was your first stay with us. You answered no, and as you walked through the door, the doorman looked at me through the window and touched his nose. That told me that you should be welcomed back…."

Moral of the story: Information systems don’t have to mean information technology (at least not digital information technology)…. 

I was going to use this story in a paper I am writing, did a Desktop Google search for it – and found it not only in my email file, but also on a number of web pages (here and here, in addition to a previous story here).

It is kind of fascinating to see how these things move, but I still don’t know the real source of that story – does anyone?

(And incidentally, this story is an excellent teaching device…) 

Thomas Crampton guestblogs at Joi Ito’s place about how there are regional differences in e-commerce usage patterns (based on his article in International Herald Tribune.)

Actually, I am not surprised that there are differences – but I was a little surprised that online purchasing was so low in the States compared to Europe. Europeans don’t use credit cards to the same extent as Americans do – both because they trust them less and because debit cards are more common (but not yet ported to the Net). I also think that US shoppers use the telephone for shopping much more than in Europe (thus causing underreporting of e-commerce numbers) – credit cards can be used over the phone in the US, but not normally in Europe. The infrastructure for physical goods transportation is much better in the US (thanks to UPS and Fedex), meaning that telephone and mail orders shopping was developed earlier and over a larger area. I also agree with the mall hypothesis – not only are malls easier available in the US, but they also tend to have more inventory and greater selection, rather than running out of winter coats in early December like they do here in Norway.

Regional differences come both from culture and from differences in timing of introduction of technologies. Credit cards were slow in Europed because the giro payment system was introduced (obviating paper checks) which allowed fast interbank clearance and interoperable debit cards. Cellphones were standardized earlier in Europe because the countries were smaller and needed roaming agreements. Cell phones grew faster in Europe because the fixed line phones were more expensive (the local call is still metered in most of Europe), because voice mail and 800 numbers did not catch on until late, and because the mobile phone market was a competitive almost from the start. In the US, with larger land areas, coverage was worse and the alternative for the consumer (800 numbers, pay phones and phone cards, and voice mail) was seen as adequate for a long time. In Japan, the high degree of Internet surfing via cell phone was due to a proprietary and almost monopolistic player offering all layers in the function stack – and the fact that many Japanese spend long hours on public transportation and have time to surf at 9600 bps.

Consumers are sensible, but a little slow. They use what works best for them. And what works best differs by country, for reasons of culture and history. Even under Web 2.0. 

Richard Posner argues that elite universities should raise tuition and then pay it back according to whether students work full time, to combat the perceived problem of super-educated mummy-trackers which recently seems to have ruffled a few feathers.

I for one think this is one area we can safely let people work out by themselves – the net effect of a pay-and-get-back policy would be to reduce the number of women applying for elite schools, and that is sure not a worthwhile outcome, even though the utilitarian economic case Posner makes (and it seems a bit tongue-in-cheek) has merit. That’s why economics is fun – you can rile people with logical arguments.

Well, I am sure this will be pointed out in spades – but I would like to point out that some schools do this already, for doctoral programs at least. When I did my DBA at the business school, I was supported by a loan from the school, 20% of which was forgiven every year after graduation as long as I was working full time in a degree-granting academic institution. That worked – it was a factor for me when deciding to teach, as for, I think, most of my classmates, rather than to work full-time in consulting. The benefit to the school, of course, was that a higher proportion of its graduates go into teaching than otherwise would have (given that the school has a practice-oriented reputation, that might increase its scholarly standing). For the students that do chose to go into consulting or other non-academic work, the pay differnential finances the loan payback anyway – and the school knows that it is not spending money educating super-consultants.

The ‘Intelligent Design’ Hoax is a great refutation (one of many) of the current claptrap making its way into education. I liked the web site it is on, too: The Textbook League leaves no stone unturned in exposing vague, fake, and feel-good pieces in text books.
Another benefit is that this site has a copy of my favorite cartoon – reproduced here. For another bonus, read Richard Feynmann’s account of how textbooks are approved.