(Copyright 1991 by Mary Eisenhart and MicroTimes. All rights reserved.
This interview first appeared in MicroTimes #83. The book excerpt to
which the intro alludes is NOT reproduced here because we don't
have electronic publishing rights for it...)


Computers And The CEO
By Mary Eisenhart
Photo: NDMA Inc.

"Computers increase an executive's ability to think and create--that
is, to do their work, not their staff's work. By using computers,
executives are able to accomplish more."	--Mary E. Boone, "Leadership
And The Computer"

According to Mary Boone, a partner in the management consulting firm
NDMA Inc. of Ridgefield, Connecticut, "executive computing"is all too
often seen as being as much of an oxymoron as "airline cuisine."This
perception, she says, results in a huge, unnecessary reduction in what
CEO-level and other other executives are able to accomplish for their
companies. By falling into the "administrative mindset,"thinking that
computers are something for their secretaries, clerks, and MIS
departments, top-level management misses out on a key competitive
advantage. "They're usually astonished when I tell them about what
some of their peers are doing with computers in other
organizations,"Boone comments.
	In her recently-published book Leadership And The Computer (Prima,
1991, ISBN 1-55958-080-1), she interviews the CEOs of sixteen large
corporations and discusses with them the different ways in which their
personal use of computers has made a crucial difference to their
companies. The tools differ--some swear by their spreadsheets, word
processors, or electronic mail, while others don't use them at
all--but in every case, they're using tools for far more sophisticated
and versatile purposes than mere reading of the latest report from
MIS.
	Boone's a strong advocate of the work of Dr. Douglas Engelbart,
whose
research at Stanford Research Institute (later SRI International)
during the 1960s led to the invention of the mouse, hypertext,
windowing interfaces, workgroup computing, and electronic publishing.
Engelbart pioneered the notion of computers as intellect-enhancing
tools at a time when they were generally perceived as mere
number-crunchers, and (like a lot of his other visions) this notion is
only now beginning to find acceptance.
	For this month's cover story, we interviewed Mary Boone about her
book and executive use of computers. Following the interview, we've
reproduced a chapter from Leadership And The Computer, detailing how
William Esrey, CEO of US Sprint, used the computer to give his
fledgling company an edge in the highly competitive long-distance
market.
	
How did you come to write this book?
	It was an outgrowth of our previous book, The Information Edge
(1989). In that I had written a chapter about executive use of
computing tools. I got such a good response to that chapter that I
decided that it would be good to expand it into an entire book. I
found, in the course of doing that research, that there were a lot of
myths associated with why executives did or did not use computers, and
so I felt it was really important to explore those in more detail and
get rid of some of them--because there certainly are a lot of
misperceptions out there about why executives do or don't use
computers.

For example?
	For example, there are a lot of excuses that are given, such as
"executives won't type." There are also myths about what constitutes
an executive information system--a lot of people truly believe that
"executive information system" equals "access to MIS data," when in
fact executives are using a whole range of tools. I could give you a
list of about 20-25 different tools that executives are using apart
from access to data. While that's an important tool in the toolkit,
unfortunately we've really been limiting ourselves by perceiving EIS
to be only access to data.

In what sense is that limiting?
	It's very limiting because it's true that executives need to find
and
access certain information, but they also need to manipulate and
communicate information. Those are two parts of the equation that have
been left out before, because if we limit the concept to "access to
data," then there are numerous ways in which we could be helping
executives that we're going to be overlooking if we are biased toward
one particular type of tool.
	So if an executive tells you that he wants to change corporate
culture, or if an executive tells you that she wants to establish a
better relationship with more of her employees, then what are you
going to do? Is establishing a better relationship and communicating
more directly with employees going to lead you to "access to data"?
Well, maybe or maybe not.
	And if we're biased going into it, again, we're not going to be open
to a whole broad range. Likewise, we can't be biased against access to
data. It's one tool in a very broad toolkit that we have available to
help executives.

What did you find were the most significant non-access-to-data tools
that executives were using?
	Definitely electronic mail is very important.

It did seem to be a recurring theme in the book.
	It comes up quite frequently. I don't know if you noticed the notion
of asynchronous workI

Yes. I use email a lot too; it's the main way I communicate with my
writers, some of whom I've never met and have been working with for
years. 
	Right. There's a wonderful quote by Robert Wallace [former president
of Phillips 66] about how he initially did not want to use electronic
mail, because he didn't type, and how he overcame that barrier of
typing. He discusses the fact that he didn't want electronic mail, but
he consented to it because it had scheduling on it. He used to dictate
his responses to his secretary, but finally he got so dependent on the
functionality that he started typing with two fingers and punching out
replies, because he found that the value of being able to work
asynchronously and get things accomplished in his own time frame far
made up for the inconvenience of typing.
	Asynchronous work is a really big part of why executives like to
access a computer themselves, and electronic mail plays a big role in
that, because these are people that are usually all over the world, or
at least all over the country. To be able to maintain contact with the
people that report to them, and with other people at other levels of
the organization--that's another mention that they make, of being able
to flatten the hierarchy by more people having access to them
directly. They really find electronic mail to be useful.
	As for other tools, it really varies a lot according to the
executive--some of them will say "I just love the word processor; it
really helps me to be clear and direct in my thinking,"and others will
say, "I don't use it at all." Some will say "The outline editor really
helps me develop a hierarchy of ideas," and others don't even know
what an outline editor is. 
	So when I say "electronic mail," I don't want to give the impression
that every executive needs electronic mail, either. It's a highly
individual type of approach, which is why I think both vendors and IS
poeple need to be aware that we need to have the broadest toolkit we
possibly can have in order to be able to be flexible for those kinds
of  individual needs and applications.

There's also a tendency in some quarters to see computers as a
panacea.
	Exactly. I think that's a very big problem. I think there's been a
lot of overselling of computers and strategic value. I believe that
people equate strategic value with extremely large, complicated,
expensive systems, and see it only as connections between customers
and suppliers, and in fact that's been one of the problems in the
industry. This whole panacea problem comes up due to a lack of focus.
	This gets back to what I said before about the unique needs of
executives. We can't go in promising, with an executive information
system, that we're going to be able to solve all an executive's
problems. That's just absolutely not true, and it would be ridiculous
for us to put ourselves in that bind. But we can go in and use the
kind of structured interview approach that I describe in the book,
which is a highly focused way of finding a very highly leveraged
application for an executive that can be implemented in the near
term.
	There are ways in which we can help executives have tremendous
leverage by biting off a smaller chunk of change, if you will--not
trying to change everything at once, but trying to set priorities at
every level in the interview and make sure that we are helping the
executive with his or her most important and most vital objectives and
goals. What I say, going into the interview with an executive--I'm
very clear on this point- is, "I'm not here, or able, to solve all
your problems like a magician. What I'm here to do is really try to
understand what it is you're trying to get accomplished and see if
there's some ways in which we can help leverage your effort to get
what you want to get done."

Are you yourselves systems providers?
	No, not at all. We provide no software and we do no vendor
recommendations. We only focus on the management issues, as opposed to
any technological issues.

Do you see any particular breakdown as to who's using mainframes,
who's using minis, who's using PCs?
	It's hard to extrapolate because I had such a small sample. Working
with sixteen case studies, I'm trying to be very careful about not
making projections. But there is a lot of use of personal computers
among my sample. Very few terminals to the mainframe; I would say
probably less than a quarter of them had that kind of setup.

Can you speculate as to why that might be?
	It would be hard to speculate. 

It wouldn't be interface issues, for instance?
	No, I don't think that's it. I think it's probably more popular
press, and seeing what's going on, and wanting to be able to do some
of the kinds of things that they've read about.

Are there situations where the computer is not an appropriate tool?
	Absolutely. One of the things that I mention to executives when I do
interviews with them is that I say, "We may or may not come up with a
computer tool, and you have to be absolutely willing to walk away from
it if a computing tool is not appropriate to solve the particular
problem."

If what you need is a fax machine, what you need is a fax machine.
	Right. Exactly. And I'm always looking for that least common
denominator. I'm always looking for how we can do the most with the
least amount of investment. That's what we're always looking for, for
that cost/benefit equation to be very heavy on the benefit side and
very low on the cost side. 
	There are many problems that executives have that computers won't
solve, or won't help with, but I think executives to this point have
believed that the computer is an administrative tool, as opposed to an
intellectual tool, and therefore they focus too much on that side of
the equation. They focus too much on saying, "Computers aren't for me.
They're for my secretaries and clerks." It's because theyt simply have
no idea of what a computer can do. They're usually astonished when I
tell them about what some of their peers are doing with computers in
other organizations. 
	A lot of what are called strategic applications and EDI and those
sorts of things, while they're very important and good  for
corporations, are still focused in large measure on that
administrative side. There's been very little intensive focus on how
computers help grow the human mind.

I noticed that you quoted Doug Engelbart early on, and said "Aha! this
is going to be a smart bookI"	
	(laughs)That's right. I'm definitely a Doug Engelbart fan, a diehard
Engelbart fan, because I really believe he had these ideas I'm talking
about a long time ago. Dean Meyer, my partner, worked with Doug; he
was at SRI with Doug back in the early '70s. Dean's ties to Doug are
very strong, and it's had a tremendous influence on my own ideas and
beliefs.

Have you found that MIS departments are apprehensive about executives
getting independent-minded with their computers?
	I think they're worried about the whole notion of executive
computing
for several reasons, one of which is they're concerned about failing,
which is a legitimate concern in the executive suite, because of
course it is a very high-visibility, and politically it's kind of a
hot potato. So they have a lot of concerns about doing it right, which
I think are good.
	I also think, though, that they've been a little reluctant to get
started and have kind of used the fact that they're looking for the
perfect system as an excuse to stall. Or used something like "We've
got to get all our data correct before we do something" as a reason to
stall, because of those fears and concerns about helping in the
executive suite.
	I think the tide is turning, though. I think they're now recognizing
that there are a lot of ways that this can be extremely critical and
important to the corporation, as well as helping them to establish a
better relationship with their CEOs, because the CEO will come to
understand computers in a different way if they do have a success in
the executive suite.
	So while I would say that yes, maybe there was some hesitancy
before,
I find that that is really changing into much more curiosity and much
more of a desire to be proactive at this point. Because if they're not
proactive, I think they're starting to see that  the executive may get
out ahead of them, and they may lose a real opportunity.

One recurring theme in the book seems to be that the computer is a
particularly useful tool for growing companies. You start in the
garage, and everything's fine because you can walk down the hall and
know everybody. You have a level of control there that you don't have
when you have three regional offices. What issues arise as a company
grows that make the computer more crucial?
	It helps them stay connected, even though they're gaining in terms
of
numbers of locations and numbers of employees. But I also think, with
executives who have experience using computers themselves, that as
their companies grow, they start to see how computers could be applied
to help their companies grow in even faster and better ways. In other
words, they gain more sophistication and knowledge and understanding
of what the computer can do, and therefore they can apply that to
helping their companies grow in more positive ways.
	I do want to get back to something about electronic mail. Even at
our
site--we're a very small company, one location--we find electronic
mail critical. It goes back to the whole asynchronous work issue.

It's too hard to get everybody together in a room.
	Right. Also, it takes it out of your mental scratch pad, if you
will.
You can only hold something there so long, and you either remember to
tell somebody about it or you don't. I find that having electronic
mail is so wonderful, because if I just think of something off the top
of my head, or have a flash or an idea or an insight, I can just pop
it right  into electornic mail and know that I'm not going to forget
to tell that person. Whereas if I had to get up, write a note, go down
the hall, or go next door to do it, I might tend to put it off, and
there would be a higher probability that I would lose that thought. So
it has other implications that are less apparent.

The flip side of the computer-using executive is the computer-using
staff, some of whom are every bit as phobic about it as some of the
executives are. How much of a problem is computer phobia in the
workforce? Obviously, if the executive is sending email, it's only
useful to the people who can send him email back.
	Right. That's definitely true. 
	I think people are becoming less phobic and more frustrated. I don't
think now that people's lack of use of computers is so much based on
their fears as it is on their lack of understanding of what the
computer can do for them. There's so much out there now. If you pick
up PC Magazine, you think, "My God, what am I supposed to do with a
computer?" It's very hard to pick just what software or what
applications are right for what you're doing. It's a big investment of
time, they've got to learn how to use it. And they are really
frustrated about not knowing what's appropriate for them.
	That's why I feel that this translation process, this establishment
of a connection between work and computing, is so critical. That's
what I feel IS people need to be doing, working really hard to help
people start to make those connections. Through an interview process,
to help them do that connecting, and to pass on that type of
knowledge, so that people can really selectively learn how to use a
computer. 
	I think it's not fear of failure, it's just information overload.
They don't know what tools will help which of their business problems,
that will make their use of their time leveraged and beneficial.

Have you noticed any particular geographical distinction? Obviously
out here in Silicon Valley there's probably a pretty high percentage
of executives who use computers.I
	Probably so, but it was a real shock to me how many don't. When I
first started doing this research, I had a list of 100 CEOs who
purportedly use computers. When I started calling them, I found out
that indeed they had computers, but they didn't turn them on. Or they
were looking up a stock here and there. Something really, really
trivial.
	I do think there's probably a higher preponderance of use somewhere
like the Silicon Valley, or Cambridge and Boston. I think that while
there are geographical differences, there are always the exceptions to
the rule that are kind of shocking--some people that are information
systems vendors aren't even using computers.
	So while there may be some geographical distiction, I think, again,
it's like some of the other things we assume--we assume maybe it's
because of age, or whatever differences there are. It really varies
from individual to individual, how intellectually curious they are. I
think that has more to do with it than either geography or
chronological age.

If an executive's sitting there reading some computer magazine and
thinking that the world is passing his company by, and that he better
get his company online but isn't sure how to proceed, what should he
be asking?
	If I were a CEO, and I were curious about all of this and wondering
how to get started, the first thing that I would do is discuss my
concerns and interests with the person who's head of the information
systems area, and explain to them exactly what I'm curious about and
how I want to approach it. 
	It's very important that the person the executives get to help them
has two kinds of expertise: expertise in the business, and expertise
in translating those business objectives into a whole variety of
potential tools. So what that person needs to be, essentially, is a
technology generalist. They don't need to be a specialist, they need
to be a generalist.
	And then that person can help them set priorities, understand what
their priorities are at each level, and ultimately help them determine
whether or not a particular tool will be appropirate. Because if they
don't go through that needs assessment process up front very
carefully, they're likely to become extremely frustrated. They may
just serendipitously drop into the right applications, but I would
suggest that they take a look at that needs assessment process, and at
least understand it, to know what they should be expecting of the
person who's coming in to ask them about their computing needs.

Is this necessarily going to be a big expensive proposition? Because
some companies are small, and they're looking at this as a major
expenditure. But while some of the companies you discuss in the book
are quite large, some of them didn't necessarily have huge budgets for
this sort of thing initially.
	No, it does not necessarily have to be an expensive proposition, and
that's one of the things that the person from information systems, or
the executive support consultant, should be able to do--work within
the kind of budget that you have. 
	There are ways that you can bite off a piece of a problem. If you
can't solve the whole problem, you can learn how to take a critical
part of it and solve that part of it. The old 80/20 rule applies,
where you can get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost. While there
are some solutions that may necessarily be larger problems and might
require larger solutions, there's absolutely no reason why a person
who's working with you can't learn to work within your budget and
still deliver significant value to you, even if you don't have the
budget of a mega-corporation.

In your opinion, does interface make a difference? Is a Windows or
Macintosh environment more conducive to getting a lot done?
	It's a myth that the user interface has to be extremely easy to use.
Again, as Engelbart says, there's a tradeoff between functionality and
ease of use. There necessarily is a tradeoff, there's just no question
about it. I like to make the analogy of "Are you going to ask a
Formula 1 driver to take a Chevrolet Caprice out on the track because
it's easier to drive?"	
	No. But that doesn't mean that ease of use is not an issue. I think
that what we need to do is find the easiest interface that's possible
for the level of performance that you're expecting. Executives will
overcome unbelievable interface problems if they see that it's going
to really deliver some value to them. 
	That's no reason to put obstacles in their way; if there are ways to
deliver the same functionality with an easier interface, certainly we
want to do that. But let's not get too focused on the ease-of-use
issue and lose sight of the funcitonality issue, because I think a lot
of research money and a lot of vendor effort has been put into making
things easier to use, and they've lost some opportunities to come up
with applications that are focused more on extending people's thinking
abilities. 
	So I'd like to see us continue to make it as easy as possible
without
sacrificing the functionality.
	One of the things that executives said to me was that they were less
concerned about whether it was easy to use in the sense that it was
easy to learn than they were that it be easy to remember. Because
what's frustrating to them is if they use a tool, and then don't use
it for two weeks, and then come back and can't remember how to use it.
	They don't mind making the up-front investment, as long as it's
intuitive enough, once they've learned it and incorporated it, that
down the road they can remember it. A perfect example is something
like Augment, software that Doug Engelbart developed. I use that
myself all the time, and I was just furious at how hard it was to
learn at first. Now I won't switch to any other computer that I can't
run Augment on. 

What does it run on?
	Actually it's not commercially available. We've been using it on our
local area network on IBM PCs--we've got a mini-version of it. It was
not easy to learn, but it's incredibly easy to use once you know how
to use it. Then you can move at the speed of thought. You move so
quickly that you can't imagine going back. I can't even think of using
anything else as an outline editor or a word processor. It's just
impossible--I can work three or four times faster than most people.
	I think that's what executives are trying to get to. They don't mind
investing up front to learn how to use it, as long as, once they've
made that initial up-front investment, it is easy to remember and
intuitive from that point on.

How significant at this point are non-text tools,like video and
multimedia?
	I found that a lot of these people had video tape recorders in their
offices, and they were using videotape as a means of getting some
objectives accomplished.
	In terms of "multimedia systems," I didn't find a lot of use of
that.
That doesn't mean that there won't be applications. Again, it's
another issue of being like a kid in a candy store, and you don't know
what really matches your budget or your taste. That's why it's so
important to take those objectives up front and then do that
translation process. Somebody who understands that process can say,
"Hey! If this is what your objective is, and this is what you've got
to do to get it accomplished, I've got an idea that this multimedia
tool might be able to help you get that objective accomplished."	
	We tend, as an industry, to be very technology-driven and come up
with all these wonderful tools, but we don't do our homework on the
other end. It's great to have the creativity and have the new
technologies, and I hope the people that develop them continue to do
that, but we need those translation people to help us understand how
the tools will be critical to expanding our minds and accomplishing
our objectives.z
.