Martin Banks, Personal Computer World 06/89 - checked

June 1989

Somewhere out there, in the dim and distant future, lies the world which the computer industry marketing people pray for, a world where everybody has a least one personal computer, where everybody uses those computers for their work and pleasure, and where everybody works from home so that they can make extensive use of re-useable and chargeable assets such a telecommunications systems.

I, for one, know that it works. How many of you can get up at the crack of ten, stagger into the office wearing a dressing gown and looking decidedly hung over (mainly because that is exactly what you are), and then decide that you would probably work better if you took the Z88 back to bed with you? This, as they ask, is working?

In my case, yes. But for the vast majority of people it isn't. For them it is up in the morning and into the bathroom to polish various bits of their bodies that might be seen by others. Then it is off to the train/car/bus/ shanksy's pony which will get them to the office/shop/ factory where they will labour hard all day - or more precisely, try to appear to labour hard all day just to satisfy the demands of the boss. And there is someone with whole different set of ego problems.

You would think that, as we 'have the technology', and we do, then we would have got round to exploiting it much more sensibly - viz. the approach to work as outlined in paragraph two.

In fact, of course, there are many others that have found this an excellent way of working. One company, F International, has become really quite famous for it. The company produces software for clients from a group of staff who work flexible hours from home. But then again, I hear you cry, they're all women, what do you expect?

To that I answer, nothing else at all, and that is now the whole point. The women who work for companies like F international have something to show the rest of us, and it is something which the rest of are at last appreciating is of great value. We don't have to work the way we do anymore. There is both the scope and the chance for real change.

It is ironic and sad that the reason we (and in this context, I'm afraid, the word 'we' should be taken to mean 'us men') have not taken this chance before is precisely because of the way we feel we need to be seen to be working - if you see what I mean - coupled to the fact that these ways are now showing every sign of not working. It is a sad fact that we are very poor at seeing the obvious before it gets tired of waiting and slaps us in the face.

The obvious in this case is that women are at least just as good at things computing as are men. The slap in the face is coming from the observable fact that the world is not producing sufficient quantities of skilled men to provide all the systems and software expertise that is required. Now this could be a failure of the education system, and that is one option which our present Government seems bent on 'rectifying' with its current reforms. Kids will increasingly be taught just work-related skills and to hell with a rounded approach to life.

Yet the chiefs of the computer industry in general, not having sufficient male Indians to produce the goods, are suddenly realising that women may have brains as well. Not only that, the evidence of companies like F International show that, given the chance, they can be at least as good as the men.

A recent Study by the IT Skills Agency, supported by the Department of Trade and Industry, has shown that England in particular has grossly entrenched attitudes to the place of women in the computer business. There is, for example, a general shortage of skilled computer people worldwide, but it is particularly acute here in England. The reason? Well, if English companies took on young women at the same rate as our competitors in the USA, France or (and here is a misogynistic surprise) Singapore, then the UK would not have a skills shortage in computing.

The standard argument against this is that women have a habit of doing thoroughly non-productive things like going off to have babies. 'Why spend a fortune on training them when all they do is leave?' runs the theory. I can see a modicum of justification for that if one is looking at work that is tied to expensive and very fixed capital equipment, for example a steel works, but it doesn't hold for computing. (And even then, given a good enough cause, such as the Second World War, women suddenly become perfectly acceptable as skilled workers even in steel making).

Take a quick look at your own computer, the chances are you have one. It may only be a Spectrum or Commodore 64, but even those are significant markers on the road of technological development. Look at the adverts in this magazine. Desktop systems with a couple of megabytes of memory, a 32-bit processor and gobs of hard disk space and a price tag of what, £3K? Is that a lot for a company to pay to get a skilled individual working productively?

And then look at the articles and adverts that have some relationship to the world of communications. It is becoming increasingly easy to connect a PC anywhere in the world to another PC, departmental system, mainframe computer or whatever anywhere else in the world. It will get much easier, too, for the telecommunications companies realise that there is money to be made from the connection and line charges for such services.

That means the way we work can change and, as more women do make it into computing, will change. We will be given objectives, perhaps, and they have to be completed by a certain time. You will do the job where and when convenient, where and when most suited to your own lifestyle and psychology. For example, like many journalists I can only work to a tight deadline, it becomes like a drug. So jobs get left until they can be written in a state of blind panic. I couldn't organise that so well in an office.

The interesting aspect of all this is that women are probably better at working this way, they don't need the structures and paraphernalia of 'going to work' that men need. This does suggest the possibility that they may get to be better at being productive than 'we' are. And wouldn't the world be a better place for it.

end