>Howard makes good points. Let me offer another view, perhaps more >mainline-business" oriented, vs. the very special requirements in >medicine (which I do appreciate -- I'm alive, thank you, >radiologist and surgeon). > >The increase in productivity due to wireless is believed to >come--and I can't be more specific than "believed" since I don't >know the quality of the supposed studies--from capturing value in >otherwise wasted time, and/or from making qualitative >improvements in the work environment, leading to more output from >the extant inputs. Whether it is a good idea in the long run to >capture the work that could be done when not at the desk (via >802.11 systems) has not been assessed; we are gathering much >empirical evidence, though ;-). Personally, the time away from >the desk is most useful to me--I decompress, and I think.
Perhaps you have some perspective from your Air Force days on whether having constant communications available is, in fact, a good thing. My impression is that air traffic controllers, tactical controllers, etc., have enforced rest breaks, unless emergency conditions require otherwise. Wireless -- or perhaps more correctly, ubiquitous communiation (a term from Xerox PARC) -- may increase total production, but at what error rate? Does it result in quicker burnout? Working at home, I used to keep a laptop in the bedroom, but I only do that now if I'm sick enough that I can't get downstairs to my office. I do keep a notepad, colored pens, etc., in the bedroom. Indeed, sometimes when I have creative/writers' block, it's very helpful for me to switch modes -- write rather than type. I will even do what I'll call Zen Design -- relax on the bed, thinking about a design problem, and even drift off to sleep -- and I'll very frequently wake up with a key insight. > >Improving the work environment qualitatively may be as simple as >giving people the chance to work while getting up and moving >around--not being chained to their plow, er, desk. If this makes >people more comfortable overall, the theory goes, all their work >will improve overall. Theory really is a wonderful thing, and >qualitative improvements do matter. Whether this is among the >ones which actually help is moot--I recall being grievously >annoyed in my cubicle days by people whose conversations made it >hard for me to work--getting their voicemail over a speakerphone >was a pet peeve. Someone walking around my work area chatting on >a portable phone could make me go postal if I need to concentrate >and can't. > >But, as Howard said, this is one of many potential tools in the >kit. In a sense, it may make our job harder, since we will need >to be able to recognize the appropriate tool to solve the >problem, which puts us squarely in the problem-recognition >business. And we may need to persuade customers they don't need >the gee-whizziest tool; the same amount of money could provide x, >y, and z, or they could simply spend less money. Probably not an >argument that will go over well in your present job, I know. But >I have a customer who keeps coming back--because I keep finding >him the most economical solution for the problems I've identified >which he is choosing to solve this month vs. deferring. Every bit >of business not deferred further comes back to me. > >But that's a long-term view again, and many businesses don't feel >they can take a long view; the stock market may punish them too >severely. > >Annlee > >Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter wrote: >> ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >>>What's the medium cost between the two cities? Can you use demand >>>circuits as a backup? Can you live with one more PVC and trust the >>>physical connection? Is QoS-unpredictable cable or DSL available? >>> >> >> >> Funny you should ask this, Howard. I've been struggling for several weeks >> how to pose the question. Have we, the engineering / technical sales > > community oversold the idea of dedicated bandwidth and QoS? > > >> Take, for example, wireless. >> >> Wireless is essentially a step backwards. For years we have been convincing >> customers to get rid of their hubs and move into a switched domain, with >> dedicated bandwidth for every user. This is often done in the name of >> productivity. Fewer interruptions of data streams, meaning work completed >> faster.Now all the wireless vendors ( Cisco included ) are producing >studies >> showing how wireless is increasing productivity to the tune of an hour a >> day. On a shared contention medium. Cisco will shortly release their >> wireless telephone as part of their AVVID suite of products, competing with >> the SpectraLink product that has been available for a couple of years. >> >> All this gives one reason to re-evaluate what we have been told for the >last >> couple of years. a contention medium provides the means for greater >> productivity? >> >> You mention QoS in your response above. QoS is something being pushed as >> necessary for voice, video, and other delay sensitive traffic. Cisco >> wireless AP's offer one way quasi QoS. Wireless, however, remains a >> contention medium, and will remain so until the FCC changes the rules. I'm >> not sure they will be able to release sufficient radio spectrum to permit >> all the bandwidth and services that wired can. But wireless is so damn >> convenient! >> >> I'm not suggesting that dedicated bandwidth to the desktop is a bad thing >or >> that there is not need for QoS. However, I'm wondering how all of us might >> reconcile two seemingly opposed points of view regarding bandwidth and QoS >- >> recognizing that wireless, whatever it's limitations, is here to stay, and >> will become and remain essential to any and all networks, enterprise or >> small business, going forward. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72666&t=72645 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
