The Problem of ICT Quality Control

Background:

Computer science graduates do not have licensure exams. After college, those who’d like to make a living out of their ‘specialized education’ usually freelance or join companies or start-ups that dabble in ICT. These companies are likewise not regulated by any specialized agency of government.

Question:

If I trust my doctor, my accountant, my lawyer, and even my librarian to do the job right because the government says they’re qualified, can I give the same trust to this fresh graduate from STI who claims to have mastered the art of database management? Let’s take this line of questioning a step further. Can the airport trust the firm that’s commissioned to design its automated navigational system? Can the government of a third-world country trust a foreign newcomer, a virtual unknown entity, to protect the right of suffrage for some 50 million voters? If these ‘contractors’ screw up, do they lose the right to practice their ‘ICT profession’ or enter into similar contracts involving programming? I think not.

Problem:

Government regulation for the traditional sciences and professions doesn’t seem to apply to ICT-inclined fields. There is no standard of quality, there is no in-house body of experts that can determine the validity of work performed. To put it bluntly, if it works, then we have no problem. If it doesn’t, you’re fired - or technically, you lose a client. Reputation, therefore, seems to be the only measure of quality.

Now, yes, we do have our trusted (not to mention, star-studded) Senate to ask questions when things go wrong... but this only happens when a potential media-crazy issue invades the headlines and, even then, their knowledge of issues is limited to what they can glean from a select group of experts who, themselves, are not accountable to anybody. Neither can we rely on the CICT which serves as a mere recommendatory body, a toothless tiger, really, when the “real” departments don’t support its resolutions. Though there have been talks of making this a full-fledged department under the Executive’s wing, the possibility that they’d focus on quality control seems highly unlikely.

Endnote:

As we grasp for potential solutions in an era marked by leap-frogging advances in ICT, only time will tell if the problems raised by this fledgling industry are properly addressed and given due importance. For now, we’re stuck with luck, trial and error, and the hope that, as prospective buyers of highly technical services, we’re not being sold lemons.

IMHO: Knowledge about technology and neurotransmitters can help improve your relationships

When I over-analyze things, I always go back to what I know about Biopsychology and Social Psychology, at least in the first ten minutes. For example, when I am in love or feel a strong connection with one person, I tend to think that it is a function of oxytoxin and vasopressin in my brain and how this person can create that effect. These neurotransmitters, as I recall, can only last 1.8 to 2.5 years, which means after this period, the neurotransmitter for commitment should kick in or the relationship will take its toll (the itch). Or when I ask why I am almost perennially happy, almost never depressed, I think about norepinephrine and thank I have good stock.

So why do I consider these things? Because I consider science (hard and soft) and technology in keeping and maintaining my relationships. For example, there are things that I really don't understand about men. I tried to decode them and realize that they are in fact very simple. This is not without basis. Their brains are lateralized (their corpus callosum, that which connects the right and the left brain, is thinner than women) which is one of the reasons why they can't multitask, and by knowing this, I know it will be very stressful for them to have a conversation while watching TV. If you know things like these, you know when is the best time to talk to them about things that matter to you without appearing to confrontational.

Aside from knowing that men's brain maps show similar patterns when they just had marijuana and when they see a very beautiful lady (Reader's Digest article) and that there are certain colors that have subtle effects on their brain, which can calm or make them aggressive depending on what you want them to feel, it is important that you know how they react to technology too.

To illustrate: I went to a Globe hub and asked which is more popular, Super Duo (unlimited calls) or Super Txt (unlimited text) and they said it's the latter. I tried an experiment and realized that in the past 3 months that I subscribed to Super Duo, most of my friends aren't into picking up calls. However, even given this apprehension to picking up calls, among my friends, the guys pick up the phone more than the gals (and they also call more than text). Is it because calls are more intrusive and demanding and we don't want to feel like we are being demanded to give attention right away? Is it because through texting, one can control what time to reply and can think first of what to say to whatever that message/call was for? Or is it more sociological than psychological--that we have this culture of texting than calling, so much that we are the text capital of the world?

With this experience, I subscribed to Super Txt to text my female friends and use 235, 236, 232 Globe functions to make cheaper calls to male friends.

But funny thing is, they reply to FB messages or emails faster than through their mobile phone so if you know this, you can choose what media to use in helping maintaining your relationships. At this point, I stop over-analyzing. The synapses in my brain can't handle it anymore.

Paulyn Duman
Blog #4

Other blogs:
IMHO: Digitized sins are forgiven
IMHO: UP College of Law should improve its cellphone signal reception
IMHO: Media diet is good for students and teachers

Computer Science vs. Information Techology

Ages in human history are distinguished by technological level. The bronze, iron and industrial ages were named such because during their respective times, the main technologies which propelled progress were bronze, iron and industrialization.

Those who used and understood the technology were the elite. In the days of ancient China, crossbow-armed archers of the Qin dynasty were the distinguished class who held the country together. In the days of chivalry, sword-wielding knights of the middle ages were the saviors of the masses. Nowadays, a new breed of elite emerged: laptop-typing techies of the Information Age. Like archers, these “computer geeks” hold industries and, ergo, economies intact; and like knights, they save the masses from the web of confusion brought about by the diversity of new technologies which require specialized knowledge to understand and use.

These are the Janus-bladed gifts and curses of what people collectively call “IT experts.”

There is, however, one major fact overlooked: wielders of the technology of the Information Age cannot be lumped together in a broad class as “IT experts.” The information age is a galaxy of diverse fields of computing, expertise in one does not translate to expertise in another. And even the types of expertise are different. There are two types of expertise: those who are experts in understanding and those who are experts in using.

Computer Science vs. Information Technology

When people discover that I am a computer science graduate, they usually take advantage of the opportunity to get some free techie advice such as “My Windows runs slowly, what do I do?” or “How do I use Macromedia Flash to make a cartoon for my website?” or “How can I get free porn using my Father’s computer without him knowing it?”

I simply say “I don’t know.” Truly, I don’t. People lump together computer-knowledgeable people as one big class in their mind: “IT experts.” As a computer science graduate, I am always mistaken to be an IT expert. I am not. Perhaps a high school counter-strike enthusiast has more IT expertise than me.

What I know is Computer Science, not Information Technology; the two are very different. Computer Science is the scientific methodological study of how to solve real-world problems using enormous calculations, usually with the aid of computers. Information Technology is the body of information on how to utilize technologies of the Information age. Computer scientists are the “scientists” who invent. Information Technologists are the “users” of latest technologies.

Believe it or not, people in my field are scientists, we are called computer scientists. As scientists, we study and analyze to understand and create. We understand the internal mechanics of how computer systems work, but it is unfair to assume that we are proficient users of computers and the internet. We understand Artificial Intelligence, Database Systems and Operating System Kernels but we cannot be expected to know the things the staff of Netopia knows such as how to use Photoshop or knowing the features of Google Earth. A designer of a car cannot be expected to be a driver as well.

In Jurassic Park III, Jeff Goldblum said there are two types of boys: those who want to become astronomers and those who want to become astronauts. Astronomers are the ones who study and understand heavenly bodies; astronauts are those who, although they do not understand how heavenly bodies operate, interact with them. Computer Scientists are astronomers, not astronauts. They study the science of computing, they are not necessarily good users of software products or the internet. They cannot be expected to explain how to set-up a blog or know which websites are secure. I for one understand the science behind the internet but do not know the rules and conventions used therein.

Even in the days of ancient China, there are those mathematicians who study the proper trajectories of how crossbows should be fired and there are archers who fire crossbows. In the days of chivalry, there are blacksmiths who forge swords and there are knights who wield them. It is unwise to ask a blacksmith what is the proper stance in a swordfight, ask a knight. It is unwise to ask a Computer Scientist how to use of iTunes, ask an Information Technologist. On the flipside, it is also unwise to ask an Information Technologist which C++ library should be included in a certain program code, as a Computer Scientist.

Computer Scientists study how to use mathematics to create programs; Information Technologists use computer programs. Computer Scientists are the engineers who create calculators; Information Technologists are the accountants that use calculators. Accountants do not know how calculators work but they are experts in utilizing it. Engineers do not know accounting but they create the calculators which enable accountants to do their job.