Actionable information is to data access what a Rolex is to 150 grams of gold. There's no denying the value of the raw material, but it's a long way from the potential value and quality of experience that could be realized when it's shaped by the hands of designers.

A well designed tool fits beautifully into our hands and is a pleasure to use, even in the most mundane tasks. Business systems that perform efficiently and gracefully-ones that speak our language, organize data and features just as we need them, seem to anticipate our expectations, and even make us look good-these are the tools that business needs.

The fact of the matter is that the software industry has done a pretty good job at defining what business needs from technology: vast systems providing access to a deep and broad inventory of data; functions and features representing work processes and methods designed for maximum efficiency; and scalability that allows these systems to grow and expand. What business now needs is real and effective human access to all of this capability, for without it we're really no better off for all of these strengths and innovations.

Real and effective human access will not be achieved through larger budgets for "change management" and more comprehensive training programs. Business needs less systems training, more immediate and effective user adoption, and authentic excitement from a workforce energized by tools that make these people more effective, more efficient, and more capable of performing at the individual level and in turn at the organizational level. This happens only when the human context of the business process is understood.

Understanding business processes beyond the efficient sequenced access to data and execution of functions is a tricky challenge. Data and functions are handy, tidy components with which to organize a system. Unfortunately, they are too limited a tool set for designing a system. But because systems are defined primarily by business stakeholders (people with an intimate understanding of a business' behaviors, decisions, and information needs) and technologists (individuals with a deep understanding of how to define behaviors, functions, and data within a computer) there is little opportunity to define what a business needs from a system beyond these elements.

A data array of numbers and letters is a collection of facts about the operation and performance of an organization. How to translate that data into a form that conveys to a group of individuals all of the messages within that data is a challenge whose definition should begin well ahead of the consideration of any technology platform or computer code. "Decision Support" is one of the oldest descriptors of the benefits that business systems offer, and the term precisely illuminates one of the shortcomings of current tools. Human beings need to see and understand the messages in data in order to be able to make the appropriate responses in support of the organization's goals.

Better performance is one of the goals of any organization's investment in technology. Every company in the market for software is seeking better performance - to speed up routine tasks, to improve overall processes, to manage costs, and to increase margins, revenue, and market share. With comprehensive descriptions of the newest technological capabilities, software vendors draw parallels between these performance needs and the capabilities of their wares. For example, it's easy to claim that if employees who must keep time-entry records could more easily record when they work and what tasks they perform throughout the day, their employers will save money, increase the accuracy of performance measures, and improve their chances of success. For one U.K. company, the simple task of time entry became such a painful task for its thousands of employees that the company instituted a policy that time entry be performed at a certain time on a certain day. That way, it was hoped, employees wouldn't be squeezing the difficult task in between their usual work and would perhaps enter more accurate data.

Like a thousand small pebbles in a thousand shoes of their employees, systems like these slow the workflow at the point where technological capability reaches the desktop and is touched by human users. Rather than setting a goal of smaller stumbling points and more exacting training requirements, what business needs is an interface to its enterprise system that sparks excitement in its target community of human users - excitement in the fact that their work is easier, more enjoyable, that they are more effective, and that the employer is supplying tools that reinforce their belief that they are part of a winning team. Training programs that improve individual performance are excellent, but training programs that teach humans how to be productive despite the design flaws of a system are counterproductive. Recognizing the difference leads to success and opportunity.

Of course, the true measure of a system's performance isn't its raw power, but its efficiency and effectiveness. When a system is described as "efficient" or "effective," it's important to understand how these characteristics were measured and what efficiency or effectiveness is being described. For example, when describing computing technologies that drive the back end of a business system, these characteristics may be of the highest order: Transaction processing may be honed to the fraction of a millisecond, and the database architecture may be truly superior. At the same time, that system may be the most inefficient and ineffective machine you deploy in your workplace if the human user's experience in navigating the environment and deciphering the language on screen is difficult and frustrating. When asked about these issues, systems salespeople often begin describing the rollout sequence that includes those considerable change management and training programs - and their considerable budgets. Delivering technical efficiency and effectiveness isn't enough. The business needs efficiency and effectiveness from the hands and minds of its workforce.

Every business also needs the confidence and faith of its employees, and all managers want to earn the respect and confidence of their direct reports. When considering tools to support the development of these important organizational needs, the electronic enterprise system of a business may not be the first thing that comes to mind. Indeed, these business needs may be the only thing business system manufacturers aren't promising to "transform" within the organization. Yet deployment of a new system may have a profound impact on the organization's internal brand. Within the mind of every member of the corporation is an impression of the company-its values, its products, and its people. Is this a smart organization, a caring company, a frugal organization, an innovative company, or an organization with conservative values and plodding methods? Like the impressions we carry in our minds of people we've just met, and people we've known for a lifetime, employees also form impressions of their employers.

I've met dozens of physicians who have expressed disgust with the systems they are required to use at their respective hospitals. One doctor rolled her eyes as she described the scenario of ordering blood, and told how she sends a human runner to the blood bank rather than interact with a computer system that's too slow. Technically, the system could get the request to the bank at lightening speed. The unfortunate reality is that unless it's designed to be easy to use, most human beings aren't capable of figuring out how to make that request in an acceptable amount of time. When the physician describes the scenario to me, she made a number of disparaging comments about the decision-makers who buy and deploy these systems, saying that "they don't understand what we really need" and that "they're out of touch."

A system that unnecessarily challenges employees will damage the employees' opinion of its employer, or at least the reputation of the managers who decided to deploy such a tool. It's said that a shoddy craftsman blames his tools. When the tools are unresponsive, confusing, and outright difficult to use, the craftsman is likely to blame not only the tools, but also the provider of the tools - the organization. A brand impression begins at home, within the organization, and an inferior tool can adversely impact one of an organization's most valuable assets.


This excerpt is from Harold Hambrose's new book "Wrench in the System: What's Sabotaging Your Business Software and How You can Release the Power to Innovate" (Wiley, 2009)