Rewritten from IT ProPortal.
Written by
Gordon Kelly
Gordon Kelly is a London based writer and journalist specializing in technology, music and film.
We’ve been talking about the paperless office for decades, so why is it still just a dream?
In 2012 the global demand for paper is expected to exceed 400 million tons for the first time. Before recycling this equates to 7.2 billion trees, after recycling it still tops four billion trees and eliminates an area the size of Croatia. Remarkably this landmark will be set against a background of flourishing digital media, economic downturn and increasing pressure to live in an environmentally friendly manner. It is a damning situation: try as we might, we just can’t break our addiction to paper.
Nearly 40 years ago this scenario was seemingly unimaginable. Speaking in Business Week in 1975 Vincent E. Giuliano of Arthur D. Little Inc, the world’s oldest management consultancy firm, predicted the use of paper would rapidly decline by 1980 “and by 1990, most record-handling will be electronic.” His comments came in an article entitled ‘The Office of the Future‘ under a subsection called ‘The Paperless Office’. It is thought to be the first time this ominous phrase was used.
A Changing Vision
The notion of ditching paper spread like wildfire and pouring petrol onto the flames was technology. The idea wasn’t new. As far back as 1945 American engineer Vannevar Bush theorised about the memex machine (a portmanteau of ‘memory’ and ‘index’), which individuals would use to store their books, records and communications. It would provide an “enlarged intimate supplement to one’s memory… a sort of mechanized private file and library. It would use microfilm storage, dry photography, and analog [sic] computing to give post war scholars access to a huge, indexed repository of knowledge-any section of which could be called up with a few keystrokes.”
Bush famously went much further in his essay ‘As We May Think‘, predicting the concept of the Internet, search and even Wikipedia:
“Wholly new forms of encyclopaedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified. The lawyer has at his touch the associated opinions and decisions of his whole experience, and of the experience of friends and authorities. The patent attorney has on call the millions of issued patents, with familiar trails to every point of his client’s interest. The physician, puzzled by a patient’s reactions, strikes the trail established in studying an earlier similar case, and runs rapidly through analogous case histories, with side references to the classics for the pertinent anatomy and histology. … The historian, with a vast chronological account of a people, parallels it with a skip trail, which stops only on the salient items, and can follow at any time contemporary trails, which lead him all over civilization at a particular epoch. There is a new profession of trail blazers, those who find delight in the task of establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of the common record. The inheritance from the master becomes, not only his additions to the world’s record, but for his disciples the entire scaffolding by which they were erected.”
Bush fed the appetite for technology and for the rest of the century technology drove forward as IBM, Apple and Microsoft went about turning science fiction into science fact. Having initially been ridiculed, Bill Gates’ radical statement that “Microsoft was founded with a vision of a computer on every desk, and in every home” actually underestimated demand. In the face of such overwhelming progress the printed page didn’t seem to stand a chance.
Misplaced Faith
The problem was, however, that throughout the digital revolution our consumption of paper not only grew, but exploded. Between 1980 and 2000 global paper consumption doubled and discord grew. 2001 saw the publication of influential MIT book The Myth of the Paperless Office and it became just the first of many. So what went wrong? All too easily the answer is put down to human nature: the idea that we could not accept change after centuries of paper use or an unbreakable dependence on secretaries, dictation and aversion to reading from a screen. In extreme circumstances the argument did (and still does) hold weight, but two far simpler and intertwined reasons had greater impact: computers were unreliable and printing became cheap.
Unreliability came in many forms. Documents were easier and faster to create digitally, but computers – particularly early computers – crashed, a lot. In addition many early ecosystems were incompatible, universal file formats were largely absent and there was a high rate of hardware obsolescence. All of which trained the user to believe that a document created digitally was not truly ‘backed up’ until it was safely printed out. Printer prices fell, document production went up and paper copies were widely distributed. Then along came the Internet, email and web pages and suddenly millions of other people’s communications, documents and web pages became additional printer fodder.
As such technology was actually driving the consumption of paper.
Archive for the ‘In The Know’ Category