You think you dislike Microsoft Excel or some other spreadsheet package? You probably still think more highly of it than noted curmudgeon John Dvorak does:
Posted by Nicholas at January 13, 2009 04:09 PM2009 marks the 30-year anniversary of the now-ubiquitous spreadsheet program. And society as a whole has deteriorated ever since its invention. It was the spreadsheet that triggered the PC revolution, with VisiCalc the original culprit. Can anyone say that we've actually benefited from its invention? Look around: I think we've suffered.
For one thing, the spreadsheet created the "what if" society. Instead of moving forward and progressing normally, the what-if society questions each and every move we make. It second-guesses everything. Because of the spreadsheet we've been forced to "do the numbers" whenever possible; once the numbers are in the spreadsheet, the what-if process can begin.
In fact, the spreadsheet has resulted in the rise of the once-lowly accountant/bean counter to a position of influence — and often the executive suite. How often in years past — the pre-spreadsheet era, that is — did an accountant take over a company? When and why did the CFO become a title? These people, at best, were once known as comptrollers.
The spreadsheet became a sword, and the accountants knew how to wield it.
Nicholas, I don't know how you read that guy... he has been almost perfectly consistent in getting it wrong about just about everything. =) He hated mice. He hated Macs. The iPhone. If it's a tech innovation, count on him to line up against it. I have to take exception to the spreadsheet-bashing, especially the equation of it with Enron. The spreadsheet does not contain hardcoded adherence to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), and does not help or hinder the less ethical accountants from twisting the numbers the way they see fit. What helps them do that is a thorough knowledge of SEC regulations and tax law, and hey... No surprise, it helps to be a lawyer. Which is exactly why lawyers outnumber accountants on most boards. Let's look at Enron's board, for example. Ken Lay - Economist Jeff Skilling - B.A. Applied Science, MBA Andrew Fastow - B.A. Economics, MBA John Wakeham - Accountant Herbet S. Winokur - Applied Mathematics Raymond S. Troubh - Lawyer Lawrence B. Lindsey - Economist Wendy Gramm - Economist William C. Powers - B.A Chemistry, Lawyer Frank G. Wisner - B.A. (Unspecified) Frank Savage - B.A., M.A. (Unspecified) Three lawyers, one accountant. If Enron was overloaded with anything, it's economists, who, we can all agree, are uniformly bad at forecasting the future based on current trends. The training given to economists and accoutnants is vastly different. To be an accountant you have to know a lot about the law, and tax codes, and book-keeping. To be an economist you have to know a lot about statistics and their interpretation. The Arthur Andersen guys on the other hand are, no surprise, accountants—since that was an accounting firm.Posted by: Chris Taylor at January 14, 2009 08:41 AM
Visitors since 17 August, 2004