Caught in the echo chamber of twitter, Linkedin, Blogs, and our little software technology company here, it’s easy to spend a lot of time preaching to the converted. I don’t feel like we’re a huge community out here.  I’m talking predominantly about accounting and finance, but it could actually extend to the larger conversations about technology.  The consumer technology business is ubiquitous, but getting into the B2B space things change.  We’re covering a lot of the same ground over and over within our small circles, but how do we take the fight conversation to the rest of the DOS-based population?

I had a few experiences this past week reminding me that it’s still very much early both in social media adoption and in understanding new technology. Maybe “DOS-based” is a bit of a strong term. Granted, I did help someone set up their 1st email account this week; but, that’s a rare, rare, rare case of a thirtysomething who never went online… until now. Actually, the jury’s still out on that; 3 to 1 the account goes dormant.  That’s not one of the experiences that got me thinking (although it could).

What got me thinking was speaking with another accounting professional about using the Groups in Linkedin for following industry-related discussions and content. I had the chance to provide some insight about twitter; felt good about that. I was informed that it’s still a bit of a big deal to raise a voice online. I guess that should be obvious, but I forget because the conversation IS happening… despite the fact tons of people aren’t here. It’s kind of like turning the much-quoted phrase “Your customers are talking about you whether you participate or not” on its head. When the accounting and finance conversation is isolated, things get considerably quieter.

In a tech-friendly industry like Business Intelligence, it’s similarly insulated but in a different way. There they have been having pretty much the same conversation for the last 50 years. The only difference between then and now is, it’s online now.  Don’t even get me started on Data Quality! ← sorry guys

The other experience that got me thinking was with respect to course content in my professional organization’s (CGA) Information Systems Strategy course. There seems to be a real bias in the material relating to custom-built software over purchased applications. This is surprising to me. What was more surprising is; through discussions with students, there was unquestioning belief in it! The fact is, there’s a level of trust there between student-teacher telling them they are getting the right information. I think it shows how difficult changing technology makes it for academics (outside tech) to keep up.  That said, it’s a problem.

When they say “custom-built”, they are talking about in-house, from scratch software – think some proprietary system no one’s ever heard of.   Purchased applications would range from Quickbooks to SAP. Imagine. I feel like this is something that entered the course curriculum at its inception back when code was being written using Hieroglyphics. Am I wrong?

This actually ties nicely in with my last post about Legacy IT Systems. We’re still dealing with them. We’re also dealing with a Legacy Education System. This could explain some of the continuing difficulties between CFOs and CIOs.

There are lots of folks in accounting doing the right things though. Look at AICPA and CPA2Biz’s just-announced alliance with the software as a service accounting package, Intacct. Here’s an example of keeping current! Of course, in general it’s tough for professional bodies to do this kind of endorsement. What I like about it though is the endorsement of the technology. Maybe the question is, does that validation extend to the course curriculum for prospective accountants?

What do you think?

I think it also exemplifies the Echo Chamber analogy.  Who’s in your Echo Chamber?  Who’s not?