In 1980, a 3278 green-screen terminal cost (as I recall) about $6,000, not including the mainframe it attached to.

Along came the PC. It cost half that, and was self-sufficient.

IT tried to keep them out. They put too much power in the hands of ignorant users and you couldn’t do serious computing on them anyway. Yes, the IT authorities made both arguments, simultaneously, and didn’t even blush.

PCs leaked in despite IT’s opinion. Distributed computing leaked in too. The economics made them unavoidable. Various pundits claim otherwise, but they are comparing the costs of PCs and distributed computing with the competition-deflated costs of mainframe computing, not the pre-PC high-margin early-1980s price tag.

Fast-forward to now. You can buy a 150 gigabyte drive for less than $100. For another hundred bucks you can buy a USB external disk to back it up.

For 150 backed-up gigabytes, IT would charge $1,500 per year.

From my backup drive I can restore any file in five minutes. IT would take more than a day. Self-service? Forget it.

In 1980, IT completely locked down the 3278 terminal, by definition. IT now locks down the PC, not by definition but by choice. Meanwhile, at home, people install whatever they please, and in spite of what the doomsayers tell you, few run into insurmountable problems. Those who do sheepishly ask their teen-aged children to help them. Their teenagers give them the same eyeball rolls they get from the Help Desk staff at work, but much better service.

Nothing in this comparison is fair. Fair has nothing to do with it. My PC at home beckons, saying “Yes, you can do that too.” My PC at work says, “No you can’t.” Your end-users experience that contrast every working day.

Preaching to them that “it’s a business computer, to be used only for business purposes,” isn’t persuasive, because they know something we in IT often ignore: It isn’t really a computer.

Oh, technically that’s what it is, but technically doesn’t matter. The PC is a portal to a universe of possibilities. While the word “cyberspace” has fallen out of use, the idea of cyberspace is alive, well, and built into the perception of everyone who looks at a screen while manipulating a keyboard and mouse.

It might be time … past time … for IT to look at its job in a new way.

Try this on for size: Imagine you ran IT as if it embraced this PC-as-portal perspective. As if IT’s job was to manage one corner of that universe of possibilities.

What would you do differently?

Let’s take it a step further. Let’s look, not just at the PC but about work as a whole from the employee’s point of view. That shouldn’t be too hard. We in IT are employees too, when we aren’t busy being IT professionals.

From the employee’s point of view the job is, in addition to being a way to earn a living, a place for: social interaction; developing the self-esteem that comes from creating value and achieving important things; structuring time and staying occupied; exercising their brains and keeping them from becoming stale.

Few employees draw a hard boundary around their work life, keeping it psychologically distinct and independent of the rest of their life. They are the same people in the office as out of the office.

We in IT are stuck in a 1950s industrial view of the workplace. Much of the workforce is post-industrial in perspective. They don’t “achieve work/life balance.” They just live their lives, wherever they happen to be at the moment — sometimes in the office, sometimes out of it.

In the office they research reports, create presentations, check their investment portfolios, answer business e-mail, answer personal e-mail, make business phone calls, answer personal phone calls.

Out of the office they think about the reports, edit the presentations, check their investment portfolios, answer business e-mail, answer personal e-mail, make business phone calls, and answer personal phone calls.

Employees live a significant part of their lives in the universe of possibilities they reach through their PCs, their Blackberries, the Treos, their iPhones.

The economic gap between self-sufficient computing and central IT that drove the PC revolution is back. The existential gulf separating IT’s perception of work from the employee perception of work is new, and wider. We in IT had better figure it out, or business users will figure it out without us.

Because for us, a PC is an expensive, hard-to-support business resource. But for them it’s a portal to an entire universe they can buy at Costco for a few hundred bucks.

If someone does something that’s patently ridiculous, but manages to draw enough attention that it generates a lot of discussion, has that person performed a valuable service or just wasted our time?

But enough about Paris Hilton, Kiefer Sutherland and Lindsay Lohan. In our own industry we can ask a similar question about Nicholas Carr, who, as mentioned last week, has predicted that the “technical aspect of IT” (which in Carr’s world is IT infrastructure management) will move to the Internet, which will become the CPU-cycle-provisioning equivalent of an electrical power plant.

With the technical part gone, handling the non-technical remainder (I bet you didn’t know application design, development and integration are non-technical undertakings) won’t require a separate in-house IT organization any more. Instead, they will become a mixture of Software as a Service (SaaS) applications and business-department-developed code that runs on the utility computing infrastructure.

Sometimes, fault-finding isn’t the best way to evaluate a new idea. A superior alternative is to be helpful and positive — to figure out how to make it work (for a historical example, see “Inhaling network computers,” KJR, 1/13/1997.)

What will be required for IT to go away?

First of all, let’s assume Carr isn’t simply “predicting” the success of IT infrastructure outsourcing, as I contended last week — that he’s serious about utility computing in the electrical generation sense.

In the deregulated electrical power industry, generation companies pump 60-cycle current onto the grid, metering how much they provide. End-customers draw electricity off the grid. Their local provider acts as a broker, buying current from the low-cost provider and metering consumption.

This is, by the way, how you can buy wind-generated electricity if you prefer. You don’t really get the exact electrons pushed onto the grid by a wind farm. You simply instruct your broker to buy enough of them to satisfy your consumption. The rest is just balancing the books.

For utility computing to work, we would need a similar metering and billing infrastructure. We’d need a lot more, too. For example:

  • Web 3.0: We will need a grid computing architecture that runs applications wherever CPU cycles happen to be cheapest (with suitable metering and billing — see above).
  • Virtualization: This will have to be perfect, so that the CPU cycles you buy can run your applications no matter what operating system they were written for.
  • Quality of Service: Different applications need different levels of performance. Buyers will need a way to specify how fast their cycles have to be, and without the help of those pesky engineers who would be housed in an IT department if it hadn’t been disbanded.
  • AI-based data design: With professional, centralized IT evaporated into the business, which will be building whatever custom applications remain, there will no longer be an organizational home for data designers. The only alternative is technology smart enough to handle this little engineering chore.
  • Automated, self-tuning pre-fetch: Last week’s column demonstrated the impact of latency in the communications channel on linked SaaS-supplied systems — the speed of light slows table joins to a crawl.This is fixable, so long as systems are smart enough to automatically pre-fetch records prior to needing them. Every SaaS vendor will have to provide this facility automatically, since businesses will no longer employ engineers able to manually performance-tune system linkages.
  • New security paradigm: Sorry about the use of “paradigm.” It fits here. You’ll be running all of your applications on public infrastructure, on the wrong side of the firewall (which — good news! — you’ll no longer need). Think it will be hard for someone with ingenuity to plant a Trojan that monitors the cycles and siphons off every business secret you no longer have?
  • AI-based data warehouse design: Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Carr-envisioned future happens as he predicts. You will still want to mine all of your data, in spite of it being schmeared out across the SaaS landscape.I see two choices. The first, almost unimaginable, is an efficient, distributed, virtual data warehouse, reminiscent of the sea shell collection Steven Wright keeps scattered on beaches all over the world.The alternative is the same data warehouse technology we’ve grown accustomed to. Except we don’t have IT anymore, so we’ll need an AI design technology to pull it together for us, performance optimized and ready for analysis.

Look far enough into the future and all of this is possible. Heck — look far enough and broadcast power is possible.

Now, look ahead just far enough that you’re at the end of any useful business planning horizon. You’ll reach a very different conclusion.