So it turns out that despite digitising pretty much everything, the banking system was still vulnerable to defective information, defectively analysed. Perhaps the amount of data at the fingertips of the banks' leaders and managers was part of the problem. Maybe they figured it was all less likely to implode because smart algorithms and vast quantities of real-time information made them invulnerable to suprises. Then that very complacency bit them - hard.
I wonder whether that illusion of control - created by the digital world - applies to business and social technology, too. Take Twitter, which I know is a critical tool for many on IT Counts, but which I've never really got on with. (I'm not alone.) Ultimately, it comes down to lack of filters. I subscribe to some people, and my screen fills with their musings and their conversations with other people. I unsubscribe, and I feel like a social outcast with no access to information. Having all the "tweets" isn't the same as being in the networks that create them, you see, just as having all the risk algorithms plugged into your financials system isn't "risk management".
So does anyone agree that sometimes we need less information - so we don't feel so blasé about being "connected" or "informed"? As a result, maybe we'd be a bit sharper and more inquisitive - do some more thinking for ourselves rather than listening to what the network or the IT system or the information cloud is telling us. Most sharp FDs I know spend their time making their board packs smaller, not bigger...
Information-fuelled over-confidence killed the banking system. Now information-fuelled paranoia looks like it might kill the economy. Does anyone else see the connection?