text: Since the topic is so wide ,, we stick to only one argument ,, \n\n\nThe  _talent , _skill and the _expert knowledge that companies need to tie and  link  the departmental \n\ninformations is a challenge and a cost center.\n\nPeople are used to , and trained to work by =information , but machines and technology record and transmit \n\nonly  =data , maybe =numbers.\n\nThere is no fixed protocol on how you shall derive =information from the =data presented.  Companies also \n\nstruggle with documentation , especially procedural.  \n\nSo , the cumputerisation not only costs money , but it cost human downtime , even waiting for the \n\ndepartmental heads to agree on "protocol".  There is a high degree of uncertainty on the ground.  \n\nAnd every departmental head has his own oppinion on what a computer is ,, but never the correct one , and is \n\nnot comfortable making a technical decision ,, as simple as a "safety" overide , whether to have or not. \n\nCurrent age , we have simply overloaded the human brain to handle the "manufactured" reality.  \n\nAlso , neither is the computer geek comfortable in the anlogue , in areas of technology rheo (plastics) , \n\nmaterial , machanical , or balancing the system Q , or machine Q , machine tuning in general , or anything \n\nthat considers the continuum. So , they won't caliberate the pH meters or the  set-up the strain gauge either , therefore they cannot caliberate !!\n\nSay , what you like , they are not comfortable with the legal aspects of caliberation.  To say that if the computer is showing a pressure drop runtime , what could it be.  The OBD ECU (computer) in the car is an example.  \n\n\n* information and communication technology has made a world where neither the geek nor us know what is happening.