Many of the stories we publish in this magazine and on the MA Web site end up addressing cultural issues associated with the successful use of technology. Whether it is integrating plant floor systems with business systems, a new application to automate a specific business process, or implementing lean principles in an operation, many manufacturing companies find that people issues are the most important gating factors in achieving success.

One of the reasons for this is that technology often evolves faster than people can. New generations of ever more powerful microprocessors drive the relentless development of new hardware systems on which we can deploy equally fast-growing applications software. Software functionality has gotten so ahead of organizations' ability to use it that user groups in recent years have pressed for fewer new releases and versions.

In addition to putting a brake on the cost of frequent upgrades, companies are trying to better digest organizationally the systems they already have. Many tech vendors have responded favorably to this need even as they experiment with new ways to deliver functionality.

But there are other reasons that human factors slow things down. One of these is training. Successful system deployment requires up-front training, to be sure, but how many companies provide the kind of ongoing training that can optimize the use of the functionally rich systems we have today? The pressures of our 24/7 business environment, in which individuals and departments are shouldering multiple projects and tasks, surely makes a sustained focus on formal training difficult. However, the fact remains that most of the functionality in our systems isn't used, shortchanging the organization and complicating return on investments formulas.

Political issues also affect how well organizations use technology. For the past couple of years, this magazine's annual reader survey of plant floor to business systems integration has pointedly shown that budget, authority, and jurisdictional issues have slowed integration projects. Feelings of mistrust as well as communication and language problems between IT and automation groups, for example, continue to plague many integration efforts.

The bottom line is that the problem isn't only how well or quickly individuals take to technology. There is also a complicated organizational dynamic at work that comprises cultural and political factors that are hard to overcome.

How do we close the culture gap? How do we smooth out and speed up the organization's ability to absorb and use technology more fully and effectively? Some say the answer lies in a generational change, that younger people, more attuned to technology — particularly new forms of so-called social computing — will lead the way. Others opine that only a new crop of tech-savvy leaders can drive the changes necessary to align the business more closely to what technology can provide. Still others believe that there is no one answer for all, that each organization must evolve at its own pace.

All of these factors may play a part, but at the end of the day, the systems themselves may be the biggest driver of cultural change. It may be that we really can't affect the human factors in any fundamental way from the top down. But once a new system is in place, change will inevitably follow.

What's your view on how best to close the cultural gap? Write to me at Dbrousell@thomaspublishing.com.