Your post seems confusing. Are you trying to clarify confusing terms applied to technology by the business side (content of the 2nd half) or eradicate tech buzzwords per the title and 1st half?

I agree that terms like alignment and transformation are annoying, but those were derived by non-tech folks or to sell concepts at non-techies, thus seating their entire reason for existence in communications to the business side (a.k.a. non-techies in "most" cases).

Additionally, the WSJ article is just so off the wall with respect to usefulness (wish I had seen in '08 so I could have posted some timely comments). Clarity of communications and eradicating acronyms are not the mutually required for better clarity. I'd rally against killing technobabble -- but rally for focusing where & when it is used (I suppose iPod and other neo terms would be avoided at Kimberly??).

Techno terms are not the issue -- they seem to me to simply be placeholders for where folks just don't have an answer on what is needed or intended, e.g. "alignment" to deal with the fact that the two worlds have a hard time meshing with each other, or understanding the value/direction of technology within business.

I can think of 2 words/acronyms that are used at my work that I want eliminated. The first one is "oversight". Management likes IT oversight on projects. So the last time we missed a requirement, I told my boss it was an oversight. He got confused.

The second one is unique to my company. We have a Process Improvement Group and we use the acronym PIG. Seriously, is that really necessary?

I worked for years as a communicator in an IT department--a non-technical person whose primary purpose was to translate geek-speak into common language so we could inform and educate those who used corporate IT systems.

At some point, someone decided that calling people "users" was vaguely insulting (I guess if the term applied to one who used a computer as well as one who used heroin, we needed to differentiate). The IT director decided we should call everyone in the company our "business partners." That got rid of the "user" stigma, but sounded like we were talking about the people who bought services from our company, not about our co-workers.

My own IT co-workers were offended when I would simplify complex concepts into language that non-technical people could grasp. They felt that I was somehow undermining their value as professionals, cutting down their impressive technological knowledge and capabilities. I believe that using non-technical language, or similes that can be easily grasped, increases the respect of non-IT staff for the work of IT. Certainly we got a lot more compliance and support from the rest of the company when they understood WHY we were asking for more complex passwords, or locking down access to parts of the Internet, or changing software.

I think most people, in ANY professional field, use obscure language in an effort to elevate themselves somehow. Seriously, how many times did you hear references to "low-hanging fruit" or some dopey golf term in your CEO's last speech? How many people can read the company's mission statement and relate it directly to their own job?

I'll cease my ramble about clear language. I took on a jargon fight years ago that I mostly lose, but support you and anyone else who makes it a mission, even if a minor one.

To me, it doesn’t seem productive or even possible to try to identify and use one set of "correct" terminologies, and try to "do away with" imprecise or colloquial terms. I believe that as IT professionals we need to learn how to develop our skills to recognize, understand and respect the widely different levels of experiences and vocabularies of our different audiences so that we can tailor our communications to be most effective when communicating with different groups. This is not unique to IT--it's a challenge faced by every profession that must communicate about highly technical issues.

One physician talking with another about a specific medical condition will use a different and more specialized vocabulary than the familiar language that's needed when talking with a patient about the same medical condition. It's even more challenging if a lawyer asks the physician for help as an expert witness about that same medical condition. In that case, two technical backgrounds and vocabularies (medical and legal) are involved. These examples, and situations we face as IT professionals, are very similar.

Trying to get others to use only the technical terms that are essential to us in our work, or becoming concerned when those not in our profession use words that seem to us to be incorrect or imprecise, doesn’t seem to me to be very productive. I believe a much better goal for IT professionals would be to spend more time and energy in learning how to communicate effectively with our many different audiences so that the essential information we have can be received, understood, and be more helpful for all concerned.

Railing against any industry-specific jargon seems doomed for precisely the same reason that Theodore Roosevelt couldn't get anyone to embrace simplified spelling of everyday words: For better or worse, nobody likes to look stupid.

There, I said it. I'm not trying to assign a value judgment to this proposal -- actually I think any bid to make communications clearer, (especially between the professional and the layperson who may be resposible for cutting the checks) is a "really good idea".

So, what about revealing the offending buzzwords? Is it a promotional bellringer for an IT guru to admit that there is terminology out there that is too murky even for THEM to understand?? I'm keeping my mouth shut -- as far as accounting knows, I'm brilliant! ;)

You also have a huge problem in surmounting human nature. The professional IT herd feels like it has trouble enough justifying itself and its industry's inherent costs to outside controlling groups--controlling groups who are under vastly increasing pressure to cut costs somewhere, anywhere to keep the organization afloat. The fear this inspires is enough to make otherwise reasonable people hide inside a bunker of impenetrable jargon.

I'll put it another way...

If the IT priesthood keeps everything in Latin, then only those fluent in Latin will understand the gospel and if they understand the gospel they will see the importance of its meaning.

Put everything in terms of the common vernacular? So that they understand what we're up to in the accounting branch?? We're dead! (tongue firmly in cheek here)

Obviously this is not the way things ought to be, but we all know there are those in our profession who behave in precisely this manner. Let's see what comes up on this subject as time progresses...

"Flip The Switch"
I need our payroll system to calculate overtime based on time and a half for the first 2 hours and then by 2X for the next 2 hours. Can you flip the switch to make that happen?

I agree with Edward. We must not sacrifice leveraging our investment towards network visibility in the name of aligning techno-babble with understandable English.

While I agree with everyone so far, I do think that there are a few terms that we could do without: let's start with "mashup." We could do without it very easily as it does confuse many about how we link software pieces together.

I also think that if I hear about "green technology" again I might get sick. If a computer box is alternate blue-and-white striped, is it "green" just because it uses 5 watts less than a green-and-white striped box (is the green box no longer considered to be "green")? Gimme a break!

Also let's not call anything "nano" meaning that it is small or fast or "cutting edge" unless we really know that it works in the one-billionth of a meter scale.

OK, that is a start.

Hi,
This is a cyclic problem. 10 years ago we had this same conversation: IT needs to speak in a way that business understands.

The motivation for doing so was to get line managers to say, 'Yes, we will finance that work.' Has anything changed, except time?

When buzzwords are used, insist they put in (brackets) WHAT THAT TERM OR WORD MEANS.

They then will get the message , hopefully.

It worked for me.