I’ve seen things I used to do, need and want to do get easier, and I’ve seen technology open up new things to to that I like that I hadn’t conceived of before. I expect it to continue to do so.

I’ve also seen opportunities hyped to do things that I couldn’t care less about, and their creations drive out things I did. I’ve even seen new such opportunities created that nobody ultimately wanted so they eventually died or were marginalized despite initial hype.

And I’ve seen kit created and dominate a market that is a huge pain to learn to use for little incremental gain, for me, but which I ultimately have to use. So it goes.

SO I’m still persuadable, but I’d better see some epic opportunity costs in a domain that matters to me.

I know someone who may think this is me, and how to approach me, politically. What is actually going on is somewhat less of rival cost/benefit analyses and somewhat more of an argument over the very definition of cost and benefit, not to mention the correct identification of appropriate beneficiaries.

I also knew someone who I called a change agent as soon as I heard the term. Her thing was workplace procedural change- that was an area in which I was more persuadable, often persuaded, and occasionally contributing. Her technique was similar to what Berger is flogging, I think by natural instinct.

In the financial realm, I see where he is coming from. Opportunity cost is not a new concept. On the other hand, although his method is direct when you have the rival choices to hand, he’s not addressing the matter of risk assessment and risk management, in which, regardless of past performance, risk aversion by the client is usually driving their refusal to change.

Take away my tech support and watch me get more self-sufficient. Then I’ll ask the IT department to justify its existence.

Or I’ll sneak it past them by running my favorite classic software in an emulator.