Aside from the debate over the MIT has/has-not a computer in 1967 or will in 1987, I think the more interesting aspect of the piece is the normative suggestions

Aside from the debate over the MIT has/has-not a computer in 1967 or will in 1987, I think the more interesting aspect of the piece is the normative suggestions it has in terms of thinking about how computers should be used in organizations. The notion that it eliminates the instinctual and actually introduces information is actually an incredible insight to have at the dawn of available(ish) computing. One developed, if one had any sense, a reasonably good instinct for what invention was plausible and likely to fly, and what wasn’t. But real information just wasn’t to be had. Now, for the first time, it’s beginning to be available—and the overall impact on society is bound to be very great Looking at the behavior of large organizations it's clear to see that many of them have not internalized this insight. In terms of exploiting what computers can mean for non-technically oriented organizations we haven't gotten much farther than the payrolls he mentions, " I’m not saying we shouldn’t be using the computer for payrolls, but that’s beside the point. If payrolls were all it could do, we wouldn’t be interested in it." It's always nice to chew on some good old thoughts that are still relevant.