As long as you can see what you're doing, you're expert at dealing with complexity. You get dressed in the morning without putting on your partner's clothing, you never eat the dog's Minced Morsels for breakfast, and you arrive at work after navigating locks, card swipes and revolving doors.

In comparison, the online world is a doddle. Using just a password, you're into the corporate network and away. Right? Well, sometimes, but not after network maintenance and not if you've changed desks. When online, it seems that we can't see what's around the corner.

Driven by technology
Gartner's Hype Cycle for Networking and Communications, a report of soon-to-be concepts and products, reads like a set of physics equations rather than a market prediction of essential advances. SSL VPNS, MPLS, GMPLS, SIP: competitive and complementary, dozens of important technologies are known only by their initials. It's all very confusing.

Mark Blowers, senior analyst at Butler Group, believes that vendors' attention to technological Smarties has contributed to the problem of complexity.

"In the world of networks and communications, technology remains the main focus," he explained. "This is highlighted by the acronym overload."

It's the abstract nature of networking that's so difficult for humans to understand. Dr Jakob Nielsen, a usability expert at the Nielsen Norman Group, believes that we're ill-equipped.

"Users aren't able to function smoothly in the online world," he said. "In every user study we see people fail again and again at the simplest tasks, such as buying an item online."

Nielsen believes that we are able to cope only because we are both resourceful and determined: we succeed despite the technology.

The focus on technology has fragmented the market and created the need for more technical products to get the parts to work together, according to Blowers.

"The whole environment has become complex as many enterprises attempt to integrate new technologies with existing legacy infrastructure and standards," he said.

Networking is now mass-market and expanding quickly. Not only are voice and data converging on the internet and threatening to complicate what consumers see as simple-to-use telephony, but enterprise and home are becoming part of the same gigantic infrastructure.

Millions of non-expert users are installing home networks and preparing for teleworking, suggesting that focus on technicians is short-sighted.

"Designers are so enamoured with new technological capabilities that they forget the needs of average people," said Nielsen.

But is networking really becoming more complicated, or are applications getting hungry for bandwidth and for abilities previously thought impossible?

Chris Dunne, technology support manager at Compuware, suggested that blaming the network isn't constructive.

"Walk into any IT department and they'll tell you that the network is the one thing people continually complain about," he said. "If email goes down, people blame the network; if a CRM application is unresponsive, it's the network's fault. It's the easiest thing to blame."

Dunne maintained that network management has evolved to take onboard the increased expectations of the applications running across it.

"You can no longer manage the network in isolation; you need to manage it in unison with applications," he explained. "Network managers need to think about giving priority to traffic from certain applications and to consider the impact that network performance has on business processes."

Dunne cited telephony as a dedicated network that has become just another application requiring expert support.

"Network managers need to manage telephony as an application and ensure that it has the necessary bandwidth to allow people to make calls without any reliability issues," he said.

The layering of applications on top of the network causes blame to fall on the common denominator. Dunne pointed out that, when complaining, it's good to remember that it's not always the network at fault.

"Often it can be a problem with a database or application," he said. "It's just that you notice the problem because you're connected to the network."

One man's simple is another's complication
As the saying goes: 'The network is the computer,' and it's difficult for non-experts to perceive subtle differences in the blame game. The gulf between technician and user is often vast.

PC World's Remote IT Management (RITM) network support service is marketed using the following simple statements: 'The backup always seems to fail.' 'Why is it so hard to add a new user?' 'Why does the network keep crashing?'

These reflect the state of mind of many users. Thirty-five per cent of calls to RITM are for administration problems such as lost passwords or resetting user accounts. These don't seem complicated, yet many organisations are opting to buy network support rather than maintain expertise in-house. It suggests that even problems such as these aren't easy to solve.

Richard Harrison, head of commercial services at PC World Business, is unapologetic. "Network problems, like any problem, are easily resolved if you have the right skills and tools to do the job," he said.

It seems that many difficulties with networking arise from security issues. Without security concerns, we wouldn't require passwords, authentication certificates, encryption or half as much configuration.

The industry has outdone itself with competing ideas, standards, protocols and products, and is moving so fast that the consumer has barely configured WEP on a wireless card before being told it's obsolete.

Andy Palmer, European managing director of Foundry Networks, suggested that organisations must try to protect themselves against unknown and unforeseen attacks.

"There are a number of competing technologies and views on how you should secure your network. How can you tell which one is the best?" he asked.

Bjorn Wigforss, vice president of the Liberty Alliance, and senior marketing manager at Nokia Technology Platforms, agreed. "As long as organisations adopt the route of incompatible standards, security will continue to complicate matters," he said.

"Companies build themselves into silos behind firewalls and other security systems, increasingly distancing themselves from partners and customers."

User irritation
The proprietary nature of these silos forces users into frequent log-ons and identity checks, adding irritation to the network experience. Users are tired of changing to a different system to complete their timesheets, or logging on twice ð once to the vendor's site and then the vendor's payment agent ð to purchase a small item.

Technically, it's possible to have a single log-on, and even that need not be explicit. Using a mobile phone abroad is as simple as using it at home. There's a trust relationship between the various network operators that route the call, and the identity of the user is passed from network to network.

This single sign-on and federated model of identity, it turns out, is also top of the list for simplifying computer networks.

The Liberty Alliance is an international group of more than 150 companies and non-profit and government organisations. It is committed to developing an open standard for federated identity that supports all current and emerging network devices.

"Federation in this context means the ability to securely and seamlessly access distributed environments that often reside in different legal entities," explained Wigforss. "It makes it possible for organisations to share and manage identity."

He cited General Motors as an example of how networks can be made easier. The manufacturer is implementing Liberty-enabled solutions internally and with business partners.

"These solutions are now considered a key enabler for linking communities within the company," said Wigforss. "Through effective identity management, employees can traverse the various portals ð engineering, manufacturing, dealer, supplier and so on ð without having to re-authenticate each time they enter a new one."

Nielsen shares Wigforss's enthusiasm for single sign-on and identity federation. "There's no doubt that this will be a major benefit to usability," he said.

"In every study I've run, single sign-on has been one of most hotly desired advances. Users complain bitterly when they have to log in more than once.

"In a recent study, the sign-on process had the second-largest impact on staff productivity [after searching]. The difference in sign-on usability between intranets in the top 25 per cent and intranets in the bottom 25 per cent amounted to $2.5m [£1.4m] per year for a firm with 10,000 staff because of the time wasted with difficult login procedures."

This saving is worth having but, while many so-called advances are being dreamed up by technicians for technicians, it's difficult for firms to know when and where to jump. Complication is self-serving for an industry bent on technical advance, but of no help to the confused purchaser.