[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[ba-ohs-talk] Marketing Software, Killer App and OHS


Peter,    (01)

I guess I disagree a bit with your formulation, while winding up at
the same conclusion you reach of requiring an insight to advance
beyond the confines of information technology.    (02)

My feeling is that SDS in particular, as described in POIMS and NWO,
combines management science, cognitive science and computer science. 
We could argue that management science implies cognitive science,
because management is supposed to be the brains of the outfit.  In the
same way that cognition directs the activity of the human organism, so
too, management is supposed to come up with objectives, plans, and
impart direction for an organization.    (03)

That aside, there is no great harm in identifying the disciplines that
require attention, study and application for working on a problem. 
Just in the case of SDS, the design was by no means based on any
formal study in any of these areas, but rather from perhaps stumbling
into a particular work practice, and repetition over many years in
managing business, people and information led to a hunch that doing
things slightly different, in fact what might be considered backward,
would turn out to be more productive for reasons that were not clear
at the time, but experience has borne out lead to interesting theories
about management science and cognitive science.  I doubt that anything
I have done could be construed as being related to computer science,
but computer science must be included because it is an implementing
agent, i.e., whatever merit there is in SDS it can be strengthened by
computer science, once all of the energy being expended to advance the
IT paradigm is exhausted so folks can turn to developing knowledge
tools, as suggested in these quarters and elsewhere without effect for
some time.     (04)

Gary Johnson cites Fuller saying that innovation takes about 50 years
to become normalized.  Doug Engelbart of course has laid some
groundwork so a good chunk of that 50 years would seem to have run its
course.  Perhaps the dam will break all at once; so far there are no
indications of even hairline cracks in the resistance to a culture of
knowledge.    (05)

So, while advance came from outside, formal disciplines are critical
for application beyond the developer.  That is my sense of
collaboration, where people contribute different ingredients, rather
than everyone trying like heck to use the same ingredients and digging
a deeper and deeper rut that prevents cross fertilization, synergy and
complementary action that is essential for progress.    (06)

In sum, I agree with your point about the value of intuition, but also
urge that at some point formalization must occur as well.    (07)

Rod    (08)

************    (09)

Peter Jones wrote:
> 
> Hi Rod,
> 
> I just had to grapple with this bit though:
> 
> > My sense is that a similar path must be traveled to rise above information
> > technology.  We are at the beginning stages of having a tool that does the
> > trick, but it needs a better interface for universal application.  To get
> that
> > interface requires experience applying the capability in order to overcome
> > paradigms which currently block understanding...
> 
> and,
> 
> > So, the bottom line is that enabling a new way of working advocated by
> Doug,
> > based on his experience in the 1960s with Augment, and experience using
> SDS
> > since about 1985, requires a combination of management science, cognitive
> > science and computer science, discussed with Terry Winograd at Stanford on
> > 011219.....
> 
> I wonder about the conflict between overcoming paradigms and relying on
> established science. It's a (now) classic point, and I intend to make the
> classic move of suggesting that the requirement for science mentioned above
> is just reaching back into the established order.
> What's needed is crucial insight, and (as I feel sure Thomas Kuhn would
> agree) new insights tend to come in from outside 'orthodoxy', and they tend
> to come from intuition, not understanding (which comes loaded with synthetic
> a priori categorisation thanks to the way skills embed in our subconscious).
> Ask any inventor where a great idea came from - chances are they were just
> watching or listening to something without concentrating.
> Where did Doug get the idea for the mouse? Because when you look back and
> try and imagine where that idea came from, you begin to realise just how
> completely 'off the wall' it was. An inspired insight relating to a specific
> practical situation with applied creative daring.
> 
> So here's the point I was really trying to make about these new interfaces.
> Perhaps they aren't built by looking to existing science. The ones that win
> trade on key insightful intuitions and you don't get that from theory;
> theories are a posteriori inductions that guide future action.
> Perhaps we need to be looking to present action, in order to find the next
> new theory.
> 
> Perhaps we need to free our minds first, for the rest to follow (as a
> popular song lyric goes, but I forget the name of the group).
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Peter
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rod Welch" <rowelch@attglobal.net>
> To: <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:26 PM
> Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Marketing Software, Killer App and OHS
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > I agree with analysis in your letter today, shown below, of Eric's concern
> about
> > a user interface for SDS, cited for example on 010916....
> >
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/09/16/190429.HTM#0001
> >
> > ...and restated on 010917....
> >
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/09/17/085151.HTM#DU5M
> >
> > Eric's important concerns show that the transition from IT to a culture of
> > knowledge requires several stages, similar to the advance from orality to
> > literacy.  It doesn't happen - "boom" in a single step.
> >
> > Early in the game the interface for literacy was pretty difficult.  You
> had to
> > make tablets out of wood or clay, and you had to create chisels, sharpen a
> stick
> > to make marks in the sand, or whip up something-or-other to write with,
> plus
> > there was the hassle of learning how to spell cat, scratch, ball, fetch,
> > foolish, lazy, etc.  You had to learn punctuation and lots of stuff.
> Since busy
> > people didn't have time to learn and perform all of these interface issue,
> there
> > was a special role called a scribe, and probably a lot of other things
> less high
> > sounding.  But, the point is that a revolutionary new way of working comes
> in
> > stages.
> >
> > Exposure of benefits using alphabet technology performed by a few people
> over
> > several thousand years led to demand for a better user interface, and so
> about
> > 1455 Gutenberg cobbled something together drawing on contributions from
> many
> > sources, but at this remove he gets the credit, reported on 991010...
> >
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/99/10/10/202239.HTM#L331284
> >
> > This helped make literacy the engine of civilization, an explosive change
> in
> > life-style.  As a result, for another 400 years relatively few people were
> > literate.
> >
> > Continued struggle to about 1850 led to demand for education so that the
> power
> > of literacy would become universal.  Over the next 100 years productivity
> took
> > off like a rocket culminating in information technology, which today
> blocks
> > further advance, until the problem of meaning drift is resolved by a new
> way of
> > working based on a new kind of technology, as set out in NWO....
> >
> > http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/03/02/03/0309.HTM#034H
> >
> > My sense is that a similar path must be traveled to rise above information
> > technology.  We are at the beginning stages of having a tool that does the
> > trick, but it needs a better interface for universal application.  To get
> that
> > interface requires experience applying the capability in order to overcome
> > paradigms which currently block understanding, as Eric pointed out on
> 000503....
> >
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/05/03/191727.HTM#L401356
> >
> > So, the bottom line is that enabling a new way of working advocated by
> Doug,
> > based on his experience in the 1960s with Augment, and experience using
> SDS
> > since about 1985, requires a combination of management science, cognitive
> > science and computer science, discussed with Terry Winograd at Stanford on
> > 011219.....
> >
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/12/19/100008.HTM#LBZ1003
> >
> > Revolutions take time because they require doing things people are not
> doing,
> > and are reluctant to even discuss, as Jack Park pointed out in his letter
> on
> > 000504....
> >
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/05/04/150331.HTM#6082
> >
> > In the meantime, the demand for intelligence grows, as related by Eric on
> > 011003.....
> >
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/10/03/160603.HTM#L702361
> >
> > Typically, when a tough job needs to be done, like digging coal to keep
> warm,
> > growing food, or whatever, people get paid to do it.  Eric made this point
> in
> > his letter on 011003....
> >
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/10/03/160603.HTM#LCH1002
> >
> > This suggests that if the need becomes big enough for intelligence to stem
> the
> > tide of bumbling in order to grow the economy and protect the national
> security,
> > then people will set aside worry about interface and produce the
> intelligence
> > needed to be effective.  Broader use of intelligence will widen the circle
> of
> > people who are aware of what is needed, and so, as with literacy before, a
> > Gutenberg, Eric or somebody will say "Hey, I could make a lot of money,
> and
> > advance civilization by making this easier to use for everybody."
> >
> > Hopefully, this hasn't been too repetitive, and is somewhat enlightening
> on the
> > issue of collaboration.  Eric and I agree that a bunch of people going in
> a
> > bunch of different directions is not effective collaboration.  Only people
> going
> > in the same direction taking complementary action enable meaningful
> progress.
> > Once a baseline is established, only then can open source flourish in this
> area,
> > because nothing can be built without a foundation, as Eric noted on
> 000208.
> >
> > Rod
> >
> > ********************
> >
> > Peter Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Kevin Keck wrote:
> > > >Again, the challenge isn't just to
> > > > identify an opportunity for improvement; nothing happens until the
> > > > customer/user _recognizes_ that opportunity and the changes to their
> > > working
> > > > habits which will realize that improvement.
> > >
> > > I think the group needs to hook up with some business analysts or
> process
> > > re-engineering consultants.
> > > They'll be able to spot target customers and feed the recognition.
> > > Then there just needs to be a tool to sell.
> > >
> > > >To me, the most remarkable thing about the Englebart excerpt above is
> the
> > > >enthusiastic, subjective perception of radical improvement of
> productivity
> > > >in the context of collaboration, despite the professed total lack of
> > > >a-priori effort to cultivate it. This is in such striking contrast to
> your
> > > >POIMS/SDS accounts that I'm at a loss to come up with an adequate
> > > >explanation for such a phenomenon.
> > >
> > > I'll have a stab. Task-tool-people-process synergy. Doug's been there
> > > already.
> > > There are some folks in jobs all of which are related to some larger
> end.
> > > Each person has roles to fulfil. The roles plug together to meet the end
> > > (ideally).
> > > To the extent that tools are needed to pursue the roles, then tools that
> > > don't 'get in the way' of individuals getting the work done, and
> optimise
> > > production, are the ideal.
> > > If the end requires that individuals need to collaborate with respect to
> > > their roles, then the tools not only need to enable the individual, but
> also
> > > feed the greater end. The more effectively the tool does this, the
> better
> > > things get.
> > > So, the theory goes, the game is to insert the right tool(s) into the
> > > process then have it disappear from the users' consciousness.
> > > Again, the more effectively the tool does this, the better things get.
> > > Then you need to take account of the fact that the tool might feed
> change in
> > > the process, so the tool needs to adapt.
> > > (Sound familiar?)
> > > If you can build in the adaptivity in advance, without the resulting
> active
> > > changes confusing the users, then you win again.
> > > That's a really big fish to catch though.
> > >
> > > The argument Eric has thrown at Rod often enough is that the interface
> to
> > > SDS is too steep a hill to climb.
> > > It doesn't 'disappear' fast enough, because it doesn't trade on existing
> > > reflexes. (My views on IBIS have been similar.)
> > > Rod thinks the climb is worth it.
> > >
> > > So the question is: Is there a reflex path (interface design) up Rod's
> hill
> > > that won't put Eric off?
> > > If there is, then the tool will sell (so my theory goes).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kevin Keck" <keck@kecklabs.com>
> > > To: <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Marketing Software, Killer App and OHS
> > >
> > > > on 2002/02/26 10:13 PM, Rod Welch at rowelch@attglobal.net wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >> And OHS's largely collaborative focus only amplifies the need for
> > > > >> minimal-risk trial, because in order for anyone to genuinely try
> using
> > > it
> > > > >> they'll need to have collaborators using it with them, all of whom
> > > would
> > > > >> need to endorse the risks of money, time, and potential vendor
> lock-in
> > > > >> associated with trying out a proprietary product.
> > > > >
> > > > > This point seems to conflict with the record showing Doug
> Engelbart's
> > > goal is
> > > > > to
> > > > > augment intelligence.  On 010428 Gary Johnson pointed out that
> > > intelligence
> > > > > begins with individuals....
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/04/08/091208.HTM#L110714
> > > > >
> > > > > ...which opens the prospect that individuals can be aided by a
> KM-type
> > > > > technology, without the suggested burden of requiring collaborating
> > > > > colleagues.
> > > > > There is undoubtedly significant savings in time and expense from
> using
> > > this
> > > > > capability to build and maintain shared meaning through
> organizational
> > > memory
> > > > > that reduces bumbling, but this is quite different from the view
> that
> > > OHS/DKR
> > > > > entails a bunch of people interacting with a single software program
> and
> > > a
> > > > > central server somewhere.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's worth pursuing this point further, since I agree it is
> not
> > > > nearly as well accepted as most of the others.
> > > >
> > > > Looking back at "Augmenting Human Intellect", I actually confirmed
> both
> > > your
> > > > assertion about Doug's goal(s) and my assertion that the 10X barrier
> is
> > > only
> > > > broken through the synergy of augmented collaboration:
> > > >
> > > >
> http://www.histech.rwth-aachen.de/www/quellen/engelbart/3examples.html#B.7
> > > >
> > > > "Remember the term, synergesis, that has been associated in the
> literature
> > > > with general structuring theory? Well, here is something of an
> example.
> > > > Three people working together in this augmented mode seem to be more
> than
> > > > three times as effective in solving a complex problem as is one
> augmented
> > > > person working alone--and perhaps _ten_times_ [emphasis added] as
> > > effective
> > > > as three similar men working together without this computer-based
> > > > augmentation. It is a new and exhiliarating experience to be working
> in
> > > this
> > > > independent-parallel fashion with some good men. We feel that the
> effect
> > > of
> > > > these augmentation developments upon group methods and group
> capability is
> > > > actually going to be more pronounced than the effect upon individuals
> > > > methods and capabilities, and we are very eager to increase our
> research
> > > > effort in that direction."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Almost spooky, actually...
> > > >
> > > > >> Furthermore, the improvement to productivity will be greatest
> between
> > > > >> collaborators with the fewest other tools or mechanisms for
> > > collaboration at
> > > > >> their disposal (such as geographically-dispersed, informally
> affiliated
> > > > >> groups with little budget for clerical and administrative
> assistance)
> > > and
> > > > >> who are less worried about missing deadlines than they are about
> > > maintaining
> > > > >> sustained co-participation despite such resource limitations. In
> other
> > > > >> words, the easiest users to recruit would be among the very most
> > > difficult
> > > > >> groups of people to win as paying customers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Experience seems to show that the biggest improvement to
> productivity,
> > > > > earnings
> > > > > and stock prices comes from adding intelligence to management of big
> > > > > organizations, because culture that magnifies fear of accountability
> > > also
> > > > > magnifies bumbling from taking conflicting actions by relying on
> guess
> > > and
> > > > > gossip in meetings, cell phones and email. This creates a huge
> target of
> > > > > opportunity for improvement.  Adding just a little intelligence has
> an
> > > > > exponential effect of enabling complementary action, as explained in
> > > POIMS....
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/01/02/00030.HTM#8536
> > > >
> > > > Except that, as you have so tirelessly documented, you wind up stuck
> in a
> > > > Catch-22 in which the ignorance you're trying to address is an
> > > overwhelming
> > > > impediment to getting it addressed. Again, the challenge isn't just to
> > > > identify an opportunity for improvement; nothing happens until the
> > > > customer/user _recognizes_ that opportunity and the changes to their
> > > working
> > > > habits which will realize that improvement.
> > > >
> > > > To me, the most remarkable thing about the Englebart excerpt above is
> the
> > > > enthusiastic, subjective perception of radical improvement of
> productivity
> > > > in the context of collaboration, despite the professed total lack of
> > > > a-priori effort to cultivate it. This is in such striking contrast to
> your
> > > > POIMS/SDS accounts that I'm at a loss to come up with an adequate
> > > > explanation for such a phenomenon. Nonetheless, I've experienced the
> same
> > > > subjective difference myself, so I don't doubt the veracity of Doug's
> > > > account. And whatever the explanation, I think the phenomenon is
> something
> > > > that can clearly be exploited to help convince people to adapt.
> > > > --
> > > > Kevin Keck
> > > > keck@kecklabs.com
> > > > 510-523-8317
> > > >
> > > >
> >    (010)