Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Marketing Software, Killer App and OHS
Kevin. (01)
Thanks for the epiphany. In my mind I was so focused on the content on which OHS
work is done that I tended to overlook the workers involved in the act. It also
made my aware of the potential stimulating effect on professionals when they are
co-operating in real time - the psychology of teamwork ... (02)
I was going to do some rechecking of Doug's "Augmenting the Human Intellect" paper
of 1968 and now you just prodded me along. It might be I have to revise or upgrade
some stuff I wrote in Fleabyte, namely the article "Douglas Engelbart's
Prescription" But that is just fine. Fleabyte is intended to be(come) a DKR and
this implies that upgrading content is par for the course. (03)
Once more, appreciate, (04)
Henry (05)
Kevin Keck wrote: (06)
> 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 (07)