Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Marketing Software, Killer App and OHS
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. (01)
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. (02)
>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. (03)
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. (04)
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. (05)
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). (06)
--
Peter (07)
----- 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 (08)
> 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
>
> (09)