Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Marketing Software, Killer App and OHS
Hi Rod, (01)
I just had to grapple with this bit though: (02)
> 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... (03)
and, (04)
> 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..... (05)
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. (06)
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. (07)
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). (08)
Cheers,
--
Peter (09)
----- 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 (010)
> 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
> > >
> > >
> (011)