29 July 2010 | Enterprise 2.
0 and Observable Work: Brian Tullis and Joe Crumpler, Burton Group Catalyst 2010 Santa Diego
Brian Tullis and Joe Crumpler did a lively talk on Enterprise 2.
Abstract: Most large organizations face huge challenges in staying aligned, knowing when and how to collaborate, and capturing knowledge for future use.
Traction TeamPage has allowed a large virtual team at Alcoa Fastening Systems to implement principles of “Observable Work” – which for us means making visible and transparent the normally arcane processes of Information Technology management. Implementation of observable work practices has increased alignment, collaboration, and knowledge capture in the organization. Topics discussed include:
• What is Observable Work and why is it important?
• Overview of techniques used to manage the flow of information.
• Examination of a successful multi-country ERP project managed with these tools and techniques.
• Areas of improvement and where we go from here.
See also Enterprise 2.0 and Observable work slides and speaker notes
Brian's blog post Observable Work: The Taming of the Flow
Jim McGee's original blog post
Followup discussion and links on Jim's post
Observable Work session Twitter feed
catatweet RT @gialyons Traditional process took 4hrs, 3 times/
Friday June 25, 2010: Observable Work discussion centered on Jim McGee's original blog post Managing the visibility of knowledge work, including a comment and blog post: Observable Work: The Taming of the Flow by @briantullis and a comment and analysis with several well sourced examples by @johnt, including this:
"Yes, the real learning is in all the nuances of how we work, not reading a manual, it’s a skill, a capacity to act….
I also think that the constraints of geography and time in virtual teams, kind of means that you have to pay more importance to working more visibly, but not just in a synchronous way like tele-cons…we can use other social tools for when we aren’t all in the same room…and I’m not talking email.
Here's a summary of Twitter chat using tag #OWork, including tweets that weren't shown using Twitter's built-in search - arghh!
@roundtrip is me.
@roundtrip: Several differences with Observable Work (#OWork) model:
1) It's discretionary.
? @VMaryAbraham: So it's an optional, discretionary source of additional info?
@roundtrip: More a discretionary way of working "with your door always open, and most of your desk browsable by (trusted) folk"
[That is] an way of working "with your door always open" without disturbing others.
Observable Work can be an individual or a group norm.
2) You're opening up your working in progress and analysis process to people you know and trust for a valid business purpose
3) Observable Work - learn by observing - is aligned with traditions of legal, medical and other teaching and learning
4) People who become excellent models based on OWork gain reputation and recognition in a virtuous sense IMO
? @lehawes How does relate to Social Business? (Asking w/
@roundtrip: We're using as a norm that may be a specific example (perhaps a best practice) for Social Business as a topic
@roundtrip: Tom explains why who sits next to whom in your office can make a huge difference in this new video: is.
@roundtrip: Strategy: Space Matters @TomPeters bit.
Next Things Next: Observable Work: The Taming of the Flow @briantullis bit.
Read Prof Andrew McAfee's recent blog post Curb My Enthusiasm for a very concise summary of the model, analysis and conclusions of a July /
He asks if readers have a better explanation of the pattern he and Brynjolfsson observe: that since the 1990's a combination of the Web and IT spending on enterprise information systems has shifted the ability of businesses to recognize and deploy good ideas; that this has raised the pace and level of competition, making effective innovation more valuable, and more strongly differentiates winners and losers in competitive markets.
McAfee further claims that the Web and IT changes they analyze appear to be step functions:
This new, nastier competition does not depend on continued IT innovation.
It only depends on continued managerial innovation. If all the technology vendors were to close up shop tomorrow competition in all industries would not eventually revert to where it was prior to the mid-1990s. The current IT toolkit lets companies propagate business ideas faster, more broadly, and with higher fidelity. That’s all that’s necessary to increase the pace of competition, and to keep it high. Of course, the tech vendors are not about to shut themselves down and we’ll see a lot more innovation from them; this will only serve to further increase competitive nastiness. But technology innovation is the icing on the cake of managerial innovation. - Andrew McAfee Curb My Enthusiasm
It's an interesting argument that seems to be based on an observation that it's possible to reduce the "friction" inherent in introducing new ideas or techniques using two diametrically opposing approaches:
Embed what's new as part of a discrete and non-discretionary process.
Use social software principles to make the benefits of new ideas, techniques - or just connections and working communication - more visible and actionable throughout the organization.
Emergent: freeform, and containing mechanisms to let the patterns and structure inherent in people's interactions become visible over time.
- Freeform: Optional, without workflow, egalitarian, accepting many types of data)
To get good results, both embedded and social methods require good ideas and the ability to implement good ideas effectively.
Unlike the cookie cutter results you can expect from a precisely repeatable change to a deterministic human or automated process, using social software as platform to engage and connect people throughout the enterprise requires a mix of bottom up participation and top down support and encouragement - and willingness to innovate.
For example GE's Workout process in the 1990's was a well-regarded innovation designed to shake up GE's rigid management culture by giving employees a stronger voice - and commitment to listen.
The Work-Out process was born.
These were two or three-day events held at GE sites around the world, patterned after New England town meetings. Groups of 40 to 100 employees would come together, with an outside facilitator, to discuss better ways of doing things and how to eliminate some of the bureaucracy and roadblocks that were hindering them. The boss would be present at the beginning of each session, laying out the rationale for the Work-Out. He would also commit to two things: to give an on-the-spot “yes” or “no” to 75 percent of the recommendations that came out of the session, and to resolve the remaining 25 percent within 30 days. He would then disappear until the end of session, so as not to stifle open discussion, only returning at the end to make good on his promise.
Tens of thousands of these sessions took place over several years, until they became a way of life in the company.
They are no longer “big events” but part of how GE goes about solving problems. . .
A middle-aged appliance worker who was at one Work-Out spoke for thousands of people when he told me, “For 25 years, you paid for my hands when you could have had my brain as well – for nothing.
At last, because of Work-Out, we were getting both.
In fact, I believe Work-Out was responsible for one of the most profound changes in GE during my time there. For the vast majority of employees, the boss-knows-all culture disappeared. - Jack Welch Voice and Dignity | Every brain in the game
Prior to the Internet, the last technology that had any real effect on the way people sat down and talked together was the table.
There was no technological mediation for group conversations. The closest we got was the conference call, which never really worked right - Clay Shirky, A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy
This is a big idea - no need to curb your enthusiasm !
For a free copy of the academic paper on which the HBR article is based - including a detailed description of the model, analysis and conclusions - see Scale Without Mass: Business Process Replication and Industry Dynamics, HBS Technology and Operations Management Unit Research Paper No.
One big problem for collaboration has been too many borders - technical or cultural - creating silos of information for no good reason - and many bad ones.
For example - if you work for a law firm there's a reasonable - and legal - expectation that only the client and members of the firm have access to the collaborative space reserved for work with each specific client.
This "hub and spoke" collaboration pattern is common for business.
Similarly, most businesses work with a network of external suppliers, resellers, technology or business partners and external service providers - including your law firm, accountants, PR firm and others.
Your business may also have good reason to set up spaces for private collaboration that's limited to certain groups (e.
If your Enterprise 2.
The point is that by being able to listen deeply and participate on the edge, you can pick up things before anybody else picks them up, and you can use that to accelerate your own capability building.
This implies that it is not just corporate training that is important but rather rich participation with partners who are at the edge as well. One of the questions we ask ourselves is, how do you learn as much from a partner as you learn from creating something yourself. This puts a new spin on why distributed collaboration around the world might be critical in creating this sustainable edge. - John Seely Brown Can Your Firm Develop a Sustainable Edge? Knowledge@Wharton
In his Fast Forward 08 Keynote What's Most Important for Success with Enterprise 2.
I agree and suggest adding a follow-on principal: "Borders should seem transparent to those with permission to cross them.
For Traction TeamPage this means:
- All content and relevant context are indexed for search, but the search engine delivers the subset of results that the person making the request can read.
- Tag clouds and drill-down navigation present the tags and drill-down paths derived from what that person can read.
- Traction's Dashboard views roll-up content from many spaces based on tag, content or other criteria defined by Section widgets, and automatically shows the subset of content which that person can read.
- RSS feeds, email, IM notifications and cross-reference lists automatically reflect the content and cross references which that person can read.
For example, if you're an employee at the center of a "hub and spoke" collaboration pattern, when you navigate, search or link information, the borders separating different customer spaces and internal spaces you can read become transparent for collaboration.
You can still use the names of spaces created for particular customers to focus your attention on a particular issue or collection of content, but you effectively see one big wiki /
If a customer logs in to your TeamPage server, they see only the rolled-up content, search results, tags, feeds, and space names that they have permission to read.
Traction TeamPage even extends commenting and inline discussion to work transparently across borders.
Let's say a customer posts a page of product suggestions in their own space (Traction calls this a project space).
Let's say Sue is an engineer working on a related project.
The internal engineering discussion is then anchored to the third paragraph of the customer's original suggestion page, but the thread is invisible to all but internal team members who have permission to read the engineering project.
Six months later, Alan in Marketing is asked why particular approach was chosen in designing the new feature.
This multiple space model is much more than just an administrative convenience that makes it easy to deploy one TeamPage server for different groups within an enterprise.
It starts down a road to creating places which groups use for agreed social purposes - just like the rooms and spaces in a well designed building make it easy to hold conversations in different contexts without a lot of conscious thought.
With the TeamPage model, if you want to hold a conversation with a specific customer, post it to that customers private collaboration space.
See Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems by Steve Harrison (Xerox PARC) and Paul Dourish (EuroPARC) for some interesting thoughts on where this could lead.
See Michael Sampson's Currents: "TeamPage - the One System to Rule It All" for an independent expert's opinion of TeamPage's capabilities for cross-workspace collaboration.
. . the most important features for the managers who buy business software are still a system’s security and reliability, and whether the system helps a business comply with an ever-growing number of government regulations, says Kagermann. Systems bought by individuals or departments don’t have the company-wide perspective necessary to meet these goals - The Reason It's Called Management Software, WSJ. com
I agree with Mr.
Small and agile Enterprise applications work in the application gaps and cross-link silos of traditional enterprise software.
I'm just back from the 2008 Current Strategy Forum at the US Naval War College in Newport.
I think it's a deep and intellectually honest reflection on specific value that maritime forces can deliver in a time of uncertain conditions and rapid change.
. . the Naval War College and my staff began conducting the “Conversations with the Country”. We were eventually to conduct seven, in Newport, Phoenix, Atlanta, San Francisco, Seattle, New York and Chicago. I was a huge skeptic of these forums from the start; by the end, I saw some value in them. We relied upon several methods of creating the invitation list for these events. We started with the Naval War College Foundation mailing list—but then worked with state humanities councils, civic groups and academic groups to try and get a broad cross-section of Americans. Did we succeed? Not entirely. We got a lot of old, white guys who had military backgrounds. But we also got a lot of teachers, first responders, friends of folks in the military—just plain citizens who were just plain pleased to be asked their opinion. And that’s what we mainly did—while we jiggered with the formula over the course of the Conversations, we never wavered from the central proposition that we were there to listen.
What we learned is what we say in the strategy.
They want us to remain strong, they want us to protect them here in their homeland, and they want us to work with other nations around the world to preserve peace. Sounds pretty boilerplate, right. Think again. I’ve spent a goodly part of the past 21 years working the edges of the empire; I just naturally assumed that the American public knew what we were doing out there and that they had some appreciation for why we do it. I was shocked at how wrong I was…my strongest take-away from the early conversations was that Homeland Defense and National Defense were the exact same thing to most of the people in the audience. They were concerned with porous borders, port security, and terrorists on airplanes. I did not discern a great deal of understanding as to why we were forward deployed around the world. There was only a vague sense of the importance of the Navy. - Maritime Strategy 2007: The Team Leader Speaks
I think the strategy is clearly stated, well crafted and appropriate for public review and discussion.
Never before have the maritime forces of the United States—the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard—come together to create a unified maritime strategy.
Our citizens were involved in development of this strategy through a series of public forums known as the “Conversations with the Country.
A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower binds our services more closely together than they have ever been before to advance the prosperity and security of our Nation.
from A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Centry Seapower (.
To the best of my knowledge, Clay Shirky is responsible for popularizing the term Social Software.
. . Let me offer a definition of social software, because it's a term that's still fairly amorphous. My definition is fairly simple: It's software that supports group interaction. I also want to emphasize, although that's a fairly simple definition, how radical that pattern is. The Internet supports lots of communications patterns, principally point-to-point and two-way, one-to-many outbound, and many-to-many two-way.
Prior to the Internet, we had lots of patterns that supported point-to-point two-way.
We had telephones, we had the telegraph. We were familiar with technological mediation of those kinds of conversations. Prior to the Internet, we had lots of patterns that supported one-way outbound. I could put something on television or the radio, I could publish a newspaper. We had the printing press. So although the Internet does good things for those patterns, they're patterns we knew from before.
Prior to the Internet, the last technology that had any real effect on the way people sat down and talked together was the table.
There was no technological mediation for group conversations. The closest we got was the conference call, which never really worked right -- "Hello? Do I push this button now? Oh, shoot, I just hung up. " It's not easy to set up a conference call, but it's very easy to email five of your friends and say "Hey, where are we going for pizza?" So ridiculously easy group forming is really news.
We've had social software for 40 years at most, dated from the Plato BBS system, and we've only had 10 years or so of widespread availability, so we're just finding out what works.
We're still learning how to make these kinds of things. - A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy, Clay Shirky July 1, 2003
I think the Clay's focus on groups and patterns of connections is very important to remember for two reasons:
1) Social Software is not about non-stop party time at the office.
At the Enterprise 2.0 Summit 2008 Tokyo, one of the organizers asked me to include a definition of "Social Software", since in Japan the most common uses of the English word "social" seem to center on party time, social rank, social status and similar definitions of the word "social".
2) The sociology of groups and patterns of connection is a deep, rich and important topic that informs how business and other organizations really work.
Prof Andrew McAfee introduced his bullseye model to talk about strong, weak, potential, (and non-existent) ties which connect a knowledge worker and other colleagues in an enterprise.
These days, after drawing the inner 3 rings of the bullseye but before discussing tools like social networking software (SNS) and a corporate blogosphere, I make two points.
First, that weak ties are highly valuable, as is the process of converting a potential tie (either strong or weak) into an actual one. So anything that helps a person stay on top of their network of weak ties or convert potential ties should also be quite valuable.
Second, that prior to the 2.
0 era (yes, that’s a silly phrase, but not a meaningless one) there were really no good technologies to help at the 2nd and 3rd rings of the bullseye. In other words, there were no effective digital tools for helping a knowledge worker stay on top of and/ or exploit her networks of weak ties, or to indicate potentially valuable ties to her. I then go on to discuss the value of SNS for weak ties, and of a blogosphere for potential ones. - Something New Under the Sun? Andrew McAfee, May 21, 2008
I like McAfee's model, and agree with his second conclusion.
Social networking promotes new and serendipitous connections among people (and in TeamPage 4.0 the content they create and comments they make within a business context).
Network scale search of blog content is one Web scaleable way to find out who's actively talking about or working on a topic that interests you.
Your post then becomes a new item which others can discover - or read if they subscribe to your personal or group blog /
Without the Web's combination of blogs, wikis, search, syndication and syndication indexing there's a vanishingly small chance that I would end up with valuable (and enjoyable) near real-time connections to: Jim McGee (Chicago), Patrick Lambe (Singapore), Suw Charman (UK), Masayuki Kojima (Yokohama), Michael Sampson (New Zealand), Olivier Tripet (Switzerland), and JP Rangaswami (UK).
So "Social Software" may not mean non-stop parties in the office, but it does provide some of the enjoyment that people gain by going to conferences, business meetings - or using any other excuse - to get to know other employees, customers, consultants, competitors and scholars.
The "social" part of software in the Enterprise 2.
The work of Lee S.
Ross Dawson's Enterprise 2.
Steve Hodgkinson, Ovum research director, sees Enterprise 2.
0 as a genuine opportunity for technology to act as a catalyst for changes in organisational culture.
0 is emerging as the most practical way of sharing and managing knowledge in a range of contexts, from team collaboration to customer self-service forums. This leads to the ability to bring about cultural change with the personal power of informal networks such as wikis, blogs, profiles and forums. "
"The root of its culture change power, however, is its ability to unleash the personal power of informal networks," said Hodgkinson.
Key ideas within this new system include:
* The need for a flat organisation, rather than an organisational hierarchy
* Folksonomy rather than taxonomy
* User-driven technology rather than IT department control
* Short time-to-market cycles; to continue and increase flow
* Global teams of people, rather than locating the whole organisation in one building
* Emergent information systems, rather than dictated and structured information systems
* The opening of propriety standards
All excellent points, but don't assume that this will necessarily happen as a bottom up revolution - with employees storming the barricades - and don't assume that all top level executives are blind to the advantages of spending money - or mandating organizational change - to gain a valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable advantage over their competitors.
. . it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, then to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.
It is necessary, therefore, if we desire to discuss this matter thoroughly, to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves or have to depend on others: that is to say, whether, to consummate their enterprise, have they to use prayers or can they use force? In the first instance they always succeed badly, and never compass anything; but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely endangered.
Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed. - The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli, Chapter VI.
I don't want to sound melodramatic, but just make a simple point that innovative leadership from the top of an organization can make a big difference in the prospects for successful change.
Both Andrew McAfee and Ray Lane's analysis support the proposition that C level executives can and should support change to gain these benefits - sometimes reorganizing around or eliminating middle managers who stand in the way.
McAfee notes that the advantages of making much more effective use of the expertise within your company satisfies the VRIN (valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable) criteria that businesses can use to create and sustain a unique competitive advantage.
Read McAfee's Feb 2007 post FastForwarding to a Better Understanding, Part 2, and see him make this point in his FastForward 07 keynote: Enterprise 2.
Read Ray Lane's June 2006 Business Week interview A VC's View of Web 2.
Note also that Traction's first Pharma success was driven by an innovative CIO acting directly on his CEO's mandate to rethink and reshape Competitive Intelligence information for the company, see 13 June 2005 | Dark Blogs Case Study #1 - A European Pharmaceutical Group.
Speaking of FASTForward .
If you're headed to FASTForward '08 in Orlando next week, I'll be speaking on Competitive Intelligence Analysts as examples of hard core knowledge workers in the Tuesday 19 Feb 1:45PM Session: Implementing Content-Based Collaborative Applications, see my abstract and slides in 19 Feb 2008 | Greg Lloyd on "Enterprise 2.
The FASTForward '08 agenda looks great, and the conference will be almost twice as big as last year's FASTForward.
My notes and slides from last year's FASTForward: Information Foraging at FASTForward '07
I really like David Berlind's post IBM's Suitor asks how you share documents.
For all intents and purposes, wikis are blogs that have exchanged the diary-like posting format for the ability to let multiple users edit the same piece of content (aka: collaborating on knowledge).
In other words, instead of sending a editable document around, host it as a Web page that anybody with access to the wiki can edit. Wikis also support RSS (notify me when this wiki page changes). Revisions can be tracked and restored. Content can be edited with user-friendly WYSIWYG tools. Traditional content management systems, look out
Traction TeamPage and some blog products support collaborative editing
of posts using both WYSIWYG tools and RSS syndication.
Traction starts from the blog end of the spectrum (actually it started
from link Doug Engelbart's concept of a hypertext Journal) in that it records collaboration over time.
Traction maintains a full audit trail (of labels added/
Traction's Release 3.
I believe that any successful challenge
to the document centric collaboration model will need to support
collaboration in place (group editing of the same page); collaboration
over time (commentary and conversation in context); and real-time collaboration (IM and syndicated notification).
All three modes of interaction can work together effectively using
Traction Software's products are based on a model of group group editing in place combined with group collaboration over time that pre-dates blogs and Wiki's by over 40 years - see Traction Roots - Doug Engelbart.
For notes from John Blossom's lively panel on blogs, wiki's and IM for collaboration see Personal Knowledge Management: Building Actionable Content from Collaborative Publishing and John's Personal Knowledge Management Tools Ready for Enterprise Use.
For 60 years of history in four one paragraph steps, see The Evolution of Personal Knowledge Management
Use of Weblogs for Competitive Intelligence | First International Business, Technology CI Conference, Tokyo Oct 2005
Abstract: Over the past fifty years, the inspiration of hypertext systems has been the challenge of dealing with an ever-increasing volume of information.
Use of Weblogs for Competitive Intelligence (full paper 853K .
by Greg Lloyd
The First International Conference/
Nihon University, Tokyo 25 Oct 2005
(or “blogs”) are best known as personal daybooks on the web written by
an individual consisting of a “collection of clippings, musings and
other things like journal entries that strike one's fancy or titillate
gained mass media attention as personally published websites written by
amateur reporters, pundits – or teenagers.
This paper presents the following thesis:
The World Wide Web’s shift to medium that is generally writable as well
as readable represents a return to the original vision of the WWW and
hypertext systems that pre-date the Web.
2) Weblog technology
will not be limited to personal use, but holds the potential to
profoundly change the way that commercial and government enterprises
handle internally facing and externally facing working communication.
Collection, analysis, and dissemination are classic parts of the
Competitive Intelligence (CI) process, and particularly well suited to
the strengths of weblog technology.
4) Weblog technology can
deliver a higher volume of CI alerts and analysis to a wider audience
more effectively than email or any known alternative.
creating easily authored content and commentary within the weblog and
linking to any Web addressable content, weblogs create an open and
scalable resource that can be used for notification and reference, as
well as mined for historical insight across the largest enterprise.
Weblog - the NLS Journal Revisited
central thesis of this paper is that the weblog format provides a
stable, open journal, which links and comments on the intelligence,
dialog, and work product contained within the weblog, while connecting
to all sources addressable on the public or a private Web.
the weblog is itself part of the public (or private) Web it can
preserve a stable, addressable set of references, which can be linked
to by any other Web source, or analyzed by any application that has
permission to address that weblog’s content.
The time ordered and uniquely identifiable
articles (or posts) within the weblog correspond directly to individual
documents with the NLS Journal.
link to content external to the weblog is subject to the same
uncertainty as any other link in Berners-Lee’s web – content can change
or abruptly disappear at the whim of the publisher, by accident, or if
the publisher goes out of business.
is also possible to deploy weblog products that can clip and retain an
independent record of valuable but potentially transitory facts or
documents (used subject to copyright law), or post a brief independent
summary to a weblog.
The last point is worth analyzing.
Millions of human eyes and their agents
constantly scan and evaluate items posted to the public Web using Web
search, notification, and social tagging engines to focus on a
A note and link from a weblog also
adds a measure of statistical redundancy to the unreliable Web.
Berners-Lee’s original concept of the Web, use of weblogs and wikis as
easily deployed and relatively stable authored indices to arbitrary Web
content is a pragmatic compromise.
Copyright © 2005 Gregory R.
Some rights reserved, distributed under terms of the
The source of the term Journal for the Traction TeamPage database is Douglas Engelbart's NLS system (later renamed Augment), which Doug developed in the 1960's as one of the first hypertext systems.
More importantly, Doug's aim has never been "content management" or some buzzword - it's been improving the performance of teams dealing with complex and challenging tasks - "raising their collective IQ".
In the late 1960's Doug created the Journal (along with the mouse, shared-screen interactive hypertext and video, dynamic outlining and many other inventions) to support the needs of high performance, problem solving teams.
Doug’s first hypertext Journaling systems were deployed as part of the original ARPANet Network Information Center (NIC), starting with ARPANet Node 3 at SRI - i.
I’ve known and admired Doug’s work starting as an undergraduate Computer Science student using Andy van Dam and Ted Nelson's first hypertext system at Brown (1969).
Doug and Andy would visit Context in Portland OR every quarter for a three day meeting - on Context's plans, their advice, and their perspective on hypertext history and evolution.
My advice - if you want to invent the future of the web and social software, carefully read what Doug, Andy, Ted and Alan Kay have written.
See the Doug Engelbart Foundation site (DougEngelbart.
In 1975 Doug wrote:
Our Journal system was conceived by this author in about 1966.
- I felt it important in many dynamic operations to keep a log (sometimes termed a "journal") that chronicles events by means of a series of unchangeable entries (for instance, to log significant events while evolving a Plan, shaping up a project, trouble-shooting a large operation.
or monitoring on-going operations). These entries would be preserved in original form, serving as the grist for later integration into more organized treatments.
- I also wanted something that would serve essentially the same recorded-dialogue purpose as I perceived a professional journal (plus library) to do.
Compcon 75 Digest, Sep 1975 pp 173-178, Douglas C.
In 1992 Doug wrote:
A result of this continuous knowledge process is a dynamically evolving knowledge base as shown in Figure-7 below, consisting of three primary knowledge domains: intelligence, dialog records, and knowledge products (in this example, the design and support documents for a complex product).
- Intelligence Collection: An alert project group, whether classified as an A, B, or C Activity, always keeps a watchful eye on its external environment, actively surveying, ingesting, and interacting with it.
The resulting intelligence is integrated with other project knowledge on an ongoing basis to identify problems, needs, and opportunities which might require attention or action.
- Dialog Records: Responding effectively to needs and opportunities involves a high degree of coordination and dialog within and across project groups.
This dialog, along with resulting decisions, is integrated with other project knowledge on a continuing basis.
- Knowledge Product: The resulting plans provide a comprehensive picture of the project at hand, including proposals, specifications, descriptions, work breakdown structures, milestones, time lines, staffing, facility requirements, budgets, and so on.
These documents, which are iteratively and collaboratively developed, represent the knowledge products of the project team, and constitute both the current project status and a roadmap for implementation and deployment. The CODIAK process is rarely a one-shot effort. Lessons learned, as well as intelligence and dialog, must be constantly analyzed, digested, and integrated into the knowledge products throughout the life cycle of the project.
Figure-7:: The CODIAK process -- collaborative, dynamic, continuous.
Figure 7 itemizes the evolving knowledge base within three categories: (1) Dialog Records: memos, status reports, meeting minutes, decision trails, design rationale, change requests, commentary, lessons learned, (2) External Intelligence: articles, books, reports, papers, conference proceedings, brochures, market surveys, industry trends, competition, supplier information, customer information, emerging technologies, new techniques (3) Knowledge Products: proposals, plans, budgets, legal contracts, milestones, time lines, design specs, product descriptions, test plans and results, open issues.
from 'Toward High-Performance Organizations: A Strategic Role for Groupware' Douglas C.
[ quoted from grl1427, Greg Lloyd's private TSI blog post of August 2002 ]
- Doug Engelbart | 85th Birthday Jan 30, 2010
- Reinventing the Web
- As We May Work - Andy van Dam
- Enterprise 2.
0 - Letting hypertext out of its box
- The Evolution of Personal Knowledge Management
- October 2006 | Burton Group Report - Hypertext and Compound/
Interactive Document Models
- And here's what Enterprise 2.
0 looked like in 1968 | Dealing lightning with both hands. . .
- Original Traction Product Proposal
In Infoworld, Jon Udell writes When it comes to increasing human productivity, user interfaces aren't one size fits all and cites Doug Engelbart:
"Easy-to-use computer systems, as we conventionally understand them, are not what Engelbart had in mind.
High-performance tasks require high-performance user interfaces specially designed for those tasks.
I agree, and second Jon's suggestion that we all should look carefully at Doug's goals and analysis.
Alan Kay (the godfather of Smalltalk and the PARC interface) picked up on this theme during a talk and panel discussion at the MIT Bush Symposium: 50 Years After As We May Think, quotes below (watch the video it's great).
From today's perspective, Augment/
The great challenge is: finding an effective strategy to get people moving in a direction that delivers on the promise of Engelbart's Augment/
Over thirty years later, we have the luxury of building on top of the experience and social as well as technological infrastructure of the web.
This makes interface design much more challenging, but worth the effort.
In the same panel, Alan Kay said: "I characterize what we have today as a wonderful bike with training wheels on that nobody knows they are on so nobody is trying to take them off".
I think it's better to build software with training wheels that are easy to recognize and remove, than to continue to build tricycles that no-one can grow out of.
Alan Kay: .
Doug Engelbart: Well, strangely enough, I feel the same.
Alan Kay: Looking back I think that one of the paradoxes is that we made a complete mistake when we were doing the interface at PARC because we assumed that the kids would need an easy interface because we were going to try and teach them to program and stuff like that, but in fact they are the ones who are willing to put hours into getting really expert at things - shooting baskets, learning to hit baseballs, learning to ride bikes, and now on video games.