Creating high-performance organizations: The strategic importance of collaboration software
Douglas K. Engelbart
Institute of system self-regulation
June 1992 (AUGMENT, 132811)
Movement to the high-performance organizations of tomorrow will be associated with large-scale changes in their productive infrastructures. Making these changes is an extremely difficult task requiring a strategic approach. The collaborative software will provide important new special knowledge capabilities in these infrastructures and may play a key role in the development strategy.
')
It seems to me that collaboration software is a means of achieving an important goal — the creation of truly highly efficient human organizations. I set out to improve the ability of our organizations to cope with complexity and urgency in the fifties. By 1962, I had created a conceptual framework for achieving this goal (<Reference-1> and <Reference-2>). Since then, I actually lived and worked within this system, constantly developing and enriching it with relevant experience.
Recently, in an ever-increasing stream of literature devoted to organizational improvement, quite often the need for members of the organization to have a common vision of the direction and methods of both internal and market development of the organization is emphasized. I assume that the same principle applies to a freer organizational unit, in this case, a community of organizations and researchers interested in practically coinciding areas of organizational improvement and collaboration software, including also the information systems market, which provides products and services for end users.
In my experience, the nature of this shared vision will be the single most important factor determining how directly and well the digital technology market will satisfy the significantly increased organizational productivity, which, I believe, is our main task in developing collaborative software.
My own views on the creation of high-performance organizations over the years have taken shape in a rather comprehensive and multifaceted strategic concept. It may seem that it is radical, but I hope that it will become part of the overall vision of the community.
The ultimate goals of our Institute for System Self-Regulation are to maintain a constructive dialogue with influential members of the community regarding the “strategy of system self-regulation”, to facilitate trial implementation and to promote a “continuous self-improvement” strategy.
In this article, I will briefly outline the main elements of the strategy system and show what role the “collaboration software community” will play. A detailed historical reference is given in <Reference-3>, well illustrating the circumstances under which the system developed until 1986. Also, <Link-4> gives a fairly rational description of our collaboration software and application development with the underlying system.
Any organization required high-level opportunity is at the top of a large productive infrastructure and consists of several layers of complex capabilities, each of which depends on the integration of lower-level capabilities. At the lower levels there are two categories of possibilities: human and instrumental. The functionality of the collaboration software falls into the second category, along with a variety of equipment, objects and other tools.
When creating higher organizational efficiency, it is obvious that this infrastructure is in the center of our attention. Then, in order to determine how much of this infrastructure needs to be changed and how radical these changes should be, you should create a system and define goals. From the following considerations, I have come to the only common perspective.
In fig. 1 shows the results of thinking that over the centuries our cultures have created such rich systems of things that if a person is trained and has the appropriate training to use them, then he will be able to expand his basic genetics laid down by genetics, thereby raising his or her capabilities and capabilities to more high level. Due to the lack of an existing term, I called this process “gain system”, and then I realized that it needs to be divided into two parts: the system of people and the system of tools. I developed many of the components of this model that, as time has shown, proved to be useful and effective, especially all that I did for developing collaborative software (tools, concepts, strategies).
<img src = ""alt =" image "/>
After thinking about this model, I realized that we are still unable for one approach to change any large part of the production infrastructure, at least because they are highly dependent on people.
Since our goal is to significantly improve performance, we must understand that we are trying to influence the development of an extremely large and complex system that has its own life and evolutionary dynamics. The parallel evolution of many parts of the system will continue anyway (as it has been happening for centuries). We need to accept this situation and move towards our goal by facilitating and managing these evolutionary processes. Thus, we must focus on achieving improvements and understand that this is a multi-component co-evolutionary process. In particular, we need to pay special attention to the co-evolution of the system of tools and the system of people.
Also, along with what has already been described above, there is another factor that has had a strong influence on my developing concept.
A few years earlier, I studied the problems and prospects of a radical reduction in the size of functional devices, estimated the possibility of their becoming extremely miniature, fast and cheap. I was personally interested in this, because in order to make a career in promoting the universal improvement of computers, I had to be sure that there was progress in resolving this issue.
I have learned enough to convince myself that the expected high industrial and military demand for digital technologies will bring the achievable reduction limits far beyond the limits needed for my purposes. Having studied how the size of living creatures changes proportionally, I discovered an extremely important general principle: if inside a complex system the size of basic parameters changes, then at first glance quantitative changes occur in appearance, but after a certain moment, a further change in the size of these parameters leads to more striking qualitative changes.
For example: In appearance, a five-foot (152.4 cm) creature is not much different from a six-foot (182.88 cm). But the structure of any of them is completely unsuitable for one-inch (2.54 cm) or thirty-foot (904.4 cm) creatures. A mosquito the size of a man could not stand, fly or breathe. A man the size of a mosquito would be almost unable to move and, for example, would be completely unable to drink from a puddle without disturbing the surface tension of the water, and if his face got wet, he would most likely be dragged under the water and he would not be able to get out.
Conclusion: When a complex system effectively adapts to radical changes in critical parameters, we should expect significant qualitative changes in the assembly structure and performance.
I assume that all of the above will be true for a complex amplification system that supports the productive infrastructure of the organization. In this case, a radical change in the values ​​of the capabilities of the system of tools - speed, functionality, power, quality of presentation, transmission cycle, etc. evolving digital technology - far exceeds any other changes in system parameters that our organizations have ever had to adapt in as short a period as several decades.
Much more can be said about the problem of scaling, related to general organizational changes. It is enough to say here that these thoughts led me to the need to consider the possibilities and the complex tasks facing humanity to improve the productive level of organizations and institutions, on which the survival of humanity depends, as global and large-scale phenomena.
Thirty years after the appearance of the model shown in Fig. - 1, I was even more convinced that human organizations can be raised to even higher levels of productivity. Modern digital technologies, which we have hardly learned to use, are a completely new type of nervous system, around which new, more developed social organisms may appear.
Taking into account the growing evidence that our organizations and institutions are not able to adequately cope with the increasing complexity and urgency of social problems, the study of each potential improvement in their ability to cope with tasks is quite motivated.
So I thought thirty years ago. It seems to me that today these ideas are even more relevant. Technology has been demonstrated, and our organizations have taken the path of internal improvement. It seems that the only thing missing is the general understanding that:
The above understanding problems are important enough to bear in mind when developing a basic scalable strategy. In other words, the strategy should include the need for significant changes in our understanding of the likely and possible future.
Understanding, shared vision, paradigms - their development is crucial, although now they are hardly paid attention to. A slow, unmanageable paradigm of the past is completely inadequate for a period when deeper changes are constantly being made and such large public education does not have time to accept them. And such changes will be happening with greater speed.
I bring these ideas here, as I truly believe that a community that uses collaboration software can drastically improve (with the right strategy) our ability to cope with great challenges. And whether or not we will have such an opportunity depends to a large extent on creating a suitable paradigm, which in itself is a difficult task, with which our institutions must cope better.
This leads to the assumption that an important driving force that can be hoped for and which the key figures in the process of transforming organizations have in the early stages of developing future paradigms is an understanding of the importance and a mindset to continuously contribute to the development of relevant evolutionary trends and increase the rate of change in future paradigms. Changing our ideas about paradigms.
What role will you play?
An analysis of the conceptual content of Fig. 1 and the question of which investment principles will make sense lead to an understanding of the next step in the development of a detailed strategic framework. I was hoping to get a grant and I thought how we could spend this money most rationally to solve this global, structureless problem. I was also ready to devote the rest of my career to this: how should I manage this time in order to achieve maximum progress? And what directives should be adopted to launch (barehanded, so to speak) such a program?
As I see it, the only serious approach leading to significant improvements will be the long-term, practically directed evolution of the entire system. I researched a very complex system and the fact that the organizations in question would have to continue to function normally during extensive systematic changes, further complicate the task.
The image presented in Fig. -2, is the result of the realization that the ability of an organization to improve itself must be much more developed. It is therefore natural to take into account a strategy in which the earliest improvement efforts can be focused on improving this ability (i.e., improving the organization’s ability to improve itself).
Before proceeding to further reflections on the actions for improvement and the possibilities of their support, I find it useful to give here a simpler scheme of organizational improvement (Fig. - 3), which is a fragment of Fig. -2 Here we separate two types of activities: A and B and show that the possibilities for each type of work are provided by an appropriate reinforcement system (including the system of people and the system of tools).
Given this model, it is now possible to consider the prospects for improving the organization’s ability to improve, as mentioned earlier in Fig. 2, by improving the ability of B-activity. In order to pursue such an important goal turned out to be effective, one more detailed activity is required - the C-activity of the organization represented at risk. 4. 4. Organizational efforts aimed at obtaining and increasing funding for B-activity, improving personnel and developing a high-level approach will be regarded as activity C. Activities C will also include the addition of new knowledge and skills to activities B, thereby providing the best means for collaborating with the client. mi A-activity or improvement of test processes.
Considering the elements of infrastructure that support the high-level self-improving opportunity B, I realized that many of its important capabilities are also actively involved in many high-level capabilities A, which in turn are important for the core operations of the organization. For example, identifying needs and opportunities, developing and making decisions, implementing the experience gained. All this led to the following rhetorical question:
An investment that strengthens opportunity A gives a one-time improvement. An investment that strengthens opportunity B increases the subsequent speed of improvement of opportunity A. An investment that strengthens opportunity C increases the intensity of improvement of speed of improvement. (To be precise, investments in B and C respectively increase the first and second derivatives of the improvement curve).
Here we assume that the selected products of the two opportunities-enhancing activities (B and C) can be used not only to increase the capabilities of their client activities, but also to a large extent to enhance subsequent opportunities in their own activities. This is shown in Fig. 5 by feedback paths.
From this point on, the term self-cultivation firmly entered into the basis of my subsequent professional activity. It turns out that there are many options that we will encounter, in which weighted thinking about the possibilities of self-improvement can be important. I am confident of the potential benefits of thoughtful application of the principles that result from such thinking.
Over the years, I have tried in various ways to name and characterize the aforementioned key knowledge abilities. The absence of the term prompted me to create an acronym for these purposes, covering the basic concepts of this group of high-level abilities - PRIV:
Parallel development, integration and into the knowledge base.
With increasing complexity and urgency, the need for highly effective PRVZ capabilities will be increasingly apparent. Due to the requirement to reduce the product cycle time and the increasing amount of work in parallel, there is a need for unprecedented consistency between project functions and organization boundaries. However, most organizations do not have a complete understanding of what such processing of knowledge and the improvement of which aspects will bring the greatest profit.
PRIVZ capabilities are not only the main mechanism driving our organizations, but they also provide key opportunities for choosing their course of development, management, and self-resolution of problems. The collected base of practical knowledge is an extremely valuable resource. PRIVZ capabilities are critical to most of the activities of A throughout the organization, both in strategic planning and in marketing, research, manufacturing, customer support, and various operations. They are also relevant to the activities of B and C in determining needs and opportunities, developing and making decisions, and implementing the experience gained. Without a doubt, all this is used in the performance of the key work of activity A. Thus, the possibility of the PRVZ should be viewed as a fundamental business - competence in the organization's productive infrastructure and is an ideal candidate for early improvement to achieve the additional self-improvement shown in Figure 5.
For a better disclosure of all aspects of the PRIV, such high-tech activities should be considered as large complex projects. Fig. 6 shows the central part of the PRVZ process. In the center is the main organizational module, which is an interactive area of ​​knowledge of one person, several people or groups within a project team, department, functional unit, branch, commission, committee, entire organization, community or association (they can all be located inside organizations, and outside it).
Each organizational unit constantly analyzes, systematizes, implements, shares, develops, applies and uses its knowledge, most of which comes from the external environment (outside or within the organization).
The result of this continuous work with knowledge is a dynamically developing knowledge base, an example of which is shown in Fig. 7, consisting of three main areas of knowledge: information, dialogue records and knowledge products (in this example, development and maintenance documents for a complex product).
With the exception of small additions to the lists given in Fig. 7, such a basic model of the PRIV is equally well suited for education, heavy industry, government, medical research, social institutions, enterprises for the production of consumer goods, consulting firms, trade associations, small non-profit organizations, etc.
Here it should be noted that the basic processes of PRIVZ almost always were part of social activities. Regardless of whether the components of knowledge are contained in the mind, inscribed on clay tablets or are located in a computer, the basic process of PRIV was always important.
New is the focus on the use of technology to achieve a truly high-performance ability of the PRVZ. With the simultaneous development of elements of the system of people and emerging technologies for collaboration, we will see that the content and dynamics shown in Fig. 7 will undergo significant changes. 6k
More and more information and conversations records will be captured and integrated, thereby bringing great benefits; Participants will continually develop skills and learn habits that will increase the usefulness of increased content, thereby increasing the value of their contribution to the work.
In general, I believe that people will be surprised at how useful the use of these future tools will be, how this utility will be obtained and how simple and easy to use these techniques and tools will be after their distribution. (even if at first it would seem that learning to use them is rather difficult).
Naturally, collaboration tools that support the process of PRIV within and between organizations should be fully integrated and compatible. Consider a large organization depicted in Figure-8, where our complex sample project can be implemented (for example, in the engineering and technical department of a manufacturing organization).
Each of the functional divisions of the enterprise, located in a circle, represents an area of ​​activity that carries out at least one process of PRIV. Then, due to the fact that all the operations of the enterprise are interrelated, the PRVZ processes of each sub-area of ​​the enterprise will greatly benefit from interaction with the processes of other sub-areas.
, , , , , .
, , , .-7 . (). « ».
, , .-8.
, , .
, «» . , , . .
.-9 «» . - ; , , .
, , , , , . , — , , , , , , , . «» ; , .
, , , : ; , . 6y
, , « », — , / .
, , , , , .
, , - , , . .-10 , , , ( ) .
, , , .
, . . , , «». , - - .
, ( ) , ? .
, .
, , , .
, , . - , , .
, « » , , . () < — 5>; , , , .
, . , , «» .
. 11 , . , .
, , < -6>, <-7> <-8>.
, , :
— « » « ». , , , , , , .
(. < — 6>, < — 9> and < — 10>) , (), (), () (, , ). « ».
« », , , .
, « » .
— , , , . , .
. , , , , , « ».
, , , . , , .
, , . « ». , , , - .
, , . .
— , «» «» () . ( ), : , , . . ( «») . < — 6 >.
— , /, , , , . ., . , .
, , , , , .
The above instrumental capabilities, along with the well-developed methods and other elements of the system of people we discussed in section 1.2, the infrastructure of the organization’s capabilities can support the following online PRIV scenarios.
Please note that such online interaction is possible even if users are located in different departments of the same organization, different organizations, use different application packages at different workstations (of course, provided that access to data is allowed). We will assume that SOG has done its job, when you can click on the link in a letter from someone from another organization, you can go directly to the referenced part and then quietly work with the "alien" field of knowledge, possibly switching to the content display mode of this part, looking at other links there, etc. without understanding unfamiliar processes.
Information gathering: Now the project team (whose activities can be classified as A, B or C) can more closely monitor the external environment, actively exploring, analyzing and interacting with it mainly online. Much of the external information, now available in hyperdocuments and multimedia form, is contained in the SOG journal system. When I send you an e-mail with a notification about the upcoming conference, I can give links to interesting for you, in my opinion, meetings, and you, following these links, can quickly go to them (thanks to hypertext links and object addressing). When I search for something in magazine directories or research a question for a project I’m working on, I can see who gave the link to the material and what was said about it. If the materials are not online (i.e., in XDoc), I can quickly find their location and the way to access them, possibly using an e-mail request. If materials are online, I can instantly access them, starting with viewing the structure of the document (taking advantage of the SOG document structure and user display function) and, possibly, using a simple filter to narrow the field and quickly focusing on the specific information I need. I can quickly create an annotated index to documents or objects inside these documents that I want to track. I can share with you a macro that I wrote to track incoming information and change its format, and you can enter it into your work environment, removing your keywords (using the architectural function of the general dictionary). All collected information is easily integrated with other project knowledge.
Dialogue recordings: Effectively responding to needs and opportunities includes a high degree of coordination and dialogue within and between project teams. In the SOG environment, most dialogs will be conducted online through the Journal. Email will be used mostly for one-time messages, such as meeting reminders. All notes, reports, meeting minutes, requests for design changes, fieldwork support reports, error reports, etc. will be logged for distribution. Asynchronous online conferences will be supported by the Journals, each entry will be tagged and cataloged for future simple access. The document flow will be a matter of making a document in the Journal with the mark “the latest version - please note the changes in section G, they are listed in file Y”, including links to this section and the file for easy access. Viewers will follow links to the document. Then, the author will be able to return to the indexed comments and will have more options for quick display and their integration into the document. Such dialogue support will eliminate the need for multiple simultaneous meetings.
If necessary, holding simultaneous meetings will be significantly improved with the help of SOG. The dialogue, which is the reason for the meeting, will already be in the Journal. The agenda of the meeting will be requested and distributed through the Journal. During the meeting, the agenda and current records can either be projected onto a large screen, or displayed on the monitor of each participant (using the screen demonstration function), and any participant can point to the displayed material (using the mouse). Any participant can write, print or draw on this virtual chalk board. Any presentation and additional materials can be instantly extracted from the knowledge base for the presentation. All final documents of the meeting, along with links to relevant documents, will be placed in the Journal to provide immediate access to all authorized users.
In addition, tools will soon be available for the flexible introduction and integration of digitized speech into the SOG knowledge base. Early tools will be able to recognize the speaker's speech, special words and even create basic text transcriptions. With their help, it will be possible to create links and move between modules the size of a word with a long speech line. This will significantly improve the design, integration and use of dialog entries. Then improved tools will appear and as the methods of effective use of technology develop, the number and completeness of the recorded dialogues will become more and more significant.
Knowledge Products: Throughout the project's entire life cycle, the online knowledge product of the SOG will provide a complete and always accessible picture of the project. Intermediate project states, including information support and dialogs, can be combined into a document collection in the Journal for version control of documents. All knowledge products will be developed, integrated and applied within the SOG, with appropriate contributions from diverse and located in different places users. These users can also work as if they are sitting next to each other, reviewing the design, making markup of the document, approving recent changes, etc. (using the screen demo function). The process of finding the documents you need among a huge amount of project documentation will consist in simply clicking on the link (from the Journal catalog or from your project) and concentrating on the details or abstracting from them (or someone can provide the link using the demonstration function screen). Absolute accountability - the logs provided are guaranteed to be authentic and each object can be marked by the system with the date and time of the last edit, as well as the name of the user who made it. The signature on the documents can be verified.
Any part of the knowledge representation of all knowledge can be accessed via the link. With the help of smart search tools, you can view part or even the entire collection of knowledge to display a list of relevant links, given as they are relevant.
Rules will be created for structuring, categorizing, naming and supplying links within their general area of ​​knowledge, thanks to which experienced users can navigate through knowledge, just like a city resident, with proper practice, can effectively move around the city.
As the group adapts its ways of working to gain more value from such a system of tools as proposed here, the classes of knowledge objects will increase, as will the available functions with which they can be managed. This growth will occur in parallel with the simultaneous evolution of even more developed human "knowledge, vocabulary, methodology and skills."
There is great potential in this, and many tools, procedures, rules and organizational roles will need to be developed together with the tools. If SOG is open, then it is necessary to more deeply explore various areas of its application, such as computer-based activity (CSCW), organizational learning, integrated quality management (TQM), enterprise integration (EI), software development and maintenance management, automated development system programs (CASE), computer-aided design (CAD), parallel design (CE), organizational memory, online document delivery, computerized logistics support, etc. As will be shown later, these tasks will require highly skilled operators.
So, we have outlined the steps in the development of a strategy to create an effective method that will allow the organization to take a new level of efficiency.
We considered the concept of the productive structure of the organization on which the effectiveness of any enterprise should depend.
In addition, to create this productive infrastructure, an Enhancement System is needed, which will provide people with mental, motor and perceptual abilities that are many times superior to their own, given by nature. It is convenient to divide the amplification system into two subsystems: the system of people and the system of tools. The “harmonious co-volvism” of the elements of our amplification system is the process by which the system has reached its current state of development.
New technologies contribute to the incredible scale of improving the system tools. This means that the subsequent co-evolution of the amplification system will cause radical qualitative changes in the form and functional effectiveness of our productive structures, and consequently of our organizations.
When trying to achieve the potential benefits of such changes, leading to the creation of truly high-performance organizations, it is foreseen that there is a need to solve very large-scale and complex tasks. Creating an effective approach requires a strategy.
In order that the subsequent improvements could be carried out more effectively, it is advantageous to immediately concentrate on improving the process of improving the organization.
To help with this analysis, an alphabetical list of improvement processes was created. A thesis was developed, stating that the set of opportunities for working with PRIV-parallel development, integration and knowledge introduction is important for the activities of all three types of activities. Thus, if the early stages focus on improving the PRVZ, the results of this can improve the first and second derivatives of the return on future investment improvements.
The Open Hyperdocument System (GCS) will be a key development of the “system of tools” to improve the general and widespread capabilities of PRIV within and between organizations. And creating a truly effective SOG will in itself be an extremely complex and global challenge for our collaboration software market.
So, highly effective organizations: great opportunities, interesting ideas, complex tasks. A little more about strategy.
Returning to the main ABC model shown in Fig. - 4, some useful comments can be made regarding the next step in strategy development. This model is useful even if the system self-regulation approach is not applied; its value lies in the fact that it explains in detail how to distribute responsibilities, functions and budget between the two levels of improvement activities (B and C).
If you clearly define the C-roles, then the main issues will soon arise, in the process of solving which the leaders of the C-activities realize the value of being able to compare the experience and approaches of their colleagues from other organizations. For example, what principles and objectives of budgeting are the most rational for these improvements? How much will this contribute to the activity In documenting the way tasks are performed at the moment? What role should demo applications play? What size should be the gain of improvement and for which group in size, so that you can try to make a demo application? How many “tools” of the pilot group - before, during and after development - are needed to measure the usefulness of the effort? All this will contribute to greater efficiency of B.
So, let's consider the formation and expansion of the above described type of interaction with various improvement activities, especially C. In the mid-sixties, I began to think about the nature and value of communities for the common interests formed by various improvement activities. This almost immediately led me to the active development of a systemic self-regulation strategy for the formation of improvement communities.
In <reference - 11> (1972), I introduced the idea of ​​a “common knowledge space” - there we also described the tools we developed to maintain this space (including many of the hyperdocuments described above) and described three basic sub-areas of PRIV: recording dialogs collection of information and “directory” (or knowledge products).
Later, the ABC model emerged, which led to paying special attention to the important launch phase for the formation of one or more special self-regulating Community C as shown in Fig-12.
The significance of such a common activity can be very high and we will touch on this issue later. Firstly, there are other issues that naturally arise, which also requires a solution. The first general remarks usually look like this: “How can we share information with our competitors, if it contains a lot of what is intended only for internal use!” Or “If the field of activity of another company is completely different from ours, then what can we be useful information for them? ”
About issues of ownership: The a-activity of each organization can be very competitive and contain a lot of proprietary content. In-activity can be described as more general. The C-activity will mainly consist of common tasks and practically does not affect the information for internal use. Therefore, even competitors will be able to collaborate "behind the scenes", while "struggling to compete on the stage." This trend can be replaced in companies implementing comprehensive quality management and included in the list of organizations Malcolm Baldridge Award.
Another business area: Again, their B-activities will only differ slightly from each other, and C-activities in general are surprisingly almost identical in all major issues.
Now consider how the C-community could carry out its activities if it had the basic hyperdocument tools described above. For several decades, such a system was available to us with colleagues, so all our plans were carried out with the help of this system, which we called “SOG, Model-1” - or “SOG-1”.
How would an ideal self-regulating C-community work? In the early stages, all attention would be paid to improving their own PRIV capabilities. SOG-1 is used for this; at the initial stage, an important step is the approval of requirements, technical specifications and a procurement plan for obtaining several rapidly developing prototypes of hyperdocument systems (i.e. SOG-2, -3, etc.), which will lead to providing even better support for serious pilot applications of participants C-community.
The main products of community knowledge can be viewed as dynamic electronic directories on the topic “how best to perform improvement tasks” with two client groups: B-activity clients and the C-community itself. The pooling of resources for organizations within the community allows for the creation of a more advanced and rapidly developing prototype PRIVZ environment that serves two important purposes:
Please note that providing equivalent experience through conducting your own tests will cost each company much more. In addition, the cost of the amount of basic knowledge products obtained in this way for private development will be many times greater.
An important feature: as soon as the community becomes accustomed to effective tools and methods. By working together and developing operational skills, members of relevant organizations within the community will be able to do their work in the offices of their organizations. This contributes to maintaining relationships between organizations, which is very important in C and B activities.
« » - -. « », , . - , - , .
, .-13, , . «1, 2, 3» . , , . , - , .
.-14 , , -. , .-15 , .
, . , . « ».
, , . . - « », . , . («» « ».)
.
, . -, , . : « ; ; , , ...»
- « » .
: , « » . , , , .
, . , ?
, , 1.4. . , .
[: - — . , .]
: .
:
1. :
1.1. C++, Qt .
2. , :
2.1. (computer science)
2.2. UX- (design)
2.3. (psychology, cognitive science)
Institute of system self-regulation
June 1992 (AUGMENT, 132811)
Summary
Movement to the high-performance organizations of tomorrow will be associated with large-scale changes in their productive infrastructures. Making these changes is an extremely difficult task requiring a strategic approach. The collaborative software will provide important new special knowledge capabilities in these infrastructures and may play a key role in the development strategy.
')
1. Introduction
1.1 Shared Vision and the “Collaborative Software Community”
It seems to me that collaboration software is a means of achieving an important goal — the creation of truly highly efficient human organizations. I set out to improve the ability of our organizations to cope with complexity and urgency in the fifties. By 1962, I had created a conceptual framework for achieving this goal (<Reference-1> and <Reference-2>). Since then, I actually lived and worked within this system, constantly developing and enriching it with relevant experience.
Recently, in an ever-increasing stream of literature devoted to organizational improvement, quite often the need for members of the organization to have a common vision of the direction and methods of both internal and market development of the organization is emphasized. I assume that the same principle applies to a freer organizational unit, in this case, a community of organizations and researchers interested in practically coinciding areas of organizational improvement and collaboration software, including also the information systems market, which provides products and services for end users.
In my experience, the nature of this shared vision will be the single most important factor determining how directly and well the digital technology market will satisfy the significantly increased organizational productivity, which, I believe, is our main task in developing collaborative software.
My own views on the creation of high-performance organizations over the years have taken shape in a rather comprehensive and multifaceted strategic concept. It may seem that it is radical, but I hope that it will become part of the overall vision of the community.
The ultimate goals of our Institute for System Self-Regulation are to maintain a constructive dialogue with influential members of the community regarding the “strategy of system self-regulation”, to facilitate trial implementation and to promote a “continuous self-improvement” strategy.
In this article, I will briefly outline the main elements of the strategy system and show what role the “collaboration software community” will play. A detailed historical reference is given in <Reference-3>, well illustrating the circumstances under which the system developed until 1986. Also, <Link-4> gives a fairly rational description of our collaboration software and application development with the underlying system.
1.2 Productive infrastructure and its improvement system
Any organization required high-level opportunity is at the top of a large productive infrastructure and consists of several layers of complex capabilities, each of which depends on the integration of lower-level capabilities. At the lower levels there are two categories of possibilities: human and instrumental. The functionality of the collaboration software falls into the second category, along with a variety of equipment, objects and other tools.
When creating higher organizational efficiency, it is obvious that this infrastructure is in the center of our attention. Then, in order to determine how much of this infrastructure needs to be changed and how radical these changes should be, you should create a system and define goals. From the following considerations, I have come to the only common perspective.
In fig. 1 shows the results of thinking that over the centuries our cultures have created such rich systems of things that if a person is trained and has the appropriate training to use them, then he will be able to expand his basic genetics laid down by genetics, thereby raising his or her capabilities and capabilities to more high level. Due to the lack of an existing term, I called this process “gain system”, and then I realized that it needs to be divided into two parts: the system of people and the system of tools. I developed many of the components of this model that, as time has shown, proved to be useful and effective, especially all that I did for developing collaborative software (tools, concepts, strategies).
<img src = "
After thinking about this model, I realized that we are still unable for one approach to change any large part of the production infrastructure, at least because they are highly dependent on people.
Since our goal is to significantly improve performance, we must understand that we are trying to influence the development of an extremely large and complex system that has its own life and evolutionary dynamics. The parallel evolution of many parts of the system will continue anyway (as it has been happening for centuries). We need to accept this situation and move towards our goal by facilitating and managing these evolutionary processes. Thus, we must focus on achieving improvements and understand that this is a multi-component co-evolutionary process. In particular, we need to pay special attention to the co-evolution of the system of tools and the system of people.
Also, along with what has already been described above, there is another factor that has had a strong influence on my developing concept.
1.3 Consequences of a radical zoom
A few years earlier, I studied the problems and prospects of a radical reduction in the size of functional devices, estimated the possibility of their becoming extremely miniature, fast and cheap. I was personally interested in this, because in order to make a career in promoting the universal improvement of computers, I had to be sure that there was progress in resolving this issue.
I have learned enough to convince myself that the expected high industrial and military demand for digital technologies will bring the achievable reduction limits far beyond the limits needed for my purposes. Having studied how the size of living creatures changes proportionally, I discovered an extremely important general principle: if inside a complex system the size of basic parameters changes, then at first glance quantitative changes occur in appearance, but after a certain moment, a further change in the size of these parameters leads to more striking qualitative changes.
For example: In appearance, a five-foot (152.4 cm) creature is not much different from a six-foot (182.88 cm). But the structure of any of them is completely unsuitable for one-inch (2.54 cm) or thirty-foot (904.4 cm) creatures. A mosquito the size of a man could not stand, fly or breathe. A man the size of a mosquito would be almost unable to move and, for example, would be completely unable to drink from a puddle without disturbing the surface tension of the water, and if his face got wet, he would most likely be dragged under the water and he would not be able to get out.
Conclusion: When a complex system effectively adapts to radical changes in critical parameters, we should expect significant qualitative changes in the assembly structure and performance.
I assume that all of the above will be true for a complex amplification system that supports the productive infrastructure of the organization. In this case, a radical change in the values ​​of the capabilities of the system of tools - speed, functionality, power, quality of presentation, transmission cycle, etc. evolving digital technology - far exceeds any other changes in system parameters that our organizations have ever had to adapt in as short a period as several decades.
Much more can be said about the problem of scaling, related to general organizational changes. It is enough to say here that these thoughts led me to the need to consider the possibilities and the complex tasks facing humanity to improve the productive level of organizations and institutions, on which the survival of humanity depends, as global and large-scale phenomena.
1.4 Significance of Paradigms
Thirty years after the appearance of the model shown in Fig. - 1, I was even more convinced that human organizations can be raised to even higher levels of productivity. Modern digital technologies, which we have hardly learned to use, are a completely new type of nervous system, around which new, more developed social organisms may appear.
Taking into account the growing evidence that our organizations and institutions are not able to adequately cope with the increasing complexity and urgency of social problems, the study of each potential improvement in their ability to cope with tasks is quite motivated.
So I thought thirty years ago. It seems to me that today these ideas are even more relevant. Technology has been demonstrated, and our organizations have taken the path of internal improvement. It seems that the only thing missing is the general understanding that:
- major changes are likely, and significant improvements are possible;
- quality gains may well be needed to achieve improved performance; and
- There should be an effective practical strategy to achieve these improvements.
The above understanding problems are important enough to bear in mind when developing a basic scalable strategy. In other words, the strategy should include the need for significant changes in our understanding of the likely and possible future.
Understanding, shared vision, paradigms - their development is crucial, although now they are hardly paid attention to. A slow, unmanageable paradigm of the past is completely inadequate for a period when deeper changes are constantly being made and such large public education does not have time to accept them. And such changes will be happening with greater speed.
I bring these ideas here, as I truly believe that a community that uses collaboration software can drastically improve (with the right strategy) our ability to cope with great challenges. And whether or not we will have such an opportunity depends to a large extent on creating a suitable paradigm, which in itself is a difficult task, with which our institutions must cope better.
This leads to the assumption that an important driving force that can be hoped for and which the key figures in the process of transforming organizations have in the early stages of developing future paradigms is an understanding of the importance and a mindset to continuously contribute to the development of relevant evolutionary trends and increase the rate of change in future paradigms. Changing our ideas about paradigms.
What role will you play?
2 Improving the improvement process
An analysis of the conceptual content of Fig. 1 and the question of which investment principles will make sense lead to an understanding of the next step in the development of a detailed strategic framework. I was hoping to get a grant and I thought how we could spend this money most rationally to solve this global, structureless problem. I was also ready to devote the rest of my career to this: how should I manage this time in order to achieve maximum progress? And what directives should be adopted to launch (barehanded, so to speak) such a program?
As I see it, the only serious approach leading to significant improvements will be the long-term, practically directed evolution of the entire system. I researched a very complex system and the fact that the organizations in question would have to continue to function normally during extensive systematic changes, further complicate the task.
The image presented in Fig. -2, is the result of the realization that the ability of an organization to improve itself must be much more developed. It is therefore natural to take into account a strategy in which the earliest improvement efforts can be focused on improving this ability (i.e., improving the organization’s ability to improve itself).
3 ABC-model of organizational improvement
Before proceeding to further reflections on the actions for improvement and the possibilities of their support, I find it useful to give here a simpler scheme of organizational improvement (Fig. - 3), which is a fragment of Fig. -2 Here we separate two types of activities: A and B and show that the possibilities for each type of work are provided by an appropriate reinforcement system (including the system of people and the system of tools).
Given this model, it is now possible to consider the prospects for improving the organization’s ability to improve, as mentioned earlier in Fig. 2, by improving the ability of B-activity. In order to pursue such an important goal turned out to be effective, one more detailed activity is required - the C-activity of the organization represented at risk. 4. 4. Organizational efforts aimed at obtaining and increasing funding for B-activity, improving personnel and developing a high-level approach will be regarded as activity C. Activities C will also include the addition of new knowledge and skills to activities B, thereby providing the best means for collaborating with the client. mi A-activity or improvement of test processes.
4 Searches for a group of multiple benefits
Considering the elements of infrastructure that support the high-level self-improving opportunity B, I realized that many of its important capabilities are also actively involved in many high-level capabilities A, which in turn are important for the core operations of the organization. For example, identifying needs and opportunities, developing and making decisions, implementing the experience gained. All this led to the following rhetorical question:
Is there a set of basic capabilities, the improvement of which will greatly enhance both the high-level operational capabilities of A and the self-improving possibility of B?Unconditionally yes! The main candidate immediately becomes the main set of opportunities related to knowledge.
An investment that strengthens opportunity A gives a one-time improvement. An investment that strengthens opportunity B increases the subsequent speed of improvement of opportunity A. An investment that strengthens opportunity C increases the intensity of improvement of speed of improvement. (To be precise, investments in B and C respectively increase the first and second derivatives of the improvement curve).
Here we assume that the selected products of the two opportunities-enhancing activities (B and C) can be used not only to increase the capabilities of their client activities, but also to a large extent to enhance subsequent opportunities in their own activities. This is shown in Fig. 5 by feedback paths.
From this point on, the term self-cultivation firmly entered into the basis of my subsequent professional activity. It turns out that there are many options that we will encounter, in which weighted thinking about the possibilities of self-improvement can be important. I am confident of the potential benefits of thoughtful application of the principles that result from such thinking.
5 PRIVES GROUP OF PROCESSES: THE BEST STRATEGIC DECISION
Over the years, I have tried in various ways to name and characterize the aforementioned key knowledge abilities. The absence of the term prompted me to create an acronym for these purposes, covering the basic concepts of this group of high-level abilities - PRIV:
Parallel development, integration and into the knowledge base.
With increasing complexity and urgency, the need for highly effective PRVZ capabilities will be increasingly apparent. Due to the requirement to reduce the product cycle time and the increasing amount of work in parallel, there is a need for unprecedented consistency between project functions and organization boundaries. However, most organizations do not have a complete understanding of what such processing of knowledge and the improvement of which aspects will bring the greatest profit.
PRIVZ capabilities are not only the main mechanism driving our organizations, but they also provide key opportunities for choosing their course of development, management, and self-resolution of problems. The collected base of practical knowledge is an extremely valuable resource. PRIVZ capabilities are critical to most of the activities of A throughout the organization, both in strategic planning and in marketing, research, manufacturing, customer support, and various operations. They are also relevant to the activities of B and C in determining needs and opportunities, developing and making decisions, and implementing the experience gained. Without a doubt, all this is used in the performance of the key work of activity A. Thus, the possibility of the PRVZ should be viewed as a fundamental business - competence in the organization's productive infrastructure and is an ideal candidate for early improvement to achieve the additional self-improvement shown in Figure 5.
For a better disclosure of all aspects of the PRIV, such high-tech activities should be considered as large complex projects. Fig. 6 shows the central part of the PRVZ process. In the center is the main organizational module, which is an interactive area of ​​knowledge of one person, several people or groups within a project team, department, functional unit, branch, commission, committee, entire organization, community or association (they can all be located inside organizations, and outside it).
Each organizational unit constantly analyzes, systematizes, implements, shares, develops, applies and uses its knowledge, most of which comes from the external environment (outside or within the organization).
The result of this continuous work with knowledge is a dynamically developing knowledge base, an example of which is shown in Fig. 7, consisting of three main areas of knowledge: information, dialogue records and knowledge products (in this example, development and maintenance documents for a complex product).
- Information gathering: A project rapid response team, classified as an A, B or C activity, always closely follows the external environment, obtains information from it and interacts with it. The resulting information is constantly combined with other project knowledge to identify problems, needs and opportunities that may require attention or action.
- Dialogue recordings: Effectively responding to needs and capabilities implies a high degree of consistency and dialogue within and between project teams. The dialogue, together with the decisions made in its course, is inextricably linked with other project knowledge.
- Knowledge Products: Developed plans provide a complete view of the project. This presentation includes proposals, specifications, descriptions, lists of work, information on completed stages, work schedules, personnel, technical means, budget, etc. These documents, which were jointly developed and discussed many times, are products of the knowledge of the project team, they represent The current status of the project and are a plan of action. The PRIV process is a multistage process. The experience gained, as well as information and dialogues, should be constantly analyzed, systematized and incorporated into knowledge products throughout the entire life cycle of the process.
With the exception of small additions to the lists given in Fig. 7, such a basic model of the PRIV is equally well suited for education, heavy industry, government, medical research, social institutions, enterprises for the production of consumer goods, consulting firms, trade associations, small non-profit organizations, etc.
Here it should be noted that the basic processes of PRIVZ almost always were part of social activities. Regardless of whether the components of knowledge are contained in the mind, inscribed on clay tablets or are located in a computer, the basic process of PRIV was always important.
New is the focus on the use of technology to achieve a truly high-performance ability of the PRVZ. With the simultaneous development of elements of the system of people and emerging technologies for collaboration, we will see that the content and dynamics shown in Fig. 7 will undergo significant changes. 6k
More and more information and conversations records will be captured and integrated, thereby bringing great benefits; Participants will continually develop skills and learn habits that will increase the usefulness of increased content, thereby increasing the value of their contribution to the work.
In general, I believe that people will be surprised at how useful the use of these future tools will be, how this utility will be obtained and how simple and easy to use these techniques and tools will be after their distribution. (even if at first it would seem that learning to use them is rather difficult).
Naturally, collaboration tools that support the process of PRIV within and between organizations should be fully integrated and compatible. Consider a large organization depicted in Figure-8, where our complex sample project can be implemented (for example, in the engineering and technical department of a manufacturing organization).
Each of the functional divisions of the enterprise, located in a circle, represents an area of ​​activity that carries out at least one process of PRIV. Then, due to the fact that all the operations of the enterprise are interrelated, the PRVZ processes of each sub-area of ​​the enterprise will greatly benefit from interaction with the processes of other sub-areas.
, , , , , .
, , , .-7 . (). « ».
, , .-8.
, , .
, «» . , , . .
.-9 «» . - ; , , .
, , , , , . , — , , , , , , , . «» ; , .
, , , : ; , . 6y
, , « », — , / .
, , , , , .
, , - , , . .-10 , , , ( ) .
, , , .
, . . , , «». , - - .
, ( ) , ? .
, .
6 ():
, , , .
, , . - , , .
, « » , , . () < — 5>; , , , .
, . , , «» .
- / — . (.. ) .
- — , , , , ( ), , . . — , «», , , () , «».
- — . .
- — , / , , . (, , , «» «», ).
- , — , , — ( ), , , / ( , ). , .
- «» — , «», , , , « , » « , , » « ». ( , CD ROM, . .)
- « » — , , , / .
- — « » / « », , ; , ( «», ).
- — . , . .
- — , ( ), , , .
, , , . . - — , . , , , «».
- « » — -, - , ( ), «» , , , . . , , «» , , .
- — , .
- (External-Document Control — XDOC) — ( , ). ( ) « » — ( ). , .
. 11 , . , .
, , < -6>, <-7> <-8>.
7
, , :
— « » « ». , , , , , , .
(. < — 6>, < — 9> and < — 10>) , (), (), () (, , ). « ».
« », , , .
, « » .
— , , , . , .
. , , , , , « ».
, , , . , , .
, , . « ». , , , - .
, , . .
— , «» «» () . ( ), : , , . . ( «») . < — 6 >.
— , /, , , , . ., . , .
, , , , , .
8 ,
The above instrumental capabilities, along with the well-developed methods and other elements of the system of people we discussed in section 1.2, the infrastructure of the organization’s capabilities can support the following online PRIV scenarios.
Please note that such online interaction is possible even if users are located in different departments of the same organization, different organizations, use different application packages at different workstations (of course, provided that access to data is allowed). We will assume that SOG has done its job, when you can click on the link in a letter from someone from another organization, you can go directly to the referenced part and then quietly work with the "alien" field of knowledge, possibly switching to the content display mode of this part, looking at other links there, etc. without understanding unfamiliar processes.
Information gathering: Now the project team (whose activities can be classified as A, B or C) can more closely monitor the external environment, actively exploring, analyzing and interacting with it mainly online. Much of the external information, now available in hyperdocuments and multimedia form, is contained in the SOG journal system. When I send you an e-mail with a notification about the upcoming conference, I can give links to interesting for you, in my opinion, meetings, and you, following these links, can quickly go to them (thanks to hypertext links and object addressing). When I search for something in magazine directories or research a question for a project I’m working on, I can see who gave the link to the material and what was said about it. If the materials are not online (i.e., in XDoc), I can quickly find their location and the way to access them, possibly using an e-mail request. If materials are online, I can instantly access them, starting with viewing the structure of the document (taking advantage of the SOG document structure and user display function) and, possibly, using a simple filter to narrow the field and quickly focusing on the specific information I need. I can quickly create an annotated index to documents or objects inside these documents that I want to track. I can share with you a macro that I wrote to track incoming information and change its format, and you can enter it into your work environment, removing your keywords (using the architectural function of the general dictionary). All collected information is easily integrated with other project knowledge.
Dialogue recordings: Effectively responding to needs and opportunities includes a high degree of coordination and dialogue within and between project teams. In the SOG environment, most dialogs will be conducted online through the Journal. Email will be used mostly for one-time messages, such as meeting reminders. All notes, reports, meeting minutes, requests for design changes, fieldwork support reports, error reports, etc. will be logged for distribution. Asynchronous online conferences will be supported by the Journals, each entry will be tagged and cataloged for future simple access. The document flow will be a matter of making a document in the Journal with the mark “the latest version - please note the changes in section G, they are listed in file Y”, including links to this section and the file for easy access. Viewers will follow links to the document. Then, the author will be able to return to the indexed comments and will have more options for quick display and their integration into the document. Such dialogue support will eliminate the need for multiple simultaneous meetings.
If necessary, holding simultaneous meetings will be significantly improved with the help of SOG. The dialogue, which is the reason for the meeting, will already be in the Journal. The agenda of the meeting will be requested and distributed through the Journal. During the meeting, the agenda and current records can either be projected onto a large screen, or displayed on the monitor of each participant (using the screen demonstration function), and any participant can point to the displayed material (using the mouse). Any participant can write, print or draw on this virtual chalk board. Any presentation and additional materials can be instantly extracted from the knowledge base for the presentation. All final documents of the meeting, along with links to relevant documents, will be placed in the Journal to provide immediate access to all authorized users.
In addition, tools will soon be available for the flexible introduction and integration of digitized speech into the SOG knowledge base. Early tools will be able to recognize the speaker's speech, special words and even create basic text transcriptions. With their help, it will be possible to create links and move between modules the size of a word with a long speech line. This will significantly improve the design, integration and use of dialog entries. Then improved tools will appear and as the methods of effective use of technology develop, the number and completeness of the recorded dialogues will become more and more significant.
Knowledge Products: Throughout the project's entire life cycle, the online knowledge product of the SOG will provide a complete and always accessible picture of the project. Intermediate project states, including information support and dialogs, can be combined into a document collection in the Journal for version control of documents. All knowledge products will be developed, integrated and applied within the SOG, with appropriate contributions from diverse and located in different places users. These users can also work as if they are sitting next to each other, reviewing the design, making markup of the document, approving recent changes, etc. (using the screen demo function). The process of finding the documents you need among a huge amount of project documentation will consist in simply clicking on the link (from the Journal catalog or from your project) and concentrating on the details or abstracting from them (or someone can provide the link using the demonstration function screen). Absolute accountability - the logs provided are guaranteed to be authentic and each object can be marked by the system with the date and time of the last edit, as well as the name of the user who made it. The signature on the documents can be verified.
Any part of the knowledge representation of all knowledge can be accessed via the link. With the help of smart search tools, you can view part or even the entire collection of knowledge to display a list of relevant links, given as they are relevant.
Rules will be created for structuring, categorizing, naming and supplying links within their general area of ​​knowledge, thanks to which experienced users can navigate through knowledge, just like a city resident, with proper practice, can effectively move around the city.
As the group adapts its ways of working to gain more value from such a system of tools as proposed here, the classes of knowledge objects will increase, as will the available functions with which they can be managed. This growth will occur in parallel with the simultaneous evolution of even more developed human "knowledge, vocabulary, methodology and skills."
There is great potential in this, and many tools, procedures, rules and organizational roles will need to be developed together with the tools. If SOG is open, then it is necessary to more deeply explore various areas of its application, such as computer-based activity (CSCW), organizational learning, integrated quality management (TQM), enterprise integration (EI), software development and maintenance management, automated development system programs (CASE), computer-aided design (CAD), parallel design (CE), organizational memory, online document delivery, computerized logistics support, etc. As will be shown later, these tasks will require highly skilled operators.
9 Summary: Conceptual basis of the above
So, we have outlined the steps in the development of a strategy to create an effective method that will allow the organization to take a new level of efficiency.
We considered the concept of the productive structure of the organization on which the effectiveness of any enterprise should depend.
In addition, to create this productive infrastructure, an Enhancement System is needed, which will provide people with mental, motor and perceptual abilities that are many times superior to their own, given by nature. It is convenient to divide the amplification system into two subsystems: the system of people and the system of tools. The “harmonious co-volvism” of the elements of our amplification system is the process by which the system has reached its current state of development.
New technologies contribute to the incredible scale of improving the system tools. This means that the subsequent co-evolution of the amplification system will cause radical qualitative changes in the form and functional effectiveness of our productive structures, and consequently of our organizations.
When trying to achieve the potential benefits of such changes, leading to the creation of truly high-performance organizations, it is foreseen that there is a need to solve very large-scale and complex tasks. Creating an effective approach requires a strategy.
In order that the subsequent improvements could be carried out more effectively, it is advantageous to immediately concentrate on improving the process of improving the organization.
To help with this analysis, an alphabetical list of improvement processes was created. A thesis was developed, stating that the set of opportunities for working with PRIV-parallel development, integration and knowledge introduction is important for the activities of all three types of activities. Thus, if the early stages focus on improving the PRVZ, the results of this can improve the first and second derivatives of the return on future investment improvements.
The Open Hyperdocument System (GCS) will be a key development of the “system of tools” to improve the general and widespread capabilities of PRIV within and between organizations. And creating a truly effective SOG will in itself be an extremely complex and global challenge for our collaboration software market.
So, highly effective organizations: great opportunities, interesting ideas, complex tasks. A little more about strategy.
10 Community C: Highly productive system self-regulation
Returning to the main ABC model shown in Fig. - 4, some useful comments can be made regarding the next step in strategy development. This model is useful even if the system self-regulation approach is not applied; its value lies in the fact that it explains in detail how to distribute responsibilities, functions and budget between the two levels of improvement activities (B and C).
If you clearly define the C-roles, then the main issues will soon arise, in the process of solving which the leaders of the C-activities realize the value of being able to compare the experience and approaches of their colleagues from other organizations. For example, what principles and objectives of budgeting are the most rational for these improvements? How much will this contribute to the activity In documenting the way tasks are performed at the moment? What role should demo applications play? What size should be the gain of improvement and for which group in size, so that you can try to make a demo application? How many “tools” of the pilot group - before, during and after development - are needed to measure the usefulness of the effort? All this will contribute to greater efficiency of B.
So, let's consider the formation and expansion of the above described type of interaction with various improvement activities, especially C. In the mid-sixties, I began to think about the nature and value of communities for the common interests formed by various improvement activities. This almost immediately led me to the active development of a systemic self-regulation strategy for the formation of improvement communities.
In <reference - 11> (1972), I introduced the idea of ​​a “common knowledge space” - there we also described the tools we developed to maintain this space (including many of the hyperdocuments described above) and described three basic sub-areas of PRIV: recording dialogs collection of information and “directory” (or knowledge products).
Later, the ABC model emerged, which led to paying special attention to the important launch phase for the formation of one or more special self-regulating Community C as shown in Fig-12.
The significance of such a common activity can be very high and we will touch on this issue later. Firstly, there are other issues that naturally arise, which also requires a solution. The first general remarks usually look like this: “How can we share information with our competitors, if it contains a lot of what is intended only for internal use!” Or “If the field of activity of another company is completely different from ours, then what can we be useful information for them? ”
About issues of ownership: The a-activity of each organization can be very competitive and contain a lot of proprietary content. In-activity can be described as more general. The C-activity will mainly consist of common tasks and practically does not affect the information for internal use. Therefore, even competitors will be able to collaborate "behind the scenes", while "struggling to compete on the stage." This trend can be replaced in companies implementing comprehensive quality management and included in the list of organizations Malcolm Baldridge Award.
Another business area: Again, their B-activities will only differ slightly from each other, and C-activities in general are surprisingly almost identical in all major issues.
Now consider how the C-community could carry out its activities if it had the basic hyperdocument tools described above. For several decades, such a system was available to us with colleagues, so all our plans were carried out with the help of this system, which we called “SOG, Model-1” - or “SOG-1”.
How would an ideal self-regulating C-community work? In the early stages, all attention would be paid to improving their own PRIV capabilities. SOG-1 is used for this; at the initial stage, an important step is the approval of requirements, technical specifications and a procurement plan for obtaining several rapidly developing prototypes of hyperdocument systems (i.e. SOG-2, -3, etc.), which will lead to providing even better support for serious pilot applications of participants C-community.
The main products of community knowledge can be viewed as dynamic electronic directories on the topic “how best to perform improvement tasks” with two client groups: B-activity clients and the C-community itself. The pooling of resources for organizations within the community allows for the creation of a more advanced and rapidly developing prototype PRIVZ environment that serves two important purposes:
- This will allow the community to better and better carry out the main “C-activity”;
- Constantly changing employees of organizations belonging to the community will have access to best practices. Thus, they will develop an understanding of the real problems on which the improvement of the capabilities of the PRVZ depends - this understanding is absorbed by “being in a real, filled with work of the area of ​​the PRIV”.
Please note that providing equivalent experience through conducting your own tests will cost each company much more. In addition, the cost of the amount of basic knowledge products obtained in this way for private development will be many times greater.
An important feature: as soon as the community becomes accustomed to effective tools and methods. By working together and developing operational skills, members of relevant organizations within the community will be able to do their work in the offices of their organizations. This contributes to maintaining relationships between organizations, which is very important in C and B activities.
« » - -. « », , . - , - , .
, .-13, , . «1, 2, 3» . , , . , - , .
.-14 , , -. , .-15 , .
, . , . « ».
, , . . - « », . , . («» « ».)
.
, . -, , . : « ; ; , , ...»
- « » .
: , « » . , , , .
, . , ?
, , 1.4. . , .
Links
- Ref-1. Engelbart, DC 1962. Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework, Summary Report, Stanford Research Institute, on Contract AF 49(63-8)-1024, October, 134 pp.
- Ref-2. Engelbart, DC 1963. «A Conceptual Framework for the Augmentation of Man's Intellect». Vistas in Information Handling, Howerton and Weeks (eds), Washington, DC: Spartan Books, pp. 1-29. Republished in Greif, I. (ed) 1988. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 35-65.
- Ref-3. Engelbart, DC 1988. «The Augmented Knowledge Workshop». Goldberg, A. [ed], 1988. A History of Personal Workstations, New York: ACM Press, pp. 185-236. (AUGMENT,101931,)
- Ref-4. Engelbart, DC and Lehtman, HG 1988. «Working Together», BYTE Magazine, December, pp. 245-252.
- Ref-5. Engelbart, DC 1990. «Knowledge Domain Interoperability and an Open Hyperdocument System». Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Los Angeles, CA, October 7-10, pp. 143-156. (AUGMENT,132082,). Republished in Berk, E. and Devlin, J. [eds] 1991. Hypertext / Hypermedia Handbook, New York: Intertext Publications, McGraw-Hill, pp. 397-413.
- Ref-6. Engelbart, DC 1982. «Toward High Performance Knowledge Workers». OAC'82 Digest: Proceedings of the AFIPS Office Automation Conference, San Francisco, CA, April 5-7, pp. 279-290. (AUGMENT,81010,). Republished in Greif, I. (ed) 1988. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 67-78.
- Ref-7. Engelbart, DC 1984. «Collaboration Support Provisions in AUGMENT». OAC '84 Digest, Proceedings of the 1984 AFIPS Office Automation Conference, Los Angeles, CA, February 20-22, pp. 51-58. (OAD,2221,).
- Ref-8. Engelbart, DC 1984. «Authorship Provisions in AUGMENT». COMPCON '84 Digest, Proceedings of the COMPCON Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 27 — March 1, pp. 465-472. (OAD,2250,). Republished in Greif, I. (ed) 1988. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 107-126.
- Ref-9. Irby, CH 1976. «The Command Meta Language System». AFIPS Conference Proceedings, NCC Vol. 45, Montvale, NJ: AFIPS Press. (AUGMENT,27266,)
- Ref-10. Watson, RW 1976. «User Interface Design Issues for a Large Interactive System». AFIPS Conference Proceedings, Vol. 45, Montvale, NJ: AFIPS Press, pp. 357-364. (AUGMENT,27171,).
- Ref-11. Engelbart, DC 1972. «Coordinated Information Services for a Discipline- or Mission-Oriented Community». Proceedings of the Second Annual Computer Communications Conference, San Jose, CA, January 24,. Republished in Grimsdale, RL and Kuo, FF (eds) 1975. Computer Communication Networks, Leyden: Noordhoff. (AUGMENT,12445,).
- Ref-12. Grenier, R., Metes, G. 1992. Enterprise Networking: Working Together Apart. Digital Press. (Very relevant general treatment; special emphasis given to «Capability-Based Environment» along the lines outlined in this paper.)
- Ref-13. Parunak, HVD 1991. «Toward Industrial Strength Hypermedia», Hypertext / Hypermedia Handbook, Kerk, E. and Devlin, J. (eds), New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 381-395. (Provides very useful considerations relevant to requirements for the Open Hyperdocument System as discussed in this paper.)
[: - — . , .]
: .
: .?
– . , , . , Open Hyperdocument System . , – . , , .
:
1. :
1.1. C++, Qt .
2. , :
2.1. (computer science)
2.2. UX- (design)
2.3. (psychology, cognitive science)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/433110/
All Articles