Objectives for a Research Program
The report has put forth the hypothesis that the intellectual
effectiveness of a human being is dependent upon factors which
are subject to direct redesign in pursuit of an increase in that
effectiveness. A conceptual framework is offered to help in giving
consideration to this hypothesis, and an extensive and personalized
projection into possible future developments is presented to
help develop a feeling for the possi bilities and promise implicit
in the hypothesis and conceptual structure.
If this hypothesis and its glowing extrapolations were borne
out in future developments, the consequences would be most exciting
and assumedly beneficial to a problem-laden world. What is called
for now is a test of this hypothesis and a calibration on the
gains if any that might be realized by giving total-system design
attention to human intellectual effectiveness. If the test and
calibration proved to be favorable, then we can set to work developing
better and better augmentation systems for our problem solvers.
In this light, we recommend a research program approach aimed
at (Goal 1) testing the hypothesis, (Goal 2) developing the tools
and tech niques for designing better augmentation systems, and
(Goal 3) producing real-world augmentation systems that bring
maximum gains over the coming years to the solvers of tough,
critical problems. These goals and the resulting design for their
pursuit are idealized, to be sure, but the results nonetheless
have valuable aspects.
Basic Research Recomendations
This should be an empirical approach on a total-system basis--i.e.,
doing coordinated study and innovation, among all the factors
admitted to the problem, in conjunction with experiments that
provide realistic action and interplay among these variables.
The question of limiting these factors is considered later in
the section. The recommended en vironment for this empirical,
total-system approach, is a laboratory providing a computer-backed
display and communication system of the general sort described
in Section III-B. There should be no stinting on the capabilities
provided--it is very important to learn what value any given
artifact feature may offer the total system, and the only way
to learn the value is to experiment with the feature. At this
point no time will be taken to develop elaborate improvements
in the art of time sharing, to provide real-time service to many
users. This kind of development should be done as separate, backup
work. The experimental lab should take the steps that are immediately
available to provide all the service to the human that he needs
in the experimental environment.
Where economy demands that a computer not be idle during the
time the augmented subject is not using it (which would be a
rather large net fraction of the time, probably), and where sharing
the computer with other real-time users for which demand delays
are a problem, then the only sharing that should be considered
is that with off-line computations for which there are no real-time
service demands to be met. The computer can turn away from off-line
users whenever the on-line worker needs attention of any sort.
Whom to Augment First
The experimental work of deriving, testing, and integrating
innovations into a growing system of augmentation means must
have a specific type of human task to try to develop more effectiveness
for, to give unifying focus to the research. We recommend the
particular task of computer programming for this purpose--with
many reasons behind the selection that should come out in the
following discussion. Some of the more direct reasons are these:
- The programmer works on many problems, including large and
realistic ones, which can be solved without interaction with
other humans. This eases the experimentalproblem. and realistic
problems for the programmer to solve can be posed for experimental
purposes that do not involve large amounts of working and reference
in formation. This also eases the experimental problem.
- Much of the programmerÕs working data are computer
programs (he also has, we assume, his own reasoning and planning
notes), which have unambiguous syntactic and semantic form so
that getting the computer to do useful tasks for him on his working
data will be much facilitated--which helps very much to get early
experience on the value a human can derlve from this kind of
computer help.
- A programmerÕs effectiveness, relative to other programmers,
can probably be measured more easily than would be the case for
most other complex-problem solvers. For example, few other complex
solutions or designs beside a program can so easily be given
the rigorous test of ãDoes it actually work?Ò
- The programmerÕs normal work involves interactions
with a computer (although heretofore not generally on-line),
and this will help researchers use the computer as a tool for
learning about the programmerÕs habits and needs.
- There are some very challenging types of intellectual effort
involved in programming. Attempting to increase human effectiveness
therein will provide an excellent means for testing our hypothesis.
- Successful achievements in evolving new augmentation means
which significantly improve a programmer's capability will not
only serve to prove the hypothesis, but will lead directly to
possible practical application of augmentation systems to a real-world
problem domain that can use help.
- Computer programmers are a natural group to be the first
in the ãreal world to incorporate the type of augmentation
means we are considering. They already know how to work in formal
methodologies with computers, and most of them are associated
with activities that have to have computers anyway, so that the
new tech niques, concepts, methods, and equipment will not seem
so radical to them and will be relatively easy for them to learn
and acquire.
- Successful achievements can be utilized within the augmentation-research
program itself, to improve the effectiveness of the computer
programming activity involved in studying and developing augmentation
systems. The capability of designing, implementing, and modifying
computer programs will be very inlportant to the rate of research
progress.
Workers in an augmentation-research laboratory are the most
natural people in the world to be the very first users of the
augmentation means they develop, and we think that they represent
an extremely important group of people to make more effective
at their work.
Basic Regenerative Feature
The feature brought forth in Reason 9 above is something that
offers tremendous value to the research objectives--i.e., the
feeding back of positive research results to improve the means
by which the researchers themselves can pursue their work The
plan we are describing here is designed to capitalize upon this
feature as much as possible, as will be evident to the reader
as he progresses through this section. This positive-feedback
(or regenerative) possibility derives from the facts that: (1)
our researchers are developing means to increase the effectiveness
of humans dealing with complex intellectual problems, and (2)
our researchers are dealing with complex intellectual problems.
In other words, they are developing better tools for a class
to which they themselves belong. If their initial work needs
the unifying focus of concentrating upon a specific tool, let
that tool be one important to them and whose improvement will
really help their own work.
Tools Developed and Tools Used
This close similarity between tools being developed and the
tools being used to do the developing, calls for some care in
our terminology if we want to avoid confusion in our reasoning
about their relationship. ãAugmentation meansÒ
will be used to name the tools being developed by the augmentation
research. ãSubject lnformationÒ will be used to
refer to description and reasoning concerned with the subject
of these tools (as opposed to the method of research), and ãsubject
matterÒ will refer to both subject information and physical
devices being incorporated as artifacts in the augmentation means
being developed. ãTools and techniquesÒ will be
used to name the tools being used to do that research, and are
likely here to include special additions to language, artifact,
and methodology that particularly improve the special
capabilities exercised in doing the research.
An integrated set of tools and techniques will represent an
art of doing augmentation research. Although no such art exists
ready-made for our use, there are many applicable or adaptable
tools and techniques to be borrowed from other disciplines. Psychology,
computer programming and physical technology, display technology,
artificial intelligence, industrial engineering (e.g., motion
and time study), management science, systems analysis, and information
retrieval are some of the more likely sources. These disciplines
also offer initial subject matter for the research. Because this
kind of diagramming can help more later on, we represent in Fig.
3 the situation of the beginning research drawing upon existing
disciplines for subject matter and tools and techniques.
The program begins with general dependence upon other, existing
dis ciplines for its subject matter (solid arrow) and its tools
and tech niques (dashed arrow). Goal 1 has been stated as that
of verifying the basic hypothesis that concerted augmentation
research can increase the intellectual effectiveness of human
problem solvers.
Fig. 3 Initial Augmentatiuon-Research Program
Research Plan for Activity A l
The dominant goal of Activity A 1 (Goal 1, as in Fig 3) is
to test our hypothesis. Its general pursuit of augmenting a programmer
is designed to serve this goal, but also to be setting the stage
for later direct pursuit of Goals 2 and 3 (i.e., developing tools
and techniques for augmentation research and producing real-world
augmentation systems).
Before we discuss the possible subject matter through which
this research might work, let us treat the matter of its tools
and techniques. Not too long ago we would have recommended (and
did), in the spirit of taking the long-range and global approach,
that right from the beginning of a serious program of this sort
there should be established a careful and scientific methodology.
Controlled experiments, with special re search subjects trained
and tested in the use of experimental new aug mentation means,
careful monitoring, record-keeping, and evaluative procedures,
etc. This was to be accompanied by a thorough search through
disciplines and careful incorporation of useful findings.
Still in the spirit of the long-range and global sort of planning,
but with a different outlook (based, among other things, upon
an increased appreciation for the possibilities of capitalizing
upon regeneration), we would now recommend that the approach
be quite different. We basically recommend A 1 research adhering
to whatever formal methodology is required for (a) knowing when
an improvement in effectiveness has been achieved, and (b) knowing
how to assign relative value to the changes derived from
two competing innovations.
Beyond this, and assuming dedication to the goal, reasonable
maturity, and plenty of energy, intelligence, and imagination,
we would recommend turning loose a group of four to six people
(or a number of such groups) to develop means that augment their
own programming capability We would recommend that their work
begin by developing the capability for composing and modifying
simple symbol structures, in the manner pictured in Section III-B-2,
and work up through a hierarchy of intermediate capabilities
toward the single high-level capability that would encompass
computer programming. This would allow their embryonic and free
wheeling "art of doing augmentation researchÒ to
grow and work out its kinks through a succession of increasingly
complex system problems--and also, redesigning a hierarchy from
the bottom up somehow seems the best approach
As for the type of programming to tell them to become good
at--tell them, Ñthe kind that you find you have to do
in your research." In other words, their job assignment
is to develop means that will make them more effective at doing
their job. Figure 4 depicts this schematically, with the addition
to what was shown in Fig. 3 of a connection that feeds the subject-matter
output of their research (augmentation means for their type of
programming problems) right back into their activity as improved
tools and techniques to use in their research.
Fig. 4 Regeneration
If they are making head way, it won't take any carefully worded
criterion of effectiveness nor any great sophistication in measurement
technique to tell that they are more effective with the augmentation
means than without--being quicker to "design and build"
a running program to meet given processing specifications or
being quicker to pick up a complex existing program, gain comprehension
as necessary, and find its flaws or rebuild it. On the other
hand, if no gains are really obvious after a year or so, then
it is time to begin incorporating more science in their approach.
By then there will be a good deal of basic orientation as to
the nature of the problem to which "science" is to
be applied.
What we are recommending in a way is that the augmented capability
hierarchy built by this group represent more a quick and rough
scaffolding than a carefully engineered structure. There is orientation
to be derived from climbing up quickly for a look that will be
of great value. For instance, key concepts held initially, that
would have been laboriously riveted into the well-engineered
structure, could well be rendered obsolete by the Ñview"
obtained from higher in the hierarchy. And besides, it seems
best to get the quick and rough improvements built and working
first, so that the research will benefit not only from the orientation
obtained, but from the help that these improvements will provide
when used as tools and techniques to tackle the tougher or slower
possibilities. As progress begins to be made toward Goal l,the
diagram of Fig. 3 will become modified by feeding the subject-matter
output (augmentation means for computer programmers) back into
the input as new tools and techniques to be used by the researchers.
We would suggest establishing a sub-activity within A 1, whose
purpose and responsibility is to keep an eye on the total activity,
assess and evaluate its progress and try to provide orientation
as to where things stand and where attention might be beneficial.
A few words about the subject matter through which Activity
A 1 may progress. The researchers will think of simple innovations
and try them in short order--and perhaps be stimulated in the
process by realizing how handy some new feature would be that
would help them whlp up trlal processes in a hurry. They will
know of basic capabllitles they want to work toward for structuring
their argumentsJ their planning, their factual data, etc., 50
that they can more easily get computer help in developing themJ
in analyzing and pursuing comprehension within themJ and in modifying
or extending them. They wlll try different types of structuringJ
and see how easy it ls to design computer processes to manipulate
them or composite processes to do total useful work with them.
They can work up programs that can search through other programs
for answers to questions about them--questions whose answers
serve the processes of debugging, extending, or modifying. Perhaps
there will be ways they adopt in the initial structuring of a
program--e.g., appending stylized descriptive cues here and there--that
have no function in the execution of that program, but which
allow more sophisticated fact retrieval therein by the computer.
Perhaps such cue tagging would allow development of programs
which could automatically make fairly sophisticated modifications
to a tagged program. Maybe there would evolve semi-automatic
"super-compilers," with which the programmer and the
computer leap-frog over the obstacles to formulating exact specifications
for a computer (or perhaps composlte) process and getting it
into whatever programming language they use.
A Second Phase in the Research Program
The research of A 1 could probably spiral upwards indefinitely,
but once the hypothesis (see Section IV-A) has been reasonably
verified and the first of our stated objectives satisfied, it
would be best to re-organize the program. To describe our recommendation
here, let us say that two research activies, A 2 and A 3, are
set up in place of A 1. Whether A 1 is split, or turned into
A 2 and a new group formed for A 3, does not really matter here--we
are speaking of separate activities, corresponding to the responsible
pursuit of separate goals, that will benefit from close cooperation.
To Activity A 2 assign the job of developing augmentation
means to be used specifically as tools and techniques by the
researchers of both A 2 and A 3. This establishes a continuing
pursuit for Objective 2 of Section IY-A. A 2 will now set up
a sub-activity that studies the problems of all the workers in
A 2 and A 3 and isolates a succession of capabilities for which
the research of A 2 will develop means to augment. Activity A
2 should be equipped with the best artifacts available to an
experimental laboratory.
To Activity A 3 assign the job of developing augmentation
systems that can be practically adopted into real-world problem
situations. This provides a direct and continuing pursuit of
Goal 3 of Section IV-A. It is to be assumed that the first real-world
system that A 3 will design will be for computer programmers.
For this it might well be able to clean up the Ñlaboratory
model" developed in A 1, modify it to fit the practical
limitations represented by real-world economics, working environments,
etc., and offer it as a prototype for practical adoption. Or
Activity A 3 might do a redesign, benefitting from the experience
with the first model.
Activity A 3 will need a subactivity to study its potential
users and guide the succession of developments that it pursues.
Activity A 2 in its continued pursuit of increased effectiveness
among workers in idealized environment, will be the source for
basic subject matter in the developments of A 3, as well as for
its tools and techniques. From the continously expanding knowledge
and developments of A 2, A 3 can organize successive practical
systems suitable for ever more general utilization.
We have assumed that what was developed in A 1 was primarily
language and methodology, with the artifacts not being subject
to appreciable modification during the research. By this second
phase, enough has been learned about the trends and possibilities
for this type of on-line man-computer cooperation that some well-based
guidance can be derived for the types of modifications and extensions
to artifact capability that would be most valuable. Activity
A 2 could continue to derive long-range guidance for equipment
development, perhaps developing laboratory innovations in computers,
display systems, storage systems, or communication systems, but
at least experimenting with the incorporation of the new artifact
innovations of others.
An example of the type of guidance derived from this research
might be extracted from the concepts discussed in Section-C-5
(Structure Types). We point out there that within the computer
there might be built and manipulated symbol structures that represent
better images of the concept structures of interest to the human
than would any symbol structure with which the human could work
directly. To the human, the computer represents a special instrument
which can display to him a comprehensible image of any characteristic
of this structure that may be of interest. From our conceptual
viewpoint, this would be a source of tremendous power for the
human to harness, but it depends upon the computer being able
to ãreadÒ all of the stored information (which
would be in a form essentially incomprehensible to a human).
Now, if this conjecture is borne out there would be considerably
less value in micro-image information-storage systems than is
now generally presumed. In other words, we now conjecture that
future reference information will be much more valuable if stored
in computer-sensible form. The validity of this and other conjectures
stemming from our conceptual framework could represent critical
questions to manufacturers of information systems.
It is obvious that this report stems from generalized ãlarge-viewÒ
thinking. To carry this to something of a final view, relative
to the research recommendations, we present Fig. 5, which should
be largely self-explanatory by this time. Activity A 2 is lifting
itself by the bootstraps up the scale of intellectual capability,
and its products are siphoned to the world via A 3. Getting acceptance
and application of the new techniques to the most critical problems
of our society might in fact be the most critical problem
of all by then, and Activity A 4 would be one which should be
given special help from A 3.
There is another general and long-range picture to present.
This is in regard to a goal for a practically usable system that
A 3 would want to develop as soon as possible. You might call
this the first general Computer Augmentation System--CAUG-I (pronounced
"cog-one").
Fig. 5: A Total Program
Suggested relationship among the major activities in achieving
the stated objective (essentially, of significantly boosting
human power in A 4 and U 1). Solid lines represent subject information
or artifacts used or generated within an activity, and dashed
lines represent special tools and techniques for doing the activity
in the box to which they connect. Subject product of an activity
(output solid) can be used as working material (input solid)
or as tools and techniques (input dashed). Tools and techniques
as used or needed in an activity (output dashed) can be used
either to work on (input solid) or as tools and techniques to
work with (input dashed).
It would be derived from what was assessed to be the basic
set of capabilities needed by both a general-problem-solvlng
human and an augmentation researcher. Give CAUG-I to a real-world
problem solver in almost any discipline, and he has the basic
capabilities for structuring his arguments and plans, organizing
special files, etc., that almost anyone could expect to need.
In addition to these direct-application on capabilities, however,
are provided those capabilities necessary for analyzing problem
tasks, developing and evaluating new process capabilities, etc.,
as would be required for him to extend the CAUG-I system to match
to the special features of his problem area and the way he likes
to work.
In other words, CAUG-I represents a basic problem-solving
tool kit, plus an auxiliary tool-makers tool kit with which to
extend the basic tool kit to match the particular job and particular
worker. In subsequent phases, Activity A 3 could be turning out
successive generations (CAUG-II, CAUG-III, etc.) each incorporating
features that match an ever-more-powerful capability hierarchy
in an ever-more-efficient manner to the basic capabilities of
the human.
|