In situations dominated by personality politics, "How to get there from here" matters hardly at all; the situation is driven by the need for schmooze most of all. But sometimes, in some situations, some individuals are actually oriented to some end point … as though there's actually work to be done. ("Deliverables" some might say.)
Conundrum How to implement an innovation w/o re-inventing the wheel?
Say I'm working for Company A. It's started work on an innovative new product. Because of my experience and background I'm on the design team. I go through the whole drill of getting up to speed on the requirements and specifications and on and on and, at the end of the day, contribute to the design process. But let's say I don't work for Company A, but (on my own dime) I have come up to speed on that particular project, independently. In the previous situation, as an employee, my work product belongs to the company. In this alternative … what's the proper relationship? How to "chip in" without losing my interest?
A solid presentation by someone who evidently understands the field. For implementation? I strongly suggest collapsing down onto the cognitive core of the transaction, as though for "group discernment". We concentrate on "participatory deliberation" (with an eye to "operant subjectivity") in order to create a "discourse-based decision support system".
In one of its quarterly reports for 1974 (maybe 1975), TRW's CEO opined that for too long we have worked to design systems that work like people, and that it was time for people to start working the way machines work. That offended me.
Roughly 25 years later MicroSloth came out with Win95. That offended me, too. On campus (I had a research grant in the psych department.) I circulated a petition suggesting that users should sue that corporation for psychological abuse.
p.s. Jonathan – Willinsky did the work I know while at UBC. He's since moved. By coincidence: is he at UC? Davis perhaps?
Scientific communication needs an overhaul, and Beethoven knew how – "Beethoven once wrote "There should be only one repository of art in the world, to which the artist would donate his works in order to take what he would need". We are trying to build such an open repository for scientific research."
Transforming the way we publish research
“Professionally our methods of transmitting and reviewing the results of research are generations old and by now are totally inadequate for their purpose.” Vannevar Bush, 1945
"[T]he ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life … gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue." –John von Neumann
very important, and very difficult to explain. But they can be shown, with graphs … and those graphs speak loud and clear.
West graphs some biological factors that show how we, as animals, and as human beings, are "sustainable" i.e. we grow as individuals and develope as a species and all the other good things. And other animals likewise. And plants too, for that matter. And then he graphs some socio-economic factors that show a different component … a beta … that shows … well … that our cities and our economies and our societies are headed for a crash landing.
#Buddhist #economics anyone? Maximizing for benefit = #sustainability. Maximizing for profit = "time singularity" i.e. our economy and our society crashes. see > http://bit.ly/vWqwU2 < (YouTube, cured up.)
Politico has a lovely Flash thingie on this page … as good as any I've seen, and far better than most. [Foolish that there's no image available for the site ... shows how ragged the web is, still, today.]
But it seems that folk are becoming conditioned to just grazing from whatever they find in front of them. Selecting from the thingies' menu system doesn't actually bring a user closer to a desired item but, rather, merely presents a different set of selections from the catalog.