Douglas C. Engelbart. Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. Summary Report AFOSR-3223 under Contract AF 49(638)-1024, SRI Project 3578 for Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Ca., October 1962.
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 techniques 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.
..
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 environment 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.
..
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 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.
..
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. "Augmentation means"
will be used to name the tools being developed by the augmentation research.
"Subject lnformation" will be used to refer to description and reasoning
concerned with the subject of these tools (as opposed to the method of
research), and "subject matter" will refer to both subject information and
physical devices being incorporated as artifacts in the augmentation means
being developed. "Tools and techniques" 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.
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 research subjects trained and tested in
the use of experimental new augmentation 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,
"the 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.
..
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.
..
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.
