Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:09:25 -0800

From:	Eric Armstrong
	eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com Reply-To: unrev-II@egroups.com

To:	unrev-II@egroups.com

Subject:

OHS Overview

[Responding to Froge Hegland's letter today transmitting an OHS Overview prepared by Doug Engelbart and edited by Froge...]

I hate to express the negative reaction I am experiencing. It is clear that the document is accurate, and a lot of thought went into it. So what I am about to say is bound to be demotivating. For that, I apologize in advance.

But my personal reaction to the picture presented here is that it is about as compelling as a wet blanket.

It has the same difficulty as the colloquium, in my view -- it covers way too much ground to be a practical recommendation for anything.

When it begins talking about the "human system", in particular, it reflects the colloquium. Like, the colloquium, the specific impact on the "human system" is never adduced. Three possibilites spring to mind:

• Will the human system go on as before unchanged? If so, it scarcely needs mentioning.

• Will the human system evolve naturally in the new environment? If so, the evolution that will take place is worth mentioning in a companion piece, but it is not an integral part of the system that is being proposed. The only significant relationship to the human system (as far as it leads to acceptance) is what *benefit* will the system have on the human system.

• Is the proposal seriously attempting to change human systems simultaneously with a change in technology? If so, what is going to be different, and why is there any reason to believe that the effort will be successful? (I suspect that any such effort is fore-doomed. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but have yet to see a convincing argument.)

Toffler pointed out that new technologies first replace the preexisting models. Only later are they expanded into new territories. It seems clear to me that a system which provides immediate benefits comes into use. The co-evolution that occurs in system functionality and human use then produces even greater benefits.

But to speak of the "human system" as anything other than a naturally evolving system is to defeat the project before it gets started.

If the evolutionary hypothesis is accepted, then the only significant aspect of the system is how it will make your life better today -- before you change anything at all about the human systems you are used to.

Again, I believe the document you've constructed accurately reflects the issues as they have been formulated to date. I just believe that the particular formulation we've all seen has always been, and will continue to be, an "impossible sell".

Believe it or don't, use it or toss it. Them's my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Eric Armstrong
eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com