|
IV RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS
A. 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.
B. BASIC RESEARCH CONDITIONS
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.
C. 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.
- Typical 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 programmerÕs 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.
D 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.
E. 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
F. 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.
G. 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 ãcog-oneÒ).

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.
|