In order to apply a computer to automate real world functions, it has been traditional and necessary to first develop a computer system. In the words of Dr. Frederick Brooks, author of The Mythical Man Month, it is necessary to first create a "complex conceptual structure", which structure later becomes encoded in computer language.

But this new automation approach, in Brooks' own terminology, "directly attacks the difficulties of fashioning the complex conceptual structure". It avoids the need for systemization. Instead, an unusual kernel provides an environment where each program exactly corresponds to the real world function it automates. To perform a given function the program follows the same script of instructions that a subordinate would follow. Real world functions are automated "in their proper communal place" without developing technical systems or introducing the complications that arise from systems and systems development.

This means any responsible user, an executive, a manager or a supervisor, may automate his real world functions, directly, by instructing the machine just as he would instruct a subordinate in the performance of those same functions. A responsible person usually knows how his functions could be/should be performed. He simply indicates, via directions or short instructional scripts, the actions to be taken for each specific circumstance or situation. Doing this for several such situations effectively defines a subordinate's responsibility. No "systems design" is needed.

There are two minor points concerning machines:

1. A machine is not intuitive. Your instructions must be detailed. Your human subordinate likely knows what you intend when you say, "notify customer of the shipping date", but you will have to detail precisely what "date" means to your machine subordinate, (i.e., xx/xx/xx).

2. A machine is more like a foreign-speaking subordinate. You may specify exactly how a foreign speaking human is to perform your function, but someone must translate your instructions into that foreign language. Likewise, you may specify exactly how the machine subordinate is to perform your function, but [early on and in unusual circumstances] an encoder may need to translate your instructions into computer understandable language. Translation only changes the language used, not your instructions themselves.

In any case, the new machine works from the same script of instructions that a subordinate would follow, and excepting the minor points above, works exactly as a human subordinate works.

So a responsible user is able to layout directions, an instructional script, knowing precisely what the machine is doing and how it is doing it. Because he knows its current instructions, changing its instructions is straightforward just as it would be for a human subordinate. No need to revisit systems specialists or complex, expensive systems development processes. This non-systems approach is simple; it greatly empowers managers and responsible persons.

Contact us to discuss details of this foundational opportunity.

 

[NOTE: Due to the subtlety of both problem and solution, there is a long history. Following initial clarification of the idea, a precursor machine and then a prototype were constructed in the 1980's. Since then, trademarks, copyrighted explanations, detailed design logic have been produced. Ample material exits to explain the why and how of the solution and to illustrate its profound advantage.]