Introduction Quietly, one after another, today's hi-tech systems have encircled the globe -- thrust upon a busy world -- getting an extremely mixed reception. Everywhere people turn, hi- tech systems confront and confound them. In the living rooms of America, where once a wind-up phonograph held sway, there are radios, TV's, tape recorders, VCR's, stereo systems, and computer games galore. Of course, there are people who love hi-tech and who say the world tomorrow will be controlled by numbers and systems. But, not everyone agrees. Those familiar with the problems that existing systems for people have sometimes created surely know that electronic brains will never replace the judgment and emotions of educated people. Experienced "tecknows" (not techies) are aware that computers can only produce decisions which the computers have been painstakingly instructed to sort, find, select or compute. Computers can only store, compare, manipulate or reorganize data or information. Computers can't think! Don't feed a computer a few spicy generalities, because it gets embarrassed and overloads. In order to hide its shame, it hangs up. Computers must be taught by a thinking person called a programmer. Computers can not do any creative thinking that has not already been done for them. Micro chips have no magic power built into them. Chips just hold thousands of sub-miniature electrical circuits with myriads of discrete on and off switches. Switches that can be programmed to fulfill precise combinations of instructions. Chips don't understand ordinary words like stop or go unless these words have been translated into the incomprehensible number gibberish of machine language like 1010101100101101. Computers can never "take over" and, except in limited applications, computers can't communicate easily with people. Many micro computers get tongue tied and stutter when talking with other computers. Lest the reader quietly walk away thinking that this book is just another pile of fluff written about computers, the author must quickly set the matter straight. This is not a book about computers. Repeat, in fact, this is not a computer book. "BUT," the red-faced used car saleman paused to clear his throat, "Computers demonstrate some of the finest examples of the successful marriage of systems-for- things with systems-for-people." From time to time the author will use computers to demonstrate complex thing systems, and also to discuss the problems in teach-yourself books. Still, dear reader, you are safe. The author will not teach you how to run a computer or teach you anything else already beaten into a plowshare by the word-weary troops. Books on computers have become a commodity, and what is needed is not another book about computers -- per se. Stay with us and see if you don't agree -- PeopleSystems is a book needed for a long time. In the author's study of systems for things (generally called technology) as compared with systems for people (sometimes called government or more colorful expletives) the author has searched many years looking for an existing word that properly describes the total continuum of systems for people. Why isn't there a general term that describes the group of systems or patterns that are used daily in people activities? Although hundreds of seldom used words have been created by word-people for many specific purposes, the study of systems, is in its infancy. Remember words such as synecdote, litote and hyperbole, were coined by sophist grammarians to describe figures of speech. Still there is no single word that describes the entire group of systems for people. The word humanities was considered, but its application has been too specific and too limited. The humanities have been decimated into umpteen specific divisions of study, but there is not one that crosses these lines and compares the family of systems for all people activities. To the writer's knowledge there has not been one attempt that has been sustained for studying the systems for people in comparison to systems for things. Why Not? There is a need for a new general purpose word to be used as a name for the concept of systems for people. Yes, yes, the concept of systems, as such, is recent and it may need some digesting at first. The careful study of specific system details has been used in technology for many years, and has helped made great advances in the last few decades. With many facets, there have been specific systems for people that have been studied to death by those who never recognized the overall systemic relationships between the group of systems for people and the group of systems for things. If she were still around Gertrude Stein might have said: A system is a system is a system. This important examination of the entire group of systems for people warrants a distinctive title -- one that will cause people to stop and take notice. The author has coined the name -- PeopleSystems -- either singular or plural. In this book both people and systems are equally important, but the emphasis is on people rather than systems. For without people who need systems there would be no systems. Systems cannot develop in a non-thinking vacuum. To clearly indicate its special usage, PeopleSystems should be capitalized as shown, and spelled without a space. Unique and new, the title PeopleSystems is both a proper name and a trademark, although its use by the public in proper context is not restricted. The author would hate to see a posture chair called a PeopleSystem chair. But imitation may be the sincerest form of copycatting. Sometimes the capital letters PS will be substituted for PeopleSystems in this book. Please, Dear Reader, the author hopes you will enjoy the benefits of PeopleSystems in good health. PeopleSystems, like other people-connected efforts, begin in the education systems at home, at school and on the street. Educators are sincerely trying to cope but today's problems pop up faster than they can be solved. Teachers have found that some of the most effective teaching is done at an early age when a child's natural curiousity -- a love for learning should be nurtured. The large number of school drop-outs and functional illiterates today destroys any illusion of super progress in the art of teaching. Some of the difficulties of modern education can be examined by comparing technology's methods. Although educators have long been aware of the math/science gap in grammar school curricula, nevertheless still another federal survey was required to point out how this creates serious problems for future educational goals. Previously denied some important parts of a well balanced education, some people are showing up today as illiterate. No -- not illiterate in the normal sense -- their problem is not reading or writing. Instead, theirs is a new illiteracy -- one which may handicap many otherwise well- educated people. Call it "thing-illiteracy" -- a lack of feeling for and a void in a general understanding about the complex things and systems all around in homes, jobs and lives. In fact, "thing-illiteracy" can become a frightful hang up for some who are intimidated by technology, numbers, systems - and other seemingly complex matters. The 1985 federal study of future education needs, which will be discussed in more detail, found that a lack of early age instruction in science and mathamatics fuels an imbalance in U.S. students not found in students from other countries. Of course, the intellect of superior students is superior anywhere in the world. But average students in the U. S. A. are not average when it comes to science and math, when compared with foreign graduates. In the U. S. the upper ten percent student is well educated and competant in many areas, but the next 90 percent of the students are severely lacking in their ability to understand mathematics and science when compared to students from West Germany, Japan, or the U.S.S.R. Large numbers of teachers are quitting their jobs in big cities these days. It is interesting to note the strange restriction that was placed on fill-in teacher selection. It was recommended by the teachers union in N.Y.C.: To temporarily fill the gap in the supply of teachers, the teachers union recommended that even if they hold no valid teaching credentials, temporary teachers should be chosen ONLY from graduates of liberal arts curricula. Why? A serious deficiency already exists in the teaching of math and science. Why not consider graduates from any four year accredited college in the U. S.? And besides, with the low salaries offered and the growing discipline problems, good substitute teachers of any genre are not easy to find. Later we will explore the basic differences between students from Japan, West Germany and the Soviet where science and math are taught to every student -- every day. Think about this fact: science teaching in the U. S. is almost non-existant in grammar school. In high school, math and science are options that many students avoid like the plague. Such an imbalance in thing-education will seriously impede U.S. progress while foreigners rapidly gain in technological development. At the present time, the Far East supplies most of the solid state electronics for television, video cassette recorders, production robots and computers. Our children should get the best of both worlds, educated in one cooperative world of things and people working together. At one time the U. S. had a monopoly on technically educated people. There were never enough to supply the demand, but very few foreign graduates were imported. Today, many foreigners try to fill the openings for thing-people. The Labor Department reports a shortage of experienced thing- people who have a well balanced education. At the same time, many thing-people cover up their own word-illiteracy. There is no contest when someone insists that computers have changed the way corporations do business. Public schools have tried using computers to make learning more interesting. Yet, we do not know what these black boxes have done to our personal lives? Are they a blessing or a bane? What surprises does the future hold? What changes must society make to take full advantage of technology in the future? The reader may ask why the author, a trained systems person, experienced in the technology of things should be interested in studying and writing about improvements for PeopleSystems. It became quite apparent to the author in 1972 that as our systems for people grew larger and more complex many people were unable to cope with the fumbling and the stagnation of antiquated systems for people. Systems that often worked against themselves -- a welfare system that told people to find work -- and then took a dollar away for every dollar earned. During the 60's many common institutions of the white collar establishment were being challenged. No one was sure of who or what to trust. Church attendence fell markedly. Credibility hit a new low -- who or what could the people believe in? The author investigated why systems for people were not as successful as systems for things. Other thing researchers like Lord C. P. Snow, the British author and philosopher had touched on the subject, but no one looked at the entire continuum of systems for both things and people. No one provided a method to analyze them by comparing them -- in toto. Thing systems versus PeopleSystems. What are PeopleSystems and why are they important? Why do they need definition? We see schools struggling with severe discipline and drop-out problems. The federal budget is crippled by record debts and growing foreign trade imbalances. PeopleSystems stumble while technical systems for things are blossoming. No wonder some people are intimidated by a word like systems? Too often the PeopleSystems that affect people the most are ineffective and confusing. The ideas and concepts may seem progressive, but the implimentation proved defective. If it was made out of anything but steel, a wrench wouldn't last very long tightening steel bolts. How much does Washington spend on PeopleSystems? It's easy to add up over $400 billion of the taxpayer's money. We will learn how and why major PeopleSystems are controlled by federal, state, and local laws or regulations. Education, welfare, social security, unemployment, taxes -- the list goes on and on. Name any powerful PeopleSystem -- the government controls it, one way or another. Unfortunately, many politicos are not equipped to do a good job, the first time around, in designing complicated PeopleSystems. Most politicians have little training for, little interest in, or just don't understand systems -- about which there is still much to learn. The general subject of systems should be examined and taught at all levels of education. Whether designed for things or for people, or for both, good, effective systems are the basis for organized human progress. Freedom of Speech is a PeopleSystem -- so is Freedom of the Press. At one time The Ford Foundation was a strong advocate for generous welfare-state give-away programs. If the program was liberal or new, Ford often would fund the research. Now Ford is taking another look. They have recently announced a program to study the rapid growth in social spending over the past two decades -- from 12 to 20 percent of the gross national product from 1965 to 1980. Over half of the national expenditures in fiscal 1983 went for aid programs that we call PeopleSystems -- programs that have created a people-dependency on government largess for many recipients. Systems to help people can easily turn into systems that destroy the individual's self-confidence and independence. Add these federal expenditures up yourself, they can be found in any almanac -- or see the list in the next chapter. There is little wonder that governmental PeopleSystems warrant serious study and improvement. Less expensive PeopleSystems like personal habits and social customs, over which politics has little control, can also affect our lives. Each of us controls our own habits, unless these habits become repugnant to others -- like smoking in a closed room. Then, if enough of our peers object, what was once a personal habit -- smoking -- now has become an unacceptable custom. Smoking is disappearing except in private spaces or outdoors. Society has recently decided for itself that smoking is not acceptable as a PeopleSystem (Habits-Level III). And with the help of the media, anti-smokers are making it stick. The use of the word "systems" may have a discomforting effect on some readers. But, there is no rational basis for some people to be intimidated by a PeopleSystem -- or for that matter -- any kind of system. No matter how complex it may appear, a system is just a set of events which have a purpose. Obviously the events must be related and timely. The set of events is the action and the purpose is the rationale for the action. There can also be non-action systems. For example: ignoring a child's impulsive questions may help the child think before asking questions. Remember, too, some systems work, but some don't. Good systems don't just happen overnight. There are often improvements and refinements to be made. Even the best of systems may need modernizing to catch up with the needs and desires of society. Most everyone understands that thing-systems are the technology behind the benefits that society has enjoyed over the past 100 years or more. There have been many advances in electronics, chemistry, construction, transportation, space travel, medical-surgical, etc. There are many dependable thing systems. Some aren't so perfect, nevertheless. PeopleSystems can be either simple or complex -- they can be old or new. A PeopleSystem can be as unsophisticated as brushing your teeth to avoid decay. Obviously, the set of events is the act of brushing -- the purpose is to prevent tooth decay. At the other extreme, PeopleSystems may be as complex as the arena of family love, marriage and divorce. Once again -- There are three levels of PeopleSystems -- the laws or regulations -- the customs -- and the habits which affect or control our daily lives. These are levels I, II, and III respectively. For example: the educational sequence of events -- going to grammar school, high school and then college is a PeopleSystem (Customs-Level II or Laws- Level I.) Welfare or food stamps is another PS (Laws-Level I.) There are also two major types of talent that most people enjoy, either thing talents or people talents. Does having these abilities help select a job? Without a doubt, worker's abilities are affected by inherent talents and attitudes. Let's set up two barrels and label one -- PeopleSystems and the other -- thing systems. Now let's sort the kinds of jobs that require either PeopleSystems talents or thing systems talents into these two barrels. It's soon evident that some jobs might fit into either barrel. Let's just throw the hybrid jobs -- those that require both kinds of talent -- part thing-talents -- and part people-talents in a pile between the two barrels. On careful examination we find that in this hybrid pile both PeopleSystems or thing systems are used, but usually one or the other predominates. There are many jobs that require both kinds of talent. Thus a youngster's education needs to be well balanced in both thing and people talents. Let's look at a few examples. Generally, the art of teaching is a PeopleSystem and requires extensive people talents, yet, teaching someone how to fly an airplane is a hybrid or mixed system. It might be either a people or thing system. Which is more important -- the talent to teach, which is a PeopleSystem -- or the technical expertise required for flying -- a thing system? We soon conclude that teaching a person to fly requires more knowledge of things (airplanes in particular) than talents for people. Maintenance of the aircraft, however, is definately a pure thing system and requires extensive thing talents. An A & E -- airframe and engine mechanic doesn't need to be proficient in people handling talents. Although it might help, he doesn't have to be tactful in carrying out his duties. Thoroughly knowing the technology of what he does to repair airplanes (things) is far more important than being able to get along well with other people. The balance might shift if he becomes a supervisor and has to direct other people. Statutory laws are primarily PeopleSystems, except in special situations. A patent attorney needs more thing systems knowledge than people talents. Unless the patent attorney understands the technology of the gadget being patented, he may not be able to secure a well protected patent for his client. In a parallel manner, nursing requires people talents primarily. A nurse must be a diplomat, a mother, a confidant, a director, a salesman, an observer of conditions and a judge of health emergencies all rolled into one. Yet, measuring a patients ribcage to set the exposure timing for a chest X-ray requires knowledge of numbers and technical training. Nevertheless, there is no question that developing the X-ray plates is definately a precise thing system that requires little or no people finesse. There is a modern device that uses both kinds of systems. It utilizes the best of both worlds. It fact, it needs both thing systems and PeopleSystems working together in harmony to achieve its greatest potential. One of the latest electronic systems to invade homes across the nation - - personal computers are making some daily problems easier to handle. Quietly these machines sit, ready at any hour, day or night, to quickly carry out commands for a few pennies of electricity. Computers are busy balancing checkbooks or giving counseling, preparing tax returns or word processing avalanches of The Great American Novel. A generation or so ago, one of these electronic marvels would have cost over $1,000,000 and required a staff of experts. Today a computer can become an important tool for anyone willing to learn, at a price most anyone can afford. A degree in computer science is no longer required. Today millions of people know about computers. We have come a long way in advancing technology of thing systems. At conference in San Francisco, the late Don Estridge, former head of IBM's Entry Systems Division that created the great IBMPC, joked comparing aviation and computer progress, "What if Boeing had price and performance improvements that matched the computer industry's? You could fly around the world in 20 minutes for $1.75 in an airplane 3 inches long. In 1960, the IBM System 360 cost $238,000. It required a staff and a lot of air conditioning to keep it running. It performed 90,000 operations per second with 64 K memory. For about $2000 today, the PC with 128K runs 290,000 operations per second. No conditioned air is needed. It is a phenomenal bargain." In 1960, programming the IBM System 360 just to count the words in this chapter would have required at least a week's work by an experienced programmer. Today, a home computer hacker can knock out a few lines of BASIC code in ten minutes, compile it, and in 30 seconds have a workable program and a complete answer. The program can count the number of times a phrase or word occur, or how many 2, 3, 4, or 5 letter words were included. Almost instantly, computers can solve complex thing or number problems. They are also becoming adept at people problems via communications and counseling. At M.I.T., Dr. Weizenbaum produced a well known inter-personal computer program. Developed in 1966 as a satire on counseling, "Eliza" is popular with information processing people. One of the pioneer efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) "Eliza" now works on home computers. Special computer languages like "LISP" are used for handling non-mathematical manipulation. AI can control robots in people modeling and replace humans in chess games and bridge. The Russians are experimenting with translating English into Russian and vice versa. As the story goes, progress ceased when the computer translated the famous, "The flesh is willing, but the spirit weak." The mechanical voice boomed in a thick Moscovite accent, "The steak is tender, but the vodka's been watered-down." Voice control of computers stumbles over unnecessary complexity of the language. English is full of needless complexities. Examine homonyms -- red and read -- two, too, and to. These and many others give the computer a hard time deciphering what it hears. Which is which? The computer can only search its memory for interpretation by context. Working with a language like Spanish might be cleaner and more direct. In Spanish a question begins with an upside down question mark, as well as having the normal question mark at the end. This would make it simple for a computer to recognize that the words following the upside down mark were part of a question -- not a statement. The chapter on PeopleSystems in the Schools will discuss the jungle of systems in English where exceptions override. It is easy to see that even in computers there are two major divisions of activities -- people applications -- like word processors, counseling programs, etc. and the other segment -- thing matters -- like accounting and data-base systems for information. Many shades of grey exist between the almost precise black and white systems for things and the less definate, but very important systems for people. These same divisions of people and thing matters occur in the left and right sides of the human brain. Left-brain dominant people are more likely to perform better at math and science. While right-brain dominant people are usually more talented with words and people and less adept with science, math and thing systems. Of course, there are those with ambidextrous brains -- both sides developed -- with both people and thing talents. S O M E C O M P U T E R A C T I V I T I E S Sorted into PEOPLE systems and THING systems ------------------------------------------------ P E O P L E systems T H I N G systems 1. Applications programs 1. Technical hardware and languages 2. Word processing 2. Accounting 3. Graphics and Art 3. Spread sheets and Financial projections 4. Teaching and Testing 4. Data Base ops storage/retrieval/analysis 5. Counseling/Interviewing 5. Technical data/computations 6. Information Distribution 6. Utility programs Operating systems 7. Artificial Intelligence 7. Machine or System Control 8. Others 8. Others PeopleSystems that use computers have rapidly become more technical. Medical diagnostic data bases, for access only by doctors, expand a physician's knowledge. Soon after the patient's symptoms and clinical lab test results are typed in, the physician can read out a detailed list of possible diagnoses. No longer does a doctor have to make a series of complicated guesses or long searches in his medical library to diagnose an unusual disease or one he hasn't seen recently. The computer can narrow the diagnosis to a few possibilities for further testing and evaluation. There are many computer controlled medical tools ranging from the giant cat-scan down to blood and heart beat analyzers. Some can even test over patient's phone lines. Large data bases loaded with all kinds of facts, expand the information business. Legal research data bases simplify life for attorneys and rapid computer searches can produce written reports of existing case law. Computers replace slower hand checking of Social Security duplicates in welfare and child support cases. Missing persons and missing children are now easier to locate. In criminal matters, the chances for locking up the wrong person are reduced. Finger prints can be rapidly classified by computers ten times as fast as by hand. Some state police cars have micro computers accessing the Motor Vehicle Department's data base for stolen car info. *** This was INTRODUCTION (INA) *** *** Next read INTRODUCTION (INB) ***