The one thing that does occur to me in the them/me/us you propose, is to wonder whether collaborative systems still really do need to be designed with the individual in mind, rather than the group. I think that Dr Engelbart’s approach — which appeals the most to me — does seem individual-focused. NLS did not so much attempt to solve the question “How can we all share information effectively?” but rather “How can I find the information I need quickly and effectively, in an understandable context?”. It is my current thought and feeling that Dr Engelbart has envisaged that by equipping the individual with great tools (Augmentation) collaboration will naturally occur as a consequence of problem solving.

What remains most striking to me as a software developer is that we still do not have some very, very basic tools we need for information and knowledge management. There is just so much fundamental work to be done.

Thanks for the post!

Here’s Peter Drucker’s take on things at the height of the options-fueled dot-com boom, from his article “Beyond The Information Revolution”:

Bribing the Knowledge Worker

WHAT might be needed to prevent the United States from becoming the England of the twenty-first century? I am convinced that a drastic change in the social mind-set is required — just as leadership in the industrial economy after the railroad required the drastic change from “tradesman” to “technologist” or “engineer.”

What we call the Information Revolution is actually a Knowledge Revolution. What has made it possible to routinize processes is not machinery; the computer is only the trigger. Software is the reorganization of traditional work, based on centuries of experience, through the application of knowledge and especially of systematic, logical analysis. The key is not electronics; it is cognitive science. This means that the key to maintaining leadership in the economy and the technology that are about to emerge is likely to be the social position of knowledge professionals and social acceptance of their values. For them to remain traditional “employees” and be treated as such would be tantamount to England’s treating its technologists as tradesmen — and likely to have similar consequences.

Today, however, we are trying to straddle the fence — to maintain the traditional mind-set, in which capital is the key resource and the financier is the boss, while bribing knowledge workers to be content to remain employees by giving them bonuses and stock options. But this, if it can work at all, can work only as long as the emerging industries enjoy a stock-market boom, as the Internet companies have been doing. The next major industries are likely to behave far more like traditional industries — that is, to grow slowly, painfully, laboriously.

The early industries of the Industrial Revolution — cotton textiles, iron, the railroads — were boom industries that created millionaires overnight, like Balzac’s venture bankers and like Dickens’s ironmaster, who in a few years grew from a lowly domestic servant into a “captain of industry.” The industries that emerged after 1830 also created millionaires. But they took twenty years to do so, and it was twenty years of hard work, of struggle, of disappointments and failures, of thrift. This is likely to be true of the industries that will emerge from now on. It is already true of biotechnology.

Bribing the knowledge workers on whom these industries depend will therefore simply not work. The key knowledge workers in these businesses will surely continue to expect to share financially in the fruits of their labor. But the financial fruits are likely to take much longer to ripen, if they ripen at all. And then, probably within ten years or so, running a business with (short-term) “shareholder value” as its first — if not its only — goal and justification will have become counterproductive.

Increasingly, performance in these new knowledge-based industries will come to depend on running the institution so as to attract, hold, and motivate knowledge workers. When this can no longer be done by satisfying knowledge workers’ greed, as we are now trying to do, it will have to be done by satisfying their values, and by giving them social recognition and social power.

It will have to be done by turning them from subordinates into fellow executives, and from employees, however well paid, into partners.