Subscribe on LinkedIn
Performative reasoning
David Knott David Knott

Performative reasoning

How many of your reasons are comforting illusions? How many of the decisions which your organisation makes are based on well-ordered reasoning, and how many are simply surrounded with the trappings of reasoning in order to make you feel better?

Organisations make a lot of decisions. What products to buy, what products to launch, who to hire, where to invest, which projects to support and which initiatives to cancel. These decisions are particularly apparent in the field of enterprise technology, where we make choices about how to design, build and operate systems, how to organise resources and how to adopt and integrate new capabilities. The need to tell machines precisely what to do seems to require precision in our own thinking.

Because these decisions seem important, we feel that we should take them seriously, and be seen to take them seriously. When we are making purchasing decisions, we construct elaborate scoring criteria, invite bids and conduct extensive evaluations. When we are planning investments, we build detailed business cases, evaluate ROI and risk factors, and construct portfolios of change. When we are running delivery programmes, we create dashboards, produce reports and run steering meetings, so that we can respond to circumstances and keep everything on track.

Read More
Keep thinking; it’s worth the trouble
David Knott David Knott

Keep thinking; it’s worth the trouble

The term ‘cognitive offloading’ precedes the current generation of AI products. It was coined in a paper written in 2016 by Evan Risko and Sam Gilbert. In that paper, the term referred to the externalisation of reasoning and memory, including practices as advanced as using Internet search engines to find answers to questions, or as basic as tying knots in handkerchiefs to remind yourself that you have something to remember. It suggested that, although the practice has been around as long as humans have been able to manipulate their environment, offloading cognition could impair the ability to reason and remember, or be responsible for more subtle effects, such as undermining people’s confidence in their own thought and memory. The paper concluded that more research was required, particularly into metacognition: the practice of thinking about thinking.

Ten years later, the need for that research seems even more pressing. We have more tools on which to offload our cognition, and more people who are using them to do just that. Sometimes this offloading is explicit and deliberate, such as when somebody asks an LLM-based product to produce a business strategy or write an essay. But sometimes it is implicit and incidental, such as when somebody asks such a product to draft an email or summarise a document for them. They might think that they are merely offloading the work of typing or scanning mundane verbiage, but their choice means that there are thoughts that they will not think.

Read More
<x> is too important to delegate to your Chief <x> Officer
David Knott David Knott

<x> is too important to delegate to your Chief <x> Officer

I started my career in the late 1980s, when the term ‘Chief Technology Officer’ was just starting to be used in companies. (It wasn’t used in the government department where I was working: that still referred to IT as ‘Automated Data Processing’. This was a place where we still had to write out our documentation by hand and send it to the typing pool to be processed,)

Since that time, I have seen the creation of many Chief <x> Officer job titles in the field of enterprise computing: alongside the Chief Information Officer and Chief Technology Officer, we have had the Chief Digital Officer, the Chief Information Security Officer, the Chief Architect and the Chief Data Officer. The latter has undergone mutation in recent years, showing up as the Chief Data and Analytics Officer (CDAO) or, now, the Chief Data and Artificial Intelligence Officer (CDAIO - a title which I can’t help singing to the tune of Old MacDonald Had a Farm - C-D-A-I-O).

Read More
The hand shapes the tool; the tool shapes the hand
David Knott David Knott

The hand shapes the tool; the tool shapes the hand

Humans make tools: it is one of our defining characteristics. But our tools shape us, just as we shape our tools. If, like me, you don’t usually do a physically demanding job, try using a hammer for a few hours, and experience the blisters that it raises. Try using it for a few more days, and feel your calluses and other changes in your body.

Researchers now believe that our hands have been shaped by our history of tool use. Early human species (always remember that Homo sapiens is not the only, or the first, species of human) had weak wrists and clumsy digits compared to modern humans. The development of stone tools, and their impact on prospects of survival, meant that, from approximately 1.7 million years ago, the structure and strength of our hands evolved to get better at using tools. Our tools wrote themselves back into our DNA.

Read More
Look on the bright side: the power of applied optimism
David Knott David Knott

Look on the bright side: the power of applied optimism

Somewhere in the 20th century, at the beginning of my career, I worked with a project manager on several projects. After a while, they told me why they liked to have me on their team.

I waited for them to tell me that it was due to my technical brilliance, my architectural insight, or my all-round charm and charisma. Instead, they told me that it was because I was an optimist, and that I was quite vocal about my optimism.

That gave me an immediate lesson in self-awareness: that the attributes that people value you for are not always those that you value in yourself. I would much rather have been known as the technical wizard than as the person who says, ‘Don’t worry, everything will probably be alright’. Especially as, on most IT projects, such optimism is often seen as a sign of naivety and inexperience.

Read More
Reasoning and reflex
David Knott David Knott

Reasoning and reflex

I didn’t learn to drive a car until I was in my mid-twenties, and I found it difficult. It took me three attempts to pass my test, and a lot longer before I was a confident driver. But, as well as teaching me how to drive, the experience taught me the difference between reasoning and reflex: the difference between knowing what you should do, and doing it automatically due to muscle memory.

Later, I learnt the management lesson that, when we acquire new skills, especially those with a physical component, we pass through phases of unconscious incompetence (we don’t know what to do), conscious incompetence (we know what to do but we can’t do it), conscious competence (we know what to do, and we can do it when we think about it), and unconscious competence (we know what to do, and we do it automatically).

Read More
It’s okay to be overwhelmed by new technology (especially if you’re a technologist)
David Knott David Knott

It’s okay to be overwhelmed by new technology (especially if you’re a technologist)

I’ve been overwhelmed by new technology many times in my life.

When I got my first microcomputer as a teenager, there was very little to help me make sense of it, other than the manual that it came with, some computer magazines, and the efforts of my friends, who were trying to understand their own computers. This new language seemed like a wall of gibberish, with no way to gain purchase.

When I first moved from a corporate environment to a startup environment in the dot com era, I realised that there was a whole new web based technology stack that had sprung up while I wasn’t paying attention, and that I needed to learn in order to lead my team effectively. The skills I had learnt over years of professional work suddenly felt obsolete.

Read More
We still don't understand one another
David Knott David Knott

We still don't understand one another

In 1864, Charles Babbage wrote, ‘On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" . . . I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.’

It is worth looking at that quotation twice. The first time we see the stupidity of people asking a blatantly ludicrous question. How could anyone imagine that the machine knows what the right numbers are supposed to be? The second time we see the complacency of the technical expert assuming an unrealistic level of understanding in his audience. How could anyone imagine that the audience knows what a brand new machine is capable of?

Read More
Sometimes I just want a blank sheet of paper (and sometimes I don't)
David Knott David Knott

Sometimes I just want a blank sheet of paper (and sometimes I don't)

I call it the pushback moment.

It’s that moment when I am writing something - it might be a work document, or a presentation, or one of these articles - when it’s just not working. The sentences are tangled, the meaning is muddy, and I am not getting my point across.

That’s when I push back all of the papers and references and notebooks from my desk and reach for a fresh, blank sheet of paper (or, digitally, open another browser tab and create an empty document). And I ask myself a question: ‘What am I trying to say?’

Read More
Adventures in ignorance
David Knott David Knott

Adventures in ignorance

Nobody knows anything.

That’s the number one rule in Adventures in the Screen Trade, the book by the late screenwriter and author William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Marathon Man, All the President’s Men and The Princess Bride, amongst many others). Goldman’s insight was that, even though the film industry was getting on for a century old when he was writing in 1996, no-one had been able to figure out what would be a hit and what would be a flop. Nearly thirty years later, it appears that it’s still true that nobody knows anything: despite algorithmic targeting, despite new ways of reaching audiences and measuring their reactions, it is still possible for juggernaut franchises to stutter and stumble, while unknown newcomers charm and delight.

Read More
There's always a bigger goat: don't let big problems stop you solving smaller problems
David Knott David Knott

There's always a bigger goat: don't let big problems stop you solving smaller problems

In the story of the three billy goats gruff, the goats want to cross a bridge guarded by a troll. They manage this by each telling the troll that there is a bigger goat just behind them until (spoiler alert!) the biggest goat comes along and butts the troll into the sky.

Sometimes, when we are trying to make the case for enterprise technology capabilities, it feels like we are the trolls, and that we are so scared of the biggest billy goat that we won’t tackle the smaller goats. When we look across our technology landscapes, we see mess, waste and mayhem, and wish that we had some of the foundational capabilities that would help clean things up. Yet we hesitate, because we know that every time we build something we will uncover another problem, and another problem, and another problem, until we get to problems that are so big that we cannot imagine how to solve them.

Read More
Which are more dangerous: slides, or sticky notes?
David Knott David Knott

Which are more dangerous: slides, or sticky notes?

In the story of the three billy goats gruff, the goats want to cross a bridge guarded by a troll. They manage this by each telling the troll that there is a bigger goat just behind them until (spoiler alert!) the biggest goat comes along and butts the troll into the sky.

Sometimes, when we are trying to make the case for enterprise technology capabilities, it feels like we are the trolls, and that we are so scared of the biggest billy goat that we won’t tackle the smaller goats. When we look across our technology landscapes, we see mess, waste and mayhem, and wish that we had some of the foundational capabilities that would help clean things up. Yet we hesitate, because we know that every time we build something we will uncover another problem, and another problem, and another problem, until we get to problems that are so big that we cannot imagine how to solve them.

Read More