This presentation discusses human interoperability and how it differs qualitatively from technical interoperability. At the technical level, a stimulus produces a predetermined response, while at the human level a stimulus is interpreted as a sign leading to motivated and situational behavior. Unfortunately, this difference is widely unknown, resulting in machines that are not well-equipped to support human interoperability. The presentation proposes organizing information in a way that can bridge the human and technical worlds by providing both explicit meaning and full context about the situation.

1. A fresh, enriching and revolutionary perspective on interoperability
Human Interoperability
This presentation is all about …
©Emovere.nl

2. Human Interoperability
Some Further Explanation:
This presentation is all about humans that want to really
understand each other. Quickly, smoothly, right the first
time and also just in time.
Anywho. Anywhere. Anytime. Anywhy. Anything.
Why? Humans, want to tune, to gear their mutual
behaviours effectively to create Progress and Success.
To accomplish that goal, interoperability is pointedly
required at the human level.
This undoubtedly requires interoperability at the
technical level too, but that alone is no longer adequate!
©Emovere.nl
This presentation is all about …

3. Technical and Human
Technical interoperability
Technical interoperability is – no doubt – a necessary condition
for human interoperability…
Machines need to inter-operate at their own level too!
interoperability
©Emovere.nl

4. Technical and Human
But… Human interoperability is where it is all about!
Since it are humans that want to tune, to gear their mutual
behaviours effectively in order to create Progress and Success!
Important truth is that technical and human interoperability…
differ. Yes, even Differ Qualitatively.
Human interoperability
Regardless of the
amount of technology
involved!
Unfortunately…
this truth still is
widely unknown…
interoperability
©Emovere.nl

5. Three interoperability levels
physics
cybernetics
significs/
semiotics
physical
impulse
motive
cause discipline
force
stimulus
sign
motivation
energy
immediate
mass
semantics
pragmatics
relation
maintained by
working example
F  F
f
F
Eresponse
1
2
3
interpretation
behaviour
behaviour
Technical
Human
Qualitatively differing
©Emovere.nl
From way back we know of…

6. Three interoperability levels
physical
impulse
motive
force
stimulus
sign
motivation
energy
immediate
mass
semantics
pragmatics
response
1
2
3
interpretation
behaviour
behaviour
Technical
Qualitatively differing
At the technical level
a force can be taken
as a stimulus to
produce a
predetermined and
fixed, static response.
Key:
Predictable behaviour.
©Emovere.nl
Source: (e.g.) http://primavera.fee.uva.nl/PDFdocs/2002-06.pdf
From way back we know of…
The key value of our machines!

7. Three interoperability levels
physical
impulse
motive
force
stimulus
sign
motivation
energy
immediate
mass
semantics
pragmatics
response
1
2
3
interpretation
behaviour
behaviour
Human
Qualitatively differing
At the human level a
stimulus can be taken
as a sign leading to a
motivated
interpretation that
produces situational,
dynamic human
behaviour.
The motivated
assignment of
meaning controls
human behaviour.
Key:
Motivated behaviour.
FromSocialPsychology
©Emovere.nl
Source: (e.g.) http://primavera.fee.uva.nl/PDFdocs/2002-06.pdf
From way back we know of…

8. Widely Unknown
Unfortunately, this qualitative difference is widely unknown…
As a consequence…
our machines are
hardly, if at all, equiped
to support interoperability
at the human level… And… as a consequence of that consequence…
we, human beings (yes, that’s us),
are deprived of
adequate support
of our machines. Machines that can do a lot better!
Even the designers of
our machines are
largely unaware of it…
Right now we find ourselves
increasingly trapped at the tech-
nical – stimulus-response – level
hell of a
©Emovere.nl

9. Therefore… Let us focus on
Human interoperability
What is so special about human interoperability?
Motives
Meanings
Interpretations
Signs
Situations
Behaviours
Senses
Dynamics
Various
Varying
Stimulus
©Emovere.nl

10. Human Interoperability @ work
Creation
Of Intention
(= Intended
Meaning)
Production
Of Intended
Behaviour
Production
Of Relevant
Signs
Observation,
Interpretation
Of Signs…
Construction
Of Intended
Meaning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In a nutshell …
Sender Receiver
semanticspragmatics
The Sender, a motivated human
being, creates a certain
intention, a meaning… wants
some particular behaviour [6.] to
be performed by the Receiver.
©Emovere.nl
Transfer
of all
Relevant
Signs
by means of
(a variety of)
Technology
cybernetics,physics

11. Human Interoperability @ work
Creation
Of Intention
(= Intended
Meaning)
Production
Of Intended
Behaviour
Production
Of Relevant
Signs
Observation,
Interpretation
Of Signs…
Construction
Of Intended
Meaning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In a nutshell …
Sender Receiver
semanticspragmatics
The Sender creates all the
relevant signs in order to be able
to communicate his intention
(meaning).
©Emovere.nl
Transfer
of all
Relevant
Signs
by means of
(a variety of)
Technology
cybernetics,physics

12. Human Interoperability @ work
Creation
Of Intention
(= Intended
Meaning)
Transfer
of all
Relevant
Signs
by means of
(a variety of)
Technology
Production
Of Intended
Behaviour
Production
Of Relevant
Signs
Observation,
Interpretation
Of Signs…
Construction
Of Intended
Meaning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In a nutshell …
Sender Receiver
semanticspragmatics
Machines transfer the produced
signs to the destination.
Together carrying the
intended meaning
©Emovere.nl
At the stimulus –
response level
cybernetics,physics

13. Human Interoperability @ work
Creation
Of Intention
(= Intended
Meaning)
Production
Of Intended
Behaviour
Production
Of Relevant
Signs
Observation,
Interpretation
Of Signs…
Construction
Of Intended
Meaning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In a nutshell …
Sender Receiver
semanticspragmatics
The Receiver, a motivated
human being, observes,
interprets the received signs…
constructs his meaning – ideally
the intended meaning [1.]
©Emovere.nl
Transfer
of all
Relevant
Signs
by means of
(a variety of)
Technology
cybernetics,physics

14. Human Interoperability @ work
Creation
Of Intention
(= Intended
Meaning)
Production
Of Intended
Behaviour
Production
Of Relevant
Signs
Observation,
Interpretation
Of Signs…
Construction
Of Intended
Meaning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In a nutshell …
Sender Receiver
semanticspragmatics
The Receiver performs his
behaviour – ideally the intended
behaviour that meets the
Sender’s intention [1.]
©Emovere.nl
Transfer
of all
Relevant
Signs
by means of
(a variety of)
Technology
cybernetics,physics

15. So… what is so special
about human interoperability?
The receiving side is
able to perform the
intended behaviour if…
In order to be able to construct the intended meaning
the receiving side needs to be able to access all the
relevant signs that make up the whole situation in
which the sending side created its intention.
the receiving side is
able to construct the
intended meaning.
InthescienceofSocialPsychologythis‘secret’isknownfordecades
situation
meaning
behaviour
©Emovere.nl
Information

16. Human behaviour
Depends on …
… assigned meaning depends on …
Needed to effectively
create Progress and
Success…
… the assigned meaning …
… the specific situation at hand
Another situation  another meaning  other behaviour
This… indeed…
means:
©Emovere.nl

17. Two ‘worlds’ of interoperability
Predictable …Motivated …
How can we bridge these two ‘worlds’?
How can we facilitate human interoperability using machines that
according to their very nature operate at a lower interoperability level?
A technical world in which meaning
annex behaviour needs to be fixed…
A human world in which meaning
annex behaviour is situational
So… whether we like it or not… we have to deal with…
In order to effectively
create Progress and
Success…
©Emovere.nl
Throughout
Qualitatively differing

18. Intermezzo: Soap
Soap molecules have two sides…
The one side (tail) is the water-liking side.
The other side (head) is the dirt-liking side.
When we wash ourselves or our
clothes, the soap molecules ‘stick’
their heads into the dirt (fat).
And the result – it looks very
much like the picture shown –
dissolves in water easily.
So… what lesson can we learn from the soap molecule?
The atoms comprising each soap molecule are organised in such a way that the
molecule as a whole is able to bridge the differences between the two worlds.
©Emovere.nl

19. Organisation of information…
Just like soap?
Are we able to come up with an
organisation of information
that succesfully
bridges
the human world and the technical world?
©Emovere.nl
Can we organise information-elements in such a way that information as a whole
is able to bridge the differences between the two worlds?
Fixed, predefined
meaning
Situationally
defined meaning

20. Yes!
Let’s communicate the whole picture! Explicitly.
But…
We now know that:
This is only a part of the whole picture.
The meaning of information is situational and therefore
enough information about the situation at hand
needs to be provided as well
to complete the picture.
The whole coherent picture is necessary
to optimally enable the receiver to
assign the intended meaning…
to perform the intended behaviour.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Indeed, the information
about the situation at
hand needs to be made
explicit too!
Until now… we provided our machines with all the information that we thought
was necessary for meaningful communication.
©Emovere.nl
(1)

21. Yes!
Let’s organise information-elements in a way that is…
invariant to any situation at hand.
But…
We now know that:
Such an organisation only fits that very specific situation.
Situations become more and more are volatile nowadays.
Such an organisation is, in fact, far too rigid.
We need a fine grained organisation – invariant to the situation at
hand – that enables us to precisely compose any situational whole…
yielding meaning that exactly fits any situation.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Until now… we organised our information-elements tailor-made to fit
a specific problem-situation.
©Emovere.nl
(2)

22. And now… we know
… now we understand this qualitative difference between technical and
human interoperability. And now we know how to bridge it.
As a consequence…
we are now able to equip
our machines to support
interoperability at
the human level… And… as a consequence of that consequence…
we get increasingly
provided with
truly supportive
machines: creating Progress and Success!
And we find ourselves
released from the natural
limits of the technical level
©Emovere.nl

23. We finally reach(ed)
interoperability at the level!
Thank you for your kind interest in this presentation on
Human Interoperability
A fresh, enriching and revolutionary perspective…
©Emovere.nl
Needed to effectively
create Progress and
Success…