Products increasingly survive or fail according to the optimization of the support services made available with them. Product survival casts a shadow or a spotlight on the companies associated with it: manufacturer, marketing firm, distribution company, customer service facility, retailer, repair organization, and, prospect and customer. Few individuals want to be associated with a company that has gained a reputation for deficient design and poor customer and technical service ... even as a prospect. One usually trusts the purchase and perseveres with poor service only if they are co-dependent on monopolistic availability. Monopoly can be indicated by geographical dominance, technical superiority, or, most often, by highly persuasive and often illegitimate marketing.

Power of capitalization size and political passivity have demonstrated for 10 years that marketing deceptions can elude the law as long as the deceiver can hire more and better lawyers than the individual or complaint group. The practices of companies like Microsoft Corporation and Enron Corporation were known for many years, and mirrored by many who wished to survive in such a do-what-it-takes market system. Competition became success according to how much profit could be made from how little expenditure. This long-term equation was augmented by marketing overstatement and crowd psychology to equal hyper-competitiveness. How can one balance the reality of product and service performance with the fantasy marketing of its capabilities?

Optimization of resources and services is key to survival in the increasing competitiveness of todays electronically connected world. The material benefits that have attended mass production, mechanization, commercialization and globalization are sought after for economic existence. Doing the job is no longer adequate as there are more people in search of jobs than there are jobs available. Quality is always in a turmoil between interpretations of permanence and convenience against low cost and mass production savings.

When the fragile tightrope of compromises frays, companies lose key personnel, customers become disenchanted, media criticism can increase, and, wavering public opinion can produce a rundown of stock prices like a tide flowing back out to sea. The sand begins to show and the water dries away. Security will only come when the rope is strengthened to be a cable and then a footpath and a protective barrier is constructed to maintain a longer-term presence of life giving water.

How has optimization been approached until now?
There are many terms for trying to ritualize intelligence: pattern recognition, data mining, brain imaging, fuzzy data analysis, multi-objective optimization, artificial life, neural modeling, soft systems, self-service software, and more. The rational expectation is that if you can determine the correct answer for a question today, that will equally be relevant tomorrow. The promise of artificial intelligence has largely been a reality of archaic and inflexible rituals proven beneficial in times Past yet increasingly irrelevant in times Present. What may have satisfied a less demanding, easier to deceive, more lucrative audience in the Past no longer fits the market. If it did we would not find User Group internet sites with 100,000 messages of complaints and suggested user fixes for models of computers that have only been on the market for 8 months. User Group complaints are an indication of the degree of failure of the customer service system involved. This is the avenue taken when customers are resigned that the artificial intelligence HELP documentation provided with the product and the Customer Service neural modeling assistance available, is useless.

A popular optimization approach is to provide service call centers staffed by clerks who regurgitate prepackaged replies back to the inquiring caller. The questions that can be asked about any product or service are not infinite. They can be categorized for easier recall. Input into a database and electronically presented on a display, the agent can be given a time-tested dialogue which enables a quick targeting of the likely problem area. Then, the agent is presented with an answer, or series of answers, which have to date proven successful in solving the customer's problem, or, getting them off the phone. If the customer does not call back, the problem is assumed to be solved. If the problem appears to be solved, the successful answer that was given is assumed to be correct and perhaps given a higher rating of acceptance on the "intelligence" system shared by all agents.

What are the weaknesses of the above optimization approach?
If you cannot see them, you cannot correct them. If you cannot understand them, you will likely replicate them. Does nothing change from one day to the next, from one person's experience and adequacy to the next, from one environment to another? If we are answering the queries of a person from our national hotline, how do we know if the other person is calling from an office environment like ours, a seasonally damp monsoon season, a dry arctic or dry tropical location, a dust-filled atmosphere, or an insect infested forest? Will it matter to the operation of the technology or the provision of services at their end? Will we be wasting our and their time to make ANY suggestions if we are unaware of the background dynamics?

In the institutionalized rational world, many of the open world life dynamics are equalized within a constructed altered special environment. It has moisture regulated air conditioning and thermostatically controlled heating. It has uniform lighting and level smooth footpaths. It has regulated break and work times. The premises are cleaned daily, children are not allowed, noise is curtailed, distractions are minimized. Often, the clothing you are wearing and how you arrive at work are dictated by the acceptability of your corporate and social standards. This is not a living world. This is a world in which life has been brought to a sanctioned orderly, controlled, and fixated baseline. How often is this the environment in which your customers and prospects are calling from? Might some of these free environment experiences and influences relate to the nature of the problems which have arisen?

Language as the great medium of communication.
Nations and cultures are built upon the assumption that if all people speak the same language they should be able to understand each other. Political linguistics proves otherwise by showing that the most common key political terms often carry opposing meanings for differing individuals. Perceptions of the value of the actions and motives of others often leads to the same persons being termed freedom fighters by minorities and terrorists by the status quo masses. Technical terms, over years of technical innovations may mean most different concepts. A hardware server and a software server operate quite differently and can develop markedly different problems requiring different solutions. Conflicting social groups may use the terms hot and cold, yes and no, to convey opposite meanings. Intimate relationships can suffer frequent conflict when meanings are assumed, or expected. We seem to have forgotten that communication is 80% non-verbal and most of that does not convey through the phone lines or even in person.

Efficient communication takes time and awareness.
Modern structured humanity in its obsession for rationality and profit has created a communication environment in which the answer is more important than the cure. Just put an answer on the table and walk away with the hope that the problem will disappear. Like magic, the right words are to unlock the errors. I had a dryer in my rental accommodation that was working erratically. It was not my possession or responsibility and I had no tools to test or repair nor ready access to parts or manuals. Dryers are not infinitely complex machines. They typically have a power supply, motor, timer, heating element, thermostat.

A complex or erratic problem deserves a thorough description.
I learned that through troubleshooting successfully over 30 years ago. I wrote out a full page description of the problem. What happened and when and how that differed from the normal designed operation. After requesting, and then demanding service, a service-person was sent. I volunteered to review the problem with him but he seemed uninterested. He stayed 5 minutes and then hurriedly left proclaiming his success. I asked him what he had fixed. He defensively replied that it was just a little trade secret.

Solutions can be simple, but often are not.
This is because as we redesign our systems we typically make them more complex. More complex systems can fail in more ways and more complex ways than simpler ones. A simple system may fail more often because of poor design, workmanship, improper use, or substandard materials, yet, the definition of the problem is easier than with complex systems. Several days later I used the dryer again, and, it both worked and failed. It worked in that the temperature it reached was higher and was drying the clothes partially. It failed, as it had originally, by stopping and starting during its cycle and taking 6 hours to do 1 hour of drying. Again the technician was called in.

Rationalized solutions tend to work 50% of the time.
We persist in our cultural myth that if we can just make our decisions rational enough we can be perfect. As an extension of this myth, as individuals we are ashamed to reveal, publicize, and admit our mistakes ... so we conveniently forget them. Only remembering the successes does several things. It does not allow us to learn from our mistakes. It does not allow us to be humble of our failings and tolerant of the errors of others. It creates a class of experts and authorities who master how to deceive themselves and others with oversimplified conclusions that only are dependable in controlled circumstances. Admittedly, the more mechanized the situation, the more ritual and predictable it is, and the more that 2-dimension linear thinking can be applied.

Repeat attempts waste time, energy, resources, and, can extend and intensify frustration.
Arriving for his second repair effort, having driven 30 minutes, I queried the technician as to whether he had been given my original request and read it. It became evident that neither had happened. Now, he was a little more receptive to my volunteered feedback. I described the failure and made a suggestion by way of question. I had not been troubleshooting machines for quite a while and did not have the resources available to him nor his longer-term appliance specific experience, so it was a guess. The timer seemed to always stop when the machine did. Could it be the timer. He replaced the timer. His service visit lasted about 30 minutes.

Sometimes good intentions and assistance does not help.
At those times you just have to get serious and do some serious troubleshooting of the problem. The dryer seemed to work fine the next time I used it. I had other tasks to do so I did not just wait next to it to monitor its operation. The second time was different. I caught it stopped at the beginning of the cool down cycle. That is when the heating element was to be turned off and the drum was to continue revolving to remove the hot air away from the fabrics so that they would not simply drop in a hot pile and iron-in a batch of creases. First, I had to explain the significance of the drum turning during this part of the cycle to the technician! Then I managed to get a replacement manual from the maker and confirm this as fact. What could it be now. The technician volunteered on the phone that it must be a defective timer that he had installed. Possible, but it seemed strange to me.

Time often reveals significance and relevancy of symptoms.
If the technician had originally read my experience-aware description of the problem and had not been in a continual rush to resolve it and move on, he might have fixed the dryer in the first visit. We often hope that whatever is the problem, it should be the simplest, cheapest, or easiest to remedy part or procedure. Even with the simpler systems, every once in a while something major and challenging will make its presence.

A few more days and the dryer was functioning almost as it had originally, erratically stopping in all parts of the cycle. The more often it was used in a time period, the more often and erratic it seemed to fail. Now my old machine troubleshooting skills were beginning to return. What could cause this periodic shut off of the motor? It now seemed obvious, to me. If the motor was overheating, possibly because of worn bearings or inadequate lubrication, or some other influence, there should be an overheat switch to turn off the motor to keep it from catching on fire. I confirmed the presence of such a switch with the technician. So, a very logical, considerate, and informed likelihood would be either the motor itself, or the overheat switch.

Commitment is needed for effectiveness and efficiency.
Now that more plausible sources of the problem had been isolated, the concern became one of money. Already 2 service calls and parts into the process, if the problem was the motor, its replacement would be both costly and time consuming. Would the property management agree to the expenditure? Would they agree to the same serviceperson coming back for a 3rd and possibly again unproductive attempt at resolution? Could he express the possibilities to them in a manner that would not reflect badly on him.

If I wanted it working, would I have to again badger endlessly the property management? Would I have to buy the service test devices, obtain a servicing manual for safe disassembly, find part suppliers and purchase and install and test the parts --- for a machine that was not mine --- all investments which were not my responsibility? As long as everyone shirked their real responsibility nothing would get done, frustration could rise or turn into passive resignation, cost could be deferred.

If the technician got busy (involved) and did some on-site troubleshooting, it might only be the switch that required replacement --- low cost, low time requirement. It is in my nature to fix and not complain but in this situation I didn't have that freedom. Weeks passed. At the writing of this, it hasn't worked properly in 3 months. Not an optimized process is it? When I did much more complex servicing of mini-computers some 30 years ago they would have been repaired within a day. But then we have progress!

A highly respected professional in a personal financial service field was optimistic about passing on his experience-generated intelligence to others who were sincere about their participation in the same field. He was persuaded to contribute to the development of a software-based artificial intelligence package. Software would be written which posed queries and situations to the participant. The intent is that by answering the questions and then comparing to the choices, supporting rationale, and decision-making patterns of the Expert, they would improve their performance.

The theory SOUNDED and LOOKED good, yet it failed.
Most important of all was the known fact that in almost any profession Pareto's 80/20 rule often proves to be true. Here, 80% of the people in the industry simply wanted to do their job as best they knew and take home enough money to live on. The other 20% made extra effort to constantly, or intermittently, improve their skills and awareness. Perhaps 5% were persistent and committed enough to take the challenges presented and work humbly and assertively, with passion, to assist those prospects who were unmotivated, angry, judgemental, ignorant, and unaware ... in addition to the easier more positive minority.

The true professionals were not motivated by the money, security, or fame that eventually came to them. In fact, many of that successful minority had to weather long hours away from their loved ones, the possibility of personal insolvency, and the oft present threat of failure to more finely tune their skills. The mentoring expert here was one of those few. Could decades of experience be distilled into question, answer, and formal comment? Could the person with an average perspective, motivation, perseverance, and self-discipline develop and internalize such an awareness? Could years of effort and sacrifice and passion ... be bought?

Where was the weakness that led to the failure?
The strategy and decision-making expert had little ability in the information technology and marketing areas. As he had done in his own trade, when it came to technical skill requirements he had subcontracted that work to others. In this case, the others knew how to put information into a structure that was amenable to computers. They could code it and format it for readability. They could add graphics and bells and whistles. They would do their very best, but, they were hired. They wanted to get paid what their profession suggested their technical skills were worth, plus, extra for the risk of their entrepreneurialism. They priced the software at $1,000 at a time when you could rent a mansion for $1000 per month.

The marketing firm sold the salesperson on the possibility that thousands of individuals who earned, on average $1000 per month, would grab their personal copy of this mentoring tool. Good salespeople are the easiest people to sell to. They necessarily have a high degree of optimism for they must face much greater rejection than acceptance. They must be innovative problem solvers and see possibilities for it is those which they motivated their prospects with. No doubt, my friend saw the professionalism of his industry being able to improve, of his income being assisted, of others being able to avoid many of the hard experiences he had gone through, and, most importantly of all, finding that many more people could be more pleasantly assisted to cope with events that were often traumatic.

Dramatically different experiences, perspectives, and degrees of awareness were held by each of the technician, salesperson, and marketing groups concerning the same reality. Neither interacted with the other under the myth that highly skilled persons in one area cannot benefit from others who have little skill in that area. Each assumed and respected the expertise of the other, with self-pride and deference. Was it a team, or, a polite anarchy?

What is intelligence?
In the information age we have a glut of knowledge.
We can access more knowledge about more topics more easily than at any time. Yet our decision-making is seldom improved and often the conflicting nature of the concepts expressed and their typical authoritarian definitive nature provide us with confusion and anxiety resulting in delay. Opportunities not taken advantage of in the time they are available are lost. Few choices remain open forever.

To turn knowledge into wisdom we need to be able to establish relevancy.
Yet what we so often do not have, personal experience and familiarity with the topic and situation as well as the possibilities, is often absent. To rely on the experience of others is complicated when many people express personal confidence in specific solutions on the basis of their confidence in another source who may have expressed it earlier on the basis of his or her confidence in someone else, who ....

Is relevancy of knowledge not the key to intelligence?
We may know a huge amount of data but if we are unaware and unable to utilize that knowledge when it would best contribute to our efficiency and effectiveness then what good is it to us. Not knowing about it would be ignorance. Knowing something which is employed mistakenly or inappropriately is worse than ignorance for doing so only creates more problems. It is only by humbly and assertively asking for feedback, questioning relevancy, affirming match or mismatch ... that we can more qualify the benefit or lack of regarding the data.

Using the pride and intolerance of others to prove the validity of information that will be used to decide personal choices is an illusion that power establishes truth. Power can impose truth, yet, by doing so, power demonstrates its pride and lack of respect for others and its fear of being challenged, and, found wrong. Intelligence is knowing what one does not know and being open and willing to risk failure to explore and discover what is relevant and practical.

What did the salesperson, technician, and marketing people all forget?
They each forgot that optimized service to the prospect was the desired end result. The salesperson forgot the value of the special forms of awareness that he had gained over his long experience of interacting with others and turning forms of negative stress into forms of positive stress. He took himself for granted. How could he be humble enough to insist that others come to recognize the value of something that largely defies translation into words.

Could others acknowledge what they were unaware of?
Those without the skills only saw the behavior outside the person. They were awed with the social respect given him by his industry, the fame, the money, the power. As poor communicators, they saw the situation as using phrases and terms to trigger responses in prospects, a game of deception and manipulation .. albeit for noble, or idealistic aims. The salesperson offered sympathy, empathy, acknowledgement, encouragement, opportunity, sincerity, honesty, and open-mindedness to his prospects. The less adept communicators and less mature individuals did not know what empathy, honesty, and open-mindedness meant. They assumed that he had no values different from theirs and no value of experience and commitment. They assumed the skill as technique.

How can you program the unseen into a linear visual mechanistic exchange of phrases and call the outcome intelligent? The salesperson was not a winner because he knew all the strategies, phrases, games, or criticisms. He allowed others with limited experience to transform his intelligence into data structured into knowledge. On that basis, it was a predestined and tragic failure ... for ALL of the participants and the prospects. Failing to work together and sincerely acknowledge the strengths of each other, and, their weaknesses, and build from both, individuals worked independently to accomplish disparate and irrelevant goals that sabotaged the conclusion. What have you learned from this?

Optimization or Complexity-Redundancy?

Perhaps you work in an online or telephone call center.
You are trying to do your best to help the customers you speak to. You recognize from your experience rather than the training your employer has given you, that problems can be simple, or in varying degrees of complexity. You listen to your charges and try and work the problems through with them. Your supervisor gets concerned about your productivity. You speak to less people every day than anyone else. He or she brings this to your attention quite forcefully. Other people are processing more problems. If you cannot become faster, you may have to be terminated. That is a shock. You like the aspect of helping others and feel that you are doing a good job. When you try and speed up, you become more aggressive, impatient, and angry. You don't like what this is doing to you or to the quality of the communication with your callers.

How are the others responding faster?
Perhaps they are better communicators. Perhaps they know the relevant solutions better than you. More often, they approach the position with a simpler awareness ... an expectation of simplicity, or, an expectation of authority. With the former, they offer what seems to be the obvious answer given the limited detail they agree to work from. They have heard or read a few key words and skimming over the rest they offer a hasty response. Result: they get off the line quick. Since the company mandates that the agents use imaginary names rather than their true names, and since any caller speaks to whomever on the team becomes available, the chances of this agent ever speaking to you again are slim.

If they don't hear from you, their answer must have been correct, right? If you call back 10 times on the same problem, chances are, 10 people will believe they have resolved it for you. The company is happy because none of the many spends much time with you. The company is ignorant of the cumulative effort being applied to your problem. The company personnel may hold you, the customer, responsible for becoming increasingly frustrated with their useless product and their incompetent service. Who you gonna tell? The world!

Everyone is increasingly imprinted to expect immediate results?
Competition sells itself on the basis of my bringing you something faster than someone else. With the intensive decision-making demands of the information-commercial age in conflict with the mind numbing flood of sensory input, we become desperate to build into our reality what we have almost totally excluded by our greed. No time for silence. No time for rest. No time for reflection. No time for feedback. No time for sharing. So, our wants become needs, obsessions, compulsions.

We have so much more than most of the rest of the people in the world, yet we hunger for what they have that we cannot buy. We are too enslaved to make the sacrifices, accept the challenges, live the experience ... to get the rewards of such living, so, we create a fantasy world to allow us to live illusions. Mass entertainment in North America and the commercialized cities throughout the world sooths our needs with images of fake realities to replace personal experience.

We blot out the reality around us with our inability to feel and express all emotion, and to express them all in a constructive manner. We make life a ritual and then complain that it is boring! We make life complex by our persistence in making our problems worse instead of cleaning up our mess. We obsess on singular emotions and never learn how to constructively express others. Why do we do this? If we can optimize ourselves perhaps the activities we seek to be optimized will follow the pattern.