role

1. n. A cohesive set of contributions made by a single, identifiable agent to a shared outcome.

(more…)

information

1. n. Data that reduces uncertainty.

I once defined information as “that which informs.” I was unsatisfied with this definition, because I didn’t have a good definition for “inform”. The dictionary definitions didn’t help (e.g. “to impart information” or “to impart facts”), so I turned to the web to seek other people’s ideas.

The definition I found most useful is Claude Shannon’s: Information is that which reduces uncertainty. I’ve refined Shannon’s definition by replacing the fuzzy word “that” with the sharper word “data,” which I define as descriptions of events or conditions.

For a while I was worried that this definition, focused so specifically on reducing uncertainty, was too limiting. Why uncertainty? And why reducing uncertainty? What about data that increases uncertainty? Suppose I discover a datum that invalidates a key “fact” that I thought I knew, and therefore leaves me uncertain about many other “facts.” It seems to me that that would be information, too.

I was tempted to substitute the more general word “alters,” and to find some variable more general than “uncertainty” as the central variable that is altered by information. But I’ve found that the limitation—the intense focus on reducing uncertainty—turns out to be helpful when I’m seeking information. In most cases where I’m gathering information my goal is to reduce my uncertainty. Of course, I may end up being informed by data I wasn’t seeking, and I may be informed in ways that increase my uncertainty. But when I’m seeking information, I’m almost always trying to reduce my uncertainty about something. This definition reminds me to ask myself which uncertainties are most important to me, and which I’m most uncertain about. Then I can focus more productively on gathering the data that may reduce my uncertainty.

I’ve made good use of this definition in a number of contexts. I’ve found it especially helpful in talking about testing, because a central purpose of testing is to deliver information, specifically information that reduces stakeholders’ uncertainty about quality.

The definition also helps me when I’m estimating. It invites me to assess my uncertainty about the variables that affect the thing I’m estimating. That assessment helps me to focus my search for data.

Another definition I like is Peter Drucker’s: Information is data endowed with relevance or purpose. Drucker’s definition emphasizes purpose and the relevance of data to our purposes. I’ve seen numerous metrics programs flounder because they started by collecting data rather than by clarifying their purpose for measuring. The end up collecting lots of data, and then not knowing how to make sense of it.

resource

1. n. Anything that can be used to create value.
2. n. Matter, energy, or information that can be transformed into more valued forms.
3. n. Knowledge, skills, or implements that can be used to transform other resources into more valued forms.

These definitions are strongly related to my definitions of technology. If I were feeling silly, I could plug these definitions of resource into my definition of technology to yield: Technology is the application of resources to transform other resources into more valued forms. Silly.

It feels to me as if the second and third definitions above omit something important: relationships. Relationships are resources for the people involved. I could add “relationships” to one or both lists, but they’re already somewhat unwieldy.

What else is left out of this definition?

I’d like to find an evocative category to summarize the lists in the definitions. What category summarizes matter, energy, and information? What category summarizes knowledge, skills, and implements? For now, I can’t think of concise, evocative categories. The word anything in the first definition certainly summarizes all of the other terms, but it’s too general to be evocative.

Any adjustments I make here would likely ripple into my definition of technology.

manipulate

1. v. To influence a person using means that would be less effective if the person knew your intentions.

manipulation

1. n. The process of influencing a person using means that would be less effective if the person knew your intentions.

My definition relies heavily on descriptions I’ve read in two books. In
Influence without Authority
, Allan R. Cohen and David L. Bradford say, “influence attempts are not manipulative if you can tell your potential ally your intentions with no loss of influence.”

Edgar Schein, in
Process Consultation, Volume 1
, defines manipulation as “influencing others without making visible the motivation behind the influence attempts.”

Each of these quotes suggests a test for whether your influence attempts are manipulative. Cohen and Bradford’s quote suggests what I call
The Private Test of Manipulation: Could I tell the other person my intentions?

Schein’s definition suggests the second, stronger test, which I call
The Public Test of Manipulation: Have I told the other person my intentions?

empower

1. v. To connect a person with a source of power.

I’ve written about this definition before. I’m posting it again to add it to my glossary.

power

1. n. The ability to create value.

I’ve written about this definition before. I’m posting it again to add it to my glossary.

technology

1. n. The application of knowledge and objects to transform matter and energy into more valuable forms.
2. n. Knowledge and objects applied to transform matter and energy into more valuable forms.

I’m tempted to add skills to the list of things that can be applied as technology: The application of knowledge, skills, and objects… But that broadens the definition too much. For example, eating would then fit the definition. When I eat an apple, I apply my considerable eating skills to transform the apple into a more valuable form.

I’m also tempted to add information to the set of things that technology transforms into more useful forms. Not tempted enough just yet, but tempted.

On the Agile Project Management mailing list, in the midst of an enthusiastic dialogue about the value of planning, Clarke Ching asked the clarifying and orienting question, “What is planning?”

My answer:

plan

1. v. To select assumptions, expectations, constraints, intentions, and commitments to inform decisions about a course of action.
2. n. A description of a set of assumptions, expectations, constraints, intentions, and commitments selected to inform decisions about a course of action.

Before Clarke asked, I didn’t know that that’s what I meant by planning. That qualifies the question as a good one.

[Update 4:55 PM: Added “intentions.”]

As an exercise in clarifying my thoughts, I created definitions for the words lead and leadership:

lead

1. v. To influence people to freely serve a shared purpose.

leadership

1. n. The process of influencing people to freely serve a shared purpose. (The process of leading.)

How well does this definition fit your idea of leadership? What’s your definition?

[Update July 15: Shortened “ongoing process” to “process.” I think the word process implies ongoing.]