Humour

Inside the Definition Jungle

T A Balasubramanian on how to find your way around in a jungle of jargons

In his usual expansive mood, packing his talk with startling insights and stories bizzare, Dr Don Jong continues diving into the inexplicable and never-rested mind of Bobo Jitter, the CIO of Bazooka Company.

Dr Jong, dubbed ‘The Oddfather’ because of the unusual fixes he offers has a special gift for grappling with the far-flung challenges of technology’s eccentric frontiers.

“There’s something quite twisted and frightening about basic definitions in my profession, Doc.”

“And why is that, Bobo?”

“Take your own field. If someone were to ask you for a definition of say, schizophrenia, what would you say it was?”

“Umm. For the layman, it would be split personality disorder, I would say. A formal definition, of course, would be that it is a mental disorder characterised by persistent defects in the perception or the expression of reality.”

“Now, Doc, if I asked the same question to a dozen doctors of psychiatry, I might receive a dozen slightly varied descriptions of the layman variety, but there will be a single, formal, coherent definition of schizophrenia in the profession, is it not?”

“Ah, that is so, my boy. We can’t have split definitions of something as common as schizophrenia, can we?”

“Exactly. Likewise if you were to ask a dozen professional chemical engineers to define a ‘catalyst,’ again, you will receive twelve articulations, which are obviously, even to a non-engineer, referring to the same item.”

“Which is also correct, Bobo. Psychiatrists, engineers, they thrive as groupies. Now that is part of the fun of belonging to a special profession means, in a gestalt sense. A gang of people who speak the same geek-speak, have access to a common body of jargon and signs, and have the ability to communicate this mysterious lingo to others outside of that circle of expertise.”

“Well, Doc, by that standard, I am beginning to think that the IT business is not a profession at all.”

“And why do you think so, Bobo?”

“Take a test case. Like the commonly used IT term—ERP or enterprise resource planning. Now if you ask a dozen IT professionals to define what it is, you can get as many as a dozen different definitions.”

“That is interesting, Bobo. Give me some examples, please?”

“Sure, Doc, let me read them out. The Wikipedia says that ERPs are management information systems (MISs) that integrate and automate many of the business practices associated with the operations or production and distribution aspects of a company engaged in manufacturing products or services.”

“Go on. The definitions roll out like royal announcements.”

“The Garbo Group defines ERP as a suite of enterprise business applications including, at a minimum, financial and human resources applications and at least one of the following: manufacturing, supply chain (SCM), or customer relationship management (CRM).”

“Ah, the joyous rumble of jargon piled on jargon. Go on.”

“A book on business processes for SAP defines ERP as—packaged software applications that connect and manage information flows within and across complex organisations, allowing managers to make decisions based on information that truly reflects the current state of their business.”

“With that kind of dissonance, I begin to see how it might be difficult to call IT a profession, Bobo. Not only does IT foster a tree of jargon, it fosters entire forests of definitions with fresh jargon trees sprouting inside. Not exactly a prescription for civilisation to flourish, I must admit.”

“And it’s not just with ERP, Doc. Let me tell you about KM, the latest rumble in the jungle.”

“I have the dubious pleasure of hearing you out, Bobo.”

“KM is the new mantra in IT, short for knowledge management. A wise consultant, Gyani Primos, defines KM as—the management of the organisation towards the continuous renewal of the organisational knowledge base—this means, for example, the creation of supportive organisational structures, facilitation of organisational members, putting IT-instruments with emphasis on teamwork and diffusion of knowledge (say as groupware) into place.”

“More jargon trees sprouting in a forest, I see. It must be some kind of ritual with these IT pundits— unless they define new jargon with jargon-lets, they aren’t too happy.”

“Another consultant, Gyani Dubious, says—KM is an audit of intellectual assets that highlights unique sources, critical functions and potential bottlenecks which hinder knowledge flows to the point of use. It protects intellectual assets from decay, seeks opportunities to enhance decisions, services and products through adding intelligence, increasing value and providing flexibility.”

“Assets protected against decay? Makes KM sound like toothpaste, I see,” says Dr Jong.

“I mean no disrespect to the experts and the gyanis, Doc, but these definitions of ERP and KM, while individually quite taxing, are almost totally confounding when taken together.”

“Quite so, Bobo. Quite so. But we have means to cut through this dense undergrowth of tangled trees in the jargon jungle.”

“And what are these means, Doc?”

“Remember the monkey rules? The grease monkey drill? You must be good at climbing up with any foothold you can find? Long tails, strong vines?”

“Ah yes. Of course. Followed by the ‘please monkey grill’ and the lesson about ape and essence?”

“You remember well, my dear friend. Here’s the way to the next monkey lesson. I call it the ‘tease monkey still’ or make the definition monkey dance for you instead of being bewildered by it.”

“I don’t follow, Doc,” says Bobo, scratching his head.

“Resistance by counter-obfuscation, my lad. Attack the jargon with even more furiously incomprehensible jargon. For example, if you are in a meeting and someone uses a buzzword, ask the outrageous, and I presume, politically incorrect, question. Tease the speaker. Ask for a precise definition of the jargon word or phrase he or she has just spouted. If it’s ERP, say confidently that ERP is actually an agglomeration of Enterprise Related Proctol-ogists, where the software meets the hardware nowhere and the end-user gets the output anywhere.”

“Won’t that be atrocious behaviour?”

“Of course, Bobo. But you can bet that it will leave the other guy spellbound. You may think asking for a definition is impolite, but then, unless all the IT fraternity or sorority agrees on what they are talking about, any solution or course of action arising out of such a conversation is atrocious already. Fight atrocity with atrocity.”

“Ah, I see what you mean, Doc. Tease the tormentor and the tormentor will be forced to think.”

“Voila, you do comprehend, Bobo! Now you can go right ahead and define anything you like and I’ll punch it with my jungle spear.”