Monday

Monthly Archives: January 2023

The Great Library of Alexandria – The first Google?

The creation of an institution, designed to gather all of the information in the world and make it available to everyone who needs it pre-dates Google by 2200 years!

The city of Alexandria was founded by Alexander The Great in April 331 BCE after his army had captured the Egyptian Satrapy from the Persians. He wanted to build a large Greek city on Egypt’s coast with good fresh water and a harbour. Under his direction, Alexandria became the world’s first planned city with streets laid out in a grid and many other features still used in urban design.

Following the death of Alexander in 323 BCE, there was a power grab for his empire among his top-ranking officers and the Ptolemies gained control of Egypt, and made Alexandria their capital. They reigned as Pharaohs until Cleopatra’s death during the Roman era.  Within the city, the Great Library of Alexandria, was to become one of the largest and most significant libraries of the ancient world. Situated in the Royal Quarter near the harbour, it formed part of a larger research institution called the Mouseion, which was dedicated to the Muses, the nine goddesses of the arts. This was not the first library of its kind. A long tradition of libraries existed in both Greece and the ancient Near East. The earliest recorded archive of written materials comes from the Sumerian city-state of Uruk in around 3400 BCE, and there were other famous libraries in existence in Babylon and Greece. However, the Great Library would grow to outshine all of these.

The Great Library was most likely founded by Ptolemy I sometime before 283 BCE, but does not appear to have been completed until the reign of Ptolemy II (283–246 BCE). The Ptolemaic rulers intended the Great Library to be a collection of all knowledge, and worked for more than a century to expand the Library’s collections through an aggressive and well-funded policy of book purchasing, and plunder. Any books found on ships that came into port were taken to the library, where they were copied by official scribes. The original texts were kept in the library, and the copies delivered to the owners.

The Mouseion which housed the Great Library also served as home to a host of international scholars, poets, philosophers, and researchers, who the Ptolemies provided with a large salary, free food and lodging, and exemption from taxes. There were numerous classrooms, where the scholars were expected to at least occasionally teach students. The Roman period, particularly after the Christianization of the Empire in the 1st century CE, saw the decline and eventual destruction of this institution.   

While the concept of a library is debated, it is certainly more than just a collection of books – ‘any number of books brought together in one place, no more, of itself, constitutes a library than a pile of bricks can be called a house’. Academics generally agree a library needs purpose, organization, and maintenance of its collection (all of which apply to the Great Library), but the sheer size of the Great Library collection posed some unique problems.

First, within half a century of its foundation circa 295 BCE, the collections of the Royal Library had exceeded the space allotted to contain the accumulated books. To that end, Ptolemy III (246–221 BCE) established an offshoot that could house the surplus volumes in the newly built Serapeum, a temple dedicated to the worship of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis, situated in the Egyptian district south of the city. Unlike the layout of the Mouseion, of which no records remain, a surprising amount of this temple has survived allowing us an insight as to how it looked and functioned.

This outer library was open to everyone and the medieval text of John Tzetzes suggests there were “42,000 books in this outer library”, mainly duplicates, and lower quality scrolls. There was free access to this collection, people of the city and visitors could take scrolls to read, or attend public readings if they were illiterate.   

Second, making information freely available is one thing, being able to find that information is altogether a more complex undertaking. In addition to the outer library, the inner (Royal) Library is said to have held another 400,000 mixed books, plus 90,000 unmixed books. But, how could scholars navigate this vast collection in order to use it in any sort of efficient way? Finding the information you needed requires a system.

The starting point was assigning texts to different rooms based on their subject matter. The first Librarian, Zenodotus made an inventory of the Library’s holdings, which he then organized into three major categories:

  • The first category included history books, edited and standardized literary works, and new works of Ptolemaic literature.
  • The second included holdings used for comparison and in the creation of the standardized works mentioned above. Included in this category were also letters and maps.
  • The third group comprised original writings in foreign languages, many of which had been translated into Greek, and which, in translation were included in the first group.

Within each of these divisions he then organized the works alphabetically by the first letter of the name of their author. This was one of the first uses of the principle of alphabetic organization. To maintain the collection, library staff then attached a small dangling tag to the end of each scroll, which contained information on each work’s author, title, and its subject, so that materials could be easily returned to the area in which they had been classified, but this also meant that library users did not have to unroll each scroll in order to see what it contained. This was the first recorded use of metadata, another landmark in library history.

Zenodotus’ methods overlaid an ordering principle on the entire collection of the Great Library which continues to be applied in libraries through to the current times. But, as the collection grew a more detailed structure was needed. This was implemented by Callimachus of Cyrene; he divided the collection into the main realms of literature as generally agreed at the time. Then within each of these divisions, he shelved all the authors in alphabetical order by the first letter of their name. This scheme is a classic taxonomy, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) is often credited as the first great taxonomist and his ideas may have been influential in the design of the system.

This approach took care of the shelving principle, but Callimachus went a step further. As a finding aid, he produced the pinakes, or “Tables of Persons Eminent in Every Branch of Learning Together with a List of Their Writings”. While the entire one hundred twenty scrolls of the pinakes have not survived to this day, the pieces of it that have survived show this was one of the first known documents that lists, identifies, and categorizes a library’s holdings. Within the pinakes, Callimachus listed works alphabetically by author and genre then added metadata in the form of a short biographical note on each author, which prefaced that author’s entry within his catalogue and sometimes a summary of the scroll’s contents.

How great was the influence of the Great Library of Alexandria on the development of knowledge is hard to define, it was probably significant. What we do know is the systems used to lay out the library, and classify the documents carry through to modern times and the next level of detail, indexing the contents of books did not occur until the 13th century CE.

The advantages and disadvantages of the free-form Google search over the structure of a well designed taxonomy, and an annotated catalogue are the search will look at ‘everything’, but the list of documents produced has had no vetting for quality, accuracy or relevance.  When managing knowledge, more is not necessarily better.  

For more on indexing and library classification system download Finding Information – The art of Indexing from: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-010.php#Process1

At a more practical level, Mosaic’s Project Management Knowledge Index (PMKI) is a taxonomy of project management papers and articles. The Taxonomy is available to download, use and adapt as well as the articles, papers and reference materials: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI.php

The evolution of design processes

For most of human history the primary way of communicating design information was through the use of models. For example, construction of Florence’s new cathedral, the Santa Maria del Fiore, was based on a 30-foot long scale model of the structure complete with details of the buildings finishes, decorations and dome.  Construction started in 1296 and by 1418 work had progressed to the point where construction of the massive dome was needed (how the dome was built will be the focus of a later blog). Fast forward 250 years to 1673, and Sir Christopher Wren had the great model of the new St Paul’s cathedral in London built at significant cost.

The models were not the only design process, drawings of floor plans and elevations were undoubtedly used as were architectural details and sections, traditional knowledge held by master masons, guilds and other institutions defined proportions and other structural norms, standard templates were used to cut stone, full size drawings, and/or models, were made for complex detail elements, and for significant features such as large Gothic windows the design would be traced out at full size on a floor and the stones cut to fit. There were multiple systems used in combination, but very little in the way of a standard approach to documenting a design.

This started to change in 1794 when the École Polytechnique opened in Paris. It was established by the National Convention as the École Centrale des Travaux Publics (“Central School of Public Works”) under the leadership of Lazare Carnot and Gaspard Monge. It took its present name in 1795. Originally under the direction of the Ministry of the Interior, its function was to provide its students with a well-rounded scientific education with a strong emphasis in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, to prepare them to enter one of the national institutes of public works, or the military, as engineers or technical specialist. This concept gradually spread world-wide.

The second major advance was the formalization of orthographic projection, a part of the branch of mathematics called descriptive geometry. The book Géométrie descriptive (1798) by Gaspard Monge, a French mathematician, is regarded as the first to formalize orthographic projection. The concepts published by Monge facilitated the mass production of interchangeable parts required by the factories of the industrial revolution.

A design drawn using orthographic projection has 1:1 proportions on all views and dimensions that are not annotated can be scaled from the drawing accurately.  The problem is the drawings are not easy to read or understand without some training or explanation.

The economy offered by a drafting a set of drawings, that in most cases made the building of a model unnecessary, linked to the invention of the blueprinting process by John Herschel in 1842 accelerated the spread of technical drawing to most industries and created the role of draftsman.

For more on the History of Ancillary Project Management Concepts see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-010.php

Or, for more on the History of Construction Management see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-005.php#Process2 

Hard -v- Soft Projects

We are working on a couple of paper where a concise definition of hard and soft projects would be helpful.  Most commentary on the subject seems very imprecise and based on tangible v intangible outputs.

Tangible means perceptible by touch, but a piece of artwork (say a painting) can be touched! However, if the creation of the artwork is treated as a project, in almost all other respect the project is a soft project, the same goes for most design projects. The concept of a soft project is one where stakeholder engagement and change are welcome, with a focus on achieving the greatest value or stakeholder satisfaction at completion.

We suggest the primary differentiation between the two, is the various components of a hard project have to literally fit together, this required a detailed design to be finalized for each subassembly, before necessary parts can be procured and assembled. Furthermore, the overall design has to be progressed to a stage where there is a high degree of confidence the subassemblies will fit together into components and the components will fit together to create a final product that functions correctly and meets the specified requirements.

This means a hard project needs the detailed design of each subassembly or component to be completed before the project team can start working on the component and each component has to be built to the design.  Change is a complex and often expensive process.   

In contrast, the detailed design of components in soft projects can be, and very often is, done as part of the work involved in developing the element. While the function of the component is likely to be set in the overall design, how the functionality is delivered is flexible and most changes can be accommodated comparatively easily. In essence, agile is designed to deliver soft projects.  

There is of course the added complication that most hard projects include a significant element of software, and many soft projects include some hardware.

These factors suggest the definition of hard and soft projects should be:

A hard project is one where the majority of its subcomponents require the detailed design of the subcomponent to be finalized before work on the subcomponent commences, and the subcomponent is expected to be built to conform to its design.

A soft project is one where the majority of its subcomponents require the functionality of the subcomponent to be defined before work on the subcomponent commences, but there is significant flexibility in how the required functionality is achieved.

These definitions could be reduced to:

A hard project is one where the majority of the work is dependent on a finalised design being complete for each element of the project, prior to work starting on that element.

A soft project is one where the majority of the work has a degree of flexibility on how the required functionality is achieved.

What do you think??

Assessing Delay and Disruption Updated

One of our core papers focused on dispute management has been updated as part of a refresh for this part of the Mosaic web resources. Assessing Delay and Disruption – Tribunals Be-Ware was designed to help ADR and legal professionals understand the options available to disputants in assessing ‘delay’ to help them quickly cut through the fog of expertise present in many major disputes to achieve a speedy determination. It has also proved useful for both project and senior managers confronted with the need to defend or make a claim.

This paper is based on the AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis (RP29-03), published 25th April 2011. Unfortunately, there seems to be an increasing divergence between this approach to delay claims which seems to be preferred in the USA and jurisdictions that follow US precedent, and the approach embedded in the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition, which the UK courts and many Commonwealth jurisdictions, including Australia, are increasingly tending to prefer.

This update is a work in progress. To download this paper and others click through to: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-020.php#ADD

All papers are available for use free of charge under a Creative Commons licence.

Project Management – A Historical Timeline

Our latest paper, Project Management – A Historical Timeline has been published in the January edition of PM World Journal. Read the full journal free of charge at: https://pmworldjournal.com/

The objective of the historical timeline is to put the development of management, and project management capabilities into the wider flow of history for the period from 1000 CE to 2020 CE. This has been done by tabulating some of the significant events in history, with the advances in management thinking documented in our PM history papers, and a brief selection of important engineering and other achievements. The selection may be idiosyncratic but I’m happy to add other important events – just comment or (preferred) send an email with your ideas.

The intent of this exercise, to quote Joseph Priestley (1733 – 1804) is that a well-constructed timeline becomes “a most excellent mechanical help to the knowledge of history”, and may identify cross linkages that may be worth further research – history does not occur in isolation. Other coincidences may be simply interesting, for example Henri Fayol (France) and Henry Gantt (USA) both published significant books on the management of factories in 1916 while World War 1 was raging. 

The full paper (with updates) can be downloaded from: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P212_Historical_Timeline.pdf

For more on the history of project management and its allied disciplines see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY.php

Delivering Expert Evidence is Becoming Harder

Delivering effective Expert Evidence is becoming harder, at least in the UK, Australia and most likely other Commonwealth jurisdictions.  Traditionally the role of a Judge was to apply the law to the evidence presented by the parties to a dispute. In the case of expert evidence, this could include expert opinion, and where experts disagree, the Judge could choose one expert’s views over another, or combine the views. This approach seems to be changing with significant implications for the experts when preparing their reports and evidence.

It now seems acceptable in the UK and Australia that ‘the court is not compelled to choose only between the rival approaches and analyses of the experts. Ultimately it must be for the court to decide [what occurred] as a matter of fact… from a common-sense perspective’.

Our latest article: Delivering Expert Evidence is Becoming Harder discusses a number of recent judgements that seem to have re-framed the challenge of delivering effective expert evidence in the UK, Australia and potentially many other jurisdictions. Download the article from: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-020.php#Process2