Intesym

A Message from Lord Pickles and Lord Blunkett, followed by Intesym's best practice article

The ability to listen and learn from one another has always been vital in parliament, in business and in most aspects of daily life. But at this particular moment in time, as national and global events continue to reiterate, it is uncommonly crucial that we forge new channels of communication and reinforce existing ones. The following article from Intesym is an attempt to do just that. We would welcome your thoughts on this or any other Parliamentary Review article.

Rt Hon The Lord David Blunkett

Rt Hon The Lord Eric Pickles

www.intesym.co.uk

47INTESYM |

BEST PRACTICE REPRESENTATIVE 2018

Dr Neale Smith, director

Out-of-place and in-place

O(N)-time sorting process

Intesym is an electronic design consultancy with expertise

in data flow, processing and computation. Operating as

anything from consultant engineers to a technology partner,

Intesym draws on over a decade of in-house experience across a

multitude of fields. Their forte is increasing the sophistication of

technology through the simplicity of designs.

It is usual for technological enhancements to be accompanied by increased

complexity, because new ideas are built upon old. This reflects the mantra of

“don’t reinvent the wheel”.

Sometimes, however, wheels need to be reinvented, and that is what we do.

Intesym’s philosophy

Complexity in technology is a serious problem. For example, no one person

can have a full comprehension of how a modern computer works. It is beyond

the capacity of a single human mind. Such technology is only collectively

comprehended and collectively designed. This means that thousands of component

parts are designed independently by thousands of people yet are expected to

operate as a coherent whole. Efforts to control this become correspondingly

burdensome, with varying degrees of success.

A rule of thumb to gauge whether a design is simple is whether it can be fully

comprehended – and designed – by a single person. Not everything can be easily

reduced to such simplicity, but the fewer people needed, the better.

FACTS ABOUT

INTESYM

»Director: Dr Neale Smith

»Established in 2001

»Based in Alnwick,

Northumberland

»Services: Electronic design

engineering and software

engineering

»No. of employees: 3

»www.intesym.co.uk

Intesym

THE PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW

Highlighting best practice

48 | INTESYM

» SIMPLICITY

INDESIGN

»Finding the simplest

design for a

sophisticated product

»A simplified design is:

»At least as capable

as a complex one

»Easier to understand

»More robust

»Cheaper and

easier to make and

maintain

Complex technology can only evolve

very slowly. Complexity stifles progress

because any attempt at change is

constrained by all of the other parts

imposed beyond one’s control. It

becomes a process of optimising

the pre-existing methods, where

improvements in the details are

heralded as “quantum leaps”.

In contrast, simple technology can be

unilaterally overhauled at relatively little

expense – more ideas can be explored

and rapid revolutions can be made.

Simplicity in design

Simple designs often have greater

capability than complex designs;

having a full comprehension reveals

their potential. Our method to achieve

simplicity can be expressed by two key

points.

The first: look for hidden assumptions

and inappropriate axioms.

These occur in three places: in the

posing of the problem, in the prior

art of solving it, and in one’s own

attempts to solve it. We must check for

all possible instances.

Sometimes assumptions and axioms

are based on flawed logic; sometimes

the logic is correct, but unnecessarily

applied. Even a tautology can be

rejected if it is inappropriate to the

situation. Care needs to be taken

to avoid inadvertently reflecting a

solution’s assumptions and axioms onto

the problem, because such reflection

can make the solution its own barrier to

success. This is the key to our process.

Having a belief that something must

be so, especially if formally expressed

as such by an authority, can prevent

one from questioning whether

an alternative is either possible or

feasible. It is our opinion, gained from

experience and observation, that a

great many technological barriers

do not arise from laws of nature, or

indeed mathematics, but are instead

self-inflicted due to assumed truths

going unchallenged.

When an axiom is found to be illusory,

then a simpler path will become clear.

The second point: revisit historical

ideas; reject unnecessary novelty.

Old ideas are supplanted by new ideas,

often not because the new ones are

better, but because novelty is a primary

aim in a world driven by the need to

acquire patents and publish research. A

nebulous desire for change means that

old ideas can become forgotten unless

stumbled upon through reinvention.

Sometimes old ideas fall by the

wayside because advances in

technology render them obsolete.

However, as the occurrence of

reinvention and rediscovery shows,

technology goes in cycles and

obsolescence is only temporary.

New ideas are ingrained by exposure

through teaching and advertising; old

ideas less so. This can lead to difficulty

in looking for or remembering old

ideas. Sometimes an old idea is

ignored because, in its day, it was tried

and found to be impractical. Is it still

impractical now, or only assumed to

be so?

It is routinely

said that

technology

advances with

ever-

increasing

pace. But does

it?

“

»SUMMARY OF METHOD

»Discard prior notions of how to solve a given problem

»Question assumptions and axioms

»Avoid reflecting a solution’s problems onto the question

»Consider historical ideas in a modern context

»Invoke novelty sparingly

»“New”, “innovative”, “patented” ≠ “better”

»Look for routes around barriers, not over or through them

»If you’re too close to the problem, ask someone else

»Often a layperson can see an answer that an expert can’t

»Ask the silly questions

»Consider if the stated problem is the true problem, or an assumed

solution posing as the problem

»If the stated problem includes technical details, then it is probably

not the true problem

49INTESYM |

BEST PRACTICE REPRESENTATIVE 2018

Simplicity realised

Much of modern technology is based

upon computers. Microprocessors are

now employed with vast swathes of

software for even the most trivial of

applications. Requirements for “next

generation” products are extrapolated

upwards from the current generation.

A vicious circle ensues, and complexity

proliferates.

This costs the world billions of dollars a

year in R&D. The underlying technology

is a wheel overdue for reinvention.

It is routinely said that technology

advances with ever-increasing pace.

But does it? Complexity certainly does,

but what about function, efficiency,

usefulness? We believe that a kind

of technological “Dark Age” began

in the 1990s. Since then, integrated

circuits have become smaller, faster

and cheaper, and so too have the

computing devices based upon them.

The principles by which they operate,

however, have not changed; progress

is being made through brute force and

expensively pushing the boundaries

ofphysics.

We suggest that a better approach

is to, instead, remove the barriers.

In doing so, that brute force will

not be needed and the pressure will

be removed from physics. Greater

technological development can be

achieved through simpler underlying

design principles. Why spend billions

clambering over obstacles when it

would be considerably easier and

cheaper to take a route which avoids

those obstacles?

Almost 20 years ago, in conjunction

with our sister company ADR

Ltd, we began developing a new

computational theory, which we call

“synergetics”. By considering even

what it means for data to merely exist,

we found principles which almost

trivialise the design of computational

systems even on immense scales. Of

particular note, within this theory it

is seen that relativity and quantum

mechanical effects are a single

phenomenon merely observed in

different ways; this alone leads to the

greatest simplifications.

Arbitrarily high computing power

can be achieved with less complexity

– and lower design cost – than a

smartphone. And by “arbitrarily

high”, we mean on a planetary scale.

Individual computers can be designed

to assimilate each other, even over vast

distances, forming a single processor

of combined power and resources.

An analogy that we use for this is

water: trillions of raindrops add to the

expanse of an ocean, yet the ocean

is not composed of raindrops, it is

always a single body of water. Modern

concepts, such as the cloud, mobile

phones and even the internet itself,

could all be rendered obsolete.

Technology

goes in cycles

and

obsolescence

is only

temporary

“

»SYNERGETICS

»We call our simple computational principles “synergetics”

»It is a philosophy of the manifestation of mathematics

»To solve a difficult problem, transform it into a synergetic form

more easily solved, then transform the solution back

»Its most obvious application is in the design of computational systems

»Early synergetic prototypes built over 15 years ago

»Synergetics offers:

»Arbitrarily high single processor performance

»Global and even interplanetary distribution of that single processor

»Great simplification in design, deployment, and use of

computational power

»WHY TECHNOLOGY MUST CHANGE

»Current computer development follows Moore’s Law

»Lots of problems they have to solve exceed Moore’s Law (see

below)

»Systems have evolved into sprawling complexity (“technical debt”)

»Some problems can consume as much computing power as is

available

»Not all problems need more power to solve, but the solving can

benefit from simplification

Magnitude

Problem

Size

Solving

power

Intractable

Solvable

Time

Problems can

grow faster than

computing power

www.intesym.co.uk

This article was sponsored by Intesym. The Parliamentary Review is wholly funded by the representatives who write for it. The publication in which this article originally appeared contained the following foreword from The Rt Hon Theresa May MP.

The Rt Hon Theresa May MP's Foreword For The Parliamentary Review

By The Rt Hon Theresa May MP

This foreword from the then Prime Minister appeared in the 2018/19 Parliamentary Review.

British politics provides ample material for analysis in the pages of The Parliamentary Review. For Her Majesty’s Government, our task in the year ahead is clear: to achieve the best Brexit deal for Britain and to carry on our work to build a more prosperous and united country – one that truly works for everyone.

The right Brexit deal will not be sufficient on its own to secure a more prosperous future for Britain. We also need to ensure that our economy is ready for what tomorrow will bring. Our Modern Industrial Strategy is our plan to do that. It means Government stepping up to secure the foundations of our productivity: providing an education system that delivers the skills our economy needs, improving school standards and transforming technical education; delivering infrastructure for growth; ensuring people have the homes they need in the places they want to live. It is all about taking action for the long-term that will pay dividends in the future.

But it also goes beyond that. Government, the private sector and academia working together as strategic partners achieve far more than we could separately. That is why we have set an ambitious goal of lifting UK public and private research and development investment to 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2027. It is why we are developing four Grand Challenges, the big drivers of social and economic change in the world today: harnessing artificial intelligence and the data revolution; leading in changes to the future of mobility; meeting the challenges of our ageing society; and driving ahead the revolution in clean growth. By focusing our efforts on making the most of these areas of enormous potential, we can develop new exports, grow new industries and create more good jobs in every part of our country.

Years of hard work and sacrifice from the British people have got our deficit down by over three quarters. We are building on this success by taking a balanced approach to public spending. We are continuing to deal with our debts, so that our economy can remain strong and we can protect people’s jobs, and at the same time we are investing in vital public services, like our NHS. We have set out plans to increase NHS funding annually by an average by 3.4 percent in real terms: that is £394 million a week more. In return, the NHS will produce a ten-year plan, led by doctors and nurses, to eliminate waste and improve patient care.

I believe that Britain can look to the future with confidence. We are leaving the EU and setting a new course for prosperity as a global trading nation. We have a Modern Industrial Strategy that is strengthening the foundations of our economy and helping us to seize the opportunities of the future. We are investing in the public services we all rely on and helping them to grow and improve. Building on our country’s great strengths – our world-class universities and researchers, our excellent services sector, our cutting edge manufacturers, our vibrant creative industries, our dedicated public servants – we can look towards a new decade that is ripe with possibility. The government I lead is doing all it can to make that brighter future a reality for everyone in our country.

British politics provides ample material for analysis in the pages of The Parliamentary Review

The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Prime Minister