About TCP | Previous Issue | Next Issue | Subscribe/Unsubscribe | Issue Archive

What would you say if I told you that millions of dollars are being spent on a machine that lets you speak with God? Any rational person would probably think it’s crazy and skeptical that any legitimate capitalist would fund such a project. The funny thing is, people ARE starting to spend time and resources on developing quantum computers, whose operating theory is about as far fetched as a phone to God, except that it holds the legitimacy of the science of physics (albeit the most fuzzy branch). After all, great science often looks a lot like divine magic.

Quantum computing, while still many, many years away from being practical and on your desktop, promises exponential increase in algorithmic processing speed and power, but also has poignant characteristics that reflect on human and business communication. This article isn’t really about computer science or quantum mechanics, but to help illustrate its reflection in the real world, we’ll need to tolerate a short technical discourse. Please bear with the following brief moment of big words and smart talk.

In a nutshell, quantum computing works by processing complicated equations concurrently which traditional computers would process sequentially. This is a bit of necessary oversimplification, but try to envision a person who can simultaneously see the microscopic details on every face in a crowd at a baseball game and a person who can only examine each person individually. The first person represents quantum computing.

But what can we learn from quantum computing theory? Let’s focus for a moment on the two key principles of the technology: entanglement and superposition. These two concepts are what enable the processing power that this technology promises; it does this by a) creating a boundless system of communication (entanglement) and b) allowing instant processing of permutations (superposition).

Let’s tackle each concept individually.

“Entanglement” describes the bizarre interaction between particles whereby a change in state from one particle affects a change in state with its pair, regardless of their physical separation. The particles could be millions of light years away from one another, with no perceivable physical link between them, and yet, they are able to communicate these changes instantaneously. This is what is meant by “boundless communication.” I’m sure you can imagine what a computer could do with this ability, which Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” Strangely, nobody knows how this works, but they’re sure it’s in there.

This idea of entanglement is an ideal state of communication that every business strives for and MRP systems can only dream about. Wireless Internet hotspots and mobile device improvements give us a small glimpse of the potential of entangled communication possibilities (and problems). Even today’s current level of automation and acceleration of the sharing of information between people and machines is what makes many IT offices the true limiting factor of a company’s robustness.

Whether or not we can achieve the “psychic network” of quantum entanglement is hard to imagine. In the Star Trek universe, the networked “hive mind” of the alien Borg race represents an entangled species, but not in an enviable way. On our own world, the Gemini mythos depicts an entangled spiritual connection between identical twins that is commonly accepted, like the Corsican Twins legend. Burning ears and feminine intuition could also be included here.

“Superposition” refers to a quantum element’s ability to simultaneously be all possible things at once, a concept that is really out there. This quality gives quantum computers its processing speed. If you think this sounds a lot like Zen Buddhism (the ‘oneness’ of everything), you can see how quantum mechanics seems about as far fetched as UFO conspiracies and new age therapies. Again, physicists know through experimentation that superposition happens, but they still don’t know how or why.

Superposition is actually quite common in business and people are asked to do it every day. For example, consider the fundamental tradeoff concept of time, quality and cost. Common sense dictates that you will only be able to improve two of those factors at a time, and at the expense of the third. You can do a project faster and with higher quality, but it will typically be more expensive. Or, you can do it much faster and cheaper, but the end result will have less reliability. However, far too often, you are required to optimize all three variables simultaneously -- you are in a state of project “superposition,” the problem is that while it happens conceptually, you are still physically limited in making it happen. I’m sure there are countless additional management examples you can come up with on your own.

In terms of decision making, sure, it would be very useful to have the ability to consider all scenarios at once, but you’d have to be careful that such power doesn’t cause more indecision than decisiveness.

Quantum computing is like a self contradictory science. In a discipline based on rigorous proofs and mind bending mathematical theory, it still requires a suspension of belief and an article of faith to even begin to comprehend. Psychic photons and infinite-personality qubits can be proven, but can’t be explained. Founding father physicist, Schrodinger, was a wise theoretician indeed, knowing that the mysterious cat was the best pet choice to be described in his classic example of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, as dead, alive and everything in between all at the same time, thus a worthy mascot for this science. Schrodinger’s dog, cockatiel or goldfish…just wouldn’t cut it. But while quantum computer practicality evades us for now, it has quite a bit to teach us, even if we never come close to knowing why.

---

Organizational management consultant and author, Meg Wheatley, owns the intellectual patents on quantum concepts in corporate cultures. Her book, Leadership and the New Science (1992, Berrett-Koehler), burst onto the scene when “chaos theory” was the big business buzz in the 1990s, perhaps the first work to link quantum physics to human organization and behavior. Her spin is different from that in this article, but basically, she finds that companies would do better trying to harvest from the natural random order of things rather than mandating rigid and unnatural discipline. Pick up her book for a more thorough explanation.

---

 Related HyperLinks:

• Interview with Meg Wheatley

• Rebel Science Article – “More Nasty Little Truths About Physics”:

• More on superposition

• More on entanglement

• “How Stuff Works” - Quantum Computers

Any reaction to this article? Send your feedback to gregg@roundtable.com Reader Feedback: The quantum computing article was quite interesting, but I wanted to point out a mistake. The fundamental tradeoff concept is NOT of time, quality and cost. It is of time, SCOPE, and cost. Scope includes both features and quality. Improving quality does NOT automatically imply extra cost. In fact, it can REDUCE costs. Our company, for example, believes that our total costs are reduced by creating high quality software. This is because each bug in our code typically costs us a lot more in technical support costs than the cost of fixing the bug. Furthermore, fixing bugs is more expensive than using processes that reduce the likelihood of introducing bugs. David Hawla Abaqus In my mind you do damage to the credibility of your newsletter by citing sources such as: Rebel Science Article – “More Nasty Little Truths About Physics” These are the rantings of a lay person who knows nothing about science and isn't afraid to prove it. Meg Wheatley's ability to find correlations between chaos and quantum theory and business practice is nothing unusual. Both areas of endeavor are so complex that almost anyone will find correlations between little bits here and there. Then, if the remaining complexities of the field are ignored, one can make it seem as if the correlations are important. They are not. For a newsletter called the critical path, a little more critique in the editorials would be appreciated. Scott Koeger Telaric Ideas