There is no precedent in the world of computers for a direct creative process for non-programmers. Other than word processors and spreadsheets, there are no products intended for 'end-users' without input by programmers, analysis, and other computer professionals. Thus, it is impossible to compare products or models with these characteristics to something provided by other companies in the computer world. That is why the musical metaphor was chosen to describe the products and the processes. Based on the absolute conquest of the physics of sound by our musical predecessors, we have the perfectly compromised instruments of the symphony, the Grand Score with all of the benefits of integrated notation, the resulting repertoire, and the great instrumental traditions. All of these features bring together a world of guaranteed satisfaction, of perfect performance, of control.

 

There are differences in the information requirements of institutional employees and orchestral musicians with respect to integrated performance. For one thing, musicians are always all in one place--not that recording technology does not allow separate musical takes to be combined into one simulated performance. The same cannot be said of business workers--who might need to collaborate in stepwise fashion with people on other parts of the globe.

 

 

Also, musicians are expected to be able to cover a broad range of pieces--while business tasks tend to be more repetitive--with subtle required modifications in many cases. These differences are mitigated by the fact that classical music scores seldom change (though interpretation might) while business tasks tend to require endless permutations based on rules and exceptions to rules. Thus, though a common language for defining and managing integrated processes may be beneficial for institutions overall--such a language would need to provide capabilities that are inherently different from musical notation--which is intended for the design and production of sound.