In particular we have to address Andy Grove's observation that we like to work on familiar things in familiar ways, regardless of need, as evidenced by Intel's recent woes. As long as sunshine profits are available to buy-off mistakes, it seems easier at the moment to spend a few billion dollars, squander good will, and so forth, than to spend a few months to improve the work so that mistakes are reduced. It's a dilemma. Here is another angle. Several studies have shown that technology reduces productivity of management and other knowledge work.
Technology saves time and reduces cost when incorporated into mechanical production settings.
The email problems you cite, and recent NASA difficulties with the Mars program illustrate how email reduces productivity and increases cost astronomically in knowledge work. This suggests that procedures people use to identify neat and cool technology, based on pilot testing for 20 minutes to an hour, are not effective for adding intelligence to management. Therefore, for the DKR to be effective it must solve the energy problem by improving manufacturing tasks. But, if we try to help people working on the problem, the evidence indicates all of us will refuse to be helped, and the technology we are willing to adopt based on 20 minutes to an hour of review, actually makes the problems worse. You have noted for example that adding intelligence to management boggles the mind, and people don't like that, regardless of how big the problem is that may need some initial boggling in order to maintain alignment with requirements.