Shelflife ...

A rather interesting post by Darcy Lemons over at APQC about the shelflife of knowledge ... or, how long should we retain knowledge? Interesting question. This is a question which frequently comes up whenever there is a discussion about a content management system. People usually come up with the question of how old is too old. Especially if you talk to technology firms, this question becomes even more pertinent, because a particular solution which would work with a particular release of a software would, in all probability, not work in a newer release.

My take on this ... its not the age, rather, the relevance of knowledge which matters. Again, lets take an example ... or rather, lets extend the earlier example. While the solution which worked on an earlier version of the software may not work in the newer version, if you are supporting the older version of the software, this knowledge is important for you. In other words, this knowledge may not be useful for implementation projects, but quite useful for sustenance projects. Hence, its not about the age, but about relevance ... or, shall we say usage? Because, in a content management system, for example, relevance can be determined by usage. If people are using some knowledge elements, then they are in all probability still relevant, even if they are dated. Lets take the example Darcy has taken ... if tomorrow we decide to do away with cars and trucks, and decide to go back to horse drawn carriages, there are still parts of Delhi where the expertise is alive and kicking. More on that later ...

The issue here is, the people who generated the knowledge in the first place, may ot longer be around. How, then, do we attempt to recreate something which, in all probability, has already been created. This is an area where the entire idea of social computing can be quite useful. Lets illustrate this ... a lot of people, when writing books about history, or topics about which not much knowledge exists today, refer to papers, documents, plaques, photographs, archaeological remains, etc., of the topic they are writing about. For example, I just completed reading a book titled In the Shadow of the Great Game ... by Narendra Singh Sarila (though i have no idea how some folks get the idea that this is a partisan book ... its anything but that, but then, thats my opinion ... you are free to have your own) ... and here, the author has extensively quoted sources, including official archives, personal papers, etc. ... Personal diaries, for example, are a description of the then current events ... as such, they become a valuable source of information about things that were happening, as well as the opinions of people (stakeholders?) about these. Somewhat similar to blogs?

From this description, we could go on to the possibility that blogs, discussion fora, and other, similar platforms could be a good way of preserving the thoughts of people about contemporary events ... whether outside, or within the organization.

Give To Get, And E 2.0 ...

There is an interesting post over at the Greater IBM Connection ... 2.0 means give to get ... its gives, in a nutshell, some of the basic ideas behind the 2.0 world (and no, thats not a new term ... wonder when someone is going to come up with that, anyway?).

What caught the eye is the idea about e 2.0 ... about conversations happening openly across company firewalls. This is an interesting idea. Especially the part about conversations happening across company firewalls. While this is happening, i think the larger question is about conversations happening more and more openly within the firewall to begin with. One aspect of e 2.0 which needs to be highlighted (and there are quite a few folks out there who are ...), is the idea of increased participation. And this, inside the firewall. One of the things e 2.0 is about is the scenario where more and more ideas can flow more and more easily within the organization, across traditional organizational structures, like hierarchies, and work functions.

This is an important aspect to knowledge sharing, primarily because, the way i see it, organizations have "knowledge structures" which are quite distinct to the traditional, formal structures within organizations. And e 2.0 is all about facilitating these knowledge structures to evolve and come into the value-creation process as acknowledged sources of value, not necessarily formal.

Driver Or Enabler ...

There is a very interesting my friend Nirmala has created ... to get a better understanding of the nature of KM initiatives in organizations, and the answer queries about KM. You could read about it here. Its a rather interesting idea ... in that, it attempts to provide a certain amount of structure about the entire idea of facilitating knowledge.

There is, however, a thought i had regarding this. One question which came to mind when i was reading this was about the entire idea of whether KM is the driver or the enabler. This, to my mind, is not the appropriate question to ask. This is because, in my opinion, KM is not the end in itself. Rather, a means towards achieving something. Hence, KM should not be considered the driver in the first place. Rather, i would look at KM as an enabler of specific business processes, or drivers.

This is analogous to the question that i have asked earlier ... whether KM should be considered a function, or a tool. This question is an important one for the reason that this gets us thinking about whether KM should be a business objective, or a facilitator to specific business objectives. As a function, KM becomes an area of business itself, like Sales, with objectives which drive the working of this function. However, as a tool, KM becomes aligned with business functions, and functions in a way determined by the needs of the business.

In other words, what i am saying here is that KM needs to be more closely aligned with business objectives in order to derive mileage from the initiatives that form a part of KM activities, along with the toolset that KM brings.

Of Subsidiary And Focal

I had read about the concepts of subsidiary knowledge and focal knowledge, dimensions of tacit knowledge, as propounded by Polanyi. So? Well ... the other day, i actually experienced this.

Over the years, i have managed to build an understanding of the Bengali language. I can read the language, although with a considerable amount of effort (though writing is something i am still struggling with, given the differences in the spoken and written language, but thats another story altogether ...). The other day, i managed to lay my hands on a collection of stories of Feluda, written by Satyajit Ray (and yes, i do believe the character was primarily modelled around Soumitra Chatterjee, while  Santosh Dutta was just the right actor for Jatayu).

So what, you might ask. Exactly ... not much. I have really enjoyed reading these stories ... they are available in an English translation. However, this one is the original ... written in the Bengali language (Bangla). And, this is when i realized ... while i could read the book (although haltingly), i just wasnt enjoying the stories as much as i had enjoyed them in the English translation. This was because most of my attention was taken up trying to understand whats written in terms of deciphering the language, rather than focussing on the plot of the story. And this is where i realized the importance of "subsidiary" knowledge. When reading a text in a language we understand, we dont have to focus on trying to understand the language, but rather, we need only try to understand the concepts which are written there.

What this highlights is the fact that even when we talk about knowledge, knowledge is not a simple, single-layered entity. Rather, most knowledge is multi-layered, in that it consists of a number of layers of meanings, and we need to understand all of them in order to make sense of it. For example, one would not be able to understand the mathematics behind the theory of relativity without first understanding basic algebra. And this is where illustrations, examples ... concepts which serve to simplify some of the concepts come in handy. This is an important concept to understand, both for trying to understand the representation of knowledge, as well as for training professionals.

Bangalore's Ceasar's ...

When you go to Bangalore next ... tucked away on M. G. Road (and i say tucked away, because if you drive too fast, which, by the way, isnt possible on M. G. Road ... never was, but with the Metro rail making its presence felt, even more so ...), is a restaurant which goes by the name of Caesar's. You can even find it listed at burrp, but surprisingly, nobody has reviewed the place yet.

Surprising because this is a place, which, while being easy to miss, shouldnt be. Quite unassuming from the outside, and if you didnt know any better, you might not even think too much about going there ... but, step in you must. Caesar's has been around for quite some time now ... the decor and the elegance tells you that. You go through an old-fashioned, elegant entrance to the dining area, which itself is well appointed. Not something which is quite contemporary ... not too many straight lines, and sharp edges ... the decor is rounded, and doesnt jar. Add to this a well-appointed bar, and you have all the makings of a place which is quite plush, though admittedly one which has seen days when it was far more visited.

Coming to the food ... the variety here is quite interesting. But, something about the signature of a restaurant tells you what kind of food you should order here. And, i was going for something top of mind ... there were Fried Prawns, Grilled Fish Sizzler, and the Fish and Chips. The Prawns were nice, though not among the most delectable. The Sizzler is nice, too, not disguising the delicacy of the Fish too much, leaving it grilled well, while keeping it quite tender, and the Vegetables are ok. The most recommendable dish here is the Fish and Chips. The Chips are crisp, and so is the Fish. Done just right, the Fish is not too hard, and not too soft, and cooked in a way that leaves the flavour of the Fish intact. Having eaten Fish and Chips at quite a few places, i must recommend this.

Web 2.0 ... All About Adoption

There is an interesting post by Jevon MacDonald, about e 2.0 taking the stage. Especially where he says ...

The interconnections and interactions between people spark great value, but the more costly traditional tools have missed out on this great reservoir of of value, but the newer lower cost solutions offer these gems up wonderfully with a little coaxing.

What is interesting here is the part about little coaxing. And this, in my experience, has been the trickiest part. Like i have written before, the key to web 2.0, and the evolution of the structures around e 2.0 is heavily dependant on the adoption of these initiatives. And, more often than now, this requires more than a little coaxing.

Another thing he mentions ...

The promise of bringing social tools into organizations has never been about complicating worker productivity. It centers on allowing individuals to act more independently and to make smarter decisions more easily.

The idea here shouldnt be to have people taking time from their daily schedule, to contribute to the network. Rather, the contributions to the network have to be an outcome of the daily work of people. Much like facebook ... you dont have to specifically go out there and mention that you have written on someone's wall. The activities you perform are reflected on the page. And something like this is also required within the firewall.

Update ... after having written and published this, i came across this article about SocialText 3.0.

Recommendation Market ...

This is something i have been thinking about ... one of the applications of the web 2.0 technologies, and of what some call the semantic web (one of these days, i am actually going to figure out what this means, and maybe even understand the difference between the two concepts) is the recommendation platform which this technology provides. What we are talking about is, at the basic, recommendations of products and services (reading the Times Good Food Guide to find new places to go to, or checking out burrp). As we are seeing this aspect is becoming more and more sophisticated (not so much in terms of technology as in terms of users).

Why i am talking about this is simple. People are coming up with more and more ways to use technologies to collaborate, and share thoughts and opinions. One aspect that catches the eye is the way you can share content which you appreciate with your social networks. Its quite simple to click an icon, and share content, ranging from articles, blogs, to videos, on facebook, for example. What i am talking about is from the reader's perspective. And from this perspective, at times, this can be overwhelming. And it can become even more so when you try to apply this to your job. Theres just so much of opinion, it can become quite an effort going through it, leave aside taking any decisions based on this. Which is why i blogged about searching for opinions.

One tool i came across is idopia ... something i have written about. This seems to be a tool which is more than just a survey tool, which also captures the qualitative aspect of your opinion. Another thing which comes to mind is the define functionality on google. If you want a formal definition for Knowledge Management, just type "define:Knowledge Management" and it will give you definitions of the term as they appear on the net. Something on these lines, working around opinions ... covering a set of sources, including blogs, wikis, your communities ... which can give you what people out there are thinking ... especially when it comes to giving their opinions on a particular topic.

Some Thoughts ...

They say that when people are low, they can be cheered up by two things ... humour, and sex. For the latter, this is not the right place to look (hey, i am sure you already know where to look ...), and as far as the former goes, here's a glossary of some of the terms from everyday use, redefined by the current financial crisis ... not original, though ...

CEO: Chief Embezzlement Officer

CFO: Corporate Fraud Officer

Bull Market: A random market movement causing an investor to mistake himself for a financial genius

Broker: What the broker made you

Standard and Poor: Your life, in a nutshell

Stock Analyst: The idiot who downgraded your stock

Yahoo: The exclamation when you sell it at $240

Windows: What the sucker who bought it at $240 jumps out of

Institutional Investor: Last year's investor who's now either in the nuthouse, or busy expatriating funds from India (a nut, any which ways)

Profit: An archaic word no longer in use

On a rather less humorous note ... something which i havent been able to figure out ... not rationally, at the least ... why is it that when the Dow Jones drops by 1%, the Sensex (with or without the Saas and Bahu), drops by 10%? Whats the amplifying all about? How is it that the fundamentals of companies have changed overnight, so much so, that a lot of companies lost 75% of their market capitalization? Or is it just that everyone is going by what their neighbour (and his uncle) is doing?

ToI ran an article today, about Hapur investors making hay in the market mayhem ... a must-read for anybody who thinks he's smarter that his neighbour (or his uncle). This very nice article goes to show that Hapur knows much more about Finance than Wall Street does ... and, another thing ... that common-sense makes more sense than most of the smartest folks around. Way to go ...

Sitting In The Lawn ...

Sitting out in the lawn ... Something you wouldn't even think of during the summer months, and something which you wouldn't get the opportunity for during the monsoons ... Is something which is a very attractive scenario during certain parts of the year. When you find sitting in the lawn on a late morning (preferably having gotten up early, which is quite a wonderful thing to do if you ask me, though I don't do much of it myself) something pleasant, then you also know that autumn is here, and winter is just round the corner.


This is something I have seen a lot of folks do. I have my Grandfather sitting out at his vantage point where he could catch the maximum sunlight ... Reading the newspaper. Unless he was discussing politics with his friends ... Otherwise, they could have been discussing grandchildren (quite unlikely ... That was more Grandma's domain). That was the time of the mohalla ... When Grandpa would sit on his favourite chair, along with his friends ... On another part of the street we (the boys) would be playing Kanche, Gilli Danda, Lattoo, or as we grew up, Cricket ...

This was the scene in the mornings ... Wonderful mornings, when the vacations were on, and thanks to Grandpa, Mom couldn't bully me into completing my homework before going out to play. Homework was something which could be done on the last day of the holidays, which is something my son has definitely inherited from me.

Grandmas wouldn’t be found there just yet, as Lunch had to be cooked, and the street would be a heady mix of aromas ... Aaloo Gobhi, Matar Paneer, Paalak da Saag,and of course ... Saron da Saag, Maanh di Daal, or Aaloo Methi, the Paraanthaas (there was Aaloo, Gobhi, Methi, Mooli and more …), and of course ... The ubiquitous Gobhi Shalgam da Achaar. And for those of us who managed to get entangled in Mom's clutches, there would the inevitable Saron de tel (or Badaam Rogan, though this was usually reserved for the kids ... You see, we were grown up ... All of seven?) di maalish.

Lunch, and as one of the protagonists in Malgudi would say ... It is only the tribe of boys who cannot or would not sleep in the afternoon ... And Grandma gets some time to gossip. This, however, is accompanied by some frenetic activities ... The clatter if needles as they dash around knitting something or the other ... The count of loops being kept under their breath ... Or the tweezers plying themselves with all of Grandma's enthusiasm to make the delicacy for the kids, peeling the skin off those hapless Kharboozaa seeds, which once skinned, would find their way into the Sooji da Halwa (believe me, these are an acquired taste).

So, the next time someone asks me, I am going to tell them that sitting in the lawn on a late autumn morning reminds me of Kharbooze de beej ... And let them figure out the rest.

For, when the warm sunshine feels soothing, and the breeze tickles your senses, and she dances, waving her supple fingers in the sunshine, winter cannot be far away. And when winter isn't far away, would these memories be far away.

Leadership and Social Computing ...

A rather interesting post by Rachel Happe ... the distinction between wisdom of crowds and mob rule ... interesting reading ... more so because it brings in some form of sobering to the euphoria around social computing. Having said that, however, the key point i think Rachel brings out is the idea about leadership. And this is something which i have experienced in my interactions with different organizations.

Especially within the context of the organization leadership plays a critical role. As i have written before, the difference between succesful adoption pf and hence deriving benefits from social computing and Knowledge Management initiatives, and the other way round, comes, to a large extent from the leadership and the attitude of leadership towards these initiatives. Now, leadership is not the only parameter here, but it is definitely one of the most important parameters towards determining how an organization is going to take to the larger social computing picture.

If we have an organization where leaders look askance at blogs (there are quite a few organizations, where senior management, and i am equating them with leadership, look at blogging as a waste of time), then the probability of the organization adopting blogging on a large scale is quite low. Similarly, for communities ... One of the paradoxes about communities is that while they are supposed to be self-forming, and self-governing, they really cannot sustain without some amount of stimulus provided by the organization itself, and when i say organization here, i am really talking about leadership.

Which brings us to the question ... how to get the leadership to buy into these initiatives. Lot has been written about this, but more and more, the ROI concept comes in. Managers need to see what is the benefit the organization gets from investing time and effort into an initiative like adopting web 2.0 technologies, in order to justify the investment of resources into this, rather than into other initiatives which are competing for the same funding. Having said this, ROI is not a concept which lends itself easily to calculation when it comes to knowledge, for reasons which i have written about before. This is not to say that we can do without something which is as basic as this in the minds of the decision-makers. Now, i am not writing about a score-card here, but some measures for performance (which are usually already in place), and their relation with KM initiatives is something which needs to be developed. And this, to my mind, can be developed only within the context of a specific scenario, rather than being generalized.