Generating Knowledge

While this is a question that has been asked over and over, without us being any closer to the answer, nevertheless, it is important to develop an understanding of how people generate knowledge. For, unless we understand this, how can we, or today's organizations, find out how to maximize this, how to facilitate knowledge creation? While I am not trying to come up with a solution, I am trying to develop a framework. I would think its a simplistic one, but this is not meant to be an elaborate one. Also, I believe that if you take a complex concept, and put it into a particular context, then it becomes quite simple, almost like describing something with an example.

Of course, this doesnt have a starting point (a circle doesnt have one), but we must begin somewhere. So, we will begin with an individual. This individual, through reading, training, or observation, develops an understanding about something. This understanding is placed in a context (which actually could be quite different from the original context, in which it was developed, for example, classroom versus on-the-job) by actually doing, and experiencing. This is the first step.

Once this individual knowledge has been developed, it is shared. This sharing is done in a number of ways, like storytelling (this is getting to be a bit of a fad), or at times, even unknowingly. For example, others might actually learn something simply by observing you, or seeing what you do in a particular scenario, and so on. This sharing of knowledge is by itself generating new knowledge, in the form of a shared understanding, or a shared model. This is the second step, and leads to a repitition of the first step.

I admit that this is a rather simplistic model, but it takes care of a few things. To begin with, it takes care of the concept of generating knowledge by sharing. Also, it takes care of the multitude of vectors which facilitate the movement of knowledge in directions and ways which are not fully understood (though it doesnt quite explain them). The drawback is that it doesnt take into consideration the nature of the knowledge being considered, whether explicit or implicit. This model assumes that the mechanism of assimilating and sharing varies based on the classification, but not the basic process.

I believe this model can be used to develop more complex models for the generation of knowledge in the organization, and I look at this only as a first step. Of course, if you look at this closely, you will be able to discern the similarly with the SECI model, but the fact is, this is focussing on the individual mechanism of learning, while the SECI model describes the mechanisms for transformation of knowledge from one form into another. Needless to say, this model must be looked at in conjunction with the SECI model, to develop a fuller picture.

All thoughts, feedback, doubts, clarifications ... more than welcome!

Your Friendly Red Neighbour

What do Bangladesh and India have in common? Both have a red neighbour ... OK, so I tried to pre-empt your guesses, because Bangladesh and India do have a lot in common, including the famed, self-professed Bengali intelligentsia! But I wanted to guide your answer to one particular avenue, that is to the red neighbour Bangladesh has ... aka West Bengal, or Poshchim Bongo ... Who see red in just about anything anybody does.

Take the example of the 123 agreement. I know a lot of the blogosphere has been talking about this ... there was an article in the ToI today, titled Bengal urgently needs industry which is based on a dialogue with Mr. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee. The CM talks about a pro-Soviet lobby (as in the past, it would seem), and there were those who followed the China line during the 1962 war (a border dispute). While every citizen of the country to hold whatever opinion they feel like, one must ask ... What does one say of people who toe the enemy line during hostilities?

Sadly, this is not just relegated to the past. The blogosphere is abuzz with thoughts that the Left is toeing the Beijing line. Read this for an example. What does the Congress do? I think the Congress would do well to go it alone ... There is plenty of support in the country for the deal, and the country shouldnt let one element of a coalition hold the entire country to ransom.


This should be taken in the light of the fact that China is doing far more with respect to their energy security than India is. Neither is China per se opposed to nuclear power, nor are they allergic to working out a similar deal with Pakistan (its been reported in the press, but I cant seem to find the link). For one, India is hampered by the relationship with Pakistan. We dont seem to be having a strategic outlook with the Indo-China region, nor do we seem to be having an integrated policy towards the Central Asian Republics. There is huge scope for India to work very closely with them, but somewhere, we seem to be losing the race. While we might well say that "slow and steady wins the race", but the fact remains, we are not doing anything close to running. Add to this the fact that we dont even seem to have a policy towards exploitation of renewable resources, be it solar, or wind energy (we have plenty of them, as I am sure anybody student of Geography would agree!). Why cant we, for example, take a leaf out of the Dutch book, in the form of windmills? Surely, this is not a Quixotic idea?

Competitive Advantage and Knowledge ...

I came across a quote (thanks, Prof. Prashant) ...

Where absolute superiority is not attainable, you must produce a relative one at the decisive point by making skilful use of what you have.

This is from the legendary, early 19th century Prussian soldier, Karl von Clausewitz. A telling commentary on what it takes to win at battle. And, he should know. Today's business environment, at times, is nothing short of it. Would it be too much to say that some principles of war could be applied to the corporate world?

Let us look at this quote, and analyze different parts of this.

When absolute superiority is not attainable ... this is the usual scenario in today's world, as I am sure all of us would agree.

You must produce a relative superiority ... Its enough to be able to run faster than the rest, and not necesarrily at the fastest possible (speed of light?)

At the decisive point ... those little everyday moments when you have to take one of those multitude of decisions as part of your job role (this is not about whether you want Tea, or Coffee)

By making skilful use of what you have ... knowledge!

It stands to reason that the more we have, the easier it is for us to create the relative advantage that is required, at the decisive points. After all, these decisive points are numerous in our daily working life.

Hence, KM ...

Social Networking ... Behind the Firewall

I came across a very interesting blog post about Why Social Networks Don't Work for Business where Paul Pedrazzi talks about the two major reason for social networks not working for business ... Trust. And, that, once you have trusted sources, then you need content.

While I agree with Paul, I would like to add another aspect to this, and that is relevance. I would say it is relevance and trust which together bring value to a social network. While there are a lot of people who are digg ing, it is also a fact that information overload is something which is a very important phenomenon. For example, I have been thinking of reading all those nice things people read, one of these days, but never coming round to them, because theres just so many of them.

Which is why the idea of the internal social network is very appeling. In fact, this is something I have written about earlier, here, here, and here. The primary question I am asking is, why is it that organizations are not catching up on the ideas of social networking within the context of the organization, especially when the benefits seem to be so straightforward.

Chinese Toys ...

There was this one doing the rounds ...

Chinese officials have recalled one ton of lead ... It was suspected to contain toys.

While this might be funny, the controversy isnt. Imagine what our children are playing with. And, it ceases to be funny at all. The ToI ran an article about Chinese toys, jewellery being recalled due to excessive amounts of lead. Sure, this is a reflection of the industry. But, more than that, is it the way large organizations are besotted with China. Be it Leo Mattel, or be it Boeing. One would shudder to think if Being's parts were recalled! Not a pleasant thought at all.

Though, this is art of the larger picture which is being missed out. Sure, China is the emerging superpower. They are the largest market in the world. But, they are authoritarian (or so we are told). Does any of this matter? Looks like in the pursuit of "globalization", there is nothing but the profit motive which matters. Though, taken from the larger picture's view, India should be alarmed. That the Chinese are expanding aggresively into Indo-China is public knowledge. And, one is not sure whether Government of India even has a policy to counter the Chinese expansion. Belatedly, there was an article about deployment of a Sukhoi squadron at Tezpur. One squadron to manage the Chinese threat?

More than the military threat (one would Hope it doesnt come to The Dragon Fire scenario), its the diplomatic piece which needs to be considered. The Indian Government doesnt seem to have any coherent policy to engage neighbours. If anything, we seem to be disengaged, if Bangladesh is anything to go by. More than Bangladesh, I would think there has to be a policy of positive, aggressive engagement with Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar. These are the no-man's land in international geopolitics, but not for long, and it is in our interest to make sure they are not.

Innovation and KM

There is a rather interesting Book I am reading these days ... Marketing as Strategy by Nirmalya Kumar. I am sure you must have figured out that it is not out of any love for the subject, but out of the fact that the Exam is on Saturday.

But he writes an interesting piece about innovation. While he is writing about the idea of Breakthrough Innovation, and illustrates the point with how Sony manages it, this piece got me thinking about the applicability of KM. The following are my drowsy thoughts on the subject (ya, ya, I have been awake quite early writing this ...).

Breakthrough innovation that reshapes the industry usually occurs in bursts in an organization, and is interspersed with large extents of incremental innovation. These periods of incremental innovation can get quite prolonged, even to the extent of eliminating the innovative component of the organization, with the result that the organization, during these periods, faces the possibility of losing its competitive thrust, and move from a company that is market-driving, to a company that is market-driven.

Lot of organizations are looking for ways to prevent this. While I am not saying KM is the panacea for this (cannot be), at one level, KM is an essential ingredient of this. One could say that the key is to create a culture of innovation, but if it were that simple, we would be working with innovation 3.5 by now. But we are not.

Lets look at the transition from disruptive to incremental innovation. An organization which can drive disruptive innovation obviously has been able to achieve success with the innovation cycle. But, the challenge faced by the organization is to ingrain innovation as part of its "corporate DNA". But, in order to do this, the organization needs to understand the concept of innovation, and this understanding of innovation must permeate different parts of the organization.

What does this require?

• An understanding of what is innovation, what consitutes the phenomenon, and an understanding of the boundaries of the definition.
• An understanding of the motivation for the disruptive mode of innovation (after all, it didnt happen by chance, and even if it did, there needs to be a way to understand the chance factor, and determine how that can be leveraged repeatedly).
• An understanding of the process (in terms of people, and organizational processes). When I am talking about people processes, I am essentially talking about the thinking processes which led to the landmark.
• An understanding of the organizational structure which led to the breakthrough (though this does not necessarily mean that the same organizational structure by itself would lead to a repeat burst, but then, none of the things I am writing about would, by themselves, manage the change!).
• An understanding of the relationship of the innovation with the larger organizational context, in terms of market structures, the organizational business and strategic scenario, and related concepts which make up the business context in which the organization is operating.

As you can see, all of these ingredients which are essential chapters in the book of innovation, are not things which can be documented. Having said that, it is very improtant to have the answers to these questions, these elements of understanding, to permeate the larger organization milieu. And this is where KM needs to play role. Like I said, this is not to say that KM is driving innovation, but surely, as a management discipline, can play a facilitating role. This is something which is largely ignored from the perspective of KM practitioners, because the emphasis is not there on connecting KM with organizational processes, and even where there is the emphasis, it is more of embedding knowledge sources into transactional processes, and not tactical or strategic processes. Though, in this context, I think storytelling can play a vital role. More on this in my next post.

Taxonomy versus Search

I am being so web 1.0 as I write this post ... Whoever is thinking about taxonomy today, what with the emergence of folksonomy as a major mover in the content space. But, this is a question worth asking. And, a question which probably doesnt have a straight-forward answer. Or, if there is one, then I dont know it (anyone out there could give it to me?). There is a lot written out there about the benefits of taxonomy vis vis folksonomy (and both of them have many), but search ...

The question I am asking ... Is search relevant? For example, when google searches for a document, it doesnt necessarily depend on tags to search. Can we extend this to say that if we can make search more powerful (assuming we can), would that make taxonomy more redundant? Doubtless, taxonomy makes search simpler. But, this brings up another question ... How much taxonomy is enough taxonomy.

Penny Crosman, for example, mentions 10 reasons for using taxonomy which make sense to a certain level, but beyond that, I find it hard to agree with them. For example, one of the reasons she mentions is to "make corporate assets more accessible". However, there is sch a thing as too much taxonomy. It is tempting to create a very rigorous structure, which is too detailed. While this does improve search, it also tends to discourage people from contributing their nuggets to a KM system (the why do they want me to fill out all this information syndrome).

The point here is that there are folks who prefer to use a defined, hierarchical navigation to find a document they want, and then there are folks who detest navigation, as can be seen by the popularity of search. Which means, that the design of such a system has to tread a middle path quite carefully, so as not to lose out on the advantages of taxonomy, while at the same time, not overdoing it.

The question then is ... How? I would look at a methodology which is based on the reason for the documentation. This is to ask the question ... Why are people contributing documents here. Why are people searching for documents here. I think the answer to the question of where the middle path lies in the answers to questions like these. Making the entire discussion more complex is the fact that its not just about what people do, what are the things which could make it much easier for them to find documents (a la disruptive innovation!).

The other extreme is, of course, no taxonomy, and a powerful search (assuming such a thing exists). This is a surefire way to make sure that people are not able to find what they are looking for. Because, unless the search is powerful, they may not find what they are looking for. To give you an example, I was search for KM on technorati some time back, and I came across quite a few hits for F1 racing, and automobile reviews (km/hr is what technorati was showing me).

The way I see it ... Taxonomy should cover the basics ... The reasons why people contribute, and why people search ... Anything more would, in all probability, be counter-productive.

Forecasting

Kolkata has faced quite heavy rains over the last few days. But, this one is not about the rains, but the forecaasting with them. The met department at Alipore forecast a clear day Monday, based on the prediction that the atmospheric depression woul move towards Orissa. This, actually, was borne out by folks at a shipping compan who said that the weather pattern had actually moved away from West Bengal. But somehow, Kolkata received more massive rains on Monday, than it did on Sunday.
Not content with that, the met office predicted "Terrible Tuesday", with heavy rains, and guess what ... bright and sunny Tuesday. By then, though, Kolkatans were in s frame of mind that if someone switched on the fan, they got scared because they thought that it had begun raining again.
A beautiful phenomenon ... the Monsoons ... the harbinger of joy, of fertifility to a culture parched by the Summer ... when children love to get wet in the rain, when "Saawan ke jhoole lag gaye ...", has been converted into a scene where people have to wade through waist high water, and instead of sitting on the balcony, and enjoying garam-garam Chai, with Pakodas, they are wondering about how they will make it to the Office tomorrow. And all this, when we are celebrating the Incredible !ndia @ 60 campaign in New York ...

Read Lips

There is an excellent report by National Geographic which talks about the way the brain recognizes faces (thanks, Manu). This makes the point that the brain of the Macaque Monkey has a portion of the brain that is dedicated to the brain. One would expect the same for humans, too! There is also a very nice blog about this here.

What are the implications? In a purely online interaction between people, this portion of the brain is starved of stimuli, and one would think that this would lead to the brain building an incomplete picture of the interaction. This is purely conjecture, but stands to logic, nevertheless. If this is a valid proposition, what follows is what must be a case for face to face interactions. And, that too, in the world of web 2.0.

Though, I would look at this as a case for taking our web 2.0 interactions to the next level (without coming up with a grand term like web 2.5). The question of course is how. This is not so difficult to answer. Introducing the latest social computing tool ... the webcam! One way to look at this (and, not something which is infeasible, because the technology has been around for a long time), is using good old webcams, and voice ... Something which can build the interactions in the community to a level of richness which is missing to a certain extent. Of course, the next challenge would be to record these discussions, and make them persistent.

Global Warming and ... Calcutta!

There is a video presented by Al Gore ... Inconvenient Truth ... Which talks about Global Warming! This talks about global warming, and climate change.

The video talks about land masses changing shape, and large parts of land masses getting submerged in water. This is a real concern. One of the areas which could get submerged in this is Calcutta. My thought ... Do we need Global Warming to do that? Monsoons are enough to achieve this.

Every time it rains in Calcutta, half the city is submerged ... People trying to figure out whether they will be able to reach Office, and if they reach, then trying to figure out whether they will be able to get back home!