Learning Organization

Theres lots that has been written about this subject ... More than i could ever read. Though, i came across an interesting question over at linkedin ... About How we can enable an organization to learn faster. The question is quite simple ... What caught the attention was the responses that this generated.

My take ... the learning of the organization is essentially the collective learning of its people. Though, what distinguishes one organization to another is the willingness of the organization to work out an understanding of the collective learning, and to be able to apply this at multiple levels ... both in terms of strategic thinking, as well as in operational terms.

There was an interesting idea that came through ... Bryan Lund gives an interesting thought ... when he says ...

The trick, if I may is to stop assigning knowledge management to "someone" or a department so that they can run it like a project.

This is an interesting thought. And, something which is applicable to a large number of organizations. To what extent should KM be an externally applied initiative, and to what extent should it be driven by the people in the organization. Ideally, KM should be driven by the people in the organization itself, and i think, this is where some of the web 2.0 technologies could play an important role. More so because they are more about giving the capabilities to the user, with the user choosing how they are going to leverage them, and build upon the capabilities provided. And, like i have written before, this is where the technology folks have an important role, although slightly different from the way it is today, to play.

Training in the Corporate World

I came across a very interesting blog post ... Its discussing whether Training is Useless ... No, its not making that declaration, though i would have agreed with it if that were so ... In large measure, if not completely. The post goes on to make some very convincing arguments about why this could be so. In a nutshell ... this is because nobody really knows why training is required.

More often than not ... someone comes up and says my team needs to communicate better ... The training folks end up doing a keyword search in a catalogue for communication, get some search results, and "throw" the training at the problem ... without even knowing whether this is the right problem in the first place. More often than not, the real requirement for the training remains hidden behind layers of management jargon, which is why training methodologies never go one step beyond the Training Needs Analysis ... to where the root cause of the requirement lies.

The interesting thing this post is making is how the author went to attend a PowerBuilder training, only to come back and work on a VisualBasic project. Quite a few of us have been there, which is an indication that the scenario i am describing does exist in different forms in different organizations. Even if some folks were lucky, and went to the right trainings, the piece which is left missing is the post-training engagement. It is assumed that anyone who walks out after completing a training is a completely changed human being and is an expert on the subject the trainings was about. For example, if you went to an Oracle DBA training, your boss would expect you to be the champ at this when you walked out of the training room. Which is precisely why the T3 concept usually comes about. This tends to negate the value of experience in the specific subject. And this is one of the primary reasons people tend to not derive the kind of value from trainings, that they otherwise could.

If we are to look at how training fits in with the organization's goals, we would find that at some level, Knowledge Management as a discipline also aligns in a similar manner to those goals. This is not to say that these two functions are necessarily overlapping ... But it does mean that training needs to synergize with the larger knowledge management direction within the organization.

Academic Status for wikipedia

I came across an interesting piece ... About Jimmy Wales discouraging the use of wikipedia for academic research. Interesting piece ... and, some folks have written some interesting comments, too. One of the things there is that a student could get a F for citing wikipedia as a source for their research. This makes sense to me. While the powerful search capabilities available to us should be used to replace the tedious hours spent at the library poring ver books, this search cannot be a substitute for research. Add to that the fact that not many students cite an encyclopaedia (even Britannica) on research papers.

But, this does bring out an interesting point ... that wikipedia is inaccurate. Definitely it is ... But then, so is the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Ok, so the number of errors per article (which is a measure of the accuracy of content) is higher with wikipedia, but the fact remains what number of errors is acceptable and what is not (which seems to be a measure of respectability) seems to be a matter of brand equity.

To add my two bits to this ... i would say that wikipedia would be an excellent source for information on anby topic ... its a good first step. Can be used to gain a basic understanding of the subject, could be used as an aggregator for other, more expert resources on the subject, and can be used to build up a platform for knowledge sharing. This would imply that a wiki can be a very useful tool for facilitating the flow of information, and not just as a repository itself. This distinction is an interesting one ... the repository has the responsibility of being accurate. But the facilitator for information sharing is more concerned about source, destination, and channel. And, the source and the destination ultimately are people, while the wiki itself can be the channel connecting these. A step in the direction of a knowledge marketplace?

Minggl ...

I came across a really neat tool the other day ... its called minggl and the tag line says ... Socialize from anywhere on the web. Its quite an interesting tool. What with the proliferation of social networking ... i am a member of a few ... it becomes a bit of a chore getting access to your friends on different social networks in different sites, and minggl helps you to do that. They do have a rather neat demo of the tool, and the best part is that this allows you to actually keep your social networks online even when you are working on something else, via a toolbar. Quite cool, actually ...

DIY Web

OK ... So, I am adding to the web 2.0 cacophony. At the cost of doing that, allow me to say that today, after a long time, i was reminded of the basic axiom of web 2.0 which is:

Web 2.0 = DIY web

Interesting ... if you would see, i have added a widget from the official Dilbert site to the blog. This means you could read Dilbert off my blog. Sounds cool? Well ... cooler still is the fact that a technological dinosaur like me could achieve something so technically complex. And this is the sheer wonder of web 2.0. The DIY nature of this.

However, this is not something which delights traditional Information Technology folks. SOme folks would feel that they lose control over the technology landscape within the organization in a web 2.0 world. However, this need not necessarily be true. The role of Information Technology could be redefined to facilitating the adoption of web 2.0 ... of defining the platform, the technology, and of maintaining the levels of DIY which the user community demands. In simpler language ... on the web, there are folks out there who develop widgets which anyone can use. In the organization, the Information Technology organization could assume this role. This would require them to be in much closer contact with the user community, and would give them a greater understanding of the requirements of users, making Information Technology more central to the scheme of organizational things. And this could change the way Information Technology interacts with the rest of the organization. And, to my mind, for the better.

Basis for a State

I am reading The Indus Sage (i am sure you would know this by now, but for those of us who dont ...) these days. So, for the next few days, you can expect more on the subject. One issue the book raises is that Indus (modern day Pakistan, the geography around the Indus river, and its tributaries), and India have always been two distinct civilizations. By and large, i agree with the hypothesis, but there are areas of the argument which Mr. Ahsan raises, which i cant get myself to agree with.

First of all, i am not too comfortable with the idea of defining a civilization based on geographical characteristics alone. While historically, we have talked about the Indus Valley civilization, and most ancient civilizations flourished around sources of water, the scenario today doesnt necessarily seem to be the same. The importance of having big cities close to rivers is not as much of importance today as it was in ancient ages. This is not to undermine the importance of water sources, but this is taking into consideration the way human civilization has evolved over the last few millenia.

As such, i am more comfortable with defining a civilization culturally rather than based on proximity to geographical characteristics by themselves. This, to my mind, is a definition which tends to be far more robust. This doesnt really tend to go down well with the modern definition of Pakistan, but then a lot of other things dont either.

1. I get the feeling that the entire idea of the Indus civilization is related to Islam. Historically, it may not have been, since the region was primarily Hindu and Buddhist over a period of time, but since the advent of Islam, the identity seems to be more and derived, and even more so since the creation of Pakistan, the identity of Pakistan seems to be have been defined even more based on Islam if Mohajirs are people who reverted to their Indus heritage, even if they find their home and roots in the Gangetic plains. Having said that, i do agree with Mr. Ahsan that Islam is not the defining characteristic of the Indus civilization. More about this in point 3.

2. If the civilization is going to be defined based on geographical characteristics, then the logic holds true, but if it is not, then the entire argument of declaring Kashmir an inseparable part of the Indus civilization loses its entire foundation. For, culturally, Kashimir can in no way found to be congruous to the Punjabi or Sindhi. Besides, if we are to define a civilization based purely on geographical characteristics, then maybe Tibet should also be a part of Indus, since the Indus river originates there. This doesnt stand to reason.

3. None of these considerations (except religion), can define the true nature of Indus, considering East Pakistan being a part of Pakistan. But, this by itself proves that religion is not the founding stone of the Indus of today, given that if it were, the centrifugal force which created Bangladesh would not have existed.

In a nutshell, i agree with Mr. Ahsan that the culture and civilization of Indus is distinct from an Indian civilization. I just dont agree with too many of the conclusions he seems to draw from this fact.

Knowledge Intersection

I was reading a blog some days back (cant seem to find it now, or i am just too lazy on a Sunday morning ... not that theres anything special about Sundays) which was talking about looking outside your field to get new ideas. Usually, you been to one conference, you been to all of them. So, the novelty usually tends to be the drinks!

I have been thinking how this concept impacts the entire idea of knowledge creation. Lets take a team ... which is purely inward looking. Theoretically, if they never had any interactions with anyone from outside the team, i surmise that they would come up with ideas from within a given pool of ideas, and this pool would never grow. That the ideas and thoughts and learnings would continue to recycle from a given set, and would simply go round in circles. Anybody disagree with this premise, i would be more than happy to read more about it.

Anyway, if we build on this premise ... The logical consequence of this would be that new knowledge is generated at the intersection of existing bodies of knowledge. If we were to take two teams, or individuals, with their own given set of ideas and learnings about the world around, it is in the region of intersection of their "information sets" that new knowledge is generated. It is in this intersection that ideas are exchanged freely, and ideas of the one are understood by the other, and built upon, to create completely new ideas. If these two folks didnt have any area of intersection, they would simply be like a Hindi speaking, and a Tamil speaking man put together in the same room, neither understanding what the other is saying.

The important point i am trying to make out is that we often have certain information about the world. We have knowledge ... and, this combines with knowledge from others, to create new forms of knowledge.

One implication ... we as KM practitioners, must look outside the field at other areas to look at newer ideas of knowledge generation, discussion, and sharing.

For example, I am reading a book titled The Indus Saga written by Aitzaz Ahsan. And, i am definitely learning so much about a country we in India dont know much about ... Pakistan. So what if we are neighbours. I believe that it is at the intersection of knowledge about our respective selves and our world views that new knowledge would be created.

The question this brings out ... how best can the intersection be shared between two people. This is where the importance of "mental models" cannot be overestimated. One must understand where the other person is coming from, and where they are going. And, to illustrate their point, must relate it to the image of the world the other person is carrying. And, this is where stories play a vauable role. This is where a story, using simple language, and building the essential points, can be highly effective to create an understanding of each other. Read The Indus Saga, and you would find out.

Something I Am Reading

These days i am reading a book ... The Indus Saga ... From Patliputra to Partition, by Aitzaz Ahsan. The book is a well written, well thought out story about the civilization of what today is Pakistan. Nice book ... Though, there are a few things i wanted to write about ...

Firstly, the Gurdaspur Kathiawad line ... Mr. Ahsan makes the argument that this is the line which divides two different civilizations. While i do agree that culturally, the Gangetic plain is quite distinct from the Indus civilization, i think the line that Mr. Ahsan has drawn comes more from a sense of current political geography rather than anything more concrete. For instance, this line traces quite well the Radcliffe Award. Is this just a coincidence? Probably not. Which would suggest that the positioning of this divide is more than scholarly debate.

Another thing that stands out ... the creation of Pakistan. While the civilization of the Indus region is distinct from the larger Indian civilization, the fact remains ... the creation of Pakistan was not a civilizational consequence. Nor was it a religious consequence of the deep divide between the Hindu and Muslim populations of the subcontinent. If it was a religious consequence, Mohammad Ali Jinnah wouldnt have declared Pakistan as being a secular state, where the religion a person professes to would not come in the way of how the nation treats him. Which leaves one aspect ... the political aspect. This goes to suggest that the creation of Pakistan was purely a political move, and shouldnt be seen as anything else. That this is backed by civilizational differences probably doesnt bear on the debate.

Another thing which i dont quite agree with ... that the Mohajir is an Indus person reverting to his roots. How does a Mohajir, who may come from Lucknow become an Indus person? How does he lay a claim to the history of Indus, that is larger than that of a Punjabi Hindu, or Sikh, who hails from the Punjab, whose Father might have called Lahore or Rawalpindi home? This argument suggests an Islamic connection to the civilization of Pakistan, which is definitely not the thesis of the book.

Public Apathy?

The news rewported that a gentleman bled to death on the roads of Delhi, as traffic just flowed by. Until a gentleman, who happens to be a doctor, stopped, fuelled by his spirit of love, to try and help. Its a different matter that the accident victim had already bled to death. How is this world turning out to be? Have we come to a situation where there is no value whatsoever attached to human life? Could a life just waste away right in front of our eyes, while we just "flow" past?

Saving grace ... CNN-IBN

IPL ...

Quite a bit ... havent written even once about IPL. Though, we are watching the matches daily. And today was a nailbiting finish ... Delhi Daredevils beating Royal Challengers Bangalore. Rahul Dravid got it right ... one big over and they would have made it. But, quite good captaincy from Virendra Sehwag, i must say. The guts to bring on his strike bowler (Glenn McGrath) in the middle of the innings ... saving his over for the last ... quite interesting. Apart from Gautam Gambhir's innings (they could call him anything except Gouti, couldnt they?), Shikhar Dhawan seems to be a very good bat.

Talking about the new names, most of the established ones havent really clicked as yet. Dada (our very own Moshai ...) seems to heave a sigh of relief when he gets out, the biggest name (you guessed ... Tendulkar) hasnt had the chance to play, Dhoni has played a few knocks, but one expects more from him than he has done, as is also the scene with Yuvraj. The team to note ... Rajasthan Royals ... no big names ... but, sheer captaincy, and Shane Warne is showing he can lead the team to more than a few victories.

Watch this space ...