Knowledge And Being Liberal ...

I have written before about how you never know what idea you may get from where. And this is something i have written about before. Though, i am not referencing a link here, because i cant find it. Which is one of the reasons i have been writing about the necessity for someone to come up with search for opinions, rather than just keywords (or maybe just aggregators which are rather more beneficial than the current ones) ... this would really help make much more sense out of the blogosphere. One of the reasons being that the way the blogosphere is today, and the way i see it going, is made up of a number of voices, which rather makes the signal-to-noise ratio rather low, the way things stand. I know, there have been a number of pieces written about this, but i just wanted to add this.

But i am digressing from what i wanted to tell. As i said, you never know what thought could come from where. These days, i am reading a rather interesting book (well, you may find it interesting, or not, depending on your personal beliefs ... point is, i find it interesting ... you may not ... if you dont, or if you do, please do tell me about it) titled The Templar Revelation. Of course, i am not writing this to write my opinion about the book. Allow me to keep this to myself, at least for the moment ... let me think if i want to write about this or not, at a later time.

What i am writing about, though, is a sentence in the book, which got me thinking ... no, this sentence has nothing to do with the subject which it triggered my thoughts towards. At one point, the authors say ...

A culture that encourages the pursuit of knowledge tends to tolerate radical new thought.

Now, i am not looking at the context in which this sentence is written ... its not relevant, and thats one of the points i am trying to make ... something from a particular context could actually get you thinking about something which may not be related at all. And what this got me thinking about is whether a culture of knowledge is tolerant, or whether tolerance leads to a culture of knowledge-acquisition? And i am not able to come up with an answer (simply because one moment i think that pursuit of knowledge leads to tolerance, and the next moment, on second thoughts, i feel like changing my opinion ... so, maybe, sometime soon, i will post a poll on this ... please do let everyone know your opinions then ... which will be soon, as soon as i think i can get a clear picture from the current poll, that is).

Now, even though i am not able to come up with an answer, the fact is, there is a relationship between the two. Now, if we look at this relationship in the context of organizations, and try to examine this relationship, we find, at least from the interactions i have with a number of organizations, that this relationship does hold good. What this means is that in an organizational context, culture or atmosphere which encourages the pursuit of knowledge is more tolerant of ideas which are more radical (or, shall we say, ideas which represent departures from the established norms), or vice-versa. And this, to my mind, is a critical ingredient to innovation ... i dont claim to understand the process of innovation too closely, but i do understand that innovation is about the creation of new thoughts, and the pursuit of these thoughts and ideas to their logical conclusion, whether that leads to the introduction of a new product, or entry to a new market, or to nothing at all. This, of course, has to be tempered by considearions of ROI, but that is expected, isnt it? Senior managers of any organization are not runnina laboratory, after all.

The point i am trying to make, however, is that one way or the other, there is a relationship between knowledge and innovation ... question is, what is this link? Simple ... if we look at it carefully, all innovation is directly or indirectly knowledge-driven ... whether it be knowledge about customers, or markets, or products, engineering, or business processes ... and in turn of possibilities of creating greater value to customers by changing some of these.

Next On KM ...

If you are wondering about the poll i have posted ... this reflects something i have been thinking about. The question that comes to mind is ...

Like the 90s saw the emergence of ERP, for example, as a major driving force in business excellence, and this, over a period of time, moved from the centrestage to being an initiative in the operational excellence space, would KM also move along similar lines?

With this in mind, i have been thinking what the direction KM would take over the next few years. Definitely, this is a question for which there are no definite answers, which is why i have posted the poll, to see what you think. The three thoughts that came to mind:

1. Web 2.0/E 2.0: This is something which is already happening. More and more of KM thought is towards how the concepts of social computing and social networking are emerging, their utility in the organizational context, and the impact these are likely to have on the structure of the organization of tomorrow. Is this likely to continue as the central theme of KM?

2. Innovation: Is KM going to merge with another stream, like innovation, or, to look at it in a broaded context, will KM become the next tool for driving organizational change? Would this lead to KM being the tool for developing organization responses to changing market conditions? Or, in other words, would KM become a strategy tool?

3. Operational Excellence: Would KM become another tool to drive operational excellence in the organization, rather than being a differentiator, or driver for change or development in the organization?

I am sure there are other possibilities. Just cant think of too many. Please do leave your comments ...

Goldratt On Economy ...

At a time when there is concern about the state of the economy, there was a news piece i read which mentioned that things might not be as bad as they seem (cant seem to find the link, so i am not referring to it here). Add to this, there is a very interesting newspiece about an economic upturn ... and, coming from someone as notable as Eliyahu Goldratt, one would sit up and listen.

Goldratt, to my mind, is one of the few business thinkers who go mre by common sense than by business theory. And, this reflects in the article i mentioned. Something i have been saying to friends, that the consumption of a billion people is not going to change drastically. Yes, there are going to be changes, definitely, but would these changes be as drastic as they have been made out to be? I dont think so. Even if people are to change their lifestyles, and reduce consumption, this takes time, and is not something which happens overnight. And if consumption is not going to be drastically altered, surely, the fortunes of companies which are linked to this, shouldnt change drastically either.

Lets look at it logically, as Goldratt does in this newspiece ... as fears of a slowdown continue, retailers reduce orders on manufacturers, who see demand going down, and they in turn reduce orders on their suppliers, and so on, down the value chain. What happens in this process is something well-documented ... the bullwhip effect. The fluctuations increase as one moves down the value chain, and this amplification is seen as proof of slowdown. Which would explain the disproportionate change in demand for component manufacturers, as compared to change in retail demand. Now, i am not an economist, but having studied supply chains, this logic rings a bell.

(I)IT-BHU

I am writing about a topic which is close to my heart ... though thats not the only reason i am writing about this. Over the last few years, there has been heightened interest in replicating the model of excellence as represented by the IIT's on a much larger scale, increasing India's competitive positioning in terms of highly skilled manpower, when it comes to engineering. As a part of this, there is the process of creating new IIT's across the nation. This is indeed a laudable effort, and should, over a period of time, contribute to a large extent to creating greater levels of technology excellence in the nation.

There is, however, one institute which is in the lurch, when it comes to being IIT. This is the Institute of Technology - Banaras Hindu University, lovingly known as IT-BHU. Before i proceed, let me tell you that i studied there, so please keep that in mind when reading this piece further. When i went to college, the number of IIT's was 5. There were the IIT's at Kanpur, Kharagpur, Delhi, Bombay, and Madras. However, the hallowed IIT-JEE was an exam which enabled you entrance to these five IIT's, and to the IT-BHU. As such, from the input perspective, the IT-BHU was quite at the same level as the IIT's. Now, to the process of converting raw schoolkids to engineers ... the college is one of the oldest in the country (founded in 1919 ... Prof. Charles King was the first Principal of the college, although then it was in a different form, Minin and Metallurgy still not being a part of a single engineering college), and as such, has a tradition of educational excellence. Add to this the legacy of a university founded by the Mahamana (my Grandfather used to tell me that Mahamana used to be referred to as Silver-Tongued), and which has seen such illustrious and learned men as Dr. Radhakrishnan at the helm of affairs.

With a legacy as brilliant as this, and a faculty which is considered amongst some of the best in the nation, if not the world, the process for converting schoolkids into engineers is among the best in the nation. Coming to the conversion process ... the process of converting schoolkids into engineers ... the input to the institute comes through the IIT-JEE ... the premier entrance exam. So, the quality of students who study at IT-BHU is comparable to the IIT's. The education given is world-class, with a standardized curriculum, and faculty which is among the best in the world. Hence, the output is comparable in terms of quality to the IIT's. With a legacy like this, and education which is of the standard of IIT's, it is only reasonable to place IT-BHU at par with the IIT's.

What is interesting is this ... There was a Press Release announcing the conversion of IT-BHU to IIT. And what is even more interesting is that somewhere down the way, this decision was reversed. Wouldnt it be logical to convert a college, which already has the standard, in terms of input, conversion, and output, of an IIT, into one? An interesting article i found about this ...

Hockey India ...

Recently, there is a tournament which is going on which is notable for its being ignored by the media in a big way. Of course, it has to be, given that India is touring Sri Lanka, but having said that, there were quite a few large things which happened.

The tournament i am writing about is the Punjab Gold Cup ... being played at Chandigarh. This is a four-nation tournament ... Hosts India, playing New Zealand (who are featuring in the tournament, courtesy some lunatics who attacked Mumbai on 26/11, and seem to be the minnows of the tournament), Holland (a formidable team, no matter which way you look at it), and Germany (world champions, olympics champions, champions trophy holders ... the best team in the world today). Quite a mean achievement, isnt it? It is, especially when you read the scorelines.

India beat New Zealand 2-1, India drew with Holland 4-4, thanks to 3 goals in 5 minutes, and India stunned Germany 2-0. Which is wonderful, or at least, is a wonderful indicator of the way Indian hockey could take. Having said that, what i find even more interesting is the fact that which channel was showing these matches was one of the best kept secrets of Indian media. The other evening, i was looking forward to the India-Germany fixture, and i surfed all the channels, but couldnt find the channel which was telecasting this match. So, either no channel was showing this match, or whichever channel was showing this match, were very successful in keeping it a secret. Shhhhh ... dont tell anyone we actually showed a hockey match.

Whats even more interesting? The fact that most news channels just have a 1 minute, blink-and-you-will-miss-it coverage of the matches. Whats still more interesting is that there is far more airtime being given to off-the-field goings-on, than to on-the-field hockey. Somehow, the media seems to be allergic to highlight the highs of Indian hockey, but there seems to be a lot of coverage, and opinions, about the off-the-field goings-on in Indian hockey. One would wish they would just do justice to the national sport.

Training And KM

This is something i have been thinking about for some time now. This is also a topic i have written about earlier. And this is a topic which i think should probably receive more attention that it does.

The reason why i feel that this should probably receive more attention is because Training, and Knowledge Management are two disciplines which complement each other ... i like to see them as making up an umbrella discipline of Capability Management. OK, so i can almost visualize you wondering why i had to go and make up another term, to add to the already burgeoning lexicon of management jargon. But really, if you look at these two disciplines as contributing to the development of the skill pool available to the organization, this line of reasoning begins to make sense.

Having said this, there is also an inherent tension between the two, which, more often than not, remains unresolved. On the one hand is training ... which is a highly structured approach towards learning. At least the way its being done today. There is a Training Needs Analysis, Training Strategy, and a myriad other steps on the training pyramid or workflow. It all culminates in the curriculum, the course outline which is well-defined, structured course material, and delivery of training in a highly structured manner. Well, sometimes highly, and sometimes less so, but the point is that there is a certain amount of structure associated with it.

Knowledge flows in the organization, on the other hand, tend to be totally, or at least to large extent, unstructured. You cannot define the sources of knowledge in the organization, the consumers of knowledge, and hence, the channels of knowledge flow in the organization, the way you can attach structure to a training.

And this is one more reason that i believe that the two disciplines cannot replace each other, but rather, must complement each other in the organization. However, the issue i see in organizations i interact with, is not so much that they are tending too much on each other's turf, but rather, the other way round, i.e., there seems to be very less appreciation of this basic similarity in their goals, and hence, the requirements to align them, the structural differences notwithstanding.

G-Drive

I read this article in the ToI today ... about G-Drive taking your desktop online ... The article says ...

The GDrive would make it possible to access and update information like emails, photographs, music, documents and spreadsheets from any device with an internet connection.

Now, this is quite interesting. What this is saying is that there need not be a distributed mechanism for storing information. Now, this has been a concept which has been doing the rounds for quite some time now. I remember coming across this in the 90s. Question then is, how is this different from some of the earlier attempts at getting data onto a central server rather than store it on your desktops? This is close on to the massive advertising campaign that Microsoft is running for Windows Skydrive. The idea seems to be to have people store their data onto a "cloud computing" resource (apologies for having misquoted the concept, but then, i never really understood it completely ... or, to be precise, haven't been able to understand how the concept is different from the World Grid project, or Grid Computing, that Oracle was talking about a few years back!).

The article also raises a very important question ...

However, there are some who think that trusting Google with so much personal or commercial data is dangerous, for information may not be as safe in the cloud as it is in a computer.

Now, this is the classical dilemma that a lot of organizations, especially folks within organizations, who are trying to get people to share the information they have access to, have been facing. How do we get people to share information, and knowledge which flows from this, with others. Here, however, its not about how, but the question seems to be rather, of, how to address these concerns.

Though, thats not even what i am thinking about. I am looking at how a concept like this is different from the content management systems which a lot of organizations implement, with an idea of getting content from people's hard drives, and putting them on a server, for easier, and wider accessibility. But then, even in a scenario like this, the question is not so much about the "cloud resource", or the platform for storing this information, but rather, about the need of people to do so, this need, in turn, being derived from the motivation to do so.

Encyclopaedical Change

 It's finally here. The vaunted portals of the hallowed Encyclopaedia Britannica have been thrown open to some of the lower life forms on the planet. OK, so it's not really wide open, but open nevertheless. A move which takes the Britannica in the direction travelled first by wikipedia, it seems to be a step in the right direction. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is all set to enable readers to edit entries in the encyclopaedia.

Why step? For the simple reason that the Britannica has not gone for the laissez-faire of wikipedia, but rather, seems to be a controlled step in the direction which was probably coming for some time now. And, they have acted in a way which was expected ... the Britannica has for long been the ultimate word on the topics which are there in there. Which means that they would like to keep away from the unbridled edits which can happen on wikipedia, at times to the detriment of the accuracy or the brevity of content. And to this effect, they have made sure that all content must be approved by the panel of experts before it can feature in the encyclopaedia. This is definitely additional cost, but maybe worth the while?

Now, the laissez-faire of wikipedia has its set of supporters and retractors. But i am neither. I believe that wikipedia is a source of information, much like a lot of others. As i have written before, wikipedia is not the ideal source to base your research on. But, having said that, if you were doing research on a particular topic, you wouldnt just consult one source, would you? To that extent, isnt wikipedia as good as a whole host of other sources available out there? Something i have written about earlier.

Now comes the question of wikis within the organization. There has been a long held belief that within an organization, you cannot afford to have the anyone-do-anything kind of approach. Instead, i have long held the opinion that within the organization, nothing is really anonymous. Which is why i believe that rather than an open wiki, a tool like a knol is more useful in the organizational context ... as i have written earlier. The fact is that with this kind of approach, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is ensuring, at least to a considerable extent, the quality of the content that goes on it. And this, to my mind, is also an issue which organizations are also dealing with, to varying extents.

Cause And Effect ...

I have long believed, and continue to believe (unless someone can convince me otherwise) that innovation is best when it is broad-based. No, i am not saying this with the benefit of hindsight, but rather, from the many Rum and Water consumed with colleagues (primarily Old Monk, but then, i am no connoiseur ... did i get the spellings right there?), cribbing about the so many stupid things which the senior managers keep doing from time to time. No, i am not taking names ... i am still good friends with most of them, so dont even bother to ask, my dears! Fact of the matter is, if you ask the many people working on the field about the things which the organization is doing wrong, you will be sure to get answers ... plenty of them! Of course, you got to be careful how you ask, though. Ask it too stiff-collared, and you might not get any answers whatsoever.

So, whats the point, i hear you asking. Stifling a yawn, maybe? Well well ... the point is simply this ... that when it comes to innovation, the ideas are out there. Legend tells of legendary innovations the creation of which is the stuff of legends (my take on Kung Fu Panda, which, by the way, if you still havent seen, you probably must ...), so let me not interfere with the legend. But the point is, so many of the innovations we see around us, have come from, at times, stupid ideas. Which is something i believe in strongly. That at the "bottom of the pyramid" is where the brilliant ideas exist. For another similar idea, read my previous post. And i believe, that social computing is a fabulous tool to tap into this vast treasure of ideas which is readily available, only needing the possibility of a treasure hunter coming and discovering the treasure, and generating value from it. In other words, the one most important aspect is that people have the ideas, and these ideas are based on knowledge. Most of these ideas come from very intimate understanding of work, organization, market, customers ... only thing, the organization must be willing to invest the energy required to listen.

And probably the most fabulous tool till now to enable organizations to listen ... whether to customers, or partners, or employees, is social computing. True, you have had discussion forums and similar technologies around for some time now, but then, i dont think they have been maningfully deployed. This is not to say that social computing tools by themselves are a magic pill, which implies that they too have to be meaningfully deployed. In addition, they are, at best, the ears ... the organization also needs to be build up the entire apparatus, from the external auditory meatus, to the tympanic membrane, the cochlea, the cochlear nerve ... all the way to the brain (click here for the diagram). Without this, all the organization has is the proverbial "deaf ear".

Having said that, a question which i am asked quite a few times is whats the cause, and what effect. Can the success of social computing lead to greater participation, or could greater participation lead to the success of social computing. It is obvious that the latter it is, but what is not so obvious is that the former is equally valid. In fact, if we look at it as a circular phenomenon, we would be able to understand that social computing cannot succeed without enhanced participation, and enhanced participation wont come about till social computing is seen as a success (why would someone waste their time contributing to a platform which is not too widely accepted?). The answer is give is simple ... Value. Value creation, and the perception of this, is the way to break this circle. There are a number of organizations which have done it, and a lot of organizations which have struggled. But the fact is, the possibilities are enormous.

Social Media

The human brain sometimes creates connections where none seem to exist. And maybe this ability of people to create connections between seemingly unrelated things which creates value. No, i am not saying i am doing that, but reading a rather thought-provoking post about Social media needing to grow up, actually got me thinking about some rather interesting thoughts which have been doing the rounds.

To begin with, this is an interesting post. I would think this is more to do with the shape of things going much into the future, but maybe this is a possibility. I have written a bit about this earlier. The basic concern i see is that there are plenty of interests in the current organizational structures, and web 2.0 technologies, in large part, seem to have the tendency of tugging at these, and it is this which could be the central point of resistance to evolution of organizations into the e 2.0 environment.

But thats moving away from the thought i was writing about. There is, these days, an advertisement running on tv, for !dea Cellular ... about the proposal to making shopping malls in the fields, and the possibility of having an opinion poll, reaching out to the people, to get their opinion on a particular proposal. What seemingly is only an advertisement, can become the vehicle for possible change ... change, which could possibly change the way a lot of things work. Click here and you could post your opinion, as well as see the ad ...

The point i am trying to make here is that one doesnt need a highly complex complex technology platform to move towards a more participative way of doing things ... whether it be in the political space, as the advertisement shows, or it be in the organizational environment. Relatively simple platforms can be used to reach out, and to develop participative value-creation in the organization, too. The iportant point is the recognition of the need to tap into the resources which are distributed, and not always recognizable. For, one doesnt know what ideas could emerge from where. As i have written before, this is something which Cisco seems to be doing.