May 31, 2000

03 00050 61 00053101

Mr. Morris E. Jones
Business Unit Manager
morris.jones@intel.com
Cable Network Operation
Intel Corporation
350 East Plumeria; Mail Stop CHP3-105
San Jose, CA 95124

Subject:

Common Vision Knowledge Management

Dear Morris,

As we have discussed the past few days, the meeting with Eric Armstrong at Intel on May 17, showed the following main points...

1. There is a common vision to augment human intelligence, but this is mostly just a convenient association of words. Eric strongly disapproves of SDS, and the underlying concept of delivering "intelligence" on the Internet using an environment of knowledge space.

2. Facilitating entails drawing on a range of resources to bring people toward shared meaning. This requires stepping beyond what is initially said during a meeting, to correlate and reconcile writings, prior meetings and work product, in this case Eric's CDS requirements for an eventual DKR. Knowledge is constructed from information at different times to help people discover common ground that is hidden by conflicting perspectives and information overload which narrows the picture to momentary feelings. As with cross-examination in a hearing, the facilitator helps people, albeit in a friendly way, see and express a bigger picture by reconciling common elements of nominally differing views.

   You did some of this, but we were handicapped by limiting ourselves to only what was said during the meeting. Of course we cannot get everything done in a single meeting. If there is further opportunity to visit on these matters, we need to expand our attention to all available resources for moving people toward a common vision. This can include drawing some conceptual diagrams on the blackboard, looking at printed materials, or on the Internet -- whatever it takes to move forward.

   An example, is the question you asked about the difference between information and knowledge. No one can remember this complicated explanation anymore than they can remember the design of a microprocessor. But we can lay it out in writing, as with design drawings and specs, then look together at the design, i.e., what is written, in order to discuss in a constructive way changes and implications for action. Thus, there is no reason for a facilitator to be limited by what people can think to say on the spur of the moment.

3. Experience on the DKR project at SRI the past few months shows it may be possible to use SDS without a Communication Manager attending meetings, which has been a sticking point. Communication Metrics can be performed as a project management service to connect up email traffic and provide structure to the record that helps maintain alignment with project requirements and objectives.

   An example of value added is comparing the minutes of the meeting for May 18 at SRI, with the SDS record for the same meeting. On June 3, 1997 Dave Vannier advised work at Intel gets off track, as at SRI and everywhere, because people come away from meetings with different understandings. The minutes of the meeting on May 18 and more recently "notes" of a meeting on May 25 at SRI illustrate why that occurs: there is no narrative to help people grasp a common understanding of who, what, when, where and why; and there are no connections to provide context and alignment, there are no action items, and there are no express assignments, i.e., there is no knowledge and no accountability. SDS has helped solve this problem on the Broadwater Dam project, with PG&E and later with USACE. There is no perfect solution; but SDS helps by providing connections that are not evident at the time meetings occur, because people are concentrating on the moment, rather than the context.

   Using a Communication Manager to add connections and context may help, and eliminating the need for an extra person to attend meetings may hold the cost down to an acceptable level. Of course it always helps to attend meetings, but it does not seem to be essential in order for SDS to add value.

4. KM is impeded because it requires a unique experience to grasp the big idea and the main features of the design. People who are skilled to produce what is needed do not know what is needed, and, as you pointed out, do not respect the credentials of those who do know what is needed.

   The thought of drawing on your good offices to facilitate a meeting with Eric was to give credence to the solution, so that people can focus on getting the work done, rather than on the source of the ideas.

   Eric is producing a long set of requirements, and the entire SRI team is now out assessing a broad range of technologies based on those specs, none of which, will get them to the solution. But, they are having fun because they are working on technology, rather than trying to figure out what technology is needed, supporting your point on May 25, 1999 that engineers just want to work on technology.

   I could be wrong, but my sense is that the idea of going out and looking at a lot of complex technologies is the wrong path. What is needed is an underlying simplicity, that is at once powerful and flexible for improving human thinking, which in turn improves every kind of work humans perform.

   So, we need an engineer who has some inkling of what needs to be produced, and right now you are the only engineer on the planet with that qualification.

   In our recent discussions, I asked that you take a crack at writing up some requirements based on the POIMS paper, and your experience with SDS the past 15 years or so. If you can come up with a draft that would set out the sections and start us out with big issues, then I might be able to collaborate effectively in developing a scope that can then be assessed for viability relative to deeper involvement. You have seen a lot of specs, and have some ideas on SDS, so it should not be terribly difficult to knock out an initial structure.

   We can start with Vision, then do a Market assessment, and then move to engineering. Vision for example might suggest that we will combine the big market applications of spreadsheets and wordprocessing to produce a new technology for knowledge management using a paradigm of a spreadsheet for knowledge, blah, blah, blah. Integrating these traditionally separate tasks creates a huge new market, etc. This effort may well result in a decision that the task is not feasible, and would not be interesting to you relative to other things to do. But, as Chief Justice Rhenquist says, we don't really know that until we begin writing and see where it leads.

Sincerely,

THE WELCH COMPANY

Rod Welch
rowelch@attglobal.net