THE WELCH COMPANY
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111-2496
415 781 5700



Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:49:53 -0700

03 00050 61 02082201




Mr. John Maloney
President
jtmalone@pacbell.net
kmcluster@collaboratory.com
Knowledge Management Consortium, Inc.
San Francisco Chapter
Street address
San Francisco, CA 94111
..
Subject:   Weblogs, Grove and Groove

John,

Thanks very much for thoughtful comment in your letter today on KM, shown below.
..
Incidentally, I have been meaning to ask how Mark Clare's presentation went over on calculating the benefits of KM, during your seminar on July 29? How about Ed Swanstrom, what did Ed's talk cover? Do you plan to issue a record of the proceedings that aid implementation, similar to the event in San Ramone on December 17, 1999?
..
Turning to your letter today, a couple of questions come to mind for clarification?
..
First, very pleased to see your endorsement for analysis, which aligns with POIMS that positions "analysis" as a key part of augmenting intelligence, along with organization, alignment, summary and feedback.
..
Second, I am puzzled and pleased by the seeming disclaimer in your letter today of solutions listed in the proven template you submitted on June 10. Today you say...

Besides, these are positively NOT "KM solutions," but simplistic information technology gadgets. ..
At that time on June 10, 2002 you asked where SDS fits into the proven template of the KM space. Recall, I pointed out that SDS doesn't fit anywhere in the template, as seen by the mismatch between words in the template and the explanation of SDS in POIMS.
..
I also noted that SDS doesn't fit the template because the template shows what has proven to fail, as noted by Dave Snowden, and SDS has proven to work, as noted by USACE, PG&E, etc., listed on September 7, 2001.
..
So, again, I was glad to get agreement in your letter today that the proven template for the KM Space is not a good indicator of effective solutions.
..
Let's then consider the opportunity to forge a better partnership between leadership and technology. There seems to be agreement on your point about the need for technology to support leadership, rather than strive to cast aside the biology of humanity. Here, here! How though to accomplish this goal?
..
POIMS explains that SDS augments intelligence by lifting the capacity to think, remember and communicate.
..
On June 10, you properly cautioned against exaggerated claims of eyewash echoing long standing concerns about chest thumping, for which Jack Park has also urged restraint, under the rule laid down by Plato in the dialogs on Phaedrus reviewed on December 9, 1999.
..
On the other hand, Jack also related on November 30, 2000 that SDS has the right structure for knowledge management and the right interface to make that structure useful to people.
..
Apart from explanations in POIMS, this letter was patched together in a few minutes and so is clear and convincing evidence that SDS enables drawing relevant context from an experiential record over a much broader range than people are able to accomplish using other methods. For example, on September 16, 2001 Eric Armstrong commented that these letters over many years demonstrate mechanisms that enable amazing memory. Eric further pointed out forcefully that this support is not available using other methods. Research on March 19, 1990 showing that memory is the driving force of human reasoning, shows that SDS support for personal and organizational memory places people first.
..
What is your take on this factor? Does technology that enables better memory provide a better partner for leadership, for management, for learning, for medicine, engineering, journalism, science, indeed every professional endeavor that requires intelligence?
..
For example, on June 8 you pointed out that Dave Snowden's work at IBM as related in an article by Dave that was published this past May in the Journal of Knowledge Management, and which you were kind enough to submit by reference, reflects your own opinion on Knowledge Management.
..
As you recall, Dave talks in his article about "knowledge" as a process or flow and separating narrative from context and content....
..
I still don't understand some of this, and Dave has not had time to explain; but, the process of separating narrative content from contextual content in a continual record of organizational memory has proven useful over many years, as related in the record on May 23, 1989.
..
Organic structure explained in the record on May 23, 1989 helps manage the context of free flowing narrative that occurs in the complexity of daily work, especially the kind you discuss in your letter today, where the CEO is at the golf course, or in a bar, people are talking in the hallways, on the telephone, in meetings, at a seminar like your recent event on July 29, etc., etc.
..
These activities require intelligence based on accurate memory, because when memory is inaccurate, then decisions fail, causing loss, conflict and crisis, even though everybody feels good at the time, as explained in the record on July 23, 2000.
..
In this regard, I am very pleased by support in your letter today for work practices that credit people, since ultimately the entire exercise is about enabling people to satisfy needs and accomplish desires, goals and objectives through ideas, experience, energy, skills, intentions, commitments and performance.
..
"Credit" is a powerful idea overlaying every aspect of humanity through community. In the binary structure that dominates existence, credit is earned and owed for achievement, and often for just hanging in there until the wheels of fortune turn sufficiently for people to accomplish a breakthrough which would not have been possible, but for the determination of those who stayed the course working the ground without reward that provided a fertile soil for new ideas to eventually emerge and grow during a future watch many generations removed.
..
So, a record of organizational memory may be useful in this context to ensure accurate fair and timely attribution of credit to deserving souls, as recommended by Jim Spohrer during a presentation for Doug Engelbart's Colloquium at Stanford, reported on February 27, 2000, which you commended in a letter on December 21, 1999.
..
At the same time, we should not step too briskly past the obvious requirement to balance award of "credit" for achievement with accountability for mistakes. Technology that tracks entitlement to credit equally allocates accountability, as the driving force of good management, reviewed on August 29, 1997.
..
To avoid the boredom of total agreement, let's disagree somewhat at this point.
..
My sense is that organizational memory does not require writing everything down, which you discuss at some length in your remarks today, as a reason to forego the use of technology in advancing an effective practice of Knowledge Management. You say in part....
..
"It is unreasonable and farcical to expect to record for time immemorial every fleeting thought and passing notion in the modern knowledge-based enterprise or organization.

"In fact, the freedom from such overweening record keeping is what often enables/spurs flashes of brilliance and innovation.
..
"Besides, a lot of what's required to be effective and innovative today revolves around intimate social interaction, building deep trust networks, high emotional awareness and unfettered interactions." ..
I agree that worry about writing everything down is a big source of

resistance to improving management, as related with an IBM exec on August 9, 1989. Possibly, this IBMer was relying on Dave Snowden's teachings at that time. Not sure on this point. However, you might note a fairly simple, solution is presented...
..
Don't capture every fleeting thought and passing notion; just get the important ones. ..
I further agree with your point that social interaction is a big, important part of daily life, as explained in POIMS.
..
This raises an apparent conflict in your letter.

You seem to observe on the one hand that it is over reaching to manage the complexity of daily working information with technology, properly disparaging superficial technical notions, and later you approve of Groove technology for empowering social networking, or some such.
..
My letter earlier today requested examples of Groove work product. You seem lavish in support for Groove, so there must be some work product that justifies this support. For example, on April 25, 2001 Morris Jones wrote that using SDS is a utopia compared to other other methods. Morris was referring to the explanation in the typical day scenario explaining how SDS is used on the job day-to-day to produce work product like this letter. In addition, Morris has 20 years experience interacting with work product like this letter that supports comparing SDS with other methods, including Groove. Later that year, on September 24, 2001, Morris said that nobody uses other software for critical management tasks that SDS supports to produce work product like this letter. It turns out that Morris is not a fan of letters like this. He feels support for communication is overkill, at least as enabled by SDS. But, he does not quibble about SDS providing unique work product.
..
This raises an obvious question. Is your letter today an example of work product using Groove support? References to collateral sources in this letter were created using SDS, as explained in POIMS.
..
Are there examples of work product that illustrate, and/or otherwise explain, as POIMS explains SDS, how Groove is used to augment intelligence in the manner set out in your letter today saying...
..
"Groove is a major achievement, a state change really, in the domain of electronic human interaction, collaboration and Collective IQ. It is a profound, fundamental advance." ..
How does Groove measure up to caution in your letter on June 10 about exaggeration, which you characterized as eyewash? How does it compare to SDS for doing a letter like this one, or for managing a professional event like your recent seminar on July 29? Is there work product showing how Groove supported the event?
..
Thanks.

Sincerely,



Rod Welch
rodwelch@pacbell.net



..
Copy to: ..