|December 19, 2000|
04 00067 61 00121901
OHS DKR Project
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
|Subject:||Clarify Bootstrap Problem|
As usual, I am impressed by the depth of your analysis. In this case, however, the point in your letter on December 18, 2000 is not clear.
Can you sum up by stating the two or three things you advocate should be done, that are not being done, or that should be done differently? How does your analysis today impact the big picture of moving from IT to KM?
For example, I am advocating a culture of knowledge, as the big objective to accommodate a new world order of faster information resulting from IT that increasingly overwhelms human span of attention, causing continual bumbling due to meaning drift (see, for example, discussion on the high cost of medical mistakes explaining communication, which is nominally the strongest asset of any community, is rapidly becoming the biggest risk of enterprise.) Maybe that is a mistake, maybe not. In any case it seems to address Doug's objective to improve competency for solving complex problems, since communication is the most complex problem of the ages, see, for example, Drucker reviewed on November 30, 1994, explaining new realities and risks wrought by Information Technology.
I propose a single, breakthrough, solution by enhancing alphabet technology using a continual "intelligence" process that turns information into knowledge, thus the goal to move up a notch on the cognitive scale from IT to KM. You seem to suggest today that bootstrapping, while intending to solve complexity, might, in some respects, be said to compound the problem it seeks to solve. I think there is another way to explain bootstrapping that avoids this conflict, but you seem to be arguing against it. Can you clarify?
THE WELCH COMPANY