Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Knowledge Persons and NetoCracy

Maybe my understanding of NetoCracy is simplistic. I don’t know. NetoCracy can be as well as any other project can be, if it will be accepted by ... I don’t know who really needs it. It looks like an attempt to save hierarchy – elite and underclass – successful persons and losers within the system ... (the system again and again ...).

Such hierarchy can be represented as network or NetoCracy, or something else ... doesn’t matter, but with periodical or constant revolts in various forms. Knowledge is being considered as a currency – not well defined, too general, without limitations, a subject for complex (or complicated) elite discussions, etc. It’s similar to money – you can buy everything (illusion), though money is already being questioned - "clean" or "dirty"?

But maybe NetoCracy is far from reality, even future reality?

Can you imagine how so-called NetoCrats can control knowledge creation and distribution?

Every person anywhere (a peasant in Africa, a hunter in Siberia, a professor in some university, etc.) deals with knowledge and can be Knowledge Person (even off-line). Knowledge Persons don’t need to be elite and/or underclass because they interact on one level. Such interaction is collaboration during their lifetime – NetLiving. Knowledge Persons collaborate to prolong their healthy life by knowledge exchange (free and paid – knowledge economy), not for unleashing net wars or war based competition. In result there are no reasons for revolts.


Consider the nature of knowledge in comparison with other assets:

It’s possible to take away land, goods, business, etc. and construct the power, based on this possibility.

Think - how someone can take away knowledge?

He/she can take only its copy, but its developer will go further and the only way to be with this person (and knowledge) – to collaborate with the developer, not to fight.

Now you have some additional insights that:

- Group for Knowledge Persons is for your interaction (many to many);
- this blog is for what I think and do (one to many – posts, and many to one - comments);
- the framework for collaborative self-consulting is the general structure for your valued managerial actions (business, non-profit, personal), where to connect with assistance, to earn 50% of the framework price.

Are you Knowledge Person?

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Knowledge Persons in 1999

Recently (when I searched "Knowledge Person" in Google) I found a conversation that reflects the very truth (from my viewpoint) that so-called "tacit knowledge" or even "knowledge" itself is hidden in meanings of words:

"Often, linguists seem to overemphasize language as a channel of meaning. Words in any language, be they in print or be they represented in pixels on the screen, are pretty much neutral. Often they are devoid of meaning, passion or interpretation and they are interpreted by diverse individuals -- having diverse mental models (personal construct systems). What each individual decoding such words internalizes relates not only to the intent or motivation of the transmitter [source of the words or phrases], but also to the noise prevailing in the environment as well as one's own subjective construal based on the context of the 'live' process.

So said, this forum seems to provide some insights into the behavior of sense-making self-adaptive and self-regulating knowledge creating, sharing and renewing individuals and knowledge systems. To understand the 'tacit' meanings, it best serves to understand the underlying assumptions of the constructs that are often verbalized in terms of notions of 'knowledge,' 'creativity,' and 'meaning'".

Author (Yogesh Malhotra) continues:

"Here is a question to reflect upon: "Why can't multiple meanings co-exist in a given time-space continuum? [This may involve meanings of the word 'meaning' itself.]" Given the richness of diversity of viewpoints, perhaps, all of us can walk away being richer in perspectives, regardless of any individual "wins" scored over any seemingly contradictory viewpoint. Perhaps, the object of the dialog is not necessarily to reach any definitive conclusion -- all conclusions at any given point act more like working hypotheses -- which may be reassessed using diverse 'lenses' of meaning at any given point".

Yes, the variants of understanding, based on various meanings, are necessary to consider. But again, you should experiment with various meanings for that. After that you will chose the variant for your action (or activity), if you have everything to implement it (Who?, What?, From what?, Why?, How?, Where?, When?, By what?).

Friday, September 22, 2006

Given truth

"Going back to the notion of "knowledge" as 'justified belief,' one may like to consider its bases of justification. Such justification about "it" may arise from various criteria, such as:

a) Everyone agrees about it: so it is a "given truth"
b) It has been empirically proven and it is unchanging with shifting time and context
c) It has never been questioned: everyone assumes that it is a "given truth"
d) No one cares about it: hence it is assumed as a "given truth"
e) The powers-that-be have determined that it is the "given truth"
f) Everyone hears [from media channels and other 'filters'] that it is the "given truth"
g) All speakers at the conference said so ;-), so it is the "given truth"
h) All vendors of technology said so ;-), so it is the "given truth"..."

(A quote from "Knowledge: How True, How False" by Yogesh Malhotra)

Or understanding is knowledge?

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Generalizing complexity-simplicity for everyone

The topic of "complexity-simplicity" looks infinite, but I’ll try to make a generalization from what I think about it, including my experience.

If this topic is important for thought leaders, it must be understandable for everyone. It’s because I know ordinary persons who deal with lack of understanding every day, trying to understand others and act with various results. You, perhaps, know such persons too. Technology gives an opportunity to be connected, but are we ready to get the results we need?

Here is my generalization of complexity-simplicity:

Objects (of any nature, perhaps) interact (converse).

Conversation deploys a structure of interacting objects - connections (organization).

The directions of connections’ deployment (organizational changes) look unpredictable while possible variants of understanding of actions are unknown.

Where is business?

Maybe here: If you have a method to see the variants of understanding, you can manage/direct/deploy etc. a structure of interacting objects or at least decrease its uncertainty for various purposes (you should participate in this structure for that).

Complexity is in big quantity of variants and can be simplified by their decreasing (cleaning or normalization of language).

Simplicity is in the method to see the variants of understanding. Every object must have access to the method in order to participate in sustainable and dynamic organization.

Too scientific?

Consider so-called "cultural problem" - a newcomer hears what you say but understands it and therefore acts differently/unpredictable/against the technological order/destructive, etc. Don’t mix it up with innovation and making positive difference.

Is there a solution for that, if you don’t have a dictionary for your "culture/subject of activity" or don’t support its constant revision? You also need the method as I have said.

Possible educational subjects: language, method, dictionaries of cultures, modeling, practicing interaction and real actions.

Modeling: I call it "textual experiment", within which you can experiment with variants of understanding (innovate) and then make positive difference.

Risks: Statistically patterns can be, but this kind of fictive values (every natural or artificial object is real not average) may hide a variant of big influence from you, if this variant will be accepted in organization.

If to mention the framework for collaborative self-consulting (which was a starting point for this topic), it can be used to identify the content of interaction, documents, etc. as the reasons for proper or improper results in your organization (including financial ones).

When you will identify these reasons you can:

- deal with them yourself;
- ask consultants (where are you, dear consultants?) to check and normalize the content of interactions, documents, etc. according to their field of expertise;
- ask me to get some variants of understanding, to normalize the documents and other things I possibly can do for you, if usual means doesn’t work.

Your questions please.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Is complexity a knotty question?

After suggesting to me to read "Simplicity on the Other Side of Complexity" by Keith McCandless I think so-called complex or complicated issues are the very questions which persons and management of any level face every day.

What actions can be taken if people say: "it’s complex"? I often hear it as an excuse to do nothing and avoid responsibility, to say that context is unfavorable, etc. If you will not take action, things may turn out against you or am I in the wrong?

But let’s try clarifying the question.

"Complicated" and "complex" are mostly "far from certainty and agreement" and are between "simple" and "anarchy" (Simplicity on the Other Side of Complexity, p. 7):

"Leaders in complex systems cannot control the behavior of all the agents in the system. They cannot control changes either inside or outside their organizations. The alternative is to engage, authentically, with others to learn about and respond to changes as they arise. Leaders must be as willing to be transformed as they are to transform others" (Keith McCandless).

It sounds like - complex systems are insuperable problem. Persons built these complex systems and persons can simplify them. Who else? Organization consists of persons and every person can be leader for his/her personal changes.

Consider - what is bad in control?

I can understand "command and control" sounds like war or bureaucratic term, but it means "power to direct something". If you direct yourself and/or others towards long healthy and prosperous life not limiting others in the same - what’s bad in that?

For example, with a use of the frame work for collaborative self-consulting you can identify the content, according to which the cash-flow happens and the persons, who deal with content, correct the content, persons’ interactions (or ask them about it by demonstrating them the results of their interactions or possible results) and plan the possible future.

But note that any plan isn’t a dogma or a reason to prepare a defensive strategy (against positive difference, employees, partners, customers, etc.).

Any plan must be timely corrected and the mentioned framework is designed for that.

It’s true that if plans, persons, content, representation of knowledge about organization are not dynamically interconnected, plans remain on the paper.

Don’t be weakened before complexity and make positive changes.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Complexity or simplicity?

You probably met a "scientific" tendency to separate things in their representation (various descriptions of reality) making them complex. I meet the examples of such a tendency so often that think the words "science" and "complexity" have become synonyms. The same was (and I think still is) with the words "science" and "analysis".

Yes of course there can be the reasons to announce the representation of things as "complex" and then analyze them. From my viewpoint the reasons for that, for example, are followings:

- There is a legacy of methods (distributed by educational system) to think and consider reality or its description, which lead to complexity. It can be risky because such a social institute like "science", funded by state budgets, is situated between reality and general public, which can’t verify the scientific results and is forced to rely on them. Did you hear: "I believe in science"?
- Education to succeed usually costs money (brand name schools and universities) and it’s "good" marketing trick to market, for example, all these managerial disciplines (strategy, human resources, knowledge management, customer relationships, etc.) for years of paid studying instead of one discipline – management.
- Science is based on experiment and/or on specific language (professional jargon). How much time you can spend to learn the languages within your national language in order to use new scientific products?

In fact such descriptive abundance limits consumption and may lead business into wrong direction - descriptions don’t describe reality and economical crisis becomes a natural reaction to match them (reality and its description). But who pay for that?

Let’s consider how to substitute some complexity by simplicity.

For example, if you’re trying to find answers to Kipling questions (I suggest additional 2 questions - "from what?" and "by what?", including in the framework for collaborative self-consulting) you may not to get answers. What does it mean? Complexity? I think it may mean there is no description relevant to your reality.

If you run business, try answering the question "what your business does?" and you can realize that except products for market your business produces waste products in which you also invested, but also you pay for their utilization (of course its depend on your industry). If so, how long you will be ready to pay double (if not more) for useless products and their utilization?

Maybe its time to revise accumulated knowledge in order to find other cheap methods to satisfy your customers (without waste products) by creating new demand (healthier)? If not you, your competitors probably go this direction and will reduce their costs. By the way, the word "simplify" has the meaning: "to reduce".


A quote from "Fundamentals of Complexity Science. A call for research proposals":

"£2.5 million of research funding is available to develop fundamental theory, tools and techniques that will be applicable across a wide range of complex systems.

Addressing complexity presents a real test for the whole of science and society. It challenges traditional academic divisions, frameworks and paradigms, opening up new and exciting interdisciplinary frontiers. The EPSRC wishes to increase the UK capacity in complexity science by supporting research into fundamental theory, tools & techniques of complexity science as described in our Delivery Plan ...

... models of climate change involve hundreds of equations that contain such enormous uncertainty in parameter values that the models are even the subject of intense debate amongst politicians, some of whom use this lack of certainty to question whether climate change even exists.

Whilst it is clear that there is urgent need to develop new theoretical approaches to complex systems, there is also a surprising unity in the theoretical requirements across disciplines".

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Network construction for collaborative self-consulting

In a dictionary I found the following meanings for the word "consultant":

1. A specialist doctor with a senior position in a hospital;
2. A specialist who gives expert professional advice.

In business as usual consultant is a profession associated with the consulting company. But the mentioned second meaning of the word "consultant" may absorb various situations.

For example, imagine that someone started filling the tabular forms from the framework for collaborative self-consulting. When this work is done (it's always a representation of the unique business, non-profit, family or personal reality, which is being managed by the person) this person (let's name him Jack) can realize the points to correct. It's good if Jack has enough knowledge for that, but what to do if not? Maybe it would be also a good thing to verify the possible decisions? You may say "yes, of course", but where to find the consultant for that, especially in a case of non-standard or some rare situation?

Let's go to another end of this picture. Imagine a retired person (let's name her Helen) who is experienced in the point that Jack needs to correct and would be ready to assist Jack to verify his decisions. The problem is how they will find one another in order to establish a temporary connection? Helen doesn't work for consulting company, which spends money to be visible in the market.

I said "temporary" because this connection works when the problem is being solved. But if the analogous problem arises the connection can be easily re-established between consultant and those who asks the advice. The only conditions for that are visibility of the framework users, consultants and their initial (or lasting) public requests and replies.

Both realities (Jack's and Helen's) can and must have the connection because their needs and abilities to be the wholeness exist. But what structure can represent this reality as the whole?

As you can see the user and consultant directories are neutral by their structure as much as possible. They have no predefined industries or other artificial categories, only natural language categorization - alphabet, which can be used by you to define your fields you're operating in - as many as you can represent.

Of course, the connections depend on how you will represent your knowledge or your need to find it. Don't fear of experiments, but be practical oriented. Knowledge Persons will come if you need knowledge for good or would like to share your knowledge for good too.

This living network may look like a pulsating entity, which life is re-establishing connections in order to find more or less mutually beneficial ones for survival - like a living healthy brain that constantly manage a body in its interaction with other entities within the world for living as long as possible.

Friday, September 08, 2006 blog at KM Blogs

John Maloney, founder of KM Cluster, has republished my previous entry about starting

Thanks John!

Thursday, September 07, 2006 is started

You’re welcomed to consider the project, join it, use the framework for collaborative self-consulting and tell the world what you think about it here or at Group for Knowledge Persons.

A few ideas about this project to understand its difference:

Personalization of goods and services is imperative for any business and consulting business is not exclusion.

The soft things (or intangibles, including consulting) are (and will be) in the process of so-called "cheap revolution". Why to buy expensive complex solutions, if in many cases it’s possible to be self-consulted? And if to buy the professional advice (which can be valuable and costs money) then business persons can identify the need of such advices more precisely.

Dispersed collaboration of consultants, their current and potential clients, those who connect consultants and their clients, etc. has two practical reasons: 1) entering global market easily for knowledgeable small business and individuals (Knowledge Persons), 2) saving autonomy because of relationships of one level.

Maybe you will add something else, but I think you will find Consultant Directory and User Directory useful for you in order to make a difference. Let’s get down to business!