Hello all
I enjoyed the Hewlett Packard Example below. I had noticed a similar
thing in my own company (Boeing) that resulted from two different
computing standards coming into existance side by side in the office. The
IT, IS, finance and business management oriented groups tended to
gravitate towards the IBM PC, and used it's networking approach that
seemed to be oriented around the old IBM approach of "limit access-protect
the data", which would automatically keep people out of the network unless
they were specifically permissioned" to get it. The a second group
(including the entire 777 design program) began using macintosh computers
with the appletalk networking scheme that is designed to automatically
open access, unless you take specific steps to protect the data.
I noticed that the attitudes and approach to work was widely divergent
between the two groups, where the Mac users were much more inclined to
share, team and freely disseminate ideas, picturess, words and share the
credit for work produced. The IBM folks tended to be much more
protectionist and territorial about their ideas, knowledge and did not
tend to work together as easily. I used to be able to go "net surfing"
on the appletalk network, finding people, and information very much like
we now do on the web. I could'nt get any where on the pc network without
a lot of permission, effort and was required to keep a file of addresses
and passwords (what a pain).
Once Windows and the Web came on line, and our Mac computers began to go
away (a company decision to standardize on windows), the dynamic changed
again, with many former mac users now easily entering the web world of
sharing and collaborating, and many old DOS pc folks carving up little
electronic kingdoms for themselves-fighting to "protect" their
intellectual capital.
The odd thing that has come out of this is that the collaborators are much
better equipped to handle the changing work we all do, while the
protectionists are continuously having to be "dug out" of the corners they
back themselves into. Sharing seems to be one source of power in this new
situation, but not everyone recognizes it as yet.
later...
Michael Erickson
michael.n.erickson@boeing.com
http://pathfinder.com/fortune/1998/980112/boe.html
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 DJones@asheville.cc.nc.us wrote:
> The HP example... In 1985, the
> information processing security guidelines stated, "Computer systems
> should be configured in such a way as to reduce the users' capabilities
> and access rights as severely as possible... with capabilities and access
> being assigned to each user on an as needed basis." Can you see how this
> might make a JIT knowledge access paradigm just a little bit difficult to
> implement (tongue in cheek)? In 1991, that policy was turned on its head
> and the new information systems policy was changed to read, "Information
> users should have access to any data which would help them perform their
> jobs, unless specifically limited by management. The burden of proof must
> be shifted from the user demonstrating a 'need to know', to the
> appropriate management documenting a reason to limit access." BIG, BIG
> DIFFERENCE!, especially when it comes to supporting JIT and knowledge
> building. There are many such structural and policy issues surrounding
> knowledge access/transfer processes and the commensurate/resulting
> capabilities to effectively engage in knowledge building processes.
--"Michael N. Erickson" <sysengr@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>