My gut response says there are points in the original quotation that can
be expanded upon to supply more context and content to the question at
hand.
Please see NRV> below.
Thanks,
Nigel Vickers
Analysis by design, Inc.
Bryant, J B wrote:
> I would be very interested in the group's responses to the following
> quotation from an article I came across by Stephen Talbott. The URL for
> the article is provided, but before you read the entire thing I'd like to
> get your gut responses.
>
> J.B. Bryant
>
> http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/faq.html#29
> ----- Start of Quote -----
> _Will computers give us mastery over information?_
>
> We are forever being told that the next advances in technology-- more
> elaborate filters, information rating schemes, personalized software
> agents ("knowbots") that roam the Net gleaning information precisely
> targeted to our interests--will finally enable us to ride the crest of
> the information flood rather than drown in it.
NRV> Let's first make a distinction between information and knowledge.
To paraphrase K. Devlin in Logic and Information -- ** the act of
classifying a piece of perceived data turns it into information, finding a
means of using that information in one's belief system renders the item
knowledge. To round this out, J. Lave in The Practice of Learning offers
-- ** Knowledge always undergoes construction and transformation in use.
NRV> The act of managing a flood of data is only valuable when that data
can be classified into belief (and hence value-added knowledge) that helps
an organization or person accomplish its goals.
> What we forget is that the arms race between the powers of information
> proliferation and the powers of information management is an endlessly
> escalating one. The logical finesse with which we manage information is
> the same logical finesse that generates yet more information and
> outflanks the tools of management. Software agents are quite as capable
> of mindlessly flinging off information as of mindlessly collecting it.
>
> Surely there is only one escape from the mindlessness: to realize that
> the essential contest is not between information management and
> information inflation, but between the obsession with information (well
> managed or otherwise) and the habit of quiet reflection. It is not an
> overload of information so much as a deficit of meaning we suffer from,
> not a lack of proper filters so much as the loss of mental focus--an
> inadequate power of sustained attention to what is important.
NRV> Let's expand the notion of 'mental focus' a little further. To
define a piece of knowledge we require a paradigm -- a model of something
that is believed to work. Identifying the paradigm is the key to
identifying knowledge under uncertainty. Note that this also introduces a
phenomenon -- once a paradigm is found (and hence used to develop
knowledge), it is likely to become stale over time as more data is
received and recognized.
NRV> Given these additions, I would like to expand the question to,
'What services must technology provide to support and sustain knowledge
management?
Here's some answers I've come up with (through a little research and a
little thought), sprinkled with a little 'human-association'. Technology
can aid the management of knowledge by providing services to:
o identify structure and pattern in sophisticated, unstructured data
(i.e., this information suggests a routine, a norm, a classification)
o aid in the construction and transformation of knowledge over time
(i.e., this new information certainly has me re-thinking what I once
thought was truth)
o support a universal, shared language (and repository) of
knowledge/belief (i.e., let me explain this to you so you'll understand
too) *Note this shared language supports the conversion of conflicting
forces into cooperative ones (i.e., what a manager does!).
o immerse itself into the target domain from which pattern and structure
is to be determined. (i.e., let me get accustomed to my new home)
o represent the environment where goals, directions and competitors are
not fixed, but a shifting factor. (i.e., I'm not standing still, so no one
else is either)
I'm sure there are many more. So where are we now? Well neural networks
have been around for awhile now, and recent R&D into mobile agents
promises to further the ability of technology to reason and collaborate.
Since knowledge management is an integral part of a learning organization
IMHO ; ) the focus of technology in this area would benefit the cause.
Until our dreams are realized, I guess we'll just have to do it ourselves.
- NRV
--Nigel Vickers <thenige@interlog.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>