Anisotropic Road

Common problems in RIM programs

2011-12-30T22:26:00.000-08:00

The management of recorded information resources demands attention to your business, not somebody else's.

Imposing solutions designed for another context will not meet the needs of your own unique environment. Strategically, it may backfire, losing support that you might otherwise have gained.
Four problems that are often observed are summarized below.

Reliance on third-party, out of context policies
Reliance on generic retention policies and approaches
Focus on records instead of their place in achieving outcomes (products and services)
Data gathering limited to domestic rather than international experience and contexts

The Occupy the Media Missed - OWS Gone Viral

2011-12-15T06:57:00.000-08:00

Authenticity demands consciousness

2011-09-02T09:38:00.000-07:00

“The whole world has undergone a change of enormous significance that affects all communications, literature and information. There has been a shift from a culture in which written documents were essentially stable and permanent, to a culture in which all writing is ephemeral, dependent on complex and expensive machinery, and in which no record will survive except as the result of deliberate, specific, expert and continued efforts toward preservation. It is hard to foresee all the results of such a far-reaching change.”

Cook, M. 2004. Research in Integrated Management and Services for Urban Development records Archives

2011-05-20T23:44:00.000-07:00

Communication: English is, I like to say, an imprecise language with meanings seen in general parlance that differ (sometimes dramatically) from what things purpost to mean. This way lies misunderstanding.

In an interesting exploration of the meaning of dialogue, David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett touch on aspects that may reveal why society (whether in the workplace or private life) prefers conversation to dialogue.

What do you think?

Can shale save the world? Should it?

2011-05-07T23:52:00.000-07:00

Writing for the London Times, Christopher Booker proposes that shale can be a source of power that solves the energy problems of our time--and into the future. Near the end of an interesting piece, he decries the dogma that demands adherents of alternative energy to rally against fossil fuels. But, dogma spelt backwards = am god ... the prevalent attitude of those who decry anything but fossil fuels.

IMO, we need a diversity of solutions to generate power that is translatable into a universal energy that can be applied to virtually a maximum number of products. I claim no special expertise, so may be off base in thinking that electricity is the universal energy.

A lot of resistance to exploring alt-energies comes from vested interests of manufacturers of various products (like gas fired cars). If everything ran on electricity, then the issue would be--how do we generate that? For some areas, sun. For others, wind or wave. Others--perhaps shale.

It is the dogmatic rejection of ideas that gets me. Ideas are the most important fuel we have!

What I'm up to at the moment ...

2011-03-17T01:04:00.000-07:00

Diversification is key to both survival and satisfaction. With that in mind, I have been expanding my role in design in my Canadian property interests. That has led to a challenging opportunity in Cyprus designing and advising on a 10,000 sq ft villa under construction.

It's a great experience built upon past roles as a Facilities Manager and entrepreneur in property development (not to mention a fine arts background). Thing is, through it all, I am learning and observing practical aspects of intellectual capital and knowledge management. It's another "in the trenches" reality check, the sort I have built my career around.

Usage Based Billing (UBB)

2011-03-16T23:41:00.002-07:00

RaptorZX#'s video does explain a lot. Here's hope it gets the play it needs - and not just within Canada.

From another perspective, the internet is increasingly a tool for specific and general learning, accountability to citizenry, relationship development, off-loading infrastructure from institutions to individuals, etc. Lots of meat for unexpected consequences of a move such as the CRTC's effort to implement UBB on behalf of established, profit-seeking interests as the expense of Canadian intellectual capital development.

While some countries are increasing free access to wireless as a means to encourage the building of intellectual capital, Canada seems poised to put up barriers to development of its most critical resource: us. Yes, the intellectual capital of a nation eclipses other resources in terms of future potential...it is the last thing a nation should get in the way of.

Profit seeking interests (which include corporations but also, as is too often forgotten, us: shareholders) naturally see that differently.

In a democracy, we elect people to look our for our interests beyond the short term. But our structural capital (how we run elections, how we license business - eg UBB) is aligned along the lines of assumed scarcity of resources. Should we be surprised when the people we elect and whom they appoint don't look beyond the frame of their immediate reality?

As the video reveals, scarcity of resources is a plausible, familiar and therefore sellable idea. But it is a fallacy where access to data is concerned.

The internet is more like love: the more you have, the more it grows; the more your give, the more it grows. The UBB applied to love would mean that people who love "too" many other people are consuming a resource, leaving others unable to find love. Is the reason you're not on a date right not because somebody else is?

Hmmmm....maybe that's way the CRTC doesn't love the Internet. Unloved.

Champagne & Meatballs launched

2011-02-09T08:41:00.000-08:00

Attended a book launch at the Fairmont Empress this week for the newly published autobiography of Bert Whyte.

I met Bert and Monica for the first time in Moscow, 1978. Great raconteur and all 'round interesting person. Monica's incisive wit and broad knowledge are treasured today, long after Bert's passing.

This looks to be an interesting read...can't wait to crack it!

Chris Hedges writes on 'the dark slide' ... pun intended

2010-11-03T14:19:00.000-07:00

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning author who has written Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle sums it up in a new book, Death of the Liberal Class.

Thanks to Anna Maria Tremonti for continued, great interviews on CBC's "The Current".

IMO, the devolution of the US has been a disturbing, increasingly dark slide for some years. Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm are fiction - good reads, but fiction.

What is playing out south of the border is real life.

On the surface, it seems too comfusing and complex to grasp. The media has been co-opted by its own economic interests. Individuals in all walks of life, considering themselves intelligent and caring and manifestly not what "the other" says they are, rise up in righteous indignation. It's a maelstrom of emotion that pushes out rational consciousness. Seemingly obvious contradictions are obscured by Orwell's "newspeak". Co-dependent relationships with institutions far removed from human considerations drive irrational positions that are defended without regard for true outcomes.

The gloss is a caring, equity oriented sensibility that masks a brutality that threatens to consume a once great society. Below the surface, self-interest, greed, dysfunction and lack of compassion breed patterns of violence, systemic abuse, and corruption: an empire in decay.

Hedges describes this as the Wiemar-ization of the USA. It's a scary thought that I am seeing mirrored in social media comments after the November mid-term elections of yesterday.

Will Canada's inner strengths (similarly confused in the public discourse but evident in the fabric of "good order") be enough to withstand the vortex? Perhaps Gordon Campbell's resignation is an indicator ... let's see what develops.

Will be attending an event on sustainable communities thanks to the Royal Bank this weekend. Hoping for inspiration!

2010-09-29T10:52:00.000-07:00

Listening to Ingrid Betancourt on CBC The Current: inspirational. "We must see through the eyes of 'the other' ... to build constructive societies."

This is no less true of organizational management. Key are recorded information systems that allow us to find and retain authentic knowledge to support decision processes.

The devolution of civil society seen in Betancourt's six year captivity is also something we see in the workplace, in schools. The forgiveness she offers is far more rare. Pocklington commented on the lack of civility in his USA experience ... I feel that Canada must safeguard against such erosion of civility. Popular TV shows are no help.

Betancourt's memoir of her experience is worth reading: Even Silence Has An End

Dis-ease in the Health System, not just a Hong Kong problem

2010-09-19T08:10:00.001-07:00

You don't have to be a brain surgeon (pun intended) to recognize that the Hong Kong Health Authority and Department of Health need help in providing a safe, reliable health care for Hong Kongers, be they dependent on the public system or privileged enough to pay through the nose for a private system that still can't deliver the care one pays for.

When mothers die on the operating table from a loss of blood; when it takes 45 minutes to "find" a surgeon to help repair a surgeon caused, life threatening error; when doctors see it as winning a "lucky draw" not to get stuck with a colleague's patient during an emergency; when nurses are viewed--and view themselves--as "handmaidens to the doctors" instead of as accountable health care practitioners...when all of this is so (as it is) in China's "World Class City", you've got a problem.

Doing something about it will take courage and risk. Organizational systems in Hong Kong do not tolerate either.

Recent scandals over exposure of patient information have increased scrutiny on the health infrastructure. And, a private source advises that there is a growing recognition that an integrated health system might help. But, achieving the goal will take far more than secure transmission of shared data. An electronic health records is not really the solution to the problem.

The HKSARG Government seems to lack capacity to rise above its colonial roots and take the reins. Of course, when staff are trained not to think, not to make waves, to be loyal and obedient, it is a bit much to expect innovation. In a system that has built in barriers to clearing out dead-wood (such as loss of pension if fired), there is faint hope of change within a generation.

Too bad. As someone who loves Hong Kong, it is a heart wrenching pity to so this, another example of how the Territory could lead, but can't.

Is the situation unique to Hong Kong? Some aspects are. But I suggest that the essential problem of creating organizations that can achieve consistent outcomes on a day-to-day basis yet also celebrate and properly manage challenge, risk, learning and innovation is universal. That some jurisdictions do this better than others is something to ponder.

What do you think?

Why consider a profession in RIM?

2010-09-18T13:12:00.002-07:00

An educator recently asked RIM practitioners for some input into favorite, or most exciting parts of a records management professional career. What should young people should know about the discipline and why should they consider a profession in the field of records management?

I think that my very brief, candid (and therefore unpolished) remarks captured by David Gurteen sums up the balancing act that is essential to positioning RM for the future.

It's not, of course, just about access. Neither is it only about compliance. Litigation, while huge in the USA, is not a driver everywhere. Focusing on litigation as the omnipresent rationale for RIM can work against the domain in some jurisdictions.

RIM enables a necessary balance between compliance and learning--in contexts in which these two may be conflicting needs. In this, RIM is nothing short of exciting. Think about the range of knowledge and competencies required to navigate such a complex territory.

In the clip, I say something that I regret. That is, I use the "RM might seem boring" line. It is anything but and we should stop even accepting that some others might think so.

The key is to find what level of RIM activity suits the person. For some, it is the logical challenge of classification and indexing, made even more complex with granular attention to metadata. For others, it is the creative aspect of building an RIM position that reaches widely varied audiences. For still others, it is the scientific challenge of conservation or the blend of art and science that is taxonomy design. Some like the codification of research into schedules. I like wrestling with the enterprise-wide opportunities to bring benefits in unexpected ways.

Among all this, there is plenty of room for RIMers who like administrative roles, operational specialities, etc. I am not one who believes that a RIMer who rises through the ranks or moves into another vertical is no longer legitimately "in" RIM. We NEED RIMers to rise and proudly proclaim a RIM sensibility wht ever their role.. As defenders of the basis of knowing, I believe that we play a pivotal role in shaping organizations and societies. (Archivists & librarians understand their importance relative to democracy, learning, accountability, etc. Why do we not hear more from RIMers on that score? That, my friends, is a loaded question...there are plenty of examples that suggest something amiss in the management of records as related to ethical issues of the day.)

This view has opened up new worlds for me as I apply an RIM lens to just about every context. (Ever found a sticky-note on your medical chart? Or been asked to trust a system in which the evidence-base for decision making is demonstrably wrong? Or pondered that the shift toward tagging digital data means that correcting errors depends on perpetuating them?)

The most exciting part of RIM work, for me, has changed over years in the (many) posts I have held. That, in itself, is exciting. You can grow with the progress of your career. Using RIM related calculations and presenting to a high ranking committee to achieve a tripling of the allocation to government departments preparing for access/privacy legislation felt great. Influencing design to build an efficient yet uplifting physical plant for a downtrodden team as part of transforming the culture in and out of the RIM program felt satisfying. Experiencing contexts beyond my earlier norms was a splendid mind-jolt that has strengthened my practice. Introducing RIM to world thinkers in the intellectual capital domain and sparking curiosity has been challenging and, I think, important.

Amid all that, I suppose it’s a good idea remember that RIM is not all excitement and glory (!?!). Think: silverfish, mould, the effect of sprinkler systems on locally stored data. Or senior (very, very high ranking) officials who dismiss the need for appropriate atmospheric controls in multimedia record repositories because they, it seems, experience no problems whatsoever with the dry cleaner bags in their home closets (true case). Or the stress of taking necessary action--whatever that may be--when something wrong is going on and managing or mismanaging the record becomes the stuff of criminal investigations.

Taking RIM beyond technical practice is not for the faint of heart.

The domain continues to suffer from a lack of general understanding of what, exactly, it is. This is not helped by the broad range of roles that are grouped under “records management” or working under titles that mask RIM engagement. But as I said to then HKSARG Director of Administration, Andrew Wong, one day, a business or government leader who does not understand how to harness and manage recorded information resources will be seen as just not qualified for the job.

That time is coming.

E-learning hits a new high--or low--in Hong Kong

2010-09-03T13:30:00.001-07:00

"To enhance students’ ability for self-learning and interactive learning, and to promote the use of e-books rather than printed copies, we will look into the development of electronic learning resources." So said Chief Executive Donald Tsang in his policy address of 2009, foretelling a 3-year trial to examine the advantages and effect of e-learning.

The planned HK$140 million package would also "stabilize" textbook prices by preventing publishers from revising books too often. It is "a matter of public concern," says Tsang, who argued that educational textbooks should not be updated more than every five years to relieve the financial burden on parents.

In this one initiative, we see both the keening potential of Hong Kong and its tremulous reality. One the one hand, there is a drive toward empowered learning through the latest in technological resources. On the other, insight that it is less a latter of expanding Hong Kong's intellectual capital and more a matter of constraining publishers from issuing textbooks that will cost more than current stock. The answer to the price of textbooks? Use out of date ones! What, I ask, does that do for the development of an educational system?

Missing from the equation is any notion of consideration of academic value in the purchase of texts, of the potential for government to fund education such that text books are not a burden to parents (in place of some truly startling expenditures in other directions) or understanding that e-learning is not about plugged in textbooks so much as an entirely new learning paradigm.

Should we be surprised? I remain convinced that Hong Kong has great potential but fear that it is daily losing ground to the surrounding region. Why? This matter of developing the intellectual capital of the territory is a good example.

In discussion with a British Columbia directorate officer today, one who is key to the development of the province-wide K-12 education sector, we discussed the power of harnessing technology and learning as a marketable resource. It is already happening due to strategic maneuvering that has School Districts competing for online students. I myself am seeing an extension of this thinking. Graduate level education I am developing for the University of British Columbia will be offered to students in a consortium of US and Canadian universities, extending reach to tens of thousands of potential consumers (students and universities).

Could an innovative approach on a larger scale create a new resource industry: e-education? Why not? Could Hong Kong learn from this? You bet. But there is a long, long way to go.

The first step is to re-examine priorities. Its about learning first, money second, right? Think about that--it must be so. There are many ways to approach the challenge. Rather than forbid updating of educational content, why not negotiate access to updated online content on a subscription basis, permitting print-on-demand within certain parametres? or shifting from individually owned printed texts to shared libraries that augment student access to online resources. Other ideas? Share! Hong Kong needs your collaboration.

Steve's Apple is Green: What to do with all that cash?

2010-08-13T09:22:00.000-07:00

Fast Company asks, "Why Won't Steve Spend?". Fair question, I suppose. But anyone taking the view that Apple should take it's $46 billion USD and play the growth through acquisition game seems just a little out of touch with reality.

Noticed what's been going on over the last 20+ years? Growth through acquisition instead of through innovation and productivity has been the rule, not the exception. Apple seems wise enough to acquire when it make sense to its core and, of course, any such action demands liquidity.

Apple, arguably, has managed to hang on to more cash than "the total market cap of all but 49 of the S&P 500 companies" according to Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, while delivering some pretty innovative products! I'd say Apple, which for years has been an inside story of success all the while some on the other side of the computer world have scoffed, has it going on just fine.

I do, however, agree with Sacconaghi that beyond a certain threshold, cash reserves need to be shared with shareholders ... like that word, share. The question is, what threshold?

If true that $10 billion in cash reserves is sufficient, then $36 billion in stashed greenbacks might be called excessive. But, in today's risky world and the litigious climate of the USA (take about excessive...hot coffee anyone?), basing the cash reserves on operations and development may be too conservative. Ad there's that potential acquisition of something with meaningful value to Apple's development strategy.

Steve, here's my advice (I know you're reading ;-).

Take $8 billion and give your investors a dividend. That's, after all, what they're investing for unless they have bought into the grow through illusion and cash out philosophy. (You don't want that kind of investor anyway.)

Then, take another billion or two and give your investors a gift. Maybe, I don't know, an Apple product.

I'm not in Steve Jobs' league. But I do know that over the years when I have had opportunity to reward others for their contributions, be that through established policy or through personal gratitude, the cash has been appreciated--but the gift remembered. And, talked about. And, returned manyfold in stronger, deeper relationships. That feels good. And it's good for business.

Even better for business, with cash reserves like that you could give a token to every customer. Now, how do you think that would play over at the Gates' house?

Lost in the clouds? Cloud computing & content management

2010-07-03T09:30:00.001-07:00

Cloud computing does level much of the playing field for SMEs seeking a functionality they could not otherwise afford. But management of risk and compliance remain an issue. Similarly, when content is outsourced, capacity to manage that content for knowledge and intellectual capital development may be subject to decisions outside the company's interests.

Explicit contracting to gain both the advantages and mitigate disadvantages is important. This won't happen without a general awareness of the issues.

That's why so much of my own effort is focused on raising awareness and advising. I do not believe in removing the responsibility for knowing from leaders and managers. Rather, I help them understand their responsibility to be knowledgable and help them get there. The same thinking informs development now underway for graduate level curriculum to be delivered through the University of British Columbia's landmark School of Archives, Library and Information Studies in 2011.

This (caveat!) sales article from Cloud Hosting Services does provide some very good insights into some of the fundamentals of selecting cloud service providers. For those looking deeper, it ignores many of the critical Recorded Information Management (records management, RIM) issues.

As one example, redundancy and automatic distribution of content across geographically dispersed servers is generally a good thing. A key RIM concern not mentioned is need to ensure compliance with privacy and other regulatory requirements when that geographic diversity is managed. Make sure that the service provider does not put the corporate legal position at risk with an unrecognized, inadvertent non-compliance with fundamental laws that apply in a given jurisdiction. For example, it may be cost effective to outsource storage to a US company, but if that includes HR data on personnel working in the satellite office in Germany, you've broken EU law.

Developing knowledge in relation to RIM should be a key expectation of business leaders and managers.

As data continues is flow out of the corporate control into social media and the various forms of cloud computing, the value of specialist knowledge in records management is growing. At the same time, there is an observable trend within the profession to build functionality into software as a means to avoid the challenge of raising contextual understanding within the organization. Now a good thing, IMO. And, I said as much here.

A literate populace leverages Intellectual Capital

2010-07-01T15:14:00.002-07:00

Finland models good KM practices by enabling connectivity--under law.

Consultants, Clients & Marin County's lawsuit against Deloitte

2010-06-06T21:53:00.001-07:00

Deloitte sued ...
Not a fan of he big consultancies--I hired too many of them over the years to be under any illusion--but organizational practices are such that even a committed expert is constrained by the organization's internal structures, processes, politics and determination to direct in areas that are precisely the consultant's expertise, not the organization's.

This situation is so familiar that I could go on ad nauseum...but (lucky reader) time prevents that. I shall burden my grad students with the lessons that can be drawn. Back to curriculum development.

Check out the article...what do YOU think?

Collaborative Communications

2010-06-05T09:32:00.000-07:00

Participating in the Northumbria University doctoral project on Collaborative Communications continues to be an eye opener. As someone "living" virtually in the digital realm for decades now, it can be surprising to discover that the thinking of those newer to navigating virtual reality reflects a bricks and mortar world.

My own surprise reminds me that I must step back and allow what is to be. In that vein, the video below resonates. As I prepare to teach a graduate level course on records in the digital environment, I think this may be an important reminder for the students. Equally true of bricks and mortar collaborations, the message is key to realizing the potential of diverse interactions over the internet.

Knowledge management versus Opinion Management

2010-03-21T09:04:00.001-07:00

Opinion management? A well managed opinion is the crux of Chomsky's the Disinformation: The Manufacture of Consent, sadly now out of print but available at the link VERY cheaply.

Has political rhetoric ever been designed to inform instead of merely to influence belief? Perhaps not. Regardless, the general public seems uninterested in demonstrable fact--rather uninterested in demanding demonstration of purported fact. The energy wasted on speculation and reaction to speculation rains cash on so-called "news" agecies which benefit from controversy, which builds audience and increases advertising revenue.

The tragic devolution of the US and its ludicrous maelstrom over whether health care should be for profit or not is but one of myriad examples.

Considering recent discussion of Intellectual Capital (IC) in several forums and among colleagues whose views I respect, I see little consciousness that record keeping is absolutely fundamental. THe management of records is either assumed, or viewed as a historical anachronism and in either cases, there's litte grasp of the challenge of insuring authenticity in knowing through records.

Ultimately, it is the record that enables the discovery of fact. Without the record, we are entirely reliant on intangibles and vulnerable to error. I use the word intangibles deliberately. Making Sense of Intellectual Capital: Designing a Method for the Valuation of Intangibles IC is primarily about the intangibles. But these are rendered manageable through records. This fact is either unrecognized or assumed with no attention paid to matters of authenticity.

After a year away from writing, I need to get back in the saddle and work on "the book". Tentatively tagged, "The KLARIS Strategy", we'll bring it all together.

Reprise and renewals

2010-03-05T08:50:00.001-08:00

This short video clip was captured--candid camera style--by David Gurteen in Hong Kong back in 2006, shortly after I decided not to accept another contract term as part of the Hong Kong Government Directorate. I felt, then and now, that Hong Kong was ripe with opportunity to build it's own capacity to emerge into its own new form. But, self-empowerment is key and evidence-based practice is, in my view, a way to build reliable ways of knowing. Knowledge is crucial to moving forward.

Back in the 80's, Canada was a leader in the domain of records management. The British Columbia team, born of the Provincial Archives, pushed the envelope to find new ways to integrate the preservation of history with effective, business oriented management of information captured in multi-media records. There was a lot of controversy among academics...if change is hard in organizations generally, it is even more so in academia.

The approach was a "control through service" model focused on achieving fiscal and system-wide benefits through description and management of multi-media information resources. Especially, we sought to understand and render manageable the implications of these resources. We (yes, I was one of the start-up team of six analysts) preceded and in some ways enabled Australia's move into first place with its development of the Continuum Theory. Over the last decade or so, sadly, the hegemony of the US economy has relegated records management to a narrowly defined, compliance driven approach. Our US friends increasingly see it as a legal and administrative burden, necessary but, perhaps, evil. Within the domain, need for deep smarts has fallen to the more easily sold "big bucket". What a missed opportunity!

My own work toward the development of the KLARIS Strategy, a model for the Knowledge focused enterprise, adopts recorded information management (RIM) as a balancing act. It supports accountability and transparency on the one hand, equated with learning and authentic ways of knowing on the other. It's about building intellectual capital, elevating the methods to manage that process from an intangible to a tangible result.

I find it startling that something as basic as evidence-based practice is not fully embraced in knowledge and KM circles. Some take it for granted (perhaps our academic friends?) and others disdain it (too much time and effort required and far too little macho "kick" in the leadership). And, of course, an evidence base does mean accountability. That scares people at all levels (which says a lot about leadership and management in today's organizations).

Whither RIM?

As I develop curriculum for the University of British Columbia's School of Library, Archives and Information Science, I plan to ground thinking in the balancing act, firmly focused in the context of organizational realities and outcomes.

2010-02-14T14:34:00.000-08:00

The Communist Manifesto reveals the two essential requirements for communism:
1) Income tax 2) Free public education

Interestingly, the country seemingly most obsessed with communism is the USA. In 1776, it had neither of the two items above. In 1913, these communist principles were adopted. All else is implementation, a any good manager can tell you.

Labels are irrelevant except for their value in swaying opinion. Crass, but true. For all the energy wasted on defining this person as a socialist or that one as a communist or yet another as a capitalist, these are the wrong questions. Neither democrats nor republicans really want democracy...except those that believe their own rhetoric and ignore the reality they collude to create. Similarly, British Columbia's Liberals are anything but. And the Progressive Conservatives at the Canadian national level are as progressive as their friends in the Bush household.

Adam Smith, the so-called father of capitalism understood that you cannot have a healthy economy without attention to the well being of those who live in it. He understood that the market is not neutral, but an expression of the system within which it exists. He said that the wealth of a nation is in the wealth of its workers. He did not doubt the negative effect of greed or ignorance or man-made intrigues as these might play out in the marketplace.

At issue is, do you care for the well being of the people who inhabit your economy?
I like this question. If you don't, then you are no follower of Adam Smith depite your call for laissez-faire capitalism. Check out
"Economics for the Rest of Us by Moshe Adler.

Ted Lineup Revealed

2010-01-11T01:01:00.000-08:00

My TED profile is not as active as I'd like.

It seems that when I go into TED space, I am lifted (a good word) into ideas, stimulated by the visuals and audio with result that I must push on without taking additional time to contribute.

Few spaces energize like TED. Here's the lineup.

What CIOs tell each other about driving business...

2009-12-25T08:46:00.001-08:00

Martha Heller's piece starts out fine. Seeing as CIO claims of "inheriting a mess" are legion, who wouldn't wonder what's up? They inherit from each other, so are all of them incompetent? Hardly. There's much more to effective management than IT and it is true that CIO roles are too often more IT manager and less IM Chief.

Scott McKay, CIO of Genworth Financial (GNW), describes the paradox this way: "Many CIOs see their role as an enabler to their business peers," he says. "But precisely because they are enabling business results, rather than driving them, they are not perceived as highly strategic to the management team."

Well. It would be hard to politely express my disagreement with McKay's statement. IT should never drive business systems. Too often they do. With millions invested in systems, it should be no surprise that the focus shifts to achieving ROI on that expenditure by fitting working into it rather than sticking with the business focus and demanding that the system support that! McKay is correct in concluding that CIOs are not seen as highly strategic by their business peers. After all, so many are technicians who have gone up the ladder within a relatively narrow view. Strategy, in the IT world, is too often about strategic maneuvering for a tactical (budget) outcome. Business strategy is the purview of those accountable for business outcomes.

Should senior managers know more about how information technology is both an enabler and an inhibitor of business process and outcomes? Of course! But so should CIOs. John Ralston Saul observed that power is vested, not in the effective use of information, but in the effect of its control. That control belong firmly rooted in business purpose. It all comes together best when the CIO is part of the top team, understanding information as one of two key knowledge resources oriented toward delivering quality outcomes. I think McKay would agree with that.

Copenhagen's Carbon Footprint equivalent to 3 COLD Canadian cities

2009-12-20T14:21:00.001-08:00

Here's an interesting summary written before the talks on climate change in Copenhagen. Gotta give your head a shake when one conference stamps a carbon footprint for the same period that is equivalent to 3 Canadian cities in the depths of winter! Of the concerned celebrities, and I do applaud their concern, most would have flown to Denmark. I wonder how many used their inside track (you know, those elite social networking websites that extend membership only to the cognoscenti, celebrated or notorious) to share a private jet? Or did they fly coach?

Now that the summit has ended, it seems to me that the very premise of reducing CO2 emissions is bass ackwards (as they say). It is a negative. Surely it is a pretty fundamental concept in change theory that is tends to come through a) recognition of the need and b) positive means to achieve it. Any teenager can tell you that the stick creates resistance and positive incentives create movement.

My suggestion is that we focus on the positive by establishing meaningful indicators of the shift to green energies. Do you produce 5 models of petrol consuming vehicles? Well, in 2010, demonstrate your corporate shift to electric (or hydrogen, etc.) models and deliver 2 models to the market by 2015, 4 by 2020. Heck, I'll buy!

Thoughtful edits and ramblings on the ICT project mind map

2009-12-18T08:30:00.001-08:00

These comments may be out of context given that the relevant Mind Map is not public at this time, but I think the questions raised are important. I'm pleased to be participating in a study underway at Northumbria University, on of about 80 co-researchers in support of a doctoral project.

A finding of my own grad project, was that influential records managers often are (or believe themselves to be) part of non-dominant groups within a culture. It seems that means [for ICT users'] to self-identify in such terms might be a good idea.

The approach to communication outward from a member of dominant cultural group differs from that seen in non-dominant member interaction with the dominant group, for example. Relevant factors include age, gender, sexual orientation, race, body shape/perceived fitness and in some contexts, facial features, degree of pigmentation, grammatical fluency, vocabulary, accent and other social markers.

Not suggesting we grow the area of study exponentially, but that some recognition of such factors as a critical component of communication is appropriate.

An advantage in including such considerations is that ICT has potential to transcend certain social markers to open doors to diversity and broader participation.

If the above is true, it would also be interesting to explore (in a separate research project) whether technological advances such as image and video display have a bearing on reducing the power to transcend difference. For example, where a text communication is gender, race, age neutral, a video commentary is not.

Is the opportunity for bridging difference heralded by technology being diluted by later technological advances?

A parallel research question posed by a colleague is whether ICT encourages an individual actor mindset within cultures that are overwhelmingly oriented toward group-member mindsets. Expanding upon that question, considering my own experience leading an organization in Asia, I wonder about the implications for individuals when they risk/adopt an individual actor mindset in a societal context that generally rewards group-member mindsets and penalizes individual actor mindsets.

As a leader who cares about how action affects people, I feel discomfort years later when I recall the courage of a fellow who risked new ways in a coporate culture in which a community building staff development exercise was shaped as a war game pitting staff against eachother.

There is rich research potential for anthropology, management, education and professional domains, extending to questions of cultural imposition versus liberation - is technology the weapon of modern imperialism? Hmmm....now there's a question to develop.

Privacy matters: Does Eric Schmidt mean what he says?

2009-12-14T10:26:00.001-08:00

It is a cheap shot, and an ignorant one, to use the ol' "if ya ain't doning nuttin wrong, ya got nuttin ta hide" argument. But, Eric Schmidt hauls it out in response to a question about Google and privacy. And, a second take of the many out there.

Here's Eric Schmidt in his own words...might this be out of context or does he really not know that in this world some people get killed for their beliefs or who they are and that privacy, that is, one's right to it, matters? Wait a minute, didn't he hold that view himself in relation to his own privacy?

That said, his essential point is that people should use judgement about what they make public...I agree with that 100%. Of course, in today's wired world it can be difficult to know when you are making something public even after selection of the appropriate privacy options. When service providers such as Facebook introduce changes in functionality, it can render user choices ineffective. But...

I object to Schmidt's cavalier statement that "if you are doing something you don't want anyone to know, then maybe you shouldn't be doing it" and placement of that ignorant observation in the context of assumed criminal behaviour, "it can be made available to the authorities". Perhaps he should have discussed how these views fit in the context of the action he himself took by banning CNN in defense of his own privacy rights.

Privacy and such issues are difficult to manage reliably and consistently within the array of heavily promoted online services, but Schmidt can't have it both ways.

A mutual friend assures me he's got a good mind and integrity...so, Eric, try putting your mind to making it work, not dissing those who understand more than you seem to about privacy, people and the world we live in.

Incompetence in KM

2009-12-09T02:13:00.000-08:00

SO frustrated with Shaw Cable ... but the IT driven "help" service does provide lessons in KM.

Metrics based on user input work in sales pitches...irritated customers rarely write as predicted. For example, when "Amy" gives a third irrelevant response and second sales pitch in response to a help question, a caustic response might be expected. Mine was, "right". Amy's metrics link "right" to a taxonomy that delivers her response...she has concluded I am a new fan. WRONG!

More to the point ... how do we get business to understand that IT is a tool...money needs to be invested in real KM, enabled, not driven by technology. If your business seriously thinks that KM is about computer technology, think again.

AmanIC

2009-11-27T06:53:00.003-08:00

Thinking that Aman Resorts has some serious IC going on ... but seems to be unaware ... perhaps it is only those organizations that lack IC that most need to be conscious of it ... those that already live and breath it, don't chase the awards.

Hmmm, interesting to think of that in relation to KM. Just saying.

Can we learn from Satyam?

2009-10-30T11:17:00.000-07:00

Satyam Computer Services grew from its 1987 roots to become the face of India's IT juggernaut with tens of thousand of staff spread across the globe. It all came crashing down early in 2009 when Satyam founder and company chair, Ramalinga Raju, revealed that, in essence, the books had been cooked.

His oft quoted observation, "it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten,” is somehow comforting. We can understand it...what a fearsome, lonely ride, we might think. Well, celebrity continues with a cover shot on Business Week and the inevitable "India's Enron" seen in The Economist.

Deeper truths: humans make up systems

There is a collusion, conscious and unconscious, that is required to deliver the kind of catastrophe seen at Satyam. The human capacity to choose what to see, believe and act on is probably what keeps us sane in the daily struggle to navigate through the workplace...but it also destroys the soul and enables malfeasance.

We see this every day at the water cooler... the subtle sniping at "them", justifications for injustices small and large, the fatalism that in turn justifies petty ways to get one's own back. This provokes disgust and disappointment in those that hold one viewpoint; from another, the revulsion is reserved for those known to be opposed to such behaviour. They are painted as uncooperative, weak or not one of the team.

Both views coexist and often both groups step into their "member of the larger group" mindset to shut out the minutia that reveals the truth of an organization in favour of the prettier and well marketed picture that is adopted to cloak reality.

Behaviours within organizations are often miles apart from the image presented in vision statements and governance models, development programs, international award receptions and campaigns to sell that image. The image is, after all, good for business. The reality is...awkward.

In my view, the greatest and the riskiest thing is to build capacity within the organization to recognize the incongruities at the smallest levels of human interaction as well as the systemic level as forces in the business as well as impacts on human beings. Then, take that consciousness and engage in trustworthy development of corrective action--individually and collectively.

Too much "growth" today is built on the specious (but very lucrative) notion that mergers and aquisitions represent value. Businesses aimed at growth through merger and acquisition for their own sake rather than sustainable profit based on value production are unlikely to take the gamble. This is a time for us to reconsider what value is and what part each of us has to play in it. This is a time to start thinking of organizations as intellectual capital and managing it accordingly.

I'm working on a book with coleague and partner Robert Tornack and trying to find the language that can inform on this level while also providing a roadmap to achieving the knowledge-focused enterprise. It is a challenge in part because, like any new approach, until it is so ingrained that one can focus on outcomes, the system is focused on process. The old bromide, "the operation was a success! but the patient died" is a factor of exactly this focus on process.

Know what it takes to deliver quality outcomes

My advice is to focus on outcomes, constraining process only to the degree necessary for accountability. This takes a different kind of governance model to ensure transparency and a recognition that contemporaneous record-keeping is at the core of authenticty and reliability in performance.

Community also means shared accountability

A recent question focused on what can leaders do after such a catastrophe. Certainly, it may be appropriate that a top leader to take the wrap for the organization as a whole as Mr. Raju has done. But, despite protestations to the contrary, the organization knows better.

Organizational culture is the outcome of collaboration and every individual is accountable for influencing it. Mr. Raju's censure is important, but does not absolve the culture that enabled it.

Northumbira's Impact Calculator launched

2009-10-24T11:21:00.002-07:00

Northumbria is certainly engaged and that is wonderful to see. I'll be taking a deeper look at the Impact Calculator tool soon--a first look reveals that the Business Process worksheet is blank for some reason.
The guide does not indicate that this should be so, so I'll bring that to the attention of someone involved, perhaps Steve Bailey who introduces the tool in his blog, Records management futurewatch.

While applauding (loudly) the development of tools for use in practice, I admit to a concern that RIM practitioners lose the opportunity to gain deep knowledge (e.g. Deep Smarts: How to Cultivate and Transfer Enduring Business Wisdom )

The process of developing such a tool is something that builds knowledge and capacity in ways that merely adopting a tool cannot. Sadly, when we adopt tools rather than build them, the focus shifts toward making the tool work rather than on devising a means to achieve an outcome. This is directly related to "the operation was a success! but the patient died" syndrome that seems to characterize so many organizations today.

A promising sign, however, is the guide itself and need for users to devise meaningful indicators. That is no mean feat...indicators are easy enough, but making them meaningful in context is another thing altogether.

Kudos to Northumbria...and more kudos to the RIM practitioner who uses the tool to build personal capacity to adapt it for use in situ.

2009-10-19T11:40:00.004-07:00

A question about the practical value of bonding staff and contractors relative to intellectual property and knowledge resources brings to mind earlier experience when responsible for the management of captured knowledge within a Canadian government entity.

As someone involved behind the scenes in the development of British Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy statute, I was conscious that the results of proclamation and the inevitable interpretation of law by implementing organisations sometimes caused unexpected consequences. I explored with risk management experts the impact of privacy legislation on bonding of staff for risk, insurance and security purposes.

The experience drawn from the effect of Canadian national legislation may indicate implications for other jurisdictions in the Pacific Rim and Asia, especially those sharing a foundation in the parliamentary system of government. Of course, every organization should seek its own legal counsel in any specific regard. That counsel should be considered in context.

In this case, we found that:

The Bond process is typically used when staff of Company A handle monies and funds for Company B. If the staff of Company A should steal the funds, the bonding organization will pay Company B for that loss.

The bond process, as described, is considered cost effective for bonding one's own staff against the risk of internal theft or loss.

As a result of various privacy protections under law (variable across jurisdictions) it may be impossible for a bonding firm to perform a thorough security check. Therefore, these firms may bond individuals without an adequate knowledge of whether they are "bondable" in the sense of the general expectations understood prior to the advent of privacy laws.

Subject to legal advice obtained and relevant to a given circumstance, we discovered that:

Contrary to management belief and instruction, it is not cost effective to bond individuals hired as temporary back-fill for staff on leave (or due to other staffing need) or to bond the outsourced service staff of other companies that handle one's own valuable goods as is increasingly common.

If the security of bonding applied to temporary or sub-contractor staff is deemed necessary in relation to valuable itmes, cash or negotiable instruments, then such temporary staffing or back-filling may be pursued through a placement agency or sub-contractor which takes on responsibility for bonding. Then, it may be established through contract that the agency is required to supply bonded workers and that the agency is in any case liable for any losses. These losses would presumably be reimbursed through the agency's bonding agent, a separate matter of direct concern to the agency).

Easily overlooked implications of such action include limitations of union and workforce agreements, judicial assessment of processes to monitor sub-contracted resources, the actual arrangements and financial coverage available to a sub-contractor through its bond agent, etc.

In relation to bonding of staff involved in the management of intellectual property and knowledge content that is retained within records, the challenge that records managers have faced for years remains. To be effective, bonding relies on a clear financial equation to support reimbursement of loss at an established value.

What value can be ascribed to information?

What is sustainability in business?

2009-10-09T10:22:00.003-07:00

This question has come up a lot of late. In response to it in a LinkedIn QA, I observed that:

Sustainability in business means just that...keeping the business viable over time. There was a time when everyone got this. Change in thinking around what constitutes an acceptable profit have created confusion in what is, really, a rather straightforward and pragmatic thing.

If your profit is based on acquisition rather than productivity, it is not sustainable. This is a smash and grab, "do harm" philosophy. It is concerned more with marketing the hype and eventual sale/purchase/merger than delivering value. On a personal level, it is self justifying as the trappings of financial success are comfortable, cushioning reality in very nice surroundings among those who similarly want to justify an approach that essentially takes a winner-loser viewpoint. "The other" must give up something so that "we" win. "We" must protect against "the other" to avoid losing.

If your profit is based on productive engagement, it is necessarily based in notions of how to sustain that (or you cannot remain profitable and cannot sustain yourself). This philosophy breeds a concern for quality, integrity in relationship, commitment to mutual benefit. It leans toward "the other" as opportunity for growth and/or sustainable profit through recognition of mutual interest.

There seems to be a growing dichotomy in these schools of thought. I am working to express how managing knowledge resources (people plus information recorded into multimedia containers) grounds the development of intellectual capital (as an indicator of sustainable profit far more reliable than last year's balance sheet).

It's an exciting area of thought-work. In my interactions internationally, I sense both a coming together of thinkers and a great divide. It would be too easy to conclude that division fits political views, economic and class distinctions, even national origin.

Can we transcend difference to create a critical mass that moves globalization from exploitation to mutuality?

On records

2009-10-07T22:10:00.008-07:00

When I learned that the internet seminar I developed and offered in collaboration with ARMA International had attracted 551 registrants well in advance, I was delighted, and curious. When that number icreased to 1100 by September 28 and closed at 1186 by October 6, I felt honoured, and still very curious. Why had this seminar attracted such interest? What might have caused such a record number of participants?

ARMA International has been gracious enough to put it down to my professional renown, such as it is. It seems a stretch to think that my own reputation is so wide spread as to draw such a crowd from across the globe. So, I conclude, it is the topic that resonates.

Seven Questions Guide Records Management Strategy & Implementation. Seven uncomplicated questions provide a framework for uncovering all the information necessary to run an enterprise, and to manage its corporate memory. Presented with insights into how recorded information management fits within a senior management perspective, the presentation invites records management professionals to embrace the complexity that is part and parcel of describing and management the corporate brain. It is a topic for our time.

Authentic, reliable, transparent and accountable.

The decisions of government, enterprises large and small must be all of these. And, as the world comes to grips with the smoke and mirrors that represent, drive and misrepresent the global economy, we who understand the professional domain of recorded information management know that ultimately, everything rests on accurate recordkeeping. It is the foundation of knowing.

Recently, I contributed a module on knowledge captured in multi-media containers (records) for a graduate course, Knowledge Management in Health Care, for the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. Mid-career professionals from a variety of health related enterprises: public, private and non-profit sectors from across Canada. Like their counterparts in every sector, they are knowledgeable and skilled at the running of organizations. And, like their counterparts in so many industries, some spoke of record keeping and the activities that might derive from the existence of recorded information as "maybe a good thing", but essentially not "the real work" and perhaps a distraction and drain on resources that could be put to better use. It's a refrain oft heard through my own career of over twenty years.

And yet, I know that if we care about quality and repeatable performance, we must know it is not achievable without the record. If we care about integrity in business, we must acknowledge that it is not discernible without the records. If we care about transparency in governance, we must demand authentic, realible records as evidence.

Those who claim that they are too busy doing "the real job" to ensure adequate record-keeping, in fact, are not actually finishing the job.

The failure to create and effectively use captured knowledge as a guide for action, basis for evaluation and means to defend decisions is a choice to abandon good management.

Knowingly or not, it's a choice too many have made. The results speak for themselves.

The false security of methodology

2009-03-23T18:21:00.005-07:00

John Owens' observations on simplicity and complexity in the Project Management Hut resonate. In many organizations, there is a slavish adoption of one or another "proven" methodology. In fact, there are certainly requisite stages: analysis, planning, execution, i.e. build+implement, and review. But the real key is not bureaucratization of process, but developing capable participants.

Whether you use a highly structured methodology or a more fluid and iterative "agile" approach, the key to success is effective collaboration among capable people working to achieve agreed, meaningful outcomes.

Not long ago, I experienced (yet another) PRINCE2 project in which observers could not get their heads around the how and way of project difficulties when it was, after all, a Prince2 project!! Isn't the PRINCE rationale exactly the avoidance of such problems through a structured approach?

Any project needs the right people demonstrating key attributes. They must be willing, able, knowledgeable and sincerely interested in the success of the project. I can hear some of my former colleagues agreeing. Yet, it takes a bit more effort and insight to suss out the reality.

In this case, assigned project members were unhappy with the organization in general and assigned leader in particular. That is, they had a point to make and were handed a vehicle through which to make it. Internally, the group was widely known to be more interested in a failed project that could serve as a platform for other greivances than a success that might undermine their vested position.

The project focus was well beyond the team's experience. So, not only was the group unhappy and itching for a chance to demonstrate failed leadership, they were not fully capable delivering even in areas that they were agreeable.

Knowledgeable? Well, even in their professional domain, observers noted that long standing practices were observed to be not current, some even harmful.

How does such a team end up with a multi-million dollar project assignment? Easy!

When an organization is trained to believe that form, rank and process are sufficient to achieve results, very structured processes (such as, in this case, PRINCE2) are meant to ensure that all the pieces fit in a tidy set of (many) binders and the messy realities of human interaction can remain off the table.

Not entirely blind to risk, senior decision makers provided additional support--in the form of administrative "experts" whose IT experience was limited to several months' installation of desktop software. This loosely related skill set was augmented with a contract IT technician who was to report to the problematic group. Not surprisingly, the vendor team was mystified. Eventually, the vendor's project management felt so badly burned by the behaviour of the client's staff that time lines began to slip as the focus shifted more and more to a defensive documentation of client team failures instead of progress. The accountable project sponsor found that senior support for addressing internal HR problems shrank as the disruptions grew.

Sadly, the scenario is not so unusual. No methodology, per se, can substitute for conscious assessment and realistic determination of factors that will shape the progress of a project. In fact, formulaic methodologies may include processes in which a problem is identified, recorded and reported and the process ticked off without notice that the problem itself is not resolved, enabling giving the old "operation was a success, but the patient died" argument.

It is rare to find direct reference to the kind of machinations that surround projects within organizations.

Scary as it may be, "getting real" around issues of workplace culture, power dynamics, competencies among relevant stakeholders and attitude is a necessary project design stage. They say that as many as 70% of IT projects fail to deliver the forecasted benefits. When the enforcement of process obscures context and a focus on outcomes, is it any wonder?

On Organization and Re-organization

2009-03-23T03:59:00.004-07:00

Somewhere around the year 60 A.D. Petronius Arbiter observed that,

"we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing. It can be a wonderful way to create the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization".

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Aung San Suu Kyi on Power

2009-03-01T21:36:00.002-08:00

It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those with it, and fear of the source of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

Email management - the medium is not the message

2009-02-15T19:41:00.005-08:00

Email management remains a challenging topic. Some see it as essentially and IT problem: all about space, speed and pack-rat users clogging servers. Others see it as a "rights" issue: "it's my invitation to lunch and nobody is going to tell me it doesn't have permanent value!' Legal-beagles warn of impending doom as email content finds its way into court (e.g. Worldcomm) as the smoking gun.

In my own experience, emails have been a factor in HR management including performance evaluation and verification, discipline, harassment investigations and terminations.

Typically, organizations try to manage email as a class rather than as content, meaning, independent of medium. This seems to be one of the most difficult leaps for organizational management and leadership to make.

For all those Marshall McCluhan fans, it's time to look beyond the sound bite and realize that in today's workd, the medium is not the message. But, if you are wondering how vendors are approaching email management, Jesse Wilkins has recently posted a List of email management vendors on his blog, Informata. Check out his list, click on the various links and explore.

Ultimately, the challenge is to know enough about what is possible through technological management of multi-media record types so as to engage and make informed decisions to help technical resources understand how they can help you achieve your objectives.

Those objectives are less about managing email and more about recognizing the interrelationships among recorded information in multi-media content and managing the whole in accord with a business position on balancing risk, compliance, quality and learning management.

Through a knowledge focused lens...

2009-02-09T06:50:00.002-08:00

"It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop."
Confucius (philosopher & reformer, 551 BC - 479 BC)

Generosity and the "will to know": introspection on business in Asia

2009-01-29T18:48:00.009-08:00

"The genuine will to know calls for the spirit of generosity rather than for that of economy...." (Herbert Spiegelberg, The Phenomenology Movement: A Historical Perspective, 1965)

It's an interesting thought. Generosity is easy to come by, so long as there is no competing, vested interest. What can enable a spirit of generosity when there is a real or perceived competition? What can destroy it?

This is an issue I feel increasingly drawn to explore. At a recent presentation, a colleague used a conceptual slide that is virtually identical to our material (by virtually, I mean that our copyright statement was missing). While no one can really claim ownership of thought, and many people may arrive at similar conclusions in roughly the same time through exposure to ideas, even mutual exchange, it was a relationship shifting shock to see someone feathering his own nest without so much as an acknowledgment--which would have cost nothing--or even slight changes in presentation, which would have cost minimal time.

Is this about the spirit of generosity? or generosity of spirit?

Is this really about differences in cultural values? or is that a convenient excuse?

It takes collusion to make such breaches work. Examples of collusion exist in everything from the supposed value of long hours of work to enabling error by "respecting" rank. In my case, it is merely a shift in relationship. In recent health care incidents, the cost is a life.

It takes a different kind of collaboration to create generosity in the will to know. It is a challenge Hong Kong must face, or accept the already visible loss of place in Asia.

Much resistance to change is about rationalizing preference at the expense of others. In Asia's "world class city", we have a long way to go.

Food for thought.

Preserving Web Content (?!?)

2009-01-15T21:41:00.002-08:00

Brian Kelly's talk at iPRES 2008 conference from Brian Kelly on Vimeo.

Records Management Policy for the White House

2009-01-08T18:43:00.005-08:00

Records Management Policy Could Have Spared White House Embarrassing Probe According to Data Empowerment Group. That's the title of the article...glad to see I'm not the only one thinking that RIM is the issue in matters of accountability and transparency.

Have a read...thoughts? Tom Utiger neatly links the issue, sensibly, to a potential multi-million dollar USD risk to Fortune 500 companies. But to me, given the last eight years, the big question is, "how on earth does the USA manage NOT to have an RIM policy for the White House?" For that matter, how is it that my counterpart (on a much larger scale with a far more independent and legislatively supported mandate) Allen Weinstein seems to be silent on the matter?

IMnsHO, inability to grasp the import of a domain so often dismissed as warehousing is a key issue of our time.

After all, the foundation of knowing within organisations and societies is surely the record. And from what I have seen in 20+ years in public, non-profit and private sector roles, there is little appreciation of the value of accurate record keeping and virtually no understanding of the implications of the shift to electronic records in the general public.

Sadly, seen in some jurisdictions more than others, there is a sense of "so what", a culture that enables and hides falsifying the record. Corporate examples abound...I have run across a personal example in health care. The implications are significant. History is to be revealed...not crafted...if we are to know.

Change the world ...

2008-11-04T00:05:00.002-08:00

The girl effect: she will do the rest.

It's a common sense thing, really. Worth thinking about how and why our daughters and sons may differ in terms of return on investment! What a way to think of one's own child, but what a lost opportunity if we do not think in these terms for the future of the world.

The video works... here's why.

Derivative as Original

2008-10-24T02:05:00.003-07:00

It was with some amusement (momentary irritation?) that I read of Spencer Ante's critique of Lawrence Lessig's work, Remix.

What, exactly, is derivative? I remember an art teacher who was very fond of the word. But even then, too many years ago, I knew that it was through coming to understand what is that we reach for what can be. It's creative process. Snipped at the point of observation, constrained to a passive acceptance, there is no continuum.

Surely, evolution is derivative. Is creationism what happens when one must merely accept, instead of engage?

More to the point, not having read Remix yet, but with an understanding of the Creative Commons, I note that we must deal with these issues. Ponder the affect on social constructs that evolves from a generation that engages beyond what the law allows. Lest we be complacent in assuming "the kids" just don't understand, know that mainstream thinkers also observe--in some surprisingly conservative companies--that protecting the dollar value of IP may actually work against innovation.

New rule: it's not one or the other. How do we balance ownership and rights with extrapolation and innovation?

Ted Talks Inspire: Will Wright's ideas on play beyond toys

2008-10-10T03:31:00.005-07:00

Many parents share my concern that we are breeding intolerance for longer term, delayed gratification activities in our kids. The advent of television sped up the race toward superficiality in thought, IMO, but it is only the medium, not the message. Make no mistake about it: it is people, not television, that decide what comes at us through that medium.

A fan of Elliot Jacques since being introduced to his concepts during graduate studies at Royal Roads University, I am heartened to see that Will Wright has taken up the challenge of helping future generations "see" farther toward horizons beyond the 22 minute story, 3 minute jingle or 30 second sound bite. I wonder what Jacques would think of developing the capacity for a 1000 year consciousness?

As someone famous (notorious?) for seeing the implications of today's actions 5, and 10 years down the road, I have to observed that this is lonely enough.

It is hard to iimagine the distance in consciousness one would have to adopt to allow for thought on the level that Will Wright's Genesis toy suggests.

Tolstoyan Flow

2008-09-17T21:39:00.003-07:00

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

So wrote Leo Tolstoy in (1870). Tolstoy is a favourite observer of human nature. In partial fulfillment of my graduate studies in leadership and learning communities (training) at Royal Roads University, I drew upon the character of Levin and his immersion into process. Profound! It resonates with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Flow which he describes as,

being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost.

Most of us have experienced this sense of morphing into the action of the moment--it is consummately satisfying. Sadly, however, most people do not experience this at work. It is usually a hobby or some passionately engaged activity outside of the workplace. For those of us lucky enough to have passion for our work, the challenge can be to remember that one person's flow is another persons "stuck"! For those of us who have or are now leading organizations, the challenge is to find ways to spot, enable and empower flow within structures that often work in the opposite direction.

How does flow factor into knowledge management? It's worth engaging over!

Are our problems already solved?

2008-08-31T19:34:00.004-07:00

In the Provocation Zone on the IRM Strategies site, you'll find a link to the Technology, Education and Development invitation only conference series known as "Ted Talks".

Amid so many wonderful presentations, Janine Benyus' revelations of how life begats life in sustainable ways is a true inspiration. Here are three take-away thoughts... watch the video to learn of 12 big ideas from biology.

How do we make things? Heat, beat and treat.

How does life make things? Through integrating what is needed. Our approach consumes 96% of resources for a 4% result. Nature cannot afford the cost, so life's approach builds.

How do we optimise things? We manipulate.

How does life make the most of things? Knowledgeable structure. Life supports its needs through integrating knowledge into the design of structure.

How do we utilize things? We build systems that are within a scope set by often unrelated criteria and then wrestle with scalability, silos and fit.

How does life put things into play? It does not recognise "things" apart from their context, in fact. Life is an integrated whole that...lives. It creates capacity to enable continued life. It is sustainable.

When will business "get" records management?

2008-07-28T00:49:00.004-07:00

It was on the very last day of the Qualcomm v. Broadcom Corp., S.D. Cal. 05-cv-1958-B (SLM) trial that a Qualcomm witness--while being cross examined-- revealed that she knew of certain events becuase she had seen a relevant email. Yes, after repeated assurance by Qualcomm that all relevant evidence had been brought forward, it turned out that 10s of thousands of email records had not been recognized as relevant...or...some wonder...had been recognized as relevant and deliberately not brought forward.

The truth of that matter is less important than the simple fact that the question arises ONLY because Qualcomm does not really "get" records management. If it did, a solid governance framework, well educated and RM compliant workforce with position related competencies for the management of information resources would be in place.

Am I harsh? Well, a very successful business owner here in Hong Kong has said, "it is a crime if CEOs do not effectively manage knowledge resources for the benefit of the firm."

I could not have said it better myself. Qualcomm, however, blamed it on their lawyers for not asking for the right stuff--and the judge agreed. Heads up, barristers, how are you managing your own evidence of advice to clients?

Anisotropes...

2008-06-15T17:55:00.001-07:00

Imagine! When I first checked out naming the Anisotropic Road blog many years ago, there was virtually nothing to be found. At least, I didn't stumble upon any significant use of the term on the net. Today, a casual attempt to find this page resulted in the discovery of a number of other pages. This is great!

My own attraction to the term has grown from exposure to the writings of the Strugatsky brothers in the early 80s. nd the substance of that attraction has grown as I have, observing that so much of what we seek to achieve as individuals and collaborators exists within contexts that appear very differently when viewed from differing standpoints.

To me, organisations and societies are the quintessential anisotropic entities.

On assumed democracy

2008-04-19T18:40:00.005-07:00

Sparked by Maslow's questions (see below) I note that we assume quite deliberately that democracy is the ideal state for human society. Yet, those proponents of democracy in social life are not arguing for democracy in the workplace. Why?

Of course, there is a host of "business" reasons brought to bear. This implies, then, that one cannot effectively run a business democratically. How, then, can one run an effective country in such a way?

Such a question seems to bring out reaction, not to question democratic orietnatino for societ, but to redefine democracy in business. Servant leadership concepts, employee engagement programs, self-managing communities of practices and an extended variety of approaches are raised as "evidence" of the democratisation of organisations. It's an illusion that serves mostly to obscure the fact that business remains undemocratic, despite vociferous arguments that democracy is "not perfect but the best" system that can be in the larger scheme of things.

Perhaps there is no irony, after all, in observing that the loudest proponents for democracy are manifestly undemocratic. Then one looks at the underlying motivations--never mind what the system is called--what is it for?

The United States within the Americas comes to mind. So does China. Food for thought.

Assumptions Under Guise

2008-04-19T18:15:00.005-07:00

I am reading Maslow on Management and am struck by how deeply Maslow's musing (it is essentially a set of reflections) resonate.

Much of what seems to be of great permanence in our world view, and therefore much of what one assumes to have been based in a proven understanding, is neither permanent nor proven.

Observations on the behaviour of victims of abuse, disenfranchised populations, etc. move from abstract to more concrete when named as children who fear there parents, the lot of women in some societies, employees whose best hope is for obedience to a benevolent dictator. McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y are taught as if these are management styles. Yet, actually, they describe a set of assumptions about "those who would be managed". Management style is quite a different thing (albeit pretty well grounded in assumptions about "those would be managed").

Enjoying the reading...but sometimes wonder, in the tension between being energized by the resonance of ideas and the sheer weariness of recognizing the lived truth in my own experience, is there room to make a living? Is there really any interest in a healthy, vibrant, productive work place of people who rise to their capability?

Drucker's work seems to assume an equitable distribution of capacities and control in a healthy frame that simply does not exist in organisations. Organisational life is not the hot house of health and well-being. Surprise.

Chris Argyris speaks to the reality in identifying Model I and Model II organiations: those that espouse a sest of values and those that, conversely, actually live those espoused values. His work also resonates. But, I have yet to encounter an organisation that truly lives its values. Gary Hamel's observation that senior managers are risk averse, fearing loss of control and loss of credibility looms large. And in my observation over too many years, risk aversion is not the purview of senior managers alone. Fear, overt and covert, is probably the primary force within organisations.

There is probably a only a limited cadre of middle managers who, protected by their bosses, are free to really work on substantive challenges in organisational improvement. Psychologically, these folk are liberated (within sometimes unrealized bounds) and are happily engaged. This, too, is an assumption without proof or permanence. But I have experienced it, so know it to be both true and possible. It is not the only truth, or possibility. And this is probably why my partner and I keep plugging away at the essential questions of being and knowing.

Can we extrapolate the experience of these lucky--no doubt deserving--managers? Can their experience be more generally spread for the benefit of business, people and society?

On a mission to change the world...

2008-03-04T17:51:00.003-08:00

A recent post by a net acquaintance (thanks, Lindy!) referenced towns and urban developments as "shared space". Being a tangential kind of guy (I prefer to say lateral thinker, but note that some describe what I see as fascinating weak signal connections as strictly tangential, so I redefine the term as a rather positive ) er... seeing beyond the specific point, I am interested in how we construct our less tangible worlds.

People have always been multidimensional actors in their personal worlds, navigating among professional, academic, business and social realms with varying degrees of success. That's life.

In knowledge work, that capacity to navigate in shared space is critical. I am interested in how such space takes shape, and in how we perceive such space. Further, it is intersting to examine how developing a personal capacity to operate in that space is influenced by frames outside that space (family, predominant culture, etc.).

Time is space, as well. And I've run out - so will try to get back to this at some point.

Facebook & the Vagaries of a 2.0 Life

2008-02-25T22:13:00.004-08:00

Preparing to present a Master Class as part of a KM conference, I happened across Jade Catalina's interesting question on Linked In, "how would you implement Facebook within the corporate intranet"?

I just love this question! And the general reaction has been equally interesting.

My session in a k-focused event will face the reality, as one respondent observed, that workers my daughter's age (and colleagues much, much older) are increasingly seamless in their use of technologies. that is everything from SMSs, sticks for storage and transfer, social networks, videoTubes and so much more--dare I say it--even Linked in!

Anybody involved in knowledge focused initiatives knows that a huge problem is lack of meaningful user participation in knowledge sharing. Facebook does have something going for it: attraction. Users use it.

The challenge is to discern the elements that might be translated into a work setting, augmenting communication, community and capacity building in ways that contribute to corporate capacity and intellectual capital--without draining resources to the extent that all that capital can't be put to good use!

From a corporate accountability perspective, however, Facebook and the like present challenges far beyond wasted time.

The "what are you doing right now" app can reveal what should not be generally publicized simply because users think "community" and do not understand how the tool may present confidential data to others.

"Tagging" can reveal connections that may be very useful in forensic audit related to litigation. One respondent commented on "pokes", but these are probably the least of the questionable approaches. Have you been kissed by a vampire yet, or had someone send a photograph that, while not obscene, is absolutely one that you don't want a passing colleague to see on your screen? Maybe you've been slapped!

What about dialogue that shapes thinking surely the point of a k-focus. How is the influence on a corporate decision process recognized, much less defended (in an SOX context)?

Ahh...this is what makes my work so much fun--not Facebook (though I'm winning at scrabblicious). Rather, it's the need to develop strategies and roadmaps to cope with the implications of ever more ad hoc technologies, siphoning resources and blurring--as much as enhancing--what we know.

There's an interesting TED Talk by Larry Lessig on how technology and the habits of users are creating a tolerance for non-compliance with law and regulation among those we are and will be hiring.

It's no good sticking heads in the sand. This is evolution in the making. It's not yes/no, right or wrong...it's, do we recognize the opportunity and the challenge, and are we managing it effectively?

Is KM a failure if K-managers move on?

2008-01-30T04:16:00.000-08:00

Recently I caught the online version of colleaue Patrick Lambe's assessment of KM in Singapore. There are some interesting details presented, but on reflection, I find myself uncomfortable with some elements.

One is the conclusion that there is something wrong if people working in KM move out of KM in future posts instead of moving on within a KM role. There are so many variables that play into career transitions and the role of specialist domains that I dare not comment on the specific talk--as I say, it was interesting. However, from my own background in both records management and knowledge management, with senior management experience and a strong belief in attaining one's best possible career opportunity, I do have an opinion.

If we truly focus on what these domains are about, then we should encourage those who gain knowledge to take taht with them up the corporate ladder. I would far rather see a knowledge manager move into a senior role taking KM experience and sensibility into a more influential role. It means far less to be a CKO with a function that seems removed from corporate outcomes than it does to be a CEO who understands the value of knowledge resource development, n'est ce pas?

Personal soveriegnty

2008-01-05T16:53:00.000-08:00

In a cross-thread dialogue now occurring in the Personal Soveriengty and Thinking People channels on Ryze, I felt compelled to raise the specter of our individual responsibility within organisations--be these governmental or not--within the context of a discussion of health care with some US net-connections.

Here's the post edited to make sense here. Your thoughts?

"In my view, every organisation is made up of people. Government and business alike are made up of people. We act consciously and rightly, as individuals, or not. In business, or in government.

My career has spanned public, private and not-for-profit sectors with both work and leadership positions in each. The much touted corporate agenda is an agenda of people in collusion. The subtle allusion to careerism in bureaucracy is similarly all about people in collusion. Each for their own self interest in dysfunctional contexts in which they believe that this is the way to gain self interest, excused by belief that the process is noble in itself or contributes something to a greater good.

IMHO (mabe not so 'h'), it is all about creating cultures of personal sovereignty (thanks James) in which we group together to deliver outcomes. Outcomes have been lost...A does her 15 steps, B does his 11, C does another 14 each satisfied to be "right" in their process, never mind that the sum total does not add up to what the process is ostensibly FOR.

This is about leadership and management; it is equally about individual responsibility. There's a lot of discussion of the limits to choice that arise from personal circumstances. These are valid matters. But that does not mean that a pragmatic choice to keep one's mouth shut does not have consequences. When we choose self interest (whether that be for greed or survival) at the expense of integrity, we take a step down the road that has led us to today.

IMO, fixing this challenges us at all levels. As a boss, I must sincerely welcome the challenge of a team member whose motivation is sincere, even if s/he lacks the bigger picture. n fact, i must willingly share that bigger picture to a larger extent than is currently the norm. (Just as the team member must understand that information shared has value and must be handled appropriately.) As a teacher, i must sincerely be open to questioning my own learning in the face of the teenager questioning injustices in the world--in the school. As a student, I must be open to the idea that there is more to most issues than I can possibly know given a short life experience. As a parent, I must celebrate the disagreement of a child thinking for her/himself. As a child, I must speak up and notice a parent who listens.

At every level we are challenged, or should be. But I believe that we have created structures that teach us quite the opposite. It is not that government is good/bad or that business is good/bad. There is good/bad in each. And that derives from us.

What do we do about that?

Moved by Isabel Allende

2008-01-04T08:10:00.000-08:00

With a passion for a new way, we can change the world...

de Saint Exupery on difference ...

2007-12-25T18:24:00.000-08:00

"If I differ from you, far from harming you, I enrich you..."

It has been too long since my last post, and here in Bangkok on Boxing Day I find I am pressed for time, once again! Nonetheless, Antoine de Saint Exupery's thought resonates as life overthe last several years has been ALL about difference and willingness to engage and be enriched, or resist and lose opportunity.

Bringing significant difference to a Directorate post in the Hong Kong SAR Government posed precisely this challenge. Indeed, I came away enriched, but also saddened by the lost opportunity of those who were unable to engage positively, choosing an ultimately self-defeating path.

Lessons in life. May the coming year be challenging and fulfilling for all!

Oon Yeoh on Knowledge Management

2007-11-07T07:38:00.000-08:00

Malaysia based Oon Yeoh is an internet researcher, mobile technology expert and educator. He may be tech-savvy, but he's way beyond tech-centric and speaks out for the role of people in KM. Click here as
Oon Yeoh speaks his mind on KM and the people point.

Records management - dry? boring? or as thrilling as entrepreneurship?

2007-10-29T20:41:00.000-07:00

Far too frequently, that old chestnut surfaces about records management being so hard to promote within organisations. the common refrain, even within the domain itself, is that it is so boring, so dry, and implicitly so lacking that it is no wonder business is unable to manage records!

ARGH!!

Recently, I let my passion fly in a post to the roughly 2500-person internet-based community that is focus on records management. Here's an excerpt.

"Records are containers of knowledge, of perception, of meaning. They are evidence of action taken, of thought underpinning possibilities, of lessons learned. Recordkeeping is the source of outcomes, the tool for quality improvement, the safeguard in litigation, the evidence of compliance, the expression of individual and collective tacit knowledge, made explicit."

To this I would add, if you are not managing your recorded information resources effectively, you are not managing your risk--or your capacity to achieve. In fact, you are not managing.

What an amazing flood of affirmation followed! Testimonials from the world's largest copper trading company, from one of Canada's top retail conglomerates, from individuals spanning the globe! Did I strike a chord? Guess so.

On a practical level, if you are excited about your business and the potential for meaningful outcomes, then part of that is an (I say) entrepreneurial take on the meaning inherent in the information and knowledge resources you are building. What a great thing it is to be able to know that achievements are realized, to learn best practices and spread these where needed. What a satisfaction it is to spot the problem and identify ways to avoid it in future, or to realize a pattern and discover opportunity for innovation! What a total impossibility when the records are unavailable or unreliable.

In 2002, I met with Andrew Wong, then Director of Administration, Chief Secretary for Administration in the Hong Kong SAR Government and said, "there will be a time when someone in your position will be deemed inadequate for the job if they do not understand the importance of managing records in accord with their value to business." As Principal Archivist and Director, the Government Records Service, it seemed pretty well my job to advocate at the most senior levels.

But, everyone, records manager, scientist, executive, clerk, politician and citizen...every single person had best get a grip on the relationship between recorded information, decision processes and accountability for outcomes. As more and more of our knowledge resources are subsumed into the minds of computers, we are vulnerable to selective presentation and serious misinterpretation of collective reality. We see the sad result in the death of children in care, in corporate failures, in war.

Seriously, records are as thrilling as success, saving lives, empowering integrity, shaping democracy. It is high time we managed them as the vital resource they are.

What are you doing about it?

Global Engagement Trust

2007-10-29T10:08:00.000-07:00

When John Veitch of New Zealand invited my participation in the Global Engagement Trust (GET) I jumped right in. John's projects are always interesting and seem to focus on making our world a better place--so I know its a safe bet.

Part of the effort has been to share stories of how we first cottoned on to this thing called the Internet. Here's my story.

Bumping into oneself ...

2007-10-23T18:33:00.000-07:00

At the moment I am preparing for a presentation for Hong Kong University where I am a regular part-time lecturer. part of my process is to scan the internet for emerging issues and generally get my head into the space of the topic area. This time, it is records management which, for me, underpins knowledge management.

It can be a bit strange to bump into oneself along the way! take a look at this candid interview conducted by David Gurteen.

Thinking outside the box?

2007-09-22T20:37:00.000-07:00

You might want to think again, or so says Rasul Sha'ir poses the question in June 2007 saying:

"Thinking outside the box is no longer the golden rule. It kept you on the cutting edge of creative problem solving for sourcing, making and marketing goods in a manufacturing based economy. Ladies and gentlemen, if in 2007 this phrase is still rolling off your tongues, please consider yourself outdated ... Today’s challenges require thinking for a post-industrial economy. A new market where proliferating technologies, changing business models, and the shifting dimensions of globalization are the order of the day. For platinum status you have to think at the intersection." (emphasis mine)

A favourite activity for me is provocative inquiry--and I figure that's a great example! Tony Nguyen comment's on the blog, "there is no box" and adds a great origami metaphor--brilliant.

But, thinking outside the box is still a stretch for many organisations. The tried and true, the checklists that eliminate the risk that staff may actually think and proact instead of react and obey. Processes that inhibit change are de rigeur in risk averse cultures and risk averse cultures may be more the norm than not. It is a sometimes overwhelming thought for those of us who strive to liberate the potential of individuals and groups.

"Thinking at the intersection" has great resonance from our perspective at IRM Strategies where we place the person at the centre of building capacity. That relies on a conscious awareness of the myriad factors and attributes that can be brought to bear in a given context, and application of knowledge and skills to make the most of opportunity.

I see it as a continuum from very controlled environments replicate past success to very capable environments that draw what works from the past and integrate it with what works today--and holds potential for tomorrow.

There's a cost, however. When one is working with people in a hierarchically driven risk averse culture, those who risk growing into themselves and realizing their potential also risk isolation and growing apart from their social networks and familiar frame of operation. It's not an overnight journey, but there is no going back.

For some, just as they are climbing out of the proverbial box, they discover that it is smack in the middle of the intersection. A roadmap helps!

Global warming...is attributing cause the biggest issue?

2007-09-06T20:43:00.001-07:00

Flying into Bangkok last week, I noted the very flat terrain we had flown over for some time, and the milliions of people resident upon it. While acknowledging that I have not had time to digest everything in the article written by S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia's School of Environmental Sciences, his notion of a "silver lining for the frigid regions of Russia and Canada" seems to come at the unacknowledged expense of millions of disrupted (at best) lives throughout the nether lands of the world. It is a strange sort of position to take, IMHO. He does acknowledge that the real issues are political with risk to health and welfare including war a likely result of mismanagement of the issues. But, then he provides a sop to those who say "manyana" (sorry about the spelling I can't put an enya on the n).

While the debate over man-made versus natural continues, the fact is that the world seems headed for startling changes that will affect millions of people. The notion that humankind has no affect is just a little, dare I say, irresponsible.

We can have a positive impact...why on earth (!) would we take a position that supports the "why bother, s'not my fault" viewpoint?

know

fully recognise the need for action;

understand what action the average person can take within his/her own context;

determine the meaningful change that societies sharing a global space can make;

ensure that gains of the developed world, seemingly reliant on practices that contribute to global exploitation, can be realized in the developing world in ways that do not replicate and exacerbate the problems?

Exploring this ground is a fascinating and important mind-game. What are your thoughts?

Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight

2007-08-23T18:21:00.000-07:00

Thom Hartman's 2004 work is an eye opening approach to seeing the world and its systems. Considering that energy is all, whether in the form of current, time limited energy in you and I, or the stored energy of fossil fuels, Hartman explores the evolution of our species on the planet. A fascinating, but sometimes not too light, read.

What is the measure of civilisation?
What is the measure of a civilisation?
If a people can devote only a couple of days a week to meeting physical needs for food, for example, and have a few days each week to engage in leisure, social and creative activity...is that civilised?
If a people have no language for war, is that civilised?
If these people do not store wealth, rather co-exist with others in peaceful--not necessarily conflict free - but conciously interdependent and therefore oriented toward co-existance, is that civilised?
If such a people existed, would they be recognised and understood to be civilised?

Where are the Shoshone today?
Is the dominant structure that exists in their place today civilised?

A good read should make one think - this book sets a mind racing.

Views?

The Other in All of Us

2007-08-08T17:37:00.000-07:00

August 6 to 12 is Anti Racism week - one of those fine ideas that risks becoming just another Hallmark moment, but which one hopes becomes a part of the fabric of living every day. Truth Seeker's on Ryze wrestle with this, in human ways.

Considering the issue, I cannot accept the notion that oppression is relative--there is a core and it applies to racism and beyond.

People struggle with this notion of equity in the fight for just ways of being. "My (personally relevant, pet, trendy, recently grasped, etc. )issue first!" seems to dominate the discussion. "Sure, I acknowledge your pain, but..." "Yeah, that's not right but look at THIS and you'll see why this one needs to be dealt with FIRST!"

Audre Lorde's thoughts are relevant.

So long as we insist that a hierarchy of oppression is legitimate, we legitimize oppression. This week, I ask that readers join me in standing up against all forms of prejudice, delving deep within ourselves and through interaction with others to really understand the dynamics of "the other" and how this plays out in our various worlds.

Start the journey, if you are not already on it, in simple ways. Attend the local folkfest celebrating the ethnic diversity of your community. Own your own heritage and share it with others. Volunteer and give in time, less than money, through engaging people you don't usually find in your world--people with mental challenges, the glbt community, the ethnic group your locale places outside, etc. Look around, let yourself see. The answers will come.

Surviellance

2007-08-04T23:17:00.000-07:00

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume the best of intentions in proposed and real shifts in the approach to privacy seen in recent US expansion of warrant-less surveillance. (That benefit is a real stretch in itself, but I'm a generous guy.)

Sadly, a little knowledge can be dangerous. Many people "know" that opening up communications to surveillance will catch the bad guys at a minor (maybe even unnoticeable) inconvenience to the average person.

Lauren Weinstein writes:

"... the ultimate irony in the situation is that such
moves are likely to have the unintended consequence of speeding the pace at which such surveillance techniques become ineffective against the real bad guys.

Increasingly, the people we'd really like to catch -- especially at higher levels -- are assuming that their telecommunications are being monitored, and moving increasingly to heavily encrypted communications, stenographic obfuscation techniques, and other mechanisms to protect their communications.

This leaves the communications of ordinary, innocent persons open to broad snooping from governmental or other entities, especially in the wake of the sorts of sweeping "vacuum cleaner" data collection techniques and surveillance mistargeting that we know takes place (e.g., mass diversion of backbone Internet traffic) despite the administration's continuing attempts to block information about its ultimate extent.

Most of us rarely encrypt our communications since (a) we don't usually feel an obvious need to do so, and (b) truly automatic and easy to use crypto mechanisms have yet to be widely deployed. "What do I say that anyone would care to listen to?" is a common refrain, but it's never certain which harmless statements today might be considered "actionable" in a new context tomorrow.

If we had complete faith that our leaders would not abuse the wiretapping powers provided to them, this would be more of an academic discussion than anything else.

Unfortunately, both long-term and recent history show that abuses of such surveillance systems are an endemic part of their structure."

Have you written anything (yeah, ANY thing) that taken out of the context of a thread and clipped to support a particular view might actually be a complete misrepresentation of your view? Was that in a blog post, or a white paper? That email to Uncle George or post to a "closed" forum?

Any student of history can put 2 & 2 together and come up with about 6 million (in one religious category alone, never mind the hundreds of thousands in various other categories from ethnicity, nationality to sexual orientation). And the trend toward outsourcing data collection and analysis (everything from prisoners processing credit card payments to datahouses leaking health records) means that the benevolence of government is not the only concern.

Knowledge creation calls for much more than aggregating data. It is an outcome of intellectual capacity filtered through cultural norms, attitude, and competence.

What protects against bias and incompetence? Well, evidence-based practice helps on the accountability front. With effective management of the recorded information resources that are evidence of the decision making processes, accountability can be pursued.

But, this calls for valuing the effort required to generate evidence of decision processes and transactions--and the effort required to ensure their authenticity and reliability over time.

Luciana Duranti and others are working on these challenges in the InterPARES Project.

Views?

Voiceover work can be fun!

2007-07-02T20:51:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was invited by the Hong Kong Polytechnical University to provide voice-over narration for a promotional video. It was a great opportunity to jump into a kind of work that I really enjoy, but somehow have never made a focal point in my career.

It was fun to share experience with other people involved in the video. And, it was great to hear that my voice "inspires trust". That's a good thing, eh?! The opportunity has had me looking back over a pretty varied career to realize that voice has definitely played its part.

For example ...

As an interpretative guide at British Columbia's Legislative Precinct, I learned how to use inflection to control a crowd, working up enthusiasm, toning down crowd noise, authoritatively controlling rowdies, tailoring humour to fit the group--all with professionalism that conveyed a suitable respect on the one hand, and an approachable confidence on the other. Great experience!

As the PR guy for the Victoria Balalaika Orchestra, I experienced my second television spot. The first was a pilot teen book review show that didn't get off the ground. But both provided insights into how production works, what being prepared means, and how to present naturally despite that preparation. More great experiences!

Over the years, I have drawn on chances like these to inform presentations as a senior officer within organizations, a board president, and frequent presenter at conferences, seminars and workshops. The imporv acting class helped!

In the coming years, I hope to expand more into doing acting and voice-over work as a complement - and balance - to the sometimes intense demands of building a knowledge resource development consultancy in Asia. It's time to build more and more of what satisfies into life...long time interests, travel, good conversation shared over good food with great friends. Join me!

Personal responsibility in knowledge building: in the trenches

2007-05-26T19:27:00.001-07:00

Lately, I have been enjoying e-discussions with a net colleague half a world away. Her questions force me to look deeper-that's a good thing (so thanks Linda). The post below draws from recent dialogue. Apologies in advance or typos if any (I seem to make more and more these days) and also for rather dense writing.

The topic is related to information and the shifts that I believe we need to make in our individual and collective thinking. Linda asked me to explain what kind of shifts I am talking about.

To create a fertile ground

consciously accept that whatever views we may have MAY not actually be our views, but views shaped by: (pick many: media, parents, schools, integrated self-interest in career/social terms, etc.)

explore ideas we do not find attractive as well as those we do, and look to the why

consider what constitutes knowledge (not information, not wisdom) and examine the relationship between what we (can) know in a given context and how it influences what we (then) do

Re information

become aware of how action does or does not generate reliable evidence of action in some form of knowledge

consider whether that form of knowledge is/can be sustainable and reliable/valid over time (i.e. do I know and keep in my own mind? do I share? do I document? in what "systems" with what constraints that enable measurement of authenticity and reliability over time (i.e. if I can be confident of this recorded information today, can an observer be confident 2 weeks from now? 10 years? 50 years?)

commit to valuing the idea that we depend on the building of data into information and information into knowledge (through application and experience) to ground learning and accountability, growth and transparency, recognizing that this continuum requires a focus that most people do not currently recognize as legitimate (i.e. spending resources on paperwork instead of "doing the real job", when the equation is/should be basing action and decisions on evidence, acting wisely, and contributing to new learning and accountability through effective recording. (The whole package IS the "real job" unless we do not want to be transparent and accountable, don't want to draw from lessons learned, essentially don't care about outcomes of "the real job").

The parenthetical statement above illustrates, to me, the conundrum. We all have the capacity to create circular logic and defend that rather than go deep and challenge assumptions. In health care, is the "real job" the assessment of a need and addressing that? or is it the outcome for the consumer and capacity to deliver appropriate outcomes across a system of care? I say both - and you cannot achieve the latter if the system doesn't not resource adequate recordkeeping (electronic or otherwise). Those records, in turn, become the basis of the knowledge in the system, so we had best view their creation and protection as a "real job" or the desired outcome(s) is at risk.

In every endeavour in which we intend a result to be acountable, transparent, support continous improvement, quality, learning, etc. it is the stewardship of knowledge creation that makes this possible. So when we complain about needing to record, instead of complaining that the tool could better fit the process, etc. we are really saying that we are ok with less than adequate recordkeeping, willing to sacrifice effective knowledge building in favour of avoiding a nuisance or challenging the system.

Anecdote

A team gets behind the idea that a data collection tool is flawed and, instead of using and commenting for improvement, sabotages by writing in the wrong boxes. This team is confident that they can "figure out" necessary information for customer service because, after all, they worth the stuff down (wrongly, but heck). They ignore that the data tool goes to a next stage in which it supports aggregate view of the system, contributing to a false view of service needs, effective interventions, etc. and that this further aggregation informs assessment of performance, teaching needs, funding needs, etc. It is a continuum, and rather than find courage to be responsible in contributing to the improvement of the system, the team--that is, a group of individuals each with ability to BE individual--colluded with disastrous effect. Ultimately, it is discovered that the person with informal influence in the group was not able to attend a system-wide meeting in an urban centre, an conveyed dissatisfaction with management's decision to send another by ensuring that the team would not support the tool - despite that it was actually created by peers and piloted and tested and found to be vastly superior to others.

In organisational cultural terms, this influential person had lost face in not being chosen, and even more personally, lost opportunity to go from the hinterland to an urban centre for the shopping that attends such planning trips. The local group dynamic enabled the practice with result that the data collection was invalidated. In addition to apparent system-wide implications, note that this is a health care example (and a true one) in which the implications would shape funding in the larger system with eventual affect on individuals and, critically, in which writing data on the back of a form instead of in the appropriate box can mean a third party practitioner who references a computer screen will have incomplete data for diagnosis and case management with very real and immediate affects on persons in care.

Unusually, my career path has provided exposure to a very broad range of sectors and industries. The scenario above is played out over and over in different ways, masking what is really going on because few people are actually charged to look at the system in this way or have the skills to get out of the box enough to draw out learning about the web of rationales and behaviours in order to illuminate underlying motivations and their effect on outcomes.

There are a host of inter-related factors in that anecdote. In my view, it all comes down to individual choices made in small, incremental steps, all along the way. Sometimes it takes courage. This is why the prevailing pattern in my thoughts (at least one I am aware of) depicts a view that individuals are personally responsible and accountable for their (our) choices. It goes without saying that those choices are shaped by context and circumstance, but the choices remain ours--to be explained and understood, rather than excused.

Within the work group above, the rationale for supporting the dysfunctional action was that "they" should have sent the longest serving person to the meeting, not one with 5 years of experience, an educational background in the field and experience in the challenge gained in similar projects, but the longest serving person. This became the excuse for each individual's collusion. Of course, that choice is a lot easier to make than one that chalenges group assumptions and requires facing up to the fact that all but two of the group secretly agreed that the longest serving person had a vested interest in "no change", was intimidated by technology and was more interested in retaining personal (informal) power than in achieving service outcomes. The group was willing (unconsciously for the most part) not to see that their action might harm the very people they take pride in caring for.

Another significant pattern in my thinking is that "the other/they/X vs Y, etc.) is a euphemism for denial of issues in the "I". That's something to develop in another post one day.

Why should I reduce my ecological footprint?!

2007-04-21T00:41:00.000-07:00

The lecture was all about reducing the ecological footprint to live within our means, planetarily speaking. A bold student from Columbia raised her hand from the back of the auditorium. "Why should I reduce my ecological footprint ... so you can eat more chocolate?" And so it is. There is an undeniable arrogance in the call by northern nations for southern nations to stop following in their footprints. For the northern nations are not reducing their footprint or consumption in significant terms. Rather, they pay the price to shift the real burden in human terms to the south.

Sustainable development has been a global concept for over 20 years. Yet, we till do not live within our planetary, biospherical budget.

Watch "One Planet Budgeting" (brought to you in our KRD Related Video space) for insights into rediscovering our self-interest: quality of life, now, and tomorrow, for all.

Innovation and Organizations

2007-04-14T16:45:00.000-07:00

New Zealand's John Veitch is a net colleague with ideas and commitment. Check out the GET Project , for example. Not surprisingly, his Innovation Network on Ryze brings out some interesting thoughts. A recent reference to an article,

Six Things That Innovative Companies Do Well caught my eye. A short, light read with some good observations, IMHO. In a passing comment suggests that "simplicity" is one aspect of making innovations real that is too often overlooked. If we truly expect innovation to result in actionable knowledge, it must resonate with the right people, in the right way.

A cautionary note from my side: people seeking "simple" are in a different ball park. "Simple" is the dream of people who fear complexity or are just too overwhelmed by the challenges of reality. Complexity is our world, but it doesn't have to be complicated.

Simplicity is different. It rides on complexity with elegance.

Concept Mapping & IC

2007-04-12T23:11:00.000-07:00

Various approaches to mapping inform my practice and I continue to be intrigued by the variety of approaches and their respective uses. Lately, I am wrestling/toying with ideas around the intellectual capital inherent within aboriginal peoples and ways of expressing values and measures of that capital. I think the Thai map (link shown below) approaches that in this one proposition (found within a map created for a very different purpose).

Thai Woven Fabric

No time to explore this idea ... at the moment, but if I get inspired, could be!

Coaches, Mentors and the Awesome Responsibilty of You

2007-04-09T14:59:00.000-07:00

Not long ago, net-friend Dawn Mular (founder of the impressive HFCN posted a seemingly straightforward, but ultimately provocative post to the Q&A section of LinkedIn. Here's a snippet and my thoughts.

The question:
Have you hired an Executive Image Coach/Professional?

My thoughts:

Fred's earlier response resonates with me. Paraphrasing, he said:

hook up with a coach/consultant who is in synch with your learning styles, time management/resource constraints and who wants to tweak you, not completely make you over;

mentors: get manageable (even low) costs and priceless results.

It is a bit hard to find that I agree wholeheartedly. After all, I have served as a coach myself. But my experience in hiring coaches has been costly and less successful. This may reflect that I am pretty senior, very broadly experienced and have had a rich range of valuable learning experiences (i.e. hard knocks). I know the value of investing in the relationship to bring the coach into your space and through a diagnostic phase but have found that I can spend way too much only to find that "what works for most clients" comes back at me. I already know that stuff and end up feeling that I have wasted dollars teaching the coach!

Mentors are harder to find, but seem to come from the perspective that you are already in the right place and ready to evolve into greater capacity. That's how I try to coach when called upon to do so and I know a few coaches who aim for that. But in general, unless the coach has direct experience in the domain you must thrive in, the value may be dubious.

If you need discipline, want to rethink your life path, etc. then many coaches can help and (of course) fit is key. But, if you seek a more finely honed evolution, it will come down to finding a very good fit and a very experienced individual - and I do not mean experienced as a coach, I mean broadly experienced in life and the world you inhabit.

Show me an issue that is not complex and I'll show you one with no people involved!

Selecting a coach is not a simple matter. Determining what one really wants from the coach is similarly challenging. If you are a construction industry executive does finding a coach within your domain mean finding one well versed in the construction industry? That depends entirely on your purpose.

If you seek growth in internal strategies and navigating organizational politics, the industry is less relevant than the breadth and seniority of experience.
If you seek to reposition your firm within the industry, then a coach without knowledge of the industry will lack crucial insights.

As in most complex issues, getting real about the critical factors and dialogue about the environmental nuances is key. Sometimes a coach can help bring clarity about the kind of coaching or mentoring required. Sometimes, it is only with a coach that "getting real" is feasible. Ultimately, it all comes back to you to decide what you need and how you want to address that.

There is no right and wrong, only the potential to learn. That's always a good thing.

On the road ...

2007-04-02T12:43:00.000-07:00

Travel is provocative. It doesn't matter if it is new territory, or old stomping grounds. Somehow, travel involves baggage! Yes, that'll be a double entendre.

I write from beautiful British Columbia, which is truly beautiful in the crisp, sunshiny days of early April. It has been a long haul here due to unusually harsh weather over the winter. In fact, the trip is no holiday, with 13 hour days blurring into each other as Robert and I address the needs of our property management partnership. We have dealt with flooded suites, tenant needs, coordinated at least 8 trades for repairs in a number of properties, interviewed potential Administrative Assistants (hiring one - welcome aboard Wendy!) and fitting in meetings with bankers, accountants, lawyers and more. Somehow, that has left little time for intended work and social re-connections. Some of the learnings relate to the core of this blog - that reality may be measured in different ways when viewed from different angles. But, some of that is rather personal....and the thrust of this blog is not yet clear to me. Is it an exploration of interests related to my professional domains? Or is it a space for personal reflection?

Remains to be seen ...

Wealth

2007-03-09T19:29:00.000-08:00

On Dani Cutler's Ryze forum "Truth Seekers", there is a thread evolving around concepts of wealth (morphed from a discussion of "the Secret").

Net colleague James says:

"My definition of "wealth" is what I can do for you. If you ask me to build a fence, you do not care what I own (money, house, car, etc.) You care whether I can show up on time, dig a hole, level a post, saw a board straight or stretch wire or cable ... my 'wealth' includes what I know, what I can do with what I know, what I can *deliver* ... my 'personal wealth' is also a product of my transactions with others."

He extrapolates to the larger realm of society, adding that "the people's wealth" or "the nation/world's wealth" are collections of what each of all those individuals *possess* (own) AND what they can create in conjunction with each other (synergy) ... From another aspect, if you were to add up all the "physical property" which is held in total by individuals, companies, agencies, etc. with intention to exchange it all for *cash* there would not be enough cash available - yet the "wealth" (possessions, tangible or intangible) still exists.

This is grass roots thinking that can transform the entire economic system. Let's face it, current economic measures are based on data that is past. Is last quarter an indicator of next quarter's performance? Not really. Is what I did yesterday and indicator of what I'll do tomorrow? Not directly.

What might it mean if our capacity, as individuals and collectively in organizations and societies, could be measured to determine value? As a complement to analysis of the historical performance revealed by past results and the assessment of value based on tangibles like structural capital, this approach can give a fuller understanding of the potential of a person, a group, a company, a region, a people.

These concepts are among those that inform work in the Intellectual Capital domain. Leif Edvinsson is a thought leader promoting the recognition of the value of intangibles. He notes that this may not be "the" way forward, but it is certainly "a" way forward for those seeking to realize a fuller potential in our world. (Ok, Leif, I'm stretching but I think we're in sync when I pull it toward aspirations for a better world all 'round ;-)

We live in a time when some 30% of the market value of a company can be attributed to hard assets and some 70% so intangibles like brand, goodwill, capacity to innovate and realize potential. But our systems reflect 19th century models. This shapes personal thinking for many people who become conscious of their lacks, rather than their gifts. But are we not all more than the sum of what we own?

In my view, we need to move from a scarcity-based economic system to an abundance model. Our capacity to learn, to develop knowledge and use it is limitless. And, when we give knowledge to others, we do not lose it. Rather, it is leveraged in a collective pool that returns adding to our own resource.

How do we shape a world in which value is limited only by our capacity to learn, know and act wisely? What needs to change? Why would we go there--or not? Food for thought.

Focus or diffusion? Complexity or complication?

2007-03-06T17:07:00.000-08:00

Thanks for the off line feedback on the Anisotropic Road! It has been gratifying to receive some emails and an encouraging Skype. It's also great to see a comment or two appearing right here. There have been a couple of suggestions that RSS feeds should be included for more content related to several domains (organizational theory, records management, technology, etc.). Here are my thoughts.

This blog is primarily intended as a place for dialogue. It augments but does not replace or, I hope, duplicate other facets of my web presence. There are plenty of places to find rss feeds in various domains. If interested, you can check out my IRM Strategies site for feeds and content that more directly supports my business interests.

I really like dialogue--and I find that sites such as LinkedIn, Ecademy, Academici, etc. do not lend themselves to that (through LinkedIn's Q&A is heading in that direction). Dialogue is central to sensemaking.

The Anisotropic Road is intended to evolve as I--and you--get comfortable with it. I hope that evolution will embrace the seriousness of the topics raised without being overly, well, too serious ;-)

Recently a colleague told me I have a "light touch" in delivering the "meat". I think that's a complement. A long time client said, with a thoughtful pause, that my work is "dense". When I explored whether I should aim to lighten that up, the response was, "No, it's dense with meaning--exactly as it should be. It demands something of us." I take that as a complement, too. At the same time, I have learned a bit about me and communication. I know that I think along a horizon that stretches out beyond the obvious--people somethings think I have jumped to a new topic when I am actually seeing the implications of today's action waaaaay down the road. There is value in exploring tangents--lateral thinking is interesting and it's key to innovation. Finding the connective tissue in things that seem disconnected is a kick. Exploring ideas and discovering how they come together--or don't--among people is fascinating to me. I learn through the sometimes messy interaction among people and find that every person has something to teach--to give--and every person has something to learn. Life-long learner here!

So, I created the Anisotropic Road for dialogue. It's a place where the same things may look different to each of us because of our inevitably different point of view.

The dialogue could be among communities of practice--I belong to more than one. Do we share a CoP in common? Let's explore!

The dialogue might engage us in questions that seek to illuminate experiences in organizational life, in grounding action and decision making by "getting real" in ways that organizations tend to avoid. Can we be courageous?

The dialogue might even explore the differences and similarities observed through expat life and travels abroad. The life of an expat can be illuminating in itself--especially if one opts out of the typical expat enclaves as I have done.

The dialogue might even be invisible, as in offline feedback, or at the start, could be I'll be talking to myself a lot!

This may sound diffused, unfocused. But I think not. Life is complex, but it doesn't have to be complicated. In all, on this Road, we seek to examine both the destination and the journey--and discuss the knowledge, skills and abilities that support us along the way. For the luckiest among us, life's work is such a journey.

Records?

2007-03-05T06:31:00.000-08:00

"Dreamgirls" had me thinking about vinyl the other day. One thing led to another and the next thing I knew, there was a rambling conversation on the difference between 33s, 45s and 78s, and I realized that we were surrounded by people who would not have a clue what any of those might be! Time passes ;-)

That got me thinking about the other kind of records. The kind that certain companies have become notorious for not keeping and others have regretted keeping too long. If the records exist, they might just hold evidence of realities that can be difficult. But the thing is, at the end of the day, if it isn't recorded, it didn't happen--at least in the eyes of a third party. And, aside from the legal and ethical considerations, there are a host of reasons why preserving evidence is good business. So why is it that something as important as keeping the trail of our decision making and action is dismissed and ignored?

Yes, I have an opinion on that. And it reaches down into the ways in which otherwise sensible people do senseless things when grouped in organizations. And it stretches into the realm of denial and delusion that seems to characterize some forms of office interaction. But, I'll hold my thoughts for another day. That needn't stop you! Why do you think record keeping is undervalued, and what implications can you see of this state of affairs?

Knowledge blather

2007-03-01T06:20:00.000-08:00

What is knowledge, and can it be managed? Everyone seems to have an opinion and often that opinion supports "the solution", a solution that just happens to be for sale.

I've had the dubious pleasure of being on both sides of the table. Within organizations, the challenge is fending off well funded IT marketing that promises wisdom and delivers plumbing. The plumbing is important, but let's face it, its worthless without water in the pipes. Advising organizational leaders from outside the boardroom, the challenge is piercing the facade (delusion?) that knowledge is alive and well, foster and valued--even incentivized--but staff just won't use the system. Actually, I guess its the same challenge from both sides of the table.

Over the last 20+ years, my own approach has matured--seasoned. Sort of like L'Oreal, it's not getting older, just better. And over the last year, partner Robert Tornack and I have delved deeply into our own experience and examined the work of leading academics and practitioners to arrive at a new model for knowledge resource development.

I look forward to introducing it to you in this space, building on our paper presented at KMAP 2006, the premier regional Knowledge Management Asia Pacific conference held, this year, at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

What's different? Well, for a start, where some focus on the technology to an extent that knowledge is reduced to a set of metadata, we see technology as both an enabling--and inhibiting--force. It depends entirely on what you do with it. And, where others zero in on the human side of the equation, gathering everybody in a circle and singing kum-baya until wisdom fairly drips from self-satisfied "k-workers", we see people as the central factor in a frame that, ultimately, is outcome focused. It's not knowledge for knowledge's sake (as valuable as that is on a personal level).

Knowledge in organizations must serve a purpose, be grounded in defensible decision making processes while supporting workforce learning, improvement and innovation. It requires a strong integration of recorded information management, organizational development and business process--all enabled by technology.

Contrary to belief in some circles, knowledge is not an irrelevance. It is, in fact, the most relevant thing there is in business. And if you can't grasp that, and can't see the complexity inherent in creating and sustaining a knowledge focused enterprise, well, be thankful you're not responsible for running one ... or are you?

John O'Brien KMAP 2006

2006-12-16T06:46:00.000-08:00


John O'Brien KMAP 2006 - a one minute interview by David Gurteen.

2006-05-12T07:00:00.000-07:00

Jesse writes: "I am in a Master's Degree program right now and I was given an assignment to come up with a list of recomendations for the "President" of how we could better protect the country from Terrorism...If you have anything that you'd be willing to share, I'd love to hear [it].

Here's my response on the topic as posted to the TS forum.

The President should decide how s/he wants the world to perceive the US. Powerful? Generous? Democratic? Helping/Caring? Judging? Controlling? Good? Evil? This is not a simple thing--there are many conflicting and supportable views.

Ultimately, as in any such endeavour, it is a matter of shaping a vision and acting in ways that are consistent with that vision. Not everyone will interpret that the same way, but at the end of the day, the pattern of behaviour reveals integrity--or not.

One of the great tragedies of modern times (IMHO) is that the great potential of technology and communications has devolved into spin and propaganda, a dumbing down of the populace and a cynicism that infects both the recipient of "news" in all its forms, and the creators of that information.

Start at home...restore integrity...get real...accept that this is not a one term issue, but a transformation that will have cause heart wrenching adjustments as people who have vigourously defended certain views come to face that they are mistaken--worse--fooled and feeling foolish...maybe angry. That's not a political statement--works on all sides.Then, equipped with a nation prepared for (if not actually liking) hard truths, start looking at underlying causes for terrorism. Think: Maslow's 7 layer hierarchy (yes, there are 7, not the 5 usually taught in MBA programs ... think, in fact, why the top 2 levels are virtually unknown).

Turn globalisation away from the competive, scarcity thinking of the 19th century and ground an abundance philosophy for tomorrow. Be the source of a positive future that embraces diversity as an indicator of the right to self-determination (recognizing that refusal to accept diversity--be these diversity as seen in the orientation/identification in religion, race, politics, gender, sexuality, national identity, class, etc. is exactly a refusal to accept every individual's right to self-determination...be careful, wise and just--giving balanced consideration when seeking to deny self-determination.

Consider moving beyond rhetoric and respect the people enough to express real meaning, rather than rely on coded lanuage that implies but does not clarify meaning. Maybe thats what it comes down to: respect for others.

Be trustWORTHY. Be a shining example of what terrorism is not.
Sadly, that is not the case today (ok, that's a political statement ;-)

2006-04-24T20:26:00.000-07:00

The enabling of knowledge through knowledge resource development (people and information) while ensuring compliance with various necessary structures (for accountability, tranparency in governance, etc.) is my business...so a recent (off blog) dialogue with Ray was inspiring. Part of the exchange is pasted below.

"You are ... touching on an emerging view [or] rather, acceptance of the view is emerging. You, I and others may have been on to it for years but, like in anything, acadeamia and business has to catch up with thinkers before something officially "emerges"). That is, MBAs and Financial wizards are trained to think in terms of the "law of diminishing returns". It's almost a biblical tenet. But, as you say, when you share knowledge, you still have it...and may even grow it in the context of sharing through means of dialogue. There is no diminishing return associated with the use of knowledge. "

This is absolutely shattering in terms of our financial systems which are predicated on the idea that there is an incremental diminishment of the resource through its use. True in mining coal and pumping oil, not true in love--or learning.

What we measure matters. We need to find means to measure and compare in the realm of intellectual assets, and find means to forecast capacity to earn, etc. I don't mean we throw other measures out, but that they are insufficient as we evolve out of manufacturing economies.

Consider: the compatibility of an intellectual product, or the attachment of users to that product, is a significant indicator of its future ... but ... users are fickle. Innovation can build upon or transform compatibility. In this model, prediction is not a matter of measuring a resource and counting down. Rather, it is a factor of one's capacity to innovate, to be nimble, to evolve.

Humbly (maybe not) I figure that if people could get excited about the opportunity this presents for every person -- literally every person -- then the politicians could go hang. The rest of us would simply pass them by and get on with creating a collaborative world.

Diversity of ideas and diversity in experience rules in innovation--social norms follow. Right of expression rule in creativity--social norms follow. All is trust and integrity--or innovation and creativity cannot be sustained--social norms follow.

Politicians might just be seen as the old diminishing resource--they need to get on with transformation, or get lost. Thoughts?

2006-04-22T17:45:00.000-07:00

I would appreciate insights into "fiduciary responsibility" in terms of how this plays out in reality.

My observation is that this appropriate requirement for due diligence in relation to stakeholders funds/rights has been corrupted into a "grow or die", "profit or else" belief system, supported and emabled by cultural norms that generally ignore that the economy is an ecosystem.
Succintly, what I mean is, if corporate leadership secures and profitable position and maintains that, ensuring both ongoing profts and jobs, then leadership is not good enough. (I ask: why is sustainable profit and employment not good enough?) Rather, leadership "shirks its fiduciary resonsibility" when not pursuing growth, mergers, takeovers--which inevitable involve loss of employment and profit based on financial markets rather than poduction (be that knowledge/intellectual captial production or goods).

Measures to protect the environment do cost money: this reduces profit and unless specifically required by law, is portrayed as leaderships willful failure to meet its fiduciary responsibility.
Measures to protect workers do cost money: this reduces profit and unless specifically required by law, is portrayed as leaderships willful failure to meet its fiduciary responsibility.
Measures to protect consumers through R&D cost money: this reduces profit and unless specifically required by law, is portrayed as leaderships willful failure to meet its fiduciary responsibility.

(I'll leave aside for the moment that people generally don't see this, and then are swayed by arguments that "they" want unneccesary laws that get in the way of business.)
The endless pursuit of "growth" is thought to be necessary...I say it is not. Sustainability is what will keep us going into the future.

Have an opinion? Blog it!

2006-04-22T17:43:00.000-07:00

Truth Seekers is a great forum on Ryze, thanks Dani! I have decided to place some of my own posts here to see whether those outside of Ryze might have opinions. First one...coming up now!