Archive for the 'Knowledge Worker 2.0' Category

Enterprise Social Computing: If not us, our competitors

Accenture is adopting a social computing paradigm. This quote says it all - referring to Accenture’s CTO, Don Rippert:

He had looked at YouTube and wondered why a teenager can find an amateur video on YouTube quickly and easily, while finding a video of a corporate presentation in a business’s archives is next to impossible if you don’t know the exact title of the file.

Like Matt Hodgson, I am wondering when I get my social computing tools at work. Like Steve Collins, I’m wondering whether I should be standing in front of the steamroller trying to stop progress, or whether I’d rather be driving the change and profiting from it.

If we don’t embrace the business advantages of social computing, rest assured that our competitors will. Because they are.

Knowlege Worker vs Web Worker

I am not sure that Anne Zelenka gets Drucker. In her posting, she takes a Drucker quote out of context and uses it to disparage his work - I am pretty sure that touting individual productivity doesn’t disqualify Drucker, me, or anyone else from participating in collaborative work. It may even aid it - but the two should not be linked.

Here’s the comment I left on Anne’s post - as yet unapproved (I only just posted it so please don’t read any more into it than that):

Hi Anne,

I think you’re confusing Drucker’s TQM-aware executive with knowledge worker 1.0 (individual productivity), and that with the concept of knowledge worker 2.0 (collaborative awareness) - see the wikipedia article on Knowledge Worker 2.0 for a comparison (Matt Hodgson helped to write it).

People can read a lot into Drucker - they are like the visually disabled of old and the elephant - they see “social responsibility in business� (the tail) and say “Drucker is long like a snake�, or “total quality management� (the side) and say “Drucker is like a leathery wall�, or “knowledge worker as the key� (the trunk) and say “Drucker is like a thick hose�. He is the whole elephant :)

Cheers, Andrew

As this is the first time I’ve commented on her blog I didn’t put a heap of hyperlinks into the comment (because it might show up as spam) - for the record, they are:

Let me reiterate - Drucker is not a religious figure to me, he made mistakes, he got some things wrong, sure - but without him riffing on knowledge workers, TQM, social responsibility in business, and a range of other issues, the world would be a poorer place today.

Library 2.0: Get it out of the library?

Matthew Hodgson is now contributing to social computing magazine. The two posts so far are reprints from his blog, and hopefully this will continue.

One of his articles is on Library 2.0.  I left a comment on it that probably needs some expansion. My comment was:

 Hi Matt, good posting and good to see it exposed to a wider audience. I think that this discussion needs input from the LIS community - but it also needs discussion outside the Library. To me, Library 2.0 is about enabling access rather than loosening control - and while these two aims are not inconsistent, I think that they are different enough to be exposed to a wider audience. Cheers, Andrew

Let me repeat: enabling access to information is not just about loosening control - it is a total 180-degree paradigm shift. It goes from “we will decide where and how people access the information” (knowledge management 1.0) to “We will start the dissemination process and only intervene when absolutely necessary” (knowledge management 2.0).

Some LIS professionals see Library 2.0 as increased access to catalogues and other indexes. This is loosening control, but does it enable access? I would argue that it does not if those catalogues are only available to other libraries, and only where a fee is charged for access. Make the catalogues free - in most cases, public money paid for them. Make them free. Not only that, make them accessible via an easy-to-use API - Amazon does this. When I told Matthew that to me, Amazon is Library 2.0, I was only half joking - and the more I think about it, the closer it gets to my ideal.

I am not an LIS professional - I am an information architect that uses some LIS techniques to get through my working day. I believe that the Library 2.0 discussion belongs to all of us - and that we need to get it out of the library.

The Permaculture Approach to Information

Permaculture is a system of sustainable agriculture. My late father was a big fan of it, and I’ve designed my own gardens along permaculture principles in the past. Two of the principles that apply themselves nicely to information architecture and information management are:

  • Rarely use one thing for one purpose alone
  • Think holistically: look at everything as part of the system

Imagine a fence dividing your chook (chicken) pen from your orchard in a suburban back yard. You grow beans and other edible creepers along the fence. The creepers get a little overgrown so that the chooks can use them for shelter. You eat the chooks and the eggs they produce. You eat the beans. You use the manure they produce in the compost that feeds the next generation of beans. The chooks go into different yards that contain the vegetable beds lying fallow for next year. You supply the chook-feeding and -watering labor. Everything feeds everything else. Everything contributes, and everything benefits. It is one big holistic system, and fractally expands in scope to include every energy transaction on the whole planet.

How does this apply to information and to Information Architecture? Think of a small closed information system, like an spreadsheet sitting on a thumbdrive. It is perfect, and wonderful, and there are hundreds of millions of such little spreadsheets like it on thumbdrives all over the world. To be of any use to more than just the originator (even to the originator in the longer term), it needs to be shared - that is, it needs to be part of a system.

To form a useful part of that system, the spreadsheet needs to be updateable, mergeable and findable. Without access to the data, and the attachment of meaningful context, it will never make the jump to being information, and beyond it, knowledge.

Dan Saffer wrote:

The biggest leap forward in computing came when the designers and engineers at Xerox PARC stopped thinking about the computer in this way and instead started thinking about it instead as a communication device. And we’ve seen what this led to: email, networks, the internet. The network is the computer now, and if you don’t believe me, do what I did a few weeks ago and unplug from the internet for a few days and watch yourself squirm.

I agree. Without effective sharing, whatever is created is lost.

So what do we do about it? At CeBIT Australia’s eGovernment conference I learnt that the Queensland government has done an information audit and determined that 85% of government documents can be covered by Creative Commons licensing - in effect they are saying that a large proportion of their information is publicly releasable. For a government to admit this is pretty remarkable - they are shifting from a “tell ‘em nothing unless they plead for it” paradigm to a “unless there are security/privacy/commercial sensitivity reasons, let’s give them everything” mindview.

Sounds very new-age, but I believe that Information Management is changing, slowly but surely, to concentrate more on effective dissemination than control. Time will tell.

Twitter: SMS for the Web?

Twitter got a good rap from the NY Times and has been questioned by Steve Collins (who saw the good of it a few days later).

I was talking to my colleague and friend Matthew Hodgson a couple of days ago about Twitter who came up with a good analogy that works for me: Twitter is SMS for the web.

I like it. Like SMS, Twitter is easy. Like SMS, Twitter is used for “where I am at the moment, honey” and “one quick question” messages. Unlike SMS, they are not stored and indexed - maybe this is a good thing, or maybe like google cha messages they should be recorded. Thoughts?

MyGADS: Possibilities of natural language processing made simple

MyGADS is a natural language information storage and retrieval engine - it is free - take the tour.

The illustrated example uses are impressive - plain language input and retrieval on information snippets such as:

  • recommended restaurant
  • lunch appointment
  • capital of China (accesses CIA Factbook)
  • population of Australia (accesses CIA Factbook and Wikipedia)

Where it starts to get really cool is in domain-specific information. At the moment I’m working with Matthew Hodgson on a nasty information management problem - a large body of complicated medical information needs to be made available to a variety of audiences in a way that makes sense to all of them. I’ve punched some example information into MyGADS and come up with some reliable answers. It isn’t a total solution by any means - it can be confused (cost equalling price, for example) and is very North American-centric (weather information and SMS access to the MyGADS query engine) - but the developers, Teragram, have a specialised solution called Direct Answers. That said, as much as MyGADS is able to provide, it provides nicely via the web and Google Chat.

My suggestion is that you get a free account and play with it - it is one more way to capture and present information.

Collaging in user needs discovery?

What is collaging with respect to interface design? It doesn’t have a wikipedia definition, but it is mentioned as a research method for interaction design:

IDIA 642– Research Methods for Interaction Design
Introduces user research methods such as contextual inquiry, ethnographic field studies, card sorting, image collaging, and usability testing that provide the foundation for user-centered interaction design.

A couple of us asked on SIGIA-L - Eric Scheid suggested that it might be like the use of mood boards. Dan Saffer has spoken on the use of mood boards. Design Skills has a definition and examples. But of collaging - nothing.

Knowledge Worker 2.0 is about collaboration - sharing the definition of collaging would help to sell the concept and engender discussion. For those of us who might be able to use it in the field, it is frustrating that there is no available description of collaging. Anyone who wants to share the clue, I’d be grateful if you would leave me a comment or put something up on wikipedia. Share it and it shall grow :)

Knowledge Worker 2.0

Peter Drucker used the term knowledge worker in 1959. I consider myself a knowledge worker, and more than that: Knowledge Worker 2.0.

According to the wikipedia definition:

Knowledge worker, a term coined by Peter Drucker in 1959, is one who works primarily with information or one who develops and uses knowledge in the workplace.

Due to the constant industrial growth in North America and globally, there is increasing need for an academically capable workforce. In direct response to this, Knowledge Workers are now estimated to outnumber all other workers in North America by at least a four to one margin (Haag et al, 2006, pg. 4).

A Knowledge Worker’s benefit to a company could be in the form of developing business intelligence, increasing the value of intellectual capital, gaining insight into customer preferences, or a variety of other important gains in knowledge that aid the business.

How do knowledge workers work? Again, according to the wikipedia definition:

Knowledge workers are believed to produce more when empowered to make the most of their deepest skills; they can often work on many projects at the same time; they know how to allocate their time; and they can multiply the results of their efforts through soft factors such as emotional intelligence and trust (Francis Fukuyama, Manuel Castells). Organizations designed around the knowledge worker (instead of just machine capital) are thought to integrate the best of hierarchy, self-organization and networking rather than the worst. Each dictates a different communications and rewards system, and requires activation of knowledge-sharing and action learning. A basic pattern rule of human systems is that when you mix them you will get the worst of each unless you contextually and carefully attend to connecting the best.

It is a bit like limiting access to technology for technologists - work with people in the way that they work best and you will be rewarded with better productivity.

So if I am Knowledge Worker 2.0, what is Knowledge Worker 1.0? Looking at the way that knowledge management has changed over the years, it is probably easier to talk about it in categorisation terms rather than Web 1.0/Web 2.0 analogies. In the beginning was the rigid taxonomy - there was a place for everything, and everything in its place. Knowledge Worker 1.0 (KW1) helped to define the pigeonholes and then place things into them, watching all the while that the whole organisation toed the line, and teaching the taxonomy to others so that everyone would know where to store and find information.

Knowledge Worker 2.0 (KW2) uses taxonomies as one categorisation strategy/tool - but knows that they are only a part of the total solution. KW2 designs information systems that recognise that different people find things in different ways, and that sensitivity to the organisational culture is as important as any best practices.

Steve Collins is working on thoughtglue, a resource to enable Knowledge Worker 2.0. I’m hoping to interview Steve soon to find out more about it. According to the thoughtglue blog:

thoughtglue ties together in a meaningful way all of the latest information available about knowledge work and the knowledge economy and builds the value of that information by exploring for workers and managers how that information can be leveraged in business.

UPDATE: The interview with Steve Collins of thoughtglue will be here shortly!