Having implemented diverse information and communication technologies over the last decade, I have concluded that it's not the brilliance of technologies per se but the brilliance of utilization of such technologies that really matters ("Disillusionment," Feb. 16, p. 46). Industry pundits try to relate investments in advanced information technologies with IS performance as if advanced technologies by themselves can magically solve the enterprise's problems. But with increasing complexity [of technology], we need sophisticated users who realize the potential of such technologies.

Unless the technology industry's focus shifts from designing performance in the boxes to designing performance in their use, we may anticipate rude awakenings again and again.

• Knowledge ecology primarily focuses on social networks of individuals in contrast to the overly technological emphasis of traditional knowledge management systems on computers and information technology networks.
• In a knowledge ecology environment impacted by sudden and pervasive change, mode of survival is adaptation [or more accurately,'anticipation of surprise'] instead of optimization.
• Knowledge ecology is made up of knowledge nodes and knowledge exchanges or knowledge flows. In the knowledge ecology the basis for cooperation and survival is differentiation and similarity between the knowledge nodes. Highly differentiated knowledge nodes can collaborate to accomplish specific actions and may dissolve thereafter. However, collaboration between such nodes would require that they be able to 'relate' to one another under an overarching mission or theme.
• Within a knowledge ecology, focus on people does not only imply understanding of knowledge exchanges and relationships based on such exchanges. It also implies understanding of how such knowledge influences action or potential for action based on such exchanges.
• Just as natural ecologies thrive based on species diversity, knowledge ecology thrives on diversity of knowledge. Such diversity rests on cooperative competition: the various knowledge nodes collaborate as well as compete based on their differentiating characteristics.
• Knowledge ecology treats knowledge creation as a dynamic evolutionary process in which knowledge gets created and recreated in various contexts and at various points of time.

A review of existing conceptualizations of information technology enabled knowledge management systems suggests that sparse attention has been given to the human aspects of knowledge creation. Given the increasingly 'wicked' environments, this dominant model of organizational knowledge management systems is increasingly constrained by its pre-programmed, convergent and consensus-oriented nature. It is suggested that systems that can provide multiple, and often conflicting, interpretations are better suited for wicked environments.

In this paper to be presented at the 3rd Americas Conference on Information Systems in August, 1997, I discuss how the human aspects of knowledge creation are critical for sustaining such systems for facilitating inquiry based on divergence of meanings and perspectives. Implications are drawn for improving the design of knowledge management systems that can facilitate organizational knowledge creation. The discussion of the human capabilities underlying organizational knowledge creation for wicked environments is expected to contribute to the bases for the conceptualization, design and evaluation of oganizational knowledge management systems.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE PAPER

CLICK HERE TO SEE A SYNOPSIS OF KEY ISSUES

As already underscored by industry case studies, 'if you build it they will come' seems to be a more misguided assumption in case of electronic store fronts than in case of concrete stores that hold 'non virtual' wares. Here is Tom's pointer on balancing the technology and psychology of creating web based people networks: "If you're spending more than one-third of your time on technologies for knowledge management, you're neglecting the content, organizational culture and motivational approaches that will make a knowledge management system actually useful."

Furthermore, as mentioned in some of the threads, putting your paper based information brochures and human resource manuals online doesn't amount to 'knowledge.' [Reminds us about our discussion on contrasts between data, information and knowledge]. Pretty much in concert with what we discussed, his advice is to use the technologies to "store and disseminate real value-added, insight-laden, wisdom-giving knowledge."

He further suggests that although KM is everyone's job, however some persons would need to assume the responsibilities for "gathering and editing knowledge from those who have it, paving the way for the operation of knowledge networks, and setting up and managing knowledge technology infrastructures."

Underscoring the need for measurement, he suggests measurement in terms of understanding 'what KM has been up to.' In other words, if there are some KM activities, we need to find means for suggesting the value added by those activities. If it is not possible to set quantitative dollar figures to justify the value-added, qualitative data may be used, however, the key issue is the justification of those activities for the value-added.

On the issue of the A-word "access," he suggests that access is more of a function of "attention," "appetite," and "affiliation" - motivations for anyone to access whatever is up there in your real or virtual attic.

Finally, he underscores the need for the top management support for sustaining the KM efforts beyond any marginal level and for making that departmental KM initiative into an organizational player.

Tom underscores the issue of 'politics of KM,' however, it might have helped had he also mentioned getting across the politics and suggesting how to cultivate trust, shared vision and create dialog. Perhaps, in one of the forthcoming articles...

Without underestimating the technological wizardry of the humans behind the design and programming of Deep Blue, I tend to believe that it is the latter. Based on the fact that the 'battle' occurred within a very small, pre-defined problem space bounded by eight rows and eight columns while using a very small variety of 'pieces' capable of executing only their pre-defined moves, this event serves as a benchmark of 'what machines cannot do.' Given that the programming of the moves of the game of chess started a few decades ago, and the 'conquest' of a pre-defined and limited problem space by the computer required all the technological prowess that the Deep Blue could muster, this event serves as a reminder of what machines cannot do.

This assertion is particularly relevant given the context of the real business world that is more and more characterized by an increasing pace of rapid and discontinuous change. While business strategists are exhorting the managers to adopt discontinuous strategies of 're-everything' to anticipate the future, management gurus like Drucker have been chronicling the fiascos of blue-chip firms resulting from increasing misalignment of their 'theories of business' with the dynamically changing reality. A 'future that doesn't compute' is challenging the business men and women to bring out the best in terms of innovation and creativity. Reputed information technology economist Paul Strassmann notes in his recently released book The Squandered Computer: "it is not computers that make the difference, but what people do with them." He further cautions that: "Elevating computerization to the level of a magic bullet of this civilization is a mistake that will find correction in due course." John Seely Brown, the director of the Xerox Palo Alto research center observes in the recent Dec 96-Jan 97 issue of the Information Strategy journal that: "In the last 20 years, US industry has invested more than $1 trillion in technology, but has realised little improvement in the efficiency of its knowledge workers ­ and virtually none in their effectiveness."

These issues are particularly relevant given the hype and the hoopla surrounding the most publicized match between the intelligent machine and the human mind. This event symbolizes the victory of a past based on prediction and pre-specified rules and assumptions. However, the future is increasingly discontinuous and unpredictable, and imposes upon the knowledge workers a continuous need for reassessing their assumptions and heuristics. The premium is increasingly on 'anticipation of surprise' and less on prediction based on pre-defined heuristics. To an extent, this is evident in some of the management buzzwords - such as organizational learning and knowledge management - currently in vogue.

This occasion seems like an opportune moment to remember the observation of the behavioral scientist B.F. Skinner: "The real problem is not whether machines think, but whether men do." Given the ongoing debate on issues such as organizational control and empowerment, this also is an occasion to reflect upon the observation of the Pulitzer-prize winning Harvard professor Howard Mumford Jones who noted that: "Ours is the age which is proud of machines that think, and suspicious of men who try to."

Perhaps, this seems like the opportune moment to remember the limitations of the machines and reaffirm our faith in the innate human capabilities that are critically needed for anticipating 'a future that does not compute.'

What seems surprising is that the online advertisers do not seem to have learnt that the viewers' attention is the most scarce resource since they persist in pushing the ads... literally... down the eyeballs of the online viewers who surf through their web sites searching for content. What should the online advertisers realize about the viewers' behavior to leverage their attention effectively? Here are some tips from a new book Webonomics.

The book argues that the medium of the web could be effectively used to extend the advertising done through traditional media such as TV and newspapers. While the traditional media do the job of telling and selling the potential customers about products or services, the medium of the web could be used for extending that model by providing the means for linking and thinking. Essentially, the customers who come to the web site based on the newspaper and TV ads, get the opportunity to 'link' to the advertiser's staff via online interaction of the web and to 'think' through the detailed information about products or services using interactive pages and links.

The books also lays out five principles of advertising based on Webonomics. First, consumers will rarely pay a subscription fee for access to a website... they would treat such charge as an additional burden imposed upon the cost incurred in terms of their attention. Second, the traditional models of buying advertising doesn't work on the web... potential advertisers expect hard results through web advertising. Third, businesses are on the web not for exposure, but for results... the web must pick up where the traditional media ads leave the potential customer. This is where the difference in telling and selling and linking and thinking comes in. Fourth, customers must be rewarded when they disclose information about themselves, lest you want to loose them altogether. Such rewards may take the shape of helpful or entertaining information, or on-line user groups around their concerns. Last, and in our view the most important, principle of Webonomics is: "It's not the quantity of people you attract to your site that counts most but the quality of their experience there. A website that attracts just a few thousand loyal consumers will ultimately be more valuable than one in which a million new people visit each month but never return."

Recent theory and research suggest that such change is not only occurring at an increasingly faster pace, but is also of increasingly discontinuous nature. This new nature of change imposes upon the managers the demand for discontinous thinking and discontinuous strategies that may often contradict the traditionally 'proven and tested' assumptions of the 'experts'. The new kind of change imposes new demands on the simplistic notions of extant theory and research that treat 'information' and 'knowledge' as synonymous. A future that is less and less 'computable' poses an interesting set of issues and problems for managers and executives. It also imposes the challenge for understanding and assessing the traditional notion of 'knowledge' based on 'information theory' from a new perspective that challenges the assumption of predictability with any certainty. The suggestion of designing semi-confusing information systems to reduce organizational inertia becomes increasingly relevant in this new era. This issue represents a key challenge for the theorists and researchers who study management of information [systems] and knowledge management.

On a related note, in the same interview, Drucker also speculates about the demise of the university and the business of academia: "Thirty years from now the big university campuses will be relics. Universities won't survive..." Should one consider his statement radical? Perhaps not! His projection of the future of academia and universities [as we know them] may be perhaps better understood in relation to his criticism of the 'inward' looking nature, viewed here in the context of business academics bound by traditional notions of disciplines. Academia, particularly business academia, has been criticized across the continents for not heeding the 'messy' needs of relevance to contemporary managers and organizations. Apparently, such 'messy' needs cannot be met by solutions that are straitjacketed in the traditional notions of disciplinary boundaries. In the increasingly 'messy' world, often the interactions surpass the main effects, and the 'noise factor' overwhelms the more tangible and discrete 'observables'.

On a related note, some scholars have criticized the insularity of the popular notion of disciplinary knowledge akin to the hierarchical stovepipes, while others have exhorted theorists and researchers to reflect on disciplinary assumptions that are often assumed as 'given'. From the viewpoint of the stakeholders, particularly complementary business disciplines academics and pracititioners, one may need to realize that the contribution of any discipline or body of knowledge cannot be judged within the vacuum of the disciplinary stovepipe. It has to demonstrate the relevance and value of its contribution in the 'real world' of messy disciplines and messy realities.

Coming of the smart agents that sit on your hard drive and watch what information you access may be a laudable idea for information that has marginal strategic or competitive significance. However, would the business managers rest easy knowing that the agent technologies could be used for competitive intelligence since they enable monitoring and logging of the information access strategies of the users of such services. New features of software applications such as the all familiar browsers and the famed cookies have already been raising concerns about "big brother watching" every move you make in the cyberspace. Furthermore, many webcasting applications access the files [read "information"] available on your hard disk on the pretext of assessing your software needs, providing you the upgraded versions of software, or cleaning out yesterday's files that were delivered on your hard drive.

We are also dubious of the claims of the 'customized content' that have been surrounding the hype around such services. How does one put any value on any specific 'cafeteria-style' category of 'information' that is served by a provider that scans, filters, and interprets the information as per its own priorities and interests... Let's not forget that information, without an immediately relevant context, may very well be... 'junk'. How does one feel comfortable about handing over the keys to one's information gateway(s) to third parties who may or may not have any clue about your 'customized' contexts although they may promise to deliver 'customized content'? Is the 'content' delivered without knowledge of 'context' really 'information' or 'junk'? Also, how much of 'context' should one reveal in exchange for more context-specific information?

It may be arguable if information technology is a utility. However, let's not think for a moment that all or most information of relevance to an organization's strategies and tactics is also a vanilla 'utility.' Given that most new organizational competencies are being sought based on discontinuous thinking and discontinuous strategies, there is greater need for developing multiple, and desirably contradictory interpretations, of the 'messes' we call information. These interpretations need to be based around the context specific issues of the company for leveraging the organization-specific complementarities.

Back to the issue of specifying our information consumption profiles and giving them to third parties so that they may 'serve' our information needs... We already live in a society in which the statistics related to our living, eating, and traveling habits are regularly monitored by the marketing companies for more directed 'customized' channeling of their wares. How comfortable should the corporate managers and decision makers be in handing over their learning and knowledge profiles, as well as keys to their knowledge gateways to third parties? Our advice: "Caveat Emptor..."

First, one could argue that everyone is jumping from the traditional bandwagon of BPR to the next new technological 'fad' of Intranets while making a 'whipping boy' of BPR and attributing most implementation failures to the label and not necessarily the process of BPR. One may also argue against the notion that Intranets, unlike other technologies, provide any inherent capacity for facilitating information sharing.This is not a new revelation. The myopic nature of the technological deterministic perspective has been criticized in the trade press and in scholarly research. Industry experts such as Davenport and McKinsey's Manville suggest the importance of the people and cultural issues that are pertinent to the successful implementation of technological solutions such as Intranets. Academic researchers such as Wanda Orlikowski of MIT Sloan School have exposed the fallacy of similar proclaims guided by technological determinism in case of more primitive technologies that were intended to facilitate 'grass-roots information sharing.'

Second, the debacles attributed to BPR could be, and perhaps should be, attributed to the implementation issues, specifically, how BPR has been implemented. One cannot deny the remarkable results achieved by companies such as CIGNA that have adopted a people-oriented, culturally sensitive process of BPR.

Third, industry case studies of organizational implementation of Intranets suggest that this new technology is also encountering the organizational problems posed by organizational control and work culture issues. Such case studies documented in the industry trade journals clearly suggest that although Intranets provide the potential for a grass roots initiatives, however the real materialization of such initiatives is dependent on the cultural and control issues embedded in the organization's work environment.

The key question is if Intranets, because of some 'inherent capacity', facilitate bottom-up and / or top-down information sharing better than existing technologies such as groupware, CASE tools, etc.? Our answer is "Perhaps Not!" Interestingly, the article tends to recognize the human challenges faced by technology implementation efforts, however it errs in suggesting that Intranets, by virtue of their 'inherent capacity', offer the panacea for those problems.