Posted by Prac on March 01, 2002 at 13:17:26:

In Reply to: Re: Context Management for Deabstracting KM Power posted by Pete on March 01, 2002 at 05:23:12:

Hi Pete

Further Info. as per your request.

1) "...topic via the interrelated parts of the relevant domain. I concede other definitions may be as valid as this one, if not more so.
Could you give a few examples of a description of a subject via the interrelated parts of the relevant domain?"

An HR domain/subject might have the following components, within a particular organization's HR context.
- Culture
- Head Hunting
- Employment
- Remuneration
- Reward
- Etc.

Once these componets are linked via the context method, the result would provide a clear description of that organization's view of their HR domain/context.

2) "..main difference appears to be that with contexts the information is deeply abstract between contexts,
Could you give an example of information and contexts it is abstracted between?"

I cannot give you an example of how it is. I can provide an example of how it is not. Assume we completed a contextual view of the organization's 'HR', and did the same for 'IT Support'. How could one view the information boundaries/links etc. between the HR and IT Support contexts. No direct links exist, and to try and analyse the organization till shared data links are discovered, would be a very costly and time consuming exercise. One can understand how links should exist, seeing as how the contexts are logically related, but the information/knowledge which constitute the relationships are highly abstract, and thus invisible to the obvious analytical eye.

3) "..and one cannot assume or derive the contextual cohesion (relationships between contexts) by merely extrapolating or reducing the contexts to further degrees of granularity.
Have you come to know of this having happened?"

Context present an alinear picture. Further analysis, in alinear fashion cannot produce the relationships between contexts. The contextual analysis does not rely on function or data analysis to determine the relationships between contexts. The function and data methods have been well proven for more than 10 years, but it is too time consuming and very, very expensive. In addition, the industry has become very wary of these approaches due to too many practitioners not being able to deliver the benefits they promised.

4) I'd be interested in the outline of such a mathematical proof.

IE analysis typically rely on relational theory (A implies B kinda stuff) and probability theory at more conceptual levels of analysis. It works very well down to systems engineering level, and excellent systems could be delivered via this approach. The challenge of time and effort still remain true.

5)"..Do I understand correctly if I say this means the promise for KM lies in computers supporting the abstract specification and connection that could lead to computerized applications for more abstract terms such as innovation, tacit knowledge, judgement, and so forth."
- Yes, but computer programs isn't the focus here. More importantly, information workers would be equipped with more productive skills for rapidly doing more effective work. Yes, it would be more fuzzy as well, relying on knowledge and collective judgment, as opposed to explicit proof.

And if so, how would the computerized applications for more abstract terms such as innovation, tacit knowledge, judgement, and so forth
· support the solution of problems aimed at by KM?
- We are talking about an enhancement in mindset, an evolution in the way we work. Maybe many of the Km problems of today would disappear by themselves as people learn to approach the issues differently.

· result in a return of investment ("The productivity and financial benefits should be apparent and rather obvious with regards to a method such as this one. ")
- More effective work methods and more volume can be managed, in less time. Basically, smarter methods for smarter results, save time, save money, create jobs, or even shed jobs. It is not in conflict with what we are seeing around us today. The risks of being correct and incorrect would be more pronounced, but on a whole one could say they would be reduced. It depends on the guts and the brawn of an organization to include fuzzy in their management repetoire or not.

6)"Could I have an example for cohesion strength?"
There are degrees of affinity between entities, even with people. You like James a little more than John, Sarah a lot, and Julie slightly less. You dislike Mary altogether, and Jane only a little. These likings and dislikings represent the strength of your relational cohesion tot hese people. You would be able to plot all these people on a scale of 1-10 wouldn't you? That would represent your personal cohesion map to these persons. Naturally, theirs would look different, and therein lies the abstract information. Add a 'Pretense' variable during social interaction and see how complex the picture really begins. Does Mary really dislike you, or is it your imagination? Do you feel she likes you less than John? Why? etc...I think you get my point. ;-)

7) "It also seems that there may be more than a single factor which contributes to the suitability of cohesion in nature.
A tacit one perhaps?"

- Sorry to burst this tacit-quest bubble, but tacit knowledge is assumed, in fact required. This method relies predominantly on tacit knowledge. We have moved way beyond tacit here, unless there is hidden tacit knowledge within abstract organisms we cannot access or codify, in which case we are out of our depth already anyways. I'll settle for having an understanding of the "tacit" cohesion, and leave the tacit knowledge extraction for another few years.

8) "Yes, I am looking for the conjunction to some practical application/support here. "
Why are you looking for such a thing? It is clear we are having an intellectual discussion about a particular subject. This is not a submission to a scientific journal, but a proposal to those who have a passion for KM.

I hope the information i have supplied would provide sufficient weight to further this dialogue. I apologize if it isn't, but that is the best I can do for now with the understanding I have.

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Context Management for Deabstracting KM Power Pete 23:41:04 03/03/02 (2)
  • Re: Context Management for Deabstracting KM Power Prac 02:53:56 03/04/02 (1)
    • Re: Context Management for Deabstracting KM Power: Stradivari, Silbermann and Steinway Pete 00:56:45 03/05/02 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: