Posted by Jefferey Bridges on September 29, 2002 at 18:51:58:

In Reply to: Re: KM Techonologies and Tools: Best Online Portal For Decision Makers posted by KK Aw on September 29, 2002 at 09:01:41:

Yes the http://www.KMNetwork.com/tools.html is based upon keyword searches - it gets results of keyword searches from the most established directory built by human experts, it gets results from the searches of multiple top-level search engines based upon how those resources are ranked in terms of their use, it provides access to targeted full-text articles from the top business and technology publications, it provides access to the latest jobs and positions relevant to those technologies or vendors that are updated in real time, it provides access to the most relevant books with free chapters from the most developed online book site.

So what is wrong? At least, it does not make a pretense of creating the 'hallowed' taxonomy that is supposed to solve the decision makers' problems. Don't you think that a decision maker would be much better off in tapping into all the above resources related to any topic rather than getting a bunch of links to some vendor sites - sites that do not even provide any bases for being bunched together into any given category?

I would suggest taking a critical view of the pros with cons - Even in the above example if *you* choose to focus on the glass is 10% empty versus thinking that the glass is 90% full. And, just by the richness of data, this glass offers 100 or more times contextual information compared with the list of links to vendors of technologies. (If you really are interested in lists of vendors or taxonomies and where to go to find these if you are indeed interested in these.). There are hundreds of references, articles, web sites, books on Information Mapping accessible through the above one page, but you choose to pick one up to argue the case of a straw person. How about comparing what you really found relevant in terms of information mapping through the above search compared with "nothing" that is visible on the other web site. It is driven by a human, it has the human's constraints of subjective biases. Links to vendor sites do minimal good as many of those vendor capabilities fit multiple categories and are dynamically evolving - here is where the human can contribute, but there is no evidence of that contribution. If you really want to test drive the two sites, how about inserting each vendor or technology in the search and finding an in-depth resource informed by multiple perspectives other than the vendor's own perspective.

I believe our disagreement is in terms of the subjective and objective biases in a human - technology based data processing. That is why I had said earlier that the machine-based filtering - including link based popularity index - may sometimes catch similar terms that may be used in different context.

Agreed that machine based processing provides some superfluous data that is caught in the web. However, there is no scientific basis whatsoever in establishing any trust at all in the taxonomy. If a human goes about doing the work of sifting through the information, here are the questions that need to be addressed about credibility of that "subjective" and biased information upfront:

1. What makes this human (Gauda) capable of developing a valid and reliable taxonomy? Does he have particular capabilities beyond what are available in multiple machine-based technologies that make him suitable for this job?

2. Has this human (Gauda) even made any attempt at establishing the validity and reliability of the taxonomy? For instance, the human seems to be quite oblivious about the version of Oracle that is the current version. Apparently, it is the problem of the human trying to compete with technologies for routine and structured processing of data archives - a game in which human cannot win.

3. The human taxonomy provides a link to each vendor site. The machine based output for each such vendor and each related technology can provide a much richer mine to find diverse perspectives (from web sites, articles, and books). What good is this list of links to vendor sites, when one can find similar directories with multiple other existing web sites such as KMWorld, Computerworld, Informationweek, etc. - at least they offer more detailed depth of information for each topic, some credible basis for believing the structure or ratings of information.

The issue is not about the personal biases, but about the poorness of the content of information compounded by lack of validity and reliability of the taxonomy. If you need to look at taxonomies, I would recommend looking up some research journals that at least do a much thorough, objective, and scientific job of developing such taxonomies without getting caught in very subjective biases such as pitching specific vendors or products while disregarding other vendors, technologies, and even other taxonomies that offer a different perspective.

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: A More Fair Comparison of Two Sites - An Example To Prove the Case Jefferey Bridges 19:20:48 09/29/02 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: