david bray - knowledge ecosystems

Up Periscope!

2010-08-12T13:18:00.003-04:00

It's been a while since I've posted, partly because I've been extremely busy with work and other projects. That said, someone forwarded me an article and I just had to provide some comments. Feel free to agree or disagree.

...

This article (URL below) presents a flawed suggestion that the word "crowdsourcing" is bad.

http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database-soup/never-say-crowdsourcing-34331

Humorously, the article falls into its own trap. For example the word "exploitation" ... the author associated exploitation as a bad thing. Probably most of us do.

But actually exploitation has two meanings. From m-w.com 1: to make productive use of: UTILIZE - 2: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage

Now the second definition is a bad thing. But the first one is neutral. You can exploit a sandwich to provide energy for your body (left by itself and uneaten the sandwich would not be of productive use).

James March, a rather famous author in organizational science, wrote of "Exploration and Exploitation" in 1991 -- his exploitation was the first definition, not the second. Productive use of existing processes or knowledge.That's not a bad thing.

Particularly because knowledge, unlike material goods, is something you can give away and yet still process.

... so ironically, this article about "Language Matters" trips up on its own premise when it says crowdsourcing is exploitation -- and then proceeds to assume exploitation is always bad. I'd use the tag !epic_fail but I sense the author was trying to make a point, but came across as rather narrow-minded in the author's own restricted view point.

Would the author be upset at Sermo.com -- where doctors are paid for their insights. That's "Crowdsourcing" within the medical community. That's exploitation. Is that bad? Or what about Threadless.com -- where designers of patterns ultimately produced and sold receive a royalty for their ideas. That's "Crowdsourcing" of t-shirt. That's exploitation. Is that bad?

On second thought, I will label this article as uninformed, ignorant of alternative definitions and instances, and making a lot of hay about nothing.

Semantic Bot Parsing for Localized Recommendations - Part 2

2009-10-29T15:38:00.001-04:00

Following up on the earlier "Part 1" of this post, I also sense that Apple, Google, and others are gearing up for LBS and this space will get crowded with big players in time.

The idea though would be to do this pre-emptively and one-step ahead so it's something attractive for acquisition. Thus the idea of going beyond "websites" or portals and moving towards bots that search for you and pull data housed in the cloud so the data finds you (vs. you having to search for it).

Knowing what people are searching for at both a personal *and* localized level probably would be extremely powerful. Do this over time and you learn their tastes and pattern of activities.

Also agreed that writing a bot, coupled with natural language processing, wouldn't be too difficult if the inputs were coming from a Twitter / Wave or other short, truncated sentence. In some ways, we're simplifying our language so it's easier for the machines to understand us!

This may be something for a consortium or academic partnership to pursue... while this has commercial purposes, it also has collaboration and crisis response purposes. Bots that find important information relative to your role for you, bots that find likely people in government across agencies and across federal-state-local levels who do roles like yours and who you probably should be collaborating with, bots that show where the different response teams are and their status, etc.

... Wonder what it will mean when the number of "live" bots on the Internet surpasses the number of humans? (Then again, there are many more insects that humans, so maybe the better question is what does it mean when the number of Internet bots surpasses the number of all multi-celled life forms on Earth?)

Thoughts?

Semantic Bot Parsing for Localized Recommendations - Part 1

2009-10-20T12:27:00.000-04:00

1. Scanning the space of Internet and web development, it seems like most folks are still focused on web sites. Sure, some have moved to "Web 2.0" apps that allow remixing of content, or *social* content, but in terms of radical change, it hasn't happened yet. By and large you still need to *go* somewhere online to search for information (vs. the information finding you).

2. Localization and personalization of information on the web represents, in my opinion, an untapped "value" added. Determining who you are by your Twitter/Facebook/Google profile coupled with *where* you are by geopositioning your IP address or, better yet, your GPS-based cell or car device, represents a chance to deliver timely information relevant to who and where you are.

3. Add to this the trend to expecting near-real time, asynchronistic, social interaction of the web (Google Wave, Twitter, Yammer, other microblogs) coupled with semantic/natural language processing raises an interesting opportunity -- web agents that chat with you and provide recommendations (without you necessarily having to go search for the info).

... You're already seeing this a bit, but not to the scale it could become. For example:

You and your friends are on Google Wave (or Twitter). You want to go out that evening but you're not sure what's going on around town. You can "include" a bot in your group of friends capable of semantic processing into your Wave (or Tweet). You say:

@travelbot0219 what events are happening in Clarendon tonight?

... The bot hones in to key words in your sentence:

[What] plus [?] = this is a question

[Event] = you're looking for an activity

[Clarendon] = correlates to a set of zip codes. There may be multiple Clarendons in the U.S. so the bot either has to see if it can identify your location by your Google Wave (or Twitter) profile or the geoposition of your IP address

[Tonight] = corresponds to a set. You're looking for events between 6pm until midnight associated with the time zone of Clarendon (that midnight time frame might be pushed further back to 2am or 3am if your Google or Twitter profile shows you are a teenage).

... And from this follows a decision tree as to whether or not it knows enough to answer your question. In this case, events is ambiguous and it should confirm Clarendon, VA as your location of interest, so the bot Waves (Tweets) back:

@coolkid59 what type of events in Clarendon, VA between 6pm-midnight are you interested in?

@coolkid59 example of event types include: movies, music, sports, arts?

You then reply back "movies and sports starting after 8pm" ... Which the bot parses as having types of events and notices the words "after" and "8pm" ... The bot also notices you didn't say "no" or some other form of Clarendon (e.g., Clarendon, TX) and concludes that it now has enough information to search for events in a database that the bot has rights to access.

This database contains the results of user-entered plus EDI-transferred plus web-scrapings of events around the U.S., indexed by zip code, date, and type. The bot can then answer with 3 events that match your search (as a Wave, Tweet, or Yam) and then provide a URL for additional details on a webpage customized to your query.

Of course, you can also do the same thing via a standard webpage search *or* via email/SMS messaging (useful if you're using your cell phone to spot events in your area).

How do you make money off of this? (1) Product placement. Folks can pay to have their events be one of the top 3 recommendations for the evening. (2) Ads on the website -- or, if they're using Wave, Twitter, or Yammer, ads on the URL link provided with more details... the URL link wouldn't be just a textual display of events, but a Google Maps display of the events, showing where they are color coded by type and allowing you use a "timeline" slider to see what events appear or disappear associated with your event.

As mentioned, you're populate the list of events by allowing any user to submit by a webpage, EDI-transfer, web-scrap (of Ticketmaster, ESPN, and other sites with event info), email/SMS submissions, or Google Wave/Tweet/Yam:

@travelbot0219 art show on 10/27 at 19th and Penn, starting at 6pm

@coolkid59 How long will the art show event at 19th and Pennsylvania
Ave. in Washington, DC on 27 October 2009 starting at 6pm last?

@coolkid59 And is the event free or are there costs?

@travelbot0219 it'll last until 10 and it's 15 bucks to enter

@coolkid59 Confirming 6-10pm for the art show at $15/person

(... The identity of @coolkid59 having already been confirmed to be a real person and not a spammer... Additionally the service tracks the reputations of submitters so if @coolkid59 has a high enough reputation, this pushes this event to the "top" of event recommendations.)

Lastly, the site tracks the taste of folks (akin to Netflix... Folks who enjoyed this event, also enjoyed these events... Or folks with similar Facebok profiles as you enjoyed these events) and might even play an optional "match-making" feature.

@coolkid59 Do you want to possibly go to the event with someone else like you?

@coolkid59 If so, are you looking just to hang-out, make a friend, or perhaps something romantic?

(... This might be a service where 'trusted' identities are brokered like Match.com, the site knows who the person really is ...)

And the service could follow-up with you the next day:

@coolkid59 Did you have a good time at the art show last night? How would you rate it on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest)?

... Cumulatively, these represent some of my ideas for a business that would be game-changing for the internet. If the bots prove truly useful, you could "sell" a subscription to a user for features beyond recommending events or local activities or match-up... This could include your own restaurant or hotel recommending and booking agent (also for flights and rental cars). Also a recommending agent for local sales and specials at shopping centers and grocery stores.

What are your thoughts? Might this be a possible start-up? Worth flushing out a larger business plan?

The bots would be housed on a server farm and need to interface, through API's, with Twitter, Wave, Facebook, etc. The servers would house the database of activities and the reputations of users submitting events (allowing events to be submitted via web, EDI, or other means) as well as the likes and "tastes" of people using the service. The server farm would also crawl for events and allow "product placement" (event placement) and ads to monetize on the business.

Semantic Bot Parsing for Localized Recommendations - Part 1

On-going Discussion Regarding "Knowledge Management Policy" in Government - Part 3

2009-05-11T06:41:00.006-04:00

The following represents an on-going discussion regarding "Knowledge Management Policy" and whether encouraging more KM policy might result in a potential bureaucratic nightmare. My professional and academic experiences all suggest yes, but I'm the minority view at the moment among the discussants having the conversation...

Feedback/comments welcomed!

Hi xxxx,

I think the trouble with the KMgov effort is they're jumping straight to the "how" and missing asking the *why* that needs to be considered antecedent to how... because the *why* will reveal deeper problems than just KM (that a KM initiative could either resolve or exacerbate if done incorrectly).

So... what I'll (briefly) try to convey you are two logical arguments... that also detail how such a "cultivator/gardener" role would look operationally:

(1) that the current system of government as it is structured would preclude success of a CKO (even if they were well-meaning)

(2) that a successful KM initiative that remedies the structural problems in government doesn't require a CKO (because that role becomes ubiquitous)

First for (1)

Let's assume we were able to find the right CKO who understood her/his role as a Gardener. We put her/him in a high enough position (within the EOP) so they had a good visibility. Now, as a Gardener, the CKO is going to need to influence the efforts of departments and (hundreds) of Federal agencies. How does she/he do that? What levers can she/he pull?

... Influence over the budgets of Departments? Probably impossible, since members of the President's Cabinet would fight tooth-and-nail to retain all the funding they could and if this became a "budget review" function, even with the buy-in of the Cabinet, you'd encourage protectionism by the civil servants of each agencies so much that they "fudge" their numbers, go on a defensive posture, and just wait until the CKO's term of service is up (again, passive-aggressiveness is what the system currently rewards).

... So, we can't influence budget and achieve a successful transformation, what can the CKO influence? Definitely not the hiring or firing of personnel for Departments, that's a sphere again currently protected by Cabinets, and even if you could "embed" personnel of the CKO into Departments, they face the same problem of how do they influence events in that Department? What sway do they have? Answer: very little.

... Okay so no luck in either path, so let's step back and realize that even if the CKO could try and influence collaboration, the whole hiring/promotion of government employees rewards individualistic behavior -- not collaborative behaviors. A government employee's six-month and annual performance review is based on what that employee did, not necessarily what you helped someone else do (or even if this is factors, the someone who lead/did the effort sees larger gains than the helpers). So the CKO would need to encourage structural changes in how our government handles hiring/promotions, but that's already the domain of OPM. OPM should be working this angle.

... Moreover, the whole three-year project-agency-budgets-in-advance cycle that Congress and OMB follow also lacks any rewards for collaboration, transparency, or even *honesty* in the projected numbers. Right now OMB doesn't give "extra funds" to projects demonstrating that they help not only your department, but other departments or agencies as well. You have money left over at the end of the year? No rewards for giving it back or to another agency, but rather *penalities*. Instead, there need to be penalties for projects that only help your agency and, conversely, *rewards* for pitching projects that help multiple agencies (with multiple collaborators). Okay, so the CKO would need to encourage this change, but that's both Congressional and OMB turf. The EOP working with Congress should be working this angle.

So what I'm trying to show you is that massive transformation, above and beyond KM, is necessary for a CKO position to have hope of succeeding. This isn't just a problem for a CKO, it's also a problem for a cyber-security czar or ODNI czar or any government leader/cultivator who's trying to encourage inter-agency collaborations. The very system wasn't built for folks in their position to operate effectively, and structural changes above-and-beyond "KM policy" are needed first before their positions ever have the hope of working.

Now for (2)

... How might we remedy the structural problems in government, well, I've suggested some above so with proof (1), so I won't detail them again. Let's say in our KM Initiative, we spent the next 12-18 months working to detail these problems quantitatively and qualitatively, demonstrating how things aren't working as they ideally should and produce case studies so much that it becomes *glaringly* obvious to OPM, OMB, and Congress that change is needed. This is a "bottom-up" approach to produce enough of a crisis that political appointees have no choice but to address the problems. We produce the mini-crisis that necessitates political appointees approaching us and saying, okay, so what's the solution.

... Thus, in parallel, we start piloting mini-solutions, but instead of a massive, centralized effort, we do mini-pilot efforts (where possible) in our own agencies and across agencies -- requiring brave souls willing to risk a "safe and easy" government career and to work together, possibly at the expense of easy upward mobility. We try mini "inter-forums" or knowledge ecosystem efforts, and *share* (freely) this technology with other departments that are interested. We start practicing what we're advocating for a new way of government working together. With our group of true believers, we try to remove ego from the equation, instead advocating peer-to-peer (vs. hierarchical) relationships. Also, we submit inter-agency budget proposals to OMB suggesting additional funding because this benefits multiple agencies.

... Brave CIO's of agencies also start pushing their leadership and OMB to allow discretionary funding each year (say, 10% of their budget) to be spent on proactive, pilot projects for next-generation government... again with an eye to building from the bottom-up the future we want. Having already documented the problems earlier, now our KM Initiative group members collectively germinate several seed/pilot efforts in different domains, each year pruning and cultivating the more successful efforts and opening up successful efforts for reuse or expansion of use by other departments. But this will take brave governments willing to risk not being promoted because it "wasn't built by them" or "they didn't develop the solution" as well as cultivators of the pilot effort willing to "let go of sole ownership" of their creation and "share in the credit" with others.

... With all of this, such a bottom-up approach doesn't require a CKO, but instead a group of dedicated folks working from the grassroots-level to impact change. We continue to document the problems we're trying to solve in government, how they're structural and include the hiring/promotion/behavioral elements that OPM and OMB both need to address. And we also demonstrate proofs-of-concept that work for one agency, multiple agencies, and eventually reveal a solution that (if funded) could work for all of government. The funding comes when our documentation of the structural problems becomes too clear to ignore -- a "bubbling up" as it were.

... So, say 15 years from now, if government has undergone this transformation and now government workers are rewarded for collaborating with others in the basis of the problems to be solved and not on the basis of hierarchy or agency labels, and if budgets are done to reward addressing these problems, with some annual discretionary funds for emergent "new ideas" pilots as well as emergent problems or opportunity to be addressed, you now have to ask what is the role of a Agency "Director", what do they do with this next-generation form of government?

Well: they exist to cultivate networks of collaboration both within and across their agency to other agencies. They work to cultivate the best and brightest ideas and align budget funds to address those good ideas, emergent problems/concerns, as well as identified opportunities. They (the Agency "Directors") become the Agency "Cultivators" working together with other Agency "Cultivators" in a true peer-to-peer fashion. Hmm... that sounds a lot like what the CKOs we've been discussing would be doing. What I'm trying to suggest is that the agencies CKOs *aren't* needed if we become the government necessary for CKOs to succeed because the Agency "Directors" as "Cultivators" take up this lead role... at the EOP, the President is the uber-CKO. Moreover, individual government employees now are incentivized by the structure and behavioral rewards of the system to do the right thing generally, without the need for a distinct CKO separate from the leadership/cultivator-ship of this brave new world. We all (in government) become mini-CKOs working with other mini-CKOs for the betterment of government, like ants looking to identify sugar peaks (there is no CKO for ants, yet they're extremely adaptive to novel environments).

________________________________

... so, have I convinced you? :-)

(1) that the current system of government as it is structured would preclude success of a CKO as you detail below (even if they were well-meaning)

(2) that a successful KM initiative that remedies the structural problems in government doesn't require a CKO (because that role both folds into the role of Agency "Directors" and becomes ubiquitous)

Best regards,

-d.

On-going Discussion Regarding "Knowledge Management Policy" in Government - Part 2

2009-05-10T03:41:00.001-04:00

On-going Discussion Regarding "Knowledge Management Policy" in Government - Part 1

2009-05-09T09:18:00.002-04:00

Science of Security

2008-11-17T14:49:00.003-05:00

Currently at a series of day-long meetings with NSF, NSA, and IARPA folks regarding whether or not we can create a "Science of Security" (focused on cyber-issues) and what such a science, if possible, would look like. Interesting discussions and many different perspectives, ranging from hard-core experts in computer science, physics, biology, and sociology.

My own thoughts, for now, are probably baised by the fact that my background includes both cyber and a biology background. I think any science, if possible, would have to draw from complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory. I ask these thoughts similar to the discovery of the “Omega” and “Super-Omega” numbers (see article below). Could it be, with cyber-security efforts, we are facing a complex environment that includes complicated behaviors bordering at times on randomness that occasionally presents itself as having links and reason; that is, that the default state is “anarchy, not order”? (Again, see article below for more on how mathematics has recently revealed itself to be riddled with holes and anarchy).

This is not to say we shouldn’t engage in the activity of trying to assess a Science of Security, but approach it with the realization it will never be complete (even at the high level) and it can only be a reflection of what we can best imagine, envision, and potentially know with the purpose being, as best as possible, pro-actively positioning resources to try to reinforce the security of such systems as well as be ready to respond when/if a system is attacked, compromised, or crashes?

Thoughts?

Excerpt text re: Omega and Super-Omega Numbers
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17022856.400-omega-man.html

Gregory Chaitin, a mathematics researcher at IBM’s T. J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, has shown that mathematicians can’t actually prove very much at all. Doing math, he says, is just a process of discovery like every other branch of science: it’s an experimental field where mathematicians stumble upon facts in the same way that zoologists might come across a new species of primate. Mathematics has always been considered free of uncertainty and able to provide a pure foundation for other, messier fields of science. But math is just as messy, Chaitin says: mathematicians are simply acting on intuition and experimenting with ideas, just like everyone else. Zoologists think there might be something new swinging from branch to branch in the unexplored forests of Madagascar, and mathematicians have hunches about which part of the mathematical landscape to explore. The subject is no more profound than that.

The reason for Chaitin’s provocative statements is that he has found that the core of mathematics is riddled with holes. Chaitin has shown that there are an infinite number of mathematical facts but, for the most part, they are unrelated to each other and impossible to tie together with unifying theorems. If mathematicians find any connections between these facts, they do so by luck. “Most of mathematics is true for no particular reason,” Chaitin says. “Math is true by accident.”

This is particularly bad news for physicists on a quest for a complete and concise description of the Universe. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but even Steven Weinberg, a Nobel prizewinning physicist and author of Dreams of a Final Theory, has swallowed it. “We will never be sure that our final theory is mathematically consistent,” he admits. ... Omega is infinitely long and utterly incalculable. Chaitin has found that Omega infects the whole of mathematics, placing fundamental limits on what we can know. And Omega is just the beginning. There are even more disturbing numbers—Chaitin calls them Super-Omegas—that would defy calculation even if we ever managed to work Omega out. The Omega strain of incalculable numbers reveals that mathematics is not simply moth-eaten, it is mostly made of gaping holes. Anarchy, not order, is at the heart of the Universe.

[... excerpt ...]

But Chaitin already knew that each digit of Omega is random and independent. This could only mean one thing. Because finding out whether a Diophantine equation has a finite or infinite number of solutions generates these digits, each answer to the equation must therefore be unknowable and independent of every other answer. In other words, the randomness of the digits of Omega imposes limits on what can be known from number theory—the most elementary of mathematical fields. “If randomness is even in something as basic as number theory, where else is it?” asks Chaitin. He thinks he knows the answer. “My hunch is it’s everywhere,” he says. “Randomness is the true foundation of mathematics.”

[... excerpt ...]

The fact that randomness is everywhere has deep consequences, says John Casti, a mathematician at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and the Vienna University of Technology. It means that a few bits of maths may follow from each other, but for most mathematical situations those connections won’t exist. And if you can’t make connections, you can’t solve or prove things. All a mathematician can do is aim to find the little bits of maths that do tie together. “Chaitin’s work shows that solvable problems are like a small island in a vast sea of undecidable propositions,” Casti says.

Two New Discussion Papers / Working Drafts Posted

2008-08-10T20:57:00.004-04:00

As a quick update, two new discussion papers have been posted on SSRN that may be of general interest to folks; they are:

1. Collective Intelligence in the Executive Branch: Ten Priority Issues for the Next U.S. President to Consider

2. Collective Intelligence: Promoting Diversity, Crowd Performance Algorithms, and Better Decision Outcomes

As always, feedback welcomed!

S. Korean government takes on "infodemics"

2008-08-03T12:08:00.004-04:00

Below is excerpt from an evolving story of when the collective intelligence of the crowd clashes with what the S. Korean government perceives as correct information/information control. side-note, this was in a large part predicted by Bruce Sterling as part of his 1998 novel "Distraction", http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/17/bruce-sterlings-visi.html

Specifically:
Bruised S. Korean government takes on "infodemics"
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/08/03/asia/OUKWD-UK-KOREA-INTERNET.php

The mass access to the Internet, which helped ex-CEO Lee Myung-bak to his resounding presidential election victory, went on to become the instrument helping shatter that popularity in just five months in office.

Now the government is working on new rules to rein in the excesses of its netizens and bring some control to the information--and disinformation--that bombards the nation's computer screens.

"We have to guard against `infodemics,' in which inaccurate, false information is disseminated, prompting social unrest that spreads like an epidemic," Lee told parliament early in July.

... the article goes on to discuss the government's perspective and proposed solution (creating a Cyber Defamation Law) vs. the public's perspective and response. Should be interesting to watch this play out -- and again, for those who haven't read it, worth reading Bruce Sterling's "Distraction" as a forewarning of what might come within this space.

Ten years from now, imagine political candidates possessing cyber-teams: one team actively seeks to manage all information associated in the blogosphere and wider webspace about their candidate, proactively containing any possible negative spin or information that could be incorrectly misconstrued -- another team actively seeks to misconstrue and exploit all information in the blogosphere and wider webspace about rival candidates, proactively encouraging negative spins or incorrect characterizations that, on the web, take on a force-multiplier effect of anonymous amplification. Potentially a dangerous future indeed.

When Crowdsourcing Fails

2008-07-23T17:58:00.001-04:00

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/12/when-crowdsourcing-fails-cambrian-house-headed-to-the-deadpool/

This supports what we found from the Oxford University 14 case studies -- none of them showed a repeatable magic recipe, instead they grew to meet the needs of their audience and actively listened as to what would get their participants more engaged as a community (and thus working more together as a "crowd").

Crowdsourcing clearly has cases where it works, but also clearly has some crash-and-burn examples (e.g., bigthink.com) ~ poor participation/interaction levels. For this specific case, I found their addendum comments to be the most telling:

'Indeed, our model failed. In short: we became a destination people loved to bookmark more than they loved to actively visit (our traffic pattern was scarily VC-ish). The limiting reagent in the startup equation is not ideas, but amazing founding teams.'

'A key assumption for us, which proved out NOT true: given a great idea with great community support and great market test data, we would be able to find (crowdsource) a team willing to execute it OR we could execute it ourselves. We needed amazing founding teams for each of the ideas – this is where our model fell short.'

'What we learned: it would have been better to back great teams with horrible ideas because most of the heavy lifting kept falling back on us, or a few select community members. A vicious cycle was created leading all of us to get more and more diffuse.'

'Hence: the wisdom of crowds worked well in the model, but it was our participation of crowds aspect which broke down. Trying to find people willing or capable to take on the offspring (our outputs) of the CH model was hard and/or incredibly time consuming.'

Update from Cambridge, MA

2008-07-11T14:33:00.004-04:00

The two post-docs continue to go well. At the Harvard Kennedy School we had a conference on Strategic Management for Chief Information Officers (consisting of several CIO's from state and federal government agencies). In my role, I led one of the afternoon seminar discussions via the Socratic Method. This was followed-up by a conference on Government 2.0 and another on the Future of Unmanned and Robotic Warfare.

At MIT we're pressing forward with the Climatepedia as part of the Center for Collective Intelligence's efforts (which also include the Climate Collaboratorium for collective deliberation regarding climate change issues). I'm also assist Sermo (www.sermo.com) with some of their strategic thoughts as to possible future directions.

As far as contact information while I'm in Cambridge, here's the info:

@Harvard, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/david-bray
@MIT, http://web.mit.edu/bin/cgicso?query=alias%3DD-bray

After mid-August, I then prepare for the move to D.C. Hope everyone's doing well!

2 Videos Regarding Distributed Problem-Solving Networks and Knowledge Ecosystems

2008-06-16T22:36:00.001-04:00

Below are two short video links regarding the visualization of human swarm activity and massive collaboration, an opportunity to actually see a knowledge ecosystem evolve over time:

On generation of Python (1990-present)
http://www.vimeo.com/1093745

On Eclipse (2001-present)
http://www.vimeo.com/1130828

... truly gives a sense of a living, breathing organism.

Remember to Double and Triple-Check the Numbers

2008-06-11T21:01:00.001-04:00

This week I had three experiences back-to-back that left me with a sinking feeling that maybe there is such thing has having too many electronic records – if no one’s taking the time to update them as well as double and triple-check that they’re right.

Case Number 1:

On Monday evening I was attempting to book a 4-night hotel stay in Boston for my parents. I first went to the AAA website, found a good deal, but when I proceeded to book a [specific-hotel-shall-be-unnamed] for that rate, the AAA site said they were having technical difficulties and I should try again later or call during normal business hours for assistance. Well, I then opted to go straight to the hotel’s website itself and see if they would match AAA’s rates (they did). I then telephoned my parents to confirm that they would like the hotel.

Now here’s the kicked: After talking to my parents (who confirmed they would like the hotel) for about ten minutes, my session had timed out so I went back to book the hotel at the rate they had quoted. This time, however, the same exact dates for the AAA rate were quoted as $20/night higher! Surprised at this, I closed my browser session, cleared all my cookies, and tried to book the hotel again for same dates and AAA rate, and now the rate was quoted as $30/night higher! (Only 30 seconds had passed).

Extremely confused as to what was going on, I telephoned the 1-800 number for the [specific-hotel-shall-be-unnamed]. After waiting on hold for about 2 minutes, a representative answered. I gave her the dates and the hotel location I wanted, and she too could only find the $30/night higher rate (not the original one I had found 10 minutes earlier). But then, when she tried to proceed further, she too hit a snag – the computer system wouldn’t let her book for one of those days, even though the computer was saying they were all available. She put me on hold to talk to her supervisor.

During the 6 minute wait, I decided to try again and book through the website for this hotel. This time, it quoted my original rate ($30/night less than the rate I had just seen 8 minutes earlier). For four nights, that added up to a significant amount. Needless to say, I quickly proceeded to book at that rate. When the telephone representative came back, I thanked her for her help and said goodbye.

My thoughts: the computer system must have queued potential reservations against the hotel database, even when the reservation itself had not been completed yet (thus when I checked and then checked again, the hotel’s computer systems tried to up the price as room availability diminished). However the kicker was the implementation, since apparently the “time-out” for the release of the rooms was longer than the browser session’s time-out. In a matter of 20 minutes, I could have potentially paid $80 or $120 more than what I finally did!

Case Number 2:

That same Monday evening, I was looking to book a flight for my wife to fly up from Atlanta to Washington, D.C. We had been watching airline prices for a while, both through Kayak (www.kayak.com) and Farecast (www.farecast.com). Farecast had shown that the airlines seemed to go through periods where it was $219/round-trip for a while, followed by a week-or-so of $393/round-trip for the same period. When we started our search, we had just missed a $219/round-trip session, but Farecast was giving us a 93% probability that fares would fall again. My own research seemed to confirm that, as the airline flights were less than half full for the dates we were considering.

Farecast was also useful in showing us exactly when the airlines seemed to drop the prices back down to $219/round-trip: they had done this three-times in the last 45 days, always on a Tuesday). So when Monday evening changed to Tuesday morning at the stroke of midnight, I went to check. Sure enough, Farecast showed us that the airfares were now down to $219/round-trip. Great!

But when I clicked on the link to the [specific-airline-shall-be-unnamed]’s website, that website was still telling me $393. I chalked this up to a delay in their systems being updated and decided to check again later Tuesday (after grabbing some sleep).

So at 11am, I checked again; clearing my cookies this time. Farecast was showing $219/round-trip with the [specific-airline-shall-be-unnamed]. It was also showing $219/round-trip for the two competitors of this airline. Clicking on the link to their websites confirmed that Farecast was right. If I wanted to, I could book $219/round-trip. But for this [specific-airline-shall-be-unnamed], following the link from Farecast to their specific site still showed $393, as did doing my own search for flights from start-to-finish on their website.

Puzzled, I picked up the telephone and called the 1-800 for the [specific-airline-shall-be-unnamed]. There, I reached a reservations agent and asked what was the cheapest flight from Atlanta to Washington (Dulles) for the dates my wife had in mind. She, too, said that $393 was the cheapest rate, plus a $25 fee if I booked on the telephone. I mentioned that I was looking at Farecast and they were saying the [specific-airline-shall-be-unnamed]’s flights were $219 for the same route and date. She said she wasn’t responsible for that, so I thanked her politely and said goodbye.

Still puzzled, I called my wife and asked her preference of which of the competitors (at $219 vs. $393) I should book. While talking with her, I tried one more time with the [specific-airline-shall-be-unnamed]. Surprise, surprise, it now said $219/round trip for the route and date!

Of course, I immediately booked the airfare (saving $174). Less than 3 minutes had passed since I spoke to the reservations agent about my concern. It wasn’t at the top of the hour (or half hour) so I don’t think it could have been that the system just updated itself. Moreover, how is it that Farecast was “psychic” enough to know that this [specific-airline-shall-be-unnamed]’s flights were going to be $219 even before they did?

My thoughts: the airline had updated its datafeed to external ticketing sources, like Farecast, but hadn’t updated its own internal datafeed on ticket prices. Even the reservation agent was apparently out-of-the-loop as to the lowest prices. If I had booked without calling and persisting, I would have paid $174 more than I finally did.

Case Number 3:

This case is actually a prolonged case that (as of this week) is still on-going. Having wrapped-up my PhD and heading to start my post-docs in Cambridge, my wife and I needed to think about how to make sure there wasn’t a gap in my insurance coverage. She currently has health insurance through her employer, whereas I had student health insurance as a PhD.

Earlier, we had scheduled to add me to her health insurance plan once I graduated (end of May 2008) but we later found out my student health insurance doesn’t officially end its coverage until August 14, 2008. So we wanted to cancel this request before the end of May, so we could save $100/month until mid-August when we would want me to start being covered by her insurance.

Well… stopping the request proved easier said then done. We called the benefits department where my wife works to cancel the health insurance on May 14 and the benefits specialist said she’d have a PeopleSoft person stop the request (the computer system allowed us to log-in and start requests, but didn’t have an option for us to log-in and stop previously submitted requests). That was May 14 and should have been plenty of time to stop a request that wasn’t scheduled to go into effect until May 31.

But a week passed and we still had no notice that the pending request had been stopped; we checked-online and saw it was still there. So we emailed and called my wife’s HR department again on May 21. Again, it would be cancelled. Checked again on May 27, it still hadn’t be cancelled. May 28, May 31. No luck.

So then came June and now the request (that was supposed to be cancelled) needed to be stopped. The benefits person knew we wanted to stop it, but it seemed like no one could get the computer system to override the previous request and rectify the situation. In fact, it’s now mid-June and we’re still working on fixing this.

Conclusion: having all these experiences within a week period makes me a bit wary (and I say this as someone with a PhD in Information Systems) that in the looming Age of Information Overload, we’re also confronting a looming Age of Declining Information Quality. When it comes to dealing with hotels, airline, or insurance purchases, if a customer isn’t persistent enough to double and triple-check the numbers, they can end up paying $120, $174, or more than what the “real” price is in the computer system. But I am concerned this is just the tip of the digital iceberg, what happens with public records, credit card records (I’ve already experienced this), medical records, or other types of records can’t be trusted unless they’re double- and triple-checked? Whereas before we were drowning in paper records, are we now drowing in electronic records of unknown quality and validity?

I guess we’ll all have to stay tuned…?

50th post + "When Virtual Worlds Die..."

2008-05-26T11:10:00.004-04:00

Greetings! So I just noticed this is my 50th post since this blog started during my PhD period. As the PhD is now (fortunately) done and received, I'm not sure how frequently this blog will find itself updated. I may find that I can provide updates during my post-doc period at MIT and Harvard, but after that's done this blog may have to (as gracefully as possible) fade into obscurity as I accept my new position in D.C. ... with the musing in this blog lost to the digital ether.

That said, I did read an interesting story today entitled "When Virtual Worlds Die..."

The article talks about the difficulties Disney found when trying to turn of a relatively small (generally about 1000 users online at a time) sized community, to include an active consumer/citizen response against the turning off of the virtual world to include petitions, angry blog posts, and even a tiny real-world demonstration outside of Disney HQ. More at http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=0D9B7965-17A4-0F78-3165DEAC8BDEBAFE

This is not surprising that turning "off" a virtual world is much harder than turning off a website. With an avatar providing the user a sense of identity as well as presence, turning off the world is a bit akin to turning of who they are in that VW -- not to mention the friendships they formed and possibly any property (home, shopping, etc.) they accumulated in the VW.

Imagine what might happen if Second Life, 4-5 years from now when the technology is clearly past its expiration date, is unable to update its world grid and instead requires turning off the old world and everyone signing up for a new one? Would it be like "The Last Battle" (final book in the Narnia series) where a portal opens and everyone moves to another place? What if Linden Lab decided to give up the VW business and there was no "other place", imagine the outrage in the blogosphere then!

As always, stay tuned...

Web 2.0 Meets Politics: Egyptian Political Dissent Unites Through Facebook

2008-05-07T21:33:00.002-04:00

There’s an interesting example of using Web 2.0 technologies for political mobilization currently occurring in Egypt; I would suggest that examples like this will continue to increase in frequency as “the network of networks” presents an emerging virtual institution (think of it as a potential Fifth Estate) that might challenge other world forces and give voice to networked individuals.

Full article online (snippets of text below) at http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120975285862963213-lMyQjAxMDI4MDA5NTcwNTUyWj.html

Activists Make Use Of New Technology Across Arab World
May 5, 2008

CAIRO, Egypt—Facebook here has evolved into more than just a social-networking Web site: It is one of the latest tools for political dissent in Egypt.

Activists using Facebook spearheaded a call for a day of nationwide strikes Sunday to protest price increases, coinciding with President Hosni Mubarak’s 80th birthday. Their efforts got a boost when the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that is the main political challenger of the government, backed the call, saying the strike promotes peaceful opposition.

But the calls found little response Sunday, as traffic appeared as heavy as usual on the streets of the capital amid beefed-up security. On Facebook, some of the members who supported the strike argued that a recent announcement by Mr. Mubarak that his government would boost public-sector salaries by 30% may have damped support for the call. Still, many of them vowed to continue their activism.

The main Facebook group that called for the strike has more than 74,000 users; topping its demands is a proposal to tie salaries to inflation. Facebook activists urged Egyptians to stay home Sunday and boycott purchases of all commodities—even basic food items like bread—on Sunday, and meat and poultry through Tuesday.

On Facebook, signs similar to online banner ads promoted the strike. The banners often appeared instead of photographs of members. One red banner read: “May 4, a general strike for the people of Egypt.”

The activism on Facebook is part of larger efforts by youths across the Arab world to use technology—from blogs to cellphone text messages to YouTube—to challenge their governments and push the envelope on dissent in ways older generations didn’t know. In parts of the Middle East such as Beirut and Tehran, local governments immediately jam cellphones if there is civil unrest, to prevent it from spreading.

In a sign the government is taking the challenge seriously, Egyptian security forces last month arrested a young woman, Esraa Abdel Fattah, after she had formed a Facebook group to promote a strike on April 6 over inflation.

Her detention, which lasted just over two weeks, won the site more attention. She was accused of urging people to strike, prompting many Facebook users to campaign for her release on the site.
Egyptian officials have taken notice. Tech-savvy Interior Ministry officers browse the social-networking site to keep an eye on anything they may deem a security threat.

Full article at http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120975285862963213-lMyQjAxMDI4MDA5NTcwNTUyWj.html

Knowledge Management Requires Cultivation, Not Commands

2008-04-14T13:18:00.004-04:00

Just returned from several meetings in Boston. Had a chance to connect with the Intellipedia gurus, Don Burke (the Doyen) and Sean Dennehy (the Evangelist). Those gentlemen, in addition to their team, deserve significant kudos for having developed a successful, bottom-up, grassroots system in the face of tremendous internal pressures against their efforts.

Having been in government for a long time myself, I can relate to the resistance towards new, innovative ideas (not to mention successful ideas) and am impressed with the significant culture change they've succeeded in such a small time. Sure, they have an uphill battle yet to go, but they have a strong and significant support base that's continuing to grow. I salute them for their efforts.

Related, and if you will forgive the somewhat person plug, I wanted to pass along a URL from the Knowledge at Emory academic collaboration that might interest folks trying to accomplish bottom-up, grassroots change for organizations confronting turbulent environments:

Knowledge Management Requires Cultivation, Not Commands
http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1132

(... in my, admittedly biased opinion, it's worth a 2 minute read ...)

Link to the Completed Dissertation on Knowledge Ecosystems

2008-03-23T17:37:00.003-04:00

The past few weeks have been a bit busy. Looks like things are a go regarding Boston this summer with the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence and Harvard KSG's Leadership for a Networked World Program.

Here is a link to an official copy of my accepted dissertation on Knowledge Ecosystems. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1016486

... given that my research was on improved collaborations, I equally opted to license the dissertation as open source, so it can be freely redistributed. Comments welcomed!

Particular thanks is extended to Dr. Benn Konsynski at Emory University and Dr. William Dutton at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.

It's Official, PhD Defended, Accepted, and Now Completed

2008-03-09T18:22:00.006-04:00

Just a quick note to relay that I defended my PhD dissertation today entitled "Knowledge Ecosystems: Technology, Motivations, Processes, and Performance" and it was and it was accepted by the committee.

We had a video conference link between Emory University and the University of Oxford, which of course added the chance that something might go wrong -- but fortunately technology came through and I was able to present and satisfactorily answer (apparently) all the questions from the committee. After about a 20 minute wait while the committee discussed my paper, I was greeted by Dr. Benn Konsynski (my adviser) whose first words were "Congratulations Dr. Bray" as he shook my hand.

So the long journey is now completed, and several new ones are just starting. I'll be up in D.C. again this week to meet with an international group of folks interested in energy and environmental security issues and Ashish Soni (from USC) and I will be giving a presentation on Wednesday as part of a day-long event. Should be a lot of fun and lots of interesting discussions.

Also, I've received a formal letter following-up from a telephone conversation I had with Dr. Thomas Malone at MIT's Center for Collective Intelligence (cci.mit.edu) regarding a short post-doc I'll be doing at MIT starting in May on knowledge ecosystems and collective intelligence. I'm also in discussions with Dr. Jerry Mechling at the Kennedy School of Government (at Harvard) on doing some similar post-doc research with his Leadership for a Networked World Program. This will be what I do before I formally start my next full-time career in September in D.C.

I'd like to thank all the professors, friends, and family who supported my dissertation efforts. It is they who motivate me the most to try to make a positive difference in our world.

Oxford Conference + Emory Conference

2008-02-05T23:23:00.000-05:00

So I just returned from our Oxford conference on distributed problem-solving networks and knowledge ecosystems. It was a most engaging two days of exciting discussions on the "findings" from our 8 case studies of DPSN's. The Oxford Internet Institute is planning to have a public version of the conference website available soon.

... in addition, our Emory Conference on "Virtual Worlds and New Realities" is this weekend (Feb 10th and 11th). Should be another two days of exciting discussions on virtual worlds as applied to both business and to government. I'll be leading a panel discussion on Monday specifically on virtual business and virtual government institutions, alongside folks from industry, government, and academia. Details online at:

http://www.halleinstitute.emory.edu/sub-virtual.htm

If folks are interested but haven't signed up, please email us ASAP and we'll strive to include you in the registered events (which are free).

Lastly, here's a link to an interesting Washington Post article on virtual worlds:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503144_pf.html

Spies' Battleground Turns Virtual, Intelligence Officials See 3-D Online Worlds as Havens for Criminals

By Robert O'Harrow Jr.Washington Post Staff WriterWednesday, February 6, 2008; D01

U.S. intelligence officials are cautioning that popular Internet services that enable computer users to adopt cartoon-like personas in three-dimensional online spaces also are creating security vulnerabilities by opening novel ways for terrorists and criminals to move money, organize and conduct corporate espionage.

Over the last few years, "virtual worlds" such as Second Life and other role-playing games have become home to millions of computer-generated personas known as avatars. By directing their avatars, people can take on alternate personalities, socialize, explore and earn and spend money across uncharted online landscapes.

Nascent economies have sprung to life in these 3-D worlds, complete with currency, banks and shopping malls. Corporations and government agencies have opened animated virtual offices, and a growing number of organizations hold meetings where avatars gather and converse in newly minted conference centers.

Intelligence officials who have examined these systems say they're convinced that the qualities that many computer users find so attractive about virtual worlds -- including anonymity, global access and the expanded ability to make financial transfers outside normal channels -- have turned them into seedbeds for transnational threats.

"The virtual world is the next great frontier and in some respects is still very much a Wild West environment," a recent paper by the government's new Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity said.

"Unfortunately, what started out as a benign environment where people would congregate to share information or explore fantasy worlds is now offering the opportunity for religious/political extremists to recruit, rehearse, transfer money, and ultimately engage in information warfare or worse with impunity."

The government's growing concern seems likely to make virtual worlds the next battlefield in the struggle over the proper limits on the government's quest to improve security through data collection and analysis and the surveillance of commercial computer systems.

Google’s Predict and Prevent

2008-01-20T21:50:00.001-05:00

Just back from two days of presentations and meetings with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA). Curiously, was discussing my research into knowledge ecosystems at the same time that Google announced its Predict and Prevent initiative.

In a nutshell, Google’s Predict and Prevent initiative (http://google.org/predict.html) aims to "use information and technology to empower communities to predict and prevent emerging threats before they become local, regional, or global crises". It’s initial focus "will be on emerging infectious diseases, which are on the rise worldwide. Climate change, urbanization, and rising international travel and trade all contribute to this threat".

The initiative "supports two inter-related pathways from prediction to prevention. The first is vulnerability mapping and identification of "hot spots." The second, creating systems to better detect threats to provide early warning and enable a rapid response". In the Grants & Investment support activity Google has funded, amongst others, the Clark Labs of Clark University "to support the development of a system to improve monitoring, analysis and prediction of the impacts of climate variability and change on ecosystems, food, and health in Africa and the Amazon".

... it's exciting to see something you've spent so long researching come to the forefront of application and innovation. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg for Google and other organizations interested in leveraging knowledge technologies and bottom-up, ecosystem-like approaches to transform how they operate and respond to a changing environment.

Stay tuned! :)

Quick Update On the Research Front

2008-01-15T17:31:00.000-05:00

(1) Will be heading up to D.C. to meet with several folks and present on "knowledge ecosystems" this week

(2) Our plans for the "Distributed Problem-Solving Networks" conference at the Oxford Internet Institute are moving forward; I'll be giving a talk on 31 January -- details here http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/events/details.cfm?id=174

(3) Additionally, our plans for the "Virtual Worlds and New Realities in Commerce, Politics, and Society" are also full-steam ahead, with the public conference scheduled for 11 February

(4) Benn Konsynski and I are continuing discussions with folks at the CDC on their BioPHusion effort, aimed at a bottom-up, grassroots approach to knowledge exchanges... would be nice to see my PhD dissertation translated into practice so soon, and with a great benefit to improved collaborations in public health

More later as I have a chance to surface :)

Virtual Worlds and New Realities Conference - February 11th

2007-12-21T15:22:00.000-05:00

Just a quick heads-up, on February 11th 2008, we (Emory University) will be hosting a conference on "Virtual Worlds and New Realities" at the Goizueta Business School. This will be co-sponsored by Halle Institute at Emory University, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, as well as some other major corporations.

In addition to discussion of this emerging technology and its organizational and social implications, this will be a great way to meet some academics from several fields, not just business -- but also political science, international studies, educational sciences, sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, and more.

Draft announcement here... stay tuned:
http://www.halleinstitute.emory.edu/invitations/VirtualWorlds/VirtualWorlds.htm

Re: Strategic Intelligence Knowledge Ecosystem on Energy and Environmental Security

2007-12-12T09:52:00.000-05:00

A few quick updates:

Currently in Montreal, wrapping-up at the 2007 International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), where I was fortunate enough to be nominated for the “best paper” award with my study of managing knowledge in turbulent environments. In addition, I had a unique opportunity to serve on a small panel with folks from Linden Lab, IBM, and academic discussing virtual worlds for research, virtual business, and virtual government. We had a packed house, standing room only -- with probably 220-240 people filling the room!

In addition, remember the eclectic group of people (self included) that met in Glasgow in November 2007? Well, we now have a working whitepaper out on the topic of:

Enabling Strategic Intelligence on Energy and Environmental Security Impacts and Consequences

The paper is available online here:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1069129

… and we would like your helpful comments and feedback on our ideas. Several group members wanted to remain anonymous for various reasons, however you can email me and I’ll make sure your emails reach the greater group for consideration.

Lastly, now to begin to think about where I’ll “go” post-PhD-final-dissertation defense… hmm… need a place with a ‘cause’ and a mission… hmm...

Happy holidays to all!

Demonstration of Using "Thought" to Navigate Second Life

2007-11-28T01:32:00.000-05:00

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews;_ylt=ArSDN4Ufmxq9DA5NxgZ3SCFk24cA?ch=4226721&cl=5210885&lang=en','playerWindow','width=793,height=608,scrollbars=no'

... it's here and working now. Next on the horizon: group augmented cognition.

Related to this is the idea of the "Fifth Estate" ... the Internet and Web are creating a new space for networking people, information and other resources. This network of networks has the potential to become an important 'fifth estate' which could support greater accountability in politics and the media. It could also have a much wider role in opening up to greater social accountability other institutional arenas, from everyday life to specialist fields like science.

http://webcast.oii.ox.ac.uk/?view=Webcast&ID=20071015_208

Dissertation Defense and Oxford Public Conference in Early 2008

2007-11-21T14:26:00.000-05:00

So two significant updates from the last month. First, the plan is now to defend the final in February 2008, which will mean I'll be graduating a year early. This also means the search for "what's next" after graduation has begun. I'm primarily looking at either returning to government service of some sort -- or of a hybrid government-strategic researcher capacity, focused on extending my existing research into knowledge ecosystems and distributed problem solving networks.

As for the second piece of news, the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford will be having a public conference on distributed problem solving networks Jan 31st-Feb 1st. This is great because it coincides with my dissertation research almost perfectly and also because they've asked me to present at the conference. I'm cut-and-pasting some preliminary details below for interested individuals. Feel free to email me if you have additional questions or comments.

The Performance of Distributed Problem Solving Networks; Original Project Duration: August 2007 - February 2008

This research project focuses on the performance of technology-enabled forms of 'distributed problem solving' involved in the co-creation of products and services (ranging from Wikipedia to the Grid and Open Source software development). Managers in the public and private sectors recognize the potential of these developments for the future of work in a network society, but are uncertain of how to judge their performance. This project seeks to develop a framework and approach to assessing their performance over time and in relation to the goals of multiple actors involved in their development, implementation and use.

The Project Team

Principal Investigator: Professor Bill Dutton, OII, University of Oxford
Co-Principal Investigator: Professor Paul David, OII, Research Fellow and Stanford University

Project Manager and Researcher: Wolf Richter, OII

Distributed Research Team

· David Bray, Emory University
· Jean-Michel Dalle, Université Paris VI
· Aldo Geuna, Univ. of Sussex
· Matthijs den Besten, Oxford e-Research Centre
· Karen Croxson, Dept of Economics, Univ. of Oxford
· Felix Reed-Tsochas, James Martin Institute
· Irene Cassarino, Polytechnic of Turin
· Max Loubser, OII, Oxford
· Philipp Tuertscher, University of St. Gallen

Overview

This study focuses on indicators of performance outcomes of distributed problem solving networks, and factors that shape these levels of performance.

The level of success achieved by some networks has generated interest in the development of distributed problem solving networks a address a growing array of problems. However, the apparent success of distributed networks has been a matter of contention, such as with the widely public debate over the relative merits of Wikipedia vs. proprietary encyclopedias. However, there is no systematic approach that can be generally applied to measuring the performance of these networks. Given the many questions that have been raised about the relative merit of market-oriented 'proprietary' modes of problem solving vs. more 'open' non-market approaches, for example, a general approach to understanding the performance of distributed problem solving networks could be useful to a wide range of managers and professionals.

More at http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/

Leaving For a Week in the U.K.

2007-11-02T12:17:00.000-04:00

I'll soon be leaving for another week in the U.K., first to meet with the Oxford Internet Institute and present two papers, then for a unique meeting in Glasgow with an eclectic group of thinkers.

Not much to update, the dissertation is moving along -- and I recently turned 30 (I don't really feel any particular age, to be honest). The question of what's next, post-graduation, is beginning to materialize.

Recently thought a bit about the abundance of personally identifying information floating out there for all of us, it's amazing that "identity theft" or fraud isn't more common. With it becoming cheaper and cheaper for small companies (and individuals) to gather information on someone, is there any recourse to making sure someone does not pretend to be us? I try not to give out my SSN and other personal info, but it is amazing how many government forms require it, and once you send that through the mail, you're trusting several (unknown) parties to keep it secure -- regardless of the Internet!

I also try to annually review my credit report (once found incorrect information on the report claiming that I had filed for bankruptcy in 2002... that took about six months to have TransUnion correct the error). A lot of these systems are automated, so who's watching the watchers -- both to make sure that they don't abuse the information they collect, as well as to make sure the information they do collect and aggregate is, in fact, valid?

Jimmy Carter visits our educational island in Second Life

2007-10-18T19:38:00.001-04:00

So Benn Konsynski had an interesting lunch today -- a faculty meeting with Jimmy Carter and few others. They discussed many things, including virtual worlds and immersion technologies.

This culminated with Jimmy Carter visiting our startup island in Second Life (SIMsim) with has a center for Virtual Business (V-BIZ) and Virtual Government (V-GOV) research.

Photos attached of the "First President on SIMsim" - our educational island in Second Life.

Our Upcoming Conference on Virtual Worlds at Emory University

2007-10-13T14:28:00.000-04:00

Two updates of importance:

(1) On February 10th and 11th, we will be hosting a Conference on "Virtual Worlds, New Realities" at Emory University. Benn Konsynski, Holli Semetko, and I will be serving as co-chairs.

(2) Dissertation proposal successfully defended. The home stretch is drawing closer!

As for the conference, interested individuals are invited to contact us if they're like to participate. Everyone is welcome and we're hoping to invite a few select guest speakers to speak during the events.

Yesterday I was asked as to my thoughts about the current course we're teaching on Virtual Worlds to a group of undergraduate and graduate students. The course connects with the future conference. Off hand, I'd say that the course and planned conference "Virtual Worlds, New Realities" grew out an initial paper that Benn Konsynski and I wrote about a year ago on the history of Virtual Worlds, to demonstrate that they're not a new phenomenon (despite the recent media attention), but really a steady progression of technology-enabled, social communities over the last twenty years. As the enabling technology of VW's has become mainstream, their growth has increased exponentially.

(side note, our paper is available online, through the Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=745562 ... our Virtual Worlds, Virtual Economies, Virtual Institutions paper has made several "Top Ten Lists" for most downloaded/viewed paper in the last nine months)

It was then in about February or March of 2006 that I introduced Benn Konsynski to Holli Semetko. I had met Holli in 2005, when I was talking about my research into how the lines between government and business organizations were increasingly becoming blurred, particularly with regards to sharing information and knowledge between the public and private sectors. Holli had mentioned possibly hosting a conference on this subject, or a similar topic, through Emory's Halle Institute (http://www.halleinstitute.emory.edu/). Thus, when I introduced Holli to Benn, it was initially with the idea of hosting a conference on Virtual Worlds and their application to both business and government. Later, in addition to agreeing to host a conference at Emory this February 2008 on Virtual Worlds, we also agreed to teach a course for both political science and business students on VW's. As I'm completing my PhD, I serve as the Teaching Assistant for the course and Benn, Holli, and I will be co-chairs for the Virtual Worlds conference at Emory.

Thus, as to how this type of class will help either business or political science students -- I think it will help them realize the definitions of commerce, politics, and organizations are mutable and open to both change and redefinition. In virtual worlds, we have already seen examples where organizations started in the virtual world were so successful at attracting either customers or supports, they later leapt "out" of virtual worlds and into the real world where they continue to succeed. Equally, we've seen real world organizations be successful through their virtual presence in virtual worlds. However not all virtual or real world cross-overs succeed, so it's worth examining what makes one foray into virtual worlds succeed while another one fails? It's also helpful for the students to think about how they, as future leaders, would try to redefine either commerce, politics, or another element of our human lives through combined virtual and real-world strategies.

As for the future, I would suggest there's not going to be just one virtual world where everyone participates. There will be several virtual worlds with different rules of physics, interactions, and participation. You, as an individual, will be free to move between these worlds as you like -- insomuch that you agree to the rules of those worlds. Some rules will require you to reveal parts of your real-world identity, it return for benefits such as safer sales transactions or knowing who you're truly interacting with in that particular virtual world. Other worlds will be anonymous or fanciful, with benefits associated with those aspects as well. In several ways, a metaverse of virtual worlds will be like surfing between web sites, except three-dimensional and much more immersive in nature. Moreover, what's interesting to consider is how more immersive experiences will help us search, find, and comprehend information in a richer manner than just reading text. We know from research that most people don't wade past the first page of Google search results, and even then most people don't read past the first five listed website. We, as a society, need better ways to adapt and cope with an ever-increasing volume of knowledge being created, and perhaps virtual worlds will be one part of the puzzle to address these 21st century challenges.

As always, feedback is welcomed on these ideas!

Dissertation Proposal to be Presented, 10 October @ 9:30am

2007-10-01T22:20:00.000-04:00

So I'll be presenting my Dissertation Proposal on 10 October, a year early.

Title: Knowledge Ecosystems: Technology, Motivations, Processes, and Performance

Abstract: The overall theme of my dissertation both explores and contrasts existing knowledge management (KM) literature within the information systems (IS) field -- which frequently views knowledge as a intangible asset capable of being managed -- with additional literature from social dilemmas, organizational behavior, and complex adaptive systems which suggest knowledge cannot be specifically managed. Instead, by employing extant literature, I suggest that that technology alongside incentives, normative values, and competence-based trust can provide influential motivations for human actors to share and reuse knowledge intra- and inter-organizationally.

Rather than refer to this bottom-up (i.e., grassroots) approach as knowledge management per se, I suggest organizational leaders can instead work to cultivate a knowledge ecosystem. In such instances, leaders of an organization can indirectly encourage knowledge sharing and reuse through a combination of aggregated knowledge technologies, organizational structure, human motivations, and knowledge processes -- ultimately impacting organizational performance. Demonstrating the links between technology, motivations, knowledge processes, and organizational performance will be one of the principle contributions of my dissertation to IS and KM literature.

More Online @ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=745562

On the subject of Metaverses and Wikis

2007-09-23T13:12:00.000-04:00

Flu Wiki is an interesting example of how organizations (government or corporate) can use a wiki to interface with their "customers" on an important issue.

Flu Wiki, about: http://www.fluwikie.com/pmwiki.php?n=About.About
Flu Wiki main page www.fluwikie.com
Flu Wiki forum http://www.newfluwiki2.com/frontPage.do
Citizen's guide http://www.newfluwiki2.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1368

Also of note, is http://metaplace.com/ ... which might bring about the idea of a "metaverse" spanning multiple virtual worlds that we've been hypothesizing for quite some time. In addition, it might be the forerunner of a 3D web browsing experience. Users will not need to download any special software to engage in their respective virtual spaces; the service is hosted, so everything happens inside a browser.

More at: http://www.cnet.com/8301-13641_1-9783170-44.html

On the subject of Augmented Cognition (Toys Become Tools)

2007-09-08T17:11:00.000-04:00

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are being tested as virtual controllers for video games, but scientists are concerned that the games may end up controlling the user.

Although the technology has been successfully tested with quadriplegics, scientists worry that its use for casual entertainment could cause gamers to experience the effects of neurofeedback, a technique that heightens awareness and control of brain waves by providing real-time graphic representation of the user's brain wave activity similar to how physiological information can be used to control a patient's blood pressure, skin temperature, and heart rate in a process known as biofeedback.

Smart BrainGames has developed a racing game that requires users to be calm to reach optimum speed, but the game is intended only for medical purposes and the FDA has approved the device only for relaxation and "muscle re-education."

For more details, see http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2007/09/bci_games

Regarding Mind for Modern Times (and Constant Change)

2007-08-29T20:21:00.000-04:00

Interesting excerpt from a HBS book that suggests modernity requires specific cognitive traits in individuals to ensure success in a global society marked by constant change:

- a disciplined mind
- a synthesizing mind
- a creating mind
- a respectful mind
- an ethical mind

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdcis/is_200708/ai_n19427158

Live from the U.K. WEEK 9: Distributed Problem-Solving Networks (to be continued...)

2007-08-13T00:56:00.000-04:00

So the Oxford Internet Institute has invited me back to do a presentation on two examples of "knowledge ecosystems" (namely www.sermo.com and www.seriosity.com, check them out!) as Distributed Problem-Solving Networks. The case studies should be wrapped-up by December in time for a public forum on the subject at the OII.

In the meanwhile, this is probably the last "LIVE from the U.K." post, for the summer at least, I'll be doing before returning to Atlanta. As such, I thought I'd post some information on these two examples of knowledge ecosystems for folks to consider:

www.sermo.com = Sermo (Latin for “conversation”) represents a new business model that enables an authenticated community of physicians to both contribute and filter professional knowledge. Community members of Sermo can post questions and provide answers to their medical peers. Sermo represents an authenticated, closed-community which actually pays for postings and generates revenue from the collective knowledge of its members. To date, Sermo has demonstrated value by reporting unexpected side-effects of new drugs, as well as reporting potential disease outbreaks early to public health agencies.

www.seriosity.com = Seriosity attempts to provide a successful online collaborative environment by translating elements from online games to the workplace. Seriosity takes the idea of a virtual currency, common in online games as well as online worlds like Second Life, and applies it to corporate email. The company released a beta version of an email add-on called Attent which allows employees to assign one another “Serios,” the currency in Attent, for ideas, completing tasks and so on, and use them to help distinguish their email from normal corporate spam. Over time, Attent users can gain not only Serios but also badges of excellence for, say, linking engineering and marketing, much as public skills rankings are widely used in online multiplayer games. Others in the company can see the badges, and presumably tap those people for help when they need it. The hope with Attent is that companies can assign value to the collaborative aspects of work.

Lastly, though it's not exactly a "knowledge ecosystem" per se, the folks at www.swanisland.net have done some really exciting work on secure information sharing among peers across distributed networks. I've been following their Trusted Information Exchange Service (TIES) for some time and found it a compelling solution for either government agencies or business alliances which want to securely exchange knowledge and maintain an audit trail. TIES is one example of thinking outside-of-the-box to create practical solutions that align with what organizations need to do, yet still maintain appropriate security controls.

Well, that's it for me (for now from the U.K.)... more to come upon re-entry into the States. In the meanwhile, feel free to send me an email about any of the posts here or offer feedback on any of my papers on SSRN, http://ssrn.com/author=745562

Live from the U.K. WEEK 8: Photos from the Oxford Internet Institute

2007-08-06T05:12:00.000-04:00

This week's post is primarily visual in nature vs. textural. I've spent several weeks at the Oxford Internet Institute giving talks and lectures on "knowledge ecosystems" at Oxford and around the U.K. Bill Dutton (the Director), Karen Croxson, and I have formed a research team, and I've been charged with taking the lead on two case studies of "distributed problem solving networks" to be presented in December. More details to come on these cases.
Included are four photos from one of the several talks I gave while at the OII. In the second photo, Bill's in the top-left, Karen's in the lower-left, and I'm next to Bill; other folks from the OII are also present.
I'd also like to thank the people who made this trip possible -- namely Rotary Internation (as I'm a Rotary Ambassadorial Scholar to the U.K.) This includes Sandra Urban at Rotary International, all the members of the Brookhaven Rotary Club in Atlanta, GA (including Bill Smith, my sponsoring mentor) and all the members of the Marlow Thames Rotary Club here in the U.K. (including Ian Campbell, my host mentor).
I'd also like to thank the OII itself and the Goizueta Business School of Emory University. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, my wife Diane -- who accompanied me to the U.K. and supports me in all that I do.

We'll be returning to the U.S. at the end of August.

Live from the U.K. WEEK 7: Looking Towards 2015, Addressing the Challenges of Information Entropy

2007-07-30T09:47:00.000-04:00

If life, at the most basic level, defies entropy insomuch that life is self-organizing and maintains a relatively ordered pattern of structure and behaviors that embody a living lifeform – then Internet, so far, is not alive. Instead, I suggest that information, on either public or private networks, represents “non-living” and (for the most part) non-ordered structures. I would call this “webntropy”. Yes, XML allows some structure to data and UML some structure to design, but all of these do little to enable information to organize itself. We still depend on human beings to expend energy to create order from the entropy of information on networks, and as the Second Law of Thermodynamics informs us, expending energy to remedy entropy actually creates more entropy elsewhere within a closed system (Hawking, 2001, The Universe in a Nutshell).

Fast-forwarding ten to fifteen years from now, I suggest we will confront an era where simply too much information will exist on networks for us to rely on human participants to filter, organize, and sort through this information a la the Web 2.0 more, even if everyone on the planet played a role. Moreover, human beings have inherent cognitive biases (as an example within an example or mise-en-scène, Wikipedia lists more than 30 cognitive biases to humans; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases). Humans make decision-making and behavioral biases, biases in probability and belief, social biases, and memory errors. Thus, we cannot rely on a Web 2.0 model of humans providing “intelligence” to our relatively unsmart networks. We’ll need something better – something self-organizing outside of human input.

As such, I suggest that a “smart” network, at its most basic level, should be self-organizing. My conjectures echo similar conjectures by John Seely Brown. Specifically: the content of a smart network should be self-organizing. Linked data, information, and knowledge, embodied by the web, will need to know what it is and be able to learn more about what it is both internally and externally in relation to other data and information elements, through interaction with other elements. This is how we, as humans, live and learn as individuals (and as societies) through iterative, interactive experiences. Current information systems are limited, as they cannot rapidly adapt to turbulent situations or new environments. To organize itself more efficiently, the web will need to be self-organizing and self-improving (i.e., alive).

Yes, on one level, Internet packets do organize themselves to a degree. Yet they still are following rules written by humans and I would suggest we need to go much further in allowing packets to decide for themselves not only how to route and arrive at their destination, but enable information to achieve some degree of “knowing itself” and perceiving its environment, particularly unfamiliar environment and unfamiliar other selves outside of itself. That said, I harbor hope that the small degree of indeterminism we have been able to achieve with routing Internet packets can be carried over toward future, more advanced pursuits of self-organization. Currently, I cannot tell you the specific route any packet will take on a mesh network until it has taken it, nor can I be sure it will repeat the same path again under different environmental traffic conditions – in the future, I envision information as being able to find related information, interested human consumers, as well as remix itself to assemble wholly new structures and designs.

Newsweek Covering Virtual Worlds

2007-07-24T10:37:00.000-04:00

Newsweek will be doing an issue covering "Virtual Worlds" for the July 30th issue; here are some interesting links:

China's (Controlled) Virtual World - China's answer to Second Life is in the works, but faces censors and other hurdles its American rival never will.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19887681/site/newsweek/

Why Millions Are Living Virtual Lives Online
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19876812/site/newsweek/

Live from the U.K. WEEK 6: Homo sapiens' Role (with Information Systems) in Increasing Information Entropy

2007-07-23T06:26:00.000-04:00

Fast-forward the history of evolutionary biology on our planet to the most recent developments of a certain species known as Homo sapiens and we see communication moving beyond just physical, visual, and auditory methods between two organisms occupying the same place and time. This species actually develops methods of communicating information (thereby attempting to re-create knowledge) across organisms that are either geographically or temporally dispersed. With cuniform and subsequent technological advances, an ability known as writing and literacy occurred within this curious species, which also developed tools such as clay tablets and blunt reed stylus to store these asynchronous communication attempts. Several hundred years later, and humans launched the next wave of writing 2.0 technology, featuring papyrus, wedged quills, and a chemical known as ink.

Broadly, Homo sapiens began to employ tools not only for physically reshaping their environment to better suit their needs, but also to relay cognitive thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. A revolution later occurs for Homo sapiens when one in particular, by the name of Johannes Gutenberg develops a technology capable of transcribing asynchronous communications quickly and allowing multiple copies from a master. Subsequent versions of this technology include mimeographs and xerography. In parallel, the telegraph, phonograph, and telephone are added to these suites of communication technologies.

With these advances, it is worth considering what was “lost” in the move from chemical and physical, to subsequent visual and auditory, and later to asynchronous visual and auditory tool-based communication. With writing 1.0 and subsequent revisions, absent were either the chemical or physical cues present in human communication. While humans employ tools for inter-individual cognition (with the goal of sharing information in attempts to re-create knowledge), each of these tools has strengths and weaknesses in achieving this goal. Each tool may limit or enhance the information sent when compared to a single human communicating with another human face-to-face.

On a serious note, such a view of human cognition and communications is not new and does have a strong bearing on information systems. Winograd and Flores (1987, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design) discuss the opportunities posed by computers and human cognition. Their book centers on how best to design computers to complement and extend human cognitive abilities, discussing the rationalistic orientation toward language, decision-making, and problem solving while also recognizing cognition as a biological phenomenon.

The events that followed Winograd and Flores demonstrate the complementarities between information systems and human cognition. Having developed television 1.0 (representing a bundled offering of telephone and film technologies), Home sapiens then developed a technology known as the Internet. Brief side-note, the early origins of Internet technologies are directly linked to fears that humans might leverage their smarts to create weapons of mass destruction that eventually destroy their species.

When a layer of Internet technologies commonly referred to as “the web” were first employed by academics, these cognitive tools were seen as an extension of Johannes Gutenberg’ printing press technology. The web was text that could be navigated through links. Yet the goal of the web was the same, to share and reuse information. Later audio and video entered the Internet, representing extensions of television 1.0, and then the concept of massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs) and virtual worlds, representing computer-mediated extensions of human interactions with other humans (or dragons, trolls, or furries for that matter). With the ever-increasing immersive nature of the Internet, more and more dimensions of communication (asynchronous text, auditory, real-time visual) were added to this technology.

At the same time, a figurative explosion of information occurred. In the human year 1900 A.D., there were 9,000 scientific articles published that year. Fifty years later, there were 90,000 and by 2000 A.D. there were 900,000 scientific articles published in that year. The general empowerment of individuals to create, remix, and distribute information increased as well, with TIME Magazine recognizing every human individual (i.e., “you”) as the 2006 Person of the Year an embodying an accelerating trend where anyone can find, analyze, produce, and remix various media on the Internet. This also created entropy on the Internet. With the rise of digital tools to communicate in various fashions, so too emerged the volumes of digital clutter, chatter, and confusion on the web.

Live from the U.K. WEEK 5: Examples of Knowledge Ecosystems and Distributed Problem Solving Tools

2007-07-16T08:01:00.000-04:00

Greetings! Of late, I've had a couple of opportunities to talk with Bill Dutton (Director of the Oxford Internet Institute) on the idea of distributed problem solving tools. I quickly realized his investigation complemented my own into knowledge ecosystems. From our conversations, there were concrete examples of these that we thought might be useful to include in case studies. Right now the list is tentative -- and we're open to other suggestions of web-based platforms we could investigate:

Sermo (www.sermo.com) enables an authenticated community of physicians to both contribute and filter professional knowledge. Community members of Sermo can post questions and provide answers to their peers. General discussion of best practices can also occur. Sermo represents a closed-community which actually pays members for postings that received “votes” from participating members on their importance and/or interest, with the amounts reflecting what clients of the company are willing to pay for the information on the specific subject matter.

Diggs News (www.digg.com) is a proprietary “platform” that is open for unedited content submission: it collects news stories submitted by individuals and firms, and related questions and comments from readers, and displays these in real time, permitting users to study the distribution of user interest among the stories – relying on “the wisdom of crowds.” The business model of the site seems to be based on building traffic that will permit selling advertising, and, possibly, providing some results of analysis of “diggs” client firms that regularly post news releases in special categories.

Seriosity (www.seriosity.com) attempts to provide a successful online collaborative environment by translating elements from online games to the workplace. Seriosity takes the idea of a virtual currency, common in online games as well as online worlds like Second Life, and applies it to corporate email. The company released a beta version of an email add-on called Attent which allows employees to assign one another "Serios" (the currency in Attent) for ideas, completing tasks and so on, and use them to help distinguish their email from normal corporate spam. Over time, Attent users can gain not only Serios but also badges of excellence for linking engineering and marketing, much as public skills rankings are widely used in online multiplayer games.

Google MyMaps (maps.google.com) extends the existing capabilities of Google map to allow "mashups" of content created by other individuals. Similar to a geographical version of Wikipedia, individuals can add and revise shared maps, made either public or kept private. For organizations spread across geography or with different functional divisions, the new features of MyMaps can allow collaborative visualization of different activities or customers. MyMaps has the possibility of allowing identification of ideal sales or advertisement areas for businesses, response or intervention activities for government agencies.

Update - eWeek Magazine (Ziff-Davis) has taken an interest...

2007-07-14T10:22:00.000-04:00

As a quick update, eWeek Magazine (Ziff-Davis) has taken an interest in this discussions on this blog. I'll post more in-depth discussion here, but also some conversations on their website to hopefully stimulate comments from a larger audience of both corporate and government professionals. Here's the link:

http://blogs.eweek.com/up_for_discussion/

... as always, comments and feedback are most welcomed!

Live from the U.K. WEEK 4: Governance and Information Systems in the Early 21st Century

2007-07-09T16:17:00.000-04:00

I had a great opportunity to meet with Al Dunn and Bruce Weber of the London Business School last Friday. We had a great conversation about governance and information systems, particularly the shape and form of government in the 21st century.

As for my thoughts, I believe that for both the U.S. and U.K. (among other countries) privization of government functions and outsourcing of personnel seem to be growing trends. Thus, with any solution to exchange knowledge through information system-enabled collaborations, the role of contractors vs. government full-time employees (FTE's) must be considered equally. Where should contractors they fit in any role-based system? Should they have equal access as FTE's? And as parts of gov't increasingly become outsourced, how would that affect the interests of government workers (FTE's vs. contractors) with access to data that spans multiple agencies? My own research shows that gov't contracting personnel have different normative values to sharing knowledge vs. govt employees.

Further, I'd like to tell you that my 12+ years in gov't shows that government does act on behalf of the interest of the people... but I fear that's the ideal, embodied in about 20% of the "true believers" present. There's another 40% (approx.) that it's just about earning a paycheck, and finally another 40% were it *is* about personal gain or power-seeking. That said, such a pattern is nothing new... the Founding Fathers actually foresaw the same exact problem and described it quite accurately in the Federalist papers:

"... the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others... Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." (see http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm)

So the question to consider with governance and information is who's being empowered (i.e., role-based may be good, but ultimately someone has to be the role-granter/gatekeeper) and what are the counteracting forces that will hopefully "balance" the consolidation of too much power into any such role as such a IS-empowered gatekeeper, because while we would like for altruistic, sharing people to occupy such administrative roles... if the roles have too much power, they'll attract instead members of that other 40% where it *is* about personal gain and power-seeking.

"... It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary... In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Information systems allow for role-based control, but such control can be dual-edged... either allowing more control (for the power-hungry) or greater democratizing control either within government or shared between government and the public in terms of accountability and transparency. What's to encourage the an IS-empowered gatekeeper/switch role to control the granting of roles/switched correctly?

With information systems, does the aggregation and centralization of so much information authority create with it great temptation for either abuses or empire-building? If so, what alternative mechanisms can be placed to discourage such (non-desired) behaviors? I'd suggest organizations concerned with 21st century governance start with the premise that to be human is to be self-interested (most are 'programmed' that way)... you will have about 20% of "true believers" who are altruistic in any organization and will see beyond their own selfish ends, but you will be incredibly lucky if you get more than that percentage. That said, information systems do provide opportunities to provide/remove cues that help tilt the balance toward more collaborative (even unknowingly collaborative) behaviors. More on that next week...

Live from the U.K. WEEK 3: Leveraging Lessons From Terrorism Preparedness and Response to Inform Knowledge Ecosystems

2007-07-02T07:08:00.000-04:00

Have you ever tried to use a computer, when a subcomponent – perhaps the video card, RAM, or CPU – was faulty? To you, as the user of the computer system, it did not matter that an individual subcomponent had failed and that other subcomponents were working. The failure of one subcomponent was sufficient to interfere with the successful operation of the entire system.

With the modern age, we live in a world surrounded by systems. Our homes are connected to gas, water, and electrical systems that link to other homes. Our daily commute exposes us to systems of highways and public transportation. At our jobs, most of us belong to an organization comprised of multiple workers, interdependent in our tasks to perform. Young children are part of a larger education system, what we buy and sell comprise a larger economic system, and all of us depend on the healthcare system when we fall ill.

Behind all of these human systems is another system – our system of government. This article advances the view of our government as an information processing system that monitors, regulates, funds, and provides certain services. Government, as an information processing system, influences other human systems at local, state, and national levels. However, what if one of the subcomponents comprising our system of government fails?

Recall recent events, incorrect estimates of the Al-Qaeda threat prior to the 9/11 attacks, failing to apprehend the culprit behind the anthrax events of 2001, inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Repeat investigations and comprehensive certifications by the U.S. General Accountability Office all report the same theme: more than sufficient knowledge existed to mitigate these events, but the knowledge was in a highly distributed and fragmented form across multiple departments, agencies, and the White House.

From these events, I'd suggest one strong lesson that *both* government and corporate organizations can leverage is this: with increasing frequency, the global problems we confront represent situations where no one individual harbors sufficient knowledge to either mitigate negative outcomes or capitalize on positive opportunities. To be successful, be it in terms of terrorism preparedness or adapting to changing world markets, inter-individual exchanges must transcend physical group proximity, social networks, and institutions themselves. Ergo, we need to foster knowledge ecosystems.

Next week I'll cite some early examples of such approaches; in the interim, comments by email or on this blog are welcomed.

Q&A: UK terror investigation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6253802.stm

Short Videos to Help Newcomers re: Knowledge Ecosystems

2007-06-25T14:07:00.000-04:00

To recap some short videos to help newcomers on the subject of knowledge ecosystems; visit the following (note, they are also all available for educational reuse):

Live from the U.K. WEEK 2: Knowledge Ecosystems and Virtual Worlds, Do National Borders Matter in an Internet-Enabled (Real) World?

2007-06-25T13:06:00.000-04:00

Greetings! I've had the opportunity to give several talks in Manchester and Oxford last week. This allowed me to crystallize my thoughts about knowledge ecosystems and virtual worlds, as I see these as complementing each other with increasing frequency moving forward.

First, let me answer some practical questions asked regarding knowledge ecosystems how can they be cultivated? I'd suggest three points to consider: (1) establish opportunities, (2) motivate behaviors, and (3) enact protocols; that is, give people opportunity, motive, and method. Opportunities include spanning divisions and organizations, as well as surpassing perceptions of "turf". Motivations include rewarding knowledge sharing, reuse, and collaborations. Finally, protocols include practice and evaluation (and then more practice) as well as allowing for flexibility and unknowns. With protocols, organizations need to avoid ossification of routines.

Now, consider for a moment virtual worlds as a technology. Some might suggest they're just video conferencing, but I'd suggest they're different as you can transcend physical appearance (you don't have to look like you do in the real-world, don't even have to look human for that matter). Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be a human at the other end. The U.S. Army is using a virtual avatar by the name of Sgt. Starr to recruit. The avatar talks to and answers questions of interested individuals as if it were human, but it's really a smart computer program. Since it's a computer program, Sgt. Starr can "talk" (using predictive text matching on the questions people answer) to 100+ people at the same time and record all the conversations for later.

Virtual worlds (VW’s) are also more immersive than teleconferencing, in addition to the ability for worlds to "exist" long after a conference is over (so other people... or computer programs... can come-and-go within the space). Therein their connection to knowledge ecosystems, VW's can help overcome the friction associated among different group identities, divisional fragmentation, and political "turf" issues. VW’s can assist in cultivating knowledge ecosystems for inter-agency collaborations and alliances.

However, like all technologies, they're dual-sided with potential for both good and bad uses. Illegal activities are quite possible in VW's. In fact, the FBI has been reported using agents (who navigate Second Life as "plain-clothes avatars) to investigate the extent of online gambling in Second Life. Since a virtual world doesn't really "exist" anywhere per se, is it illegal for individual to gamble in a virtual world? And if the FBI starts cracking down on this online activity, will virtual worlds simply move their servers to remote islands and start encrypting their communications with a "members-only" policy for invitees.

Which leads to a more important question: do national borders matter in an Internet-enabled world? Obviously they will continue to suggest some, but I think the increasing paradigm shift is that physical borders will increasingly matter less in the next 5-10 years, whereas borders will soon be defined by online social-networks, group community, and virtual worlds. Perhaps initially more in terms of who's talking to whom and what ideas are being spread, but such virtual areas are growing fast (more than 20 million people) and as in the case of the Second Life millionaire (who made the equivalent of $1m in USD within Second Life building virtual "real estate" for people to buy in the world), VW represent Internet communities with the ability to generate, spend, and harbor large amounts of funds.

At any rate, I'd label VW's as an early technology with the potential to both benefit and disrupt elements of the IC. They're still nascent and emerging in terms of their potential, sort of like the advent of web browsers in 1993-1994 and the WWW. Comments/feedback welcomed.

Live from the U.K.: the Oxford Internet Institute

2007-06-20T00:39:00.000-04:00

For those individuals interested in the Oxford Internet Institute, details available here: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/

My own research: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/visitors.cfm?id=112

As for a general description, the OII is engaged in a variety of research projects covering social, economic, political, legal, industrial, technical and ethical issues of the Internet in everyday life, governance and democracy, science and learning and shaping the Internet.

Live from the U.K. WEEK 1: What Are Knowledge Ecosystems and Why Should You Care?

2007-06-18T12:19:00.000-04:00

Greetings! My name is David Bray and I’ll be blogging on knowledge ecosystems and their relevancy businesses and government organizations over the next 10 weeks. I’m an IT and business professional with over 12 years in the field, including stints with Yahoo!, Microsoft, Institute for Defense Analyses, National Institutes of Health, and several years as IT Chief of the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Program at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. I led program’s technology response to 9/11, West Nile, SARS, monkeypox, and other outbreaks. Two weeks ago, I was an invited speaker at the World Disaster Response Summit on knowledge ecosystems, and after chatting with eWeek some, decided that IT, business, and government professionals might benefit from some open dialogue about the “future horizon” of knowledge ecosystems, information systems, and technology advancements.

You probably don’t know much about knowledge ecosystems, but chances are you’ve probably experienced them. In fact, I’d suggest that with increasing frequency over the next 3 to 5 years, they’re going to be the single most important element your organization will need to cultivate and develop. So what are they, and why should you care?

Put simply, knowledge ecosystems represent what you can know, what you can know, and how you will know it. They embody a larger view than just using information technology for business intelligence purposes, instead including a system-view that includes humans and technology nodes sharing and reusing knowledge with the goal of enhanced situational awareness. Knowledge ecosystems represent strategies for businesses or government organizations confronting turbulent, particularly hyperturbulent environments.

Which then begs the question of what are hyperturbulent environments and how do they differ from “normal” turbulent environments? Hyperturbulent environments embody settings where organic, information-intensive changes occur rapidly with little warning. Compared to “ordinary” turbulent environments, hyperturbulent environments require greater inter-individual knowledge exchanges to adapt. Herein is the key link as to why business and government organizations need to change their thinking of traditional management approaches, to instead embrace more of an ecosystem approach. With hyperturbulent environments, no one individual harbors sufficient knowledge to mitigate negative outcomes; equally, no one individual harbors sufficient knowledge to capitalize on positive opportunities. When confronting such settings, inter-individual exchanges must transcend physical group proximity, institutions, and social networks.

Needless to say, doing this – for most businesses and government organizations – represents a tremendously difficult proposition. The promise with Web 2.0 is that human beings would organize all the clutter of the Internet; that human beings would provide the missing intelligence of digital networks. Alas, I think that lofty promise will only be half-met at best. Human beings have limited cognitive capabilities and the ever-growing amounts of information on the web probably will exceed our abilities to organize it. Additionally, human beings have flaws, creating divisions and perceived information “turf” that individuals own or have created (vs. someone else has created). All of this creates a growing information complexity that can create problems of knowledge overload for individuals and intra- and inter-organizational tensions for firms, information silos, and general disconnects among varying amounts of information available on both public and private networks.

Back in 2000, with their public Global Trends 2015 report, the U.S. Intelligence Community predicted that: “The networked global economy will be driven by rapid and largely unrestricted flows of information, ideas... less and less control over flows of information, technology, diseases, migrants, arms, and financial transactions... effective governance will increasingly be determined by the ability and agility… to exploit increased information flows, new technologies...” Doesn’t this sound like the present we’re already facing? Increasingly, whether you're a professional in business, government, non-profit, or self-employed -- having timely, relevant, true knowledge helps you work better and translates into better short-term and long-term operations. The right knowledge influences outcomes.

At the same time, we all face exponential amounts of knowledge (ranging from sources as diverse as Google Scholar, Morningstar Quotes, Wikipedia, Twitter.com, or even virtual communities in Second Life) that are created, remixed, or cataloged daily. How can we find the right knowledge that translates into better individual, group, or organizational performance? Knowledge can increase responsiveness. Knowledge can increase adaptedness. Knowledge can be time sensitive, and knowledge can be critical to outcomes -- especially in hyperturblent environments.

Consider the following examples of knowledge ecosystems: 9/11, the anthrax events of 2001, SARS in 2003, and Hurricane Katrina, 2005. In each of these events, sufficient knowledge existed to mitigate negative outcomes, yet insufficient exchanges occurred to mitigate negative outcomes (several U.S. GAO reports support these conclusions). Those who deal with emergencies and disasters deal with hyperturbulent environments, but also those who deal with fluctuating global markets or changing business landscapes where if you organization is not scanning the horizon for the unknown, you might find your competitors have grabbed your customer base overnight.

In hyperturbulent environments, history as well as academic research demonstrates that top-down management is difficult; the events themselves are dynamic, organic, and asynchronous events. So here’s my radical suggestion for business and government organizations: maybe grassroots knowledge “cultivation” is possible instead? Perhaps, with the 21st century, top-down should be replaced with bottom-up efforts?

With this blog, I’ll continue discussing more about knowledge ecosystems – including how you can practically begin to cultivate such an ecosystem and overcome human cognitive and decision-making biases in your organization. Over the next 10 weeks, I’ll be Visiting Fellow at University of Oxford’s Internet Institute and have the opportunity to exchange ideas with some truly great intellectuals.

Whether you’re an IT, business, or government professional – you should probably begin asking the questions of how you’re going to manage what your company knows beyond just specific individuals. Transcending groups, social networks, and even organizational boundaries is what information systems allow and what the near-future holds for all of us. The question is: will your organization be one of the ones that are “in the know” and either respond to or capitalize on hyperturbulent environments, or will you be one of the ones wiped out by the changes you never saw coming?

Virtual Worlds, Real Problems

2007-06-12T02:16:00.000-04:00

Based on the latest figures Second Life has released, the amount of in-game commerce comes a poor second to the turnover of a single department store. For citizens of Second Life, there's no way to move or employ their creations outside of SL, between virtual realities. Without that, the environments can't even begin to grow to match the web in size or importance.

http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/leader/0,1000002208,39287486,00.htm

CNN Future Summit

2007-06-08T15:12:00.000-04:00

www.cnn.com/futuresummit
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/06/07/virtual_identity/

This week, CNN will host an hour-long program looking at the blurring lines between the virtual and the real; specifically how technological developments are shaping communities. Panelists include the founders of Wikipedia, Second Life, Flickr and EA.

‘CNN Future Summit’ is a two-year multi-media programme which aims to stimulate global discussion. Through www.cnn.com/futuresummit, viewers around the world are invited to explore the views and interact with the remarkable list of leading explorers, scientists, philosophers, and journalists.

NYTimes: Digital Fears Emerge After Data Siege in Estonia

2007-05-30T12:51:00.000-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/technology/29estonia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Quite an interesting article as to the recent cyberattacks in Estonia. Demonstrates that the "distance" between the worlds of cyberspace and real-life is closing; a small war can now be waged that spans them both. While the focus with these events seem political, consider the broader implications for corporate and financial interests...

U.S. Government Presence Grows in Virtual World (Second Life)

2007-05-22T17:15:00.000-04:00

Agencies that have facilities of varying complexity and interaction in Second Life include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, the National Institutes of Health, the National Library of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. House of Representatives. The Department of Homeland Security, the National Science Foundation and several other U.S. agencies also have representatives in this virtual world who attend regular "in-world" meetings of government representatives to discuss Second Life and how best to work with its features.

For more information, http://www.virtualworldlets.net/Archive/IndividualNews.php?News=2113

Virtual worlds 'should be regulated'

2007-05-18T10:22:00.000-04:00

http://www.freelanceuk.com/news/2282.shtml

Members of online virtual communities, such as Second Life, are at a growing risk from theft, deception and financial fraud, according to the UK’s Fraud Advisory Panel. The watchdog warned that participants could transfer large amounts of money with little risk of detection or consequence.

p.s. On a related note, if you haven't visited already, the 3-minute video that Benn Konsynski and I created **back in January 2007 ** is available here: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dbray/2019.html ... which predicts a lot of the stories now making the news this summer. Comments welcomed!

Sun's Diffie: Second Life To Become Prime Source of Intelligence

2007-05-16T10:09:00.000-04:00

http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=199601513
The growth of virtual communities across the Web as a communications channel creates both challenges for businesses trying to secure their data and opportunities for law enforcement looking to monitor communications as part of their investigations. Second Life and its ilk offer a growing abundance of information, although this information will ultimately need to be protected if virtual communities are to grow as meaningful channels of business-to-business and business-to-customer communication.

DAPRA Video on Augmented Cognition in 2030, Plus Gartner Weights in on Virtual Worlds

2007-05-13T02:10:00.000-04:00

http://www.augmentedcognition.org/video.htm

If you haven't seen the video already, I recommend you check it out; it's already been well-circulated for a while, but what's interesting is how the premise of such technology remains both possible and fairly underdeveloped (so far).

Also, this report was released last month: http://gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=503861

I do agree that emerging virtual institutions represent a "long haul" premise, as in 2011-2015. They also predict that by the end of 2011, 80 percent of active Internet users (and Fortune 500 enterprises) will have a “second life”, but not necessarily in Second Life. Specific virtual worlds will probably come and go, but the question remains whether a single or multiple metaverse will remain?

Upcoming: World's Fair of Virtual Worlds

2007-05-09T11:54:00.000-04:00

There's an interesting story here: http://mariogerosa.blogspot.com/2007/05/first-international-virtual-tourism.html

...proposing the first "world's fair" of virtual worlds. The event will take place in Second Life and will give other titles, such as World of Warcraft, Entropia Universe and others, an opportunity to present themselves. Stay tuned!

Virtual Worlds: Power, Influence, and Authority Struggles

2007-05-08T14:49:00.000-04:00

More than 15 million people now inhabit virtual worlds. Virtual worlds represent an interesting intersection of three parties wrestling for power, influence, and authority in these relatively new spaces. Specifically: (1) corporations, representing economic and business interests; (2) governments, representing political and legal interests; (3) vox populi, representing a heterogeneous third party, distinct in its dissociation from either corporate or government interests, and instead attempting to speak on behalf of “digital citizens” in virtual worlds.

These three parties, as they wrestle for power, influence, and authority in virtual worlds – embody similar (though less pronounced) struggles for power, influence, and authority as in the real world. Virtual worlds, due to their newness and digitally liberating features, to include anonymity and dissociation with physical form, present relatively less pronounced consequences for actors (vs. the real world). Yet the power-based outcomes obtained in virtual worlds represent salient economic and legal influences; to wit, Second Life sees an average of $70 million real US dollars spent monthly.

Given fewer adverse consequences for losers (i.e., reduced risk to both individuals and institutions), combined with salient rewards for obtaining power, virtual worlds provide more attractive areas for power and influence struggles than the real world. In the real world, losers might lose life or property, whereas in a virtual world, the losers can always either terminate or erase their account.

Two Reflections

2007-05-03T12:19:00.000-04:00

1. Interesting discussion about what differentiates "knowledge ecosystems" from "knowledge management" going on at Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Ecosystems vs. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Management).

Have wiki's become a place where different academic supporters argue their different viewpoints?

In constrast to directive management efforts (for example, process engineering, formal lessons learned & best practice programs, etc.) which attempt either to manage or direct outcomes, knowledge ecosystems espouse that knowledge strategies are much more about enabling self-organization. The suitability of the linkages made between knowledge and problems in the environment in which it operates thus defines the degree of ‘fitness’. The emergent outcomes of these co-evolutionary processes represent a portfolio of potential adaptations, some of which survive and some of which do not.

2. Thoughts about the MIT Dean-scandal (www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/04/26/mit.dean.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).

I know a lot of people are outraged and how could she do this (lie about her credentials?) and how could MIT allow her to reach the position of Dean (how much blame also depends on the institution). A lot of this also links back to the discussion of Professional Ethics earlier in this blog... but another perhaps human part of me wonders if got caught-up in a whirlwind that was too difficult to escape.

Specifically: she didn't initially apply for the position of Dean. She started at the "ground level" of MIT in 1979 in some administrative position (the question is, was a college degree required then, and was she already lying? If so, I have less sympathy here). She eventually worked her way up the career ladder at MIT. This then begs an interesting question, if she was (1) doing the job, and (2) thought capable by those people who put her in the job (she had been Dean since 1997 and it seemed like a lot of glowing, positive reports were received about her performance) -- does the lack of a degree really matter? Or are we seeing a case where institutionalism of professions, that you must have a degree or "card" to get in, is more at work with the aftermath of the scandal here?

True, she lied. She should have come clean on her own about the lack of the degree (but then she probably never would have been promoted or had the opportunity to serve as Dean, again it seemed like a lot of glowing, positive reports were received about her performance). It's sort of like the Prince and the Pauper story... except the Pauper was doing a great job as Prince, until we all found out the lie and her true un-credentialed status. It's that part that has my sympathies.

Who Really Is In Control Within Virtual Worlds?

2007-04-25T22:24:00.000-04:00

Question: who decides what laws are appropriate for a virtual world, such as Second Life (www.secondlife.com)? Since most virtual worlds are operated by a single, real-world firm, to date the answer has been the private, real-world firm hosting the virtual world. Second Life provided a unique example where a “revolution” helped influence Linden Lab to change its direction with regard to property rights and taxes, ultimately resulting in growth of the community from 15,000 to 1,700,000 participants. Lawrence Lessig was the academic responsible for advising Linden Lab to listen to the virtual community’s requests.

Lessig also is the author of both “Code” and “Code 2.0,” two books highlighting the importance of a free, open, and relatively unregulated Internet. His writings include arguments that the Internet community will manage to organize and control itself, within specific oversight. Further, any specific oversight, in Lessig’s view, will be influenced by corporate or real-world political concerns, and in the long-run would adversely reshape the Internet into a more limited technology.

For virtual worlds the same questions can be asked: who should be in control? Dotsoul (www.dotsoul.net) and other open-source efforts provide intriguing virtual worlds attempting to empower the virtual participants themselves to help define property rights and rules. Other virtual worlds are clearly focused on corporate ownership and profit. Free and unregulated virtual worlds can be problematic, as the chief virtue of Second Life is also its most glaring flaw: everyone is free to create anything they like, which can result in ugly sprawl and ugly developments. A potential parallel “Tragedy of the Commons” could arise in virtual worlds.

Yet recent activities have shown a maturing in virtual worlds, as virtual designers like Anshe Chung and Aimee Weber begin to realize that their virtual customers want some order and regulation. Real-world corporations are asking Second Life to consider more regulation to ensure the stability of the Linden dollar before they invest further in a virtual world. It could be that a combination of virtual citizens and businesses in virtual worlds may endogenously produce additional laws and social institutions designed to stabilize virtual worlds.

It could also be that virtual citizens and real-world businesses begin to take offense at each other. Radical, anti-corporate activism has begun to appear in virtual worlds, to include the Second Life Liberation Army (SLLA, slla.blogspot.com) which claims to be a “national liberation movement working towards establishing citizens’ rights within Second Life.” Concerned that big businesses increasingly will take over the direction and focus of Second Life, the SLLA has performed acts of vandalism in the virtual world on corporate storefronts, such as American Apparel and Reebok, in an effort to promote its cause. The SLLA has petitioned Linden Lab, the private firm which operates Second Life, with a demand for individual participants to each receive real-world stock in the company. The radical activists have also posted bounties between L$500-L$1,000 for any virtual avatar recording attacks on specific corporate targets. Real-world journalists have also had opportunities to be virtually embedded with and interview members of the SLLA.

If a mass exodus of virtual individuals occurs in any virtual world, the company hosting the virtual world will suffer. It is in the best interest of Linden Lab to keep a majority of its virtual citizens happy – so the question remains unanswered, who really is in control within virtual worlds?

"Bottom-Up" vs. "Top-Down" Management in the 21st Century

2007-04-17T11:28:00.000-04:00

According to the knowledge-based theory of the firm, knowledge represents the most strategically significant resource of any organization. Knowledge exchanges allow humans to become more “fit” to their environment. Additionally, knowledge can be time sensitive, potentially losing its relevance as environments change. For successful managers, capturing and sharing knowledge of expert and innovative employees provides a strategic advantage influencing performance outcomes. However, in order for distributed, heterogeneous knowledge bases to be intentionally leveraged as a strategic asset, managers not only need to identify what employees know (and do not know) to appropriately target the transfer of knowledge, but also need to discern when such knowledge will be valuable both now and in the future.

Unless managers assume omniscience, it may be nearly impossible to discern in advance the knowledge currently known and not known by employees, what knowledge is worth capturing for both present and future reuse, when such reuse will be appropriate, and when creating entirely new knowledge will be required. With globalization, managers increasingly coordinate groups of globally distributed individuals who must exchange time-sensitive knowledge relevant to successful outcomes.

In such settings, knowledge known today may lose its relevance in the future due to environmental changes. Often no single individual harbors sufficient knowledge to either mitigate negative outcomes or capitalize on positive opportunities, and inter-individual exchanges must transcend physical group proximity and social networks. As a result, when faced with turbulent environments, managers may not capably discern what knowledge is valuable to keep pace with changing trends. As such, I postulate that attempts at top-down “management” of knowledge frequently presumably are infeasible, since turbulent events may prove too dynamic.

Musings, Circa 1998

2007-04-14T14:41:00.000-04:00

from a million points, arose a Flock
and from a flock came a face
which breathed in the rising storm
and flew, still and silent, against the glossy grey

silent but for the wind, the sky grew Dark
and from the dark came thunder
which spoke with poise to earthly eyes
and kissed, with soft fingertips, the weary ground

droplets fell like tears, lost within an autumn rain
and rain washed away failing humble dreams
which breathed out their remaining flames
and flew, like the flock, silently away from here.

Conceptualizing Information Pollution

2007-04-08T20:21:00.000-04:00

In the November 2003 issue of ACM’s Queue, Jakob Nielsen raised interesting questions surrounding the concept of “information pollution”. In his essay, Nielsen commented, “a one-minute interruption can easily cost a knowledge worker 10 to 15 minutes of lost productivity due to the time needed to reestablish mental context and reenter the flow state.”

Events since 2003 have reinforced Nielsen’s conclusions. According to a recent report from Basex, the average “knowledge worker” – someone who is part of the growing information economy – loses 2.1 hours a day to interruptions associated with multi-tasking. If those workers make an average of $21 an hour, that adds up to $588 billion a year, more than the gross domestic product of Argentina (ABCNews.com, 2005). Another recent study found knowledge workers experienced interruptions approximately once every 10 minutes and it took an average of 23 minutes for them to return to their original task. With knowledge overload and turbulent environments, individuals confront multiple demands for their attention.

Granted, “information pollution” is the negative side of a more positive global movement empowering individuals to access and produce knowledge globally. Never before has humanity created and had access to so much knowledge. TIME Magazine's recent recognition of every individual (i.e., “you”) as the 2006 Person of the Year represents the accelerating trend where anyone can find, analyze, produce, and remix various media on the internet. For academia, the growth of new knowledge is exponential. In the year 1900, there were 9,000 scientific articles published that year. In 1950, there were 90,000 and by 2000 there were 900,000 scientific articles published in that year (Hawking, 2001).

Yet with this positive movement of internet-enabled empowerment, concerns of “information pollution” and “knowledge overload” loom as well. As IS professionals, is there anything we can do to help humanity address such challenges? Can we produce technology that not only helps individuals to keep up with all this new knowledge, but also alternate between concentrated focus and multi-tasking behaviors when they should?

The Professions as Semi-Autonomous Institutions w/ Normative Codes (Ethics)

2007-04-02T10:22:00.000-04:00

Four key elements of a profession occupy both social and service contexts. To be a professional presupposes membership in a profession. A profession includes four principle components: service to the community (comprising virtues), a set of self-governing autonomous institutions, skill (knowing-how, achieved through training), and knowledge (knowing-why, achieved through bookwork).

First, a profession receives the right to have a high degree of autonomy from society because of its tacit promise of service to the community. Specifically, a service is worth granting professional status if the benefits provided, in the eyes of community members, outweigh any public loss incurred by sacrificing public oversight and allowing a high degree of autonomy to those members performing the service. Viewed through this lens, a profession has an obligation to the community to provide a beneficial public service, lest the autonomy of the profession risk erosion.

It is worth considering what would happen if society judges a service provided by a profession as no longer useful. Presumably, the profession would lose its autonomy from society and its special status as a profession. Similarly, if a profession over-exceeds the level of public trust afforded, so too might the profession lose its autonomy from society – perhaps in the form of additional public oversight or government regulation.

Second, a set of autonomous institutions define the standards of operation of any profession, to include: educating and training potential members, disciplining members where necessary, rewarding members in high standing, evaluating members periodically, licensing (as a gatekeeper), renewal of professional membership and institutions, promoting members, and recruiting members of the profession. By performing these actions, the autonomous institutions sustain the profession as old members exit and new members enter. It is worth noting that a profession is not democratic in either its membership or maintenance, but instead is aristocratic and akin to an exclusive club. While the degree of organizational hierarchy may vary by specific professions, all include some level of stratification of its members within the profession.

Third and fourth, skill and knowledge (the other two components of a profession) enable competent service provision to the community. For example, doctors provide medical skill and knowledge as their service; lawyers provide legal skill and knowledge; while academics provide scholastic skill and knowledge. Professions often require a high degree of required skill and knowledge. Without a high degree of required skill and knowledge, a service to the community probably does not deserve professional status, as it would be relatively easy to recruit members to supply society with the desired service.

Understanding the origin of these four key elements merits considering how exactly professions evolved as social institutions. As medieval society expanded, it became necessary to obtain services from individuals who might not have shared family, ancestral, or national affiliations. Human societies needed a way of assuring equitable provision of services to strangers from strangers. Enter medieval guilds.

The guilds of the medieval ages roughly mirror what would become modern professions. With a significant degree of self-governance distinct from the rule of a king, presumably guilds (be they blacksmiths, masons, etc.) obtained such status because the actions they performed – in terms of public service, training of members, and self-regulation of their order – were sufficient to merit such autonomy. Before the rise of universities, training as an artisan occurred with the institutions of a guild. Guilds frequently would coordinate a fair price across shops and would self-police the quality (i.e., skill in services) provided. In parallel, the church also possessed a significant degree of self-governance distinct from the rule of a king. As with guilds, training as an artisan occurred with the institutions of a church.

Nowadays, modern society operates with a high degree of trust among strangers. When we visit a doctor, attend a lecture at Emory University, or obtain the advice of a lawyer –we frequently are relying on the services of strangers. Exchanging money allows strangers to obtain the services of strangers outside of their circle of immediate friends and family. While money allows for exchanges of resources and services between strangers, it can also produce distorted effects where the desired public outcome may become secondary to the self-interest of a professional. Hence, professions need to self-govern their members to ensure gross transgressions do not occur, as well as instill virtues into their members so that (ideally) they self-govern themselves without additional oversight. Modern society would like professionals to do the right thing, without anyone looking.

Virtual Worlds - Renewed Importance of Body

2007-03-30T11:41:00.000-04:00

“I think, therefore I am” is a famous (albeit translated) quote from Descartes. For virtual worlds, there is an interesting extension not only of an actual human mind translated into a virtual body, but there is also the feedback of a human mind seeing oneself as a body present in a virtual world. Having a body is important to how the human brain comprehends and understands not only the actions of an individual, but also the actions of others. In the last 10 years, neurobiological research has uncovered some fascinating insights into a phenomenon known as “mirror neurons.”

Mirror neurons were discovered by accident. While recording the brain activity that occurred when a primate grabbed a banana, one of the researchers also grabbed a banana during a break. The primate’s neurons fired in a pattern similar to one if the monkey was grabbing the banana. Surprised, neurobiologists discovered that regardless of whether the primate or another primate performed the action of grabbing a banana, a similar pattern of neurons fired. In a sense, the primate’s brain was mirroring the actions of either self or others. The pattern of neurons that fired was specific enough to distinguish between hands reaching to grab a banana vs. empty space. Moreover, the pattern of neurons was specific enough to distinguish between the two actions even if the primate was allowed to first see the presence vs. absence of a banana and then this space was covered with a cloth.

Neurobiologists believe that mirror neurons not only help the brains of primates (including humans) identify and recreate cognitively the local actions of primates in our environment, but also help predict the intended actions of others based on visual cues. The fact that mirror neurons fire regardless of whether one’s own body or an outside body is performing the action suggests that primates cognitively internalize actions, akin to guessing “what behavior would I be doing if I were that individual?” Intriguingly, mirror neurons are thought to be located in the part of the brain where vocalization patterns are controlled as well. For humans, having mirror neurons proximate to the language center of the brain is an obvious advantage: we can give words to the actions (and meanings) we perceive. What either our body or the body of another does, we can predict, identify, and name.

In contrast to research on mirror neurons, for academic researchers, the Internet has been about virtually disconnecting from one’s body. Websites such as Amazon.com and Craigslist.com are successful because they lower search costs involved with finding a particular product or service. Through digital, textual navigation facilitated by hyperlinks and graphics, the Internet frees individuals from having to physically visit different stores to check on the price and availability of a product. Additional websites like eOpinions.com allow individuals to report their personal assessment of a product or service so that later other individuals can view these reviews. Individuals can shop, compare stores, read reviews, and even initiate product returns – all without having to leave home. Streaming audio and video provide additional media which allows remote viewing of products, news events, and geographical locations.

The Internet frees individuals from the physical constraints of their body. At the same time, the disembodied nature detracts from shared, group experiences. Even with Internet chat rooms, the focus is more on the words (and emoticons) being typed by different individuals, than any simulated body language or physical expressions. Video conferences allow some body language to be shared, but only in the limited confines that two or more real-world people are sharing images of themselves and their location in the real world. When individuals shop at Amazon.com, their Internet experience is uniquely theirs and they do not “see” thousands of other individuals shopping online at the same time. There is no line of individuals waiting for an online store to open, nor a visual rush of people running to grab a particular book.

Virtual worlds challenge this disembodied paradigm of the Internet by returning a focus on the importance of body. Research both into mirror neurons and body language demonstrates that seeing one’s body and that of others is important to humans. Virtual worlds populated by virtual avatars allow humans to share group experiences in ways that transcend real-world video conferencing. Both the virtual world and the virtual avatars themselves are completely synthetic and can be fully modified such that the world no longer has to resemble the real world. Equally, an individual’s avatar does not have to look like his or her real-world counterpart. At the same time, virtual worlds seem to relate to fundamental structures of primate brains which link visual cues to actions and predicted intentions, and these actions and intentions to the language center of our brains.

Exploring the Nuances

2007-03-23T00:18:00.000-04:00

Isn't it amazing how many pieces of ourselves we leave scattered on the web, like photos or items from our wallet scattered along a winding street? Emails are sent and saved, blogs composed and posted, electronic searches, chats, credit card charges, and other transactions happen daily. We can forget the web is not only vast in size and scale, but equally vast in the dimension of time. I have left many moments of myself on this web since its start, though (fortunately) some pieces have been lost to the ether.

Yet what isn't here on the web now because it has been forgotten, still can be found in one of the Internet archives. What was a newly-born and confused web then in the past, contributes to a more complex web now. We access a web entangled both in terms of its present, prolific growth and in terms of its changing linkages to new data and information (as forward, time marches). We access distinct websites for information because right now the web isn't alive; information complexity adds to intra- and inter-organizational tensions, 'silos', and disconnects.

The web we access isn't self-organizing. Instead, it exists is a wonderful example as to how the processes of creation can quickly become cluttered and entropic. Yet life does find form and does organize itself, both in terms of lifestages associated with an individual lifeform and in terms of initiative variations and natural selection within the legacy of a species. Perhaps to be self-organizing is to be alive? So too, for the web, there are iterative causalities (i.e., links) to its data, information, and knowledge. This gives hope that one day the web too will become capable of self-organizing itself without human intervention. Would it then not become alive? The web we access (and are a social part of) is already nearly genetic in its programmed code, memetic in its exchanges, but as a whole not yet part of a larger, living system. It cannot self-organize itself into a wholly new, more beneficial form independently -- yet.

Moving forward, linked data, information, and knowledge, embodied by the web, will need to know what it is and be able to learn more about what it is both internally and externally in relation to other data and information elements, through interaction with other elements. This is how we, as humans, live and learn as individuals (and as societies) through iterative, interactive experiences. Current information systems are limited, as they cannot rapidly adapt to turbulent situations or new environments. To organize itself more efficiently, the web we access will need to be self-organizing and self-improving (i.e., alive).

Welcome!

2007-03-22T20:40:00.000-04:00

Welcome! My research foci discussed within this blog: knowledge ecosystems, augmented group cognition, and emerging virtual institutions.

Here are my research papers on SSRN
Here is a 2007 Emory Report article on my research

You can view a short video for an overview of these subjects (it requires Flash Player). The video is entitled "National Security Projection: 2019" and references past research, present events, and potential strategic advances with regard to national security, to include my aforementioned research interests; specifically for improved inter-organizational collaborations.

Feedback is welcomed. My goal is to use this blog to invite interactive discussion... stay tuned!