Bo:
At 07:33 26/11/1995 GMT, you wrote:
>The normal reaction I get [to the idea that each KU must be accounted
>for within the business process] is, that it is the responsibility of the
>individual(s) responsible for the event, to "know" what to do, given the
>right data and information. What I point out is that the elevation of the
>data and information to knowledge requires very specific transformation
>processes that must be accounted for in the overall business process and
>not left to chance.
I would agree with you. I believe that business has, in general, ignored
the provision of C3I (pronounced "C Cubed I" for Command, Control,
Communication and Intelligence), and, in particular has either abandoned
or ignored the individual's need for directly applicable assistance.
>Looking at your argument, I can see where at this point, the time would be
>ripe to make the point that "outsourcing" can apply to knowledge needed to
>support the business process in the same way it applies to the
>manufacturing process. If outsourcing to "knowledge contractors" was
>addressed in this way as part of a larger movement such as BPR, it could
>well become a significant driver in creating the needed "market pull."
I believe that knowledge contracting will go both in-house and outsource
depending upon the combination of uniqueness and confidentiality of the
subjects covered. The EDS electronic mentor is, at the onset, a general
advisory service applicable to a wide range of industries and customers.
It's an outsourcing dream. As the subjects addressed move into more
strategic areas -- and the more subjects covered, the greater opportunity
for the skillful to integrate that information to the assistance or
detriment of the client -- the knowledge base of what any specific company
and its employees asks of the knowledge outsourcer becomes a potent asset
for any outsider. Without a Chinese Wall, the information could even be
used by, say EDS, to add leverage to its consultancy and systems sales
efforts back to the client. More on this below.
>How do you see such an "industry" evolving? Do you see a parallel between
>the development of the business of "knowledge contracting" with the
>development of "job-shops" subcontractors that support the manufacturing
>sector, or do you see them developing along a different line?
I believe that there will be knowledge contracting to outsourcers but I
see looming ethical issues which may force the kinds of non-compete
clauses that we already see in the legal, accounting, and advertising
where the outsourcer agrees not to handle a competing firm.
>I am especially interested in the role you see for the concept off "agility."
>( I assume you refer to the concepts but forward by Steve Goldman etc. on
>agile manufacturing and agile enterprises)
My interest in agile organizations predates the commercial Agility Forum
but I am thrilled to see the mindset appear in the business sector. As a
former member of the Intel (intelligence) community, I was attached to
special field projects tasked by DIRNSA (Director NSA), and was
responsible for what was then called "fusion analysis and collection"
(which was the integration, i.e., fusion, of all forms of Intel to support
a tasking assignment). This background may calibrate my commitment to
C3I. The flexibility, immediacy, and transparency of a fine
C3I/Enterprise Information System would have a dynamic effect upon any
firm's organization and performance.
As an aside, I would draw your attention to "Strategic Intelligence for
American World Policy" by Sherman Kent, Princeton, 1951. This is a small
but magnificent volume still unequaled. Were one to replace 'American
World Policy' with 'your company name,' a firm could not have a better
guideline for a strategic Intel capacity. I have a standing order for
this volume from my book seller for waiting colleagues.
Also from the 1950s, was the idea called the "Wheel of Intelligence": At
the top was, Event Occurred. Moving clockwise was, Did you know it
occurred?; Were you there when it occurred?; If there, did you capture
anything?; If captured, could you demodulate it? ("demodulate" being a
50s adaptation of then trendy term from signal analysis); If demodulated,
can you predict the next event?; If predictable, can you position for the
next event? The circle closed back at Event Occurred. I have drawn and
explained this circle to so many commercial people but the impact rarely
seems to stick. The synthesis of unclass sources provides the bulk of the
information that guides one around the wheel. Good synthesis of unclass
sources can really tighten up your classified search activities, and
obviously good synthesis is mandatory to get the most out of covert
collection (the latter which I do not recommend to commercial clients but
I am a bit unsettled at how many of them broach the idea to me).
I'm straying a bit, but for the record, I can say that US business haven't
a clue of the array of Intel assets directed against it (by foreign
governments), as well as the all too great success that those assets
achieve -- and a very significant percentage of that success are derived
from completely unclass sources and from commercial sources which the
target assumes are not read by others, e.g., any fax sent into Asia is
read, on the average, five times other than by the intended recipient.
Knowledge outsourcers will be prime asset targets and were I a knowledge
provider, I would lead the way in offering secure environments, encrypted
transmissions, and the like in addition to the actual knowledge.
-- Best regards, Gordon Best regards, Gordon Housworth Intellectual Capital Group ghidra@mail.msen.com