On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, K.C. Burgess Yakemovic wrote:
> Michael writes...
> >The "memory" is being created but not accessed. Why not? At least
> >partially because there is no system that integrates the information
> >and makes it available in the temporality that is required.
>
> Ah yes.
>
> Not only is creating the history "work", but accessing the history is
> "work". If the perceived value of the information in the history is less
> the the percieved amount of "work" required to access it... well it just
> won't get done.
That rings quite true to me.
> So there are two points of focus
>
> a) improving the value of the information in the history
> b) reducing the work of accessing it
I have another possible focus for this thread which came to me as a result
of an unfortunate circumstance I have been dealing with recently. The
situation has required the assistance of a lawyer (or two), and as I
watched the process of their work, the relevance of the legal field to
"corporate memory" was sparked. Isn't the entire western legal tradition a
sort of "cultural/societal memory?" Lawyers and judges consult the cases
which have been argued before, compare them to the circumstances at hand,
and look for precedence which is "on point". So we don't just have a
system of LAW, we have a system of LAW as interpreted and applied in
interaction with specific contexts, conditions, and experiences.
The third focus might be, then, c) expanding the conditions under which
people within the corporation are expected to and recognized for
investigating and studying the "past" (and present!) before leaping into
the "future" (which, of course, in the absence of such reflection, most
often turns out to be more of the past than of anything else...). And
here, I would imagine, the modeling of those at "the top" would be
particularly valuable. If the leaders are skilled in such behaviors,
those aspiring to reach the top would likely value them as well. (The
opposite is demonstrably true, in any case!) This appears to me to be what
Chris Argyris is suggesting in some respects.
Furthermore, it isn't the "value of the information" alone, perhaps, but
the quality and depth of its _application_ in the current concrete
situation that is of importance. More access might be made if it were
shown to be effective in enhancing perception, correcting error (in
Argyris' sense), coming to decisions, and improving performance.
> The difficulty with improving the value of the information in the history
> is that it requires people with a history to use as a basis for "guessing"
> what information will be useful in the future. Alas, today, there are far
> fewer people around in corporations with that history.
>
> So I guess we'd better work on capturing "everything" (or at least what
> ever is economically viable to capture) and improving techniques of
> access, such that they are minimally "work" intensive.
I would suggest the opposite might be of more value. Once we accept that
the people who "know where to look" are becoming an endangered species, it
becomes essential to capture _less and less_ so that those who do decide
to search for relevant information can do so with some hope of success.
This requires us, of course, to make sure as much as possible that the
information we do capture is that which is rich enough to stimulate our
thinking and offer us some guidance. In this respect, I wonder if the
legal profession's model of case law could be of value.
Since I am not at all familiar with the system, I would like to solicit
(does that make me a "solicitor"?) the input of those who are
knowledgeable about it so that we are not limited in the discussion by my
ignorance.
> (Of course, I'd love to have someone show me that it is possible
> to improve the value of the information in the history... :-)
My thought in response to this request would be to include in the initial
memory system only the identifying "threads" of information necessary to
track down possibly relevant "stuff" which could be looked up in more
detailed "repositories" as needed. Much like the example of the World Wide
Web, it is the capacity to identify and create "links" which are of value
to some purpose that makes it such a compelling medium. It is the _human
mind_ which traces the path desired, not the repository of information
itself.
Another metaphor would be, of course, the library. Libraries in and of
themselves have never created a "bit" (in either the conventional or
technical usage of the term) of learning. Generations of students at
institutions of learning have proven that over the ages. They certainly
have been essential, however, in making learning more likely given a
desire to do so. (I, however, am not sure I would recommend the Dewey
Decimal system to anyone for much of anything if my own experience with it
is typical. It would be nice to have a system that one could understand
without having to rely on an expert or a translator for access.)
But enough of this meandering, I know little enough about that of which I
speak to be completely open to contributions from others as warranted.
Regards,
-- Tobin Quereau Austin Community College quereau@austin.cc.tx.us