Every once in a while..
Classic SNL
OK, so I’m not the dedicated blogger I hoped to be about a year ago. Life happens! Still every once in a while I think about adding to this and someone reminds that I need to update or add something to one of the rant/entries on this site. Well, simply put I’m at a sticking point. Not a Malcolm Gladwell kind of tipping point, but just a stuck point. I’m including some additional thoughts and ideas into a larger project I’ve been working on now for the past six months.
Imagine Ronco meets knowledge. The “Bass-O-Matic” of knowledge tools. That’s the hype, and that’s the plan…stay tuned. I will get back to this train of thought before long.
Filed under: Knowledge Management | Leave a Comment
Over the past week I have been brushing up on my database and spreadsheet skills. Once again, I come face-to-face with one of the function capabilities within databases and its spreadsheet byproducts: the combination of strings, or concatenated fields and cells. Other than being a fun way to say, “merging,” the concatenated object may provide a model of understanding mashups, Freakonomics, and other Franken-measures. Dare I say, information as thing is back? I dare!
I am still digesting and looking for more information, but over the weekend the BBC World Service had an interesting interview [requires Windows Media Player or Real Player] with Ian Ayers (author of the popular Super Crunchers book). I’ll add this to my reading list shortly when I get the time to do some more reading for fun – or figure out why this is important to my project at hand. In fact, the title for this posting borrows a tongue-in-cheek play on Ayers’s “database decision making” trend in this country and across the flat world.
Since I started writing this (and this is a couple of weeks past my original goal to have it posted), I have had some time to mull over the importance and idea behind concatenating. First, consider the rash of so-called Web 2.0 (or just add 2.0 to your preferred subject) applications, ideas, and concepts circulating in the current marketplace of ideas. What is Web 2.0 (to say nothing of the push to 3.0 now)? Here’s my simplified view of the landscape:
Figure 1, A History of the Point-0 Evolution Path
In my father’s web there was DOS, and they rejoiced. In my lifetime (so far), the web evolved into a more visually appealing medium. The UNIX lines of Amazon.com and my old Pine email are relics on the shelf next to my TRS-80 and Pong machine. As look toward the web my children will inherent, my mind spins – not to say this wouldn’t happen anyway, but the possibilities (and my awareness of what it means) are truly mind blowing in a Merry Pranksters kind of way! But then my pop culture cravings reel me back into flashbacks from The Matrix. Are we heading to a more connected world, and what does that mean? Much less, where in the world did a word like “concatenate” come from? Other than the usual suspects of a Google (or other) search, I was surprised to find a medical, a blog (näturlich!), and of course data (this is one of the more obscure but fairly common uses…in the words of the immortal Hyundai commercial, DUH!
As I look at this some more (and get more bleary-eyed), the history I’m laying out in the diagram calls for some more thought…but that’s a later project and posting. And then there’s the whole information or concatenation as thing to come back…joy, joy!
Filed under: Knowledge Management | Leave a Comment
Updates
I’ll spare y’all the sob story, but this has been a crappy couple of weeks. Last week I had the flu and this week it’s bronchitis. So, my game is off. I’m trying to make some headway with piecing together fragments I’ve been collecting and writing over the past several weeks…I wish I could call it stream of consciousness, but it may not be that organised! I should be back on top of things next week…
Filed under: Knowledge Management | Leave a Comment
Tags: updates
Building and other textures…
I’ve been considering some of the various components that contribute to collaborative work. In one way or another we all work in a collaborative environment – some or more obvious. Even if your job requires wearing an intercom headset and hovering over a deep fat fryer (hairnets optional) – yeah, I’ve been there, too. But what does it really mean to work collaboratively, and does it matter?
SYNERGY
We’ve all heard the word, maybe even fear the word. About fifteen to twenty years ago, synergy was the it word of the business world. Everything was a flurry of synergies and leveraging the capitalizations of latent synergies (my attempt to introduce the business world to Freud, but somehow I think they’ve met before). “We could do this”or”the successful results of this or that due to”…you guessed it: synergy. But what the hell is this noun that seems to have single-handedly transformed the modern business world?
I was more familiar with the medical-pharmacological definition of synergy before first seeing this on an appraisal report. But, OK, two things working together to make something bigger. Sounds great, and it sounds familiar. We used to call this teamwork (and probably something before that).
TEAMWORK = SYNERGY
I probably won’t get back to keeping these formulae straight, but this also sounds vaguely familiar. Didn’t I blog recently on some repurposing?
Figure 1, The other three Rs
I include this recycling paradigm because it struck me much in the same way as repurposing content that IDEAS or buzzwords are really just content or knowledge objects (things) themselves. I suppose the major criticisms on this paradigm might be, “how can you reduce ideas?” Valid question. This goes back to something else I have been working on and that is understanding the starting points for projects – although not excluding the economic or other incentives, how do I start XYZ?
Well, to answer this I turned to some friends in the engineering world (the builders and shakers). As a very logical and systematic discipline, I hoped I would be able to find something in their kit or bag of tricks to help me understand a project from start to finish. By the way, this is a conversation I began several months ago…and we’re still only on the prep stuff – not sure what I was thinking but it has been interesting and VERY helpful (especially the cross-disciplinary perspective)!
As my engineer friends remind me, it is from the point of a project idea forward that synergy (good and bad) kicks in. Most engineers (or the ones I talk to) don’t use this S word a lot, although as a rule and on site there are other S words that do color their world! What does come up (more so in the past five years) is project management – the idea and practice certainly goes back further. What project management does for engineers (and the rest of us) is it makes a process understandable and highlights the collaborative nature of the project. Not that the collaboration wasn’t there before PM kicked in, but something in the last twenty years has hyperemphasized this fact.
“I’ll take synergy for $100, Alex.”
But it’s not the word. Synergy as a buzzword is long gone. Ah, but the idea is still there…and maybe that is the texture to building.
Filed under: Knowledge Management | Leave a Comment
Over the past week I’ve been doing some work-related research on some systems architecture and history. Since the deadline was a little flexible and final deliverables were sufficiently vague, I took this opportunity to pay attention to some information sharing, searching, and general behavioral stuff (yes, I think that should be a technical term). Here’s what I observed and learned (or thought I learned):
DEFINING REQUIREMENTS
As with most things in life, this first stage in this mini-research project consisted of understanding what I was looking for, why I was looking for “it,” and does this fit into something else (another project, who gets the results, what are the results, etc.).
What was I looking for? In this instance all I was given was an acronym and the general context. Not unusual. (A) it is either assumed I know what the acronym is – with or without the context; or (B) I would be able to find out what it was with little trouble.
Paying attention: I’m not an information desk or a librarian. What is clearly at work in this situation is the assumption that I am a knowledge worker. Big whoop, you might be thinking. But, stop and think for a minute. Knowledge work is not just what we know, but also how we know what we know. The process of learning or knowing something. OK, not a Nobel breakthrough, but looking at the requirements stages as the beginning of a learning process…is huge (at least for me).
Why was I looking for it? This is the easiest part of the process. I was asked by a senior manager to dig into this and see what I could find (more or less a crude paraphrasing of the actual request). Again, the context of the request was in relation to a potential corporate opportunity (i.e., new revenue stream).
Paying attention: the ‘why’ of the process boils down to an economic motive or incentive. Not for me directly, perhaps, but for the company. And that’s good for everyone, right?
OK…now, so what?
I’ve got the what and the why, and since the deliverables on this project were vague I’ll leave that part out (final product for those of you on the edges of your seats was a short white paper or backgrounder). But what happens to the many pieces of information that will flow into and out of this project over time? Needless to say this thought sidetracked my on a flowcharting diversion of biblical proportions.
Not just this, but where do all the various information/knowledge objects, things, or bricks fit into this simple request and project development process?
What this reminded me of, of all things, was the old adage to “keep it simple stupid.” I’m sure I could wander around the various psychometric reasons why this particular cliché popped up in this context and find the deeper meaning. What it said to me, however, from the outset is the requirements analysis stage of any project or process – and this applies to the information behavior world. Start with the basics – that’s the simple.
Filed under: Knowledge Management | Leave a Comment
Sexy divides…
OK, the title may put me in searches I don’t want to be, but maybe this will open some eyes to things other than Britney Spears latest navel gazing adventures! So, if that’s you…buckle up and hang on…this ain’t even soft-core (it’s medium-core thinking with your other head!) – or click here.
Before I begin…let me know if the hyperlinks are out of control. I’m experimenting with using hyperlinks as footnotes – not original perhaps, but I thought I’d give it the ole’ college try.
I’m still stuck on the consensus that emerged from a class this week questioning the existence of the digital divide. Prior to the emergence of the digital divide as a sexy topic, the information sciences (and library sciences) referred to this as information poverty.
For me, I placed the emphasis on the poverty part of the earlier concept or issue. Which, of course, brings me back to a realm I’m slightly more comfortable with: economics or social issues. This frames the issue of a digital divide in terms of the long-standing haves versus the have-nots, and I think this is the right place to be and discuss this problem – whether it’s first world
versus
third world (or whatever the latest post-Cold War nomenclature is) or Birmingham, Alabama (see below).
Working on the somewhat tenuous idea of where there’s smoke there’s fire, I did some poking around the Internet and found some interesting tidbits of information on and about the digital divide. I’m not including the Wikipedia entry here, but it looks pretty good based on looking at these sites and doing some reading (most of these sites include articles, news stories, etc.).
- Pew Internet & American Life Project – the granddaddy of digital divide sites. But seriously, this is a well-funded and respected undertaking spanning many domains of Internet and computer uses, services, and potentials. Of particular interest is the section on Internet Evolution.
- The Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development (GAID) – this is a United Nations initiative emphasizing the potential for ICT to take a bite out of international poverty – not just the information kind (I wonder what Bill Crowley would say about this one?).
- The Digital Divide Network – I somehow missed this one long ago (kind of like the switch from Atari to TRS-80s!). This website is a wealth of information and resources in one place. Definitely more on the activist side (read their about page), and now affiliated as a unit within the Center for Medial & Community, which is part of the Education Development Center. Nonprofit, educator, and community activists all in a convenient one-stop shop! Worth a longer look (unless you’re still looking for Brittney Spears).
- OLPC (one laptop per child) – sure you’ve heard about this and maybe seen one of the commercials, but did you know they’re now operating in Birmingham, Alabama? That’s right. Not just in Mexico, Peru.
- The Digital Alliance – a startup, but so too was Microsoft back in the early 1980s! This is one of a number of web-based educational initiatives. Check back in another few years to make sure they’re still around.
- Govcom.org – Amsterdam-based nonprofit interested in mapping networks.
- Digital Citizenship – University of Pittsburgh research collaborative.
- Digital Divides: Past, present, and future Volume 1, Issue 5 (Summer 2003) – while you’re there check out the rest of the IT & Society web journal site (seems like they faschizzled after 2004).
Here’s a short reading list of books (available on amazon.com and other
places I’m sure):
- Jan van Dijk, The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society (2005)
- Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Mary Stansbury, Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide (2003)
- David J. Gunkel, Hacking Cyberspace (2001)
- _____, Thinking Otherwise (2007)
For those looking for a more cerebral approach:
- Here’s a search on LibraryThing – some of the books are usual suspects, but there were some interesting titles in this list.
- Here’s another grassroots initiative (doesn’t look like they’ve got a lot of funding at this point, but you got to start somewhere) – in particular take a look at their page on Seven Digital Fallacies.
- OK, maybe not strictly speaking an academic resource, here’s the AFL-CIO (CWA – the union for the information age) contribution to the conversation. Go union!
And for those looking for a graphical representation of the digital divide…well, I don’t have a pretty picture or graph for today. What I did stumble across while wandering through the berry fields of the Internet is another interesting project – focusing on Internet connectivity or digital inclusion (hey, you have to start somewhere, right? Déjà vu): 50X15.
Filed under: Knowledge Management | Leave a Comment
Get a life…
Here’s an interesting story about Second Life: a US House of Representatives committee held the first congressional hearing in Second Life. I didn’t look into this, but it sounds believable enough. My alter ego Zen-like self asks, “is there a difference between the “virtual” and the other Congress?” And how can I tell them apart?
Second Life is kind of like Robby the Robot for the twenty-first century. Sure it sounds cool (and you can fly), you can alter your personal identity [somewhere in there is my avatar – floating aimlessly], and it’s a great way to pick up chicks. Oh, wait. It’s not real! In an older podcast or broadcast, Leo Laporte had a mini-rant worthy of DM on Second Life. I’ll paraphrase, “the only thing about this thing is that you can fly, idealize your physical image in the form of a cartoon avatar, and there’s a lot of exposed genitalia flying around here too.”
I had to stop and wonder after reading this news story if Congress doesn’t already have enough of a history with sex scandals that they now want to expose themselves virtually rather than in real life? I guess on the upside of this, Tip O’Neill and Newt Gingrich are no longer in the House – the thought of either of them flying around in the buff is enough for me to seriously consider supporting Ralph Nader for President!
But seriously, I hear a lot of discussions (mostly against) surrounding the increasingly virtualized world, and I have to sit and have a think. Most of the naysayers against virtualization projects, including Second Life, denounce the lack of personal interaction or something to do with the disconnected (anomie) of society. OK, two thoughts on this one: (1) as an extension of the Internet and the flat world, virtualization makes sense; and (2) it’s fine to rant about the polarization and atomization of society à la Durkheim or Giddens (here’s a great diversion on this topic), but what about the new networks being created bring the troglodytes of the world together?
Admittedly, there’s a lot of potential creepiness. Remember the early days of online chat, discussion lists, and early community sites? The anonymity of the Internet (kind of like a techno-trench coat) has been great cover for creeps and other ne’er-do-wells. Moreover, there are tools to surf the Internet anonymously (proxy servers) – or nearly anonymously [beware since these are workarounds, there are, of course, workarounds to the workarounds…and to paraphrase a popular entrepreneurial adage, "where there's a will, there's a way – and that cuts both ways."].
Second Life has grown beyond the Pervert Stage (my own Internet taxonomy of the Internet evolution). While the freaks have staked out their island territories and there’s plenty of virtual sex (someone has to pay for the bandwidth); there are also many interesting places to visit. Education sites include Harvard, UC-Berkley (couldn’t find their link), NASA, and NOAA. Of interest to my 5033 readers, there’s also an LIS site (at least one). And, naturally, there are several computer science islands and locations within Second Life.
At the end of the day, I’m torn between the allure and possibilities of the virtual world and the potential for disconnect. Virtual worlds, such as Second Life, offer fantasy, distance learning, and an amazing opportunity to share and exchange information and knowledge. For example, in many ways I already work in a virtual office. My company has a brick-and-mortar (real world) office, but we’re also spread out in small numbers across the country and overseas. I don’t punch a time clock in the conventional sense; so what’s to prevent a company from creating a presence in Second Life – there are a few (outside of the Linden-seeking entrepreneurs)? Webcams would become obsolete, but then everyone showing up for a staff or board meeting would be flying around in various states of buffness…hmm, food for thought!
Filed under: Knowledge Management | Leave a Comment
Again, I reference the Songbook of Mr Jimmy Buffett (or loosely paraphrasing), “if I’d known then what I know now.”
Clichés
What is it about clichés that are so seductive, easy to reach for, and use without even really thinking about it? Sure, there are those among us that probably spend hours searching for the right cliché to capture some inner or deeper meaning to an idea, concept, thought, or work-related task; and then there are those who seem to constantly drip cliché after cliché. The latter group, I will call the jargonists (or jargonistas, if you prefer). It’s the first group that I find myself in and are more interesting. Jargonists flood the trade presses and public relations departments of any and all industries. These are the groups of people that create or amplify buzzwords in the hopes of creating a cliché. It wasn’t that long ago when “thinking outside the box” was an existential and philosophical concern, but now my seven year old son is doing it – although luckily this phrase hasn’t entered his vocabulary yet (but it’s just a matter of time before that too trickles down). Anyway, here’s what I see happening:
A great idea or thought is captured, take for instance knowledge-worker (or policy wonk will work too, if you prefer). When Peter Drucker combined these two words to describe the shifting of the very nature of work in advanced economies, it took some time (forty-ish years) but it finally caught on as one of the great buzzwords in contemporary business discourse. The idea, germinating from the late 1940s and 1950s, blossomed into the academic world over the 1980s, and by the 1990s entered mainstream business circle usage as a great buzzword. Now sometime in the past seven years, knowledge-worker has made the further evolution into the status of clichédom. In other words, all of sudden everyone appears to be a knowledge-worker and the original intent (or kernel of a great idea) has been so diluted that it really doesn’t make sense anymore. For example, is the person who takes my order at McDonald’s really a knowledge-worker? Sure, every job, occupation, career, or hobby requires knowing how to do something (that would be the knowledge part I’m guessing). But is that really what Drucker (and many others since) mean behind this idea of knowledge-workers?
Also somewhere along its journey, these greats ideas and thoughts catch on in ever-widening circles of influence and become buzzwords. In my hierarchical way of thinking, buzzwords aren’t quite clichés yet; but rather these are the insider language within any field, profession, or practice. Buzzwords are the shorthand of those in the know. Take for example my mechanic (and I’m by no means mechanically inclined), he’s always throwing out these manly words like carburetors, distributor caps, fly wheels, and other esoteric terms as if I should know what they are and what they mean. I inevitably stop him somewhere in the first few minutes, and ask “OK, Randy, but what does that doo-hickey or thingamabob do or mean.” Sure, I probably violate every rule in the Guy Code by asking what should be obvious – I opted for some other elective in high school other than shop (which in hindsight now may have been a mistake, but at the time I didn’t get it). And he’s patient, and a good friend, and he explains these things to me in a language I can understand. Well, that’s buzzwords in reverse. He takes the time to deconstruct what’s what and why it matters.
But further along the evolutionary path of ideas and thoughts, those buzzwords circulated amongst those in the know become even more liquid and are leaked out to the wider world…or a curious on-looker likes the turn of phrase. However it happens, buzzwords enter the wider world, and they are reborn as clichés.
Wrapping my mind around a cliché
At least once a week I receive an email from a customer or someone in my company asking for me to simplify a process, a document, or a concept. No brainer, right? Jettison the clichés, the technical language, or the business jargon. Well, in my limited experience what this really means is “translate X into a language I can understand, Y.” It’s not a XYZ for Dummies they’re asking for, or a plain English explanation or rationalization; but what they are asking for is something they can understand. I work with two groups of very smart people – and I’m somewhere in the middle, one is a group of medical practitioners and specialists, and the other is a group of highly skilled computer specialists.
And never the two shall meet
What’s jargon in one language, obviously is common vocabulary in the other. But that’s common sense, right? Who is the mythical Mr or Ms Common? I haven’t met him or her yet. But maybe that’s the thing about buzzwords, jargon, and clichés. Which brings me back to the call for plain English. Simplification, yes. English, definitely. Do we leave it up to the Great Decider as to what constitutes plain English?
I digress for an example…
Anyone who has ever had to write a performance review, for example, is probably familiar with Effective Phrases for Performance Reviews. I was surprised to notice that in its most recent version this booklet (and my obviously much older copy) is now bursting out at 256 pages according to Amazon.com. This is the ultimate redeemer for any supervisor or manager needing the right way to express positive and negative feedback in a written performance evaluation – NOTE: an older brown-shoe boss of mine told me to never use this in a face-to-face review or evaluation [good advice that I mistakenly erred ONCE in executing.]. Basically, this book is a parade of buzzwords, jargon, clichés, and general business-speak. I know veteran and junior supervisors and managers that lean on this book as a crutch. Why? It really is helpful to be able to express that Joe is a complete waste of human flesh in thirty-two different ways and styles without making Joe to be a complete mismatch for the organization. And on a slightly deeper level, the words, phrases, and CONTENT of this book are how most human resource departments are configured to decipher meaning from these reviews. Ultimately (and more pessimistically) the quantitative or dollar value assessment of the review is what matters. Not to say that the qualitative or subjective analysis of performance doesn’t matter. It’s just harder (or in some cases) impossible to translate something that is not computable into terms that are computable. And so, we rely on clichés and their spin-offs to add meaning and value to our content-rich knowledge-workers existential dilemma.
But again, that’s just my two-cents.
Filed under: Knowledge Management | Leave a Comment
Homage to Gordon Gecko…
“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.” [my emphasis]
I guess that’s the thing about WordPress and my Microsoft plug-in: I never know what it’s going to look like before I publish a posting.
OK, Gordon Gecko probably never really thought about greed for knowledge without the economic underbelly. As the weekly discussions in 5033 return to this topic, something this evening struck a Gecko-ish bell in the back of my head. This quote from the movie, however, has stuck with me the past twenty-plus years (oh, my!) – or at least the “greed is good” part. Looking at this full extract – and a medal or mention of honor to anyone who recalls where Gordon Gecko gave this speech, would Gordo have fallen in line with Fritz Machlup?
While looking for some witty connection to Fritz Machlup (outside the Wikipedia entry), I did uncover something interesting – in California (go, prune pickers!). The Online Archive of California:
A core component of the California Digital Library, the Online Archive of California (OAC) is a digital information resource that facilitates and provides access to materials such as manuscripts, photographs, and works of art held in libraries, museums, archives, and other institutions across California. The OAC is available to a broad spectrum of users -students, teachers, and researchers of all levels. Through the OAC, all have access to information previously available only to scholars who traveled to collection sites.
The OAC includes a single, searchable database of “finding aids” to primary sources and their digital facsimiles. Primary sources include letters, diaries, manuscripts, legal and financial records, photographs and other pictorial items, maps, architectural and engineering records, artwork, scientific logbooks, electronic records, sound recordings, oral histories artifacts and ephemera.
Describing primary sources in detail, finding aids are the guides and inventories to collections held in archives, museums, libraries and historical societies. Finding aids provide detailed descriptions of collections, their intellectual organization and, at varying levels of analysis, of individual items in the collections. Access to the finding aid is essential for understanding the true content of a collection and for determining whether it is likely to satisfy your research needs. (From the About page)
This interesting collection of collections (a meta-collection?) houses a nicely searchable reference for most (if not all) of the important archival sources in California. Machlup’s archive, for instance, is housed at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.
What would Machlup have made of Gordon Gecko’s interpretation of human knowledge evolution – at least from an incentive perspective? Just a late night musing…
Filed under: Knowledge Management | 1 Comment
Bringing documents to life…
Have you noticed I seem to be commenting on email a lot? I have, and maybe that means something. Anyway, the title for today comes from an AIIM offering for some XML-related training.
This raises two questions in my head: 1) I never knew documents had died; and 2) why does the computer world employ biological metaphors, analogies, and models?
Documents are dead…long live the_______________!
Documents do not have to be snapshots of a point in time. By pulling together technologies such as XML-based authoring and publishing tools and connecting to live data, documents can become dynamic and interactive — alive in a sense. Rather than creating and then updating the same document with different versions, a document can really begin to work for you by pulling live data so that it’s always up-to-date.
OK, here’s the tagline from the AIIM website for those of you leery about following this link – as far as I can tell it’s safe and won’t affect your spam.
Immediately my thoughts ran to the extreme: what if the Constitution was written in XML. Admittedly absurd, but what’s the deal with XML that brings a document to life like no other tool? The idea behind XML is creating interchangeable blocs of content that can then be reused (or repurposed in the jargon of the day) and available across a variety of potential platforms. I’m not an XML expert, and some of the resources available online are better places to start. As an open source format, the best place to start on XML is the World Wide Web Consortium XML Homepage. W3C is not the easiest or friendliest website to navigate, but it’s very straightforward and very informative.
So…Documents are dead, long live the XML?
Analogies, metaphors, and models (sounds like a Jimmy Buffet song title)!
Sometimes I’m a little slow on the uptake, but it hit while sloshing through another page-burning article late last night. If I can find the quote again I will definitely use it, but it is something like this: “a metaphor or analogy is only as good as the supporting evidence for linking the claims to that mental model.” Or something along those lines.
Life-cycle, viruses, immunizations, sanitized are common points of reference in the computer sciences (and other areas too – business for example). Is it possible to perform CPR on a document (I do recall vaguely an old software program called First Aid – general utilities programs, long since sucked up by Microsoft Windows)? What do they all have in common? They are SYSTEMS – and this was my big duh moment last night! More interestingly though, they are systems of systems, or complex systems. This makes a difference in thinking about computer hardware, software, or biology.
So, instead of thinking about the medicalization (a word according to my anthropologist wife) of documents, or the simple systemization of documents, maybe we should be thinking about the SYSTEM OF DOCUMENTS. What constitutes a document?
And speaking of To Tell the Truth, would the real document please step forward…but first I have some other writings I need to finish today. I do hope to come back to this idea because at the heart of my interest in knowledge management is ultimately a collection of documents – and it would probably behoove me to better understand what a document is (or just to play around with the words and ideas).
“Say goodnight, Gracie.”
“Goodnight.”
Filed under: Knowledge Management | 2 Comments
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos 
Knowledge in MotionLibrary Thing
