Social Enterprise Architecture, ResearchesAugust 17, 2005 4:21 pm

Il KM deve aiutare un decisore ad individuare (con il minor errore) il punto dove applicare una forza atta a realizzare un cambiamento. Il punto può essere un modello organizzativo o una sua parte, una singola persona o gruppi, un flusso informativo procedurale o destrutturato. Sia esso interno o esterno al sistema di riferimento.

La SEA è l’insieme di strumenti, metodologie e misure atte a ridurre l’errore nel raggiungimento degli obiettivi del KM, concentrandosi sulle persone e sulle relazioni tra le stesse, che siamo di tipo procedurale o sociologico. SEA abilità al governo delle organizzazioni, fungendo da amplificatore (+/-) dei modelli organizzativi, favorendone la implementazione.

Roberdan

Message sent with Windows Mobile and an I-mate Smartphone.

ResearchesAugust 11, 2005 9:09 am

Una ontologia è definita in letteratura come la descrizione formale di un dominio analizzato dal punto di vista delle entità che ne fanno parte e delle relazioni che intercorrono tra di esse. Attraverso la definizione dei concetti di interesse per un certo dominio, delle proprietà e degli attributi di tali concetti e dei vincoli che sussistono tra loro, una ontologia ha lo scopo principale di definire un vocabolario comune che consenta la condivisione e la diffusione della conoscenza del dominio. Nell’ambito dello sviluppo di sistemi informativi di una certa complessità l’approccio ontologico all’analisi di un dominio è facilmente riconducibile, almeno in prima battuta, a quelli propri del modello Entità/Relazione e/o della Object Orientation, ma, mentre nel primo caso l’obiettivo principale è quello di ottenere un modello efficiente ed esaustivo per la rappresentazione fisica dei dati di un domino di interesse e nel secondo caso l’attenzione è invece spostata sugli aspetti legati al comportamento delle entità facenti parte del dominio, nel caso di una ontologia le ragioni principali che ne giustificano lo sviluppo sono:  l’attenzione alla struttura sintattica e soprattutto semantica delle informazioni;  la necessità di un “capire comune” delle informazioni del dominio da parte di soggetti fisici (analisti, attori del dominio, …) tanto quanto di agenti automatici (sistemi informativi, moduli software in generale, …);  la possibilità del riuso della conoscenza di un dominio, soprattutto al fine di introdurre standard per favorire l’interoperabilità semantica dei sistemi che operano nello stesso dominio;  la necessità di rendere esplicite e ben codificate le assunzioni sul dominio, anche al fine di tenere separata la conoscenza del dominio dalla conoscenza funzionale legata alle specifiche che il sistema finale dovrà implementare.

Per le ragioni sopra elencate lo sviluppo di una ontologia non rappresenta un obiettivo a sé stante, ma strumentale alla definizione di un insieme di dati e di strutture che saranno poi oggetto di manipolazione da parte dei sistemi informativi ed informatici costruiti su tale base di conoscenza.

Social Enterprise Architecture, ResearchesAugust 8, 2005 10:32 am

Ritengo opportuno riportare le idee di Bruce Neubauer a proposito di knowledge management:

“….Strictly speaking, it is probably not correct to refer to “knowledge management” in organizations. Knowledge is intimately wrapped up in mental processes that apparently go on in the human brain that are not understood. We each do well to control (to some degree) our own patterns of thought, much less attempt to manage the knowledge process of others. At the individual level, one possible example of “knowledge management” is to get past the common idea that others (or external events) “make us” angry (or sad, or happy). If our mental state at a given moment is composed by others or by external events, we are sadly dependent upon external conditions. We can each change our minds (manage our knowledge) and realize that we do have a capacity to interpret the stimuli we receive from our environments. Our emotions are not tied to strings that others can reach out and pull. This is not to say that we can each be immune to external events. It is to say that we can and do interpret what we perceive. We can in a sense program our minds in order to manage our own thought processes and the emotions we experience that are related to our thought processes. Cultivating patterns of thoughts that help us maintain positive attitudes and feelings is a kind of “knowledge management.”

There is a sense in which some organizations seek to control the minds of members or followers. While such efforts may fit the literal meaning of the phrase “knowledge management,” such efforts are not the meaning of knowledge management as commonly referred to in the context of businesses and corporations. Mind control is an important topic in its own right. But it is not the subject that the phrase “knowledge management” is intended to address.

Knowledge management is about making organizations of people smarter and more responsive to the environments of those organizations. In a competitive economic environment, knowledge management can help assure the survival and success of an organization. Knowledge management is about trying to design and optimize the means by which employees become aware of threats and opportunities in the environment, and communicate information with one another to help assure that the organization adapts quickly to those threats and opportunities.

In the 20th century the predominant model of organization was that of a machine — particularly an engine. In an industrial mindset, a successful organization was on that “kept on trucking.” Its value was grounded in a set of processes that people performed almost endlessly. In the 21st century, the predominant model of organization is “brain.” A brain also has processes. But a brain is different from an engine. A brain changes itself as it continues to perform its processes. The output of a brain includes the changes that it makes to its own processes. A memory is more than the storage of facts. A memory is the maintenance of an ability to perform processes. An engine does not usually modify its own processes. Knowledge management is related to the ability of modern organizations to learn from their environments and to adapt themselves to changes in the environment.

“First generation knowledge management” refers to efforts to capture information from the environment and to make it available to employees as needed for decision making. “Second generation knowledge management” refers to using that knowledge to adjust the processes of the organization in real time. The distinction between first generation knowledge management and second generation knowledge management is parallel to the distinction between single loop learning and double loop learning.

The essence of first generation knowledge management is to capture information from the environment, “clean it up” as necessary and then to do two things with it. Urgent information needs to be sent to whoever has responsibility to know it immediately. Then all of the processed information needs to be put into some kind of knowledge repository that is widely available to those who may need it, now and in the future.

Beyond these concerns is the generation of new knowledge within the organization. The generation (discovery) of new knowledge often involves the aggregation of facts and the magic of human cognition which we do not yet understand. One of the possible products of knowledge generation is the improvement of the internal processes of the organization. This is the realm of second generation knowledge management, in which the organization improves its abilities, including its ability to learn.

Those who say that knowledge cannot be managed are correct in that knowledge management is not about mind control. It is more about the facilitation of learning. It involves the creation of an organization culture that encourages and rewards the sharing of information. It is about designing information flows that do not overwhelm employees with things they do not need to know, while assuring that employees do receive what information they do need to know. Basically, MIS (management information systems) are used to set up the organization for effective knowledge management. Computer networks cannot think, but they are tools that can be designed to make it possible for employees to process knowledge effectively. Knowledge can in a sense be managed. “Knowledge facilitation” is probably more descriptive of what is really involved.”

tra qualche giorno lo commenterò!

ResearchesJuly 31, 2005 5:50 pm

Information and Communication Technology o più semplicemente e universalmente, ICT

Nel corso degli anni (e addirittura dei secoli) questo termine è stato associato all’uso del computer e dei canali di comunicazione ad esso associato. Oggi è sempre più difficile scindere quello che è scienza dall’uso che se ne fa e da come l’ICT condiziona ormai la nostra giornata tipo. Pensate soltanto ai cellulari o addirittura agli smartphone tramite cui è possibile comunicare e lavorare ovunque, o ai computer che in casa hanno preso il posto della televisione, del videoregistratore e persino dell’album fotografico)

Dopo una breve definizione e un altrettanto breve excursus storico mi concentrerò sugli aspetti sociali legati all’uso dell’ICT, azzardando una previsione per gli anni a venire.

Grazie e buona lettura,

Leggete l’articolo su Kandalu.blogsome.com

Conversations, ResearchesJuly 23, 2005 12:14 am

La cooperazione applicativa ed il modello di rete P2P sono termini utilizzati per la definizione di concetti riguardanti l’interconnessione di processi e non definiti “leciti” in un dominio che vada oltre il concetto di applicazione. Oggi l’informatica applicata ci insegna però che i modelli che abbiamo studiato o studiamo ancora oggi ben si rifanno ad un utilizzo prettamente “umano”, nella definizione delle loro architetture anche perchè sempre di più si basano su applicazioni “pratiche” nate da bisogni reali e non come tanti anni fa quando si costruivano su modelli prettamente teorici, come il caso dello standard ISO/OSI che viene riflesso in parte e perfezionato, dal protocollo TCP/IP. Per Cooperazione Applicativa viene inteso, almeno ad un livello abastanza “alto” e quindi condiviso da tutti, l’utilizzo di informazioni comuni utili a raggiungere obiettivi comuni, è tanto “bella” questa aprola che in inglese viene sopraffatto dal termine interoperability, come è buffo il mondo! Per rete P2P invece si indica un sistema interconnesso di host, i quali si trovano tutti ad un pari livello di comunicazione tra essi , questo modello fa si che ogni risorsa sia imprescindibile da qualsiasi vincolo possa essere imposto su di essa da un altro host che non sia la macchina dove risiede, in termini più semplici ognuno è padrone delle proprie risorse e le condivide con gli altri! Forse il termine “padrone” non è tanto azzeccato, poiche la risorsa in questo caso subisce unicamente il vincolo, hardware (ad esempio prestazione della macchina) dove risiede, ma questa ulteriore divagazione mi è utile per giustificare il paragone con la nostra società umana, in particolare in un’ottica di risorse aziendali!!

All’interno di qualsiasi società (sia essa umana che aziendale) la comunità di persone è vincolata e guidata da leggi che ne regolano la vita quotidiana, l’obiettivo è capire se l’adozione di questo binomio può portare benefici o meno in una realtà decisionale. Bene, iniziamo con il dire che all’interno di un WorkGroup i membri fanno riferimento a delle persone che fanno parte di un modello piramidale (anche se alcuni ormai dicono che questo modello non è più valido, perchè all’interno delle loro aziende si utilizza un modello orizzontale, ecc…) non ne sono molto convinto, io mi fido degli Egizi! Ciò significa che queste persone hanno due compiti principali, cioè il fare bene il propio lavoro e farlo secondo le direttive del “capo”. Prese in considerazione queste due priorità, vediamo se sono riconducibili ai concetti espressi sopra:

  • Cooperazione Applicativa ==> fare bene il propio lavoro
  • P2P ==> farlo secondo le direttive del “capo”

Fare bene il proprio lavoro, significa farlo nel modo migliore con gli strumenti che si hanno a disposizione! Questo significa che se venisse adottato un sistema di cooperazione applicativa, cioè il far si che le informazioni risiedono in una fonte comune e tutte sono accessibili ed elaborabili secondo le necessità del singolo Information Worker, il lavoro potrebbe essere migliore fatto in meno tempo, e basato sulle esperienze degli altri… sicuramente si !

Farlo secondo le direttive del capo, è una situazione comune a quasi tutte le aziende. Mi spiego meglio… possiamo essere anche dei geni ma quando mettimao piede in azienda, sia essa la più flessibile che ci possa essere, se fa parte del emrcato delle sigarette, non possiamo fare una campagna all’interno dell’azienda contro il fumo…quindi il nostro lavoro, la nostra ricerca deve essere finalizzata ad obiettivi comuni al “target aziendale”. Non è tutto dobbiamo rendere conto al nostro direttore, può anche avveire in modo confidenziale ma lui deve relazionare al suo capo, ed il suo capo deve poter relazionare sugli andamenti della sua area al suo Faraone (parlando di Egizi…), quindi prima o poi bisogna relazioanre in modo serioso e quindi abbandonare quella elasticità e predisosizione all’ascolto che è comune nei livelli più bassi di qualssiasi settore, quando si inizia a parlare di numeri, sappiamo bene che viviamo in un mondo di INTERI e non di REALI…In poche parole non possimo muoverci in autonomia, con i nostri tempi,i nostri bisogni, i nostri limiti,le nostre necessità ma dobbiamo rispettare gli altri…molte aziende abbassaano il target di produzione per non avere inconvenienti, in giappone gli scioperi si fanno al contrario, producono di più invece che fermarsi, perchè in questo modo producono und anno maggiore all’azienda, quando lo capiremo noi italiani?? Il concetto di P2P è diverso, come abbiamo avuto modo di vedere, non si hanno obblighi o ruoli all’internoi della rete, ognuno da e richiede quello che ha/non ha indistintamente dalla necessità in quel momento! Anzi tutti tendono ad accumulare in previsione di una perdita di connessione…. chi è pronto ad affermare il contrario??

Conversations, ResearchesJuly 22, 2005 3:21 pm

KI2
Ki è l’integrale da 1 a n della Ki vista prima, ma con due importanti novità: la prima è p ossia il numero di processi interni all’azienda, la seconda è che p fa anche da esponenziale al Ki semplice.
See big picture

Social Enterprise Architecture, Researches 11:21 am
Di = numero passaggi necessari per raggiungere un qualsiasi altro collega

metriche di riferimento:

Di(Internet) = 19

Di(mondo) = 6

e la vostra intranet che diametro ha? quali strumenti vi aiutano a misurare Di(intranet)? e quali strumenti invece vi aiutano a modellare il Di(Intranet)?

Conversations, Social Enterprise Architecture, Researches 10:02 am

KI

Ki : Knowledge Index

D : Decisione 0/1

d : Dato - x = incongnita

i : Interpretazione 0-100%

c : Comunicazione 0-100%

e: Elaborazione 0-100%

 

Ki=D*(d*i-c+e)



Researches, Featured ConceptJuly 19, 2005 8:35 am

XanaduPROJECT XANADU®

Founded 1960   *   The Original Hypertext Project

http://www.xanadu.com/ – http://ted.hyperland.com/

Today’s one-way hypertext– the World Wide Web– is far too shallow.  The Xanadu project foresaw world-wide hypertext decades ago, and endeavored to create a much deeper system.  The Web, however, took over with a very shallow structure.  Our simple method, very different, allows–

•  UNBREAKABLE LINKS.
•  COPYRIGHT SIMPLIFICATION AND SOFTENING: by special permissions and methods, quotations of any size may be used by anyone and mixed together frictionlessly.
•  ORIGIN CONNECTION: All quotations and excerpts stay connected to their original.
• TWO-WAY LINKS: anyone may publish connected comments to any page.
•  SIDE-BY-SIDE INTERCOMPARISON OF CONNECTED DOCUMENTS– showing two-way links, differences between versions, origins of contexts.  (For a simple working demonstration, see our new free CosmicBook(tm) reader.)
•  DEEP VERSION MANAGEMENT: documents may be changed incrementally (with each version available); versions may branch; authors may easily see exact differences between versions.
•  INCREMENTAL PUBLISHING: new changes may be continually made by authors without breaking links.

How can this be?  Very simple, but very different….Read More about the Xanadu Model

Social Enterprise Architecture, ResearchesJuly 18, 2005 11:26 pm

Tim Lee

Is the Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, Senior Researcher at MIT\’s CSAIL, and Professor of Computer Science at Southampton ECS.

Weaving the Web by Tim Berners-Lee with Mark Fischetti, (Harper San Francisco; Paperback: ISBN:006251587X, Abridged audio cassette abridged ISBN:0694521256) and various other languages. 1997.

Bio

A graduate of Oxford University, England, Tim now holds the 3Com Founders chair at the Laboratory for Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL)at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He directs the World Wide Web Consortium, an open forum of companies and organizations with the mission to lead the Web to its full potential.

With a background of system design in real-time communications and text processing software development, in 1989 he invented the World Wide Web, an internet-based hypermedia initiative for global information sharing. while working at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory. He wrote the first web client (browser-editor) and server in 1990.

Before coming to CERN, Tim worked with Image Computer Systems, of Ferndown, Dorset, England and before that as a principal engineer with Plessey Telecommunications, in Poole, England.

(Longer bio)

Read all bio here: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/

Social Enterprise Architecture, Researches, Featured Concept 10:45 pm

Xhtml Friends Network

XFN™ (XHTML Friends Network) is a simple way to represent human relationships using hyperlinks. In recent years, blogs and blogrolls have become the fastest growing area of the Web. XFN enables web authors to indicate their relationship(s) to the people in their blogrolls simply by adding a \’rel\’ attribute to their <a href> tags, e.g.:

<a href=\"http://jeff.example.org\" rel=\”friend met\”>…

http://gmpg.org/xfn/

ResearchesJuly 17, 2005 12:40 pm

Crafting an Answer

“So the call came in late on Thursday afternoon and right away I wished I hadn’t answered the phone. We had received a last-second opportunity to bid on a sizable piece of work that the Partner on the other end of the line really wanted to pursue. I had no clue how to even begin looking for relevant methodologies or case examples, so my first move was to tap into my network to find some relevant info and leads to other people or databases. And I relied pretty heavily on this group over the next couple of days. Seth was great for pointing me to other people and relevant information, Paul provided ideas on the technical content of the project while Jeff really helped in showing me how to frame the client’s issues in ways that we could sell. He also helped navigate and get buy-in from the client given his knowledge of their operations and politics. . . I mean the whole game is just being the person that can get the client what they need with [the firm’s] resources behind you. This almost always seems to mean knowing who knows what and figuring out a way to bring them to bear on your client’s issue.”

—Anonymous Interviewee

Read full article on PDF here

Researches 12:18 pm

Inside social network analysis

This article introduces the major social network analysis concepts and their application to business problems.

Six months after a management consulting firm lost a lucrative contract with a large financial institution, it learned that another internal group had worked on a project with the prospective client and had in-depth knowledge of its business operations. If that crucial knowledge had been shared, the outcome might have been different.

This is just one example of the opportunities that large companies can miss if they fail to understand that success depends less on reporting structure and more on an informal web of contacts. In the past, companies that encountered a loss of business like the one above might conduct a survey and interview employees to discover what went wrong. Now, IBM’s On Demand Innovation Services is promoting an approach called social network analysis or SNA, which has been gaining currency among business consultants as an effective method for revealing the hidden connections that drive how work gets done.

Beyond the organizational chart SNASocial Network Analysis is a set of survey methods and statistics that reveals the hidden connections between people. The outcome of an SNA shows where collaboration is breaking down, where talent and expertise could be better used, where decisions are getting bogged down or where opportunities for innovation are being lost. The data give leaders the information they need to take actions: perhaps including making role and responsibility changes that would foster cross-group communications; developing methods for improving trust; using technology to reach others more effectively; or realigning reward and incentive programs.

Understanding how a company works used to be as easy as looking at an organizational chart. But in a networked organization (which most companies now are), the chart is no longer an adequate guide. Consider the following diagrams, 1 which represent the production division of a large petroleum company (names have been changed):

The diagram on the left shows the organizational chart for a group within the company. The company’s upper management undertook an SNA to find out how this group was preparing to share important information; the result is shown in the diagram on the right. This representation shows that mid-level managers, particularly Cole, are playing a pivotal role in the group’s communication network. Not only was Cole linked to many people, making him very central to the group, but he was also the only link between the cluster of people at the top, representing production, and the rest of the group, who were involved in other distinct yet critical activities. The SNA and additional interviews also revealed that the leader of the group, Jones, was not central in the informal network. Prompted by the diagram, the group undertook further investigations and learned that Jones had become removed from many of the day-to-day workings of the group. As a result of the SNA, upper management made significant changes to the group, including formalizing Cole’s role.

Ties that help

The important ties between individuals or groups can be categorized in many different ways, each serving a unique and helpful role in the network.

Are ties direct or indirect? A direct connection is the connection between two people. As we saw in the previous example, Cole had many direct connections in the network of people in exploration and production of the petroleum company. He was central in this network. Central people have more influence in their network, tend to receive better performance reviews, and be more satisfied with their jobs than people who are less central. Ties can also be indirect - as when two or more people are linked through intermediaries. This can be a positive role for the company - as when the intermediary is pivotal in linking between groups, as Cole does between the production and the rest of the group. Or negative - as when intermediaries block the flow of information.

Are ties strong or weak? Strong ties are characterized by frequent interaction, feelings of closeness, and multiple types of relationships. For example, a strong tie may provide you with emotional support, job-related information, and a person to go see your favorite sci-fi movies with. On the other hand, it also requires a good deal of energy to maintain. A weak tie may not provide as much social support, but it is easier to maintain and can provide you with new information. Weak ties can be critical for innovation. For example, a researcher is much more likely to learn about a line of relevant research in an otherwise unrelated field from a casual acquaintance than from a good friend. This is because good friends tend to have access to the same information whereas casual acquaintances tend to offer new information. In business settings, it is important to have a good balance between strong and weak ties.

Are ties one-way or two-way (reciprocal)? When a tie goes in both directions, we think of it as being reciprocal. This is important because reciprocal ties are generally stronger than ties that only go in one direction. For instance, a group will generally function better when a key decision-maker is not only sought after for information and advice, but he or she also seeks information from the group. But one-way ties can be useful too - as when a novice approaches a recognized expert in the group, but he or she would not expect the expert to reciprocate.

Anatomy of an SNA Group. An SNA is conducted with a group of people, typically between 25 and 150 at a time. The group could be as simple as a discrete workgroup, such as a distributed software development group or a sales team or the group could be a community of interest, the business unit in a single organization, or the leading companies in a particular industry.

Relationships. Ties can represent a range of relationship types. For example, a tie can indicate if one person likes, trusts, respects, reports to, communicates with, and/or gets information from another. Ties vary across relationships. There may be many ties under the awareness category, but very few ties for communicates with or trusts.

Attributes. There are often barriers to collaboration. For instance, the people who develop new products might not be speaking with the people who market and sell those same products; the people who work for a managing consulting company in France might not be sharing their client experience with the people in the U.S.; people who have been with the company for a long time might not be sharing their knowledge with new hires. If these important ties are not maintained, a company needs to know if it is just a few people or the group as a whole that is not working together? These generalized effects result from aggregating ties within and between attributes, such as business unit, geography, length of time in the company.

Applying SNA The hypothetical management consulting firm scenario mentioned at the beginning of the article is a good example of a company that needs to improve its consultants’ awareness of related projects. Before embarking on potentially costly organizational changes and other initiatives, the executive leadership should commission an SNA to study consultants who have been with the company for varying lengths of time, work in different geographies and different practices, and are at different management/employee levels. The results should demonstrate where information is not getting communicated.

Questions in the SNA might include: “How aware are you of the projects done by this person in the past 12 months?” and “How often does this person provide you with information you need to develop client proposals?” By looking at who was central in the awareness and information-sharing networks, IBM consultants could show the company which people the team tended to go to for information. By looking at how often people from each group interacted with each other, the SNA might reveal that consultants who had been with the company the longest tend to get information from each other; while newer employees only turn to each other for more information if they are located in close physical proximity. IBM consultants would then conduct follow-up interviews to find more in-depth information, such as if time pressures might be a reason that members of the team have few opportunities to develop relationships with newer employees or those in a different geography. The results of the SNA could give management the information they need to take corrective actions. For some clients with similar problems, ODIS consultants have recommended the following actions: initiating a mentor system to help new employees, coaching individuals to spend more time with people who are further away, sponsoring events several times a year to bring people together from different parts of the company, and developing an award program for any new engagements that are won as a result of existing relationships from outside the immediate team.

Business applications of SNA

Knowledge management and collaboration. Help locate expertise, seed new communities of practice, improve cross-functional knowledge-sharing and strategic decision-making across leadership teams. Team-building. Facilitate post-merger integration or help leaders identify how to structure teams for innovation or structure and manage distributed teams. Human resources. Identify and monitor the effects of workforce diversity, hiring practices and leadership development to improve on-boarding, retention, employee satisfaction and productivity. Sales and marketing. Speed or expand the adoption of new products, technologies or ideas as part of an overall communication strategy. Strategy. Support planning and strategy for engaging in partnerships and alliances. By working with the informal networks, leaders have the tools to capitalize on the existing human capital within their company.

1 Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S.P. 2001. Knowing What We Know: Supporting Knowledge Creation and Sharing in Social Networks. Organizational Dynamics 30 (2): 100 - 120

######

Kate Ehrlich is a researcher in the Cambridge user experience group where she conducts research and consults on collaboration using Social Network Analysis as part of the ODIS collaboration micropractice.

Inga Carboni is pursuing her degree in organizational studies at Boston College. Her primary areas of academic interest are conflict, social networks, and interpersonal relationships.

Original text could be found here