What is an expert?

We can use so many taxonomies to categorize experts. I keeping returning, however, to the division between the first two stages of knowledge: creation and transfer (kc/kt) and the last stage, application (ka). The division between “knowledge having and knowledge applying” has many important implications for experts, such as research vs. application, academic vs. practitioner, theory vs. practice, and R&D vs. operations.

I recall the Aristotelian taxonomy of knowledge theoria (theory), poiesis (production) and praxis (application). With some slight refinement, the Aristotelian model seems to fit experts very well. It is the action of the experts that allows us to move knowledge through these stages. Modern day researchers such as Nonaka and Takeuchi have recognized that organizational knowledge resides primarily in individuals. The idea of collective knowledge is centered on the collective knowledge of individuals, not databases or robots. For me, the action taken by these experts is what moves the knowledge through its stages to application.

This is why the Web 2.0 revolution is exciting. It presents the opportunity for the exchange of knowledge between experts which have a theoretical, production, or applied perspective. Some experts are theory experts, even across disciplines. They categorize, refine, and explain the meaning of knowledge in terms of postmodernism, structuralism, constructivist, and many other theories which tie into how we exist as humans. Other experts explore how we use these theories to explain how things work or why things are. Finally, the last group of experts takes these concepts, possibly with refinement, combination or even bastardization, and applies them to disciplines or tools where action takes place. The granularity is different for each set of experts but the results move through the kc/kt/ka stages.

Scary Times in the 4th Estate

Last evening I had dinner with 2 friends. The three of us each has a communications background and we began talking about the sad state of journalism. I have not posted much about the state of journalism. At times I have deemed journalism to be outside of the Web 2.0/KM topics I follow. But journalism IS strongly related to KM. Reputable sources of journalistic information are critical to individuals and organizations. Look at how the WSJ continues to succeed at a subscription-model for revenue because if its solid information.

Ultimately, the state of journalism affects KM as well as our basic liberties. Without sounding pompous, it is the journalists who have uncovered the corruption, scandal, and outrageous behavior among people which has helped to keep society honest. Who will do this in the digital fourth estate? My fear is that no one will. Unfortunately, investigative journalism takes time and no longer yields financial return for most newspapers.

I mix a few local anecdotes with some national ones for effect. The Allentown (PA) Morning Call laid off 70 people from the newsroom. This is a paper from a small metro area. It has a subscription rate of slightly over a 100k. How many people does the Call's news room even employ? Stories abound from Denver, Seattle, and other 2nd-tier metro markets about newspapers closing or moving to online only editions. Many small market papers, including the local Lancaster PA newspaper, have consolidated morning and late editions. While this might sound reasonable in the age of digital journalism, it drastically cuts down on the advertising space that keep the newspaper going.

The problem is that people do not know there is a problem. They think blogs and Twitter have replaced traditional media. So what if newspapers go the way of garment manufacturers, steel mills, and A.M radio, we have replacements, right? We can not replace the media with technology. Blogs, Twitter, and Satellite radio are only means to publish information, not create the content itself. If our media are only focused on Jacko's funeral, Brittany's rehab, and the latest success of vampire movies, who keeps us informed about serious events and happenings? Who produces the quality investigative journlism on regional and local companies, politicians, and events?

I do not have an answer, but I feel the need to keep asking the question. Consider for a moment, that the egregious behavior of 2008 Wall St and banking exploits took place with a strong financial media. What are the consequences for not having any real media to disseminate information and keep the arms of industry, government, and education honest? If corruption happens in the woods and no is there to hear it...is it really illegal?

Show me the Money $$$

The latest buzz is about Google and its foray into building an operating system for netbooks. Reporters love to report that Google is going after all of Microsoft's business. After all, people love any kind of competition and the news knows it (politics, legal battles, war). But no one in the press seems to be paying any attention to the fact that Google gives away all of its services that compete with Microsoft.

I have been arguing for years with people that free is not good for users in the long-term. When no one pays, there is no institutional commitment to the product. It's doubtful that Google is going to shelf Googledocs anytime soon. But if you build a business or an organizational process around Googledocs, what is the long-term commitment of Google if no one pays for the software?

Such is the question with a Chrome operating system. Google is absolutely correct that netbooks need a fast, clean, and fast-loading OS. But will people be able to use an OS that relys on bandwidth, which is how Chrome is supposedly built? I know I use my netbook for trips and traveling. I can think of many times I was at airports, beach vacations, and rural road trips where I had no bandwidth but still wanted to write, compose, work on a PowerPoint, or play a game.

More importantly, where is the revenue model for Chrome? Will Google finally leverage its brand and charge something for a product? Or will we be saddled with an OS that serves us ads while we're online? Or worse, a product which has no revenue stream at all.

Eventually, Google needs to grow beyond ads. The dent which the economy has had on advertising and the limitation for ad growth has turned Google into a mature company. While people consider them an innovator, I reserve judgement until they develop a product with an actual revenue model. Then we can call Google a competitor to MS.

Frankie says Relax...

L. Gordon Crovitz has a WSJ piece about how humans will survive and adapt to new technologies like Twitter. I agree. For me, however, there are some caveats to Web 2.0 technologies so I offer a few more thoughts:

1. Information literacy is critical. Many young people still do not grasp the importance of critical thinking skills when evaluating information.

2. Twitter and social networking are revolutionary from the perspective of how (not what) we seek. Instead of searching, which was the standard just 4 years ago (pull), we now get information from our social or work network (push).

3. It will be interesting to see whether the deep thinking required for innovation or revolutionary ideas is impacted by our multi-tasking tendencies. Will creative thinkers still be able to have "Aha" moments...or will the buzzing of the blackberry kill these opportunities?

4. Younger workers don't see the situation as info overload. They call it life. People like me frame it as info overload based on the limited quantity of information that was available to me when I entered the workforce in the late 80's. I suspect that millennials will transition just fine into a transparent work/play relationship.

5. Human adaptation is the most important aspect of Web 2.0. We have adapted what Jurgen Habermas calls tools, techniques and technology to take us places well beyond what the inventors ever imagined.

Optimism should be the order of the day. But let's not get too giddy. There is still a lot of work to be done in socio-technical areas of organizations and companies.