Stored Knowledge vs. Stream Knowledge

A lot of new KM systems are built around microblog functionality. What I term streaming KM. A stream of information flows from all the people to whom you are connected in the system. Much like Twitter, you can send specific messages or mass distributed messages.

My issue with this functionality surrounds collection and long-term storage. What happens to these streamed messages? How to they get integrated into the collective knowledge (if there is such a thing) of the organization? Furthermore, how does context get applied to the meaning and content of the messages if you search?

Let me propose an example. Assume scientists at ABC company use Yammer within their large pharmaceutical company. One scientist sends a message to the group regarding the threshold level of chemical X permitted in the diffusion process for creating chemical Y. Several scientists respond with things like "it should be no more than 2"...or "research shows anything above 2.5 is ineffective..." How does this K get stored in the organization? First, the audience understands certain aspects of the message which a lay person may not. Possibly the 2 or 2.5 is micrograms per liter or whatever the amount might be. Without labels, the quantity might be useless to a search engine. Also, consider the whole stream is necessary to understand the meaning of the exchange, not just the reply. Finally, where does this information get stored so that it adds value to the company's KMS? Can the info make it's way to a database or KMS?

I really like the functionality of stream KM. I have been using Google Wave for research and for some consulting. But the lack of these modified social network systems to connect to corporate enterprise KM is a bit troubling...or might need a solution.

This might be why I like academia...

On Tuesday I heard a presentation with Douglas Rushkoff and then I had lunch with him in a small group at my college. There are some fundamental areas about corporations and banks where I disagree with Rushkoff. But I found him to be a very unassuming and thoughtful guy. His thesis that life has become corporate and large corporations have ruined the fabric of life has traction with many people during the recession. His solution to work and produce value in your community (locally) has some true benefit, however, I think some of the conclusions are overly simplistic.

Tuesday evening I watched the movie "Helvetica" with my night class at another event and then had a discussion about printing with some Society of Design members. My work with KM, interactive design, and usability is somewhat tangential to the field of design, but my early days as a doc designer and technical communicator made me fascinated by this movie and subsequent discussion.

After coming home, I realized that I was tired. Not physically, but intellectually. Which is a great feeling. I do not typically feel this way after teaching, certainly not after mudane tasks like grading, and rarely while consulting. This is one of those days where the concepts, thoughts, and interesting dialogue overflows your capacity to comprehend (or at least contemplate and categorize) it all. Very satisfying.

Google claims MS is helping antitrust lawsuits...

...or I could have entitled this "Search Your Own Algorithm for the term Naiveté."

InformationWeek reports that Google claims MS is waging a proxy war over antitrust litigation. MS appears to be providing legal assistance to small lawsuits that companies are filing against Google. These lawsuits appear to be legitimate and not frivolous. If they are legitimate, Google needs to stop complaining and get better lawyers. Stop ranting about how many PhDs you have and get some good attorneys (cannot believe I write this).

Seriously, the rhetoric on this subject is very interesting. We should be consistent in the way we apply criticism and argument. When MS was being sued by Netscape there were many in the IT/Business community who piled-on the antitrust rhetoric in an effort to keep MS in check. And this issue was over browsers which were being distributed for no cost.

Now, Google cries foul when the same thing is done to them. People, esp. open sourcerers, call MS the "Evil Empire". Somehow, MS is evil but Google, who has completely monopolized the ad search field, is "good". Is this because they have a trust statement that claims to be ethical? Personally, I like both companies. But the open sourcerers need a clue. Google is not OS. Just because they give a bunch of apps away for free does not make them OS. They can give away apps and products because they have a monopoly on search. Someone (e.g. advertisers) are paying to subsidize Voice, Docs, Webmaster, etc.

Competition is good. It makes products better, keeps costs down, and helps corporations remain user-centered. This is what Google Docs has done to MS Office. So why should reversed roles - MS vs. Google in the search advertising space - be any different?