Organizational Virus? #COVID-19


Dennis Pearce
 

I recently wrote a blog post arguing that coronavirus is an an organizational virus as well as a biological one.  Would be interested in others' thoughts on this.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/coronavirus-organizational-virus-just-human-one-dennis-pearce/


Nirmala Palaniappan
 

Catching up with my backlog. 
Hello from another lover of analogies! :-) 
That was an excellent post and I loved the idea of a pandemic drill! Sad but it really is beginning to look like it will be essential going forward.  

Regards
Nirmala 

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 19:11, Dennis Pearce <denpearce@...> wrote:
I recently wrote a blog post arguing that coronavirus is an an organizational virus as well as a biological one.  Would be interested in others' thoughts on this.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/coronavirus-organizational-virus-just-human-one-dennis-pearce/



--
"The faithful see the invisible, believe the incredible and then receive the impossible" - Anonymous


Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Great stuff Dennis!

On Mar 28, 2020, at 4:43 AM, Nirmala Palaniappan <nirmala.pal@...> wrote:


Catching up with my backlog. 
Hello from another lover of analogies! :-) 
That was an excellent post and I loved the idea of a pandemic drill! Sad but it really is beginning to look like it will be essential going forward.  

Regards
Nirmala 

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 19:11, Dennis Pearce <denpearce@...> wrote:
I recently wrote a blog post arguing that coronavirus is an an organizational virus as well as a biological one.  Would be interested in others' thoughts on this.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/coronavirus-organizational-virus-just-human-one-dennis-pearce/



--
"The faithful see the invisible, believe the incredible and then receive the impossible" - Anonymous


Dennis Pearce
 

I am working with my organization on a strategy to separate what I am calling "new ways of working" from "new modes of working."  Social distancing is forcing everyone to quickly learn how to use all the various online collaboration tools out there.  So when the pandemic subsides, there will be new behaviors we want to keep because they are actually better (new ways of working), and behaviors that are not optimum so we will want to return to the old.  However, they are still much better than what we had before (which was basically nothing) so they are new modes of working, new tools in our toolkit that we can pull out and use whenever necessary.

For the new ways of working, we need to develop strategies to continue to reinforce them so that they become the new normal.

For the new modes of working, we need to identify when to switch and have plans in place to make that switch as seamless as possible.  I have a feeling we will be having to switch back and forth between these modes several times over the next few years as the virus comes and goes.  Not to mention that plans for working from anywhere come in handy as part of a general disaster plan in case of fire, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, etc.  So we need to have well defined procedures and practice drills so that the next time this happens, it's the online equivalent of everyone moving calmly to the exits rather than rushing in a mad panic.


Dennis Thomas
 

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  


D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.


On March 27, 2020 at 3:58:47 PM, Dennis Pearce (denpearce@...) wrote:

I am working with my organization on a strategy to separate what I am calling "new ways of working" from "new modes of working."  Social distancing is forcing everyone to quickly learn how to use all the various online collaboration tools out there.  So when the pandemic subsides, there will be new behaviors we want to keep because they are actually better (new ways of working), and behaviors that are not optimum so we will want to return to the old.  However, they are still much better than what we had before (which was basically nothing) so they are new modes of working, new tools in our toolkit that we can pull out and use whenever necessary.

For the new ways of working, we need to develop strategies to continue to reinforce them so that they become the new normal.

For the new modes of working, we need to identify when to switch and have plans in place to make that switch as seamless as possible.  I have a feeling we will be having to switch back and forth between these modes several times over the next few years as the virus comes and goes.  Not to mention that plans for working from anywhere come in handy as part of a general disaster plan in case of fire, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, etc.  So we need to have well defined procedures and practice drills so that the next time this happens, it's the online equivalent of everyone moving calmly to the exits rather than rushing in a mad panic.


Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Dennis P,

Completely agree with this - in fact we discuss very similar things in our COVID-19 report and webinar.

I think there is a question of timing. Right now 99% of people are focused on getting thru the next week. There will be a few of us thinking further ahead - so we need to keep these conversations going and gradually involve others when they are ready.

It's also important to note that while all this going on - 1. people are getting sick and dying and 2. our economies are getting absolutely hammered and millions of people are unemployed. Post-COVID our world will not be just the same as it was with a little bit more remote working. We cannot predict what the world will be like but we can mentally prepare to handle this radical novelty.

Regards,

Matt

On March 27, 2020 at 3:58:47 PM, Dennis Pearce (denpearce@gmail.com) wrote:



I am working with my organization on a strategy to separate what I am calling "new ways of working" from "new modes of working."  Social distancing is forcing everyone to quickly learn how to use all the various online collaboration tools out there.  So when the pandemic subsides, there will be new behaviors we want to keep because they are actually better (new ways of working), and behaviors that are not optimum so we will want to return to the old.  However, they are still much better than what we had before (which was basically nothing) so they are new modes of working, new tools in our toolkit that we can pull out and use whenever necessary.

For the new ways of working, we need to develop strategies to continue to reinforce them so that they become the new normal.

For the new modes of working, we need to identify when to switch and have plans in place to make that switch as seamless as possible.  I have a feeling we will be having to switch back and forth between these modes several times over the next few years as the virus comes and goes.  Not to mention that plans for working from anywhere come in handy as part of a general disaster plan in case of fire, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, etc.  So we need to have well defined procedures and practice drills so that the next time this happens, it's the online equivalent of everyone moving calmly to the exits rather than rushing in a mad panic.


Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@iqstrategix.com> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.


Dennis Thomas
 

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:

Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.




Murray Jennex
 

I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.




Dennis Thomas
 

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:

I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.




Murray Jennex
 

yes, but I am saying that the formal definition of rational thinking is that we are all knowing Gods so I'm basically saying be sure to use the terminology correctly in this type of discussion because rational thinking has been defined for many years, using the term but in a different context will generate confusion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.




Dennis Thomas
 

OK, we are all Gods and Goddesses.  But, not all academics that have spent years researching, categorizing, memorizing, and using language that adheres to academic standards.  I don’t believe this is an academic forum (Stan, is it?)  Fortunately, us antelope types are burrowed down into our own work world’s trying to contribute value to our peers and organizations using the knowledge, language  and tools we know and understand.  One of those tools is a dictionary.  Merriam-Webster, for example, states that the word rational means:

Definition of rational

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

I would venture to say that most of the people on this forum are here to graze and learn, for this reason, I apologize for the possibility of creating confusion.  

RECAP OF THREAD:  

Dennis P. opens thread to his March 22, 2020 article: “ Coronavirus is an Organizational Virus, Not Just a Human One.” 
Nirmala Palaniappan responds with a thumbs-up about Dennis’ use of analogies.
Matt Moore responds with a thumbs-up 
Dennis P. responds with a strategy related to “new modes of working.”  A practical observation related to social distancing. 
Dennis T. liked Dennis P.’s train of thought. Presented a slideshow on Knowledge Science, and Intelligent Cities. 
Matt Moore responds with a statement of agreement to Dennis P’s assertions.
Matt Moore responds to Dennis T.’s slideshow offering requesting he identify a specific slide he liked.
Dennis T. states Slide #34 and posts a design to help justify his selection.
Murray Jennex challenges Dennis T’s use of the word rational due to its academic reasons. 
Dennis T. agrees with Murry Jennex that we are all Gods and Goddesses, but states that this is not an academic forum.  

Now, before returning to Dennis P.’s challenge. I would like to say that I am open to improving the Human Intelligence graphic I presented, so any suggestions are welcome.   Also, I would like to submit one additional graphic that I think relates to what Murray is suggesting.   I wonder if this decision cycle makes sense? 

 







On March 30, 2020 at 12:18:13 AM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:

yes, but I am saying that the formal definition of rational thinking is that we are all knowing Gods so I'm basically saying be sure to use the terminology correctly in this type of discussion because rational thinking has been defined for many years, using the term but in a different context will generate confusion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.




Richard Vines
 

Dennis T,

I appreciate your efforts to present this exchange in some sort of context and for presenting this reference to "rational" in a respectful way.

I have found myself, again being interested and influenced by these thoughts ... I would add to the top of the diagram by referring to what is human interpretative intelligence. A nuanced, but also profound implication. 

And I am also of the view that models are a vital form of human interpretative intelligence. It was fascinating last night on our Australian ABC 7:30 Report when a subject matter expert (Professor Brendan Crabb) was asked about his view of the Australian Federal Government's response to the COVID 19. He stated that whilst he agreed with a lot of what is being done, he could not comment in detail because he could not access the underlying assumptions built into the modelling work of the Australian Government. So often models are held behind closed IP and other doors. 

Crabb's feedback on national television was profoundly important - because he raised a matter which I think is seriously overlooked. Our societies at large are now using model abstractions to make huge and consequential decisions (i.e. Australia has announced a $130 billion injection - the US over 2 trillion). And yet we in Australia are still not managing the publicly orientated modelling framework functions - that provide input into such consequential decisions in ways that are consistent with open transparent knowledge societies. 

And, as an aside we also have a warped knowledge ecology in that many of those selling data management solutions are doing so on the basis that pattern analysis in data forms the basis of our evidence monitoring. How do such approaches take into account the knowledge of physics, biophysical or epidemiological functions and their role in debating modelling development and model falsification processes? Human interpretative intelligence is nuanced and subtle in its aspirations, but we over ride it with our god and goddess-like attitudes at our peril?


Richard 


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:58 PM Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:
OK, we are all Gods and Goddesses.  But, not all academics that have spent years researching, categorizing, memorizing, and using language that adheres to academic standards.  I don’t believe this is an academic forum (Stan, is it?)  Fortunately, us antelope types are burrowed down into our own work world’s trying to contribute value to our peers and organizations using the knowledge, language  and tools we know and understand.  One of those tools is a dictionary.  Merriam-Webster, for example, states that the word rational means:

Definition of rational

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

I would venture to say that most of the people on this forum are here to graze and learn, for this reason, I apologize for the possibility of creating confusion.  

RECAP OF THREAD:  

Dennis P. opens thread to his March 22, 2020 article: “ Coronavirus is an Organizational Virus, Not Just a Human One.” 
Nirmala Palaniappan responds with a thumbs-up about Dennis’ use of analogies.
Matt Moore responds with a thumbs-up 
Dennis P. responds with a strategy related to “new modes of working.”  A practical observation related to social distancing. 
Dennis T. liked Dennis P.’s train of thought. Presented a slideshow on Knowledge Science, and Intelligent Cities. 
Matt Moore responds with a statement of agreement to Dennis P’s assertions.
Matt Moore responds to Dennis T.’s slideshow offering requesting he identify a specific slide he liked.
Dennis T. states Slide #34 and posts a design to help justify his selection.
Murray Jennex challenges Dennis T’s use of the word rational due to its academic reasons. 
Dennis T. agrees with Murry Jennex that we are all Gods and Goddesses, but states that this is not an academic forum.  

Now, before returning to Dennis P.’s challenge. I would like to say that I am open to improving the Human Intelligence graphic I presented, so any suggestions are welcome.   Also, I would like to submit one additional graphic that I think relates to what Murray is suggesting.   I wonder if this decision cycle makes sense? 

 







On March 30, 2020 at 12:18:13 AM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:

yes, but I am saying that the formal definition of rational thinking is that we are all knowing Gods so I'm basically saying be sure to use the terminology correctly in this type of discussion because rational thinking has been defined for many years, using the term but in a different context will generate confusion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.





--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Richard,

I mostly agree with Prof Crabb. Overall the Australian response has been excellent, in large part due to the AHMPPI.

I do think there is a risk in sharing underlying models, since a number of times we have seen how this can lead to groupthink and untested assumptions. From a knowledge diversity perspective, I would prefer to prioritise access to the data being used to build and assess models rather than sharing the models themselves. The former method allows independent validation of the soundness of a policy approach.

On the other hand, it's clear that a vast majority of the population struggle with understanding exponential growth and lagging indicators. Clear and honest communication about these factors in the government's response, I feel, would have been extremely useful in calming people's nerves.

More generally, I observe that the biggest lost opportunities have come from failing to prepare operational frameworks for sharing information and data with researchers and the public. This is being seen both in the lack of pre-prepared communications materials and the slow release of data to academia.

In any other context, the time for delivery would be seen as remarkably rapid for the public service. However it's just been too slow in a rapidly evolving environment like this one.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 31/03/2020 8:06 am, Richard Vines wrote:

Dennis T,

I appreciate your efforts to present this exchange in some sort of context and for presenting this reference to "rational" in a respectful way.

I have found myself, again being interested and influenced by these thoughts ... I would add to the top of the diagram by referring to what is human interpretative intelligence. A nuanced, but also profound implication. 

And I am also of the view that models are a vital form of human interpretative intelligence. It was fascinating last night on our Australian ABC 7:30 Report when a subject matter expert (Professor Brendan Crabb) was asked about his view of the Australian Federal Government's response to the COVID 19. He stated that whilst he agreed with a lot of what is being done, he could not comment in detail because he could not access the underlying assumptions built into the modelling work of the Australian Government. So often models are held behind closed IP and other doors. 

Crabb's feedback on national television was profoundly important - because he raised a matter which I think is seriously overlooked. Our societies at large are now using model abstractions to make huge and consequential decisions (i.e. Australia has announced a $130 billion injection - the US over 2 trillion). And yet we in Australia are still not managing the publicly orientated modelling framework functions - that provide input into such consequential decisions in ways that are consistent with open transparent knowledge societies. 

And, as an aside we also have a warped knowledge ecology in that many of those selling data management solutions are doing so on the basis that pattern analysis in data forms the basis of our evidence monitoring. How do such approaches take into account the knowledge of physics, biophysical or epidemiological functions and their role in debating modelling development and model falsification processes? Human interpretative intelligence is nuanced and subtle in its aspirations, but we over ride it with our god and goddess-like attitudes at our peril?


Richard 


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:58 PM Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:
OK, we are all Gods and Goddesses.  But, not all academics that have spent years researching, categorizing, memorizing, and using language that adheres to academic standards.  I don’t believe this is an academic forum (Stan, is it?)  Fortunately, us antelope types are burrowed down into our own work world’s trying to contribute value to our peers and organizations using the knowledge, language  and tools we know and understand.  One of those tools is a dictionary.  Merriam-Webster, for example, states that the word rational means:

Definition of rational

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

I would venture to say that most of the people on this forum are here to graze and learn, for this reason, I apologize for the possibility of creating confusion.  

RECAP OF THREAD:  

Dennis P. opens thread to his March 22, 2020 article: “ Coronavirus is an Organizational Virus, Not Just a Human One.” 
Nirmala Palaniappan responds with a thumbs-up about Dennis’ use of analogies.
Matt Moore responds with a thumbs-up 
Dennis P. responds with a strategy related to “new modes of working.”  A practical observation related to social distancing. 
Dennis T. liked Dennis P.’s train of thought. Presented a slideshow on Knowledge Science, and Intelligent Cities. 
Matt Moore responds with a statement of agreement to Dennis P’s assertions.
Matt Moore responds to Dennis T.’s slideshow offering requesting he identify a specific slide he liked.
Dennis T. states Slide #34 and posts a design to help justify his selection.
Murray Jennex challenges Dennis T’s use of the word rational due to its academic reasons. 
Dennis T. agrees with Murry Jennex that we are all Gods and Goddesses, but states that this is not an academic forum.  

Now, before returning to Dennis P.’s challenge. I would like to say that I am open to improving the Human Intelligence graphic I presented, so any suggestions are welcome.   Also, I would like to submit one additional graphic that I think relates to what Murray is suggesting.   I wonder if this decision cycle makes sense? 

 







On March 30, 2020 at 12:18:13 AM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:

yes, but I am saying that the formal definition of rational thinking is that we are all knowing Gods so I'm basically saying be sure to use the terminology correctly in this type of discussion because rational thinking has been defined for many years, using the term but in a different context will generate confusion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.





--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Richard Vines
 

Good points Stephen,

Re your points about models, models without data and models without falsification processes are a nonsense. That is my point, so you are right - the sharing of models is insufficient. But setting up broadscale and system wide falsification processes based on real time access to data in socially and expert orientated governance contexts is something that now we simply have to get our heads around. I know falsification is a loaded word, but is there any other word that can be used, knowing that all models are fallible, but still pragmatically useful and important to use?

We are lucky to have the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza - in that it has survived and not been disbanded. But if we have something like this, a knowledge society has to follow its recommendations. You could see the subject matter experts on the 7:30 report last night being completely straight about the various types of schmoozing that goes on. It is inevitable I suppose. Schmoozing has become a way of life. But in the case of the Australian bushfires and now this pandemic, the reality is that you cannot schmooze away the impact of the basic laws of nature and science. 

How does one convey that sort of humility to public relations and marketing schmoozers, without just sitting back and having to wait for the laws of nature and science to strike the schmoozing down. This has been my challenge as a KMer for a very long time now. In the end, the KMer role is subject to the power dynamics of collective (or commutarian) gods and goddesses ...

Singapare is reported to have had a response that has worked. IN the end, it is reported to be relatively simple, but perhaps based on different underlying power assumptions in our cultures - with a huge commitment to acting quickly and decisively.


Richard 





On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:58 AM Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Richard,

I mostly agree with Prof Crabb. Overall the Australian response has been excellent, in large part due to the AHMPPI.

I do think there is a risk in sharing underlying models, since a number of times we have seen how this can lead to groupthink and untested assumptions. From a knowledge diversity perspective, I would prefer to prioritise access to the data being used to build and assess models rather than sharing the models themselves. The former method allows independent validation of the soundness of a policy approach.

On the other hand, it's clear that a vast majority of the population struggle with understanding exponential growth and lagging indicators. Clear and honest communication about these factors in the government's response, I feel, would have been extremely useful in calming people's nerves.

More generally, I observe that the biggest lost opportunities have come from failing to prepare operational frameworks for sharing information and data with researchers and the public. This is being seen both in the lack of pre-prepared communications materials and the slow release of data to academia.

In any other context, the time for delivery would be seen as remarkably rapid for the public service. However it's just been too slow in a rapidly evolving environment like this one.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 31/03/2020 8:06 am, Richard Vines wrote:
Dennis T,

I appreciate your efforts to present this exchange in some sort of context and for presenting this reference to "rational" in a respectful way.

I have found myself, again being interested and influenced by these thoughts ... I would add to the top of the diagram by referring to what is human interpretative intelligence. A nuanced, but also profound implication. 

And I am also of the view that models are a vital form of human interpretative intelligence. It was fascinating last night on our Australian ABC 7:30 Report when a subject matter expert (Professor Brendan Crabb) was asked about his view of the Australian Federal Government's response to the COVID 19. He stated that whilst he agreed with a lot of what is being done, he could not comment in detail because he could not access the underlying assumptions built into the modelling work of the Australian Government. So often models are held behind closed IP and other doors. 

Crabb's feedback on national television was profoundly important - because he raised a matter which I think is seriously overlooked. Our societies at large are now using model abstractions to make huge and consequential decisions (i.e. Australia has announced a $130 billion injection - the US over 2 trillion). And yet we in Australia are still not managing the publicly orientated modelling framework functions - that provide input into such consequential decisions in ways that are consistent with open transparent knowledge societies. 

And, as an aside we also have a warped knowledge ecology in that many of those selling data management solutions are doing so on the basis that pattern analysis in data forms the basis of our evidence monitoring. How do such approaches take into account the knowledge of physics, biophysical or epidemiological functions and their role in debating modelling development and model falsification processes? Human interpretative intelligence is nuanced and subtle in its aspirations, but we over ride it with our god and goddess-like attitudes at our peril?


Richard 


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:58 PM Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:
OK, we are all Gods and Goddesses.  But, not all academics that have spent years researching, categorizing, memorizing, and using language that adheres to academic standards.  I don’t believe this is an academic forum (Stan, is it?)  Fortunately, us antelope types are burrowed down into our own work world’s trying to contribute value to our peers and organizations using the knowledge, language  and tools we know and understand.  One of those tools is a dictionary.  Merriam-Webster, for example, states that the word rational means:

Definition of rational

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

I would venture to say that most of the people on this forum are here to graze and learn, for this reason, I apologize for the possibility of creating confusion.  

RECAP OF THREAD:  

Dennis P. opens thread to his March 22, 2020 article: “ Coronavirus is an Organizational Virus, Not Just a Human One.” 
Nirmala Palaniappan responds with a thumbs-up about Dennis’ use of analogies.
Matt Moore responds with a thumbs-up 
Dennis P. responds with a strategy related to “new modes of working.”  A practical observation related to social distancing. 
Dennis T. liked Dennis P.’s train of thought. Presented a slideshow on Knowledge Science, and Intelligent Cities. 
Matt Moore responds with a statement of agreement to Dennis P’s assertions.
Matt Moore responds to Dennis T.’s slideshow offering requesting he identify a specific slide he liked.
Dennis T. states Slide #34 and posts a design to help justify his selection.
Murray Jennex challenges Dennis T’s use of the word rational due to its academic reasons. 
Dennis T. agrees with Murry Jennex that we are all Gods and Goddesses, but states that this is not an academic forum.  

Now, before returning to Dennis P.’s challenge. I would like to say that I am open to improving the Human Intelligence graphic I presented, so any suggestions are welcome.   Also, I would like to submit one additional graphic that I think relates to what Murray is suggesting.   I wonder if this decision cycle makes sense? 

 







On March 30, 2020 at 12:18:13 AM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:

yes, but I am saying that the formal definition of rational thinking is that we are all knowing Gods so I'm basically saying be sure to use the terminology correctly in this type of discussion because rational thinking has been defined for many years, using the term but in a different context will generate confusion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.





--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Richard,

Fully agree. But you can't set up that sharing structure on a dime, which is why the processes and approvals need to be agreed well prior to the event itself.

I don't believe a lot of facilitation is necessary. Communities will self-organise in an emergency as long as the protocols for sharing are in place.

Not sure what you mean about schmoozing. Have seen a bare minimum of schmoozing in relation to the health response. Somewhat more in relation to the economic response, but that's to be expected given that it is far harder to predict the direct and indirect impacts on personal and business circumstances through this crisis.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 31/03/2020 11:20 am, Richard Vines wrote:

Good points Stephen,

Re your points about models, models without data and models without falsification processes are a nonsense. That is my point, so you are right - the sharing of models is insufficient. But setting up broadscale and system wide falsification processes based on real time access to data in socially and expert orientated governance contexts is something that now we simply have to get our heads around. I know falsification is a loaded word, but is there any other word that can be used, knowing that all models are fallible, but still pragmatically useful and important to use?

We are lucky to have the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza - in that it has survived and not been disbanded. But if we have something like this, a knowledge society has to follow its recommendations. You could see the subject matter experts on the 7:30 report last night being completely straight about the various types of schmoozing that goes on. It is inevitable I suppose. Schmoozing has become a way of life. But in the case of the Australian bushfires and now this pandemic, the reality is that you cannot schmooze away the impact of the basic laws of nature and science. 

How does one convey that sort of humility to public relations and marketing schmoozers, without just sitting back and having to wait for the laws of nature and science to strike the schmoozing down. This has been my challenge as a KMer for a very long time now. In the end, the KMer role is subject to the power dynamics of collective (or commutarian) gods and goddesses ...

Singapare is reported to have had a response that has worked. IN the end, it is reported to be relatively simple, but perhaps based on different underlying power assumptions in our cultures - with a huge commitment to acting quickly and decisively.


Richard 





On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:58 AM Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Richard,

I mostly agree with Prof Crabb. Overall the Australian response has been excellent, in large part due to the AHMPPI.

I do think there is a risk in sharing underlying models, since a number of times we have seen how this can lead to groupthink and untested assumptions. From a knowledge diversity perspective, I would prefer to prioritise access to the data being used to build and assess models rather than sharing the models themselves. The former method allows independent validation of the soundness of a policy approach.

On the other hand, it's clear that a vast majority of the population struggle with understanding exponential growth and lagging indicators. Clear and honest communication about these factors in the government's response, I feel, would have been extremely useful in calming people's nerves.

More generally, I observe that the biggest lost opportunities have come from failing to prepare operational frameworks for sharing information and data with researchers and the public. This is being seen both in the lack of pre-prepared communications materials and the slow release of data to academia.

In any other context, the time for delivery would be seen as remarkably rapid for the public service. However it's just been too slow in a rapidly evolving environment like this one.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 31/03/2020 8:06 am, Richard Vines wrote:
Dennis T,

I appreciate your efforts to present this exchange in some sort of context and for presenting this reference to "rational" in a respectful way.

I have found myself, again being interested and influenced by these thoughts ... I would add to the top of the diagram by referring to what is human interpretative intelligence. A nuanced, but also profound implication. 

And I am also of the view that models are a vital form of human interpretative intelligence. It was fascinating last night on our Australian ABC 7:30 Report when a subject matter expert (Professor Brendan Crabb) was asked about his view of the Australian Federal Government's response to the COVID 19. He stated that whilst he agreed with a lot of what is being done, he could not comment in detail because he could not access the underlying assumptions built into the modelling work of the Australian Government. So often models are held behind closed IP and other doors. 

Crabb's feedback on national television was profoundly important - because he raised a matter which I think is seriously overlooked. Our societies at large are now using model abstractions to make huge and consequential decisions (i.e. Australia has announced a $130 billion injection - the US over 2 trillion). And yet we in Australia are still not managing the publicly orientated modelling framework functions - that provide input into such consequential decisions in ways that are consistent with open transparent knowledge societies. 

And, as an aside we also have a warped knowledge ecology in that many of those selling data management solutions are doing so on the basis that pattern analysis in data forms the basis of our evidence monitoring. How do such approaches take into account the knowledge of physics, biophysical or epidemiological functions and their role in debating modelling development and model falsification processes? Human interpretative intelligence is nuanced and subtle in its aspirations, but we over ride it with our god and goddess-like attitudes at our peril?


Richard 


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:58 PM Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:
OK, we are all Gods and Goddesses.  But, not all academics that have spent years researching, categorizing, memorizing, and using language that adheres to academic standards.  I don’t believe this is an academic forum (Stan, is it?)  Fortunately, us antelope types are burrowed down into our own work world’s trying to contribute value to our peers and organizations using the knowledge, language  and tools we know and understand.  One of those tools is a dictionary.  Merriam-Webster, for example, states that the word rational means:

Definition of rational

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

I would venture to say that most of the people on this forum are here to graze and learn, for this reason, I apologize for the possibility of creating confusion.  

RECAP OF THREAD:  

Dennis P. opens thread to his March 22, 2020 article: “ Coronavirus is an Organizational Virus, Not Just a Human One.” 
Nirmala Palaniappan responds with a thumbs-up about Dennis’ use of analogies.
Matt Moore responds with a thumbs-up 
Dennis P. responds with a strategy related to “new modes of working.”  A practical observation related to social distancing. 
Dennis T. liked Dennis P.’s train of thought. Presented a slideshow on Knowledge Science, and Intelligent Cities. 
Matt Moore responds with a statement of agreement to Dennis P’s assertions.
Matt Moore responds to Dennis T.’s slideshow offering requesting he identify a specific slide he liked.
Dennis T. states Slide #34 and posts a design to help justify his selection.
Murray Jennex challenges Dennis T’s use of the word rational due to its academic reasons. 
Dennis T. agrees with Murry Jennex that we are all Gods and Goddesses, but states that this is not an academic forum.  

Now, before returning to Dennis P.’s challenge. I would like to say that I am open to improving the Human Intelligence graphic I presented, so any suggestions are welcome.   Also, I would like to submit one additional graphic that I think relates to what Murray is suggesting.   I wonder if this decision cycle makes sense? 

 







On March 30, 2020 at 12:18:13 AM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:

yes, but I am saying that the formal definition of rational thinking is that we are all knowing Gods so I'm basically saying be sure to use the terminology correctly in this type of discussion because rational thinking has been defined for many years, using the term but in a different context will generate confusion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.





--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Murray Jennex
 

Dennis, I am sorry you are so biased against knowledge and those that teach it.  Rational decision making has a formal definition and my point is that is what should be used, you are really using the term bounded rational or perhaps satisficer decision making.  It has been recognized for years that humans are not rational decision makers.  Have you ever studied Bayes theory?  I'm sorry you are offended that I am correcting your use of terms.  I am sorry you are not willing to just refine your terms and move on.  For what its worth, I spent 20 years as a working professional before becoming an academic.  I've earned my bones and your antagonism and insults have no place in a learned discussion....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Mon, Mar 30, 2020 4:57 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

OK, we are all Gods and Goddesses.  But, not all academics that have spent years researching, categorizing, memorizing, and using language that adheres to academic standards.  I don’t believe this is an academic forum (Stan, is it?)  Fortunately, us antelope types are burrowed down into our own work world’s trying to contribute value to our peers and organizations using the knowledge, language  and tools we know and understand.  One of those tools is a dictionary.  Merriam-Webster, for example, states that the word rational means:

Definition of rational

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

I would venture to say that most of the people on this forum are here to graze and learn, for this reason, I apologize for the possibility of creating confusion.  

RECAP OF THREAD:  

Dennis P. opens thread to his March 22, 2020 article: “ Coronavirus is an Organizational Virus, Not Just a Human One.” 
Nirmala Palaniappan responds with a thumbs-up about Dennis’ use of analogies.
Matt Moore responds with a thumbs-up 
Dennis P. responds with a strategy related to “new modes of working.”  A practical observation related to social distancing. 
Dennis T. liked Dennis P.’s train of thought. Presented a slideshow on Knowledge Science, and Intelligent Cities. 
Matt Moore responds with a statement of agreement to Dennis P’s assertions.
Matt Moore responds to Dennis T.’s slideshow offering requesting he identify a specific slide he liked.
Dennis T. states Slide #34 and posts a design to help justify his selection.
Murray Jennex challenges Dennis T’s use of the word rational due to its academic reasons. 
Dennis T. agrees with Murry Jennex that we are all Gods and Goddesses, but states that this is not an academic forum.  

Now, before returning to Dennis P.’s challenge. I would like to say that I am open to improving the Human Intelligence graphic I presented, so any suggestions are welcome.   Also, I would like to submit one additional graphic that I think relates to what Murray is suggesting.   I wonder if this decision cycle makes sense? 

 







On March 30, 2020 at 12:18:13 AM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
yes, but I am saying that the formal definition of rational thinking is that we are all knowing Gods so I'm basically saying be sure to use the terminology correctly in this type of discussion because rational thinking has been defined for many years, using the term but in a different context will generate confusion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.




Richard Vines
 

Thanks Stephen,

What I mean by schmoozing in a way is a personalised view of what we are now calling "fake news". 

At the risk of being significantly misunderstood, I also think it is the long tail of a somewhat convoluted influence of Sigmund Freud as told here by Adam Curtis in his wonderful nearly 4 hour piece on the "Century of Self" and his thesis about the rise and rise of public relations.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

image.png

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:52 PM Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Richard,

Fully agree. But you can't set up that sharing structure on a dime, which is why the processes and approvals need to be agreed well prior to the event itself.

I don't believe a lot of facilitation is necessary. Communities will self-organise in an emergency as long as the protocols for sharing are in place.

Not sure what you mean about schmoozing. Have seen a bare minimum of schmoozing in relation to the health response. Somewhat more in relation to the economic response, but that's to be expected given that it is far harder to predict the direct and indirect impacts on personal and business circumstances through this crisis.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 31/03/2020 11:20 am, Richard Vines wrote:
Good points Stephen,

Re your points about models, models without data and models without falsification processes are a nonsense. That is my point, so you are right - the sharing of models is insufficient. But setting up broadscale and system wide falsification processes based on real time access to data in socially and expert orientated governance contexts is something that now we simply have to get our heads around. I know falsification is a loaded word, but is there any other word that can be used, knowing that all models are fallible, but still pragmatically useful and important to use?

We are lucky to have the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza - in that it has survived and not been disbanded. But if we have something like this, a knowledge society has to follow its recommendations. You could see the subject matter experts on the 7:30 report last night being completely straight about the various types of schmoozing that goes on. It is inevitable I suppose. Schmoozing has become a way of life. But in the case of the Australian bushfires and now this pandemic, the reality is that you cannot schmooze away the impact of the basic laws of nature and science. 

How does one convey that sort of humility to public relations and marketing schmoozers, without just sitting back and having to wait for the laws of nature and science to strike the schmoozing down. This has been my challenge as a KMer for a very long time now. In the end, the KMer role is subject to the power dynamics of collective (or commutarian) gods and goddesses ...

Singapare is reported to have had a response that has worked. IN the end, it is reported to be relatively simple, but perhaps based on different underlying power assumptions in our cultures - with a huge commitment to acting quickly and decisively.


Richard 





On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:58 AM Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Richard,

I mostly agree with Prof Crabb. Overall the Australian response has been excellent, in large part due to the AHMPPI.

I do think there is a risk in sharing underlying models, since a number of times we have seen how this can lead to groupthink and untested assumptions. From a knowledge diversity perspective, I would prefer to prioritise access to the data being used to build and assess models rather than sharing the models themselves. The former method allows independent validation of the soundness of a policy approach.

On the other hand, it's clear that a vast majority of the population struggle with understanding exponential growth and lagging indicators. Clear and honest communication about these factors in the government's response, I feel, would have been extremely useful in calming people's nerves.

More generally, I observe that the biggest lost opportunities have come from failing to prepare operational frameworks for sharing information and data with researchers and the public. This is being seen both in the lack of pre-prepared communications materials and the slow release of data to academia.

In any other context, the time for delivery would be seen as remarkably rapid for the public service. However it's just been too slow in a rapidly evolving environment like this one.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 31/03/2020 8:06 am, Richard Vines wrote:
Dennis T,

I appreciate your efforts to present this exchange in some sort of context and for presenting this reference to "rational" in a respectful way.

I have found myself, again being interested and influenced by these thoughts ... I would add to the top of the diagram by referring to what is human interpretative intelligence. A nuanced, but also profound implication. 

And I am also of the view that models are a vital form of human interpretative intelligence. It was fascinating last night on our Australian ABC 7:30 Report when a subject matter expert (Professor Brendan Crabb) was asked about his view of the Australian Federal Government's response to the COVID 19. He stated that whilst he agreed with a lot of what is being done, he could not comment in detail because he could not access the underlying assumptions built into the modelling work of the Australian Government. So often models are held behind closed IP and other doors. 

Crabb's feedback on national television was profoundly important - because he raised a matter which I think is seriously overlooked. Our societies at large are now using model abstractions to make huge and consequential decisions (i.e. Australia has announced a $130 billion injection - the US over 2 trillion). And yet we in Australia are still not managing the publicly orientated modelling framework functions - that provide input into such consequential decisions in ways that are consistent with open transparent knowledge societies. 

And, as an aside we also have a warped knowledge ecology in that many of those selling data management solutions are doing so on the basis that pattern analysis in data forms the basis of our evidence monitoring. How do such approaches take into account the knowledge of physics, biophysical or epidemiological functions and their role in debating modelling development and model falsification processes? Human interpretative intelligence is nuanced and subtle in its aspirations, but we over ride it with our god and goddess-like attitudes at our peril?


Richard 


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:58 PM Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:
OK, we are all Gods and Goddesses.  But, not all academics that have spent years researching, categorizing, memorizing, and using language that adheres to academic standards.  I don’t believe this is an academic forum (Stan, is it?)  Fortunately, us antelope types are burrowed down into our own work world’s trying to contribute value to our peers and organizations using the knowledge, language  and tools we know and understand.  One of those tools is a dictionary.  Merriam-Webster, for example, states that the word rational means:

Definition of rational

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

I would venture to say that most of the people on this forum are here to graze and learn, for this reason, I apologize for the possibility of creating confusion.  

RECAP OF THREAD:  

Dennis P. opens thread to his March 22, 2020 article: “ Coronavirus is an Organizational Virus, Not Just a Human One.” 
Nirmala Palaniappan responds with a thumbs-up about Dennis’ use of analogies.
Matt Moore responds with a thumbs-up 
Dennis P. responds with a strategy related to “new modes of working.”  A practical observation related to social distancing. 
Dennis T. liked Dennis P.’s train of thought. Presented a slideshow on Knowledge Science, and Intelligent Cities. 
Matt Moore responds with a statement of agreement to Dennis P’s assertions.
Matt Moore responds to Dennis T.’s slideshow offering requesting he identify a specific slide he liked.
Dennis T. states Slide #34 and posts a design to help justify his selection.
Murray Jennex challenges Dennis T’s use of the word rational due to its academic reasons. 
Dennis T. agrees with Murry Jennex that we are all Gods and Goddesses, but states that this is not an academic forum.  

Now, before returning to Dennis P.’s challenge. I would like to say that I am open to improving the Human Intelligence graphic I presented, so any suggestions are welcome.   Also, I would like to submit one additional graphic that I think relates to what Murray is suggesting.   I wonder if this decision cycle makes sense? 

 







On March 30, 2020 at 12:18:13 AM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:

yes, but I am saying that the formal definition of rational thinking is that we are all knowing Gods so I'm basically saying be sure to use the terminology correctly in this type of discussion because rational thinking has been defined for many years, using the term but in a different context will generate confusion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.





--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Dennis Thomas
 

Richard,

Following is an updated version of the Human Interpretative Intelligence graphic.   I appreciate the constructive contribution to this graphic.    For what its worth:


Dennis T. 
IQStrategix, Inc. 





On March 30, 2020 at 6:15:19 PM, Richard Vines (richardvines1@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I appreciate your efforts to present this exchange in some sort of context and for presenting this reference to "rational" in a respectful way.

I have found myself, again being interested and influenced by these thoughts ... I would add to the top of the diagram by referring to what is human interpretative intelligence. A nuanced, but also profound implication. 

And I am also of the view that models are a vital form of human interpretative intelligence. It was fascinating last night on our Australian ABC 7:30 Report when a subject matter expert (Professor Brendan Crabb) was asked about his view of the Australian Federal Government's response to the COVID 19. He stated that whilst he agreed with a lot of what is being done, he could not comment in detail because he could not access the underlying assumptions built into the modelling work of the Australian Government. So often models are held behind closed IP and other doors. 

Crabb's feedback on national television was profoundly important - because he raised a matter which I think is seriously overlooked. Our societies at large are now using model abstractions to make huge and consequential decisions (i.e. Australia has announced a $130 billion injection - the US over 2 trillion). And yet we in Australia are still not managing the publicly orientated modelling framework functions - that provide input into such consequential decisions in ways that are consistent with open transparent knowledge societies. 

And, as an aside we also have a warped knowledge ecology in that many of those selling data management solutions are doing so on the basis that pattern analysis in data forms the basis of our evidence monitoring. How do such approaches take into account the knowledge of physics, biophysical or epidemiological functions and their role in debating modelling development and model falsification processes? Human interpretative intelligence is nuanced and subtle in its aspirations, but we over ride it with our god and goddess-like attitudes at our peril?


Richard 


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:58 PM Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:
OK, we are all Gods and Goddesses.  But, not all academics that have spent years researching, categorizing, memorizing, and using language that adheres to academic standards.  I don’t believe this is an academic forum (Stan, is it?)  Fortunately, us antelope types are burrowed down into our own work world’s trying to contribute value to our peers and organizations using the knowledge, language  and tools we know and understand.  One of those tools is a dictionary.  Merriam-Webster, for example, states that the word rational means:

Definition of rational

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

I would venture to say that most of the people on this forum are here to graze and learn, for this reason, I apologize for the possibility of creating confusion.  

RECAP OF THREAD:  

Dennis P. opens thread to his March 22, 2020 article: “ Coronavirus is an Organizational Virus, Not Just a Human One.” 
Nirmala Palaniappan responds with a thumbs-up about Dennis’ use of analogies.
Matt Moore responds with a thumbs-up 
Dennis P. responds with a strategy related to “new modes of working.”  A practical observation related to social distancing. 
Dennis T. liked Dennis P.’s train of thought. Presented a slideshow on Knowledge Science, and Intelligent Cities. 
Matt Moore responds with a statement of agreement to Dennis P’s assertions.
Matt Moore responds to Dennis T.’s slideshow offering requesting he identify a specific slide he liked.
Dennis T. states Slide #34 and posts a design to help justify his selection.
Murray Jennex challenges Dennis T’s use of the word rational due to its academic reasons. 
Dennis T. agrees with Murry Jennex that we are all Gods and Goddesses, but states that this is not an academic forum.  

Now, before returning to Dennis P.’s challenge. I would like to say that I am open to improving the Human Intelligence graphic I presented, so any suggestions are welcome.   Also, I would like to submit one additional graphic that I think relates to what Murray is suggesting.   I wonder if this decision cycle makes sense? 

 







On March 30, 2020 at 12:18:13 AM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:

yes, but I am saying that the formal definition of rational thinking is that we are all knowing Gods so I'm basically saying be sure to use the terminology correctly in this type of discussion because rational thinking has been defined for many years, using the term but in a different context will generate confusion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

I am not saying we are all knowing Gods.  I am saying that every aspect of our consciousness is used to understand the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in.  If I am interviewing a candidate, I consider if they are qualified, if they are motivated, if they fit in.  Those considerations include rational exchanges, lessons-learned assessments, inference, an my perception of the person before me.   I am also saying that knowledge representation is about representing the patterns-of-thought that exist within organizations: goals, objectives, strategies, policies, procedures, processes, etc.  I am interested in how these can be faithfully represented in the machine environment.  What do you think?


On March 29, 2020 at 10:34:46 PM, Murray Jennex via Groups.Io (murphjen@...) wrote:
I don't think you are fully considering the definition of rational thought: yes it considers all possible outcomes but it also considers risk based purely on a probabilistic basis with no emotional aspect to us.  Basically humans are not rational and cannot be as we cannot consider all outcomes and risks and we are not risk neutral. Nor do I think it is necessarily good to be rational as most thinking/decisions don't require us consider all options.  For instance in hiring a new employee we do not need to consider every human on the planet, we can limit to those that apply and even those that meet certain threshold criteria.  I think it would be more appropriate for you to consider bounded rationality where the decision maker behaves with a rational approach within set limits.

Since everything listed is an optimizer approach, i.e. picking best options, I think you missed the satisficer approach/philosophy to thinking/decision making which does tend to be what people do.  In this model decision makers tend to make choices based on their minimum needs and tend to take the option that meets that predetermined need.  The whole idea of triage is based on satisficing as is spontaneous buying, etc.  I will grant you that what you refer to as reason perhaps has this satisficing philosophy as its basis but it isn't clear......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
To: sikm@groups.io
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2020 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Organizational Virus? #covid-19

Hello Matt,

For the purposes of a practical discussion, I think slide #34 — Systems that Know = Policies > Models > Executable Knowledge > Intelligent Decisions -- is the most important slide.  

The reason is that the goal of KM, from my point of view, is to initiate enterprise wide knowledge systems that leverage paid-for organizational knowledge that provides the highest possible sustainable value to an organization regardless of employee turnover  and market change.  That’s a tall order, but if we are to break out of the status quo, we need to tackle the big problems.  

The discussion I have in my mind is how do people think?.  And how do we represent human thought?  As a starter, this graphic is what I have gained from observation, and reading. 



Because I make a distinction between rational thought and logical thought, the idea that intelligent “knowledge systems” should start with “models” makes total sense to me.   From a technical point of view, rational models (ontologies) are non-conditional.  They are dependent upon situations and circumstances.  Logical thinking (mathematics and programming in specific) is conditional (true/false, yes/not, etc.).  Conditional logic systems will always look for the self-consistent answers because that is what their conditional programming demands of them..  

Rational thinking considers all answer solutions related to every possible situation or circumstance.  The beauty of this is that our DNA, brains, modes of thinking, and the lessons-learned memory all work together.  In fact, the miracle of inference springs out this magical mix of bio-intelligence to give is instantaneous insight and understanding beyond the facts before us. 

The other contention I have with the educational system is that there seems to be little appreciation for how people think along patterns-of-thought (the Models Mills Davis speaks of).   Our most common models are compositions, taxonomies, sets, sequences, choice, and so forth.  Again, from my point of view, this is exactly how we relate to and understand the world around us. 

As an example, when we are shopping for a new TV, we might go to Best Buy (here in the U.S.).  As we walk up to the front door, we see the big sign BEST BUY (the category or topic / or node in programming).  When we are inside the store we immediately recognize that the store represents a composition.  To the left are the appliances, in the middle cell phones, to the right computers, and in the back TVs.  When we walk to the back and talk with a salesperson, he might ask, what you you looking for?  Our brains automatically switch into taxonomic mode.  “A TV.”  The sales person, who is now also in a taxonomic mode might ask, what make, model, size, refresh rate, LED or OLED, etc.  We understand each other because our brain patterns-of-thought are in sync. 

The salesperson then might say, “well, this group of TVs are on sale.”  (A set - the most common pattern of thought).  And he may ask a choice question, “Did you want to go with the 50” or the 55” set?”  Bingo, we are in the choice pattern-of-thought - not to mention the salesperson’s subtle close.  That is how it works with everything we do.  

Most all of our brain functions are transparent to us, except for wacked out people like me. Help!!

So, back to models.  The world of situations and circumstances is vast, interwoven, and complex. John Sowa calls this the" knowledge soup."  Our rational thinking brains navigates this world very well.  Logic-based, conditional, self-consistent programming, does not.    For this reason, I like the idea of rationally defined models, that descend into categories, that interfaces with data, information and procedural programs.  

Does this make any sense?

Regards, 

Dennis 


On March 29, 2020 at 6:07:27 PM, Matt Moore via Groups.Io (innotecture@...) wrote:
Dennis T,

I think there is a lot of good stuff in Miles' presentation but even I found it dense and hard to get into (and I am into this stuff). Is there a 101 version of this presentation - ideally a video with some commentary? Or can you pull out what you think are the 2-3 most important points in there and we can get stuck into those?

Regards,

Matt

On Sunday, 29 March 2020, 08:59:10 am AEDT, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Dennis,

This is an intriguing proposition.   I have been watching the COVID-19 information/knowledge thread, which I think brought us all to the challenging question, “What is it we need to know, if we don’t know what it is we need to know.”  A lot of new ground has been plowed as a result of our social distancing and self-quarantine activities related to this question.  

One of the people I know of who is working with the Kerr Romulus plant in Michigan where they are developing supplies for this pandemic, have developed a questionnaire which each employee had to answer.  One of the questions was, do you live next door to a “first responder” (police, fireman, Doctor, hospital employee, etc.).  If so, they are asked to stay home as a precaution. 

These are small but important questions.  A larger question, one that more directly relates to your “new modes of working,” addresses future thinking.  Based on future knowledge considerations (knowledge webs, intelligent cities, Internet of Things) and the technologies that are driving those modes, I would like to present a slideshow delivered to the Knowledge Science Symposium at Kent State a few years back.

A previous business associate, Mills Davis, is a Semantic/Knowledge Analyst.  He researches and develops presentations and delivers them to people who have vested interest in future developments.  I wonder if you and others would be interested in having a discussion about the content of this presentation as it relates to Knowledge Management and new modes of working.  

Here we go: https://www.slideshare.net/Mills/knowledge-science-conceptcomputingandintelligentcitiesdavis20130910notes?qid=7028a5e7-c6cb-42a9-8b57-55a6461e13eb&v=&b=&from_search=8

D L Thomas
IQStrategix, Inc.





--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Dennis Thomas
 

Richard, Dennis P., Matt, Stephen, Mila, 

I would like to pick-up on Dennis P’s opener about “new ways of working,” “new models of working,”  and combine that with Richard’s point about transparent models.  

I also want to go back to my reference to Slide #34 of the Knowledge Science, Intelligent Cities slideshow and throw in for good measure slide #12.   


I worked with Dr. Richard Ballard for more than five years before his death in January 3, 2009.  We were planning the development of his next level Mark 2 knowledge system (conceived and tested through 50 projects of national importance). The new system was to be foundational to what Mills Davis, in this presentation, envisions.  

Our goal was to create a system that could know and reason like people, which required the capacity to MODEL (faithfully represent) CONCEPTS and IDEAS that could be understood and used by people and machines.   Dick’s previous system was limited by its use of Subject/Object/Value triads.  The new system had to work the way the human brain works.  

I left California in March 2012 for Michigan and designed and built the prototype system. It embodies a common language interface and allows Knowledge Engineers (KM practitioners, project managers, SME, operations people, even administrative people), to develop complex knowledge systems using common language.  The CORE system has been used to model and integrate a  manufacturing company's knowledge, but has equal value for modeling KM, T&D, QMS, Kaizen projects of every kind.  

The system allows people like Richard to see the black box data being used to generate models.  It also presents, I believe,  Dennis P.’s notion of “a new work mode."   I present the following Modeler’s Map for a performance-based Fortune 100-level Training & Development infrastructure TEMPLATE.  This model was developed using Guy Wallace’s Lean-ISD book (I am sure most of you know Guy).  The template provides the walk-through process, but our technology (still in development), provides the development documentation and end user product which can be distributed across the enterprise or communities of practice.  Our intention is to provide SME’s a means to developing a NEW way to aggregating and distributing their hard earned knowledge. 

NOTE: I am not selling.  The system is not ready to ship in its full release version.

The point to keep in mind is that the driver for this template is to create a sustainable, continuous improvement, consistently applied, multi-location, multi-language PERFORMANCE-based T&D system.  Other SME’s may have other goals and ambitions.   Thoughts?    

Dennis L. Thomas
IQStrategix
(810) 662-5199

Leveraging Organizational Knowledge