Anisotropic Road

Can we learn from Satyam?

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:17:00 +0000

Satyam Computer Services grew from its 1987 roots to become the face of India's IT juggernaut with tens of thousand of staff spread across the globe. It all came crashing down early in 2009 when Satyam founder and company chair, Ramalinga Raju, revealed that, in essence, the books had been cooked.

His oft quoted observation, "it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten,” is somehow comforting. We can understand it...what a fearsome, lonely ride, we might think. Well, celebrity continues with a cover shot on Business Week and the inevitable "India's Enron" seen in The Economist.

Deeper truths: humans make up systems

There is a collusion, conscious and unconscious, that is required to deliver the kind of catastrophe seen at Satyam. The human capacity to choose what to see, believe and act on is probably what keeps us sane in the daily struggle to navigate through the workplace...but it also destroys the soul and enables malfeasance.

We see this every day at the water cooler... the subtle sniping at "them", justifications for injustices small and large, the fatalism that in turn justifies petty ways to get one's own back. This provokes disgust and disappointment in those that hold one viewpoint; from another, the revulsion is reserved for those known to be opposed to such behaviour. They are painted as uncooperative, weak or not one of the team.

Both views coexist and often both groups step into their "member of the larger group" mindset to shut out the minutia that reveals the truth of an organization in favour of the prettier and well marketed picture that is adopted to cloak reality.

Behaviours within organizations are often miles apart from the image presented in vision statements and governance models, development programs, international award receptions and campaigns to sell that image. The image is, after all, good for business. The reality is...awkward.

In my view, the greatest and the riskiest thing is to build capacity within the organization to recognize the incongruities at the smallest levels of human interaction as well as the systemic level as forces in the business as well as impacts on human beings. Then, take that consciousness and engage in trustworthy development of corrective action--individually and collectively.

Too much "growth" today is built on the specious (but very lucrative) notion that mergers and aquisitions represent value. Businesses aimed at growth through merger and acquisition for their own sake rather than sustainable profit based on value production are unlikely to take the gamble. This is a time for us to reconsider what value is and what part each of us has to play in it. This is a time to start thinking of organizations as intellectual capital and managing it accordingly.

I'm working on a book with coleague and partner Robert Tornack and trying to find the language that can inform on this level while also providing a roadmap to achieving the knowledge-focused enterprise. It is a challenge in part because, like any new approach, until it is so ingrained that one can focus on outcomes, the system is focused on process. The old bromide, "the operation was a success! but the patient died" is a factor of exactly this focus on process.

Know what it takes to deliver quality outcomes

My advice is to focus on outcomes, constraining process only to the degree necessary for accountability. This takes a different kind of governance model to ensure transparency and a recognition that contemporaneous record-keeping is at the core of authenticty and reliability in performance.

Community also means shared accountability

A recent question focused on what can leaders do after such a catastrophe. Certainly, it may be appropriate that a top leader to take the wrap for the organization as a whole as Mr. Raju has done. But, despite protestations to the contrary, the organization knows better.

Organizational culture is the outcome of collaboration and every individual is accountable for influencing it. Mr. Raju's censure is important, but does not absolve the culture that enabled it.

Northumbira's Impact Calculator launched

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:21:00 +0000

Northumbria is certainly engaged and that is wonderful to see. I'll be taking a deeper look at the Impact Calculator tool soon--a first look reveals that the Business Process worksheet is blank for some reason.
The guide does not indicate that this should be so, so I'll bring that to the attention of someone involved, perhaps Steve Bailey who introduces the tool in his blog, Records management futurewatch.

While applauding (loudly) the development of tools for use in practice, I admit to a concern that RIM practitioners lose the opportunity to gain deep knowledge (e.g. Deep Smarts: How to Cultivate and Transfer Enduring Business Wisdom )

The process of developing such a tool is something that builds knowledge and capacity in ways that merely adopting a tool cannot. Sadly, when we adopt tools rather than build them, the focus shifts toward making the tool work rather than on devising a means to achieve an outcome. This is directly related to "the operation was a success! but the patient died" syndrome that seems to characterize so many organizations today.

A promising sign, however, is the guide itself and need for users to devise meaningful indicators. That is no mean feat...indicators are easy enough, but making them meaningful in context is another thing altogether.

Kudos to Northumbria...and more kudos to the RIM practitioner who uses the tool to build personal capacity to adapt it for use in situ.

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:40:00 +0000

A question about the practical value of bonding staff and contractors relative to intellectual property and knowledge resources brings to mind earlier experience when responsible for the management of captured knowledge within a Canadian government entity.

As someone involved behind the scenes in the development of British Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy statute, I was conscious that the results of proclamation and the inevitable interpretation of law by implementing organisations sometimes caused unexpected consequences. I explored with risk management experts the impact of privacy legislation on bonding of staff for risk, insurance and security purposes.

The experience drawn from the effect of Canadian national legislation may indicate implications for other jurisdictions in the Pacific Rim and Asia, especially those sharing a foundation in the parliamentary system of government. Of course, every organization should seek its own legal counsel in any specific regard. That counsel should be considered in context.

In this case, we found that:

The Bond process is typically used when staff of Company A handle monies and funds for Company B. If the staff of Company A should steal the funds, the bonding organization will pay Company B for that loss.

The bond process, as described, is considered cost effective for bonding one's own staff against the risk of internal theft or loss.

As a result of various privacy protections under law (variable across jurisdictions) it may be impossible for a bonding firm to perform a thorough security check. Therefore, these firms may bond individuals without an adequate knowledge of whether they are "bondable" in the sense of the general expectations understood prior to the advent of privacy laws.

Subject to legal advice obtained and relevant to a given circumstance, we discovered that:

Contrary to management belief and instruction, it is not cost effective to bond individuals hired as temporary back-fill for staff on leave (or due to other staffing need) or to bond the outsourced service staff of other companies that handle one's own valuable goods as is increasingly common.

If the security of bonding applied to temporary or sub-contractor staff is deemed necessary in relation to valuable itmes, cash or negotiable instruments, then such temporary staffing or back-filling may be pursued through a placement agency or sub-contractor which takes on responsibility for bonding. Then, it may be established through contract that the agency is required to supply bonded workers and that the agency is in any case liable for any losses. These losses would presumably be reimbursed through the agency's bonding agent, a separate matter of direct concern to the agency).

Easily overlooked implications of such action include limitations of union and workforce agreements, judicial assessment of processes to monitor sub-contracted resources, the actual arrangements and financial coverage available to a sub-contractor through its bond agent, etc.

In relation to bonding of staff involved in the management of intellectual property and knowledge content that is retained within records, the challenge that records managers have faced for years remains. To be effective, bonding relies on a clear financial equation to support reimbursement of loss at an established value.

What value can be ascribed to information?

What is sustainability in business?

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:22:00 +0000

This question has come up a lot of late. In response to it in a LinkedIn QA, I observed that:

Sustainability in business means just that...keeping the business viable over time. There was a time when everyone got this. Change in thinking around what constitutes an acceptable profit have created confusion in what is, really, a rather straightforward and pragmatic thing.

If your profit is based on acquisition rather than productivity, it is not sustainable. This is a smash and grab, "do harm" philosophy. It is concerned more with marketing the hype and eventual sale/purchase/merger than delivering value. On a personal level, it is self justifying as the trappings of financial success are comfortable, cushioning reality in very nice surroundings among those who similarly want to justify an approach that essentially takes a winner-loser viewpoint. "The other" must give up something so that "we" win. "We" must protect against "the other" to avoid losing.

If your profit is based on productive engagement, it is necessarily based in notions of how to sustain that (or you cannot remain profitable and cannot sustain yourself). This philosophy breeds a concern for quality, integrity in relationship, commitment to mutual benefit. It leans toward "the other" as opportunity for growth and/or sustainable profit through recognition of mutual interest.

There seems to be a growing dichotomy in these schools of thought. I am working to express how managing knowledge resources (people plus information recorded into multimedia containers) grounds the development of intellectual capital (as an indicator of sustainable profit far more reliable than last year's balance sheet).

It's an exciting area of thought-work. In my interactions internationally, I sense both a coming together of thinkers and a great divide. It would be too easy to conclude that division fits political views, economic and class distinctions, even national origin.

Can we transcend difference to create a critical mass that moves globalization from exploitation to mutuality?

On records

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:10:00 +0000

When I learned that the internet seminar I developed and offered in collaboration with ARMA International had attracted 551 registrants well in advance, I was delighted, and curious. When that number icreased to 1100 by September 28 and closed at 1186 by October 6, I felt honoured, and still very curious. Why had this seminar attracted such interest? What might have caused such a record number of participants?

ARMA International has been gracious enough to put it down to my professional renown, such as it is. It seems a stretch to think that my own reputation is so wide spread as to draw such a crowd from across the globe. So, I conclude, it is the topic that resonates.

Seven Questions Guide Records Management Strategy & Implementation. Seven uncomplicated questions provide a framework for uncovering all the information necessary to run an enterprise, and to manage its corporate memory. Presented with insights into how recorded information management fits within a senior management perspective, the presentation invites records management professionals to embrace the complexity that is part and parcel of describing and management the corporate brain. It is a topic for our time.

Authentic, reliable, transparent and accountable.

The decisions of government, enterprises large and small must be all of these. And, as the world comes to grips with the smoke and mirrors that represent, drive and misrepresent the global economy, we who understand the professional domain of recorded information management know that ultimately, everything rests on accurate recordkeeping. It is the foundation of knowing.

Recently, I contributed a module on knowledge captured in multi-media containers (records) for a graduate course, Knowledge Management in Health Care, for the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. Mid-career professionals from a variety of health related enterprises: public, private and non-profit sectors from across Canada. Like their counterparts in every sector, they are knowledgeable and skilled at the running of organizations. And, like their counterparts in so many industries, some spoke of record keeping and the activities that might derive from the existence of recorded information as "maybe a good thing", but essentially not "the real work" and perhaps a distraction and drain on resources that could be put to better use. It's a refrain oft heard through my own career of over twenty years.

And yet, I know that if we care about quality and repeatable performance, we must know it is not achievable without the record. If we care about integrity in business, we must acknowledge that it is not discernible without the records. If we care about transparency in governance, we must demand authentic, realible records as evidence.

Those who claim that they are too busy doing "the real job" to ensure adequate record-keeping, in fact, are not actually finishing the job.

The failure to create and effectively use captured knowledge as a guide for action, basis for evaluation and means to defend decisions is a choice to abandon good management.

Knowingly or not, it's a choice too many have made. The results speak for themselves.

The false security of methodology

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:21:00 +0000

John Owens' observations on simplicity and complexity in the Project Management Hut resonate. In many organizations, there is a slavish adoption of one or another "proven" methodology. In fact, there are certainly requisite stages: analysis, planning, execution, i.e. build+implement, and review. But the real key is not bureaucratization of process, but developing capable participants.

Whether you use a highly structured methodology or a more fluid and iterative "agile" approach, the key to success is effective collaboration among capable people working to achieve agreed, meaningful outcomes.

Not long ago, I experienced (yet another) PRINCE2 project in which observers could not get their heads around the how and way of project difficulties when it was, after all, a Prince2 project!! Isn't the PRINCE rationale exactly the avoidance of such problems through a structured approach?

Any project needs the right people demonstrating key attributes. They must be willing, able, knowledgeable and sincerely interested in the success of the project. I can hear some of my former colleagues agreeing. Yet, it takes a bit more effort and insight to suss out the reality.

In this case, assigned project members were unhappy with the organization in general and assigned leader in particular. That is, they had a point to make and were handed a vehicle through which to make it. Internally, the group was widely known to be more interested in a failed project that could serve as a platform for other greivances than a success that might undermine their vested position.

The project focus was well beyond the team's experience. So, not only was the group unhappy and itching for a chance to demonstrate failed leadership, they were not fully capable delivering even in areas that they were agreeable.

Knowledgeable? Well, even in their professional domain, observers noted that long standing practices were observed to be not current, some even harmful.

How does such a team end up with a multi-million dollar project assignment? Easy!

When an organization is trained to believe that form, rank and process are sufficient to achieve results, very structured processes (such as, in this case, PRINCE2) are meant to ensure that all the pieces fit in a tidy set of (many) binders and the messy realities of human interaction can remain off the table.

Not entirely blind to risk, senior decision makers provided additional support--in the form of administrative "experts" whose IT experience was limited to several months' installation of desktop software. This loosely related skill set was augmented with a contract IT technician who was to report to the problematic group. Not surprisingly, the vendor team was mystified. Eventually, the vendor's project management felt so badly burned by the behaviour of the client's staff that time lines began to slip as the focus shifted more and more to a defensive documentation of client team failures instead of progress. The accountable project sponsor found that senior support for addressing internal HR problems shrank as the disruptions grew.

Sadly, the scenario is not so unusual. No methodology, per se, can substitute for conscious assessment and realistic determination of factors that will shape the progress of a project. In fact, formulaic methodologies may include processes in which a problem is identified, recorded and reported and the process ticked off without notice that the problem itself is not resolved, enabling giving the old "operation was a success, but the patient died" argument.

It is rare to find direct reference to the kind of machinations that surround projects within organizations.

Scary as it may be, "getting real" around issues of workplace culture, power dynamics, competencies among relevant stakeholders and attitude is a necessary project design stage. They say that as many as 70% of IT projects fail to deliver the forecasted benefits. When the enforcement of process obscures context and a focus on outcomes, is it any wonder?

On Organization and Re-organization

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:59:00 +0000

Somewhere around the year 60 A.D. Petronius Arbiter observed that,

"we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing. It can be a wonderful way to create the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization".

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Aung San Suu Kyi on Power

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:36:00 +0000

It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those with it, and fear of the source of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

Email management - the medium is not the message

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:41:00 +0000

Email management remains a challenging topic. Some see it as essentially and IT problem: all about space, speed and pack-rat users clogging servers. Others see it as a "rights" issue: "it's my invitation to lunch and nobody is going to tell me it doesn't have permanent value!' Legal-beagles warn of impending doom as email content finds its way into court (e.g. Worldcomm) as the smoking gun.

In my own experience, emails have been a factor in HR management including performance evaluation and verification, discipline, harassment investigations and terminations.

Typically, organizations try to manage email as a class rather than as content, meaning, independent of medium. This seems to be one of the most difficult leaps for organizational management and leadership to make.

For all those Marshall McCluhan fans, it's time to look beyond the sound bite and realize that in today's workd, the medium is not the message. But, if you are wondering how vendors are approaching email management, Jesse Wilkins has recently posted a List of email management vendors on his blog, Informata. Check out his list, click on the various links and explore.

Ultimately, the challenge is to know enough about what is possible through technological management of multi-media record types so as to engage and make informed decisions to help technical resources understand how they can help you achieve your objectives.

Those objectives are less about managing email and more about recognizing the interrelationships among recorded information in multi-media content and managing the whole in accord with a business position on balancing risk, compliance, quality and learning management.

Through a knowledge focused lens...

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:50:00 +0000

"It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop."
Confucius (philosopher & reformer, 551 BC - 479 BC)

Generosity and the "will to know": introspection on business in Asia

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:48:00 +0000

"The genuine will to know calls for the spirit of generosity rather than for that of economy...." (Herbert Spiegelberg, The Phenomenology Movement: A Historical Perspective, 1965)

It's an interesting thought. Generosity is easy to come by, so long as there is no competing, vested interest. What can enable a spirit of generosity when there is a real or perceived competition? What can destroy it?

This is an issue I feel increasingly drawn to explore. At a recent presentation, a colleague used a conceptual slide that is virtually identical to our material (by virtually, I mean that our copyright statement was missing). While no one can really claim ownership of thought, and many people may arrive at similar conclusions in roughly the same time through exposure to ideas, even mutual exchange, it was a relationship shifting shock to see someone feathering his own nest without so much as an acknowledgment--which would have cost nothing--or even slight changes in presentation, which would have cost minimal time.

Is this about the spirit of generosity? or generosity of spirit?

Is this really about differences in cultural values? or is that a convenient excuse?

It takes collusion to make such breaches work. Examples of collusion exist in everything from the supposed value of long hours of work to enabling error by "respecting" rank. In my case, it is merely a shift in relationship. In recent health care incidents, the cost is a life.

It takes a different kind of collaboration to create generosity in the will to know. It is a challenge Hong Kong must face, or accept the already visible loss of place in Asia.

Much resistance to change is about rationalizing preference at the expense of others. In Asia's "world class city", we have a long way to go.

Food for thought.

Preserving Web Content (?!?)

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:41:00 +0000

Brian Kelly's talk at iPRES 2008 conference from Brian Kelly on Vimeo.

Records Management Policy for the White House

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:43:00 +0000

Records Management Policy Could Have Spared White House Embarrassing Probe According to Data Empowerment Group. That's the title of the article...glad to see I'm not the only one thinking that RIM is the issue in matters of accountability and transparency.

Have a read...thoughts? Tom Utiger neatly links the issue, sensibly, to a potential multi-million dollar USD risk to Fortune 500 companies. But to me, given the last eight years, the big question is, "how on earth does the USA manage NOT to have an RIM policy for the White House?" For that matter, how is it that my counterpart (on a much larger scale with a far more independent and legislatively supported mandate) Allen Weinstein seems to be silent on the matter?

IMnsHO, inability to grasp the import of a domain so often dismissed as warehousing is a key issue of our time.

After all, the foundation of knowing within organisations and societies is surely the record. And from what I have seen in 20+ years in public, non-profit and private sector roles, there is little appreciation of the value of accurate record keeping and virtually no understanding of the implications of the shift to electronic records in the general public.

Sadly, seen in some jurisdictions more than others, there is a sense of "so what", a culture that enables and hides falsifying the record. Corporate examples abound...I have run across a personal example in health care. The implications are significant. History is to be revealed...not crafted...if we are to know.

Change the world ...

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:05:00 +0000

The girl effect: she will do the rest.

It's a common sense thing, really. Worth thinking about how and why our daughters and sons may differ in terms of return on investment! What a way to think of one's own child, but what a lost opportunity if we do not think in these terms for the future of the world.

The video works... here's why.

Derivative as Original

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:05:00 +0000

It was with some amusement (momentary irritation?) that I read of Spencer Ante's critique of Lawrence Lessig's work, Remix.

What, exactly, is derivative? I remember an art teacher who was very fond of the word. But even then, too many years ago, I knew that it was through coming to understand what is that we reach for what can be. It's creative process. Snipped at the point of observation, constrained to a passive acceptance, there is no continuum.

Surely, evolution is derivative. Is creationism what happens when one must merely accept, instead of engage?

More to the point, not having read Remix yet, but with an understanding of the Creative Commons, I note that we must deal with these issues. Ponder the affect on social constructs that evolves from a generation that engages beyond what the law allows. Lest we be complacent in assuming "the kids" just don't understand, know that mainstream thinkers also observe--in some surprisingly conservative companies--that protecting the dollar value of IP may actually work against innovation.

New rule: it's not one or the other. How do we balance ownership and rights with extrapolation and innovation?

Ted Talks Inspire: Will Wright's ideas on play beyond toys

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:31:00 +0000

Many parents share my concern that we are breeding intolerance for longer term, delayed gratification activities in our kids. The advent of television sped up the race toward superficiality in thought, IMO, but it is only the medium, not the message. Make no mistake about it: it is people, not television, that decide what comes at us through that medium.

A fan of Elliot Jacques since being introduced to his concepts during graduate studies at Royal Roads University, I am heartened to see that Will Wright has taken up the challenge of helping future generations "see" farther toward horizons beyond the 22 minute story, 3 minute jingle or 30 second sound bite. I wonder what Jacques would think of developing the capacity for a 1000 year consciousness?

As someone famous (notorious?) for seeing the implications of today's actions 5, and 10 years down the road, I have to observed that this is lonely enough.

It is hard to iimagine the distance in consciousness one would have to adopt to allow for thought on the level that Will Wright's Genesis toy suggests.

Tolstoyan Flow

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:39:00 +0000

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

So wrote Leo Tolstoy in (1870). Tolstoy is a favourite observer of human nature. In partial fulfillment of my graduate studies in leadership and learning communities (training) at Royal Roads University, I drew upon the character of Levin and his immersion into process. Profound! It resonates with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Flow which he describes as,

being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost.

Most of us have experienced this sense of morphing into the action of the moment--it is consummately satisfying. Sadly, however, most people do not experience this at work. It is usually a hobby or some passionately engaged activity outside of the workplace. For those of us lucky enough to have passion for our work, the challenge can be to remember that one person's flow is another persons "stuck"! For those of us who have or are now leading organizations, the challenge is to find ways to spot, enable and empower flow within structures that often work in the opposite direction.

How does flow factor into knowledge management? It's worth engaging over!

Are our problems already solved?

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 02:34:00 +0000

In the Provocation Zone on the IRM Strategies site, you'll find a link to the Technology, Education and Development invitation only conference series known as "Ted Talks".

Amid so many wonderful presentations, Janine Benyus' revelations of how life begats life in sustainable ways is a true inspiration. Here are three take-away thoughts... watch the video to learn of 12 big ideas from biology.

How do we make things? Heat, beat and treat.

How does life make things? Through integrating what is needed. Our approach consumes 96% of resources for a 4% result. Nature cannot afford the cost, so life's approach builds.

How do we optimise things? We manipulate.

How does life make the most of things? Knowledgeable structure. Life supports its needs through integrating knowledge into the design of structure.

How do we utilize things? We build systems that are within a scope set by often unrelated criteria and then wrestle with scalability, silos and fit.

How does life put things into play? It does not recognise "things" apart from their context, in fact. Life is an integrated whole that...lives. It creates capacity to enable continued life. It is sustainable.

When will business "get" records management?

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:49:00 +0000

It was on the very last day of the Qualcomm v. Broadcom Corp., S.D. Cal. 05-cv-1958-B (SLM) trial that a Qualcomm witness--while being cross examined-- revealed that she knew of certain events becuase she had seen a relevant email. Yes, after repeated assurance by Qualcomm that all relevant evidence had been brought forward, it turned out that 10s of thousands of email records had not been recognized as relevant...or...some wonder...had been recognized as relevant and deliberately not brought forward.

The truth of that matter is less important than the simple fact that the question arises ONLY because Qualcomm does not really "get" records management. If it did, a solid governance framework, well educated and RM compliant workforce with position related competencies for the management of information resources would be in place.

Am I harsh? Well, a very successful business owner here in Hong Kong has said, "it is a crime if CEOs do not effectively manage knowledge resources for the benefit of the firm."

I could not have said it better myself. Qualcomm, however, blamed it on their lawyers for not asking for the right stuff--and the judge agreed. Heads up, barristers, how are you managing your own evidence of advice to clients?

Anisotropes...

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:55:00 +0000

Imagine! When I first checked out naming the Anisotropic Road blog many years ago, there was virtually nothing to be found. At least, I didn't stumble upon any significant use of the term on the net. Today, a casual attempt to find this page resulted in the discovery of a number of other pages. This is great!

My own attraction to the term has grown from exposure to the writings of the Strugatsky brothers in the early 80s. nd the substance of that attraction has grown as I have, observing that so much of what we seek to achieve as individuals and collaborators exists within contexts that appear very differently when viewed from differing standpoints.

To me, organisations and societies are the quintessential anisotropic entities.

On assumed democracy

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:40:00 +0000

Sparked by Maslow's questions (see below) I note that we assume quite deliberately that democracy is the ideal state for human society. Yet, those proponents of democracy in social life are not arguing for democracy in the workplace. Why?

Of course, there is a host of "business" reasons brought to bear. This implies, then, that one cannot effectively run a business democratically. How, then, can one run an effective country in such a way?

Such a question seems to bring out reaction, not to question democratic orietnatino for societ, but to redefine democracy in business. Servant leadership concepts, employee engagement programs, self-managing communities of practices and an extended variety of approaches are raised as "evidence" of the democratisation of organisations. It's an illusion that serves mostly to obscure the fact that business remains undemocratic, despite vociferous arguments that democracy is "not perfect but the best" system that can be in the larger scheme of things.

Perhaps there is no irony, after all, in observing that the loudest proponents for democracy are manifestly undemocratic. Then one looks at the underlying motivations--never mind what the system is called--what is it for?

The United States within the Americas comes to mind. So does China. Food for thought.

Assumptions Under Guise

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:15:00 +0000

I am reading Maslow on Management and am struck by how deeply Maslow's musing (it is essentially a set of reflections) resonate.

Much of what seems to be of great permanence in our world view, and therefore much of what one assumes to have been based in a proven understanding, is neither permanent nor proven.

Observations on the behaviour of victims of abuse, disenfranchised populations, etc. move from abstract to more concrete when named as children who fear there parents, the lot of women in some societies, employees whose best hope is for obedience to a benevolent dictator. McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y are taught as if these are management styles. Yet, actually, they describe a set of assumptions about "those who would be managed". Management style is quite a different thing (albeit pretty well grounded in assumptions about "those would be managed").

Enjoying the reading...but sometimes wonder, in the tension between being energized by the resonance of ideas and the sheer weariness of recognizing the lived truth in my own experience, is there room to make a living? Is there really any interest in a healthy, vibrant, productive work place of people who rise to their capability?

Drucker's work seems to assume an equitable distribution of capacities and control in a healthy frame that simply does not exist in organisations. Organisational life is not the hot house of health and well-being. Surprise.

Chris Argyris speaks to the reality in identifying Model I and Model II organiations: those that espouse a sest of values and those that, conversely, actually live those espoused values. His work also resonates. But, I have yet to encounter an organisation that truly lives its values. Gary Hamel's observation that senior managers are risk averse, fearing loss of control and loss of credibility looms large. And in my observation over too many years, risk aversion is not the purview of senior managers alone. Fear, overt and covert, is probably the primary force within organisations.

There is probably a only a limited cadre of middle managers who, protected by their bosses, are free to really work on substantive challenges in organisational improvement. Psychologically, these folk are liberated (within sometimes unrealized bounds) and are happily engaged. This, too, is an assumption without proof or permanence. But I have experienced it, so know it to be both true and possible. It is not the only truth, or possibility. And this is probably why my partner and I keep plugging away at the essential questions of being and knowing.

Can we extrapolate the experience of these lucky--no doubt deserving--managers? Can their experience be more generally spread for the benefit of business, people and society?

On a mission to change the world...

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:51:00 +0000

A recent post by a net acquaintance (thanks, Lindy!) referenced towns and urban developments as "shared space". Being a tangential kind of guy (I prefer to say lateral thinker, but note that some describe what I see as fascinating weak signal connections as strictly tangential, so I redefine the term as a rather positive ) er... seeing beyond the specific point, I am interested in how we construct our less tangible worlds.

People have always been multidimensional actors in their personal worlds, navigating among professional, academic, business and social realms with varying degrees of success. That's life.

In knowledge work, that capacity to navigate in shared space is critical. I am interested in how such space takes shape, and in how we perceive such space. Further, it is intersting to examine how developing a personal capacity to operate in that space is influenced by frames outside that space (family, predominant culture, etc.).

Time is space, as well. And I've run out - so will try to get back to this at some point.

Facebook & the Vagaries of a 2.0 Life

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:13:00 +0000

Preparing to present a Master Class as part of a KM conference, I happened across Jade Catalina's interesting question on Linked In, "how would you implement Facebook within the corporate intranet"?

I just love this question! And the general reaction has been equally interesting.

My session in a k-focused event will face the reality, as one respondent observed, that workers my daughter's age (and colleagues much, much older) are increasingly seamless in their use of technologies. that is everything from SMSs, sticks for storage and transfer, social networks, videoTubes and so much more--dare I say it--even Linked in!

Anybody involved in knowledge focused initiatives knows that a huge problem is lack of meaningful user participation in knowledge sharing. Facebook does have something going for it: attraction. Users use it.

The challenge is to discern the elements that might be translated into a work setting, augmenting communication, community and capacity building in ways that contribute to corporate capacity and intellectual capital--without draining resources to the extent that all that capital can't be put to good use!

From a corporate accountability perspective, however, Facebook and the like present challenges far beyond wasted time.

The "what are you doing right now" app can reveal what should not be generally publicized simply because users think "community" and do not understand how the tool may present confidential data to others.

"Tagging" can reveal connections that may be very useful in forensic audit related to litigation. One respondent commented on "pokes", but these are probably the least of the questionable approaches. Have you been kissed by a vampire yet, or had someone send a photograph that, while not obscene, is absolutely one that you don't want a passing colleague to see on your screen? Maybe you've been slapped!

What about dialogue that shapes thinking surely the point of a k-focus. How is the influence on a corporate decision process recognized, much less defended (in an SOX context)?

Ahh...this is what makes my work so much fun--not Facebook (though I'm winning at scrabblicious). Rather, it's the need to develop strategies and roadmaps to cope with the implications of ever more ad hoc technologies, siphoning resources and blurring--as much as enhancing--what we know.

There's an interesting TED Talk by Larry Lessig on how technology and the habits of users are creating a tolerance for non-compliance with law and regulation among those we are and will be hiring.

It's no good sticking heads in the sand. This is evolution in the making. It's not yes/no, right or wrong...it's, do we recognize the opportunity and the challenge, and are we managing it effectively?

Is KM a failure if K-managers move on?

noreply@blogger.com (CRM in Asia) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:16:00 +0000

Recently I caught the online version of colleaue Patrick Lambe's assessment of KM in Singapore. There are some interesting details presented, but on reflection, I find myself uncomfortable with some elements.

One is the conclusion that there is something wrong if people working in KM move out of KM in future posts instead of moving on within a KM role. There are so many variables that play into career transitions and the role of specialist domains that I dare not comment on the specific talk--as I say, it was interesting. However, from my own background in both records management and knowledge management, with senior management experience and a strong belief in attaining one's best possible career opportunity, I do have an opinion.

If we truly focus on what these domains are about, then we should encourage those who gain knowledge to take taht with them up the corporate ladder. I would far rather see a knowledge manager move into a senior role taking KM experience and sensibility into a more influential role. It means far less to be a CKO with a function that seems removed from corporate outcomes than it does to be a CEO who understands the value of knowledge resource development, n'est ce pas?