Night and day
Compare Dave Snowden's eminently sensible and insightful analysis of the current state of KM with this load of complete bollocks.
« Global orgasm for peace | Main | Favourite books »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c00e153ef00d834fe60f269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Night and day:
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
differences are clear and stark .. and very illustrative of the central points made recently in a discussion elsewhere regarding mainstream consulting business models and custimized and mostly process-based gudiance by social computing-oriented consultants.
Not suprised McKinsey is cited in the second link reference ... and I found it interesting that the quoted consultant suggested that social-computing networks don't scale across organizations .. my take is that something really worth knowing will spread wherever (more or less) it needs to go at high speed.
Posted by: Jon Husband | November 25, 2006 at 07:00 PM
Jon - have you got the referfence to "discussion elsewhere regarding mainstream consulting business models and custimized and mostly process-based gudiance by social computing-oriented consultants" it would be useful.
and thanks to Euan for the very kind comments
Posted by: Dave Snowden | November 26, 2006 at 09:30 AM
Euan, don't be so negative, here is something funny to do with such a text:
1. use google sets to expand the words in the titles
http://labs.google.com/sets?hl=en&q1=modernize&q2=knowledge&q3=management&q4=&q5=&btn=Large+Set
2. read the article
3. think about what is in the paper that is not yet covered by the lists generated by google sets.
If there is not much extra, then there is a lot of redundancy (as used in information theory, not as a synonym for layoff). So the question is: why write - or read - the text at all? If the title composed of three words, - expanded to some more through google sets - would be enough to convey "mainstream" meaning?
But if the article is significanly different from the collection of buzzwords - well, then obviously the writer has something new to say, and the reader something to learn.
Posted by: christianhauck | November 26, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Thanks for the tip Christian but seems like a long way round to confirm that the article is bollocks!
Posted by: Euan Semple | November 26, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Dave, I will email you the links to that discussion / conversation thread using your cognitive edge email address ..
Posted by: Jon Husband | November 27, 2006 at 11:51 PM