A 21st Century Great Chain of Being?
September 4, 2010
As social technologies take hold and challenge the relationships between data, information, knowledge and wisdom within enterprise organizations, a new hierarchy becomes relevant. The Web site cmswire.com explores this interesting theory in a recent article titled, “Social Media Is Challenging Notions of the Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom (DIKW) Hierarchy.” According to the article, social media networks are challenging the historical DIKW model, as described by Jonathan Hey and many before him.
The traditional DIKW model begins with data as unprocessed information, then processed information. Next comes knowledge, then wisdom. The article says that “Social media can speed the capture and dissemination of knowledge. And therefore, the lines between information and knowledge begin to blur. Certainly, the further you move up the hierarchy, the less structured information becomes and the harder it is to capture.”
Interesting points. Some recent DIKW versions are downplaying or omitting wisdom. Knowledge is one thing, but knowing when to use that knowledge requires wisdom. Just a thought. Middle Ages. Great chain of being. Formal social hierarchy. Horses trampling peasants.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2010
Consultants Face the Lash and Backlash
September 4, 2010
Okay, a person gets RIF’ed. Or one gets nuked. Or one gets rationalized. What does one do? One can mail résumés, work on your LinkedIn postings, make phone calls, or become a consultant. Not much is required except printing a business card, creating a free Web page on Weebly.com, and posting to social sites.
Fortunately, as an addled goose, I am unqualified for modern day consulting. Geese in general and this goose in particular is suited to paddling around the pond or making like Jackson Pollock with a car hood as my canvas. However, lots of folks are hanging up their shingle and chasing billable hours.
There are quite a few prospects out there in the present business jungle. A charity’s supporters don’t stuff money in envelopes. Government bean counters kill a program. A company’s profits crater. So, wise managers, accustomed to getting a pay check every two weeks, hire a management consultant to access the situation and recommend solutions.
Here’s a news flash. Instead of growing the company, the consultant’s recommendations backfire, and the outfit the consultant advises enters a death spiral, maybe declaring bankruptcy or selling at a bargain price like mismatched shoes at Carnival Shoe Store, the buy one, get a pair free outfit down the hollow.
Sound familiar? In an article titled “Management Consultancy Scam” the news site nation.com expounds on a fascinating study conducted by the Cranfield School of Management. The article says that “just 36 percent” were happy with the consultant’s results. The strategies pushed by these consultancies are in fact disastrous and hasten the collapse of a company or service.
When folks who depend on a paycheck lose their exoskeleton, what are they supposed to do? Mow grass? Install electric fences? Paint houses? Nope, consult. A feedback loop of sort emerges, don’t you think? Everyone knows how to search. How tough can it be to be a search expert? Trivial for sure. I am “real” certain.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2010
Freebie
Azurini Lock In Analysis Baffles the Goose
August 3, 2010
I know, I know. Consulting firms have to be “real” and “objective” and “mavenesque.” I accept that. But the write up “Burton Group: Avoid Office 2010 Lock-In, Stick with Office 2007” wowed me. Microsoft buys lots of consulting, research, and advice. As a result, those who want to get jobs with the Redmond fun lovers often find a way to put a honey colored light on almost any product, service, or initiative. How many raves did I read about Vista? How many times have I heard about the wonders of MSN, now Live something? How many times have I heard experts explain the impact of Microsoft’s mobile strategy, its search strategy, its social strategy, its cloud strategy, and other strategies. The addled goose sure does not generate $70 billion a year in revenue and Microsoft does. So, guess who is really smart? Time’s up. Microsoft.
But a consulting firm criticizing Microsoft albeit somewhat indirectly? That is amazing, and it means to me that maybe the fondness Microsoft once felt for Burton has faded. Maybe Burton no longer loves Microsoft? Maybe there are other forces in play? Who knows.
What is clear is that Burton suggests an organization that embraces Office 2010 may be a candidate for lock in. Lock in means that a vendor calls the shots, not the client. The only way to get free is to break out. In fact, that’s one of the appeals of open source software. An organization using open source software believes it has more freedom than when chained to a giant SharePoint installation, an even bigger Microsoft Exchange construct, and the 40 other servers that Microsoft has on offer.
My view is that Microsoft is not the only enterprise software vendor looking to get shelf space and then become a monoculture in a client organization. Does IBM seek to monopolize hardware, software, and services? In my experience, you better understand the way Big Blue operates before your local IBM vice president gets a temporary office down the hall from your company’s president. Same with the Google.
So what strikes me as interesting is not the lock in angle. That’s old news. The criticism of a big outfit like Microsoft has caught my attention. Is one of the azurini changing colors?
Stephen E Arnold, August 3, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
