This very provocative article discusses the economic and social impact of robots in the workplace. Naturally, how you view robots depends upon which side of the fence you live on – happy and richer owner? or displaced worker? But in either event, as consumers we benefit from improved quality and reduced prices made possible by robotics.  So, how should we process this revolution? What are the ‘big picture’ views we should hold? The jury is still out, but the conversation must begin.

“The question is, as this frontier collides with the reality of massive employment numbers in particular categories, do we justify machine replacement and presume to conduct a great deal of retraining? The frontier is ever-moving, and the retraining will be never-ending. This is an even harder question of identity for our civilization: is chronic underemployment a fact that cannot be changed because robots will be demonstrably better than we are, or do we have a responsibility to influence the advance of automation for the sake of some greater good?”

Continue for more from the article Read the rest of this entry »

A familiar scenario goes like this:

The huge printing presses of a major Chicago newspaper began malfunctioning on the Saturday before Christmas, putting all the revenue for advertising that was to appear in the Sunday paper in jeopardy. None of the technicians could track down the problem. Finally, a frantic call was made to the retired printer who had worked with these presses for over 40 years. “We’ll pay anything; just come in and fix them,” he was told.

When he arrived, he walked around for a few minutes, surveying the presses; then he approached one of the control panels and opened it. He removed a dime from his pocket, turned a screw 1/4 of a turn, and said, “The presses will now work correctly.” After being profusely thanked, he was told to submit a bill for his work.

The bill arrived a few days later, for $10,000.00! Not wanting to pay such a huge amount for so little work, the printer was told to please itemize his charges, with the hope that he would reduce the amount once he had to identify his services. The revised bill arrived: $1.00 for turning the screw; $9,999.00 for knowing which screw to turn.

My business involves hundreds of machines, each with computer controllers that fail after about 5 years. The controllers cost $500 to replace new, but I send them to a repair facility where they are restored for $250.

Two questions come to mind:

1. Is this a bargain?
2. Is $250 the right cost of repair?

What if the repairman knows 99% of the time repair involves a $1.90 capacitor and 10 minutes to dissemble, solder, clean, reassemble, and test. Is charging $250 justified? Does he justify his fee on the basis of saving me $250, rather than costing me $250. When I consider that $250 to repair saves me an additional $250 over purchasing new, this a bargain.

Yet, when I consider that $250 for 10 minutes of effort equates to $1512 per hour, I see it a bit differently. But, should I see it differently? Should I care how long it takes to repair, or how much goes into the repair? Should I care whether this is a college-educated professional like a lawyer or a self-taught technician whose knowledge my business needs immediately?

The underlying question is ‘How do we place a value on someone’s knowledge?’

This is no easy question. It often seems rates charged for services far exceed what one would ‘expect’ to pay. Upon what do we base those expectation? Are they legitimate expectations.

In my laundromats a few washers have door locks that occasionally do not release. Customer clothing is held hostage until someone opens the door. The solution when frantic customers call… I tell them  ‘Make a fist and strike the horse logo on the top left of the machine, then try the handle again’. Most of the time they gasp in disbelief, all of the time the door opens.

I don’t even perform the work. I only convey a crucial bit of knowledge required at that precise moment.

How customers value my knowledge is surely tied to how urgently they need to complete their laundry and get on with their day.

Knowledge is difficult to place a value on. The rarer the knowledge and the more urgently it is needed, the more we can expect to pay for it. In the end, supply and demand underpin markets in knowledge just as reliably as they do commodities or services.

I guess it’s just harder to spend money on something as intangible as knowledge.  And yet, we are now well into the knowledge economy. Guess we had better get used to it.

I read an article this week that said, ‘Soon there will be two categories of workers, those who tell computers what to do, and those who computers tell what to do.’

While this may be a bit extreme or far removed, for now, the underlying notion is essentially correct, namely, that virtually all work in the very near future will involve computers in almost every aspect of employment. Workers on the ‘tell computers what to do’ side will fare far better than the legions of workers whose lives will be directed almost entirely by computers.

I would argue that the vast majority of mid-career middle-aged information workers are woefully unprepared and unwilling to exploit their computers as tools of business. Their arguments against doing so are worn and stale.  That brings us to the ‘next generation’ of workers, those who ‘grew up’ with computers, those who ‘just get it’ when it comes to technology. False hope here too, I argue.

While youth are increasingly comfortable using computers, too few are prepared to control computers through the process of writing code, instructions which guide the otherwise worthless and inert machine. Using a computer to play games, watch videos, or even Google an answer, is far different from exploiting a computer’s essential capabilities as a tool of business.

Nearly 30 years into the ‘computing office’ revolution, a sad majority of office workers continue to use their computers simply as glorified typewriters and adding machines. Sure, they may use email, or even create Excel spreadsheets. Don’t be mislead. Often their spreadsheets reflect considerably more effort spent color-coding and creating borders than exploiting the incredible power of functions, absolute, relative, and mixed cell references, and the occasional user-defined function. It is that type of business capability that exploits the power of a computer. Producing a visually attractive but skills-free display of numbers that some manager with equally vacuous skills finds satisfying is within the grasp of the average 7th grader skills. Producing actionable analysis using spreadsheets which underpin critical business decisions demands far more knowledge than the 7th grader. Yet, all too frequently, style passes for substance because the vast majority of knowledge workers refuse to dig a bit deeper into the soul of their computer.

Future successful workers must invest in computing knowledge, not just skills. Computing skills versus computing knowledge differ from one another as radically as plugging an appliance into an electrical outlet differs from understanding the electricity which powers the appliance or the electronics which controls the work the appliance performs.

This Slate article quote perfectly captures my own experience, despite the severely limited code I manage to produce. Creating something from nothing is exhilarating, and the raw materials are essential free. Distribution costs are nil, and seeing someone else benefit from my creative efforts is extremely rewarding.

All too often, we draw the distorted distinction between math- and science-minded individuals and the seemingly more “creative types.” But the speakers debunked this myth, explaining that coding is indeed an innovative and artistic process. Those equipped with programming skills can realize their creative visions and fashion new software, computer games, apps, and even companies. Coding gives one the power to build something out of nothing and then to distribute it quickly all over the world. “It’s not mathematical or lonely,” Girlder said. “It’s fun to create something and see how people interact with it online.”

See the full Slate article here.

Few would argue that meaningfully employed competitive intelligence practices may enhance a company’s ability to compete within their chosen market. The question is where to search for intelligence of actionable value, what to do with that knowledge, and where to draw the line between intelligence (ethical and competition-enhancing) and espionage (unethical and competition-eroding).

One common tool used in competitive intelligence programs is the ‘mystery shop’. There are many flavors, each with its own merits. We will stick to the top level concept to address it from the Knowledge Management perspective.

Mystery shopping services are a process where a specially qualified agent, acting on behalf of [a mystery shopping service] and at your request, covertly audits your business and employees based on criteria specifically designed to meet your needs and identify your business’s special issues. That agent then writes a complete and detailed report of his/her experience at your business. [source]

Mystery shopping as described above is internally-directed knowledge and business improvement.

… to be continued…

Mind map of knowledge management

I maintain that no single explanation or view can entirely explain KM. Consequently, I employ many different tools and media to explain KM concepts, values, and merits. The mind map is one such tool. I came upon this one at the NASA Federal Knowledge Management Working Group site.