Decentralization of knowledge
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.
William Butler Yeats
Pieces are held everywhere…stitching together reality is in the hands of many.
Marvin Minsky presents intelligence as the function of "many little parts, each mindless by itself" . When these parts connect or join, they create intelligence. The decentralization of knowledge reverses the joining formed by others (experts, editors) and permits individuals the capacity to connect knowledge in a manner they find useful.
Steven Johnson builds on Minsky’s thoughts, and details emergence as "a network of self-organization, of disparate agents that unwittingly create a higher-level order" . These agents can create diverse structures (ant colonies, brains, cities) through the process of connecting by following simple rules. Does this relate to learning? Is a new entity brought into our cognitive network a "mindless agent"?
Perhaps the bigger opportunity here is to consider the amplification effect of joining individual entities (regardless of whether we classify them as mindless or mindful). Landauer and Dumais tackle the concern of people having "more knowledge than appears to be present in the information to which they have been exposed" . They suggest that the answer to the "mystery of excessive learning" is found in the "weak interrelations," which exist in certain domains of knowledge. When we bring a new element into the knowledge space, it can serve as an amplifier for knowledge that is currently known, much like Minsky’s agents combine to form higher-order intelligence . Filling a gap in our neural networks creates new pathways.
So what does this have to do with decentralized knowledge?
"Know where" is replacing "know what" and "know how." The rapid, continual knowledge flow cannot be contained and held in the human mind. To survive, we extend ourselves through our networks: computers, humans, databases, and still unfolding new tools.
Our co-workers no longer sit at a different desk. They sit in a different country.
How does theory ("construct in advance") shape knowledge spaces? To what degree should knowledge emerge and influence theory?
Aggregation of knowledge/information sources has really changed over the last few years. Until recently, most of our information was delivered through a centering agent—a television, newspaper, magazine, or radio. In this model, our primary task was to absorb or consume the structure of information created by a third party.
The centering agents have come undone. Knowledge agents continue to connect and form, but not according to the views of others. We have become active organizers of individual agents. We weave our networks.
[edit] But I thought you said that our role was one of allowing knowledge to emerge?
True. We wade into the river of knowledge, not to direct its flow to a predefined purpose, but to recognize the patterns that are emerging and to base our actions on changed context and characteristics of knowledge.
We no longer exclusively read newspapers or watch the evening news. We used to go to one source of information to get a thousand points of information. Now, we go to a thousand sources of information to create our one view. We have become the filter, mediator, and the weaver. Aggregation amplifies knowledge and learning.
Figure 37. Filters
While this process is effective on many levels, it has its challenges. Going to one source of information is much simpler than attempting to consume many different elements. It is less stressful. It requires less thought and foraging for needed knowledge. Questions of validity and trust are answered with each information source (at least until a relationship has been developed).
Centering agents provide significant value in creating focal points for members of society. These agents serve a diverse base and are structured to provide appeal to many different individuals (race, religion, politics). People of different political stripes, for example, are able to dialogue because of the common language and understanding created by centering agents.
What happens when we no longer share centering agents?
What happens when all of my information comes only from sources that promote view points I already hold?
It is easier to access…and to ignore diverse viewpoints. This process is creating a serious divide in the ability of people to dialogue and share common understandings. We can now listen only to perspectives already in line with our own. The breakdown of common understanding and dialogue poses a risk to the civility of society. The moderating influence of diversity is not prominent when we can shape our dialogue spaces to suit our views. Accidental diversity must now give way to intentional diversity. We must seek the viewpoints of others to create a unified whole.
It is to our health that we consume information from differing spectrums of thought. Whatever our view or perspective, as actors on a global stage, we need to move (at minimum) to dialogue with those around us.
Closing spaces equals closing minds.
[edit] Clear aims through decentralized means
is THE challenge for organizations today. Organizations need to achieve goals, objectives, targets, but they need to achieve them in non-linear ways. The assumption that control determines outcome is a mindset that was questionable in the industrial era…and laughable in the knowledge era.
Even when we understand the value of decentralization, the familiarity of centralized and controlled processes and outcomes are impediments. In the end, the appeal of control often exceeds the prospect of value from decentralization. The misleading, and false assumption of many leaders is: "How can I make sure that things are happening the way I want them to?" It presupposes control as a requirement for effective functioning.
[edit] Are you saying that all centralization is ineffective?
Absolutely not. Centralization is effective when matched to the appropriate task. In our earlier discussion of learning, we pursued holistic models in order to attend to the diverse and complex nature of learning. No one single model meets the needs of all possible situations. Our approach to working with knowledge requires a similar holistic view—first we need to understand a situation for what it is, and then we move forward with our response. Centralization is not always the answer. Neither is decentralization.
We have a mindset of "knowing before application." We feel that new problems must be tamed by our previous experience. When we encounter a challenge, we visit our database of known solutions with the objective of applying a template solution on the problem. Many organizations are not comfortable with suspending judgment. The moment a problem takes an initial known shape, the solutions begin to flow.
The act of labeling is an attempt to provide order where order does not exist (at least in the mind of the listener). Labeling is a cognitive off-loading process; once we can put someone or a concept into a box, we do not have to be as active in making meaning. Instead, we can rely on memory to provide meaning and understanding. While natural, it is the root of much harm—racism, prejudice, and misunderstanding.
The assumption that order does not exist unless we enforce it, is false.. We feel that we must sufficiently grapple with an idea or situation until we have extracted value or meaning. It is difficult to accept that order and meaning can emerge on its own. Chaos, we feel, requires our hand for order. Randomness may conceal order, and acting too quickly may result in missing the true meaning.
…and yet…
the pinnacle of human activity is one of order making—cities, societies, books, vehicles, buildings. We are order-makers. Perhaps in today’s complex knowledge space, our role of order-making requires periods of suspension, where we assess knowledge first (for what it is) and apply order second (once we know the characteristics of the entity we are ordering).
Instead of trying to force the new nature of knowledge into organizational structures, let it exist for a while. See what happens. Do not decide the entire solution in advance. See the process as more of a dance than a structured enactment of a solution. React as the environment adjusts. Allow feedback to shape the final product. Let the process bring its own lessons before applying structured approaches. Perhaps the real value exists in the knowledge patterns that emerge.
Centralizing decentralized processes results in killing the value inherent in decentralization. Relaxing on control is vital for sustained knowledge growth, innovation, sharing, and dissemination. Centralization works well for organized knowledge or established structures. Decentralization is effective when things change rapidly, diverse viewpoints are required, and knowledge has not settled into a "knowable, defined" state.
The views that we must know before we can do, and that problems require clear solutions, can be limiting in certain instances (especially instances of high complexity or uncertainty).
Figure 38. Snowden’s Ontology
Knowing often arises in the process of doing. Solutions are contained within the problems themselves (not external, templated responses), and problems always morph as we begin to work on them. As Snowden indicates, different situations present themselves at different levels of clarity. Some elements are knowable…others are complex. The nature of the situation determines our response. We cannot effectively impose order on chaotic or complex spaces. Instead, we must probe and sense.
| If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. |
|
| |
Abraham Maslow |
The real value of a new tool is not the tool itself. It is what the tool enables.
A hammer is not only useful for hitting nails. Obviously that is the task at its most basic, but what does it mean? In the case of the hammer, it means we can build a doghouse, a bookshelf, or a house. Until we look past the task and functionality of a tool—to what the tool enables—we largely miss the beauty of why it is so useful.
But understanding the tool is only part of the challenge. We must also understand the nature of the task in which we are engaged. First we see the task. Then we select the tool. Then we adjust and acquire new tools (and processes) as the experience warrants.
We often apply our thinking at the wrong stage—we think planning is the key, but fail to recognize that the rapid pace of knowledge development is moving more emphasis to adapting during the process. Business and learning are not about following a map or preplanned route. Functioning in a knowledge stream is a give-and-take experience with the environment and factors that arise.
Tools and approaches possess, in themselves, innate attributes for optimal function (saw for cutting wood, hammer for building)
Decentralization of knowledge
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.
William Butler Yeats
Pieces are held everywhere…stitching together reality is in the hands of many.
Marvin Minsky presents intelligence as the function of "many little parts, each mindless by itself" . When these parts connect or join, they create intelligence. The decentralization of knowledge reverses the joining formed by others (experts, editors) and permits individuals the capacity to connect knowledge in a manner they find useful.
Steven Johnson builds on Minsky’s thoughts, and details emergence as "a network of self-organization, of disparate agents that unwittingly create a higher-level order" . These agents can create diverse structures (ant colonies, brains, cities) through the process of connecting by following simple rules. Does this relate to learning? Is a new entity brought into our cognitive network a "mindless agent"?
Perhaps the bigger opportunity here is to consider the amplification effect of joining individual entities (regardless of whether we classify them as mindless or mindful). Landauer and Dumais tackle the concern of people having "more knowledge than appears to be present in the information to which they have been exposed" . They suggest that the answer to the "mystery of excessive learning" is found in the "weak interrelations," which exist in certain domains of knowledge. When we bring a new element into the knowledge space, it can serve as an amplifier for knowledge that is currently known, much like Minsky’s agents combine to form higher-order intelligence . Filling a gap in our neural networks creates new pathways.
So what does this have to do with decentralized knowledge?
"Know where" is replacing "know what" and "know how." The rapid, continual knowledge flow cannot be contained and held in the human mind. To survive, we extend ourselves through our networks: computers, humans, databases, and still unfolding new tools.
Our co-workers no longer sit at a different desk. They sit in a different country.
How does theory ("construct in advance") shape knowledge spaces? To what degree should knowledge emerge and influence theory?
Aggregation of knowledge/information sources has really changed over the last few years. Until recently, most of our information was delivered through a centering agent—a television, newspaper, magazine, or radio. In this model, our primary task was to absorb or consume the structure of information created by a third party.
The centering agents have come undone. Knowledge agents continue to connect and form, but not according to the views of others. We have become active organizers of individual agents. We weave our networks.
[edit] But I thought you said that our role was one of allowing knowledge to emerge?
True. We wade into the river of knowledge, not to direct its flow to a predefined purpose, but to recognize the patterns that are emerging and to base our actions on changed context and characteristics of knowledge.
We no longer exclusively read newspapers or watch the evening news. We used to go to one source of information to get a thousand points of information. Now, we go to a thousand sources of information to create our one view. We have become the filter, mediator, and the weaver. Aggregation amplifies knowledge and learning.
Figure 37. Filters
While this process is effective on many levels, it has its challenges. Going to one source of information is much simpler than attempting to consume many different elements. It is less stressful. It requires less thought and foraging for needed knowledge. Questions of validity and trust are answered with each information source (at least until a relationship has been developed).
Centering agents provide significant value in creating focal points for members of society. These agents serve a diverse base and are structured to provide appeal to many different individuals (race, religion, politics). People of different political stripes, for example, are able to dialogue because of the common language and understanding created by centering agents.
What happens when we no longer share centering agents?
What happens when all of my information comes only from sources that promote view points I already hold?
It is easier to access…and to ignore diverse viewpoints. This process is creating a serious divide in the ability of people to dialogue and share common understandings. We can now listen only to perspectives already in line with our own. The breakdown of common understanding and dialogue poses a risk to the civility of society. The moderating influence of diversity is not prominent when we can shape our dialogue spaces to suit our views. Accidental diversity must now give way to intentional diversity. We must seek the viewpoints of others to create a unified whole.
It is to our health that we consume information from differing spectrums of thought. Whatever our view or perspective, as actors on a global stage, we need to move (at minimum) to dialogue with those around us.
Closing spaces equals closing minds.
[edit] Clear aims through decentralized means
is THE challenge for organizations today. Organizations need to achieve goals, objectives, targets, but they need to achieve them in non-linear ways. The assumption that control determines outcome is a mindset that was questionable in the industrial era…and laughable in the knowledge era.
Even when we understand the value of decentralization, the familiarity of centralized and controlled processes and outcomes are impediments. In the end, the appeal of control often exceeds the prospect of value from decentralization. The misleading, and false assumption of many leaders is: "How can I make sure that things are happening the way I want them to?" It presupposes control as a requirement for effective functioning.
[edit] Are you saying that all centralization is ineffective?
Absolutely not. Centralization is effective when matched to the appropriate task. In our earlier discussion of learning, we pursued holistic models in order to attend to the diverse and complex nature of learning. No one single model meets the needs of all possible situations. Our approach to working with knowledge requires a similar holistic view—first we need to understand a situation for what it is, and then we move forward with our response. Centralization is not always the answer. Neither is decentralization.
We have a mindset of "knowing before application." We feel that new problems must be tamed by our previous experience. When we encounter a challenge, we visit our database of known solutions with the objective of applying a template solution on the problem. Many organizations are not comfortable with suspending judgment. The moment a problem takes an initial known shape, the solutions begin to flow.
The act of labeling is an attempt to provide order where order does not exist (at least in the mind of the listener). Labeling is a cognitive off-loading process; once we can put someone or a concept into a box, we do not have to be as active in making meaning. Instead, we can rely on memory to provide meaning and understanding. While natural, it is the root of much harm—racism, prejudice, and misunderstanding.
The assumption that order does not exist unless we enforce it, is false.. We feel that we must sufficiently grapple with an idea or situation until we have extracted value or meaning. It is difficult to accept that order and meaning can emerge on its own. Chaos, we feel, requires our hand for order. Randomness may conceal order, and acting too quickly may result in missing the true meaning.
…and yet…
the pinnacle of human activity is one of order making—cities, societies, books, vehicles, buildings. We are order-makers. Perhaps in today’s complex knowledge space, our role of order-making requires periods of suspension, where we assess knowledge first (for what it is) and apply order second (once we know the characteristics of the entity we are ordering).
Instead of trying to force the new nature of knowledge into organizational structures, let it exist for a while. See what happens. Do not decide the entire solution in advance. See the process as more of a dance than a structured enactment of a solution. React as the environment adjusts. Allow feedback to shape the final product. Let the process bring its own lessons before applying structured approaches. Perhaps the real value exists in the knowledge patterns that emerge.
Centralizing decentralized processes results in killing the value inherent in decentralization. Relaxing on control is vital for sustained knowledge growth, innovation, sharing, and dissemination. Centralization works well for organized knowledge or established structures. Decentralization is effective when things change rapidly, diverse viewpoints are required, and knowledge has not settled into a "knowable, defined" state.
The views that we must know before we can do, and that problems require clear solutions, can be limiting in certain instances (especially instances of high complexity or uncertainty).
Figure 38. Snowden’s Ontology
Knowing often arises in the process of doing. Solutions are contained within the problems themselves (not external, templated responses), and problems always morph as we begin to work on them. As Snowden indicates, different situations present themselves at different levels of clarity. Some elements are knowable…others are complex. The nature of the situation determines our response. We cannot effectively impose order on chaotic or complex spaces. Instead, we must probe and sense.
| If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. |
|
| |
Abraham Maslow |
The real value of a new tool is not the tool itself. It is what the tool enables.
A hammer is not only useful for hitting nails. Obviously that is the task at its most basic, but what does it mean? In the case of the hammer, it means we can build a doghouse, a bookshelf, or a house. Until we look past the task and functionality of a tool—to what the tool enables—we largely miss the beauty of why it is so useful.
But understanding the tool is only part of the challenge. We must also understand the nature of the task in which we are engaged. First we see the task. Then we select the tool. Then we adjust and acquire new tools (and processes) as the experience warrants.
We often apply our thinking at the wrong stage—we think planning is the key, but fail to recognize that the rapid pace of knowledge development is moving more emphasis to adapting during the process. Business and learning are not about following a map or preplanned route. Functioning in a knowledge stream is a give-and-take experience with the environment and factors that arise.
Tools and approaches possess, in themselves, innate attributes for optimal function (saw for cutting wood, hammer for building).
Figure 39. Tools and Affordances
Books, like the one you are reading, are most often a one-sided view of the knowledge of a particular space (and, in certain fields, they can be dated by the time they are published). Content is something that is created in the process of learning, not only in advance of learning.
Content is the codification of our knowledge, our art, our vision, our dreams, and our aspirations. As little as five years ago, content came pre-packaged. You could get your content fix in the form of a textbook, a CD, a newscast, a newspaper, or a classroom.
We can now acquire our resources in any manner that we desire. We are re-packagers. Learners weave together (connect) various content and conversation elements to create an integrated, though at times contradictory, network of issues and concerns. We take pieces, add pieces, dialogue, reframe, rethink, connect, and ultimately, we end up with some type of pattern that symbolizes what is happening "out there" and what it means to us.
Learning and knowing occur in networks and ecologies, not hierarchical, pre-organized structures. The central filtering agent is no longer the newspaper, teacher, manager, or institution. It is the individual. Think about what that means to our organizations today. It changes everything.
The center has broken apart in other industries—movies, music, software; we can expect knowledge and learning will not be immune. What does it mean to us? What should we be doing now to prepare our institutions? Ourselves?
Knowledge is about a certain type of organization. When the capacity to organize is in the hands of others, we are passive consumers.
When we ourselves organize (re-package),
we become knowledge conduits, not containers.
We are still fixated on the notion of content. We think we are making great concessions when we give individuals control and start to see them as co-creators. That misses the essence of the change: individuals want control of their space. They want to create the ecology in which they function and learn. Sense making happens in their context. Today, it is about pulling content from numerous sites and allowing the individual to repurpose it in the format they prefer (allowing them to create/recognize patterns). Much like the music industry had to learn that people do not want to pay for a whole album when all they want is one song, content providers (education, museums, and libraries) need to see the end user does not want the entire experience—they want only the pieces they want.
Dialogue and learning will happen on their time, in their space, on their device. We must create the ecology that allows for maximum innovation, so that the greatest number of recombinations is possible.
[edit] Does anyone actually do this stuff, or do people like you just theorize?
One of the most obvious learning ecologies is the internet itself. It is a wonderful example of a space where we can learn from experts, informally, formally, or in communities.
[edit] Didn’t you do away with experts in your discussion of how end-users now have access and control?
Experts do provide a valuable role and source of guidance. Holistic perspectives are important. Context games create a loose structure to a conversation, but fail to capture an entire perspective. As an author, in order to make useful statements such as "Knowledge is now at the disposal of the many," I leave things unsaid (but experts play a key role, and when experts are the focus of the discussion, I will attend to their role). Thorough context games—as an effort to eliminate misunderstandings—are time consuming. When we dialogue, it is in relation to something—to an event, a person, or some situation before us.
When we take one approach, we are leaving many other factors unattended, but impacted. When we pursue knowledge on one level, we are making choices that change things. But that choice does not happen in a vacuum. Other parts of our organization will also need to change. It is important to be aware of what we are leaving behind in our choices…and that one view (systems thinking is useful in determining interconnection of actions) does not lead to universal application (systems thinking should be used for everything).
This one-dimensional view is lazy thinking. Each tool provides affordances for certain tasks. To advocate for social technologies (or informal learning), is not to deem all hierarchy as irrelevant. It is relevant…but not in all situations and for all tasks. Hierarchies have a role, but at a much diminished level…and always within the appropriate context.
Choice = deselection. When we pursue one direction, we are saying no to many others. What we do not choose is often as important as what we do choose. We need to look at where the energy is expended, not where it is solidified.
Categorizing offloads cognition to established views—but what are the costs?
When we rely on outdated knowledge (due to classification in advance of all elements being known), we encounter inaccurate information, wrong judgments, and un-acknowledged changed foundations
Even the images and proposed ways of looking at knowledge provided in this book are an attempt to provide some organization. How can we act if we do not solidify knowledge—even slightly? Often, our action for volatile, rapidly changing knowledge needs to be one of waiting for patterns to emerge. The most effective model for categorization and classification is the one that enables the greatest potential for connection, recombination, diversity, knowledge to speak for itself, and situations and elements to emerge according to their characteristics, not our organizational schema.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.