Experts; Who needs them ?

We look up to experts. We have respect for their knowledge. We are always on the look-out for the expert. In the field of Knowledge Management it's one of the holy grails to find the experts. My question is "What value do they have? and if so when ?".

There is a lot of evidence that experts fail and fail time after time. 90 percent of the fund managers underperformed the S&P 500 the last 15 years, only 2% of all companies listed on the stock exchange in the early 20th century are still around to tell their expert opinion. They had the best CEO's and hired the best experts and they are no more. These experts made crucial decisions based upon their believes, opinions and predictions. Can we trust these opinions ?
Here are a couple of predictions of some experts;

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
H. M. Warner, co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1927.

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
Albert Einstein, 1932.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, an official at the US patent office, 1899.

"In all likelihood world inflation is over."
International Monetary Fund Ceo, 1959.

"That virus is a pussycat."
Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC)

"I think there is a world market, for maybe five computers..."
IBM chief Thomas Watson 1943

more>>

The problem with experts is that they know everything about nothing (a very thin slice of something). Then again a generalist knows nothing about everything. James Surowiecki argues in his book "The wisdom of crowds" that the real expert is the crowd, the group.

To make the crowd smart four key characteristics should be fulfilled;

1. it needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table.
2. it needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd's answer.
3. the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks.
4. it needs a way of summarizing people's opinions into one collective verdict.

So, do experts have value or should we rely on groups?

I think they have, and this is when;
1. They should be part of the group
The expert is an essential part of the crowd. But they have to be just one of many; they have the same value as the next person when aggregating the individual opinions of the group.
2. Experts have operational value in the now
If something has to be done now, in the present, you need the best man possible. You can't have some idiot executing or solving a problem he knows nothing about.
3. Bring the expert to the problem, not the problem to the expert
Let the experts bid for problems, the highest bid gets it. This is essential to success. If you are going to use an expert, apply this or otherwise just use the group you'll be better off. Why?

a. How do you know which problem to bring/give to which expert?
Firstly, you are not an expert on the problem, that's why you needed an expert in the first place. You can't make that judgment call. Secondly, you don't know what he knows, or better said what his expertise exactly is. Probably he knows best.
If you violate this, there a good chance that you giving the wrong problem to the wrong expert.

b. The problem is always framed by time. You want it solved now. What if the expert doesn't have time? How do you know he has time? If he is recognized as "the expert", he will probably be flooded with requests. You'll be competing and/or escalating for his time with fellow colleagues and peer management. Only the expert knows if he has time and/or the resources to solve it within the giving timeframe.

c. An expert is only an expert by proof not by demand. So if he publicly bids for the assignment, gets it and succeeds, his expertise will be reinforced by proof. For the expert this very satisfactory and a driver to perform, he is the soul expert, nobody else outbid him.

As a result the right problem will end up at the right expert, who has the time, the drive and the passion to work on the problem. We rely on demand and supply in other areas, why not here?

And remember in the end we, the knowledge workers, are all experts in our own right, aren't we?

How to become a Billionaire

If there has ever been a time to become a billionaire and quick, it's now. How ? Make use of the web .The most prominent and visible of course is the World Wide Web, but it could be any of the webs out there. How quick ? In a couple of years. Ever heard of the BackRub ? No ? Ever heard of Larry Page and Sergey Brin ? They invented a search engine called BackRub, later to become Google, it was based on one of the principles of the web. The group knows best. In their legendary paper "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine" they explain the concept of Pagerank. Pagerank capitalizes on the democratic structure of the web using the link structure to come to the best result. Basically the page, on a certain subject, linked to by the most people is the most relevant i.e. the group knows best. Larry Page age 33 and Sergey Brin age 32, started in a garage in 1998 and are now listed 26 and 27 with 12.8 and 12.9 Billion on the Forbes list of richest people. More amazingly they outpaced Bill Gates and Paul Allen from Microsoft to acquire those billions.
You can do it too, all you need to do is to understand the web and act on it. Here is a tip. Google doesn't add relevancy in real time. If you figure out how to do that, you can become the next billionaire.

The new icon

Enough of that mumbojumbo on Complex Nonlinear systems. Time to simplify.
We need an simple icon we can identify with. A simple picture we can relate to.
The Atom
In the 20th century that icon was the atom.
A ball, the nucleus, with one or more tiny balls, the electron, in orbit. Just like like the earth and its moon. A calm mechanical picture of stability. It was profound because you knew this was the fundamental source of all matter, the stars, planets, trees, water and even you. It was also slightly strange and mystical, this very tiny "object" nobody has ever seen.
It became our archetype by which we interpreted the world and reality around us.
The web
In the 21st century that icon is the web. It's neither calm or mechanical. It represent dynamics, change, no beginning, no end and no center. The atom, matter, you can touch, the web is messy, fuzzy, flaky and virtual. When I say web, I don't mean the world wide web, I mean a network of relations. Everything is in relation with everything, influence is both ways or "multi-ways". Simple cause and effect seize to exist.
It becomes counter intuitive and it brings new economics. If it's really interesting and slightly mystical, like society, economics, ant heaps, evolution, your brain, the world wide web, blogs, it means you are staring the web straight in its face.
The web is fundamentally different, it is profound and it brings new and fresh opportunities. But you have to see it first to act on it.

‘If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.’ — George Bernard Shaw

The mystic element

The mystic element of knowlegde is nonlinear, that is what make it so mystical. A nonlinear system is one whose behavior is not simply the sum of its parts. Its behavior is therefor difficult to predict. Knowledge itself ofcourse isn't a system but it resides in nonlinear systems. The human brain and these again are connected through communication, business relations and society, all nonlinear systems. Nonlinear systems are dynamic by nature. If its a run away, we call them chaotic systems. Not much use for us, we are trying to manage it, remember ! If it freezes up and becomes static it's no good either, we stagnate. The trick is to walk the fine line between static and chaos, on the edge of chaos. These systems are called complex systems . The features of complex systems and especially those of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) is exactly what we are looking for in relation to knowledge management. Examples of CAS are human economies, nervous systems, cells, ant-hills, ants themselves, and other living things, including human beings. CAS is studied by complexity theory seeking the answers to some fundamental questions about evolving, learning, adaptable and changeable systems.
That is a fine match with the things stated in my 4 tier knowledge management model .
I think we have found a fundemental concept we can build on.

An understanding takes time

In my post Do we need a definition ? the conclusion was no, we need an understanding.
An understanding takes time. Understanding needs exploration, thus time. If it is new to you, you demand a defintion, even if it doesn't makes sense to you. Then maybe you'll embark on a journey to understand. So here is my definition of Knowledge Management.

Knowledge Management or KM is the art of continuously transforming knowledge into action towards a specific purpose.

I bet you are thinking "hhhmmm.... yeah sure...ok" and not "aha that's great..thanks".
So lets us embark on that journey to understand. We don't have to go into managment, I'll assume we all have the same understanding. (hhhmm.. do we ?.. I'm not sure). So what is this stuff "knowledge" that we are managing ? What's the definition ? (here we go again..).
Lets see what great thinkers have to say.
‘Information is not knowledge.’ - Albert Einstein
' If it has no brain it has no knowledge' - Kevin Mol
There are lots of beautiful quotes on knowledge. I picked these two because they relate best to a useful definition of knowledge by prof.dr.ir. Weggeman.

K = f(I*ESA)

Knowledge can be seen as a function of Information, Experience, Skills and Attitude.

What I like about this definiton is that it's easy to remember and it has all the crusial elements I think are necessary to come to an understanding....

1. the human element, ESA
2. the information technogly element, I
3. the mystic element, f( * )

... but to get there will take time.

Do we need a definition ?

Strange... when confronted with the term Knowledge Management everybody starts asking for a definition and I assure you there are loads out there. So take your pick.
Two simple words we use in daily life but when they are put together we have a discussion on our hands. Not strange... people claim, "How can I act on something which is not defined ?"
O.K. so here is one;
Knowledge Management or KM is a professional discipline applied to concepts and technologies used for the systematic collection, transfer, and management of tacit and explicit information within individuals and/or organisations.

I bet you still wouldn't have that "aha .. thanks I've got it" feeling, turn around and start "doing" KM.
If we talk about process management, quality management and managing organisations, no definitions is asked. You just walk away and start re-engineering processes, enforcing quality and re-organise organisations. No puzzled faces as if you've just seen a ton of bricks hanging in mid air.
If asked for a definition of any of those words, most people can't give a clear cut definition and if they can they are all different.

So do we need a definition ? No we need an understanding.

Know How is not enough

Knowledge is often defined as know-how. However that is not enough, not even close.
Know-how has no value without know-what.
Your know-what is your purpose, your goal. It is of no use to know how to make a top notch car running on steam in an era of fossil fuels a.k.a. petrol.
So knowledge management would then be, managing the know-what and the know-how and in that order.
Wrong again.

So what does knowledge management entail ?
Google search on knowledge management brings up more then 84.000.000 results.
A good source for knowledge management is Brint, claiming to be the World's No. 1 Resource for Knowledge Management.
This will still leave you puzzeled and overwhelmed.

Lets proceed.
We established one part of the puzzle, know-what & know-how.
But the know-what changes due to competition, markets and customer demand, your goal is a moving target.
So you need to adapt to the changes.
The problem is that you are still a follower, you are eating dust. Better still, is to make dust. You set the rules, you define the what.
You are an innovator, let the others eat your dust.
You're not home free yet. The nature of change changes, the way we innovate is been innovated. So in that whole process of know-what & know-how, adaption and innovation you'll have to learn.
Next time round is more challenging and you'll need to do it faster and different.

You'll have to cover all 4 tiers to be a winner... again and again.

My 4-tier knowledge management model

The Truth

The truth comes in 3 stages

• First you are ridiculed
• Secondly you are violently opposed
• Thirdly it's self evident

.... that is valid for innovative ideas too.