I wanted to put my mobile phone to good use. So, I tried the camera…I was surprised by the quality of some of the pictures. Here is one from the islands to the north of Seattle.
 Walking around in Seattle! |  Flying around the world! |
 UCLA and Westwood |  UCLA again... |
 Nittany Lion Inn at Penn State University |  Univ. of Virginia |
New paper published:
Desouza, K.C., Awazu, Y., and Ramaprasad, A. “Modifications and Innovations to Technology Artifacts,” Technovation, 27 (4), 2007, 204-220.
Abstract:
What happens to a technology artifact after it is adopted? It has to evolve within its particular context to be effective; otherwise, it will become part of the detritus of change, like the many genes without a discernible function in a living organism. In this paper, we report on a study of post-adoptive behavior that examined how users modified and innovated with technology artifacts. We uncovered three types of modifications made to technology artifacts: personalization, customization, and inventions. Personalization attempts are modifications involving changes to technology parameters to meet the specificities of the user; customization attempts adapt the technology parameters to meet the specificities of the user’s environment; and inventions are exaptations conducted to the technology artifact. This paper presents a grounded theoretic analysis of the post-adoptive behavior based on in-depth interviews with 20 software engineers in one multi-national organization. We identify a life-cycle model that connects the various types of modifications conducted to technology artifacts. The life-cycle model elaborates on how individual and organizational dynamics are linked to the diffusion of innovations. While our research is exploratory, it contributes to a deeper understanding of post-adoptive behavior and the dynamic relationship between user innovations and organizational innovations.
Measuring Innovation: From Process to Stages to Capabilities to Measures to Business Value
Measuring innovation requires an organization to have a well-articulated innovation process. Without a process, measurement is impossible. During our research, we arrived at the following stages of innovation: (1) generation and mobilization, (2) advocacy and screening, (3) experimentation, (4) commercialization, and (5) diffusion and implementation. For each of these phases, we identified underlying capabilities that an organization must execute: (1) sources management, (2) analytics management, (3) interpretation management, and (4) action management. These capabilities are comprised of a series of activities. For instance, in sources management, (a) Identifying Sources, (b) Evaluating Source Characteristics, (c) Organizing Sources, (d) Retrieving Ideas from Sources, (e) Updating the Collection of Sources, and (f) Protecting Sources.
Once we are able to make the process of innovation explicit, we can develop measures for the process. We start by measuring the activities, then build composites for measuring capabilities, which in turn will help us measure each stage, and then the overall innovation process.
Using these measures, we can link innovation to business value measures, from process to output, and value measures.
More details will be forthcoming as we begin to release our working papers.
In the 18th century, the renowned physicist Lord Kelvin remarked, “To measure is to know” and “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and can express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, then your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind”. Although he was not speaking about the field of knowledge and innovation management when he made these statements, there may be no better field for which these statements hold true, and his words may easily be applied to that which is missing from the extant literature on knowledge management.
There is a conspicuous absence of models to evaluate such efforts. A major concern for scholars and practitioners is how to measure the status of knowledge and innovation management in an organization –– i.e., its strengths and weaknesses Managers today have to rely on anecdotal descriptions to justify investments. Without a meaningful framework for describing its trajectory, knowledge, and innovation, management is viewed by many as a mere fad.
During the I3M meeting in April, I will be presenting our model for measuring the innovation process and linking it to business value...
I have a new paper published: Desouza, K.C., Ein-Dor, P., McCubbrey, D.J., Galliers, R.D., Myers, M.D., and Watson, R.T. “Social Activism in Information Systems Research: Making the World a Better Place,” Communications of the AIS, 19 (2007), 261-277.
Abstract
This paper reports on a panel held during the 2006 International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). The panel titled, “Social Activism in IS Research: Making the World a Better Place,” was organized to question whether and how Information System (IS) research is making tangible impacts to our society. More specifically, each panelist was asked to address: (1) How can IS research, and researchers, make contributions to under-developed societies and underserved communities? and (2) How can IS researchers learn from the particularities of these communities to inform better research, teaching, and service? While each panel member had different perspectives to offer in relation to these two questions, all agreed that IS academe needs to raise its awareness and efforts considerably with a view to address the needs of underserved communities.
I will be giving a talk to the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Special Libraries Association. The talk is titled, “Contradictions in Innovation: The Critical Role of Librarians”.
In order to innovate, organizations must find ways to manage their knowledge. Knowledge need to be created, utilized, shared, duplicated, and commercialized. However, the very same knowledge must also be protected and secured. Herein lies the contradiction: to share or not to share. How do we build organizational mechanisms where knowledge can be shared, while being secured! More importantly, how do we retain the high-energy and enthusiastic culture required for innovation, while still being respectful of the needs for security and compartmentalization? I will draw on examples from government intelligence operations, innovation programs in large organizations, and even my own entrepreneurial experiences to draw some tentative conclusions…
See (http://students.washington.edu/slauw/) and (http://units.sla.org/chapter/cpnw/index.html)
I have a new Blog (http://uwinser.blogspot.com/) – the UW Institute for National Security Education and Research (UW INSER). I serve as the Director of this program. Please check it out to learn about my recent work. There is a lot of interesting stuff going on with INSER in the national security education and research space.
During a recent trip to the University of Virginia…Having lunch with the little sister (a.k.a Karishma)…You have to check out this place – Marco & Luca…$2.50 for 6 Dumplings…
 |  |  |
My favorite Meeting Places…Wine Stores…Pictures are from a meeting that I had in San Francisco...
"Desouza provides cogent and compelling real world examples that immediately grab your attention. CIO's can not afford to become complacent in times where the most mundane event – a courier's misplacement of a data tape for example – can have expensive if not catastrophic consequences. There are bad guys out there willing and able to profit at the expense of the unwary custodian of information. Desouza's provocative examples will make even the most fastidious CIO think twice about the security of his/her company's data in a time when very real threats are present in cyberspace. In an age where Information Technologies are ubiquitous and easily acquired, sustainable competitive advantage is achieved through the cultivation and application of intellectual assets, not technology. However, as Desouza points out, 'Intellectual Asset Management' is not yet a common college course. This book is your best bet to galvanize your team and your organization. This is must reading for CXO's in every firm. If you read one management book this year, this is the one to read and to act on – immediately!"
Mike Williams
Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer
Parsons Brinckerhoff
"Desouza has done an impressive job of taking an issue that's worrying CXOs at companies around the world and simplifying it. While reading this book I was actually scared - our intellectual property is in many cases unprotected and this book is doing a good job by showing how important this issue is to the senior management of any company. A must read…"
Roshan D'Silva
Chairman & CEO
Myzus
Special Issue on IT and Terrorism
Along with Winston Koh (Singapore Management University) and Aris Ouksel (University of Illinois at Chicago), I have edited a special issue on IT and Terrorism for Technology Forecasting and Social Change.
Citation: Desouza, K.C., Koh, W.T.H., Ouksel, A.M. “Information Technology, Innovation and the War on Terrorism,” Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 74 (2), 2007, 125-128.
Here is a portion of the introduction:
The horrific scale of destruction of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has ushered in a period of global uncertainty on various fronts: political, economic, military and technological. In essence, terrorism involves the use of violence to achieve political objectives, by deliberately trying to inflict mass casualties or cause other forms of costly damage against civilian populations. It is a form of psychological warfare, as the terrorist acts are designed to frighten targeted populations and attract global attention. Terrorism may also be viewed as theatre to focus attention on terrorists' aims and incite discontented masses.
The use of the term “war on terrorism” has a political basis. Terrorism is a means rather than an end. It is a tactic being used by extremist Moslems who, at the moment, see it as their most effective tool in countering the Western democracies. There is, of course, a long history of Islamic confrontation with the West and the U.S. war in Iraq has once more shown the glaring disparity in military strength between the two sides. Terrorism is now a significant weapon for the radical Islamists as the inevitable response to it draws more moderate fellow Moslems to their side, furthering their long-term aim of a resuscitated Islamic caliphate. The term “war on radical Islamism” would therefore be more appropriate; although it is being avoided by the Bush Administration. This special issue confines itself to the narrower subject of dealing with the terrorism threat from a technological viewpoint, analogous to analysis of means to counter Soviet ICBMs in the Cold War. It does not address the larger problem of strategies to confront radical Islamism.
I have a new paper published - Desouza, K.C., and Wang, T-Y. “Impeding Insurgent Attacks: The Information Management Agenda,” Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 74 (2), 2007, 211-229. This paper was co-authored by an undergraduate student in my INFO 300 (Intellectual Foundations of Information) class. Here is the abstract
Recent confrontations in Iraq between coalition forces and insurgents have caused much havoc in the way of economic and political reforms. Insurgents use a wide range of tactics, from suicide bombings to kidnappings, to cause tension between the local factions and the Iraqi populace, and between the locals and the coalition forces. The strength of the insurgent strategy emerges from the nature of their attacks: highly erratic, yet potent. All-out assault on these insurgents is impossible as they cloak themselves and exploit the advantages of guerrilla warfare tactics. In this paper, we will highlight the informational issues that the coalition forces must appreciate in order to curb and curtail these insurgent attacks. While we do not aim to propose any grand strategy to eradicate all insurgent attacks, we do believe that the true weapon that needs to used optimally (effectively and efficiently) against such attacks is information. Whether the insurgents or the coalition forces, the side that is more successful at managing and deploying information potently and with intent will ultimately prevail.
Initial Crisis Agent-Response Impact Syndrome (ICARIS)
Along with a long-time colleague of mine, Tobin Hensgen, I have co-authored a paper on informational issues faced by first-responders to crises.
Hensgen, T., Desouza, K.C., and Durland, M. “Initial Crisis Agent-Response Impact Syndrome (ICARIS),” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14 (4), 2006, 190-198.
Abstract:
There has been a dramatic shift in attitude among organizations regarding the probabilities of crisis occurring. Once crises were considered the domain of the contingency management team that sought the fastest means to recovery, now the entire organization is compelled to take steps intended to mitigate conditions leading to a crisis. In this paper, the authors consider the organization’s ‘first responders’ i.e., those who become involuntarily placed in the decision making process because they are the first to become aware of the conditions which indicate impending crisis simply because they are ‘on scene.’ As agents of the organization, these persons will make initial decisions well before the implementation of any formal contingency plan and because their decisions will be based on incomplete assumptions, they are likely to be in error. The impact of these initial crisis-agent responses can cause irreparable damage to the organization, to the individuals within the organization, and to the surrounding environment. This tendency toward error is referred to as the initial crisis-agent response impact syndrome: ICARIS. Exercising a program that prepares all employees for the initial decisions that need to be made at the moment of crisis can mitigate problems related to this issue.
Managing Knowledge in Strategic Alliances
The Malaysian Management Review has printed portions of my chapter, managing knowledge in strategic alliances, from my co-authored book – Engaged Knowledge Management (Palgrave, 2005).
Desouza, K.C., and Awazu, Y. “Engaging Knowledge Management in Strategic Alliances – Part 2,” Malaysian Management Magazine, January-March, 42 (1), 2007, 64-69.
Desouza, K.C., and Awazu, Y. “Engaging Knowledge Management in Strategic Alliances – Part 1,” Malaysian Management Magazine, October-December, 41 (4), 2006, 54-59.
I am currently teaching two courses at the Information School of the University of Washington. The graduate course is titled, Management of Information Organizations. Here is the course description:
The management of information organizations (e.g. software organizations, crisis management centers, libraries, consulting organizations, government intelligence and national security centers, etc) represents a critical challenge. Even though most managers take a deterministic approach to management, the current operating and competitive environments can be characterized as emergent, complex, incomplete. Moreover, it is imperative for organizations to operate in an agile manner if they are to compete (or even survive). In this class, we will study the management of information organizations from the perspective of building agility throughout the organization. In order to build agile information organizations, we must account for how organizations are conceptualized, created, and managed. At the completion of the course, students should be able to:
• Describe the characteristics of agile information organizations
• Appreciate the complex nature of information flows in organizations
• Assess organizational readiness for information systems
• Conceptualize agile information systems
• Construct agile information systems
• Manage information systems
• Evaluate the contribution of information systems to business objectives
The undergraduate course is titled, Intellectual Foundations of Informatics. Here is the course description:
This course will examine the concepts of ‘information’ and ‘information systems’. We begin by discussing the concept of information. In particular, we will focus on the following issues: what information is, what the characteristics of information are, how information is different from knowledge, and how to management information. Next, we address the topic of ‘information systems’. Here we will focus on: describing information systems, designing information systems, and managing information systems. In addition, we will survey emerging issues such as the role of ethics in the management of information, knowledge management, government information policy, etc.
I will be giving a talk on Innovation at the Airplane Product Development 2007 Offsite for Boeing (Jan 3-4, 2007). My talk will focus on the common innovation challenges organizations face, and the strategies leading organizations have implemented to overcome these challenges. My talk will draw heavily on my ongoing research projects (Leveraging Ideas into Organizational Innovation; Demystifying the Link between Innovation and Business Value). Other speakers at this event include Joe Sutter (author of 747; Joe led the team of engineers who created the Boeing 747), Horikiri Toshio (CEO, Toyota Engineering Corporation).
I will be chairing a panel at the International Conference on Information Systems. This is the second year in a row that I have organized a panel. The panel is titled: SOCIAL ACTIVISM IN IS RESEARCH: MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. Panel members are Bob Galliers (Bentley College), Rick Watson (Univ of Georgia), Don McCubbrey (Univ of Denver), Michael Myers (University of Auckland), and Phillip Ein-Dor (Tel Aviv University). Here is a description of the panel:
Information Systems (IS) can play a salient role in the transformation of our societies, especially in less-developed (or under-served) communities. IS can be used to benefit citizens in these societies through improvements in education, government, healthcare, social, and entrepreneurial systems. It would be a mistake to think that under-served communities can develop without optimal deployment of IS, after all advanced societies depended on IS to boost their development. The realization that IS offers potential benefit to improve the livelihood of the less-privileged is not new or recent. However, what is not clear is what should be the role of IS researchers in addressing the needs of the under-served communities?
On a philanthropic level, we might all believe that IS researchers should get involved in addressing the needs of the under-served communities. However, this is not the same as being pragmatic and actually taking required steps to act in a tangible and measurable manner. Hence, the question is raised – is addressing the needs of the under-served communities a lofty ideal or an actionable proposal? It would be irresponsible to leave the issue as a lofty ideal. Hence, we should address the question - how can we transform it from a lofty ideal to an actionable proposal?
The answer lies in the taking steps to transform the structure of our academic community by re-examining the fundamentals – teaching, research, and service. Examining these fundamentals, we should ask how our current goals, incentives, and efforts are addressing the needs of the under-served communities. More specifically, we must look at to what degree we are being cognizant of the needs of under-served communities when we chart our goals, plan our efforts, and devise incentives. Moreover, we must also recognize that studying IS issues in under-served communities can inform and deepen our understanding of contemporary research issues. For example, the IT infrastructures in under-served communities will not resemble those of their counterparts in advanced societies. We should look at how these newer designs (e.g. wireless-based networks, digital libraries, etc) can revolutionize traditional practices in advanced societies. Hence, while IS research that has been conducted in advanced societies can contribute to efforts in the under-served communities, we must also appreciate the reality that IS deployments in under-served communities can in fact inform our current research problems, approaches, and even the practice of IS.
Unless we take steps to transform the current structure of academe to make significant impacts on how we conduct and disseminate research (e.g., appreciating the difficulty of solving messy problems in under-served communities), educate our students (e.g., engaging students in the generation of knowledge that can be consumed by under-served communities), and engage in societal efforts (e.g., rewarding efforts that are geared to building bridges between social organizations such as the U.N. UNESCO, World Bank, and the IS scholarly community), we risk being spectators to the impact of IS in under-served communities rather than directing this effort. This position is not only undesirable, but also will be irresponsible as we would be under-utilizing and mis-using the intellectual resources that have taken considerable effort to develop.
The goal of this panel will be to encourage change in the IS research community via the Association of Information Systems by debating methods for addressing the needs of the under-served communities. Some of the questions that will be discussed include:
1. How do we build IS research programs that make an impact on addressing the needs of the under-served communities?
2. Is use of IS a cause of development, or does the use of IS expand when communities are more developed? Or is it an iterative process: more development leads to greater use of IS, which in turn promotes greater development?
3. How do we deploy our current knowledge resources to better address the needs of the under-served communities?
4. How do we learn from the novelties of IS deployments in under-served communities to help inform research and practice in the advanced societies?
5. How do we engage stakeholders outside our research community to develop fruitful alliances to better achieve the goal of addressing the needs of the under-served communities?
6. How do we educate and equip future researchers (e.g. doctoral students) and practitioners (e.g. graduate and undergraduate students) to be sensitive to the needs of the under-served communities?
I look forward to seeing you at ICIS.
I have a paper accepted at the International Conference on Information Systems to be held in Milwaukee, December 10-13, 2006. The paper is titled, “Post-Adoption Switching Between Technology Substitutes: The Case Of Web Browsers” and is co-authored by Chen Ye, DongBack Seo, Sridhar Papagari, and Sanjeev Jha, all of whm are former doctoral colleagues of mine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Here is the abtract of the paper:
In this study, we examine factors that influence users’ post-adoption switching between technology products that are near perfect substitutes. The recent introduction of Mozilla Firefox web browser provided an ideal empirical setting for this study. Drawing upon literature on post-adoption user behavior, consumer behavior, and online consumer research, we proposed a research model and validated it using cross-sectional field data collected from 306 users on their decisions to switch from Microsoft Internet Explorer to Mozilla Firefox. Findings suggest that user satisfaction and breadth of use of the incumbent product are negatively associated with switching behavior, and perceived ease of use, relative advantage, and perceived security of the substitute product are positively associated with switching behavior. This study contributes to both research and practice by advancing our understanding of users’ post-adoption behavior in general and their switching behavior on web-related technology products in specific.
Much of the work conducted in organizations occurs as projects. Project-based work is especially popular in the information technology domain. Statistics indicate that between 50% to 80% of IT projects are unsuccessful –– they either fail to deliver on time, overstep budgeted estimates of resources and time, do not meet customer requirements, or fall short of customer expectations. This alarming scenario is hardly surprising –– too many organizations tend to repeat the same mistakes too often, particularly in terms of knowledge transfer and reuse of the information derived from past projects. Some of the primary reasons for project failures are a result of poor knowledge management: lack of effective project estimation and budgeting, poor communication and information sharing practices, inadequate reuse of past experiences and lessons learned, and insufficient understanding of the technology, particularly its limitations. Other typical reasons are lack of consistency in management, lack of formal tracking, and lack of functional user involvement. The end result is overruns in cost and time through restarts or projects routinely abandoned before completion.
Establishing a Project Management Office (PMO) is one strategy that can be used to resolve these persistent problems –– it is a source of centralized integration and a repository of knowledge which can be used to inform more effective and efficient IT project management. A well-implemented PMO can resolve the most challenging project management issues by capturing and transferring knowledge, maximizing the power of cross-functional teams, regulating the demand of integrated technologies, and providing ownership and accountability for key efforts. Moreover, it can fully assess the impact and risk of change and provide projects with guidance on best practices and standards.
While Project Management Offices (PMOs) have become a mainstay in organizations, systematic research has not yet been undertaken to study their intricacies. In a recent project, Roberto Evaristo and I, conducted an exploratory and descriptive case study analysis of PMOs, based on our interviews with senior managers and directors of PMOs in 32 IT organizations. To read our findings please see - SOURCE: Desouza, K.C., and Evaristo, J.R. “Project Management Offices: A Case of Knowledge-based Archetypes,” International Journal of Information Management, Forthcoming.
I have a new paper accepted for publication in the European Journal of Information Systems - Business Customer Communities and Knowledge Sharing: Exploratory Study of Critical Issues, co-authored with Pablo Erat, Anja Schäfer-Jugel, and Monika Kurzawa. Here is the abstract:
Businesses in knowledge intensive industries must appropriately engage with their customers in order to produce goods and services that are desired and valued in the marketplace. Engagement with customers calls for exchanging information and knowledge with customers and fostering exchanges between customers. Recent developments in the area of information and communication technologies (ICTs) have radically increased the variety of opportunities for improving customer engagement. In this paper, we will examine the use of ICTs to build Business Customer Communities (BCCs) to help an organization foster knowledge exchanges between its professional and institutional customers. We define BCCs as groups of business customers, which are deliberately enabled by a firm and share a long-term need to exchange work related knowledge through online and offline interaction. The objectives of this study are (1) to describe BCCs and outline their attributes and features, and (2) to contribute to the understanding of challenges associated with the enabling of BCC formation and how firms can overcome these challenges. As such, a contribution is made to the discussion of knowing in practice in customer communities, which rely in large part on ICT.
I have a new article that is going to be published in VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems
The article details the new frontiers of knowledge management research, and is based on the introduction of my book New Frontiers of Knowledge Management Here is an excerpt...
Here are my thoughts on some areas that are in dire need of attention by knowledge management scholars.
The first is the study of knowledge dynamics at the societal and economic level. We are witnessing transformations in our global economies at an extraordinary pace. The rise of India and China as superpowers is to be respected and even admired; these economies are shaping up to be true knowledge economies. The growth of these economies is heavily tied into their knowledge-based sectors, such as software engineering and information technology. Research is needed to study these changing power dynamics from a socio-economic perspective to help inform policy decisions, both at the local and international levels.
Second, we must study the role of knowledge management in the eradication of poverty and the improvement of social welfare. If knowledge is the true source of competitive advantage at the individual and organizational levels, one must then seek out its role in tackling societal problems. How will the future of libraries, a critical repository and delivery agent of knowledge, be shaped? How should we use techniques identified in the knowledge management literature (e.g. communities of practice) to help share global relief efforts and educational programs?
Third, at the organizational level we must begin to focus our attentions on the age of co-opetition. This is where there is blurring lines between competitors and collaborators. No more do we have easy decisions as to make regarding with whom should we share knowledge or hoard it from. We may be competing and cooperating with the same organization at the same time. The issue of co-opetition needs to be seriously consider as we design knowledge transfer strategies and also when considering the management of innovation projects. Today, there is a big movement to bring customer and business partners into the innovation circles in what is becoming known as open innovation projects. If we are to bring these entities into the innovation process then we must be able to manage the creation, storage, transfer, and application of knowledge in all its forms, including intellectual property.
Fourth, knowledge management researchers may find it fruitful to examine issues of knowledge creation and commercialization in the context of industry-academia alliances. Industry-academia alliances have been the cornerstone of knowledge commercialization and innovation in developed economies. Yet, today, due to pressures, especially cutbacks on education expenses, it is even more important that these alliances be successful and fruitful for both parties. There are several interesting issues to examine. While industry looks to gain from the commercialization of knowledge into products and services, academia has a role to play in the development of science for the benefit of societies, while preserving their integrity and independence. Industry wants to get access to knowledge that is ripe for development, while academia has policies in place to preserve the manner in which research is executed, so how can we design processes that simultaneously address the needs of both industry and academia?
Finally, I would like to suggest that we as knowledge management scholars take a close and hard look at how we manage knowledge within academia. I am the first to admit that we seldom practice what we preach. We tell organizations to make environments conducive to the sharing of knowledge, yet we allow journal articles to get stale in the review process for years, we ask for environments where failures are not shunned upon, yet we never publish such work in our own journals. If organizations are to take us seriously, we must first practice what we preach.
See my new blog - secureknow.blogspot.com. I will be updating this blog on a regular basis to keep everyone updated on the progress of my new book.
I will be chairing a panel discussion during the International Conference of Information Systems (Las Vegas) on Information Systems Research that Really Matters: Moving Beyond the Rigor and Relevance Debate. Panel members are: Rick Watson (University of Georgia), Bob Galliers (Bentley College and London School of Economics), Omar El Sawy (University of Southern California), and Claudia Loebbecke (University of Cologne). We will document the findings of the panel in an article to be published in the Communications of the AIS.
An interesting quote on the business of intelligence:
Consider the following statement from a classic Spy movie and novel by John Le Carre, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, this was the statement made by Control (the handler) to Leamas (his agent) in the context of the cold war operations, “Our work is based on a single assumption that the West is not going to be aggressor. Thus we do disagreeable things, but we are defensive. Our policies are peaceful but are methods cannot be less ruthless than the opposition…Our methods, our techniques, are become very must the same (when compared to the Soviet’s). Occasionally we have to do wicked things, very wicked things indeed. But, you can’t be less wicked then your enemies because your government’s policies are benevolent, can you?” This quote is apt at capturing an important point, regardless of whether an organization wants to be the aggressor or pacifier in its industry its methods needs to be sharp, agile, and up-to-date in the context of intelligence management if it expects to survive.
Managing Sources of Intelligence (Information)
Many sources used by organizations lack credibility, are never verified, or are outdated and yet are nevertheless used. Under such circumstances, other problems will inevitably ensue. In the case of the efforts leading up to the War in Iraq, members of the US government (one organization) had different opinions on the credibility of sources such as Ahmed Chalabi, the satellite images representing potential weapons, and also the significance of weapons capability. These were not appropriately synthesized by senior officials, worse yet, they were not adequately checked in the most basic sense. For example, one of the documents used by the British government was flawed in the most basic sense - it was not an intelligence report instead it was a high-school student’s term paper.
Some thoughts on a book that I am working (ok. thinking about working on)
Unless an organization is able to effectively understand and manage intelligence, it flirts with the condition of predictive extinction, i.e., the deliberate inattention to conditions of vital importance which invariably destroys, in part or whole, the form and function of an organization. The concept of acting intelligently is not an isolated interest for logical organizations only. Physical organisms such as humans and animals must also act intelligently if they would like to thrive in their environments. Failure to represent even the most basic intelligent behavior will result in feelings of discomfort and stress. For example, if an animal does not act intelligently to capture its prey, it will have to experience the discomfort of hunger, and similarly, if a stock broker does not know how to act intelligently and conduct effective trades he will experience consequences associated with loss of income. In the context of organizations, the challenge of managing intelligence becomes more complicated than when dealing with individuals, as we are now concerned with “organizational intelligence”. Organizational intelligence, is not the sum of individual intelligence capacities, rather it emerges from the integration and assimilation of individual know-how, organizational memories, and routines in the organization. We argue that no organization can act without lack of intelligence. However, there are some organizations that exhibit greater intelligence behavior than their peers. Some organizations exhibit greater intelligence on an on-going basis, while some others have “intelligent flashes”. We can also have sectors within an organization that exhibit high levels of intelligent behavior only to be averaged out other sectors who act foolishly and with less care.
Constructing the intelligent organization is the focus of this book. Unless an organization is able to exhibit high degrees of intelligent behavior it will become extinct and face harsh consequences from its environments. By example, the Securities and Exchange Commission along with several other financial regulatory bodies failed to exhibit intelligent behavior in the case of the Enron debacle. As a result, these organizations including the culprit (Enron) were subject to harsh criticism from lawmakers and also from the public-at-large who had lost their faith in their value offered by these regulatory bodies. The United States failed, in almost every aspect to defend its homeland resulting in the successful execution of the 9/11 assault. The reason is simple yet salient dimwitted behavior on part of domestic intelligence agencies. In this book, we will show unequivocally how to construct an intelligent organization that is cognizant of its environment and can act with agility.
Constructing Intelligent Actions:
Calibrating of actions based on incomplete and ambiguous information is never an easy proposition, in the context of intelligence management we also need to add the time pressure element. Intelligence operations are understandably secretive, for a private organization such work is secretive from one’s competitors for national governments it is against their adversaries. Actions based on secretive undertakings can be varied in range. For example, if we discover that our competitor has been receiving internal research and developments from a disgruntled employee, a case of competitive intelligence, what do we do? Three options are present. One, we can terminate the employee and cut off the channel, two we can feed the competitor misinformation, and three we can begin to use the established channel to request information from the competitor by luring our employee with incentives to work as a “double agent”. Each of these courses of action will have serious ramifications that need careful consideration. Most intelligence operations fail because anticipated actions are calibrated but not executed in a manner consistent with how they were gauged; using a hammer to kill a mosquito that has landed on your hand may be effective but will likely be considered less efficient at a later date when compared to other available alternatives.
More thoughts on intelligence:
Organizations must focus on managing a viable intelligence process, rather than stay focused on churning out intelligence products. The intelligence process, reflected as behavior, requires the active, on-going, and cogent participation from a variety of sources in order to assimilate products related to data, information, and knowledge in order to determine the existence of potential threats. Like Einstein’s notion of time as a flowing river which may be observed through a hollowed tube so as to be able to witness only the fleeting presence of ‘now,’ so too intelligence agents of organizations must focus on the moving information stream through a fixed lens; what is critical is the observer retain as much of what has been observed to in order to make sense of what will be observed. Based on what is observed, the intelligence agencies must be capable of making real-time assessments, which are intended to impact future events. Too often information from the external environment is pigeon-holed and used to generate unimaginative responses. Consider an example from the private sector, Shawn Fanning, an 18 year old, in 1999 created an application that enabled to share audio and video files with their peers – Napster. Napster allowed users to download music of their choosing and create their own unique libraries. The best response from the Recording Companies was to file a legal lawsuit, a weak and unimaginative response. All the lawsuit could achieve was to slow down Napster’s development and fuel the development of several legalized clones of Napster. The Recording Companies are still trying to play catch-up to capture their lost market share.
Intelligence Management and Agile Operations:
Lack of coordinated organization among those charged with insuring the domestic tranquility of the United States contributed to the devastation of September 11th. When Castro entered Havana on New Year’s Day of 1960 there were no U.S. diplomats in Cuba because of the holiday and when India tested two nuclear weapons in 1998 no analysts were working, despite satellite evidence of nuclear test preparation six hours before detonation, because it was a Sunday. These circumstances greatly affected any possibility for an agile response to the events. In most instances, the information available to the organization was more than sufficient. However, because the agencies failed in the intelligence process, electing instead to use information selectively in an effort to provide and intelligence product, they were unsuccessful at the act of intelligence. Using a historical perspective for our criteria, we have observed that unless each of the described elements is present in the intelligence process, value and usefulness from intelligence products is diminished.
Some more thoughts on intelligence
Intelligence as a construct is multi-faceted and often convoluted. There literatures of psychology, biology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, competitive and government intelligence, and others are rich in studies that examine the construct of intelligence. I draw from these disparate literatures to present the view of intelligence as a process signifying ‘intelligent behavior’ rather than as a product of some intelligence activity. The accepted practice of regarding intelligence as a ‘product’ is not merely erroneous, it is dangerous when it accompanies an implied acceptance that the task has been completed and interrelated intelligence mechanisms either shut down or are relegated on to other matters. The Trojan decision to ‘accept’ the gift that had apparently been left behind by a dejected Greek adversary led to an action based on a product of intelligence, i.e., there was little consideration as to what that ‘gift’ might actually represent. The subsequent activity by the men of Ulysses, however, was predicated on an intelligence process. The error begins when information is misrepresented as the intelligence product, especially while the information, and the further intelligence that may become available, is evolving. This was the case in the decisions that led up to the Iraq War, if we were to assume that there were no hidden agendas. Members of the government were presented with, as many have called, “intelligence reports” on Iraq’s weapons capability. This line of thinking favors the product view of intelligence, and is flawed. What was presented to members of the government were “information reports” that needed to be evaluated intelligently! As we now know, this did not happen, instead government officials assumed the reports to be intelligent and did not feel the urge to apply their intelligence on them to draw their own conclusions regarding the information presented.
Thoughts on Language:
Limit to language also limits thought and to limit thought is to limit the possibility of alternatives. Language is the most common medium through which information is transferred. But communication can be restricted depending on what type of language is used. The use of ‘restrictive’ language such as mathematical expressions, while capable of transferring highly structured pieces of intelligence also restricts the audience to those capable of translating the expressions. Alternately, when a high variety in language is present, as in interpretive communications, e.g., art or propaganda, meaning looses the preciseness because of the use of symbols and the ‘possibilities’ of meanings. Not surprising then, terrorist groups, use art and photos to transmit ‘emotive’ messages between stations while technically advanced groups employ more complex languages that can confound simple phenomena. To contemplate the confusion that language can cause consider the following, the word Al-Qaeda literally means ‘base’, ‘home’, or ‘foundation.’ The term was originally used to signify the place from which the Taliban attacked Soviet adversaries. Though the word has become synonymous with Bin-Laden’s organization for most westerners, captured or alleged terrorists disavow allegiance to Al-Qaeda because to them, the word has no substantive meaning. This notion provides an example of a problem that develops when an intelligence agency has little or no experience with the culture or language of their indigenous contacts.
An article I wrote - 'Mind Your Language' will be published in the: IEE Engineering Management Magazine. Here is an excerpt, enjoy!
Mind Your Language was a comedy series that used to appear on the BBC channel in the late 1970s. The comedy depicted issues faced by immigrants when attempting to learn the English language. On immigrating to the UK, individuals from different countries (Italy, Japan, China, Pakistan, India, Sweden, Spain, and France) were asked to learn English from a British instructor. The comedy vividly displayed how issues of communication, coordination, and organization got disrupted due to lack of common language, context, and expressions. While some of the plots may have been exaggerated for the sake of humor, most of scenes were realistic of issues faced when individuals who speak different languages attempt to communicate and engage in joint work. In organizations, the concept of language is central to the occurrence of organizing, language is what connects the various entities and enables for the flow of information and knowledge.
Language is what differentiates human species from others in our environment. Language is a medium of signification, i.e. language helps us use signs for expressing thoughts. Today, with the omnipresence of global and multinational corporations, I am always surprised by how little care is taken by senior executives in their use of languages. Most organizations commit blunders when communicating with their constituents who are in foreign locations. One example comes to mind, a senior and seasoned executive in the Middle East was giving a presentation in Chicago, Illinois. The Executive opened up his remarks with, “Good morning gentlemen” and then proceeded into his presentation. He obviously forgot to take a good look at the audience to realize that half of them were ladies. Obviously, he had turned off half of his audience and his message fell on deaf hears. Other common errors that occur when language is not properly accounted for have to do with faulty advertisements. Chevrolet naming its car “Chevy Nova” and trying to sell it in Latin America, where “no va” means “it doesn’t go”. Bacardi attempted to introduce a new fruity drink in the German market called "Pavian" to suggest French chic, however "Pavian" means "baboon" in German. Parker Pens translated the slogan for its ink, “Avoid Embarrassment- Use Quink" into Spanish as "Evite Embarazos-Use Quink" which means "Avoid Pregnancy-Use Quink". In today’s world, where conducting business globally across borders is the norm, we must be cognizant on how we communicate with people from different cultures. Failure to do so will result in poor work practices, project failures, employee hostility, and poor sense of “organizing”.
I read an interesting article - Rethinking the Midmarket, by Aaron Ricadella, in InformationWeek (September 12, 2005, p. 53-58) [Available at InformationWeek], outlines Microsoft’s proposed strategy to target midsize companies. As noted by Ricadella, “Microsoft is making a big strategic shift in its 5- year-old business-applications division toward a simple but so-far elusive idea: Different kinds of workers use computers differently, and software should be designed for an employee's role in the company. After two years of research, Microsoft managers have identified more than 50 everyday job roles at midsize companies they believe will benefit from desktop environments created just for them--everyone from a president or CFO to account managers in a sales department to workers on a manufacturing floor. Receptionists, too, get a unique data view on their PCs…” Workers will benefit from getting access to information they care about, rather than being inundated with all organizational information. Microsoft also plans to simplify its ERP software and make it more accessible to midsize companies. And finally, software may actually be designed to meet the challenges of current work environments. As noted in Ricadella’s article, “To understand the jobs people do at midsize companies, Microsoft's engineers and managers spent two years studying their workdays in excruciating detail, recording their conversations, snapping photos of people at their desks, and generating 15,000 pages of transcripts. The conclusion: Most workers don't like their software, because it forces them to work with business automation and personal-productivity apps that are often incompatible. In other words, today's business software doesn't look like today's business…”
Innovation! Innovation! Innovation! I am going to be attending the Seattle Innovation Symposium (Sept 13-14), hosted by the University of Washington. The goals of the symposium are (1) to come up ideas of new billion dollar industries, and (2) to find ways to shrink the innovation cycle, i.e. from ideas to market. Here is my two cents on innovation. I split innovation into two phases – the invention and the commercialization. Inventing calls for breaking old ways of thinking. In order to innovate we must be able to question fundamental assumptions, confront the obvious in novel ways, and synergize multiple sources of expertise. Once we have invented, we must then begin the commercialization process. Here, you must have a structured, optimized, and tested methodology in place. Inventions are the loose and creative bits, commercialization of inventions needs to be structured and optimized.
I have been quite busy these past few days. Some of the events include: (1) a trip to the East Coast (Washington D.C., Wilmington DE, Pittsburgh, PA), (2) got involved in a car accident (car got totaled, I am recovering from slight injuries), (3) trying to get my sixth book going, (4) finishing up a few writing projects, and last but definitely not the least, (5) making good progress on my dissertation work.
It is about that time again. Desouza is anxious and wants to get involved in a new book project. I have just agreed to edit a book on “Agile Information Systems”. The book will bring together researchers, practitioners, futurist, and thinkers, all of whom will discuss how do we conceptualize, construct, and manage these information systems. If you are interested in writing a chapter, please feel free to contact me. The publisher for the book is Butterworth Heinemann.
