divider

Everyone wants to be a worthwhile member of a worthwhile organization.

divider
Categories
Communication (1)
Communities (31)
KM (88)
Learning (50)
MMO Games (38)
NewTech (36)
Opinions (19)
Other (24)
Virtual Worlds (116)
May 7th, 2011

Outline for Initiating a New KM Program

This week as I was going through some old files I came across the beginnings of an outline I had created a few years ago for starting up a KM initiative in a large organization. It was originally a sort of personal outline that I could use in the event I took on a new KM position or client. As I reviewed it yesterday, I decided that it might be useful to publish it here for the benefit of others who might find themselves in a similar situation.

Some of the outline makes use of Six Sigma methodology, and some is just from knowledge I’ve gained over the years and personal experience about what works (or tends to get overlooked). Just to put you into the same mindset as me, I am including in the heading of “knowledge” all of the following: skills/abilities, expertise, accumulated experience, artifacts (documents/drawings), methodologies/processes for how work is done, observations, improvisations, and interpersonal communication. It’s not just “information”. Let me know if you find this useful or if I have missed anything. If you would like to have the document as a Word file, just email me (top right of this page).

KM PROGRAM INITIATION

Pre-Development Phase

DISCOVERY

o Meet Senior Management and interview key managers, especially operations managers

o Culture Audit – small groups/cross section of staff – result: behaviors, assumptions, values of the organization defined (shared K of good and bad stories)

o Network Analysis – analyze email traffic (flows, not content – department/department and staff level/staff level) It’s a proxy for what might be going on. Result: collaboration flows are defined

o Knowledge Audit – Meet with operations managers/department heads. Identify what knowledge is required by each and what already exists to support basic organizational activities. Result: ability to prioritize implementation and types of knowledge being used in the organization

- Inputs needed by department
- Outputs developed by department
- Existing data repositories
- Review other departments’ assets to see what would be useful (opportunities for knowledge sharing)

o Gather VOC for key audiences Result: ability to create success metrics (who is the “customer”?)

o Obtain a technology as-is map

ANALYSIS

o How does KM support how we use knowledge already
o Where are gaps in how knowledge drives basic business operations (what do people need that they aren’t getting now?)
o Categories of Knowledge Used/Needed
o CTQs (success factors) determined from VOC (If more than one customer, prioritize)
o Categories of technology needed to support KM mapped to existing technology stack (identify gaps)
o Options for technology implementation and costs
o Content
o What do we have / what should be restricted
o Who needs access
o What policies do we need for content additions/updates/retirement

DESIGN

o Define principles for a KM strategy
o Structure a KM approach – Use existing barriers and what’s working (try to maintain what’s working – minimize change)
o Create preliminary technology architecture/future state
o Establish KM program governance

VALIDATION (Toll Gate 1 – go/no go)

o Present results to management for buy-in and approval

Planning Phase

o Confirm CTQs and define key metrics

o Ground the KM effort in the organization’s normal business effectiveness (understand the business and how it works)

- Business objectives
- Priorities and gaps in how knowledge is used
- Decision making processes
- Skills/competencies
- Innovations –> products

o Build in resilience – ability to respond to changes in the environment

- KM is about Change/culture/habits – must be rooted in existing practices, issues, values (where are the opportunities and barriers – frame a KM strategy in response to those)
- Secure management participation and support
- Identify opposition/barriers to KM
- Self-examine before establishing a strategy

o Assess amount/type of effort required

- Set realistic expectations (it’s not plug and play)
- Changes in assumptions, practices need to be addressed. It’s not simple. It touches many layers of the organization — habits and patterns of communications, standard processes, collaboration, assumptions about how decisions are made or activities are recorded.
- Cost / People – it will require nursing
- Time constraints

o Create a Cultural Map

o Create a KM Map

- Define KM Vision
- Create a KM Strategy/Framework
- Articulate KM Success Measures (based upon CTQs)
- Define Governance / Roles and Responsibilities

o Create an Infrastructure Map for KM

o Comprehensive Long Term View Roadmap (Toll Gate 2 – go/no go)

Development Phase

INCEPTION

o Confirm the infrastructure needed to deliver desired results
o Communicate phased technology development approach
o Develop communication plan to build user awareness
o Create culture change and awareness materials
o Create use cases for KM system
o Design a content management plan
o Define a phased technology rollout plan and timetable

ELABORATION (Toll Gate 3)

o Assign development teams to KM technology
o Confirm technology timetable
o Develop plan and timetable for user training
o Confirm with KM team

CONSTRUCTION (iterative phases, as needed)

o Begin technology design and/or integration for KM
o User test UI and use cases
o Modify software and UI as needed based upon testing input
o Report to KM team by Phase

Implementation Phase

IMPLEMENTATION

o Technology rollout plan
o Training plan
o Communication plan
o Data security/user authentication plan

VERIFICATION

o Benchmark rollout against original plan
o Track costs against CBA
o Report progress to management

MEASURE AND REPORT (Tollgate 4)

o Monitor CTQ metrics and report periodically to management
o Detail value added to the organization

- Intellectual capital value
- Value stream enhancements
- New proprietary products/services/technologies
- Enhanced decision making
- Staff satisfaction/retention

Transition Phase

o Shift responsibilities for some functions to other parts of the organization or outside vendors, as required

- Communications
- Training
- Technology upgrades

divider
January 24th, 2011

It’s All Communication!

Fifteen years ago, I launched my first web site. It was the time of the wild West on the web — no standards existed for elements needed to be included on a home page, privacy policies, copyrights, user agreements, font sizes, etc. Graphics were still the exception, rather than the norm, and to find the right rule or button or background graphic was an exciting experience! There were no rollover or hover menus, and no flash intros. Animated .GIF images were hot stuff! It was also a time when writing HTML pages by hand was the norm, and software like HomeSite and PageMaker were still in their infancy (and were completely incompatible). I’m reminding you of this because this morning I accidentally came across my first web site…It’s All Communication!…and I was pleasantly surprised by how it has held up over all these years. There are useful articles there on proposal strategies, business plan writing, face to face presentations, professional services marketing and communication technologies. Some are a bit dated now, but, on the whole, the content is still relevant. I even found a dozen of them reprinted in full (without permission!) on a for-profit web site, which is a subject for another posting!

For an interesting (and useful) flash back, you might want to take a look at the site: http://www.users.cloud9.net/~viviank/index.html Put on your sunglasses — it’s pretty bright! I don’t know how much longer I will leave the site up, so enjoy it while you can. :)

divider
December 14th, 2010

More Bad English

Just when I thought foreign language translation software had really gotten sophisticated, I received this email. I think it’s worse than the one I blogged about previously. It is so bad that I couldn’t help laughing, and at the same time, it’s so bad that I almost want to offer to write their copy for them. I probably would have if they weren’t trying to rip people off! It’s embarrassing (not to mention confusing!), and made me wonder how often we mangle other languages we try to use.

(Note: This is not from Blizzard Entertainment, but from individuals trying to lure players into divulging personal information.)

“Greetings: Christmas is approaching, a grand day here, as always, we launched a new activity and new mounts. We have to compare World of Warcraft may result in major changes to the same to you, hope you can understand! Coming Soon 85 new mounts, World of Warcraft players who can be our lucky stars the world 5000 we will be free to new players. You can check the website application, we will be lucky players randomly. Christmas is the new horse will be distributed to the lucky players. Take a look at our registration site. We will contact you for further instructions as soon as we bask in 48 to submit this form, please re-address listed above is from a few hours.”

What? Honestly, I didn’t change a thing! Who knew that Christmas is a new horse? I doubt if they understand how bad this type of poor translation makes them look…even for scammers!

divider
December 14th, 2010

Cataclysm is a Winner

Today it has been one week since Blizzard launched the newest major expansion of World of Warcraft. Despite my original anxiety about what the extensive changes would do to a game millions of us worldwide have come to love, I’m very glad to report that Cataclysm is fabulous. The graphics, the viewer customized landscapes and quest chains, interspersed with surprising and stunning cinematics, all combine to create an outstanding user experience. The back story, as always with a Blizzard product, is rich, and the quest lines completely support it and draw upon it for meaning. There are still the little wordplay jokes that Blizzard is famous for, whether in the names of NPCs or in the titles of quests. The questing feels less onerous than it has in recent expansions — or maybe it’s just that the graphics are so stunning that questing and seeing the new lands is a joy. What I think Blizzard has succeeded at in this expansion is making the game playable again for casual gamers. There will always be the achievers, who want to race ahead and be first or most or best, and will have seen the entire game by a week after launch. I’ve already heard some of them chomping at the bit in trade chat. They are not the bulk of the players, though, and for those of us who value questing and exploring and crafting items, and discovering things on our own, Cataclysm seems big, complex and pretty nearly perfect. Well done, Blizzard!

divider
December 2nd, 2010

WoW’s Impending Cataclysm and Bereavement

In the six years I have played World of Warcraft, Blizzard has made special efforts to ensure that each time it released major new content it also offered special events to intrigue and entice players to anticipate what was coming. They have done a fine job with building anticipation to a fever pitch, most notably about four years ago, with the opening of the Dark Portal to the Outlands, and more recently with the release of the Lich King expansion and the opening of Northrend. The Lich King was less of an “event”, because it was really only for high level players, to provide more high end content to keep them engaged with the game, so the impact was not as great.

On December 7, Blizzard will launch its newest expansion Cataclysm. What is fascinating for long time and regular players about this release is how they have approached the buildup to it. With each expansion, Blizzard has approached it creatively and differently. I have hopes that there will be the same sort of impact as the opening of the Dark Portal had, even as I experience a sense of loss and uncertainty with the changes, but we will have to wait and see.

What they have done to build interest and tension for Cataclysm, they have done very well. This is a world-wide event, affecting all players, that is going to take a step in a new direction for multiplayer games — Blizzard is going to radically change the actual geography in many of the zones, and even in the major cities! Some formerly desert-like zones will be flooded or under water. Many flight paths have disappeared and new ones will have to be discovered. A giant chasm has opened in one zone, dividing it down the middle. The main Alliance city Stormwind has lost one of its entire sections, the Park. Nothing remains there but devastation and smoking ruins. The main horde city Orgrimmar has flames burning in many places, and some relocation of buildings. In many places it is obvious that the graphics are greatly improved, which is especially noticeable in the original lands designed more than seven years ago.

For a prior expansion Blizzard had players scrambling to gather and turn in materials and items to aid in the “war effort”, and provided running tallies for each type of item. This time they have approached the building of interest in a different way. Each week for the past month, Blizzard has introduced new quests related to the Cataclysm. Strange quest givers have appeared, seeking help. The kings/leaders of the major cities have disappeared, only to be discovered in out of the way places, huddling with advisers to try and figure out what can be done to fight the evil elemental forces that are threatening destruction. Periodically, powerful elemental spirits have appeared all over the world, attacking cities and citizens randomly. There is a sense that “our world” is under attack, and we don’t know what to do about it. Game designers have done a fantastic job of building suspense and awareness that big, global changes are happening.

What has surprised me for the past month is how sad it is making me to see the old world go. I think the loss is affecting all the players this way, to a certain extent. When one plays months or years in the same game, with the same people, it becomes comfortable. One logs in, chooses which character they feel like playing that day, and enters the game, knowing where to go, where they left off the last time, and what they want to accomplish that day. Suddenly, not only are quests we never completed being deleted, but even the landscape is not the same and everywhere there are new quests! The bank where we hung out and did our mail is there, but the auction house has moved across town! The portals that we used to move easily between zones quickly have all vanished, requiring us to ride or fly long distances that used to be one teleport away. Flight paths that we used to know have vanished, and we have to ride on the ground long distances and hunt for new ones. Whole zones are under water that used to be above ground. A new underwater city is about to open. New races are appearing. Major cities have been bombed or restructured so that they look different, and require new exploration. In short, it is almost like starting a whole new game…and it’s a bit of a shock!

The sense of bereavement players already feel is no doubt going to increase dramatically in the next few weeks as the rest of the changes are revealed and players have a chance to experience the true extent of them. Trade chat will, of course, be full of complaints, and the sense of loss will increase before acceptance settles in. This is a new sensation in a multiplayer game. Blizzard is taking a radical step to permanently and forever change what is and has been the most popular MMOG of all times. It’s risky! Players are creatures of habit. We like the known, and feel uncertain confronted with the unknown. Not to mention that for many of us, we have fond memories of people or shared experiences in locations that will no longer exist. This is change on a major psychological level as well as on a game play experience level.

I know I’m feeling the loss very much myself. I have been unable to do much in recent weeks beyond attempt to complete the new quests and fly around and look for one last time at things before they change. I have always taken a lot of screen shots, because WoW is such an amazing and beautiful place. For the last month, I have made it a personal crusade to visit the lands that I knew would be changing forever and take snapshots that I can browse through later to remind me of prior good times and hard won accomplishments. Already we can see some of the changes: the chasm down the Barrens, the flooded 10000 Needles and Salt Flats, the new village floating in the Salt Flats, the destruction of Dire Maul and the relocation of Feathermoon Village, Tarran Mill is no longer just huts, the scars of Eastern Plaguelands are now full of water, Southshore is now in ruins, there is a new huge ruin at Gilneas City. And there are many, many more. We seem constantly under attack by armies of elemental spirits, to the point where it disrupts whatever other activity we are trying to do. It’s just not normal! :)

I find myself sighing deeply at times, and regretting that I now have to pay attention again, I now have to earn experience points again, I now have to level up again, I now have to struggle to gain new armor and weapons again, I now have to remember to log out in Inns. I was comfortable and enjoyed how I was playing. Now Blizzard is throwing down the gauntlet, demanding that players re-engage with the game and use their best skills to do it. Yes, that will be invigorating and stimulating and exciting and all that, but it still makes me sad to lose something that I loved and relied upon. It’s a little like a death of a loved one, or the loss of a relationship. I’m grieving for what is being lost, and I am not the only one. This grief is a new experience in a game environment, and I give kudos to Blizzard for being willing to take risks with a successful franchise. They do not sit on their laurels, and they constantly rise up to exceed our expectations, even if we have to go through a period of grief first. Grieving means that we love something, and even though it may be a love/hate relationship at times, long time players do love WoW because Blizzard continues to challenge us in so many ways. May this period of loss have a happy outcome for all of us!

divider
October 2nd, 2010

New Trend: Vanity MMOs

I think Lisa Galarneau has it exactly right in her prediction that vanity multi-user online graphical environments are going to be the next hot trend in virtual worlds and simulations. She was writing in response to the announcement of Planet Michael, a vanity virtual world environment based loosely on Michael Jackson’s life, music and imaginings that will be released late in 2011. While the announcement is somewhat derisive, it’s possible to see some real potential in this concept, and it’s not hard to imagine every big name action star, sports hero, or musical dynamo rushing to pay to develop their own vanity worlds. Who would play in these worlds? It’s safe to assume the star’s biggest fans (although it would be ego-busting if no one came!). It’s easy to imagine that icons like Lady Gaga, Elton John, U2, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Angelina Jolie, Madonna, and even Oprah might be tempted to jump on this bandwagon, and create zones that represent their most memorable life experiences, their geographical journeys, or their bodies of creative work.

Vanity worlds could easily be grounded in their life philosophies as well, which would establish the parameters for the action or purpose of the world. Michael Jackson was a pacifist, for example, so confrontations are handled by dancing rather than bloodshed. Oprah’s might be based upon the values of education, while Elton John’s or Lady Gaga’s might employ outrageous fashion goals, and Angelina Jolie’s might focus on global awareness and understanding. The Reverend Al Sharpton might have a world based upon social activism, and Donald Trump might have one based upon the triumph of capitalism.

3D virtual world platforms like Second Life, Entropia Universe and Active Worlds might find hosting vanity worlds a way to rejuvenate the virtual world boom of the early 2000s and put them back in the public eye. Well designed Flash versions of 2.5D worlds might also work for this type of activity. To succeed, any vanity world would have to be designed in a fun and slightly unstructured way that mimics the flair and qualities of the star, while leaving a lot of creative freedom to the actual participants and providing easy social networking. For the right stars with the right design, it could be a marketing bonanza, attracting new fans and increasing loyalty in the base, with prizes that would also translate to real world value in the form of items, tickets or cash.

Stretching a little further, it would be illuminating to be able to participate in vanity worlds around specific historical characters, like Queen Victoria, Charlemagne, Akbar, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Joseph II and Catherine the Great. What better way to learn about how they ruled and the personal issues they faced than to live them first hand? Although I am not a fan of Michael Jackson or his music, I will probably sign up to play Planet Michael, just to see how the designers solved the ticklish game design issues of a vanity world. That will be interesting, whether or not I can dance the evil Thriller zombies back into their graves!

divider
September 10th, 2010

Customer Communities Can Be Game Changers

A few days ago I was searching for statistics related to communities created for customers. I was curious whether any hard research had been done in recent years that would validate my long-time assumption that they would generate great value. There are many ways for customer communities to create value, including support products, up-sell services, entrench brand loyalty, save costs, improve operations, identify innovative solutions, and generate new product ideas/improvements.

One interesting set of statistics I found has to do with whom people rely on or trust. Not surprisingly, people rely on people they know:

80% – friends
69% – work colleagues
27% – manufacturers or retailers
14% – advertisers
8% – celebrities

Any company with a product would obviously want to be recommended by friends and work colleagues. There is a big drop in the trust level people feel for businesses, advertisers and celebrities! Communities are built upon trust, and foster trust among members. They can be a great way to get substantive referrals and act as a great marketing channel — just not in the traditional way.

Many companies have attempted, at great cost, to create customer communities in the past few years. The Wall Street Journal reported that most of these communities are failing. Why? Because they are focusing more on what the community can bring to the company than they are on investing in the communities. There is also a lot of competition for the members’ attention today, too, which makes it even more important to focus on keeping the community relevant to the members. The three most common reasons customer communities fail are:

1. Designers are enticed by fancy technology
2. They lack proper management
3. They measure the wrong things

How to Get Game Changing Results

Game changing business results occur in perhaps obvious ways in business < --> customer communities. For example,

  • Community members create content (and content attracts members)
  • More members = more content (although initially, an organization may have to purchase or seed the content to create an attraction)
  • Good content that matches the interests/needs of members will attract more content and members
  • And this last, extremely important point…

  • The easier it is to do transactions on the community site, the more dynamic the interactions will be…and the more members and content you will get.
  • Technology infrastructure is obviously important, since getting that wrong can doom the community out of the gate, but community is not a technology problem. Social infrastructure is important for member satisfaction. Neither of these, however, affect the economics a company desires from a business community investment — the economics of increasing returns. Relationships have value. There is a lot of great data and many case studies to show that good relationships shorten sales cycles, speed up adoption of new products, increase efficiency, reduce turnover, lower recruitment costs, eliminate or reduce law suits and legal fees – all of which adds up to a better bottom line.

    Helping a Community Succeed

    Before I mention some critical success factors for business < --> customer communities, it’s important to note that there are two groups with a strong interest in the success of the community, and the groups may disparate views. Business leaders and community members can have different expectations about the community and its purpose. For example, what’s the purpose of the community? How will success be measured? What do you want to achieve? Who should manage the community? Who owns the content generated? It’s important for community planners to identify several key people in the anticipated community early in the process, and let them bring the voice of the customer to the design table. (The same people will then be instrumental influencers in helping the fledgling community get off on the right foot.)

    What are some of the factors that make a business < --> customer community succeed?

    Clear goals and purpose. Does the focus hit a pain point? Does it make people want to help? Businesses obviously want to improve business operations and/or enhance their brand to protect their customers from poaching by competitors. Unfortunately, that is not why the members will be joining. Make sure the “what’s in it for me”, with “me” being the customer/member, is the focal point.

    Governance by the community itself. Strong communities are self-governing. This can be a tough issue for business leaders to get past, when they are used to controlling a group’s dynamics. Remember that members of the community are volunteers, and they have their own agendas for being there. Articulate the company’s desired outcomes, then let the community determine how to get there.

    The right talent — both moderators and members. Having trained and experienced moderators is especially important in the beginning. They will create a welcoming environment, encourage dialogue and establish the right kinds of group interactions. The right members are also important. There needs to be a critical mass of members, since only a fraction of them will participate at any given time, and they need to be members with direct experience with the product/service. Remember the 50-20-10-1 Rule. 50% of members will actively participate, 20% will actively consume/produce content, 10% will chime in to rate/vote and give opinions, and only 1% will develop/innovate content.

    Time/commitment. Communities run on trust, and it may take months for the community to establish the right level of trust. Businesses should not start a community and expect quantifiable results for a period of time, usually at least three months. The business is going to have to show it is committed to the community by not rushing the natural development of the social relationships that will give the community its true value later.

    Topics that matter. Moderators and key customers can help to drive the discussions initially to topics that are meaningful to the community. By skillful moderation, they will draw in members to comment, and draw out other topics of interest. Businesses should be cautious about focusing questions/topics too specifically on the business’ needs or point of view.

    Collaborative interaction and group structure. This is the ideal to aim for, and it will emerge organically in the right technology and social environment.

    Measure the right things. Avoid measuring traditional web site statistics (page hits, unique users, log in sites). A few of the meaningful types of things businesses need to measure include: type/scale of collaborations, member engagement, referrals, lurkers who become active, member satisfaction, comments per post, average time for response, product improvement ideas, and percentage of posts that get an answer.

    In other words, create a critical mass of good minds, and then stimulate them to spark off each other. Everyone will be satisfied when that happens. Simple, right? :-) Here and here is further information that might be useful.

    divider
    August 9th, 2010

    Discontinuing All Comments

    Greetings all. Sadly, I am going to have to discontinue comments on my blog. I would still love to hear your comments and have a discussion with you, but you will need to initiate it using my email link instead. I am receiving nearly 250 spam postings every day that I have to moderate manually, and it has become too much of a burden.

    I plan to resume posting new articles and commentaries in September, after a brief vacation. Thank you for reading!

    divider
    March 9th, 2010

    The KM Conundrum

    Thanks to Peter Houlihan who offers this great summation, from Douglas Adams’ classic Mostly Harmless, of what makes KM a challenge.

    “You cannot see what I see because you see what you see. You cannot know what I know because you know what you know. What I see and what I know cannot be added to what you see and what you know because they are not of the same kind. Neither can it replace what you see and what you know, because that would be to replace yourself.”

    And you thought knowledge management was easy!

    divider
    March 9th, 2010

    Quest Based Leadership: Shifting the Business Paradigm

    A while back I had an interesting discussion with T.J. Theodore, a KM and collaboration advocate and practitioner, about the value in changing the corporate mindset from a task/action items paradigm to a quest based paradigm. Specifically, we were thinking about the concept of questing as used successfully in a multiplayer online gaming context, like the one in World of Warcraft. For those who have been gamers for many years, this is an obvious application, and one that will appeal to and be readily accepted by the new generation of “wired” workers who have grown up with technology and multiplayer games. It might be more difficult to convey to non-gaming managers or executives, however, even though it’s just a variation on the carrot-and-stick paradigm. Here’s how it might work.

    The Gaming Environment

    In games, when a new player (“the avatar”) enters the 3D “world”, he/she is often placed into a safe learning area for beginners, where they can learn the user interface, the keyboard commands, the rules, and the objectives of play. Typically, this involves interacting with a computer generated, non-player character (NPC), who is a trainer, quest giver or companion. The NPC is programmed with a preset agenda of tasks to be accomplished by the player/avatar that trains them in the basic skills they need to be successful in a particular role. The avatar interacts with the NPC, then goes and completes the task he/she was given, often requiring multiple attempts (learning), and returns to the NPC for a reward. Rewards can be an item needed to play in the game, for example, a sword or coins, or experience points that apply toward advancing the avatar to a new and “higher” level of accomplishment. In the real game, many quests require collaboration by a group of players to complete them, for example, to rescue a valuable object or person that is being held by powerful evil forces or to solve a puzzle.

    As predetermined milestones are reached, the new avatar gradually becomes more powerful, better equipped, more skilled and more confident. Having taught the new player the basics, the NPC completes their interaction by sending the avatar on a quest to meet a new trainer or quest giver in a new location. The avatar is then physically relocated from the protected learning area into the mainstream play area of the game, where they will interact and communicate with other players’ avatars. Think of this as the end of the period most companies provide as “new hire orientation” or a promotion.

    As one might expect from a game company with 11 million worldwide players, Blizzard Entertainment understands well the needs and motivations of World of Warcraft players and anticipates them. Not only do they provide a rich and stimulating gaming environment where complex social interactions can occur, but they also provide:

  • communication forums, both in the game (public and private chat channels) and outside the game (web-based online communities)
  • self-selected affinity groups (called guilds or clans), where like-minded players can band together as a team to support one another and accomplish game goals
  • training, such as manuals and help files
  • tools for self-assessment, such as talent/skill development options and the impacts they might have if selected
  • tools for locating people with similar short term interests/needs, such as trying to complete a specific group quest or connecting a player who can forge armor items with players who want to buy those items
  • tools for monitoring the current knowledge and power levels of the player’s own avatar, as well as comparison to the avatars of others (for example, a public “armory” where detailed profiles of all player avatars are housed)
  • management/supervision, as provided in the form of “game masters” who provide in-game customer support, field complaints, rescue trapped players, and give a sense of security that someone in authority is policing the rules and fair play
  • These tools already exist in many rich, 3D multiuser environments and could be readily adapted to business quests, instead of game quests.

    How Questing Applies to Business

    Journals are full of predictions about the future of the corporation and corporate structure. Here are some of them — here, here and here. Sources such as John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation are on record as early as 1992 saying that the top-down control corporation as we know it today is dying, and will be replaced with a new, flatter organizational structure where ad hoc groups come together to solve problems, and knowledge access and peer to peer communication is vital. Companies will be completely different in 2050 (or even sooner). Futurist John Luthy of the Public Futures Blog says, “Leadership and management development coupled with technical training holds a very important key to preparing for future challenges. Unfortunately, those challenges are not in the distant future. They exist now.” This matters because it indicates that everyone, at all levels of an organization, is dealing with a paradigm shift, and needs to learn new skills, new concepts, and new ways of interacting. This is a period of high uncertainty and change in the corporate world.

    Just-in-Time Knowledge. Recent and ongoing scientific research into how workers want and expect to communicate effectively in their jobs shows that access to information and expertise at the point it is needed results in a wide range of organizational benefits. For example, Tom Davenport and John Glaser reported both greater accuracy and cost savings in a hospital setting using a just in time knowledge system for doctors. John Mangan at Cincom Systems reports fewer registration errors, fewer denied claims, and greater patient satisfaction. Although based on Toyota’s lean manufacturing concept, just in time knowledge delivery in most industries will lead to better work products and worker satisfaction.

    Group Meetings and Training. Many organizations have already realized the potential in virtual worlds as global same-time meeting locations that cost practically nothing, yet provide an experience very close to having been in a face to face encounter. They are also seeing that immersive education in a rich virtual environment results in much higher learning retention and satisfaction in workers. Organizations such as Cisco Systems, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Accenture, Nokia, government agencies, such as the U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, and U.S. State Department, the MacArthur Foundation, and many universities routinely use virtual world environments such as Second Life, Active Worlds, and Qwaq to stage educational and/or collaboration meetings. Their developmental activities and results are well documented. Business Week has a brief slide show highlighting some of the types of virtual meetings.

    The American Society for Training and Development cites survey results showing that 79 percent of surveyed organizations say a skill gap currently exists in the organization. Various sources cite multiple reasons why skill gaps persist – retirements, lack of training dollars, inability to attract talent, and the specter of instability. Imagine what a quest based paradigm might look like for business leadership. What if each time you completed a work product, attended a training course, acquired some new knowledge, or coached others you “skilled up” in a technical, soft or business competency? What if you could go to an armory of profiles to search for knowledgeable teammates or specific expertise based upon their skill levels and types of “quests” they had completed? Self-discovery is more stimulating for workers, and produces greater innovation and creativity…resulting in higher job satisfaction and greater employee loyalty.

    How Questing Might Work. Thinking about how a challenge/reward or quest-based paradigm might work in a traditional industrial organization might be difficult for some. This means it isn’t going to happen over night, even though the elements needed for a sweeping change to occur are in place and rapidly gaining wide acceptance as viable options for certain types of business activities — especially with the ascension of Gen Y and Millenials and their more collaborative communication styles into leadership roles. We can expect changes in how routine business is done. The potential benefits are great, but they will not be without some pain.

    Still, imagine how routine work would be different if after we completed one task, we were sent to a quest giver to receive another assignment. What if we could then immediately link knowledge, artifacts, and expertise into a chat or meeting with a mouse click. Using tools that already exist in MMOGs, like multi-layered presence visible at the room, team, community or world level, imagine the ability to pull experts from anywhere in the world — inside or outside your organization — instantly into a discussion, kind of like the summoning or teleportation effects in a multiplayer game. And what if you could walk virtually with your experts from one team room into a different room with a different group of people and they would all be connected instantly and seamlessly, just as if you had made that walk from one conference room to another one down the hall in real life? Imagine conventions and trade shows, where products can be demonstrated, sales can be made instantly, and virtual social networking has as much relevance as being there in person with a Budweiser in your hand — and with no travel and hotel costs or weather delays. These things are possible today, they are in use in many businesses today, and they are only the tip of the iceberg.

    Using chat macros, session recording, user programmable graphical interfaces, and 24/7 access to organizational knowledge bases and expertise, as well as to key external resources, requires a complete rethinking of what managers actually manage (hint: it is no longer access to exclusive information). It requires new thinking about where the actual value in an organization resides (hint: it may not be in the traditional revenue stream). It requires a visionary IT department that wants to enable actual user needs instead of their own concepts about what technology stack they prefer to use. It requires a legal department full of people familiar with intellectual capital, virtual objects, recent patents and the dynamics of 3D immersive interactions, as well as global copyright and trademark protection precedents. It requires a new type of manager, who is more like a multiplayer game guild or raid leader, with the flexibility and skills to manage a fluid and ever changing group to accomplish organizational goals in a timely way – goals that they must define clearly so that the team can succeed. Managers in a quest-based organization will be more like ballet choreographers, who choose the dancers, determine the musical environment, provide a vision and define a deadline date for performance/completion…and then step aside and let the dancers dance, only intruding on the process to adjust misinterpretations.

    Peter Drucker wrote that there is no one right organization design nor one right way to manage people. For those organizations where the sharing of knowledge or continual professional education and development are vital, quest based leadership might well change the competitive dynamic — not to mention create exponentially engaged, excited and collaborative employees.

    I previously blogged about the key planning decisions related to initiating the use of virtual worlds in an organization. If you are interested, you can read it here. I also blogged about quest based training/education here. Keeping it real, there is also the potential for a backlash effect from increasing interactions with computers. We humans are more than bits and bytes that can be transmitted electronically between devices. We experience more from face-to-face interactions than the simple exchange of information, for example, body language or brief facial changes. Heavy reliance on virtual interactions and technology may lead to an anti-technology subculture, but that’s a topic for a different article!

    divider
    March 5th, 2010

    BLERP! (excuse me)

    Blerp has been called the next Twitter, and you might want to check it out. It was created by a company called Rocketon. Blerp is a browser plug-in, a web layering tool, and it went into open beta last August. The basic idea is that members create a layer of 2D user-generated content over any website; people who sign up for Blerp and join the layer-creator’s group can see and add content in that layer. Thus, any site — yours or someone else’s — becomes the backdrop for social networking, casual gaming or whatever. Avatars actually appear on top of the live web page, and can do a variety of activities together, like take instant polls, chat about what is on the web site, play games or change their appearance. Avatars earn points for surfing together — they can open little doors to other web sites and invite others to follow them through the door — and use the points to buy items like clothing or pets to customize or enhance their appearance. There is a wide range of customizations, from body type/shape to clothing to accessories.

    Blerp is fully integrated with Facebook and Twitter. You can sign in with either account, and all your Blerps can appear in your feeds. It seems to me that this type of application would be extremely appealing to Asian users, who are much more sociable in their virtual interactions than Americans. It’s a plug-in just crying out to become a smart phone app. There are some corporate implications, though. For example, unhappy customers could potentially create a layer on top of a company’s web site, and generate uncontrolled negative publicity. There is also the potential for a company to sponsor a Blerp layer on its own web site, and provide branded virtual products for the users, or to do data mining.

    It’s easier to understand if you try it out yourself or take a look at Rocketon’s Blerp web site. Here is their current video. It’s a little weak. The next one is longer and more interesting.

    This demo is helpful, and includes a discussion of Blerp’s strategy and policies. It’s an interview and demo in Second Life with Rocketon CEO Steve Hoffman. The interview starts about 15 minutes into the hour long video:
    http://business.treet.tv/shows/metanomics/episodes/20080714

    Whether Blerp is going to prevail is obviously unknown. Other “shared surfing” apps in the past, like Alexa, have failed. What is new about Blerp is the added dimension of the changeable avatars and the rich interactions they can have. It’s now 5-10 years later, and the general public is more aware of avatars and how social media work in every day life. They already have established online communities. What may make Blerp a game changer is the the potential for turning it into a cell phone app. For those who already live in and through their phones, this is a must have.

    divider
    March 4th, 2010

    There Today, Gone Tomorrow

    I heard today that Makena Technologies’ There.com will be closing for good on March 9. In a media release, CEO Michael Wilson said, “…There is a business, and a business that can’t support itself doesn’t work. Before the recession hit, we were incredibly confident and all indicators were ‘directionally correct’ and we had every reason to believe growth would continue. But, as many of you know personally, the downturn has been prolonged and severe, and ultimately pervasive.”

    I looked at There as a possible platform for a business client 18 months ago, and it led the pack among all the immersive platforms that we evaluated with a hard business eye. One of its appeals over Second Life and Active Worlds was the hooks for the more stringent security needs of a large corporation. Another was its recognition of the value of the intellectual property of the users. There has a submissions review system, which ensured that user generated content didn’t infringe on existing brands or the content of other users.

    Perhaps it’s because so many businesses have slumped and virtual worlds just lost the little priority they had gained in recent years, as the media release noted. Yet Active Worlds has continued to produce an adequate 3D product since…1992 (?)…in the same economy, and is still working to capture the same business market as There did. And Second Life still feels like a dynamic and viable place when one goes there. Or perhaps there are private reasons. For example, Forterra recently sold its OLIVE 3D platform to SAIC, and that was the There sister product. Maybe part of the deal was that There would close, and not compete. although Forterra’s market was always corporate and governmental training/education, and not consumer based. Maybe Makena’s private ownership, having parted with Forterra and its OLIVE, was ready to get out of the virtual world business and on to the next big thing. Or maybe not. :) It’s a pity for the users who invested time and energy to build a social network there. Once again, social contracts bite the dust to investment-backed expectations.

    Reflecting on There made me think about Second Life. Could it be that simple market factors within the SL environment (wild west tho it is) keep it vibrant and profitable for enough users to make them want to keep coming back to create or play? Could it be that IBM’s support of SL carries a lot more clout than most people give it credit for? (But IBM also supports Active Worlds, and likely supported There to some extent as well in its search for the “right” virtual world platform.) I know that I’m oversimplifying, and that Linden Lab does a lot more behind the scenes to maintain its product than is readily apparent to users.

    I think it has to be that There failed for more than the graphics, although their graphics were largely unsatisfying to many users. SL’s graphics aren’t great, but they are getting better, and There always looked more washed out and rigid. The avatars look cartoony and more two dimensional than SL’s avatars. Plus, in There users had to pay for character alterations like hair changes, while in SL, anyone can change their avatar’s total look, gender and even shape at the drop of a hat for free. (And this has huge appeal to users!) SL developer Fiona Berry commented that “I think that people value the individuality which other worlds give them, and dislike being clones… and having to pay to change their hairstyle. I think (There was) greedy to charge for changes which actually never stopped all the avatars looking the same… and that the over-controlled model of virtual world will always be less appealing for creators and residents alike.”

    I don’t know if we will ever know for sure, but it looks like SL will have a sudden influx of new avatars this month because of this. Why do you think There failed?

    divider
    January 25th, 2010

    Can KM Be Fun? – Part 2 of 2

    In Part 1 of this topic, I provided some background and definitions, notably that “fun” is not the same as play or enjoyment or funny. What I am suggesting is brief, impromptu, even unexpected things that surprise, amuse or cause a laugh…yet reinforce and acknowledge certain desirable behaviors with minimal cost. The purpose is to reward good KM behaviors among the people who have important knowledge and need to share it better. My point of view is that if one reinforces right behaviors in a memorable (positive) way, there will be a good payback for a small effort, because the individual will feel acknowledged, and it will generate buzz around the office that will further reinforce KM objectives.

    Here are a couple of Internet resources that you might find interesting to review (note: I have not included sites that rely heavily on computers, for example, virtual worlds, gaming or social science sites). The following sites focus on old-fashioned, face-to-face human interactions:

    1. Volkswagen’s “The Fun Theory” initiative. The premise of the video and the site is something as simple as fun can change behaviors for the better. Once video hypothesizes “we get more people to take the stairs over the escalator by making it fun to do so.” They turned the staircase next to the escalator in Odenplan, Stockholm into a functional piano keyboard. Stair traffic increased 66%, and you can see the joy many people got from the unexpected experience.

    2. Fun at Work. Those crazy Brits come up with great ideas for all price ranges. Even if you don’t have a budget, you can still get some great ideas.

    3. Playfair. Some good ideas for fun, but skip their home page, because the sound of the zooming airplane will make you crazy!

    4. The Fun Department. Good list of resources supporting why fun at work has value and good results, in case you need to build a case or convince someone.

    Having Fun with KM at Work–Premises

    An important point that was raised in the discussion I referenced was that the premises for the “fun” need to clearly laid out for everyone. Here is what I suggest (additions are welcomed!):

    KM Fun Premises
    * The purpose of “fun” activities is to reinforce or acknowledge desirable behaviors related to the knowledge management program.
    * A “fun” activity doesn’t have to cost money.
    * Fun is positive for all.
    * Management supports the fun concept (at least verbally, and participating in some way is even better).
    * People can opt out if they wish.
    * Failure to participate does not (or does) have consequences for the people in the group.
    * Fun is often a matter of personal or cultural taste.

    Along the lines of the last point, Matt Moore made the distinction that in one organization, the staff promotion ceremony involved a “knighting” with cape, crown and sword. In another, a glass of wine and a cheese cracker event at 5 pm on a Friday was considered scandalously wild. True. And of course, what’s funny to a Frenchman might be shocking to someone from China.

    Here are some suggestions for the kinds of fun activities that might help motivate participation by workers who haven’t yet gotten on board with the KM Program. They might even result in positive benefits for everyone in the organization (but I’m reluctant to make any such claims).

    Having Fun with KM at Work–Examples

    Here are some suggestions of my own and some gathered from other sources.

    1. How about a fictional KM consultant by the name of “Kay M”? (Fred Nickols) Is she a witty animated figure featured at the next company meeting? Is she an impertinent chatbot on the company intranet? Is she a psychic with a turban and crystal ball prowling the halls and handing out fortune cookies? You decide.
    (reinforcement for desired behavior of remembering to participate in the KM program)

    2. Management Zoo. Set a group goal for the department/team/company related to a KM target. Have the department head or other senior company official agree to put on/wear a silly costume around the office for a day if they achieve it. Takes the right sort of management, but hey, wearing a gorilla suit or dressing up like a zombie is not all that outrageous…
    (reinforcement for desired behavior of showing management support for the KM program’s requests)

    3. Project Debriefing. A person may give an AAR or debriefing to a group of interested colleagues about the completion of a project, and a box containing a gift card or an Attaboy from the company president descends upon them from the ceiling at the end of his/her presentation. Or a person dressed as the company mascot unexpectedly runs into the room, shakes the speaker’s hand and slaps them on the back, says “Well done!” and then runs out again.
    (reinforcement for desired behavior of providing AAR/debriefings on projects to key people)

    4. Toy Story. A person enters X number of entries into the company’s “knowledge base” and a foam rubber stress toy in the shape of a light bulb (printed with an appropriate message) appears miraculously at their desk over night. Or perhaps instead, a cool little gun that shoots nerf arrows imprinted with “Have some of my knowledge” or another slogan printed on them. One can imagine the arrows being shot over cubical walls at neighbors.
    (reinforcement for desired behavior of adding information to the knowledge base and reminding others of the need to share one’s knowledge)

    5. The Winner! A small raised platform is installed in the elevator. The platform is raised about 8-10 inches and painted a vivid color, with stenciling on top saying “#1 in knowledge sharing”. People who perform certain designated KM activities could be given a pin/ badge/ ribbon to wear in the office, and be encouraged to stand on that “winner’s platform” when they ride the elevator. (I know this is silly, but I’m stretching, okay?)
    (reinforcement for desired behavior of completing certain defined KM activities)

    6. Knowledge Sharing Wall of Fame. Find an empty wall, and call it Knowlege Sharing Wall of Fame. Create three categories (Major/Captain/Lieutenant or space objects like Moon, Star, Galaxy or whatever would work in your organization). Find a staff person with a camera and have them go around to each person who completes certain designated KM activities at different levels and snap pictures of them at their desks, and then post the photos on the KM wall of stars. Put a colored background as a frame around the pictures of any who really excel.
    (reinforcement for desired behavior of meeting certain KM goals)

    7. T-shirt Fashion Day. Set aside a casual day where people could wear a KM or company T-shirt to work, recreated into a “fashion” item (like a head scarf or necktie or jeans patches), that you could then give prizes for. That’s getting further away from the purpose of reinforcing a desired behavior change, but it does help to create a more informal and friendly work environment, which can also help break down the usually rigid knowledge silos in a conservative company.
    (reinforcement for desired behavior of making people aware of the KM program)

    8. Hand written Thank You. One could arrange for the president to send a hand written thank you note through interoffice mail to someone who excels at some aspect of KM, but that would be ordinary. To have it delivered on a scroll inside a balloon by a monkey…now that is memorable, and fun!
    (reinforcement for desired behavior of management supporting the KM program)

    9. Skits. (Don’t skip this one, I’m serious!) Whatever happened to skits? Maybe they only work in organizations that are willing to poke a little fun at themselves. I remember in the 1980s when I worked for two very large public accounting firms. There was always a Friday in late May (after the annual tax filing deadlines) at the end of “busy season”, where there was an all day outing at a big country club. Spouses and children were invited, barbeque, beer, dancing, tennis, swimming, golf…everything you can imagine. But the highlight of the day, which no one missed, was the skits. Right after lunch, the first year people (called fyps) and a group of partners took turns presenting secretly-rehearsed skits about the year and the firm. The fyps, of course, always noted the idiosyncratic behaviors and terms that they learned in their first year. So one skit was always a humorous slant on inhouse jargon and things they had found strange when they first encountered them. There were also departmental skits. The young auditors parodied the audit partners and their recognizable personal behaviors. The young tax professionals featured quirky things about tax code and their partners. The young management consultants had a field day with emerging buzz words and concepts, and usually reenacted some specific client situations that had occurred. The partners, when it was their turn, did ridiculous (for them) things, like pretend to be fyps and ask dumb questions, or speculate on what the world would be like if everyone did things exactly as they should. They would even wear costumes if needed. Why not have an afternoon of skits, with no sacred cows? You wouldn’t need a country club, just an auditorium and some ice cream.
    (reinforcement for desired behaviors of management support for the KM program and sharing organizational stories and culture)

    There’s a zen saying, “The bow kept forever taut will break.” Fun provides a fresh and engaging way to reinforce the positive behaviors you want to happen in your KM program, and will result in many other positive benefits as well.

    divider
    January 21st, 2010

    Can KM Be Fun? – Part 1 of 2

    A few days ago I asked the question to some KM colleagues, “What if KM were *really* fun for people to do and not a drudge, as it seems to be for workers in many KM programs?” My thought was that many of the tasks people have to perform in the name of knowledge management activities are monotonous or tedious, like filling in forms, or tagging documents, or forwarding items to a repository, or creating a profile to describe their expertise. I started thinking, could we do things that are low cost, impromptu and fun to reinforce the good/desired behaviors and lighten up the work environment just a bit? Some different views emerged from the discussion, resulting in a few discrepancies that I want to clarify before I get to the fun part.

    Fun (not Funny) vs. Play vs. Enjoyment

    It was interesting how different people understood different meanings from my use of the word “fun”. Now I will clarify, using Oxford’s Online Dictionary as my source for these definitions.

  • Fun = “lighthearted pleasure or amusement” or “playfulness or good humour”. Note that fun doesn’t have to be funny, as in making jokes. Fun to me is simply a small moment of playful amusement–in the case of KM, to lighten up an otherwise boring, but necessary task.
  • Play = “games or activities engaged in for enjoyment,” or to engage in games or other activities for enjoyment.
  • Enjoy = “take pleasure in or have a pleasant time.” So enjoyment is what results from taking pleasure in or having a pleasant time.
  • One usually experiences enjoyment from either “fun” or “play”, and one can experience fun from “play”, but to me “fun” is a label applied to any enjoyable, usually brief, experience that may or may not be repeated, and may or may not be productive.

    I also want to make another distinction. Where I mention giving a toy or fun object as part of the program, it’s not that the objects themselves are the “fun”…it’s the way they are delivered or the unexpected nature of anyone even noticing that makes it fun (and enjoyable). We’ve all read about those crazy pranks that show up on YouTube or in The Office…like putting tape over the mouthpiece of someone’s phone so they can’t be heard, or wrapping someone’s cubicle all in aluminum foil or draping it tissue paper. There is a fun/surprise element to those, though they are mostly annoying in the end. But the pranks, while memorable, don’t reinforce a behavior, and that is the purpose of the fun I’m suggesting.

    The Value of the Word Serious

    Working for big corporations and governments has done a lot to dampen our ability or willingness to have fun in the workplace. Our managers make serious decisions about serious matters that have a serious impact on the organization’s future and people’s lives and well being. It’s no wonder, then, that most managers are afraid to break out of the serious mold, lest someone should think they don’t realize the significance of the serious business they are about and penalize them. That’s why corporations, and especially training groups, have adopted the term “serious games” from the gaming world. “Game” lets one know there should be something enjoyable about the activity, but “serious games” makes it okay to talk about at work, because the game is not just fun and a waste of time and money if it’s “serious”. It’s purposeful. (Trainers, IT and management consultants totally understand this mindset, and use it to sell new ideas.) To label an activity as “serious” lets a manager think, “If it is serious, it has value, can be measured, and will result in desirable outcomes. If it happens to be fun…well, okay…we just won’t promote that aspect of it, because our executives might disapprove.” Fun has become a stealth activity in many organizations.

    While prevalent today, this belief or assumption doesn’t apply to all workers or managers, of course. It’s true that there are many people who are motivated by the acceptable and politically-correct carrot of working hard and being fiscally responsible. But there are a large group of others who are not motivated by achievement, and who have different values. For these, fun is a powerful motivator.

    Recent research by William Hart and Dolores Albarracín supports this notion. They found that people motivated by achievement respond well to competition and encouragement to excel. For another large group of people, however, these can be a demotivator, because they have different goals. They don’t value excellence as much as they value their own well-being or want to enjoy themselves. We are seeing many people with these motivators arising in the so-called Gen Y and Millenials groups. It seems to me that our existing organizational structures already provide plenty of motivation for the achievement and competition oriented types. Putting a little fun into KM could be a very powerful way to bring the others in the organization on board.

    Overcoming the Roadblocks to Fun KM

    KM practitioners at all levels face the same roadblocks if they want to incorporate fun into their programs. If they make an appeal on the basis of value to the organization or quantifying intellectual capital, they will hit employees (or “knowledge workers”) who are already on board with such values. Yet they may be missing other employees who could be motivated to participate in activities for different reasons. These people may value and consider it necessary to have fun and breaks in the routine at work. That’s why they attend the monthly birthday cake gathering for people they barely know, or pre-order Thanksgiving Day pies from John from the mailroom who is dressed up like a turkey, or string blinking lights and decorations around their cubicle for Christmas.

    That is why I think that injecting incidents of fun into a routine KM program could be a good way to reinforce positive KM behaviors, and help to improve stiff or secretive environments. Where it’s culturally possible, of course. One person in the discussion group noted that in traditional European cultures, like Switzerland’s, it would simply be viewed as inappropriate and might create a backlash for the KM practitioner. That may be so, yet it doesn’t invalidate the assumption that there are workers who are not movitated by appeals to excellence or achievement, and who might be motivated by “fun.” In Part 2 of this article, I will provide some examples of activities that would be appropriate “fun” in a business context. Some may even work in Switzerland!

    How to Measure Changes

    In a perfect business world, all activities could be measured and valued and included on the balance sheet. That is to say, in a perfect business world based upon current accounting standards that grossly fail to assign value to intangibles, such as customer good will, employee satisfaction, brand name, intellectual capital, and social network relationships. I discussed this previously here. Here are some discussions of the issues behind valuing intangibles, such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s SFAS 141 and 142, and the factors that drive intangibles.

    Attorney and specialist on work place issues Mary Rau-Foster says, “Can the benefits to having fun be measured? Yes, by comparing the absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover rates pre-program implementation. In addition, an employee satisfaction survey can reveal how employees feel about their jobs, the company, and company culture. Will your customer complaints decrease as they encounter happier employees.” She also notes that a worker’s inability to laugh on the job may be a sign of impending burn-out.

    Dr. David Abramis, a behavioral scientist at Cal State Long Beach studies fun at work. He has shown that people who have fun on the job are more creative, more productive, better decision-makers, and get along better with co-workers. They also have fewer absentee, late, and sick days than people who aren’t having fun.

    Despite the fuzzy nature of their work, KM practitioners work tirelessly to find ways to prove the value of KM to the organization. It’s a little like good art — hard to define, but we know it when we see it. The purpose of my comments here is not to define ways to measure improvement. Yet, one way that comes to mind is to identify all those KM participants who contribute little or nothing to the effort, then try a couple of fun activities with that group, and note any changes in their levels of participation. It’s important to get the KM program firing on all cylinders. A Baldridge Foundation survey of Fortune 500 CEOs identified knowledge management as the second most important need behind globalization. The more techniques (fun or otherwise) that we can apply to getting people to participate, the better our outcomes will be, the better morale will be, and the more the organization will benefit.

    Please go to Part 2 of this topic to see some premises to consider for fun activities, and examples of activities that might work for you.

    divider
    January 18th, 2010

    Game Related Mail Nonsense

    This is it! I thought I had seen ridiculous message text before, but this spam mail I got (about eight times this week) really takes the cake. I don’t usually read them at all, but something about this one was so egregiously bad that I did read it, and decided it was worth blogging.

    When you receive this message at the same time means that you have a routine account of our recent examination, was checking your account we have the evidence to prove that involved in the controversial game currency transaction so we had to take the necessary measures.
    Please visit our web site https://secure.ncsoft.com/ as soon as possible to activate your account or we will suspend your account.

    I laugh every time I read it! It purports to be from NC Soft, which is a reputable gaming company (Guild Wars, City of Heroes, Lineage and the new Aion), but the text is so mangled it’s impossible to imagine that it came from the company. There is a trend here. Someone out there is spoofing NC Soft, similarly to the email spoofs that have been showing up for the last two months pretending to be from Blizzard or World of Warcraft. The Blizzard ones at least are very close in tone and style to an actual Blizzard-generated message, and the URLs are credible, unless a player pays attention to details and knows that they are not legitimate.

    While I think the fake NC Soft message is hilarious because it is so badly translated (they must have used Babblefish), the Blizzard ones are more serious, because they could actually dupe people into going to malicious sites. Maybe this is a new wave of “All your base are belong us.” If we aren’t careful, all our base will belong them.

    Update January 22: It looks like the same people who did the NC Soft letter above decided they should do one for Warcraft as well. At least these are so bad that no one who speaks English should be duped!

    “We are in the quarter a routine inspection found that your account has serious security risk so we had to send this message to inform you and ask you to note that account security and to ensure that you are not subject to the loss, we will lock your account, if you do not want us to take such action as soon as possible to verify your account login www.worldofwarcraft.com”

    Huh? (scratching head)

    Update, February 21: I received another installment in the supposed NC Soft email campaign today. “In order to safeguard the normal order of the game, as the Aion operating company – NCsoft. We have been insisting the each quarter a certain routine account check, and give some prizes. This is very pleased to inform you that your account on the check list. Visit https://secure.ncsoft.com/xxx/xxxx.pl as soon as possible to account verification. We will complete within one week after the prize to you.”

    Laughable, yes, but there is a lesson here for any company or organization that tries to increase its business among people who speak another language and relies only on non-human translation software.

    divider
    January 12th, 2010

    Knowledge Intensive Organizations

    Joyline Makani of Dalhousie University in Halifax has prepared a survey for her doctoral thesis in order to determine the correct definition of a KIO or knowledge intensive organization. As with so many terms in the KM world, KIO means different things to different people. She intends to attempt to standardize the usage. One question on the survey asks the participant to give their own definition of KIO in a few sentences. This is what I wrote. It’s kind of top of the head…I had not really thought about it before. What did I miss?

    “Any organization that relies upon a well educated and experienced staff to generate ideas, solutions and expertise that is used internally to provide efficiency or competitive advantage, or, sold externally as a product to other organizations. KIOs typically use technology to document situations, solutions and outcomes, as well as to network people with questions to people with answers.”

    divider
    December 21st, 2009

    Lambe/Beyerstein Score and KM as Pseudoscience

    Patrick Lambe of the Singapore-based Straits Knowledge group is one of my favorite serious KM thinkers. In a recent discussion thread, he commented on a paper by Barry Beyerstein of Simon Fraser University on how to distinguish between a science and a pseudoscience. It opens with a great quote from Charles T. Spraling, “Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes the fact, not in the belief that it is a fact.” KM is sometimes considered a pseudoscience or soft science because it lacks many of the characteristics of hard science. Beyerstein describes a pseudoscience as “…fields that try to appropriate the prestige of genuine sciences, and copy their outward trappings and protocols, but fall far short of accepted standards of practice and verification in the legitimate fields they seek to emulate. Pseudosciences do not value debate and criticism and rarely show intellectual ferment or genuine progress. Their explanations are usually contradicted by well-established scientific knowledge and their own findings rarely, if ever, withstand scrutiny by competent critics.”

    Based upon Beyerstein’s characteristics of a pseudoscience, Lambe suggests a KM scorecard that represents how well the people in KM are doing in NOT being a pseudoscience. The overall score he attributes to the current profession is 5.4 out of 10. Not great! Personally I think he was a little generous on some of the scores. Here are the 12 Beyerstein criteria he used to make his assessment and critically question any emerging field of knowledge and practice, such as KM:

    (1) Isolation – we need to do better in KM at connecting to prior and parallel disciplines in both theory (e.g., cognitive and social psychology, anthropology, brain science) and practice (e.g., learning, information management, records management) – without falling prey to sin #7 (impenetrability and obfuscation). 7 out of 10

    (2) Non-Falsifiability – we need to find ways of understanding and characterizing the differences between success and failure in KM, and of being clear about (for example) for a given hypothesis and intervention, what would count as a falsification of that hypothesis or an invalidation of the intervention. 4 out of 10

    (3) Misuse of Data – this is back to a quantitative/qualitative discussion – the KM academic literature (it’s not alone) is prone to highly leveraging both qualitative and quantitative findings, leveraged far beyond what their real substance should warrant. We need a better understanding and mechanism for collecting, comparing, validating and understanding data. 5 out of 10

    (4) No Self-correction, Evolution of Thought – it seems to me like we are currently just going round in circles around the same basic ideas. There has been no real innovation in KM in the past decade (though lots of rushes to support or privilege aspects of the KM domain above others). This is largely due, I think, to the instability of the KM profession (people don’t stay for long in it), and the weakness of the links between academia and practice. 5 out of 10

    (5) Special Pleading – we are masters of saying “you can’t measure the results of KM, we’re different.” The fact is, we don’t understand our practice until we can understand the relationships between interventions and impact. We may not be able to give a good account now, but that doesn’t exempt us from a more systematic investigation of what we do. 4 out of 10

    (6) Unfounded Optimism – well, we actually do need this for many KM interventions; in some cases, it may be all that keeps us going. But this also results in having (or not challenging) unrealistic expectations of what we can achieve, leading to both cynicism (in our stakeholders) and burnout (among ourselves) when our rash promises don’t come to fruition. 4 out of 10

    (7) Impenetrability – we do encounter from time to time among our community ideological stubbornness and an imperviousness to argument or genuine dialogue; or articulations so abstruse that it’s hard to fathom what’s being discussed. I think we have gotten better at tuning into each other, having meaningful dialogues around strong differences, with the odd exception here and there, but we haven’t done so well in managing clarity of communications or commitment to that clarity. 6 out of 10

    (8) Magical Thinking – we are strongly prone to this (it partially results from #6 Unfounded Optimism). This is the belief that good things will result from willpower (read design) alone, without the need for “muscular effort”. Noah Raford recently referred to belief in “best practices” as akin to sympathetic magic: “It’s like building a model of something, building a doll that has a likeness of something else, and hoping that the effects will transfer.” 6 out of 10

    (9) Ulterior Motives – many of the players in the space have commercial interests in the theory and practice they are espousing (e.g., consultants, pundits and technology developers), and if this is combined with Isolation #1 and Impenetrability #7, it’s hard to challenge such special interests. The certification debate is a case in point. I actually think we’re getting better at this. A decade ago the KM space was rife with snakeoil and their salesmen; but I don’t think we’re by any means immune from more of them once KM-like stuff becomes sexy and affordable again (watch Enterprise 2.0 for a re-hash). #4 means that there are always new and inexperienced people coming into KM and trying to make decisions based on no prior knowledge. Progress on this depends on making progress in #2, #4, #5 and #7. 7 out of 10

    (10) Lack of Formal Training – KM is full of practitioners and academics who have wandered or been teleported into KM from something else, sometimes related (like Library Science or Learning & Development) and sometimes unrelated. We have very few mechanisms for validating or falsifying the authority of pronouncements based on prior discipline. There is a crying need for accreditation, but very little in the way of provision beyond an onerous, though usually useful, Master’s level qualification. We need some way of ascertaining and validating the relative authority of the voices in our space other than the fairly crude ones we have now. I believe communities like actKM are an important force in achieving this. We need better professional development and accreditation structures. 6 out of 10

    (11) Bunker Mentality – pseudoscientists like to proclaim how they are misunderstood, persecuted or treated badly by the rest of the world, and there are shades of this kind of self-pity in the KM community, I think. We do have a hard time getting acceptance and understanding, because of many of the items above, so I can see why this happens, but overall I think we’re pretty robust on this, and open to engagement with the rest of the world, so I’d give us an 8 out of 10 on this point.

    (12) Lack of Replicability of Results – we are really bad at this, partly arising from #5 Special Pleading. We are very bad at giving full, objective and examinable accounts of our work, not to mention our lack of ability to characterize success and failure clearly. This is why we are so prone to #8 Magical Thinking, and the application of simplistic recipes and best practices, whipped up with a handsome dollop of #6 Unfounded Optimism, and #7 Impenetrability to make sure our doubts about our success are nicely covered up and free from examination. We need to get much better at journaling and sharing our practices, warts and all, having them competently examined by experienced professionals, and collecting and sharing meaningful data across the community, both academic and professional. 3 out of 10.

    Lambe notes that C.D. Broad’s fourth “limiting principle” seems to sometimes be forgotten: “It is impossible for a mental event to produce directly any change in the material world, except certain changes in the individual’s own brain; i.e., without the mediation of muscular effort.” Yes, we do have to act for any true change (or knowledge exchange) to occur. It’s not enough to simply have ideas or concepts. At the same time, and relevant to most KM professionals, true knowledge transfer relies upon one recipient getting direct input from another, as shown in Broad’s 7th limiting principle:

    It is impossible for person A to know what experiences person B is having, or has had except by: a) hearing or reading B’s descriptions; b) hearing or seeing, and interpreting, B’s cries, gestures, expressions, etc.; or c) drawing inferences from material evidence left by B.

    Although I am loathe to call KM a pseudoscience, making KM into a science continues to elude KM practitioners, even though we are clearly making some progress over time.

    divider
    December 12th, 2009

    Adjusted Plus/Minus Statistic for KM

    I am not a sports fan, but I happened to hear an anecdote from Stephan Fatsos on public radio yesterday that started me thinking about ways to apply a modern statistic tracked in basketball to KM. The stat is called “adjusted plus/minus”, and it is a metric for tracking how well a team performs when an individual player is on the field or off the field. Obviously, it’s better for the player to have a high plus, because it shows how much positive impact they have on the performance of the whole team.

    Kevin Durant is a forward with the Oklahoma City Thunder basketball team. Last year the team played worse as a team when Durant was on the floor. He worked to change his play so that he focused less on individual effort and more on helping the team to win. This year, the team is giving up 11.5 fewer points for every 100 possessions, and scoring almost 14 points more when he’s on the floor. The team is also in positive territory for wins/losses in 2009, unlike last year.

    What intrigued me about this story was how it might be relevant for KM. It’s rare to be able to say one person is responsible for success in a group effort, however, it’s usually obvious that certain people contribute more to success than others. Perhaps there is a way that the KM contributions of individual or key participants could be measured using an “adjusted plus/minus” rating for when they are active vs. not. Some people do have the ability to lift the participation in and effectiveness of an overall effort just by participating. This might be a way we could assess overall KM effectiveness, as well as reward the people who may not be the “big names” but are important contributors and tend to stay in the background.

    Stephen Bounds in Canberra, Australia pointed to a similar story in the New York Times about Shane Battier, who was undervalued for years as a player because he didn’t excel in individual performance statistics. It turned out that he plays a vital role during games by always making plays that benefit the team. While the team can’t win games by having only Battiers, in a team environment his presence is vital to success.

    Perhaps there is a way to create such a metric for KM efforts. What could we measure? Has anyone tried anything similar to this?

    Update December 18: Dave Snowden rightly pointed out that “Within that type of system (ed: American football or sports in general) most things can be measured. On the other hand, most “life games” are less restricted, more fluid, more complex in nature. It is the interaction between multiple people (not one person and the team) that counts. Its also a co-evolutionary system; as things move forwards, possibilities close off or open up, we can never reset, there will not be another game next week, we can’t blow a whistle, call a time out and bring on a different team.” After some reflection, I completely agree. It would be nice to be able to find a subjective way to evaluate the success or effectiveness of KM in an organization, but there is still no silver bullet…and may never be one.

    divider
    November 6th, 2009

    No Tech Gaming

    This morning I read a recent posting on BoingBoing featuring one of the winners of the Digital Open, an open online tech innovation expo for kids under 17. Winner Henry Lee of Melbourne, Australia used a very simple gaming concept focused on personal interaction and index cards, and you can see the video of his presentation here. It’s pretty interesting that he took a contrarian path and still managed to win a future of technology competition. That was illuminating on many levels. First, he’s only 16, a true “millennial“, yet he chose to go no-tech. Secondly, the innovative spirit is alive and well in the young. If we think these young people don’t yet have enough human or practical understanding to come up with a meaningful idea and execute it, we need to be thinking again. And finally, as you hear about half way through the video:

    “Life is almost like a technology. It’s a platform, just like the Internet. But it’s Real! You get only one life and no save points. But we each have a power to change the world. We each have the power to change those around us. We have the ability to imprint people’s lives, with inspiration, with love. The world is limitless to you when you have the will, because when you want to do something, and you have the heart to do it, you will do it. It will be achieved.”

    I like that. Life is almost like a technology platform. Maybe the millennials will produce our next generation of great philosophers and humanitarians. Wisdom comes in all kinds of packages.

    divider
    October 28th, 2009

    How to Start a Non-Profit Organization

    Recently I was asked to help a friend understand what is involved with starting a new non-profit organization in the U.S. After some research and cogitation, I put together some helpful information for him, and thought I should blog it. Right now there are many people looking for new directions and thinking about how to support their communities or provide services without a pure profit motive. Perhaps this will help someone. I’ve provided a few helpful links at the bottom. Speaking broadly, the key points/steps for a new founder are:

    1. The first thing that you need is a Mission Statement. What’s your cause? What’s the purpose of your organization? What services will you provide? Your mission statement should be short and focused like a laser beam. Usually 2-3 sentences is long enough. Include a look toward your future activities.

    2. Recruit Board members. You need enough to meet State requirements for a corporate Board. Incorporation is required if you seek tax-exempt status or plan to raise funds. If you don’t plan to incorporate, consider an informal advisory board to help guide you instead.

    3. Draft Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, and get Board approval. You’ll need to have them to file with your application to incorporate. You don’t need to re-invent the wheel. Just do an online search and get a template for these items online, and then modify it to fit with your purpose/mission.

    4. Apply for Non-Profit or Charitable Organization status (call the IRS or go to www.irs.gov to request a form). Once you receive this form, it’ll have all the information you need to include to complete the application. The application may seem very intimidating; most people hire lawyers to complete it. If you can follow directions, though, you can complete it yourself. It’s not that bad if you take the time to read the material that comes along with it.

    5. Apply for State and Federal Tax Exemption. For state, go to your state’s web site to download an application, or call them to ask for it. Do the same for a federal tax exemption application. You’ll need to have your application for a non-profit entity approved before you can submit these applications. Once you’ve acquired state and federal tax exemption, you can start applying for funding. Be aware that this process can take a year.

    6. Other things to be aware of and obtain in advance: If you plan to raise money, you may need a “solicitation license”, available from your local town. If you will do bulk mailings, you will need a permit from the local post office to get a discount on the mailing costs. If you will hire employees, you will need to get a federal employer number from the Secretary of Commerce to withhold income and FICA taxes.

    Tips & Warnings

  • Take your time
  • Read all of the instructions on the application (remember you are dealing with the government)
  • This process can take about a year. Make sure you allow that much time within the application process.
  • Questions You Want to Answer Up Front

  • What do I mean by “starting a non-profit”? (get clear about the purpose)
  • Should I really start a new non-profit (what is the feasibility of what I want to do)?
  • Can I achieve my objective by working through another non-profit to support my tax-exempt status, etc.?
  • Do I need a lawyer to start my non-profit?
  • Are there any non-profit incubators nearby where I can share facilities/equipment? (also check local small business incubators in the Yellow Pages or on the web)
  • Who should be on my Board (what do they bring to the organization’s mission)?
  • Can I avoid “founder’s syndrome”? (when the organization’s mission is secondary to the wishes of the founder)
  • What Kind of Non-Profit Do You Want to Start?

  • You can be a non-profit organization just by getting together with some friends, eg, to form a self-help group. In this case, you’re an informal non-profit organization.
  • You can incorporate your non-profit so it exists as a separate legal organization in order to a) own its own property and its own bank account; b) ensure that the non-profit can continue on its own (even after you’re gone); and c) protect yourself personally from liability from operations of the non-profit. You incorporate your non-profit by filing articles of incorporation (or other charter documents) with the appropriate local state office. (An incorporated non-profit requires a Board of Directors.)
  • If you want your non-profit (and if you think your non-profit deserves) to be exempt from federal taxes (and maybe some other taxes, too), you should apply with the IRS to be a “tax-exempt” organization. (The IRS states that you must be a corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation to receive tax-exempt status. Articles of association may also be used in place of incorporation.) Probably the most well known type of non-profit is a the IRS classification of 501(c)(3), a “charitable nonprofit’. (Remember, being tax-exempt is not the same as being tax-deductible.)
  • Depending upon the nature of your organization, you may also be granted tax-deductible status from the IRS. Publication 526 lists the types of organizations to which donations are deductible.
  • As an example, you could start a non-profit that is incorporated, tax-exempt and eligible to receive tax deductible donations.
  • The exact steps you take when starting your non-profit depend upon your plans for your organization, including the nature of its services. They also depend upon how the IRS interprets the nature of your organization, including its services.
  • ————————————————————————

    Online Resources:
    * 12 free online learning modules for starting and building a nonprofit

    http://www.managementhelp.org/np_progs/org_dev.htm

    * Starting a Non-Profit Organization

    http://www.managementhelp.org/strt_org/strt_np/strt_np.htm

    * Some checklists for all the steps to follow

    http://www.managementhelp.org/misc/How-to-Start-Nonprofit.pdf
    http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/guides/nonprofit.html
    http://www.wikihow.com/Start-a-501c3-Nonprofit-Organization
    http://www.nonprofits.org/npofaq/02/01.html

    * National Council of Nonprofit Associations

    http://www.ncna.org/

    I used information from these web sites to create this article:

  • eHow – How to Start a Non-Profit Organization
  • Free Management Library at ManagementHelp.org
  • Business.gov
  • eHow – How to Get Grant Funding for a Non-Profit Organization
  • divider
    September 13th, 2009

    New cube game challenges the mind

    Thanks to Bevan Whitfield for the lead to this amazing new game called levelHead that could become the new Rubix cube. New Zealander Julian Oliver has designed a fascinating “augmented reality spatial memory” game that makes the player feel like they are navigating Escher’s famous stairways to nowhere. But there is a solution! Using three cubes, the player tilts and rocks the cube to walk an imaginary figure through illusory architecture in such a way that he ends up exiting the “door” of the cube and entering the door of the next cube. The game is a navigable accumulation of spatial associations that require the player to hold in memory the details of the past room in order to build a logic for future progress. It’s a little hard to describe, but wonderful to watch! Catch the video demo of levelHead here. Watch for it to go into commercial production in the near future. Oliver also created this interesting engine for Quake which generates audible sounds from the actions occurring in the game frame.

    divider
    August 19th, 2009

    Deep Reading and the Googleplex

    Nicholas Carr has written a thoughtful and provocative article on what the Internet is doing to our brains, biologically and conceptually, in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?“, published last summer in The Atlantic. It’s a fascinating reflection on how different technological advances have changed (read “diminished”) the way humans process information, learn, and develop new ideas. It was an eerie experience reading the article this morning, because he articulated things I have observed in myself and others, yet had not really stopped to analyze. (Maybe that’s another sign that his proposition is true!)

    I’ve read that the brains of Generation Y or the Internet Generation (the now 15-30 year olds) are configured differently than the brains of Babyboomers. Psychologists like Dr. Gary Small at UCLA are showing that Gen Y has increased ability to make quick decisions and are more creative, but lack concentration and the ability to remember large numbers of facts. (Research summary here) Here’s a short video from CBS News that demonstrates how it shows up in the workplace. Gen Y have already adapted to processing multiple simultaneous inputs effectively, as one can see by watching the average high schooler listening to their iPod, doing their homework, keeping up with 5-6 high speed instant message conversations from different friends simultaneously and snacking, while the TV is working in the background. I see it in myself and others my age, as well. We are all doing much more now and doing it less completely than we once did. Isn’t that one of the beauties of the human experience? We are so adaptable, as a species!

    Carr’s article doesn’t exactly lament the changes that change is bringing, but it’s obvious that those of us with traditional educations and thinking styles, from the pre-PC period, do miss the comfort of those long, lazy hours buried in a thrilling or thought-provoking book. Google (as an abstract name for all that information overload represents) is molding us to think, label and seek information we need in a certain standardized way. And even though we may hold deep reading up as the Gold Standard for the human learning experience, we nevertheless have been seduced ourselves by the wonder that is the Internet. We all browse and graze and skim content for information nuggets, and love the thrill of discovering something new. I’m not sure that is a bad thing. As he also mentions, humanity often gives up one way of working or thinking when a new technology is introduced and adopted, only to see a brilliant burst of invention and innovation that changes the human experience for the good in other ways. We are seeing those changes starting to emerge now. It’s a good read. (Thanks, Chris!)

    divider
    August 15th, 2009

    Business Success by Narrowing

    Someone close to me has recently been developing products and creating her own online store. Considering that she has a full time job, it’s been a big energy sink. I started to think about how people can succeed, or why they don’t, at creating a business out of the hobbies they love. It’s painful to see loved ones pour their hearts and souls into an entrepreneurial effort, only to give up or fail. That made me think about all the components involved in carrying an idea through from concept to success. We know from our careers that we aren’t good at everything. Maybe it would be helpful for a would-be entrepreneur to assess their own areas of strength and interest up front, so they can get support where they are weak before the weakness becomes a roadblock that can crash the business. Another aspect of the process is age. If one is 26, trying to make a business is a learning experience that lets one identify personal strengths and weaknesses, as well as interests. Failure is a learning opportunity, too. If one is 60, however, maybe those lessons are already learned, and failure has serious consequences. It might be better to set up the business so one’s time is spent where you have pleasure and add the most value, and not where you don’t. Here are the components I came up with. I think they apply to consulting or writing or other creative activities, not just to traditional product manufacturing and sales (even though I’m using that language).

  • Ideation – coming up with an idea/concept that one wants to pursue
  • Planning – defining a plan for how to make/do “it”
  • Creation – designing and/or finishing the objects one wants to sell
  • Manufacturing – performing the work to create the items for sale
  • Packaging/Advertising – planning and executing the way to attract customer interest
  • Distribution – arranging for one’s items to be in the right environment to enhance sales
  • Shipping – boxing and mailing/shipping the items to the customer
  • Marketing – identifying the pool of prospective customers most likely to want one’s items
  • Sales – converting customer interest into a purchase
  • Accounting – recording and reporting sales and expenses
  • Financing – identifying and securing sources of investment capital
  • Ordering Materials – identifying sources and placing orders
  • Customer Service – interacting with customers after a sale/order
  • These components are part of nearly every type of project or activity anyone does. For example, for my own consulting work, I enjoy ideation, planning, creation, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution. I look for help with accounting, customer service and packaging. I’m sort of neutral about sales. I can do it, but I enjoy other aspects a lot more and prefer to spend my time in other areas. A manager in a department of a large corporation has the same processes. So does the director of a non-profit organization.

    If one is an artist at heart and enjoys planning and making items, maybe the right solution is to make the items you enjoy making and then place them on consignment in stores or other organizations’ web sites, to keep as much time free as possible to focus on the ideation and creation that you love. Finally, if one is over 50, I believe you have earned the right to focus and spend your time on the things you enjoy most, and should hire out or make use of other sources to do the other stuff. Now if I could only take my own advice…

    divider
    August 12th, 2009

    Disconnected Tidbits

    None of these is worth a full blog posting, but I found these things to be fascinating or very promising, and thought I’d blog them all anyway for my own reference. Enjoy!

    Gaming and the Metaverse

    WoW and Psychotherapy. Many parents are concerned with the amount of time and emotional investment their children have in the popular multiplayer game World of Warcraft, where many spend 40 hours per week or more immersed in the virtual world, supposedly neglecting their social lives and education. Dr. Richard Graham, a consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock Centre in London, plans to launch a new therapy service by the end of the year that will have psychologists wandering around in avatar form and counseling players to play less and find a balance between gaming and real life. I’m trying to restrain a laugh here. Surely this is something conceived of by a group of adults who have little or no actual gaming experience! Graham says, “We may have to work at (learning to play) if we are going to get through to those who play this game for hours at end.” He said that Internet addiction is very difficult to identify, as the isolation involved means “sufferers are often out of sight and out of mind.” (sufferers?) They say they are not going to be wearing white lab coats and holding consulting hours, so they are setting up a “peer mentors” group, where apparently the mentors will “turn in” players with a problem to the addiction therapists, also in avatar form. (Everyone who plays already knows where to find the people who need help — in Trade chat with their friends, 24/7, waiting for the next PvP round to start.) Does WoW really need a “Trade Chatters Anonymous” group with a 12-step addiction program? (How to spell or speak English might be more useful.) I hate to condemn a new idea before it has been tested, but as WoW players would say, this idea is Fail! Such a program would attempt to make a game too much like the real life from which games are escapes. Gamers are intelligent people who will simply ignore it until it goes away. :) I would point to other research that says that MMOGs are valid social outlets, where real social interactions occur, and that there is no true “addiction” to MMOGs. (I’ll try to come up with some references next chance I have and link them here.) Non-players who come up with “good ideas” about how to fix a problem they haven’t experienced firsthand often think they know a solution when they haven’t understood the subjects or the problem. I wonder if Graham et al. will be courageous enough to publish a paper two years from now describing how/why it didn’t work. Of course, they may get “addicted” themselves once they actually learn to play, and never get around to it…

    Betterverse. Blogger Rik Panganiban at Global Kids, a New York based nonprofit, recently launched a new blog at Betterverse.com to chronicle “the evolving and innovative efforts to use virtual worlds to promote various real world causes and improve the lives of people all around the globe.” This is a timely effort. As I’ve observed myself, especially in Second Life and There.com, social and charitable organizations are becoming aware of the low cost and wide reach of virtual worlds to advance their various messages and causes. Public education is the most obvious, of course, but some other exciting applications include political activism, fundraising, e-government, public service outreach, civic affairs, information dissemination, virtual special events coinciding with real world events, and diversity/equality. And of course, improving quality of life for the physically or mentally disabled.

    Disability Advances

    Brain Controllers. I wrote in March about the widely anticipated new brain controller headset by the Australian company Emotiv that is due out this fall. It was used to send the first handsfree Twitter tweet in April, 2009. These types of devices will be used in all kinds of practical ways, as well as to play games. For example, the forthcoming toy from Uncle Milton, called the Stars Wars Force Trainer, uses electroencephalography (EEG) to read your mind and allow the user to move objects like Luke Skywalker. Mattel is soon to release Mindflex, another levitation type game. Yet another game uses mind power alone to move stones and rebuild Stonehenge. As so often happens, we will see gaming applications jump on this technology first, and then it will move widely into practical uses in daily life, much as the Wii did. Imagine how exciting and liberating it will be to quadraplegics or people with muscular dystrophy or fibromyalgia to be able to use nothing more than brain waves to type documents and email or to move an avatar around in a virtual world and socialize with other people or drive a race car! To the generation that follows, this type of tool will be the norm, and it’s exciting to think what new technologies and possibilities will be invented to make use of it in coming years. Use the force, Luke!

    Altering Time Perception. Maybe this isn’t for the disabled, but then maybe it is. We all know how time seems to speed up as we age. A day in the summer for a 10-year-old is endless, while a day for a frenzied adult seems to go by in a blink. This effect has been studied, and there is a brain change which occurs to cause the shift in perception. Now there are new eyeglasses that appear to help to shift perceptions of time! A new study from the University of Bologna (Italy) shows that prismatic glasses adjusting vision 10 degrees to the left experience slowing perception of time and 10 degrees to the right the opposite effect.

    Cloning and Bioengineering

    Animal Clones. Do you remember the Canadian German shepherd working dog named Trakr who discovered the final living victim in the World Trade Center disaster on 9/11? He was the winner of the Golden Clone Competition sponsored by California firm BioArts International and South Korea’s SooAm Biotech Research Foundation, which looked for the world’s “most cloneworthy” dog. They collaborated to create five living clones of the hero dog, who died earlier this year, including one that looks and acts exactly like him. Former Canadian police officer James Symington said of one of the clones, “”The physical similarities are uncanny. He’s the spitting image of the Trakr that I first met in 1995. He has exactly the same markings, the way he moves, everything. Very alert, very intelligent and intuitive.” The others have slight variations. The cost is not cheap — $144,000 per clone of an animal, and of course, “designer cloning” is still very controversial.

    Renerating Lost Teeth. Most people lose one or more of their adult teeth in their lifetime due to disease, injury or aging. Now there is hope that missing teeth will be a thing of the past. Researchers at Tokyo University have successfully implanted a bioengineered tooth bud into an adult mouse. Using epithelial cells and mesenchymal cells, they created the tooth bud and implanted it into the bone in the lost tooth region. The tooth grew and erupted as normal, and had the correct structure, hardness and responses to mechanical stress and pain as a normal tooth. Imagine all the people in the world with no teeth at all. Conceivably a full set could be grown in months! Very interesting development.

    divider
    July 27th, 2009

    The Mystery of Caffeine

    Today as I was browsing for a piece of unrelated information, I came across a couple of links on caffeine and the various roles and impacts scientists are showing that it has on our bodies. It’s really fascinating reading, so I thought I would summarize a few of caffeine’s pluses and minuses here. I don’t drink coffee, but maybe I’ll start now! Enjoy!

    Caffeine Reverses Memory Impairment in Mice with Alzheimer’s Symptoms
    When aged mice bred to develop symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease were given caffeine — the equivalent of five cups of coffee a day — their memory impairment was reversed.

    Mid-Life Coffee and Tea Drinking May Protect Against Late-Life Dementia
    The study found that coffee drinkers at midlife had lower risk for dementia and AD later in life compared to those drinking no or only little coffee. The lowest risk (65% decreased) was found among moderate coffee drinkers (drinking 3-5 cups of coffee/day).

    In Women, Caffeine May Protect Memory
    The study found that women age 65 and older who drank more than three cups of coffee (or the equivalent in tea) per day had less decline over time on tests of memory than women who drank one cup or less of coffee or tea per day.

    Morning Jolt of Caffeine Might Mask Serious Sleep Problems
    Those of us who rely on caffeine to stay awake need to find out why we are having problems sleeping. Some 12 million people in the U.S. have obstructive sleep apnea and are not aware of the problem. Sleep apnea is becoming an epidemic in the US.

    As an aside, coffee itself appears to have effects that may or may not be related to caffeine:

    Coffee Drinking Associated with Lower Risk of Alcohol-Related Liver Disease
    Drinking coffee may be related to a reduced risk of developing the liver disease alcoholic cirrhosis.

    Coffee Drinking Related to Reduced Risk of Liver Cancer
    A new study on the relationship between coffee drinking and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) confirmed that there is an inverse association between coffee consumption and HCC…

    Drinking Four or More Cups of Coffee a Day May Help Prevent Gout
    Among its complex effects on the body, coffee or its components have been linked to lower insulin and uric acid levels on a short-term basis or cross-sectionally. These and other mechanisms suggest that coffee consumption may affect the risk of gout, the most prevalent inflammatory arthritis in adult males.

    Coffee Drinkers Have Slightly Lower Death Rates
    A new study has found that both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee consumption (up to 6 cups per day) is associated with a somewhat smaller rate of death from heart disease.

    Coffee May Protect Against Breast Cancer
    Depending on which variant of a certain gene a woman has, a coffee consumption rate of at least two-three cups a day can either reduce the total risk of developing breast cancer or delay the onset of cancer.

    Coffee Intake Linked to Lower Diabetes Risk
    Drinking coffee, especially when it is decaffeinated, may be associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes.

    Coffee Drinking Protects Against an Eyelid Spasm
    People who drink coffee are less likely to develop an involuntary eye spasm called primary late onset blepharospasm, which makes them blink uncontrollably and can leave them effectively blind.

    I mustn’t leave tea out of the discussion of caffeine. Again, it’s not known whether it’s the caffeine or some other ingredient, but there are beneficial effects (read the articles to be sure you understand how much and what types of teas were tested):

    Drinking Tea Associated with Lower Risk of Ovarian Cancer
    There is a 46 percent lower risk of ovarian cancer in women who drank two or more cups of tea (mostly black tea) per day compared with non-drinkers. Each additional cup of tea per day was associated with an 18 percent lower risk of ovarian cancer.

    Green Tea, Black Tea Can Reduce Stroke Risk
    Drinking at least 3 cups of green or black tea per day can significantly reduce the risk of stroke. And the more you drink, the better the odds of preventing a stroke.

    Black Tea Soothes Away Stress

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061004173749.htm

    New scientific evidence shows that black tea has an effect on stress hormone levels in the body.

    And finally, just when we thought that we were solving our own caffeine issues by switching to decaf, scientists warn us that Decaffeinated Coffee Is Not Caffeine-free! Researchers tests most popularly available coffee shop and store decaffeinated coffees, and found that only one — instant decaffeinated Folgers Coffee Crystals — had zero caffeine.

    divider
    July 24th, 2009

    Notes from USIP’s Serious Games for Peacebuilding- Part 2

    This posting is a continuation of my notes from the U.S. Institute of Peace‘s serious games seminar, called “Smart Tools for Smart Power: Simulations and Serious Games for Peacebuilding”. You can read Part 1 here.

    U.S. Military in Second Life. Scott Sechsner of Linden Lab, formerly a White House staffer, showed us Coalition Island in Second Life, where the U.S. Armed Forces feature what they are doing in SL. The Air Force is doing training and simulations. They currently have five islands and will be doubling that soon. The Navy has three islands and developed a video to show what they are doing in SL in addition to its other gaming simulations. The Army has two groups — one doing family counseling, another doing education/training. Military coordinators all meet together in SL to coordinate what they are doing in SL. This is aided by real time audio in SL. The quality of the graphics is better than Forterra’s. Canada uses SL for training border crossing guards. Judicial systems are also well represented, and buildings can easily be erected for remote training of judges, lawyers, or people with no judicial experience. There is also training in how to spot and identify land mines.

    SL is being used for prototyping and testing…in both the military and environmental and business systems. Sechsner showed a variety of examples on Faire Island. One of the problems with grass roots organizing is the difficulty of getting people together, and SL provides a way for people to connect, using real voice in real time. Security has been an important issue for the platform, but they have just created a server to use behind firewalls, so users can protect their environments. SL can be a good centralized spot to coordinate a lot of information from a lot of sources.

    Colonel Philip Evans, U.S. Army War College, Department of Defense Their course of training lasts 8 months, and comprises six core courses. Their charter is to cover the range of military operations, including peace making/negotiation. Participants are locked into a secure training system, so realism of documents is authentic. It’s a “free play” environment, and this is not an analytical game.

  • Capstone/decision making exercise.
  • Role playing/simulation exercise.
  • Strategic crisis negotiation exercise.
  • Each of their courses includes leadership, thinking, campaigning, decision making, joint operations, etc. They focus on acting “forward”, previewing 30-60-90 days down the road what happens based upon the decisions they make. The course materials are unclassified throughout, because they bring in associates from many other countries. Students tend to have 20 years of experience and Masters degrees.

    Evans says there are two aspects to a game: fidelity and engagement. Fidelity is how realistic it is. Engagement is what they have to actually do to participate in the game. Electronic Arts was consulted, and advised them to focus on engagement, not the details that will bore. Football players want to run, so less detail is needed on the avatars. Flight simulator operators don’t want to sit and stare at a screen four hours for the duration of a real flight, so compress the time needed to get to key decision points and interactions. Some ways they use to enliven training are incorporated into the simulation, for example, quick media interviews of students, visiting dignitaries, press briefings. They capture ideas…the culmination of each is a one hour After Action Review that focuses on what should be done going forward. The course used to be named the Strategic Crisis exercise. Although this is Army based, they also teach the students about the other branches besides military that can be used in a scenario.

    Business-process simulation and scenario analytics. Michael Martine from IBM showed highlights from their Innov8 program. IBM deployed Innov8 1.0 to over 1000 universities for use in classes (v2.0 now out). Gaming requires engagement with the material, and this enables learning by doing. BPM is one of the processes that can be used to find solutions and Innov8 is based upon BPM. Innov8 can be played free online, although registration is required. More information is available from the Smarter Planet brochure and introductory video. Someone raised the question of whether face to face interactions suffer if you do everything online. Face to face is important, he said, but once you have a relationship established, you can collaborate very effectively virtually. Farmers Insurance are using Innov8 to train call center reps, and it helps them to fail faster and optimize learning to improve productivity. To create a successful simulation art is needed from experienced game designers and graphic designers, but input from government is also needed to ensure that the scenarios and content are rich. And of course, we also need technology platforms.

    Virtual worlds for training and dispute resolution. Colin Rule, Director of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for eBay said that alternative dispute resolution has been around 30-40 years. The more recent online version just uses technology. There are more than 60 online providers around the world, and they provide services such as dynamic juries of microfinance lenders and recipients, monitoring ceasefires, and online Courthouses. eBay was one of the first to get interested in online dispute resolution. He is currently building the civil justice system for the eBay nation, which processes over 40 million disputes each year. Some lessons eBay has learned:

  • People enjoy judging and evaluating the performance of other people
  • There is a lot of power in large numbers of people (crowd sourcing)
  • The aggregate can be better than the opinion of one individual
  • eBay created the Community Court, where the buyer and seller can provide any information they want and then it’s shared with a number of eBay community members, who make the decision. eBay is partnering with Facebook and others to expand the concept. He described the process as similar to peace building. The ODR is making its technology available to other groups to use, and it is on the cutting edge of conflict resolution. ODR.info has more information on the field of online dispute resolution.

    Open Sim Platform of USIP. Ronald “Skip” Cole of USIP supports open source, democratic building of one’s own sites. They teach courses/simulations in peace building. They use a tool that is available for anyone to use — Open Sim Platform. OSP is based upon Google code, and was built by educators for learning simulations. It is open source and available today. USIP hopes to democratize the ability to build sims, not just use them. Today’s world is more nuanced and society demands war operations without much loss of life. “What I hear, I forget, what I see, I remember, what I do, I know,” says the ancient Chinese proverb. USIP wants to encourage many simulations built and spread out around the world. Anticipated future advancements: OPM (Other people’s models incorporated) and AI characters (a hybrid model of agents and actors). Skills needed to build a scenario include: drive (a strong need), ability to identify who the actors are and what types of actions can happen to them. He recommends that scenario designers just put something out there and let people beat on it, see what survives, and then build version 2. The future is dribbling into our daily lives and USIP wants to make it possible for anyone anywhere to build and share a simulation.

    divider
    July 21st, 2009

    Notes from USIP’s Serious Games for Peacebuilding – Part 1

    A few days ago I participated in the U.S. Institute of Peace‘s serious games seminar, called “Smart Tools for Smart Power: Simulations and Serious Games for Peacebuilding”. It was a good agenda, and the audience was actively involved with both providing information to supplement the presenters and in raising questions that added a lot of depth to the presentation. They plan to have a video archive of the meeting available on their web site in about two weeks. Here are some notes and thoughts on the sessions. Since it’s long, I’ll publish Part 2 in a day or two.

    3D Virtual Immersive Environment Program. Lockheed Martin’s Virtual Lab presented a Forterra based program they have developed. They showed a demo of a SCORM-based learning unit in a mock field scenario. Not terribly realistic, but, in fairness, it is still more interesting than giving someone a handbook and telling them to read about it. (/stepping up on soapbox) I continue to have issues with Forterra simulations that I have detailed before — washed out colors, uninteresting and poorly animated avatars, and lack of sufficient detail in the environment to warrant a 3D tool. The limitation is not in the content itself, which seemed convincingly scripted, but in the platform. It’s like jerky paperdolls walking around in a 1987 game background done in pastels. I understand the concept of having minimal memory and processing requirements so it can be accessed on older computers; however, the experience is very unsatisfying by 2009 standards. What is our military running in the field today — 286 PCs with 64 megs of RAM? I simply don’t believe that. Perhaps Forterra just does really good marketing. It would be interesting to see research on whether the Forterra platform provides a significantly improved learning experience (that justifies its cost) over more traditional methods using actual photographs and videos, with people discussing their own live experiences. The 3D environment is just too barren to warrant all the claims for how realistic the learning is. It really doesn’t provide the realism that is needed for the life and death situations they are simulating. (/off soapbox) I guess I will never be offered a job at Forterra now! :)

    Web-based (text based) Negotiation Simulation. Professor John Wilkenfield, a political scientist for the ICONS Project, the training and education arm for International Development at the University of Maryland, introduced their text based negotiation tool, which started with DARPAnet and provides text-based exercises. Their focus is how people interact with each other over complex issues in a negotiation. They found that text is more effective and using web cams or other live video detract from what is being discussed. I share their view, which is to use the right model for what you are trying to accomplish, and think text can be very effective. Text based multi-user platforms are quick to learn, quick to start, low bandwidth, can be monitored and facilitated in real time, can be recorded, can result in transcripts, and members can participate from about anywhere in the world. Much of the ICONS program is like a posted message board/chat room tool with private chat windows available, so multiple discussions can occur simultaneously. Once the simulation is complete, they suggest that a live video debrief could help participants to know better with whom they were debating. Facilitators can be assigned to each group taking a position in the simulation, and a transcriber can be assigned to each group to be sure deliberations are captured. Different levels of language skills might be an issue in groups of mixed nationality. One article about ICONS simulations is here. What about body language? Body language is also somewhat problematic. A lot of what we understand from a discussion comes from body language cues, as mentioned in an article by David Gardner of Venugen. There is also an interesting paper on gesture archetypes (which 3D avatar modelers could learn from!). ICON’s model is to allow participants to use the technology and expertise they have in house. Everything is recorded, so it’s possible to go back and review, as well as identify the defining moments that aided or were destructive to the negotiations. An interesting aspect of the ICONS tool is that it captures the background and preparations prior to actual gamed negotiations as well. One might say they are using a least common denominator approach that provided a useful contrast to the 3D assumptions of most of the other presenters.

    How to encourage nonviolent conflict resolution or protests. A Force More Powerful is a political video game simulation presented by Steve York and Ivan Marovic. The target audience is people in the street anywhere in the world. Their focus is on the area between prevention and resolution, where conflict must be waged. The question is how to do it nonviolently. In 70% of countries where dictators were thrown out, non-violent civil resistance was the cause, they said (which I question, since causation is not that simple). Protesters need a way to learn and fail without committing live resources. AFMP is designed as zero-risk opportunity to learn methods of nonviolent resistance by doing. It is a turn based single player game, using clickable objects in a static environment, but built using artificial intelligence that adapts to the player’s actions. York, a documentary film maker, started the computer strategy video game as a documentary film project in 1999. While AFMP is currently only available on CD, it will be on the Web in the fall, tentatively in October. Marovic demonstrated the game. The player is a strategist in nonviolent struggles against dictators, oppression, violence, etc. There is a strategic core of commonality that the game builds upon, and it allows loyalty shifts among the computer generated avatars, based upon the moral issues and decisions taken by the player. The games helps the player to tease out whose loyalties can tentatively be shifted, which is a serious challenge for activists, allowing them to concentrate their efforts more effectively. The game has been out three years and they have mailed 12,000 copies to-date, with no ads. Interestingly, they did not copyright the game as a conscious strategy, because they wanted to get viral distribution around the world. They believe more than 100,000 copies are in use today. Unfortunately, they can’t get feedback from users, because they don’t know where most of the copies are. A new and different game is about to go into beta testing with users in a few weeks.

    One really interesting aspect to AFMP is that players will be able to design their own scenarios around fictional or actual countries/communities/group socioeconomic characteristics in next edition of the game. The community of users will become valuable supports for one another. Security/anonymity is important for activist leaders, of course, so scenarios will be exchanged as free downloads on a web site that can potentially create broader conversations. York and Marovic believe that people training themselves about their interests is more powerful than premade training coming from a central source. AFMP helps people to improve their leadership skills and understanding of all the issues of a protest. The scenario builder will let people who live in a place and know the real life details input information. This will make the play a more realistic experience. AFMP is at the opposite end of the spectrum from ICONS, where a facilitator focuses the conversations. This game has characteristic skills and quantification tools that enable a group to build momentum in their struggle, which is required to make progress. It also allows inexperienced leaders to learn that they will make mistakes and find ways to recover from the mistakes that will inevitably be made. Strikes and boycotts and mass acts of civil disobedience require participation. That means groups must start small and gain little victories to achieve momentum and gain big victories. Can one play characters other than non-violent dissenter? Yes. Can the game be fun? The makers say yes. The player is the victim of violence, yet learns ways to use non-violence to confront the violence of regimes — a worthy objective for any game!

    divider
    July 16th, 2009

    3D Environments for Communities

    The second entry I started in the CPSquare community technologies wiki is “3D Environments”. Here is what I have written so far. If you would like to comment or make changes, please feel free to jump over to the wiki and add your voice!

    Definition

    3D environments are persistent virtual locations created by game or graphic designers where participants, represented as animated figures in a three dimensional visual environment that can vary from fanciful to realistic, may interact with other participants or objects in the environment in real time.

    Description

    3D environments incorporate traditional communication tools, like typed chat, private messaging, and local live voice chat, but provide additional features, like avatar animations, embedded video and slide presentations, and computer generated characters for avatars to interact with, for a customized user experience. 3D environments enable participants to have a more realistic interaction with one another than is possible using text chat tools. Many 3D environments permit users to modify the appearance of their avatars, build new 3D objects in the environment or modify existing objects to provide a highly customized experience that is shared by all participants. Communities in virtual world parallel traditional communities in that they can be affinity groups, gaming groups, family groups, business groups, fan groups or just about any other sort of community.

    Uses in Communities of Practice

    3D environments offer participants from dispersed locations an opportunity to participate in group work or conversations with a sense of presence or tele-presence. Customizable avatars give users the ability to represent themselves accurately or frivolously, and interact with other avatars in the 3D environment just like people meeting in the real world. In a non-gaming context, VoIP is typically used to provide live voice conferencing and further “humanize” the 3D interaction experience. Some uses communities make of 3D environments include:

    * Training/education
    * Virtual business or planning meetings
    * Online conferences
    * Virtual trade shows
    * Recruiting
    * New hire orientation
    * Online presence indicators
    * Collaborative building
    * Performing arts presentations – virtual concerts, theatre and dance
    * Shared virtual travel
    * Enhanced participation by members with physical disabilities

    Key Terms

    * Avatar – An animated online persona that represents the user’s chosen embodied appearance to other people in a virtual world environment. The key is the user controls the behaviors and appearance of the virtual alter ego, rather than manipulating a preprogrammed or computer generated character. Avatars are also occasionally referred to as “toons”, a parallel term derived from the online game Disney’s Toontown
    * Persistent environment – A virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world. User-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent, and NPCs interact with users in an adaptive way. Since the environment does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character’s actions in a persistent world will have consequences that the user must deal with.
    * NPCs – Non-Player Characters. NPC is the term for scripted or animated characters that are part of the programming of the persistent world and are not operated by human users.
    * Real time – When scenarios or actions respond to events as they occur and at the same rate as the user is performing the actions.
    * Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) – Massively Multiplayer Online Games. MMOGs are video games that are capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously in real time in a single persistent environment. MMOGs are played over the Internet because of the number of simultaneous users and locations involved. Players are represented by avatars in the environment, and real time voice communication using VoIP often supplements communication tools available within the game world. Multiplayer games may also be played by small groups of players over LANs or private networks. MMOGs can enable players to cooperate and compete with each other on a large scale, and to interact meaningfully with other remote users. The artificial intelligence on the server is primarily designed to support group interaction or play. MMOG worlds are typically large, varied environments, so users are not concentrated in a single world location. Examples: World of Warcraft, Everquest, Lineage, Castle Wolfenstein.
    * Virtual World – A 3D simulated environment that appears to have the characteristics of some other environment, and in which participants perceive themselves to be interactive parts. Users are represented on screen as themselves or as animated characters, and interact in real time with other users in structured or unstructured activities. The first virtual worlds on the Internet were text-based (limited graphical representations) communities and chat rooms. Some virtual worlds have off-line, real world components and applications, such as business meetings, training seminars or monitoring network server farms. Examples: Second Life, Kaneva, Active Worlds
    * 2.5 D – An informal term used to describe visual phenomena that are actually 2D with 3D-looking graphics to emulate a 3D experience. Also called pseudo-3D. One method adds a “depth” channel or Z-buffer which may act like a height map to a 2D image; others include isometric or axonometric projection. It also describes 3D scenes built completely or partially from a composite of flat 2D images or where gameplay is restricted to a 2D plane displayed in a three-dimensional space. 2.5D environments require less computer processing power. Examples: CyWorld, Habbo Hotel, vSide.
    * Machinima – The use of real time 3D graphics rendering engines to generate computer animation, as well as works that incorporate this animation technique. Its real-time nature favors speed, cost saving, and flexibility over the higher quality of pre-rendered computer animation. Machinima can be filmed by relying upon in-game camera tools and artificial intelligence or by controlling characters and cameras through digital puppetry.

    Benefits Over Traditional Tools

    * Strong sense of having been in a “face to face” experience – more lifelike interactions possible
    * Reduces meeting travel expense
    * Allows remote members to participate as if they were present
    * More experiential than traditional online meeting tools
    * Relatively inexpensive software to install and use
    * Fun

    Limitations Over Traditional Tools

    * Learning curve for new users and non-gamers may be longer. Avatar manipulation requires users to learn movement and social interaction keyboard commands.
    * Audio conversations require transcription to text if a text file is needed.
    * Audio files and text logs of conversations are unedited and raw. Both need editing/clean-up to create a file that can be reused or distributed to non-attendees.

    Comparable to Traditional Tools

    * Interactions may be synchronous or asynchronous
    * Global interactions in real time may create time scheduling challenges

    divider
    July 6th, 2009

    Connection Finders Software

    A few days ago I became aware of another wiki started by the folks at CPSquare called the Technology for Communities project. I decided to try again with wiki editing, and developed an entry for the “Connection Finders” software entry, which had been outlined by Etienne Wenger, Nancy White and John Smith. I’ve been researching new and emerging KM technologies recently, so I thought it would be fun to branch out a bit in that direction. Here’s what I have so far. The wiki is open to the public, so feel free to add your own comments over there.

    Have you ever seen KM systems that parse emails, music and image files, notes and reports to greatly expand the amount of information that can be made available to an organization? It can be a little unsettling to think that your emails could be accessed by anyone, or that the note you were drafting to your son’s Little League coach might show up unexpectedly in someone else’s search results. The software vendors assure us that it’s possible to give the author the final say about what gets published in the knowledge base, but I tend to fall back on the adage, “If you don’t want to see it published in the New York Times, don’t put it in writing.” But that’s just me. There are a lot of valid and useful reasons to capture as much information as possible. I won’t go into those now, though.

    Definition: Connection finders analyze online activities of individuals to infer interest and expertise through keywords and frequency of use.

    Uses in Communities of Practice: To some communities, this may feel like having “big brother” watching. When a community is large, very dispersed, or just gathering, however, it may be useful to the members themselves to get help finding others with similar interests. Many people fail to create personal profiles or describe all their interests, so connection finder software can ensure that all key interests are reflected in profiles, leading to more effective expertise location. Most connection finder systems permit the individual to review/edit any postings before the content becomes public. Seeing the network structure of the community change over time can also be interesting.

    What information the system considers: Connection finder software may reference any organizational content assets or structured information, including documents, images or recordings already available in a variety of locations. The newer systems also focus on scanning “unstructured” content, business processes, line-of-business solutions, and information exchanges between employees, such as blogs, emails and instant messages. By evaluating all the writings of an individual in the organization, a meaningful personal profile can be built automatically. By analyzing text using artificial intelligence, sources and documents that might not have been categorized together in a traditional taxonomy can be discovered. The ability to systematically capture, create, manage, access, review, distribute, publish, store and preserve all business content-from ERP/CRM systems, databases, e-mails, documents, file systems and external information systems-and leverage this information to its full potential is the goal of connection finder software.

    According to KM World, “Structured information only represents 20% of a company’s enterprise information assets. The remaining 80% of valuable information is in uncover (sic) form dispersed across the enterprise–in e-mail, document management systems, file systems, instant messaging systems, records management systems, knowledge management systems and other stored documents. This 80% of unstructured information is often overlooked as a key information source for tactical and strategic decision making.” Business content should include best practices and personal expertise, and needs to be linked, referenced and integrated to give a complete picture. A single interface then allows users to access, search, report, collaborate, analyze, track and audit against personal profiles and other enterprise content.

    How much control users have over the inferred profile: There are a number of variables governing how much control a user has over their inferred profile, including:

  • Corporate policies
  • Software capabilities
  • Editing/authoring permissions
  • Profile elements to be modified
  • Evaluations/rankings by other users (if allowed)
  • Related Tools: Here are three out of a much longer list at the wiki.

  • Attensity
  • Collexis
  • Recommind
  • There is also a list of Key Features of connection finder software on the wiki. Your thoughts and additions would be welcome!

    divider
    June 29th, 2009

    Update on KM Approaches Exercise

    What an interesting experience it has been for me to participate in the discussion I referenced in my last posting! It started as a simple request for a distinguished group of knowledge management professionals, teachers and consultants to come up with a list of categories for the variety of activities people generally lump under the heading of “Knowledge Management.” It should have been a fairly straightforward exercise along these lines: prepare a “straw man” of about 6-8 proposed headings, debate the headings, suggest the descriptors and examples to be included under each of the agreed headings, and then debate and finalize the content of each. In my experience, it would have taken a work team about two days to create a two-page document, finalize the entire thing and have it ready for publication. That has been far from my experience on this exercise! We are now about two weeks into the task and it is falling apart. I’ve been thinking about why.

    1. The group is a voluntary community. There is no organizational “owner” that stands to profit from the activities of the group, and none of the members of the group has a financial interest in any outcomes.

    2. There are no personal motives to participate in the discussion except personal interest or desire to share personal knowledge. No one’s boss is pushing them to participate, no one’s career advancement depends upon the outcome, and no one will lose face or credibility by not participating.

    3. The traditional heirarchy of the group’s leaders and experts have dominated the conversation and turned it into a theoretical debate on related, but tangential topics.

    The last point is the one that is most interesting to me. This dynamic is recurrent. Nearly any time the group starts to discuss practical applications of KM in real organizations, the conversation gets derailed. Perhaps it’s because the theoreticians don’t understand the practical realities of the roles most people call “knowledge management”. In business, KM professionals have to talk about things like ROI and technology requirements and intellectual capital development and knowledgebases. Theoreticians want to create frameworks to define KM and publish papers or books to validate that they were the first to propose a concept or terminology. Business KM is about getting things done and getting results within a defined timeframe. Theoretical KM is concerned with defining labels, identifying valid sources, and making contributions to advance the field. There is a fundamental disconnect between the two, and it is really showing in the exercise to categorize approaches to KM.

    After an initial flurry of discussion about the actual list, and moving the list to a wiki for further editing, practically no further work has occurred. One major addition has been an entirely different parallel list of “KM Interventions”. This is a classic theoretical vs. practical development. The practical list looks at KM activities in bundles as an ordinary person might understand them in terms that most people understand. (For example: Intellectual Capital = activities characterized primarily by valuation techniques that assign tangible value to intangible assets such as knowledge, expertise and customer relationships.) Each category or lens is based upon widely used terminology, technologies and concepts, and has the potential to be of practical help to people with little knowledge of KM or how it can be applied. The theoretical approach is to completely dismiss the “commonly used” terminology and attempt to define new, more global, more precise terms to help further the theoretical discussions. (For example: “KM intervention” – yet to be defined, but it sounds more important)

    In addition to the division of the wiki work into two topics/approaches, the discussion group itself has digressed into quibbling over details. Debates, for example, over whether “knowledge processing” is an acceptable term, and whether the person who proposed the term is only furthering their own academic interest by attempting to force use of the term which is a keystone of their personal (copyrighted) “KM framework”. Long messages that pull apart the postings of others to comment or provide contradictory references so that the limited time the readers have is mired in details they aren’t interested to read (so they don’t). It’s simply interesting to watch how quickly various posters jump up to defend their theories or concepts while contributing very little actual information to the exercise that was originally proposed. Practically speaking, it’s an example of how an unmanaged community has little hope of accomplishing practical tasks.

    It’s also interesting to see that by changing the names of the messages to reflect a point someone wishes to make, the thread that was making some progress and holding focus has now become scattered under so many new thread headings that no one can easily read and follow the development of the original idea. It has followed a process that is becoming lamentably common, where one or two people with time and energy dominate the conversation and move it in a direction they want it to go by voluminous postings, without attempting to draw others into the discussion and maintain the sense of “community” (or the original focus). They jump at any chance to win their point or force a point of view on others who may simply not have the same time available to respond, so just give up. It’s a sad thing to see that in a community. Often what results is that the people who don’t want to compete with the volume posters just take the discussion offline and hold it in private emails or in some other forum. The whole community loses out when that happens, not to mention that no further work is done on the original exercise — and that is where we find ourselves today. I will update if the situation changes.

    Update July 7: After about two weeks of discussion and debating tangential issues like uses of terminology and definitions of terms, and encouragements to get the community to edit the list over on Dave Snowden’s Wikipedia page, the project has died a quiet death. One or two people did make a few edits on the wiki, but the impetus has died. My quick assessment of why is:

    1. The person who started the conversation was too busy to continue, and sort of stepped aside after having thrown out the initial concept and made a few comments on it. There is no driver.
    2. Most of the people in the community are writers/presenters themselves, and they prefer to have clear ownership of something they can point to as “theirs”, rather than an anonymous group initiative. There is potential monetary value in it.
    3. Dividing an activity between two sources is never a good idea. Having the discussions in the online community, but doing the “work” in the wiki is not seamless. It takes users out of the applications they normally use and requires them to log in on some other system. It takes a high degree of motivation for participants to want to do that, and we just don’t have it.
    4. The product that would have been produced would have been helpful to new KM practitioners or anyone who is trying to understand what KM is. Most of the people in this community are beyond that level of interest.

    So, R.I.P. KM approaches/lenses. If it gets resurrected, I will update here again. Meanwhile, I’m waiting to see which of the people in the group who thought the list should be written up and published will run with it as their own. That’s the way it seems to work.

    divider
    June 20th, 2009

    Approaches to Knowledge Management

    I’m currently participating in an interesting discussion begun by Tim Kannegieter, a KM manager for the New Zealand Army Training Group. Tim is working on a Ph.D. thesis that has to do with characterizing boundaries as a way to select the most appropriate KM technique for a particular situation. He suggested that there may be a list of viable and/or accepted approaches to KM that the profession could agree upon in lieu of a definition of knowledge management. How the approaches are actually applied to specific circumstances or problems would vary, of course. Joe Firestone has written about applying KM techniques to problem solving here, and he raises the question of whether a conception of KM must precede approaches to KM. I don’t see Joe’s ideas or applications of KM techniques to be in conflict with Tim’s attempt to categorize KM approaches (which could then be applied to problem solving), even though they are presented differently. Richard Vines suggested referring to these approaches as “lenses” through which KM can be viewed based upon different conceptual sensitivities. That’s an appealing idea, since it enables us to also talk about the types of outcomes that each approach or lens might achieve.

    Describing the different approaches or lenses of KM lets us move past the need to define KM before starting to apply it to situations. It appeals to me, and aligns with my own concept of a unified theory of knowledge management, which I haven’t yet published. Eventually KM needs to be defined, but until it can be defined in a widely accepted way, this list gives us a way to discuss KM as the large set of tools and methodologies it comprises. It is a good beginning. Here are the approaches described so far. We are going to post the list on Wikipedia so anyone interested can have a say in the editing and related discussion, too, so if you have anything you’d like to contribute, please join in!

  • Technological approach – Treats KM as an information processing problem and is primarily characterized by technology solutions. Its theoretical basis is derived from cybernetics (information theory). Its appeal is that it builds upon an established powerbase and infrastructure in organizations. Its weakness is that it does not address the tacit aspects of knowledge processing. Some examples might include: search engines, RSS, authentication, knowledge bases, data warehouses, collaboration tools, posted message boards, email listservs, social media like instant messaging, Twitter, LinkedIn, content and author evaluation systems.
  • Sociological approach – Treats KM as an social learning problem and is characterized by community and narrative based solutions. Its theoretical basis is derived from practice theory. Its appeal is that it addresses the tacit side of knowledge. Its weakness is that it does not address transactional aspects of knowledge processing. Some examples might include: storytelling, community facilitation, cultural distinctions, case studies, norms and mores.
  • Cultural approach – Treats KM as a problem of developing an appropriate culture, and is characterized by change management techniques. Its theoretical basis is derived from human resource methodologies. Its appeal is … Its weakness is that it cannot happen without top-down leadership and technological support. Some examples might include: incentives, reward systems, training programs, multicultural customization, multilingual translations.
  • Networking approach – Treats KM as expertise location, and is characterized by methods or technologies that enable people with knowledge to be found by people who need the knowledge. It’s theoretical basis is derived from person to person shared expertise, such as native tribal rituals. Its appeal is that it permits situation specific knowledge transfers. Its weakness is that it is impossible to categorize everything any person knows, so profiles or documentation will always be incomplete. Examples include: group member profiles, social network analyses, peer-to-peer technologies, social media like Facebook pages, communities of practice, watercooler conversations, project team collaboration, lectures, web site live help chat.
  • Intellectual Capital approach – Treats knowledge as an intangible asset with value to the organization, and is characterized primarily by valuation techniques. It’s theoretical basis is derived from financial models and algorithms. Its appeal is that it assigns tangible value to intangible assets such as knowledge, expertise and customer relationships. Its weakness is that most generally accepted accounting procedures do not permit inclusion of intangible values, so management tends to discount it. Examples include: knowledge markets, knowledge asset valuation, ROI, processes, skills, reputation, attitudes, innovation, branding, patents.
  • Complexityapproach – Treats KM as a sense making problem and is characterized by ?? solutions. Its theoretical basis is that of complex adaptive systems. Its appeal is that it addresses intractable problems. Its weakness is that it can be hard for management to accept loss of control? Examples include: … (We are still working this one out.)
  • Economic approach – Treats knowledge as a cost management challenge, and is characterized primarily by efficiencies of scale. Its theoretical basis is derived from economics (??). Its appeal is that… Its weakness is that… Examples include: after action reviews, process documentation, Kaizen, Six Sigma (??) (We are still working this one out.)
  • Other categories suggested so far also include:

  • Anything Goes approach –
  • Neuroscience approach – Its theoretical basis is derived from evolutionary epistemology.
  • Management approach –
  • Knowledge Processing approach –
  • Linguistics approach – Its theoretical basis is derived from communication disciplines.
  • Decision interruption approach –
  • Expectations gap approach –
  • Ecological approach -
  • I found myself mixing both KM methods/activities and examples of the kinds of knowledge they deal with. That may muddy the waters a bit, but the list is still a working draft, so we’ll see where it goes. Share your comments or additions!

    divider
    June 16th, 2009

    Is There Morality in MMOGs?

    Morality is such an interesting word. To me, it is completely relevant to circumstances and place, and there is no absolute “morality”; there is only cultural morality. Of course, my view isn’t accepted by others with a straighter view, averring a single universal code that everyone should live by. I was thinking about this topic when I came across Oliver Saenz’ article in Cerise called “Killing Grannies, Slaughtering Monsters and Leveling the F*** Up.” His article is about the morality of video games, and he sums up with, “The hard part, though, lies in finding out where we stand, and the relationship between our own morality and the morality of the game we’re playing.”

    There are three types of morality to consider in MMOGs:

  • Morality of game content
  • Morality of avatar behavior
  • Morality of players behind the avatars
  • I’m going to focus on the last two in this long post. Discovering things about ourselves is certainly one of the reasons why we like or continue to play any game — games challenge us mentally, and synch up with our own understanding of morality (or lets us explore the alternatives to our own morality in a “safe” environment). It’s also why sociologists are starting to have a field day counting and interviewing and analyzing and reporting on MMOGs. Games are a microcosm for all the issues and emotions (and behavior choices) we face in our everyday lives, and morality is a factor players confront each time they play.

    Most players probably wouldn’t think to include “morality” on a list of criteria for why they like a game or feel resonant with it, yet if the predominant game morality violates their own, it will feel uncomfortable and they will leave. I’ve experienced this myself. It started with PvP in early games like Everquest, Ultima Online, and Dark Age of Camelot. Uncontrolled PvP in Ultima Online was a major factor in why I stopped playing that game. I refused to participate, because I fundamentally disagreed with the concept of deliberately trying to hunt down and kill another player, especially if it also involved being able to take items of value from them against their will. It extended to other games I tried and “didn’t like”…like Castle Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake and some video games. All of these were games where the goal was to shoot down or take out other players or NPCs. I don’t like to be hunted and I don’t like to hunt other characters in order to kill them. My philosophy is live and let live where other gamers are concerned.

    I know this is idiosyncratic — the purpose of all hack-and-slash MMOGs is to kill creatures and evil villains in order to gain experience, levels and better equipment and weapons — not to mention game currency. My imagination finds it easy to buy in to killing rats or evil mountain goats or spooky looking spectres or leperous zombies. For some reason, it’s not like “killing”, even though my avatar is clearly ending the “life” of those creatures with a sword or staff or magic spell. This is an example of personal morality at work. I never lose sight of the fact that those computer generated characters are scripted, are animated, and will reappear for others shortly after I kill them. It’s not like killing…it’s more like arm wrestling. You use your strength and tools against an opponent more or less your own strength, and then you win or lose and move on with no damage done. Games that are non-competitive or free form and not goal oriented feel slow and unstimulating. Most of us are goal driven people, being raised in modern societies that value punctuality, productivity, and multitasking. It’s natural, then, for us to carry our goal-driven tendencies into our play styles. Game goals are highly personal. They can vary from making items to sell to other players to being the the “baddest” warrior on the server to trying to amass a fortune in game currency to having the fanciest house to trying to complete every quest in the game, but we tend to set goals for ourselves, and they govern how we play, with whom we play, and the activities we prefer.

    MMOGs constantly challenge one’s morality.

    1. A newbie player stands in the bank and begs higher level players for gold or items. Do I give them a little something, or do I lecture them to go out and earn it doing quests like all the rest of us did? (In the back of my mind is always the question of what I would do if I knew this person in real life. Would I act differently? Am I inconsistent in my moral code?)

    2. A guild member I barely know in the game and not at all in real life confesses out of the blue, “I almost left my wife today, but I have two kids, and I just couldn’t do it.” My first reaction is always compassionate –oh no, how sad! — and then confused –oh dear :(. It’s too much information! I don’t want to know about this anonymous avatar’s real life struggles…we are there to play a game and get away from our real life roles and obligations. But still, there is a human being with a hurt on the other side of that typed chat dialogue, and he found me sympathetic for some reason. How far does my obligation of kindness to this semi-stranger extend? How polite and concerned will I be? I ask the question more of myself in a moral sense than a practical one.

    3. A group of players insist on chatting inappropriately in the most public of all chat channels in the game, using foul language, drawing ASCII pictures of middle fingers or breasts and spamming them to everyone, or deliberately inciting anger by using racial slurs or making cultural jabs. The fact that they can impose their immature or selfish styles on me against my will makes me angry and helpless, because there is little I can do to prevent such rude (and inappropriate) behavior. Do I turn them in to the game authorities (who will in all likelihood do nothing)? Do I whisper to them privately and ask them not to do it anymore and get ridiculed in return? Do I try to make a joke of it and distract the conversation in another direction? What do my choices say about my personal morality? Am I being too prudish and old-fashioned? Is my character weak if I don’t stand up for myself? Do I need to “lighten up” (as I’m often told by these characters) and just ignore it? Or does my sense of moral rectitude require me to point out publicly how their behavior impinges on the rights of others who are not there to witness mindless creativity with ASCII drawings? It’s a dilemma I have often, and sometimes I have to challenge myself later for the action I take (or didn’t take).

    4. A group of 20 people are in a raid group that has the goal to kill one specific evil game character, and they spend two hours getting a group together and getting to the place where they can have the encounter and fight the epic battle. When they succeed, an item drops that three people in the group need and want. One of the people is in the same guild as the raid leader, and the two other players are friendly players who just came along at the last minute to help out. The leader gives the valued item to his guild buddy, without allowing the other two to have a chance to win it or bid on it, even though all participated equally in completing the fight. There are lots of moral issues in this scenario.

  • The raid leader and his/her choice of actions.
  • The willingness (or unwillingness) of the rest of the group to allow such an action as a group norm.
  • The decision the two outsiders make about whether to challenge the actions of the group/group leader when they aren’t members, or perhaps even to challenge the legitimacy of the act by complaining to a game master. They may also have to decide whether to publicly decry the action to others.
  • The guild leader’s willingness to confront the issue openly and determine whether the raid leader’s actions represent what the players in the guild stand for and whether he/she is willing to take any disciplinary actions against the raid leader.
  • Unfortunately, in most of these scenarios, one player’s moral choice about how to respond to circumstances is irrelevant to the game makers, the other game players and any game outcomes. It is purely a personal choice made for personal reasons, and such choices do not influence game outcomes a bit. That’s one of the the things I find most compelling about morality in MMOGs — it truly only matters to the person making the moral decision. No one else cares or will even notice.

    The Role of Guilds

    There is another issue of morality related to guilds. In games like Warcraft and Everquest, guilds are an inherent part of the game now. Most players get into guilds to meet new players, to have people to ask for help, or to be able to do some of the game’s most difficult tasks. When guilds were a new concept, back in the late 1980s and even up to a few years ago when they became just labels rather than groups of comrades, guilds meant something. They were collections of like-minded people and, in many cases, real life friends and family. Members had a code they were expected to play by, since they were representing the guild when they played, and that code was usually a written contract with each new member. They shared a style of playing, a way of communicating, and a sense of belonging to a group of others who mattered. Members usually took that code pretty seriously when they played. What I notice today is that those of us who were around playing MMOGs in the 80′s and 90′s still often feel that sense of loyalty to our guild, and we try to participate in it and make it the type of guild we used to have. Unfortunately, there are a lot of new players today who have only been in MMOGs for a couple of years and share Gen Y’s streak of irreverence for tradition and authority. Guilds also no longer require agreement with codes of behavior for members. That is what sets up the moral dilemmas in guilds.

    Are all guild members created equally? What actions are serious enough to warrant throwing the person out of the guild? Do they deserve trust and respect and courtesy, even when they don’t show it in return? When there is a group within the guild with a certain set of expectations about what the guild is or should be (such as younger players or the group of most experienced power players), it invariably sets up a schism between two factions and their ideas for how the guild should function and recruit. Morally speaking, should I defend the guild as it was originally intended to be or to defend the original founders’ rights to set the agenda and tone for the group, even when they are in the minority, or, is it right to stand for the rights of the majority to lead the group in a new direction that not everyone (occasionally including myself in that group) wants to go? Is it immoral to commit to a guild under a set of assumptions and then participate in trying to overthrow those assumptions? Is it immoral to just cut and run from all these issues, and resign from the guild and look for a new play group? MMOGs are far from simple games that someone uses to escape from reality for a time. I use Bejeweled when I need that! They are actually a moral minefield that can challenge us in ways we don’t normally encounter in our daily lives. For me they are about playing with other people and working out the differences that invariably occur in a fair and equitable way. It mirrors how we learn to deal with real people in our real lives.

    What About Player versus Player?

    Interestingly, in the last couple of years in World of Warcraft I have come to enjoy PvP. It’s a different kind of gaming experience since WoW has two specific antagonistic forces, the Alliance and the Horde, and one is expected to be “against” the other side, not just a single other player. The entire game is structured successfully around that concept. PvP in WoW is fast-paced, usually completed within a short time frame, and usually without any of the bothersome types of commitments that guilds or regular raid groups require. It’s not about camping beside a road and jumping unsuspecting other players and killing them for fun. You get in, you are thrown together with a group of 15 or 40 strangers as a team, you play the match, and one side or the other wins and it’s over. That’s it. I may die two or twenty times in a match, but there is little penalty, other than some lost time, and there are good game rewards to gain from playing. There is also no sense that the killing or defeating the other side is personal. It’s simply how that aspect of the game is played, and one can opt out of PvP battlegrounds if it is distasteful. There is more a feeling of matching wits or managing resources better or devil-may-care fun than a sense of deliberately starting out to murder someone. And it helps that the opponent typically looks like a huge hairy bull or a long-armed troll, and not a pretty, curvaceous humanoid, too! Maybe that’s a moral judgment I am making here — it’s okay to kill other players if they don’t look like my character and if they volunteered to be there. After all, I didn’t sneak up on them in their beds and whack them with an axe or a spell or anything; we are all there because we know what to expect. Doesn’t that remove any moral questions?

    On the other hand, maybe I’m justifying the immorality of “killing” by observing the other group’s physical differences from my own, something I would never do in real life, or by believing that if it’s done with a mace or a magical staff it’s not as brutal as holding a machine gun scope to my eye and decimating everything that comes within my cross hairs.

    Moral Standards in MMOGs

    The norms and mores of MMOG play today seem to adhere more or less to these standards, even though they are frequently challenged:

  • It’s okay to ridicule, coerce, demand or cajole other players in public chat channels as long as you don’t violate profanity guidelines or harrass them when you do it.
  • Players look for guilds of like-minded individuals and support the members of their guilds in preference to others outside of the guild, as long as there is some benefit in it for themselves.
  • It’s not okay to be greedy or to ignore the needs/rights of others in your guild
  • If you benefit from rewards when playing with a group, you are expected to continue to play with the group until everyone has what they came for. It’s not okay to take and run.
  • It’s not kosher to grab something of value that others also need and run away with it (“ninja”).
  • Guild members are expected to give away their talents/skills for free to other guild members (i.e., not charge any usual fees for making needed items).
  • Game morality is a little muddy — just like real life. That’s the whole point. MMOGs do have morality, just like real life, and even if a person is anonymous behind their keyboard, their true character still comes through in the choices they make in the game. The personal question I ask is: Is the moral character I am showing in my play actions representative of me in real life, and do I care whether it is or isn’t?

    divider
    May 20th, 2009

    What Came Before KM?

    Earlier this week Paul Hanyeli Okolo posted a question for discussion: What comes after Knowledge management? What was before?

    It started my wheels spinning. Even though Joe Firestone, David Snowden, Matt Moore and I, and numerous others in the Act-KM group, have wrestled for several years now to define KM, and KM’s relationship with learning, there still is no single, agreed answer that one might use, for example, to define it in an understandable way to one’s elderly mother or new boss. That, to me, means we still haven’t got a clear understanding of the elephant. We are still talking about parts.

    Ian Fry responded to the question by asserting that KM always was and always will be, adding, “across many nations every day millions of people transfer their tacit knowledge to others (many of whom cannot read nor write) – they are called Primary School Teachers.” I hadn’t really thought about teachers in relation to what I normally consider KM, but I have to agree with him. My less philosophical answer was going to be that before KM there were librarians, phone directories and stories around the cooking fire (or water cooler). I was thinking to argue that teaching is “knowledge transfer”, not “knowledge management.” But wait! Teaching may actually be KM, since teachers determine the curriculum, how it’s taught and what is taught. They are managing knowledge in one sense.

    Most of what business and professional people call KM, though, is actually facilitated knowledge transfer. I suggest that knowledge “management” consists of both making information available for person:information search (asynchronous) AND transferring information by story telling or narratives about personal experience in person:person search (synchronous). In all cases there is a “seeker” and a “source”. (There may not always be an answer.) There may have been a process or attempt to consolidate information into one place to make it easier to find (a library, a directory or database). There may have been rituals established for how one person shares what he/she knows with others or the organization (after action reviews, templates, audio descriptions). There may be formal knowledge transfer processes (classroom teaching, exit interviews, new hire training, procedure documentation). Knowledge management is always the means of chasing an elusive target and attempting to make it visible to others who need it. That’s part of the fun of KM as a profession, to me. The knowledge learned, captured or shared is never fully learned, captured or shared.

    Knowledge is at heart experiential. And that is why, to use Ian’s example, a mother chimp takes a stick and pokes it into the termite hole in front of her baby. Pretty soon the baby has a stick and is trying to put it into a hole, too. Knowledge transfer will always occur, but I’m not so sure that KM has always existed or will always exist. Some components of it will always exist…there will always need to be someone whose job it is to manage the databases. But one can envision a day when most human knowledge and experience is somehow codified and accessible on demand, and knowledge management as we call it today is no longer necessary. Maybe we will each have our own personal “Hal” or embedded microchip. But that’s a topic for another day. :)

    divider
    May 17th, 2009

    The Warnogization of Wintergrasp

    Anyone who plays World of Warcraft probably recognizes that Wintergrasp is the name of a player-vs-player (PvP) zone in the land of Northrend, launched several months ago as a game expansion. Wintergrasp is the first zone fully dedicated to PvP activities that is not an instanced encounter where a fixed group interacts uniquely with the game content or another fixed group of PvP players. In Wintergrasp (WG), players enter and leave the zone at will through portals, by using a normal flight path “taxi” or by parachuting in from a fly over. At any given moment, there are both Alliance and Horde faction characters in the zone, and they have the right and ability to kill each other for honorable kills, if they choose to.

    The primary feature of the zone is Wintergrasp Fortress, a massive 5-room walled fortress with towers and cannon turrets that has the potential to be controlled by either faction. Every 2.5 hours there is a formal battle for control of Wintergrasp, in which dozens of players in each faction try to conquer (or defend) the fortress in a half-hour time window. They do this by killing enemy players (who are resurrected and rejoin the game within minutes), building and/or destroying seige vehicles like catapults and demolishers, and ultimately, breaking through the inner doors of the fortress to seize the “relic” which is stored there. Once the relic has been seized (or defended), the battle is over, and the vanquished side disperses, leaving the victors with the free run of the fortress, access to special armor and weapons merchants, and control over the Vault of Archavon raid instance, which can only be used by groups of the victorious faction.

    Doing PvP in WG became a staple in my WoW gaming several years ago because it is an individual type activity. I have an unpredictable play schedule, and no guilds or formal premade groups are needed to PvP. For Wintergrasp, any high level player who shows up can join the multiple 40-man raid groups to attack or defend for that round. The raid groups consist of players from the same server, so they are people one sees again and again, but players rarely know anything about the real people behind the characters they are playing with. As with most MMOG activities where anonymity is the norm, WG can bring out the worst in people. It’s a fascinating socialization activity to study.

    On my server, which is a normal (non-PvP) server, there are generally about 100-120 Alliance players in a Wintergrasp battle, and about 80 Horde players. It is a truly major group encounter in real time — unlike any before in any other game. Because there are typically more Alliance players, the Horde side generally receives a special power boost called “tenacity”, which increases their strength and power in proportion to how greatly they are outnumbered. Tenacity greatly provokes the Alliance team, and frustrates them, since they can’t win easily. In fact, when the horde has high tenacity and are greatly outnumbered, they often win. It is amazingly easy to provoke Alliance players verbally in such a melting pot of anonymous players. Some players are there to have fun and be amazed by all the visual fireworks. Some are there to earn the special marks obtained for winning or completing certain daily quests there, because they can be used to purchase high quality armor pieces and weapons. Some are there to tease and taunt, and some are there to grief. In other words, it is like any other MMOG group encounter, except it is magnified exponentially because of the number of players actually participating at once.

    Enter Warnog…a level 80 paladin character of questionable playing skill but of unquestioned devotion to the battle for Wintergrasp! I say that tongue in cheek. What I mean is, he is always there! I suspect he is a person who gets his kicks out of provoking reactions in people. Warnog must not sleep. He comes across as a surly, know-it-all, berating parent type person. He starts early in the fight to lambaste everyone in the zone for giving it all way, for being losers, for not knowing how to play, etc. He criticizes the attempts of other players to give guidance or directions. He ridicules failures when the “horde” team has a success. As a result, he has become a phenomenon. He is one of the few characters on our server whose name is instantly recognized by 75% of the more experienced players, in much the same way as another player named Perber achieved the same level of notoriety a couple of years ago by using the Auction House, where game items are traded for gold, to play the laws of supply and demand and manipulate the prices on many commonly needed items. In fact, I have found myself wondering more than once whether Warnog is a reincarnation by Perber’s “owner” to test other aspects of player mentality. I suspect that both of these characters are created by some graduate student somewhere to chronicle the fascinating interactions of players in multiplayer games. But I digress.

    Even before I started playing in Wintergrasp, Warnog was an institution. He is there for virtually every battle (and they start about every 2.5 hours, plus or minus half an hour), round the clock. Occasionally one finds him, a level 80 paladin sitting on his horse, dressed in “blues”…a rather mediocre set of armor for a high level player. Sometimes he is shooting a fortress cannon rather lackadaisically. Sometimes he is fighting the NPC guards on the bridge (who go nowhere and do nothing except fight other NPC guards on the bridge). I have even seen him driving a catapult, but going nowhere…just driving around in big circles and using it to fire at the NPC guards on the bridge. In other words, he doesn’t really fight the battle…he is just there to type taunts and provoke people. And it works!

    For the last three months I have averaged about four Wintergrasp battles per day. After the first few days of hearing Warnog berated publicly for his comments, I tried to turn the heat down a bit, by making light comments publicly, and trying to modify the sting of what he said. Several experienced players whispered to me privately not to bother, that it wouldn’t change things a bit. I soon realized that was true. People just want to harangue him back in the way he is haranguing them. I finally put him on “ignore,” meaning that whatever he had to say in the game would be blocked for me, and I wouldn’t have to listen. Before I did, though, I heard dozens of players making wild accusations about Warnog repeatedly, and then repeating them to newcomers as gospel: “He’s for the horde, and just tells us the wrong stuff to help them.” “He is incompetent…look at the armor he’s wearing.” “He doesn’t do anything but sit and tell us what we are doing wrong without helping.” “He drives tanks and catapults off into the brush somewhere and hides them so we can’t build more and the horde can beat us.” “He has no life. He lives in Wintergrasp. He’s always here!” It’s greatly amusing to hear the satisfaction players derive from feeling superior to Warnog!

    After a months of silence from Warnog’s commentaries, I decided to unblock him again. Nothing had changed. It was a different set of people responding to him and reacting to his comments, but their comments and reactions were predictable…they were all reactions to his same inflammatory diatribes. It’s quite funny to me to observe the dynamics, and quite sad, because there is absolutely no way to find out the truth behind the exchanges. I would love to know who that person is! Warnog may be a woman, may be playing from her office, and may have other high level characters that no one knows about. Warnog may be a man, may be disabled, and may have nothing else to do but attract attention to himself in this way. Warnog may be a group of college fraternity brothers who share this character and use it only to incite the Alliance to get some kicks from it. Warnog may be a Blizzard game master deliberately provoking people to see what would happen. We have no way to know. That is what makes it all so interesting. The other players react to Warnog predictably, hostilely, and disparagingly. Warnog takes it in stride and doesn’t even respond. He just keeps on with his rants, as if to see how far he can go. You even can imagine him sitting and chuckling evilly to himself at the replies.

    What is most interesting to me again is the safe anonymity of the keyboard. The ability to be anonymous behind the keyboard is one of the most powerful aspects of the Internet. It is the most revealing of human nature. Most of the players who feel free to swear at Warnog, call him names, ignore him, make rude gestures, or ridicule him would probably never dream of doing that to a person they barely know or just met in real life. If you want to know a person’s real character, put them in an anonymous situation where they are free to express themselves any way they want, without fear of reprisals or embarrassment, and pretty amazing things come through.

    Some people are unexpectedly kind and compassionate. Some people listen thoughtfully to what others are saying. Some people are generous beyond belief. Some people will neutralize hot situations with gentle subtlety. And then there are the others…the large majority…who wouldn’t dream of being crass or ugly or sarcastic or cynical or critical to people they are trying to get to know in real life, but who let it all hang out as soon as they think it doesn’t matter because no one knows who they really are. These are the same people who post those videos and commentaries on their Facebook pages or YouTube and then regret them later when employers discover them during background checks. Employers would get an earful if they could sit in Wintergrasp and listen to their prospective employees interact with Warnog. I wonder all the time whether he is a sociologist, a psychologist or a game designer, and if that is what he is really doing. If you know, please let me know. I will keep it private — and would throw in a few gold, too. :)

    divider
    May 15th, 2009

    Tweeting

    I had planned never to write an article on Twitter, but I am fascinated by the brand spinning that goes on there. Mark Luckie at 10,000 Words blog has a useful article on The Top 7 Mistakes New Twitter Users Make, and he touches lightly on the need to create a personal brand on Twitter. This can include everything from coloration to the avatar/picture selected to user name and personal profile. I probably shouldn’t be surprised that so many people are so skilled at branding themselves, but I guess that’s what’s needed today in the competitive marketplace. Especially for creative types and anyone looking for their 15 minutes of fame. It is fascinating to see how little space really can create an impression of the author in an instant.

    Since I’m talking about it anyway, is the Twitter terminology going to settle and standardize? It’s too faddish for it to last as it is — how many ways can one talk about bird chirps? Twitter users were first called tweeters and their posts were tweets. Soon they were twitterers writing tweeps, or in the parlance, twitting tweeps (or should that be twitting tweeters?). It’s all the rage for TV journalists to use Twitter…Rick Sanchez and Larry King on CNN to name two (though I don’t believe for a minute that they are twittering themselves…that is what staff are for, in the same way that many executives still have their secretaries print out their emails for them to read). These guys usually dodge the savvy lingo and say, “Write to us on Twitter” or something similar. The tweets they get from the twips tweeting to their twelcome page, though, are generally as twittish as it’s possible to be in 140 characters. Are people who twitter twits? That would have had a negative connotation just a few years ago, but maybe they are. I really don’t know how to talk about it in a serious way. Maybe no one does, and that’s the point of this entry. Instant messaging has a practical use. Twittering is a fad for the desperate-to-be-famous, and I think it will soon pass. If it doesn’t, look at what may happen to all of us!

    Update July 6: In the useful and the bizarre uses of Twitter, several things have happened since I posted this blog entry. First, the elections in Iran. The populace rose up in protest against the election results, and once the government clamped down on them, used Twitter and cell phone cameras to document and send out to the world news of what was happening on the ground in a place where media was restricted. That was pretty cool! Secondly, Michael Jackson died, and the volume of Twitter messages was so great that it crashed the servers. That was impressive! Thirdly, the multiplayer game World of Warcraft now has its own Twitter client! This is in the bizarre category! Brandon Boyer at Boing! Boing!’s Offworld reports that Tweetcraft for Warcraft is now available from Codeplex. Apparently it is urgent among some players to notify people instantly when they log in, enter an instance or gain an achievement. Or to upload in-game screenshots immediately. The phrase, “Get a life!” comes to mind…

    Update March, 2011: Twitter has proved to be a visionary service in the light of the governmental collapse in Egypt and Tunisia, and in the current fighting in Libya and other regions. It is making news reports on the ground available almost instantly through traditional news channels. This immediacy is stunning, and has already changed the way we view and expect news reports. It provides ways for anyone with a cell phone or laptop anywhere in the world to tell a story or cry for help or capture an amazing act of courage. For this I give kudos. I’m really glad that it turned out to be more than just nit-twits broadcasting their chagrin with a train schedule or celebrities highlighting where they plan to jog in an hour. Give the people an easy and inexpensive tool and they will always find imaginative ways to use it. Bravo!

    divider
    May 8th, 2009

    Another Virtual Breakthrough for the Disabled

    Researchers at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia have developed a new computer system architecture that can carry out gesture recognition. The early version of this technology uses “data gloves” that allow the computer to monitor the user’s hand or shoulder movements. This input can then be fed to a program, a game, or simulator, or used to control a character in a 3D virtual environment. The user wears the data gloves, which have illuminated LEDs that are tracked by two pairs of computer webcams and work together to produce an all-round binocular view. Standard input devices like a computer mouse and keyboard do not mimic natural hand motions, such as drawing and sketching. These devices have not been developed for ergonomic use or for people with disabilities. The data gloves permit more natural movement and a wide range of movement commands for people with limited movement ability.

    Researcher Manolya Kavakli of the Virtual and Interactive Simulations of Reality Research Group at Mcquarie developed the interface using a stereoscopic display (VISOR) and various motion capture systems, including a Vizard Virtual Reality Toolkit, an immersive projection system (VISOR), an optical tracking system (specifically the Precision Position Tracker (PPT) system) and a data input system. Using this architecture, Kavakli has developed two gesture recognition systems to-date: DESigning In virtual Reality (DesIRe) and DRiving for disabled (DRive). DesIRe allows any user to control simulators or other programs dynamically in real-time. DRive allows a quadriplegic person to control a car driving interface using input from just two LEDs on an over-the-shoulder garment. For more precise gestures, DataGlove users can gesture using their fingers.

    Kavakli also has created a gait recognition system that uses a motion capture suit to capture the unique traits in a person’s walk. By having the subject walk normally, then happy, then mad, the suit enables researchers to measure hip movement, stride length, posture, head position and various biomechanical aspects to create a unique gait profile. While gait recognition has obvious uses in criminology, for example, in airport security, we can imagine that it could be applied as well to use in a 3D virtual environment, enabling avatars to mimic the movements and gestures of the live user.

    Update: February 16, 2010. Today I came across an informative video from Alan Brightman of Yahoo’s Accessibility Lab showing some of the improvements Yahoo is developing to make Web browsing easier and more efficient for people with physical and visual impairments. Two useful tools are a large switch that can be hit easily by people with gross motor skill impairments, and the other is a reflective dot that can move the cursor on the keyboard image on the monitor and by resting on a key, cause it to type. Very interesting things are happening to enable the disabled, and I will continue to update them as I find them.

    divider
    April 25th, 2009

    Defending Virtual Worlds

    This morning I was surfing and found an article typical of intelligent people who have just discovered virtual worlds. It was speculating about the various possibilities inherent in virtual worlds and exploring how they could be used for e-commerce. One of the readers posted an extremely long and disillusioned message about how Second Life is the “land of the weak, home of the broken.” I was really sorry to read the the author’s disillusioned and cynical comments. It’s too bad that he/she is so angry at life that he/she can’t celebrate the adventure and creativity and joyful aspects that are also inherent in virtual worlds. I agree with one of the other authors there that immersive virtual worlds can have dark aspects. I remember, for example, finding myself accidentally in an unsavory place in Second Life, and while I was trying to find the way to get out of there, being chased through the streets by a naked male avatar with a full erection who kept shouting at me. Hey, just don’t spend your time in those places or with those people! There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water!

    I have been active in virtual worlds practically since they started, and I have been an online multiplayer game player for 22 years. It hasn’t stopped me from, at the same time, getting a master’s degree, working as an executive for several Fortune 50 corporations, having a 25 year marriage, meeting several close friends through games, and being highly interconnected to my real world family, even though we are all scattered all over the US. Over the past 20 years, I have met literally dozens of “friends” I socialize and play with in virtual worlds in real life, either individually when I traveled or in groups at special gatherings. They are highly enjoyable meetings, even though they occasionally diminish my regard for the virtual personal after I meet their maker! The fact is, we get from virtual worlds what we bring to them from the real world. Our “baggage” can turn a situation that is funny or intellectually interesting to one person into a psychotic episode to another. There are plenty of ways to protect oneself from the unpleasantries of the virtual world, just as there are in the real world. For one, just get out of the situation. It’s virtual…there are no mortgage payments or dependent children keeping you tied there! Just turn it off.

    Many organizations are starting to find bottom line value in virtual worlds, as they gain wider acceptance in the consumer community. Not all virtual worlds are Second Life or have as wide open a society as Second Life does. WebKins is highly successful with the 7-12 year old group and generates substantial revenues from real world product tie-ins/toys. Habbo Hotel is successful with obtaining paid corporate sponsors eager to reach 10-13 year olds through virtual special events and product tie-ins. Because of Habbo’s excellent and ongoing research into their target audience, they are able to charge a premium to their corporate partners for access to a very large and validated market niche. Educators are beginning to provide extremely interesting and engaging courses and classes in virtual worlds, and there is a booming business in virtual corporate meetings and virtual travel. There has also been a lot of research in the last two-three years that shows the value and the potential for improving certain aspects of life that immersive virtual worlds offer to individuals. Some, like Nick Yee’s The Daedalus Project and Edward Castronova‘s virtual world research are well known. Others, like Virtual Ability and Level Playing Field Institute, which offer support for disabled people to participate in virtual worlds, are less known.

    Just because one sad person has a bad romantic experience caused by a meeting a virtual personality in the real world doesn’t make a virtual world a bad or a worthless place any more than being injured on a roller coaster ride at Coney Island makes all theme parks dangerous. The potential for personal relationships is only one small sliver of what virtual worlds have to offer.

    divider
    March 20th, 2009

    More New Tech

    Periodically there is a wave of new and interesting technologies related to the things I am interested in. This is one of those times. Here are a few new discoveries I’ve made related to virtual worlds and the intersection of the Web with real life that will leave you excited about the future…both for the disabled and for all the rest of us.

    * Disabilities and Virtual Worlds. First, equipment. There is an interesting helmet called “the cocoon” being developed, which brings to life something missing from most 3D video games and movies…other senses besides sight and sound. Using a breathing tube, scents can be triggered to cause the wearer to “smell” a virtual rose garden or the African savannah, and another device can spray flavors directly into the mouth to generate “taste”. An in-mouth device will help to create textures. The heat and humidity can be changed using a fan and heater, while surround-sound speakers recreate ambient noise. A team of British academics from York and Warwick universities are creating what they call the ‘Virtual Cocoon,’ and they say it stimulates the senses so convincingly that they call the experience Real Virtuality. In the future it may be possible to explore other parts of the world virtually in real time, too. For example, a device attached to a car on safari or a roller coaster could record the sights, smells, sounds and heat and transmit the sensations over the Internet to a Virtual Cocoon user on the other side of the world.

    The helmet is rather large because it features a high-definition high dynamic screen that produces pictures ten times darker, or 30 times brighter, than conventional television. The whole device rests on the head and is supported by shoulder braces. You can see a picture of someone wearing the helmet here. Professor Alan Chalmers of Warwick University says the headset should be ready within five years, and will cost about $3000.

    Emotiv Systems has introduced a breakthrough brain-computer interface system called the EPOC that allows the user to interact with gaming and 3D virtual world content using only their thoughts (EEG waves) and facial expressions (muscular signals). Using a headset with 14 adjustable electrodes and a gyroscope, the user is connected wirelessly to a personal computer, where they can use their thoughts and facial expressions to manipulate objects, move avatars, and even generate onscreen facial expressions such as smiles, winks and frowns. The consumer version is in active beta testing and will be released in late 2009. Sets can be reserved by registering on Emotiv’s web site for the amazingly low price of $299. (I advance ordered mine today!) The headset is lithium battery operated, and provides up to 12 hours of continuous use. Emotiv also offers a hands-free wheelchair technology based on the same device.

    Not long after writing my last blog post, I sat in on a Metanomics lecture in Second Life, and was delighted to discover some great things happening there for the disabled. People with a wide variety of physical limitations often struggle with the interface and the orientation needed to learn the commands used to control avatars and interact with the environment. They are often using devices to enable them to manipulate the computer indirectly. Alice Krueger (SL avatar Gentle Heron) and others at Virtual Ability Island provide a new user orientation designed with inexperienced and disabled users in mind. They also provide The Heron Sanctuary, where disabled people can meet others for in world avatar experiences as well as to develop real world friendships. Virtual Ability Island’s customized orientation is an accessibility-friendly environment, with ongoing classes and training for people who want to search for and evaluate health information. Alice herself is partially paralyzed and has short term memory loss from a traumatic brain injury. As she reports, SL provides a rich environment to dance, swim, climb mountains, ski, skydive and other social activities that provide great pleasure to people with physical and mental limitations who may be unable to leave their homes or their beds.

    Health Info Island provides a medical library, a consumer health library, ToxTown from the National Institutes of Health, the Accessibility Center Museum, and the Karolinska Institut. It also hosts the Path of Support, a walk with more than 70 information posters about the variety and types of assistance and organizations available to disabled individuals within Second Life. Cape Able Island offers support for the deaf and hard of hearing, which is expanding to include an art gallery for deaf/disabled artists, and a social services center. The Virtual Ability orientation center also offers free 3D wheelchairs, guide dog bots, and walking canes for avatars that choose to represent themselves with a disability or able people who want to have a virtual disabled experience.

    * Social Search Engines. In a 2003 article , Steve Bass at PC World described how to use search tools to locate people. I’ll bet he couldn’t have imagined that only six years later it would be hard to keep any private information private. Last week I read this startling article by J.R. Raphael in PC World that left me in a dilemma. It mentions that there are a number of software companies now specializing in “deep web” searches…drilling down into obscure web site pages to information deeper than the popular search engines scan…and still other companies that use these tools to perform paid people searches for human resource purposes, missing persons, business proposals, criminal investigations, birth parents of adopted children, class reunions, etc.

    I discovered four popular software products: Spokeo, Pipl , ZabaSearch and CVGadget. They were interesting to visit, and free for basic searches. I did a few casual searches on childhood friends. Discovering Rapleaf, however, really opened my eyes. Rapleaf searches all public records, including property and court records, and searches variations of a name, as well as social networking sites, like LinkedIn and Facebook, that post pictures and resumes, and Amazon.com. It will return a full dossier on a person, although there is a charge for all details. I hesitated to put my own name into it to see what tracks and personal data from my 14 years of surfing, chatting and purchasing would turn up in the public domain. I actually dreaded seeing what “anyone” could find out about me, and the time that would be needed to undo (to the extent one can) anything I really don’t want to have out there. While I saw some shocking examples of other people’s profiles, luckily, there was very little related to me personally. Mostly it was citations of articles I have written or replies I have posted on other people’s blogs, which was a relief. These days, one can’t be too safe. Another plus — Rapleaf also seems to be a responsible company that allows individuals to choose not to have their information searched. If you go to their web site, there is a clearly marked link for opting out of future searches on your name (I did).

    * Wearable Computing. Yes, I know you have read about this for years, but check this video out! It shows what “wearable computing” means today. It’s a lot more than just computers sewn into garments and projecting the Web onto an eyeglass lens! MIT Media Lab’s Fluid Interfaces Group has demoed a jaw-dropping version that resulted in appreciative bursts of applause from the audience. You can see Professor Patti Maes presenting the device in a very basic (and inexpensive!) form they call the “Sixth Sense”. It is “a wearable device with a projector that paves the way for profound interaction with our environment.” It can sense a package held in one’s hand and provide more information based upon criteria the user specifies (price, ecological friendliness, etc.), allowing quick and informed decisions about products the user may know little about. It can project a watch face showing the current time on the wearer’s arm, or a working calculator on the user’s hand. It can take pictures from a view framed by your fingers. It can provide reputation on a new acquaintance by projecting onto the new person a tag cloud built from key words based upon that person’s Internet activities (blog, tweets, Facebook, Amazon.com, etc.). And all of it is powered through the common cell phone, without taking the phone out of your pocket! Just imagine 3 years or 10 years from now! For an amazing artistic view of what using such a device might look like, take a look at Bruce Branit’s award winning video short of building an imaginary city.

    divider
    January 13th, 2009

    Wilde Cunningham, and Why Virtual Worlds Matter

    Serendipity. That’s what happened to me today as I started to do an update on new developments in virtual worlds to help the disabled. I was all set to talk about technology and activities that make virtual worlds accessible to the 1.3+ billion globally who are disabled, and then I was pulled up short and reminded of why those things are important — people. Today I discovered Wilde Cunningham.

    Wilde is a Second Life avatar actually played by a group of nine people in Dorchester, MA, four men and five women, who have cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy is a particularly challenging disease, because it is progressive, and as the body withers, the mind inside remains untouched. People with CP become physically limited to express their thoughts and ideas, because they cannot move their bodies to speak or gesture or write to express them. The noted theoretical physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking is an example. Wilde Cunningham has been in Second Life since 2004, experiencing freedom, creativity, and social interactions they cannot experience day to day. They say it has changed their lives. With the aid of a person they call their “mascot”, who types and creates what they ask, they wrote this in 2004:

    THE WILDE COLLECTIVE ON CRIMES AND INJUSTICES– MORE THAN OUR SHARE
    by Wilde Cunningham, 05/12/2004

    most of us, if not all of us, have had things stolen from us, because we were disabled

    many of us, if not all of us, have been slapped or abused physically, and several times

    all of us have been verbally abused– a lot! which hurts by the way!!

    we’ve had our money taken from us

    perhaps the greatest pain when our dignity has been taken, stolen.

    our humanity, feelings, kicked around and abused

    control. people take control. they take control of our things, our decisions. they force their will and preferences upon us. no we cant buy that. no we cant eat that. no we have to watch this. no i dont have time now. no you cant go anywhere. no you will be unable to move for awhile. no…

    Can we even imagine what it is like to live a day under such conditions? Making virtual worlds available to people who cannot get around and cannot experience a normal social life is an exciting opportunity (and one we can feel good about). It simply doesn’t occur to many able-bodied people that not everyone has the luxury of perfect vision, hearing, full use of their bodies, the manual dexterity to use a mouse, etc. Since we can’t see behind avatars, in virtual worlds we very often experience the best ideas and brilliance of physically limited people we might tend not to see in our every day lives. We can “hear” words they otherwise could not express. Virtual worlds, where the handicapped are able to create their own businesses, participate in learning/educational experiences, socialize, and interact with other real people in a buffered way that removes judgments based upon appearance, are a great enabler.

    Since their early days in SL in 2004, Wilde Cunningham has achieved some notoriety. Tim Guest wrote a book called Second Lives: A Journey Through Virtual Worlds in which he featured Wilde Cunningham in two chapters. They have had an island home in SL for several years, where each person has built (with assistance) their own meaningful environment. One is a crystal garden, where an avatar can touch a dispenser and receive one of Wilde Cunningham’s writings, such as this one:

    trapped, by mary

    i’m trapped inside my body
    trapped inside this shell
    while the outside doesn’t look so good
    the insides doing well

    its hard to speak the words don’t come
    as easy as for you
    how can i show you what i feel
    or all that i’ve been through

    i yearn to give and share and laugh
    i ache to know a friend
    i crave to tell you how i feel
    that the loneliness would end

    i’m trapped i’m trapped but so are you
    tho perhaps you see it not
    your trapped inside frailties too
    your worries make you rot

    take my hand oh feeble friend
    for i am feeble too
    together we can make the world
    better for me, better for you

    They also have a blog where they periodically post new writings and activities. It’s worth a visit. So is the blog of Brigadoon, a group of people with Asperger’s Syndrome and Autism who also have an online community in Second Life. I will return to the originally scheduled topic in my next posting. Sometimes the heart intervenes.

    divider
    January 13th, 2009

    The Impact of Economic Booms and Busts on Virtual Worlds

    I started thinking about and researching this topic recently. I’ll tell you up front, I don’t have a conclusion yet, but here is my personal observation. I think interest in virtual worlds and the economy are like two of the lines in a biorhythms chart that pass over and through each other.

    There are two cycles that interact. One is the sine wave of individuals and the other is the sine wave of organizations. When I first became aware of virtual worlds in the late 1990s, the economy was vibrant. The Internet bubble was in full bloom and some groundbreaking work was underway at Active Worlds and Worlds.com. Philips Electronics had a large product show room in Active Worlds, and AWEdu, their 3D university, was born just before the first (that I know of) virtual trade show, modeled on a real life event and attended in real time by avatars. In times of economic strength, corporate interest is high in innovation (i.e., they have money to throw at experimentation), but individual interest is lower. Most businesses simply did not understand what to do with this emerging 3D technology a decade ago, but they were willing to explore it. In this same time period, workers were heads down in their career work, and very concerned with things like Six Sigma and winning the Malcolm Baldridge Award. They didn’t mess around with such “childish pursuits” as virtual worlds in their personal lives. There were pockets of people here and there in large organizations who were captivated by the promise of virtual worlds, but on the whole, most people didn’t get it, and certainly did not see how “games” could ever be relevant to their real work. They didn’t have time for it, and didn’t think their employers would take them seriously if they suggested such a thing! The corporate cycle of interest in new ideas and experimentation was up, but the individual cycle of interest was low. Virtual worlds languished in a deep trough.

    Fast forward to today, when the economy is suffering, and it appears that the opposite is occurring. Individual interest is high, but corporate interest is lower. Individuals may need escapism or entertainment or be preparing themselves for a new job or just have access at home to better computers, but they are swarming to immersive 3D environments like multiplayer online games and social virtual worlds by the millions. Today some wonderful and immersive rich 3D environments exist that were unimaginable 10 years ago. Software developers have turned their personal passions for multiplayer games into elegant tools for accomplishing corporate objectives and creating training simulations with deep impact. Yet companies are cutting back in this recession, and centers of innovation are being forced into the background as the would-be change agents must return to the shop floor or cubicle to be sure that their real jobs are not the next to be cut. The corporate cycle related to virtual worlds is down and few organizations want to consider investing in new technologies or training staff in untested activities that might result in even lower quarterly performance, while a large number of people are beginning to see the potential for how virtual worlds could be applied to achieve many practical organizational objectives and improve routine work and/or quality of life.

    Not long ago, Forrester Research published a study about innovation and agility assessment in companies. The chief concern of the executives interviewed was their ability to keep pace with innovation. New research has shown that the current economic uncertainty finds organizations trying to establish measurable key agility indicators. They are focusing on the status quo and cautious, instead of pursuing innovative opportunities. Individuals, however, are becoming increasingly comfortable with, and in, immersive virtual environments, and are looking for ways to bring them into the work place.

    Cultural impacts that vary from place to place may also need to be explored in this context. We know, for example, that Asian cultures in particular have embraced virtual worlds and online social interactions, and that most venture capital funding is pouring into virtual worlds for kids and teens, rather than adult virtual worlds. Americans tend to have less “free” time than Europeans or Asians, and can perceive social or play time as unproductive time. Perhaps there are also inherent cultural components that will one day be defined as having a predictive impact on a virtual world’s success or failure, and it will become a third line on the biorhythm of virtual worlds.

    Do you have any thoughts or observations on this topic? I’d love to hear from you.

    divider
    December 14th, 2008

    Recruiting in Virtual Worlds

    A few weeks ago, Aditya Zutshi raised a question in the Virtual Worlds Roadmap discussion group about the use of virtual worlds for recruiting. This is a topic I’ve been mulling over for several years, so I thought I’d respond to it.

    For a long time now, I have viewed recruitment in virtual worlds with skepticism, and I have to say my skepticism is still in place. Like training, recruiting is one of those corporate activities that most people intuitively understand, since they have experienced it. Many newcomers to virtual worlds tend to gravitate toward these two activities in the new 3D environment, because, to newcomers, it makes sense to replicate the real world in the virtual. If only it were that easy!

    Corporations like the concept of “recruiting” in a virtual world for several reasons:

    ** they understand what recruiting is and its value to the company
    ** the HR people are very often one of the first groups to get involved in virtual worlds
    ** it’s an inexpensive recruiting channel (no travel to university campuses, job fair booths and signs, social receptions, paying the time and expenses for people to do all these activities)
    ** there is a low barrier to entry–it’s inexpensive technology that is easy to sell to executives with budgets.

    The question they don’t understand initially to ask, though, is who are you actually attracting? The truthful answer is, we have no idea! There are not many virtual world user profile studies, especially of the deep and substantive type Nick Yee is doing to profile multiplayer online gamers, so we only know that There and Kaneva attract 17-25s, Second Life attracts 30-40s (all approximate ages), and that females tend to be more active in the social activities of virtual worlds than males, and males tend to be more active in the competitive activities of virtual worlds than females. That isn’t much information upon which to determine whether a virtual world has a desirable recruiting pool for the organization.

    My observation is that virtual world recruiting will probably result in technology-trained or educated people and consultants. That is a perfect profile for some companies, especially those companies trending toward squads of specialists who move from task to task and team to team — a kind of just-in-time knowledge management. It is probably not the perfect profile for most companies, who are still in the stage of matching a certain skill set/education against a specific job description. And, of course, it doesn’t take into account the geographically diverse user base for the virtual world used for the recruiting. Most companies still prefer to recruit local talent.

    Let’s put aside the actual or published numbers of “residents” in any virtual world. The reality is there are probably a small core of about 50-100,000 people who are actually regulars in any of them that have the potential to be reached by advertising a virtual recruitment drive or job fair. Of those, most are unqualified or uninterested. If they do show up, they have probably shown up for curiosity rather than real employment expectations. Of the ones who show up for legitimate reasons, perhaps only a small percentage are in the geographic region where they are needed or are willing to relocate (if the company has a budget for that). Unfortunately a lot of old line businesses still view working remotely as undesirable (i.e., loss of control and supervision). All this dramatically narrows the pool of potential applicants who could be seriously considered viable candidates.

    Right now virtual recruiting is only good for a “wow” factor. It can help a stodgy company show it is changing and modernizing, and that it would be a good place for tech-savvy, consulting types to consider. The problems come later, when the recruited employee starts looking for the tools and the networks they thought they would have for their everyday work. Unfortunately, most companies do not yet use rich, virtual environments day to day, so it won’t take long for employees attracted for that reason to become disillusioned and leave. There are research studies that show that Generation Y workers do take into account how new technologies are being used in their everyday business activities. If they become disillusioned or don’t see that they will get the type of experience they wanted, they will leave for green pastures. Staff turnover from poor recruiting creates another kind of headache for HR departments.

    If I were an HR director, I’d have ask seriously whether recruiting in a virtual world is worth my staff’s time and effort today. The payoff just isn’t yet there. The fundamentals of virtual worlds and technologies are moving into the mainstream for sure, but it will be 5-10 years before they are so ubiquitous that virtual world recruiting will be truly effective. On the plus side, it’s still inexpensive, and it gives HR professionals a leg up on the future of their profession. The learning curve needs to be mounted — today or in the future. Let’s just call virtual recruiting in 2008 a learning experience for all and be honest. There’s value in that, but it’s not immediate and doesn’t make a compelling ROI for a big investment. If you have any examples of where virtual world recruiting is really working, I’d love to hear about it!

    divider
    November 11th, 2008

    D’Fusion is a Delighter

    Augmented reality is an interactive experience where virtual components are dynamically merged into a live video stream in real time. It’s a little mind-boggling when you think about it, but to see it is to understand completely just how delightful it can be! Google and Microsoft have both staked claims in the augmented reality space, by using their satellite maps of the planet and enabling 3D renderings of objects to be overlaid on them for a semi-realistic 3D experience. Now enters the French company Total Immersion, with their D’Fusion product. Every time you watched the Star Trek crew project a 3D hologram of a person with an important message, and thought “Wow!”, you probably wondered when, if ever, you would really see something like that. Well, I can only say, watch this video! You keep expecting Princess Leia to emerge and say, “Help us, Obi-wan! You are our only hope!”

    Not just the sizzle, but the steak!

    This demonstration will leave you scratching your head and wondering “How did they do that?”. Especially when you discover that their software will allow you to create your own versions at home using only a videocam and a personal computer! This is pretty exciting technology, I think, and it raises the bar for large corporate presentations. Remember only a few years back when all the big corporations used projections of an outlined animated head on a screen with moving lips, and the character would chat back and forth with the presenter? Or Mike the Talking Head? Well, D’Fusion blows that away. Imagine your executives presenting annual results by holding the graph in their hands, then placing it on a table, or demonstrating a new product or process! Or using it to put 3D products into a cell phone display. It’s pretty compelling, and definitely has the wow factor!

    Total Immersion created an augmented reality experience for a permanent gallery called “My Digital World,” which opened in September at the Arizona Science Center in Phoenix, Arizona. In “The Augmented Reality Puzzle,” a guest is given three cards, each corresponding to a three-dimensional cube puzzle piece. Arranging the cubes in the correct order results in a full view of the puzzle with 3D fireworks exploding all around. Graspable interfaces and holowalls have been around since the mid-1990s, but with the rapid increases in computing power and miniaturization, it is now possible to do things on a desktop that we have always considered movie special effects.

    The fun is just beginning

    It’s not a stretch to imagine aerospace or automotive companies using D’Fusion to model their products in 3D. They are doing it. Or to have a kiosk where a customer can create a customized pair of athletic shoes, and then project their own face onto a 3D avatar that can dance wearing the newly created shoes. (Total Immersion has such a kiosk now) Here’s another video that shows some more practical potentialities.

    One important aspect of augmented reality is understanding context. Our environments are full of information, but most of this information isn’t digitized. As we increasingly use smart devices that connect to the Web, and as we introduce sensors such as RFID (and teens with camera phones) into our environments, there will be much more information for us to work with and use to contextualize. The Web is becoming something that is all around us, rather than something just inside the computer screen, and augmented reality will make it easier to understand and visualize all this information appropriately. Imagine that it will be like seeing the world around you as the Terminator or Six Million Dollar Man might see it.

    An example of a different type of augmented reality is Enkin, a light navigation system for mobile devices. Enkin displays location-based content that bridges the gap between reality and classic map-like representations. It combines GPS, orientation sensors, 3D graphics, live video, several web services, and a user interface. You can use the application to identify locations, for example on Google Maps, and then have the labels show up on objects in the real world when you pan them with the device.

    Microsoft’s prototype for an augmented reality system is known as “Play Anywhere”. The Play Anywhere system is a touch-surface table that combines a video projector and a sensing device to detect a user’s gestures and the positions of objects placed on a surface in real time. The result is a realistic sense of manipulating 3D objects on a flat surface. Other technologies offering similar concepts are ReacTIVision and SurfaceFusion.

    Doctors are using 3D technology for training in exacting surgeries, and with a 3D product like D’Fusion, it’s possible to see a model of an open skull and brain emerge in front of you and rotate, or something as small as a strand of DNA. One exciting application of these technologies may be for visually impaired users. Cell phones with mobile NFC sensing can offer touch-and-listen or point-and-feel options, two-way RFID and location-and-ID information exchanges presented in a format that is understandable by people with disabilities. It’s another very interesting time for emerging technology!

    divider
    November 4th, 2008

    It’s a good day to vote!

    It’s a little odd for me to be sending this out, but I decided this is a good year to do it.

    I am not asking you to support my candidate, my politics, my choices.

    I am asking you to, please, support your candidate, your politics and your choices.

    It’s your future. Please vote.

    divider
    August 3rd, 2008

    Farewell to Conan

    Age of Conan was touted to me by gaming friends as a wonderful and rich 3D multiplayer online gaming experience that I had to try. So even though I am far from through with World of Warcraft, I decided to treat myself to something new and have the fun of learning a new UI and game map again. Graphically, it is a feast, if you have the horsepower to run it. And that’s a big “if”! In the same way I always think of Microsoft as fattening up its new operating systems with each release, I found AoC to be a hog. It actually shocked me once I had installed it. It requires over 250 megabytes of disk space and 2 gigs of RAM just to run it. Most games require about 60 megs of disk now. I don’t know about you, but I fill my disk up with plenty of stuff already, and I grit my teeth every time I look at that red Conan icon on my desk top. Today I decided I’m going to delete it. But I wanted to applaud a few features of AoC that are novel and appealing.

    First, the UI. StarWars: Galaxy made the mistake of creating a completely new and arcane UI that many players found very difficult to learn and to use, including me. It wasn’t intuitive. But Conan has a good UI that incorporates many of the features of the Warcraft UI, which most people have as a standard for how a UI should operate (even in the absence of standards for such things). Come on…haven’t you clicked and dragged some of your other programs trying to change the angle of view? I have!

    Secondly, the ability to play solo and still have a great game experience. None of my gaming friends played Conan at the times I could, so I basically played by myself. The game enables casual gamers like me to choose the “night” mode, where your character is basically a solo ninja-type character in its own instance of the game, and can slip more easily through the dark streets and countryside alone. Unfortunately, in the night mode it’s always…night! So the bright colors and liveliness of the daylight is missing. But then so is the terrible lag caused by the public/group version of play. The few times I tried to play with a group, the lag was so bad near cities that the game was unplayable. Despite having a pretty powerful system, I hit a dead stop every time.

    I’ll really be happy when game designers figure out that they don’t need to create customized chat interfaces in every game. There are certain things that should be standard across any MMOG today…things like the chat UI (add features, but don’t change the basics!), the ability to reset keys to your own preferred shortcuts, certain basic gesture animations, and how to get help. These things help players, and they encourage new players to try new games. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Sure, the designers lose a chance to put a UI design in their portfolios, but as a business decision, moving toward standards will probably keep players in a game longer than if they have to fight the UI and get frustrated. But I digress…

    Conan also has an interesting and somewhat realistic fighting/combat approach. Using several hot keys, it’s possible to use styles and special attacks or swing from a high-middle-low position. That is probably appealing to a lot of people, though it’s not to me. Routine combat is pretty much autopilot in most games once the attack is started. No hitting “attack” and then sitting back and reaching for your cup of tea in Conan! The player has to stay engaged and fight strategically in order to win the battle. It really requires immersion in the character and the game, more than some players want. The fighting graphics and animations are also quite nice, although I could do without the splattered blood drops and gore flying at me when my mace connects!

    Age of Conan is a very well designed and beautiful MMOG, with a great back story, and characters that fit the theme. There is also an interesting bestiary and the armor pieces are detailed, so it’s possible to customize one’s appearance somewhat. I think Ultima Online still hasn’t been beaten in the flexibility it gave players to customize their appearance. Just having dyes and dye vats available and a multitude of small items of clothing that could be layered gave incredible visual richness to an otherwise uninteresting graphic design in UO. Would that the more recent MMOGs would follow suit, and give those of us who like to change our colors or coordinate our wardbrobes an opportunity to do so!

    The last problem is travel. I am about to start traveling again for work, and Conan is such a fat client that it’s unplayable on my laptop, even though I have a 256 meg video card in mine. If game companies want adults to play, then they need to release games based on technology that players actually own, and stop designing for high end desktop computers. Or at least give us the option to play in a stripped down mode so we can keep up with our friends and guilds while we are on the road. So, goodbye Conan! RIP. I’m taking back my 250 megs to get ready for the Lich King! (which will play on my laptop!)

    divider
    August 2nd, 2008

    Kzero: New Research into Virtual Worlds

    UK virtual world consultants KZero develop marketing and brand-driven campaigns for companies and brands seeking to maximize opportunities in the virtual worlds space. There’s a nice short video here of a clever brand/image promotion they developed for L’Oreal in Second Life, teaming with Rezzable Software’s Greenie’s Home sim. Kzero has also done a unique scan of the metaverse. It’s an assessment by age and size of the virtual worlds sector as presented at the recent VW Expo NYC in New York. The research includes both existing worlds and platforms in development. Called the “Universe Graph“, it is based on total registered accounts (which equates to avatars registered, not individuals registered) and the targeted age of the users. It excludes multiplayer online game worlds. As someone who is older than the age groups shown on the graph, and definitely not dead yet, I wonder why (at least according to this research), none of these companies seem to realize that babyboomers are an active and growing segment in the metaverse, and they have credit cards they are not reluctant to use on their hobbies!

    Companies and brands are now exploring different virtual worlds in order to open dialogues with distinct target markets and demographics according to additional research on teens and tweens, a high growth market. Personally, I was surprised to learn that Stardoll, which I have not heard of before, has actually attracted more corporate brands than any other virtual world targeting this age demographic, while There.com has more brands than other worlds targeting teens and adults.

    There’s also some commentary on The Byron Report, an in-depth assessment of the challenges facing government and industry to make the digital world safer for children. While it focuses on video games, there is a section that breaks out the risks and benefits of online gaming.

    divider
    August 1st, 2008

    The Future of the 3D Internet

    Yesterday was the final day of the vBusiness Expo hosted by Clever Zebra on Forterra’s Olive platform. The presentations were spotty…some repeated well known information, but some were insightful and thought-provoking. One of the questions asked of the closing panel group was “are mobile devices the future of the 3D internet?” The answers were interesting. Keeping in mind that the speakers were talking conversationally, and not from prepared remarks, their answers were spontaneous and intriguing. Also, these notes are my notes from what they said, not direct quotes!

    Darius Lahoutifard (Altadyn): Virtual worlds started with “immersive” as a criteria, which meant that using them on phones was out. But mobile phone capabilities are exploding, and using java is viable. The interest and market is definitely there. It’s not yet mature, but it’s coming.

    Bruce Joy (Vast Park): The US market has been quick to uptake the iPhone, which has a great 3D platform. Other smart phones have amazing 3D chips on them, too, so mobile is an incredible environment for 3D worlds. The ideal solution should should run on different platforms (write once/run anywhere solution). All of Asia is mobile focused…much more than Europe and the US. These devices are now computers that just happen to sit in our hands. They are powerful. The UIs for mobile devices have to be different to work on small mobile screens, though, and it will be interesting to see what emerges.

    John Swords (The Electric Sheep Company): The first thing people will be interested in is augmented reality type applications…location based services that run off GPS. Secondly will come linking people outside the virtual world and using mobile devices with people who are in immersive environments. Linking people and their attributes/avatars and linking with GPS and all kinds of hybrids is very intereting, and it’s coming. There will be a totally different kind of UI on phones. There will be reduced, simplified applications like we are seeing now on the iPhone.

    Nicole Yankelovich (WonderLand): A barrier to corporate adoption now is that people don’t necessarily have the hardware to run virtual worlds. We need “graceful adoption”, that makes it easy for users to participate without having high-end graphics capabilities. You can anticipate being able to enter a virtual world without having a client. The world could be text based with a thin client, or people on a desktop (with more computing power) could have a thick client.

    Christian Renaud (Technology Intelligence Group): For enterprise adoption, if you tell people that they have to get into a virtual client to meet, you won’t get adoption. But if you have hybrids integrated with different work styles and with the modalities available to them, then users will each get the experience appropriate to the device they have. We have to have contextually relevant interfaces appropriate to the device the world is running on. They don’t need to be 3D or even graphical. Designers need to be very clever and design new interfaces that permit the virtual world experience to scale up or down and change the user experience according to the device hosting the environment.

    I’m in the same camp as Christian Renaud. It’s time for a rethink about the functions and uses of virtual worlds, and especially if we are going to try to incorporate them with the real world. We don’t necessarily need to be able to move around or fly or dance our avatars in a large 3D world all the time, but that is one useful view. “Movement” is not the main driver of the new UI. Maybe users access the full, rich environment only when they are on their desktops with high powered video cards. “Chat” is a main driver of the new UI. It must be done right and be so intuitive that even a first time user doesn’t need to read instructions to use it. “Building” (or content creation) may or may not be a driver of the new UI. Building a new office may be unnecessary on mobile devices, however, perhaps there are some aspects of it that could be done satisfactorily on the commute home. “Memory” may or may not be a driver, since heavy graphics drain batteries faster than text over a static background.

    “Meetings” are a main driver of the new UI, too. There are ways to make them more accessible, for example, limiting access to only the meeting space, or limiting the chat UI to the traditional two pronged main conversation and “whispered” private comments while viewing only text or slides. Different tools and different levels of detail are needed for these different views, and perhaps that’s what the new UI needs to be…a choice of “views” that the user can choose according to what they want to do at that moment or what device they have at hand. Or even better, the device knows its limits and automatically accesses the virtual world in the way best suited to the device. Workers in the field on mobile devices could still feel connected to their teams if the device is smart enough to scale down the virtual environment to their tool set and the power available to it.

    One thing is sure. Mobile devices and virtual worlds have a future together. Like most relationships, though, there will be a lot of talking and disagreements before they successfully arrive at the altar.

    divider
    July 31st, 2008

    How “Real” Does Presence Have To Be?

    Today I participated in Clever Zebra’s second vBusiness Expo virtual conference. Nice people running the show and a very good list of topics and presenters. Unlike their first conference, which was conducted in Second Life, this one was held in a specially created 3D space using Forterra’s OLIVE platform. My purpose with this blog entry is not to critique the platform, however, I simply must make a few comments about it. Forterra, in case you don’t know, is wildly successful at the moment with creating customized simulations for learning and training. It has done several for US government agencies and the military, as well as medical and hazmat simulations for private organizations. One reason the platform is viewed so favorably by those entities and large corporations is that they have a better data security layer than other virtual world platforms to-date. The Forterra support staff is also highly regarded for their responsiveness and overall knowledge, and today they were onhand to help people resolve quite a number of issues.

    So now that I have said these nice things, the other shoe must fall. As a first-time user of their product and an experienced user of many others, I was shocked with how primitive and non-intuitive the setting and the UI were. It may be that they were using this group as some sort of a stress test for their server (there were about 50 avatars present). The system did pass the load test with flying colors — almost no lag detected — but the instance we were in was appallingly sparce in features and capabilities. Even such basic things as the ability to send a private whisper to another attendee didn’t exist. The impression it gave was that the virtual environment was hastily thrown together without regard for the fact that the attendees were in all likelihood consultants or influencers of purchasing decisions for virtual worlds. The room we were in was empty of furniture and decoration, and the avatars were not programmed to sit. We all just stood around for the full day, or we kneeled on one knee…a posture you don’t typically see a lot of women business people in. The viewing distance and audio range of the sound was very reduced. I was on the first row and could only see the names over the avatars two rows back, and no further. I couldn’t hear anyone in the room speaking unless they had the “presenter” module.

    The movement commands were based on the old gaming WSDA keys (no arrow keys enabled), and to speak one had to press the space bar. It simply was not intuitive. It was a classic example of some programmers deciding they know usability…or worse, that it doesn’t matter! Everyone struggled with the UI, even though most people there were proficient users of Second Life, World of Warcraft or other virtual environments. There were issues with speakers losing their voice transmissions or not having the right package installed that let them speak to the group. The chat interface window was fixed in a location and could not be moved, and the only way to speak to anyone there was out loud (if you had a microphone and they were in range) or to everyone there in typed chat. Every single technical problem faced by every user streamed by for everyone to see. As a result, half a dozen of us who wanted to be polite and not disruptive started a back channel chat in Skype so we could make our genuine comments about the content and the platform without intruding on the conference. That was the most fun of the day for me, although I did learn some things from the presenters.

    I simply think Forterra dropped the ball on this opportunity. The instructions for getting into their system were non-existent, and many struggled both to log in and with what to do once they got in. They didn’t do a professional job of setting up a UI with features that surely exist in other simulations they have built, and they were rather cavalier about informing us that things we were asking to do couldn’t be done, as if we shouldn’t be asking. The avatars and environment were washed out and uninteresting to look at, even though they provided a decent list of premade avatar options to choose from (if you happen to be male). On the whole, it was a poor use of (my own) time. I could have gotten the same information more efficiently from a simple telephone conference call that I could have put on a speaker phone while I multitasked. The 3D environment added nothing to the experience, and in fact, detracted from it, since it was a big distraction from the content of the speakers’ presentations. However, that said, I do want to cite some very useful and interesting information I took away from the presentations.

    Some Takeaways

    Steve Prentice from Gartner was the first presenter, and his presentation was the best of the day. It was full of useful facts and plausible conjectures about both the business of virtual worlds and the state of virtual worlds in business. Here are some of my personal takeaways from the day:

    1. Nokia is hosting a “Nokia Metaverse Connects” conference in Second Life on August 29. It’s expected to be a big conference – the biggest to-date in Second Life. That’s a little scary since once you get 40 avatars assembled in one location, the servers lag to a stop. I’ve attended three events that were spread over four sims (an auditorium at the intersection of 4 sims to share the load), and with even 100 attendees it is still a miserable user experience. The good news is Second Life Cable Network will film it and the video will be available online later for a much better viewing experience!

    2. There are about 30 million active virtual world members today worldwide. That number probably doubles if we add gamers, and probably doubles again if we add social networking users. But only about 3 million of those probably actually have a credit card…a disappointment.

    3. Virtual worlds are about socialization. That is why some of the most popular virtual worlds look simplistic, but have millions of users (e.g., Habbo Hotel). Today technologists still dominate the tools, so we have problems with the platforms. Function creep is excessive. UIs are too complex. We need to remember that virtual worlds are about people interacting with people, it’s not a problem of physics. Platforms need to make socialization easy and intuitive, without the need to read instructions.

    4. Content creation is necessary, but the vast number of people do not want to create content. They want to get on with life and socialize, not create the life first. How we portray ourselves and how we are perceived by others matters more than the act of creation. (Mazlow’s theory of hierarchical needs) Creating is hollow without someone to show it to and who will appreciate it. First build a community in your virtual world, and it will succeed. You can add tools for creating content later. Community has to precede content creation capabilities.

    5. For companies, virtual worlds will emerge as managed interactions for brand building. You can interact with customers for longer (15 min or more). That’s a very attractive proposition. Google Lively will play here, with their ability to build and maintain a community around a brand. Immersive brand spaces will be growing.

    6. Technology is advancing. Things like facial recognition, avatar facial expressions, gestural computing, accelerometers, etc. will change how people interact with devices and virtual worlds. Forget mouse and keyboard…users want the UI to respond to what they do, how they move in real life. Most virtual worlds are too difficult for the casual user to master the UI. People want magic. They want the device to display what the user is doing in real life. There are some new technologies that will be trickling out soon in this direction.

    7. Mobile will be huge. 3 billion users have cell phones globally today. Casual mobile gaming is growing all the time. Virtual worlds need to ride this wave. People want access to their preferred community all the time, so find ways to maintain that link, the social grooming, the sense of connection to friends. Realism will not be a high priority in mobile, but finding ways to generate connectivity between the tools a user already has (like Facebook, Twitter, Habbo Hotel, Second Life, GPS, etc.) is high priority.

    8. A cell phone virtual world may have a business case. It’s appealing, if you can deliver something useful! There will be smarter mobile devices, and more of them than PCs. We love 3D experiences, but can you realistically deliver them to devices? Possibly yes, but it’s unsure yet. Forterra is working on a project to let people join a virtual world from a cell phone. If you are out in the field, there will be ways to call in to a virtual meeting and get the voice pieces/presentations. That is imminent. As a stand alone rich virtual world, though, it’s still too early.

    The reason for my title today? Presence doesn’t have to look real at all to be effective at generating community (see Habbo Hotel), but if you are going to make “realistic looking” human avatars, then do like Second Life and make them *really* look good! In Olive, they were disappointing and uninteresting. I’ll post more tomorrow if there are good learnings from the day. Thanks to Caleb Booker and Nick Wilson of Clever Zebra for hosting the conference!

    divider
    July 28th, 2008

    Gen Y and 3D Worlds

    I’ve been hearing and thinking a lot about Generation Y for the last few weeks — those young people born roughly 1980-1992. There has been a lot published and in the media spelling out their characteristics and tendencies. A few weeks ago, I had an interesting discussion with a Gen Y person about his cell phone and how he uses it. Being a baby boomer myself, I am more than a little fascinated by the intuitive way that generation absorbs technologies into their routine lives. It makes me realize that somewhere along the way in the past five years, I’ve lost the burning need to have the newest or latest gadget, and that I don’t really care anymore whether Microsoft creates a better Outlook. That feels a little strange when I think about it. I’ve always been enchanted by “new” and wanted to have it. I justify my shift in consciousness by saying I’m trying to rise up above the fray of the latest advertising blitz for the iPhone 3G or the newest Wii gadget, to gain a perspective on the technology hype cycle at work. People are doing what people have always done throughout history — they are adapting to the circumstances present in their environments. Today we have more technology available than we could have dreamed of 10 years ago, and it is powerful in ways we couldn’t have imagined. (I heard just tonight that there is more technology in our cell phones today than they had to put the men on the moon!) It is affecting our children profoundly.

    According to research by Donald Tapscott’s New Paradigm Learning (2006), there is a global youth culture (many more children born worldwide than in the previous decade) and these kids are awash in information:

    • 3 billion cell phone users
    • 1.1 billion Internet users
    • 850 million social network members
    • 100 million blogs
    • 80% of active Internet users will have a ‘Second Life’ by 2011 (meaning an avatar in a virtual world, not necessarily the Second Life platform)

    Just think about it. Ten years ago, Amazon.com and eBay and Google didn’t exist! Neither did iTunes or iPods or Napster or digital rights management or virtual economies or Facebook. According to Morgan Stanley Research, of the Top 10 Most Visited Web Sites in 2007, six were social networking sites, and of those, only MySpace existed two years ago! (The top 10 were yahoo.com, google.com, youtube.com, live.com, msn.com, myspace.com, Facebook.com, Wikipedia.org, hi5.com, and orkut.com.)

    We have no idea what is out there just over the next hill, or which two guys sitting around a kitchen table somewhere are dreaming up the next Guitar Hero or personal GPS system or laser projection device or robot that will create a tektonic shift in how we perform routine tasks.

    Gen Y is now reaching their maturity and beginning to take leadership roles in the workplace. This is going to change a lot of things. Most of them swim in technology as easily as they do water, and as a result of growing up immersed in technology, they think differently about work, life, the world and the future. It’s very exciting to think about where they will lead us!

    This week I have been talking to some Gen Y people I know. These young people may not be an accurate reflection for their generation, but two thoughts have struck me from their commentaries. (1) Maybe the bulk of Gen Y is not as tech-savvy or dependent upon the technology as the media leads us to believe. (2) We probably need to remember that people this age have not really had much money of their own to use for buying electronic gadgets. They are in college or just out of college, many with college loans to repay, and probably don’t have their own apartments yet. Perhaps they have played X-Box games with friends or games in arcades, but they may not own the latest and greatest phone or MP3 player themselves. That doesn’t mean they don’t *want* to — but just that disposable income is an issue at this age.

    Here are some excerpts from the conversations I had that resonated with me (or that represent how I believe the Gen Ys think about technology). Note their heavy emphasis on being able to interact with people rather than the technology. I have cleaned up the comments just a bit, but I am deliberately leaving in the expressive color and personality in the messages. We have to get used to that, too!

    1. (26 year old male, game designer) “Here’s an example, which I’ll codename “Snarf” just for fun and simplicity. Assume version 1.0 of the Snarf UI utility is running on your phone (a ubiquitous tool for young people), with minimal but nice-looking 2D graphics and an easy-to-understand interface. You have a buddy list in Snarf populated with personal friends, business friends, and ****s you have on ignore (which masks your presence from them). At about 9:00, you decide you’d like to go to Noodles & Company for lunch (don’t argue with me, Noodles & Co is awesome). It’s a location that you go to semi-frequently, so you write a very concise entry in your Snarf blog about it, using a Noodles & Co keyword that you have set up to indicate a specific restaurant location. At 11:30, you bring up an in-Snarf top-down map of the block that Noodles & Co is on. The people on your buddy list have also told Snarf where they’ll each be having lunch, and two of your business colleagues happen to be eating at Pizza Hut across the street. This is indicated to you by a little Snarf icon on the Pizza Hut building which you can select (touch-screen would be good) to open a window showing the names of these people. It’s essentially like doing a “/who Stormwind” in WoW, but based upon your buddy list and looking at an area in meatspace.”

    “Making a 3D application for this kind of thing is fine, but as far as the dreaded Bottom Line is concerned it’s just icing. For a version 1.0, it would be good to get the 2D interface and data management done first. Then in a later version, the Snarf brain could be incorporated into a cool 3D environment. We’ll call that v2.0. v2.0 would be good for a PC with a mouse, keyboard and plenty of monitor to show it all, but if you want to access it with a phone they’re just too small and awkward to really handle all that. You’d want a Snarf v2.0 Mobile, a somewhat stripped-down version, which can still communicate with Snarf v2.0.”

    2. (19 year old female, college student) “Do they really have a GPS thing where you can see where your friends are!!!?? i never knew that. If so, that is definitely something that should be added!!! but then can’t it be dangerous!! people knowing where you are???…Now a days handhelds can do just about everything a computer can, and anything beyond what a computer can do is beyond my mind!!!! I mean i am perfectly content with my flip phone that has none of the fancy features!! ha!”

    3. (24 year old male, business analyst) “Usability is king. I think one of the reasons that devices like the iPhone are popular is that they are very easy to use, have a simple interface and easy to access menus. I like the touch screens for this aspect, because it gives you much more freedom in how people can interact. Integration with existing apps is also very important. Having to reenter your information in new sources can be very annoying and a barrier to adoption, for example the ability to enter profile information from a source like face book. Personalization is huge, especially with mobile devices. They are almost like a status symbol for the younger generation. When you are 14 you can’t have a faster car than your friends, but you can have a cooler phone. Anything that users can change easily from a menu to make the device more “theirs” goes along way. Finally, being able to easily share content with others. For example I don’t really use the camera on my phone, because if I want the pictures on my computer, I have to go and jump through hoops to access them via the service provider’s website.

    It would be cool to have an app that would get location information from either like facebook, or phone gps, and display their house, or current location using something like google maps. You could then use it as something like a gps navigation system to get there. That kind of service could also be nice to find places of interest, like if I searched for hotels, and then I could see a picture of the hotel, read reviews or thoughts about the place from an existing site with a large number of reviews, and then go to their website and book a room.

    With the small screen and relatively low power of mobile devices, having a rich 3D experience would be difficult, especially since expectations around 3D graphics are quickly rising all the time. Having N64 quality graphics actually rendered on the device would probably not impress people much, but maybe some sort of pictures, pre-rendered using cloud computing and sent as a compressed picture or small video file, could be very impressive. For example if I wanted to walk from my house to a friends house, having an application that would show me how to get there in some sort of 3D environment could be very cool. This would help a lot too in explaining directions that are sometimes difficult to give, like roads spitting or hidden entrances/exits. This is a service that could be used for regular desktop computers as well. I think that an easy to use application like this would be a good way to get more people interested in PDA type devices as well.

    There is a lot of crossover between desktop applications and now mobile applications. For example I’ve been using Pandora (pandora.com) for at least a year, maybe longer. This has now become available on the iPhone and is actually a pretty big positive for me if I were to get an iPhone. I think another viable strategy might not be so much to focus on creating new applications, but drawing people in by integrating with the applications they already are familiar with — you save the step of selling people on new applications, because they already know what they can do.”

    4. (21 year old male, college student) “Antisocial behavior is a big problem for my generation because we spend so much time on the Internet and e-mailing instead of talking to each other. I think that IS why we also spend so much time e-mailing and texting each other! It’s important to have a lot of friends, and most people have busy lives. That’s a conflict! Technology like cell phones and Blackberries make it a lot easier to touch base with a lot of people in an efficient way. Any technology that is simple to use, interesting to look at, and lets me connect with my friends quickly is great. Oh, and it should work on an older phone! Mine is two years old and I can’t afford to get a new one right now!”

    5. (25 year old female, architect) “This technology question is difficult for me because I’m probably the least connected technology wise out of all my friends. I’ve never lived in a place with a fast internet connection, so I’ve found 3D websites annoying (b/c they either take too long to load or they crash the connection). I watched my little cousin on Club Penguin once. It was cute and he’s obsessed with that virtual world. Since I have always found myself so busy with work and school, I’ve never gotten into anything “cool” computer-wise. I mainly use my computer to look up information, send emails if necessary, look up movie times, and look up maps. I drive and travel a lot so google maps have saved my life. I love looking at maps. I really like the 3-D maps and “street views” that you can find of many cities so that I know exactly where I’m going (and where I should not go).

    I had a friend finally convince me to sign onto Facebook a yr or two ago, but I use it as little as possible. My phone dials numbers ONLY. Isn’t that sad . I requested texting capabilities to be removed from my phone. My aunt and uncle gave me a PDA two or three yrs ago, and I never got past playing solitaire on it. I realized that the PDA was only going to be useful to me if I spent money on accessories, programs, the internet, a fold-able keyboard (since it takes forever to type something with a little stick), and I was too poor and/or lazy to put that much effort into a device I never asked for or thought necessary. When it comes to computers, I’m great compared to my parents (which isn’t saying much), but compared to my friends, I’m way behind the times. I purposefully forget my cell phone at home at times so that I can’t be reached. Personally, I think it’s horrible that we all now find it “irresponsible” to not have your phone or check your email everyday. I enjoy technology a lot, but I also see it as a nuisance. When my dad first bought me a cell phone in college, I saw it as a leash. Unfortunately I can’t function without it now, but I still see it as a leash sometimes. I am one that turns it off quite frequently.”

    6. (21 year old male, college student) “In today’s world that’s always connected and where everything can be done or accessed electronically, i think it’s essential to have a device or way to access all that is out there. the iphone is a huge step. i even saw somewhere recently that with all the smart home technology combined with the iphone, you can whip out your phone and turn on lights at home while you are out of town. you can turn on your tv, etc. i think that’s wonderful. I think portability is essential. i don’t know that any of this is new information though. everyone is creating things that are portable. i think, for me, the biggest thing that needs to be kept in mind when doing stuff like this is how personal it is. you should be able to express who you are through it. i think that’s the big boom with myspace and facebook. you build your page and fill it with information on you. and its great to use them to find information on other people. pictures, phone numbers, birthdays, etc. i know our world makes access to all that information dangerous, but from the perspective of someone who would use it only for good, its wonderful. i think the ipod touch/iphone’s screen is a great size. and the touch screen is incredible. i think its great. i think its almost necessary to save space on the device that buttons would take too much of.

    i’m not sure about incorporating all that with a virtual or 3D world though. that’s just not really me. i like getting out and seeing people. but i can see the benefits of a virtual world. like disabled or handicapped people being able to move around and have a life they wouldn’t be able to have. i definitely think a virtual world would be a wonderful addition to online shopping. you can almost “test drive” a product before ordering it. it would include videos of it, pictures, reviews, etc. everything you could possibly know about it without touching it.”

    7. (19 year old male, physical therapy intern) “My phone is a PDA, and not one of the newest ones…it’s a little beat up, but it has Internet connection and I use it for IM and email and texting. Mostly for texting and IM. I don’t have a camera. I would love to have GPS ability! That would be very cool!”

    So will Generation Y be the first 3D-immersed generation? I think it still depends on many things. For sure their incomes and willingness to spend on technologies will increase, as will their impact on culture and the work place. Their houses will be ecology friendly and wired (and wireless). Until there is a clear platform leader (or two) in the 3D metaverse, though, it seems unlikely to me that 3D worlds will have more than a novelty impact. I think 3D is going to be something the so-called Millenials will push forward.

    Gen Y needs time to acquire the latest hardware and make their demands known for software, and then we will see companies emerging that will be the Amazons and Facebooks of the future. If I had to hazard a guess now, I’d gamble on Google. The general love of and perceived need for GPS services practically push them to the forefront. Take Google Maps and its annotation layers, add Google Earth‘s topographic features, and then lay over that 3D models created in SketchUp, and one is only missing a simple chat interface and an avatar to wander around in that virtual space and feed back what the user wants to know. (And avatars are on Google’s radar, too!) I may not be Gen Y, but I’d buy it, and I’d use it! If you are a Gen Y and want to share your point of view, I’d love to hear from you!

    divider
    July 22nd, 2008

    Presenting Virtual Worlds

    Last week a colleague invited me to make a presentation on virtual worlds to a class at NYU. Having had a major computer melt down only three weeks ago (which accounts for my long silence here), it was a bit of a struggle to get the presentation together. I was to have 45 minutes, which was a large chunk of time for a rather obscure topic. The last time I did a basic introduction presentation, I had 10 minutes, and it focused only on Second Life. This time, I wanted to really do the topic justice and show a lot of pictures from a variety of virtual worlds. I did…89 slides worth!

    What was most interesting about the process to me was how my point of view has changed on Second Life. If you look back two years ago, I was skeptical about it and didn’t think it deserved all the hype it was getting. After a year of delving into Second Life and exploring all the variety it has to offer, I can now say without reservation that it is the best virtual world out there for content creators/builders and people who just like to explore. So far, anyway. Yes, there are issues with the SL platform — security, server lag, unexpected down times, a non-intuitive user interface — but it is still the best there is right now, and a rich place to spend time and learn what virtual worlds can offer. There are some exciting new worlds emerging now, and the early views look very promising, even though none of them yet looks like the “killer app” that will turn us all into virtual versions of our physical selves!

    The virtual worlds I showed in my presentation were Kaneva, There.com, ActiveWorlds, vSide, World of Warcraft and Webkinz. I didn’t have time to do the visual research on others I like a lot, but that is underway now, and I’ll be completely prepared the next time I’m asked. This was the first time I have ever just lined up all my screenshots back to back and looked at them — and it’s why I decided to write this article. All the avatars and most of the scenery/buildings in most of the worlds are much more simplistic than those in Second Life. It was like the difference between a Mickey Mouse cartoon and the 3D richness offered by characters in City of Heroes. Most of the other worlds are sparse on detail, which reduces the server demands, but makes them much less interesting to look at for long (or after playing Everquest or World of Warcraft for many years!). After looking at the unique and charming appearances of my various avatars in Second Life, it’s really hard to get attached to an avatar in any of these other worlds. Most of them are cartoony and pre-created…the subscriber has little or no ability to customize the appearance details, which matters a great deal to many people like me. At most one can choose darker/lighter skin color, a hair style, and a few basic clothing items.

    Second Life has surprised me by being deeply interesting, and engaging my interest on many levels. I do not have a business there, though I have considered making one of some sort. I do own land, a house, various pets and accoutrement, and I manage a sim for a friend. These constitute my personal learning platforms. I learned to use the building tools to create and script objects, to change colors and textures, and to terraform the land. I learned where the truly innovative virtual world creation is happening, and I try to hang out there regularly to absorb the impacts of the many new and creative things I discover there. Plus, I have found several mature, professional groups whose chatter I enjoy seeing scroll by on my screen as I do other things. It has been a wonderful, rich education, even if it has been unstructured. As the saying goes, idle hands will always find something to get into!

    The class presentation went well, and many of the members really had their eyes opened and their understanding of the possibilities of virtual worlds stretched. That was satisfying. Mostly, it was just fun for me to be able to introduce people to something that for so many years no one was interested in at all. Ten years ago, when I first proposed a virtual insurance agency in ActiveWorlds using scripted chatbot agents, people’s jaws dropped and they didn’t get it at all. It’s great to be on the leading edge, but it’s really nice when people catch up with you, too.

    divider
    June 19th, 2008

    KM Quotes Page

    I just uploaded a long page of KM quotes that I had been accumulating on a community site I manage. I thought it might be helpful for anyone who’s putting together a presentation or doing a cost benefit analysis — or simply wants some inspiration! The link is in the right sidebar under Pages or you can follow this link.

    divider
    May 28th, 2008

    Thoughts from the Front Edge of the Metaverse

    Serendipity is great! Today I had a reason to go back and search for a video I had saved in my favorites on YouTube, and completely by accident I came across a great set of video interviews by Henrik Bennetsen of the Stanford Humanities Lab from the Metaverse U conference at Stanford University last February. You have to tune out all the background noise…the interviews were obviously taped on breaks between sessions…but the content and the insights you can get from the 40+ talks is considerable. All the virtual worlds you’ve heard of, plus some you haven’t, are represented, like Second Life, Multiverse, Wonderland, Metaversum, Ogoglio, BigWorld, Twinity, TomorrowSpace, Transmutable, and Metaplace, as well as Stanford academics who hosted the program and other thought leaders and pioneers, like Jerry Paffendorf, Ren Reynolds, Rob Bloomfield, Mitch Wagner, Daniel Terdiman, Raph Koster, and John Perry Barlow.

    The interviewer asks the same four questions of each person, and here is a sampling of the responses. Some discussion threads are clearly starting to emerge.

    1. What excites you about current metaverse technology?

    “Interaction increasing between virtual worlds and current social networking sites”
    “Having a persistent identity that you take with you as a person through all the different technologies and social networks and real places you go…the ability to turn your life into a story.”
    “Notion of using metaverse technology to enhance social networking technology–the intersection of the two.”
    “How all these technologies will compete and cooperate. How all these rich data streams will be knitted together in the next few years.”
    “There is still so much potential! We are just scratching the surface with virtual world technologies.”
    “The ability to simulate presence.”
    “We are moving to web based platforms, away from a lot of proprietary systems, which will spawn a lot of niche applications that will show us what these platforms are really valuable for.”
    “The potential for information manipulation and how we make things intuitive to people.”
    “The technology itself is not exciting, it’s more the combination of it with the availability of PCs and broadband networks. It’s available to a wider number of people.”
    “The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are out there trading goods and services and seeing how it will ultimately be regulated.”
    “The influx of creativity and innovation by participants who are inventing things that haven’t been invented before.”
    “The ability to bring a group from around the world together.”
    “Connecting humans with humans and seeing how they interact with each other.”
    “We are at the beginning of the time when all the bits and pieces are coming together and we are starting to get a road map of where it is all headed.”
    “Currently, not as much as what is right around the corner — we are seeing a lot of people bringing the Web to virtual technologies and virtual worlds to the Web.”
    “The current Internet is a “go-to” Internet. Virtual worlds bring the content to you, in a way that enhances your everyday experiences.”
    “So much interest and so many people thinking about it right now.”
    “How quickly we can build tools to create 3D annotations to real world locations.”
    “It’s more accessible now, and slowly getting to the masses, rather than remaining just a geek hobby.”

    2. What concerns you most about current metaverse technology?

    “Nothing really works together right now.”
    “Cultural issues…government getting in and taxing virtual goods, etc. I hope it’s later rather than sooner.
    “Hype has set the expections of virtual worlds so high that we have to get past that. The limitations of one virtual world don’t mean that the medium is flawed.”
    “The digital divide. How rapidly will the technologies be adopted outside the developed world.”
    “It could all get killed very young…from the standpoint of legal regulations, real world laws, restrictions and taxes that none of us want to deal with but we all know that they eventually have to be dealt with.”
    “Who has access to what sort of data. It will be 100 years before we can sort out the implications to privacy.”
    “We are dealing with really fundamental human aspects like body language and friendship, so we have to be careful.”
    “Lack of interoperability and standards. People are so excited about it that they aren’t really looking at it objectively. We haven’t found the killer app for virtual worlds yet. Just doing what we already do better is not going to create the metaverse. It’s more than that.”
    “Virtual spaces are becoming important to people and the nature of the interactions that are going on means we need to be having discourse in a legal sense about the things we are doing there.”
    “We don’t know how to regulate virtual commerce and contracts.”
    “It’s still early in the technology maturation cycle, so there are a lot of things that don’t work well, aren’t standardized, etc. I worry about premature closure as a result.”
    “Privacy issues.”
    “There’s a confusion between the emergence of standards and the effort to create standards. It’s better to have standards emerge from use.”
    “A lot of chaos and lack of a road map for where we are headed with metaverse technologies. Other than the simpler tools for kids, it’s a world of painful compromise. Demand is high, but it’s painful for people trying to build the end-user applications.”
    “The big iron or development solution is perfectly viable for most solutions. To what degree will we migrate to new technology patterns, given that a lot of the business cases don’t necessarily call for it. To what degree will we break out of established paradigms.”
    “There are a lot of unanswered questions. There are social and international implications, cross-cultural barrier, and everyone comes in with certain expectations about what it means. It’s difficult to prioritize what should be solved first.”
    “So much in virtual worlds came from the gaming space that we think of virtual worlds as another automonous space. Instead of starting with 3D visualization technology and social spaces and overlaying them over all the people who use the Internet and trying to figure out how they work together, we started from the assumption that we have to go someplace different from our normal work environments.”
    “Transparency of personal data.”
    “Platforms that are proprietary and not distributed; many are just c**p right now, and even the companies who provide them will say so.”
    “Making it more mainstream, so it will compete with TV and radio and other channels.”

    3. What will be the most surprising impact of metaverse technology on society within the next decade?

    “Mirror world technologies. When you can lay other kinds of data on top of something like Google Maps and drill down into the life of a real person. Not in a spooky, stalker kind of way!”
    “How deeply it will be integrated into our lives and how quickly it becomes so.”
    “Privacy…where is the line in the sand between public and private, and how do you stratify the data so that everyone doesn’t have access to all information. How can information be tailored and give the user an element of control.”
    “A decade is a long time! How much it’s used in day to day work environments. And how the generation that has grown up with it brings the tools they are used to interacting with daily into the work environment with them. It will be a full scale shift of both the work space and social space.”
    “The need for people to be connected at all times will increase. You can see it now in young people who have to be away from their IMs and web browsers. Virtual worlds will tighten the connections between people.”
    “How much time we actually spend in virtual worlds and using other kinds of applications.”
    “We will find that there are things we can do in those environments that can’t be done in the real environment, once we find the killer app.”
    “How ordinary it will become. It’s likely to morph so that being in a virtual environment will be as ordinary as using email. It just won’t matter whether you are in a virtual world or not.”
    “Education is a perfect fit for virtual worlds, so this will be a fascinating direction.”
    “It will become profoundly ordinary to spend some portion of the day in the metaverse, in the same way we do with the Web now.”
    “It will change the classroom and the way we learn completely.”
    “How much cool stuff it will do and how much it will tell others. The incentives or convenience tradeoff is going to be a revenue model that will result in loss of privacy.”
    “The international societal impact. Taking global, governmental and corporate transactions that are complex, and having them on a person to person basis.”
    “Having it pop up in places we don’t expect, like augmented reality, computer aided design, and product design, shopping, etc. The distinction between the virtual and real worlds will become more blurred, and that is where a lot of the real surprises will come from.”
    “It will become ubiquitous and everywhere in our daily lives, seamlessly integrated. That would be a pleasant surprise and output of the metaverse concept.”
    “It will become a great geographic flattener. We will see a lot more “tribal behavior” with people forming more around communities of interest.”
    “A social transformation that leads to a much healthier society that cares for itself and individuals in a much more benign way. I don’t forecast that…it would surprise me.”
    “Mobile. Mobile handsets will provide more accessibility. We need tools that can be built into a set of eyeglasses so you can interact with your items in the virtual world or in the real world. Integratable technologies. There are companies moving this direction.”

    4. What barriers will metaverse technology never overcome?

    “That’s hard to say because I’m constantly amazed with the technology and the possibilities.”
    “Touch and smell…but perhaps one day we can simulate that, too!”
    “Limits of the human brain.”
    “I don’t know any. There are some cultural barriers that will keep users from using virtual worlds in really crazy ways, but I don’t know any challenges that can’t be overcome in the next few decades.”
    “The ability to catalog/mine/manage/interrogate the huge volume of information to get to context relevant information.”
    “Body language. It’s difficult to replicate. The unspoken cues in communication.”
    “The scent of smell. A lot of our memories are triggered by smell. It’s subtle. We can simulate tactile, auditory and visual feedback, but not taste and smell.”
    “Proprietary software — walled gardens and companies that keep their knowledge to themselves.”
    “One of the biggest is that semi-sensory input is still needed. Using things like headsets that are sort of in the real world and sort of in the virtual world is inelegant, and there doesn’t yet seem to be a way to overcome it.”
    “Some of the barriers are just differences in experience. There’s not a simple set of norms for what is good and what is not good about virtual worlds, but there will always be a barrier of the need for personal control over our own data.”
    “The hardware and connectivity costs. In broad based education and commerce, we need it to be available to people who are economically, physically and geographically disadvantaged.”
    “There’s something about being in the live presence of another human being that we will simulate and get closer to, but we will still want to touch live skin from time to time.”
    “The subtle person-to-person contact and energy we get when we stand next to each other and share conversation.”
    “Privacy in exchange for profit and entertainment.”
    “The peace and quiet, the atmosphere offered by the real world.”
    “People have to want to use it and deal with the kind of identity and privacy issues it poses. They are endemic to the medium.”
    “It will difficult to account for all of the unknowns, and hard to prioritize. Making mistakes is a great way to improve, but it’s easy to get frustrate with failures. There’s a big evolution to occur, and we won’t be able to get around some of the barriers.”
    “There’s an evolutionary bias toward building trust from non-verbal behaviors that we have as a species, and there is suspicion that we will lose some of that in virtual worlds. We won’t be able to fake that out with technology, so we will still need the face to face interaction occasionally in order to create the bonds of trust that occur in the real world where the subtle signals can be read.”
    “The sensory experience of the real world is approachable, but we will never be able to simulate the true richness of a real world experience.”
    “To make it a really natural, organic experience. Without that the uptake will be low and people will not be able to treat it like a natural space.”

    divider
    May 20th, 2008

    Implementing Virtual Worlds: Key Planning Decisions

    Last year I made several presentations to executive groups about Second Life and other virtual worlds. The overwhelming response I had led me to create a workshop comparing the features of many of the current virtual worlds to help business leaders understand their options so they can make solid decisions about what works best for their own organizations and business processes. The people I have talked with are universally fascinated by and intimidated by what a 3D Internet means. They don’t really know what criteria they should use to evaluate the technologies or to gauge the impact on the people in their organizations. Many are not even sure what questions to ask a consultant. Here is a list of things that can help you plan for a 3D future:

    How do you plan for it?
    When you say “plan”, know whether you mean educate executives, prepare the organization, explore technologies or prioritize implementation features.

    How far in advance?
    If you’re asking now, the answer is “start now”. As one business leader recently said, now is the time to get into the shallow end of the pool and splash around…while there still is a shallow end!

    What are some baby steps to take that still give flexibility if the winds change?

  • Consider open source platforms
  • Identify a few work groups or departments that could really benefit from 3D interactions and just offer it to them initially
  • Identify the business processes that are performing well as they are and don’t make any changes
  • Don’t spend a lot of money on technologies initially. They are changing rapidly. Spend your money instead to educate and train your people on how to make good use of 3D social interactions.
  • Answer these key questions:

  • Purpose
  • Experience level of users
  • Who’s behind the initiative/push to do something now?
  • What are the expected outcomes/results?
  • What measurements will we use for success?
  • Other planning considerations:

  • Existing technology stack
  • Change management impact
  • Communications
  • Social vs. quantitative skills
  • Security and authentication
  • Permit remote access?
  • Mobile devices
  • Once your key people have discussed these issues, you will probably need a consultant experienced in virtual world options. If you’d like some help identifying the right consultants for your needs, feel free to contact me. I’ll be glad to suggest some names, or help you myself if I can.

    divider
    May 19th, 2008

    KM Standards Should Be Aimed at…What?

    There have been some very interesting and erudite discussions recently in the ActKM group which I have, unfortunately, been too busy to participate in. This comment by Neil Olonoff caught my fancy, though, so I decided to blog it. He has written a position paper noting that many recent US government mis-steps have been “knowledge failures,” and he is now searching for a way to establish KM standards to drive success and consistency in the Federal government. He said:

    “Tim’s (Kannegieter) analogy to the fire code is a very good starting point. Fire codes are aimed at avoiding having buildings burn down. KM standards should be aimed at … what? Here are a few suggested functional standard areas …

    - knowledge sharing across boundaries under certain circumstances to be defined locally
    - adherence to good knowledge storage and retrieval practices, to be defined locally
    - meeting an acceptable level of learning and skills in knowledge work competencies (according to a common benchmark, like TPFL or similar)
    - formulation, vetting, and publishing of best practices
    - expertise and personnel location capability
    - knowledge retention and sustainment capabilities to ensure transfer of knowledge to successors.”

    There are troublesome words in these suggestions that frequently have different meanings to different people (in bold above), not to mention that the term “knowledge” is used when he actually means “information”. I know his suggestions are only ideas at this point, and a lot of wordsmithing would be needed. But just like every other attempted definition of KM I have ever read, these ideas are full of assumptions of a certain point of view…which may or may not be true and/or complete for all organizations or industries.

    To me this begs the question of whether there should be KM standards, or actually, whether there ever can be “KM standards.” There is still widespread disagreement about what KM actually is, even though most people now acknowledge it to be a distinctive management discipline. You can only have standards when you can measure. You can only measure when you have a scale against which to measure. At this stage of the evolution of KM as a discipline, establishing standards could actually limit the the creative impetus to explore the breadth of possibilities KM can offer.

    Like I have said many times in the past, KM is still like the elephant in the old fable of the blind men and the elephant. Depending upon what an organization’s need is, and upon the skill and understanding of the person leading the KM charge, that elephant can look more like document management or technology or expertise location or a portal or communities of practice. Perhaps standards for each major component of KM are possible, but I don’t think we are at a point where “KM standards” in a universal sense make any sense at all. Let’s not put it into a box before we know how big that box should be.

    divider
    May 2nd, 2008

    Some Practical Business Applications for Virtual Worlds

    It’s exciting to be living through the early stages of the development of realistic, interactive virtual worlds and their intersections with real life (what some people call the “meat space”). At this point in time, anything is possible, anyone can participate, and any group or technology can become the dominant force in our virtual future. Things are moving very fast now — too fast for anyone to keep up with everything that is happening and the ideas that are springing up like mushrooms after a rain. That is especially difficult for corporations, governments and other large organizations to deal with, so here is a list of some practical applications that these groups can set their focus on. I’ve distilled it from a number of leading sources that have weight and credibility in the field.

  • Building Automation (sensors, security and other relevant data – temperature, humidity, setting of devices, errors that come from devices etc) A virtual agent would handle communication between devices, monitor status, and instruct each device about what to do. Each building or home could be thought of as a box defined by rules, and the avatars of different people with different interests or permissions, such as financial or technical, could access and obtain pertinent data from the virtual agent. The German company Wago is a leader in building automation.)
  • Energy Monitoring (collecting data on energy consumption and availability (e.g. electricity, gas, oil, water), as well as projected cost savings, tracking the interaction and integration of different systems, e.g., heating, cooling and fuel consumption, to reveal energy leaks. Energy monitoring can drastically reduce the carbon footprint of houses and large facilities. By tracking the interaction and integration of heating, cooling and fuel consumption systems, energy leaks not understood from a single data stream can be identified and resolved.)
  • Conditional Monitoring and Alert Management (monitoring the state of various systems and transactions that can result in a work order being issued. HVAC, lights, heating, refrigeration, access control, elevators, gates, switches, motion detectors and all kinds of sensors can report data to a central control that monitors and analyzes input and initiates specific visual displays. IBM recently announced a vNOC (virtual network operations center) it created for Implenia, a Swiss construction and facilities management firm.
  • Preventive maintenance (field level sensor readings, part numbers, staff scheduling, customer requirements can all be tracked and reported using a combination of real life data feeds that create instant visual effects.)
  • Distribution channel automation (this also applies to military convoy automation. From point of sale or point of manufacture through the shipping area and onto trucks, trains or planes, 3D images can be used to represent everything from packets of data flowing through a system network to the actual transport vehicles moving items from Point A to Point B in real time on a map. Delivery and condition data, together with recipient signatures, can make their way back to the point of origination instantly. Interruptions, delays or accidents will be obvious.)
  • Virtual commerce (connecting a 3D virtual store/inventory with a back-end Real Life system like SAP will open many new possibilities for people to participate actively in the act of shopping, designing their own products, arranging for the delivery of real goods, and even delivering virtual goods to a virtual world. Virtual shopping baskets can fill from a pre-developed shopping list, and advise the status on unavailable items. Scripted boards located strategically in the virtual floor can trigger totals of items in the basket or recommend additional items from a nearby display. An avatar shopper can drop his shopping cart on a cash register, and initiate a real world transaction that will result in payment procedures and delivery of the real world items to a street address. Customers can enter the virtual world and inhabit model homes where they can design their own rooms and furniture, that can then be converted to real world products delivered right to the customer. Scripted chat bots or avatars of real world sales staff can assist customers with purchasing decisions.)
  • Banking (simulate high-volume banking environments, link virtual ATMs to real-time authorization from a core banking system, provide virtual credit card accounts and transactions, provide loans in virtual or global currencies to qualified applicants–as avatars. Not as far-fetched as it sounds. See this article in Computer Weekly.)
  • Travel There are amazing 3D replicas of modern and historical locations in Second Life and Active Worlds, with even more to come from Google Earth. Imagine being able to take a 3D tour of a place before you visit, so you will know what to expect and the layouts of locations. Google is expected to launch a 3D avatar-based version of a world built upon its Street View and Google Maps technologies this summer, which will make it even more realistic to view sites before visiting in person. Imagine if avatars could click on a picture of a virtual location, or click on a real world picture of the same location and enter into a purchase transaction. Imagine going into a travel office or visiting their web site and being given a tour around several cities or cruise ships by a real life travel agent’s avatar. Hotels could offer looks at their rooms and facilities. Armchair travelers and the disabled who cannot travel might be willing to pay a subscription fee for the right to explore the world virtually.
  • Training/Education Emergency doctors in the field who need a consultation, or training in a surgical procedure. An effort is underway to create detailed 3D models of the entire human body, with several organs already available for study. There is a walk-in model of a human cell on Genome island in Second Life. Education is a hot topic in virtual worlds, because everyone can see how much vitality and energy results from creating experiential 3D learning environments. Many businesses are already exploring the educational and recruiting potential of virtual worlds.
  • Other possibilities that come to mind include:

  • Data representation and management reports
  • Employee background checks
  • Call center and Help Desk automation
  • Bio-hazard, weather, chemical and nuclear emergency preparedness simulations
  • War games and military strategy simulations
  • If you’d like to suggest others, or tell me about interesting architectures or practical 3D applications you have come across in your own travels, please drop me a note!

    divider
    March 29th, 2008

    11 Disappointments of Virtual Worlds

    For the last six months I have been saturated with virtual world experiences. In addition to more than 20 years of multiplayer gaming as an avatar, I have tried to focus a lot of my time in recent years on other types of virtual world experiences. I have visited There.com, Kaneva, Active Worlds, Second Life, World of Warcraft, Whyville, Yo Ho Ho! Puzzle Pirates, and vSide. Thanks to Metanomics and Life 2.0, I have listened to presentations by the CEOs or CFOs of Second Life, There.com, Kaneva, Forterra, and Whyville, in addition to leading academics and developers in the field — Nick Yee, Raph Koster, Howard Rheingold, Richard Bartle, Edward Castronova, Julian Dibbell, Benn Konsynski, Nicole Yankelovich, Robert Bloomfield, David Wortley, and IBM’s David Levine.

    Here is my take on the 11 biggest disappointments participants are finding with virtual worlds today:

      Users:

    • No start, no finish
    • Avatars cannot be moved between worlds
    • Lack of facial expressions and body language
    • Griefing
    • No reputation system
    • Organizations:

    • Unengaged management
    • Touch and go companies
    • Lack of imagination
    • Expecting virtual worlds to become new markets
    • Security
    • Intellectual property protection

    Users

    1. No start and no finish. Virtual worlds are not a game. There is no beginning, and no final battle with cinemagraphic cut scene to mark the end of play. World developers need to be more sensitive to how strange the virtual world environments and avatars are to newbies. Not everyone has been a gamer and learned keyboard movement commands. My mother is a good example to keep in mind, and yours probably is, too. It’s very off-putting to many newbies to complete the orientation training, and move into the mainstream of the world…and have no place to start and nothing organized to do! Many people I have brought to this experience have said, “Now what am I supposed to do?” after finishing their orientation. They simply don’t know where to go or what options exist, especially in worlds as large and varied as Active Worlds and Second Life. They don’t know where they are in the continuum of the virtual environment. Perhaps an “advanced orientation” exploration quest could be developed — where newbies are given a choice of 12 varied destinations and asked to complete a visit to five of them and win a prize. It would ease them into the mainstream better, because they would have a purpose, plus they would gain a frame of reference upon which to determine what they might personally like to do there.

    2. Avatars cannot be moved between worlds. Time invested to develop and customize an avatar and its persona is wasted when the human leaves that world. Once we dress our avatar just the way we want, and fix their hair, shape, color and wardrobe exactly so, we have to start over in any other system — often with a more rudimentary or less expressive avatar. Wouldn’t it be nice if my Second Life avatar could put on her elven armor and pop over into World of Warcraft to be a fierce druid warrior for a few hours? Or if a Klingon from Star Wars: Galaxies could slip into a business suit and attend a corporate business meeting, then return later that night to the intergalactic battle?

    3. Lack of facial expressions and body language. There.com has some limited lip synching and eyebrow waving for live speech, however, it is not close to real synchronization. To get users fully engaged with their avatars, the avatars need an almost unlimited number of choices for customization and self-expression. Most (all?) avatar systems have special animations that the human behind them can activate manually or macro in a sequence, but the avatar technology doesn’t yet let the avatars respond automatically and appropriately to audio or visual cues in the environment, such as the approach of a friend or a surprise. Expressive abilities are being developed now by companies like Danish RealXtend.

    4. Griefing. Whether it’s putting ugly, flashing and rotating aerial advertisements up in a quiet and beautiful residential community, or using powerful devices to push avatars around against their will, or crashing a business seminar and being obscene continuously in the back channel chat, some players simply enjoy trying to dominate others. I observed this last week in a Metanomics presentation broadcast from There.com. A person in Second Life spent most of the hour making angry and sarcastic come-backs in text chat to practically every statement the There and CosmoGIRL presenters made.

    5. No reputation system. Who are these people? Maybe Amazon.com and Ebay have spoiled us, but I would like to see a permanent reputation meter attached to each avatar that represents the community’s evaluation of their contribution and trustworthiness. Good rep? Better prices, invitations to exclusive events, unique items, special permissions. Bad rep? Booted out of groups, unable to buy land in desirable areas, muted in public presentations, display of a “caution” mark on their avatar. Activities could be provided to enable griefers to improve their reputation, like staffing a booth for a non-profit event in the virtual world, taking newbies on inaugural tours, or donating creative time or money to helping others solve problems.

    Organizations

    6. Unengaged management. Executives and managers who personally have little experience with virtual worlds or multiplayer gaming are challenged to make the leap of faith in a space where top-down control breaks down, where it is *fun* to participate in getting work done, and where the young or the IT department are suddenly the experts. That’s one reason why we see the leading technology companies engaged and few of the old line businesses — their managements have much more experience and are quicker to see the value and potential. Companies like IBM, Intel, Circuit City, Best Buy, Cisco and Rezzable are making big commitments because they can see the virtual future more easily and because they value innovation.

    7. Touch-and-go companies. Organizations that go into virtual worlds to experiment and learn how they might apply to their business, pack up and leave after a minimal time there. Whether they have learned what they need to know or whether a “rogue” group within the organization set up the venture and then gets shut down, these organizations do a disservice to themselves and to the community they participated in. Instead of treating virtual worlds as potential new markets, and pulling out when the traffic numbers drop off, see what other lessons can be learned there. It’s not business as usual in the metaverse. Companies that make a long term commitment to the future of virtual worlds will receive value in ways we can’t fully comprehend today. Look at IBM. They don’t see avatars as customer traffic but as allies in inventing the future. They are investing in experimentation with the world and creating new products and expertise, which have made them the dominant voice in this space. That can only result in new customers who seek their expertise, both now and in the future.

    8. Lack of imagination. Replicating the real world in the virtual world is a beginner’s mistake and works against the virtual world experience. Is there anything gained by having an avatar navigate frustrating tight corridors and low ceilings and doors that have to be opened manually, just because that is faithful to corporate headquarters? Avatars can fly! There is no weather! Keyboard navigation is clumsy! Avatars don’t get injured! Why not have open ceilings or permeable walls or instant teleports to distant locations? Why not put up presentations on giant screens outdoors that can be manipulated by the users instead of the presenters? Why not enlist visitors in developing a new product or service? Why not simulcast meetings held in the corporate auditorium to avatars in the virtual world (and broadcast the avatars back to the auditorium)?

    9. Seeing virtual worlds as new markets. Marketing is something organizations understand, and virtual worlds are not. Corporate people who want to sell a new idea internally usually tout something’s marketing potential and how competitors are already engaged. While claiming that the people inhabiting virtual worlds are a good new market, marketers risk disappointment with the results if they truly expect traffic to make a difference. It’s just too soon in the maturity of both technology and users. We can’t justify participation on that basis yet. Companies that are making money or gaining new customers are selling services in the virtual world for use in the virtual world. In other words, small change. Virtual world traffic is simply too low for real world marketing impacts, although it is expected to develop dramatically in the next few years.

    10. Security. While some corporations have become excited about the possibilities that virtual worlds offer in education, collaboration and creativity, they have had to confront the reality that the level of security they require for business or other confidential transactions simply doesn’t yet exist. Groups like the Open Source initiative, the Software Freedom Law Center, and Open Source Applications Foundation are working to develop greater security, user authentication and single sign on. They are confronting proprietary technology platforms, inconsistencies in database design, data transmission, and confidentiality by moving toward open source code and interoperability of avatars. These are years away, so in the meantime, most organizations have moved virtual world technology behind their own secure firewalls and continue to develop it there. This is unfortunate, since it removes important and valuable users and innovators out of the mainstream; however, Sun Microsystems’ Wonderland technology may provide a way to bridge both proprietary and public access. You can listen to a recent virtual panel discussion on these issues on UgoTrade’s blog.

    11. Intellectual property protection. Content creators are rightly concerned about ways to protect their objects, code and writing from theft. Copyright laws are being challenged in new and unexpected ways. If you lose a virtual item, was it actually yours, or did it even exist in the conventional legal sense? Does the owner of the software code that runs the technology of the virtual world and the tools used to create an object actually own the object, especially if the user is participating via a “free” account? If an object is sold to another citizen of the virtual world, and the creator takes the currency for it but doesn’t deliver the item, what is the proper legal jurisdiction for making a complaint? Do copyright protections cover virtual items that may not be viewed to exist? Has the author lost any claim to ownership by allowing the item or texture to be widely distributed in the virtual world? The complexity of these issues makes it daunting for artists and developers who want to create for the virtual world. The World Economic Forum in Davos even had a panel on this topic last January — “Virtual Worlds: Fiction or Reality“.

    We are increasingly a visual society, and young people already in the marketplace, as well as those who are just being born, will demand that traditional ways of doing business or having social interactions change — just as each upcoming generation has always done of its elders. The latest research is saying it’s not “if”, but “when” virtual world technologies become normative, and the dizzying number of Web 2.0/Web3.0/collaboration/standardization initiatives support it. Those in positions of authority today can’t afford to put their heads in the sand, or, as the Worldwide Web did to many Luddites only a dozen years ago, they will find they are trying to make buggy whips when everyone is driving Model A Fords only a few years from now. It’s time for leaders and aspiring leaders to become knowledgeable of virtual worlds and to contribute to making them the positive and constructive platforms they will become. How? Find an independent consultant who is not sponsored by a technology platform, and get the person to help you think through your own needs and options carefully. Or, if any of these disappointments really resonate with you, take one of them and start a crusade to change it! There are reputations and careers and satisfaction to be achieved by those who get involved now. This is the ground floor of a groundswell. It’s where the rubber meets the clouds. He who has ears, let him hear.

    divider
    March 5th, 2008

    Avatars and the New Frontier

    I’m sitting here tonight with three browser windows open. One has 22 tabs open on Second Life and virtual worlds news, and the other has 24 tabs open on virtual world research related to aging. It’s overwhelming, and I have only begun to scratch the surface of what’s out there waiting for me to discover it! How reminiscent this is of when the Web was in its early days! When people first discovered how to use a browser, and they (and I) spent endless nights and weekends “surfing with their pants on fire” just to see what was out there and revel in the incredible displays of creativity. There were two camps…the one that preferred text only and turned off those newfangled images that just got in the way, and the one that loved the pictures because they made the technology accessible for the first time to non-programmers. They even sort of split along Mac and PC lines for a time. While some purists still insist on working in ASCII and using FTP from a shell account, they are now rare. Most developers I know are as happy to see images now as the non-users were in the beginning. Quite simply, we are increasingly becoming a visual society, and more and more of our communications are graphical.

    That’s one reason why I so readily see the parallel between the early worldwide Web and today’s virtual worlds. I thought about saying Web 2.0 or social media, but it’s really not all of that. It’s about virtual worlds. Everything I’m reading in these “tabs” of research is pointing in one clear direction…some sort of avatar. The avatars can be little humanoid figures one moves about on a screen in a game or social world, or they can be more human or animal-like robots programmed to perform complex, tedious or impossible tasks in real life. One paper discusses bots that are programmed to perform daily Internet searches on specific topics and return daily news and updates. Another discusses phone systems integrated with chat bots that can have conversations so nearly real that the customer can be fooled. Another talks about the elderly and having a furry “artificial companion” to interact with to enhance quality of life (think Tamagochi pets and how mature adult people worried about getting home to play with their pet so it wouldn’t get depressed and look at them with sad eyes). More and more sophisticated avatars are emerging. RealXtend, for example, is creating avatars based upon the bones of the human skeleton. They will display accurate body language and appropriate facial expressions, making them more realistic than the deadpan avatars of today.

    Human beings are strange creatures. We can see right through most guises, yet we are willing to suspend our disbelief instantly for the right appealing concept. I think avatars are that concept. Right now most people don’t know how to use a keyboard to activate an avatar, and avatars are designed poorly and can’t be transported from one environment to another. That will all change in the next couple of years as virtual environments become more secure and pervasive at work and at home.

    If you read my articles regularly, you know I am an advocate and proponent of virtual worlds and avatar social interactions. They enhance communication. I can accept equally well receiving customer service from a chat bot that scores well on the Turing test, or giving my elderly mother a furry bag that makes purring noises as long as she provides the right sort of input to keep it happy. I simply don’t mind that we might be creating an alien race of intelligent machines that will be smarter than us when we reach the Singularity at some point in the future. I think they are wondrous and amazing — phenomenal products of brilliant human imaginings and ingenuity. Yes, what we have now is crude. And we don’t have standards or single sign on across platforms or legal or physical protections or complete understanding of what we are inventing. Those will come.

    Right now we are in the explosive “pre-cambrian” period of virtual worlds, just as we were almost 15 years ago with the Web. New ideas and concepts are coming fast and furiously from a lot of sources. I know because I’m sitting here looking at 46 tabs representing articles and blogs or news sites that I would not be seeing without the development of the Web. Incredible ideas and possibilities are surfacing from unknown and strange directions, and there are few who yet know how to capitalize on them. (If anyone says they do, then they are just dreaming.) There is a long learning curve ahead of us. We can, however, see that what is emerging is important and will change everything, even if we just don’t yet know how! That’s what keeps me waking up and sitting down to work every day. To me it’s clear — virtual worlds are changing everything. Another frontier stands before us, with gold waiting to be taken from the rivers, and it’s a great time to be alive! :)

    divider
    February 27th, 2008

    PR and Virtual Worlds

    This evening I read an article on Ragan.com by Christine Kent, that proposes what social media PR professionals should adopt or drop in 2008. While much of the article was about FaceBook and MySpace, the author quoted several sources who panned Second Life, saying it is a “barren wasteland”, a waste of time, “no one is there”, and “It’s turned into a hangout for porno freaks and weirdos.” These comments smack of inexperience in virtual worlds, to me, so I responded to the piece with the following:

    I agree with the author that Second Life is not the right place for PR professionals. They will not interact with or reach business media people there. You may find this video of a panel discussion held with real world media in Second Life two weeks ago interesting (http://www.slcn.tv/metanomics-real-world-press-vw).

    I disagree, however, with the assessment that SL is a “barren wasteland” or dying. What is dying is the hype that generated a lot of curious one-time visitors last year. Only people who are inexperienced in virtual worlds would measure their effectiveness by the amount of traffic. That is the equivalent of counting page hits on a web site. No one can experience the potential of virtual worlds by dropping in once or twice for two hours and assuming they have seen enough. (Especially if they have spent some of that time hanging out in cybersex places!)

    There is a vital, intelligent and innovative group of people inhabiting virtual worlds like Second Life and Active Worlds today. They are the thought leaders, the pioneers, and the consultants who people will be turning to over the next 10 years for guidance about how to make virtual worlds work in a corporate environment. When The Well was young, people scoffed about anyone’s ability to have a “real” relationship with people you had only met online. A “community” was where you lived. When the Web was young, communicators and executives worried about losing control of their corporate messages if “everyone” had the ability to publish. The same was true with blogs and wikis. Forget about the cybersex stuff…that’s just an annoyance that exists like strip clubs around the corner from your office. You don’t have to go there.

    Gartner, Forrester, Business Week and other respected publishers are bullish on virtual worlds. Gartner says they will be ubiquitous in business by 2011 (the government of China says 2010!). IBM is doing some tremendous work in conjunction with Second Life and some other virtual platforms to create interoperability standards based on open source platforms and secure identities. Just this week they announced a pioneering virtual data center for Implenia, and yes, the project lead happens to walk around the virtual project attired as a wizard. (They also announced ASME, a 3D visualization method that allows doctors to visualize patient medical records in an entirely new way. ASME allows a doctor to click with the computer mouse on a particular part of the avatar “body” to trigger a search of medical records to retrieve relevant information.) Watch for some other upcoming announcements from IBM featuring other applications for business processes. The National Academy of Engineers has identified virtual worlds as one of the top 14 challenges to be solved in the 21st century. And pay attention to the avatars and 3D representations you will see during the Beijing Olympics. I could give you many other examples.

    Communicators need to let go of the stereotypes of virtual worlds as “games” or “fluff”. They are becoming serious social environments and business tools…just not for every business! As I remember, communicators were also slow to accept the Web in the late 90s because they didn’t understand it themselves and it threatened the way communications had always been done. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    divider
    February 18th, 2008

    The Value of Learning by Doing

    In the process of building out my project in Second Life, I needed to learn scripting so an object I created would be animated in a certain way. I’m no programmer, but I’m brave, so I signed up for a scripting class today. It was a short class, and only covered the basics, but it was a great reminder of what it’s like to set out to learn something new and accomplish it.

    Adult learning theory says adults need to “do” — they can’t just sit and listen to endless lectures. They want to manipulate the objects, to sit in a circle and put pen to paper, or debate a topic with others. The most lasting and effective learning occurs in these types of situations.

    Today my little avatar went to a strange location in Second Life to take a “class” from someone I have never met before and know nothing about. Amazingly, there were other people like me there as well…all of us over 40 (we asked!) and putting our naive selves in the hands of someone who may have been 16 and only one step ahead of us. Nevertheless, it worked out, because the instructor came prepared with some handout support we could keep for reference, and we spent the better part of the class on voice chat, learning by making mistakes or asking the group to help or explain something we just couldn’t get on our own. It was great! Everyone in the small class brought a different perspective, and was learning to script for entirely different reasons, yet we really did help each other. One guy had some simple programming background…enough to inform us that the scripting language was based on C++…which impressed us all even more when we finally accomplished our task. Three said they were teachers in real life, and were trying to learn how to teach their students about learning in virtual worlds.

    The instruction was sketchy. Everyone had a lesson note card, and although the instructor tried to set the pace, the class quickly ran away with the session. While one or two lagged behind, stuck on one step or another, two others were running ahead and carrying on their own side conversation about how to solve the next challenge that the instructor had not yet introduced. Amazingly, we all ended up more or less together at the end of the class, cheering like children when we caused the cubes we had created to rise up, twirl suspended in the air, and change colors each time they were clicked on. Not bad for one hour! It is one thing to read or to hear. It’s an entirely different (and richer) learning experience to “do”.

    divider
    February 18th, 2008

    Great Challenges of the 21st Century

    Today’s bit of inspiration comes from The National Academies in Washington. Go figure. The National Academy of Engineering has declared “enhancing virtual reality” to be one of its 14 great challenges of the 21st century. Right up there with “Provide energy from fusion” and “Restore and improve urban infrastructure”. The choices fall into four themes that are essential for humanity to flourish — sustainability, health, reducing vulnerability, and joy of living, and the list is not ranked. They are offering the public a chance to vote on what they think the most important challenge is. You can vote here. Another item on the list is “Advance personalized learning”, which is closely related to enhancing virtual reality in my mind. Nice to have some serious minds coming to the same conclusions at last that some of us have been espousing for 10-15 years. This next 20 years is really going to be such an interesting and life-changing time to be alive!

    divider
    February 14th, 2008

    Blending the Real, the Unreal and the Unreal

    Yesterday I participated in Metanomics’ excellent lecture series in Second Life on the study of business and policy in virtual worlds. Last week Robert Gehorsham, president of Forterra Systems, described how virtual worlds are being used by the military and entertainment industry, and where they are headed. Upcoming presentations are planned with Michael Wilson, CEO of There.com, game design guru Richard Bartle, and noted MMOG researcher Nick Yee. This week was a discussion on “Possible Futures of Virtual Worlds and Society”, a real life conference session hosted by Emory University, and featuring Chris Klaus, CEO of Kaneva, and John Zdanowski, CFO of Linden Lab, the creators of Second Life. I recommend the series, if you share my interests.

    The topic was interesting and relevant to me, but what I found most intriguing was sitting at the intersection between the real and the virtual. I’ve alluded to this intersection before. The Second Life Cable Network, an enterprising group of media professionals who broadcast programs from within Second Life to the real world, filmed the event, and broadcast it simultaneously in Kaneva, Second Life and Emory’s conference room. It was one of those bizarre, amazing and wonderful experiences that sometimes just happen. I was sitting in my real life office, watching my avatar in Second Life sitting in an audience of about 50 avatars in comfy chairs, looking at a panel of avatar speakers on a stage. Other locations in Second Life were also connected, streaming the feed to their own audiences.

    Next to the virtual panel was a virtual video screen displaying the live Emory academic group in real time. Behind the panel of presenters on the dais at Emory were two projection screens — one showing our Second Life audience and speakers in real time, and the other showing the Kaneva world participants. Each of those screens also displayed the “back channel” typed chatting that was going on simultaneously in both virtual worlds, as we debated and questioned points related to the topic within our own virtual world groups. I could see my avatar seeing Emory and the screen behind them showing ourselves seeing Emory…and talking about it! The session moderator was at Emory in person, and his avatar was at the podium simultaneously in Second Life, fielding questions in the chat channel and conveying them to the live speakers at Emory. Finally, just to round out the experience, the avatar speaker panel were logged in to the Emory conference using Skype, so they were delivering their presentations simultaneously over two voice channels (three if Kaneva has live voice as well)! It was something really amazing to experience, and you can view the SLCN edit of the program here.

    What occurs to me is how much differently humanity is challenged to participate in this type of interaction than we are in a traditional TV broadcast or classroom lecture. It’s like you have to switch your brain on in a new way to absorb information coming in from so many different channels simultaneously. I found I simply could not focus on just the Emory presenters or the SL typed chat or the experience of the experience, because they were all interesting and it was all happening faster than I could switch gears to follow. I had to open myself up to let it all flood in at once, without taking a linear approach to following the topic or focusing on just one channel of input. I had to become a sponge.

    I read recently that the brains of the young generation are biologically different today. They are growing up with cell phones, text messaging, instant messaging, email, MMOGs, TV, global Internet research capabilities, connecting with hundreds or thousands of people, and they are comfortable swimming in that sea of input and participating actively in multiple channels at once. Their neural programming has adapted to produce the skills needed to deal with their environment. Older people like me have to make a concerted effort to do it. But when it clicks — like it did for me yesterday — there’s a glorious flooding of information that made me feel like when the giant alien ship in Close Encounters suddenly starts to “communicate” with its music and light display, or when Neo finally makes his personal connection to the matrix and is flooded by all the streaming green binary data. I got it! I was swimming happily along amidst all the things vying for my attention, like a bobber on a fishing line, and it was exhilarating! That doesn’t mean I’m any better at multitasking today than I was yesterday, but it does mean that I’m no longer intimidated by it. I will know how to switch on “sponge mode” again when I need to. Life is good.

    divider
    February 12th, 2008

    The Philosophy of Games?

    Let’s just ignore that I haven’t written a blog commentary recently. Chalk it up to Second Life. Recently I have had some free time, so I have been helping a friend who purchased a sim/island in SL by planning and creating a place he can use to demonstrate to business leaders why virtual worlds are relevant. It’s been an interesting and joyously consuming task — to the wee hours of the morning on many days. Luckily I have friends (and you know who you are!) who keep me up-to-date on non-Second Life things in the gaming world–like this article by JC Barnett at the Japanmanship blog which gave me a good laugh.

    http://japanmanship.blogspot.com/2008/02/tractatus-lascivio-philosophicus.html

    Personally, I find most scholarly tracts to be grasping at inconsequential straws — sort of throwing things against the wall to see if they stick. For example, it has always seemed ridiculous to ascribe some of the meanings and nuances to poetry and literature that academics try to convince us were intended. It’s pretentious for them to assume they grasp the “meaning” of something the author intended that others don’t see, or that we poor fools need their insights before we can understand. I’ve written many poems. I’ve written a couple of books. While none of them are great literature, speaking as an author, I have grave doubts that most authors begin with a deliberate intention to create the multilayered complexities and nuances that scholars work so hard to deduce. But that topic is for another day.

    Should we view games as exemplars of philosophy? I doubt it. There’s a psychology of game design/play, there is a technology of game design/play, there is a strategy of game design/play, and there is a consequence of game design/play; but unless you are talking about the most esoteric levels of the impact of “gaming” on the human condition or as a causal effect on human nature or behavior, it’s just self-important puffery designed to get someone tenure. We can’t really take it seriously!

    Perhaps the article was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it makes me a little apprehensive about gaming literature to come. Do we really need deep interpretations of games? Come on now. I don’t debate that many game developers are well educated and are aware of myths, legends, and the literature, as well as competitors, relevant to their current project. They put it into their back stories, and we relate to it because they are drawing on familiar archetypes to move a story line along. I simply don’t think it adds to the human experience in any way to ascribe deep, complex meanings to stories and characters that, for the most part, are, like most literary efforts, unoriginal. The plots and archetypes wear new clothes, but they are all part of our collective unconscious. That is what makes them powerful as gaming devices, and why it is so silly to pontificate about them. If someone can point out anything truly new in a literary or mythical sense in games today, please do correct me.

    divider
    January 9th, 2008

    New Listing of Programs

    Because I’m asked occasionally where to get KM certifications or which KM conference is the best one to attend, I decided to put together a listing a few months ago. It’s also linked in the right column. The list is global, and I am not claiming it is comprehensive, even though it has a lot of sources. David Gurteen maintains a list on his web site that may also be useful, if you are looking for something yourself. Let me know if I’ve missed something that should be added! Thanks.

    divider
    January 7th, 2008

    If I were starting a community…

    Whether social or business-to-business, the thinking that precedes the launch of a community initiative should be the same. For this article I am focusing on business communities of practice, both internal to the organization and external — engaging business partners and/or customers. If I were starting a new community, these are the things I would get answers to first. Planners and organizers will improve their chances of creating a successful community if they cover these questions before they plan their technology or their launch.

    Objectives of the community

  • Participants
  • Management
  • Don’t expect them to be the same. Reconcile the differences.

    Conditions critical for success:

  • Social/cultural
  • Technical
  • Organizational
  • In a perfect world, the community is self-governing and establishes its own rules and guidelines. Most corporate communities have some level of expectation on group membership, participation and knowledge capture for their communities. Be sure to communicate all expectations to the group’s members.

    Who is the audience?

  • Issues
  • Experience with communities
  • Demographics
  • Voluntary participation vs. mandated participation
  • What do they have in common (basis for community)
  • Where and how does the regular, job-related work of these people intersect
  • When planning the technology, the launch and all the communications around a new community, it can help to have some specific people in mind. Identify two people who represent the key demographics and put up pictures of them to remind you who the users will be. It will help at planning crossroads and in defining the technology requirements.

    Type of community

  • Online vs. face-to-face
  • Professional vs. work team
  • Employees only or include external members (clients, suppliers, customers)
  • Applied vs. theoretical
  • Open or restricted membership
  • Moderated vs. unmoderated
  • Technology Requirements

  • Plain vanilla or fancy features
  • What can you accomplish with technologies already part of the IT stack?
  • Will you include social media? (which, can you make it secure, guidelines for use, etc.)
  • Level of participant experience with communities
  • Finally, plan ahead for the unthinkable (moderator burnout, seasonal impacts, bad behavior, cliques, lack of funding, huge unexpected volume). Plan special training for community moderators. Plan to train the participants in using the technology. Plan to use management spokespersons to promote using the tools and the value of communities — both professional and for the business.

    If you’d like to discuss any of these topics, please feel free to post a reply or send me an email.

    divider
    December 23rd, 2007

    Leveraging Virtual Environments to Deliver Corporate Training

    The impact of immersive virtual environments is just starting to be felt by corporations, and is likely to have a significant impact on many businesses. The value of learning simulations has been chronicled for more than 10 years, but little has been written about the specific industries or processes that will benefit. The processes will vary by industry, but those that will benefit from virtualization will offer dramatic new opportunities for high impact corporate training. Skills or processes that involve social networking will be obvious starting points — for example, traditional training areas, such as new hire orientations, diversity and inclusion, ethics, sexual harrassment, cultural understanding, and policy changes. Talent management areas, such as critical thinking, leadership, logic, rational decision making, strategic planning, sales effectiveness, and negotiation skills will also benefit. In addition, employee and partner interactions are good candidates for virtual world interactions.

    Traditional training is less effective in areas such as the construction of interactive device models, learning by discovery, acquisition and storage of domain expertise, and the automated presentation of instruction in the context of working device models (think airplane pilots or heavy equipment operators). Virtual environments excel at training for these areas. Complex tasks require learning by doing, and learning by doing in a designed virtual experience is much closer to the real thing than standard classroom role plays.

    Simulations have limitations other than subject matter. Although the technology for virtual environments is improving rapidly, it is not yet robust enough for most business-critical processes. Users are largely unaccustomed to using avatars and 3D interfaces, so adoption rates can be low at the outset. Trainers themselves may find teaching through an avatar an unnatural skill that requires them to rethink their teaching style. Businesses probably have a window of 18-24 months to develop a virtual training strategy and begin implementing a technology solution.

    As I defined it previously, a virtual world is “a persistent simulated space inhabited by multiple concurrent or non-concurrent users who share a sense of physical embodiment that enables them to interact imaginatively with others and experience real world outcomes.” Virtual worlds will not eliminate traditional training, since they are not designed specifically for education, but they will change significantly how learners learn. Research in the field, such as that by the U.S. Army Research Institute, shows a dramatic improvement in learning behaviors and effectiveness in learners using immersive virtual worlds. Unlike traditional page turning self-paced courses, virtual worlds provide a way for multiple users to enter a customized environment, together with the instructor or in teams, and interact with each other in real time using avatars to accomplish designed tasks. Avatars become increasingly relevant, since new employees raised on MTV and video games are accustomed to using them and readily make the leap from virtual world activities to real world learning. Existing teaching aids, like slide shows and video clips, can easily be incorporated.

    Types of Virtual Environments

    There are two types of virtual environments: gaming and social. Both may be used to achieve different educational objectives. Gaming virtual worlds have an element of competition, with the implication of a prize or reward for completing the game. People may socialize in them. Social virtual worlds are environments where people interact socially or professionally, may compete for rewards in them, and there is no final ending or completion. There are two broad areas of corporate training: process steps or procedures, and interpersonal skill development. Organizations will be able to achieve the fastest return on investment by focusing initially on interpersonal skills development and social interactions, which are multi-user in nature.

    Different types of businesses will benefit in different ways from training in virtual environments. Field forces in hazardous roles, such as oil well drilling, chemical plant management, heavy equipment testing, explosives, material management, power plants or nuclear facilities, or even surgery, can learn using precise models of actual equipment they will be using and make mistakes harmlessly. Knowledge-based organizations such as far flung consulting or professional services firms can benefit from the social networking an collaboration inherent in a multi-user virtual environment. Other organizational areas that can benefit include recruiting, global networking, internal communications, and talent management and development. Fictitious environments or real world replicas can set up conditions conducive to good learning experiences. For example, in Second Life the University of California-Davis created a simulation of a schizophrenic/hallucinagenic experience to teach medical students. Caterpillar created simulations of mining sites to train dump truck drivers in operational hazards and vehicle controls. The U.S. Army uses virtual world courses to train soldiers in combat techniques and negotiations with local civil authorities. Virtual worlds provide excellent opportunities to recreate an historical period or travel virtually to places they have never seen, making them come alive to learners.

    Some forward thinking companies have already begun to apply virtual worlds to real world processes and problems. Other organizations still have time to develop their learning strategies. Virtual world technologies are in a state of transition from a largely entertainment platform to a stable business platform. Existing issues with most of the include data security, user authentication, hacking, and intellectual property protection, but vendors are working aggressively to ameliorate those risks. The greatest security is still a proprietary system behind the corporate firewall. This can be accomplished using a number of technologies, including retired commercial gaming platforms such as The Sims, Asheron’s Call and Earth & Beyond, or newer virtual world platforms like Second Life, Forterra, There, Active Worlds, Kaneva or Entropia.

    Evaluating Effectiveness

    J.E. Morrison and C. Hammon of The Institute for Defense Analysis provide seven measures that can help when analyzing training effectiveness, which I paraphrase here:

    1. Identify specific measurement issues
    2. Create a measurement plan covering both performance measures and research design
    3. Use valid and reliable performance measures
    4. Impose normal experimental controls on the the research to the extent possible
    5. Measure as accurately as possible
    6. Use analytic models throughout the development of the simulation
    7. Incorporate user feedback and reactions, in addition to performance data and analysis

    Manipulating the variables of time and point of view contribute to an immersive feeling in a virtual world, and provide other measures for training success. These are especially relevant for training objectives of improved decision making and collaboration.

    In order to retain a learner’s interest after a long period of time, normal online training courses use brief paragraphs of content, wide spaces between different ideas, hiding of unnecessary information with hyperlinks, and the use of color to separate different types of information. Instant access to online help and the ability for users to provide feedback throughout the training further enhance the learning experience. The equivalents in a virtual world include quests or tasks that can be accomplished quickly by an avatar, a back story that provides visual and spatial richness for the learner to experience between tasks, removing information related to tasks that have been completed previously or that the learner is not yet ready to perform, and visual identifiers for tasks that can be done (such as avatars identified by a symbol above their heads or colored lighting to highlight a location where a task can be obtained). Research also shows that virtual world training should focus more on measuring performance against training objectives, and less on the specific aspects of the operating system or user interface.

    Recommendations

    The high visibility of Second Life and its virtual economy have made virtual worlds a common discussion point in many Board Rooms. Gartner research says that by 2010, most leading corporations will embrace virtual environments for applications such as collaboration, education and communication. Training and development budgets for 2009 should include virtual environment development, including the internal communications and change management components that are vital to adoption rates. Corporations should begin to develop a virtual training and simulation strategy today that includes identifying their key business processes that might be taught effectively in a 3D simulation. If the senior management of the organization have little personal experience with gaming or 3D social environments (and that will apply to most corporations), outside consultants may be needed to ensure that the right decisions are made to make use of the medium. A virtual world is not an exact replica of the real world, and the team who will design the world needs to understand the differences that will make the virtual experience effective. Planning should also identify virtual world platforms with the security and functionalities required by both business users and existing IT systems. Enlist the aid of system architects to select an appropriate technology and understand clearly how learning management systems will or will not integrate with the virtual environment platform.

    divider
    December 11th, 2007

    Gaming and Learning with Disabilities

    It’s nice to see that game developers are not forgetting the disabled players who make up nearly 25% of all gamers. There are an increasing number of organizations posted on the IGDA Disability SIG that lobby game developers or provide a product to help the disabled or those with limiting conditions to participate in a variety of games and learning simulations. Blind and deaf gamers are the most obvious recipients of extra love from game developers, since closed captioning and audio recordings are fairly easy to accomplish, but even the wheelchair bound, color blind, and brain injured can benefit. Games also contribute to improvements in some disabilities. For example, the elderly or people who have trouble with their eyes tracking properly show definite improvement from first person shooter games or other games that require reacting to fast-moving objects.

    There are a variety of new devices to aid with even off-the-shelf games, such as Halo and Half-Life. They include things like larger controller/joy sticks; head, mouth and eye controls; and one-handed controllers. Three stores that specialize in devices for disabled gamers are Game Accessibility, Able Gamers, and Gimpgear. Christina Gonzalez has a nice story of her mother’s gaming experiences since developing multiple schlerosis in this month’s The Escapist magazine. Read other articles I’ve written on disabilities and gaming here, here and here.

    Update January 12, 2009: See also the comment I just posted about a new application IBM is testing that enables the blind to participate in Second Life.

    divider
    December 3rd, 2007

    Simulations You Haven’t Thought About

    For anyone who reads fantasy/sci-fi novels, you are familiar with Scott Card’s Ender’s Game. There is a point in the book where the young boy Ender plays a space war video game and manages (barely) to win. It turns out he was guiding a real battle in space, and it was not a game at all. His “simulation” was a command and control center device. Our technology is not yet at that stage of development, but some of the simulations I have read about recently made me think again about Ender. There are some obvious types of learning simulations, like the Microsoft Flight Simulator or the Nintendo Wii sports games. Some other useful ones include or might include:

    1. Heavy equipment simulators. Caterpillar has developed a sim for dump truck operators in mines. Railroads use sims to teach train engineers and conductors, especially on new track segments they haven’t driven yet. The U.S. military uses them to train pilots flying in Iraq. The maritime industry uses thermal and mechanical simulations to model extremely wide and swift variations in temperatures, wet environments, fungus and solar radiation impacts to protect life and property.

    2. Nation building. Diplomacy and strategic planning for real world situations are typically “gamed” in live, group-training sessions. Video games such as Sid Meier’s Civilization and Sim City provide rudimentary learning about the interactions and dependencies of components of a functioning nation. The French government even jumped on the band wagon by releasing a game where citizens can attempt to balance the national budget.

    3. Pattern analysis. There are simulations to measure and modify traffic patterns. They have been modified to look at how a disease epidemic might spread. Police departments use pattern analysis to help identify criminal behaviors and identify virtual criminals. Chemists use simulations to do what-if scenarios on mixing different combinations of materials. Simulation science is also being used to identify flaws in our national infrastructure and protect them against exploitation and to model nanotechnologies.

    4. Ethics and Leadership. Where better to let leaders and executives practice moral behavior than in a simulated environment? Of course, people using the sim will know what the “right” answers are, so we won’t really know what they might choose under stress and thinking no one is looking… Virtual interactions are experiential, so they can teach behaviors that are difficult to teach using books. For example, Modern Prometheus, a game developed by the University of California’s Annenberg School for Communication, uses the story of Frankenstein to teach ethical decision making. The player assumes the role of Dr. Frankenstein’s assistant, who is forced to make a series of difficult choices that impact the game’s outcome. Leadership, logic and rational decision making skills can also be trained in a sim or a multiplayer game environment. Provide a challenging environment and a group of people with a complex task to complete, and the leaders will emerge to organize and direct the effort. Current research is showing game leadership is a good predictor for real world leaders.

    5. Global impacts. Japan’s Earth Simulator Centre has a simulator used to model a wide variety of factors, including results of weather forecasts, projection of climate changes, such as global warming and El Nino, earthquakes and tsunamis. In a different global direction, multinational organizations can model the trade-offs between profitability and social responsibility and develop moral reasoning. New Media Consortium has built a conference center in Second Life where they aim to bring world leaders together virtually to discuss challenging issues they might not be able to discuss face to face and further world peace.

    6. Virtual worlds. Fictitious environments or real world replicas can set up conditions conducive to good learning experiences in virtual worlds and multiplayer games. For example, in Second Life the University of California – Davis created an experiential simulation of a schizophrenic attack for medical students. Virtual worlds provide excellent opportunities for a period or a place to come alive to learners. Indiana University is creating Arden, an immersive game-like world where students interact with Shakespearean characters. School teachers are using an emerging game called Quest Atlantis for environmental and cultural studies and statistics. In Second Life, it is possible to visit an ancient Egyptian temple, a Victorian world, Uluru in the Australian Outback, or participate in pageants in ancient Rome, just to name a few.

    7. Driving. Simucar is a real-time vehicle simulator that gives engineers the convenience and flexibility of extensively testing new vehicles in the laboratory before they hit the road. Developed jointly by General Motors (GM) Corporation and Electronic Data Systems (EDS) Corporation, the sim approximates the behavior of a vehicle’s sensors, actuators and operating environment so that it can be used to test a vehicle’s control modules. Such a simulation might also be used to train teenage drivers or immigrants with little driving experience to drive in conditions such as rain, fog and snow, to help prevent accidents new drivers typically experience.

    Learning is undergoing a tectonic shift today. For older adults, simulations and virtual worlds may still seem to be the world of fantasy and games that have little relevance to “real life”. Young adults and those who will be entering the workforce in the next 10 years, however, will work completely differently than we work today. These workers are the digital generation — the first generation raised playing video games. They learn and work differently. Where learning used to be absorbing a set of facts, learning is now about how to find information to answer questions. It’s not as much a “what” but a “where”. Simulations are more effective than traditional methods have been at helping to develop thinking, reasoning, analytical and social skills, and helping learners identify and critique sources of information. In the case of hazardous environments or materials, they can also save lives. Educators don’t need to fear this new development, however. Virtual worlds and simulations still need knowledgeable, motivated teachers driving the train. Virtual learning is so new that little is known about the long term impacts on learners. The prestigious MacArthur Foundation has invested millions in research over the next several years to assess the value and impacts of learning virtually. Expect to see a lot more on this topic.

    divider
    November 30th, 2007

    Chinese Mega-Metaverse Due in 2008

    It sounds like a line from a sci-fi novel, but it’s not…

    “The world’s largest Communist government is co-developing a 40-square-mile business and recreation complex entirely devoted to the metaverse,” writes Wagner James Au at GigaOm. Translated into English, that means that the Chinese government, in a bold move, is backing the Chinese Recreational District (or CRD) in creating the largest 3D virtual world…in the world! The 40 square mile CRD complex in West Beijing will include a corporate park, a public center showcasing 10 or more virtual worlds, such as Chinese-based HiPiHi, UOneNet‘s uWorld, and RTMAsia, which is Second Life‘s affiliate in Asia. The area is currently home to 200 game and multimedia content producers. CRD will also launch a “DOTMAN” brand to aggregate various online world services (games, shopping, etc.). It projects 150 million worldwide users by 2010! That is a staggering projection — 15 times the size of World of Warcraft, one of the most played games on the planet. It adds new relevance to the recent announcement by IBM and Linden Labs about the need to develop transportable avatars that can move seamlessly between virtual worlds. (Of course, this begs the question of why the 10-year-old ISO standard is not adequate, but that’s another discussion.)

    The CRD metaverse will run on the Entropia platform, and will launch in June, 2008, just a few weeks before the opening of the Summer Olympics in Beijing. Think we will be seeing any promo ads during the games? Count on it. And what they promote should be revealing of the direction they plan to go. In particular, there are three interesting aspects to this development:

    1. They are appealing to both businesses and individuals, because they are gambling that immersive virtual worlds are the way of the future. Their slightly confusing press release says, “The fast growth of the virtual world industry drives lots of governments in the world thinking that to own the key technologies of virtual world will be the quickest way to become the winner of international economy in the future.” (sic) They are bidding to “own” the key technologies of the virtual future.

    2. They are consciously building a virtual economy to aid them in dominating the emerging global virtual economy and aid their real world economy — a concept that Second Life and EVE Online piloted, and the Chinese plan to take to a fine art. They have already partnered with China Mobile, Mindark, clothing manufacturer China Beckman, and Everbright Bank, and intend to provide banking and transaction services to both businesses and individuals. Their “goal is to create a virtual economy providing infrastructure and platforms through which any business – not just those based in China – can come in world and sell their real-world products and services,” according to Christopher Sherman at Virtual Worlds News.

    3. They have failed to prevent the widespread use of the Internet in China, and may be using CRD as a way to tap into the information that gets exchanged among its citizens. Information wants to be free, but China notably wants to regulate it.

    There are staggering issues to be dealt with to make such an ambitious undertaking fly — security, authentication, currency exchange rates, international copyrights and piracy, corporate partnering, site planning, publicity, intellectual property protection, governance, product support, language translations — just to name a few. There’s also the not-so-small issue of trust. Can the world trust the government which gave us Tiananmen Square? Which represses use of the Internet by ordinary citizens? Which restricts free speech? Whose standards of manufacture and indifference to safety practices put the citizens of other countries at risk? Some people see the CRD as a bold move by the Chinese government to gain additional control over its people and the 2-way flow of information.

    Putting those concerns aside, maybe it’s just a shrewd financial play, as they suggest. Korea achieved dominance in the virtual gaming industry in Asia early on, and China has fought back strongly, reducing Korea’s hold on the $1.3 billion Chinese gaming industry to 10%. Their press release says the ‘China Virtual Economy District’ has provided an idea of a brand-new business model of virtual world industry to help traditional enterprises become virtual enterprises easily…With a series of trading rules and data exchange standards, virtual enterprises with different resources and advantages can cooperate and help each other raising their abilities in doing business.” Is the Chinese government also going to drive business adoption? Unlike most other nations, they have the ability to do so.

    Should any of this concern anyone? It will definitely concern the U.S. government and others who are aware how easily money is laundered or transferred in a virtual economy without “local” laws and regulations interfering. There was speculation last July, for example, that the U. S. government had levied pressure against Linden Labs to shut down its thriving virtual gambling activities in Second Life because it was an easy way for terrorist organizations to transfer funds worldwide. Is there going to be some sort of global watchdog or U.N.-type organization created to monitor virtual worlds, set up virtual regulations, and enforce with virtual police? It’s an interesting thought — and a little scary. Since the virtual worlds belong to the creators of them and the organizations that host them, who will be in charge? Who will be making the rules? In the case of the new CRD and its 150 million potential users, it will definitely be the Chinese government. Reminds me of the old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” We certainly do.

    divider
    November 28th, 2007

    Kinset and Brookstone: Tip of the Iceberg

    Brookstone opened a “virtual retail store” on the Web today, and it’s very good. It uses the Kinset browser plugin. More detailed and realistic than Second Life shopping experiences, it gives what is a more familiar shopping experience to users. The graphics quality is good, and the user moves through shopping aisles where it’s possible to see closeups of products. Unfortunately for users, it’s necessary to download the plugin to use the store. As more and more businesses opt for a 3D web site, the 3D browser is likely to be incorporated into Firefox, Internet Explorer and other browsers. The plugin requires a pretty strong system running Windows XP and recommends 1 megabyte of RAM, so users with older systems will probably have some frustrations and show a high abandonment rate initially. You can get a good idea of how the product looks without downloading anything by just clicking on this link and watching the promo for a few seconds.

    Update November 30: I spent an hour or so shopping at Brookstone’s store yesterday, and was disappointed in the results. First, there were not many products to choose from. That will likely change, since this is the initial launch. Moving around in the world is not intuitive, even to a long-time gamer used to different user interfaces. The point-and-click movement (default) is somewhat disconcerting, as is the “through the eyes” view for someone used to a 3/4 top town back view of an avatar. There are options for customizing hot keys on the keyboard to control various activities, but only seasoned gamers are likely to attempt that, which will leave a lot of users with only the default setup – which is not intuitive, logical or sensible.The pop-up window giving details on a selected product are very helpful in creating a good shopping experience. Purchasing is conducted by Amazon.com. By adding something to the shopping cart, you initiate a purchasing process with by Amazon.com, which I found to be reassuring. It builds confidence to know that a web sale will be conducted by a reliable and known entity. Overall, I think the concept is still good; however, some usability testing and listening to customer usability issues will help Kinset to make some needed improvements.

    divider
    November 22nd, 2007

    3D Email Pushes the Boundaries

    Innovation gurus say there are a lot of false starts before one finds the big discovery that will pay off. I think of it as kissing a lot of frogs before finding the handsome prince. Today I read about 3D Email, an extremely innovative concept for email, which is one of those false starts that is likely to fail. Interestingly, it is one of the first 3D applications developed that is not related to e-learning simulations, recruitment or social/networking communities. It focuses purely on a common business process…retrieving, replying to, and discarding email. I don’t know anything about the company or its founders, but I believe it’s important to applaud valiant attempts at something new, even when they fail. The two reasons I think it will fail are (1) it’s a resource intensive client that uses substantial processing power, and (2) they didn’t test the concept with real users before they invested in creating their vision! With the exception of teenagers with time on their hands, most email users will not want to add this layer of complexity.

    The company previously pioneered a visual web stats viewer called VisitorVille, which represents a Web site graphically as a city, complete with dynamically-resizing skyscrapers, buses, taxis, helicopters, limousines, and animated people. Using VisitorVille it is possible to watch visitors interact with one’s Web site in real time. 3D Email was created to make email more interesting for users. I would agree with the developers that “Email is the killer app, but it’s deadly boring.” Unfortunately, the interest added by the 3D approach is without purpose, other than visual novelty, and doesn’t enhance the process itself. The product has two “levels” with a third level under development. The first is a beach level they call Miami, and the newly released second level is an airport which they call LAX. A third yet to come is called Zombie. Whole “worlds” are created in which avatars (or planes, in the case of LAX) representing individual emails, perform common tasks in the environment. C/NET’s Download.com has a slide presentation showing the product, which it similarly finds interesting, but labels “extremely useless”.

    Most of us feel overwhelmed by the volume of our email already. Who would willingly download a big resource hogging program, even if it’s free, and then sit and watch as each email represented by an avatar, performs it’s action? I don’t know anyone who likes or uses the Microsoft paper clip avatar, which at least serves a useful “help” support function! Do we need to watch an avatar representing the cat joke my friend Eve emailed me walk in a bikini across the pool area to the dumpster and wait to be destroyed? Or watch each new incoming mail avatar line up to be screened by the bouncer (the antivirus program)? It’s probably true that most people would rather watch a beautiful female form than a drag-and-drop mail header, but the truth 3D Email bumps up against is that few people have time or enjoy wading through scores of unread emails as it is. Having to slow down even more to accommodate the reaction times of the avatars is simply not in sync with how business gets done. As much as I love virtual worlds, I don’t see the value of turning a core business tool like email into some sort of Super Mario Brothers levels quest. This is a flawed product, but a good example of the kinds of mind stretching that will have to happen for 3D or virtual reality to have a meaningful impact on everyday business. I’m keen to know what inventors will come up with next!

    Update November 22: As of November 15, 3D Email is no longer free. Its two email products are bundled into one package for $19.95.

    divider
    November 13th, 2007

    Machinima Update

    Once again it’s time to write something about machinima. I wrote last year about a few of my favorites here. I love this inventive and accessible new medium! Maybe it’s the weather turning colder and the knowing that I will have several months when I can easily stay indoors and look for something to stimulate my mind. Maybe it’s that I now have a window of time unexpectedly when I can catch up with things that appeal to me. That’s probably why I went surfing tonight to see if there are any new machinima trends (or really awesome films!) that I should know about. Here, in no special order, are some things I discovered (and this is in no way a comprehensive list of things machinima!):

    1. Some new, serious bloggers about machinima, with a serious fan base who understand the art form and love it — like 3D Filmmaker, Frank Dellario’s blog (check out his templates for a Machinima Script Breakdown Sheet), and ILLClan. See the new additions to my blogroll near the bottom.

    2. A new machinima association: Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences or AMAS

    3. The number of Machinima Festivals has mushroomed in the past two years! If you want a quick introduction to the genre or want to see the best of the best, check out these locations. Gamasutra is always a good place to look for the latest happenings.

    Machinima Festival Europe 2007
    Bitfilm Festival 2007
    Ed Wood Machinima Festival 2007 (exclusively for Second Life)
    MPrem’s Online Machinima Film Festival 2007
    ACMI’s Machinima Film Festival 2007
    DragonCon Independent Film Festival 2007
    Several academic institutions are also offering machinima basics and local machinima festivals.

    4. There are digital film scouts!

    5. Machinima Premiere’s Gallery. Neatly organized by game/type, and even some recommendations.

    6. Machinima Archive for academic investigation and historical preservation of the art

    7. An online magazine: Machinimag (soon to be changed to Guerilla Animation)

    Keep in mind that most of these are efforts of love, and not for compensation. That means they are subject to change and discontinuance. It’s a new medium, and the long-term players are still gaining their footholds (or as cynics might say, looking for their profit model).

    I love machinima and have dabbled a bit with making some myself, in both WoW and Second Life. It’s almost harder to find where your computer is saving the video clips you shoot than it is to make a movie. Microsoft’s Movie Maker software is extremely easy to use, and not only can you do the usual fades and crops to make the film smooth, you can also add voice overs, music scores and title screens practically intuitively. Anyone who already plays World of Warcraft, Everquest, Second Life or EVE Online or any of the truly immersive 3D online games can download freeware like Fraps, and be shooting video clips just as easily as family vacation movies.

    With a passing nod to making this fun stuff practical, is machinima something that has value for learning or business? You betcha! There are now so many machinima videos on YouTube that it’s hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. I’ll start searching for some of the better ones and do a follow up article here in a few weeks. If you have personal favorites, let me know!

    divider
    November 7th, 2007

    Questing: Parallels in Learning and Multiplayer Gaming

    Virtual worlds, simulations and social networking are hot topics these days, but the reality is most business people do not have a lot of gaming experience. If one shows the average professional person a gaming scenario — for example, a quest in Dark Age of Camelot where you find the dwarven quest giver, then go kill the ghostly gnolls, then return and get piece of chain mail armor — they are not likely to see that the process of (1) set task, (2) perform task, (3) reward results which the game represents is exactly what we do in any learning scenario. The problem for business professionals is they can’t easily make the leap from an elf riding on a bat to how a business analyst learns to assess risk. The graphic representations make the scenario too far fetched to take seriously, even when the learning process is the same.

    An online game is not the same as a virtual world, even if it is played with an avatar. Traditional games have challenges/obstacles to overcome and an end state of “win” or “fail” or “finished”. Virtual worlds, which are primarily social, do not. Many of the large multiplayer games like World of Warcraft and Everquest and City of Heroes blur the lines between gaming and social worlds. These MMOGs have milestones that most traditional games would have called “the end”, yet they continue to add new content and new quests or develop a backstory to keep players involved. This makes it challenging for creating simulations for business users — to find a visually interesting platform that will enable enhanced human knowledge or interactions, yet not depend upon unfolding an imaginary backstory as a game does.

    One of the early attempts to use virtual quests was by San Diego State University. In the late 1990s, they created web quests to tease students into exploring the Internet, rather like research treasure hunts with specific objectives. Education UK, a not-for-profit group composed of UK educators, has built upon that approach in Second Life, and uses a method for designing effective virtual quests for adults and community groups that includes six stages:

      Introduction
      Task
      Process
      Resources
      Evaluation
      Conclusion

    The TASK stage tells the learners what they are going to do and what the end result of their activities will be. The PROCESS stage outlines how to accomplish the task, and gives clear guidance or steps about how to organize their activities and information. They use RESOURCES provided by the instructor (quest giver) that will help them to accomplish the task. Make it clear how the instructor will EVALUATE the results, so the learners can prove they have completed the task. The evaluation should map to the desired outcomes described in the Task phase. The CONCLUSION provides a reward for the learner, which may be a tangible item (in the virtual world or in real life), public acclaim, or a congratulatory pat on the back. The quest may include multiple parts/stages in a journey toward a broader goal, or it can be a one-time stand alone activity.

    Quests can be themed. Quests can help learners to become familiar with a new area or lead them sequentially through learning a new concept. Multiple reward choices for completing a quest allow a learner to work toward goals that matter to them personally. Quests can be a source of information/knowledge that learners cannot get in any other way. Quests provide opportunities for learners to work together as a team and accomplish a goal they couldn’t reach individually.

    Educators who are experienced with simulations know that learners engage the content of a course or lesson in different ways, but adults universally want to participate in their education. Adults learn by doing. Clicking a “next” button between screens of text is not the same as “doing”. Adults want their brains to be challenged. That is one reason why the concept of questing has so much potential for virtual learning scenarios. Recent research by Nick Yee of the Daedalus Project has shown that players become personally entwined with their avatars. Virtual quests let the user take control and think about their own learning experience, which at the same time carries forward a persistent effect into the real world.

    Here is an example of a quest from World of Warcraft. Business people who don’t play online games might have trouble seeing themselves spending time on something like this. Educators will immediately see the parallels to a good learning experience. The challenge for educators today is to find ways to incorporate useful and interesting quests/tasks into a simulation environment that is both fun and palatable with their organization’s norms.

    Supplies to Tannok

    (Summary) Deliver the Crate of Inn Supplies to Tannok Frosthammer in Kharanos.

    (Narrative from the quest giver) Hey! You look like a hearty adventurer. If you’re planning on braving the pass, do you suppose you could bring a package to the inn in Kharanos? You were planning on stopping at the inn, right? If you make it through the pass, you’ll definitely want to take a breather there.

    Anyways, bring this to Tannok Frosthammer, the innkeeper’s assistant. I can’t get through the pass myself, and it’ll be days until a Mountaineer escort comes through!

    (note: the learner has carried an item to this quest giver to complete a prior quest)
    Ah, at last, the supplies from Hands! I was beginning to worry, we’ve had scarce word from Anvilmar ever since the troggs overran the pass. Thanks for bringing this to me, (insert name). And please, make yourself comfortable. You must be tired after your journey.

    Provided: Crate of Inn Supplies

    Rewards: Tough Jerky x5 or Refreshing Spring Water x5

    The learner is offered a task (and can accept or decline). Some hints are provided about the location needed to complete the task (“Kharanos” town and “through the pass”), and that there might be obstacles or danger to overcome (“If you make it…”). The objective is stated clearly (“…bring a package (provided) to the inn in Kharanos” and give it to Tannok Frosthammer). The reward is clearly indicated (5 tough jerky or 5 refreshing spring water). Depending upon a player’s character type, they will have a preference for one reward or the other, so they get to make a choice.

    It’s not a big leap to see that this quest structure can equally apply to new hire orientation or diversity or customer service training. It’s the process of questing, putting the learner in control of their learning experience through choices, providing a scripted experience that conveys the information the learner needs to know to succeed, and offering appropriate rewards that has value. There is also the “fun” factor. Learners are more likely to be engaged with the content when they can interact with it in a novel, creative or personally interesting way. That is what makes virtual worlds such an exciting new learning platform.

    divider
    November 2nd, 2007

    Defining ‘Virtual World’

    For the past three weeks I have been working on a slide presentation to explain virtual social worlds, their potential business applications, and the pros and cons of using them for different types of activities. As part of that presentation, I identified as many existing or emerging virtual worlds as I could find…not including most games, of course. This morning I read Nick Wilson’s article at Metaversed where he identified all the virtual worlds he has been able to find. His list includes some I excluded because the platform was too cartoony or youthful to be taken seriously for business training, but we pretty much identified the same set of contenders.

    He included Qwaq, which I found strange, since I consider Qwaq to be a collaboration tool that happens to occur in a 3D space, and not a virtual social world. That is one of the reasons I decided to discuss definitions. Just because a certain type of functionality — like document editing, for example — is staged to occur in a 3D space, and people use avatars to sit around a meeting table to do it, doesn’t (in my mind) make it a virtual social world. It lacks persistence. Virtual collaboration is to virtual world as “work group” is to “community” to me — a time-limited group with a fixed agenda, not a persistent and evolving situation.

    Virtual means something exists now, in this moment. To further amplify, American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination.” In other words, the participant creates a mental model that is completed using his/her own imagined images. I see “Virtual Worlds” as the umbrella name for a collection of sub-groups. Gartner Group shares a similar view, and pulls MMOGs and virtual social worlds into one category, called “Networked Virtual Entertainments.” I like this concept, because when you read how people experienced in the field define virtual worlds, there is a clear divide between those who are defining a simulated world environment and those defining a social world interaction. It implies that there must be a higher order of grouping possible. In fact, we might include under the title “virtual worlds” or NVEs networked gaming, social networking, world development (kits), and platforms hosting virtual/social worlds.

    Gaming virtual worlds have an element of competition, with the implication of a prize or reward for achieving goals, and people may socialize in them. Social virtual worlds are environments where people interact socially or professionally, and may compete for rewards in them. Here is how some of the people who have worked with gaming and virtual worlds over many years have defined virtual worlds, as examples:

    Raph Koster, master game designer: An online game is a game played using network connectivity. An online virtual world is a simulation of persistent space connected to via a network, wherein users are represented by proxies often termed avatars. Note that both “online” and “virtual” are often elided from the term.

    Joel Greenburg at The Electric Sheep Company: A Virtual World is a connected community that has game-like immersion and social media functionality without game-like goals. At it’s heart is a sense of presence with others at the same time and “place”. (Note: I think he is blurring the distinctions between virtual world and social world, but perhaps to him they are all the same.)

    Giff Constable, also at The Electric Sheep Company: (amplifying upon the definition above) A Virtual World is an online environment that has game-like immersion and social media functionality without game-like goals. At its heart is a sense of presence with others at the same time and “place”.

    Nick Wilson, further elaborating upon this definition: A Social Virtual World has game-like immersion and social media functionality without narrative driven goals. At its core is a sense of presence with others at the same time and place.

    So based upon these (and quite a few other) attempted definitions, it appears that we can identify requirements for calling something a “virtual world”:

    1. Has to simulate space (or provide an entry to simulated spaces)
    2. An element of imagination is required
    3. Requires multiple users, but does not necessarily imply “community”
    4. Persistence
    5. The potential for interactivity among users
    6. Immersion
    7. A sense of physical embodiment by participants
    8. Residual impact on the real world lives of participants
    9. Concurrence

    And there are four types of “virtual” worlds/platforms or NVEs:

    1. Social networking
    2. Networked gaming
    3. Platforms hosting social or gaming worlds
    4. Virtual world development tools/kits

    Must a virtual world be 3D? Probably not. Gaming worlds can be 2D, or even text, like MUDs, and meet the other criteria. Social worlds can be 2D and meet the other criteria. (Now I’m wondering whether FaceBook or MySpace can be considered social “worlds”…)

    Is participating in an economic system necessary for successful participation to occur? Probably not. Game players can be successful without the need to participate in crafting and selling items to other players. Second Life participants can explore the world or attend events without setting up a shop or buying land.

    Is following “the rules” required in order to take part successfully? Probably not. A gaming world doesn’t require participation in an auxiliary community, and a social world doesn’t require participation in an economy, etc. Participants can still take value from the experience.

    Here is my suggested definition of “Virtual Worlds”:

    A persistent simulated space inhabited by multiple concurrent or nonconcurrent users who share a sense of physical embodiment that enables them to interact imaginatively with others and experience real world outcomes.

    It’s a pretty concentrated definition, and not likely to be popular with business people who are looking for a simple definition they can use in a PowerPoint presentation. Unfortunately, this is a complex subject that is still developing. It will take time for us all to find the right words and say it in a simpler way, but I think this is darned close! If you want still more definitions to ponder, check out the collaborative efforts at definition underway at Metaverse Roadmap. There’s good work going on over there.

    divider
    October 24th, 2007

    Avatar Animations and Social Interactions

    I came across a great article on the PlayOn blog this morning. It’s “old”…2005! But the content is excellent and worth taking a look at. PlayOn focuses on the social dimensions of multiuser worlds, and the conference presentation highlighted in the blog is called “10 Things About Conversation in Virtual Worlds”. Bob Moore, Nic Ducheneaut and Eric Nickell gave the presentation at the Austin Game Conference two years ago. There’s a fun follow-on article describing how text chat renders avatar animations almost irrelevant.

    Their point is that game designers and avatar modelers execute beautifully on scenery and objects in the 3D world, but avatars are sadly lacking when it comes to interactional realism. Here are some points they make and elaborate on:

    Avatars…
    1. Stand and do nothing
    2. Don’t speak in real time
    3. Use telepathy
    4. Look the wrong way
    5. Stare at each other
    6. Hide the player’s gaze
    7. Lack free gesticulation
    8. Gesture for fixed durations
    9. Don’t tightly coordinate gestures and talk
    10. Lack usable facial expressions

    Avatars could…
    1. Display embodied actions
    2. Speak in real time
    3. Give IM busy signals
    4. Look at the speaker
    5. Look away when speaking
    6. Reveal player’s gaze
    7. Gesticulate freely
    8. Hold gestures
    9. Tightly coordinate gestures and talk
    10. Have visible facial expressions (Note: Wouldn’t smiles or glares or surprise be great??)

    The gap is most noticeable in the “down time” between activities in the virtual world…for example, when standing in a group in Ironforge (World of Warcraft) and sorting items or restocking supplies, or when standing around in The Pond (Second Life) discussing with others where to go next. Both platforms offer “social animations” that avatars can perform, providing the human behind them is expert enough to animate them in a timely way, but they are not integrated with the character seamlessly. In the last few years, avatars have been programmed to “twitch” when they are standing idle so they don’t look like cardboard cutouts. They shift their feet, or look to the side, or put their hands on their hips. That adds to the general “liveliness” of a “town” scene, of course, but to do anything more realistic, they have to be deliberately programmed/activated by the human behind them. A lively cheer or clapping, a broad laugh, a back flip or spontaneous dancing can be effective and expressive if timed right, however, avatars are sadly lacking in the kind of innate social development that could make immersive worlds even more realistic and expressive. Even two years later.

    divider
    October 23rd, 2007

    Disability Aid: Brain-Computer Interface for Second Life

    I’m always interested to discover new technologies that enable the disabled to share in the normal activities of every day life. My friend Jeff Lundquist linked this experimental device described on Pink Tentacle that has great promise for people with debilitating movement disorders. Scientists in Japan have created a small helmet that enables the wearer to animate a 3D avatar in Second Life so it will perform basic movements just through thought impulses. For some years now we have watched physicist Steven Hawking use his thought-generated computer to continue his research and teach. Now it appears that movement challenged people anywhere will also be able to run, fly, leap and dance — at least virtually — by animating their own avatar representations.

    Professor Jun’ichi Ushiba of the Keio University Biomedical Engineering Laboratory has engineered the system, which consists of a headpiece equipped with electrodes monitoring activity in three areas of the motor cortex that controls the movement of the human’s arms and legs. An EEG machine is used to read and graph the thought data, which is then relayed to the helmet, where a brain wave analysis algorithm interprets the user’s intended movements. A keyboard emulator then converts this data into a signal and relays it over the Internet to Second Life, causing the on-screen avatar to move as intended. Plans are underway to enable avatars to perform more complex movements and gestures, with the ultimate goal of enabling users to communicate and do business in virtual worlds as readily as fully able people. It’s not yet up to the quick response time needed for competing in a first-person shooter, but it’s a giant step forward! Watch a video of it in use here or on YouTube.

    Update, June 2, 2008: Google News reported this update on Professor Ushiba’s work. A 41-year-old patient has used only his imagination to make his character take a walk and chat to another virtual person in Second Life. The patient, who has suffered paralysis for more than 30 years, can barely bend his fingers due to a progressive muscle disease so cannot use a mouse or keyboard in the traditional way. This technology could motivate patients with severe paralysis, who are often too depressed to undergo rehabilitation.

    divider
    October 22nd, 2007

    Voice and Virtual Worlds: Is it a win?

    For about three years now I have been using Ventrilo and TeamSpeak to facilitate group activities and quests in World of Warcraft. It’s a love-hate relationship. I love the speed and ease with which our group can react and communicate while listening to live voices, but it does ruin the fantasy factor for me. When I sit down to play, I shift my gears into a fantasy world. I think in terms of spells and magical abilities and bonuses that give me special powers. I see myself as mighty and noble and wise. I see the warrior in our group as a strong brute with the ability to engage and hold the attention of whatever fiendish creature we are fighting. I see the priest to be powerful and good, a caring soul who will sacrifice him/herself to save the lives of their group. I see the hunter with his powerful pet bear or boar or cat and huge gun or bow to be a formidable fighter, capable of protecting us all. I find it completely disconcerting to discover that my warrior is a 17 year old trash-talking girl who loves Chuck Norris or the hunter is a nerdy 15 year old boy who wants to talk about female anatomy and alcohol. I much prefer my imagination in the imaginary world to the reality. (They probably feel the same about me!)

    A few months ago, WoW implemented live voice chat as a feature of the user interface. It’s pretty simple VoIP…you just turn it on at the options menu, and you can use it with a headset or computer speakers. You can just listen, or you can speak, if you have a microphone. Voice chat is a supplement to a robust text chat system that allows people to message to individuals privately, to small or large groups they are a member of, or several specialized topic channels that can broadcast to local or “global” listeners. Despite a flurry of complaints in the beginning about it causing server lag (which it’s not clear it did), I have found it to be useful, and the sound quality to be good. No scratches, no cutting in and out, no squeals and screeches, no echoes, and reasonably level voice volume. I was pleasantly surprised. The negatives are features that are missing and included in Ventrilo and TeamSpeak — like the ability to record conversations, the ability to save text logs of typed chat, and conversation management tools (like the ability to mute or kick out an offensive person). And putting aside the personal disillusionment factor, there is still the issue of unintelligible speaking accents or slurred speech–many people who participate in WoW or Second Life or other virtual worlds have English as a second language (to be generous). The accents can be tortuous to learn and understand.

    A few weeks ago Second Life implemented its much touted new voice chat. Vivox has provided integrated voice chat for online games, virtual worlds and other online communities, including Second Life. The SL interface already has instant message type private communications, to a single person or a group. It is poorly designed, however — cumbersome and click-intensive to use. I’d rank it with where game communication technology was about 10 years ago — functional, but not conducive to quick or frequent use. Some interesting design choices were made. What is the point of having voice chat that can be heard by everyone within a large range around you? This is where Second Life shows it has lost touch with its audience. Teens and kids want to talk to everyone, and be friends with everyone. They love showing off and being noticed for their witty dialogue. Adults over 30, which is the majority of SL users, are more selective. If they want to have a conversation with someone, it’s usually only one or a small group they are collaborating with.

    As with WoW, Second Life‘s voice chat is not realistic, in that you don’t hear a direction without surround-sound speakers, so it’s not easy to tell who is talking. Some sort of a “speaking” indicator would be nice…an arrow or star on the screen or over their heads. The sound is 3D, meaning closer players are louder than those further away. Paying attention to a conversation is hard. It is easy to lose track of who is speaking in a group, especially if you get distracted by something else…like a toddler pulling a cup of coffee off the table, or a cat stepping on your keyboard, or a struggle to locate something in your inventory. And you can’t go back to check what was said, like you can with typed chat.

    With text chat, two lines of text never interfere with each other (although it can be tricky following the conversations in a group of typers). With voice chat, people speaking at the same time can’t always understand what each of the others are saying, because they can cancel each other out. In addition, there is no body language or facial reactions to show how a message is being received, which makes it challenging. There are scripts used to make an avatar perform gestures related to conversing, however, not everyone is expert at animating their avatars with the social animations or able to script actions they want their avatars to take in support of typed chat. Here’s a video discussing voice chat in Second Life.

    One interesting and viable use for virtual world voice chat is teaching/learning foreign languages. The high quality sound will enable immersive language learning with native speakers. In a 3D world like Second Life, imagine logging in to a “city” with a bar, a hotel, an airport, a bank, some restaurants and shops, and all the locations a person might visit in a real city. Simply navigating around with an instructor provides an opportunity for dialogue that is situational and potentially easier to remember, as well as an opportunity to practice with other students. LanguageLab.com is building such a place, which includes office parks and a football-field sized Scrabble game.

    Other interactive social worlds are building voice chat into their applications, too. There has voice in beta, and Kaneva is developing it. Voice capabilities provide an interesting dimension for musicians. By plugging into a Shout server, a musician can stream a live performance into Second Life. And groups like the Avatar Orchestra can provide live concerts using virtual instruments. Watch Bernhard Drax’s engaging video about the musical experimentation happening in Second Life here.

    So is it a win? In some virtual worlds, for some specific applications, yes. For purely conversational socializing in 3D, the jury is still out. We are still learning how to use the tools that can make a 3D conversation as informative as a face-to-face chat. We seem to have mastered the sound quality issues. Now we just need to make it more intuitive to use. That won’t be a quick fix.

    divider
    October 16th, 2007

    Virtual Worlds Aren’t Going Away

    Last April, Gartner Group released some research results on virtual worlds and advised its enterprise clients is that this is a trend they should investigate and experiment with, but limit substantial financial investments in, until the environments are more mature and stabilize. As enterprises try to define their roles with the coming 3D Internet, Gartner has identified five laws for companies participating in a virtual world. They include:

    First Law: Virtual worlds are not games, but neither are they a parallel universe (yet).
    Second Law: Behind every avatar is a real person.
    Third Law: Be relevant and add value.
    Fourth Law: Understand and contain the downside.
    Fifth Law: This is a long haul.

    In other words, don’t plan massive projects now, but don’t ignore the trend either. Virtual worlds are going to have a significant impact on organizations during the next five years.

    Some virtual world pundits pooh-pooh the research, especially since Gartner also said in June that “by 2010 more than 50 percent of governments would vacate Web 2.0 space and virtual worlds,” citing concerns such as:

    1. IT-Related Security Risks
    2. Identity Authentication and Access Management
    3. Confidentiality
    4. Brand and Reputation Risk Management
    5. Productivity

    Personally, I don’t find this contradictory or a big concern to those whose agenda is to promote the 3D Internet. I think they have missed the point that governments (and companies) can be in Second Life or any other virtual world today simply to get familiar with the issues, concerns and technologies involved. The barriers to entry are low–it’s free–and their employees can learn free, too, by just trial and error, without the expense of formal training! At a certain point, these organizations will unquestionably move the game indoors, and initiate a virtual world or 3D intranet on a server behind their own firewalls where they can control it securely, like IBM and Best Buy and others have already done. So Gartner may be right. They didn’t say *individuals* would be logged in from *home* all over the world. It may very well be that 80% of people, even in poor countries with bandwidth issues, will have *access* to a 3D intranet, and the access will be behind their firewall at work, even if they can’t log in from home.

    And while governments may vacate the Web 2.0 *public* space by 2010, that doesn’t mean they won’t use Web 2.0 technology that is out of the public domain. The military and some governments have been leaders in promoting virtual worlds for realistic simulations of all kinds of processes! The virtual horse is out of the barn and running. It may just be that serious business issues and government secrecy or confidentiality concerns can’t be resolved currently without retreating behind a firewall. Maybe Gartner should investigate what “vacate” means. I doubt seriously that it means abandon or ignore the technology.

    divider
    October 15th, 2007

    Virtual Worlds: at the Tipping Point at Last (part 3)

    Part 3: Non-Profit Organizations and Others.
    See also Part 1: Government and Part 2: Business

    If you haven’t read the other two parts in this series, I encourage you to start there, since I gave more of an overview of the state of virtual worlds. Here is a link to Part I with background on virtual worlds. This listing provides some additional examples of how non-profits and other organizations are experimenting with virtual worlds. We are all still trying to figure it out!

    Non-Profit Organizations/Social Activism

    “Green” Earth/Social Awareness campaigns – Second Chance Trees in Second Life is an island where avatars can plant one of 10 different types of endangered trees for about $1.50 each (L$300). For each tree planted, Plant-It 2020 and the social media marketing group Converseon will plant a similar tree in the real world in its indigenous forest. With a combination of technologies like Google Earth and a 3D avatar with real-time data layered over the Google images, whole new vistas arise for virtual eco-travel that has no impact on the environment. Common Ground and World Scout Jamboree have started islands in Second Life. Unfortunately, many of these islands are not available to the public. Virtual events have a “second life” even after the event has passed by using machinima techniques to record and present it. One example is a short video on the virtual rearguing of the famous Dred Scott case, commissioned by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard.

    Fund Raising Events – The American Cancer Society raised $75,000 from a virtual Relay for Life walk-a-thon held in Second Life in July. It built a custom track in a virtual 96-acre park for avatars participating in the event. Groups of supporters went an extra mile and set up donation kiosks throughout the world, letting other users contribute L$ in advance of the event. Here’s a video. When Save the Children ran out of live yaks for its popular sponsorship program, it created a virtual “Yak Shak” in Second Life where people could buy a “virtual” yak for about $4 each. They also conducted yak races, a yak beauty contest and taught avatars to knit sweaters from yak wool. A virtual avatar walk across the U.S. to raise money for breast cancer research. For $3 a participant can create an avatar and “walk” across 31 virtual cities in the U.S. The “Gal to Gal Virtual Walk” allows a participant to create a 2D animated avatar with a customized appearance and “walking outfit” and then log in each day to see the avatar pass over a photographic background of the city-of-the-day. It’s easy to imagine a more elaborate version in a 3D environment where the participants actually walk their own avatars across a variety of 3D locations or retrieve items in a global treasure hunt, or have virtual chapter meetings. The March of Dimes has just established an island in Second Life, and there is a fund raising memorial to the 9/11 World Trade Center event.

    Protests – In 2005, a protest taking the form of purple robot kangaroos marching into the assembly hall was staged during a speech at the virtual United Nations in Second Life as protest against the support for the UN and its policies. Last year in Second Life, a group set up a protest against genocide in Darfur by creating a replica of a refugee camp and erecting billboards with actual photographs, demanding world leaders to take action. In July, PETA and Stella McCartney staged a virtual anti-fur protest. Last week, a group of disgruntled IBM workers in Italy staged a protest on IBM’s Second Life site to publicize their struggle over pay and conditions. IBM was forced to stop a virtual company meeting that was underway and close all of its SL islands to outsiders for most of the day until order was restored. This week, the ‘”Human-Chain-for-Burma” protest was staged virtually in Second Life to show solidarity with the protesting people of Myanmar. On Better World Island in Second Life, social activists congregate and form “drum circles” with their avatars to share ideas. There is even a virtual Guantanamo Bay prison calling attention to conditions of the prisoners.

    World Affairs – New Media Consortium received a MacArthur Grant for its efforts to bring world leaders into Second Life for discussion and interactions that could potentially translate to solutions on real world issues. Clear Ink, a Berkeley-based Internet marketing firm, created a virtual Capitol Hill space in Second Life to make it available for political forums. They encourage bi-partisan civic discussion and welcome members of Congress, policymakers, press and the public to participate in the ongoing discussions. Terrorism is a concern even in the virtual worlds. The Australian High Tech Crime Centre, said jihadists may be using the virtual world to master skills such as reconnaissance and surveillance. Europol has recruited security consultants to advise on the use of Second Life for fraud, money transfers, and terrorism. The FBI has even been in Second Life examining unusual transactions, and, as a result, all virtual casinos in SL were shut down, because they were believed to aid international money laundering.

    Museums – The American Museum of Natural History has an island in Second Life, as well as some smaller art museums.

    Play as Work – In the past few years a new way of making money has grown up from MMO games such as Everquest and World of Warcraft. In many Asian countries, “gold farms”, where workers are hired to do repetitive tasks in popular games to earn virtual items and coins, have sprung up. The so-called gold farmers amass virtual coins and items that are then sold outside the game to other players worldwide for real world money, creating an economic benefit for the Asian countries. Both gamers and farmers can “craft” or manufacture items that other players buy with the currency of the virtual world. A booming economy exists in the real world for valuable virtual items from multiplayer games like World of Warcraft, Everquest, EVE Online, Halo, etc., which are sold for real world currency on eBay or on direct marketing web sites. Author Julian Dibbell says, “Play is doing the work of work.” He speculates on a multiplayer hospital game where players might perform crafting tasks, such as reading X-rays. Once the player achieves a certain proficiency, real X-rays could be interspersed with false ones, giving the medical organization free interpretation of X-rays from trained observers and the players a way to advance their game skills. Using one of the indestructible $100 laptops Nicholas Negroponte is championing, this could provide an economic means for third world countries potentially to have access to skilled diagnostic support worldwide at no charge.

    Miscellaneous

    Musical concerts – Not only have big-name artists like U2, Suzanne Vega, 50 Cent and Duran Duran played concerts in Second Life as avatars, classical musicians are also experimenting to connect with a new audience. The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic built a replica of its concert hall in England, and in recently performed the first classical symphonic concert using avatars for an avatar audience.

    News – Reuters created an impressive high rise building in SL that segregates content topics on separate screens near seating areas. The screens display realtime headlines and stories on a wide variety of topics. Reuters established a Second Life news bureau, and features not only real time, real world stories, it also features stories within and about Second Life. Anyone can take away a free copy of the news story board for their own use. In addition, SL has spawned its own in-world newspapers like the popular online newspaper Second Life Herald, and media outlets discussing only SL events and issues. There is even a Second Life News Network (SLNN) similar to CNN.

    Sports - Many groups in virtual worlds conduct sports events and competitions, from car and motorcycle racing to Whack-a-mole to chess to surfing. Major League Baseball got into the action this past summer with a simulcast of its home-run derby within Second Life, with video streams of the event shown on screens within a digitized Yankee stadium. IBM satisfied the tennis cravings of hardcore fans who could not go to Wimbledon this year by creating a faithful reproduction of the courts in Second Life, and then using real time data fed in to reproduce the matches just moments after each shot was played in England. An interesting exhibit about the technology and how it’s used can be found just up the escalators by the stadium.

    Propaganda – Games such as America’s Army that I wrote about previously are viewed as combat training by the Army, but as propaganda by many people in the world. Islamic militants are suspected of using Second Life to hunt for recruits and mimic real-life terrorism.

    Religion – Anywhere people can be found, missionaries can be found spreading their messages. That includes virtual worlds. While I came across Adventist Education Island in Second Life, for the most part religious activity takes the form of small churches and chapels on private islands, reproductions of cathedrals like Mont St. Michel in France, Wiccan enclaves, or Buddhist stupas. Even Jesuits are being encouraged to see Second Life as a new missionary territory and go in to proselytize and save (virtual?) souls.

    To reprise, virtual worlds are the worst now they will ever be. The number of organizations and people that are willing to engage with them anyway demonstrates how powerful they are. We are several years away from seeing fully how they will change education, work and social interactions. To quote the Second Life Geospatial Informatics Society, “Metaverses matter.”

    See also Part 1: Government and Part 2: Business

    divider
    October 9th, 2007

    Virtual Worlds: at the Tipping Point at Last (part 2)

    Part 2: Business
    See also Part 1: Government and Part 3: Non-Profits and Others

    Many organizations are excited about virtual worlds technology, and are still trying to figure out what they can do with the virtual world concept. Here is some background and here are some examples of what various business groups are doing today. Keep in mind that participation is growing faster than anyone can keep up with, so this list is by no means exhaustive! I’d love to hear about other interesting business uses or locations you have seen.

    Business

    Virtual business meetings – This is a common starting point for most multi-location businesses since it is far cheaper than global travel or videoconferences. IBM Business Center in SL is a creative example of how serious business meetings can be conducted in both traditional “serious” conference rooms, or more whimsical glass-floored floating ones above a sunken garden. One novel approach IBM uses is to involve its retirees. They act as volunteer mentors to new users, as well as participate in meetings of their own.

    Product Showrooms – The big car manufacturers are in Second Life–Nissan, Scion, Mercedes, BMW, Pontiac and Renault, as well as brand names like Calvin Klein and Nokia. Most add interactive features, such as test drives, personal in-world models for sale, and road or track racing appropriate for their primary demographic customers. Nokia offers its phone products for sale in a product showroom. In an interesting twist, subscribers with a Nokia N800 phone can hack their phones to run a limited version of Second Life from the phone anywhere. Kraft Foods opened a virtual supermarket to build brand awareness — a reproduction of a real-world food emporium. They hold discussion groups, lectures, have food experts available in-world to answer questions, and even have in-world cooking contests for would-be celebrity chefs.

    Customized Product Sales – Companies like Dell, with its virtual “build-your-own” factory for laptop computer sales, and Reebok, with its create-your-own-shoe program, are rethinking creatively about how they can do business when not in a face-to-face situation. Consumers expect customized goods today, and these types of imaginative approaches are more likely to draw online customers than the deserted traditional “big box” stores companies like Circuit City, Nokia and Sears have recreated virtually. Each company is experimenting with novel virtual experiences to attract and help potential customers. For example, Sears’ early prototype store shows basic features of what might be possible using virtual worlds to transform consumer experiences. Eventually they expect customers to use avatars to be able to replicate the exact dimensions of a room and experiment with redesigning their kitchen, garage or home theater by selecting appliances, tools and furniture that fit those blueprints. Consumers would be able to instantly change the colors, sizes and styles of refrigerators, ovens, counter tops, cabinets, televisions and more. Today most business locations are largely ghost towns, and it’s not clear whether it’s the location of their storefronts or the low level of consumer traffic or Second Life’s ineffective search tool. Maybe it’s all of those.

    Utilities – Vodaphone initiated a telephone service within Second Life that lets a user dial out from Second Life to the real world. The user’s home phone rings, and when they answer, they are connected to their party. Neither phone number is displayed, so Vodaphone is actually selling anonymity and low cost long distance service using their real world system. Why not add virtual bill paying capabilities, while you are at it? In addition, Vodaphone offers “InsideOut” voice and text messaging between the real world and avatars in SL. The Electric Sheep store offers a product that bridges between AOL’s AIM instant messenger and Second Life. By purchasing SLAIM in Second Life, users can send and receive AIM text messages from within Second Life. Compatibility with the Jabber IM protocol was also said to be coming soon.

    Research Platform – Virtual worlds are being discovered to be an amazing resource for research on social interaction. Researchers such as Nick Yee analyze demographics of MMORPGs and social worlds like Second Life to validate the extent to which virtual life reflects real life. Adidas sells virtual versions of its branded products to avatars in Second Life, and soon expects to test-market styles in the virtual world before rolling them out in the real world, tracking, for example, which color combos or designs prove popular among virtual users. Reebok takes it a step further and lets Second Life avatars design customized shoes in the same way as in real life on the Reebok Web site and then passes them off to a web site shopping cart to complete the purchase. Starwood Hotels sought avatar input in Second Life on its new loft hotel concept, asking visitors to make choices of architectural styles, furniture, and decor, many of which they implemented in their real world hotels. 1-800-FLOWERS launched a virtual Fields of the Virtual World campaign in Second Life to parallel its real world contest designed to find new global flower sources.

    Store Front Shopping – American Brands, Aveda, Sony, Toyota, Scion, and dozens of other household name brands (see above) are in SL trying to figure out how to drive traffic and develop a sustainable virtual sales channel. Currently the traffic is too low to make it worthwhile to make a substantial investment. Eventually, however, instead of driving to a store or ordering from websites, people might send their avatars into a 3D mall, handle merchandise, and talk with clerk avatars before making a real world purchase. American Brands was the first large company to open a store in Second Life, and hoped their online presence would increase real-world purchases through offering buyers a 15 percent discount off the same item in a real-world retail store. They launched a new denim line in SL months before it appeared in the real-world stores, and planned to hire real world clerks to work in the virtual store. Unfortunately, in 2007 they closed their SL store–although their web site says it’s not for good.

    Real Estate – It’s only a short leap from having Multiple Listing Service photos and 360 degree views of rooms to building a virtual model of a property that avatars can walk through and experience. One such model has already been made in Second Life. Coldwell Banker created a model of a $3.1 million real world listing in Mercer Island, Washington on its island in Second Life, which it then advertised. Realtors will not require new licenses, and may be able to lead virtual tours with clients from the comfort of their own chairs.

    Financial Services – Here are just a few examples. Some insurance companies send their claim adjusters to virtual house fires and car crashes in Second Life, where they get “experience” before they engage in real-world work with customers. About 10 years ago I suggested to my employer that we should create a virtual insurance agency in Active Worlds, using a combination of carefully scripted “chat bots” and live (avatar) agents. This week Assicurazioni Generali SpA, a major European insurer, is opening its Generali Virtual island in Second Life. It will be staffed daily with live agents. Although there are not yet plans for selling insurance through this venue, the company will be looking for new insurance products to develop, such as protection against virtual identify theft. Toyota Financial Services hosts a loan center in Whyville to help kids learn about FICO scores and interest rates in order to borrow virtual money (that they use to buy a virtual Toyota Scion to drive around the world).

    Singapore startup First Meta is offering the first virtual credit card for use in a virtual community. The MetaCard offers Second Life members a virtual credit card with a L$5,000 limit (about $19.00) monthly, with no credit check. A “gold” card, with a $37 cap, must be backed by a real world credit card, and may have a monthly fee attached. As in the real world, First Meta is having to secure participation from virtual world merchants and has about 140 signed up. L’Atelier, the center of new technologies monitoring and analysis for French bank BNP Paribas’, plus several other companies in the group have joined Second Life. At this point, they say, the purpose is just to be present in this new phenomenon that they believe will have far-reaching impacts. Currently they are providing only education and communication, not banking services.

    Other financial organizations are getting in on virtual transactions, too. Recent research points to vast expected growth in the age 3 to 13 market, meaning virtual worlds like Habbo Hotel and Whyville will continue to attract capital investments. Within four years, more than half of this group are expected to belong to a virtual world, according to a study from eMarketer. Whyville recently opened a bank sponsored by Bankinter, the fifth largest bank in Spain, so that kids can deposit and earn interest on their “clams.” Since it opened, one in four clams circulating in the virtual world has been deposited in the bank

    Professional Services – In addition to banks and venture capital firms with store fronts in SL, many professional firms and associations are entering virtual realms — both to learn about the environments and for some real world rain-making. They are not usually in the vanguard of novelty, and stick to pretty traditional methods. CPAs have created a virtual professional association (Second Life Association of CPAs) that built an island for education, new/young professional networking, and conferencing — including a virtual CPA conference with presentations conducted last July. The AICPA also has an island which is just starting to be built. As issues such as whether VAT must be charged on transactions, the taxation of non-existent (in the traditional sense) transactions, advertising prohibitions and how they translate to a virtual world, and how real world taxing agencies can assess and collect taxes from virtual entities are debated, it’s easy to anticipate a need for professional accountants with virtual world experience. Architects are using virtual worlds as a platform for creating design prototypes for clients. A coalition of multinational architects in Second Life, called the Architecture Metaverse, meets to collaborate on professional topics related to 3D modeling at The Arch. There is also a Society for Virtual Architecture, which is creating a guide to virtual spatial aesthetics. The widely-used Autocad software has a feature that allows architectural plans built with CAD software to automatically generate a fully built house in Second Life in only a few minutes. See a video here. This opens up great possibilities for virtual showcases of an architect’s work.

    Someone once said, the United States may be losing a lot of occupations offshore, but we crank out new occupations like no one else! That is certainly true in the realm of cyber law. Intellectual property lawyers now can become a “Second Life Lawyer” and specialize in the types of transactions that occur virtually. They typically use a hybrid approach, using Second Life as a meet-and-greet area for new clients, who then take their real-world legal needs offline. The American Bar Association is setting up an island in Second Life, and about 30 real world attorneys have created the virtual Second Life Bar Association. A US Circuit Court of Appeals Judge considers virtual worlds to be laboratories for studying the emergence of rules. As more people get involved and more money is at stake, the more rules you need to regulate interaction between people. Any type of commercial dispute that can occur in real life could potentially arise in a virtual world. Canadian law firm Davis LLP claims to be the first to establish an office on Second Life. The firm Field Fisher Waterhouse notes that with the increasing amount of business being conducted in Second Life will come legal disputes, such as the one earlier this month in which a Florida businessman sued another Second Life resident for copyright infringement after the rival began selling a virtual bed similar to his own.

    AuctionsThere and Second Life both have auction features to help members buy and sell items and land. Second Life’s is powered by eBay. Gaming worlds like Everquest and World of Warcraft have internal auction functions where participants can post items to sell and others can buy them with game currency by bidding (usually for a lower price) or outright purchase.

    Business Consulting – The active participation of large, global consulting firms such as Accenture, IBM and Booz-Hamilton adds an aura of seriousness to the virtual agenda. Not only that, but Second Life has spawned a plethora of small, real world consulting businesses, such as Electric Sheep Company, that have grown up in the past two years to support virtual business activities. Architectural firms can create quick, professional and novel structural designs, and this work is likely to take off as more and more realtors want to produce 3D models of homes they are listing for sale in virtual environments. Graphic designers provide interesting textures and animations for a unique appearance for items and avatars. Strategists are working with large organizations to identify the most effective ways to gain value from a virtual presence. Educators are training a broad spectrum of people and organizations in how to use the tools to work and train in virtual realms. Social coaches are teaching people how to interact effectively in a virtual form. Media relations and PR professionals are engaging in virtual promotions and brand enhancement. It’s a new kind of wild West with everyone scrambling to stake a claim while they figure out how to deal with and sculpt the unknown.

    IBM – IBM is the most visible big company investing in virtual worlds, with at least 14 “islands” in Second Life, and an active presence in other realms, such as There, Entropia Universe, and Habbo Hotel. Their island complex shows an amazing diversity of experimental constructs, from an elaborate Visitor Information Center to observation towers with telescopes to high-rise apartment buildings to floating conference centers to teleportation devices. Different IBM businesses and locations have their own islands, for example, Lotus products has its own island with a break room containing floating awards and an online presence indicator wall for all its builders, and IBM Italy’s island was the center for virtual labor demonstrations last week. They use virtual worlds to connect with their alumni population in Bloc Parties, and for on-boarding and educating new and current employees. IBM has more than 230 researchers, consultants and developers using virtual worlds to experiment with everything from social networking tools, to the design of hospitals, schools, and businesses. IBM builders were also responsible for building a marvelous reproduction of the Chinese Forbidden City, a Wimbledon Tennis Court from which the tennis matches were shown to a virtual audience, and it is currently exploring how certain types of maladies can be treated using telemedicine in a virtual space.

    Monetary Exchange/Money Markets – Most virtual worlds now, unless they are for turn-based or arcade style games, feature some sort of economy. Linden Labs took it a step further with Second Life, encouraging users to exchange Linden $ for U.S. $ (and vice-versa) on its Lindex currency exchange. The SL Capital Exchange, a product of JT Financial Investments and Savings, is another currency exchange business. It enables “customers” to speculate on the value of Linden dollars (L$) in an effort to beat the rates established on the Lindex. While the SLCapEx is fictitious, it’s not far-fetched to imagine a real world financial exchange offering a virtual trading floor and licensed traders.

    Recruiting/Job Fairs – Many large companies are creating a “presence” in Second Life to actively recruit new employees there. Most conduct preliminary screening interviews and accept resumes from candidates in avatar form. The State of Missouri’s education office has opened in Second Life, and anticipates holding its own job fair in a few months. Companies like Microsoft, Accenture and IBM are experimenting creatively with this medium, especially for recruiting technical staff. An interesting twist is that the country of Luxembourg is holding a virtual job fair in Second Life next month to attract new professional talent to the duchy. Recruiting firms like TMP Worldwide conduct interviews on behalf of large organizations for real world jobs.

    Business Partnering – SAP will soon launch its Partner Portal in Second Life. It will be a central information hub for SAP’s Solution Extension Partners and Endorsed Business Solution Partners. It will feature overviews about the companies and their solutions, as well as linking residents to more information via an interactive Partner Catalog.

    New Hire Orientation – Companies like Accenture and IBM are using virtual worlds for orientation programs for new employees. In addition to learning about organizational values, new hires can be aided through benefits signups and completing expense reports. To the millenium generation, virtual interactions will be as natural as sleeping, and businesses can save a lot of training expense, with little loss in effectiveness, by conducting some of their orientation virtually.

    Leadership Development – For almost a generation, the concept of guilds or clans in MMOGs (multiplayer online games) has been a staple. A group of people who share common interests within a specific game typically come together, choose a name, and begin to set up all the trappings of a society, including laws, government, communications, shared activities, and creation of assets. That all these are virtual and the people who are participating rarely meet the real persons in the guild is the norm. Yet real world leadership is trained and real leaders emerge. With the anonymity of the keyboard as a great equalizer, anyone with management talent, social skills and knowledge of the environment can emerge to lead. Psychologists and educators are using guilds to train leadership skills, and management consulting firms and the military are starting to accept “Guild Officer” in a major virtual world as a credential. They expect successful guild leaders to be successful real world leaders, and the testing to-date is proving it true.

    Team/Community Building – Virtual worlds are equalizers in that young knowledgeable or personable people can have as much authority and respect as older people. Some corporations are experimenting with behavioral change simulations where groups of people with a shared objective must work together to achieve it. There are promising results showing that strong real world bonds are created, increasing loyalty to the organization and reducing employee turnover. Everyone wants to be a worthwhile member of a worthwhile organization, even if the organization is virtual.

    Cultural/Seasonal Events – The biggest social event ever hosted in Second Life was NBC’s virtual Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree Lighting last December. Participants in virtual worlds want to do the unexpected and unusual, so organizations that stretch themselves creatively to both entertain and promote brand awareness can be highly successful.

    Media – Media companies have traditionally used virtual characters or worlds as subject matter, but a new trend is emerging to blur the lines between the virtual and the real. In this week’s episode of CBS-TV’s CSI:NY, the lead character must enter a world like Second Life as an avatar and pursue, not a suspect, but another avatar, in order to track down a real world murderer. Reality TV shows are appearing in Second Life, too. Survivor:SL and Big Brother US select avatars to participate in virtual versions of the shows for an extended period and offer real world prizes. Showtime took its “The L Word” to Second Life, where fans can watch episodes of the show, engage in discussions with the show’s stars, visit virtual DJs and attend special events hosted by DJs. MTV created a faithful replica of Laguna Beach. Another interesting Showtime approach was a joint venture with the Alliance Second Life Library to show episodes one and two of its series “The Tudors”, which were shown on Second Life Library Renaissance Island. “The Tudors” provides a new spin on the early life of King Henry VIII of England and debuted on Showtime last May.

    Now this is where everything starts to blur. MTV photographed Second Life avatar models for a fashion show on MTV’s Overdrive Internet channel. The avatars and environment were displayed in a visually-spectacular but highly unrealistic manner on the TV channel that may have led some watchers to disappointment. There is a disparity between fake virtual reality as show on MTV and real virtual reality (Second Life)…if you can call the virtual real. Berlin based Schaubuehne Theater produced a play based upon Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, with a novel twist. Nine avatar characters interacted live from Second Life with a human actor before a live audience. The Gate is also blurring the barriers between the real and virtual, and could give rise to new art forms. Some entrepreneurial souls are offering podcasts and radio programs created within Second Life for broadcast in the real world. Most of the content is related to SL experiences, but virtual podcasting could become a viable media relations channel for virtual and real businesses. Want to know how that changes everything? This sums it up: “A newspaper may be easier to read on today’s Web, but you can’t click through a story to launch a 3D version of the place where the events occurred, and then walk around it in the company of other people who are reading the story at the same time.” That’s powerful.

    Publishing – The same is true for books. Virtual worlds can play a role in book launches as authors push the boundaries of new marketing. For example, online marketing author Pat O’Bryan hosted a celebrity studded online party in Second Life to celebrate the release of his new book, Your Portable Empire — How To Make Money Anywhere While Doing What You Love. The affair was rather traditional in concept despite its execution in a virtual environment. Science-fiction novelist JC Hutchins, on the other hand, turned book launches on their head by releasing his novel as a “podiobook” to build a fanbase, with chapter by chapter podcasts weekly to 10,000 subscribers. Together with a friend from “Podcast Island”, he created 3D “sets” from the novel in Second Life and to parallel the story line. The sets are huge — four rooms, lots of hallways, multiple stories, and with massive customized constructions in each. They also created special avatar versions of the main characters, ones that fans could put on and wear for the event. Then Hutchins invited his subscribers to come to a book party in the walkthrough environment and experience the book more fully as characters. It’s a richer way to experience a novel, and the closest an author can get to observing the experience of readers interacting with the novel in a kind of live performance. Publishers could find virtual book tours much cheaper than the real world versions. IM, forums, email, voicemail, Second Life, all of these things give fans instant access to an author. Authors who don’t develop relationships through all those channels will be left behind. And finally, live performance art is being shown through a portal in Second Life called The Gate. The real time performance presents the live performer to the virtual worlds in real time, while avatars appear in SL to watch the performance through the portal and the performers see the avatars.

    Advertising/Public Relations – Ad agency Leo Burnett was a leader in creating a Second Life location. Termed an “idea space”, it is not a showcase for client projects, nor an attempt to drum up business within the virtual world; it is a meeting place for Burnett’s 2000 global creative professionals. They see it as a lounge of sorts where Burnett employees and the general public can work on informal artistic collaborations within a social setting. Other agencies, however, like Bartle Bogle Hegarty have opened virtual advertising agencies. They employ traditional brand building activities, and look to influence younger customers, conducting client meetings and presentations virtually. On the PR side, world press conferences are now the norm when new companies enter Second Life. All the CEOs sport 3D avatars and give PowerPoint presentations to assembled audiences of avatars and virtual reporters. Text100 opened a fully functioning virtual office in Second Life. Groups like New Media Consortium are pushing the boundaries of influence peddling with their NMC international campus designed to bring real world leaders together virtually so they can discuss challenging issues. A small number of virtual PR agencies exist, i.e., small firms and independent promoters who exist only in the virtual world and promote virtual businesses. It’s still not clear whether having a virtual world presence will result in real world business for any of the agencies.

    Education – Educator Edward Castronova is author of Synthetic Worlds, and he is creating Arden, a virtual world based upon the works of William Shakespeare, to teach literature to college students. Reportedly, Arden started on the Metaverse 3D platform, and then shifted to NeverWinterNights gaming platform before running into some financial snags. It costs a lot of money to develop and build a 3D game for any purpose. 3D worlds are perfect for immersive learning. Archeologist Aura Lilly (in SL) has no formal training in 3D modeling, yet she has created a very detailed and accurate Second Life representation of artifacts and architecture of ancient Egypt called Themiskyra. Others have built an underwater ruin of a Temple to Anubis. Using maps drawn by one of Napoleon’s artist engineers, Aura Lilly has evolved an accurate recreation of temples and buildings on the island of Philae. These two examples show the rich educational potential to use virtual worlds as an immersive way to explore ancient architecture, culture and history is limitless. Education is seen as one of the “killer apps” for virtual worlds, and some of the articles I have written previously about virtual worlds and simulations can be found here. Many universities and large companies like Cisco have built educational activities in Second Life that are open to the public. Cisco’s main goal is to provide an online forum where customers can ask Cisco’s experts questions regarding products and also receive technical support from trained specialists. They intend to have employees, including technical-support staff, with hours in Second Life as part of their everyday routine.

    Games Using Games – Investor and VP at Technorati, Joi Ito is an avid World of Warcraft player, and his guild uses conferencing capabilities in Second Life to plan its raiding strategies and battle activities for WoW. The conference room on Ito’s island has map reproductions of WoW locations that are annotated with Second Life objects. Many virtual worlds have gaming functionality built into them, too, such as chess in Everquest and Texas Hold’em poker in Yo! Ho! Ho! Puzzle Pirates. The USC Center on Public Diplomacy recently introduced its Public Diplomacy and Virtual Worlds project in Second Life, a research project examining new technology and public diplomacy in relation to the role of video games and multiplayer online games (MMOGs). They want to explore the social impacts of people from different cultures playing together in the same game, and the impact on a community when a game is framed for a community in another country.

    Virtual worlds are in the early stages of development, with great potential to come. According to IBM’s Colin Parris, some key actions that will help accelerate the adoption and mainstreaming of this technology are:

    * Improve user experience

    o Easy to use interfaces, improved graphics, faster response, better tools, more robust systems.

    * Manage trust and identities

    o Address issues related to human interaction and developing community norms.

    * Integrate immersive worlds with each other and the web to foster widespread adoption and innovation

    o Move towards open standards to reduce interoperability challenges.

    * Drive more business and societal applications

    I’d also like to see improved security and greater scalability so that it’s possible to have more than 50-60 avatars attending the same event without bringing the server to its knees!

    Be sure to read the other two parts of this series: Part 1: Governments and Part 3: Non-Profits and Others.

    divider
    October 8th, 2007

    Virtual Worlds: at the Tipping Point at Last (part 1)

    Part 1 – Government
    See also Part 2: Business and Part 3: Non-Profits and Others

    Ah, yes — avatar based interactions are starting to get some solid traction in business at last! For the past six months, I have been venturing outside my normal MMOG environments into the building and social environments like Second Life, There, vSide, and Habbo Hotel, a very popular teen world with 70 million subscribers. Gartner research forecasts that “by the end of 2011, 80 percent of active Internet users (and Fortune 500 enterprises) will have a “second life”, but not necessarily in Second Life.” Google is reportedly soon bringing online a virtual world venture called MyWorld to compete with Second Life, and Sony’s Home hopes to build a similar environment for its networked Playstation users. While all of these platforms have their flaws, security and scalability issues, and detractors, mainstream business and government are starting to get engaged with the concept, which is a very positive sign. That means budgets, and budgets mean opportunities for creative new concepts and technology improvements. The excitement is definitely building in corporate offices. If the technological improvements needed to pass corporate CIO muster can occur quickly, we may be at the tipping point.

    Many organizations are excited about the technology, and are still trying to figure out what they can do with the virtual world concept. Mitch Kapor, Chairman of Linden Labs and creator of Lotus 1-2-3, believes virtual worlds are disruptors as big as the personal computer and the Internet were. He offered these points to demonstrate the parallels, saying that, like PCs, virtual worlds represent:

    Disruptive platforms with largely unforeseen and basically unknowable impact

    Swift movement from margin to mainstream which sweeps skepticism aside

    Deep changes in what people do with information technology and how they do it

    Widespread creative destruction in the economy

    New paradigms are always dismissed by the powers that be; however, adventurous, trend-conscious companies are starting to see the 3D, computer-generated world as a place where they can conduct learning, test-market future product lines or host events to foster brand loyalty, find viable recruits, and generate buzz among their target customers. It’s a place where globalization of services can occur. The CEO of the Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA), which represents that nation’s leading high-technology companies, said recently that when Australia’s biggest telco company Telstra is offering to remove the cap limitations for broadband used to explore SL by its customers, when the Australian Tax Office is releasing commentary about how to assess in-world earnings, and when legal firms such as Deacons are writing white papers and client briefings outlining the legal risks of undertaking business in-world — then places like Second Life are no longer a game or an experiment. Other experts assert that the rise of immersive 3D computer graphics or metaverses should be neither ignored nor dismissed as a development platform and an interactive expression of real-life spatial information.

    While not executed perfectly, the ideas are exciting and show a lot of promise as solutions for a variety of organizational strategies. The popularity of Second Life — and the creative applications it is spawning — indicate we may be on the cusp of bringing virtual reality into the mainstream. Adding further credibility to having reached the tipping point, I just read today that over $1 Billion in venture capital funding has been invested in virtual worlds in the past year. That is serious money, even if $700+ million was for one Disney acquisition. How can organizations ease into virtual realms? How can they be used for business or education or enhancing customer relationships? Here are some ideas of what various groups are doing today to spark your thinking. Keep in mind that participation is growing faster than anyone can keep up with, so this list is by no means exhaustive! Some additional examples can be found here.

    Government

    Government agencies see Second Life as a viable means of sharing best practices and staging inexpensive simulations to help first responders experiment safely with hazardous situations, especially now that the live voice feature has been added. Virtual worlds provide a new medium, a new ability to communicate with citizens and customers. In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institutes of Health and its National Library of Medicine, NASA the U.S. Congress, and other agencies have all established their own “islands” to learn what virtual worlds are about, and to satisfy their curiosity. Paulette Robinson, assistant dean for teaching, learning and technology for the Information Resources Management College at the National Defense University, initiated a multi-agency consortium and has signed up almost 20 agencies for the ad hoc Second Life federal group since an initial organizational meeting in July, with additional agencies expressing interest since then. Concerned with the “anything goes” environment of Second Life, the consortium is considering establishing federal outposts in more secure virtual environments, such as those built by Forterra Systems, which would allow agencies to conduct virtual business with greater control and security. The federal consortium will probably initially follow the lead of NASA and NOAA and use virtual “islands” in Second Life for educational outreach to the public.

    Virtual worlds can also be useful tools for promoting and exercising local government, both real world and virtual. The Second Life Local Government Study Group discusses the benefits of local governance, and develops and refines detailed proposals for sophisticated governance tools to put before Second Life developers Linden Lab, in the hope of persuading them to adopt them. Some of the rules they hope to craft include the prorogation of the rule of law and democracy, effective enforcement of rules, and the promotion of a healthy and stable commercial economy by such means as effective contract and intellectual property enforcement and dispute resolution. The Neufreistadt community in Second Life, was set up by political science professors interested in trying out ideas, so the virtual city has its own constitution and legal code.

    State and Local Agencies – Various state and local agencies are also creating their own virtual spaces. The Idaho Bioterrorism Awareness and Preparedness Program has built two virtual training simulations called Play2Train in Second Life — a city and a hospital. It replaces dioramas traditionally used for tabletop training exercises, and uses interactive role playing. The simulations are the foundation for an emergency preparedness educational machinima film that will accompany the program. Even Dartmouth College’s Institute for Security Technology Studies conducts emergency-response exercises on a virtual replica of its campus in the virtual space, and the City of Berkeley is modeled at Berkurodam in Second Life, featuring a 1:3 scale model of the BART commuter train.

    Community Affairs – The City of Boston is building a Virtual Boston in Second Life and plans to present concerts, hold virtual office hours by city officials, and help residents engage in many of the types of civic participations currently conducted through e-mail or on the city’s Web site, like paying tickets or bills. They also see it as a means to increase tourism, and plan to recreate the famous Freedom Trail more authentically than they can in real life. New York University Law School has founded Democracy Island in Second Life, which contains a replica of the Supreme Court, to offer government entities and interest groups an on-line space for conducting citizen consultation, deliberation, and advocacy. The project uses the metaphor of the “county fair,” or town hall meeting, a familiar civic event in the life of a community.

    Architecture/Site Planning – Architecture for Humanity invited a group of architects to design model homes for Biloxi, Mississippi, severely damaged by hurricane Katrina. Residents could choose the most appealing model and the homes are now being finished. One of the winning models was recreated in Second Life for avatars to walk through and experience. It’s easy to imagine a time when home and office real estate listings have a 3D virtual replica that avatars can walk through and experience in the way that real buyers shop today. If the Google MyWorld comes to pass, it will be possible to see the actual construction in situ as if it were a 3D model. One only has to fly around in the older, established areas of Second Life to be awestruck at the architectural creativity and precision, including actual models of structures like Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water house.

    Foreign Relations – Sweden has announced that it is at an advanced stage of planning to open the worlds’ first official embassy in Second Life. A replica of its embassy house in Washington, it will provide visitors with information about Sweden and act as a link between the real and the virtual world. Major political candidates and even local governments and politicians are using virtual worlds to connect with their constituencies.

    Weather/Climate – NOAA has an extensive government presence in Second Life . NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory lets users ‘stand’ in the path of a Tsunami, ‘ride’ on top of a hurricane plane, ride an underwater submersible, or walk around in a real-time weather map on its island of Meteora, all of which bring science to life. The potential is there, even if the execution is still more like the old cardboard cut-out days of animation and photo-realism. The agency schedules tours of the virtual island on its web site.

    The Department of Homeland Security is planning a location where they can test various emergency scenarios using avatars to respond.

    Health/Medicine – The CDC has opened a center in Second Life to explore how social media can be used to promote public health. Other CDC agencies are also expanding into the virtual world. The National Center for Environmental Health is exploring how to educate about toxic waste in SL, the Strategic National Stockpile is exploring training issues in SL, and the Injury Center is also thinking about how to get involved. On Health Info Island, the NIH has funded Illinois’ Library Alliance in an experiment to provide a consumer health library, a medical library and a health and wellness center. Over time, the project will provide training programs, outreach to virtual medical communities, consumer health resources and one-on-one support to Second Life residents.

    Space – NASA’s island is for networking with worldwide space professionals. It’s located next door to the Second Life International Space Flight Museum.

    Military – The U.S. military was an early adopter of virtual worlds for simulating battlefield conditions where soldiers and seamen could safely experience war games and test strategies. Helicopter pilots can practice landing supplies in a war zone, risk-free. Medics can practice evacuation techniques with risking loss of life. Truck convoys can be trained to spot IEDs. Safety rules can be taught and the consequences experienced. With the advent of Google’s Street View function, it’s easy to envision the ability to practice combat maneuvers in unfamiliar territory with a high degree of realism.

    Politics – Politicians are, of course, setting up campaign headquarters in Second Life, complete with volunteer staffers to provide a human presence and speechs by the candidates’ avatars. Former Virginia governor Mark Warner was the first major candidate, and now others like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, to name a few, are following suit. And it’s not only US politicians. Kan Suzuki, a Japanese politician seeking re-election to Japan’s upper house, has set up a campaign in Second Life, although the move may be against the country’s campaign laws, which say web sites cannot be created or updated during the official period of campaigning. During campaigns, distribution of text and images is apparently limited to postcards and pamphlets. All four of the major French presidential candidates Nicolas Sarkozy, Segolene Royal, Francois Bayrou, and Jean Marie Le Pen staked out their turf in Second Life as well. In future campaigns, imagine campaign volunteers going for training in a virtual world and viewing videos on a campaign. Candidates can make personal appearances from the comfort of their own living rooms or offices, and perhaps most importantly, money can be raised virtually at a much lower cost.

    Be sure to check back tomorrow to read about how businesses are using and benefiting from virtual worlds in Part 2, followed by non-profit and other organizations in Part 3.

    divider
    October 4th, 2007

    The Gate — At the edge of virtual and real

    The Gate is one of those breakthrough ideas that will result in a complete change in how people interact, both in business and in their personal lives. This coming weekend, on October 5-7, there will be a portal set up between real life and Second Life on Odyssey island. It’s being billed as an “interdimensional peep-show through parallel universes,” creating a merging of both worlds. It made me think of Dumbledore’s mirror, where Harry Potter communes with his dead parents.

    The creators of The Gate are in Belgium, and describe it as “a simple window between both worlds where real users and SL users see each other and can meet. A view of the SL Gate is permanently projected in the real life venue; when an avatar comes in front of The Gate, it is visible in the public space; when one arrives physically in front of the door in the public space, he/she can interact with the SL user currently in front.” A couple of years ago I remember reading about a kind of “community” hall that Accenture created in three of its global offices. The idea was that a person walking into the space in Chicago would instantly be seen in Paris and another location, so that the kind of ad hoc watercooler conversations that normally take place when people bump into each other in a hallway could happen across the globe. The difference here is the entity you will see with The Gate will not exist except on a computer! It’s a fascinating concept. Again, to quote the planners, “the result will be a kind of happening where the virtuality of SL is transferred in the physicality of our public space and vice-versa; a stage for performance and interaction…”

    Perceived as a kind of performance space, The Gate was designed for the opening show of iMAL Center for Digital Cultures and Technology in Brussels. The show explores the fusion between the physical world and the net through networked sculptures and installations which question the physical space as well as the digital world. I don’t exactly understand what that means on a practical level, but I’m definitely planning to show up and find out!

    Got a Second Life account? The Gate is installed on Odyssey island, on the beach next to the teleport hub. Use this SLurl to teleport: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Odyssey/122/45/25/

    October 8 Update: Well, I did visit The Gate and found it to be quite interesting. As an avatar, staring through to the “real world”, it was like being in a hall of mirrors. This human, with a window behind me in my office, staring at a computer screen at my avatar who was staring at a doorway opening into the real world on the other side. My reactions were as a human seeing through the portal, however, the humans on the other side could only look back and see an avatar, and not to the human who was smiling broadly at the experience! I’m not sure how the event worked as “performance art”. There were certainly a bunch of bizarre avatars who came and created weird and not very interesting “art” that the humans in Brussels were forced to view. That was probably the biggest negative to me…the need for some people to make an ugly or rude personal statement and then force it on others who can’t escape it. Still, kudos to the planners of the event. It was a very interesting concept and we haven’t seen the last of it!

    divider
    September 5th, 2007

    Why Executives Don’t Buy KM

    This week, Frank Guerino, CEO of TraverseIT, posted some informal research results he had when talking recently to 18 high level executives in corporations with 15-75,000 employees. He said, ” While I know this is a small sampling with incomplete information, they are extremely intelligent individuals who all have very large spans of global control in their enterprises, including large global organizations, budgets and very large customer bases (some internal and some external). Most of the enterprises were in different market sectors.”

    With regard to KM, he found what he believes to be minor insights into why leaders tend not to buy into formal KM implementations. Some readers will consider the results technology or information management oriented. Others will look beyond the comments to find they acknowledge a KM strategy is needed, that KM is about people and processes as well as technology, and that they are skeptical about KM’s ability to produce results. They do also seem to jump to discussing technology first, but that’s not surprising since they were talking to a technology company. I think these comments are valid user observations related to KM and should be taken into account the same as all voice of the customer research results. If they mistakenly believe that KM is about managing data and content, then it’s our responsibility as KM practitioners to do a better job of educating our employers and customers!

    Here’s what the executives said:

    Common Beliefs…

    1. It’s critical to have a Knowledge Management Strategy.
    2. A KM strategy does not require dedicated KM roles in an enterprise as, most commonly, the CEO and/or CIO set this strategy.
    3. KM can be improved using a strategy that requires no implementation of formal KM processes. A good KM strategy can be implemented with tools, technologies, and leadership that has appropriate vision.
    4. Knowledge is a human thing. It is processed and realized by individual humans working alone and/or with other people. It is not something that can be created, understood or leveraged by machines. It is not something embedded in a culture.
    5. Knowledge creation, processing and exploitation is about getting the right data and information to the right people.
    6. Knowledge can be codified and stored in the form of content, to be leveraged by systems and people, at a later day.
    7. The common understanding of KM, by all of them, was that KM is the process of effectively coordinating and managing your data, information, and/or content in such a way as to allow humans to make sense of it, so that it can be exploited to improve the enterprise in any way, shape or form. Part of that process includes getting things out of people’s heads and codified into general content and business rules so that it can be exploited by other systems and people.

    Basic Goals of a General KM Strategy…

    1. Improve Communications
    2. Improve Capture and Persistence of Content
    3. Improve Capture and Persistence of Work
    4. Improve Accessibility to Data & Information of all forms
    5. Improve the Capture, Recognition and Exploitation of Metrics & Statistics
    6. Improve Automation

    1. KM Strategy for Improving Communications

    Goal: Facilitate and achieve better and more frequent communications between people, between systems, and between systems and people

    Purpose: Getting higher quality data and information to appropriate systems and people, faster, will facilitate faster knowledge processing, recognition, awareness and understanding by the people acting as stakeholders.

    Facilitating Tools & Technologies:
    * Phone (Landline/Mobile/VOIP/Etc.)
    * Web-Based Communications & Collaboration Tools (Intranet/Wikis/Forums/Blogs/Listservs/Etc.)
    * Computer-based Communications & Collaboration Tools (Email/Chat/Skype/Etc.)
    * System-to-System Integration Tools (Brokers/ETL/Middleware/etc.)
    * System-to-Human Integration Tools (Business Intelligence/Reporting/Visualizations/Etc.)

    2. KM Strategy for Improving Capture and Persistence of Content (i.e. Documentation)

    Goal: Facilitate and achieve better and more frequent documentation of Processes, Products, Services, Roles, Responsibilities, Work, etc.

    Purpose: A key element of KM is the codification of what people “know”. Since enterprises have a high turnover rate, a key issue is to “persist” what people know by codifying it into usable data, content, business rules, etc.

    Facilitating Tools & Technologies:
    * Desktop Productivity Tools (MS Office/PDF Tools/etc.)
    * Electronic Libraries
    * Document Management tools
    * Authoring, Content Management & Collaboration tools (Intranets/Wikis/Blogs/Etc.)
    * Scanners

    3. KM Strategy for Improving Capture and Persistence of Work

    Goal: Facilitate and achieve better and more frequent capture and persistence of work that is expected to be performed, that is being performed, and/or that has been performed by, both, humans and systems

    Purpose: The capture of work leads to data, information and content that can be leveraged for decision making to improve an enterprise.

    Facilitating Tools & Technologies:
    * Operations Tools (Project Management/Product Management/ Service Management/ Incident Management/ etc.)
    * Workflow Tools

    4. KM Strategy for Improving the Capture, Recognition, and Exploitation of Metrics & Statistics

    Goal: Facilitate and achieve better and more frequent metrics and statistics that are an outcome of repeatable work performed by humans and systems.

    Purpose: Metrics and Statistics drive decision making. The more that are available and made useful, the more options decision makers have to work with.

    Facilitating Tools & Technologies:
    * Metadata Models (Ontologies/Taxonomies/Static Reference Data/Etc.)
    * Automation Tools & Technologies
    * Repetitive Processes

    5. KM Strategy for Improving Accessibility and Visibility of Data

    Goal: Facilitate accessibility to the data that people and systems need, when they need it.

    Purpose: Accessibility and visibility drive knowledge processing and understanding. The faster data gets to people the faster decisions can be made.

    Facilitating Tools & Technologies:
    * Crawling and Indexing Solutions
    * Search Solutions (Index Based/Value Based/Metadata Based/Etc.)
    * Business Intelligence and Reporting Tools and Cognitive
    * Middleware Solutions (ETL, Brokers, Queuing, etc.)
    * Correlation Engines
    * Semantic Tools & Technologies
    * Interpreters

    6. KM Strategy for Improving Automation

    Goal: To automate anything and everything that can be automated, according to priority and allowable budget.

    Purpose: Automation increases the capacity for repetitive/redundant work processing and generates volumes of metrics and statistics that help free up humans to focus on higher value work (such as focusing on customers) and exploit such metrics and statistics, to make more and better decisions.

    Facilitating Tools & Technologies:
    * Workflow tools (Process Automation Tools/Business Processing Tools/Etc.)
    * Programming Languages & Tools (Scripting/Higher Order/Etc.)
    * Machines (Computers/Manufacturing/Tools/Robots/Etc.)
    * Synthesis Solutions

    Clearly there are “people” methodologies like knowledge transfer and communities of practice that are largely overlooked by these participants. But it’s equally clear that without technology providing a vehicle to process and retrieve knowledge that is stored as information, most of what an organization knows will become lost. To me it’s a clear case of which came first, the chicken or the egg? You need both types of activities for KM to achieve an organization’s desired results.

    divider
    September 3rd, 2007

    Second Life and Other Virtual Possibilities

    This summer I have had the opportunity to provide an introduction to virtual worlds to quite a few work colleagues. It has been a ball…watching their faces light up as they suddenly understand how to make the technology do their bidding, and then getting very excited as they sense the possibilities latent in applying virtual interactions to all kinds of scenarios. I’m thankful that I’ve been involved with multiplayer gaming for all the years I have. I think it has kept me open minded, and enthusiastic, and possibly most importantly, in regular contact with much younger people, who see things differently and challenge the status quo.

    I know I’ve said it before, but I will say it again…I don’t think Second Life is “the” 3D multi-user platform that will change everything. Historically, it is one in a string of applications that have advanced the technology and educated people to what could be. Something else will follow in the near future, and that may very well be “the” platform, in the same way that Google started off as just another in a string of search engines, and then changed everything. Or perhaps all the pieces will just become integrated so tightly that they will co-exist. We just don’t know yet.

    Second Life deserves credit for being the platform that *probably* is creating critical mass. It has brought 3D interactions to the lives and work of people who might never have considered graphical character representations interacting on a screen as anything that was serious enough for business applications, let alone money-making. Luckily, that perception is now changing. I’ve seen it in my own company, and I hear about similar exchanges in the companies of my friends. Virtual worlds/ simulations/ metaverses are stepping up onto the legitimate stage in a big way. Linden Labs reports they must install 120 servers per week, each hosting 1-4 “regions” or islands, in order to keep up with demand for land in Second Life. Gartner Research says current trends suggest that 80 percent of active Internet users and Fortune 500 companies will participate in Second Life or some competing virtual world by the end of 2011. A breakthrough in technology will have to occur. Second Life is just not that scalable in its current form.

    Second Life terms itself a “metaverse”, based on the term coined in the visionary sci-fi novel Snow Crash. According to Metaverse Roadmap, when video games meet Web 2.0, when virtual worlds meet geospatial maps of the planet, when simulations get real and life and business go virtual, when you use a virtual Earth to navigate the physical Earth, and your avatar becomes your online agent, what happens is the metaverse. Those with eyes to see can see it happening today.

    The potential applications of simulation technologies are still waiting to be discovered. Ten years ago, I suggested to my employer that we build a “virtual insurance agency”, where chat-bot avatars could be carefully scripted to sell our products. My idea was to have a building with four offices in which four different avatars would convey the same business messages in different speaking styles. A customer would walk their avatar into the building and choose the salesperson avatar that most appealed to them, and buy some insurance. We might have had a grey-haired older person, a middle aged woman, a black, oriental or hispanic person, or a young person. They loved the idea, but decided it was too far out. Yet today, it’s seeming like more of a possibility! Our own children will be moving around in a combined real/virtual realm as naturally as we all surf the web today. It may be a 2D version of mobile augmented reality or a 3D simulation in a mirrored world, but their lives will be seamlessly integrated with visual representations of things that are real and they will use virtual agents to manipulate their world. As futurist Jerry Paffendorf says, we are creating the “ultimate video game version of the earth”, and the best thing is people are working on all the pieces to create it already.

    Last month, MIT’s Technology Review magazine published an article called Second Earth, about the merger of 3D technologies like Second Life and the worldwide web. I’ve been carrying it around in my computer bag since July. The article is interesting, but what I’m enjoying most about it is the mental stimulation of reading and rereading it. It is one of those articles that stretches you outside your normal perceptions of how things could be, into that uncomfortable and wildly stimulating area of imagining what else could be. Since a number of people have asked me recently for examples of ways Second Life (or 3D simulations) could be applied to normal or business life, I decided to write some down. This is by no means an exhaustive list…it’s just the tip of the iceberg and a way to start your mind thinking in a new direction. Enjoy!

  • Lay a 3D simulation of the real world over real world data and access it from a mobile phone. Think of being on vacation and checking your house from your cell phone to be sure the stove was turned off, the temperature is not getting too cold for the pet goldfish, or that the doors were locked. Think of house hunting, and being able to stand outside a property and see a virtual tour on the cell phone, along with all the historical data about the property, taxes, prior owners, disasters and remodeling/repairs. Nokia and French startup Total Immersion are building a prototype.
  • A new generation of 3D “metaverse” browsers will be be what Mosaic was to the early worldwide web, and provide structure while enabling infinite experimentation. Immersive training simulations used by the U.S. Department of Defense and other first-responder agencies today will become the norm for adult learning conducted outside a classroom.
  • Different worlds, owned, controlled, and operated by different organizations, and built for different purposes, will be built on different technology platforms, and they will all be interconnected. There will be rules and standards about how one might connect with these worlds, as well as the equivalent of New York’s Grand Central Station — a large central portal through with a user can be connected with any point they have access to. Think of it as local company “intraverses” connected through a global gateway like today’s intranets sit on the Internet. To complement that, Microsoft, Google and Linden Labs (makers of Second Life) are talking about the viability of a universal avatar — one that would be portable seamlessly from one platform to another.
  • A walk-through weather map based on current NOAA data is currently available in Second Life (Weather World). The user walks over the map to see visual representations of the current weather conditions in the real world.
  • Entire regions of Second Life are set aside for the many subcommunities of multiplayer games, such as World of Warcraft, Everquest, and Star Trek. Players in those 3D interactive games find holding guild or team meetings in Second Life more conducive to planning or coaching sessions.
  • Realtors and other “consumer” businesses can enhance their brands in a virtual world, such as Coldwell Banker is doing in Second Life by selling virtual houses at a discount, or AOL is doing with its skateboard theatre, or Starwood Hotels did with its new chain of Aloft Hotels by inviting Second Lifers into a virtual model of their new property and soliciting suggestions for improvements.
  • Local governments or famous landmarks can promote tourism by creating intriguing representations of themselves and drawing virtual traffic who may later wish to visit the real world location. They can overlay traffic conditions, water/air quality, news headlines, restaurants or stock prices. Conversely, the handicapped or infirm could enjoy the virtual experience of travel from their sickbeds or wheelchairs. Second Life features numerous such locations, including Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water House, a recreation of an ancient Egyptian temple, a virtual Grand Canyon, Alpen ski slopes, Uluru from the Australian Outback, downtown Dublin, and virtual Amsterdam, in addition to the Reuters in-world news service that provides current real world and Second Life news story reporting.
  • Global governments can also benefit from virtual interactions. New Media Consortium (NMC) created an educational campus and conference center in Second Life that is being used to research such possibilities. Given that users typically feel freer to interact in an avatar form than in real life, NMC was awarded a prestigious MacArthur Grant to determine the degree to which virtual world interactions by world leaders can be converted to real world actions.
  • Military engineers and mechanics can benefit from training with virtual tools on virtual trucks, tanks, jet fighters and helicopters before trying their skills on multi-million dollar real world equipment. So could corporate fleet mechanics and high risk, high tech assembly line workers. See the Dell computer factory in Second Life and how it starts with a virtual representation of a computer to be custom built, and then shifts seamlessly to its real world web site to complete the financial transaction.
  • Imagine a different kind of warfare. Trucks or goggles outfitted with sensors that note recent changes in the environment and alert a soldier to investigate movement or terrain. The soldier can then send a virtual avatar forward to run tests and inspect or examine the area closely without danger, or deploy a real life robot to disarm a suspicious item. Truck conveys looking to avoid IEDs in the middle East, or border patrols monitoring large areas of territory would find their lives safer.
  • Corporate recruiters are currently getting engaged with virtual recruiting. Using avatars (and pre-scripted autobot avatars), recruiters are soliciting real world resumes and conducting prescreening interviews in a variety of Second Life locations, both traditional and fanciful, like Accenture’s huge blue glass sphere with floating desks inside.
  • Universities and schools of all levels are building replicas of their campuses, creating changing exhibits, providing concerts and lectures, and conducting classes. Harvard Law School, for example, conducts for-credit classes in Second Life at its virtual campus, and many schools offer 3D art exhibits, classroom facilities, and assistance for teachers teaching virtually.
  • There are many more examples that could be given. Google Earth and Microsoft’s Virtual Earth are platforms where the blurring between the virtual and the real is happening. By layering data and graphics over maps, compelling information can be provided that transcends what a person might learn from reading a newspaper. One example is a meticulous 3-D model of the city of Berlin that was prepared as part of a new digital infrastructure for city management and economic development. Another is a view of Darfur sponsored by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, which highlights the locations of 1,600 villages ravaged by the Sudanese government’s ongoing campaign to wipe out non-Arab tribes in the region. By zooming in on these locations, a user can see the remnants of the actual settlements destroyed by the Janjaweed. It is very powerful. In a completely different direction, researchers at Harvard and BBN Technologies received a grant from Microsoft this spring to create a network of 100 Wi-Fi-connected weather and pollution sensors they’re installing in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    The virtual and the real are beginning to blur slightly. So how long before we can use something like Second Life avatars to stroll through a walkable Google Earth? Unfortunately, the technology limitations make it impractical at the moment, although there are signs that it could be a future possibility. Bring on the 3D Internet and metaverse browser! I’m ready!

    divider
    July 2nd, 2007

    KM’s Fast Food Restaurant: Discussion Forums

    I was talking with a colleague this morning about communities and collaboration. We were discussing collaboration tools and what makes a community a community. Some organizations view communities to be structured groups that management can “create” and people will just jump in and magically start to regurgitate everything they know on the topic. That’s a naive point of view born out of traditional corporate top-down management, as most of us know. Communities happen because people share a passion for a topic and like to talk about it with like-minded others. I am reminded of Shawn Callahan’s test for community.

    We then moved to talking about different tools and the impact they have on communities. One company I know has rolled out blogs, wikis and threaded message discussions to its employees, and they have approached the new collaboration tools in much the same way…they hard coded organizational structures into “communities” and they have suggested to workers that they go post in “their community”. While some people will do that initially to honor the request made by the organization, a few postings don’t make a community, and the blogs or message boards will languish after that little spike that always happens when something new is launched. I don’t know about you, but I bristle a bit when it’s assumed that I want to be a member of a community. It’s stereotyping that has no basis in how I might choose to represent myself or my interests. (Maybe this is a babyboomer view of life!)

    That same company has the point of view (and they are communicating it to workers) that blogs are for discussion. People who have opinions on a subject or want to discuss a theory or want to drill down deeply into something should do it on a blog and have discussions via comments on the blog. To me that is simply wrong. First, to create an organizational blog, for example, “Property & Casualty Underwriters Blog” means it’s not personal…it doesn’t really belong to anyone or a core group of thought leaders, and the conversations will always remain formal, reasoned and reserved. There is always the tacit knowledge that “someone” is watching over the community and judging what is posted there. Even to create a set of threaded discussion areas, such as Healthcare Professionals, Communication Theory, Research Technicians, or Soccer Moms assumes that workers who fall into that category by job classification automatically want to be a member of that community. Many will, true, but communities that work let people go where their interests dictate, and don’t predefine where they should go. People want to graze and sample and explore until they find a place and a group they feel enough affinity with to want to keep going there.

    Which leads to KM and fast food! Discussion boards are like the fast food drive through restaurants of KM. On some days visitors may choose to go into the restaurant to eat, and may spend time with the food. But most days workers are on their way to somewhere else — they drop in for some nourishment, and they stay in their cars. They scan the menu and choose items that appeal to them that day, they take the items they want (prepared by someone else), and they drive away. If they like the food, they will be back! I think the analogy works well.

    The analogy for wikis to me is a native tribe in the jungle building a hut. Some members provide the saplings used to define the structure. Some strip vines to anchor the cross-members into place. Some scour the jungle for the right leaves to make a roof. Some use the leaves to put the roof into place. Some weave branches in and out to fill in between the main supports. And at any time, an experienced tribal elder can come in and move a timber, tighten a lashing or provide some caulk to fill a gap. (It takes a village to make a wiki?)

    So what is the analogy for Blogs? A brainstorming meeting?

    divider
    June 15th, 2007

    Second Life’s Real World Issues

    The last few months have been interesting for Linden’s Second Life social game/world. Its PR machine created a lot of buzz that got people talking, even as more critical reporters were challenging the authenticity of the numbers of “citizens” Linden published. You can read more here and here. Just in my own world of contacts, normally staid corporate citizens who know I am actively interested in multiplayer games have sought me out to talk about Second Life with a twinkle of interest, and many have said their organizations have “people” exploring the business applications of it. For more than 10 years now I have promoted multiuser, immersive environments for a variety of business purposes, so part of me is thrilled to see that the idea may finally have reached critical mass. I still see it as the future, though, and it makes me a little uncomfortable that Second Life is the platform businesses are starting to coalesce around. It’s simply not the best platform for a number of reasons. It just happens to be the first one that spoke the language of business — money.

    Now, I know this point of view may make me unpopular with the fanatics who have discovered social computing for the first time and think Second Life is the best thing since sliced bread. The truth is, whatever channel first draws a person into a fun, multiuser online experience (I hesitate to call them games), the impact is always the same…the “newbie” user becomes enchanted with the new way of interacting, begins to see possibilities, and immediately starts thinking about how he/she can share the word and get others involved, or bring the experience into their own workplace. Many begin to proselytize in the same way that new members of a religious group do — they have to tell everyone they know with animation and enthusiasm. Then the realities of business kick in, so they have to start looking for “business reasons” to justify using the platform so that “management” or “business leaders” (who are assumed to be dense and conservative) can “get it”. They start looking for business goals or challenges that a multiuser immersive environment can solve. I would bet that most large organizations have some small group off in a corner trying to establish how Second Life might be beneficial to them, and using IBM’s experimentation with SL as a justification that it’s a good business idea. My own does.

    The big problem, as Mitch Wagner at TechWeb rightly pointed out, is the buggy, unstable code that runs Second Life. To their credit, Linden has refocused three-quarters of their staff to fixing problems with the inventory database, teleportation of characters in SL, and bugs, but the down time, the lost items which cost the participants time and real world money, and the inability of the platform to scale rapidly to accommodate the influx of new users is crippling SL. These issues simply won’t be tolerated in a serious business platform, which SL apparently aspires to be.

    Unfortunately, the world of business is not the world of games. Any organization that wants to adapt a game/social environment to a publicly-accessible mercantile environment is going to face the same real-world economic problems that businesses face every day — transaction security, crime, exploitation, publicity, complaints, litigation, and perhaps eventually, government regulation. Gaming/social engines just aren’t built with those issues in mind. I’ll be watching for the results from the Virtual Goods Summit at Stanford University next week. Personally, I want 3-D interactive worlds to be ready to apply to day-to-day uses. They just aren’t there yet.

    divider
    June 15th, 2007

    Perhaps Knowledge Silos Are Useful?

    For the past couple of months I have been re-engaging in the business world, in a large organization that prides itself on its knowledge and Knowledge Management expertise. It has given me a new appreciation of knowledge silos, and I want to suggest a different point of view on why they are beneficial and why many organizations have difficulty when they want to break them down. There’s a lot of research out now that shows how workers are buried in information to the point that they spend half their time or more searching for the information they need to keep doing their actual job. This is a huge productivity loss, and it’s fatiguing to workers.

    In my new role I have been exposed to a lot of training, numerous white papers and tons of PowerPoint presentations on everything from products and services to directions for how to use our virtual office reservation system. The only way to make sense of the information overload was to categorize the information into broad categories: KM team, required training, New York office, KM CoP, Virtual Reality CoP, etc. The process of creating my own taxonomy of information made me think again about silos, and think about them differently — not as rigid organizational structures, but as a dynamic way to make sense out of chaos. In a prior role, I observed silos to be restrictive and imposed by business structures… verticals where a business line or department was only interested in its own progress and stayed unaware of what the other parts of the business were doing. If I had had to draw a picture of the business, I would have drawn a bunch of silos in a circle, and labeled each one of them with the name of a business line.

    Now I’m in a KM savvy organization, and I’m observing silos again…but they are formed by necessity! In this company there is so MUCH information, there are so many communities of practice, there are so many opportunities to collaborate in so many different ways that it’s daunting! I’ve found myself reacting in an unexpected way: I’m putting on blinders! I am reaching out to the people I know share my interests, and just ignoring the rest! Isn’t that a silo? I think so…but it’s one based upon self-protection from drowning in information (and emails), not an organizational structure or imperative. It’s PKM (personal knowledge management).

    As KM practitioners, we find it interesting to speculate, “What would I do in an organization where the proprietary knowledge is largely documented, where people automatically contribute new information or experiences to the knowledge base, where anyone can form a community, and most people belong actively to several? Where collaboration tools are routinely used 24/7 to accommodate a truly global workforce, where the portal is a place you go when you want to discover something new or interesting.” I’ve landed on that planet, and I freely admit I’m drowning in access to more knowledge and information than I could ever have dreamed one organization would create. That drowning is starting to get in the way of my ability to think or do productive work, though, so I’m simply shutting most of it out.

    I do feel siloed, but it’s a self-protective silo that maintains my ability to have meaningful interactions with the people I want or need to share with, while still giving me time to work on the projects that pay the bills. And that is one reason silos will always exist. In my observation, people erect barriers around themselves to keep the background noise to a low hum and preserve their own sanity. They deliberately create “islands of information” as Joe Firestone calls them. It’s not forced upon them, and it’s not a problem on a very practical level. KM will not break those kinds of silos down. One might say KM creates them! Maybe they are just more organizationally healthy silos. I think I’ve been giving silos a bad rap.

    divider
    May 4th, 2007

    My Search for a KM Job

    Last December I decided to put a serious effort into finding a corporate KM role. I’ve had the last 18 months to think about what I want to do, and spent a good bit of time participating in various KM community discussions, as well starting two KM books that have been whirling in my head. This seems to be the way I learn. First, I read everything I can get my hands on, then I spend time getting to know experts in the field and discuss all my questions with them. Next, I put it into practice–a pilot, a job, solving situational problems. Then I write a book about it, and move on. I’m in book mode at the moment, but having had a breakthrough last fall about what KM is and how all the components work together, I decided it’s time to put it to the test. So I started looking for a “real” job.

    Step one was to surf the job boards on the Internet, to see what is out there, and find out the terms that are being used to describe what I think it is I do. I spent a good bit of time doing that It’s hard to look for a position that is not well understood, and that is seen to be different things in different organizations. In most places it is grouped under IT, and in others under HR, under Learning, under Organizational Change and even under Communities.

    Step two was to reply to some ads, sending out some generic resumes to see what might happen. A few nibbles from recruiters, but nothing came of it.

    Step three was to reach out to others I know in the field and ask for leads to a KM recruiter — I went back to what the learned say, “Use your network!” Maybe it’s odd, but I don’t think of my KM colleagues as a network. They are my community and, in some cases, friends. I didn’t know whom to ask, and whether they would consider my request for job leads odd. After all, in this virtual age, I’ve not actually met or worked with many of them face to face. It felt awkward to define my “network” when so many of them are virtual. Well, they themselves aren’t, but I think you know what I mean.

    So I changed my approach. I contacted two dozen specific very busy professional colleagues to ask only for the name of a KM recruiter. To my amazement, every single person eventually answered, and most provided thoughtful advice and/or actual leads for jobs. What I discovered is that there don’t appear to be any specialized KM recruiters. Why? This was an interesting question, because it ties back to other articles I have written about the importance of KM definitions. The reason there are no recruiters is (drum roll) “key word devils”.

    If you are a person who works in the data management aspect of KM, or the (currently hot) social networking analysis aspect of KM, or content/portals aspect of KM, certain words are standardly used, and help to define one’s experience with KM. A generalist or strategic thinker has much more trouble, though, because what we know and can do is broad. There are never items on the drop down list that fit exactly, and it’s hard to second guess the minds of the people who created the categories on the drop down menu. (Hence “key word devils”) You may have had the same experience. Sure, you can list key words related to data management, content management, call centers, collaboration, or online communities, but they are only a part of the story. KM has not been adequately defined, so companies write job descriptions that are off base for what they really want to hire, making the HR people’s lives complicated.

    Looking back, I think the problem lies mostly in the online submission process. Many web sites use CGI forms, which means the applicants just cut up their resumes to fit it into little boxes of predetermined size, and and lose all formatting. After spending days fine tuning the wording and layout of the resume, it’s quite daunting to squeeze 20 plus years into a couple of 400 word boxes that will be displayed as a grey river of text.

    The bottom line is that none of these efforts paid off for me. I had some excellent conversations with people in my network, and with people they referred me to, including several recruiters, but none of them amounted to a serious job interview. What did work was to browse the job openings on several job boards online myself. As a result of sending out about 45-50 resumes, I got down to two KM positions–one a corporate role and one a consulting role.

    I have now been in my consulting position in the Knowledge Management practice for Accenture about a month. So far it seems like a good match. In fact, it may turn out to be the most interesting and personally rewarding position I’ve had in my life. That’s saying a lot! Accenture is definitely a thought leader in KM and has amazing KM resources and expertise. It’s just been interesting to note that, despite the efforts of many capable, thoughtful and talented people, for me finding a job came down to finding an open posting. Go figure.

    divider
    April 22nd, 2007

    The Emotional Tone of Games

    There’s an interesting new approach to gaming that provides an emotional counterpoint to most games currently on the market. Independent game developers Jenova Chen and Kellee Santiago have identified a gap that I think many gamers, especially women, will find an appealing alternative. Their game Flow, recently acquired by Sony Entertainment, and its predecessor Cloud focus on the “Zen end of the emotional spectrum.” Flow is described as “a soothing title in which players guide an aquatic creature as it eats and evolves to the beat of ethereal background music.” It is an example of how the video game business is expanding beyond the genres of shooters, racers and puzzles.

    As a woman, I appreciate that. Sure, there are times when I have had a hard day, and I want to log on to a game and go kill some orcs or murlocs or Klingons. It’s a relaxing way to unwind from stress and aggravation, because I can control my actions and the environment, feel some progress toward a goal, get an adrenaline rush, and laugh and interact with others who don’t depend upon me or even know me. But there are other times when that kind of play seems harsh, forceful and abrasive. Something more inspiring or soothing would be great. As Chen and Santiago explain, movies are satisfying because they provide a whole range of emotional experiences, and games don’t. They think games need to provide the full spectrum of emotions just as movies do. It will be interesting to see what comes from this new way of thinking. I hope it’s more than just watching fish swim around like on my screen saver, but that said, I do find at certain points during the day I zone out watching the fish swim around on my screen. Making such a passive activity into a game that will continue to engage players without turning it into a warm and fuzzy activity for six year olds or a Tamagotchi virtual pet should be an interesting developers challenge.

    divider
    April 19th, 2007

    Returning to Definitions

    I was asked again recently to define knowledge management. It’s a simple request — one anyone might make when they are trying to understand what I do — but there is not yet a simple answer. KM professionals and scholars are still trying to define it. If you read my blog, then you know that I’ve been grappling with definitions for some time now (see here, here and here), and so have most of the best minds in the business. For the benefit of my mother, who would sincerely like to know what I do, this is how I describe it:

    Knowledge management is a discipline that uses a variety of methodologies to connect people to people and people to information to improve decision making.

    In nature, the systems and organisms that survive are simple and elegant. I believe that is true with definitions as well. If we can’t write it on the back of a business card, then we don’t yet understand what we are working with well enough. Theoreticians may split hairs over the terms I use, and KM managers may disagree based upon the specific tool set they are asserting to be KM in their own organizations, and learning or information management professionals may consider KM a subset of their own disciplines, but I think this definition is one that can contain all the others. I keep returning to relating KM to the story of the blind men and the elephant. I believe this definition describes the KM elephant. Have I missed anything?

    divider
    April 18th, 2007

    Everything I Learned from Games

    I saw an ad today for a presentation by Jennifer McLean at the Women in Games International conference, called “Everything I need to know, I learned from playing games.” She must be younger than me — I learned a lot before I started playing online games in the 1980s — but I fully agree with her point of view!

    Gaming provides a rich and unmatched opportunity for people of all ages to learn valuable lessons about human nature, good and evil, the value of preparation, equality, dealing with diversity, leadership, economics, merchandising, governing, setting priorities, and team play. Who knew that games taught such important life lessons? Here are some of the things I’ve observed, I’ve experienced, and I’ve learned from more than 20 years of playing MMOGs:

    1. The keyboard permits physical anonymity, but reveals a person’s true character. Put a person in a place where they must choose between the most awesome, powerful weapon in the game or doing the right thing for another player, and you know immediately whether that is a person you want teaching your children in school.

    2. Guilds and clans are little governments unto themselves, and the rules they evolve attract like minded spirits and weed out those who don’t fit. A lot like most neighborhoods and countries in the world. The leaders who emerge exemplify (and enforce) the laws of the guild/clan. They have diplomats, treasuries and unifying symbols.

    3. Planning and organizing a 30-40 player game event is as complex as planning a big event for any large real world organization, and requires as much preparation to be successful. The leaders must be assertive enough to gain respect, but not bully. They must lay out the rules of the event, and be ready to enforce them fairly. They must direct without ordering. They must delegate. They must schedule and ensure the right group balance. They must sometimes say no to friends, because they can’t play favorites. They must be balanced enough to take the criticism that will come anyway, because you can’t make everyone happy. Big games are a great school for young leaders to learn how to manage without real world penalties.

    4. There are morons, jerks, exhibitionists, creeps, thieves and egoists in games, just as in life, and the same life strategies apply for avoiding them.

    5. Playing by the rules will eventually lead to success.

    6. Not everyone plays for the same reasons or satisfactions that you do. Some people actually do play because they enjoy crafting items for sale, or standing around the bank and just chatting, or solving puzzles, or exploring, or being able to complete all the quests in the game.

    7. There is an economy in the game with all aspects of the real world. There are haves and have-nots. Supply and demand affect prices. Advertising works. Scarcity of goods causes sharp price increases. People who gather and craft items play an important role in providing what others need to play the game. Real world markets in game-based goods and services can unbalance a game’s economy. Players who can manipulate game markets effectively can become very wealthy.

    8. Knowledge transfer occurs in organized groups. Guilds/clans have their own web sites today with knowledge and records exclusively for members. Guild leaders recruit and actively help low level/new players to learn the game better and advance more quickly. Being in a large guild is a ticket to gaining bigger, more powerful items faster and an entree into the most challenging game content.

    9. Diversity and equality are advanced in games. Males and females can create characters of the opposite sex and role play them, if desired. Disabled players are on a par with able bodied players if they can manipulate a keyboard efficiently. Everyone’s race, age, religion, and gender are hidden, and discussing real world issues such as religion and politics is pretty much avoided. Games are a great equalizer. Everyone has to be taken for face value on the basis of their words and actions. A bald, overweight, 60-year-old black man in Birmingham, or a Mexican smoker with paralyzed legs in a wheel chair in El Paso, or a 42-year-old anorexic Korean mother in Seattle with a speech impediment can all present themselves as a sassy, blond 25-year-old female snowboarder in graduate school in Cleveland and no one will be the wiser.

    10. A person with vision and a touch of humor can easily win followers to accomplish whatever their goals may be.

    11. To be greeted when you enter the game creates a sense of belonging.

    12. To gain the respect of others, you must honor your commitments. Be there when you promise to be. Do what you agreed to do, even if you have a better offer. Deliver what you agree to deliver.

    I’m pretty sure I could come up with more, but for the uninitiated, this provides a good start. The bottom line is that multiplayer, interactive games provide great opportunities for learning real life principles in addition to providing a short term break from the drudgeries of everyday life. Some of gameplay is drudgery, too, but that’s a subject for another time!

    divider
    March 18th, 2007

    Real Taxes on Virtual Goods

    Julian Dibbell is at it again. In a recent article in PC World Magazine, he raises the spectre of real world taxation on virtual items and services traded in-game for real world money, making us realize yet again just how much the real and fantasy game worlds are blurring. I’ve blogged about it before here and here myself. I’m happy to report that he did it without a single reference to the over-cited Everquest research of Edward Castronova!

    One commenter says, “sure, tax fake online currency from 15-year olds…” The demographics have changed, though. Taxing agencies and eBays and Paypals are interested because these games are no longer dominated by 15-year old school boys. They have become the realm of adults–adults with disposable income who pay taxes. Nick Yee’s multiplayer game research shows that today’s gamers:

    (1) Have a median age of 26.5 years. (World of Warcraft players exceed the median. Male players average 28 years, and female players average 32.5 years.)

    (2) Are about equally male and female

    (3) Play an average of 22 hours per week

    In 2005, 27% of them purchased virtual currency with real world currency. According to Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 19% of gamers are over 50.

    Many players believe that fantasy should be strictly separated from reality, saying that allowing people to purchase what other gamers have worked to acquire in the game violates the separation and comes at the expense of other players, destroying their sense of achievement in the game. Other players say that games are primarily for fun, and those who don’t have enough play time available to acquire powerful or rare game goods should legitimately be able to buy the items they need to enjoy the game. Nick Yee provides some further insight on these viewpoints.

    A regular playing partner Thropan pointed out an article from the Curse Gaming web site that elaborates on Dibbell’s article. The author “Neiogh” says what makes the potential for taxation feasible for MMOGs and not for board games like Monopoly is an exchange rate. The current eBay exchange rate for World of Warcraft gold is cited as 7 per $1.00 U.S. (though I don’t know the source of that estimate). The official market-driven rate in Second Life is roughly 50 U.S. cents per 100 Linden dollars.

    One thing that interests me about Dibbell’s article and the entire concept is that the sources cited are the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Tax Code. I just can’t believe that in 2007 these august bodies don’t understand that the Internet doesn’t belong to the United States and than people outside the U.S. are playing with the U.S. players. Sure, they can tax the profits of Electronic Arts or Sony Online Entertainment or Blizzard legitimately, because they are U.S. corporations, but there are many, many hurdles to overcome before gamers will be taxed. There have to be agreed definitions as to what a virtual item is, and who actually “owns” it — the player who pays a fee to play the game, or the corporation that owns the code that runs the game environment or, as in Second Life, the player who creates the code for an item that is incorporated into the Second Life gaming world and sold to other players there. Venues have to be established, meaning whose laws apply to a transaction. If a player lives in Canada, and is playing a Korean game like Lineage, and sells an item to a U.S. player via PayPal, what laws govern the transaction? Who can be taxed? And what if that Canadian player happens to be visiting her cousin in the U.S. when the transaction occurs, and executes it on her U.S. cousin’s computer? How does that change things? (Isn’t this a great time to be a young attorney and get involved with gaming law? You could really make a name for yourself!)

    MMOGs are a new paradigm in computer gaming. With their economies and justice systems and real estate markets, it’s the wild, wild West. But attempts to tax virtual goods and services is likely to get from most the same reaction shown by my friend Jeff: “Oh yeah, sure they can tax my auction house transactions. But first they have to give me a credit card that withdraws gold from (my character’s) bags to pay for real-world purchases.” Good thought. Should advertisers collect sales tax on game items and services on behalf of some real world government? Can in-game merchants offer coupons for real world goods in exchange for in-game fees? I wonder if we will be able to get real world tax credits based on in-game activities? Only seems fair. Can we establish not-for-profit guilds that would be tax exempt in the real world, too? There are all kinds of angles to the economies of game worlds that are just waiting to be discovered.

    divider
    February 25th, 2007

    A Few Thoughts on Wikipedia

    In the strange way that things happen in popular culture, Wikipedia is increasingly being cited as a source for defining terms and resolving disputes. I’ve referred to it myself — but always in connection with several other more traditional sources. As a KM practitioner and communicator I am interested in how people communicate to share ideas and information, so the concepts of blogging and wikis make sense on both practical and human behavioral levels. I even see respected people in KM communities I frequent jumping on the bandwagon and cheering for them as great breakthroughs in information sharing/distribution in organizations.

    I’m afraid on the subject of widespread wiki use I am in the skeptics’ camp. I don’t believe it’s possible to get a reliable and universally accepted definition of any complex concept by having a lot of people spend five minutes wordsmithing and then move on to their next agenda item. Definitions require someone to lead and adjudicate the group’s efforts — someone knows and cares about the information, and can challenge its accuracy. To me this means that wiki entries are likely to be more accurate (and reputable) by people in scientific, scholarly or mathematical fields for whom precision is critical, and having a shared definition is key to advancing knowledge in their fields. Wikis are less valuable in softer disciplines or for softer subjects. The peer review process is already widely accepted and part of being a scholar or scientist. That is not the case in most organizations where people are rewarded and advance on the basis of their unique knowledge and expertise. Wiki entries are always works in progress — so you may be looking at the 50% or the 75% or the 99% complete version, but there are no criteria against which to measure how reliable an entry may be. I find this problematic. Here are two terms from Wikipedia as examples. Notice the difference in the substance of the descriptions.

    1. Prime number (a mathematical term)

    2. Content (information or images used to populate documents and web sites)

    *Conceptually* the idea of a source that can be freely edited by anyone able to access it is powerful, however, the execution of that idea to-date is deeply flawed. Wikipedia is moments of excellence swimming in a sea of mediocrity. Unfortunately, when you look at any entry, you don’t know which type it is a flash of brilliance or a straw man. Lack of quality control is what makes me doubt that wikis will ever be the reliable, single source reference tool that so many hope it will be. Going back to Wikipedia for a moment, since it is the mostly widely used and referenced wiki tool, Timothy Noah wrote in Slate of a personal experience demonstrating that Wikipedia has criteria for both content and contributors. For all the folk wisdom about anyone being able to contribute and the “community” resolving any disputes, it’s not a free-for-all knowledge capture tool as many might think. Wikipedia has volunteer gatekeepers who enforce its “notability guideline”, but as Noah says, “Wikipedia’s notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement.” I don’t know any organization that can afford to rely on such an unreliable resource for its business.

    The success of any wiki-type initiative comes down to the caliber of the people participating and their motivation to ensure accuracy. Sure, there are many people who are able to organize their thoughts and advance arguments in a clear and literate way, and who know how to define terms so there is no way to debate the definition. Most people don’t fall into that category, however. They use pronouns with unclear antecedents, they rely on terms that are themselves not clearly defined, they structure a definition in a convoluted way that only a scholar can follow, they only have a partial understanding of the topic, they are under pressure to “get something down quickly”, or they rely on jargon or slang that not everyone understands in the same way.

    There are other variables that come into play, too — cultural differences, for example. Speaking of the United States, let alone the world, we see that geographically there are differences in how people explain things and interact with one another. A smile and a nod may to some mean agreement and acceptance of an idea, while to others it may mean “I don’t agree, but I am too polite to disagree with you openly.” To some, it is rude to correct another person publicly. To some, every word put on the page with their name attached to it is deliberate and well researched and they resent tampering. To some, the 80/20 rule works — capturing a general idea is sufficient without the need to labor over details. To some who are shy, entering a confrontational arena is frightening, so they may not participate at all. To some, a loud and dominating voice is equal to authority and respect, even if the voice is wrong. For some, English is not their first (or even second) language. And the people best qualified to contribute may have no time to do it.

    Wikis are good for developing new content quickly, gaining a consensus about what a term means, or identifying who in an organization cares enough about a particular topic to spend time discussing it (whether they are skilled or learning). Wikis are not the sole answer, as some software providers suggest, to issues of competitive intelligence, strategic planning, generating sales leads, knowledge management, the retirement of the “baby boomers”, or even online communities. I think wikis are destined always to be a niche technology, one of many possible communication/collaboration tools that may be applied in specific situations with a specific set of participants. And for the foreseeable future, I will continue to judge people who cite Wikipedia as their main source when arguing a point to be lazy researchers and not to be taken seriously. Maybe like the Oxford English Dictionary or Encyclopedia Britannica wikis need to be around a few hundred years to become reliable and acquire credibility.

    divider
    January 20th, 2007

    A Story in Six Words?

    Sometimes things you come across just strike your fancy, and this struck mine. Bob Hruzek has created a writing competition that will get anyone’s creative juices flowing. You’re too busy to write? I doubt it…each “story” can only be six words wrong! Take a look at some of the great entries.

  • I should probably get some sleep.
  • Shots rang out, then total silence.
  • One testicle, two children. Cancer lost.
  • Go ahead; nobody will ever know.
  • ‘Ah…’ she sighed ‘I love arsenic’.
  • and two of my own:

  • 2008 Presidential election. Hillary wins. And?
  • Oh God! Wrong way! New car.
  • Hemingway supposedly called his shortest story his best work: “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” I also like one from Orson Scott Card, “The baby’s blood type? Human, mostly.” Wired Magazine ran a similar competition with sci-fi, fantasy and horror authors last fall. Here are some entries.

  • With bloody hands, I say good-bye. – Frank Miller
  • Don’t marry her. Buy a house. – Stephen R. Donaldson
  • Epitaph: He shouldn’t have fed it. – Brian Herbert
  • Three to Iraq. One came back. – Graeme Gibson
  • Time traveler’s thought: “What’s the password?” – Steven Meretzky
  • But I don’t want to spoil it for you. The “Let’s Be Brief” competition only runs through Sunday, January 21. If you miss submitting your own, you’ll still have fun scanning the entries. What a great exercise for starting a creative planning session or as a social gathering icebreaker!

    divider
    January 2nd, 2007

    Machinima and Me

    I have a love-hate relationship with machinima. The love comes from the concept of being able to make my own video clips while I’m inside a virtual world and then turn it into something creative or useful. My hate comes from my lack of skill with it! In fairness, it’s not all my fault. The camera tools within many virtual worlds and even many gaming worlds are simply not user friendly. I’m not sure what fiendish mind decides that to pan the camera smoothly one must hold down three awkwardly placed keys at once, and then simultaneously drag the mouse…oh, and without letting go of anything, use the scroll wheel on the mouse to zoom in and out! World of Warcraft is easiest to control and manipulate, but that may simply be because I’ve played it for almost four years now. Even a toad could learn how to do something after four years of repetition! What I discovered is, just like in real life, I take a lot of film (with Fraps)and then I can’t find the really good clips I need when I’m creating my video in Microsoft Movie Maker (a great program, by the way!). That part is a little frustrating, and I’ll be glad when it’s easier to metatag clips for easier retrieval. So I would classify the videos I’ve made so far as amateurish, and no, you will not see them on YouTube! The world doesn’t really need another WoW video made by me, but that’s not stopping me from experimenting with some things in Second Life! Maybe one day you will have a link to a video I’ve made right here. Or maybe not.

    divider
    December 30th, 2006

    Learning Scenarios from a 3D Gaming Environment

    As I was writing the future looking articles here and here, it occurred to me that people with no exposure to the latest generation of 3D multiplayer games might have trouble visualizing how a “game” environment might be applied to genuine business learning objectives for adults. It does require a leap of faith, until you have tried it yourself and understand. A couple of examples, based on an urban fantasy world “Metropolis” described in my prior articles, are listed below.

    Gaming simulations offer the most exciting opportunity for educators in a generation. They are immersive, meaning participants use their avatars to act out and execute actions vicariously in the 3D world as if they were there performing the actions themselves. They offer a rich opportunity for participants to learn using effective adult learning techniques such as personal participation, trial and error, just in time learning, overcoming obstacles and feeling satisfaction from succeeding in the objective. They can provide friendly competition and opportunities to develop and practice leadership skills, in a place without real world consequences, as well as a means to make real life distinctions (such as age, gender, disability, race, language skills, reticence) invisible, placing everyone on an equal footing where knowledge and abilities are what win the day.

    Yes, artificial environments such as my fantasy Metropolis can create effective (and fun) learning experiences, and they can be measured and valued in traditional ways. One important by-product of the multi-user learning environment that is not measured as readily, however, is that real relationships are formed that transcend the 3D world. As players interact through their avatars, their real personalities, working styles, wit or charm, and annoying behaviors come to the surface where others can see them. This makes it easier for people to interact in their everyday jobs, because even if they have not worked directly with a team member before, they may already have a sense of whether that person collapses under intense pressure or refuses to accept responsibility for their actions, or whether they like to talk too much and cause team progress to suffer, or whether they are a leader to be trusted and followed.

    Here are some examples of the types of scenarios that could be developed to enhance organizational objectives and employee development. Imagine you are the participant in the approaches described below, and compare how you would feel about this type of learning with traditional online or classroom instruction. (I’m betting if you are 25, you wish it existed now, and if you are 50, you are cautious. Read on!)

    Developing Analytical/Reasoning Skills

    There are two aspects of analysis and reasoning that a course designer might want to develop — thinking through a problem carefully and solving a problem under pressure. Both can be developed in one complex exercise, constructed for an individual or for a team. The participant is given a challenging objective, given a minimum number of items to help accomplish the objective, and then expected to figure out how to overcome all the obstacles in their path and achieve the objective. For example, in a Mission Impossible type exercise, a participant is told he must retrieve a golden statue that was stolen from the national archive several years ago. Many people have failed to retrieve it because the robbers placed it in an out of the way place — an ancient monastery high on a rocky island — and devised fiendishly difficult obstacles and traps to overcome in order to retrieve the statue. The participant is given only three items to aid him in the quest — a black bandana, a dry sausage, and a small torn note containing the words “…somalier rouge mort(rip)…” He is warned that the statue sits in a room with a trapped floor and laser beam security. He must find a way into the building, across the floor, remove the statue, and return it successfully to the national archive.

    This scenario provides an opportunity for the system to challenge the participant. He will have to figure out how to get to the island undetected (an exercise in logistical planning), how to scale the cliff walls unobserved (trial and error learning, since some attempts will fail or the path will be blocked), how to detect and disarm possible traps and alarm systems, how to avoid guards, how to get through a maze garden into a secret entrance (using logic and observation), and how to cross the trapped floor, covered with arcane symbols and images, successfully to the statue without triggering any traps (using analysis, observation, logic and trial and error). Since this is a learning scenario, the system enables the participant to “save” his progress, and then attempt a risky solution without losing his prior efforts.

    While the task is complex and challenging, it is possible to solve it successfully, stretching the participant’s reasoning abilities and providing the satisfaction of solving the problems and achieving the goal. If the scenario is designed to be less challenging, then tension can be added by setting a time limit — a countdown clock in a corner of the screen would remind the participant that time is running out and he needs to think and work quickly. Because the activities take place electronically, the system can capture all sorts of statistics about each participant that can be combined into management reports.

    Variations on this type of puzzle-solving scenario could be used to stimulate older workers who may be in a rut with their long time jobs, or to get the mental juices flowing in a team of people who are about to enter a strategic planning activity for the organization, or to provide previously-dull-but-required training content (such as diversity training or company ethics) in a much livelier and more memorable way that actually enhances retention.

    Developing Selling Skills

    A participant is challenged to generate 10,000 coins of revenue within eight game hours and pay the past-due tax on an historical building before it is destroyed. Metropolis has a thriving economy of virtual goods. Participants may purchase or trade for goods using the system’s currency, often referred to as gold or coins. As participants complete various training modules/quests, they are rewarded with items of value and coins their avatar can spend in Metropolis. Some rewards are items that can be worn for distinction, and some have a practical use, such as enhancing a skill or increasing speed. Coins can be used to purchase more desirable items or bribe other characters or create a team savings bank to help team members who may need assistance with things they can�t afford. In some 3D worlds, the participants may even be able to create sellable items from raw materials they find in the world, and then sell them to other participants or a computer generated merchant character.

    The more experienced the participants, the more resources they have acquired and the more likely they are to want to purchase even more powerful items than they currently have. This creates a market in which marketing, bartering and selling skills can be honed without real world consequences. The participant must understand his/her available resources, determine how to generate more resources and get the production process started, identify the potential market for the item(s) to be sold and individuals within that market likely to want to buy the item(s). Once the production chain is in place, communication becomes the key variable. He/she must find a way to contact prospective buyers and find a way to convince them to purchase within a specific timeframe in order to raise the coins needed to complete the task. The seller must also negotiate the transfer of the item and the funds.

    Here is an example. The instructor bot “James” tells the participant that the 110-year-old Yale Johnson warehouse has been condemned, and a real estate conglomerate plans to tear down the structure to build a new high rise apartment building and office complex on the land. Neighbors have fought the demolition, claiming the warehouse should be an historical monument. They have won support from state legislators, community leaders and the National Historical Registry. All that stands in the way of retaining the warehouse is the payment of back taxes in the amount of 10,000 coins. James then gives the participant the task to raise 10,000 coins and pay the back taxes. He also points out that two boxes of furs have been found in the warehouse, and the tailor’s union is particularly supportive of saving the building, since it was the first headquarters of the union. With this information, the participant must then figure out how to get the furs to the tailor’s union, solicit their help in creating a sellable product (donating their time), and then get out and find buyers for the products. In some systems, the other participants in the scenario could be co-workers in real life, while in others they might be computer-generated characters with scripted actions/dialogue.

    The system can provide numerous environmental prompts and learning aids. For example, a catalogue of products that can be crafted from various materials and the materials required for each one, or an auction house where human participants can sell the items their characters make at prices they determine, or computer generated merchants that buy and sell items and materials for a profit. Since the 3D system supports chat between human characters, the sales person can conduct sales through private whispers to individuals who are currently online, through public shouting about what they want to sell and for what price, through an asynchronous message board system, or through creating an auction where other participants can bid on any number of items. Creative participants may also try to solicit donations from customers or the tailor’s union, or identify another product/service customers might be willing to pay for, in order to meet their goal.

    In the same way that players in NBC’s The Apprentice program must work within time and monetary limits to accomplish a task and make the most money at it, participants in sales training scenarios in a 3D world have many options to team up with suppliers, identify product advantages and capitalize upon them, and get to a sale in advance of other teams or participants that might have the same objective. It requires ingenuity, teamwork, interpersonal skills, planning, market awareness, and focus on the ultimate objective.

    When the participant returns to James to turn in the coins at the completion of the task, the dialogue would recap the participant’s actions, evaluate the way they were executed against specific criteria, provide a self-assessment and score it, then offer suggestions to help the participant improve their understanding of how to sell effectively. The suggestions might be a printable tip sheet for the person to pin up on their office wall.

    Developing Leadership Skills

    All organizations want to develop their next generation of leaders, and give them opportunities to prove themselves in ways that stretch them and give them good foundations for future decisionmaking. Since young leaders and people moved into new leadership roles are inexperienced, failure with financial impacts is always a possibility. A 3D environment reduces the potential impact of such failures, because it provides a means for a leader to test his/her skills by attempting to accomplish a goal that requires them to think quickly under pressure, make the right choices, manage other people who will be working with them on the goal, and develop confidence in their own leadership abilities — all within a controlled environment that doesn’t have impact on the bottom line or real-world customers. Here’s an example.

    A team of ten has a challenge to enter a nearby ghost town and defeat the evil leader, who is known to be unusually powerful and rumored to use magic spells to protect himself and his compound. He is guarding a scroll containing important secrets that was stolen from the town’s archives. The team must collect the scroll and return it to the City Archivist. In order to complete this challenge, the team must identify the unique skills, attributes and abilities that each member brings to the task, and determine who has the most expertise and the greatest probability of leading the team to victory. The leader (or co-leaders) assigns roles, plans the assault with input from team members, overcomes objections, confirms responsibilities, executes the plan, adapts to unexpected situational variables after the assault on the ghost town has begun, gives clear instructions throughout the process, an debriefs the team when the task is finished.

    The system can create a variety of challenges and barriers to overcome. For example, there could be technical difficulties with equipment breaking down, or henchmen in different locations in the ghost town that have to be conquered first, in order to gather scattered parts of a special item that can be reassembled and used against the big boss. Each henchman could have different abilities and protections that would require different team members to take the lead in directing the team’s resources against that henchman. For one, stealth and theft might be required. For another, a quick strike. For another a feint that would draw the henchman away while another team member slips in to secure the item. For another disarming or disabling his bodyguards so he can be knocked out for a time. Or the environment can provide obstacles to success. The ghost town could be in a high mountain location in midwinter, for example, making it treacherous for the team to walk or run on the slopes, fatiguing the team so that they must rest more often, wasting valuable time.

    The overall leader will learn when to make decisions versus when to rely on others with specific expertise to call the shots, as well as how to get others to act on her direction. The entire team will learn each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and strategize how they can compensate for them. The team is likely to fail on one or more of the milestones leading up to the final encounter of the task, and have to repeat them. The leader needs to summarize what worked, what didn’t, and keep the team focused on what they need to achieve. In the end, they will defeat the evil leader, secure the scroll, make it safely back to the Metropolis City Archivist, and be rewarded (usually conjointly with an interactive dialogue that summarizes the skills and learnings from the activity). Special scenarios more specific to training leaders for individual business or product lines could be created for next level training for selected individuals.

    Improving Team Dynamics

    Collaboration and team communications are critical business skills in most organizations. Being an effective team member can be challenging for strong individualists or shy people or competitive people or people who lack self-discipline or high achievers or people who don’t trust others. A course designer can create a realistic 3D scenario that helps bring forward positive qualities in the participants, while minimizing the negative ones that sometimes jump to the fore in the real world. For example, an unexpected situation where an unusual challenge stretches the entire team to assess its resources and pull together quickly to achieve the objectives. You’ve probably heard about or participated in wilderness “team building” activities, where participants have to scale a cliff or find a way for five people to stand on one small rock. The goal is to get the group working together quickly on a common task, so they will become more aware of the strengths and differences of others on the team and interact differently than they do in daily life. Putting people together in a situation they have never been in, with a problem to solve, brings them together through sharing the process of overcoming an obstacle as a team.

    In a business scenario, there are several possibilities. One might be for Metropolis Megacorp to defend against a hostile takeover of the company scheduled to occur in 24 hours. The defending team would have all the virtual organizational resources at hand that they would have in the real world–databases, communication tools, lawyers (virtual or live), financial advisors (virtual or live), meeting rooms, virtual meetings, etc. The resources could be actual resources of the real world organization, or virtual resources created for the simulation. The hostile takeover team could be corporate clones (such as Agent Anderson in The Matrix) or drawn as demons or aliens with magical powers that enable them to create disruptions. Start the team with a 24-hour timer, a virtual computer, a coffee mug, and a portrait of the company founder as tools. They would have to produce a strategy and/or reasons why the merger should fail, and file them with the Metropolis SEC before the 24-hour timer runs out, saving the company from a terrible fate.

    An alternative might be to take the virtual team and drop them through a hole into a Jules Verne-like universe at the center of the earth, where they are overwhelmed by strangeness and lack clear markers to help orient them. Start them each with a backpack, an ice pick, and a piece of aluminum foil. They would have to overcome impossible obstacles, find food, create shelter, and survive life-threatening dangers (virtual, of course) to complete the task. There could be monsters, tidal waves or rock slides, a barren landscape with no obvious food, incessant rain…all kinds of impediments. There would be a goal, and milestones in the scenario to show progress, but the primary requirement is that the entire team has to survive to the end of the activity against threatening environmental challenges. They would have to be aware of each other and work as a group, using their strengths to help others overcome their weaknesses so the entire group makes it together to the end.

    It’s Happening!

    Granted, some of these ideas are too far out for many organizations (today!), but there are advances being made every day in this direction, and within a few years we can expect virtual worlds to take off as a business platform. Advances such as the proposed Neuronet, a project underway by the Vancouver-based International Association of Virtual Reality Technologies, and IBM’s new virtual reality business group show that interest in 3-D interactions is serious, even as it is seriously cutting edge. Domain registrations for Neuronet will begin in 2007, although the first consumer applications based are not likely to show up until 2009. Already existing gaming platforms could be customized for corporate use, too. Some, like There, SecondLife, Active Worlds, Earth and Beyond, and Asheron’s Call, by noted game world designers, are worthy of consideration. If you are interested to learn more about 3D multi-user scenarios for learning, I’d be happy to discuss the topic with you.

    divider
    November 17th, 2006

    Memories of Active Worlds

    In the early 1990s, I stumbled across a 3-D building and social world called Active Worlds. The graphics were poor, but it was the early days of 3-D interactive worlds, and there was an innocence and excitement about Active Worlds that impressed me deeply. To this day I maintain an account there.

    What was marvelous about AW was that it was the wild West. Anything could happen, anything could be built, anyone could go there…a participant’s imagination was the only limit (within the technology’s limitations, of course). People could lease/host their own empty worlds within the panoply of AW worlds, and create replicas of interplanetary destinations, or ancient Celtic burial grounds, or art museums full of paintings, or tropical paradises complete with undersea venues, or 1930s art deco cityscapes or replicas of corporate headquarters. A visitor could stroll around in a generic avatar form, or, as a member, assume a customized form that could be as varied as the worlds he/she visited. I remember one world I loved to visit where my normal business dressed avatar was suddenly transformed into a graceful form clothed in a Japanese kimono and listening to shakuhachi flutes as she roamed the environment watching butterflies. It was a magical time, before Doom and Quake were common names, before Everquest and World of Warcraft set the benchmark of expectations for how 3-D worlds should work.

    Active Worlds was on the leading edge. They offered the first virtual exhibition hall and trade show, where real world companies set up virtual booths staffed with both avatars and bots. They established AWED, an educational world with a virtual high school space that real teachers could use for teaching real students using their avatars for interaction. There was also the beautiful architecture of a college campus modeled after the University of California-Santa Clara. Different rooms had lecture areas, 3-D exhibits, science experiments, art work, and videos on demand. There were summer camps, where an adult counselor and a group of 10 young people spent several weeks creating and building a world together to be judged against all the other summer camp worlds for a prize. AW also invented personal 3-D web sites for members, where you could design and staff your own virtual office, complete with brochures, product demos and training videos. This was all before 2000. I loved all the possibilities AW offered, and tried very hard to get several of my employers to understand the potential and establish a presence there. I never succeeded. I was in the wrong industry–we sold knowledge, not products.

    I don’t know if the developers at Linden Labs were afficianados of Active Worlds or just had a similar idea, but Second Life has more similarities than differences. The graphics have the same blocky, amateurish feel as AW, and lack the fluid rendering and rich textures found in World of Warcraft. The participants engage in a lot of social chatter, and everyone wants to show off their latest virtual acquisition. Lately when I hear Second Life getting so much publicity for its user created world, its competitive economics and the real world impacts on its members, I reflect on the kinder, gentler family environment created by Active Worlds. I remember the amazing inventiveness and variety of landscapes created by users out of love for the medium, with no thought of how they could license and market their inventions. It was simply fun. And I remember time spent creating worlds with a 10-year-old boy who called himself Luke Skywalker (and about eight other names in a three month period), who chose as his avatar a giant flying blueberry, and who wouldn’t let me forget what it’s like to be young and free where only your imagination matters.

    divider
    November 16th, 2006

    MMOG Research Ethics

    Unless you have been living under a rock for the past two years, you have no doubt read an article or seen an interview with someone talking about some sociological phenomena or other that occurs in virtual worlds. The line between games and real life is blurring. Massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs) are partially scripted, but they leave most decisions and actions to the human players themselves. Because real people are behind the virtual characters, it can lead to genuine interactions of all kinds—from simple chat and bargaining for goods to friendship, long-term alliances, love affairs, rivalry, confrontation, and even warfare. Virtual items used only in games are traded for real money on eBay. Virtual real estate is sold in virtual worlds for real world money. People are getting rich from interactions in avatar-mediated worlds (see Julian Dibell’s new book Play Money: Or, How I Quit My Day Job and Made Millions Trading Virtual Loot) and they are achieving notoriety for popularizing their observations about what the mainstream still considers to be a leisure time hobby.

    We are witnessing a wholly new way for strangers to meet and interact with one another, and it is creating a different environment for our children and grandchildren to inhabit than the simpler one most of us remember. Sherry Turkle wrote one of the first narratives on this phenomenon, Life on the Screen, about how people interacting through virtual avatars committed crimes and fell in love and built lasting friendships, just by talking to one another while hidden behind a keyboard and screen. Amy Jo Kim wrote Community Building on the Web based upon her gaming experiences, primarily in building the Ultima Online game community. Other authors such as Lisa Nakamura (Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet) and Julian Dibbell with My Tiny Life spent a lot of time interviewing and writing about players in massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs) and virtual social worlds.

    Quite a number of academic researchers, including Edward Castronova, Constance Steinkuehler, Nicolas Ducheneaut, Celia Pearce and Jesper Juul, have jumped on the MMOG bandwagon, finding it easy to design social experiments, control variables, and reduce the time and cost of normal research by using multiplayer game environments. Nick Yee’s well known Daedalus Project for gaming research and Andrew Seay’s Project Massive favor the more traditional research methods of questionnaires completed online and tabulated. Even Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson is conducting a virtual law course on virtual property in virtual worlds by using a variety of cyber-media, including lecture classes attended by his students’ avatars in a replica of the Harvard Law School building in the Second Life game/world space. Here’s his video introduction to the class (warning: turn down your speakers!).

    It’s easy to see that researchers would get excited about the fecund social laboratories that are virtual worlds, and I started thinking about the subjects of the research. How are they chosen? Are there biases as to who gets interviewed and who doesn’t? Are research results consistent across different types of virtual environments? Are researchers bound by any code of ethics to ensure that research subjects are treated fairly and that the research is conducted according to normally accepted practices in the real world (or as close to it as you can get, considering the research involves imaginary identities interacting in an imaginary world using imaginary tools).

    Research on the Internet raises a host of novel ethical challenges. Are comments made in an online space copyrighted statements or simply comments of individual human subjects? Is it necessary to obtain informed consent from the subjects, or should that be governed by the degree of potential harm to the subject–which one can easily argue is minimal in a fictional game world? James Hudson and Amy Bruckman wrote‘Go Away’: Participant Objections to Being Studied and the Ethics of Chatroom Research,” a summary of a deception-based research study they performed using 2260 online participants. The research showed that subjects react hostilely when they are aware of being studied, even after being given the choice to opt in or opt out. So are the game developers and operators doing anything either to support research or to protect the interests of their customers?

    Among the large MMOGs and virtual worlds that I checked, only Second Life forthrightly states its intentions to protect the privacy of its member community by requiring researchers to submit a written proposal, which will then be approved or disapproved by the Second Life community. They say, “Second Life exists for its members. While we don’t discourage research or classroom study, it is our policy that no one may use Second Life or its forums for their own purposes without the explicit consent of Linden Lab.” The media are specifically excluded from the proposal requirement. I think their Research Ethics policy is a step in the right direction. I personally don’t want to feel like a guinea pig when I log in my night elf (or its equivalent in any virtual world) and start arguing with someone yammering stupidly in the general chat channel. You never know who is listening or who might have started the conversation just to see what would happen. I don’t want my game life to be so complicated that I have to second guess what is behind what is being said. And I don’t want to be quoted without being asked, even if it’s my virtual self speaking.

    divider
    November 14th, 2006

    Definitions of KM

    Here I go again. Back to definitions. The fact that so many capable people cannot seem to define, and agree on the definition of, knowledge management bothers me. How can we debate or understand problems if we can’t even define what’s in scope or out of scope? Why do we continue to spin our wheels with this? Here are some examples of KM definitions to show you what I mean. KM is…

    “…information combined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection.” …Thomas Davenport

    “…information in action that people can make use of, along with the rules and context of its use.” …Carla O’Dell

    “Knowledge is the ability to turn information and data into effective action…managing knowledge means delivering the information and data people need to be effective in their jobs.”…Wayne Applehans, Alden Globe, and Greg Laugero

    “…a business process that creates organizational capacity.” …unattributed

    “…the dynamic process of turning an unreflective practice into a reflective one by elucidating the rules guiding the activities of the practice, by helping give a particular shape to collective understandings, and by facilitating the emergence of heuristic knowledge.” H. Tsoukas and E. Vladimirou

    “…processes, technology and behaviors that deliver the right content to the right people at the right time and in the right context so that they can make the best decisions quickly to solve problems, exploit business opportunities, accelerate competency and innovation.”…unattributed

    “…the art of creating value from an organisation’s Intangible Assets.”…Karl-Eric Sveiby

    “…an effort to retain, analyze and organize employee expertise to make it available to the organization.” …Stuart

    “…achieving organizational goals through strategy-driven motivation and facilitation of (knowledge-) workers to develop, enhance their capability to interpret data and information, experience, skills, culture, character, personality, feelings etc.) through the process of giving meaning to these data and information.”…. Roelof P. ult Beijerse

    “…the creation, evolution, exchange and application of new ideas into marketable goods and services for the success of an enterprise, for the vitality of a nation’s economy, for the advancement of a society.”…Debra Amidon

    “…a collaborative and integrated approach to the creation, capture, organization, access and use of an enterprise’s intellectual assets.” …Grey

    “…is about connecting people to people and people to information to create competitive advantage.”…Hoyt Consulting

    “KM refers to a range of practices used by organizations to identify, create, represent, and distribute knowledge for reuse, awareness and learning across the organization.”…Wikipedia

    This is just a sampling. Go into any presentation session at any of the big KM conferences or pick up any KM book off the shelf, and the first thing the speaker does is define KM…in his/her own unique way. Sometimes I get ridiculed for saying repeatedly “defining KM today is like the fable of the blind men and the elephant.” You know the story…six blind men walk up and touch an elephant and they each touch a different part, so they each think “an elephant” is exactly like the part they discovered since they can’t see the entire elephant. That’s how definitions of KM seem to me (and proprietary KM approaches as well, but that’s another rant!). Kimiz Dalkir performed an informal survey that identified over 100 published definitions of KM, 3/4 of which could be considered good!

    It all depends upon which viewpoint you bring to the field. Someone in business may see KM as a strategy related to intellectual assets. Someone with a technology/process background may see it as a systematic approach to help information flow readily to people who need it. Someone with a cognitive science background may see it more as individual expertise that enables someone to function intelligently in an environment.

    A number of nay-sayers believe the reason KM can’t be defined is because there is no such thing as KM…we are trying to invent something that is already covered by other fields. Personally I believe it’s because we haven’t defined the field yet, so we can’t nail down all the component parts and their interrelationships. KM is a highly multidisciplinary field as we understand it today, and is in a state of “pre-science”, as Hazlett, McAdam and Gallagher put it. (subscription required) Personally, I hold out hope for a “unified theory of KM” that will bring all these components into focus and, ultimately, let us get to agreed-to definitions so we can get on with doing whatever aspect of the KM work it is that we each enjoy doing.

    divider
    November 13th, 2006

    KM and the Mysticism of Three

    A few months ago a writer named Esteban posted a message to the KM-Best-Practices forum on the subject of KM–Vision or Illusion. While I disagree with some of his commentary, this phrase started me thinking:

    “I see that the physical arrangement (world 1) and the conceptual one (world 3) are united by a being that is part physical, part conceptual (thus we have a being (spirit) in a body (physical arrangement ) with a mind (conceptual) )…”

    For a while now, I have observed the ways in which KM practitioners and consultants conceptualize KM, its components and their relationships. The most popular ways to represent KM are “four-blockers” and Venn diagrams with three interlocking circles. The labeling varies widely, depending upon the particular bent or interest of the author, but the concepts of three and four elements predominate. I have been wondering why. Ideation happens only in a context that includes existing knowledge, environmental factors and personal bravery (another “three”!). It is probably human nature to distill complex concepts into lists and pictures so they can be communicated more effectively, but I’m unfamiliar with the research in this area, so I can’t say that with confidence. Nevertheless, something seems inherently “right” in the consistency of KM leaders to think in terms of threes and fours.

    Yesterday I was listening to a broadcast from American Public Radio, where V.V. Raman, noted physicist and Hindu scholar, was discussing mystical connotations of numbers. The program brought some things into focus for me. He pointed to the pantheon of Hindu gods and goddesses as representations of selected aspects of the source of creation (God, the One, Sat, the Infinite…however one chooses to name the ultimate power behind the universe) that people feel a personal affinity for. From his childhood, he felt a kinship with the spirit of Saraswathi, the goddess representing (or responsible for) music, letters and numbers. He discussed the universal language of numbers and the symbolic importance of them throughout history. For Christians, for example, the number three has powerful significance (three wise men, Father-son-holy spirit). For Muslims, it’s five (Five pillars of Islam, five daily prayers). For Pythagorean mathematicians it is six. For many religions it is 12. Kabbalists assign a numerical value to each Hebrew letter to reveal secret meanings in texts. Naturalists observe four elements — earth, air, fire and water. He provides many such examples.

    What is it about “three” that makes it so powerful in describing knowledge management? Is it that the human brain is predisposed to order itself in triads? Some of the “threes” we can easily recognize from popular media and recent KM literature are:

  • Mind, body, spirit
  • Physical, conceptual, emotional
  • Feelings, thoughts, actions
  • People, process, technology
  • Define, build, launch
  • Information need, information seeking, information use
  • Sense making, knowledge creation, decision making
  • Data, information, knowledge
  • Content acquisition, Content retention, Content enhancement
  • People, places, things
  • Strategy, capabilities, performance
  • Knowledge gap, decision gap, knowing-doing gap
  • Human capital, organizational capital, customer capital
  • Inputs, processes, outcomes
  • Tacit knowledge, Explicit knowledge, Implicit knowledge
  • Knowledge acquisition, Knowledge capture, Knowledge sharing
  • Identification, conceptualization, codification
  • Culture, infrastructure, knowledge architecture
  • Individual, community, organization
  • Learn before, Learn during, Learn after
  • Core knowledge, Advanced knowledge, Innovative knowledge
  • Public knowledge, Shared knowledge, Personal knowledge
  • Communities, repositories, content
  • Strategic knowledge, Tactical knowledge, Operational knowledge
  • Historically, however, we know that a three-legged stool is not as stable as a four-legged one. Perhaps there is an unconscious attempt to “ground” KM by using 2×2 matrices of four quadrants. Maybe “three” lends itself to describing a process or flow and “four” is more suited to being a container for constructs. Some widely-used matrices and four-step processes include these:

    Collaboration:
    Synchronous, Asynchronous, Virtual, Face-to-Face

    Knowledge work:
    Routine transaction, Expert interpretation, Individual actions, Collaboration

    Delivery networks:
    Low formality, High formality, Intangible value, Measurable value

    Drivers of KM Success:
    Strategic alignment, Culture, Economic incentives/rewards, Technology

    Customer KM:
    High interactivity, Low interactivity, Low customer-specific, High customer-specific

    Knowledge-Oriented Business Processes:
    Low process complexity, High process complexity, Low knowledge intensity, High knowledge intensity

    Decision Making:
    Choices, Actions, Individual, Organization

    Organizational Decision Making:
    Low information use, High information use, Low information seeking, High information seeking

    Knowledge Creating Activities:
    Experimenting, Importing, Shared problem solving, Introducing new tools

    Types of Information Needs:
    Sense making, Cognitive, Affective responses, Situational

    Organizational Culture:
    Perspective, Integration, Differentiation, Fragmentation

    Knowledge Creation Model:
    Internalization, Externalization, Socialization, Combination

    The Knowing Organization:
    Information interpretation, Information conversion, Information processing, organizational action

    Components of the KM Cycle:
    KM team, KM strategy, KM metrics, KM technologies

    Best Practice Knowledge Sharing:
    Good idea, Good practice, Local best practice, Industry best practice

    Known-Unknown Matrix:
    User unaware, User aware, Information known, Information unknown

    Modes of Knowledge Conversion:
    Tacit to tacit, Tacit to explicit, Explicit to explicit, Explicit to tacit

    KM Cycle Activities:
    Build knowledge, Hold knowledge, Pool knowledge, Apply knowledge

    If you are familiar with the KM field, then you recognize these approaches to be from Wiig, McElroy, Choo, Tirana, Davenport, Stewart, Saint-Onge, Wenger, Dixon, Nonaka and Takeuchi, Sveiby, Dalkir, Collison and Purcell, Zack, Denning, McDermott and others — a pretty stellar group. Assuming that these authors invest a lot of time, thought, planning and energy into trying to define the entity that is “KM”, I find it fascinating that they invariably resort to a structure of three or structure of four. Perhaps our human experience drills a preference for three or four into us, but perhaps there is a numerical truth behind it and the models we create will eventually let us understand KM because we will understand its numerology. If there is a universal language of numbers, maybe KM will be explained through our numbered models, once we get the math right.

    divider
    October 30th, 2006

    KM Books and Text Books I Recommend

    Everyone in the KM field has different favorite texts that they use or cite as sources. Perhaps not surprisingly, people involved in various KM-related activities in organizations have one set of favorites, and academics have a slightly different set. Here are the ones I value for various reasons and have recommended to others. You can also check out Shawn Callahan’s, Nick Bontis’, and Tim Allison’s favorite KM books in their personal lists on Amazon.com.

    My Favorites

    There are a lot of good books listed here, and there are even more that are popular or more tactical. It can be overwhelming to think about starting to read this many, let alone everything available. Maybe this will help someone just starting out — if I had to limit myself to only six of them to guide me in building an enterprise wide KM program, these are the six I would have on my shelf (today!).

  • Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice by Kimiz Dalkir
  • Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know by Nancy M. Dixon
  • The Future of Knowledge: Increasing Prosperity through Value Networks by Verna Allee
  • Community Building on the Web : Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities by Amy Jo Kim
  • Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know by Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak
  • The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions by Chun Wei Choo
  • Here is a longer list of others that are all very good, and I’m sure I’ve missed some! I’d recommend any of these according to the specific circumstances of a person who asked. I have not distinguished between books with a social/organizational behavior slant and those that are more technology-based.

    Business Practical KM Books

    Knowledge Management Handbook by Jay Liebowitz (Editor)

    Learning to Fly: Practical Knowledge Management from Leading and Learning Organizations by Chris Collison

    Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower by Leif Edvinsson

    The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Knowledge Management by Melissie Clemmons Rumizen

    Working Knowledge by Thomas H. Davenport

    Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performances and Results from Knowledge Workers by Thomas H. Davenport

    The Knowledge Management Fieldbook by Wendi Bukowitz and Ruth L. Williams

    Knowledge Management by American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC)

    Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know by Nancy M. Dixon

    The New Knowledge Management: Complexity, Learning, and Sustainable Innovation by Mark W. McElroy

    Creating the Knowledge-Based Business: Key Lessons from an International Study of Best Practice by David Skyrme and Business Intelligence

    Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower by Leif Edvinsson

    Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works by Daryl Morey (Editor), Mark Maybury (Editor), Bhavani Thuraisingham (Editor)

    Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce by David W. DeLong

    Scholarly KM Texts and Text Books

    Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice by Kimiz Dalkir

    The Fifth Discipline by Peter M. Senge

    The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook by Peter M. Senge

    An Introduction to Knowledge Management: KM in Business by Todd R. Groff and Thomas P. Jones (Note: request the online Instructor’s Guide with power point slides, case studies, exercises and review questions)

    Knowledge Management in Organizations: A Critical Introduction by Donald Hislop

    Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know by Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak

    The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation by Ikujiro Nonaka

    Knowledge Management by Elias M Awad and H.M. Ghaziri

    Knowledge Management: An Integral Approach by Ashok Jashapara

    Applying Knowledge Management: Techniques for Building Corporate Memories (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Artificial Intelligence) by Ian Watson

    The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions by Chun Wei Choo

    The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge by Chun Wei Choo

    The New Organizational Wealth: Managing & Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets by Karl Erik Sveiby

    Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower by Leif Edvinsson

    Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management by Peter Ferdinand Drucker

    The New Organizational Wealth: Managing & Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets by Karl Erik Sveiby

    Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in University Research by Michael Stankosky

    Knowledge Management: The Central Focus for Intelligent-Acting Organizations by Karl M. Wiig

    Understanding the Knowledgeable Organization: Nurturing Knowledge Competence by Jane McKenzie and Christine van Winkelen

    Knowledge Management : Clarifying the Key Issues by Scott I. Tannenbaum

    Measuring the Value of Knowledge: Metrics for the Knowledge-Based Business by David Skyrme and Business Intelligence

    Outstanding Books on Specific Components of KM

    The Future of Knowledge: Increasing Prosperity through Value Networks by Verna Allee

    In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work by Don Cohen and Laurence Prusak

    Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage by Hubert Saint-Onge and Debra Wallace

    Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity by Etienne Wenger

    Cultivating Communities of Practice by Etienne Wenger, Richard McDermott, and William M. Snyder

    Community Building on the Web : Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities by Amy Jo Kim

    The Wealth of Knowledge: Intellectual Capital and the Twenty-first Century Organization by Thomas A. Stewart

    The Innovation SuperHighway: Harnessing Intellectual Capital for Collaborative Advantage by Debra M Amidon

    The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively by Nancy M. Dixon

    The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Orchestrating IT, Strategy, and Knowledge Platforms by Amrit Tiwana

    Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know by Nancy M. Dixon

    Infrastructure for Knowledge Management by Randy J. Frid

    Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation by Georg von Krogh

    The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era Organizations by Stephen Denning

    Not Specifically KM, but Helpful to KM Thinking

    The Social Life of Information by John Seely Brown

    The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell

    Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making by Sam Kaner

    Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution by Howard Rheingold

    Finally, the KM Standard that was finalized in 2005 by Standards Australia is a good reference document or starting point. It’s a guide for practicing knowledge management within organizations produced by a committee of KM practitioners for KM practitioners.

    divider
    October 26th, 2006

    Naming a KM Initiative

    Here’s a scenario I have been working with recently. Your suggestions would be welcome!

    I have had some conversations with a friend who is trying to find a good name for a KM initiative in his company. It’s a mid-sized company (under 6,000 employees) in financial services. The environment is conservative, although pockets of people are interested in trying to do things in a new way. Most of the employees have been with the company for more than 10 years, and about 60% of them are 45 years old and up. Many have college degrees.

    We are currently creating a KM strategy, and need to name the overall initiative and the go-to place on the company’s Intranet portal. Here are the biases we have so far:

    * We should avoid using KM in the project or software application
    name at all, because there are so many misconceptions and
    prejudices about the term. Using “knowledge” would be okay, just
    not “knowledge management”.

    * We should avoid “cute” or “silly” sounding names that would
    trivialize what it’s about. Serious and formal people need to be
    able to say it without feeling embarrassed.

    * It should be catchy, but be simple to use/remember–not contrived.

    * If new employees see it on the portal, they should immediately
    recognize what it is.

    * It should sound powerful/important, but approachable and connected
    to the business or ways of improving work.

    * Avoid an acronym unless it’s really outstanding and nuanced

    Something like Knowledge Cafe or Knowledge Garden won’t work in this environment, and something like Knowledge Source or KnowItAll sound pompous. It’s a tricky problem! What are some good names you have seen or heard?

    Here are a few I’ve researched or brainstormed with others. I’ll update the list as I get more suggestions.

    Knowledge Network
    Knowledge Notes
    Knowledge Collector
    Knowledge Exchange
    Knowledge Resource
    Knowledge Depot
    Knowledge Discovery Tool
    Knowledge Campus
    Knowledge Map
    Knowledge Store
    Knowledge Navigator
    The Knowledge Office
    Common Knowledge
    Ask Me!
    Find it!
    Show and Tell
    The Source
    I Know, I Know!
    Nexus (or Knexus) (as in “connects us”)
    K-Station
    Who Knows?
    The Vault
    Know it, Share it
    Star Office
    In the Know
    Loremaster
    ShareNet
    StewPot
    I-Connect

    divider
    October 25th, 2006

    Arden, Shakespeare and Learning

    In a novel, though long expected, approach to learning, Indiana University professor Edward Castronova has proposed building a 3-D gaming and learning world based on Shakespearean time and Shakespeare’s plays. This week it was announced that he will receive a prestigious MacArthur Foundation grant to build this fantasy world. Rather than take an existing gaming engine and modify it to suit a learning purpose, Castronova plans to develop Arden: The World of Shakespeare as a new gaming landscape, based authentically upon Shakespearean times, that submerges players in period costumes, environments, and language. Just imagine — a game where the most valuable treasure is bits of dialogue from Shakespeare’s plays! It’s a little hard for me to envision, given my hack and slash background, so I really can’t wait to see how they envision it and how it plays out in the real world.

    Arden will be used both as a living social science laboratory and a recreational learning activity. By running copies of the game world on different servers simultaneously, it will give social scientists an opportunity to modify all kinds of variables and see how they affect both game play and learning. The purpose of the world is to teach participants about Shakespeare’s plays while they are submerged in the virtual world, a technique called situational learning. This technique is highly effective, because it affects the learner through various senses and results in a feeling of achievement

    What’s exciting to me about this announcement is it represents the tip of the ice berg. With such recognition and visibility, Arden has a chance to be the online learning environment that finally convinces educators, business people, and funding sources that games can have serious and measurable value — as long as they can find the money to produce a really engaging game. After all, in the end it’s gameplay that matters. The learning is the goal, but it’s peripheral. I’m guessing it will take two years to develop, but I’ll be watching with interest!

    divider
    October 17th, 2006

    KM and the Myth of ROI

    I have lived in a corporate world driven by ROIs, and agree that in that world, proving the value of KM to the organization is essential for funding and support. At the same time, given the current parameters for proving “value” in organizations, it’s impossible to do.

    Douglas Weidner, Chairman of the International KM Institute recently said succinctly, “if KM can’t prove its worth, it’s worthless.” I disagree. It is intuitively worthwhile or so many capable, intelligent people wouldn’t be grappling with what KM is and how to apply it for good. It may simply be worthless in a given environment, with a given set of actors, at a given point in time. Just because one can’t prove the worth of something doesn’t mean it’s worthless. It can also mean one is trying to prove the wrong thing or attempting to solve the wrong problem.

    There is a fallacy in all discussions of ROI for KM. As long as accounting systems (and financial managers) reject the so-called “soft” or intangible values of KM and treat KM like they treat software or a new piece of equipment, the true ROI of KM will never be shown or appreciated. How can you value or assess the worth of KM without talking about improved morale, reduced employee turnover, employee satisfaction, better information flow throughout the organization, personal pride, more knowledgeable employees (who give better customer service), stronger affinity networks, brand enhancement, cultural change, improved communication, team building? Until there’s a way to get those kinds of things counted toward financial value, ROI is a meaningless discussion in relation to KM.

    KM is not a manufacturing process with people substituted for widget inventories in a financial spreadsheet. It is certainly possible to attach traditional metrics to each intangible identified, and they can even be shown to increase revenues or reduce costs — though some of the metrics would be a stretch, rather like Cinderella’s ugly step sisters squeezing into the glass slipper. It’s simply wrong. Organizations are not good at recognizing or valuing intangible benefits. Even if it were possible to break down all the components of KM and attach traditional (i.e. “accepted”) measures to them, the result would still not reflect the true value of KM, because KM is more than the sum of benefits from existing processes.

    As John Maloney, a seasoned KM practitioner, points out, “ROI is a trailing accounting indicator. Return on Investment (ROI) is the ratio of money gained or lost on an investment to the amount of money invested…(a better way to measure) is value network analysis.” I agree. And even though it’s an uphill battle, we shouldn’t stop trying to prove its value.

    divider
    October 6th, 2006

    Uru and the Impact of a Fan Base

    In the 1980s I was playing an ASCII text multiplayer game called Island of Kesmai on CompuServe. It was a powerful time to learn about multiplayer games…the games were slow and turn-based, so it was possible to make steady progress while still allowing time for the “live” conversations and commentary that tremendously enhanced the fun and thrill of the medium. The people you met in games in this era were an elite few early adopters, usually male, usually working somehow with computers. It was a busy day in the game when there were 60-70 people online at once, and there was no such thing as multiple servers and world replicas. The players became a community with a shared passion for the game. Many of those players moved on simultaneously to newer games as they came on the scene — TSN’s Yserbius or Tantalus’ Kingdom of Drakkar or “big” MUDs like Sojourn/Duris — and kept their character names so their gaming friends could find them again.

    The remarkable thing was the loyalty of the players to “the game”, whatever that game was. The game created a certain capacity for people to be able to share a joyful (or frustrating) experience with others but without baggage — to escape from their daily roles and personalities and become the character they displayed to others. I observed a consistency or integrity in the characters that revealed a great deal about the players behind the screen/keyboard, verified when we actually met in person (which we eventually began to do). It was a time of wonder, and that emotion of wonder had such an impact on us all that we experienced tremendous loyalty to whatever game we played. In most of the games I played, I was there for two or three years (moving a static icon N-N-NE with genuine enjoyment!), and I would have played longer except that new games were released, and I fell prey to the pressure of friends to move on. I would probably still be playing Sojourn or Kesmai today! I understand what it means to be an avid fan of a game!

    Today I read Daniel Terdiman’s story about the return of Uru Live, and how this multiplayer version of the popular box game Myst is largely the result of the passion of its fanbase, who have kept the game’s memory and magic alive for several years using Cyan World’s freeware version after it was abandoned by Ubisoft, the original publisher. Terdiman notes that communities of gamers don’t want to let their favorite games “go quietly into the night.” This is an interesting trend that may provide a new ground for smaller developers to take over niche titles with a good player base and use player developed content or expansions to existing content to sustain the franchise or give it a second life with new players on an economically sustainable scale. The model is not attractive for the mega game companies, but it appears to be viable for smaller developers, especially since the player base is already engaged and loyal. It’s an interesting development, and makes me start to think with pleasure about Kesmai and Drakkar and Earth & Beyond and other games I enjoyed — and which I often return to for a short time to savor the memories when I get an email saying that my account has been reactivated! I wonder if we can look forward to a multiplayer online version of Morrowind or Oblivion at last?

    divider
    September 25th, 2006

    Apologies — You now have to register

    I hate to say it, but the spammers have won. The number of fake postings to this blog are now consistently over 250 per week and rising. Since I moderate them manually, you don’t see the the torrent. I’m glad I was wise enough to start off by moderating all postings, or the site would really be a mess right now!

    It’s frustrating! I don’t have time to get the notices in my email every day, and deal with them there, then take them off my server, then come to the blog and remove them yet again. So I’m joining the others who require a registration before readers can reply. I do read the moderation requests promptly, if that’s of any consolation. I hope this doesn’t deter you from posting, and that you understand the need behind this action.

    Update October 6, 2006: This seems to have done the trick! My spam has dwindled to only about two per week now. Please send me a note if you have trouble registering.

    divider
    September 8th, 2006

    Watson Research Assistant

    I don’t normally discuss individual software products, but a few days ago in a private post (and here) Jack Vinson mentioned Intellext’s personal search bot called Watson, which I had not seen. It does look very interesting, especially since I do a lot of research in a lot of different sources, as he does. As Jack described it, “It watches what you are writing (in Microsoft Office applications and some web browsers) and constantly searches sources for related materials. The sources can be your traditional Google searches, Amazon products, or they can be internal company repositories.” After reading the site’s marketing materials, it does look like a very beneficial tool for anyone who is interested in a wide range of subjects simultaneously, or is working on research papers. I can’t wait to try it out! Unfortunately, I can’t do it right now. The tool is (currently) free to download, however, it requires Windows XP running Office 2003 and Internet Explorer 6+, and I’m using Office 2000, so it clanks on the installation. The free version is not configurable, but it seems to cover a wide array of freely-available search sources. Maybe this will be the impetus I need to upgrade my software! Have you tried it?

    Update September 24: I have now installed Office 2003 and tested Watson. It’s a very interesting tool with a lot of promise, I’m glad to say. The concept is right…let the user set as many custom locations as they want for a context relevant search, and then serve up any matches in clusters. The main complaints I have are UI issues. The display of matches is clustered in a tab-like format that is awkward to use, and the excerpts that show for each “found” reference are frequently unintelligible since they are so truncated. However, the concept is right on! The UI will get better. What may not get better is my other complaint. It’s subscription software. You can download and install the free (limited) version, however, to get the full featured, customizable Watson, you have to pay $9.95 per month. I don’t like endless subscriptions to anything (sounds like the discount buyer’s clubs that telemarketers are always trying to sell), and most certainly not for a research tool I could come to count on. Once they change the pricing model, it’s definitely a tool for KM professionals (and researchers) to consider!

    divider
    September 8th, 2006

    Botnets and the Singularity

    I was thinking recently about the surge in email spam I receive. My spam level is up to about 60 per day that get through my ISP, which blocks about twice that many more, and that doesn’t include the 50-60 spams I get on the blog here and manually delete. Being perversely interested in all kinds of things, I normally look at the return addresses on those spam emails (most of which have started using the “nofollow” command). What’s been interesting to me is the number of spam messages that come from accounts I can recognize. Now I think I understand why…my friends and colleagues have been hijacked into a botnet! Maybe I have, too!

    According to Wikipedia, botnet is jargon “used to refer to any group of bots, such as IRC bots; the word is generally used to refer to a collection of compromised machines running programs, usually referred to as worms, Trojan horses, or backdoors, under a common command and control infrastructure. A botnet’s originator (aka “bot herder”) can control the group remotely, usually through a means such as IRC, and usually for nefarious purposes.” An amazing 26% of the compromised computers used in botnets are in the US. Four out of five computers connected to the Web have some type of spyware or adware installed on them, with or without the owner’s knowledge.

    Bot masters often use botnets for denial-of-service attacks and extortion against legitimate companies, Google and Yahoo advertising click fraud, and other malicious activities, such as hosting phishing sites, spying on people, and send millions of pieces of email spam. Not surprisingly, there’s a lot of money to be made from being a bot master. Typical monthly incomes of range from $7-10,000. Distributing online advertisements via spyware and adware is a $2 billion industry, according to security software maker Webroot Software Inc. With many people not updating their security programs frequently or promptly, it is surprisingly easy for someone with only slightly sophisticated programming knowledge to get started in this type of enterprise. Brian Krebs wrote a detailed article about computer hijacking in the Washington Post, and it includes eye-opening interviews with several bot masters.

    Kelly Martin took a slightly different approach in a nice article in The Register about this insidious and thought-provoking development. It started me thinking about something my friend Rich often talks about–the Singularity. The Singularity is popularly held to be the point at which the subsequent behaviour of a mechanism or machine cannot be predicted, or the forces or other physical quantities involved become infinite or undeterministic. In other words, as portrayed so vividly in science fiction and movies such as The Matrix, Terminator 2 and I, Robot, this event is the point at which computer intelligence first exceeds human intelligence, and artificially created intelligence begins to function independently of its creators.

    Credible scientists such as Vernor Vinge have pointed to symptoms of progress toward a probable Singularity that most of you reading this article will live to see — “…ideas themselves should spread ever faster, and even the most radical will quickly become commonplace. When I began writing science fiction in the middle ’60s, it seemed very easy to find ideas that took decades to percolate into the cultural consciousness; now the lead time seems more like eighteen months.” He argues that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth, and that once the Singularity point is reached (estimated now to be around 2023), we will enter the Post-Human era. Super human intelligences pose a threat to the human status quo. Vinge says, “we cannot prevent the Singularity…its coming is an inevitable consequence of the humans’ natural competitiveness and the possibilities inherent in technology.”

    Botnets, as described by Kelly Martin may be one of those leapfrog occurrences that have unintended consequences in furthering the emergence of The Singularity. It won’t be long before bot masters exploit emerging peer-to-peer communication technologies like Kazaa and LimeWire, controversial music- and movie-sharing networks that eliminate the need for central control, making bot masters harder to find and identify. Enslaved computers on such networks could communicate instructions and share software updates among one another so that they would no longer depend on orders from the master servers operated by the bot masters. Are botnets leading us toward the Skynet of Terminator 2?

    divider
    August 31st, 2006

    Community Content Ownership

    I was reminded this week of an annoying thing that happened to me about two years ago in an online community I had been a member of for a couple of years (call it Group A). It was what I’d call a moderator-centric community, meaning the moderator approved/rejected every post and tended to take an active role in all the discussions. While it was annoying at times, the group was good and the conversations were often substantive, so I tended to overlook the moderator’s style.

    Group A
    I left Group A about two years ago because of a content ownership issue. The group members had created a nice discussion archive over the years, with many solid contributions. Over the course of the years I was in that group, the moderator became blatant about making a name for him/herself by using the group as a sounding board for issues, and then using the group’s discussion to write an article under his/her own name and publish it–without reference to the group or the contributors who had provided the points the author was making in the article. It was free research or consulting that went unacknowledged and unpaid. I got annoyed with this the first time I saw my own words from within the community reprinted in an article under the author’s by-line. I was not in that community to enhance one person’s reputation, and I felt taken advantage of. I became more annoyed each time I saw this person featured at KM conferences presenting information discussed and debated by the community as his/her own.

    In private discussions with the author, I challenged his/her right to repackage other people’s contributions as his/her own, without getting permission to reprint first. Over years of participating in and leading communities, I have come to believe that the authors of the postings, not the “community”, own the postings, although I believe the community has the right to retain for its private archives all the discussions that transpire in the community space. This moderator’s blatant attempts to profit from the knowledge, goodwill and conversations of others was ethically wrong to me. Furthermore, when I submitted postings that questioned this practice, asking what others thought, my messages were blocked. When it became clear that the author was not going to admit to or change his/her practices, and would continue to profit from the free ideas, suggestions, and consulting of the group, I resigned from the community.

    Group C
    I’m in another group now (call it Group B) and there has been some lively discussion this week about content ownership in another light. One of the members cites a situation in a different community (call it Group C) where she has observed the moderators deliberately removing discussion threads and archived posts because they want to erase the contributions of people who have disagreed with the moderators and become opponents rather than collaborators. As a result, the community’s archives are now incomplete. There are holes in discussion topics that many people contributed to over time, and valued. In addition, the moderators are refusing to publish posts that debate their policies or by people who are speaking against them for deleting the postings.

    Facing such organizational issues, group C will no doubt collapse, but that is not my point here. The point is that the moderators of Groups A and C consider that they own the content, and they have a right to delete whatever they choose. Do they have such a right (both legally and as members of a community)? Who does own the individual messages posted to a community discussion board? Are ownership rules different if it is a discussion forum established by an individual on Yahoo Groups or if it is a forum established on a corporation’s public web site or if it is a non-profit organization or a government entity? Are there standard practices that apply to anyone for reprinting of information first posted in a private community?

    Here’s a related situation as exemplified in Group C–when a member is drummed out of the community, or the moderators ban a person for what they or the community deem to be “cause.” When someone is banned from a forum or just resigns voluntarily, what is the correct action for moderators to take if they are requested to delete the former member’s past posts in the forum? Who owns those postings, the community or the former member? Does the “delete” request apply to excerpts from those postings that are reprinted in other members’ replies?

    What Others Have Said
    In Group B this week, a variety of people contributed some good insights to this complex problem, and I’m quoting some of them here without referencing the authors. (If any authors recognize their words here and don’t object to being cited, I will happily edit accordingly!)

  • “…Generally, authors own their works of authorship, and have sole authority to decide how they are used. If your forum had some kind of affirmative contributor agreement whereby posters agreed that the forum owner had a non-terminable right to distribute the posts, you would have grounds to retain the posts — but otherwise, I think the author wins…Note that once you start thinking in legal terms, you’ve pretty much lost all trust on both sides…”
  • “…cutting a post off changes the whole perspective on the archives.. a newbie that would want to browse wouldn’t just find gaps, but couldn’t possibly assist to the *creation* and transmission of implicit knowledge. Losing posts is like losing one’s story: you lose your memory, you lose yourself.”
  • “It’s all too common that people join in online conversation without regard to policies about ‘word ownership.’ It’s hard to conceive that some of these situations…could ever happen. Or that there could be a question about one’s rights to delete one’s words from established online conversations. If there’s going to be such a strong interest on the part of the founder/sponsor of the forum that moderators will be so empowered to control the conversations, then people should be warned loudly at registration about the conditions under which they will be participating.”
  • “*Unless* there is an affirmative contributor agreement, authors haven’t given up any rights. “
  • “The concept of ‘intellectual property’ and ownership thereof is sort of an artifact of old-time publishing models, and needs to change to be more flexible and community-oriented.”
  • “To my mind, a forum is a public space (even if bounded by the community), and when you speak into a public space, you give up the private ownership of your words, unless you explicitly license your words prior to publication (as in a book). The fact that the words exist in text form on a community archive makes them technically removable from that location, but even if deleted from there, of course the messages you send reside in multiple copies on everyone’s computers who ever opened and read those messages. So ‘deletability’ is virtually impossible to enforce. “
  • “Interesting ideas, but (as far as I know) this is a legal issue, and so the decision has likely been made — those involved just need to discover it. My understanding is that in the USA and likely most countries the words would be owned by the writer, not by the forum, unless there were some other explicit agreement in place.”
  • “The question which occupies my mind, is what are the contributory factors which guided the the moderators to start acting in a way that broke the community?…The bulletinboard software, like so much social software these days, comes preconfigured for a hierarchical group of all powerful moderators. The role of the administrator as appointer of moderators with the power to censor comes built in, and is therefore often taken to be the normal way to behave. When under stress, the temptation to actually use these powerful tools which are positioned right under the nose, may be difficult to resist.”
  • “Electronically mediated discourse is simply this, in the end, DIS-course…all words therein are co-owned and co-produced, no matter WHAT the Disneys or MicrS**ts think or do w/their $$$US.”
  • “…has anyone brought up the ramifications of deleting posts that quoted other posters or deleting other posts that quoted the deleted posts? I suspect that the flow of IP becomes too interconnected to just delete posts that are from a single individual and expect that all their IP contributions are removed.”
  • “I have to say that although the reading has been interesting I do NOT at all
    understand the concern. Who “owns postings”?? OK who owns a face to face
    conversation? or a phone conversation?? So you and I are talking about supervisory skills and you make a very good point.. next time I am teaching that topic I mention your thought (Maybe I make reference it was from you maybe not.. depend on my memory which is not always as good as desired). One of my students goes back to his office and gives a brief summary of my outstanding (of course grin) course. That student quotes my quote of you. Who “owns it?” Same in on line postings, blogs, emails etc. They are conversations and as far as I can tell not copywritable (is that a word?? it is now).”
  • Read the Terms of Use Statements!
    Community members should take care to read the terms of use statements before they start posting! In related discussions, the following organizations present varying claims of ownership.

    A bulletin board software company said their copyright covers only the software (coding, templates, vbbcodes, etc.) that are delivered to the buyer. They do not “own ‘the threads’, ‘postings’, ‘avatars’, ‘attachments’ , ‘images’ or anything that YOU add to it. Whatever YOU add to it or modify is basically yours.” Then, adding a new dimension to this discussion, they comment, “Actually, YOU should be more worried about the copyright policies of your WEBHOST and ISP since they virtually OWN your space and files that you upload and CAN do whatever they please with it [sic].”

    The Canon Digital Photography forum states in their Forum Rules of Use, “By posting messages to the Canon Digital Photography Forums you give forum owner and maintainers permission to permanently store all message content, present it for public viewing, backup it to any location and media, present it in other form, modify *, delete, or make any use whatsoever in the Forums…All images posted are copyrighted to their respective owners.”

    The Artist Corner forums Terms of Service state, “Artist Corner does not own the forum posts (Content) you submit, unless we specifically tell you otherwise before you submit it. You license the Content to Artist Corner as set forth below for the purpose of displaying and distributing such Content on our network of properties and for the promotion and marketing of our services. By submitting Content to any Artist Corner property, you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted, Artist Corner the royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed. You acknowledge that Artist Corner does not pre-screen Content, but that Artist Corner shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse, edit, move or remove any Content that is publicly available via the Service. ”

    Finally, the Sarcoma Alliance forums has an especially detailed legal statement regarding content ownership in its forums:

    “All Content (defined below) used and displayed on the Website or available through Sarcoma Alliance’s services are the property of Sarcoma Alliance or its licensors and are protected by United States and international copyright, trademark, and other laws. “Content” means any information, mode of expression, or other materials or services found on the Website including, without limitation, discussion forums, software, writings, graphics, and any and all other features found on the Website. In addition to the Sarcoma Alliance’s and its licensor’s or supplier’s rights in individual elements of the content within the Website, Sarcoma Alliance owns a copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and enhancement of such content.

    “Subject to the privacy policy described below, by posting Your Information on or through the Website you automatically grant Sarcoma Alliance a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, transmit, translate, distribute, perform and display Your Information alone or as part of other works in any form, media, or technology whether now known or hereafter developed, and to sublicense such rights to others. You acknowledge that no compensation will be paid with respect to the use of your posting.

    “Unless Sarcoma Alliance has entered into a separate written agreement with you that explicitly states to the contrary, you agree that any information, feedback, questions, comments or the like that you provide to Sarcoma Alliance in connection with this Website or Sarcoma Alliance’s services (“Submissions”) will be deemed to be provided to Sarcoma Alliance on a non-confidential and non-proprietary basis and will become and remain the property of Sarcoma Alliance. Sarcoma Alliance shall have no obligations of any kind with respect to any Submissions and shall be free to reproduce, use, disclose and/or distribute any Submissions for any purpose whatsoever, without limitation. You also agree that Sarcoma Alliance shall be free to use any ideas, concepts or techniques embodied in the Submissions for any purpose whatsoever, including, without limitation, developing, manufacturing, and marketing products or services incorporating such ideas, concepts, or techniques.”

    What do you think? I’d welcome links to authoritative sources who may have resolved these questions, and will update this article with them.

    divider
    July 7th, 2006

    “Plug-and-Play” Workers and Knowledge Transfer

    Recently I was talking with a friend about knowledge transfer, and he made the comment that in his organization, the management team seems to be trying to create “plug and play” people. It struck me as the way an organization that thinks knowledge can be stored electronically in databases would think about people, i.e., they are functional components to be stored and retrieved on demand. Of course, this is terribly dehumanizing.

    We had a long talk about the usual KM topics — the role of individual expertise in knowledge management, what is knowledge vs. what is information, how technology supports or impedes knowledge flows, how to motivate people to share what they know, etc. In his organization, it appears that in certain areas, such as IT and customer service, management assumes that defining/documenting the steps in a process and then training people how to execute those steps is all they need to do to have an efficient and well-run business. Their goal is to be able to move people from one job to another seamlessly, assuming that somehow employees will be able to adapt to any new roles because there is documentation. It sounded like a sort of faceless corporate chess game — any pawn is a pawn is a pawn and any knight is a knight.

    While I can understand management’s goal to bring efficiency to the organization and create a more agile work model, this approach is counter-productive and demoralizing. Maybe one Cobol or Linux developer can step in for another, but are business analysts or communications professionals really interchangeable? The plug-and-play concept certainly doesn’t take into account that people in IT or customer service or clerical roles (or other similar positions) have dreams and personal goals and interests that transcend their current job. Maybe a secretary is a secretary today, but maybe he really wants to be a musician or a writer. Maybe a developer aspires to be a platform architect or game producer. Maybe a customer service representative is quietly going to school to be a lawyer. Not to mention that any individual has built up a network of contacts inside and outside the organization based on personal interactions and shared associations. It’s impossible to replicate the networks a person has built over years, and to understand the value of knowing the right person to call at the right moment in a hurry to get the answer one needs.

    There is a kind of corporate smugness in assuming that people are their roles. Human Resources professionals for many years have been orchestrating career paths for all levels of employees because they understand that people need to feel valued for the work they do and that they must believe they have an opportunity to advance in their careers in exchange for company loyalty. This concept of “plug and play” employees, that can be moved at will or inserted into a new role and expected to perform well without missing a beat, is sadly lacking in an understanding of people and their motivations, however “efficient” it looks on paper. A developer is not a developer. A clerk is not a clerk.

    Another troubling note in the conversation was a complementary notion that when experienced workers retire or leave, having spent their years acquiring deep knowledge about their area of specialty, the company should be able to expect a new replacement to read the documentation and start with the same knowledge, a kind of knowledge parity. Of course, they don’t! The exiting employee has gained personal knowledge from their experiences over years, and built their social networks for various types of information. David Weinberger said in The Cluetrain Manifesto, “Business is a conversation because the defining work of business is conversation – literally. And ‘knowledge workers’ are simply those people whose job consists of having interesting conversations.” We all know that most of what people know about their work is never written down, so new employees simply do not have access to the full knowledge of experienced employees, because they haven’t been part of the conversations.

    Even if exiting employees attempt to write everything they know about their jobs and processes, research and conventional wisdom say that they will probably capture only 3/4 of it. Intuitively we all know that it’s impossible to capture everything that a person knows on any subject. Even when employees are motivated to contribute, much of what they know has come from years of experience in their roles and has become so intuitive or instinctive that even they aren’t aware of it as critical knowledge for their role. That tacit knowledge is difficult to capture, and it is exactly the information that someone with a lower proficiency level needs in order to perform up to the same level as the exiting person. Organizations ought to consider this a potential flaw in their succession planning, and KM practitioners ought to consider this a challenge!

  • Is it possible to document every aspect of an employee’s job so that a newcomer can just take over without any loss of expertise or knowledge gaps?
  • When business process flows are well-defined and have predictable results, how do you capture the “intuitive” knowledge from the “old timers” that differentiates what they know from what a newcomer knows?
  • Are there categories of knowledge workers for whom “plug and play” makes sense?
  • When a change occurs in a system or process, and any part of the change is not documented, what does the organization do when the former employee is unavailable?
  • Does the concept of “plug and play” employees impede innovation?
  • According to Malcolm Ryder, “The motivation to reach ‘knowledge parity’ is more than sufficient to drive adoption of a KM goal and capability, but it often confuses the issue of what to know and how to know. Worse, the issue of ‘how to know’ is even further confused with how to get what is ‘known’…” . He further says, “Because of that difference between the knowledge and the instructions, it is more obvious that ‘knowledge management’ per se has to do with the way knowledge users leverage their knowledge reserves and resources — not about how familiar they become with the definition and implementation of practices, rules and skills.” And that is what I think is relevant to this discussion. A newcomer in any role can’t leverage “knowledge reserves and resources” they don’t yet have. To quote a wise man, he who has ears, let him hear.

    divider
    July 4th, 2006

    Why Data is not Information is not Knowledge

    After two very heady weeks of discussions about information, knowledge, data, reality, applied knowledge, personal knowledge management, tacit/explicit knowledge, and a wide range of other related topics, I came away with new insights about KM and what it is. It’s really a privilege to exchange ideas with wise and thoughtful people. I think everyone involved in the discussion broadened and deepened our knowledge as a result of our exchanges. Community is a magical thing when it is properly engaged.

    Definitions is where the discussion started, but it then branched off into discussions of examples and possibilities, then it encompassed some very philosophical and theoretical thinking before coming back around again to definitions. It’s definitions I want to talk about here, because I have been on a soapbox about the need for them, and my understanding about the relationship of data to information has changed. Thanks especially to Joe Firestone for his philosophical insights.

    Until recently, I believed strongly that data exists independently from information and knowledge. I perceived that we are swimming in a sea of data, some of which we know and some of which we are incapable of knowing by virtue of the structure of our sensing organs. I believed data to be the building blocks of information and knowledge, and that for data to have value or make sense, it must be perceived by a “knower” (for lack of a better term). This was partly due to definitions of data (“facts and statistics used for reference or analysis”) and information (“facts or knowledge provided or learned, or, what is conveyed or represented by a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, etc.”). To me this meant that data is a precursor to information. I was wrong. Data is actually one type of information. Here’s what I now understand (with some simple examples below).

    Previously, I thought (as many do) that this is the way knowledge evolves from information:

    Data –> Information –> Knowledge –> Wisdom

    We’ve seen that string in many publications. I now understand it to be something like this (with the bracketed items being components of the word that precedes them):

    Diagram of the relationship between knowledge, information and data

    Actually, I’m not convinced that “wisdom” is the ultimate end state as the traditional model implies. Perhaps “understanding” is. Since that’s a separate conversation, however, I’ve just left it in as a matter of convention.

    I like thinking of information as “what is conveyed.” Information is the generic container of three types of components: data, derivations and speculations. Data are measurable outputs from a reality that can be observed — whether it is actually measured or not — so they are statistical in nature. Examples of data might be “12 centimeters” or “73 degrees” or “number of chimpanzees in the forest.” Derivations are inferences that result from data. For example, “The pencil is 12 centimeters long. It is shorter than a pencil that is 15 centimeters long.” Derivations involve a processing activity–observation, comparison, evaluation, etc. Speculations are information that does not rely on reality, observation, or deduction. Fantasy and theories fall into this category. For example, George Lucas’ Star Wars or pure algebra. All of the constructs in Star Wars are fictional–the people, the planets, the transportation, the creatures, the dialogues, the government, the economy. Yet most of us have enough awareness of the Star Wars constructs to be able to discuss them as if they were real. All of the theorems in pure or Lie algebra are based upon imaginary axioms, yet they exist as information and can be used to proove other theorems. So “information” is of three types: data, derivations and speculations.

    Information must be communicated to a “knower” in order for knowledge creation to occur. Communication occurs through various shorthand mechanisms we have evolved over millennia, including alphabets, number symbols, languages, gestures and special vocabularies. Some examples of communication efficiency are “North” and “September”. They exist in every language, and are a shorthand for the objects, times, and relationships of objects in our reality. The terms mean something by convention, but contain no informational content. Information is, therefore, what is conveyed.

    A knower must be present for “knowledge” to occur. We are continuously receiving and processing information. Through learning and/or experience, the knower uses information selectively to generate knowledge. Knowledge is the product of learning and experience within a brain. It can be tacit or explicit, as described by Polanyi, Nonaka and Takeuchi. Creation of knowledge is both conscious and unconscious. We don’t consciously know how to breathe, but we know how to make ourselves hold our breath if thrown into the water, or breathe deeper, or breathe with control to produce music from a flute. Knowledge is created by the knower.

    For me this clarifies everything, and it puts “knowledge management” into perspective. It means that the only valid use of the term “knowledge management” is for personal knowledge management, because we can manage only our own knowledge (or to put it another way, no one can manage anyone else’s knowledge). KM practitioners can provide tools, methods, and education to help others to manage their own knowledge, but we can’t manage their knowledge for them. What we can and do manage is information, and the processes by which individuals share what they know.

    I’ll be writing more on this. Check back. :)

    divider
    June 2nd, 2006

    Knowledge vs. Information: more discussion

    A few weeks ago I challenged Polanyi’s concept of “explicit” knowledge (and Nonaka and Takeuchi’s subsequent use of the term). He/they were definitely on to a correct concept (that there is an output from knowledge that can be manipulated/managed and it’s a different thing from implicit knowledge, which is learned), but the use of the term explicit *knowledge* was incorrect. In those early days, they were articulating something new. They didn’t have the benefit of the many debates and discussions about terms that we have had in subsequent years, so they used the convenient term “knowledge” to define the two aspects of their concept. If they were building those concepts today, perhaps they might adopt different terms, like tacit knowledge and explicit information, instead. (Does anyone know Dr. Nonaka well enough to ask his thoughts on this question?) At the time they put a stake in the ground, there was no one to take issue with the terms in the informed way we can today. I’m willing to be convinced that I’m wrong, but I haven’t yet been persuaded that “explicit knowledge” is not explicit information. The term “knowledge” can only apply to what is in someone’s head. I’m sorry if I’m belaboring the point, and I welcome correction.

    Let’s see how they are defined. The word “tacit” means:

    1. Not spoken (American Heritage Dictionary), or
    2. Understood or implied without being stated (Oxford English Dictionary)

    The word “explicit” means:

    1. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied (AHD), or
    2. Clear and detailed, with no room for confusion or doubt. (OED)

    Information is defined as “facts or knowledge provided or learned.” (OED) . AHD defines it as:

    1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
    2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news.
    3. A collection of facts or data
    4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge
    5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.

    Knowledge is defined by OED as:

    1. information and skills acquired through experience or education
    2. the sum of what is known
    3. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation

    and AHD defines knowledge as

    1. The state or fact of knowing.
    2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
    3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
    4. Learning; erudition
    5. Specific information about something

    If I understand all these terms, to me it comes down to “all knowledge is information, but all information is not knowledge.” Maybe it used to be knowledge, or maybe it continues to be knowledge in the heads of the people who know the information, but explicit knowledge itself is just a type of information. Knowledge transferred to another person can be called education. Knowledge that is transferred to a database can be called data. Maybe we need to create a new term for expressed or explicit knowledge if it’s not one of these two things.

    What are some examples of “explicit knowledge”? I’m curious how others think they would be different from “information”.

    divider
    May 27th, 2006

    KM Definitions — Another Point of View

    There have been a number of interesting conversations occurring in Act-KM discussion group lately, and one of them started with a challenge to define KM in one sentence. Having been through a similar exercise nearly four years ago with my KM colleagues Jeffrey Romayko and Jeff McCartney, I am interested to see what the forum comes up with. Here’s what we came up with three years ago (in a business context):

    Knowledge management is a business process that connects people to people and people to information for competitive advantage and better decision making.

    While it’s clear and short, it has the same problem that most KM professionals and definitions have — it mixes what KM is with what it does and with the outcomes of doing it. They are different things. Trying to mix them together in a single definition fails. An outcome is not a definition. That’s where almost all attempts at defining KM fail, actually.

    KM thought leader Joe Firestone responded to the challenge with this thoughtful message that highlights why creating a definition is so difficult (reprinted with permission):

    “One can, of course, say what Knowledge Management is about in one sentence, but I’m afraid that one can’t be successful in explicating its meaning by doing this. ‘Knowledge Management’ is not a term that refers to an ‘essence.’ Instead it’s a term that can be used legitimately in many different ways depending on the context in which one uses it.

    “In this respect, ‘Knowledge Management’ is not very different from many other terms we use every day. For example, ‘science’ is another such term. Does it refer to a series of processes, a method, a body of knowledge, a set of institutions, a type of culture? Take the word ‘culture’ itself. In 1952, the famous Anthropologists A.L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, identified 150 different definitions of ‘culture’ used in the literature. No essence there either; nevertheless there is a field of Anthropology whose central organizing slogan (?) is ‘culture.’ I could go on. Sociologists don’t agree on the definition of ‘sociology.’ Political Scientists differ on how to define ‘political science.’ And even with an ISO 9000 standard available, there’s still no universal agreement on the term ‘Quality Management.’

    “So given all this, how does one approach the matter of definition? I think the first thing to do is to realize that the meaning of any term or phrase is not given by a definition, but is a dynamic thing that language users create and recreate as they use it. At any point in time, its meaning is given by its relationships in use with other terms and phrases, and since we have no access to the entire web of its relationships in use, we can only conjecture theories about its meaning, and recognize that since meanings are changing, even these theories about its meaning can’t be true for more than a brief time.

    “Second, with this as context, I think one should recognize that to get at the meaning of an abstraction like KM, one needs to do quite a bit of conceptual specification, and that there’s no possibility of this sort of specification boiling down to a single sentence or even a paragraph that will successfully explicate the meaning of KM?

    “So third, does this mean we should avoid offering definitions of KM? I don’t think so; but I do think we should give up the idea of finding the essence of KM, and realize that the purpose of defining KM in a sentence or brief paragraph is to give ‘an elevator speech’ about what we will mean by ‘KM’ in the context of some speaking or writing we’re doing that uses the term. We can’t expect the ‘elevator speech’ to completely convey what we mean by ‘KM’ to others, but we can start by giving the elevator speech, follow with a much more detailed specification, and then if there’s still need, interest, or purpose, write the book specifying all the things we can think of that consitute the mosaic of KM.

    “Having waxed philosophical for most of this post, I’d like to end this by giving my elevator speech about what KM is (see http://www.kmci.org/the_new_knowledgement.html):

    KM is, first, a branch of management, which makes it a social science discipline. Moreover, it is a branch of management that seeks to improve performance in business by enhancing an organization’s capacity to learn, innovate, and solve problems. The purpose of KM, then, is to enhance organizational knowledge processing, and Knowledge Management as an inter-related set of activities may be defined as those activities whose purpose is to enhance knowledge processing.

    “Now that’s two sentences providing two different senses of ‘KM’: one, the idea of KM as a scientific discipline with a purpose, and two, KM as an interrelated set of activities performed by people with a purpose. But this paragraph still doesn’t touch on KM:

    – as a practice,
    – as a body of knowledge,
    – as a set of methods,
    – as a set of institutions,
    – as a community,
    – as a culture,
    – as a process or set of processes,
    – as a value network,
    – as an emergent social system,
    – etc.

    “Closing this now, I guess I don’t think my elevator speech about what KM is very illuminating. I know if I were starting out in KM, I’d sure want to know what I meant by ‘learning’, ‘problem solving’, ‘innovating’ and ‘knowledge processing,’ and wouldn’t even begin to understand the elevator speech until I’d gotten into that.”

    I would add to his list a few other terms one would need to know, including knowledge, information, information management, data, and process. Joe and Mark McElroy’s award winning paper Doing Knowledge Management is a good starting point for other KM related definitions.

    Dave Snowden replied pointedly to the challenge. He said, “Anyone who can answer that question in one sentence is not qualified to answer it.” I guess I’d say that’s true unless the person actually does happen to get it right. Someone will, some day. More of my own thoughts about the need for KM definitions can be found here, here, and here.

    divider
    May 25th, 2006

    String Theory

    I love NOVA! While I get a little tired of volcano eruptions and undersea explorations and arctic treks, once in a while they do something heart-stopping and amazing. For me, that most often happens when they explain complex physics theories. I’m a liberal arts major, so physics is like shaman magic to me. I’m fascinated and awed by it. Yesterday I happened to catch an amazing program called The Elegant Universe: the 11th Dimension. Definitely worth going out of your way to find and watch, if you can. I can barely conceive of four spatial dimensions, and yet here they are trying to conceive and prove an 11th dimension composed of minute strings and membranes.

    While the program covers a lot of ground, the most fascinating part for me was at the end, when they talked about superstring theory. It’s not proved yet, but most scientists feel like it’s a plausible theory. If so, then the “strings” — sub-atomic chains of particles that vibrate — are present everywhere in the universe (theoretically). While tiny at the beginning of time, the strings started expading at the Big Bang, which means that scientists may actually be able to find evidence of them on earth and study them. Strings resonate/vibrate, so immediately one can see parallels with how music affects an environment to calm or stimulate the inhabitants, and why sound is measured in waves.

    The strings are composed of a new type of particle called “sparticles”, that no one has actually observed yet. This is not too troubling to physicists–there are mathematical indications that sparticles should be present, but until the right technology is available that will permit us to “see” the sparticles, they can only speculate. That may be available soon with the new Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, which will open in 2007-08. It’s 7 times bigger than the Fermi Lab’s particle accelerator in Illinois. The scientists will immediately attempt to find sparticles and prove supersymmetry and string theory. Superstring theory may hold the key to unifying the four forces of nature. If they succeed in proving it, string theory will become as widely accepted as Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Scientists are hopeful about string theory because it already unites general relativity and quantum mechanics, for which a large body of experimental proof already exists.

    One thing that may be born out is the existence of alternate dimensions. A strange feature of string theory is that it requires more than the three spatial dimensions that we experience in the world around us. It sounds like science fiction, but it is an indisputable outcome of the mathematics of string theory. They hypothesize now that when atoms collide, sparticles are created but they immediately leak into an alternate dimension, which is why they haven’t been observed. So the question is, where are these extra dimensions? One suggestion is that they’re all around us, but they’re small relative to the dimensions that we directly see and, therefore, more difficult to detect. What scientists at the Large Hadron Collider hope to see is proof that energy can escape from our known dimensions, proving their existence.

    Life is truly more fascinating than science fiction. It makes my head spin and ache to think about all this! But isn’t it wonderful and amazing?

    divider
    May 23rd, 2006

    Blog Problems Fixed!

    If you have subscribed to any of the sections on the Dove Lane blog, you may have had trouble linking to the articles to read them. The problem is fixed now and you should be able to move between links correctly. Sorry for any inconvenience! You might want to come back and take a look at the two recent articles (Part 1 here and Part 2 here) covering a futuristic look at knowledge management, learning and the 3D gaming environments that will potentially change how people work. I’d love to hear your thoughts in response!

    divider
    May 18th, 2006

    Spam Attacks Hit Dove Lane

    Within the past week I have been discovered by the spammers. I am receiving approximately 100 spam messages daily for the usual things — drugs, mortgages, insurance, gambling — and it is a major nuisance. Fortunately, I have it set up so these messages are blocked from posting to the site and cluttering the conversation, but the volume, which I have to handle manually, means I may inadvertently delay or miss legitimate replies to one of my articles. If I do, please feel free to send me email at kvivian at cloud9 dot net (converting it, of course, to the usual email format) and let me know, so I can attempt to retrieve it and post it. Maybe once they have hit every article with every possible product, they will give up and move on! (One hopes…)

    divider
    May 17th, 2006

    Visualizing the Future of Knowledge Exchange (Part 2)

    This is Part 2 of a speculative view of knowledge management and learning 10 years from now, and how they may be enhanced using 3D gaming/simulation technologies. Read Part I here to get a sense of the overall work environment. This article focuses on the simulation environment itself.

    An Immersive Portal Environment

    Inside the portal space, my computer and view of my work are completely customized, with a unique appearance and functionalities that reflect my job type, work resources and information needs. In addition, I have a unique personal collection of 3D agents and other interactive objects that perform tasks for me, even when I’m offline. I plug in my headset to prepare for the training session, and since no one is sitting close by, I decide to direct the system by voice rather than by typing.

    I wake up Ricardo, another of my animated agents, whose job it is to document information I want to remember, create libraries of reference materials I use in my daily work, and fetch information when I need it. Ricardo is my personal knowledge manager, and I have trained him to recognize and respond to my voice commands. When I need him to find or save information for me, I can order it without leaving my other work, or typing instructions. Since he uses built-in artificial intelligence, Ricardo is able to learn over time what my specific requests mean, and he has become expert enough to volunteer additional information or resources that I didn’t know about, from both internal and external sources. He is constantly monitoring and researching information I need in the background, and will sometimes pop up in the middle of something I’m working on to suggest a new resource he’s just discovered. He’s a great resource. Right now I want him to sit silently and observe what I’m doing and be ready to save anything I may want to save from my training session for later reference.

    Now the fun begins! I click on the traditional looking “corporate education” icon on my desktop, and suddenly I find myself transported into a three-dimensional world on my screen. I’m looking at a world designed to look like a modern, but somewhat mysterious looking city, with a mixture of building architectures and landscaping features, and other visual elements I can interact with. I’ve seen other learning worlds at other companies that look like interplanetary space worlds or medieval landscapes, and we’ve been told that in a few years we will be able to choose from among several environments. For now, though, we have only the land of “Metropolis” and its capital city of “Arthursburg”, named playfully for our CEO. The designers had fun creating Arthursburg. It’s full of little inside jokes, plays on words and visual cues that long-time employees recognize instantly, like a statue on the main street of a man leaning on a golf club, with a rabbit pushing a golf ball with his rear leg, and a pub named “The Out Sourceror”. The designers keep it fresh, too. Within hours of a big customer win, media story, annual meeting or fiasco, references have been worked into the Metropolis landscape. The fun factor keeps people coming back to see what’s new—and we occasionally find their our own names gracing a computer generated character!

    When I first joined the company two years ago and set up my account in Metropolis, I was taken to a character creation screen, similar to those in many popular video games. I had to choose an avatar, an animated icon, to represent me as I interact with the Metropolis environment. It’s possible to customize the avatar down to details such as skin tone, body type, overall size, hair style and color, facial hair, eyeglasses, earrings, scars, tattoos, clothing items and colors, etc. Some of the color options, such as pure white or pure black, are not available. In Metropolis, players have an opportunity to “purchase” the rare colors as a privilege once they have achieved certain status and objectives.

    The system includes three different races — a very short race called Moris, an average size race called Humanos, and a large race called Talbos. Each race has special inherent abilities that give it certain advantages in interacting with the “world” and solving the puzzles and challenges there. I chose a female Humanos character of medium build, and had fun spending an hour trying on different looks and views until I found the one I wanted to keep. I then got to select three from among twelve other character variables that would enhance certain of my character’s abilities as they performed tasks in the world. I chose night vision (to find information in dimly lit areas), charisma (to enhance leadership and obtain more help from computer generated characters in the world), and strength (to absorb harmful effects without becoming fatigued as fast as others). I named my avatar Kaye. We are required to use our real names for our characters, since this is a business environment and we will be interacting with co-workers. Research has shown that it makes people act just a little more responsibly toward others.

    The New Face of Corporate U

    My character was then transported into the world, where I was met by a greeter avatar operated by the computer system. Ginny Greeter is standing in a large plaza surrounded by familiar looking buildings that have been designed to mimic our corporate headquarters complex and several of our regional locations down to the carpet designs and artwork. There are also official government-looking buildings, like a Courthouse and City Hall. Just around the corner is an inviting green park area, with a few small shops visible, and in front of the park is a library. Some of the shops are connected with real administrative services. There is a post office, for example, and a printing shop where we can order signs, brochures, name tags, and flyers for business events. Other shops are related to items available for purchase and use within the simulation environment.

    Although Ginny is a “bot”, a computer-generated character (CGC) that operates using artificial intelligence and scripts, you would swear there is a human speaking! She can initiate dialogues with new arrivals, as well as respond to conversation, answer questions, and provide helpful hints and tips about the next thing to do when a person or group gets stuck on some activity. Group activities are what make this learning system special. Where most game-like simulations are designed for a single person to interact with the environment, solve puzzles, or discover information in a structured way, a “multi-user” simulation allows a group of people, each connected remotely to the system from their own computers, to experience the system simultaneously, and team up in real time on activities in the simulation world. This teaming opportunity creates dynamics that more closely approximate a real world scenario, and create an immersive learning experience with substantially higher information retention rates than traditional training. Either randomly or as part of a scheduled activity, real world workers log in to Metropolis and use their avatars as extensions of themselves, singly or in groups, to accomplish a variety of learning tasks called “quests”.

    Our system currently has about 250 different learning quests to-date, each of which has multiple steps and a reward for completing it. Users can follow a prepared sequence as advised by their HR counselor or wander around in the simulated world and look for computer generated avatars that will give them a quest to do. The system recognizes you when you log in, and knows which quests you are eligible to do. For example, on my first visit, Ginny gave me my first quest to walk over to the library and read a book on avatar actions. It was tricky learning to use the arrow keys to navigate my avatar down the street to the library, enter the door, talk to the virtual librarian, and locate the book I needed. Once I had read the book (which actually appeared as printed pages in a window my screen), I returned to Ginny and she gave me a key to the university complex on the other side of Metropolis. After giving me a few instructions about transportation, she told me to board a realistic moving tram for the university, and I was on my way!

    It’s interesting that it doesn’t take long for a person to become absorbed in their avatar’s experiences. I found myself quickly referring to “I”, when I meant my avatar, and that is what most of my co-workers experience, too. The environment of Metropolis is designed in such an immersive way that when, for example “I” boarded the tram, I experienced the speed and lurch of the tram, the slowing for intersections, the sounds of the wheels and creaks and bells and whistles, and the visual sensation of sitting by a window and watching the landscape speed by. When I exited the tram at my stop, I saw not only the University complex, but also the avatars of other employee participants. I knew I wanted to go back and explore the city and the library a little more later, but the first step was to enter the University, find the administration building and sign up for the courses I wanted in the registrar’s office.

    You may think I’m giving too much detail here, but it’s necessary. When I tell you I am logging in to Metropolis to take a training class, maybe now you can get a feeling for what I am experiencing. The “I” I’m logging in is my avatar, the classroom is virtual, and the other participants in my class are located all over the country…perhaps in their offices, but perhaps at home in their pajamas with a baby on their knee! All we see is what each avatar does, and all we “hear” is what the avatar says in type, although it’s possible to hear the actual voice of the person behind the avatar if the group is using voice over IP telephony to speak with each other as they navigate through the tasks in Metropolis. Today we are all just typing. All the people whose avatars are gathered together in Metropolis see the same things on their screens, but from their own avatar’s location and point of view. The instructor avatar “James” standing by the gate may be a live, human instructor operating an avatar, or it might be a CGC preprogrammed with the information needed to teach the group how to accomplish the components of the learning module/quest. We interact with him the same way either way.

    As we stand there waiting for the last two group members to arrive, several people start to experiment with the different actions their avatars can perform. One doubles over in convulsive laughter, another begins to jump in place, another kneels on one knee and pleads, another salutes, another curtseys, another nods vigorously, another cheers, another walks like Charlie Chaplin. The animations make it possible for people to be as expressive as they like, and soon all ten of us are practicing our cheering or jumping or clapping or bowing until James informs us that it’s time to begin by saying, “Okay everyone, that’s enough fooling around, shall we get started?”

    The Learning Experience

    Today’s training session is on diversity, a company-wide annual requirement, so James briefs the group on what they have to do next. The overall task is to build a new multicultural housing complex to accommodate the needs and traditions of a wide variety of families, and walk a team of inspectors through it to evaluate the results when we are finished. The anticipated time to complete the course is three hours. There are a number of milestone tasks along the way before construction can begin. Accepting the “quest” creates a log entry for each participant. The group uses the chat capabilities built into Metropolis to strategize about how to accomplish the first task and retrieve the item they each must return to James to complete it. Several of the group members volunteer to split off to strategize about the architecture of the proposed structure, which the entire group will actually construct together from building objects existing in Metropolis. Instant messaging is built into the system, and I see a private message to me pop up from Kim, who will be in my 12:00 meeting, asking if I think we will finish the training in time.

    The interaction of players expressed through their avatars reveals personal traits, abilities and preferences more clearly than live face-to-face interactions. There is a safety people feel as they type anonymously behind their keyboards, and qualities emerge that are sometimes unexpected. Some people prefer to challenge the problem boldly, some to do more reading and research first; some prefer to work collaboratively and discuss a problem to reach a consensus about next steps before moving ahead, while others prefer a more singular approach, and will charge out on their own without much notice or discussion; some want to take their time and be thorough, while others want to race ahead and get it over with quickly and move on. Some people use their avatars in amusing ways to entertain other participants as they work through the problems.

    Group leaders emerge naturally as they use their expertise, problem-solving skills, and leadership abilities to ensure that the group succeeds in the quest objective. Sometimes younger members will step naturally into the lead. Over time, it’s possible to recognize good group leaders and support their approaches. Some participants show themselves to be noisy or disruptive group members, some are quiet and never contribute, and some are regularly away from their keyboard doing other activities on the side while the rest of the group works to solve the quest problems. This is one of the dynamics that makes multi-user interactive simulations so fascinating and compelling for participants. Human beings are interesting, and you simply can’t predict their interactions in groups.

    As the group works together, the environment provides a wide range of learning objects to support the purpose of the training. There might be:

  • Advertisements, such as billboards posted in strategic spots that present charts and graphs or new company products
  • Kiosks where notes can be pinned up and tips exchanged
  • Pictures on the wall in a building that, when clicked, run informational videos (participants can be instructed to view the videos as a step in their quest)
  • A museum exhibit displaying real historical photos or paintings
  • A product showroom where models of real world products can be tested virtually and include pop-up help
  • Interactive simulated computers that show screen shots of software applications
  • Objects that, when clicked, will fire up a web browser connected to a real world web site with information pertinent to the course content
  • Teleports that enable a participant to move instantly between two points anywhere in the environment
  • Objects that the participants’ avatars can pick up and use — for example, a hammer or a pencil or a TV remote control or a pitchfork.
  • As participants become familiar with the others in their group, they naturally step into roles, just as they might in a traditional classroom. Some will be subject matter experts, some will research the unknown factors, someone will write the notes, someone will facilitate the discussion, and someone will present the results. In Metropolis, some will plan the building, some will research or select the building materials/elements, some will decorate the space, some will work on writing a presentation or marketing brochure on the features of the new multicultural center, and some could even make the presentation to other groups of co-workers at a scheduled time. The system enables a work team to initiate an invitation and email it to prospective audience members, in the same way normal office meetings are scheduled. All company software applications are fully integrated.

    The final step of each quest in Metropolis is a test to ensure that all participants learned what they were there to learn. The test is presented as a dialogue with James, the CGC quest giver. He can read the participant’s log and determine if the avatar completed all the required steps, or conduct a Q&A session. If a participant answers incorrectly, context sensitive help pops up a mini-review that enables the person to see what they should have learned, so they can complete the dialogue chain successfully.

    In completing my test this morning, I missed an answer that used some terms I didn’t remember. I woke up my reference bot Ricardo and told him to fetch some definitions for the terms I needed, and to display them right away, as well as file them in my “just learned” folder. I also had him enter a reminder into my calendar to review the terms in a week to refresh my learning.

    Once the quest/learning objective is completed successfully, each participant receives both verbal and virtual pats on the back from instructor James. He gives the participant a reward, and issues a report to their human resources file, indicating that they completed the mandatory diversity training module. The “reward” is something the participant can use in Metropolis — for example, virtual coins they can accumulate from completing quests and use to purchase items from a virtual Metropolis merchant (who may sell real world items, like electronics, exercise or outdoor equipment, holiday items or vacations from a catalogue). Rewards are sometimes visual badges of accomplishment in Metropolis, like a clothing upgrade or new clothing item, access to a hard-to-obtain hair or item color, perhaps a “title” by their name (for example, instead of just Kaye, it might say “Magistrate Kaye” or “Sergeant Kaye” or “Guru Kaye”), or maybe a color coding of their name to indicate level of experience and knowledge gained over time. Our system awards titles based on experience, actions in the simulation, and time spent assisting others. Research shows that introducing prestige rewards reflecting a participant’s expertise, knowledge and seniority are highly motivating to workers.

    A few minutes ago I completed my own diversity training course, and was given 25 virtual coins as a reward. My avatar now has 75 coins and as soon as she collects 100, she will head over to the tailoring shop in Metropolis and have her blue jumpsuit dyed jet black! My next goal for my avatar will be to earn a title. I think Imperator sounds about right for me (evil grin). It will take another two years, since it requires a user to complete so many learning quests, but there are only two Imperators in the company so far — and I plan to put in some personal hours to earn the right to become #3! Besides, it’s not really like work; it’s like playing a game. The company regularly verifies that the value received from the simulation system is substantial, but I still can’t believe I’m paid to do this!

    Documenting Team Meetings

    Reluctantly, I leave Metropolis and return to the real world, where it’s time for my weekly project team meeting. Today is President’s Day, and though our company doesn’t celebrate, an administrative support person who is revered for her pie-making prowess has baked six cherry pies. She and two of the young male staffers, dressed as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, are pushing a hovercart from desk to desk, and serving everyone in the office today. Pie in hand, I click another icon to start my team meeting. Each of our computers has a built-in minicam, and soon the live pictures of all six team members line up across my screen and we begin talking using voice over IP through our wireless headsets. One of the team has slides she has been drafting, and she presents them on the screen for our comments, updating them as we speak. Another member has found an interesting web site and wants to show us a couple of the features that he thinks we can incorporate into our project. He “team surfs” us to the site using his browser, and demonstrates the features as we watch and comment orally.

    A discussion-logging feature in the meeting software has been turned on, so the entire conversation was captured. After the meeting, I run the audiotape through transcribing software, give the results a quick check for accuracy, and then pass it through a parser, which pulls out the relevant commentary based upon my keyword criteria and discards the personal comments and asides. I review the summary, make a few corrections, and have the minutes from the meeting posted in our online team room web site within an hour. The parser automatically generates a copy of the final approved document, tags it by type, title, keyword frequency, date and participant names, and posts it into the company’s content management system. After an approval step, it will be placed into the knowledge repository, where it will eventually receive evaluation ratings by readers. Within six hours, the meeting notes are available for search retrieval by anyone in the organization (with permission to access these types of documents, of course).

    Building the Knowledge Base

    The “knowledge base” in which all company information is stored is huge, and requires powerful content management, search, and expertise location tools. Profiles drive everything. Each new employee is required to submit a personal profile to the knowledge system describing their expertise, interests and areas of specialization. As workers complete projects, they are prompted to update their profiles to indicate any new knowledge or experience gained. Profiles are used to determine who subject matter experts are and define the types of information each individual should have access to.

    Because so many workers come from other countries and English is not their first language, the system can also perform translations in 56 languages, and link to other internal and external content sources worldwide. This helps everyone to evaluate proprietary content against a high standard. With language barriers minimized, it’s easier to ensure distribution of information to the people who need it most.

    One fantastic development is that the world is now the resource for knowledge. No single laboratory or company has all the knowledge it needs for business development or sustained innovation. Open source software and access to information have improved information access across barriers dramatically. This has also led to better ‘surveillance systems’ that monitor technical and market developments, as well as where the talent is. Evaluating new content is everyone’s obligation, and user rankings help to bubble up the most important documents and items in the archives so they are easy to find and use.

    In general, the convergence of voice, data and television signals in IPTV has finally delivered the quality and speed improvement in communications that were touted at the turn of the century. The smart devices we use in daily interactions with our homes and offices, like my PDA and notebook computer, as well as my own TV remote control at home, provide dramatic speed and quality improvements, as well as direct interactions with various knowledge bases. The fact that any device can be a telephone, a television, and a digital video recorder has changed how people communicate. Broadcast programs and training modules can be downloaded and recorded at the same time that a virtual Internet meeting using voice and video exchanges is occurring on the same device.

    Meetings and conversations are routinely transcribed electronically, and emailed to participants for review and revision before entering them in the knowledge exchange system. People are not tied to their desks or a geographic location in order to have instant access to the best minds in the field, the best education, the best conferences, or the best resources of the organization. Stored text files now may contain embedded video clips or animated graphics or humor that will make the stored information a more complete and dynamic transcription of a person’s knowledge and experience. This has opened entirely new career paths for graphic designers, technical writers, and videographers, since society has become increasingly visual in its information needs and preferences.

    Now I’m shifting back to 2006. Think this scenario is too far out to be believed? Maybe you should ask some colleagues to read it and ask the same question. The reality is that every one of these technologies is being developed or is in use today. As usual, what will lag behind is the cultural flexibility that allows people to adapt and change their processes quickly. Organizations that get the dynamics right first, however, will create competitive advantages that other organizations will be rushing to copy. How do you think KM will be different 10 years from now? Will there even be a thing called knowledge management 10 years from now?

    divider
    May 17th, 2006

    Visualizing the Future of Knowledge Exchange (Part 1)

    Looking ahead is always fun, wrong, amazing and ridiculous, but I’m going to give it a try anyway. Here’s my own vision of a wild and wondrous place to work 10 years from now…assuming there are still such things as corporations (which some futurists doubt) and we don’t all work from home! If you’ve been wondering what an immersive learning/knowledge management system might look like, read this and Part 2, which describes the knowledge system in detail.

    Getting to the Office

    My commute to the office was uneventful as usual. The magnetic sensor lane of the highway moved my driverless bus quickly to my stop and I had a chance to catch the morning news headlines on the small overhead TV monitors. All the big cities are now completely wired with fiber optics, and wireless Internet access is pervasive, making the broadband convergence we heard about in the 1990s a reality at last and universally available. Light-guide Optical Element technology even enables personal, screenless displays by projecting images and data from computers, DVD players, or VCRs into the viewer’s eye, displaying them in the visual field of the viewer. They beam signals right into the eyeball without any need for a screen!

    I can’t wait to add an LOE micro projector to my next eyeglass purchase. Right now they are only available for training and dangerous or delicate occupations, like the military or demolition or microsurgery. I noticed a guy across from me using one of the new DNA based nano processors to play a multiplayer online game while riding to work. He was using his phone keypad and voice to enter commands. I’m not sure I’d like using those small keys to play a fast-paced game, but he seemed to have mastered it pretty well. He was also using a two-way audio system for communication and voice activation control of the application. Optical imaging technology has enabled a wide range of ultra-compact personal displays for mobile applications that are connected to the Internet 24/7.

    With security screening already commonplace for a decade or more, I move quickly through my building’s lobby to the security station that scans my palm print when I swipe my card key on the security scanner, and matches it with my card key RFID identifier chip. ID cards are increasingly sophisticated, and the government and big organizations work hard to ensure they cannot be duplicated fraudulently. An unobtrusive metal detector is mounted in a decorative framework that most high-rises now display in their lobbies. It knows the difference between coins, keys, medical prostheses like knee and hip replacements, nail files, and more sinister items, so we are rarely stopped mistakenly. Three tiny camera lenses hidden in the architecture scan each person.

    As I step into the elevator and the doors close, I hear the soft, almost silent whoosh of air as I rise silently to the 32nd floor. The elevator runs on a combination of batteries charged by ethanol generators and magnetic polarity, which makes the doors open and close with a sssssssnick, like the old-fashioned Star Trek bridge doors. As I walk out onto my floor, I’m in a wide, open space without walls. The central admin services are located toward the center of the floor near the elevators, and all around the outer edge the windows provide a tremendous view of the city and river below. The windows are strengthened with microscopic fibers during manufacture, and can resist breaking when an object is hurled at them at 60 miles per hour. This is important, since gale force winds are common here in the late summer months. In addition, they are light sensitive, so they darken when the sun’s light and heat are most intense, and they brighten again toward evening or on cloudy days. A coating of molecular particles that continuously repels dirt was applied to the outside of the windows, so there is no need for window cleaning or the dangerous acrobatics window washers of the 20th century routinely faced.

    The Office Environment

    What we used to call Generation Y is now in full bloom in the workforce. They work differently, and use technology as naturally as sleeping. In a bid to keep these young stars happy, the central core area also includes a lounge called the “bull pen”. It includes bean bag furniture, a refrigerator, book shelves with motivating and creative books and journals, a DVD player and disk collection anyone can use or borrow, a projection wall for TV or presentations, toy boxes containing touchy toys, throw toys, and all kinds of fidgety things to manipulate, like linked steel puzzles and Rubic’s cubes. In one corner there is a virtual dance machine with color-coded pads on the floor. The computer flashes a sequence of colors and tones, and the player must activate the same sequence using their feet. It’s a good mind clearing activity that gets the blood circulating! There are usually two or three small groups lounging about talking animatedly about some papers they have brought over, or debating theories and hypotheses. We are lucky our management realized early on that the best thinking and innovation can come from impromptu conversations and spontaneous work sessions among people of all ages and work responsibilities. Everyone uses the bullpen.

    My first stop is the central filing and locker area, where I pick up my personal work files and notebook computer, which I usually leave in the office. My PDA holds all the software and files I use on my notebook, so when I put it in the cradle at home, it syncs the work partition of my personal computer with my work computer, so I can start right where I left off if I decide to work from home. I prefer this to updating the central server and downloading at home, even though the update speed is about the same, because it lets me use my PDA to work or catch up on email when I’m on the road. Ubiquitous fiber optics have made Internet access and file transfer speeds so fast that working from any location is the norm. The universality of computing was accelerated by the chicken flu pandemic. Millions of people worldwide caused a virtual economic stop and financial panic because they simply refused to venture out into public places or go to work, fearing contamination. If another epidemic hits, it won’t be necessary to leave home!

    Now I face the first decision of the day…where shall I sit? The floor is wide open with standard desk configurations everywhere, allowing work teams or friends to group near each other ad hoc and change desks fluidly. White noise piped in over the audio system keeps the noise levels muffled. I choose a spot I like near the window, where I can see workers digging the pit for a new skyscraper across the street. The heavy earth moving equipment below looks like HotWheels toys, but I can still make out the big Trump “T” on the sides of them. We have been told the new building will be 100% “green”, and include huge indoor hanging gardens to convert the CO2 exhaled by residents to oxygen.

    The fact that any device can be a telephone, a television, and a digital video recorder has changed how people communicate. Broadcast programs and training modules can be downloaded and recorded at the same time that a virtual Internet meeting using voice and video exchanges is occurring on the same device. Conversations can be transcribed electronically and emailed to participants for review and revision before entering them in the knowledge exchange system. People are not tied to their desks or a geographic location, and they still have instant access to the best minds in the field, the best education, the best conferences, or the best resources of the organization. Accessing a stored text file now means the file can contain embedded video clips or animated graphics or humor that will make stored information a more complete transcription of a person’s knowledge and experience. This has opened entirely new career paths for graphic designers and videographers, since society has become increasingly visual in its information needs and preferences.

    Back on my floor, about every 30 feet or so, up high on the walls, are large flat panel TV screens. The sound is turned off, but workers can put on their wireless headsets and receive the latest news, sports or weather broadcasts at any time. There are many audio channels available, private channels reserved for confidential conversations and even customizable personal music channels. One entire wall by the water fountain simultaneously projects similar areas in two of our other large offices. We are experimenting with a “hallway networking” concept, where subject matter experts sign up for half hour time blocks several times each month when they will be available to have a hallway chat with anyone with a question or an idea. Anyone can walk up to the wall, and start a conversation with the other people present in the other offices, just as if they were present in the same room.

    Did I mention that half of the desks in the main room are empty? Employers understand for the most part that anyone who doesn’t need to be present to meet customers or project team members can work from home with the proper equipment. Results from the past 10 years have proven that workers who can work flexibly from home on their own schedules are more productive, produce better work products, have lower stress levels, enjoy better quality of life, experience fewer health risks, and feel great loyalty to their employer. Most organizations now routinely offer such options to workers from their first day on the job. The concept of “Web 2.0” took hold as organizations began to place trust in their workers, to rely on them to generate and manage the knowledge relevant to the organization’s success, and to enhance the user experience of technology to make it simpler and richer. Even managers feel less of a need to be in the office and “manage”. They are finally accustomed to working electronically and managing workers remotely.

    Claiming My Space

    As soon as I lay my combination cell phone and PDA in the charging cradle on the desk phone base, it alerts the switchboard where I am located. Now any incoming calls will be routed to my desk automatically, building security knows my location in case of any emergency, my PDA is automatically synchronized with my computer, and all my equipment is charging. I trade chairs with an empty desk. This chair can be programmed to my seating preferences. There is a scanner under the armrest, and when I swipe my badge over the sensor, the chair adjusts itself to my preprogrammed preferences. I like to sit high and have the chair arms low so my elbows are unsupported when I type, and I watch the chair conform to my specifications. I’m now ready to begin work at “my” desk.

    As I snap my laptop into the bay, my 21″ flat screen monitor pops on, and asks me to sign in to our secure corporate network. I run my first finger over the built in sensor in the keyboard, which recognizes my fingerprint, and I’m prompted for my user ID and password. Once I’m logged in, I have access to any information in the company that my individual profile entitles me to access. No more remembering half a dozen user names and passwords, no more multiple log ins — the system knows where I can go and knows how to get me there. Two windows pop up onto my screen…my calendar and my email listing. The calendar immediately triggers an audio alarm to remind me I have a training session beginning in 15 minutes, followed by a conference call at 11. Just enough time to get some coffee.

    I look around the screen for the familiar 3D animated image of my “personal butler”, who knows my preferences and resides in both my PDA and computer. I select an icon of a cheerful, turbaned djinn I named Omar, who interacts with me in a friendly voice I find appealing. He appears in a puff of virtual smoke and politely unrolls a scroll with a menu of service options — oil change for my car by the company mechanics, annual auto inspection (mine is about to expire), food items, drink items, single dose over the counter medications, travel reservations, electronic greeting cards, and discounts on tickets to shows, concerts, and theme parks. I click on the button for drinks, and it gives me a customized list of my favorite beverages, including Columbian dark roast coffee espresso with a splash of cream. Bingo! I press the button, Omar fires off the order, and I head to the central services area to pick it up.

    The system recognizes that it is making a beverage for me, and prints my name around the base of the cup before brewing the coffee. As I pick it up, my eyes are drawn to a sesame bagel with cream cheese on the nearby bakery table. Another temptation succumbed to, I pull out my ID badge, wave it over the sensor by the bagels, and take one to go. My ID card is linked with my bank account, so the charge for the bagel is sent immediately to the bank, where it is paid from my checking account and credited to the bagel vendor within seconds. There’s not much need to carry around pocket change in the big cities any more. Just about everything can be purchased electronically using a bankcard with a “smart” chip or a corporate ID badge. My badge also contains a DNA ID marker, which enables me to access secure areas and confidential information to which I need access.

    Back at my desk, I open the desktop portal application to load up my virtual training session. All the software I routinely use is there in the portal, and it’s all linked together. Files used or created by any application are accessible by any other application. A single click lets me reopen my desktop at exactly the point in all the applications I had open when I signed off yesterday, because the system lets me save a particular desktop view when I log out. Everything is instantly ready to go the next time I log on. I love this feature, because I no longer have to hunt for the documents I was working on.

    Now that I’m actually ready to begin working, I will enter the knowledge portal, from where I access all my reference materials, project work, and learning. More about that in Part 2 of of this article!

    divider
    May 1st, 2006

    KM Metaphors

    For the past few weeks, I’ve been struggling (as I’m sure most everyone else in the field does) to come up with another, better model to describe KM and its components and their relationships. If it were simple, Larry Prusak or David Snowden or Tom Davenport or John Maloney would have come up with “the” model 15 years ago. The fact that we are still struggling with it is a testimony to the complexity of something that seems on the surface to be so simple.

    In order to simplify it, since most of us can’t agree on a definition, we use metaphors when describing it to co-workers or customers or funding managers. Personally, I’ve used the blind men and the elephant to describe it with some success several times. People seem to get it when I say, “KM is more than a shared drive with a search engine. KM is like the elephant…some see the tail or the leg and think they understand what an elephant is from what they are touching. Everyone is only partly right.”

    With these thoughts floating around in my mind, I came across a series of short articles on Matt Moore’s blog discussing four metaphors for KM. The Library has a reference desk librarian and a collection of content. The Bank refers to intellectual capital and reusing it for added value. The Warehouse is fun, because it builds on the manufacturing analogy that makes KM more accessible for non-practitioners. In the Warehouse model, knowledge workers make and ship knowledge. They need knowledge “parts” to do that, and the inventory depreciates over time. Finally, KM databases as dustbins. (How fresh is your content?)

    There are probably more. I’d love to hear some.

    divider
    April 28th, 2006

    Semantic nitpicking? It’s not just in KM

    It looks like the knowledge management “profession” is not the only group to have definition problems creating confusion among the rank and file. Danc is a thoughtful and introspective (former) game developer, and he comments about the challenges of cataloguing game development innovations on his blog on April 9:

    “Here’s why I think this is important. Language is one of the biggest barriers to discussing game designs in an intelligent fashion amongst educated game designers. Currently, each designer is an island, isolated by and limited to their own design experiences. When they attempt to discuss even basic concepts with other designers, the terminology just doesn’t exist. Conversations devolve into exercises in semantic nitpicking as both parties desperately attempt to invent a common terminology on the spot.”

    I’ve found myself reading online community discussions recently where semantic nitpicking made up quite a few of the postings, yet we failed to invent the common KM terminology we need as a basis for meaningful discussion. I know it’s tiresome hearing me say this, but until we have universally accepted definitions for KM and its elements used consistently by practitioners, the wheel spinning and jockeying to promote proprietary (and often narrow) viewpoints will continue to confuse the issues, generate uncertainty, and glorify incomplete views.

    divider
    April 27th, 2006

    Ads — Coming Soon to a Game Near You

    In-game advertising already exists. Games like GrandTurismo, Def Jam Vendetta, and The Sims have been using product placements, billboards, store fronts, and other forms of in-game ads for several years. Advertising in non-traditional media is becoming increasingly important, especially for advertisers marketing to young male audiences. You can bet that advertisers are looking to get in front of their targeted demographic. The younger audience has been abandoning TV in favor of Internet and video games, and advertisers are eager to capitalize on the gaming explosion. World industry sources call for real-time game advertising revenue to grow into a $3 billion-plus global market by 2010. Gaming statistics show that 43% of PC gamers are now female, although only about 19% of female players play action games.

    Yesterday Microsoft announced that it plans to pay $200 million to $400 million for Massive, a privately held company that places ads in video games. Microsoft, which already runs a large advertising business around its MSN Internet unit, is attracting gamers with its Xbox Live service that connects gamers to the Web through its Xbox consoles. The company plans to roll out a new advertising system called adCenter that sells ads across the company’s Web content and services. Advertisers will be able to place ads through adCenter across Microsoft’s other platforms such as Xbox consoles and mobile devices. Massive’s advertising partners already include game publishers THQ, Vivendi Universal’s games unit, Take-Two Interactive Software’s 2K Sports, NCsoft and Konami. If Microsoft is in the game, can others be far behind?

    Advertising in games is inevitable in the future. Advertisers normally try to remain sensitive to the context and environment of their ads, and at first we can expect ads to be static and unobtrusive. At some point, however, and in some games, they are likely to become “advertainment” within the game. Ads will provide an alternate source of revenue, as advertisers work to gain exposure for their products through video and Internet games. Development costs rise with each generation of games, and for game developers, alternatives to help offset that cost and keep the price to consumers low are desirable. Gamers, of course, are concerned that advertising will bog down game play and alter the game environment so that they will no longer be “games”…just another merchandising venue. Game delays are also a real concern to players. Think about the web pages you’ve visited where the web site doesn’t load right away because the page is waiting 10 or 15 seconds on the Doubleclick servers to present an ad before showing the page. It’s not hard to imaging riding your virtual motorcycle at top speed down a highway into Los Angeles and coming to a dead standstill while the game locks up waiting for a series of animated billboard ads to load their content.

    Games like Grand Theft Auto, GrandTurismo, City of Heroes, and Need For Speed or team sports games will probably find easy acceptance of ads, because ads are such a colorful and dominant visual element in the real world counterparts of those games. It’s easy to imagine that clothing, cosmetics, electronics or furniture ads might blend in with a social gaming environment like Second Life, EVE Online or There. Maybe real life professional athletes or actors will license their images or voices for use in games or cut-scenes shown when players transition from one game play area to another. Maybe famous cartoon icons would show up in the game content…Woody Woodpecker or Micky Mouse or the Tasmanian Devil could play a role in the story. Maybe a player’s avatar will use a Motorola cell phone, or earn a pair of Wayfarer sunglasses, or watch a few seconds of an actual TV program on their game television. Perhaps an innkeeper would offer Mountain Dew or Coca-Cola or Budweiser on their in-game menu. Are we even in for advertising in the forced break between a character’s death and resurrection?

    It’s hard to imagine how an ad for modern products like blue jeans or automobiles or electronics would find an acceptable place in a medieval or fantasy game like Everquest or World of Warcraft, though. Can you imagine seeing a sign on the side of a building in Ironforge displaying a glass-eyed night elf female applying lipstick seductively? Just doesn’t seem to fit to me, although human minds are very creative, and there may be some way to package modern items palatably. It doesn’t, of course, acknowledge the issue that most of the female looking characters are actually played by males. Who would advertisers really be reaching? But that’s another discussion!

    Ads in games are inevitable, and truthfully, as long as the game developers pay great attention to maintaining the game ambience and environment, players are not likely to object. Newpapers and TV have shown us, however, that developers could become susceptible to changes requested by advertisers, to the detriment of the game product. If you start using in-game popups or compromise the game play or integrity, that game will die a quick death. Advertisers should take note that a substantial and growing number of players are over 40 and play games to escape from the real world. Advertisers must understand the environment they are entering, and research who actually plays there and how. Then they can probably find a viable alternative that we will (grudgingly) accept.

    divider
    April 25th, 2006

    Weighing In on Corporate Blogs

    I have experienced doubt concerning corporate blogs. As a former communicator, I believe some structure and filtering of communication is called for, even if you ignore the desire to control corporate messages. Otherwise, it is just more noise and will be more of a minus than a plus for the organization. Paolina at Green Chameleon raised the same question…is corporate blogging really the next big thing? Put me in the “No” camp.

    Nearly three years ago, I initiated a test of a blogging tool in a Fortune 500 company, but limited the application to competitive intelligence. We invited only the people in the organization who received or used competitive intelligence to participate and to use the commenting features. They supported it vigorously in concept–but it had only limited success. Truthfully, I considered it a failure, and it wasn’t even real blogging. They were merely using a blogging tool to interact with information, and they did not have their own personal blogs.

    Releasing personal blogs on the entire organization would have just created a mess. Most of the people were not used to interacting and commenting online, and most felt like they already have too much to read to go exploring a company blogosphere. Some would certainly have found it an excuse to spend time away from what they should actually have been working on. I know a lot of KM practitioners are excited about blogs and wikis and such, but, practically speaking, I just don’t see it working. There are too many organizational issues around them (privacy, control, guidelines and standards, ownership of content, etc.). Most organizations rightly will see them as a lot of extra work for very little, if any, additional value and a lot of potential risk…no matter how inexpensive the software is.

    divider
    April 25th, 2006

    The Value of Big KM Conferences

    Patrick Lambe at Green Chameleon told an interesting story about how he has been blacklisted by one of the large KM conference organizations. One of their inexperienced marketing people told him by mistake. It was eye-opening to me, and made me start thinking again about my KM conference experiences. I posted something related last fall.

    I’ve been speculating a bit myself recently about why KM conferences aren’t more successful for attendees — namely, why don’t the so-called big name people show up and stay? We pay a lot of money, and would value the opportunity to shake hands with the gurus whose books we read and whose advice we follow. Patrick’s article points to a possibility I had not considered, namely, that conference organizers potentially keep some people out. I have wondered things like, why don’t the speakers that do come remain for the entire conference, not just fly in for their sessions and out the same day? Are they really that busy? Are they worried that people might ask them for free advice or a job? Why, when some people are obviously a hit with the attendees and have something valuable to share, aren’t they back the following year? There are clearly politics of some sort at work.

    I’ve wondered if the advisory boards of these conference organizations aren’t a little closed to outside thoughts. Invariably there are recognized names on those boards, but it’s hard to find a single one of them without a vested interest in having their own colleagues as presenters or in pushing their proprietary point of view forward. In principle, I don’t object to that…people do volunteer work for business development and other reasons. I do object to not finding out about the creative things being done in the field at conferences. Each year we seem to get repeat speakers who have financial interest in participating. They are there to push their forthcoming book (orders taken at the table in the back) or new software. They have a new training or certification program for KM (fee only, of course). They bought a big exhibit space. We are not getting the ones who have launched KM on a shoestring using open source software, or ran a novel COP pilot, or created a completely new KM model without input from a big name consulting organization, or wrote a provocative thesis.

    People on the business side of KM only seem to get invited if they work for a big corporate name. They are, unfortunately, often the weakest presenters at the event because they are one track ponies and can’t bring context to the learnings that the rest of us would like to take away.

    Finally, there is the issue of last minute substitutions. Do conference organizers publish the conference speaker lists too early in the process? Do the speakers disrespect their commitments so much that they will fail to show up after their name has been published? (After all, they’ve had the free publicity, why should they go to the trouble to prepare and show up?) Why would three, five, or ten speaker substitutions announced at the conference be tolerated? There’s a black list that should be created! A few can be understood, but when there are so many that it creates confusion about what session you are sitting in, doesn’t it become the conference version of bait and switch?

    There is a schism that threatens KM and it’s the same that appears in most fields where the financial stakes are high for being “right”. Biotech and software development come to mind. Practitioners rush to publish and copyright or trademark their idea or their work, and then spend the rest of their careers defending their one good idea. The way to make the KM field grow and gain meaning and respect is collaboration — building upon what others have contributed. It doesn’t take a Wiki. It takes a willingness. It’s optimistic to hope that the people who rush to create training programs focused on only their own approaches to the problem will have an epiphany and suddenly start to share their knowledge freely, but wouldn’t it be nice?

    Right now the planning is on for the big fall conferences. I hope that the organizers for all of them can rise above the competition of proprietary interests, and the demands of financial backers to have sponsors, and put the best people on the podium to talk about the real issues and the creative solutions.

    divider
    April 16th, 2006

    New Communities Page

    From time to time I post rather detailed answers to questions in the various online communities I monitor and participate in. Recently I decided to pull the juicier ones together in one place here on my blog, so check out the new “Comments on Communities” page! I’ll probably make another page for KM related postings when I have the time. Is this useful to anyone?

    divider
    April 14th, 2006

    On Hitting Level 60 — Again

    My gaming experience recently has been about getting my little gnome rogue to level 60, and I succeeded last week. This posting is going to be a complete diversion from my usual more analytical things. It’s simply a mile marker for me on the gaming path.

    My main character, a night elf druid, has languished a bit as a result of my time with the rogue. My rogue is a funny, cute little character, and it was challenging in the beginning to learn to play her well. A druid is a balanced character with many play style options. I chose the “healer” style, but with a lot of emphasis on being able to do damage with my spells, since I usually end up hunting solo with her most of the time. The rogue, however, feels more powerful! She can stealth around almost invisible, pick pockets, slip by all but the biggest monsters unseen, pick locks others have to do key quests for, stun prey so they can’t move while she’s beating on them, and just generally make life miserable for the evil creatures of the game.

    One nice by-product of building a rogue is that I no longer need to ignore my druid’s “feral” abilities. Now when she shapeshifts into cat form, I understand the different abilities she has, because they are actually rogue-like abilities. It’s made playing the druid even more enjoyable in recent weeks.

    When I got the druid to level 60, the group I was with went to one of the inns and sat down at a big table and toasted and celebrated with in-game liquor. We danced, we told jokes and had a nice party. I’ve been leveling the rogue with another friend who also has a level 60 rogue, so we leveled together, and went to the inn, toasted with a glass of wine, and then went back to our respective resting places. Now we have to figure out what’s next!

    I applaud World of Warcraft for attempting to keep the high level players engaged in the game. They continuously publish new instance environments, new quests, new areas for high level players to test themselves. Realistically, unlike power players, which I am not, I will never achieve the high level armor sets, or the awesome weapons and trinkets. I simply have too much fun being invincible in the little world of the game that I know. I can go around picking plants for my herbalism efficiently and almost without consequence. Level 60 (especially with stealth ability) is too big for most of the bad creatures who tend to stand near the plants I use to risk attacking me. It’s exhilarating to zoom through a zone mounted on my mechanical “chicken” and grab every plant in sight as fast as I can. And it’s great fun to help the younger players. Today I helped a level 24 find the secret rogue hideout in the mountains, where rogues go to obtain class quests. He was attacked by every bear and spider in the area, and my tiny rogue would dispatch them with maybe two swings. I make no bones about liking to feel powerful…how often does that happen in real life? He said, “Wow!” several times, and it made me feel strong, invincible and worthy of admiration — and it was fun! Last weekend I bought a bow a very nice level 18 player was drooling over and mailed it to him. I have no idea who he is/was. I’ve already forgotten the name. But this is a consistent thing with me…and it’s often said of women players — that I enjoy talking with and helping others. It’s fun speculating who is actually behind that other keyboard. Personally, I’ve always gotten pleasure from answering questions, and helping “younger” players.

    What I don’t care much about is the so-called set piece armor the game offers…the mark of accomplishmment one gets for fighting and being lucky in the bigger raid dungeons. My current armor has statistics equal to the set pieces — even if the set pieces are all designed to match, and my current attire is somewhat shabby looking! But realistically, I’m going to have to make a decision quite soon. It will get dull just running around collecting herbs, and then selling them or making potions, and helping the “newbies”. I’ll have to join a big guild and do big group raids, or I will have to throw myself into PvP (player versus player) combat. I’ve actually done both with my druid, and enjoy both equally. Or I can just start another character and build her to level 60. I do have two horde characters and a young mage and young priest already started. I’m just not sure at the moment which way to go.

    Having known and played with characters of every class, I never get over being amazed at the level of detail that WoW manages to deliver. Every class is unique and has special abilities. Every class is fun to play. Every class has options that let the player customize their character’s play style to suit themselves. And the map of the game is enormous and growing. My personal preference is to be a mapper. The graphics are stunning. I love running around and just looking at the scenery! It’s incredibly well-executed in WoW and I never get tired of roaming in the forest and water zones (I could do without so many lava zones and the “weather” effects!).

    The exquisite level of detail was brought home to me in the past few weeks, because I started playing Dungeons & Dragons Online a bit, just to see how it works and whether I might like to play it with some old work colleagues. Quite simply, I am spoiled. The DDO user interface is customizable, but is still clunkier than WoW‘s. The graphics bring my powerful computer to its knees…everything is jerky and there is no precision to the control. I have other friends who are enjoying it, but I simply think I have Azeroth in my blood now, and it will be hard to give up WoW for another enticement. Unless Blizzard’s poor communications with and service to players continues to get worse. There is still so much to discover there, so many quests to complete, and so many items to win! Not to mention, so many people to meet. As a number of social scientists have observed in other blogs, WoW is a great laboratory to watch and experiment with human interactions and dynamics! Maybe I’ll just enjoy being level 60 again, and start saving my gold to buy a high speed mount. I know I’ll need that whichever way the fortunes of a rogue blow…

    divider
    April 12th, 2006

    Simple Gauge for Communities of Practice: I am a (blank)

    I always enjoy reading the blog of the Anecdote consulting organization in Australia. They are great people and frequently post insightful observations on communities of practice and knowledge management. Recently Shawn Callahan posted about a little test he uses to determine whether a community has a chance to succeed in building an identify and affinity among members. Since community has to start with a sense of belonging in order to succeed, I think this is a useful tool for any KM practitioner to have in their back pocket.

    Shawn wrote, “When someone says, ‘I would like to start a community of practice.’ I ask, ‘Can you describe the potential members by completing the following sentence? I am a ….’ If they can fill in the blank in a way that people can passionately identify with the descriptor then there is a chance a community might emerge.” In his example, “I am a project manager” had a good chance to succeed, while “I am a technical” did not.

    I’ve seen this in my own experience. Groups with a clear sense of what commonality binds them together are more likely to have a viable community. If someone can say “I am an underwriter” or “I am a third grade teacher” or “I am the parent of a brain injured child” or “I am a User Interface designer”, then there will be a clear match in interests with anyone else who answers the same way. In my gaming life, that even includes being a player of a certain game, or a member of a particular guild/clan within a certain game or a certain class of player.

    Trying to build communities that are too broad, for example, “I am an XYZ Company employee” or “I am a management consultant” will result in some or all of the following:

  • lack of participation/interest
  • coalescing of smaller and more narrowly defined sub-groups who share common interests
  • ineffective use of the community resource/tools
  • failure to achieve desired objectives
  • Building a community of everyone who can say “I am a developer” will successfully segregate the programmers from the people in business operations, however, it will still be far too broad to make it relevant for participants. Defining subsets of developers into “I am a Cobol programmer” or “I am a web user interface developer” or “I am a team leader” will result in bringing people with greater commonalities together and help them to start the conversations that will add value to their work and to the business.

    divider
    April 11th, 2006

    KM and Learning: Overlapping Strategies and Values

    In another posting, I noted some definitions that show how fragmented our understanding of the relationship between KM and learning are. Shirley Hazlett et al. suggest that KM is in a state of pre-science and we lack understanding of the underlying assumptions: “…attempts to develop an optimal KM methodology are misplaced unless the underlying assumptions and paradigms are identified and understood…KM is currently in a state of ‘pre-science,’ wherein proponents of different paradigms have their own beliefs and values and often disagree with others about fundamentals within the field.” I believe this is true. I see it in the discussion groups I’m a member of. For me, the confusion and conflict is what makes KM such an interesting problem to solve. It’s a time when everyone’s voice is equal to everyone else’s, and while we are coming up with applications, approaches, and solutions right and left, the core statements of what KM is and what it does are still very much undefined. There’s a kind of “we know it when we see it” dynamic at work.

    To me, there is significant overlap in the processes of knowledge management and learning, but they are distinctly different processes. It is worthwhile for us to understand where they overlap and where they are different in order to help organizations use the benefits each offers effectively. For example, both focus on people and use or create content, but learning creates courses to close knowledge gaps, while KM measures what is already known and creates processes to capture it. Verna Allee said in 2000 “eLearning could be a cornerstone of knowledge management but most elearning companies have failed to master the basic theory and practice of knowledge management. They not only cannot intelligently speak about knowledge management practice from a marketing perspective, they don’t even have a coherent internal understanding of knowledge management or a serious knowledge management strategy of their own.”

    G.P. Huber identified four integral elements linked to knowledge in the organizational learning process, and suggested that knowledge is essential for learning. Those learning elements are:

  • Knowledge acquisition. Knowledge may be acquired intentionally (searching) or unintentionally (noticing).
  • Knowledge/information distribution Information/knowledge from various sources must be shared: the wider the distribution, the greater the ability to learn. Distribution may be through formal processes or through informal contacts and learning by doing.
  • Information interpretation. Information is given meaning and shared understandings are developed. This may occur through formal meetings and discussions, or through recursive and informal, intuitive experiences.
  • Organizational memory. Knowledge is stored for future use, either formally codified (reports, memos and so on) or institutionalized in cultural values.
  • With a nod to the first President Bush, I have been known to say “It’s the people, stupid!” in response to business managers who get excited about KM and then lurch into action immediately to create new repositories of content in order to “capture knowledge”. Information is simply the input. Human insight is the output that changes information into knowledge.

    Knowledge is critical to organizational success, as noted by Nonaka and Takeuchi, but people are the critical component in KM, not databases. I’m not saying that databases, information management and intellectual capital are not important. They are. I’m saying they are not “knowledge”. Knowledge is always the tacit wisdom contained in the head of someone with experience related to the topic. For that reason, expertise location and knowledge sharing are more important to KM than information/content management, even though both are needed. From the dawn of the species, humans shared knowledge without databases and indices.

    There is a strong correlation between the importance of knowledge to organizational success and the need to nurture employees, as evidenced in the early 1990s by Buckman Labs. Nurturing so-called knowledge workers occurs through providing an environment in which they can both develop new knowledge (learning) and share what they know. Steve Barth wrote, “A knowledge worker is an asset that appreciates over time. Knowledge itself is more often a depreciating asset.” There are abundant examples of the importance of nurturing knowledge workers in the extensive internal learning and KM programs of all the large consulting and professional services organizations today, where people are the product they offer.

    People are the key to both learning and knowledge management, and cultural readiness is an important component of any KM program. Providing technologies for knowledge sharing, motivating people to share what they know, and improving knowledge sharing processes are the realm of KM–for example, in efforts to “enable the knowledge worker”. Identifying knowledge gaps, and providing curricula for education and to create personal knowledge are the realm of learning.

    Learning and KM Alignment – the point of divergence

    I posed the question of the relationship between learning and KM to a discussion group recently, and here are some of the comments. Joe Firestone, who has written books that cover this topic said, “KM is not a subset of learning, but is the set of management activities intended to enhance learning processes.” Matt Moore, with IBM’s Business Consulting Services division, said “most of those involved in learning…know that most learning does not occur within classrooms – but rather on the job. Coaching and mentoring programs can help here, but increasingly they are looking to knowledge management for support around ‘just in time’ learning programs.” Some educators see learning as a product that they produce. Euan Semple commented that his organization named their KM program “Informal Learning” and it was difficult for some in the training group (where the KM initiative reported) to accept. “You are right though that some in training found this a challenge. The idea that the best knowledge is out there, current and manifest in conversations, can be challenging to those who have made a career out of dispensing it as a product. ”

    Matt Moore further highlighted the strain of differences in a KM or a traditional learning approach: “People tend to fall back on what they know, and if you are a fantastic workshop facilitator or a great instructional designer, then nuturing a community of practice or running ‘lessons learned’ activities can be an alien experience. The tensions between JIT Learning & prescriptive curricula are also becoming apparent.” In another communication that presents a positive relationship between knowledge sharing and learning, Mark Spain said he advised a small business owner to use structured team discussions of unusual occurrences to enhance organizational knowledge and create a learning organization. “If you learn to review critical incidents with respect, openness with each other and a willingness to improve by tackling the difficult or embarrassing aspects of the conversation, you are starting to be what the theory describes as a Learning Organisation. You will know you have the opportunity to learn (or change) if you feel uncomfortable in parts of the process but get support from each other to continue because it adds some value to each other.”

    F. J. Miller provides some finetuning for learning, saying that training is explicit (i.e., information delivery) and learning is tacit (i.e., the making of personal meaning). Experiments conducted by BHP Engineering attempted to understand the meanings people attach to certain key words in the workplace. When the word training was thrown into the ring, surprisingly, it typically evoked negative reactions. Words like teaching, classrooms, schedules, assessment, authority, competency measurement, control, accreditation, dependency, tests, discipline, boredom, and manipulation covered the white board in the room. Learning, on the other hand, generated a quite different and more positive list, evoking such responses as: self-direction, understanding, enthusiasm, self-pacing, independence, open discussion, success, commitment, freedom, ease of access, excitement, maturity, and honesty. Despite these very different perceptions and responses, organizations still continue to use the language of training and learning virtually synonymously.

    In Summary…

    Knowledge management and learning work in tandem for greatest organizational and individual effect. In a nutshell:

    Knowledge exists only in a person’s brain and it is unique to each person. Learning is a building process for creating knowledge. Knowledge is the product of learning. Knowledge in a person’s head becomes information as soon as it is written or transmitted. Information is used to develop learning modules. The learning process passes structured information to brains, where it is selectively converted to knowledge as the information gains personal meaning. Information can be organized and managed; knowledge cannot. Knowledge management is an oxymoron, but using KM techniques to enhance learning initiatives results in a wide range of organizational benefits.

    divider
    April 11th, 2006

    Knowledge and Information: a Discussion

    Recently I had some discussions with colleagues and friends about the relationship between learning and knowledge. I captured one of those conversations between me (“A”) and a good friend (“B”), and I’m reprinting it here (with permission, of course):

    A:
    “What is the relationship between learning and knowledge?”
    B:
    We know what we’ve learned.
    A:
    Can you know without learning?
    B:
    I don’t think so.
    A:
    Do you know enough German to know the difference between kennen and wissen?
    B:
    No, I have not that “knowledge”, for I have not ‘learned” German
    A:
    (smile)
    Okay. Back to knowing without learning.
    I think you can know without learning. I think you can “know” how to stop breathing when you are under water or that food is necessary. Things like that. Babies don’t come out learning to eat. They know to eat, and learn HOW to use utensils to eat.
    B:
    Is that knowledge, or reflex?
    After all, the first time you try breathing under water and inhale a mouthful of water, you’ll *LEARN* not to do that.
    I’m not sure you’re born with that knowledge.
    A:
    I’m want to get to a definition of knowledge, not debate reflexes vs. learned behaviors. I’ve been reading a lot of definitions recently, and they are all somewhat wrong. Some are partially right, but terms are not defined in the same way. I’m trying to close in on a working definition I can propose.
    B:
    Well, there are some things then that you don’t learn…for example, you never “learn” how to make your heart beat… it just does. Is that knowledge?
    A:
    Right. I was trying to avoid inherent biological functions. Though maybe they are “known”…but I think they are unconscious instincts.
    B:
    They are definitely not known.
    A:
    But on some level it is a knowing. Maybe in the midbrain or something there is an unconscious “knowing”.
    B:
    I don’t *know* anything about digestion, kidney functions, etc
    A:
    But your medula oblongata does, because it monitors and manages those functions. Your higher brain may not.
    B:
    It doesn’t “know”, it responds to chemical stimuli.
    A:
    Don’t get into chemicals…if it comes down to it, everything in the body is chemical stimuli and response.
    B:
    That may be, but some of those chemical stimuli and responses result in “knowledge”, and an awareness of that knowledge, whereas other stimuli just amount to my stomach digesting the hummus and chips I’m eating.
    A:
    So, in 1967 Michael Polanyi identified that there is “tacit knowledge” and “explicit knowledge”. I think we are talking around that here. Tacit knowledge exists in the organism/brain and is information that has been filtered through your own personal experiences and reflection to have a personal meaning. Explicit ‘knowledge’ (as he called it) is the stuff that gets written down/codified. I believe, however, that anything that is codified is no longer knowledge. It is information. Information with more or less value to others, but information all the same…a kind of higher data.
    B:
    He was a physicist. What does he know anyway? :-)
    A:
    Here’s what I’m proposing for a definition. What do you think? I think it’s stuffy and arcane, but … many are worse!
    “Knowledge management is a process that uses a variety of social tools and technologies to capture information that an individual has absorbed and modified, using their own personal experiences and personal understandings as a filter, into a modified iteration of information that can be reviewed and used by others.”
    B:
    So is “information” higher or lower than “knowledge”?
    That is, is there “information” that is not “knowledge”, or is there “knowledge” that is not “information”?
    A:
    There’s no higher or lower. Information is used to create knowledge and it can be the product of knowledge. That’s a good question, though. I’ll have to think it through.
    B:
    Bottom line is, what’s the difference? Because according to your suggested definition, “knowledge management” is about “information”, not “knowledge”.
    A:
    Bingo! The difference is what can you manage. You can manage information but not knowledge. KM is an oxymoron.
    B:
    So why not call it “information management”?
    A:
    Because IT already owns that, and it’s about databases and fields and variables. KM also has a people/expertise component…an evaluation is implied. It’s not just hard, analytical data. It’s also opinions, observations, assessments, plans, etc. Plus, managing knowledge sounds more important than managing data.
    B:
    So I think that that’s the crux of the difference… to me, information is more facts and knowledge is more interpretation/analysis.
    I can say “the temperature outside is 41 degrees”… that is more information than knowledge, though you could say that you now know the temperature in Columbia… but that’s because the verb “to know” is limited.
    A:
    Well, that’s not exactly correct. Information is facts, but it can be more than facts, because not all information is true. I’m assuming here that “facts” are true.
    Knowledge is information that is passed through one’s personal filters of all kinds and interpreted.
    B:
    False information is still information
    A:
    But you said information is facts. Facts are true, therefore, the implication is that information is true. I’m saying not all information is true.
    B:
    To me, “information management” is about databases and fields and variables, but lacks the insights gained through analysis, and those insights are “knowledge”. So maybe in a way, information is barebones and primal, while knowledge has to do with interpreting information and extracting stuff that goes beyond the information. For example, take a profile captured by a radiation detector: it’s a bunch of numbers, representing the number of gamma particles hitting the detector at regular intervals. I can give you such a profile: that is all the “information” there is, and we put that in a database. However, if you have the knowledge, you can analyze the profile and figure out what material it was that generated those numbers. So, “information management” has to do with capturing/managing the raw numbers, while “knowledge management” needs to capture/manage the analysis by which someone determines whether those raw numbers are generated by one radioactive material or another.
    A:
    Not exactly…KM can’t capture/manage the analysis process, just the results of it. And that is exactly the point! Knowledge takes a brain! Which means people hold knowledge, not databases. You can’t capture “knowledge”. Once it can be put into a database, it is no longer knowledge, even though someone may still “know” the information. It is simply information. From a KM standpoint, we are less concerned with what information is captured or how it’s stored. We are more concerned with finding ways to entice people to share information so it can be captured and later retrieved by others for a variety of reasons, learning among them. So KM has to do with creating an environment were information can be shared, while maintaining a record of who knows the details of the shared information to make it possible for a “seeker” to find the “knower” and get enhanced information from him/her—with technology or otherwise—and rewarding people for participating.
    A:
    The reality is that KM practitioners are not going to call themselves information managers, because there are big interpersonal components to the KM practice that go way beyond building databases and input tools. For example, communities and how they create new information through member interaction, social networks and how they affect the flow of information, process workflows, etc. Expertise location capabilities. Rewards and recognition. Valuing of intellectual capital assets. Identifying information needs. All of those are part of KM.
    A:
    In general, I assume KM is a specialized type of information management — one that is partially the same as conventional information management, yet more. It’s a specialized type of management, because it actually creates the environment in which people can interact in a way that facilitates exchanges of personal knowledge between people…typically via codifying the information and storing it somewhere for reuse by others.
    A:
    The management comes in the managing of the variables that enable the free flow of information from someone who has it to someone who needs it. We can’t manage knowledge. (And I think that’s why many people think KM is the wrong discipline name for what we do—but we can’t seem to come up with another one!)

    You can see that the conversation digressed from KM’s relationship with learning. If you have any thoughts on how knowledge, learning, knowledge management, and information management are related, I’d love to hear them.

    divider
    March 15th, 2006

    KM Value Derives from Business Leaders

    In the March, 2006 issue of The Source for KM Professionals, Chris Collison, one of the authors of the famous narrative on the development of KM in British Petroleum called Learning to Fly, discusses the value of metrics in KM. One of his statements really struck me. He was talking about how they had gone back to various participants in the KM program and asked them for stories that would demonstrate the value of KM to executives, and said “Did they have credibility as stories? Absolutely yes – because of who was telling them. Did the stories inspire others and give momentum to what was going on? Definitely.”

    To me, this is the only way that KM practitioners can demonstrate the value of KM. KM will always be one of many influencing factors that results in more sales or cost avoidance or expense reduction or better products. What gives KM credibility is having the business leaders who have experienced value from the system stand up and say so. Other business leaders will listen and believe, because of who is telling them. As KM practitioners, we can report the same statistics or make the same claims, but it won’t have as much credibility as having the business person tell the story and give the credit.

    I think that may change how I next approach looking for budget approvals or increases. I plan to quote the executives who have a value story to tell about KM, and let them make the sale for me. Think it will work?

    divider
    March 13th, 2006

    E-Learning’s State of the Art

    This morning I received a copy of the Ark Group’s most recent study results on e-learning. While it is UK-based and focuses on technology, it shows a shift has occurred from what I observed personally in the U.S. several years ago, and shows some maturation of the field, as well as the beginnings of standardization in tools. In the late 1990s most trainers and corporate educators were largely unfamiliar with using personal computers. They were very experienced with face-to-face interactions with students, developing learning plans, and cutting, pasting and photocopying materials for courses. Learning management systems were new, challenging to learn, and not terribly intuitive for novice users — both instructor and student.

    The Ark study indicates that e-learning systems have changed from inhouse developed applications to more mainstream technologies. It also says that e-learning has failed to deliver both satisfaction and ROI, when on the surface, e-learning ought to be an easy sell, to both management and students. E-learning, like knowledge management, talent development programs, and employee communications, simply must be able to demonstrate a justifiable return on investment for management to be able to continue to support it. It’s not enough in today’s business climate for well-intentioned (and intelligent) educators and HR professionals to say that learning/development programs are intuitively worthwhile. Financial people need hard results they can attach dollars/pounds/euros/yen to. Identifying the right metrics to use to measure learning impact may be the trickiest part of implementing and maintaining a learning management system.

    Here is a list from the study of metrics that were submitted by an Australian hotel chain:

  • Positive audit on compliance
  • Improved availability and accuracy of reports with reduction of time in delivery
  • Decrease in cost of providing training
  • Decrease in time to have an employee workplace ready
  • Increase in number of employees who believe they have sufficient opportunity to develop skills/eligibility for other roles or promotion
  • Satisfaction increase in access to reports and data for analysis
  • Increase in effectiveness of management reports
  • Increase of approval for all course applications
  • I found it interesting that so many high ranking responses to the questions mirrored the pre-Internet way of education, showing that many educators still appear to be looking for a balance between the “old way” and e-learning (and reflect an aging training work force?). For example, on the question “What would you say are the main drawbacks of e-learning?” High ranking responses included “Lack of face-to-face contact” and “Reduced interaction between tutor/pupil”. On the question, “How valuable would you say e-learning tools are to corporate training?”, the top answer was “Useful, but not essential.” The survey was obviously geared to corporate educators, though it’s unclear from the study report how many participants there were. It would be interesting to see if a survey of learners of a variety of ages using e-learning tools would have the same responses.

    Get your own copy of the study, called State of the Art: E-Learning 2006, from Inside Knowledge magazine here.

    divider
    March 13th, 2006

    Why I’ve Been Silent

    The past three weeks have been interesting for me to experience and observe. I haven’t posted any articles to this blog during that time, though I have been working on several, and I have been thinking about why I haven’t. I believe it comes down to writing myself into a box with the last article! Blogging can contain personal essays, but the reality is, they need to be brief, even when you are dealing with a complex topic broken into separate postings. My thoughts about defining KM and the overlaps between KM and learning simply took/are taking more time than I thought they would, and I’ve not let myself post anything so as not to break the flow of that series of essays.

    Well, I’m not happy with the results of that. There’s now a three week gap. So I will remedy that by publishing some things I’ve been wanting to write in the interim. Then I will go back to the KM/learning articles. Maybe that will help me to complete the work I started. (I’m not sure that anyone reading this cares, but I thought I’d explain anyway!)

    divider
    February 22nd, 2006

    KM and Learning: A Matter of Definition

    The more I read about KM, the more humbled I am by the insights and wisdom of the people who have attempted over the years to bring the field into focus. Every time I think I have had a brilliant insight, I seem to find a paper from 1999 or 2002 by someone who articulated what I just discovered beautifully. Instead of feeling embarrassed or wanting to disprove what they say, I feel joy! First, the fact that I got to an idea that someone else thought important to publish is invigorating and reaffirming, and secondly, I feel awe that the human brain is such an amazing instrument. At times it makes me want to give up writing about the things I’m learning, because I don’t see how I can improve upon what someone else said, yet I also often have the experience of reading a phrase and having it spark new insights for me.

    I am intrigued most by the human dynamics of KM. One of the fuzzy areas to me, and I think to many people in the field, is how learning and knowledge management are related. I’ve seen several models representing the dynamics of knowledge and learning, and frankly, I haven’t found them compelling. They feel incomplete. It’s hard to create a complete model when each author starts from scratch and defines terms in their own way. The effort to compare apples to apples becomes daunting. I’m starting to sound like a broken record to myself, but it would be very helpful to have definitions we can all agree to and use consistently! To move KM forward, we need to build upon a base of …knowledge… we all share. I think we will spin in place until we do. This is the first part of a three-part series on the intersection of learning and knowledge management, and it deals with…definitions!

    We All Think We Know

    Learning and knowledge are things that everyone thinks they know about and understand (we all went to school, after all), but when you probe a little, few people really do. Our understanding is colored by assumptions filtered through our own experiences, rather than by unassailable and commonly accepted definitions of terms that can form the base for understanding and scholarly discourse.

    You’ll see what I mean if you try this little experiment the next time you are out with friends or colleagues. It’s guaranteed to liven up the dinner conversation! I asked a small sample of people, “What is the relationship between learning and knowledge?” Most people become somewhat confused by the question, but, with a little pushing, you’ll receive answers that are more or less insightful, depending upon the person. I’m willing to bet, though, that your average response will be something along this line “Well, learning is something you do, and knowledge is…what you know!”

    People in learning/teaching/training professions tend to consider knowledge a product of their work and knowledge management to be one of the tools of their profession. People who work in knowledge management typically take a different view, seeing learning as a knowledge creation process and separate from the knowledge management process. This is mainly an academic point, until you happen to be in an organization that wants to develop a knowledge management system or improve its learning delivery approach. Battles can develop quickly over who dominates on the organization chart. Clearly, overlap exists in the terminology, technology, and approaches used in both areas, yet most “corporate U” people and “KM” people don’t themselves understand how it all works together. Instead of collaborating, they can waste a lot of energy and resources on staking out and trying to hold their turf. One only has to review the well-known case studies of organizations like Xerox and British Petroleum to see that there is no mention of learning or the relationship between KM and learning when knowledge management activities and metrics are described.

    The organizational struggle between learning and KM reminds me of the organizational factionalism that exists between corporate communications and public relations departments, which have more commonality than difference. It’s short-sighted feudalism, and detracts from getting work done.

    Some Working Definitions

    In 1998 Nancy Zurbuchen said “The subject is too young for fads, let alone for tried-and-true disciplines; but it is old enough to need a vocabulary.” Lack of widely accepted definitions remains one of the biggest problems with KM today.

    Some see KM as a business process, some as information or content management, some as a toolkit, some as a technology. As an example, I have reviewed knowledge management presentations from a number of organizations and individuals, and inevitably in their presentations they offer a slide that defines knowledge management. They are amazingly different! Each definition of KM is skewed toward the skill set or product they want to sell…software, business process improvement consulting, call center efficiency, “knowledge” capture. Inability to define what it is we do and want to do in a common way is limiting. Perhaps we can get closer to a definition by comparing KM and learning.

    According to the Wikipedia, learning is:

    “…the process of acquiring knowledge, skills, attitudes, or values, through study, experience, or teaching, that causes a change of behavior that is persistent, measurable, and specified or allows an individual to formulate a new mental construct or revise a prior mental construct (conceptual knowledge such as attitudes or values). It is a process that depends on experience and leads to long-term changes in (an individual’s) behavior potential.”

    To sum this definition up, learning occurs in the brain when new information is gained for an organizational purpose (in the business world) or self-betterment.

    Knowledge is defined as both “information of which someone is aware” and “the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose.” Sadly, I believe this definition misses the target entirely. Serious work is clearly needed on this definition yet (which is a problem with using Wikipedia definitions). Knowledge may a priori require awareness of information, but understanding is not inherent, and potential applications of knowledge are not relevant to defining it. Let’s try another source.

    The American Heritage Dictionary defines knowledge as,

  • The state or fact of knowing.
  • Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
  • The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
  • This is pretty good, but hard to turn into a compelling bullet point for a management presentation.

    Tom Davenport (1998) offers this definition, “Knowledge is information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection. It is a high-value form of information that is ready to apply to decisions and actions.” The first statement is correct, however, knowledge is a “high-value form” of information only to the knower. Knowledge is completely personal, and is no longer knowledge once it is codified. Knowledge cannot be codified or transferred — it can only exist in a brain, where the personal experience and personal understanding resides. Michael Polanyi defined personal knowledge as tacit knowledge in 1967, saying “we can know more than we can tell.” Ikujiro Nonaka built on that work, saying “tacit knowledge has a personal quality, which makes it hard to formalize and communicate.” I agree that these refer to knowledge. They unwittingly started us all down the path of confusion, though, by defining “explicit knowledge”, which is actually “information” and not knowledge.

    Here’s a further example from the same page of the Wikipedia that shows how the confusion between knowledge and information even more specifically:
    Knowledge management treats knowledge as a form of information which is impregnated with context based on experience. Information is data which causes a difference to an observer because of its observer-specific relevance.” There are so many things wrong with these two statements that I don’t want to take the space to point them out. This definition doesn’t further the discussion at all. To attempt to clarify, I would revise it to say “Knowledge management is a process that uses a variety of social tools and technologies to capture information that an individual has absorbed and modified, using their own personal experiences and personal understandings as a filter, into a modified iteration of information that can be reviewed and used by others.” Not perfect, but it’s closer.

    Only information can be documented/captured. Knowledge exists in the brain. Which begs the obvious question: Can one manage what is inside a brain? Of course, the answer is no. So as aspiring KM practitioners, we have a profession with a name that is an oxymoron (as David Skyrme first noted), we can’t define the boundaries of the playing field, and we can’t articulate how learning and knowledge management are related. Reminds me of that classic print ad of the elderly male executive in a wing backed chair with a list of negatives beside him, saying “And you want to sell me what?” Skyrme offers a pretty good definition for KM: “Knowledge management is the explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge and its associated processes of creating, gathering, organizing, diffusion, use and exploitation. It requires turning personal knowledge into corporate knowledge than can be widely shared throughout an organization and appropriately applied.” It shares the problem of the Davenport and Nonaka definitions above, calling “vital knowledge” and “corporate knowledge” knowledge when they are actually information. Personal knowledge is the only knowledge.

    I think Paul Hildreth and Chris Kimble are closer to understanding what knowledge management is about. “Can knowledge be managed or can we just facilitate the development of a person’s knowledge? Is the knowledge being shared or an environment being created where a person develops their knowledge through interaction with, and guidance by, an old-timer?” The KM process to me is about creating an environment where a person interacts with others and is guided by their experiences — a neutral environment adapted to the unique requirements of each organization and its members.

    I was having a conversation with a friend yesterday and he asked, “Is there ‘information’ that is not ‘knowledge’, or is there ‘knowledge’ that is not ‘information’?” That became an interesting conversation, so it will be the third part of this series. More soon on the overlapping strategies and tactics of KM, collaboration and learning.

    divider
    February 16th, 2006

    Reflections on Why KM is Failing: the Need for a Grand Unifying Theory

    Anyone who is reading this probably already knows something about knowledge management, so I’ll ask you something that’s nagging at me. Why, after nearly 15 years of more or less organized thinking, debate and studying of KM, haven’t we collectively been able to:

  • Define what knowledge management is
  • Create an unassailable model of how it works
  • and perhaps more importantly,

  • Sell the KM value proposition to organizations that clearly need it?
  • It seems fundamental to further productive discourse, and yet, we can’t seem to resolve these basic questions. Why? There are many bright, educated, intelligent, capable, interested, articulate, clear-thinking people involved with this work. Some amazing insights and results and benefits have been captured and tested and reported. Why after all this time and effort and energy have we been unable to unify all our experience and insight and results into a singleminded understanding? Why are we still seeing the legs and trunk and tail of the elephant and not the elephant? This profession (if that is what we allow ourselves to be called) is churning. The tires are spinning and the steering wheel is being turned this way and that, but we can’t seem to get the traction that will break our inertia and send us moving down a road. I’m not sure any of my questions below will help to find an answer, but over years I have learned that when I want to understand where a blockage is or why something is stalled, I have to challenge all the basic assumptions about it to be sure they are true. Here is how I am puzzling out possible reasons for the wheel spinning.

    Is it because KM is truly a new approach to how people work and this is part of the normal slow startup curve? If that is so, there must be parallels in nature. Nature has a model for everything we do. The human race is working out a new way of interacting. Perhaps this is a pre-Cambrian-like KM explosion period teeming with possibilities, a time of immense creativity and variety that will eventually resolve into a few versions that are viable. Can we borrow a model from nature to accelerate our thinking?

    Is KM only a fad, as some have said? We don’t want it to be a fad. We are putting energy and thought into figuring it out, and we believe something is in there, but are we wishing something into existence that doesn’t really exist? Is KM just a tactical step on the path of CRM or collaboration or some other interactive process that we have attempted to elevate to more than it is?

    Are we assuming incorrectly that all organizations need KM? Perhaps we should refocus our efforts toward defining and prioritizing who really needs it and will benefit from it, and what value they can expect from it. Most organizations that are interested still consider it a “nice to have” and not a business necessity. We need to focus on the ones that know they need it. Perhaps we could focus on creating a tiered approach, a way of defining organizations on the basis of the types or amount of value KM could bring to them — a Mazlow-like pyramid of organizations with criteria around it.

    Are we putting a lot of thought and effort into KM when it is only a subset of a larger concept no one has yet defined? Before Chaos Theory was formulated in physics, scientists dealt with a lot of subsets of “something”, but they couldn’t quite understand what the “something” was that would make it all hang together. The same was true with the discovery of gravity. And the Theory of Relativity. Until then, a lot of observations were made about results, but no one knew how to make all the results make sense in a bigger framework. Maybe we are in a similar situation with KM, and we are churning on the subsets and missing the bigger picture.

    Are we preaching to the choir too much, and excluding new or different voices? The maxim goes “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.” It’s comfortable to be a big fish in a small pond. It’s easy to become complacent and stop questioning. Some of the leaders of the KM community have been around since the earliest days, and, while they have many good insights and much wisdom to offer, some seem more interested in being acknowledged by their peers than making new contributions to the KM discussion. Perhaps we are all coasting a bit, and poo-pooing the new ideas and contradictory views offered by new and different voices. After all, it’s human nature to resist change. It just doesn’t advance the field.

    Is KM a product or a process? There is a lot of debate that goes on in KM circles about what constitutes KM. Some experts talk about it as if it is a product…as the result or outcome of some processes that occur in an organization. Some talk about it as if the processes themselves, a particular collection of steps or actions, comprise KM. It’s interesting to hear the debates, because it’s like the blind men and the elephant. Both views are correct, and neither is the whole picture. We can’t get our hands around KM because none of the prevailing theories can encompass both points of view, and the correct understanding of KM must include both concepts.

    Is the concept of KM being hijacked by a small group of consultants? Each person or group with an idea (trademarked, of course) throws it out to the world as KM and tries to advance it against the others. Some of these are untested hypotheses, and some are tactical methodologies. It’s a kind of “capture the flag” game, where one consultant raises a flag and then another one steals it away and carries it to their home base, only to have it snatched away a few months later by someone else. Even the software vendors get into this game. They have gone so far as to hijack the term “knowledge management” and equate it so successfully with technology, that we may need an entirely new name for what we really do (which is only supported by technology). KM is either universal or it’s a subset of something that is. We have no governing body that represents what KM is or should be, how it works, and who is qualified to consult on it.

    Is the factionalization of competing KM theories and methodologies confusing both customers and ourselves? We have vertical silos in KM, like portals or repositories or just in time learning or creating capabilities or intellectual capital or knowledge markets. And we have horizontal approaches, like communities of practice, social networking, collaboration or organizational storytelling to cut across silos. They are floating in a fuzzy sea of “improving decision making” and “empowering the knowledge worker”, cultural change, knowledge transfer, “the new KM” and the KM of complexity. They can’t all be right, yet they are partially right. How can we assess which are true? It’s confusing, and it sets off interesting and heated debates, most of which occur among the very people who stand to profit from having their own approach accepted as the authoritative one! KM is confusing to KM scholars and practitioners, and it’s even more confusing to business people…who don’t have time to make heads or tails of it. They just table the conversation!

    Do our non-scientific or non-financial backgrounds make it difficult to produce results that can be accepted critically? At this point in time, KM is largely learned by doing. If we are lucky, we have a customer and a budget and learn under optimum conditions. KM is still new enough that only a few academic programs offer a KM curriculum track (and even fewer organizations want to hire them!). This means that most of us came to KM from other careers, and most of us were trained in the “soft skills,” not in hard analytical skills like math and science. The scientific evidence to support the claims of KM simply isn’t there yet because so few of us know how to apply scientific rigor to our work. Unfortunately, the people we need to convince tend to be analytical people, and that is what they want to see.

    Each of these topics is worth separate discussion and debate, and because I haven’t read everything published, perhaps some good work I have missed has already been done. Speaking for myself, I’m bored with so-called KM conferences on content management and search capabilities and taxonomies and portals, and I’m even getting bored with seminars defining communities and valuing intellectual property and identifying incentives to share knowledge and hype cycles and KM infrastructure and causal maps and social networks and knowledge transfer. Where is the big picture? We need to pull ourselves up out of the weeds and find the grand unifying theory of KM.

    divider
    February 15th, 2006

    The 11 Axioms of Knowledge Management

    Following up on my previous post about Fahey and Prusak’s 11 Deadliest Sins of KM, I decided to offer another view and a new idea. First, an example of the 11 Deadliest Sins being cited in a research paper. Elisabeth Davenport and Blaise Cronin used the “sins” to offer examples related to their concept of the evolution of KM. Their approach says KM1 = information management, which evolved to KM2 = processes and ontologies, which evolved to KM3 = knowledge as capability, where people are put back into KM and where we are today.

    Deadly Sins of KM (After Fahey and Prusak, 1998)

    1. Not developing a working definition of knowledge – KM1
    2. Emphasizing knowledge stock to the detriment of knowledge flow – KM1
    3. Viewing knowledge as existing predominantly outside the heads of individuals – KM1 KM2
    4. Not understanding that a fundamental intermediate purpose of managing knowledge is to create shared context – KM1 KM2
    5. Paying little heed to the role and importance of tacit knowledge – KM1 KM2
    6. Disentangling knowledge from its uses – KM1
    7. Downplaying thinking and reasoning – (none given)
    8. Focusing on the past and the present and not on the future – KM1
    9. Failing to recognise the importance of experimentation – KM1 KM2
    10. Substituting technological contact for human interface – KM1 KM2
    11. Seeking to develop direct measures of knowledge – KM1 KM2

    Personally, I’d prefer to see a new approach to the original list altogether. Here’s my suggestion for “Axioms (and Corollaries) of Knowledge Management”. There happen to be 11, since I started where I did, but maybe there are more. Any thoughts?

    Axioms (and Corollaries) of Knowledge Management

    1. Knowledge can be defined.

    Corollary: We have not yet defined knowledge.
    Corollary: We have not yet defined knowledge management.

    2. Knowledge management is a process dependent upon people and what they know.

    Corollary: Knowledge management generates information artifacts.
    Corollary: Information artifacts are used to generate new knowledge.
    Corollary: Knowledge cannot be codified.

    3. Knowledge cannot exist outside the heads of individuals.

    Corollary: Information can.

    4. Knowledge exchange requires a shared context between individuals.

    Corollary: Knowledge can be exchanged or created within a shared context.

    5. Tacit knowledge is the true knowledge and cannot be managed.

    Corollary: To capture tacit knowledge is to make it explicit and convert it to information.

    6. Applications of knowledge are not the same as knowledge.

    Corollary: Using knowledge is not knowledge management.
    Corollary: Knowledge is separate from its uses.

    7. Thinking and reasoning are the engine of the KM process.

    Corollary: Thinking and reasoning result in knowledge.
    Corollary: Communicating the results of thinking and reasoning creates information artifacts.

    8. Documenting the past has value when no changes are anticipated.

    Corollary: The future can be influenced by today’s thinking and reasoning.
    Corollary: Documenting the past is content management.

    9. Experimentation is crucial to improvement.

    Corollary: Experimentation will occasionally result in failure.
    Corollary: Experimentation can result in big successes.

    10. Human interactions cannot be replaced by technology.

    Corollary: Knowledge development and exchange occurs in people’s brains.
    Corollary: Technology provides a means to capture discussions and convert them to information artifacts.
    Corollary: Knowledge management is not technology.

    11. Knowledge cannot be measured directly.

    Corollary: Knowledge has value to an organization.
    Corollary: Conventional balance sheet metrics do not adequately measure knowledge.
    Corollary: Information resulting from knowledge management can be measured.

    divider
    February 14th, 2006

    The 11 Deadliest Sins of KM (revisited)

    A few months ago, John Maloney reprinted this list for reconsideration. Larry Prusak studied some 100 knowledge projects during the 1990s, and the list represents his and L Fahey’s joint understanding of the problems facing knowledge management in 1998. It’s been quoted often. In researching the list, I found more than 30 applications of it in all kinds of research papers.

    The main issue I have with the original list is that it’s a mixed bag of admonitions. I get the sales hook of using “deadliest sins” in the title, but the list is confusingly written. The audience is not clear either. Is it KM professionals? Business people? Newcomers to the field? Some points seem to play to some but not to all. Of course, it was written in 1998, and that was fairly early in KM’s evolution, so this list may have been Fahey and Prusak’s straw man — a first attempt to provide some guidance to a new field — that was never intended to be the rosetta stone for KM eight years later (even though we still face many of the same issues). To make their list easier for myself to understand, I revised it, taking into account the common knowledge of today, and decided to share it:

    The 11 Deadliest Sins (Fahey and Prusak, 1998)

    1. Not developing a working definition of knowledge
    Comment: We’ve had a lot of working definitions of knowledge since 1998, and KM experts are still in strong disagreement about what it is. We’ll get there, but for now the problem is failure to define it.
    Suggested change: Failing to define knowledge.

    2. Emphasizing knowledge stock to the detriment of knowledge flow.
    Comment: These terms have been somewhat superceded and create confusion. Knowledge stock refers to information — objects or artifacts that can be put into a database and retrieved using a search engine. Knowledge flow refers to the process of creating and reusing knowledge.
    Suggested change: Emphasizing content artifacts instead of knowledge flow.

    3. Viewing knowledge as existing predominantly outside the heads of individuals.
    Comment: Many people believe erroneously that knowledge refers to documents and other information artifacts. Knowledge is not equal to information. Knowledge is only found and created in brains. The rest is information.
    Suggested change: Believing knowledge can exist outside the heads of individuals.

    4. Not understanding that a fundamental intermediate purpose of managing knowledge is to create shared context.
    Comment: Knowledge can be shared when the person having it and the person needing it have the same understanding of the parameters. Creating an environment where contexts are shared is vital to effective knowledge exchange. KM has to do more than provide and catalogue artifacts. It has to help people to talk about circumstances.
    Suggested change: Believing that creating shared context is not an important milestone in the process of managing knowledge.

    5. Paying little heed to the role and importance of tacit knowledge.
    Comment: Tacit knowledge is, by definition, unspoken. If anyone thinks that information captured in a database is the whole story, they are wrong. That point of view neglects the “people” dimension of KM. The knowledge that matters most is often situation-specific variables that are known but not documented.
    Suggested change: Failing to understand the role and significance of tacit knowledge.

    6. Disentangling knowledge from its uses.
    Comment: Knowledge isn’t tangled in its uses, since knowledge only exists in the brain of the knower. Knowledge is de facto separate from its uses, but knowledge can be applied to new situations.
    Suggested change: Confusing information creation with applying knowledge to new situations.

    7. Downplaying thinking and reasoning.
    Comment: Thinking and reasoning are human traits, and are critical to the knowledge creation process. Think about it. Would you rather look up a report in a database, or talk to someone who has experience with the issues? The human component in KM is currently undervalued.
    Suggested change: Overlooking the importance of thinking and reasoning to the KM process.

    8. Focusing on the past and the present and not on the future.
    Comment: The process of documentation is always backward-facing. What’s important is the future — better decisionmaking, improved time to market, faster processes, greater competitiveness, smarter workers. It’s useful to know where we’ve been, but not at the expense of building a road to the future.
    Suggested change: Documenting the past and present, and ignoring the future.

    9. Failing to recognize the importance of experimentation.
    Comment: KM is a new field. All innovation creates change. The KM process is new and requires experimentation to get it right. Experimentation sometimes results in failure. Many businesses have low tolerance for failure. Knowledge results from both success and failure.
    Suggested change: Failing to acknowledge the importance of experimentation and failure.

    10. Substituting technological contact for human interface
    Comment: Posted message boards, email, and online collaborations of various sorts will never fully replace human interaction. Capturing and documenting information can’t replace a live, nuanced conversation that establishes context and facilitates a transfer of knowledge from one person to another.
    Suggested change: Substituting technological contact for face-to-face interactions.

    11. Seeking to develop direct measures of knowledge.
    Comment: “Direct measures” appears to mean quantifiable measures, such as might be used for accounting and valuation purposes. There are many viable measures of knowledge management success today, depending upon which aspect of KM one wants to measure. Some experts have suggested ways to account for the value of KM’s “soft” benefits, and over time these are likely to be more commonly accepted as society keeps moving toward a service economy. Bearing in mind that “knowledge” is not the same as “information”, information can definitely be measured and valued using current balance sheet metrics. Knowledge has to be assessed differently, perhaps as a component of the value of an individual to an organization.
    Suggested change: Attempting to measure knowledge using the metrics of balance sheets.

    Of course, this is my own interpretation. Did I mistate anything or lose the original intent? Comments and criticisms are welcome, as always…

    divider
    February 9th, 2006

    The Frequency of Posting

    For the past few months I have tried to publish something here every day. It’s not always easy…some of the ideas I’m working on are complex and require more time and thought than others. I figure if I can add one article per week day, it’s a good week. Some weeks, though there are gaps of two or three days in the middle of the week, which always makes me feel like I’m not working at it enough! I know it’s crazy. There probably aren’t a lot of readers here, and none of you really care what my schedule is…but I thought I’d let you know anyway that I do work toward a goal. I hope that the quality of the content you see here eventually makes up for the odd schedule of publishing!

    Now I’m wondering if most bloggers have the same problem. Sure, I could write brief personal observations and commentary on the news, but that’s not how I envision this blog to be. If you know of any research about “serious” blogs written by one person, I’d like to know about it, so I can feel comforted on the days when I don’t get something posted. :)

    P.S. There’s some good stuff in the pipeline here that will find its way out eventually!

    divider
    February 7th, 2006

    A Primer on Gaming for Learning

    Much has been written about game design and the use of games and simulations in education/learning. What I’ve done here will be elemental for people who have already spent time researching learning simulations themselves, but if you are just starting, then this overview may save you some time. I’m writing it with an educational developer or learning professional who may not have a lot of personal experience with gaming in mind.

    It’s important to align the instructional problem with the right learning solution. People learn best by doing. They like to explore the boundaries, to be creative and solve a problem in a unique way. Some skills can best be developed in a player vs. environment simulation, where the learner has to solve puzzles, achieve goals, and learn new information at their own pace, undistracted by other learners who may get it more quickly. Other skills, especially social or interactive skills, are best developed in a multiplayer environment where the socialization and collaboration components are integral to the process. In the end, it’s less about the game technology or genre you choose than it is about good pedagogy and well-written content — but the technology and genre do matter!

    Let’s assume you want to create, license or review games for a teaching scenario you have in mind. What’s out there, where can you start, and what kind of skills/costs are involved with creating simulations?

    1. Terminology and Simple Technical Concepts

    First, get familiar with the technical terminology used in game/simulation creation that you may not know. Try these articles:

    · “What’s a Game Engine?” (multiple pages)
    · “Instant Replay: Building a Game Engine with Reproducible Behavior“ (multiple pages)
    · “Simulations and Learning e-Games”

    Some Useful Terms
    Game engines have three basic functions.

    · Rendering game scenes (producing them on the screen)
    · Serving objects needed for rendering a scene (hosting the game engine and code to make the game accessible to players, as well as retrieving coded objects from a database as needed)
    · Editing

    The “game code” is the software programming that makes the game unique. It contains what the non-player or computer generated characters do and say, as well as how objects are manipulated and how movement occurs (running, sitting, walking, jumping, etc.). Many games may use the same game engine, yet each will look entirely different, depending upon the game code of each game.

    Genres/Types
    There’s not an “official” list of genres but here are some generally accepted types of games you might choose from when you start thinking about the environment in which you want your learning to occur. The items, components and graphics in each type of game are different, as are the pace and language style. Choose the right one for the group who will be learning. It might be perfectly acceptable for your younger employees to learn in a car racing or fantasy scenario, but your executives might feel more comfortable in a scenario doing real estate transactions in a high rise office building or an historical setting.

    Any type of gaming device might be used (console, handheld, cell phone, computer), however, I’m focusing on games for the PC here. Before you choose a learning simulation or start to create one, there are a few things you need to decide.

    2. Number of Players

    It’s important to determine whether the learners will learn better by playing individually against the game, or by playing with other players to accomplish the goals. The number of simultaneous players will also help to narrow the options.

  • Single Player Games are usually turn-based, pit the player against pre-programmed content, and can be saved. (note: some of these also offer a limited multiplayer option)
  • Some examples: Heroes of Might and Magic, Diablo, Roller Coaster Tycoon , Grand Theft Auto, Myst, The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind, Civilization, Magic: The Gathering, Black & White, Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights, The Lord of the Ring, and flight simulators like Combat Flight Simulator, Crimson Skies, Falcon 4 and AirStrike.

  • Multiplayer Games are either persistent worlds with hundreds or thousands of players available through the Internet 24/7 for multiple sessions, or LAN-based, where the world exists only as long as the host person keeps his/her server link open to others, usually a single session with known players for a few hours. Multiplayer games cannot be saved. The basic game content is pre-programmed, but human players create variables that make a multiplayer game change constantly.
  • Some examples: World of Warcraft, Doom, Half-Life, Quake, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online, Second-Life, The Sims Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Unreal Tournament, Lineage, Guild Wars, Asheron’s Call, Everquest, Star Wars: Galaxies

    3. What Genre or Type of Play/Environment is Most Appropriate?

    There are different types of Web-based games that can be created or adapted to a variety of learning scenarios.

    Online Board Games (single and multiplayer versions)
    Some examples: Parcheesi, Backgammon, Go, Monopoly, Chess, Scrabble, Cribbage

    Online Card Games (single and multiplayer versions)
    Some examples: Bridge, Hearts, Canasta, Pinochle, Casino games

    Roleplay/Sword, Shield and Magical Spells
    Some examples: Everquest, Lineage, World of Warcraft, Dark Age of Camelot, Ultima Online, Guild Wars, Dungeons and Dragons Online

    Roleplay/Space or Futuristic
    Some examples: EVE Online, Alpha Centauri, Star Wars: Galaxies, The Matrix Online

    Action-Adventure
    Some examples: Call of Duty, America’s Army, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Battlefield 1942, Unreal Tournament, QUAKE, Doom

    Social Interaction
    Some examples: The Sims Online, Audition Online Dance Battle, There, Second-Life

    4. What Technology Options Are There?

    Commercial Game Engines
    Just about any game engine could potentially be used to create learning simulations, depending upon the learning objective, budget, and size of the group using the environment. Some games that do not enjoy commercial success may be cancelled by the publisher, yet have a good game engine for a learning simulation. It’s worth checking to see if it’s possible to license an existing environment that can be modified for learning purposes after the commercial game has been cancelled, for example, Earth and Beyond (Electronic Arts) or Asheron’s Call II (Turbine, Inc.). Some game companies will also license a private server hosting their game for a fee.

    · ActiveWorlds – 3D social and building world
    · Earth & Beyond – space adventure games
    · FPS Creator – first person shooter/action drag and drop creation
    · QUAKE – first person shooter/action
    · Realm Crafter – multiplayer role playing games
    · Second-Life – 3-D social and building world
    · Stagecast – for multi-level games, puzzles, mazes and simulations
    · The d20 System – system for role playing games
    · There – 3D social and building world
    · Unreal Engine – award winning system for multiple genres

    Free Game Engines
    Here are a few free game engines that will start you off in the right direction. As with the commercial game engines, be prepared to do a lot of customization of the content in order to get a usable product for your training needs.

    Be aware that a search on the term “free games” will pull up tons of sites with a lot of independently designed Flash games, most of which do not have the right content or production quality to satisfy adult learning needs. It can be a little overwhelming. Here are two good ones you can try to get a flavor of what’s out there: Addicting Games or Free Online Games. Caution: You’ll get a lot of ad spam and popup windows when you visit sites of this type!

    · BYOND – 2D game creator
    · Adventure Game Studio (AGS) – for point and click turn-based games
    · Simple Game Engine – primarily simple grid-based games
    · VASSAL Game Engine – primarily tabletop and card games
    · DimensioneX – open source multiplayer adventure games
    · Amazing Text Fun (ATF) Engine - for text based games
    · M.u.C.e.S. – multiple choice text adventure game creator
    · Multiverse – commercial quality multiplayer game engine
    · Orbiter – space flight simulator
    · Text-World – text adventure authoring
    · World Builder – creates adventure games for ONLY Macintosh computers

    Want more? This barely scratches the surface. Check out the Google Game Creation Systems page or Game Creator Resources.

    5. Some Other Good Resources

    Music.
    If you are creating your own game(s), then you are probably on a tight budget. Some royalty free music might help you present a more polished product or help to reinforce the learnings of students as they play. Check out these free or low cost music sites:

    · Webtones Music
    · Flying Hands
    · FreeMusic2Downloads.com

    Books.
    Here are a few texts that can help you deepen your knowledge of simulations and games, and their role in learning:

    · Simulations and the Future of Learning by Clark Aldrich
    · Learning by Doing : A Comprehensive Guide to Simulations, Computer Games, and Pedagogy in e-Learning and Other Educational Experiences by Clark Aldrich
    · What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy by James Paul Gee
    · Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate by Michael Schrage

    Did I miss something you’ve found particularly helpful or a key resource? Please let me know!

    divider
    February 6th, 2006

    Good Learning Games and What they Teach

    For the most part, games used in learning have been simulations of scripted scenarios set up to drive home a particular lesson or concept. They are what experienced gamers would call PvE — player versus the environment or game and its artificial intelligence. They may be based on a popular type of game, such as jigsaw puzzles or trivia or word find. Not all teaching games are simulations, however, and many popular and readily available titles can teach valuable life lessons, as noted below.

    Noted educator Clark Aldrich has said that six criteria are emerging as critical not just to simulations but to all successful educational experiences. Three are focused on content: 1. Linear content. 2. Systems of content. 3. Cyclical content. Three concern delivery: 4. Simulation elements that model reality. 5. Game elements that provide familiar and entertaining interactions. 6. Pedagogical (didactic) elements that ensure a student’s time is spent productively. Games can provide solid educational experiences.

    A MORI Poll looking into teachers’ attitudes to computer games in schools has revealed that 59% would consider using them in a classroom to aid pupils’ education. According to the research, conducted as part of the Teaching with Games project funded by NESTA Futurelab and Electronic Arts, 59% of teachers questioned would consider using games in their classroom for educational purposes, and 53% would consider using computer games as an interactive tool to help motivate and engage pupils.

    The majority of teachers questioned believed that playing mainstream games can lead to improved skills and knowledge, with 91% feeling that those who play games develop their motor-cognitive skills, and 60% felt that users would develop higher order thinking skills and acquire topic-specific knowledge. There are still barriers blocking mainstream use of games in schools, however, such as lack of equipment capable of running many newer games in schools. There is also a lack of hard evidence to support the educational value of mainstream games, which is one reason I decided to write this article.

    I believe from many years of personal experience that mainstream games, especially some of the newer MMOGs, have complex learning scenarios integrated into them. It just takes a new way of looking at the gaming experience to see its value, but many educators unused to playing games themselves can fail to see it. Gaming content is much richer than books. Some people, usually adults who have little or no experience with computer games, worry that computer games may present stereotypical views of others or lead to anti-social/destructive behaviour. These ideas are often based upon second-hand information about first-person shooters and war games, and are not based upon the full range of rich gaming environments available today and being developed. MMOGs today, for example, offer complex social scenarios and puzzles that can be applied to many specific learning objectives. Here are some examples and what I think they have to teach.

    Business Skills

    Roller Coaster Tycoon by Atari.
    Teaches price points, variety, logistics, customer satisfaction.

    Alpha Centauri by Electronic Arts.
    Grow or die. Partner suspiciously. Balance old customers vs. new. Invest in R&D. Think big. Take away the science fiction theme and many educators think this is the most comprehensive business simulator available.

    Tropico by Gathering of Developers.
    There is no “average” customer. Money can’t solve all problems.

    Second Life by Linden Lab.
    Experience the economics of invention and innovation. e-Commerce. Marketing through creating demand, importance of finding a need and filling it = reward. Viral marketing.

    EVE Online by CCP Games.
    Experience a player controlled economy. e-Commerce.

    Grand Theft Auto 3 by Rockstar Games.
    Innovation can help you win.

    Lineage by NCsoft.
    The power of pyramid structures in business development.

    Life Skills

    The Sims by Electronic Arts.
    Socialization can occur in cyberspace. Time management, managing expectations, keeping promises, wasting time is dangerous, systems thinking, all things are connected, building networks — it’s all there.

    Everquest by Sony Online Entertainment or World of Warcraft by Blizzard.
    Industriousness results in profits. You can only go so far alone, and you can’t win alone. It’s all about teamwork.

    There by Makena Technologies.
    Creating communities, managing expectations, building networks, basic retail economics. Socialization can occur in cyberspace.

    Battlefield 1942 by Electronic Arts.
    Non-verbal communication can reduce communication difficulties and improve communication, coordination and cooperations. One’s actions have an impact on how others respond.

    Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates by Three Rings Design.
    Advancement through knowledge.

    Of course, this list doesn’t even talk about therapeutic games that can assist disabled people of all ages. I’ve discussed some of those previously here and here.

    divider
    February 3rd, 2006

    Learning “Life Lessons” for the Disabled

    The worldwide web has opened tremendous opportunities for disabled people who previously would have had to rely on others to assist them with reading, education, work and play, but it doesn’t replace traditional learning altogether. Two resources are available to help disabled young people with life lessons on planning and behavior skills, both of which are especially challenging to people with acquired brain injury. In addition, a lot of research is being done on using games and virtual reality environments to increase academic performance and integrate the disabled back into the mainstream.

    Columbia University’s Integrated Curriculum Project

    The ICT project’s primary purpose is to reduce the extensive academic and social difficulties of middle and high school students with mild disabilities. An interdisciplinary team expertise in the area of curriculum development, literacy, social studies, and instructing adolescent students with mild disabilities, are developing an instructional curriculum in the areas of literacy (reading and writing) and social studies. The project incorporates “life lessons” in a way that enhances a student’s planning, survival behavior skills, and employment possibilities by incorporating authentic problem situations into the curriculum. The project uses an anchored instruction model supported by multimedia technology (videodisc, VCR, or DVD) .

    Computer Games in Education Project Report” British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA)

    Of particular interest to me is the BECTA study. The aim of the Computer Games in Education project has been to investigate learning opportunities that may be offered by what is already a huge range of software. Linking what students learn at school with some of their social and planning skills outside of school may reinforce learning and encourage students to continue to develop their skills outside the classroom. Teachers frequently use television program and films as examples to reinforce learning and to support discussion. Games can have as much relevance as television or film for many young people. The purpose of the project is not to compare the effectiveness of games titles with educational software but to see how games can enhance learning activities and demonstrate unforeseen uses of technology.

    Other Research Shows Promise

    Sports games that involve some body movement are also helping disabled kids with limited mobility to boost their self image through virtual reality-like environments, according to research at the University of Toronto by Denise Reid and Stacey Miller. Game players tried soccer, snowboarding, volleyball or dancing, things they never thought they could experience, and their perception of self-ability was improved. Further research is now being conducted to determine the therapeutic effects of interactive games on elderly stroke patients.

    Computer games are also being used to test the abilities of disabled people in order to better integrate them into mainstream society. Researchers like Paul Kearney discuss the question of increased academic performance through playing games, although there is no systematic research yet to support a firm conclusion. They do, however, highlight multiplayer games, where communities are formed and in-game communication between players occurs, as an area where social relationships and psychological well being may be affected.

    The results of another study show that children who used computers not only scored significantly higher on cognitive tests, but also spent more time reading books than those who didn’t use a computer. Their vision also improved. However, the difficult question not answered is whether or not children who read more and have higher cognitive abilities are naturally attracted to computers. Interestingly, disabled children want to play the same games that everyone else does, instead of special games. The link between its experiential and simulative capabilities may transform VR games into the ultimate rehabilitative learning device.

    divider
    February 2nd, 2006

    Barriers to KM

    In addition to understanding the risks executives see in KM, the KM team will need to assess organizational barriers and create strategies for overcoming them. I’ve listed below some you may encounter. Before you begin a KM program, it’s helpful first to understand the context of the KM challenge you are attempting to master, to be sure you apply the right solutions to the problems.

    KM Context: Content, Collaboration or Process

    Large consulting organizations approach KM in different ways, depending upon their own inhouse expertise and intellectual property. That’s why if you collect their presentations, proposals and published materials you find differences that can sometimes be confusing to someone just starting to understand knowledge management and what it can bring to an organization. This variety of approaches can make it difficult for a KM leader to reconcile viewpoints about the right KM options to apply to a specific problem. You may have experienced this if you have spoken with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Accenture, KPMG, McKinsey or IBM. Each has excellent expertise in knowledge management, and each makes recommendations that necessarily reflect the strengths or viewpoint of their individual organizations.

    This can be confusing for managers tasked with finding a KM solution for a complex business problem. Before you launch a KM initiative, whether you use outside consultants or do it yourself, it’s helpful to understand the three broad categories into which KM projects/programs typically fall, so you can apply the right KM tools. Each has its own challenges and barriers to overcome. One way to classify them is Collaboration, Process, or Content (which are similar to what we used to call people, process and technology). If you can assess the broad type of problem you are trying to solve with KM, you have a better chance of getting to the right solutions.

    In the collaboration or personal interaction scenario, executives want people to work together differently/better. First determine what information is needed to support decision making. Next, identify and establish virtual communities. Provide incentives and make it easy for people to collaborate and share information on current and past projects. Identify experts, make them visible, and reward them for sharing what they know. Acclaim by peers is a heady elixir. Measure community activity and employee satisfaction.

    In the process scenario, executives are focused on improving how a type of work gets done. First determine what information is needed to support decision making. Next, identify and document key business processes. Within those processes, define the steps where knowledge is created, needed, captured and used. Create plans for how to improve those knowledge points. Redefine the business processes and publish/communicate the changes. Measure sales increases, cost savings, customer satisfaction, and improved speed to market.

    In the content scenario, executives think that capturing and organizing information better is the need. They think information is the same as knowledge and believe knowledge transfer is the answer. Very often, this type of project occurs in a technology-related area. Determine first what information is needed to support decision making. (A red “risk” flag should go up for the KM practitioner if an IT group is trying to solve a business need rather than their own documentation needs.) Next, identify existing content sources and create a taxonomy. Define key roles in the content creation and approval processes. Identify the technologies that will be used. Use KM techniques to capture information and transfer it to knowledge bases and other workers. Establish update and maintenance accountabilities. Measure increased intellectual capital/assets, information reuse, and efficiencies gained.

    Whichever applies initially, the KM team will have some educating to do. All three scenarios plus education are legs of one table, and the table will not be strong and stable without four legs. Build a training/education component into your final recommendations and plan.

    Some Universal Barriers for KM

    Your own organization will have its specific barriers and challenges; however, some barriers are universal. I’ve based these on a presentation by Joe Katzman. If you are like me, right away your brain starts spinning with potential solutions:

    Organizational

  • Lack of an executive level champion who can and will knock down the barriers
  • Making KM a priority with managers
  • Culture that rewards the status quo.
  • Don’t know what we don’t know
  • Competition with the corporate education/training group.
  • Individual

  • Knowledge hoarding by subject matter experts
  • Credibility of the source. How do “experts” acquire credibility in this group?
  • Inadequate search skills, difficulty of finding something relevant
  • Junk accumulation and need for quality control
  • Keeping users (and experts) up-to-date related to both KM and their professional expertise
  • Access to and easy use of technology tools
  • Users don’t trust information that’s there/lack of positive experiences
  • Want to work it out by themselves…enjoy the challenge
  • “Teenager syndrome” (this has never happened to anyone else but me, so why bother to look elsewhere for answers?)
  • For the KM practitioner, success is about planning; for the knowledge worker, however, success is about publishing. Don’t let your broader KM objectives become a barrier for participants. Workers aren’t interested in your plans and ideas and Phase II of the grand scheme for KM. They have work to do and need to understand what the payoff will be for them if they take time to participate now. Focus on how to keep workers engaged with the KM process…as a subject matter expert, as a facilitator of a community, as a contributor of written comments, as a behind-the-scenes adviser. For workers, success should be tied to writing and profiling what they know so others can find them when more specific information is needed.

    Be judicious in the KM tools you use. The KM system is a technology tool to support the interpersonal interactions of KM. This is an important distinction. Other KM tools, like social network analysis or business process mapping or content mapping or email parsing, can be valuable in specific situations or to achieve specific objectives. The wrong tool in the wrong culture/environment, or no tool at all when one is needed, can cause friction and disengage the participants. Guard against letting technology tools dominate the KM conversation. KM is a people problem with a data component, and technology is only one possible solution.

    Related to the previous thought, failing to choose the right technology based on the KM program’s objectives can be a barrier to success. You have to match the technology platform to the style and skills of the group/company/culture you are working in. Don’t rely on what the software vendor says…get some users to test drive the tools and talk to other companies who have used the tools before making any long term commitments. Make the vendors prove their claims about KM. And hold your IT department to the same level of proof when they tell you they already have systems inhouse that will do what you need. Do they really? Have you given them written requirements that spell out what the KM system needs to be able to do?