[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [topicmaps-comment] on the moral character of the innovator
<header> This is a general discussion which you are invited to participate in by joining: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KMPro This message is also posted at: http://www.ontologystream.com/administration/files/ethics.htm </header> Please forward as appropriate. *** As a side note, the URL on BCNGroup Charter extension has been edited to correct a problem (I clearly made) related to independence of ownership of IP from newly emerging IP securities markets, http://www.ontologystream.com/administration/charterCloning.htm Please review this and continue offering suggestions. { Some interesting history on IP securities trading in the mid 1990s is available - from John Norseen... } *** A review of the literature from general systems theory may the proper first component of a course on the ethics of KM. We simply MUST give a firm foundation, from a real published literature, so that the notion of private experience of knowledge and the notion of the socially acknowledged ownership of knowledge can be properly discussed. The discussions in KM forums often get hung-up on this very issue. The provisions of the Clinger-Cohen act should be modified to require the inclusion of a KM Ethics curriculum component that addresses this issue of reductions to IP ownership (particularly in light of the related issues regarding the accounting problems in Corporations.) This hang-up is part of the folk psychology (to use Paul Churchland's notion of folk psychology) complex that I have written about regarding the paradigmatic block by funding institutions such as NSF and DARPA. http://www.ontologystream.com/administration/to2OSTP.htm *** Here is how I would frame this issue. The individual experience of knowledge has to be accounted for in such a way as to not be reduced de facto to ownership status - except through very specific processes such as public disclosure, or specific disclosure within a business unit. The standard industry practice of signing **blanket** non-disclosure agreements violate this principle. We can discuss this if any one thinks that this is an unjustified claim. However, social organization often functions based on such reductions to ownership. The individual knowledge within the group is considered to be owned by the group. This is a mistake, technically, and knowledge sharing is largely replaced with power plays and strategies for retaining narrow self interest. The knowledge ecology never happens. http://www.ontologystream.com/forums/Acappella/keco.htm Of course this is the well understood problem of how to represent Tacit knowledge from experts whose positions of authority depend on this Tacit knowledge not being known. I know that Art has a great deal of insight into this issue. *** Before I close this communication, I should point out that the BCNGroup IP to adopted technology vetting process model and Tri-level architecture are both part of what I would include in a Advanced Studies component of the KMPro certification program. I have always assumed that I could be supported in teaching this material, and that others such as Art Murray and Peter Kugler would be supported in a similar teaching effort. However, the natural tendency in KM certification is to so intermingle the marketing of the certification program with the content of the certification courses, as to make my contribution and the contribution of others virtually impossible. The above comment is not intended to be sore grapes, really, but an effort to help the marketers to understand the negative over-all effect of marketing being the dominate activity in some (if not all) KM certification programs. This selling of something that one does not really have does not help the economy (this is the claim), or the development of a new knowledge science. The value proposition to the marketing type personalities is in a derived legitimacy of KM via curriculum extensions in ethics and knowledge science (via the notion of "Advanced Studies".) If this legitimacy might be codified by a Clinger-Cohen provision, then the value proposition would generate income if not wealth to KMPro. Why not, is this not deserving of wealth? This work is also where I place much of the value proposition that I offer to some investor who might see the potential in this work IF some minimal financial resources where available to me. Again, to point to history and say that the failure of KMCI (for me) was that my, almost two year, investment in time and thought lead me into a trap where my work was either being systematically discounted and distorted (so as to look bad in the eyes of others) or was being promoted by the KMCI as being in their curriculum - while not supporting a system that allows me to teach and be compensated for this effort. ***
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC