Did you know?

I must say, I was quite intrigued in class last week. The answer to Doug's question is - no, I didn't know. Most of those facts were new to me and they were good to know. In fact, I have regurgitated a few of them over the last several days and those I talked to found them equally as interesting. So, I'll leave you with this though: Did you know...

Wall Street was named for a barrier to keep "hostile" indians at bay in New York City.

Second Thoughts on Second Life...

I wrote a paper on Saturday about an experience on Second Life - I was less than impressed and saw only one thing I might consider using a similar virtual world for in the future - tour homes or getting an tour of a home or building not yet built. Otherwise, I found it a collossal waste of time - traveling the infinite land and sitting in chairs, hot air balloons, and yachts I can't drive (without paying).

My second thoughts on Second Life relate to the businesses that test new products and new ideas in the virtual world. Whose opinion are they gaining. I hate to pigeon-hole Second Life users, but I am not sure they represent the US population or any other populations, for that matter. Clearly, they respresent "a population" but I doubt if they respresent a mainstream population. Therefore, I get the feeling that businesses might base decisions on incomplete data. It seems like Victoria's Secret testing new ideas and products with a population of guys.

Perhaps I am being a little hard on Second Life and even its users. That being said, I think my point is a good one and it warrants additional research before companies begin making decisions on a product because it was successful or unsuccessful in Second Life. It is a second life, after all.

How did we survive?

I am on a trip this weekend in snowy Colorado for some skiing. I have had relatively limited access to internet, but at least I have my cell phone that can deliver my emails to me. I can make calls at will even as I ski down the mountain to find the friends that just left me in the dust. How the heck did we survivie without internet and cell phones. Shockingly, it has been a mere decade or so since these innovations became largely popular and available to the masses. I can't imagine being without either of them and would feel so disconnected from the world and those I feel the need to communicate with daily. I find myself wondering what the next amazing invention will be - what, 10 years from now, we'll look back on to wonder how we survived without it. The craziest part of it all, is that we did survive without these great tools, and we can make a go of it if need be...but isn't much fun.

Knowledge Management

A process or a technology? Maybe none of the above... Broadly defined, technology is a branch of knowledge at a given point in time used in society. For example, the Egyptians used technology to build the pyramids and the Sphinx. The guillotine, the sling-shot, and the aquaducts were each technologies that enabled life at a given point in time. Computers, bits and bytes, and servers are technologies, but technology IS NOT these things.

Further, a process is indicative of a "right way" to do something. Essentially, a process implies a step by step codification to accomplishing a particular task.

It doesn't really matter, in the big scheme of things, whether knowledge management is either or both of these things...maybe neither. It did seem, however, that there was a negative connotation with knowledge management in the classroom as something that hinder a sales person's ability to sell, or something that belittled the depth of real conversation or debate. I love debate and conversation and similar to technology, knowledge management can be interpretted broadly. Knowledge management if the act of putting structure to one's knowledge. The act of knowing what one knows. It is precisely those who don't know what they know that spew out stupid ideas on a daily basis. Knowledge management, technology or process, is essential - knowledge management is analysis, it is understanding. Debate can't happen without knowledge management - but then, I suppose, the debate goes on.

Intimacy or Efficiency?

We talked, in class Tuesday, about intimacy and efficiency. Clearly both provide great advantages and both are quite important. However, given the opportunity to choose one of the above, as the exercise in class prompted, I would choose intimacy. Many in class chose this option and, no doubt, many would agree with my point. Nonetheless, I think the semantics were largely misinterpretted in class. Efficiency seemed to be interpreted as manufacturing efficiency or some sort of efficiency that saves the target firm money. Also, it seemed that intimacy was interpretted as a strong relationship between sales person and customer. Rather, I think these terms can be interpretted in a much more philosophical fashion.

Intimacy can manifest itself not only as the likability of sales rep or company, but also as a long-standing relationship creating peace of mind for the customer. For example, many companies worry about downtime with IT solutions and are very unlikely to switch from one firm to another when a reliable vendor is found.

I think the best example of this phenomenon was the Qwerty keyboard. A new keyboard was created proved that it was significantly more efficient - it promoted much higher typing speeds and more intuitive use. Nevertheless, it failed because the Qwerty keyboard had established itself as the standard - there was a certain intimacy with the keyboard because people knew how to use it. Intimacy won, at the end of the day - and I would place my bet on intimacy almost every time.

CIO's, Construction Companies, and Procurement

Thursday's class was an intriguing session. His advice was certainly appropriate because sometimes you need to be reminded that, in fact, we are in an economy in which everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - is negotiable. He had a lot of great insights into how technology has enabled the company's success and it was fascinating to hear about the intricacies that are so important for businesses.

I was particularly struck by his comments about his negotiation with Oracle. He stated that the original quote he received for a particular piece of hardware/software was $595,000 - but that he was able to negotiate them down in price to $175,000. I have been on the other side of the transaction - the sales side - and I have a lot of trouble believing the story. First, no one puts that kind of margin into thier products. Second, did he end up buying the same solution he was orignally quoted? I severely doubt it. He may or may not have ended up with a better deal, but I shutter at the thought of a sales person - especially one who would be calling on an account the size of Mortenson - that would drop his or her shorts by discounting a product to such a drastic degree...even if it was possible to drop the price that far, which, again, I doubt. He probably got a cheaper solution with fewer finctionalities in exchange for the lower amount of money he was willing to pay.

Again, this is all speculation, but it is extremely hard to believe the story as it was originally told. But who am I? Till next time...

Thinking Computers...

I have to comment on this X-Files like idea we briefly mentioned in class last week. I'm sure that technology has gained certain insights into predicting human behavior - likely based on certain inputs or even profiling of the individuals life and/or experiences. However, when it comes to a thinking computer or technology, I just don't buy it. It might predict, but it doesn't think, it doesn't have capacity to make a decision - at minimum, emotion makes people do stupid things - some can control it others can't. But isn't that what we call thinking? There will be more on this at a later date, but for now...I don't buy it.