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.

Pet Peeve #1...

I feel moved to share my greatest pet peeve and the thing that bothers me most - other than fingernails on a chalk board. It's the word "myself". Don't get me wrong - it isn't the word itself, or the even the combination of letters that is so vexing. Rather, it seems so often that people misuse the word, but what really makes this interesting is that it is almost always misused because the user thinks it make him or her sound more intelligent...it doesn't.

Myself is a reflexive noun, which means that it must be reflecting on I or me. Therefore, any use of the word myself without being prefaced by I or me, is incorrect. For example:

"I, myself, am a grammatical freak." or "I went to the store by myself." or "You want me to do that myself?"

I and me are considered antecedents to the reflexive noun in the examples above, but now consider the following statements:

"Group A is comprised of Steven, Ryan, and myself." or "If you have questions you can talk to Holly or myself." or if someone asks who is running project B and said leader responds, "myself."

You see, there is no antecedent and hence we find myself misused as it is so often. So for anyone you know that refers to himself or herself as myself - let them know that they don't sound smart - at least not if the person he or she is talking to knows grammar.

More Pet Peeves to come...and some class thoughts too...