Interesting Exchange

Subject: Re: KM Framework Document to circulate at LM

Hi Paul;

Interesting exchange. A modest proposal.

I can understand this material; because I have spent the considerable time to study it.

Most folks will not spend 5 minutes on this. And senior managers will not spend one page and 30 seconds.

So, you might do better with a simple, management briefing for these folks to understand it; and understand why it is important. And, saving money is never the rationale.

The 64 page white papers need to be the fifth stage in the education process....

A.,

You are free to create a new elevator speech. I have many. I just do not know which one to use.

My observation is that some senior managers now feel an indirect threat from the existence of the Roadmap.

There is no reason why mature adults cannot learn something when there is a potential to solve important everyday problems - because of a specific expenditure of time. The “senior management culture” has created; out of the culture’s perceived interests, this inability to focus on anything complex. Our society is changing what senior management is allowed to have as “interests”. We are doing this because of the absence of good judgment, in so many visible cases.

The indirect threat is that something will happen without them knowing why.

Managing this threat might demand that a senior manager actually do his/her job, and understand what can be understood - rather that taking this liberty to do nothing. (see: [48] )

This liberty is actually an avoidance of responsibility. Given a precise elevator speech, the same people will find a different reason not to act. Reasons to act are also imbedded in the pragmatics of the moment.

I agree that there is something that can be read as a half page.

See: www.ontologystream.com for my best attempt at a half page.

It is a different half page for each person, perhaps.

There is a win when senior managers take responsibility for decisions to make large expenditures. If there are too few wins, as the Congress appears ready to admit, then laws have to be changed so that responsibility is taken for expenditures of government funds.

I live in a (real) world in which what is now occurring is seen to be largely unethical and even perhaps illegal.

In my world, the ways things are done changes when there is light of day shone on what is occurring.

Our hope is that the Roadmap will be read and will result in positive action so that the light will see a positive outcome.

</important>

If the Congress cannot write laws that are specific to fiduciary responsibility by large IT contractors and by government program managers then no solution can be found other than those exercised by some people - as a benefit only to themselves or to a corporate interest in profits. SAIC and Lockheed Martin and IBM will all continue to have one failed IT system after another.

Do you know what you wish to accomplish at the lunch meeting tomorrow?

It may be proper to set up a meeting with the S&T program manager, after you get a little more information about the history of eCP. There are various educational processes going on, one of them being about what you bring to the table.

Why can eCP trust you to help?

Is there a win-win for SAIC and Lockheed, both?

Should I focus merely on a Lockheed solution if one of my several contacts in Lockheed is able to set this up?

You know that I am inclined to support your long-term plan to pull a quality semantic architecture into State, but if there is no quality architecture then there is nothing ethical to do. Right?

Bottom line: How do we create a real process that allows each party to be compensated for work done and which leads to the type of ontology mediated information exchanges that you and I have talked about?

Things change.

Chris, the junior S3 architect, is leaving eCP within two weeks. His leaving the entire ontology team will no longer have poor leadership. It will have no leadership - except as provided by the ontologists hired recently. I predict that the First School of Semantic Science will dominate unless the ontology project is terminated al together or the principles of the Second School are reintroduced to the team

http://www.ontologystream.com/

There will be a leadership vacuum. How can we take advantage of this vacuum in a way that will stand the light of day?

There will be light on this.

Roadmap