All Life Is Problem Solving

About 6 years ago I stopped posting at my All Life Is Problem Solving site, and shifted my blogging over to other sites devoted to economics and politics, often blogging under the handle letsgetitdone. But recently, I got the urge to finish some work I’d done in Knowledge Management, and I decided to complete a […]

[Read more →]

In this blog I continue my discussion of reflexivity by clarifying the differences between sequential and simultaneous reflexivity. If reflexivity is sequential, then the effects of our actions on the world and on our thinking at a later time, that is, “the interference” is sequential. Specifically, we cognize and come to an understanding of situation […]

[Read more →]

One of the concepts George Soros emphasizes the most is “reflexivity.” Here’s his presentation of the idea from The Age of Fallibility (pp. 6-7). ”On the one hand, we seek to understand our situation. I call this the cognitive function. On the other hand, we seek to make an impact on the world. I call […]

[Read more →]

George Soros has written a number of very interesting and influential books over the past 20 years including, among others: The Alchemy of Finance, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, The Age of Fallibility, and The Crash of 2008 and What It Means. All of these present and apply a conceptual framework he has worked with […]

[Read more →]

It’s not easy for people to accept that continuous critical evaluation of our ideas is a good thing. During the discussion in the actkm listserv Neil Olonoff responded very strongly to my view that continuous critical evaluation on a level playing field is a good thing. He pointed out that: “Many well-known products and services […]

[Read more →]

The issues of whether we should allow all ideas, both good and bad to flower, and whether bad ideas or fads don’t need to be experienced to be learned, have arisen in the actkm listserv discussion group in the context of my advocacy of critical evaluation of new ideas. This reminds me of the more […]

[Read more →]

Occasionally, someone in KM brings up the question of whether the discipline is a science. And then the arguments start. Some dislike the idea of science and deny that KM has anything to do science. Others identify science with knowledge that successfully describes, predicts and explains; and they conclude that the discipline of KM with […]

[Read more →]

During a discussion in the act-km group, Neil Olonoff expressed his distaste for the phrase “knowledge processing,” which I use frequently as a summary term for the activities in the second tier of the three-tier model of KM. In reply, I said that I’m not constitutionally wedded to the phrase “knowledge processing,” that the phrase […]

[Read more →]

Yesterday, I offered a high-level case for Federal Knowledge Management. But I did oversimplify things a bit, to keep my post short. The complication I didn’t want to introduce earlier is the idea that Knowledge Management already exists in every locale within the Federal Government, whether we think it does or not, and whether we […]

[Read more →]

The Federal Government really needs Knowledge Management. It needs Knowledge Management in many, if not most of its agencies. It needs Knowledge Management in its inter-agency teams. It needs Knowledge Management in the Congress. It needs Knowledge Management in the Judiciary. It needs Knowledge Management in the Federal Reserve System. And it needs Knowledge Management […]

[Read more →]