Class 2/19

I enjoyed our guest speaker, Peter Stilson of Godengo. The company serves a very niche market of regional lifestyle magazines. As a reader of such publications, the service Godengo provides is invaluable. I use magazine websites frequently to the best local restaurants and services. With the content I am interested in free and available online, I no longer find it necessary to purchase local lifestyle magazines. With print publication subscriptions down, magazines and newspapers folding everyday, printed media is a struggling industry. It is interesting to think of how Godengo's services impact this industry's life cycle. Are the magazine's websites cannibalizing magazine sales? Will web content, which is more timely, current and dynamic, become the primary revenue drivers for magazines? If so, will print disappear altogether? Publications must create new business models to stay relevant and competitive. Technology services such as those that Gogengo provides are morphing and reshaping entire industries. I am waiting for Godengo's mobile apps for my iphone...

On another note, I watched "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" last week and the movie won this oscar this weekend for best visual effects. New visual effects technology was used to create a completely digital human head for Brad Pitts character the first hour of the movie. The digital head was on a human body in the movie. It was increadible and very seamless. The designers abandonded existing technology (motion capture) being used in the film industry because the detail / resolution was not compelling enough. They instead created a database of every motion that Brad's face can make and transposed this data on top of molds of old Brad's head. One of the designers who worked on this project, Ed Ulbrich of Digital Domain explains this much bestter in this video: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ed_ulbrich_shows_how_benjamin_button_got_his_face.html

Class 2/17

I appreciated the discussion on knowledge exchange. Phill's answer to the question is exactly how I originally understood the relationship between knowledge management and knowledge exchange. Phil viewed exchange as a subset of or mechanism of knowledge management. However, as the discussion continued, Doug explained that Knowledge Management is about explicit knowledge (codifying the ability to access knowledge), while Knowledge Exchange is about tacit knowledge (information you learn from someone else, through communication). Given this definition Knowledge Exchange is incredibly valuable to an organization and individuals within an organization. As it cannot be codified, it drives unique insight and wisdom.

If Knowledge Exchange is about what you learn from others, through direct interaction, engagement and communication, what role does technology play in Knowledge Exchange? Can tacit knowledge be codified? How can technology make individual tacit knowledge available to others in an organization? From our discussion in class, it would seem that technology's role in Knowledge exchange is minimal, whereas technology is paramount to effective Knowledge Management. While technology can play a role in the value chain that facilitates building wisdom, what drives knowledge exchange is people, not technology. Knowledge exchange is not about efficiency and standardization, but rather about individuals listening, learning, being resourceful and taking time to engage.

Class 2/12

It is clear the business component maps can be an incredibly useful tool for understanding an enterprise. The in-class exercise of developing a model for the finance department of an organization certainly illustrated how challenging the task of developing a model is. While this exercise was valuable, I think it would have been more effective to develop a model for an organization that I have worked at. A deep understanding of an organization's specific structure, functions and competencies are necessary to truly make this model effective. Perhaps, for our take home Knowledge Exchange pov assignment, rather than modeling for an abstract organization, we could have tried to utilize this tool on an organization we work or have worked for. In this way, the impact of what this approach reveals would be more relevant and powerful.

On another note, I came to appreciate technological backups over the last several days out of technology frustration. While wireless communications offer great flexibility and efficiency, when these systems become vulnerable great inefficiencies result. As students, we depend on wireless Internet access from our laptops while at school. When the wireless system fails, we spend hours trying to log back on, make our connection more robust and figure out short and long term solutions. As a result we lose time spent on completing productive work. As a result of a weak wireless network at school, I have become dependent on using a desktop computer, with hardwired Internet access. Similarly, my cellular phone's modem malfunctioned this weekend, and I was therefore unable to make or receive phone calls. Unfortunately, I do not have a land line. This is incredibly challenging when it is expected that everyone is available by phone at all times. We depend on access, constant communication. The new tools - wireless phones and Internet - make this possible. However, we are certainly not yet ready to abandon our more primitive technologies. Sometimes a land line and wired Internet access are a necessity.

Masters & Johnson

I enjoyed our discussion on intimacy & efficiency. I thought it was interesting how the discussion was framed for students to take a definitive position - make a case for one side or the other when, in reality the two are not mutually exclusive. Intimacy - a focus on specific needs of customers and the business - can drive efficiency. In turn, efficiency can allow firms to better service their clients. The discussion really came full circle at the end of the class - in which we finished up talking about interconnectedness. Just as corporations need to think cross functionally about their departments, mangers need to think about effeciency and specificity as interralated as well.

Regarding my last post, I just found an interesting article online that addresses use of new technology in architecture and building. This article discusses how Frank Gehry's architecture office has developed a software that they both use and sell to other design / construction professional. It is not necessarily true that architects don't drive technological change that can reduce error as Cole implied last week. Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/11gehry.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=gehry&st=cse

Guest Speaker Cole Orndorff

It was very interesting to hear how technologies deployed in the construction business can enable cost savings for contractors and their clients. Adoption of new technologies in the building industry have traditionally been associated with high costs, often making use or implementation out of reach for customers and thus for design and building professionals. For example, many innovative sustainable building technologies have lagged in market adoption as a result of the high end-user costs. In the case of sustainable building technologies, it is often difficult to get customers to pay higher upfront costs for technologies and building systems that promise costs savings down the line (ie. lower energy bills for use of photovoltaic panels).

In terms of advanced building information modelling technologies, as discussed by Orndorff, these systems come at a very high cost to businesses. As well, they lack support across the building industry supply or value chain. In the case of the software used for the Disney Concert Hall, that Orndorff referenced, the architecture firm used Catia, a modelling software developed for and used by the the aeronautics industry. Therefore, at the time there is little familiarity within the building industry in using such software. Contractors, subcontractors, engineers, all had to become familiar with learning how to read such models. The costs of purchasing the software and educating builders, engineers and designers are high. Furthermore, these challenge industry standards of using AutoCad and prints of 2-d drawings. Many contractors and subcontractors do not know how to read 3-d models and use 2-d drafting programs and are used to reading traditional "blueprints."

In my experience practicing architecture, our firm used BIM software and worked to model structural, mechanical and electrical designs developed by our consultants to forsee and prevent conflicts that Orndorff mentioned. Unfortuneately, our design fees did not often cover the costs the taking 2-d drawings from consultants and rendering this information 3 dimensionally. Clients don't want to pay upfront to prevent errors. Though such errors, are incredibly difficult to predict given conventional tools. Furthermore, few engineers used such systems, so we could not simply "drop" these systems into our models. Finally, for the liability issues that Orndorff mentioned, architects provided dated, stamped and signed drawings that have been pre-approved by the city to contractors. These are legal documents and the legal issues of building from "working" model are many.

While industry changes are necessary to maximize the effectiveness of such technologies, I think these technologies are incredibly valuable for the industry - for both cost controls and design innovation. I think it is great to see that large building firms are using these technologies and hopefully this trend will continue.

Class on 1/29

I found the discussion of knowledge management in Thursday's class very interesting.  Certainly, reducing redundancy in an organization with technologies that facilitate improved institutional knowledge management has many advantages.  Advantage include efficiencies which allow members of an organization to accomplish more and to spend time in more productive ways.  While this, in turn, potentially drives improved profitability, it can inadvertently stifle innovation.  

For example, when working in architecture I met with a commercially successful firm that deploys design strategies that maximize efficiency, thus maximizing margins on the firm's professional services.  This is accomplished through building a digital library of "standard" designs and detail.  This library is then used by architects when working on new projects.  Rather than developing a new design detail for a residential stair, for example, the designer selects a stair in the firm's library and inputs this design into the plans for a new house.  There are incredible efficiencies in this approach - time saved developing and drawing a new stair as well as the firm's knowledge and experience in building something they have built before.  As such, the designer and firm know what is required to execute construction of this design and can predict the costs of building this component.  

This approach, however, lacks innovation.  It does not allow for the development of new solutions, use of new materials or new approaches to building.  If designers simply rely on their firms' knowledge management systems when executing new products, the opportunity to generate alternative, more cost effective or more valuable solutions is limited.  I feel this is therefore important that firms acknowledge the potential trade-offs when developing and adopting knowledge management systems.