Knowledge Management

Can Arguments Help in Collaboration?

Joe:   Can argument mapping help in collaboration?

Timo:   Yes, a lot of us are working — as teacher’s we are working with groups of students, and they built together some argument around an issue. Argument mapping does when you present it with a beamer on a screen or something like that, it makes it possible to have a discussion on issues that can be very precise, and that generates something from a shared thinking process. For instance when you’re working with people who have to defend a PhD and they present their Ph.D. or parts of their Ph.D. to the head of dissertation on a map on a screen and people can be very precise in asking questions connected to some claims people make. The fault is it enables having an argument that before all the people involved, it allows to focus on specific issues and you can be very clear about what you are talking and what not because everybody sees the issue involved before their eyes; so it facilitates a process of shared thinking.

Joe:   One of the things you talk about in Rationale is Essay Planning and being able to build an essay, and that’s like somewhat of a step-off than an argument. What’s the connection there?

Timo:   In an essay, you try to give a contention, a position to defend the position by giving reasons and objections, etcetera and you write it in a form that you hope that the readers of your essay will comprehend what you are saying or what your logical structure is in your argument and have fun reading. Every teacher of writing will explain to you that you should think first before you start writing. What you’re doing in an argument map is making visual your thinking in an argument map, and when you’ve done that, you can export your arguments map into prose by using the essay function within Rationale. And then you have the hardcore of your essay is available within Word or whatever editor you use, and you can build your essay around the argument map you have been exporting. So what you’re doing is, first you think about a subject and you come to a position, you build an argument around it and you think, well this is okay, this is really a good argument for a position you want to defend or to do research in and only then you export it as a text file to your editor, and then you have to edit, the bone structure of your essay is ready, and then you can fill it in, flash it out with all kind of details, background information, things that are fun to read. But the hardcore of your essay, you’ll be making first.

These comments were from a podcast that I had with Timo ter Berg is the CEO of Critical Thinking. They help people visualize and organize their thoughts combining innovative graphic display tools with the latest research on how to make complex thinking more organized and accessible. They host several products called Rationale and bCisive which can be found at http://www.reasoninglab.com.

Related Podcast and Transcription: Organizing Complexity

Lean Sales and Marketing: Learn about using CAP-Do

Lean Engagement Team (More Info)

 

30% Time Wasted Looking for Data, 50% Success Rate Finding It

A fact that Kim Robertson , the author of over 100 discipline specific training packages, 3 fiction books and articles for CM Trends and various other trade publications from industrial arts to Configuration Management, stated in a recent podcast.

His latest collaboration Configuration Management: Theory, Practice, and Application is

Excerpt from the Podcast:

Joe:   One of the parts that jumped out of me was some of the statements right away that you made in the heading of the poor handling of data. I think you mentioned that 30% of the knowledge worker’s times are used for looking for data and even at that, there’s only a 50% success rate.

Kim:   Yes, that’s a problem across industry. That one actually came from another book that I got that information from. Basically, we don’t have the data linked. So for example, if you have a subcontract; with the subcontract you have a purchase order, you have a statement of work, you may have some specifications. After that, you have data that they’re going to send it to you which is usually supply chain data lists. Nobody is hooking those together within their product data management or product life cycle management systems. They can tell you every piece part and who the vendor was that goes into the buildup of the final item, but they can’t tell you where the data was, what the receiving’s factual report actually said about the information or much else. That’s very bad when you’re trying to do any type of quality assessment on why things aren’t working the way you thought they would within test before you field something. Or in the case of things like the switch the GM had, where did you go wrong with that piece of it and basically that gets back to one of the premises that if two things don’t look the same, aren’t of the same quality, don’t look alike, don’t keep the same number and we find that that goes on quite a bit. There have been cases of airlines where it’s time to replace an engine and they order a new engine for the jet aircraft, the engine shows up and it doesn’t fit on the wing because they made a change, but they didn’t change the top assembly number.

We have all of those types of activities that we need to take a look at and integrate them together somehow. We have this problem with the Lean-type activities as well. Lean Six Sigma is something that is very popular right now. Lean Six Sigma I believe says you’re going to have two bad parts after every million or so. A couple of years ago, there was a company that ordered a couple million resistors all of the same value from another company and they had a Lean Six Sigma requirement and the company they’d ordered from, the supplier kept saying, we’re going to have to hold off a couple weeks, giving you this last supply data management report. I said well okay, and so then eventually the report came in and there was a shipment of resistors and there were two resistors typed to this note on top of it saying, we didn’t know why you wanted two bad resistors, but it took us eight weeks to find them, since they were working at an Eight Sigma level. So a lot of that, you have to know what your suppliers are capable of before you let your requirements on them because otherwise you may be forcing them to do work and costing you money that you don’t have to spend.

Joe:  I think about the data, I think that the inaccuracies that you point out in the data and the lack of cross-references and coordination between all these data, and from a layman’s standpoint it sounds like here we are back to this old file cabinet thing that 80 to 90% of whatever we put in the file cabinet, we never retrieve again. What we did retrieve, a lot of it was inaccurate and though that was in the paper world, is data much better?

Kim:   One advantage you had with the paper world was at least you could retrieve it. What we see a lot with the information technology, these activities are that some people make uninformed decisions that the data isn’t required, and so they may dispose of it. We’ve had some cases where I was involved in a program where the decision was made, we’re just paying too much for backing up servers and so we’re not going to back anything after three months. We’ll backup nightly, we’ll back up weekly; we’ll backup monthly. We’ll save three monthlies and then when we save the fourth; we’ll throw the first one away. Lo and behold an entire program’s worth of data went missing and it happened four months or more before it was discovered and the customer was asking questions because the units were still on the field, and nobody could find any of the information. As far as data retention itself goes, I don’t think that we’re much better because the IT organizations and the programmatic aren’t really communicating or understanding if they are talking what the actual requirements are and often its retention for 10 years after disposal of the last unit which with an automobile maybe 40 years from now. On a space asset, some of them would have been up there 35 years. Voyagers have been up there almost 30 years I believe, and it is still going. All of that data is still being retained some place.

Which brings us to a secondary problem is what happens, because the computers are going and involving so quickly. You’re talking about possibly having quantum computers now which would give us something besides buying a recode because you’d end up with 16 possible states for an answer making things not black and white or ones and zeros but shades of gray or Technicolor if you would. So we have some of the missions where we actually archive the computers, the operating systems, the software and everything else because 15 years from now, all of that evolve and there will be no way to actually communicate with a spacecraft that was in orbit. The same thing is going on, on the ground. The last launch of the space transportation system, they were sourcing all 86 boards off of eBay to keep the systems running in order to make that last launch because the hardware was so old, and we have the same thing going on with the data. How do you keep it current and we’ve been struggling with that for a long time. The portable data format or PDF has been a great help with that because PowerPoint and those types of things, when you move them from one server to a lesser cost, storage type of retention sometimes get corrupted and you can’t ever retrieve them again, but PDF’s still seem to be good.

Joe: Configuration management is supposed to help us with all these problems and to me, it sounds good but how does configuration management or what are the keys there to make all these things right as we just talked about?…….

Related Podcast or Transcription: Configuration Management

Lean Sales and Marketing: Learn about using CAP-Do

Lean Engagement Team (More Info)

Making Complex Thinking More Organized

Timo ter Berg is the CEO of Critical Thinking, a leader in the development of software. They help people visualize and organize their thoughts combining innovative graphic display tools with the latest research on how to make complex thinking more organized and accessible. They host several products called Rationale and bCisive which can be found at http://www.reasoninglab.com.

Argument Mapping

Are discussion centered on Argument Mapping, a unique mapping process that is very useful for structured, critical thinking & writing and debate preparation.

Download MP3

Business901 iTunes Store

Mobile Version

Android APP

Lean Sales and Marketing: Learn about using CAP-Do

Lean Engagement Team (More Info)

ApRecs Field Data Scorecard Training

At last year’s Northwest Food Processors Association Expo, 72% attendees said food safety was a prime concern. A reason stated was that a single food safety incident can cause damage to your brand and to your bottom line. Do you think attendees would say they are making better decisions this year over last? What is missing in most cases is that Food Safety has never been tied to business objectives. How do you use Food Safety Data in Your Organization?

Join ApRecs for 3 exciting leadership sessions, learn the Field Data Scorecard Method.

February 13  @ 9:00 am PST: Creating a Quality Environment from Compliance: Dr. W. Edwards Deming introduced the idea that the best way to quality was to assure the quality of the processes that creates the product. Food Safety ValuesThrough this type of thinking, we stopped thinking of quality from perspective of inspection and whether it passed or not. Instead, we learned that quality took place in real-time and by the people doing the work. Compliance is very much like quality. The best way towards compliance is to move compliance into work processes and towards the place of work. As Lean taught us, quality/recordation can be used to improve our business process and achieve business objectives.

Takeaways:

  1. Creating a normalized process out of your field data
  2. Ownership: Taking responsibility for the privacy and security of your data
  3. Transparency: Trusted connections, who are they and what they do with your records

March 13th @ 9:00  am PST:  Leveraging Compliant Data for Awareness: Most Packers/Shippers/Processors lack a system of measurement and a way to monitor field data performance. However, what would it be like if the status in real-time was displayed for all growers and Food Safety Valuesproduct varieties with the capability to drill down instantaneously to any give field, block or individual record.  What if these indicators were available for Sales Desks and at the fingertips of operations and productions? Ask Food Safety now for information and most of what you will receive is a thumbs up and/or information for the product much later in processing when a label has been attached.  If there is a wrong chemical applied, an invalidated record, the issue would now surface practically immediately, not several weeks later from a lab report or discovered at the time of an audit. When discovery happens in real-time, problems can be handled when both risk and cost are at a minimum.

Takeaways:

  1. Quality tools what are they and how to use them.
  2. CAPA: Corrective Actions and Preventative Actions
  3. Develop Forecasting Tools

April 10 @ 9:00 AM PST: Putting Awareness  to work  thu Scorecarding:  The Field Data Scorecard solution is a catalyst for change. The power of the scorecard lies in identifying opportunities to increase value recognition and predicting future performance with some confidence. If we Food Safety Valuesimprove our processes, we improve quality, conformance and the speed at which we do work. Meeting Business Objectives is a key part of the scorecard. It adds the dynamic characteristic needed to shift from compliance to awareness.

Takeaways:

  1. Delivering a Compliant Product
  2. Privacy and Data Security
  3. Brand Protection and Risk Management
  4. Performance Measurements

There are undeniable short-term costs, but most of these will eventually become costs anyway. Creating new data does not mean simply putting it in a report. That would be wasteful. Instead, it should be used to spark creative solutions that, in fact, makes your organization better. The opportunity is to use the Field Data Scorecard to move from short-term fixes of avoidance to the long-term capability of awareness.

Learn the Field Data Scorecard Method

  • February 13  @ 9:00 am PST:  10:00 am PST: Creating a Quality Environment from Compliance
  • March 13th @ 9:00  am PST:  Leveraging Compliant Data for Awareness
  • April 10 @ 9:00 AM PST: Putting Awareness  to work  thru Scorecarding

When you start thinking this way about your Food Safety Data, your Field Data…there are endless opportunities to use your data in constructive ways.

TO REGISTER FOR SESSIONS / VISIT THE EVENT PAGE

There will be a short 10 minute introduction on the Field Data Scorecard before the regular ApRecs Packer/Shipper/Processor webinars. You can stay for the rest of the webinar or you can leave after you hear about the scorecard. ApRecs does not impose its platform to develop the Field Data Scorecard. You can use your existing system though it may have certain limitations across platforms that may need to be added or manually created.

PSP: FUNCTIONAL AND OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW OF THE APRECS PSP MODULE

PSP: AGRI-DATA AWARENESS / WRANGLING RECORDS & EMPOWERING DECISIONS

Disclaimer: I work with ApRecs and will be facilitating these sessions.

What is Argument Mapping?

Argument Mapping is a unique mapping process that is very useful for structured, critical thinking & writing and debate preparation.  I introduced myself to Timo ter Berg, the CEO of Critical Thinking, a leader in the development of software. They help people visualize and organize their thoughts combining innovative graphic display tools with the latest research on how to make complex thinking more organized and accessible. They host several products called Rationale and bCisive which can be found at http://www.reasoninglab.com.

An excerpt from next weeks podcast:

Joe:  I first learned about you from your software product Rationale. Can you tell me when was that first published and about that product a little bit.

Timo:   It was first published in its current form I think in 2006, and it had a predecessor that is called ReasonAble. Both are made by a group of brilliant people in Australia, in the University of Melbourne and a spinoff of that from 2006, ReasonAble was changed into Rationale, and it has the form it has now. Rationale was a Windows only program. The last two years, my company has been responsible for bringing Rationale as a program online. So it’s now online available, and it does not have the limitations the Rationale windows version had. Argument MappingJoe:   I was a ReasonAble customer now that you say that. I remember that. That’s the first software I bought, so that was quite a few years ago. Rationale is based on what we might call the process of Argument Mapping. Can you explain what Argument Mapping is?

Timo:   Yes, it’s an official representation of reasoning. It’s an official representation of making arguments in such a way that you have a contention, a claim and you want to support it with evidence, with information that you think is supporting the claim. So you can give reasons for a contention, you can give reasons for reasons, you can give objections, and you can give rebuttals. And in an official structure of an argument map, you can see the logical structure of an argument before your eyes. So in an argument that reasons are green, objections are red, there are logical connectors of words that are placed between sentences like because, or, but, or, however. You can add different kinds of resources to support a claim you make. By making such a map, an official representation of the logical structure of an argument, you can become very specific on the details of an argument. It’s possible to zoom in into the details of a claim and the way it’s supported or not without having to remember all these stuff.

Argument Mapping 2

When you’re reading an article, for instance, you have to remember all the logical connections between sentences and after five or six or seven sentences, you’re lost. What you do with an argument map is making a still of an argument so that you’re able to be very precise in evaluating the answer, the contention whether it’s supported well or not. So that would be my first description.

Lean Sales and Marketing: Learn about using CAP-Do

Lean Engagement Team (More Info)

 

Configuration Management Tales #1

Kim Robertson is the author of over 100 discipline specific training packages, 3 fiction books and articles for CM Trends and various other trade publications from industrial arts to Configuration Management. His latest collaboration Configuration Management: Theory, Practice, and Application is available for pre-order on Amazon.com. Contact Kim through LinkedIn or Kim.Robertsonatvaluetransformdotcom.Kim Robertson

His interests in education and training development started in his teens. He is a NDIA certified Configuration Manager with degrees from Westminster College in Mathematics and Physical Sciences and a Master’s degree from the University of Phoenix in Organizational Management with a sub-specialty of Government Contracts.

I enjoyed Kim’s storytelling so much that I left the time get out of hand. As a result, Kim talked himself in to a two part episode. The 2nd part will post next week.

Download MP3

Business901 iTunes Store

Mobile Version

Android APP

Lean Sales and Marketing: Learn about using CAP-Do

Lean Engagement Team (More Info)

Data: Your Nearest Neighbor is Nano-Seconds

Kim Robertson started his first company at the age of 18 and has an extensive background spanning forty years in all aspects of business and aerospace. He is the author of over 100 discipline specific training packages, 3 fiction books and articles for CM Trends and various other trade publications from industrial arts to Configuration Management. His latest collaboration Configuration Management: Theory, Practice, and Application is available for pre-order on Amazon.com. Configure ManagementContact Kim through LinkedIn or Kim.Robertsonatvaluetransformdotcom.

Kim is the guest on the Business901 podcast tomorrow.

Joe: A lot of people want to control their own data. They want control of it. They’re generating it, and can they have ownership. Is that ever really going to be feasible?

Kim:   It depends on how you define that thing that you’re trying to control. I’ll give you an example. I have intellectual property that I feel is mine which may be photographs of family; it may be the types of things that you would share with people on your Christmas card and that sort of thing. If you are putting that information on Facebook for example, I believe a clause is still in the Facebook use agreement that as soon as you post something, Facebook can use that information anyway they want to including sell it to somebody else. So once you do that and sign up for that agreement, you have lost control of your personal IP. When it comes to things like patented technologies and trademark type technologies, countries have different ways of looking at it. For example, some companies say, we don’t care who built this IC chip; we’ll give a patent to every new application for it. So if you originally built it for a cell phone and now all of a sudden somebody has it saying, oh we’ll use that same technology for your garage door opener so you can open your garage from your cell phone; that would be two patents.

Once we get to some sort of international standard for what that IP means worldwide, it’s going to be a lot easier to protect it. Right now, you’ll find it’s kind of anybody’s game but it has been for years. Back in antiquity, for example, intellectual property and data encryption took different forms. There is historical records of this fellow who wanted to get information about a city out to the people that were going to invade the city, and so he had some trusted servants and he shaved their heads and he tattooed the instructions on their heads, let their hard grow and sent them out. It was a very early form of IP security. In Sumner, they used to have little clay balls that they put tokens inside. In the token maybe here’s three measures of wheat, two measures of metal, and four measures of beer, and once those were put inside the clay ball and both people’s seals were put on it, that was a binding protected piece of IP until that clay ball was broken. You could say, oh okay, you’re Fred, you’ve worked for me a week, so you want me to pay you your metal and your wheat and your beer.

The idea, that all of this is new, is not true; it’s just become more critical as we reach the population densities that we have. It was much easier to control when your nearest neighbor was 20 miles away. Now that your nearest neighbor is nano-seconds away in the electronic world, it gets very hard to control. I don’t think we’re ever going to really get there. I think that we’re making great strides, but a lot of that is based on trust, and some of the problems we find is based upon different definitions of what IP really is. For example in the US, we say we patented this design wherever you use it. In Japan they say, we patented this usage of that design, whatever it is. So, of course, there’s going to be disconnects until we come to a common language.

Lean Sales and Marketing: Learn about using CAP-Do

Lean Engagement Team (More Info)