Thinking out loud here…

Chat last night on Twitter about cloud computing, the definition having been recently updated on Wikipedia by @bobgourley.  One gentle challenge was offered by @lewisshepherd:  By the simpler definition, a print server would be deemed cloud computing – is that what is meant?  

At one level, it is not altogether useful to have such broad definitions that the reader is unable to move from the definition to understanding what LinkedIn and Amazon Web Services have in common.  However, as a “specialist of the whole,” I was immediately seduced by the simplicity.  If a user can use distant computers to process local jobs, she is working with cloud computing.  (Cloud computering?)

Take this to another level.  In a most excellent book, Natural Born Cyborgs, Andy Clark wrote that we started offloading cognitive processes when we put on wristwatches.  When someone asks you if you have the time, you say yes – because you know you can look at the watch to get the current time. You likely don’t know it without checking, this may be why you’re asked if you “have” the time, rather than if you “know” the time.  

If someone asks for your phone number, you retrieve it from the wonderful wetware behind your eyes. (Some of us of a certain age eventually lose this information, “I don’t know, I never call it!”)

So what is the difference between looking up your phone number in your brain and checking your wristwatch?  Probably the reliance on previously unrelated variables – if the silly watch battery dies, I suddenly don’t know the time.

Somewhere around 1000 B.C., I suspect cave folk knew it was cold by walking outside and seeing the ice form.  Around 1617, the first thermoscopes were used to compare temperature changes.  As a child, I saw mercury thermometers on the house to tell me when it was freezing.  This morning, the Bride checked weather.com to find out our (somewhat) local temperature is 14 degrees F.  At what stage did we offload cognitive processes to “know” the local temperature?

Andy Clark is right, we are already cyborgs to a degree.  We have always involved technology to help us offload cognitive tasks.  As we consider the various definitions for “cloud computing,” it may be useful to consider it as the next logical step in moving from the cave to the hive mind.

What?

Well, beyond technology – we have also used our social connections to better understand our environment.  ”Is it cold out there” to “does anyone know any good new restaurants” is  logical progress.  One is shouted to your fellow cave-dweller, the other a question posed using social media.

So cloud cognition is the offloading of cognitive processes, but also the use of distributed sensors to better understand our habitat.  No man is an island, indeed.

“The [U.S. national security] system fails to know what it knows, to make sense of information and trends in order to understand an increasingly complex global environment, to make effective and informed decisions, and to learn over time what works—and what does not work.”

In a blog posted to the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, Stephen Aftergood refers to the Project for National Security Reform (PNSR) – specifically the work conducted by my team, the Knowledge Management Working Group, in the area of classification reform.  Mr. Aftergood raises some important points, and I will try to respond to them here.  

It is important to make clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the Project, but instead clarifying and discussing the analysis my team has already completed. This is my personal blog, and not sponsored or sanctioned by the Project for National Security Reform.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work, as we worked against a compressed timeline and the report would have benefited greatly from additional time and resources.  My team’s sections on knowledge management probably need more explanation than most, and I hope to expand on the ideas we put in that paper soon.  I am hopeful that through conversations such as these I can add detail – but also learn from all of you how to improve our thinking on this important topic.

From the Secrecy News blog:

“’Sharing information across organizational boundaries is difficult… [because] agency cultures discourage information sharing,’ the report states.  But this is a restatement of the problem, not an explanation of it.”

If that were all we stated in our problem statement, Mr. Aftergood would have a more valid case in finding our work shallow.  In addition to his reference regarding impediments to information sharing, however, we also discuss (pp. 331-362):

- Poor interoperability on the classified side

- Overclassification

- The proliferation of the “sensitive but unclassified” designation

- Confusing technical connections with collaboration

- Information systems are missing common data abstraction, protocols, and compatible business logic

- Inability of systems to understand business limitations and context of data

The recommendations we make in the report on this topic are likewise truncated in Mr. Aftergood’s treatment.

“And so the real upshot of the report’s argument is that the classification system cannot be fixed at all, at least not in isolation or on its own existing terms. ..

They vaguely advocate a “common [government-wide] approach for information classification [that] will increase transparency, improve accessibility, and reinforce the overall notion that personnel in the national security system are stewards of the nation’s information, not owners thereof.”

We didn’t intent to be vague, and apologize if the reader is left believing that we believed that the “teams” recommendation was sufficient to resolve classification issues.  In fact, we recommend (p.450) the establishment of an Office for Decision Support within the NSC Executive Secretariat, which would include the functions within ODNI (Special Security Center)  that are currently working to establish a common security classification across the national security system.  We believe the work this office is already doing is valuable, and seek to give it budgetary and enforcement mechanisms to ensure they succeed.  From our recommendations:

“[T]he Special Security Center within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence currently works to establish uniformity and reciprocity across the intelligence community, but this approach should be expanded to include the entire national security system.”

Mr. Aftergood is correct that we believe a systemic approach to resolving the problems of the national security system  is appropriate.  Hence, while we recommend the above for classification issues, we recognize that without the reforms mentioned in the human capital, strategy, and resources sections – the ‘knowledge management’ problems will not be resolved.  

For example, the fact that information security professionals are free to assert controls that hamper information sharing and other business functions remains a problem.

“There is often a tension between information security and operational effectiveness. The latter is enabled by easy access to information and the free flow of information both within and across organizational boundaries. The former often requires tight controls on information access and sharing based on a wide range of parameters (e.g., classification level, organizational affiliation, ‘need to know’ requirements, etc.) in order to minimize risks such as unauthorized access to data, data theft, and data manipulation. Historically, national security organizations have placed more emphasis on information security requirements than on the imperatives of information access and sharing. The result has been a culture of ‘risk avoidance’ that has limited the ability of key people and organizations to work collaboratively.”

I appreciate the discussion and review of our work; which we view as the beginning of a conversation.  My thanks to Mr. Aftergood for engaging with us.

Chain of events: Acquaintance writes email, referencing this blog from APQC.  I respond with a rant, augmented by a couple of acidic twitter messages to release steam.  These rants are posted to my Facebook status line, and results in a brief conversation there with a FB friend – who initially believes I’ve lost my mind.

And now here.  Why here?  I’ve already responded to the acquaintence, and interacted with the FB friend, and overall made my point.  Well, I’m blogging now to establish some measure of permanence to my thoughts.  My apologies then to those two individuals who have already been subjected to my rant.

The APQC blog asked a very reasonable question:  ”What’s the Deal with Lessons Learned?”  The author then posits several reasons:

“What is it about capturing and applying lessons learned that so often trips us up and causes us to never get past the “capture” step of the process? Is it that the mistake or error that prompts the lesson is so context-dependent that we think others couldn’t benefit from it and therefore we don’t capture it at all? Or could it be that whatever repository these lessons disappear into is so unorganized that retrieving them in order to apply them is a huge undertaking? Or is it simple communication–in other words, we simply don’t share our lessons learned proactively with those who might benefit from them? Or some combination of the above?”

My answer: E!  None of the above.

My acquaintance works in the Pentagon alongside his command’s “lessons learned” people, and shared that they go in the field, watch exercises, and then let people know where they made they repeated mistakes.  He was asking the same question:  why don’t these programs work as intended?

In organizations where the machinery is larger than the man, where we serve and tend to the machines, where human behavior and decisions are minor aspects of the overall production line – then things like “lessons learned” along with six sigma, Lean, etc., make some sense and have proven results.  The trouble comes when we apply these mechanisms in organizations where the human predominates.

My response is below, slightly edited, but retaining all the snarkiness.  I should add that I was responding in the context of military training and operations.  In most organizations, my opinion is strongly against “lessons learned” programs.  

Regarding lessons learned…  Let’s think about this for a moment.  The underlying presumption regarding “lessons learned” is that what worked before, will work again – and the context around the new situation will not differ enough to make the “lesson” insufficient to the new challenge.  This is arrogant, demonstrably false and dangerous.

I am seduced by the interest in yesterday’s post, which remains sloppy and in need of tightening.  There are many types I missed, so let me try to flesh this out a bit.  To review, these are observations, not completed analysis.  But through this first pass, we may glean some common characteristics.  To be serious about this, I would need a significant data sample – please do not imagine I have cut through thousands of twitter users to develop these types.

But I’d like to.

To recap, we have:

Incurious Celebrity – 1:60+ Augmenting value provided elsewhere, but not actively listening to Twitter. May respond to @ messages.  Poster girl: @breagrant.  Also a member: @anamariecox (1:122), whose messages are often worth printing off and framing.  Ms. Cox gained some fame by raising a substantial amount of money through Twitter and her blog in order to finish participating as part of the press gaggle for the McCain campaign.  She can rally support, but remains an Incurious Celebrity.

Curious Celebrity – 1:1  Augmenting value provided elsewhere, also engaging and listening to their followers.  May respond to @ messages, but also displays evidence they are proactively engaged. Poster guy @stephenfry (1:1)

Engaged Intellectual – (1:10) truly seeking to engage the people they follow, providing unique value online. Links to items they are reading or writing – and relies on feedback.  Would plotz without it. @cheeky_geeky (1:8) a poster guy here.

Balanced Invisible – (1:1), for small values of 1.  Engaged, but mainly followed by real life friends and Mom.  I’m trying to break out, I really am.  Sigh. 

Empty Suit - marketers, spammers, other folks who believe connecting with zero value is useful for anyone other than themselves.   Yesterday I provided an egregious example, today here’s “coach Judy,” someone whose ratio is (1:1). However, well, this graphic demonstrates an actual feed from a half hour out of her twitter life (the “free gift” is a blog posting).  She may be doing something really valuable to get all those followers, but her use of Twitter makes her an Empty Suit.

You may think that a form of the Incurious Celebrity would be journalism outlets, such as @nytimes (1:425).  They satisfy the criteria: high ratio of followers to followed, and providing intrinsic value.  However, their twitter messages are a form of “corporate communications,” in that they use Twitter to augment their news delivery.  

Journalists need their own types.  

Here are a few:  @nytimes (1:425) is, sorry, Old Media.  Why?  They use twitter entirely to draw eyeballs to their existing media channel.  Their messages are entirely links to their web page offering.  However, they are offering original content, as they employ actual journalists. Old Media remains a source of valuable information. 

@breakingnewson (1:10), is a Resourceful Repackager.  Their ratio is based on fairly large numbers (969:10,375), and they aren’t just following other news outlets.  However, they are monitoring news through various media channels and pass on breaking news to Twitter. 

@ricksanchezcnn (1:2) is an example of Listening Media.  While primarily appearing on the unblinking eye of CNN, he incorporates edited Twitter streams into his newscast.  More importantly, he uses the Twitter community for “show prep.” This is an important step, rather than treat twitter users (only) as if we’re zoo creatures, Mr. Sanchez is also interacting and listening.

Full disclosure:  I stopped following Rick Sanchez in a snit after he posted a question during show prep one day about the increase in hate speech directed at Barack Obama.  It’s entirely possible I wrote him several messages asking (ok, demanding) him to explain the difference between news and incitement.  He ignored (or likely, didn’t see) the messages, and I unfollowed. I’m still snit-bound.

Interestingly CNN’s @andersoncooper (1:780), (who violates the ‘cnn’ suffix that is otherwise apparently a station norm), is profoundly Old Media.  Such a young hip guy, but his messages are all pointers to his area on cnn.com, and his ratio is disturbing.  

Not only is he following only seven feeds, but the only human on that list is @jackcafferty (1:265).  Mr. Cafferty, whose job appears to consist entirely of provoking audience engagement through email, is remarkably also Old Media.  The only human on his list is, yes, @andersoncooper.  Someone get these guys telephones.  

Brief rant. Ok, Jack?  ”If you didn’t see your email here, go to my blog where they’re all posted.”  So:  write you an email so that I may then go to your “blog” and read it?  Aren’t narcissists usually more resourceful?  

@fox5newsedge (1:1) is truly radical, and may be an example of Trusted Media.  Yes, I did say that out loud.  This is someone of the Listening Media type who also shares non-news insights.  He responds to listeners, their ideas inform his on-air presentations, he provides a “tease” to his broadcasts, and links to content, but uses follow-up (what he calls f/u) ideas to provide a more tailored broadcast. Finally, and most important, he shares his personal twitter account (@brianbolter (1:5)) from here – where I can assure you he is himself.  This local news broadcaster thanked me recently when I provided a cleaning solution idea to fix an unfortunate marriage between a decanter of red wine and his carpet.  

Mr. Bolter is building out a trust network by connecting in a meaningful way with his audience. This is nontrivial; Washington DC is a town where news is often made by people who “leak” information to trusted news sources.  What does it mean for a journalist who’s gaining trust among thousands of Washingtonians with very little effort?  Do I trust Mr. Bolter because he spills red wine, is witty, and is nervous about an upcoming laproscopic procedure?  Yes, because he is connecting on a human level.

This matters.   

I don’t know if this little exercise is useful, but it’s fun to ramble once in a while.

Just some initial scattered thoughts regarding Twitter – if you don’t use it, this will make little sense to you.  Perhaps.  

I’m noticing possible user typologies, from my admittedly small vantage point, that are proving fascinating, at least to me.  (All numbers are current as of 2 December 2008.)

What follows is tongue-in-cheek, as I am not a fan of categories.  I am jotting it down in response to a question from a new virtual friend.  If I decide to take this seriously, I’ll look at balancing the categories; for now I’m just spewing.  If someone else has already perfected the Twitter Archetypes, please accept my apology and send a link.

I (@jbordeaux) am following 262 feeds, and have somehow gained 258 who are following my feed.  (Some are no doubt spammers, who follow many in hopes of opening up a channel for their wares.  Twitter appears to be getting a handle on this nuisance, suspending accounts that demonstrate ’suspicious activity.’)

For reasons unfathomable; I find myself following Brea Grant, a young actress on NBC’s Heroes.  This enterprising lady blogs frequently, promoting her show and charitable causes.  Ms. Grant follows 82 twitter users, and is followed by 4,282.  I confess to once offering a homeopathic remedy for her insomnia, and she immediately responded that it was on her list to try that evening.  This occurred while my Bride and I were watching the Heroes program.  I paused the show playback to mention that the attractive young spiky-haired character on the screen had just written to me.  I received a well-deserved glare in return, and quickly resumed the program.

Ms. Grant (1:52) is an Incurious Celebrity. That sounds unkind, she actually appears very curious – however she does not treat Twitter as a source of original information. I don’t know the ratio threshold, but being listened to by 4,282 people while only listening to 82 likely makes you an Incurious Celebrity.  It is important to note that Ms. Grant had no problem responding to a relevant comment I made to her directly – she was gracious, and not at all impolite. 

One of the magical things about Twitter is the opportunity to be contacted publicly by anyone – Ms. Grant does not follow my feed, but was alerted to my comment because I directed it to her.  Private comments are also possible, but only to people who have decided to follow you.  The folks at twitter paid attention during Sociology class.  

Brea Grant provides value in other channels, she entertains us using Old Media.  We follow her because she offers a behind-the-scenes look into, well, celebrity.

Another example is Matt Bacak (1:60) (no, I will not link to him in any way), who has 1,928 followers and only follows 32.  The amusing difference here is his recent vanity press release touting his triumph as a social media genius because of the number of his followers. (Those of you who do not use Twitter are laughing at this point.  So are the rest of us.) There is no discernible value associated with this gentleman, therefore no celebrity: while his ratio resembles Ms. Grant’s, he is apparently an Empty Suit.  (He has been called worse.)

So the ratio is augmented with Actual Value.  Need to work on quantifying that somehow.

Stephen Fry (1:1) is a Curious Celebrity.  This delightful gentleman is followed by 24,387 people, and follows 23,265 in return.  From his Flickr photos during a documentary shoot in Africa, to the many audio-video offerings on his eponymous website, to his quiet walks through NYC: he is a gentle treasure.  

Guy Kawasaki (1:1) is another Curious Celebrity, following 31,937 and followed by 31,567.  It is likely he automatically follows whoever follows him, but I can tell you from experience he also engages with them.  I have no idea how he does that, but it is (sorry) insanely great.

Some souls follow at many people as possible, but are not followed in return by any appreciable number. These appear to be, um, Quiet Followers.  They have little to say on their own, and their twitter feed consists almost entirely of replies to others.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the Empty Suits also have little to say aside from replies to others.  Another segment with similar numbers are Marketers and Spammers.  In every pond, some scum will grow.

Dr. Mark Drapeau (1:8) represents another segment, perhaps the Engaged Intellectual. He follows 204, and is followed by 1,659. While that seems out of balance, consider how he appears to be limiting himself to the bounds of social group dynamics – see Dunbar’s Number.  Unlike the Celebrities, he is hoping to have actual and meaningful exchanges with the people he follows.  If you are followed by him, he will chime in.  Unlike celebrities, he is watching.  His messages are an intriguing window into the convergence of government and social media.

Me (1:1)?  Well, with 262 followed, and 258 followers, I suppose I am a Balanced Invisible.  I’m dangerously close to promiscuity in my following behavior, but have yet to generate much interest.  While I have the same ratio as Mr. Fry, I am not – wait for it – in the same category.

There should be more thought here, but dinner beckons.  What am I missing?