Don’t Connect the Dots, Watch the Noise

Keep trying to connect the dots, and you'll remain blind to the future

Keep trying to connect the dots, and you'll remain blind to the future

Originally appeared in Inside Knowledge Magazine 10 Sep 2008, Vol 12, Issue 1.

On 12 September, 2001, I received an e-mail from the CEO of my company (a federal contracting firm located just outside Washington DC). As F-16s continued their combat air patrols over my neighbourhood, I read, paraphrasing: ‘John, yesterday [9-11] was a failure of knowledge management. In the years to come, this will be the critical area for improvement’.

We soon heard about failures to ‘connect the dots’ regarding behaviours among flight school students, an arrest in the Midwest not shared across the FBI, and so on.

Seven years forward and US national security is changing. ‘Need to share’ is the buzzword, hoping to replace ‘need to know’. The director of National Intelligence releases a vision calling for sharing intelligence with law enforcement. The Department of Defense releases its first Information Sharing Strategy. The implication, never explicit: if only we get the right knowledge to the right person at the right time, we can know the future and learn which dots pose a threat.

When then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice stated “I don’t think anybody could have predicted… that they would try to use an airplane as a missile”, she was wrong. Someone in government had actually considered that scenario. There are thousands of scenarios considered daily across the national security system – some will always be seen in hindsight as predictive. While technically incorrect, Dr. Rice pointed up an underlying truth. There are thousands of scenarios considered daily and we do not know which scenario, which threat, which dot deserves our attention before the fact. And if we keep assuming there is a golden thread that, if pulled, will unravel the future – we never will.

Systems scientists, organisational theorists and business leaders are beginning to work in a world where control can be an illusion and adaptation preferred. We are starting to focus on nurturing networks and relationships;a recognition that certain systems are, by their very nature, non-linear, and they change their behaviors based on their starting points and the random events that might ensue, leading to emergent new behaviors that cannot be predicted.

Anticipation replaces prediction. While linear models are generally developed to predict the future; complexity helps us anticipate developing patterns of behavior.

In reforming the US national security system, it is vital that we question assumptions regarding the predictability of our world and instead understand that we connect not to find the haystack needle, but in order to better understand and discern patterns in the noise. The subtitle of the interim report from the Project on National Security Reform is a good beginning: ‘Ensuring Security in an Unpredictable World’. How we apply KM and complexity principles to national security reform will shape our ability to secure the nation’s future.

This entry was posted in Governance, National Security. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Don’t Connect the Dots, Watch the Noise

  1. Rotkapchen says:

    “we do not know which scenario, which threat, which dot deserves our attention before the fact. And if we keep assuming there is a golden thread that, if pulled, will unravel the future – we never will”

    Or as Clay Shirky says, what we have is filter failure (http://lifehacker.com/5052851/information-overload-is-filter-failure-says-shirky). I’d take it a step further, it’s not just filtering, it’s synthesizing – sensemaking. But then again, the same thing was said by a CIA director 8 years after the fact : ) http://tractiontug.blip.tv/file/2807129/

  2. Rotkapchen says:

    And of course, Dave Snowden has been on top of Sensemaking as well: http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~brooks/storybiz/kurtz.pdf

  3. Bas Reus says:

    Predicting the future is something from fiction books. Recognizing patterns is something we can. However, in a more and more non-linear world, we find it harder and more complex. Analyzing some data is doable. Analyzing more data is more difficult. Analyzing even m0re data becomes almost impossible, possibilities become non-linear.

    It reminds me of the book ‘The Tipping Point’ of Malcolm Gladwell. Identify the connectors, the mavens and the salesmen. Maybe you then know where to focus on.

  4. Hi Rotkapchen,

    I agree with your main point. I’m not too impressed, though, with the following highlighted quotation from the Snowden/Kutz paper you cite in your follow-up comment: “We are capable of shifting a system from complexity to order and maintaining it there in such a way that it becomes predictable.”

    Not if we’re talking about complex human processes we can’t!

    It looks as if there might be more here Bas (in the Snowden/Kutz paper) to further your ‘Are organizations systems?’ debate. This quote highlights one of the dangers of viewing organizations as systems – whether “complex adaptive” ones or otherwise.

    Cheers, Chris

  5. Pingback: Library clips :: Sharing and Change in the Corporate Plot :: March :: 2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>