| April 5, 2000 | 03 00050 61 00040501 |
Mr. Jack Park
Street address
Palo Alto, CA Zip
| Subject: | Lifestreams |
|
Microsoft Vulnerabilities Evaluate Market Conditions for DKR |
Dear Jack,
Your letter to the Colloquium on April 3, 2000 provides feedback to ask about the purpose, i.e., the original question asked, of letters submitted the past few days under the subject of "Lifestreams."
Previously your letter on March 31, 2000 to the Colloquium appears to have started the subject of Lifestreams for the purpose of providing an article on the vulnerability of Microsoft. You seemed to be asking for discussion about how market conditions, particularly Microsoft's vulnerabilities, might impact a project to develop OHS/DKR. On March 31, a response was submitted on this subject. Subsequent submissions under the same subject, however, did not address the substance of your original objective, which eventually gave rise to your current query about what original question was raised? This may have to do with "Lifestream," as a subject description, which only tangentially relates to what appears to have been originally intended.
This is a benign example of meaning drift that occurs gradually in all communications, particularly in meetings, discussions and email, i.e., high volume, stream-of-conscious expressions of human memory. This problem was recently explained, as similar to, but more harmful, than being confused! Fixing "meaning drift" improves productivity of knowledge work, which today is a large and growing protion of all human activity. This can be done by adding a "metric" to daily communications that maintains alignment with original sources; But, it is hard to do because self-interest and cultural dynamics of denial prevent applying the remedy, under the guise that cost savings are unproven, as explained in analysis on the high cost of medical mistakes reported Septebmer 24, 1999. I am only guessing, of course, but this seems likely to become a larger problem as the pace of daily life continues to escalate, leading to the paradigm shift of the millennium...
The solution to this problem provides an opportunity for knowledge management to exploit the vulnerability of Microsoft, which you initially proposed be discussed. As well, regardless of Microsoft and its vulnerabilities or strengths, the larger issue is how to turn the growing pace of life, spurred by a singular focus on faster technology, from a burden into an asset for everyone. This question was recently reviewed on October 25, 1999 in connection with an article by Peter Drucker published in Atlantic Monthly. See what you think.
Second, your point about confidentiality led to some enhancements that provide greater flexibility to capture an accurate record for analysis and planning, while avoiding publication of sensitive information. Please let me know if you encounter anything that may have slipped through the "system." Thanks.
THE WELCH COMPANY
Rod Welch
rowelch@attglobal.net