Constructive feedback is critical for effective KM, along with strong tools, which you made available to the OHS/DKR team, in your letter on January 31. As noted in the response letter the next day, your work helps to build a culture of knowledge for transitioning from IT to KM, that lifts basic competence to think, remember and communicate, essential for managing complex problems called out by Doug Engelbart. A proposal to SRI on October 11, 2000 offers further ideas for fostering a culture of knowledge.

As related in the record on February 5, 2001, time is a key part of feedback that yields useful intelligence, see POIMS. Delayed response runs the risk of losing the opportunity for avoiding harm, or cashing in on fortuitous, but ephemeral, conditions.

So, I must apologize for taking so long to respond to your letter on February 5. The past month-and-a-half has been hectic, trying to get a new computer to perform better than the older model. This effort led to improvements for SDS over many weeks, as reported on March 1, and, again, on March 11 to enhance linking features. With SDS back on the road, so-to-speak, hopefully, I will get caught up with the mail.

I'm sure your experience creating DKR tools supports my sense about Doug's wisdom in calling for software engineers to take up KM in earnest, so they can develop the requisite synergy between doing KM to learn what is needed, and building tools to facilitate doing the work of KM. This can substantially reduce the time required to discover the secret of knowledge management, which you reported on June 15, 2000 has proven to be a significant challenge. However, it has, also, proven difficult to get software engineers started on this path, for the reasons Eric Armstrong set out in his letter on June 14, 2000, despite earlier ambitions put forward on February 27, 2000.

Trying to use KM tools, and, also, improve them presents considerable emotional tension, as explained in the letter to the team on September 20, 2000, and this likely discourages many from making the effort.

Concerning the request in your letter on February 5, for feedback on proposed OHS requirements, some comments were developed on January 31, 2001. You, also, asked about comparing your requirements with what Eric submitted for CDS. Review of CDS on May 5 might be of assistance.

I like your idea to simplify the initial OHS effort.

My feeling is that your requirements, like Eric's, can explain how a whole new way of thinking, emerges, or, is otherwise supported, that will advance civilization. This seems to be the big idea of bootstrapping reviewed on December 22, 1999, and so should be linked to work on OHS.

Consideration should, also, be given to making time and subject core factors in KM design, to support the architecture of human thought. see POIMS. You may be thinking along these line, but it is not evident in your work product, nor in Eric's CDS work, at least from the time available for review. See what I mean about the importance of time?

Again, thanks for feedback correcting the record.

Sincerely,

THE WELCH COMPANY

Rod Welch
rowelch@attglobal.net