VPEC-T Google Group

Information content versus conversation content

goo...@veryard.com (Richard Veryard) — Thu, 12 Dec 2009 03:28:07 UT

"Conversational content may look like information. But when it is the
product of mediated conversation, content conceals dynamics and
relationships: social forces that are by their nature implicit and
tacit."

[link]

Re: Enterprise KM

johnhov...@gmail.com (John Hovell) — Thu, 12 Dec 2009 19:47:17 UT

first, thank you so much to the VPECT community for starting up this
dialog so quickly - that alone says alot to me. Second, as I respond
here, let me be the first to admit that I have zero experience in
VPECT so I am coming from the enterprise KM perspective here (and i
hope thats helpful). i'm picking up on the notion that VPECT seems to

Re: VPEC-T Locard-Wittgenstein Principle

goo...@veryard.com (Richard Veryard) — Wed, 12 Dec 2009 10:01:55 UT

Okay, I accept that "Memory is Content" is a bit simplistic. One way
of thinking about memory is as a system in its own right, in which
case it HAS content rather than BEING content.

How about this possible reformulation. Memory is a repository of
memories. (The memories represent the content of the memory.) For the

Re: VPEC-T Locard-Wittgenstein Principle

jschlesin...@computer.org (John Schlesinger) — Wed, 12 Dec 2009 08:43:32 UT

I would contest the assumption that memory is content. This doesn't seem
right. If we ask a question of memory and then express the result (in the
context of the question), then we have content. That is the problem with a
knowledge repository, by itself it doesn't represent content. Rather it
requires the context of a question and then the result of that question to

Re: Enterprise KM

goo...@veryard.com (Richard Veryard) — Tue, 12 Dec 2009 22:40:28 UT

j4ngis wants to look at this from the Knowledge Managers/Maintainer
perspective...

One of the questions here is whether the knowledge manager is actually
interested in the knowledge content per se, or focuses on oiling the
wheels. Like a librarian who never actually reads the books in the
library herself, merely organizes the catalogue and chases the overdue

Re: Enterprise KM

ajangbr...@gmail.com (j4ngis) — Tue, 12 Dec 2009 18:54:51 UT

One might also consider VPEC-T from two different perspectives;
Producing & Consuming.
Walking through the VPEC-T system (as Richard did above) you can do
it from Producing Knowledge perspective and Consuming/using knowledge
perspective. And why not also from Knowledge Managers/Maintainer
perspective...

Re: Enterprise KM

goo...@veryard.com (Richard Veryard) — Mon, 11 Nov 2009 19:27:48 UT

Chris has talked about the VPEC-T of the KM system. I think it's worth
relating this to the knowledge itself.

VALUES. What is (could be) the value of knowledge to the organization,
and to the people inside and outside the organization.

POLICIES. What are the policies for the creation, sharing and use of

Re: Enterprise KM

seabir...@gmail.com (Seabird) — Mon, 11 Nov 2009 17:18:03 UT

I think KM is a very fertile ground for KM because it has so many
constituencies with quite divergent needs. So (as I usually do), I
shall start with a story.

I joined a new company in May this year. This company has an enormous
amount of documentation, discussion threads, program specs, iteration

Enterprise KM

goo...@veryard.com (Richard Veryard) — Mon, 11 Nov 2009 16:33:53 UT

Picked up a tweet from John Hovell @klowey22

VPEC-T mindmap (values, policies, events, content, trust)...wondering
how we might apply to enterprise #km

---

My first thought was that a lot of enterprise knowledge management
focuses on Content.

We then have to think about Events and Policies

Locard-Wittgenstein Principle

goo...@veryard.com (Richard Veryard) — Mon, 11 Nov 2009 23:46:35 UT

Wittenstein converted Locard's exchange principle of forensics (Every
Contact Leaves a Trace) into a principle of psychology (Every Event
leaves a Trace in the Memory).

For VPEC-T, assuming we can identify Memory with Content, this
principle appears to have important implications for the relationship

VPEC-T and abstract problem solving

goo...@veryard.com (Richard Veryard) — Thu, 10 Oct 2009 08:43:26 UT

In Nigel's Open Group presentation in April 2009, referring to the
Criminal Justice System case study, he said "A Policy-Event-Content
analysis pattern taken from Supply Chain Logistics could be applied to
the information flows between government departments"

This is presumably justified by an abstract similarity between the PEC

VPEC-T and Gregory Bateson

goo...@veryard.com (Richard Veryard) — Thu, 10 Oct 2009 02:49:10 UT

Looking for something else (as one does), I came across a biography of
the great systems thinking pioneer Gregory Bateson, which contained
some material that looked particularly interesting for VPEC-T.

***

In Bateson’s usage, systems are always formed by at least two sites,
and they interact through exchanges of information or messages. In

Re: Seeing VPEC-T everywhere

seabir...@gmail.com (Christopher Bird) — Tue, 10 Oct 2009 21:53:04 UT

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a fingernail
(ouch).

But seriously, I suspect that we need lenses/filters to look at problems
through. So we build an armory of techniques and approaches. The most recent
weapons in the armory are probably the first that we try. Of course if that

Seeing VPEC-T everywhere

goo...@veryard.com (Richard Veryard) — Tue, 10 Oct 2009 14:24:38 UT

Just saw a post called "The five dysfunctions of a team". Apparently
this is the title of a new book.

[link]

So I immediately thought it would be a good idea to try and map these
against VPEC-T.

In summary, the five are as follows.

Re: VPEC-T Re: - from analysis to design

seabir...@gmail.com (Christopher Bird) — Mon, 10 Oct 2009 11:00:26 UT

Policy is an interesting dimension. Like most of the VPEC-T dimensions it
applies at many levels. So for example, we can see policy being applied in a
granular sense - within a node in a value network. Policy being almost rule
based. "We have a policy that people with a credit score of less than 600