Oude baan verlaten

Eigenlijk veranderen we tegenwoordig continue. Het vroegere Unfreeze-Change-Freeze is allang vervangen door Unfreeze-Change-Change-Change-Ch... Vergis ik me? Mijn indruk is dat we ons suf veranderen. En het lijkt er daarbij maar al te vaak op dat we eigenlijk maar gewoon rondjes lopen. De tredmolen als vervelend beeld dringt zich op.

Wellicht moeten we eens ànders kijken… en ons richten op… versnelling. Naar verandering in verandering. Hoe kunnen we er met andere woorden voor zorgen dat we uit onze oude en vertrouwde verander-baan schieten en in een geheel nieuwe baan terechtkomen? Een baan waarin kwalitatief nieuwe werelden ten volle te exploreren zijn.

We kunnen ons natuurlijk blijven blindstaren op technologie als het (tover)middel bij uitstek om stagnatie te voorkomen…. We kunnen natuurlijk als maar leukere, snellere, hippere, laagdrempeligere enzovoort spullen op de markt blijven brengen – spullen waar we met z’n allen weer achteraan rennen totdat het volgende speeltje zich aandient. Maar… wat schieten we daar nu eigenlijk nog mee op? Komen we daar nu werkelijk en substantieel verder mee? Of draaien we feitelijk alsmaar in hetzelfde kringetje rond?

De laatste keer dat we onze oude en vertrouwde baan verlieten was met de opkomst en brede adoptie van het wereldomspannende netwerk; Internet. Dat heeft ons veel, erg veel gebracht. Hulde. Dank. Maar moeten verder. Stagnatie ligt op de loer. We moeten niet in deze baan blijven hangen – hoe vruchtbaar die ook was.

Een economie start doorgaans met focus (regulerend beginsel) op goederen, ontwikkelt zich vervolgens waarbij de focus verschuift naar transport/transformatie van die goederen. Na de volgende verschuiving draait het om informatie óver transport/transformatie van die goederen. En weer een verschuiving later – en dat is een verschuiving die we nog grotendeels moeten inzetten en afmaken – is het de kwaliteit en heldere betekenis van die informatie die bepalend is voor welke informatie we wel/niet gebruiken t.b.v. trefzeker transport/transformatie van die goederen.

De situatie vandaag is dat we welhaast omkomen in de zinloze, ambigue, verwarrende en inconsistente informatie. Hoe kiezen we daaruit?

Daarvoor moeten we dus naar die nieuwe baan… de baan waarin onze huidige informatiehooibergen getransformeerd worden tot infrastructurele voorzieningen met zinvolle informatie – consistente informatie van heldere betekenis waarmee we effectief/efficiënt het transport/transformatie van goederen ter hand kunnen nemen. Overschakelen dus. Naar hoger energieniveau; naar nieuwe baan.

Copyright (c) 2011 Emovere/Jan van Til - All rights reserved.

Best Practices?

Wat is tegenwoordig de waarde van zogenaamde “best practices”? Hoe waardevast zijn ze vandaag de dag eigenlijk nog?

We leven inmiddels in een wereld – a full blown information society – waarin van alles en nog wat continue in beweging is. Alles beïnvloedt zo zo’n beetje al het andere. Niets blijft nog lang hetzelfde. En we leven toch wel vrij algemeen met het gevoel dat ‘het’ steeds erger wordt. Ouderen raken erdoor in verwarring. Jongeren groeien er mee op en weten niet anders.

Je zou je daarom kunnen afvragen wat de waarde van best practices in zo’n wereld eigenlijk nog is? Hoe waardevast zijn ze eigenlijk nog? Wie ‘koopt’ er nog best practices als de houdbaarheidsdatum zo snel verstrijkt?

Voor best practices kijken we per definitie naar het verleden. Wat daar (bij herhaling) goed ging, stolt mogelijk tot best practice en raakt als zodanig voorgesorteerd voor herhaalde toepassing in de toekomst. Een toekomst die alsmaar losser van haar verleden komt te staan… het verleden dat de best practice voortbracht.

Hmmm…, wat moeten we aan met onze best practices?
Is er een manier waarop we onze best practices nog wel duurzaam kunnen formuleren?
Of, en dat kan natuurlijk ook, zie ik het ‘allemaal’ ‘gewoon’ te somber in?

Copyright (c) 2011 Emovere/Jan van Til - All rights reserved.

Metapattern

An Information Roundabout is an infrastructural facility that is meant to significantly improve human interoperability. As such it requires a systematic organisation of information. And a systematic organisation of information, in turn, requires a method for systematic information modeling - like … metapattern.

Lees verder… (op http://www.information-roundabout.eu/)

Copyright (c) 2011 Emovere/Jan van Til - All rights reserved.

On keeping things balanced

Mode needs Tradition
Ever changing Modes can only be witnessed against the more stable background that we call Tradition. Modes come and go rather quickly. And every now and then some elements of a Mode make it to the top and enter Tradition. Tradition changes (travels) at quite another pace. Thanks to this difference in travelling speed Modes can be witnessed. Without Tradition everything would be Mode and Mode soon would cease to exist.

Open needs Closed
As we all know… open is ‘rather’ popular nowadays. Open Data. Open Standards. Open Source. Open Anything. Is there anyone who doesn’t want Open?
But, then… at the moment everything is Open, Closed disappears from the scene. And the moment Closed is gone… Open gets lost as well. Open requires Closed. Without Closed there is no Open.
So… if we need something to be totally Open, we also need something else to be at least as totally Closed. Open can only manifest at a background of Closed.
How does the Closed exactly look on which Open lives and prospers and thrives?

Agile needs Solid
As we all know… Agile is ‘rather’ popular these days. Everything needs to Agile in order to keep up to the speed of today’s (ever increasing) dynamics.
But, then… Agile to what? Agile needs something else, something more slow and solid in order to be able to demonstrate its Agility on. When we emphasise agility, as we do right now, we get unbalanced, we all rush to the one side of our life boat – all watching – in awe – the new promise of Agility. And we neglect and forget about the solid grounds needed for Agility to become, be and stay durably Agile.
How does the Solid exactly look on which Agile lives and prospers and thrives?

Foreground needs Background

Flexible needs fixed

Loose needs Coupled

Traffic needs Traffic Infrastructure

Information needs Information Infrastructure

Etc.

Copyright (c) 2011 Emovere/Jan van Til - All rights reserved.

Semiotic Triad - An onset to a far more productive path?

We, human beings, are, in fact, not capable of making immediate observations: our senses are always in between. It’s our senses that inescapably intermediate between reality as it really is and the way we make sense of it; interpret that reality. Without our senses, we don’t observe anything, lose track of reality and our connections with it.

These observed sensory signs are interpreted by our brains. That interpretation is influenced by what it already knows from earlier observations. It’s that interpretation that subsequently incites us to action; to exhibit behaviour. Behaviour that, in turn, is observable by means of new sensory signs which are interpreted by our brains again. And that completes the cycle of us, humans, in our capacity as information (sign) processing beings.

C.S. Peirce (1839-1914) digested this knowledge into ‘his’ semiotic triad (1902). Objects in reality produce Meaning (interpretations) in our brains – never immediate; always via the Signs picked up by our senses. As said: these Signs are always in between. Signs refer on the one hand to Objects in reality. On the other hand these very same Signs yield Meaning in our individual brains.

Current IT practice, however, takes a direct and fixed connection between Object and Meaning for granted. It’s simply an unquestioned ‘fact’. But as we can readily learn from Peirce, such an absolute connection does not exist. Peirce teaches us that the Object-Meaning connection always ‘goes’ via picked up Signs. It’s the Signs (information) that refer to Objects (entities) in reality as well as yield Meaning (interpretations) in our individual brains.

The semiotic triad explains that one and the same event observed at one and the same point in time by two observers standing side by side can (and often will) yield two rather differing interpretations. For each observer comes with his/her own individual brain – loaded with a unique set of associated interpretations that developed over time by the individual reception of many, many signs.

Even the recollection of a certain event by one person at differing moments in time can (and often will) yield different interpretations. For both memories are ‘separated’ by an entire collection of interpretations – caused by a multitude of received signs. Were you always just as afraid of spiders (or snakes) as you are now? Various and varying experiences with objects over time create a developing interpretation/meaning of these objects. This, of course, greatly influences your relation to – and behaviour with these objects.

At the same time the semiotic triad makes it obvious that human interpretation of information/signs picked up from reality not only is an outright subjective matter, but also a highly dynamic activity. Modern information technology makes information/signs available in bulk in less than no time for any one at any time and any place. IT thoroughly permeated and transformed traditional society into full fledged information society. And meaning of information became unmistakably agile as a consequence of ever more and ever varying streams of signs (information) coming in from anywhere, about anything and anyone.

In traditional society things changed at rather low paces – as a ‘consequence’, meaning of information was assumed to be fixed. Nowadays – information society – that assumption lost most of its ‘validity’. Meaning of information can’t be defined at forehand anymore – as we used to do. Instead, meaning of information now… happens on the fly.

Ever increasing dynamics of contemporary information society now requires IT to effectively and efficiently facilitate human interpretation of signs. Unfortunately IT still largely fails to meet this pressing requirement. A reality in which change counts as the only constant, requires a new orientation towards the coming about of meaning of information (interpretation of signs). And Peirce’s semiotic triad shows us the onset of a New and Productive path. Don’t you think?

This column is a Sign as well. A sign that refers you to (objects in) reality. A sign that requests you to further develop and to (re)consider established ideas on the coming about of meaning of information.

What do you think? Does the coming about of meaning of information remain fixed and absolute – do you stick to the good old IT paradigm? Or… do you want to turn off to a far more productive path? A path on which meaning of information comes about individually and dynamically.


Copyright (c) 2011 Emovere/Jan van Til - All rights reserved.