« RMBL - what does it mean for KM? | Main | RCA as a knowledge practice »

December 08, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341f9c0c53ef00e5507122348834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reflecting on knowledge spaces:

» Mapping your blog mind revisited from Monkeymagic
A while ago I posted some thoughts about creating a mindmap of your blog. I've spent the last couple of evenings fiddling around with tags, a little easy php and Ucinet, some SNA software. I thought I'd post the rough... [Read More]

» Mapping your blog mind revisited from Monkeymagic
A while ago I posted some thoughts about creating a mindmap of your blog. I've spent the last couple of evenings fiddling around with tags, a little easy php and Ucinet, some SNA software. I thought I'd post the rough... [Read More]

Comments

David Locke

Validation is a separate layer from that of creation.

In the software world, testing is seen as a sequential process following validation, but in recent years, validation has become a standing layer that persists from one version of the software to the next. This is important, because the investment in testing is allowed to persist. Which means that subsequent investment extends the rang of testing.

In the business world, SMART goals are written before anything happens. The metric component spectifies validation, before development. This is always done even in software as you have functional (WHAT) requirements and non-functional (HOW WELL) requirements. The metrics drive the decision support system. The investment here are best left to a persistent layer.

When you consider that issues around hacking, testing beyond the economic limit of the firm, mean deailing with many more validations than ever before, and an ever increasing number, the persistence of investment becomes critical.

Validating knowledge isn't necessarily done by the knowledge creators. Separating the two give independence to both.

The comments to this entry are closed.