Research Note 15

July 22, 2003

( Index )

Dr. Myers, in answer to your question, Dr Alberts did not ask for a proposal.

The Workshop was discussed and it was agreed that a funding of 25K could be easily arranged given a time line that puts the workshop in November or December.

Asking for and evaluating proposals is not his business nor interest.

Dr Alberts’ interest is in measuring the actual knowledge sharing that occurs in a full-scale exercise, and measuring the positive and negative consequences of this knowledge sharing under both crisis and normal conditions.

This is a question of science, social science and cognitive science - not business management. Remember, he is The Client – and one that – like so many others – is at least partially alienated by the money grab. The BCNGroup’s access to him and to others in the government policy and decision-making circles is something that must be respected.

Dr Alberts’ idea, about the use of a measure Knowledge Sharing, was expressed in passing but repeated several times. If one listens to the Congressional hearings one hears similar language, at least over the past few weeks. He simply pointed, several times, to a fact. This fact is a fact because the issue of sharing awareness about knowledge being experienced by others in other agencies is a critical current issue with TTIC. See:

http://www.cdt.org/testimony/030722berman.pdf

for a sample of the testimony before Congress.

Knowledge sharing measurement in a full-scale exercise is something that was going to happen. It will NOT be called Knowledge Management, however. Sharing of battlefield awareness or sharing of situational awareness is the language that we will use.

We are not going to play any games with anyone on this. Those that are interested in participating will participate, and those that do not will not. If the product is not really going to be used in a measurable fashion (like so many of the 10 M and 100M dollar products) they these companies need to be even aware of our Teaming Agreement.

Measurable means measurable in a non-classified environment using the moral judgments of respected scientists. Period.

We are looking to evaluate intellectual vetting and knowledge sharing technology as a matter of science, not as a matter to build new building or to get large consulting bonuses.

Almost everyone wants to make this into a business, and neither I nor Dr. Alberts nor the majority of scientists and logicians that are gathering have ANY interest in business.

Those companies like SchemaLogic, Recommind, Entrieva, Applied Technical Systems, InXight, Insightful, Text Analysis International are willing to make patriotic contributions, at cost. One would think that universities would be interested also, but I have not found that to be the case.

These companies are not interested in the government contracting game. It is just too hard to do the politics. So they work in the commercial sector with the venture capitalist, and take those risks. It is a different game, but one that is based somewhat on performance.

So this returns us to the notion of a “Knowledge Sharing Foundation”.

http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/KSFArchitecture.htm

We developed this notion, and the several proposals (such as the one above) after seeing the treatment that Hicks Associates gave to Inxight’s CEO and senior scientists last year

The notion that Dr. Alberts has conveyed to me is that a Statement of Capability from a well-qualified team to support this required measurement will be passed along and appreciated by him. It will not be bid, and the incumbents will not control it. The claim of sole source right has something to do with the need for diversity of opinion, as well as due to the exceptional scientific and scholarly credentials of the group.

Producing this type of science cannot be contracted for in the normal way, because science and business operate under different principles.

On practical matters, we have talked about a budget of around 350K for the 6-week exercise. And the First Knowledge Sharing Core concept was worked out to cost around 300K to make some level of advanced technology available in a use measurement fashion. Both of these resources are really minimally required.

It would be reasonable to stand this system up at George Washington University or Georgetown, but I have not found support within the academics there.

OntologyStream can do the Workshop for the 25K.

We would like to have the same arrangement with SAIC as SAIC and OntologyStream Inc had for our winning NIMA proposal.