Transcript World 1 - William P. Hall

The Epistemology of Living Organizations
―
Theoretical Foundations and Practical Applications
William P. Hall
President
Kororoit Institute Proponents and Supporters
Assoc., Inc. - http://kororoit.org
An attractor
Associate
EA Principals – http://eaprincipals.com
[email protected]
http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net
Attribution
CC BY
Presentation for Philosophy Forum, 6 October 2013
A unique area in
the state space of the
Mandlebrot set
definition
Access my research papers from Google Citations
Notes


2
This presentation is based largely on
material drawn from a hypertext book I am
writing: Application Holy Wars or a New
Reformation - A Fugue on the Theory of
Knowledge. A preview, some topical extracts,
and a working draft can be found by clicking
here. Comments would be welcome on [email protected].
Slides in this presentation are hot-linked to
source documents. Click underlined words,
etc. to access the linked documents.
My Background

Early life: physics / natural history / cytogenetics / evolutionary
biology (PhD Harvard, 1973)
–
–


1981-1989: Computer literacy journalism, technical writing,
commercial software development, banking
1990-2007: Documentation and knowledge management systems
analyst/designer for Tenix Defence/$ 7 BN ANZAC Ship
Project
–
–

3
Defining life as a physical phenomenon
Understanding how it evolves
Tenix grew to be Australia’s largest defence engineering prime
contractor and then failed.
How did Tenix succeed and why did it fail?
2001-now: Researcher trying to understand what organizational
knowledge is and why organizations have such major problems
managing and applying it
Understanding the relationships between
knowledge and life

Answering questions from my corporate career
–
–
–



Karl Popper’s evolutionary epistemology
What is life - autopoiesis
Human biology
–
–
–
Adaptation
Genetic vs cultural heredity (knowledge transfer)
Origins of culture and social organization

Theoretical foundations of organizational knowledge
Putting theory into practice

This talk only scratches surface - see my publications

4
Organizations as complex adaptive systems
James Martin’s Cybercorp (1996)
< 2001: trying to combine my understanding of biology and
corporate experience
Evolutionary Epistemology
(Karl Popper)
In his later work, Popper applied
evolutionary biology to his theory of
knowledge
• Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective Knowledge – an Evolutionary
Approach. Oxford University Press / Routledge.
• Popper, K.R. 1994. Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem –
in Defence of Interaction. Routledge.
• Hall, W.P. 2003. Managing maintenance knowledge in the
context of large engineering projects - Theory and case
study. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management,
Vol. 2, No. 2 - http://tinyurl.com/3yqh8j
Popper's first great idea:
“three worlds” ontology
“codified
knowledge”
“living
knowledge”
Cybernetic
self-regulation
Cognition
Consciousness
Tacit knowledge
Develop/Recall
Reproduce/Produce
Genetic heredity
Recorded thought
Computer memory
Logical artifacts
Explicit knowledge
World 2
World 3
Organismic/personal/
situational/subjective/tacit
knowledge in world 2 emerges
from world 1
The world of “objective”
knowledge
Energy flow
Thermodynamics
Physics
Chemistry
Biochemistry
6
World 1 – External
Reality
The real
world
Karl Popper's second great idea from Objective Knowledge:
Knowledge = solutions to problems
Pn
a real-world problem faced by a
living entity
TS a tentative solution/theory.
Tentative solutions are varied
through serial/parallel iteration
EE a test or process of error
elimination
Pn+1 changed problem as faced by an
entity incorporating a surviving
solution
Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge – An Evolutionary Approach
The whole process is iterated
(1972), pp. 241-244



7




All knowledge claims are constructed, cannot be proven to be true
TSs may be embodied as “structure” in the “knowing” entity, or
TSs may be expressed in words as hypotheses, subject to objective criticism; or as
genetic codes in DNA, subject to natural selection
Objective expression and criticism lets our theories die in our stead
Through cyclic iteration, sources of errors are found and eliminated
Solutions/theories become more reliable as they survive repetitive testing
Surviving TSs are the source of all knowledge!
Autopoiesis
(theory of life)
Knowledge and life are
inseparable.
One cannot be understood without
understanding the other.
• Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition
– the Realization of the Living. Kluwer.
• Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Change, Harvard Uinv. Press.
• Kauffman, S.A. 1993. The Origins of Order – Selforganization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford Univ. Press
• Hall, W.P. 2005. Biological nature of knowledge in the
learning organization. The Learning Organization 12(2):169188.
What makes a system living?

Autopoiesis
–
–
–
Self-regulating, self-sustaining, self-(re)producing dynamic entity
Fundamentally cyclical, continuation depends on the causal structure
of the state in the previous instant to produce autopoiesis in the
next instant (ref Popper; Maturana & Varela)
Selective survival builds knowledge into the system one problem
solution at a time
1-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
5
3
3
0
0
0
1
2
3
2
2
0
0
1-2
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-3
1-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 -1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
3
1
2
0
1
5
3
3
0
2
3
2
2
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Self producing structures in a cellular automaton (Conway’s Game of Life)
Varela et al. (1974)

Six necessary and sufficient criteria for recognizing an
autopoietic system
–
Bounded


–
Complex

–



System intrinsically produces own components
E.g., recruitment & training programs
Autonomous

10
System demarcation intrinsically produced
E.g., employment policies, procedures, etc.
Self-producing

–
System dynamics driven by self-sustainably regulated economic cash flows or
dissipative “metabolic” processes
Self-defining

–
separate and functionally different subsystems exist within boundary)
Mechanistic

–
System components identifiably demarcated from environment
E.g., organizational badges, logos, reception desks, gates, etc.
self-produced components are necessary and sufficient to produce the system.
Autopoiesis is a good definition for life
Structure of autopoietic system
HIGHER LEVEL SYSTEM / ENVIRONMENT
Constraints and boundaries, regulations determine what is physically allowable
The entity's history and present circumstances
Energy (exergy)
Materials
Entropy/Waste
Processes
Products
Component recruitment
Departures
s
Ac
tio
va
er
s
Ob
n
t io
ns
The entity's imperatives and goals
"universal" laws governing component interactions determine physical capabilities
11
SUBSYSTEMS / COMPONENTS
Spontaneous co-emergence of autopoiesis and
knowledge

(Stuart Kauffman) The dynamic vectors of the present instant
result from causal events in past instants as reflected in the
adjacent possibles of the immediately prior instant
–



12
Historical connections (heritage) determine the vectors in state
space of the present instant.
Chaos: divergent paths lead to incoherent structures that disintegrate and lose the historical thread of successful autopoiesis
Attractor basins: convergent paths may become coherently
autopoietic, such that the ensemble structure of a convergent
state in one instant generates an ensemble structure that
remains convergent in the next instant.
Any convergent ensemble that remains after dis-integration
of divergent outcomes retains “structural” knowledge that
solved a problem of survival
Kauffman, S. 1993. The Origins of Order. Oxford Univ Press, London.
Hall, W.P., Else, S., Martin, C., Philp, W. 2011. Time-based frameworks for valuing knowledge: maintaining strategic knowledge. Kororoit
Institute Working Papers No. 1: 1-28.
Hall, W.P. 2011. Physical basis for the emergence of autopoiesis, cognition and knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working Papers No. 2: 1-63
Organization, knowledge, and life begin with historical
constraints





Past is fixed
Present is determined in
the instant of becoming
Future is undetermined
Solid line – what happened
Stuart Kauffman –
adjacent possible
–
–
t1 Dashed lines
represent all of the
possible future states
that can be reached in the
next instant from the
present instant
t2 One state was
realized at t1 , Dotted
lines lead to states that
could have happened at t1
but didn’t/can’t happen.
Dashed lines represent
states that can still be
reached from the state at
t2

13
Future possibilities are
continually and progressively constrained by
realization of the present
Ellis (2006) Evolving block
universe (Newtonian)
Ellis & Rothman (2010)
Crystallizing block universe
(quantum mechanical)
Human origins
&
cognitive evolution
Humans are bipedal apes who became
top predators on the African savannah
Hall, W.P. 2013. Evolutionary origins of Homo sapiens.
Extract from Application Holy Wars or a New Reformation: A
fugue on the theory of knowledge [in preparation] http://tinyurl.com/kqrcxsf
Our family tree
White et al’s (2009) depiction of the adaptive plateaus achieved by the different species
grade shifts in the Pliocene radiation of hominins as our ancestors became more adapted
to more open and arid environments. CLCA = chimpanzee-human last common ancestor.



15

CLCA was a forest ape using simple natural and biodegradable tools to increase
dietary range probably a lot like today’s chimps and bonobos
Changing climates broke up forest into grassy woodlands. Ardipithecus adapted
by developing bipedal locomotion and use of tools for self-protection and to
harvest wider dietary range.
Australopithecus became a successful savannah dweller
Homo became top carnivore in Africa and Eurasia
We are tool-using apes

Our close primate cousins, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and
bonobos live in organized social groups that make and use tools
–
Orangutans live in small single mum families but are effective tool users and
teachers
Attenborough: Amazing DIY
Orangutans - BBC Earth http://tinyurl.com/avl8yby

–
Another video shows mother taking boat to raid a fish trap for a meal
Chimpanzees work in larger social groups with a lot of interaction
Charlotte Uhlenbroek
Chimpanzees' sophisticated
use of tools - BBC wildlife –
http://tinyurl.com/lj8ejt2
16
Pleiocene climate change forced some apes onto a
savanna – a tough neighbourhood to survive in!

Grave risk of predation by big cats & other
carnivores on savanna
From Tattersall (2010)
Masters of the Planet, p. 49

Gangs of chimps can cooperate to deter cats
see Kortlandt 1980. How might
early hominids have defended
themselves against large
predators and food competitors?
Journal of Human Evolution 9,
79-112 –
http://tinyurl.com/l5z5vu2
17

Anthropoid apes aren’t the only primate tool users
–
See Capuchin nut-cracking industry - http://tinyurl.com/mky2b3l
Development & sharing of cultural knowledge opened
the savanna

A tiny technological improvement was all that was
needed for defence and stealing cats’ dinners
Guthrie (2007) Haak en
steek – the tool that
allowed hominins to
colonize the African
savanna and to flourish
there. (in) Roebroeks, W.
(ed). Guts and Brains, pp
133-164 [download book]


18
Easy step from waving a thorn branch
to throwing a spear for hunting
Evolutionary epistemology accounts
for the rest
Genetic vs cultural heredity (mechanisms for
knowledge transfer)



Shared heritage defines the species/group
Adaptation = change through time
Natural selection eliminates entities with
maladaptive genes/knowledge
–
–
Genetic heritage from one gen. to next is slow to change)
Cultural heritage can lead to more rapid change






Self-selection / criticism to eliminate errors
–
19
More plastic but may not durable unless reinforced
Can be shared laterally
Capacity for language is very recent
Linguistically expressed language can be criticized & peer
reviewed
Tacit vs explicit sharing & transfer
–
Memory of and learning from history
Speech, writing
Increasing tool complexity in archaeological record
• Development of increasingly
complex stone tools (after Stout
2011), correlates with increasing
brain capacity (and more social
intelligence?)
• Exponential growth in
technology continues up to
today with development of
cognitive tools: speech,
writing, printing, computers
and the internet.
• Today computing technology is
growing hyper-exponentially
See extract from my draft book
20
Knowledge sharing
and foundations of
organizational
knowledge
Understanding organizational knowledge
and how to manage it flows naturally
from the biological point of view
• Hall, W.P., Dalmaris, P., Nousala, S. 2005. A biological
theory of knowledge and applications to real world
organizations. Knowledge Management in Asia Pacific,
Wellington, N.Z. 28-29 November 2005
• Vines, R., Hall, W.P. 2011. Exploring the foundations of
organizational knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working
Papers No. 3: 1-39
Scalability and the complex organizational
hierarchy

Knowledge-based
autopoietic systems
may emerge at several
different hierarchical
levels of organizational
structure
–
–
–
–
–
–

22
Hall, W.P. 2006 Emergence and growth of knowledge and diversity in
hierarchically complex living systems. Workshop "Selection, SelfOrganization and Diversity CSIRO Centre for Complex Systems Science and
ARC Complex Open Systems Network, Katoomba, NSW, Australia 17-18 May
2006.
Nation
State
Council
Community group
Person
Body cell
For effective action,
flows of knowledge,
decision and action
must pass through
several hierarchical
levels
Personal (i.e., human) knowledge
● Sense making
– W2 process
constructing tacit
understanding in
context
– We only know what we
know when we need to
know it
(W2)
(W2)
(W2)
(W3)
(W2/W3)
Nickols, F. 2000. The knowledge in knowledge management (KM).
in J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods, eds. The Knowledge Management
Yearbook 2001-2002. Butterworth-Heinemann
23
Creating and building knowledge is cyclical

Knowledge is solutions to problems of living
–
Iterated cycles of creation and destruction (Boyd, Osinga)


–
Popper: solutions are those claims which prove to work (at
least most of the time)





24
Creation = assembly of sense data and information to suggest
claims about the world
Destruction = testing and criticizing claims against the world
to eliminate those claims that don’t work
Knowledge is mentally constructed
Cannot logically prove that any claimed solution is actually true
All claims must be considered to be tentative (i.e., potentially
fallible)
Follow tested claims until they are replaced by something that
works better
Knowledge building cycles are endlessly iterated and
may exist at several hierarchical levels of
organization
Personal vs organizational knowledge

Important difference
–
–
–

People know:
–
–
–
–
–
–


what knowledge the organization needs,
who may know the answer,
where in the organization explicit knowledge may be found,
why the knowledge is important or why it was created,
when the knowledge might be needed, and
how to apply the knowledge
This human knowledge is critical to the organization
Snowden, D. 2002. Complex acts of knowing: paradox and
descriptive self-awareness. J. Knowledge Management 6:100-111
–
–
25
individual knowledge (in any form) is known only by a person
organizational knowledge is available and physically or socially
accessible to those who may apply it for organizational needs
Even where explicit knowledge exists, individual knowledge may be
required to access it within a useful response time.
–
Personal knowledge is volunteered; it cannot be conscripted.
People always know more than can be told, and will tell more than
can be written down.
People only know what they know when they need to know it.
Cyclic construction of tactical/strategic knowledge
ORIENT
OBSERVE
(Results of Test)
PARADIGM
O
CHANGING
CIRCUMSTANCES
ACT
(Hypothesis)
(Test)
GUIDANCE AND CONTROL
OBSERVATION
EXTERNAL
INFORMATION
DECIDE
INPUT
PARADIGM
CULTURE
PARADIGMS
PROCESSES
DNA
GENETIC
HERITAGE
O
ANALYSIS
SYNTHESIS
D
A
MEMORY OF HISTORY
UNFOLDING
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESULTS OF
ACTIONS
John Boyd's OODA Loop process
UNFOLDING
INTERACTION
WITH EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENT
Achieving strategic power depends critically on learning more, better and
faster, and reducing decision cycle times compared to competitors. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop.
OODA system of systems in the knowledge-based
organization
CULTURE &
PARADIGMS
GENETIC HERITAGE
PEOPLE
PEOPLE
PEOPLE
ANALYSIS
SYNTHESIS
OBSERVE
ORIENT (PROCESS)
SENSE
DECIDE, ACT
INFRASTRUCTURE
DOCS
RECORDS
DATA
CONTENT
LINKS
RELATIONS
ANNOTATIONS
“CORPORATE MEMORY”
27
Boyd 1996 see Osinga, F.P.B. (2005) Science, Strategy and War: the strategic theory of John Boyd. Eburon Academic Publishers,
Delft, Netherlands [also Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group (2007)] - http://tinyurl.com/26eqduv
Building and processing knowledge in the
organization / community
OBSERVE, TEST & MAKE SENSE
?
SEMIPERMEABLE
BOUNDARY
WORLD 1
KNOWLEDGE
BUILDING
PROCESSES
WORLD 2
PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE
?
KNOWING
ORGANIZATION
(including organizational tacit knowledge)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTEXTS
WORLD 3
Code:
– Explicit Knowledge
– Common Knowledge
– Formal Knowledge
– Integrated Formal
Knowledge
For the purposes of this diagram
CK and FK are expressions
of explicit knowledge (EK)
EK
CK
FK
IFK
28
IFK
(W2)
FK
CK
EK
}
Semantics of explicit
knowledge are only
available via World 2
processes
Vines, R., Hall, W.P. 2011.
Exploring the foundations of
organizational knowledge.
Hierarchy of knowledge building cycles

3 stages in building reliable knowledge
–
–
–
Personal/individual
Group/team
Peer review/formal publication
world knowledgebase
application of
existing knowledge
NOOSPHERE
W1
Individual
Peer review /
formalization
Group/team
review/extension
Context
29
Vines et al. 2011
Hall, Nousala 2010
Nousala et al. 2010
Hall et al. 2010
Rew
ork
P
ica
ubl
tion
Knowledge
construction cycle
Putting theory into
practice
Understanding how to manage organizational
knowledge flows naturally from the
biological point of view
• Hall, W.P., Dalmaris, P., Nousala, S. 2005. A biological
theory of knowledge and applications to real world
organizations. Knowledge Management in Asia Pacific,
Wellington, N.Z. 28-29 November 2005
• Vines, R., Hall, W.P. 2011. Exploring the foundations of
organizational knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working
Papers No. 3: 1-39
Enterprises exist in contexts that must be
addressed as imperatives if they are to survive

Enterprises are living entities
–
–

Require cash flow & replacement of staff departures
Failure to satisfy imperatives leads to disintegration
No enterprise or subsidiary component should be
considered in isolation from its existential contexts
–
What are its imperatives for continued existence?






–
31
to maintain survival and wellbeing
to maintain resource inputs necessary to survival
to produce and distribute goods necessary to survival
to survive environmental changes
to minimize risk
to maintain future wellbeing
Organizational systems satisfying imperatives must track
continually changing contexts with observations, decisions
and actions
The 17 year $7 Bn ANZAC Ship Project

Fixed price contract (only
adjusted for currency changes)

Design & systems integration

Fabrication and assembly

Procurement - 80% subcontracted

10 ships (8 RAN + 2 RNZN)

17 years in production

3 training facilities (2 RAN + 1 RNZN)

In service for 27 years


Warranty
Support engineering (without this the
ships are scrap metal)
–
12 months for each ship
–
Full ship fitouts & supply chain spares
–
2 year latent defects period
–
Crew training
–
10 ship years of Operational
Availability Assessment Period
–
Operations manuals
–
2000+ maintenance procedures per ship
Imperatives for delivering knowledge or using it in
an engineering/production environment

Customer end user's knowledge imperatives
–
Correct


–
Applicable/Effective

Applicable to the configuration of the individual product
Effective for the point in time re engineering changes, etc.

To who needs it, when and where it is needed

–
–
Available
Useable



Correct information
Consistent across the fleet / product range
Readily understandable by those needing it
Readily managed & processed in computer systems
Supplier's knowledge production and usage goals
–
–
–
Fast
High quality
Low cost
What does an imperative look like?


34

10 ships must be accepted  $A 7 Bn project value
Payment depends on acceptance!
Non acceptance = non-payment, project delay, liquidated damages +
reputational damage
Objective knowledge development lifecycle for a
large project
Project A
Design Study
Project A
Bid Documents
RFT and Bid
Project A
Prime Contract
Negotiate
Review, agree, amend
Review, edit, signoff
Review, edit, signoff
RFQs
Project A
Procedures,
Design Docs
Negotiate
Bids
Negotiations
Project B
Project
Design
StudyB
Project
Design
StudyB
Design Study
Project A
Support Documents
Review,
agree,
amend
Project A
Subcontracts
Review, edit, signoff
Review, edit, signoff
Review, edit, signoff
Operational
experience
Review,
edit,
signoff
• 20 - 50 year lifecycle
The full support engineering knowledge
management environment
Tenix
Navy
Tenix ANZAC’s measured improvements from KM
solution

Tenix’s Ship 05 delivery challenge
–
–
–

For safe maintenance “documents” must be understood by human
maintainers and computerized maintenance management system
Document & engineering change management issues
Client threat to not accept 05 if still dissatisfied
Structured authoring solution resolved the issue
–
Condensed 8,000 procedures for 4 ships to class-set of less than 2,000
‘structured records’ for 10 ships





$ 7 Billion 17+ year long project completed successfully
–
–
–
–

Routines delivered for Ship 5 CUT 80%
Subsequent content deliveries CUT 95%
Keyboard time for one change CUT more than 50%
Change cycle time CUT from 1 year to days
Each ship delivered on time - every time
For the stringently fixed price – no cost overruns!
For a healthy company profit
The customers are still happy with the ships
The company failed on its next largish project because it did not
transfer its learning from the old project to the new one
END