Late to the game here, but I'm curious, Donald: You said,
"Knowledge comes from the past, so it’s safe. It’s also out of date. It’s the opposite of originality. Experience is built from solutions to old situations and problems. The old situations are probably different from the present ones, so that old solutions will have to be bent to fit new problems (and possibly fit badly.)"
This doesn't seem to be unique to ontologies. Isn't it also a limitation of LLMs?
You're right - but in an important sense, it is also true of every knowledge system, because knowledge comes from the past. That should mean that we do not discard knowledge systems, but we do recognize their limitations for understanding what is possible.
This (excellent) discussion is remarkably similar to the one had for decades in Operating and Finance departments around the implementation of ERP systems like SAP. Do we want to design and enforce the most efficient semantic/ontological structure appropriate for a particular way of operating our firm, or do we want to create and maintain a fluid ontological/semantic exchange that allows our firm to adapt quickly its operating model? After working in this space for a few decades, I see two topics overlooked most often when answering the question.
First, the question is not a religion-philosophical one; it is a deeply strategic one. The IT folks should not be leading the meetings for a while, because the strategy folks have a lot of work to do first. If your firm operates in a mature, stable, even monopolistic environment, it will gravitate to the structured approach, despite the significant restrictions on operating flexibility that such an approach imposes on the firm. If your firm operates in a highly competitive, innovative, often-disrupted environment, it will gravitate to the fluid approach, despite the never-ending requirement for a huge amount of work on negotiated/curated/not-right-the-first-time adaptation.
Second, there is no free lunch. Think of the differences between structured and adaptive as lease-vs-buy, and you are getting close to the financial reality. There’s simply a huge economic cost to being able to understand one another and understand all of the complex, differentiated processes within a large organization. We can pay that price through various combinations of (a) constraints on our flexibility to adapt and (b) work managing our adaptations. Anyone who sells you the promise of cheap and easy semantic harmony for all conditions is … well, selling something.
A word of caution: the focus on cost too early can be a distraction. We need to ask ourselves “what is the value of understanding one another and all the process peculiarities of our business?” The answer is, as the kids say, VLN (very large number). In a way that’s good news: it means we’ve found a fulcrum point at which our work can create tremendous value for the firm. But, we must see the strategic questions clearly if we are to achieve that value.
Yes, and yet, if were don’t have a firm understanding of the now, the consultant’s “current state” how do we innovate, how do we imagine counterfactual scenarios, how do we create stories outlining future histories, and how do we understand what wrongs or what rights our “future states” might engender?
I see no issue in highlighting that rigidly mapping business processes and practices stifles creativity and innovation. How do you even begin to represent the metadata for the ever-present role in teaching: "and anything else required by your line manager"? 😁
My first exposure to the idea of hauntology and "the spectre of the traditional office". Loved it! Will need to hunt down that book.
Late to the game here, but I'm curious, Donald: You said,
"Knowledge comes from the past, so it’s safe. It’s also out of date. It’s the opposite of originality. Experience is built from solutions to old situations and problems. The old situations are probably different from the present ones, so that old solutions will have to be bent to fit new problems (and possibly fit badly.)"
This doesn't seem to be unique to ontologies. Isn't it also a limitation of LLMs?
You're right - but in an important sense, it is also true of every knowledge system, because knowledge comes from the past. That should mean that we do not discard knowledge systems, but we do recognize their limitations for understanding what is possible.
This (excellent) discussion is remarkably similar to the one had for decades in Operating and Finance departments around the implementation of ERP systems like SAP. Do we want to design and enforce the most efficient semantic/ontological structure appropriate for a particular way of operating our firm, or do we want to create and maintain a fluid ontological/semantic exchange that allows our firm to adapt quickly its operating model? After working in this space for a few decades, I see two topics overlooked most often when answering the question.
First, the question is not a religion-philosophical one; it is a deeply strategic one. The IT folks should not be leading the meetings for a while, because the strategy folks have a lot of work to do first. If your firm operates in a mature, stable, even monopolistic environment, it will gravitate to the structured approach, despite the significant restrictions on operating flexibility that such an approach imposes on the firm. If your firm operates in a highly competitive, innovative, often-disrupted environment, it will gravitate to the fluid approach, despite the never-ending requirement for a huge amount of work on negotiated/curated/not-right-the-first-time adaptation.
Second, there is no free lunch. Think of the differences between structured and adaptive as lease-vs-buy, and you are getting close to the financial reality. There’s simply a huge economic cost to being able to understand one another and understand all of the complex, differentiated processes within a large organization. We can pay that price through various combinations of (a) constraints on our flexibility to adapt and (b) work managing our adaptations. Anyone who sells you the promise of cheap and easy semantic harmony for all conditions is … well, selling something.
A word of caution: the focus on cost too early can be a distraction. We need to ask ourselves “what is the value of understanding one another and all the process peculiarities of our business?” The answer is, as the kids say, VLN (very large number). In a way that’s good news: it means we’ve found a fulcrum point at which our work can create tremendous value for the firm. But, we must see the strategic questions clearly if we are to achieve that value.
Yes, and yet, if were don’t have a firm understanding of the now, the consultant’s “current state” how do we innovate, how do we imagine counterfactual scenarios, how do we create stories outlining future histories, and how do we understand what wrongs or what rights our “future states” might engender?
Great post!
I see no issue in highlighting that rigidly mapping business processes and practices stifles creativity and innovation. How do you even begin to represent the metadata for the ever-present role in teaching: "and anything else required by your line manager"? 😁
My first exposure to the idea of hauntology and "the spectre of the traditional office". Loved it! Will need to hunt down that book.