Comments on: Knowledge Mode (Nielsen) vs. Connected Mode (Scoble)

By: Erik

Erik — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:07:45 +0000

thanks for the quick reply - ah, ok, I see, I’ve checked on his website - I would see it as free flowing information between all participants vs. blocked (alias firewalled) information flow - as I understand, Stowe Boyd means information which gets to you instead of you having to look for it

By: Anne Z

Anne Z — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:14:09 +0000

Hi Erik - thanks for the comment — you’re right, it’s a little confusing to use the term flow. I’m not meaning it in the same sense as Csikszentmihalyi but rather following Stowe Boyd’s usage. I think maybe for clarity’s sake I need to come up with something else.

By: Erik

Erik — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:36:41 +0000

Hi, I have stumbled upon this “connected mode” notion just today. One comment to your little dichotomies in the article:
“firewall vs. flow”:
if you are working alone, flow is an essential prerequisite for being productive, so I would not put it as an opposite to “firewalled” work - this applies only, of course, if you meant the “flow” concept from Csikszentmihalyi and not “to flow” in general. Best regards

By: Michael Clarke

Michael Clarke — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:37:24 +0000

Further your identifying of Scoble as a “connected” exemplar and another commenter’s great point about the addition perceived weight of corporate monoliths - how much of Scoble’s connectedness stems from his original base in Microsoft? I think there’s space for a distinction between types of categories of information consumption/distribution “style” and the distinct locations they emanate from.

By: Anne Z

Anne Z — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:29:19 +0000

Think of Microsoft’s business model built on licensing and strict control of their information goods vs. Google’s of sharing information goods and monetizing the sharing. Or how Dun & Bradstreet licenses their APIs and data versus how del.icio.us does.

Knowledge work functions best with sharing inside the particular group or organization building a particular knowledge edifice — but outside that organization the economic value is based on keeping information goods controlled and available only to those who have the key (i.e., pay the license fee). This is the secretiveness of knowledge work.

“if one truly exists”: these categories of knowledge work vs. connected work are a way of understanding the world better, not objective reality. Language and theories help us understand what we experience but shouldn’t be mistaken for some sort of Platonic statement about the world.

By: magia3e

magia3e — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:29:19 +0000

Some interesting thoughts.

It would be good to see some evidence for your suggestions of the examples of the separation (if one truly exists) between what you term knowledge and connected work, particularly given the essence of knowledge work is in sharing knowledge and information, not, as you suggest, it being ’secrets vs sharing’.

By: Anne Z.

Anne Z. — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:27:34 +0000

Good point, James, perceived expert authority often derives from an organization rather than the person him or herself.

By: james governor

james governor — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:09:38 +0000

yet more good stuff Anne. one further issue to consider is organizational expertise/brand. that is, a 25 year old Ernst and Young guy can be perceived to have more authority than a 45 year old practitioner, regardless of actual expertise. so i am not sure expert authority is necessarily “one person”