c o n f i d e n t i a l
Privileged access only
This is a Hypertext version of the Patent Pending
by iterations of the Taylor System and Method
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUGMENTING KNOWLEDGE COMMERCE
FACILITATING INTERACTION AMONG AGENTS
The present inventors have recognized that there are three broad elements that affect the interaction of agents. These may be broadly classified as environment 4 process 2 and tools 5 (themselves which may considered to be agents). The expression “Agent” ToA as used herein refers to individuals, machines, groups of individuals and/or machines, organizations of individuals and/or machines, and other things, such as documents, computer software, and firmware. In addition, agent as used herein is intended to have its broadest meaning. For example, Marvin Minsky in “Society of Mind” defines “Agency” as any assembly of parts considered in terms of what it can accomplish as a unit, without regard to what each of its parts does by itself and “Agent” as any part or process of the mind that by itself is simple enough to understand - even though the interactions among groups of such agents may produce phenomena that are much harder and even impossible to understand. Roughly, “Agent” in this context can be correlated with “Object” in object oriented programming.
In the latter part of the twentieth century, there have been numerous efforts to facilitate interaction among Agents as defined herein, especially in the areas of organizational interaction and, more recently interaction between humans and machines and interaction between machines (e.g., artificial intelligence). In connection with human agents, these efforts have focused on group dynamics and learning. Past approaches tend to focus on a specific element such as environmental factors, process factors or tools. Thus, there are numerous “tools” available to enhance personal or group productivity and a plethora of training and consulting services available. Recent examples include tools such as ergonomic office furniture, personal organizers and new office designs. There are various systems based on management theories such as those set out in “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen R. Covey. For example, numerous training sessions have been conducted based on the “habits” discussed in Coveys book, namely Be Proactive; Begin with the End in Mind; Put First Things First; Think Win/Win; Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood; Synergize; and Balanced Self-Renewal. There have been some attempts to offer both tools and services. One example of such a system is The Franklin Covey Company, a joint-venture of Franklin Quest and the Covey Leadership Center. The Franklin Covey Company offers tools, training and consulting services.
In addition, faclitation methods such as “Open Space” and “Future Search Conferences” have been developed to assist human Agents in dialog, planning and concensus building. While these individual tools and programs vary significantly, they share a common trait - they are narrowly focused on certain aspects that affect interaction among Agents or are focused on specific environments or groups of Agents.
There has not, to date, been an effort to simultaneously address each of the factors that affect the interaction of agents (e.g., environment process 2 and tools 5) in a coordinated and widely applicable way to create an optimal environment for the interaction of agents. Moreover, to the extent that others have considered “Environment” issues, there has been a focus on the physical environment and in a very narrow losely connected way. There is only limited understanding of the fact that other environments, such as those occurring within a computer, are fundamentally no different from the physical environment. This has become increasingly evident with the advent of object-oriented ToA technologies. Moreover, it is now known that computer environments can exhibit characteristics of the physical environment. For example, there are known computer environments 4 that exhibit evolution, i.e., evolutionary computer models or machines. Nonetheless, there has been no coordinated effort by others to develop a system and process that is adaptable to a broad variety of environments and explore the impact of “environment”4in this broad sense. The narrow focus of others in attempting to address these issues (environment 4 process 2 and tools 5) suggests that these elements are independent and affect one another in a linear way.
The present Inventors have suspected for some time, however, that the interrelationship between each of these elements is non-linear (ToA)and that it is possible to obtain synergistic (ToA) effects by simultaneously addressing these elements to create an environment4that fosters group genius (i.e., a synergistic outcome that is greater than the sum of the parts - and not predicted by its parts (ToA). The present inventors also suspect that synergies ToA can result from a wide variety of multi-agent environments, e.g., environment, process or tools, or other multiple agent synergies such as human-machine interaction. In short, when multiple agents are interacting with one another, there is the possibility of feedback (ToA), self adjustment ToA and pattern emergence ToA. Testing and implementing this insight presented a significant challenge. Demonstrating behavior of complex systems and interactions of agents, or groups or organizations of agents is very difficult - if not impossible - without real life experience;and testing (3 Cat Model) in an environment similar to the what the real-world application will be.
Recognizing this, the present inventors have conducted numerous experiments and demonstrations over a period of about twenty years to demonstrate, prove and refine some selected elements of the present Invention. These efforts have been concentrated in limited environments. More specifically, the present inventors have conducted experiments to develop certain tools5 and processes2 for improving certain aspects of the integrated environment4. As a result of these experiments and the present inventors experience, certain concepts and system elements have emerged, including tools, elements of environments, environments, agents, and work or tasks.
To describe some of the concepts underlying the system and method of the present invention, the inventors have coined certain phrases and have developed a language and grammar system. To assist in the description of the present invention, therefore, the definitions set forth above should be referred to. As noted above, further information T concerning these definitions and details of the environments 4 discussed herein can be found in the Appendix hereto, which is incorporated herein by reference and demonstration. In addition, over the past 20 years, the present inventors have developed a visual language consisting of diagrams annotated with labels and glyphs and supported by accompanying text - in short, a visual grammar and symbology to assist Transition Managers ToA in the collaborative design q, building w and use e of Knowledge-based enterprises 7. This is the “Modeling Language” - Design and Process Terms (D/PT) level of this System and Method.
The models collectively form a systematic grammar and lexicon for people to use when talking about and engineering ithe qualitative dynamics of enterprises 7 undergoing the transition from mechanistic bureaucracies to organic (ToA), collaborative networks (ToA). The models have been used in a diagnostic fashion to assist in the practice of limited aspects of applications of the system and process 2of the present invention by, for example, helping enterprises 7determine where they are, whats happening and why, and what possible paths may be taken. The models may also be used as templates ToA and design q tools5for creating collaborative processes. Although the models can be studied and applied individually, their full power is only unleashed when considered in an interconnected and collective manner.
The present inventors have borrowed the subtitle of Hermann Hesses masterwork “Magister Ludi: The Glass Bead Game” ToA as a metaphor for describing how to use the models together. Thus, Facilitators, Knowledge Workers Sponsors (and, ultimately, participants) play Glass Bead Games by translating current conditions into design solutions by using the models as catalysts and filters.
Even in the experimental application on a limited basis of certain elements of the present invention, modeling language speakers must develop an easy familiarity with the language for it to be of most value. Just like learning a foreign language, at some point they lay aside the dictionaries, grammar books and begin to think in the new language and use the language itself as a vehicle for learning more of it. The terms that describe the models and their components are purposefully general. Many people begin working through the modeling language with a study of the etymology, or linguistic roots, of the terms. Then, when the terms are linked together within and across models, powerful insights ubecome available and exact meanings can be held in common by a community-of-work (ToA). The models comprise part of an evolving art form that seeks the measure, rhythm and harmony/synthesis of the features of the complex world of the evolving enterprise.
Each model has several features: a number of components expressed as terms and symbols (glyphs); a spatial arrangement of these components relative to each other and perhaps to some axis such as time; and additional connections between the components that indicate flow or dependency. These language elements, to date, have not been employed on the level of a full Language that is capable of describing, comprehensively, the full range of concerns required by this invention. Practice has been one of diagrams and isolated words used mostly on a notional level. As languages have to evolve, these “words” have evolved as an organic experience; of the experiments that have been conducted. Lacking has been a sufficient critical mass of words, as well as, knowledge of the minimal scope n of the System and Method necessary for the desired effects to be sufficiently accomplished by one schooled in the art. In addition, words related to logical operations, transactions and some specific terms of art have been missing. These missing elements are being added to the current iteration (toA) of the System and Method.
The Language, itself, has not been utilized sufficiently for minimal realization of its intended purpose: a Language artifact competent for describing the interaction of (agent) processes, tools and environments to augment and facilitate synergy among agents of all kinds in a Knowledge/Network Economy. Experiments have shown, however, that such a Language is possible and necessary for the accomplishment of the present invention and its intended purpose and use.
Further information concerning these glyphs and models and details of the systems and environments discussed herein can be found in the Appendix hereto, which is incorporated herein by reference.
With this background in mind, the experiments and demonstrations that the present inventors have conducted over a period of about twenty years to demonstrate, prove and refine certain elements and limited applications of the present invention may be grouped into several categories. These categories include a Business of Enterprise model that contains all of the clients, the knowledge worker network (past and present), KnOwhere Stores, client centers and a larger environment of vendors that make up a working ValueWeb. Specific “products” include DesignShops, Management Centers and NavCenters, and on the level of recursion (ToA) of the ValueWeb (ToA) can be considered part of the tool kit of that system.
In the field of management consulting, for example, the present inventors have recognized that the world is going through the largest and most rapid transition in known history. It is the shift from the industrial to the post-industrial or information age. As this shift occurs, high performance executives and KnowledgeWorkers of all kinds (i.e., Transition Managers - To A) are grasping the implication of these changes and are taking responsibility for steering them with craft and excellence. Thus, to test the applicability of the present invention to a single environment, the present inventors have developed management centers to research, design, prototype, and market new management systems to empower Transition Managers. The information age (Knowledge/Network Economy) will require new capabilities for the creation and application of information and knowledge. These capabilities will result from dramatic expansion in the performance of the intellectual resource - both human and computer-based - available within an organization. Accordingly, the present inventors have designed, developed and delivered tools, processes and environments that facilitate individuals and organizations in their transition to a knowledge-based world.
Moreover, to develop, augment and refine the process of the present invention, the present inventors have conducted a series of DesignShop events. Specifically (and with reference to the definitions set forth herein) the DesignShop practices, which have been conducted and evolved hundreds of times over the last twenty years, are events whose purpose is to release group genius (positive synergy - ToA) in the client, condense the time in which a team moves from Scan 8 to Act 0 by an order of magnitude, completely capture@ and organize all of the informationT generated, and do all of this in a facilitated 2 way by managing not the people involved, but the Seven Domains 1234567 that regulate collaboration and evolve ingenuity by making up the total environment of those doing the work. This environment may be physical and co-located, virtual and remote or a combination of both See Subsystems 2, 3 and 4).
The success of these DesignShop activities is evidenced by both consumer feedback and by the fact that sophisticated public companies are willing and eager to pay large amounts of money to participate in these DesignShop events s. During the months of July and August, 1998, over 15 DesignShops were conducted for major organizations in the US and Europe for a market value of over $4,500,000. By 2000, one to 10 DesignShop events are taking place a week all over the globe for a market value of up to two to three million a month. Although current practices are only a partial and fragmented expression of the complete envisioned System and Method, this action-research indicates the full potential of the system.
For the last twenty years, the present inventors have tested the DesignShop concept hundreds of times with hundreds of organizations and thousands of people. In addition, the DesignShop process has been documented extensively by the production of WorkProducts and by participant-observers. What the DesignShop event has allowed these organizations to do has been to solve their most pressing problems. Groups have used DesignShop events to complete mergers, develop marketing plans, instill new cultures, redesign entire organizations, create shared visions of what is and what can be, resolve seemingly deadlocked union struggles, and design solutions that would have taken months or years of “business as usual” to create, if indeed “business as usual” could have designed a solution at all.
An experience of a very different way of working, the DesignShop event proves its value in the results that it produces. For a DesignShop event, all of the key stakeholders, decision makers and interested parties zxcv are brought together so that the decisions that need to be made can be made - in real time. During the event, participants rigorously explore their current conditions and their visions t of the future, co-design q multiple problems associated with the issue being explored, assess the merits of their different problem examples, and decide which problem best represents the issue at hand. Using the power of parallel processing (ToA) looking at various issues from different vantage points and synthesizing the results of that examinationparticipants can deal with the tremendous complexity involved in planning for the future. A large group brings diversity of opinion, knowledge, experience and vantage point, enabling the DesignShop process to release their dynamic group genius. The design q of the event follows the SCAN 8 FOCUS 9 ACT0 process 2: During the SCAN 8 phase, the participants confront and process a vast body of information and knowledge. Participants build models of emerging social and economic trends. They establish a common language for the group, identifying terms of art, uncovering assumptions, and discovering the unexpected. A context emerges for the area of focus. Judgment and argument are withheld during this time so that ideas can flow freely. The scan phase is based on the DesignShop axiom, “Creativity is the process of eliminating options” (Taylor Axiom). Wise elimination assumes that rich, dynamic, timely options have been explored. The variety of ideas created by thirty, sixty or ninety people multi-tasking allows the participants to design from many different vantage points EWQ+_)( simultaneously. In the FOCUS 9 phase, participants use parallel processing to systematically examine the ideas generated during the SCAN phase. The market, financial, cultural, organizational, and social dynamics of the potential paths are explored by modeling and Spoze. Through these exercises, participants set aside prejudices, work through “stretch” models and scenarios as if they were true, then step back and to examine the viability of the different options they have created. Scenarios using convergence possibilities are examined. Participants have said that the FOCUS phase is hundreds of percentage points more productive than a typical meeting day. Each successive round of the iterative process provides more discrimination and clarity to the designs and ideas that the group creates. By the end of FOCUS, participants have “created the problem” (ToA) and developed a clearer vision of the route they will be taking. During the ACT 0 phase, the ideas and design from the first two phases converge.
Throughout the process, ideas have either gained strength and developed or fallen away naturally. The strong components remain, and design ideas turn into programs and projects which are laid out over time. The group reaches a common vision and engineers a comprehensive plan of implementation through group genius (ToA). From the rich body of knowledge 1 developed over the previous two days, the group chooses those elements most critical to their organizations particular needs. In addition, the experience of the past several days becomes the model for a new way of working. As a stand-alone event, the DesignShop can be used to design solutions to tremendous problems. Its greatest value, however, can be found in the pattern of work that the DesignShop process represents. By taking the Ten Step Knowledge Management process !@#$%& #*! with them when they return to their organizations, participants discover that productivity levels of a DesignShop event can be replicated at home.
Whereas the DesignShop has demonstrated certain aspects of the present invention, its full expression has been hampered by the lack of certain components of the invention, as well as, the non existence of certain Sub-Systems of the present invention.
Most notably these have been in the realm of Sub-Systems according to the present invention including the appropriate development of Computer and Tool Augmentation (Sub-System 3 ), the virtual and physical Transportation of Agents (Sub-System 4), Knowledge Economy components of trade, measure and instruments of execution (Sub-System 5) and the full expression of the Modeling Language and related Terms of Art, Pattern language and algorithms as has been noted.
The present expression of the invention brings these elements into harmony allowing the full expression of the DesignShop and related processes in the form of PatchWorks Designs (ToA) and other practices.
While related, these aspects of the full expression of the present invention, in fact, create a quantum leap in performance in relation to prior experiments. Further information concerning the DesignShop process and details of the environments used can be found in the Appendix hereto, which is incorporated herein by reference.
A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF PROCESS (Insert Here).
In another example of an application of some of the elements of the present invention to a specific discrete use, the present inventors have also developed and sold Management Centers that integrate work process design, innovative architecture, technical systems and information managementtools, process and environment. Over the past 20 years, about 20 environment experiments have been conducted. Management Centers represent a systematic reinvention of the way people think, decide and work together to accomplish organizational goals. Management Centers provide organizations with an enhanced capacity to anticipate, plan, and act. In short, Management Centers provide Transition Managers (ToA) with the proper tools to manage what the present inventors have identified as all of the Seven Domains as a total system: growing and adapting the body of knowledge required to model the internal and external environment and then create appropriate organizational responses; 1 facilitating the processes of decision making, design, the way work gets done individually or with others in order to release group geniusthe genius that provides the enterprise with a competitive and cooperative edge; 2 creating just-in-time ToA education systems to help organizations explore beyond their current boundaries of performance and invention, and training systems to set the memes of new performance standards quickly throughout the complexities of the value web; 3 employing environments (including their tool kits) that allow individuals and groups to see the whole picture and the details, to collaborate effectively, work individually, and change configuration within a matter of minutes to accommodate the expansion or contraction of ideas, groups, plans and designs; 4 using technical systems to leverage education systems and more rapidly adapt the body of knowledge1 to the external business, social, technological and political environmentso much so that truly effective organizations have a greater hand in creating the external environment, and doing so in a responsible, healthy way; 5 managing projects6 collaboratively with less waste, more innovation, and an ability to see into the “white space” ToA between activitiesthe place where unanticipated opportunities are mined and unforeseen disasters averted; 6and managing the entire ValueWeb ToA as a venture 7, including dozens or thousands of individuals and other organizations into a synergistic whole, each part maintaining its identityr and ability to lead sapientially ToA, while contributing to the work of the whole and the other parts. This includes connecting the Management Centers (and NavCenters as described below) into an extended ValueWeb (Business of Enterprise Model) of other centers and resources.
Management Centers were invented to address the specific technological, social and economic conditions and opportunities facing organizations now and in the future. In their broadest terms, these conditions are characterized by a rapid and accelerating rate of change and complexity, and the inability of most organizations to effectively respond to that rate of change through traditional (typically incremental and linear) approaches (Rate of Change Model). To this end, the management centers provide:
| The ability to anticipate and track internal and External changes (Weak Signal Research); The ability to respond quickly and appropriately to new conditions and, thus, “turn turbulence into opportunity;” The ability to reconfigure internal operations to meet changing demands; The ability to move beyond dissent and need for alignment, among members of an organization, in order to address new challenges and focu action; The ability to design new processes and develop the conditions to support high performance (ToA); The ability to master complexity (ToA) and continually be able to discern the critical events and trends in an era of information overload; and The ability for each individual to see the whole as well as the parts, and to apply a systems (ToA) perspective to their work. |
In addition, the present inventors have developed used and sold a specialized form of Management Center known as a NavCenter. NavCenters use combinations of Environments, Processes and Tools (see the Seven Domains model) similar to those found in Management Centers. The difference between Management Centers and NavCenters is the very specific purpose of the NavCenter. While a Management Center is designed to support numerous, large groups doing a variety of work, a NavCenter is designed, more typically, with a specific purpose in mind. Nested inside a specific company, the NavCenter is the focal point for the entire fulfillment of the companys purpose. Management and NavCenters, like DesignShops have proven effective tools for Human Agents, but like DesignShops have been hampered by lack of the full expression of the System and Method as described herein. The emerging requirements of the Knowledge Economy demand orders of magnitude increases in human performance - even above that of DesignShop, Management Center and NavCenters which are demonstrated to be at the very top of the present practices of group creativity, group genius, project management6 and organizational collaboration.
It is expected that these processes environments and tools will take a quantum leap in effectiveness and economy with the full expression of the System and Method as described herein. Further information concerning the environments, systems and processes and tools used in Management Centers and NavCenters can be found in the Appendix hereto, which is incorporated herein by reference. The four key elements of the NavCenter that serve to realize its purpose are Dialogue, Grok, Align and Act. “Grok,” which comes from Robert Heinleins novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, means literally, “to drink.” The metaphorical meaning is “to understand, usually in a global sense.”
In a NavCenter environment, knowledge is available in ANDMap, Project Status Map, Time & Task Map, Infolog, WorkWall, and Knowledge Wall systems, and available on the Internet. This information allows any viewer to Grok the whole project and the ways in which the components progress and interact. Each project must be aligned with the purpose of the company and of the NavCenter. As the hub, the NavCenter is the ideal vantage point from which to examine the relationships of the parts to the whole. Alignment does not imply that there will always be agreementin fact, differences in opinion and vantage points provide the creative tension by which solutions are generated.
A DIFFERENT DEFFINITION OF ENVIONMENT (Insert Here).
In these experiments, the participants were not taught the underlying aspects of the invention, but were, rather, exposed to discreet embodiments of the process at a high level. This was sufficient to test and prove the process without revealing the underlying concepts or the scalability and applicability of the system and process to other areas. Thus, notwithstanding the public use and testing of these components, the underlying concepts are have not been understood within those experiments outside of the inventors.
Starting in 2000, descrete Licenced particioners have started education into the deeper aspects of the System and Method. This is a requirement of reaching Level One and verifying the advanced aspects of the concept.
A DIFFERENT DEFFINITION OF TOOL AUGMENTATION (Insert Here).
For detail go to Sub System 1 of the present invention.
OPTIMIZING PATTERN LANGUAGE VALUES
The traditional collaborative work space, or office space arrangement used today is a remnant of the 19th Century. It is widely recognized that there are of variety of deficiencies with traditional collaborative work space systems. In part, these problems result from the variety of needs and/or objectives that a collaborative work space must satisfy today. For example, it is desirable to provide knowledge workers (toA) with as much work space and as great a variety of work space as possible. On the other hand, there is a desire, for economic reasons, to maximize density (the number of knowledge workers per square foot of office space ). As office space has become more important the desire for density and efficiency has become paramount. It is also recognized that plug and play or modularity of office furniture systems can enhance efficiency. Likewise mobility and user mobility are desirable objectives. These objectives can broadly be termed as addressing human values, that is values related to pragmatic and economic concerns. As used herein the expression “human values” is intended to encompass the range of aethestic, physological, health, economic and pragmatic values that are affected by work space design. From the vantage point of the User z, human values include but are not necessarily limited to:
| ABILITY TO CONTROL - light, temporature, sound, view providing a variable, scaleable and user controllable “sense” of isolation or involvement. ADAPTABILITY - at minute, hour, day, week month year scales by the user(s) in order to make the specific arrangement necessary to support the work being perfomed. This has to be accomplished accros the entire spectrum of modern KnowledgeWork (ToA). CONFIGURATION ADJUSTABILITY TO WORK & USER STYLE SPACE FOR MULTIPLE TASKS - "open" @ once different tools PROVIDE PROSPECT REFUGE at individual, Team and large group scales |
From a managers vantage point, human values include (but are not necessarily limited to):
| USE OF SPACE PER INDIVIDUAL - often assumed to require a compromise between economic pressures (less space) and knowledge work requirements (more space). WIRE MANAGEMENT - MANY WIRES -Changing all the time AVOID PLACEMENT OF WIRES IN BUILT WALLS BUILD INTO WORK WALLS, FURNITURE, ARMATURE ELEMENTS. PLUG & PLAY- Code Differences A particularly important concern is ADJUSTABILITY: which involves a variety of objectives, including (but not limited to)
|
MINIMIZING "PRIEST HOOD." ONLY USER CONFIGURABLE "OFFICE SCALE" FURNITURE SYSTEMS TRUE ADJUSTABILITY IS NOT "EVERYONE THE SAME SO ANYONE CAN GO ANYWHERE" SCALES OF ADJUSTABILITY - Time, Physical, color, texture, movement within personal space within team setups, Building to building Another important concern that is frequently not addressed by standard open space systems is the desire for PLACE OWNERSHIP. To address this concern, one must provide the ability to Customize Individual Spaces to allow work process access and a public/private feel and to Customize Team Spaces. In short, users should be able to "own", customize, keep and evolve their components, including the ability to take components with them (easily) when they move.
COMPLEXITY/VARIETY: Existing Systems inherently lack sufficient complexity to make arrangements that: Achieve density; Achieve individual user require space (and kinds of spaces); Allow full use of foot print (no wasted, single-use spaces); and address: Pattern Languages (Demonstrated values); Armature (Alexander, Ching, Greene, Flun and Brand); Prospect & Refuge (Gallager, Day); Order & Complexity; and Evolution & Adaptation
DURABILITY- Modern systems best when new, the materials not repairable, the styles (limited by the system) do not have not intrinsic design - they get old, dated. The present invention is intended to mellow (age gracefully), last for years and be easily fixed & adapted. For example, a standard straight work wall panel can: hang on wall; fold on track or wheels; slide or double hang. Similarly, an individual pod can be one-piece work station, two, three, etc., to complete room (or "s" curve).
Within this universe of concerns, it is widely believed that there are inherent conflicts. For example, the need for greater density, for more knowledge worker space and a greater variety of knowledge worker work space typically believed to directly conflict with the need for greater density. Likewise, the need for greater variety of work space has been viewed as conflicting with the need for greater modularity.
Recently efforts have been focused on the human values concerns. In particular, it has been recognized in the prior art (see US Patent No. 5,684,469 assigned to Steelcase Inc.) that as modern offices become increasingly complicated and sophisticated the needs of the users for improved utilities support and collaborative work space are increasing. "Utilities," as the term is used, encompass all types of resources that may be used to support or service a worker, such as communications and data used with computers and other types of data processors, electronic displays, etc., electrical power, conditioned water, and physical accommodations, such as lighting, HVAC, security, sound masking, and the like... Thus, modern offices for highly skilled "knowledge workers" such as engineers, accountants, stock brokers, computer programmers, etc., are typically provided with multiple pieces of very specialized computer and communications equipment that are capable of processing information from numerous local and remote data resources to assist in solving complex problems.
Such equipment has very stringent power and signal requirements, and must quickly and efficiently interface with related equipment at both adjacent and remote locations. Work areas with readily controllable lighting, HVAC, sound masking, and other physical support systems, are also highly desirable to maximize worker creativity and productivity. Many other types of high technology equipment and facilities are also presently being developed which will find their place in the workplaces of the future.
One important consequence of the advent of sophisticated electronic offices is the increased need and desirability for distributing utilities throughout the various offices in a manner which can be readily controlled. For example, both personal security and information security are ever-growing concerns in today's office environment, particularly as more and more sensitive business data is being transmitted electronically.
Complex video and computer systems have been developed which have a central location from which all workstations in any given grouping and/or building can be continuously monitored, and the security of each associated piece of electronic equipment connected with a communications network can be checked. Related alarms and electronic locking mechanisms are typically integrated into such security systems to provide improved effectiveness.
These types of security systems must presently be hard-wired in place in the building and the associated workstations. This serves to increase the cost of the office space, and severely limit its ability to be readily reconfigured. The efficient use of building floor space is also of great concern, particularly as building costs continue to escalate. Open office plans have been developed to reduce overall office costs, and generally incorporate large, open floor spaces in buildings that are equipped with modular furniture systems which are readily reconfigurable to accommodate the ever-changing needs of a specific user, as well as the divergent requirements of different tenants. One arrangement commonly used for furnishing open plans includes movable partition panels that are detachably interconnected to partition off the open spaces into individual workstations and/or offices. Such partition panels are configured to receive hang-on furniture units, such as worksurfaces, overhead cabinets, shelves, etc., and are generally known in the office furniture industry as “systems furniture.” Another arrangement for dividing and/or partitioning open plans involves the use of modular furniture, in which a plurality of differently shaped, complementary freestanding furniture units are positioned in a side-by-side relationship, with upstanding privacy screens available to attach to selected furniture units to create individual, distinct workstations and/or offices. All of these types of modular furniture systems have been widely received due largely to their ability to be readily reconfigured and/or moved to a new site, since they are not part of a permanent leasehold improvement.
To gain increased efficiency in the use of expensive office real estate, attempts are now being made to try to support highly paid knowledge workers with these types of modular furniture systems in open office settings, instead of conventional private offices. However, in order to insure peak efficiency of such knowledge workers, the workstations must be equipped with the various state-of-the-art utilities and facilities discussed above. Since such workstations must be readily reconfigurable to effectively meet the ever-changing needs of the user, the distribution and control of utilities throughout a comprehensive open office plan has emerged as a major challenge to the office furniture industry. Some types of modular furniture systems, such as selected portable partition panels and freestanding furniture units, can be equipped with an optional electrical powerway, which extends along the entire width of the unit, and has quick-disconnect connectors adjacent opposite ends thereof to connect with adjacent, like powerways, and thereby provide electrical power to an associated furniture group or cluster. Outlet receptacles are provided along each powerway into which electrical appliances can be plugged. Cable troughs or channels are also provided in most such furniture units, so as to form a system of interconnected raceways into which signal and communications wires can be routed. Such cabling is normally routed through the furniture system after the furniture units are installed, and is then hard-wired at each of the desired outlets. While this type of distribution system has proven somewhat effective, the types of utilities provided are rather limited, their distribution is not wholly modular, thereby resulting in higher installation and reconfiguration costs, and there is little or no control for those utilities available, at least on an overall systems level. The inherent nature of modular furniture systems, which permits them to be readily reconfigured into different arrangements, makes it very difficult to achieve adequate utility distribution and control. To be effective, not only must the furniture units have built-in utility capabilities, but the distribution system should also be able to determine the location of each particular furniture unit within a system of multiple workstations, monitor its utility usage, and then control the same, all at a relatively low cost and readily adaptable fashion, which will function effectively, regardless of where the individual furniture unit is positioned or how it is configured.
So-called “open office plans” typically comprise large, open floor spaces in buildings that are furnished in a manner that is reconfigurable to accommodate the needs of a specific user. Many such open plans includes movable partition panels that are detachably interconnected to partition off the open spaces into individual workstations and/or offices. Such partition panels are configured to receive hang-on furniture units, such as worksurfaces, overhead cabinets, shelves and the like. An alternative arrangement for dividing and/or partitioning open plans includes modular furniture arrangements, in which differently shaped, freestanding furniture units are interconnected in a side-by-side relationship, with upstanding privacy screens attached to at least some of the furniture units to create individual, distinct workstations and/or offices.
As recognized in US Patent No. 5,651, 219, these types of conventional workstation arrangements do not optimize human (i.e., economic and pragmatic ) design values. For example, conventional designs of these types are not particularly adapted to support workers engaged in group work, such as self-managing teams, or others involved in team problem solving techniques, wherein a relatively large number of workers from different disciplines, such as engineering, design, manufacturing, sales, marketing, purchasing, finance, etc., meet together as a group to define and review issues, and set general policy, and then break out into either smaller sub-groups, or into individual assignments or projects to resolve those specific problems relating to their particular discipline.
Group work is steadily gaining importance as a way of improving productivity and time-to-market, thereby emphasizing the need to support such activities more efficiently and effectively. In addition, built-in offices and conference rooms are typically expensive to construct and maintain, and are not usually considered an efficient use of space in open plan environments. When such conventional rooms are constructed in rented office space, they become permanent leasehold improvements, which must be depreciated over a lengthy time period, and can not be readily moved upon the expiration of the lease. The reconfiguration of such spaces is quite messy, and very disruptive to conducting day-to-day business.
Furthermore, with conventional conference room arrangements, breakout meetings among the various sub-groups of workers often prove inconvenient, since the offices of the participant workers are seldom located in close proximity to the conference room. It is recognized that group problem-solving techniques necessarily involve some degree of interaction between coworkers, thereby creating the need in furnishings for modern office environments to promote the establishment of an optimum balance between worker privacy and worker interaction. Throughout a given workday, an office worker normally oscillates between interaction with others and time spent alone. Each such worker actively seeks out or avoids others based upon their ever changing tasks, objectives, and goals. Furnishings can serve to help these workers better regulate involvement with or isolation from coworkers. For example, full height offices are known for privacy. Their surrounding walls and door provide privacy by consistently controlling unwanted distractions, but often limit opportunities for spontaneous interaction. On the other hand, open offices precipitate an awareness of coworkers. Furniture and partition based workstations encourage participation by convenient access, but often lack sufficient controls for individual quiet work. Private workspace, and convenient access to coworkers for the completion of work involving group or team efforts are both quite important to the overall success of such collaborative projects. There have been various attempts to address these pragmatic and economic human concerns.
For example US Patent No. 5,684,469 assigned to Steelcase Inc. proposes a utility distribution system for modular furniture of the type comprising individual furniture units that are juxtaposed to form one or more workstations. A signal conductor is positioned in each furniture unit, and extends generally between opposite sides thereof. Quick-disconnect connectors are provided at the opposite ends of each of the signal conductors, and mate with like quick-disconnect connectors in adjacent furniture units to create a communications network through the workstations. Each furniture unit has a signaler physically associated therewith, which is connected with an associated signal conductor at a coupler. A network controller is operably connected to the network to evaluate the network and/or the associated furniture units. The furniture units may be equipped with one or more utility ports, which are connected with the coupler, and service utility appliances, such as personal computers, telephones, facsimile machines, switches, power outlets, data receptacles, and the like. The utility appliances preferably have memory capability to internally store operating instructions for the same, which are transmitted to the network controller when the utility appliance is initialized. US Patent No. 5,675,949 assigned to Steelcase Inc. discloses a utility distribution system is open office plans and other similar settings, that includes a prefabricated floor construction designed to be supported directly on a building floor. The floor construction has a hollow interior which defines at least one raceway to route utility conduits therethrough, and a floor surface on which workstations can be positioned. The utility distribution system also includes at least two utility posts, each of which has a foot which mounts to the floor construction to support the utility posts in a generally upstanding orientation. A utility beam extends generally horizontally between the two utility posts, and is supported thereby.
The utility beam has at least one raceway extending longitudinally therealong, with opposite end portions communicating with the utility channels in the utility posts to route utilities therebetween. US Patent No. 5,651,219 assigned to Steelcase Inc. describes a workspace module for open plan spaces, and the like, that includes a compact footprint, comprising a freestanding framework supporting a three-sided partition to form an interior workspace and a portal opening for user ingress and egress. A door partition shaped to selectively close the portal opening is movably mounted on the framework. The door partition preferably has an arcuate plan shape, and is positioned adjacent one side of the portal opening, such that shifting the door partition from the fully open position to the fully closed position both increases the amount of the interior space in the workspace module, and alters the plan shape thereof for improved freedom of user movement, while alleviating any sense of user claustrophobia. FIG. 45 of the patent shows a perspective view of an office arrangement that includes a plurality of workspace modules arranged in two clusters, and a furniture positioned in a common area framed by the clusters of workspace modules. FIG. 46 shows a perspective view of an office arrangement including a plurality of workspace modules arranged in two clusters, and a furniture system positioned in a common area framed by the clusters of workspace modules, wherein the furniture system is configured to define two, smaller subgroup workspaces for breakout-type activities. The arrangement of workspace modules 1 shown in FIG. 45, includes tables 142, chairs 143, and mobile displays 144. FIG. 46 shows, a cluster of workspace modules 1 is shown configured in a predetermined arrangement on building floor surface 8, with a unique furniture system 145 positioned in the common workspace 141 to assist in further supporting group work activities. The furniture system 145 includes a plurality of posts or columns 146 which support an overhead framework 147 on the floor surface 8 of the open office space in a freestanding fashion at a predetermined elevation, generally above average user height. A plurality of individual panels 148 are provided, wherein each panel 148 is constructed to permit easy, manual bodily translation of the same by an adult user. A hanger arrangement 149 is associated with overhead framework 147, and cooperates with connectors 150 on panels 148 to detachably suspend panels 148 at various locations along overhead framework 147. Panels 148 are manually reconfigurable between many different arrangements, such as the configurations shown in FIGS. 45 and 46, to support different group work activities. Panels 148 are capable of providing a partitioning function to visually divide at least a portion of the workspace, and/or a display function to facilitate group communications. US Patent No. 5,651,219 seeks to provide a compact and dynamic workspace module that is particularly adapted to effectively and efficiently support knowledge workers engaged in group work activities in open plans, and the like. The workspace module is preferably configured such that when the door partition is moved to its fully closed position, the interior workspace expands, the shape changes, and interior walls and appliances are automatically exposed, thereby improving freedom of user movement and user effectiveness, and evoking a sense of roominess and comfort. The workspace module is preferably freestanding, such that it can be easily transported and reconfigured within a given workspace, and may have a knock-down construction which permits the same to be readily disassembled and reassembled at new project locations. The overhead framework may include raceways to equip the workspace module with power, signal, lighting, and other utilities. Communication devices, and other similar office appliances may be built into the interior of the workspace module in a vertically stacked array adjacent one side of the seated user to effectively support the user. A mobile personal storage unit adapts the workspace module to be used by multiple workers, and a mobile worksurface equips the workspace module for both private and conference activities. The workspace module is extremely flexible and dynamic to meet the ever changing needs of various users, is economical to manufacture, capable of a long operating life, and particularly well adapted for the proposed use.
US Patent No. 5,511,348 assigned to Steelcase Inc. discloses a furniture system particularly adapted to support group activities in open plans. The system includes a plurality of columns supporting an overhead framework on the floor of a building in a freestanding fashion at a predetermined elevation, generally above average user height. A plurality of individual panels are provided, wherein each panel is constructed to permit easy, manual, bodily translation of the same by an adult user. A hanger arrangement is associated with the overhead framework, and cooperates with connectors on the panels to detachably suspend the panels at various locations along the overhead framework. The panels are manually reconfigurable between many different arrangements to efficiently and effectively support different group activities. Preferably, the panels are capable of providing a partitioning function to visually divide at least a portion of the workspace, and/or a display function to facilitate group communications. While the designs described in these recent patents address some of the human value concerns by providing more efficient systems, they fail to appreciate, much less address, the need to address architectural pattern language values. As a result, the components described are not sufficient to optimize both human and pattern language values. In addition, the emphasis on pragmatic and economic values has led to an emphasis on standardized systems that attempt to achieve maximum efficiency without consideration of other important values such as, high variety, the use of natural materials to achieve true durability, true reconfigurability, architectural armature, prospect and refuge and perhaps most importantly, pattern language values.
Given the emphasis on efficiency and pragmatic and economic concerns, it is not surprising that well known systems that address one or more the previously mentioned objectives do so by sacrificing other objectives. In particular, conventional furniture systems do not allow optimization of human and pattern language values. With regard to Human Values, the variety of furniture and work space arrangements and configurations does not match the variety needed to solve the problems, i.e., to meet and optimize and (all the pragmatic, human and economic) values. In this way, furniture design limits the range of possible solutions sets and limits the ability to create environments that facilitate collaborative interaction. Moreover, while pattern language values are well documented (see Alexander), most cannot be achieved using conventional "off the shelf" furniture components. Custom design is required. This is very expensive and non-standard and requires a case by case approach.
In addition, there is a continuing need to integrate, preferably in a seamless way, new technologies into the collaborative workspace. Before the advent of the Internet, distributing information to all the interested decision makers was prohibitively expensive. Today, the world wide web is an unparalleled distribution channel, where the cost to provide information to an extra user is essentially zero. This makes massive distribution of corporate data economically feasible for the first time in history, turning every Internet user into a potential customer for data. With a non-zero demand price, a zero supply marginal cost, and an Internet user base that is growing exponentially, the commercialization of corporate data represents a tremendous business opportunity to the corporations who have the data, and a high value added to the decision makers who need the data. This completely new paradigm is described by some as query tone. This is an analogy to an information revolution of similar proportions which is known today as dial tone.
Under query tone, the data warehouse shifts from money sink to profit center, and the average consumer is suddenly able to obtain information previously accessible only to the top management of Global 2000 companies. Leading companies have proposed a "query tone" enabled world where information flows freely in a frictionless market; a win/win situation where decision makers can obtain all the information they need and corporations can profit from their data warehouses; a society where a person can turn on a computer, and ask any question from any database anywhere, just like today a person can pick up a telephone, and talk to anybody anywhere. Thus the economics and technology are now in place and being continuously improved to allow users to query a wide range of databases to obtain desired information “just in time (toA).” The technology preferably allows people to use web browsers to sift through large stores of data.
While this technology has wide applicability, there remains a need for an overall process and environment that takes full advantage of “just in time information” and integrates this information into the collaborative work space. Moreover, there remains a need for a system and method for facilitating interaction and transportation of software and other "agents" used to sift through data. In addition, there exists, today, little if any integration between working environments and the transition of agents from on state to another in the transportation process.
These transitions ToA are not designed and facilitated. They happen as the accident of the sum of the processes parts of a discontinuous series of events. As is outlined in Subsystem Four of this invention, transportation units are environments, and in the Knowledge Economy, these environments cannot be dissociated from the production (value-added) process. Agent movement in the Knowledge Economy is a necessity to it, is information ToA and memory in itself (that the economy requires to run), and can be a value-added event ! in the creation of Agency ToA. All Knowledge-based environments are nodes ToA in a system of environments that, when organized and facilitated as a function (ToA) of the present invention, create a network-environment ToA that facilitates Agent work and Agency across what are now critical gaps in the process.
The “plug and play” of Agents is a necessary feature of a knowledge-economy environment. This feature must occur on all levels of recursion from knowledge-objects ToA software agents and tools, components of the human Agent environment, the system of transporting environments. Environments (“fixed” or mobile) are made of Agents and are themselves Agents. Thus, there remains a need for a comprehensive system and method that provides an optimal solution by addressing each of these objectives without sacrificing other objectives. Thus, there are paradoxes and problems associated with the Knowledge Economy, and the transition to it, that are not addressed by existing systems and methods of work and the tools utilized for conducting commerce.
For detail go to Subsystem 2 of the present invention.
INTEGRATING/OPTIMIZING TECHNICAL SYSTEMS TO PROMOTE AGENT INTERACTION
Part of the challenge of developing intellectual capital is the need to develop information, communication and thought augmentation systems that can help us (as Agents) extend the power of our minds: not only the ability to reason analytically, but the ability to use intuitive processes as well.
Ultimately, we need an intelligent partnership (ToA) among Agents (humans, machines, groups, organizations and combinations thereof) that support their work, play, and growth. This is a radically different concept of “information processing” than the one we find in place today. Existing systems are extremely limited in concept and tend to “automate the 19th Century” - that is, focus on refining processes that were invented in earlier periods and shaped by the limited technology of those times.
These deep structures limit the utility of the tools even as they become faster and more economical. It is an insight of this Invention that tools are not cognitively “neutral” but have embedded in them (intrinsically) processes of great value or harm. It is also an insight of this Invention that a close-coupling can be achieved between processes, tools (augmentation means), the Agents that employ them and the environments they work in. This can result in systems of far greater power and subtily than presently exist. These systems can exhibit life-like behavior.
In the final analysis, this concept demands a synergy between the special capabilities of Agents, whether humans, machines, groups, organizations and combinations thereof. In addition to being structurally based on an old paradigm, existing technical systems are highly fragmented and fail to support Agents in a seamless and powerful way. Computer Agents are limited to narrow and specialized environments. Human Agents have to navigate a plethora of tools and tooling systems and environments in order to perform typical and mundane knowledge-based tasks. High level integration of work and the environments of work is not possible with existing models and tools.
Effective economic Agents do not exist on any significant scale. Recent developments in object-oriented programming (and programs like “Java” and “Jini” by Sun Micro Systems), as well as, the development of multimedia and the Internet provide a platform upon which a radically different approach is (becoming) possible. However, the specific conceptual framework, exact configuration of software and the embedded processes mentioned before make this nearly impossible - the critical mass of the industry is moving in another direction.
“You Cant get THERE from HERE” (Taylor axiom). While there exists, today, rudimentary learning in some elements of the total tool kit that supports knowledge-work, learning by all Agents of the system, on all levels of recursion - and by the system itself - is not a built-in and accomplished systematically - it is incremental and accidental.
Learning ToA, as happens in a human agent, is partially understood as a shared and common experience among some humans. However, the approach to accomplishing it is crude and mostly colloquial. Learning by computer agents has just recently been explored on any significant scale (Media Lab at MIT and others). Learning by other systems, such as buildings, has been described by Steward Brand in “How Buildings Learn.” Brand applies a cybernetic perspective to how “innate” objects change and record experiences. Learning, in this context is closely allied with memory.
While provocative, these tools, experiments and insights fall far short of the kind, scale and type of knowledge-augmentation ToA required to effectively support knowledge-work in a Knowledge/Network economy.
Further, it is an insight of the present invention that the built-in processes 2 endemic to existing tools and common approaches to their design, manufacture and use are (mostly) intrinsically inimical to the practice of knowledge-augmentation required by present and future conditions.
The key is that all Agents must learn. That complex Agents made up of Agents, must learn. That the system of Agents (which is an Agent) must learn. It is only this way that complexity ToA, emergence ToA and Requisite Variety ToA can be addressed.
Thus, the human Agent, rather than defining, dominating and controlling other Agents in the system-in-focus ToA participates in a collaborative process with Agents of all kinds. Learning is a function ToA of complex feedback, iteration, recursion, critical mass, the specific process used and the intrinsic process-bias of the tools employed.
The focus of the present Invention is not only how each Agent component of the system learns but how the system, itself, learns. The present Invention is a System and Method for consistently accomplishing this. In this System and Method, learning and what is called creativity ToA is considered the same thing.
Creativity is learning aimed outward at accomplishing some goal; learning is creativity aimed inward to accomplish a state-change ToA in a specific Agent or environment of Agents. In both cases, the memory ToA of the system is altered.
To be effective in to days and future environments, hardware and software Agents have to be adaptive - as well as ubiquitous. They have to co-evolve with their user Agent (or Agents) and other environments on multiple levels of recursion beyond the computer system environment itself. The computer system architecture, thus, becomes an analog of the process that is being created. Easy movement between modalities: analysis, synthesis, simulation - to name a few - is essential.
For detail go to Sub System 3 of the present invention.
TRANSPORTING AGENTS AND AGENT ENVIRONMENTS
As indicated above, an important aspect of the present invention is the interaction among the various Sub-Systems. The underlying similarities among these systems make the overall system and process of the present invention widely applicable. There are, naturally, differences among the various agents. One important difference is that, among the different agents discussed herein (including humans, machines, organizations and groups), human agents are the only agent that "times out." To the extent that the human agents are the center of the overall system and process is currently contemplated, this becomes a significant issue. The human agent or knowledge worker "times out" when he sleeps, engages in recreation or when moving from one location to another. Until very recently, most workers, including knowledge workers, worked in only one location, thus the human agent has been disconnected from the system while engaged in other lifestyle activities (sleeping, recreation) or moving from place to place. With increased use of transportation, the amount of time spent moving from place to place has increased dramatically. Thus, there have been attempts to allow human agents to connect to the system from remote locations. Portable phones, portable pagers and portable computers are examples of such efforts to keep human agents connected. Nonetheless, these systems are, without question, less than perfect in keeping human agents connected with the system. The system and method for transporting agents and agent environments as an integrated experience is not limited the transport of human agents. To the contrary, the transportation Sub-System of the present invention is scaleable both upward and downward in size to address analogous transportation problems in connection with other forms of agents. Specifically, the system of providing an agent builder, feedback and transportation can be used in the development of “learning systems” and other forms of intelligent agents. An example of a known automated agent system is described in U. S. Patent No. 5,748,954 issued to Mauldin on May 5, 1998 for a "Method for searching a queued and ranked constructed catalog of files stored on a network." The Mauldin patent relates to known Internet search engines that use a method of constructing a catalog of files stored on a network comprised of a plurality of interconnected computers each having a plurality of files stored thereon. The method is accomplished by establishing a queue containing at least one address representative of a file stored on one of the interconnected computers, ranking each address in the queue according to the popularity of the file presented by the address, downloading the file corresponding to the address in the queue having the highest ranking, processing the downloaded file to generate certain information about the downloaded file for the catalog, adding to the queue any addresses found in the downloaded file, and determining the popularity of file represented by the addresses in the queue according to how often a file is referenced by a computer other than the computer on that the file is stored. Because of the vast size of the Internet, specialized types of software agents, referred to as robots, wanderers, or spiders, have been crawling through the Internet and collecting information about what they find. Such robots, however, quickly caused problems. Whenever a robot gained access to a server, the server could be rendered ineffective for its normal purpose while it processed all of the requests for information generated by the robot software. As a result of numerous complaints, guidelines have been developed in that robots perform a search in a manner that avoids a particular server from being seized by the robot. However, such searches often result in particularly relevant files being passed over in favor of much less relevant files. A second problem is encountered in dealing with the massive amount of information that is uncovered by the robot. Some form of data selection and/or compression is needed to reduce the amount of data retained in the catalog while at the same time maintaining sufficient data to enable the user to make an intelligent choice about the files to be visited. Thus, the need exists for a software robot that can intelligently search through the files of the Internet and for a mechanism for processing the located files for presentation to an end user in a meaningful manner.
For detail go to Sub System 4 of the present invention.
EXCHANGING A VALUE AND OBJECTS THAT SERVE AS A MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE OR A MEASURE OF VALUE
It has long been recognized that direct exchange of items of economic value (e.g., barter) is not always efficient. Thus, there have historically been objects that serve as a measure of value and a system and method for exchanging such objects on a macro economic scale. The essential ingredients of any economic system or model include the medium of exchange and measure of value as well as the system and method of exchange as well as some system for verifying ownership, enforcing ownership rights and monitoring current value.
All known systems have drawbacks. For example, current systems tend to value those objects that are tangible and easily transferable. But, objects that are tangible and easily transferable are not the only things that have value, nor are they necessarily the most valuable objects. Thus, there remains a need for an improved system and method for exchanging a value and objects that serve as a medium of exchange or a measure of value. In addition, present forms of money can be easily manipulated causing, among other things, critical information in the system to be lost or obscured. If the change in the cost of a good is the result of an increase of decrease of its value that is one thing. If it is the result of a change in value of the medium of exchange itself by arbitrary means (printing more money for example) - and this medium is the sole method of exchange - then feedback to the seller and buyer is compromised and a dynamic is introduced into the exchange that is not connected to the intrinsic value of the exchange itself.
This is why governments spend so much time attempting to regulated their currency. What is not operational in the present economy is a system of exchange that is inherently complex enough, and self regulating, to match the true variety of the market place.
In other words, the facilitator of exchange is becoming the limiter of possible exchanges while more and more of potential economy is “lost” due to the inadequacy of the medium. This is no different than trying to describe a complex object without the cognitive and language tools to do it. The object cannot be “seen” or manipulated to its full potential. Potential transactions are lost.
Existing forms of currency cannot learn, they are not “smart” they do not adapt. Existing forms of currency cannot transact based on context sensitive and case-specific conditions. This gives rise to a plethora of financial instruments and agents that add complexity in the wrong place while arbitrarily attenuating the variety of the system (of exchange). Existing forms of currency do no “know” ownership and location - they cannot report their condition nor be related to specific objects or processes of value in the system. They cannot function as complex Agents but - as noted before - create unnecessary non-value-added ToA complexity and overhead to the present system of exchange among Agents.
For detail go to Sub System 5 of the present invention.
FACILITATING WORK AND COMMERCE AMONG AGENTS IN A KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
The true economic value of modern corporations does not lie in the direct assets that appear on their balance sheets, but instead in a wide range of “intangible” assets such as corporate brainpower, organizational knowledge, customer relations, ability to innovate, and employee morale knowledge worker/knowledge base, intellectual property assets, technology base/infrastructure and market position that contribute to an organizations success.
As a whole these assets have come to be referred to as “Intellectual Capital.” To provide a common understanding of the components of intellectual capital, we will group the wide range of “intangible” assets into the following broad categories: Knowledge Worker/Knowledge Base, Intellectual Property Assets, Technology Base/Infrastructure and Market Position.
Knowledge Worker Knowledge Base Knowledge Worker /Knowledge Base refers to the collective know-how, knowledge, expertise, creative capability, leadership, entrepreneurial and managerial skills embodied by the employees of the organization. It may also include the organizational ability to respond to high stress situations. This category also encompasses corporate brainpower, organizational knowledge and ability to innovate.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property typically refers to the right to exclude others from things that they would otherwise be free to do. Patents, Trademark rights, Copyright, Semiconductor Topography Rights, and various Design Rights are all examples of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights, i.e., the right to exclude, are granted to those who discover new and useful products and processes (patents), to those who create original works involving artistic expression (copyright) and to those who are the first to use a particular name or mark as an indicator of the source or origin of a particular type of goods (trademark). In addition, it is possible to exclude ones employees (and certain persons that have had contact with ones organization) from using know-how and other valuable business information in competition, if one takes steps to protect such assets including know how (by, for example, entering into non-compete agreements with employees). The value of these assets obviously are directly tied to the value of the asset protected.
Technology Base/Infrastructure Assets Technology Base/Infrastructure assets are those technologies, methodologies and processes that enable the organization to function. Examples include methodologies for assessing risk, methods of managing a sales force, databases of information on the market or customers, communication systems such as e-mail and teleconferencing systems. Basically, the elements that make up the way the organization works. Market Position (increasing returns) Being a market leader either by having a product that is the industry standard or by offering exceptional customer service has a demonstrable value. Market position may affect the potential an organization. Various proposals have been put forth for measuring ones market position (not just market share). Examples include repeat business percentage, value associated with goodwill such as branding, market dominance due to the market strategy, including positioning strategies that have commercial value. Customer relations, employee morale and market position are all closely related within this category.
Together the assets grouped in these broad categories make up what has come to be referred to as the Intellectual Capital ToA of an organization. Yet another consequence of the shift to an information based society is the recognition that Intellectual Capital, however one defines it, will be critically important to all types of organizations. Though Intellectual Capital has only recently received attention, some forms of Intellectual Capital, such as “know-how,” have always been critically important to organizations. Even a traditional resource and equipment dependent organization like a coal mine relies to a considerable extent on the “know-how” of its workers. Similarly, throughout industry the value of a production line, chemical plant or other means of production is how it works, not the metal and fasteners. Thus, even in a manufacturing society intellectual capital is hidden within virtually all organizations. But, in the past, intellectual capital has been overshadowed by more tangible and scarce assets such as plant, equipment and access to limited resources: the essential requirements for manufacturing society businesses. Nonetheless, to produce a product organizations have traditionally had to have “hard assets” - land, factories resources that were all limited in availability i.e., scarce. Thus, wealth depended on scarcity.
The difference in today’s economy is that Intellectual Capital is playing a bigger, perhaps paramount role, in the economy. The creation of wealth no longer depends on scarcity. The economic shift that we are currently witnessing may, therefore, be even more fundamental than currently understood: a shift from a resource based (scarce) economy to a knowledge based (abundant) economy. This, however, requires a definition of knowledge that can be made operational and a set of augmentation tools that can integrate people, events, databases, into mind-like organisms that have memory ToA.
For whatever reason, it is increasingly apparent that Intellectual Capital can no longer be ignored. To date, most energy has been devoted to a search for ways to identify and quantify hidden intellectual capital assets which occur or are found to exist in “successful” organizations, because it is recognized that the global economy is becoming increasingly distorted for want of an effective way to identify and measure these assets. Little attention is given to the creation, nurturing and management of intellectual capital in a systematic way. Lost in the obsession with quantifying what already exists is the fundamental question of how Intellectual Capital is created?
The conventional view is that intellectual capital is something found to exist or something that evolves or occurs spontaneously in successful organizations. Thus, the current discussion focuses on issues such as how to protect intellectual capital, how to show it on balance sheets etc. There is currently little if any attention given to how to create intellectual capital. Is intellectual capital really something that just happens or is there a systematic approach to creating intellectual capital in a way that enhances its value and protectibility and therefore brings greater wealth to the organization.
For detail go to Sub System 6 of the present invention.
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
SolutionBox voice of this document:
IDENTITY • STRATEGY • CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
Access to this site is restricted to the following groups:
MG Taylor Corporation Core Staff
MG Taylor Corporation Board and Advisors
MG Taylor Corporation Legal Team
AI Core Staff
KnOwhere Stores Core Staff
Yolke Core team
iterations
CAMELOT KreW
BDO Evaluation Team
MGT Core ValueWeb Team
Alacrity Ventures
HP Star Team
If you are not a member of these groups and received your passwork from Matt Taylor or your team leader, you are violating the privacy of iterations and MG Taylor
- unauthorized access WILL BE PROSECUTED -
Contact:
Matt Taylor 843 671 4755
posted May 26, 2000
revised June 25, 2000
• 20000526.120717.mt • 20000527.93515.mt • 2000061.100239.mt • 20000625.164341.mt •
(note: this document is about 65% finished)
Copyright© 1982, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 Matt Taylor