If there is one thing that the terror attacks have taught the US - and the rest of us - is that knowledge cannot be allowed to be the exclusive domain of a select few.
Questions are being asked - although not very loudly - as to why the FBI did not react to warnings of a possible attack.
Bronwen Kausch, Journalist, ITWeb
I recently attended a knowledge management (KM) round table where consultants, corporate IT managers as well as vendors were represented. What struck me was the continued old world assumption that knowledge is the domain of a select few, to be grudgingly doled out to others if and when those in control deem it necessary.
There are frightening similarities between this attitude among our local businesses and what happened with regard to tip-offs received by the FBI about the terror attacks that occurred on 11 September.
Questions are being asked - although not very loudly - as to why the FBI did not react to warnings of a possible attack. Now, no matter how flimsy or unbelievable that information may be, the fact is, that information should have found its way to a relevant person who might have actually done something with it.
To add insult to injury, this comes a little over a month after the bureau admitted to allowing hundreds of laptops, some with sensitive information, to go missing.
This shows me that the world`s most feared and respected law enforcement agency may not be that different from our large corporates when it comes to needing a drastic overhaul of its knowledge management ethos and methods.
I admit that no one is perfect, and the size of the FBI is staggering, but so much greater the need for sensible business tools to keep track of exactly this sort of thing. If the likes of Anglo American or SA Breweries (both multi-national companies) can install simple software to take care of their inventories, then why hasn`t the FBI?
Dangerous
The whole ordeal has brought to mind just how dangerous a little bit of knowledge actually is, and to leave knowledge-gathering and management in the hands of a select few who decide what their superiors need or don`t need to see is ludicrous.
The FBI and some of our larger corporates in SA still seem to be of the opinion that any information should be released strictly on a need-to-know basis. They tie up access to information in reams of red-tape and bureaucracy which effectively slows down the entire process.
My views on knowledge being dangerous extends to those, whomever they may be, who carried out the attacks. Now let`s picture a group of people sitting around and reading literature compiled many hundreds of years ago by someone who lived in a different age, faced different problems, and generally just wanted to put down a couple of guidelines on how people should live in a way that would cause as little pain and as much joy as possible.
Put this information into the hands of a few fundamentalists of whatever persuasion and you`ll end up with a small group of madmen killing and maiming in the name of a book which they read completely out of context and conveniently made up translations to suit their megalomaniac tendencies.
I hasten to add that this is not unique to religious groups. Fundamentalists, whether religious, economic or environmental, operate in the same way.
In my mind, one of the huge lessons to be learnt from this tragedy is that knowledge is vital, and leaving it in the hands of a select few without decent management and access for all, is a sure fire way for the most inappropriate people to end up sitting in a position of power.
In an age where the Internet has made access to knowledge as easy as logging on, companies and governments should get with the programme by investing in an altered attitude, and making knowledge accessible to all players involved through the use of the right tools, of which there are thousands.
Share