Knowledge Management: The new challenge of the 21st century

This is my own reflection after studying in the “Gestion des connaissances” class, UOKM Winter 2017, with my modern, cosmopolitan and inquisitive professor, Pierre Levy

Parujee Akarasewi (Writer)


@plevy (Twitter) – University of Ottawa

Before I wrote this work, a memory of having to buy a new external drive last December at Best Buy popped into my mind. I honestly had ZERO knowledge about data and knowledge management at that time, and almost bought a 5Tb drive for my catalogue of 5,000 selfies. Seriously! Fortunately, at that time I was able to consult some IT-savvy friends to give me advice, complete with all the technical language and explanations that that left me without a clue as to what he was talking about. All I know is that 1 Tb is enough for my narcissistic collection of 5,000 selfies.


Once I started to take in the material of the Knowledge Management class with Professor Pierre Levy, I was exposed to many types and techniques of knowledge and data management on many platforms using many types of storage… I realized that we can save and manage data in more ways than just a USB flash drive or saving it to external storage.

In class, I learned to save, manage and share the knowledge that we have learnt during class through the class’s accounts using the #UOKM hashtag on the Twitter and Facebook social networks, complete with emojis, videos and links to articles. Frankly, this is a creative, intellectual way to use social networks, better than just clicking “Like”, and scrolling up and down to see pictures from friends.

My curiosity went into overdrive from the beginning of the class in January until the last class. I came to know that data curation is the key to Google’s management of massive quantities of data, “Big Data”, organized and put into different categories.

We cannot deny that we are all now in the Cyberspace Era, which has come into existence through multiple technologies. It requires collective intelligence and a community effort to help individuals towards a better and uniform understanding of new technologies like Bitcoin (a new E-currency for investments) and Blockchain (security for banks and money transfers) through well thought-out innovations in education, such as the use of social media, teach-back design, crowdsourcing, learning approaches through videogames, formative analysis, future learning, translanguaging, data journalism, open science, and so forth.

In fact, from what we learned in class, knowledge management, or KM, has many definitions: it is the whole process dealing with knowledge that is established in an organization in order to create, capture, manage, share and apply this knowledge in order to carry out the strategy to achieve the organization’s objectives; or the process of multi-disciplinary management by regrouping initiatives, methods and techniques that allow the perception, analysis, organization, addition to institutional memory and sharing of this knowledge by members of an organization. The knowledge can be the product of the organization itself, or learnt from external organizations in order to achieve its business goals.

At the organizational level, the behaviors, processes and technologies are filled in

  1. to allow personnel to understand each of these things individually and know how they apply to everyone, and
  2. see the big picture that applies to the entire organization, in order to be able to adjust, so that
  3. the organization can find out what they do not know and what they can apply for.


Humans can think, communicate and present things that are hard to present, but they can also create knowledge and, using symbols for better communication, transfer it from generation to generation.

Big Data

big data

 I used to contradict my father, telling him that mathematics are not important…

I have since come to realize that I was wrong, because mathematics now run the world. In order to manage the data at the foundation of knowledge, they have become the tools of statistics and analysis.

Imagine Big Data as a wizard: he must be a powerful and brilliant one. He can predict the future, identify phenomena, and create statistical models of the results. He can also identify causes for phenomena through statistical analysis and the application of the wonderful magic tricks of algorithms. This wizard will interpret all the data, and will always play an important role in verifying hypotheses and scientific models, and communicating the results to others. We cannot refuse this great wizard control over us in the cyberworld.

On the other hand, the advance of technology has been retarded in many companies: they have blindfolded themselves, which is why their evolution will inevitably be found to be lacking in enormous opportunities for the future, and even for the present.

None of this should scare us, because Big Data, with its statistics and algorithms, is still a million years from replacing the intelligence of human analysis, the experience of scientists, peer validation, the evolutionary comparison of data, etc.

In the book “Free Culture”, Lawrence Lessig defends “free culture” as freedom balanced with control. He sees culture as the growth of creativity when built upon permission when using the intellectual property of others.


He defines “piracy” in two ways: stealing for one’s own benefit, cutting into the income of creators; and striking a balance between the interests of IP owners and society to create a new business model. He makes a compelling case for the balance between owners and society so that we may have freely available culture that encourages new creation.

The author’s intention in making this book freely available and accessible to everyone was to create, to “kick start”, so to speak, a culture of freedom in copyright law so that tomorrow’s culture may grow without hindrance out of today’s.

When we take into account Big Data, though, the law might not be able to protect any intellectual creations in the cyber world, because of sharing and the wizard algorithms that I will explain in a later section.


Data Curation

This fancy expression is a new term and new method applied in modern technology and social media when saving data, information and knowledge. We can find old data, qualify it, and keep the right or favorite content for all time with tools like, Evernote, etc. We use hashtags and emoji to express our feelings toward the content we read. (For example, when I posted in the class Facebook page that I would be late due to the traffic my bus was facing, the professor commented on my post with an angry face emoji. That prodded me to run to class after I got off the bus, to try not to be that late. Ha-ha+) *** But please note: according to my KM-savvy Prof. Levy, Facebook, Twitter and other social media type are information platforms, not the sources of knowledge: the content that we post and repost is the real source. The more we share, the more data is stored on the platform, which is why those wizardly mathematical algorithms know what we like and keep sending us what we want to see on our page.

Data curation can manage all the data in the data schema through tags that categorize the data as a model. It comprises collective and artificial intelligence in order to make the data accessible and systematic.

Collective intelligence


Collective intelligence is intelligence distributed everywhere using everyone, constantly valued, and coordinated in real time, which results in an effective mobilization of skills, the aim being to channel knowledge to think together, according to the book that professor Levy assigned to me, “The Knowledge-creating Company” by our kind Japanese “grandpa”, Ikujiro Nonaka. In short, in this book I found that a person acquires implicit knowledge (procedural or understanding) through her efforts in research and development (R&D) for new product development.

Nonaka also stated that “organizational knowledge creation is like a ‘derivative’ of new product development.” Or in other words, knowledge is created in the interactions between frontline employees and so forth. This book helped me to realize that the next generation of wars will be fought with data, not harmful weapons. The more data we have, the more chance to win, as happened in the Japanese revolution.

Artificial intelligence



Finally, What is Artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligent is the simulation of human intelligence processes by computer systems. These processes include learning (the acquisition of information and rules for using the information), reasoning (using the rules to reach approximate or definite conclusions), and self-correction.

All in all, a semester tackling knowledge management with a scholar such as Professor Levy is tremendously valuable for my future professional and daily life. I hope my readers can learn as much as I have, and see the importance of knowledge management for the future, because the future war is a war of knowledge, not of weapons…




Book Review: The Knowledge-Creating Company

By KitchenMickey (Parujee Akarasewi)

This book is a part of my presentation in UOKM class at University of Ottawa, This Book Review will mainly focus on the content extracted from the book.

The main author is  Ikujiro Nonaka he is Professor Emeritus of Hitotsubashi University Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy.He finished his  PhD and an MBA from the University of California at Berkeley and his B.S. in political science of Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. He was selected to be The most influential persons on business thinking from WSJ and also Management Ideas and Gurus from Economist Magazine

Next the co-writer est Hirotaki Takeuchi, he is Professor in the Strategy Unit at Harvard Business School (Elective course). He finished his BA from International Christian University in Tokyo, Japan, and an MBA and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. He is the

Winner of the 2012 Apgar Award for Innovation in Teaching for his role in developing the Harvard Business School IXP (Japan branch)

Now I think you all know  little more about the author, Let me give you the general idea about Japan in the Global Market who see the crisis as the opportunities.

After 1945 the end of world war 3, Japan was under Uncertainty condition apres avoir faillite de la bataille : From  World War II, Korean War 1950 (N and S by America) , Vietnam War 1955, economic crises  (oil shocks 1970, Japanese asset price bubble 1986 – 1991)

  • Difficulty in a competition with western companies because they Arrived later than Western companies,So they didn’t have proven track records or “the usual burden of success (satisfaction and pride)” and the last factor that you need to know about Japan during that time, ·      they keep Continue innovate more advance idea and knowledge. Because of the Uncertainty ,it has forced Japanese companies to look outward and convert external knowledge into internal knowledge.

Next let me tell you the differences between the Japanese VS the western innovation.

Japanese “see reality typically in the physical interaction with nature and other human beings” (Zen Buddhism, Confucius)

Western Thought: More self-centered and focused on knowledge as explicit and quantifiable.

Eastern Thought: Knowledge is more tacit than explicit — needs to be translated and converted for others to understand and benefit

For instance, using Matsushita’s development of the Home Bakery, they show how tacit knowledge can be converted to explicit knowledge: when the designers couldn’t perfect the dough kneading mechanism, a software programmer apprenticed herself with the master baker at Osaka International Hotel, gained a tacit understanding of kneading, and then conveyed this information to the engineers.

This book base on Polanyi’s philosophy. Polanyi’s interest in epistemology shows in appreciation of “role played by inherited practices” for knowledge, and also passing knowledge via apprenticeship, through observation and guidance of a master. This type of knowledge was called implicit. Implicit knowledge could be further divided into technical implicit knowledge, corresponding to know‐how, and cognitive implicit knowledge. The latter presents the wealth of beliefs, presumptions and experiences that are shared typically within a cultural group (nation, company, family, etc.) and are not commonly articulated as they are assumed to be familiar to all (all word processor users know what this symbol stands for). These types of implicit knowledge are functionally distinct from explicit knowledge.

Explicit knowledge refers to books, manuals, printed procedures and guides that express information clearly through language, images, sounds, or other means of communication. Explicit knowledge also refers to the type of information or knowledge that western management style has traditionally been involved with. For instance, Nonaka and Takeuchi mention Taylorism and rational management theory of Herbert Simon (1945, March & Simon, 1958) as examples of how explicit knowledge and procedures can be used to govern an organization.

we assume that a person has acquired implicit knowledge (procedural or understanding) through her efforts in research and development (R&D) for NPD. It is stated that “organizational knowledge creation is like a ‘derivative’ of new‐product development.” Or in other words, knowledge is created in the interactions of the front‐line employees.

Knowledge is defined as a meaningful, action‐ oriented commitment, which extends the traditional ‘justified true belief’ notion prevalent in Western thinking the spiral process starts at socialization where knowledge can be shared with another person through dialogue, observation, imitation or guidance.

All in all for this point, the experiences of the Japanese companies discussed below suggest a fresh way to think about managerial roles and responsibilities, organizational design, and business practices in the knowledge-creating company. It is an approach that puts knowledge creation exactly where it belongs: at the very center of a company’s human resources strategy.

Japanese Knowledge Conversion


Japanese Knowledge Conversion

  • Socialization: Informal social environments (Honda’s brainstorming camps)

The authors defined Brainstorming Camps as “informal meetings for detailed discussions to solve difficult problems in development projects” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 63).

According to the authors, socialization activities for a company could also involve research or consultation of users, and they list tama dashi kai (Honda brainstorming boot camps) as one form of socialization. This means that in addition learning or transfer of knowledge, socialization boosts creation of knowledge through combined perspectives. Explicit knowledge appears after socialization in the externalization phase.

  • Externalization: Use of metaphors, analogies, concepts, hypotheses, models (Honda’s “Automobile Evolution”)

In 1978, top management at Honda inaugurated the development of a new-concept car with the slogan “Let’s gamble.” The phrase expressed senior executives’ conviction that Honda’s Civic and Accord models were becoming too familiar. Managers also realized that along with a new postwar generation entering the car market, a new generation of young product designers was coming of age with unconventional ideas about what made a good car

The business decision that followed from the “Let’s gamble” slogan was to form a new-product development team of young engineers and designers (the average age was 27). Top management charged the team with two—and only two—instructions: first, to come up with a product concept fundamentally different from anything the company had ever done before; and second, to make a car that was inexpensive but not cheap.

They asked the question on “How is the slogan “Theory of Automobile Evolution” a meaningful design concept for a new car?” And yet, this phrase led to the creation of the Honda City, Honda’s innovative urban car

The phrase described an ideal. In effect, it posed the question, If the automobile were an organism, how should it evolve? As team members argued and discussed what Watanabe’s slogan might possibly mean, they came up with an answer in the form of yet another slogan: “man-maximum, machine-minimum.” This captured the team’s belief that the ideal car should somehow transcend the traditional human-machine relationship. But that required challenging what Watanabe called “the reasoning of Detroit,” which had sacrificed comfort for appearance.

At this stage, the possibly vague metaphorical dialogue or non‐conceptual observations are turned into explicit knowledge that becomes external to the subject. For instance, in a computer database, service manual or visual assembly guide. After explicit knowledge has been created, it can be refined further.

Combination is a process of systematizing concepts into a knowledge system. This mode… involves combining different bodies of explicit knowledge. ” (p. 67) Nonaka and Takeuchi stress that different computer systems can play an important role in this process.

  • Combination: Combining different bodies of explicit knowledge through documents, meetings, instant messaging (Asahi’s Super Dry Beer’s taste, richness concepts)

Why is a beer can a useful analogy for a personal copier? Just such an analogy caused a fundamental breakthrough in the design of Canon’s revolutionary minicopier, a product that created the personal copier market and has led Canon’s successful migration from its stagnating camera business to the more lucrative field of office automation

  • Internalization: Learning by doing (Matsushita’s reduction of work hours to increase individual creativity — explicit policy tried out for one month)

In 1985, product developers at the Osaka-based Matsushita Electric Company were hard at work on a new home bread-making machine. But they were having trouble getting the machine to knead dough correctly. Despite their efforts, the crust of the bread was overcooked while the inside was hardly done at all. Employees exhaustively analyzed the problem. They even compared X-rays of dough kneaded by the machine and dough kneaded by professional bakers. But they were unable to obtain any meaningful data.

Also, It is the counterpart of socialization and refers to the successful transfer of knowledge to a person from a book or database to another person. Once the person gains the ability to utilize novel knowledge, this knowledge becomes successfully internalized. As example, the authors mention GE new NPD staff “re‐experiencing” customer difficulties from help center transcripts or “prototyping” 1,800 hours work time goal at Matsushita for one month.

This emphasizes that internalization goes beyond facts, into sharing feelings, experiences and know‐how and could this way be easily connected to numerous design approaches presently popular in interaction and product design thinking

The authors explain that these four modes of knowledge creation penetrate through the ideal organization. Even though the knowledge is created at the individual level, it should be passed on to other levels of organization (externalization) in order to be exploited widely (internalization and combination).

spiral model

spiral model

This process is depicted as a spiral model  as New knowledge that always begins with the individual. A brilliant researcher has an insight that leads to a new patent. A middle manager’s intuitive sense of market trends becomes the catalyst for an important new product concept. A shop-floor worker draws on years of experience to come up with a new process innovation. In each case,individual’s personal knowledge is transformed into organizational knowledge valuable to the company as a whole of knowledge creating organization shown on the following figure:

The organization needs to support the spiral process. The writers introduce five organizational enablers of knowledge creation.

These are

  1. Intention and commitment in the organization
  2. Autonomy at all levels (cross‐functionality, self‐organization))
  3. Fluctuation and creative chaos (breakdown of patterns and standards, reflection in action, cf. Schön [1983])
  4. Redundancy (internal overlaps and competition)
  5. Requisite variety (along Ashby, 1956; meeting external complexity with internal diversity, staff heterogeneity)

In this description of the organizational support, Nonaka and Takeuchi come closer to realizing their model in actual organizations. The five enablers mainly describe how the company R&D should be organized to ensure success in knowledge creation. They further go describe a five step model, which is somewhat a derivate from the rugby team metaphor (all players constantly moving and looking ways to turn the game for their team advantage) used to describe successful Japanese industry units

Hypertext Organization: it is the Best knowledge-enabling corporate model is a synthesis

Which Interconnected layers or contexts”

Nonaka (1994) has coined a new organisational architecture which combines the efficiency and stability of a hierarchical bureaucratic organisation with the flexibility of the flat, cross-functional task-force organisation. This new architecture is intended to combine the advantages these structures have on knowledge creation effectiveness. The Hypertext organisation consists of three layers.

  1. Business System Layer
  2. Project Team Layer
  3. Knowledge Base Layer

The bottom layer of the Hypertext organisation is known as the knowledge-base layer, in which tacit and explicit knowledge are embedded. This tacit knowledge can be associated with organisational culture and procedures, while the explicit knowledge has taken form in documents, filing systems, or digital databases. The layer on top of the knowledge-base is called the business-system layer. This is where routine operations are carried out in a hierarchical, bureaucratic organisation. This layer has all the characteristics of a top-down organisation. The top layer is known as the project-system layer. Multiple knowledge creating self-organising project teams make up this layer. The teams are loosely linked to facilitate an interconnectedness that improves the knowledge creation process. They share the same corporate vision that underlies the knowledge creation efforts.

Knowledge in Practice

  • Matsushita’s Home Bakery bread-making machine : Matsushita’s unique “twist dough” method and a product that in its first year set a record for sales of a new kitchen appliance.
  • Engineers worked as baking apprentices (socialization)
  • Creative chaos due to shift from household appliances to high-end products
  • Integration of different divisions (Rice Cooker, Heating and Rotation) created requisite variety
  • Home Bakery success led to Human Electrics Division

In the knowledge-creating company, all four of these patterns exist in dynamic interaction, a kind of spiral of knowledge. Think back to Matsushita’s Ikuko Tanaka:

  1. First, she learns the tacit secrets of the Osaka International Hotel baker (socialization).
  2. Next, she translates these secrets into explicit knowledge that she can communicate to her team members and others at Matsushita (articulation).
  3. The team then standardizes this knowledge, putting it together into a manual or workbook and embodying it in a product (combination)
  4. Finally, through the experience of creating a new product, Tanaka and her team members enrich their own tacit knowledge base (internalization). In particular, they come to understand in an extremely intuitive way that products like the home bread-making machine can provide genuine quality. That is, the machine must make bread that is as good as that of a professional baker.

In conclusion, Nonaka and Takeuchi are arguing that creating knowledge will become the key to sustaining a competitive advantage in the future. Because the competitive environment and  customer preferences changes constantly, knowledge perishes quickly. With The Knowledge-Creating Company, managers have at their fingertips years of insight from Japanese firms that reveal how to create knowledge continuously, and how to exploit it to make successful new products, services, and systems. So that the future belongs to companies that can take the best of the East and the West and start building a universal model to create new knowledge within their organizations” , “Nationalities will be of no relevance with success” and “Success in the new ‘knowledge society’ will be judged on the basis of knowledge-creating capabilities

FREE CULTURE: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity

Lawrence Lessig, Author. Penguin Press $24.95 (345p) ISBN 978-1-59420-006-9

By Parujee Akarasewi

This book was originally conceived by Lawrence Lessing, a Harvard law school professor, lawyer and notary, in response to his loss before the Supreme Court in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, after the US Federal Communication Commission authorized the concentration of media ownership. At the beginning of the book in the Preface, the author has compared the present book with his previous book, “Code and other laws of cyberspace”, which concentrated deeply on the effect of law on software. The author states that this book continues from the previous one in the sense that all of our traditions are affected by the internet as a primary factor. Furthermore, the author argues that the recent changes in US law and administration threaten the future of human society. He defends “free culture” as freedom balanced with control. He sees culture as the growth of creativity when built upon permission when using the intellectual property of others. The author introduces two terms important to a culture of freedom and permission which are developed throughout the book.

In Chapter 1, “copycat” is used for creators who borrow and build upon the creativity of others without the permission of, or any payment to, the originators of an idea. The author also develops his argument on the concept of “free” for all cultures to a certain degree with two concrete examples: Steamboat Willie vs Steamboat Bill, Jr., and Doujinshi copycat (“fanfic”) comics vs Japanese manga comic books. Mickey Mouse’s commercial rise started in 1928 with Steamboat Willie, which parodied Buster Keaton’s silent film, Steamboat Bill, Jr., marrying the animation with an innovation recently introduced by The Jazz Singer, sound. With copyright as it was in 1928, this was not a problem for Disney – limited term copyrights (that weren’t always asserted) and a vibrant public domain meant that such borrowings were the norm. The laws of the time acted to increase competition and allow more entertainment company industries to grow. This case is in some ways similar to Doujinshi in the Japanese comic market: copycat Doujinshi have flourished despite transgressing the current Japanese copyright laws, and have helped the mainstream comic market. The manga industry has learned to work in harmony with Doujinshi comics without attempting to banish or penalize them, which could damage the benefit they have conferred on the industry.

Next, the author talks about the impact of technology and the influence of law on culture. The author starts with Eastman Kodak’s innovations that made possible the spread of photography in popular culture, along with the legal challenge they surmounted: “Courts were asked whether the photographer, amateur or professional, required permission before he could capture and print whatever image he wanted. Their answer was no.” That is to say, a photographer need not get permission to photograph a subject. Kodak’s innovation (print film) and the legal climate made possible the democratization of photography. In this chapter, democracy of expression is a primary theme that the author offers to the readers to think on, with many examples of developed technologies calling for media literacy, such as the Internet, email, blogging, etc. The possibility is that these technologies, democratized and understood, can further freedom and democracy and serve as a counterweight to traditional media, but the possibility of passive consumption of the media is ever-present. The technology allows great reach of images, sound and commentary, but the law has attempted to curtail these possibilities.

In the next chapter, the author shares a story about a student, Jess Jordan, who developed an early search engine for Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute based on the Microsoft Windows file sharing system in 2002. The Recording Industry Association of America sued him for damages of $15,000,000 for music files found in some of the shared files that were indexed by his search engine. The economics of legal proceedings forced Jess to settle by providing the RIAA his savings, which has since pushed him into activism.

In Chapter 4 the author comes to the conclusion that, “If “piracy” means using value from someone else’s creative property without permission from that creator — as it is increasingly described today — then every industry affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV.  .  .  . The list is long and could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the last. Every generation — until now.” Lessig goes on to explain to us that every entertainment industry was born through “piracy” of intellectual property. Lessig argues that our tradition has never stopped or punished the “piracy” of the recording, radio, cable TV or even VCR industries — indeed, the law has normalized practices such as radio playing recordings without paying the recording artists. In the next chapter, the author has emphasized the importance of copyright law, and has asked for greater balance in the law, supporting intellectual property with cultural freedom. He points out that piracy can be a very grey area, ranging from copy shops that profit from piracy to downloaders who download items that they would be otherwise unable to source. At the end of this chapter, the writer introduces us to the concept of copyright as property, but not in the same sense as tangibles.

Lessig goes on to give the history of copyright law, how it started with the effort to gain control over print production in European countries. This was used by Henry VII in England for granting print monopolies. In England, the Crown’s practice of handing out monopolies became quite unpopular and was one of the issues that motivated the English Civil War of 1642–1651, notably as it affected print editions of the Bible. By the mid-18th century, a group of English publishers controlled the trade, even to the point of holding a monopoly of Shakespeare in conflict with the Statute of Anne setting fixed-length terms for copyright, by claiming that the statute didn’t extinguish common law rights. “Many believed the power the [publishers] exercised over the spread of knowledge was harming that spread.” The House of Lords in 1774, functioning like the Supreme Court of the United States does today, determined that, in granting a copyright, “The state would protect the exclusive right [to publish], but only so long as it benefited society.” They accordingly enforced the limits set by the Statute of Anne to copyright terms, leading to the birth of the public domain.

Lessig continues with an anecdote about a filmmaker, Jon Else, making a documentary in 1990 about Wagner’s Ring cycle, who wanted to clear a clip of the stagehands that showed 4.5 seconds of a television in the background playing The Simpsons. Else received permission from all the Simpsons’ creators except Fox, who wanted to charge $10,000 for the privilege of showing something that was undoubtedly fair use. However, “fair use” as a defence tends to favour litigants with deep enough pockets to press the claim. Many of us can be sued if we make a collage of video clips because it is a sort of derivative work by collection of copyrighted parts.

Multinational corporations have pushed a concept of IP ownership as equivalent to tangible property to maintain their control of IP, bolster their profits and decrease the free exchange of ideas. The writer argues that the growth of creative arts and culture has been significantly limited in the violation of the US constitution, which recognized intellectual property as different from tangibles, and set limits on the term of ownership so as to benefit society. The Supreme Court has deferred copyright issues to Congress as the ruling authority, and Congress has tended to side with the multinationals. Professor Lessig argues that the existence of the concept of piracy and property in the intellectual property domain has compromised the process of making law in a depressing fashion.

Lessig concludes his book by suggesting that society should participate in a collaborative information society by choosing to be free, or accept an essentially feudal society. The writer suggests the model of Richard Stallman, the free software pioneer, of making content subject to copyright terms that mandate the freedom of the property. To this end he created the Creative Commons organization to encourage and create templates for copyright licences of this sort. Lessig doesn’t see this as precluding corporate models such as Westlaw and LexisNexis, which have clients paying for a product that is essentially in public domain.

Lessing has argued for copyright limitation, shortening the renewable period of copyright and loosening the control of derivative rights (for example, the publisher’s control over copies of Lessig’s work on the Internet for non-commercial purposes), creating a requirement licensing plan to be certain that creators will receive direct royalties for their work based upon usage numbers, and also an efficient taxation plan which has been suggested by William Fisher of Harvard Law School. It is very much in the footsteps of Stallman’s proposals.

To my mind, Professor Lessig has focused on the emergence of legal and commercial trends that have resulted from the Internet’s amazing capacity for innovation. The creations that led to these have changed through the time through the “piracy” of past creations. He presents a catalog of cases that arose through technological innovations in film, music, radio and television as illustrations, because piracy was the midwife of all of these industries. He defines piracy in two ways: stealing for one’s own benefit, but cutting into the income of creators; and the other is to strike a balance between the interests of IP owners and society to create a new business model. He makes a strong case for the balance between owners and society so that we can have freely available culture that encourages new creation: this would be better than imposing limits or bans on the reuse of intellectual property. His review on the array of legal actions, limitations on P2P sharing and so forth reveals an open hole in the law which has allowed the “middlemen” in the media industries to effectively roll back the gains in the availability of intellectual property to the situation of perpetual monopoly that obtained before the House of Lords confirmed the Statute of Anne — such a situation stifles both competition and creativity. I personally think that the reason why the writer intended to make this book available and accessible to everyone was to create, “kick start” so to speak, a culture of freedom in copyright law so that tomorrow’s culture may grow without hindrance out of today’s.



Lessig, L. (2005). Free culture: the nature and future of creativity. New York, N.Y.: Penguin.



General ideas about the context of aviation work

The roles within the hierarchy of people in the aircraft are the captain as the commander of the plane, first-officer, flight engineer, purser as the head of the cabin crews, and other flight attendants, usually 2-4 based on the number of passengers. For example, if a flight has over 120 passengers, at least 3 cabin crew are required, including pursers. There are two different organizations dealing with different parts of the plane working together. The work of cockpit crew is mainly concerned with technical matters and the safety of lives, in contrast to the cabin crew team, which presents the image of the airline in terms of being well-versed in sociability and public service. Certainly gender dominance plays a part in the job roles along with the company’s class system: pilots are predominantly male, and cabin crews are predominately female.

Due to the realities of the situation, the captain, the co-pilot and all of the cabin crew have to be at the airport at least 3 hour before the flight’s boarding.

According to Rebecca D. Chute (1996), who researched the reason for the reluctance of flight attendants to come forward with information to the cockpit, there are four main factors which cause miscommunication between these workers and have a serious impact on emergency situations: cultural directives, status differential, past experiences of the flight attendants, and the ambiguity of the Federal aviation regulation (FAR) requiring all flight crews to go through CRM training sessions, which created a degree of submerged hostility and led to gripe sessions.

As for the roles of actual cockpit crews and cabin crews, the captain is the head manager for technical and safety matters, but the purser is the manager of the cabin crew, which serves commercial purposes related to the airline’s brand image.

The airplane used in this movie is the McDonnell Douglas MD-80, which can have 130-170 passengers on board, but is not designed for flying upside down like the Air Force’s much smaller fighter aircraft. This series of plane is well-known among airlines and pilots for being troublesome due to mechanical problems. As the movie illustrates to the audience, the weight of the passengers was not problematic in this incident; rather the accident in scene 4 happened due to a heavy storm and a mechanical failure. This movie is fiction based on a true story, and the production has a good general idea and put in good study about how work in real life aviation is really carried out, even if there are a few mistakes. This movie may be based on a true story, but there is the fact that the filmmaker forgot about the flight engineer: instead of having the purser help fly the plane and bring an end to the accident, it was the flight engineer who did that in the real situation, and the upside-down plane is not possible, because all commercial aircraft are not designed to spin or invert.





Chute, R. D., & Winter, E. L. (1996). Cockpit-Cabin Communication: II. Shall We Tell the Pilots? The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6(3), 211-231. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0603_1

Movie on project : Flight

*** This is an excerpt of my original work. I personally think that it is very important and very interesting for those who doubt or have the same interest as I do.

“Performing” in Mintzberg’s role


A description of the interpretive perspective: “performing” Mintzberg’s roles

The nature of managerial communication

Studying the nature of managerial roles focuses on the actual behavior of managers in daily activities. There are three general sets of roles of managerial behavior: interpersonal, informational and decisional roles.  Interpersonal roles link directly to the status and authority of a manager, roles such as a figurehead; informational roles are created to receive and transmit information; and decisional roles refer to the activities which have a critical impact on organizational decisions. The interpretive researcher concentrates significantly on the communicative process of organizational life to see how these three roles perform in the real world. The center of interpretive study is that communication is multifunctional: it is assumed that social construction makes reality, which is maintained and created by the communication process in the real world.

Managerial Performance

Life can be seen as stage management by viewing behavior as a performance. This metaphor helps us to understand the meaning of human behavior as a symbolic process with expressive and instrumental functions. As stated in Nick Trujillo (1989) regarding Victor Turner’s suggestion that many actions in many performances fulfill the different meanings of reality, “Performances are those very actions whereby individual reveal their cultural reality to themselves and to others”: the action begins after individuals reveal their cultural reality to themselves and others, and reconstruct the symbolic process by treating things as real. As Bruno Latour said, “Faire, c’est faire faire.” Reality is where the action happens.

Are performances interactional? As Nick Trujillo mentioned, “Managerial performances as communicative phenomena are always socially enacted by multiple participants” (Trujillo, 1989). Most organization are managed with hierarchical, leadership and decision-making systems along with the performance of management, thus managers are only the action parts of the organization.

Performance has two meanings: one is that, situationally or randomly, it is the inherent contextual nature of any communication event; and the other is that it is historically embedded, which means that it happens at a specific time in the ongoing current of events. Managerial performance involves mass action and meanings to introduce the importance of that current into the organization’s reality.

It is normal that managers lose their existent scripted lines because of standard procedures and routine work, for instance, the interactions stemming from multiple interpretations of interpersonal, informational and decisional performances — these factors want to make things harder when we think of managerial communication.

When we talk about interpersonal performance, hierarchy is the key factor for each member in defining their own roles and relationships within the organization under the rules and agreements for mutual recognition. Content and the aspect of linkage are in every message; their dimension of transferring the information which favors the aspect of relationship is known as the meta-communicative aspect.

The selectivity of hierarchies makes organizational relationships which can be selected and strategically called on at a particular time while maintaining a distance between higher and lower positions in the sense of interpersonal performances. Everyone in the organization is included as a part of each other’s conversation.



Trujillo, N. (1989). “Performing” Mintzberg’s roles: The nature of managerial communication. 1983, Beverly Hills: Sage. Communication and Organization: An Interpretative Approach, 73-97. doi:10.1177/017084068400500424

*** This is an excerpt of my original work. I personally think that it is very important and very interesting for those who doubt or have the same interest as I do.

*** This is only an excerpt of my original work. I personally think that it is very important and very interesting for those who doubt or have the same interest as I do.