ORB Visualization
(soon)
National
Knowledge Project
3/15/2004 2:01 PM
Communication to
Institute of Defense and Homeland Security
Again, there are two distinct and
separate issues.
One is the long-term case that IT funding has been entrenched in the support of paradigms that have not been as successful as what might otherwise been found to be the case, if the natural scientists where allowed to speak on this issue. So no matter when the funds come available, there is a sincere question as to whether or not the funds, when expended, will be spent for the correct projects.
This first case is summarized as that business has trumped science, and that computer science has trumped business. Science is however available that will define a new paradigm in the information sciences. Our problem is about how eventually to get the business process to alter the types of award decisions that has been made.
We have restated our note at:
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/fortysix.htm
Your discussion about FY-05 dollars is interesting, and tells the story that Donald Rumsfeld often tells in regard to the funding decisions being far removed from the immediate opportunities. But the discussion ignores the fact the CIT is supposed to help innovators find angel and venture capital, as well as help perhaps deserving, perhaps un-deserving, companies to manage the red tape related to the many set asides for those who would follow the rules.
Being able to follow non-sense rules is not the same as having a valuable innovation.
Two different outcomes are being rewarded
Many innovations if properly
managed would bring high yields on reasonable investments. But most of these are not reasonably
invested in because business does not take the time to understand the long term
potential.
Often rules, as taught in CIT classes and seminars, are not consistent with the intention of the state or federal legislation. The classes and seminars reinforce simple-minded interpretations imposed by one narrow form of business thought.
More than a few individuals have observed that Virginia’s CIT has re-enforced a non-productive business philosophy. This business philosophy has allowed the bland to profit while at the same time ensuring that the knowledgeable are marginalized and held away from the attention of venture capital. I believe that this observation is particularly astute in the area of information technologies, where very little time is given to understanding the foundations of information theory and scholarship on human communication. Time and resources are spent on pursuing a narrow notion of what a business case is for.
The need to find capitalization for Ontology Stream would not be difficult for CIT if there were a fidelity to the mission as developed by the Virginia General Assembly. If all that was needed was a reasonable value proposition there would be little need for CIT to begin with.
Many things about our society are wonderful and good, but there are some things that one can and should have a healthy debate about. The capitalization system in information science just happens to be one of those things. The problem is bigger than CIT, or even the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The problem is global, everyone understands this, but CIT’s contribution to the problem is precise and stands as an illustration of how and why this form of business philosophy persist, in spite of the great harm it does. Business practice can accommodate long term and social value and can invest in a way that increases returns on investments. But not when the business community adopts a simple-minded ignorance of the consequences of its decisions. We can turn away from this behavior, and invest in what is good for the Nation and good for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
In our opinion, the focus of the CIT has been to milk federal programs, while ignoring the responsibility to make an honest evaluation of innovation potentials in Northern Virginia.
A variation of a general funding decision system dysfunction, again one that Rumsfeld talks about often, is my take on why there are systemic causes to the intelligence failures:
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/conjecture/two.htm
Opportunities exist, that if recognized would benefit Northern Virginia.
A MIT-based proposal is for 10 B over five years.
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/thirtytwo.htm
The MIT-based proposal does not consider the short term needs of individual, and lays out a principled investment on a capability that the Nation, and the world community, needs if we are to get a handle on the asymmetric threat.
Knowledge Technologies and the
Asymmetric Threat
So in this case, there is a precise opportunity for CIT or IDHS to align itself with the premiere Academic institution in regards to their long-term proposal. It aligns itself by being friendly to the BCNGroup and to the OntologyStream.
The BCNGroup’s proposal for a National Project to Establish a Knowledge Science curriculum is for a mere 60 Million and we are willing to wait one or two more years, after all the core group has been working on this proposal since 1992. Again, there is an opportunity for CIT or IDHS to align itself with these long-term proposals.
An opportunity also exists with respect to the relationship between KMPro and the BCNGroup and our long-term discussion about distance education delivery for knowledge management certification and for university accreditation for knowledge science curriculum.
To confuse the small problem of my own personal economic crisis with the longer-term values is exactly what venture capital is supposed to resolve.
The failure, to this point in time, of OntologyStream’s capitalization is not because I am not perfect, but is because of the dysfunctions of the capitalization process.
This is a long-term issue that I think has reflected poorly on the past behaviors of the CIT, and poorly on the system that Secretary Rumsfeld talks about at length. How does our economic system recognize deep and true innovations?
It is a time to make a change in the governance of CIT. I support the intention of the Virginia General Assembly to further reduce the tax- payer funding to CIT.
I post your note as part of the on going discussion.
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/fortyseven.htm
as the discussion matures, we may be able to use the record to show reason why new funding should come to the new Institute for Defense and Homeland Security.
There are accounts where FY 04 money has not been spend because the proposals received have not been found credible.
It is my hope that we will be able to work together.