Toward smarter information systems

Summary : When we talk about working on information, we usually distinguish the work that’s been progressively dedicated to machines (mass processing of data according to pre-determined plans) and what remains the field for humans, a sharper and more qualitative approach to scattered and unstructured data. This second point lead organizations to organize accordingly, distinguishing between those who search, prepare and use these data. A dichotomy that has many chances to be questioned in a near futur as machines are getting able not only to explore unstructured data but also to understand questions and give answers.

When we have a look a the main components of any information system, we can see two poles coexisting :

• the “mechanical” one. It’s made of applications that replaced humans over time because they’re more efficient and reliable for some tasks, providing a substantial advantage both in termes of speed and quality, what means in terms of costs. They allow the mechanization of repetitive mass processing that need more calculations and processing power than intelligence and ability to react in front of unpredictable things.

• the “intelligence and knowledge” one. It’s made of applications that don’t replace humans but are supposed to multiply their intrinsic abilities that a machine does not have. Its about communication and collaboration technologies.

If we focus on the second point, it’s obvious that no machine can understand and treat unstructured data with the needed fineness. Should the need be about searching, using and make a decision relying on a huge mass of unstructured information without the existence of an history demonstrating what “a good decision is”.

On this part, the superiority of human versus the machines is about decision making. As for what’s about information search, it’s rather a burden but a necessary burden because even if the machine is powerful enough it’s unable to process a qualitative and contextual search on information.

But how long will that last ? [Read more...]

What’s the next big thing in HCM ? From Human Capital Assessment to Realization

It’s a question I asked to myself after having read this note from Thomas Otter who was wondering what will be the next innovation in HCM Software.

Even if everything can be improved, I think that “administrative” systemes won’t experience a real revolution. In the other hand I think the pure “Human Capital” side is very promising.

Even if human capital assessment systems have been existing for years, I’m not sure they fully reach their goals. This inspires me two things.

When talking of assessment we also mean assessment context : and the perpetual assessment doesn’t exist so things are always biased. More, we only assess what we want to assess and we may neglect some aspects of one’s capital. In the other hand, as stakes are more and more about tacite and ability to work into human networks, we have to assume these kind of things are far from being captured and harnessed by the existing systels.

At last, we often talk about control and assessment systems, but hardly never of systems facilitating human capital realization.

Then, what if the next innovation in tools was not about tools but about their usages. Not because of the processing capacity of tools but because of their ability to help people to fully realize their capital in a networked in tacit context.

Perhaps, in certain cases, it’s worth a glance at Enterprise Social Software.

But since everything has to be measured (at least at then end), perhaps it will be possible to rely on these tools to assess, to evaluate. Social graph is a first track. Semantic may also help to mesure the alignment (or gap) between the corporate message and the way it’s received, between enteprise’s priorities and day to day job reality, between one’s job description and his real skills, expectations, or daily tasks.

In short, perharps looking at the development and realization side before considering control and assessment would be a good idea.