Infosense: Turning Information Into Knowledge (Paperback)

Throughout the first chapter alone, confusion ensues. Devlin attempts give a functional definition for the terms data, information and knowledge but does not ensure the reader's understanding of this. Giving no precise definitions, Devlin leaves the reader to comprehend by oblique means. First, he writes that "Whatever it is, information can be a valuable commodity, to be collected, guarded, duplicated, sold, stolen and sometimes killed for" as he is leading up to an explanation.

However, the explanation is quickly derailed by the statement that first we must understand data and then we must understand knowledge, and so on until it is skipped over completely to follow the path of how information flows and solving problems.

Devlin often returns to his favorite buzzphrase "Situation Theory" which he has been involved in for more than ten years. Even as he tries to trace most of his assertions back to this wondrous cure-all, one has even less of an understanding of this theory than of information. One more into the oblique, my friend.

Since "Infosense" was penned by a mathematician, one might expect a horrid series of equations and scientific methodology (which occur in small, easy to use quantities although not very useful) but instead find unsubstatiated numbers in many of his examples. An early discussion surrounding the effect of the growth of necessary information-processing on productivity in the United States starting in 1950 to today. Data abounds in an attempt to exemplify that we do not as yet know how to utilize information. However, no sources are cited for his data nor is 'productivity' ever defined. A question which came up in my mind but was never addressed by Devlin is that if the United States were increasingly relying on information-processing, perhaps the definition of productivity would change.

To put Devlin's own methods to use on this particular situation, he provided his readers with data. This data was the physical words on the page which i perceived by my senses. Because I know how to read (this is a constraint), I get information from the data. Because I know how to weigh this information it becomes knowledge to me. Unfortunately, I was not given useful information and thus it caused confusion which is the opposite of being informed.

Generally, this is the case with "Infosense" throughout. If one is prepared to believe Devlin without questioning and to use his proffered business methods and ideas, then perhaps it will work. Unfortunately, for any other kind of intellectual or beyond the surface analysis, "Infosense" is useless as it creates more uncertainty than it resolves.

In InfoSense, noted mathematician and popular science writer Keith Devlin shows us how to make sense of the constant flow of information that bombards us daily. What is crucial, Devlin says, is to understand the difference between data, information and knowledge.

Devlin's mathematical inclinations show with his equations that illustrate his points. Equations like "Information = Data + Meaning" and "Knowledge = Internalized information + ability to utilize the information." Essentially, information only turns into knowledge when we attach meaning to it. When we understand it. Distinguishing between the various types of info in the flow is all-important. Here are some key points addressed in the book:

* Why people, not computers, are the most effective way to transfer knowledge * How social and cultural factors influence work * The hidden rules of everyday communication * How to conduct a meeting to achieve what you want * How to avoid miscommunication

Devlin's low-tech way to higher productivity is straightforward, learn how to communicate better. He shows how to converse more efficiently, how to run more effective meetings, and how to avoid miscommunication (with some shocking airline accident examples) with clear unambiguous language.

Devlin uses Situation theory to illustrate how to increase productivity within a group. He says that the ideal group size is two or three. As you add more group members the likelihood of confusion increases.

It seems that the more participants in a meeting, the higher the likelihood that the group will spend most of the time discussing information already known. This is because people have a tendency to discuss what they already know, and not bring up new subjects in conversation. They lack adequate "common knowledge" and need to be consciously guided to be effective.

An example: here's how to avoid going over familiar ground in a meeting:

1. Get participants to submit in advance the points they wish to make. 2. Adapt a round-robin format where each person in turn is asked to contribute something new. 3. List each new item introduced on a flipchart or a whiteboard. 4. Constantly remind the participants that the aim is to examine new information or ideas. 5. Cast the task at hand in an open-ended fashion as one of examining all the options, rather than making ajudgement or arriving at a decision. 6. Ensure that everyone in the group has a clearly defined and clearly understood area of expertise. 7. Build up the team over time, so everyone becomes familiar with one another's areas of expertise and with their strengths and weaknesses.

Columbo was really creating context when, at the last minute, he turned around at the door and said "Oh, and one more thing I don't understand...." Experts are those who know the rules so well, they routinely break them. To become an expert at the art of communication, this is a good place to start. From WebReference.com.