Archive for December, 2007


knowledge management in organisations

December 30, 2007

Was reading the book
Knowledge Creation and Management
edited by
Kazuo Ichijo
Ikuijoro Nonaka
Oxoford University Press, 2007

In 1492-1800, at globalization 1.0 period, enterprises were entering to the global markets. 1800-2000 was the period of globalization 2.0 with global competition of enterprises. Starting from year 2000 globalization 3.0 has started with newfound power for individuals to collaborate and compete globally through knowledge work.

Why do firms differ. The theory of the knowledge-creating firm
by I.Nonaka & R.Toyama
Theories explain that differences between firms originate from imperfections of profit-maximizing like blocked barriers (cannot get certain confidential resources or mobility problems); high cost (too costly to acquire resources, high transaction costs); limited capabilities of managers (firms fall into path dependencies and are ecologically dying out).
Firms differ also because of their management vision (values, commitment of employees) differs, they envision different futures (maximizing profit versus making a good car).

It has been claimed (Teece, 2003) that firms are passive entities in the environment, that take information and produce products and services, but they merely adapt to the environment and never try to shape it. Nonaka and Toyama view firms as dynamic knowledge-creating entities that interact with the environment (an ecosystem of knowledge) reshaping the environment and even itself by creating and intaking knowledge assets and the environment as an ecoystem of knowledge and multilayered ba, through knowledge creation.

The knowledge-based theory of the firm rests on two elements:

1) basic view of human beings (human subjectivity in the company’s information-processing machine is not a noise)
The difference in human subjectivity (how we view the world) in companies helps to create new knowledge. Humans are not replaceable parts of machines. An individual transcends himself/herself through knowledge creation (Nonaka, Toyama, Konno, 2000). In organisational knowledge-creation process, individuals interact with each other to transcend their own boundaries and, as a result change themselves, others, the organisation, and the environment.

2) process of organisational knowledge creation (where knowledge includes values and ideals).
Knowledge-creation theory treats knowledge as fallible and influenced by subjective factors. However, in organisational knowledge-creation this subjective tacit knolwledge, held by individuals, is externalized into objective explicit knowledge to be shared and synthesized within and beyond organisations, and newly created knowledge is, in turn, embodied by individuals to enrich their subjective tacit knowledge. Organisational knowledge-creation is an ongoing social process of validating truth in which knowledge keeps expanding (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

The firm’s knowledge vision (Why do we exist and do what we do?) inspires organisation members so that they are encouraged to create knowledge and defines a consistent value system to evaluate and justify the created knowledge within the organisation. Firms need the concept/goal/action standard as a driving objective of knowledge-creating process that helps to realize the vision.

Knowledge creation is guided through the synthesis of contradictions (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003) – accepting dualities and synthesizing them through dialectical thinking and action in dialogues. Contradictions that cannot be solved through objective analysis alone can be solved by synthesizing subjective views and intuitions that have accumulated through practice.

A foundation for knowledge-creating activity is baa shared context in motion at certain time and space.At ba one can be open to the others by losing oneself, seeing itself in relation to the others, accepting their views and values. The boundary of ba must be permeable so that it can accept new contexts. Ba needs the participation of multiple perspectives.

The ecosystem of knowledge consists of multilayered ba, which exists across organisational boundaries and is continuously evolving. A knowledge-creating firm needs to manage a multilayered ba, which stretches across organisational bondaries. At the same time firm needs to protect its knowledge assets as sources of competitive advantage.

Knowledge assets are not knowledge just created but it also includes social capital that is shared in the organisations. One of the most important knowledge asset is firm-specific kata, a pattern or way of doing things in dialogues and practices. Three steps of kata, creative routines, are: shu (learn), ha (break) and ri (create).

Leadership of knowledge-creating firm requires active commitment from all members of the organisation, not just from elite members using the middle-up-down mechanisms.Middle managers break down the vision or driving objectives, create ba and lead dialogues and practices. Knowledge is the source of power that exist outside the hierarchy of organisation. Leaders provide visions, develop and promote sharing of knowledge assets, energize and connect ba, protect ba from outside contexts so that it can develop in its own contexts according to organisation vision, enable the spiral knowledge creation.

Knowledge in organisational settings.
L.Prusak & L.Weiss
Early knowledge management initiatives collected individual knowledge assets without contextualizing them in team contexts. New view of knowledge management has increased attention to the adding context to content and the group knowledge (opposite to individual knowledge) is made easier to access, secondly the social networks must be made viewable making it easier to find knowledge workers with whom to establish relationships.

Knowledge creation and Transfer. From teams to the whole organisation.
B. Büchel
There are two key measures of social networks that indicate the organisational capabilities and use of social capital: density of networks within teams, and number of external contacts. Performance is more effective if density of networks in group creates cohesive understandings, however, too cohesive groups with stabile perpectives lose effectiveness and are unable to integrate diverse perspectives from external contacts.

Knowledge transfer within organisations
D. Leonard
Transfer is always two-way.
Knowledge assets must be replicated to hold stability within firm, but understanding the core knowledge and practices these assets hold is essential to apply them in situational contexts.
Knowledge assets must be evaluated and changed through reuse in different situations.
Initiating creative fusions to cooperate at multiple levels.
Types of knowledge to be transferred: know-what, know-why, know-how, know-who.
Barriers of knowledge transfer: too rigid or too vague knowledge assets, culturally sticky knowledge (difficult to separate from source), the gap between the initial source and the receiver of knowledge assets.
Transfer is aided if knowledge is made explicit and if there is physical proximity of the knowledge source and the receiver.

Bringing the outside in
M. Mazevski & N. Athanassiou
Knowledge is personal – social networks and social capital.
Relationships may be:
strong/weak: stong relationships are built with the kind of interaction necessary for establishment of shared tacit knowledge, they are characterised by trust
flexible: participants share many areas of knowledge and expertise, they have willingness to share and learn
transferable: transferable relationships can be given to someone else, people are reluctant to transfer strong relationships unless they are aware that new contact is worthy
power: power is the access to resources that are important and scare, powerful relationships provide access to such resources.
satisfying: if needs are fulfilled reciprocally

Human resources management and knowledge creation
M. Osterloch
Creating synergies constitutes collective good that can be used by people who have not contributed their share to its production.
In contrast to manual teamwork, pure knowledge teamwork raises productivity of the team if different knowledge is dispersed among different people (Hayek, 1945).
The result of knowledge teamwork is at least in part new explicit knowledge that can be used by others outside the team.
Knowledge workers in teams have more bargaining power than manual workers do, the people cannot be easily replaced.
Motivation is the key of knowledge work:
enjoyment based intrinsic motivation: the individual acts as homo ludens (Huizinga, 1986), pleasure is derived from activity itself and not from compensation, flow experience
prosocial intrinsic motivation takes into account the well-being of others, the welfare of the community, people want to contribute to common good of their community or company
extra-role behaviour: willingness to cooperate, willingness to keep organisational citizenship behaviour (protecting other members if rules are violated)
How to increase intrinsic motivation:
The perception of autonomy decreases if people perceive that their self-determination is reduced when doing intrinsically interesting activity. They feel that they are not the origins of their behaviour.
Feeling of competence grows if individuals understand what they are doing and when they feel responsible for outcome. If people feel that they are competent, they make greater contributions to the community (Kollock, 1998). But individuals must get positive feedback about the outcome of their contributions that does not eclipse their feeling of autonomy. Feedback must be perceived as supporting not controlling. Second, individuals must believe that their participation is important for the provision of the community good. Feedback, whether other members have received and used the contributions, and training possibilities are important. Providing opportunities to personal contacts increases motivation.


Knowledge creation in organisations

December 29, 2007

Reading a book:

Knowledge emergence. Social, Technical and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation
Eds. I.Nonaka & T.Nishiguchi
Oxford University Press, 2001.

Nonaka, Konno & Toyama:

What knowledge management should achieve is not a static management of information or existing knowledge, but a dynamic management of the process of creating knowledge out of knowledge.

Tacit knowledge is hard to verbalise, and is deeply rooted in an individual’s actions and expertise, as well as ideals, values or emotions. Explicit knowledge can be expressed formally and transmitted across individuals. Understanding the reciprocal relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge and social knowledge conversions with this knowledge between individuals is the key of understanding knowledge-creating processes.

Four modes of knowledge conversion are:
Socialization (tacit -> tacit) consists of tacit knowledge accumulation through physical proximity, wandering outside and wandering inside for collecting social information, and transfer of tacit knowledge;
Externalization (tacit -> explicit) is creating concepts through abductive thinking, the use of metaphors for concept creation, the use of models, diagrams or prototypes to articulate tacit concepts;
Combination (explicit -> explicit) consists of acquisition and integration, which involves justification of knowledge and negotiations of finding agreement, synthesis and processing at presentations and meetings, and dissemination that is supported with communication networks;
Internalization (explicit -> tacit) consists of personal experience and acquisition of real world knowledge through learning by doing, simulations and experimenting, and by virtual world knowledge acquisition.

The interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge moves up to the ontological levels eg. individual -> group -> organisation -> between organisations. Organisational knowldge creation is a spiral process that crosses sectional, departmential, divisional, and organisational boundaries.

Ba, a Japanese term refers to a physical, virtual and/or mental space shared by two or more individuals or organisations. The nature of ba will condition social relationships among these social units and hence have a determining influence on the scale and scope of knowledge creation. The role of management in the knowledge-creation process should be to design and/or facilitate the emergence of appropriate ba, rather than directly intervene in the knowledge-creation process.

Ba is a time-space nexus, a locationality that simultaneously includes time and space. To participate in ba means to get involved and transcend one’s own limited perspective or boundary. Knowledge is embedded in ba, if knowledge is separated from ba it turns into separate information, which can be communicated independently from ba.

I wonder what are the relationships of ba and forms of intersubjectivity?

Important aspects in ba management are:
Providing knowledge vision that transcends the boundaries of existing products, divisions, organisations, and markets. Knowledge vision defines, what kind of knowledge the company should create and in what domain, it also defines value systems that evaluates, justifies and determines the quality of knowledge the company creates.
– Building and energizing ba by providing space, utilizising created ba dynamically, allowing creative autonomy, causing creative chaos that breaks down routines, habits and cognitive frameworks, facilitating the redundancy of information, which is needed to perceive what the tacit knowledge of the members of the organisation is, and to which direction they should be constructing the knowledge.

Krogh, Ichijo & Nonaka:
Care can facilitate organisational knowledge development by nurturing trust among the employees. Knowledge-creation depends on whether there is low or high care and whether there is creation of individual or organisational knowledge. In low care organisations individuals seize knowledge on their own and do not share with the others, social knowledge of the organisation is explicit and buereaucratic, often not understood by employees. In high care organisations individuals in social networks share tacit knowledge both at individual and organisation level and understand the knowledge.

M.A. Cusumano:
Microsoft promotes both creativity, a key factor of innovative knowledge creation, and structure. Creativity is related with flexibility and entrepreneurial spirit of the hacker culture. The basic elements of their approach are to continuously synchronise what employees are doing individually and as members of parallel teams and to periodically stabilize the evolving product features by specifications as the project proceeds.

G. Michaelis:
Cooperative processes, that is communicative relations, bind participants to each other and with the actions they are performing. The success of cooperative processes depends on the effectiveness of actors and also of their capability to switch from one position to another: from action performer to the one who requests action.
– Participants in a cooperative process change over time
– Each participant switches between acting and communicating
– Each participant is engaged at specific time moment into different cooperation types depending on her position among other cooperative participants
– Actors switch between different forms of cooperation and between different types of knowledge transformations
– Synchronous and asynchronous forms of collaboration are used

According to Brown and Duguid (1994), during the evolution of cooperative processes, each of their components continuously moves from center to periphery and in the reverse direction. Effective border resources, helping the users to switch among cooperative processes without losing awareness of the context where they are cooperating, are needed.

They use cooperation and collaboration terms differently from CSCW and CSCL traditions where cooperation is dividing tasks and roles when doing something and collaboration is shifting the tasks and roles dynamically between people during the activity.
Another thought is can we describe it as Engeström’s knotworking?
The nature of these border resources is still a bit unclear. Is it the same as boundary objects? Boundary objects are objects that are both plastic enough to adapt the local needs and constraints of several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites (Star, 1989).
Is cooperation same as boundary practices? Boundary-crossing as participation takes place in the form of brokering in which people use their common membership in various activity systems (networks, projects, learning situations) to coordinate perspectives, to trasfer ideas or to introduce elements of one practice into another (Wenger, 1998). Wenger also distinguishes boundary practices, which establish boundary encounters on a regular basis and build an ongoing forum for mutual engagement.

D.E. Westney:
She discusses several cross-border knowledge creation processes within multinational enterprises in terms of location (generic or location-specific) and nature (tacit or explicit) of knowledge.

She identifies 4 distinct cross-border knowledge-creation processes:
– Combining centrally located generic knowledge with locally dispersed location-specific knowledge:
– Combining generic knowledge from tow or more locations
– Joint cross-border interactions using location-specific knowledge to generate generic knowledge or to transfer knowledge to other locations
– Using analogy to apply location-specific knowledge from one location to another

The geographic dispersion of the tacit generic knowledge is more important motivator for the R&D than explicit generic knowledge.

K. Yasumoro & E. Westney:
Japanese companies use front-line management, where factories, R&D labs, sales and marketing organisations are valued as the key centres of knowledge creation. Key aspects of this approach include the diffusion of significant levels of discretion, response capability, and problem-solving responsibilities to front-line employees and an egalitarian work culture that minimizes differences across organisational statuses and ranks.

Proposes a model of knowledge creation based on the coevolution of interorganisational relations. Exploitation and symbiosis between organisations are perceived not as separate systems but as interwined and nested within a twister.Knowledge creation emerges through the destabilizing and dynamic interactions between the two systems. In this view organisations are seen as entities with their own perception, consciousness, and memory whose interactions with other organisations can be driving force that creates and maintains order within the social and economic system.

Distinguishes two systems of interorganisational relations; Exploitation system and Symbiosis system.

Exploitation system:
Decision-making: central and unilateral
Skills: functional
Information: the result
Information-processing: serial, sequential and delineative
Control structure: Arm’s lenght
Safeguard: bidding, multiple sourcing, short term contracts
Requirements: bargaining
Objectives: distribution, survival
Attributes: Dichotomous, antagonistic, win-lose, dead end, mechanistic, homeostasis

Symbiosis system:
Decision-making: constitutent, synergetic, self-reflective, retrospective
Skills: relational
Information: process
Information processing: parallel, concurrent
Organisation: boundaryless, crossfunctional
Control structure: Clustered
Safeguard: single or parallel sourcing, risk-sharing, profit-sharing
Requirements: commitment
Objectives: cocreation, coadvancement,
Attributes: permeable, adsorptive, win-win, organic, open-end, hoeochaos

Some relevant papers:
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology
Volume 30(1) Winter / hiver 2004
The Framework of Knowledge Creation for Online Learning Environments
Hsiu-Mei Huang
Shu-Sheng Liaw

Organizational Knowledge Acquisition
Brian R. Gaines

Managing Existing Knowledge is Not Enough: Knowledge Management Theory and Practice in Japan
Katsuhiro Umemoto


saying farewell to ICT based science education

December 24, 2007

The end of the year 2007 is the time of saying farewell to my 7 years of working in ICT based science education at the University of Tartu.
I am on the move already more than a year, my new job in Tallinn University is more about general social- and hybrid spaces, and i love it too. But looking back and saying farewell is sad. Maybe this is the reason i have been quiet in my weblog.

Summary of ideas i was working with:

1. Learning with web-based models in chat
We developed methods of conducting visualized individual and collaborative model-based learning in physics, chemistry and biology (Pata & Sarapuu, 2003b; Puusepp, Pata & Sarapuu, 2003a; Pata & Sarapuu, 2004b; Pata, Puusepp & Sarapuu, 2004). Problems were introduced at web-pages. Activity in chatroom started from hypothetico-predictive reasoning of the problem solution without conceptual support, and continued with model-based reasoning with expressive (constructing models) or inquiry models (performing inquiry with ready-made models). Metacognitive and cognitive support of the tutor was provided in chatroom.
The spontaneous process of developing shared mental models was analysed. It was found that the students start constructing their mental models from structural relationships within the object-category, giving them names and describing their properties, and ends with the mapping of processes. At individual level the conceptual change was found to be related with the increased process category, and changes within the object category elements. The change towards using more scientific categories besides everyday explanations was recorded as well (Pata & Sarapuu, 2003).
We developed the theoretical framework of structural and conceptual development of problem representations in science (Pata & Sarapuu, 2003; Puusepp, Pata & Sarapuu, 2003; Adojaan & Sarapuu, 2003; Pata & Sarapuu, 2004; Pata, Puusepp ja Sarapuu, 2004). This theory assumes that students ability to explain natural phenomena can be characterised as the directed development towards completeness of mental representations. In this process the structural elements (objects and processes and their properties), as well as, their causal relationships (between objects, between objects and processes, and between processes), but also the conceptual levels of these elements (macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic; concrete and abstract) are developed and hierarchically mapped in mental models and their external representations.

2. Model-based reasoning
Since the development of problem representations is tightly connected with the reasoning processes, it was presumed that different types of model-based reasoning processes would have divergent influence on the development of students‘ mental representations of the problems. It was supposed that inductive expressive model-based reasoning (constructing the model) and deductive exploratory model-based reasoning (working with inquiry model) would enhance different cognitive construction processes and mental model development.
Our results indicated that students were applying different cognitive reasoning processes when working with expressive or exploratory models.
When working with the expressive model (composing the model) students completed their individual mental models gradually with new elements, their mental models were developed as whole in the problem context. This model-based reasoning resulted that students were able of reconstructing the mental models of the problem also individually after collaborative modelling. When working with the exploratory model, students tested the validity of their initial hypothesis. For this the initial mental model was tested partially and sequentially with the exploratory model, replacing parts of it. However, difficulties were observed in relating the problem context and the model context. The usage of abstract quantitative reasoning during the collaborative model-based inquiry indicated that students were developing a scientifically correct mental model of the phenomenon. However, after the modelling activity they were not able to repeat individually mental models of the specific problem at similar abstract level.

3. Scaffolding collaborative problem-solving in chat
Learning in joint inquiry situations by using shared visualisation and synchronous talk in textual mode rises the importance of scaffolding the shared activities. In collaborative modelling students need to understand the meaning of their peers‘ representations and their planning processes.
Several studies were conducted in collaboration with the Universities of Turku and Western Sidney, focusing on the interrelated scaffolding roles of the tutor and students in chatroom environment. A role-play was conducted with basic school students, which was supported with web-based representations and tutors‘ and students‘ verbal scaffolding. The results indicated that the actions directed to solve the problem are not determined by specific tutors‘ action types but the intensity of tutor’s and students interactions (Pata, Lehtinen & Sarapuu, 2005).
Tutors‘ support was effective if directed towards supporting students to scaffold each other in the inquiry, and less effective if directly supporting students‘ knowledge construction (Pata, Sarapuu & Archee, 2005). The results of these studies were used to develop the framework for scaffolding collaborative knowledge-construction in chatrooms (Pata, Sarapuu & Lehtinen, 2006).
We also studied collaborative visualisation on electronic whiteboard of chatrooms.The participats‘ spontaneous metacommunication, and its influence on the construction of shared representations in groups was studied. It was found that when working simultaneously in verbal and visual environment, students must be guided to reflect their meanings about visuals in verbal format. The most effective was the groupwork where students shifted roles of modelling on electronic whiteboard and explaining verbally the mental models. The results of the experiment were used to develop the model for effective metacognitive scaffolding in collaborative visualised learning process (Pata & Sarapuu, 2003).

4. Inquiry learning in multi-representational environment
In series of experiments the interrelations of students‘ cognitive and metacognitive development were investigated when learning in multi-representational environment.
We studied how students developed awareness of cognitive and metacognitive tools in such environment. It was found that during the 1st problem task students did not obtain the task-related awareness of the learning objects, and it developed dynamically only after solving several problems. The level of students‘ awareness of learning objects influenced the effectiveness of solving inquiry tasks, especially the phase of transferring knowledge between the authentic problem situations and theoretical situations (Pata, Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2007).


In another study it was found that students lacked of conceptual consistency during solving the sequential steps of the inquiry in multi-representational environment, this result was supporting the theory of contextual reconstruction of knowledge from pierces rather than that of the activation of the whole conceptual frameworks. It was found that the students with alternative scientific understanding showed less progress in the inquiry learning environment, indicating that individual inquiry with the model was not an effective tool for eliminating students‘ misunderstandings (Pata, submitted).
In the next study it was found that the students‘ level of initial conceptual coherence influenced their effectiveness of performing certain steps of the inquiry in the multi-representational environment. Conceptual coherence was conceptualised as the students‘ ability to translate simultaneously information from one form of representation to another, and from one context to another. The multi-representational learning environment was found to be effective in advancing students‘ level of conceptual coherence (Pata, Pedaste, & Sepp, 2007; Sepp, Pata, Pedaste, 2007).These studies have lead to the ideas related to ecological approach to learning environments .


looking for the ‘noise’

December 13, 2007

Anatole Fuksas has recently written in jaiku a couple of interesting ideas that make up a line. Yesterday we had some talk upon these ideas. I picked up two aspects from his ideas: difference between similar and analogous and the difference between the mainstream and noise. On my opinion, if the analogy affordance is evoked in the environment, the person becomes creative, embodying something from the environment as a new tool. This tool may in turn lead the person to the new objectives or help to solve the objectives new way.

affordances get clustered


learning to be a scientist in social web

December 13, 2007

Gradually, but it is more and more evident to me as a researcher, that new web 2.0 possibilities turn my making science different. Yet, compared with the traditional science-making, new researchers must overcome some internal dilemmas. Some, that my colleagues are most concerned of are:


Here are just some of the new habits and principles i have experienced within a year as a scientist.

1) we publicly reflect in weblogs, how the ideas are born
The process of making knowledge becomes more important than the final product, even to the extent that there is no final product in the end, but we are always on the road. It is more and more evident, that the public ideas are found much more frequently than those in journals, and in the world scale they have more impact and chance to be considered.

We are not infallible as scientists, thus, we must stop pretending that all we are never wrong. We can, and always should turn back in the middle of the path, and say we were mistaken and start new path.

There are journals who try to use after-reflection for final papers, for keeping their community more lively. It is supposed to give opportunities to create knowledge in another format than evaluating the paper in new journal papers with critical or supportive references. However, mixing the two formats – ‘end product centred’ and ‘process centred’ seems not very fertile in those journal weblogs.

2) we publicly write knowledge as joint efforts in wikis etc. places
The community has the means and right to ground and contribute to the ideas publicly. The ownership of the ideas is collaborative. We as scientists need to dissolve in the masses for the sake of the product we develop.

3) synchronous chatrooms become the knowledge-construction playground
When all the knowledge is accepted as dynamic, and the process of creating knowledge is most important, scientists need places for ‘ brain poking and tickling’ as playgrounds, where knowledge was always flowing between individuals and getting variated. We don’t want to be deadly serious all the time.

No wonder many conferences are accompanied by social practices such as lively micro-blogging, or using shared tags to blog and deposit side-products (images, comments, summaries, reflections).

3) we pick up triggers from the ‘untrusted’ social web (weblogs, microblogging and social bookmarking sites) to create new knowledge
The validation of the ideas becomes public and democratic, demolishing the myth that few selected reviewers can give more objective review. It is evident that journal reviews are built upon the concept of final, objective knowledge. We, as scientists, should stop believing that there is final, objective truth in scientific ideas and accept that the process of constantly changing and playing with the knowledge is, what we are ought to do.

4) new, microblogging paper formats are here
If the process of dynamically changing knowledge is most important for keeping ideas updated, we go for ‘triggers’, and short and precise ideas become more important than long and elaborated final products. In new microblogging formats, each idea in my flow can branch. The rhizomic concept versus tree concept (eg. A
Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) is supported by new formats better than ever.

5) awareness of knowledge ‘out there’ must be maintained consciously
Already now, there are too many journals to follow their final ‘end product papers’, so we need to start using social web practices – social bookmarking, aggregating rss feeds from journal paper keywords to filter and become aware what is out there and be effective.


Looking back

December 12, 2007

It is now 1 year that i am blogging. I started it to try out how it feels to reflect my research openly. It feels good.
Even too good… if publishing in journal was same easy, and gave the same amount of positive feelings…
Best part is finding again my own thoughts, what i totally forgot. Did i write this? 🙂
Blogging helps a lot as a research reflection tool! Especially if the memory is getting tired.

Very best part is finding one very good colleague – Anatole Fuksas!

Here is the life of my weblog:
First months in my weblog were quiet, except one big hype thanks to Nancy White friends.


The visitors started to come third month, thank you for keeping eye on me, all my iCamp fans!

Thank you also George, to hype me up several times 🙂
Here is Vancouver EdMedia conference hype:
hype edmedia siemens

Here are the results of advertising me in your weblog in october:


Total Views: 15,655
Best Day Ever: 174

I think it is amazing, who are all the people coming here to read my research thoughts???