EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY OF SPECIES AND ORGANIZATIONS bill.hall Personal Research Three Blind Men and the Elephant: "Does the trunk

Personal Research

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY OF SPECIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~bill.hall

Three Blind Men and the Elephant: "Does the trunk go on the knee?"

Towards a science of knowledgeWilliam P. Hall (PhD Biol. Harvard 1973)

Work: Head Office / EngineeringTenix DefenceWilliamstown, Vic. 3016http://www.tenix.com/mailto:[email protected]

Research:Evolutionary Biology of Species and Organizationshttp://www.hotkey.net.au/~bill.hall/ mailto:[email protected]

Personal Researchhttp://www.hotkey.net.au/~bill.hall

Review: Where is knowledge management today? (1)

History of biology• Natural History

– Natural philosophy (Plato, Aristotle)– Linneaus (1753-1758), principles of naming – Taxonomic classification and anecdotes

• Science of biology– 1859: Darwin theory of natural selection– 1900: Mendel genetics, cell theory, chromosomes in inheritence– 1930: RA Fisher - Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930)– 1937-50: T Dobzhansky, E Mayr; GG Simpson, GL Stebbins -

synthetic theory of evolution– 1955: Prigogine; 1968: Morowitz - dissipative thermodynamics– 1945-1960: Biochemistry, molecular biology, biochemical

genetics• x-ray crystallography, electron microscope, isotopic tracers

– 1953: Watson & Crick structure of DNA– 1975: EO Wilson Sociobiology– 1993: S Kauffman Origins of Order– 2002: SJ Gould Structure of Evolutionary Theory


Where is knowledge management today? (2)

History of knowledge management• Natural philosophy of knowledge

– Plato and Aristotle– 1934, 1959: Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery– 1958: Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge– 1972: Karl Popper's Objective Knowledge– 1999: Ilkka Niiniluoto's Critical Scientific Realism– Conflicts between realist & constructivist views of knowledge

highlighted/ resolved by Niiniluoto - who is unknown in KM discipline

• Natural History– 1994: Karl Sveiby's PhD Thesis– 1995: Nonaka & Takeuchi

• (towards a) science of knowledge – 1974, 1980: Maturana and Varela's Autopoiesis– 1982: Nelson & Winter Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change

(~1900)– 1995: von Krogh & Roos Organizational Epistemology (~1950)– 2000: Firestone & McElroy (~1960)

However - knowledge is a product of biology and biology should provide the basis for a science of knowledge


Autopoiesis: Maturana and Varela 1980

Autopoiesis (= self + production) is the emergent condition achieved by a bounded (self-identifying), self-regulating set of processes able to maintain its existence as an autonomous entity in the face of environmental perturbations; i.e., that which qualifies a complex entity as "living".

Recognizing an autopoietic entity (see von Krogh & Roos)• Identifiably bounded (membranes, tags)• Identifiable components within the boundary (complex)• Mechanistic (i.e., metabolism/cybernetic processes)• System boundaries internally determined (self

reference)• System intrinsically produces own components• Self-produced components are necessary and sufficient

to produce the system (autonomy)


Non-equilibrium thermodynamics + autopoiesis = "life"

Physics of dynamic systems• Prigogine – Nobel Laureate for studies on non-equilibrium

thermodynamics• Morowitz (1968) – Energy Flow in Biology:

– Systems forced to evolve increasingly complex cycles to transport energy/matter from sources to sinks

• Kauffman (1993) – Origins of Order:– "autocatalytic sets" – "organization for free"

Autopoiesis• Quest to define the property of life

– Maturana and Varela (1980) – Autopoiesis & Cognition – left time out of the equation

– Basis for radical constructivism confuses the issue for realists

• Hugo Urrestarazu (2004) On boundaries of autopoietic systems

William Hall (2005) – Biological nature of knowledge in the learning organization• Pulling the threads together


Karl Popper's 3 worlds ontology

EnergyThermodynamics

PhysicsChemistry

Biochemistry

Cyberneticself-regulation

CognitionConsciousness

HeredityExpressed languageRecorded thoughtComputer memoryLogical artifacts

Reproduction/Production

Development/Recall

Drive/Enab

le

Reg

ulate/Control In

ferr

ed lo

gic

Des

crib

e/Pr

edic

t

TestObserve

Existence/RealityWorld 1

World 2

World of mental orpsychological states and processes, subjective experiences

Emerges from world 1processes.

Organismic/personalknowledge in world 2 emerges from world 1processes

Polanyi's epistemology of personal knowledge encompassed within Popper's World 2

World 3

The world ofobjective knowledge

Produced /evaluated byworld 2processes


Karl Popper's "tetradic schema", "evolutionary theory of knowledge" or "general theory of evolution"

Pn a real-world problem faced by an entity

TS a tentative solution/theory.Tentative solutions are varied through iteration

EE a process of error elimination

Pn+1 changed problem as faced from by an entity incorporating a surviving solution

The whole process is iterated

TS1

TS2

•••••

TSm

Pn Pn+1EE

TS1

TS2

•••••

TSm

Pn Pn+1EE

TS1

TS2

•••••

TSm

Pn Pn+1EE

Knowledge is embodied in autopoietic systems TSs may be embodied in W2 in the individual entity, or TSs may be expressed in words as a hypothesis in W3, subject to

objective criticism Objective expression and criticism lets our theories die in our stead Through cyclic iteration, tested solutions can approach reality

iteration


John Boyd's OODA Loop process wins conflicts

Achieving strategic power depends critically on learning more, better and faster, and reducing decision cycle times compared to competitors. See http://www.belisarius.com.

AO

OBSERVE

(Results of Test)

OBSERVATION

PARADIGMEXTERNAL

INFORMATION

CHANGING CIRCUMSTANC

ES

UNFOLDING ENVIRONMENTAL

RESULTS OF ACTIONS

ORIENT

D

DECIDE

(Hypothesis)

O

CULTURE PARADIGM

S PROCESSES

DNA GENETIC

HERITAGE

MEMORY OF HISTORY

INPUTANALYSIS SYNTHESI

S

ACT

(Test)

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL

PARADIGM

UNFOLDING INTERACTION

WITH EXTERNAL

ENVIRONMENT


Some OODA definitions from John Boyd

Generic process for any complex adaptive entity• Observation assembles data about the world (including the

entity's own effects and those of its competitors on that world). Data is given context relating to interactions with the world.

• Orientation processes information from those observations into semantically linked knowledge to form a world view comprised of – recent observations, – memories of prior experience (which may be explicit, implicit or even

tacit), – genetic heritage (i.e., "natural talent"), – cultural traditions (i.e., paradigms), and – analysis (destruction) of the existing world view, and synthesis

(creation) of a revised world view including possibilities for action.

This generates intelligence (in a military sense).• Decision selects amongst possible actions generated by the

orientation, action(s) to try. Choice is governed and informed by – wisdom based on experience gained from previous OODA cycles, and– the synthesis (creation) of new possibilities to try.

• Action puts tests decisions against the world. The loop begins to repeat as the entity observes the results of its action.


Popper's General Theory of Evolution + John Boyd

With John Boyd's insights made explicit

TS1

TS2

•••••

TSm

Pn Pn+1AOn EE

O = Observation of the world

A = Application or "Action" on the world

This is what Popper's General Theory of Evolution looks like for an entity that does not codify its knowledge, i.e., where there is only dispositional or "subjective" knowledge not subject to linguistic criticism.

Note: Action precedes error elimination. Entities acting on erroneous knowledge fail and are

eliminated


Knowledge growth through self-criticism (Popper)

W1 World 1 - Everything

TT Tentativetheories

W2 World 2 - dispositionalknowledge. Tentativetheories are first imagined in W2

W3 World 3 - linguistically expressed, persistent and codified knowledge that can be semantically understood

Self-Criticism - the process by which objectively expressed tentative theories can be falsified and eliminated

Objective expression and criticism lets our erroneous theories die in our stead

Self-Criticism

TS1

TS2

•••••

TSm

W2

Pn Pn+1AOn EE

TT1

TT2

•••••

TTm

W3

ORIENTATION

D


First take on what knowledge is

Popper's World 1 encompasses everything - it is the dynamic reality that exists independently of observation, knowing and knowledge

Observation, meaning and knowledge dynamically emerge from W2 as consequences of universal laws governing physical processes in W1 as these processes impact living entities with an autonomous history able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the world • Observation is a dynamic change propagated within the

autopoietic system resulting from an interaction with the world

• Meaning is a consequence of the observation induced change in the constitution of the autopoietic system

• Knowledge (in one sense) is the persistent effect of a history observation and meaning as represented in successfully surviving autopoietic systems, i.e., solutions to problems

There is an epistemic cut between phenomena of W1 and the knowledge of the phenomena as represented in the living system (Howard Pattee, 1995).

Personal Research



Where I am now:

Knowledge is a product of complex organised systems


Tendencies towards the paradigm of the autopoietic organization

Karl Deutsch (1963): The Nerves of Government Stafford Beer (1972/1981): Brain of the Firm Nelson & Winter (1982): Evolutionary Theory of Economic

Change• Organizational knowledge transcends knowledge of individual

members to form organizational heredity acting to maintain the existence and behaviour of the organization (i.e., self-production).

• N&W assumed much of this transcendent knowledge was tacit (after Polanyi)– physical layout– routines– contexts– connections

• Accepted but did not stress objective forms of knowledge von Krogh and Roos (1995) Organizational Epistemology Magalhaes (1999) PhD Thesis: The organizational

implementation of information systems - towards a new theory.


Are organisations really autopoietic?

Self-identifiably bounded• Members tagged with ID badges, membership cards, etc.

Identifiable components within the boundary• Members are individually unique, recognise one another as

members; also machines, property, bank accounts, etc.

Mechanistic• Rewards & benefits to belong, processes, routines,

procedures

System boundaries internally determined• Rules of association, voluntary allegiance to organisational

rules

System intrinsically produces own components• Recruitment, induction, training, HR, etc.

Self-produced components are necessary and sufficient to produce the system• Organisation outlives the association of particular individuals


Complexity theory: Hierarchically complex dissipative systems and the focal level

HIGH LEVEL SYSTEM / ENVIRONMENT

SYSTEMSYSTEM SYSTEM

SUBSYSTEMS

boundaryconditions,

constraints,

regulations

FOCAL LEVEL

Possibilities

initiatingconditions

universallaws

"material -causes"

Emergentproperties

• Synthesis cannot predict higher level properties

• Bbehaviour isuncomputable

• Boundary conditions & constraints select

• Analysis can explain

• Stanley Salthe (1993) Development and Evolution: Complexity and Change in Biology


Organisations (and other living things) are complex dissipative systems emerging from the medium

They consume environmental resources that are limited Resources People Income

Sinks for entropically degraded materials/devaluedenergy Competition limits survival

Some concepts building on autopoiesis theory and Karl Popper's theory of knowledge

WORLD 1 ("everything")

Medium or supersystem

ResourcesPeopleEconomicsInformationConstraints

{Organisation 1

Organisation 3

Organisation 2

Organisation 4


The organisation is a complex system in the environment

Processes (which may be complex subsystems that are autopoietic in their own rights) are necessary responses to imperatives:• Survival• Self-maintenance of the processes themselves

Constraints and boundaries(laws of nature determine what is possible)

ProcessesProcesses

The organisation's imperatives and goals

Energy (exergy)

Recruitment

Materials

Income

Observations

Entropy/Waste

Products

Departures

Expenses

Actions


Material RealityWORLD 1

AUTOPOIETICSYSTEM

EmbodiedcyberneticknowledgeWORLD 2

Constrain/C

ontrol

Observe/M

easure

Recall

ITERATION/SELECTIONTHROUGH TIME

ProduceSymbolically

encodedknowledge/

memoryWORLD 3

Knowledge in an autopoietic entity


Dis-integration

Integration

Tentative solutions

Stable solutions

Selected solutions

Turbulence

Coalescence / Emergence

Dispositional autopoiesis

Stabilised autopoiesis

Semiotic autopoiesis

†

†

†

Knowledge sharing

Sharedsolutions

†Criticised solutions

Evolutionary Stage

Knowledge: a phenomenon of emergent and evolving autopoiesis

The nature and growth of autopoietic knowledgeTurbulent flow from available energy (exergy) sources to entropy sinks forces conducting systems to organise (state of decreased entropy) - Prigogine, Morowitz, Kay and Schneider, Kauffman)Coalescent systems have no past. Self-regulatory/self-productive (autocatalytic) activities that persist for a time before disintegrating produce components whose individual histories "precondition" them to form autopoietic systems. Each emerged autopoietic system represents a tentative solution to problems of life. Those that dis-integrate lose their histories (heredity/knowledge).Stable systems are those whose tentative solutions enable them to persist indefinitely. Competition among such systems for resources is inevitable. Survivors thus perpetuate historically successful solutions into their self-produced structure to form dispositional or tacit knowledge (W2). Those that fail to solve new problems dis-integrate and lose their histories.Replication, transcription and translation. With semantic coding and decoding, knowledge can be preserved and replicated in physiologically inert forms for recall only when relevant to a particular problem of life. Objective knowledge may be shared across space and through time. - Howard Pattee (1965-2000) series of papers; Luis Rocha (1995-) series of papers.


...

.

.. ..

..

...

.. ..

..

Emergent autopoietic vortexes forming world 2 and world 3 in a flux of exergy to entropy

.....

..

.

.. ..

..

.

..

.

.. ..

..

Flux along the focal level

Exergysource

Entropysink

Symbolic knowledge

Embodied knowledge

Au

ton

om

y

Autocatalytic metabolism

Material

cycles


Cognition (terms are meaningful in relation to autopoietic or artificially intelligent systems)

Observation: Initial change induced within the autopoietic system by a perturbation

Classification (/ decision): Process by which an induced change results in the system settling into one of alternative attractor basins on a landscape of potential gradients

Meaning: The net result in the system due to the initial propagation and classification of an observation

Coombe's Hierarchy• Data: The atomic level of meaning• Information (first level of synthesis): Classified observations

assembled into relationship structures• Knowledge (second level of synthesis): Semantically identified

and linked information• Intelligence (third level of synthesis): Tentative theory(ies)

about the world based on knowledge• Wisdom (fourth level of synthesis): Solutions after the

elimination of errors through testing theories against the world• Strategic power (the result): Wisdom applied to control the

world


Coombe's hierarchy in the autopoietic entity

Environment

Autopoietic systemCell

Multicellular organismSocial organisation

State

Perturbations

Observations(data)

Classification

Meaning

An "attractor basin"

Related information

Memory of historySemantic processing to form knowledge

Predict, proposeIntelligence


Another view

Decision

Medium/Environment Autopoietic system

World State 1

Perturbation Transduction

Observation MemoryClassification

Evaluation

Synthesis

Processing Paradigm

AssembleResponse

Internal changes

Effect action

Effect

Time

World State 2

Iterate

Conscious OODA Loop in Material Terms

Codified knowledge

Observed internal changes

Personal Research



PRACTICAL RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

Peop

le

Pro

cess

Infra

stru

ctu

re

Organizational knowledge

Leave one of the legs off, and the stool will

fall over


KM: Managing People, Process, Infrastructure

ORIENTATION PROCESSES

PEOPLE

CULTURE & PARADIGMS

INFRASTRUCTURE

“CORPORATE MEMORY”

INPUT

ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS

PEOPLEPEOPLE

GENETIC HERITAGE

DATA CONTENTLINKS

RELATIONSANNOTATIONS

OBSERVE DECIDE, ACT

DOCS RECORDS

Personal Research



People: (work in progress)

Team Expertise Access Mapping to Facilitate Community of Practice Emergence

with:

Susu NousalaAerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

RMIT University

Bill KilpatrickMarine Division

Tenix Defence

Aaron MilesMarine Division

Tenix Defence

Information Sciences and Technology

Massey University


Team Expertise Knowledge Mapping (TEAM)

Knowledge pertinent to organizational survival may exist in world 2 and world 3 in a variety of forms. • Knowledge held individually by people belonging to the

organization

• Tacit organizational routines belonging to internal communities (i.e., CoPs) that may be autopoietic in their own rights

• Physical layout (Nelson and Winter 1982)

• Corporate documentation

To respond rationally to imperatives and perturbations• Identify, access, assemble and use relevant knowledge

• Organizational resources and time available to do it are limited

• Effective organizational response is bounded by these limitations

Best decision the organization can strive for ('bounded rationality' is 'just good enough', or 'satisficing' rather than optimizing (Simon 1955, 1957; Arrow 1974)

TEAM study focuses on individual knowledge


The organization may know less than its members

Organizational knowledge is more than the sum of the knowledge of the organization's individual members, but people with their individual knowledge count

People have lives outside their local organizational circumstances ('boundaryless careers') Arthur 1994)

People know a lot the organization doesn't• Tacit (Polanyi 1958, 1966) skills and understandings that

cannot readily be expressed in words;

• Implicit knowledge the person can articulate and which could readily be shared if anyone knew to ask for it (Snowden 2000, 2002)

• Explicit documents and other tangible resources the individual may know about but that are not generally known about in the organization.

Social cooperation coordinates individual knowledge for organizational purposes


Individual knowledge in the organization

Important difference• individual knowledge (in any form), known only by a person

• organizational knowledge is (socially) available and accessible to those who can apply it for organizational needs

• Even where explicit knowledge exists, individual knowledge may be required to access it within a useful response time.

Individual knowledge addresses questions like:• who has the tacit capabilities and experience to perform a task

• what knowledge is needed

• where explicit knowledge may be found

• why the knowledge is important or why it was created

• when the knowledge was or may be needed

• how to apply the knowledge. To improve organizational OODA performance a way is

needed to rapidly find and coordinate people who have appropriate individual knowledge but don't know the problem exists.


Knowledge mapping

Codification of knowledge vs pointing• Snowden's paradoxes

– know more than we can say

– say more than we can write

– knowledge will be volunteered but cannot be conscripted

• Availability of the knowledge is more important than its form Mind mapping was originally a brainstorming tool to help

codify• Offers flexibility

• Substantial textual annotation capabilities

• Linking Used to facilitate social coordination of individual

knowledge• Socialization in the interview process

– People happy to share career successes and war stories

• Socialization in the search and retrieve process– Experts introduced as people with rich stores of experience


First use: as a contact list (Tom Le Grice)


Drill down

Click twig on map:• Application

• Status

• Contact name and link

Click contact link:• Position

• Physical address

• Contact modes and details


Second use: types of knowledge (TEAM Project)


Second layer

3rd Layer Snippet from

narrative

Importance

Cost control is really required from the start of a project right to the last day. It is crucial to making a profit. You may tender based on not making a profit or even making a loss, but only cost control will increase the chances of making a profit or minimise the loss. Forecasting will tell you how you are going to go in the future and whether we need to make any changes.

4th Layer

The complete interview as organized into the common structure

Personal Research



Process: (Work in Progress)

Knowledge Based Improvement of Business Processes

Peter Dalmaris

Faculty of Information Technology

University of Technology Sydney


Knowledge Based Improvement of Business Processes

Developed in a framework of Popperian epistemology• three worlds• evolutionary theory of knowledge

An "organizational learning" methodP

erfo

rman

ce E

valu

atio

nP

erfo

rman

ce A

naly

sis

Pro

cess

Mod

ellin

gIm

prov

emen

t Syn

thes

is

Pro

cess

Aud

iting

IMPROVEMENT METHODOLOGY

PROCESS ONTOLOGY

EPISTEMOLOGY Fundamental assumptions about knowledge

Explicit specification of the concept of “Business Process”

A guide to the improvement process

Improvement methodology components

TOOLSAuditing and analysis tools facilitate process improvement tasks


Evolutionary improvement of the methodology

Evolutionary improvement of the methodology• Problem formulation

• Reaching the solution

Literature Review

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Error reduction

Problem Re-Formulation

Tentative Theory Re-formulation

Tentative Theory

Formulation(Framework)

Problem Formulation

Testing and Error Detection


The current state of the methodology

Knowledge Tools

Knowledge Paths

Knowledge Transactions

Identify potential improvement areas¦(desired process

performance)

Process Members

Environment: constraints, policies, targets

Audit:Probing, current state of the process (AS IS)

Audit method shown in Figure 3

Design:Result (AS COULD)

Analysis:Improvement

improvement configuration of process

classes

FunctionsKnowledge Containers

Knowledge Objects

Knowledge Transformations

Observe• Establish business

ontology

• 'As is'audit

Orient• Map, analyze, synthesize

Decide• Present 'as could'

Implement

Personal Research



Infrastructure: (work in progress)

Fleet/Product Lifecycle Knowledge Management

William P. Hall

Head Office / Engineering

Tenix Defence


Organizational imperatives for the operators

Needs to use the capabilities provided engineered product(s) to competitively maintain or improve its strategic position in the world. • Product must supportable, maintainable, available and

effectively useable by its operators to provide superior capabilities when required at an economically feasible cost and lifespan.

• In the case of defence organizations, the product's capabilities may be tested in direct military confrontation with an opponent's comparable products.


Major issues for the product's operators

Adequate performance on all issues depends on the quality of authoring, management and transfer of technical knowledge from supplier to operators and maintainers

Capability when it is needed• Reliably does what it is supposed to

• Available for service when needed

• Maintainable - problems can be fixed when they arise

• Supportable - critical needs available in supply chain

• Operable within limits of human knowledge & capacity

Health, safety and operational knowledge issues• Heavy/complex engineered products can kill!

Life-cycle cost• Minimise acquisition cost

• Minimise costs for documentation, support & maintenance

• Implement "lean maintenance" philosophy


Organizational imperatives for the supplier

The engineering and project management organization seeks to maintain or improve its strategic position in the world• markets its ability in a competitive marketplace to

design, engineer, produce and document the products that will satisfy its clients' needs.

Organizations able to successfully bid and complete the product development and production activities faster, better and less expensively than their competitors should gain strategic power in their markets. • In most cases the success factors are mutually

contradictory, as will be graphically demonstrated below.

• Considerable care must be taken to optimise the contradictory factors in a way that reflects commercial reality.


Major quality issues in delivering product/system support knowledge

Client's delivery goals for operational/maintenance docs• Correct

– Correct information

– Consistent across the fleet

• Applicable/Effective– Applicable to the configuration of the individual ship/vehicle

– Effective for the point in time re engineering changes, etc.

• Available– To who needs it, when and where it is needed

• Useable– Readily understandable by humans

– Readily managed & processed in computer systems

Supplier's knowledge production and usage goals• Fast

• High quality

• Low cost


But.............

Common NATO wisdom is that 5-9% of fatal accidents in military trace to documentation errors• I can't confirm this from an authoritative source

RAN supply ship Westralia• HMAS Westralia Tragedy Board of Inquiry 1998

• WA Coroner's Report 2003

• Broken high pressure fuel hose caused engine room fire

• Published configuration change procedures not followed

• Four died, ship disabled for four years

ESSO Longford Gas Plant• Longford Royal Commission 1999

• Hot oil supply lost, gas separator froze, became brittle, broke and caused explosion when hot oil supply returned

• Appropriate documentation did not exist/was not available to plant operators

• Two died, Victorian gas supply interrupted for three weeks causing $ 1 BN disruption to business


CrossbowValidates and integratesdata across 15 legacysystems

TeraTextContent management limited to maintenance procedures only

AMPSNavy'smaintmgmt

CSARSProvides correctivefeedback from AMPSinto supplier's knowledge developmentactivities

DESIGN / ENGPRODUCT DATAMANAGEMENT•Product Model•CAD / Drawing

Mgmt• Config Mgmt• Eng Change• Workflow

Process Control

• Doco Revision& Release

DOCO CONTENTMANAGEMENT

DOCUMENTAUTHORING

LSARDATABASE

LOGISTICANALYSIS

TOOLS(prime)

PRODUCT CONFIGMANAGEMENT•Product Model•Drawing Mgmt• Config Mgmt•Change Request• Workflow

Process Control

• Doco Revision& Release

MAINTENANCEMANAGEMENT• Schedule• Resource Reqs• Procedures• Completion• Downtime•Resource Usage

RECORDINGREPORTINGANALYSIS

TOOLS(prime)

MRPSYSTEM• Plan• Fabricate• Assemble

SUPPLY SYSTEM

change request

config change

doco change

ECO

change effected

docochangeorder

releaseddocochange

config changes

EC /docochangerequest

maintenancehistory

docoserver

Analysis &optimisation

orders receipts

change task

doco change

shared systems?

data change

& Release

Tenix/Navy architecture developed in Melbourne for managing ANZAC Ship support knowledge

UPDATEMAINT DATA /

PROCEDURE

UPDATE

CONFIG

Navy Systems


CONTRACT

S

TECHNICAL

MAINTENANCE PLANS

SUPPLIER SOURCE

DOCUMENTS

SAFETY CORRESPONDENC

E

ENGINEERING

CHANGES

AUDIT AND LOGISTICS ANALYSIS

ASSET MANAGEMENT& PLANNING SYSTEM

AMPS

TECH AUTHOR

MAINT. ENGINEER

COMPLETION

REPORT

CLIENT MASTER

DATA FILES

ILS DB / LSAR DB• Line item

details• Config details• Eng. Changes

SHIP

SPECIFIC CONFIGUREDMAINTENANCE ROUTINES

CLASS SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND REPORTING SOFTWAREMAINTENANCE AUDIT FUNCTION

MAINTAINER COMPLETINGMAINTENANCE ACTION

TERATEXT DB

ASPMISTRANSFER

CSARS

SHIP


SHIP


The full fleet knowledge management environment

Documents

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY OF SPECIES AND ORGANIZATIONS bill.hall Personal Research Three Blind Men and the Elephant: "Does the trunk