It is turning around … around … around … and around. Always the same turn, always the same things in view. With changing perspectives, but actually always at the same place. Sooner or later just boring. And once you overwind … well, mhh … might become unsavory. I exactly feel like sitting in such a carousel since I seriously entered the world of Knowledge Management (KM). I regularly find myself hanging around at places where people interested in good knowledge working meet virtually or physically, like KM blogs or meetings of like-minded colleagues. In any case, places where people with a greater awareness for the importance and value of Knowledge Management are, many of those knowing each other already for quite a while. “Knowledge workers”, “knowledge experts”, “knowledge managers”, “knowledge enthusiasts”, “knowledge evangelists”, gurus, consultants, etc. pp.. We then intensively discuss the meanings of terms, theoretical and innovative concepts, as well as why so many companies are such ignorant regarding the benefits of KM. Assumed that you are such a rational guy like me, you can glory in that, and without doubt you will meet a lot of interesting people. And normally all will agree, that they know how it works … or as it actually should work. And it’s true. We know how it could be done, efficiently and with maximum value for a company. But … it is completely for nothing! Well, yes, it always has been nice to talk to each other again. But finally with zero impact on real life. At the end all together spin around, and ever and anon the same people are having the same (philosophical) discussions. They feel comfortable with each other and don’t need anyone else. People know each other, appreciate each other, understand each other. Just to avoid any misunderstanding. The strategies and concepts developed and discussed by us “knowledge experts” are in general really good and trendsetting. They have the potential to substantially change and improve enterprise knowledge sharing. It is just never applied. Somehow none of all the good ideas and solutions becomes real, in a true implementation. I frankly do not understand so far what leads to failure, and I am thankful for any hint. By the way, this general tendency for parallel universe seems to be common with all “managements” (Information Management, Knowledge Management, Innovation Management, …). Perhaps a fraction of the problem is within the name already. As a first step I decided to have real life feasibility and implementation as my personal benchmark in the future. I say yes to hot air … if a turbine is driven by it. And I don’t really expect it to be the big strike, the complete new knowledge strategy within the company. I also accept minor steps and improvements, if they go into the right direction. And by the way, this fits to the latest crowd-intelligence-social-media-hype in Knowledge Management (which to my opinion is absolutely overrated … but that’s another story). One important thing with carousel rides is not to miss the right moment to get off and back on solid ground. Otherwise … as mentioned before, well mhhh…

A couple of days ago, I had lunch with a colleague, and we once again reflected on the question why big companies work internally like they just do. That one might get the impression of a stone field, where the stones are obvious to everybody … but are not moved away by anybody. But perhaps this is basically the wrong attitude. Later the picture of a fish leaped into my mind. A fish who moves through wild and troubled whitewater. People like us would probably say: well, let’s take out the stones first. This will calm the water and make our way easier. But the fish … gets ahead without difficulties and without our strategic approach. And finally reaches his goal even against the stream. On top of that, he most likely reaches the goal more efficiently and faster as if he would have waited for the calming of the river. He just swims. He does not moan about the troubled water and that this was caused by the last reorganization. He is not annoyed at the “not well elaborated structure” of the river. He does not stop in front of each stone philosophizing if this particular rock is at its right place or how this could be changed. He just swims … around the stone, passing underneath, passing over, or perhaps sometimes vaulting it. But always with a smile. And finally reaching his goal. I also resolved to be more like a fish in the future. Not to wait for big changes and ideal conditions. Not to be annoyed at wrong corporate structures and management decisions. But just to lead the way every single day, by using existing possibilities and opportunities, to bring things forward. Not to moan about the drawbacks of actual conditions, but to use their odds. Not to wait for the big changes and improvements, but to take the small steps. And to never lose sight of the virtual goal. Because the stones are neither the goal nor the mission … Addendum: One saying should not be missed in that context: “Only dead fish swim with the stream!” Well, in fact this is not completely true. Fish always swim to where the food is. And they actually do not really mind if they have to swim with or against the stream to reach it. But this should now be enough of animal allegories ……

From time to time, the team I proudly belong to does some customer surveys to optimize our inhouse services. One request we consistently get is the need for a live online chat as extension of our customer support portfolio. This is an understandable wish, as the advantages of live support and communication by live chat are evident. Time for a testimony. Dear reader, I apologize if you are one of the sufferers and ask to kindly not take it personally, but to very honest … I usually switch the preinstalled text chat tools off. Why? Because they are just inefficient and get on my nerves. When it rains, but it pours. And on top of that this tiny little text chat window pops up with messages like “just to say hello” or “what are you doing?” There is one more fancy attitude of text chatters. “May I call you?” … …. …. Come on!!! Maybe I am utterly daft, but … To me a text chat window appears much more offensive than a phone call would ever do. I like people, and hearing someones voice is much less annoying than dry text messages on the screen. (at least for most voices) And I am always free to not pick up the phone in case it does not suit me … with a chat tool I do not really have this choice as the tool always shows that I am there. This suggests that I am available, and puts some mean subliminal pressure on me not to decline. So, in case you would like to call me. Just do it, please! I will either answer the phone, or call back ASAP. Yes, I am live available already at any time … by phone. Aaaahh… phone! Dear generation-Y-timers, this old-fashioned voice-thing, you remember? I can be reached by phone as easy as by text chat. But no one ever would call me during working time and asking “what are you doing at the moment?” OK, perhaps my boss could legitimately. But even he does not, because he knows that wasting my time is neither in mine nor in his interest. With phones people chat live since ages just by simply talking to each other. Well, let’s have a look at the core features of phone communication … Weird … somehow having a déjà-vu feeling … Heavily looks like that phone does already what chat claims to provide. So, is chat a redundant functionality? To my opinion it is even worse. Chat does not offer a dispensable functionality only, it offers even less functionality as phone at lower efficiency resulting in lower productivity. Only about 60% of chat requests I myself get at work do have a work-related objective and result in a solved task, compared to 95% finally productive phone calls. And the average attentiveness a text chat conversation needs for me is estimated in the range of 12-15 minutes, compared to average 5-6 minutes for a support phone call regarding a similar issue. I found some posts in German newsgroups on real life experienced duration of (business-service) chats and phone calls. They confirmed a strong tendency for text chats to take longer (at least doubled on average). This loss of time is inevitable as typing a text certainly takes longer than saying it. Plus the time it takes for submitting and displaying the message on the other side. More than that, our human brain is able to digest and work with a message while we hear it already. With chat you have to wait for the message to be finished, then it is transmitted, and then you start to read (and think). Phone is true interactive discussion. Text chat is playing Ping-Pong. But with phone you cannot do such fancy and auxiliary things like file and desktop sharing, I can already hear you say. Sure you can do those things with phone communication! Even better! As both hands are free for working with files and desktop (esp. when you are working with loudspeaker or a headset). Very similar to working with Skype1 e.g. (see below). And by the way, yes, you can do “conference calls” with a phone. Let’s directly compare live text chat with live phone … Text ChatVoice PhoneFunctionstext chat, live communication, short-term, individual guidancevoice2voice, live communication, short-term, individual guidanceAuxiliariesconference (tool dependent), file sharing (tool dependent), desktop sharing (tools dependent)conference, file sharing (with add. tool), desktop sharing (with add. tool)Productively works on …Blackberry,smartphone with QWERTZ iPad/iPhone with Bluetooth QWERTZPC, Apple, …Laptop, NetbookBlackberrysmartphoneiPad/iPhonePC, Apple, … (with Sykpe e.g.)Laptop, Netbook (with Sykpe e.g.)mobile phonelandline phoneConnection via …cable networkwireless networklandline phonecell phonecable networkwireless networkCommunication efficiency(range = 1* (snail-mail) to 6* (interactive talk))3*easylimited to text inputPing-Pong-communication5*easy and efficienttrue interactive real-time communicationclosest to personal talkProductivity factor(range = 1* to 6*, values based on individual, non-generalizable data)3*60% of sessions work-related10-15 minutes average session duration80% success ratequick connect, time loss by typing input and waiting lags, constricted input via keyboard/mouse/QWERTZ5*95% of sessions work-related5-6 minutes average session duration95% success ratequick connect, interactive support, need for an additional tool for file/desktop shareCosts (based on the Swiss industry average personnel costs per hour = € 37.05 (2009 data 1))calculated productivity factor = x / %-work-related / %-success-rate€ 7.70 per support chat (~5 support chats possible per hour)€ 16.00 per support chat incl. productivity factorplus internet connection fees depending on device used and individual contractsplus optional license costs for applications or application servicesno setup/device costs as device generally present€ 3.40 per support phone call (~11 support calls possible per hour)€ 3.80 per support phone call incl. productivity factorplus phone and/or internet connection fees depending on device used and individual contractsplus optional license costs for auxiliary applications or auxiliary application servicesno setup/device costs as device generally present Too much biased to your taste? Well, sorry, the facts just speak for themselves. As a logical consequence of these facts I clearly need to stick to the phone. But there is an auspicious eye. As I am strong advocate of multi-channel strategies, I have no issue with redundancy. Each of us should use the channel he personally prefers, even if it might be text chat and even if it might be less efficient. But also be still open for the channels other prefer! So, even I will start to occasionally switch my chat tools on for internal customer support. Because I want to be were our customers are. This is no caprice, this is customer-oriented behavior and tool-independent knowledge culture. But I will feel free to also share the knowledge how people on the other hand can reach me best. So, I tell clients asking for a live chat: Sure thing! … I have a live chat tool in place already where you can always instantly reach me!I call it phone. Do you also favor phone over text chat?Or quite the contrary?If you really prefer text chat, tell me why and try to convince me! 1 Comment: Skype is another story. In this post’s context it simplified fits to the phone category. But unfortunately in some companies it is blocked for dubious security reasons. 2…

Journalists are mediators. And they are translators. Take me as an example. It is my job as a scientific journalist to translate scientific contents to the public so that people can understand what things like “cloning” and “genetic engineering” are. And, well, I am trying my best and it truly is an advantage for me to be an educated molecular biologist. I do understand scientific subjects as well as the technical terminology of the biosciences. But what’s about my non-scientific colleagues? If a standard magazine journalists is in duty to write about – let’s say – Dolly the sheep, does he really have a chance to produce something meaningful? It is even hard for him to understand the details … and we expect a founded judgement. This colleague however is a translator to the public. Like a Chinese-English translator who never learned any Asian language and is working with a 1970 edition of a common dictionary (and avoid asking him for the Chinese signs). Taking this into account, can we really be surprised that the public opinion about biotechnology and gene technology is such bad in Europe. This also had been a major point at the “Biotech in Europe” session of the recent BIOTECHICA BUSINESS FORUM 2002 in Hanover, Germany. Speakers included Crispin Kirkman (BioIndustry Association, UK), Claude Hennion (France Biotech), Christian Suter (BioValley Basel, Switzerland), Rob Janssen (Netherlands’ Biotech Industry Association) and Hugo Schepens (EuropaBio). During the discussions Christian Suter mentioned that we are missing true science mediators in Europe. He quantified fruitful cooperation between journalists and scientists as lucky exceptions. And others added that there is a completely different communication culture in North America where scientists don’t worry about sitting in a TV shown and propagating their views to the public. I do agree. We are really missing true translators and mediators of our contents. Where are the colleagues that are able to help journalists to understand? Dear scientists, journalists desperately need you! Help them to translate. Go out, be present and be the bridges crossing the river between scientific knowledge and the society. In my view many American scientists are highly sensitized regarding their role and duty for public understanding that is the base of public opinion. European scientists are much more afraid of being in the limelight of the media. But – honestly spoken – to my opinion it is part of their (publicly financed) job. Why do so many European scientists avoid the public? Well, they never learned it. Being a public translator for scientific knowledge is not part of scientific education. Many researchers are just not able to translate. It is a matter of terms … and a matter of relevance. Let me explain what I do mean with the “matter of relevance”. A true scientist talking about the developments in research will never make an absolute statement, like “Newton’s apple will definitely never go upwards”. He is always qualifying and seeing things in relative terms, even when there is just a hypothetical 0.0001% chance for an alternative event. Perhaps, one day, Newton’s apple may go upwards. It does not matter if this is relevant or not, it always will be a possibility. This basic kind of thinking is a result of the scientific knowledge finding process’ structure, that is driven by thesis and antithesis. But for the average man or woman this “may be” is a sign of uncertainty, in the worst case interpreted as “there is something in it”. The 0.0001%-event has become a true and relevant option. Now, he is awaiting Newton’s apple to shoot up to the stratosphere, exploding there and finally destroying earth’s ozone shield. As a conclusion, scientists have to learn to reduce, to focus and to rate various options for relevance. People want clear answers, simple explanations and meaningful statements. Now, let’s talk about the “matter of terms”. Scientists and non-scientists are often using the same words but do speak different languages. Many scientific terms have a different meaning or an additional interpretation for average persons they have not for a scientist. The result is that both are speaking to each other but there is no true communication. Take the word “sex” as an example. If a scientist is using the word “sex” he usually is thinking about the gender of the organism he is working with – but most non-scientists at first are thinking about something completely different. Another good example would be the word “glauben” that in the German language is used for “to my opinion” as well as for “to believe”. So if biotech managers “glauben” that gene technology is safe, is it their opinion or is it their believe? But let us focus even more towards “genetic engineering” and “gene technology”. For me the German translation “Gentechnik” has no weight. In my understanding the word stands for a scientific method, a lab application. It is not good or bad, it just is. But for an average German citizen “Gentechnik” has an expanded content, it has a negative meaning, it is a bad word, it is used like talking about devil’s kiss. Now imagine a molecular biologist and a politician having a discussion about gene technology. They are talking together … but finally there is no communication. You can observe it on any program running on an European TV station. Where are all these communication and public relation agencies serving the Life Science industries? What have they done during the past years? Well, at least they have lost an important battle. They lost the battle for sovereignty over words. And I suppose that they lost because many of them did not really understand the things they were fighting for. If you want your public relations work being successful within the fields of Life Science and biotechnology it is much more important compared to any other branch of business that you have an in-depth-knowledge about the contents. Biotechnology and gene technology cannot be treated like others. You really have to understand the technologies you are trying to promote. You really have to know the key words and their true meaning as well as their interpretation by interest groups. And never forget that these words and expressions can have various meanings depending on who is using them! But where is the way out of the dilemma? Very simple: strike back! Use the words in their true meaning. Use them ‘normalized’. And do not use them only on podium discussions but in your daily live. Speak about biotechnology with your family. Speak about biotechnology with your friends. Speak about biotechnology with your colleagues and business partners. Speak about biotechnology with your children and with their teachers. Speak about biotechnology at your breakfast table and at your barber. Speak about biotechnology with your doctor and with his nurse. Speak about biotechnology as it would be the most normal thing in the world. One day it will be. Win back the sovereignty over words! Now! Revised version of the article “Let’s talk about Sex”, originally published in December 2002 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Well, honestly, things are on the move these days. Scientists and publishers are discussing new ways of publishing scientific results. EMBO starts an initiative to set up a platform that will provide services relating to access and retrieval of digital information in the life sciences, ranging from bibliographic or factual data to published full text – E-BioSci. Even database publishers draw nearer academic institutions to promote their content products. Last week scientists and information providers met at the 8th annual meeting of the German Information and Communication Initiative of the Learned Societies entitled “Open Systems for the Communication in Science and Research”. The conference wanted to discuss the latest national developments as well as strategies on how to improve the scientific information workflow. The talks and presentations concentrated on three major points: the future of scientific publication, current developments in information infrastructures, and multimedia in academic education and training. Not more!? To my opinion every single topic would have been enough for an own conference. But the organizers aimed at giving an overview and … bringing people from different disciplines together. I am sure you know the problem. For some reason communication between the academic disciplines often does not really exist but on the paper. Focusing on improving the supply of the scientific community with specialist information, we observe a variety of ‘island-solutions’. Young scientists are used to free internet information sources but are still completely inexperienced with using ‘valuable’ databases. How could they … there is no awareness of information with costs. The problem is well known. And now we are coming back to the lack of communication. Many scientific groups are developing strategies in parallel, to provide scientific labs with database information e.g.. Many solutions never really had a chance because they are redundant. Many resources are used in parallel without looking for synergies and if there could be a common way. Let’s think capitalistic … or evolutionary: The best(?) system will survive! OK. This works on the international information markets where one can observe concentration movements towards Thomson, Elsevier and some other players. But do our academic structures really have the resources – as regards time and money – to waste it in a try-and-error development? Would it not be better to coordinate international – at least national – efforts? Should we not move on with a common focus and thereby free money for other things? The first step in developing a common strategy is a vision, something that can be set as one’s goal. No ‘destination’ – no strategy. When you build a road you already know where you start from, but you also need to know where to go. Unfortunately my conclusion after this conference is that there are no true visions. Again we are developing strategies without a direction and wasting scientific resources and money. What we really need is more communication. Not only communication between information providers and academic users. Also, communication between the disciplines, communication between the scientists. And this conference was not the solution but a very first step. The results have to prove their worth in real life. Revised version of the article “Scientific information- where are the visions?”, originally published in March 2002 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

The fact that the 2001 Nobel Price in Medicine has been awarded to three Yeast researchers should not lead to the wrong conclusion that the Nobel committee appreciated the fight against alcoholism or overweight. In fact without the tasty products of Brewers or Bakers Yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) our lives would be much more healthy but – honestly – less nicer. Coming to the point, the award really recognizes the contributions of Leland Hartwell, Paul Nurse and Timothy Hunt to the understanding the control mechanisms of the cell cycle, the molecular cell division management system. I myself did research on cell cycle regulation in Yeast in the late ’90s. As a Yeast guy in an innovative scientific environment that deals with frogs, mice and human cell lines you were always seen as an eccentric – and somehow funny – specialist (and it has always been a challenge to explain that my experiments are not related to a Yeast contamination in the cell culture lab). Later I was glad to have the opportunity to cooperate and to discuss my results with Gustav Ammerer and Kim Nasmyth in Vienna, two other great Yeast geneticists. Brewers Yeast – for example – is a budding organism (that is why it is also called Budding Yeast). Daughter cells are formed by small buds growing at the Yeast cell surface. This closely resembles the division of mammalian cells resulting in two daughter cells, e.g.. The key issue for the cell cycle now is to synchronize DNA replication with cell growth and division. And vice versa, the DNA replication needs to be reliably inhibited in the case that there is no division. So, the cell cycle is a series of cell functions controlling the whole life span of one cell generation. It starts over and over again until cell aging or other mechanisms stop the propagation. If the cell cycle does not work correctly cells either stop division or have improperly copied chromosomes or propagate uncontrolled. In humans the latter is connected to cancer. Here the medical relevance of research with Yeasts like S. cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe comes in. Yeasts as model organisms for the understanding of common functions in eukaryotic cells. Yeast cells as easy to cultivate mini labs offering research opportunities as regards fundamental cell activities that are too difficult to study in higher cells with their much more complex regulation networks. Well, if we have learned something about cell cycle regulation in Yeast during the past years then that it is even pretty complex in this very simple organism. Today we know a tight network of internal and external signals including the cell metabolism as well as the cytoskeleton. It looks like that there is not just a simple ‘clock’ but a whole system of communicating proteins with checkpoints and feedback loops. We can use these findings in Yeast to look for homologies and similarities in higher organisms. By comparing functionally known Yeast genes and proteins with the human genome and proteome we will be able to identify new research objectives as well as putative pharmaceutical targets. To my view this “Nobel Prize for Yeast” is an appreciation of the role of model organisms in modern biomedical science. Understanding them leads to a faster understanding of the molecular basics of cellular malfunctions in humans. As a Yeastman still carrying small buds in my heart I congratulate the Nobel committee on its decision. Originally published in November 2001 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…