There is a paradox in knowledge management that states that the more controlled the knowledge is the more stagnant the advances become. Of course, I'm paraphrasing, but the theory holds true. In practice that means that if a company embarks on creating a knowledge management system, where in it is able to easily disseminate (sp?) knowledge to its members, that knowledge can more easily walk out the door. The advantage is that that company's production will increase because the knowledeg is more readily available. Please note -- there is a huge difference between information and knowledge. Information is simply the facts, while knowledge is the understanding behind the information AND the capacity to act on that information.

For Civiliation, it would be interesting to see how this theory would hold. Would you be willing to get a boost in production for your civilization while at the same time making is MUCH easier to have your knowledge plundered?

quote: Originally posted by Zardos on 04-12-2001 09:23 AM Realism you want? Realism you get. There is a paradox in knowledge management that states that the more controlled the knowledge is the more stagnant the advances become. Of course, I'm paraphrasing, but the theory holds true. In practice that means that if a company embarks on creating a knowledge management system, where in it is able to easily disseminate (sp?) knowledge to its members, that knowledge can more easily walk out the door. The advantage is that that company's production will increase because the knowledeg is more readily available. Please note -- there is a huge difference between information and knowledge. Information is simply the facts, while knowledge is the understanding behind the information AND the capacity to act on that information.

That statement assumes you're talking about tacit knowledge -- that is, knowledge that isn't easily captured (some say it can't be captured) or explicated. Explicit knowledge of a task or activity can of course be codified and stored, which reduces effects of the "knowledge walking out the door" problem. (Can you guess who's taking a grad class on KM this semester?)

This statement also assumes a single-directional flow of knowledge. Now what would be more accurate would be to represent the synergies of partnerships by accelerating research points between allied nations over time. Thus, you get no extra bonus when you start an alliance, but if you've had one for 100 years, presumably there are synergies there that give you increasingly better bonuses to research.

Some interesting ideas, but KM theory is so mind-numbing I think I'd rather not imagine it finding its way into Civ =)

Anyway, yes, it would probably be way too complex to think about for a civilization game, but it is interesting to think that the internet, which can be thought about as a global, albeit poor, knowledge management system, in essence codifies and converts tacit knowledge in to explicit knowledge. And, if the internet were to be a civilization wonder, then it might be that much easier to "steal" our secrets, while at the same time realizing a great flow of knowledge from one individual or organization to another. Remember that in order for information to become knowledge, one must be able to act on that knowledge in a meaningful manner. And the internet can be classified as a knowledge management system because there are others that might understand what I am saying and therefore act on it. For instance, your response indiciates to me that knowledge has been transferred from me to you; however, there might be many others that have read this and dismissed it -- therefore gaining no knowledge out of it what-so-ever.

But I digress...

To be honest, it would be cool if somehow the alliance between two civilizations could pool their resources to improve not only their science, but also their culture, and in a related thread that I wrote about, encourage immigration between two nations...

I like the idea that over time a synergy is produced between nations. Perhaps in Civ IV (I'm guessing, maybe incorrectly, that synergistic relationships are not coded in to the game).

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS on 04-12-2001 01:59 PM This statement also assumes a single-directional flow of knowledge. Now what would be more accurate would be to represent the synergies of partnerships by accelerating research points between allied nations over time. Thus, you get no extra bonus when you start an alliance, but if you've had one for 100 years, presumably there are synergies there that give you increasingly better bonuses to research. Dan Firaxis Games, Inc.

If I read this correctly, in CivIII alliances will give increasing benefits with time (makes sense, look at the US and Britain, 1880s, most of the US thought our next war would be against Britain, 100+ years later, it would take a real screw up to break our mutally beneficial relationship up).

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-12-2001 03:17 PM If I read this correctly, in CivIII alliances will give increasing benefits with time (makes sense, look at the US and Britain, 1880s, most of the US thought our next war would be against Britain, 100+ years later, it would take a real screw up to break our mutally beneficial relationship up). However, you also say, that no extra bonus starts from the initial signing. Shouldn't there be at least some initial trade increase? By declaring an alliance, most likely (there are exceptions, of course) trade barriers/tariffs between the nations decrease, thereby increasing trade right off the bat, maybe not as much as after a few years, but some increase initially. [This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 12, 2001).]

Just so we're clear: what I described above is in no way related to the product as it is being developed; I was merely building on Zardos' original thoughts about knowledge management with respect to Civ.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

First of all I think that knowledge leaking should be connected to the units, SE-choice, improvements etc. This means that a spy can't steal refrigeration unless the city has a supermarket in it. Unapplied knowledge can only be found in a city that has both a library and a university. But the best way to avoid tech leaking out is simply counterespionage. You simply spend money on protecting your science.

If you have a police state people won't trade as much as in an open society and that give you less money in taxes, If you wan't to protect your science you won't trade tech with opponents (which sometimes is the fastest way of getting techs), you will spend lot's of money on counterespionage and that may force you to cut down other things in your civ like science. The science stagnation is a fact, and it's just a matter of economic priority.

As a leader you are ofcourse free to cut down in any activity in your civ, but that has it's consequences. You could for example cut down health care, it would make your population unhappy and mortality increases. etc.
There may be possible for you to in a very strict controlled society keep getting new advances in a rapid pace but as always you have to pay for it in some way. (maybe you don't afford to actually build the new improvements that the new science gives you). I'll give an real world example on this: Russia.

just a thought....

I find your thoughts similar to mine Serapis

I would also suggest new units like computer hackers(with computers/internet) and Thieves (very early units that come with currency? and can assasinate/steal money or some techs if you pay them well)

If this knowledge theory is about protecting dangeorous nuclear science etc, then I'm not for that in the Civ games.. I think there should be more leaking of technologies (even small african tribes can use rifles etc)
People in the cold war 'betrayed' their countries to even out the technological difference.. thinking this would prevent a Hot war I think.

So we should have a country being told by another hightech countries scientists (with say- alot of scince difference,10 techs diff.? )of some of those technologies
in exchange for money to keep him safe for betraying this informtion.
Or at least allow spies from a small country to infiltrate a bigger one easier (stop a city being harder to spy on the second time??).

quote: Originally posted by Lord_Davinator on 04-21-2001 11:28 AM Concerning the alliances I think that they should pay off more the longer they stand.

I agree, and I hope the Civ3 AI is not going to be as aggressive as the Civ2 one in that respect, where (in MGE) allies can change from 'enthusiastic' to 'uncooperative' in just a couple of turns!

I also very much like Zardos's idea of the Internet being a Wonder that facilitates exchange of knowledge and techs. Maybe once the Internet has been 'built', Spies could have an additional command, 'Obtain technology from the Internet', which would not provoke an international incident, would only provide a tech several stages earlier than the most advanced being researched at the time, and would have a % chance of success each time depending on the level of research in the parent civ.

As you know, some knowledge can be lost. How? In decadence periods, some knowledge (the one that is very specific or really new) needs a minimum science production to exist. For example: In the fall of the roman empire the advanced architecture was lost (like some war techiniques or the sewer construction), same could happens if in a war a very advanced civ (respect its neighbours) could loose some of its knowledge.

Others examples: Egypt, Birú (Perú, the incaic empire), Hellas/Macedonia*, Persia, Babylon, Fenice/Crete, all the occidental and center Europe of the V/VI centuries, etc...

*Not the actual FYRO Macedonia.

What do you think about this? I believe that science can turn back as it can advance

-----> ADDED:

quote: Originally posted by XarXo on 04-21-2001 09:20 PM Reading this post I remembered something for Civ III in the Apolyton Early Days: As you know, some knowledge can be lost. How? In decadence periods, some knowledge (the one that is very specific or really new) needs a minimum science production to exist. For example: In the fall of the roman empire the advanced architecture was lost (like some war techiniques or the sewer construction), same could happens if in a war a very advanced civ (respect its neighbours) could loose some of its knowledge. [This message has been edited by XarXo (edited April 21, 2001).]

Great idea. The Roman technology for producing their special kind of chain mail is lost forever. Most people don't realize how much of our present technology is not even written down. Many of the special techniques used in building our modern, super-quiet, nuclear submarines are known only to the actual construction workers. Their knowledge is a craft not unlike sculpting or blacksmithing -- it is an art. Art is something that can be taught, but not self-taught from a book. One must learn directly from one that practices the art. It is technology that can be lost simply by not continuing to produce the object of the art (submarines, for example). That's why we must continue to build submarines -- so we don't forget how.