FROM DATA TO KNOWLEDGE: HOW INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY TOOLS CAN HELP - Cyberwar-Netwar: Security in the Information Age - page 125

more valuable. But if it cannot be communicated, nothing happens collectively. Which
is more interesting, the tacit or the explicit meaning? Can I solve things with computers
that process codes and have only explicit knowledge? Or do I need, or is it more
important, that I may have both? The answer is you cannot access explicit knowledge
without tacit knowledge. Even with a topic, I may read it and not understand it. If you
give me a topic on medicine, for example, something I have never studied, I can read the
topic, I can read the words, I can read the codes but I will not understand it. So behind all
explicit knowledge you need to have tacit knowledge and tacit knowledge resides in
people. People can have it but may not communicate it. But you need many people to
share with in order to prepare yourself for every security measure that you need. If it was
explicit you would communicate it easily but then the enemy would see that
communication as well and could counter-attack. So when we use machines, when we
use people and we understand that intelligence is important and knowledge is a thing we
have to create, we cannot rely only on computers hoping we can solve a problem because
we have the computer, we have the mechanism, and we know how to use it. Why do you
need people? Because tacit knowledge is, in fact, the most important piece of the
problem. If you have tacit knowledge, in the end you will have the rest. You will have
the explicit knowledge, the use of it, new knowledge creation, etc. So, to summarize, it is
a learning problem. If terrorists learn tacit knowledge more quickly than we do, we will
lose. If we have learning disabilities, we will lose. If we are better at learning than the
terrorists, they will lose. So this is not really a technological problem. It is a completely
human behaviour problem and what is most difficult is that it is not one person that will
solve it. We have to do it collectively and because tacit knowledge cannot be
communicated, the question is how to do it? Yes, there is cooperation. This is easier said
than done. I tried to summarize a little bit of the knowledge theory applications. My
students know very well what I am trying to put here as a concept and if you want I can
give more details, but I think that using knowledge theory completely proves that the
problem is tacit knowledge learning. I think I can prove it. And this really puts a political
problem on how to do it between everyone who has to prepare for cyberwar, etc. So I
completely agree with you and I think that theory really proves that you are right.
Handy : I tend to agree with both gentlemen and I have a theory. I would refer to the
computer as somewhat of a check list. Tacit knowledge is what I would call a thought
process. But you can take thought processes and artificial intelligence and do some
modelling and simulation to a level where you can actually put all the different variables
into the right type of computer to think faster than the terrorist. If you understand their
sources, their methods, their means and their intentions, then you can take all that raw
knowledge, that raw intelligence and put it into a modelling and simulation decision
support system where you might be able to predict what they are going to do. Are we
there yet? I do not think so but it does starts with tacit knowledge. The interim is the
computer system but the end result would be a faster system of predicting what is going
to happen so that we can affect the outcome much better.
Vellone : Intelligence for business is very important. Another need which overlaps
with this is the exchange of tacit knowledge. It is also very important. But in
intelligence something cannot happen very easily because usually and traditionally
intelligence is a one-way channel and tools allow a feedback which involves machines
and human beings. So from this feedback we want to empower the possibility of the