How to Succeed

NECESSARY SKILLS AND PREVENTIONS YOU HAVE TO TAKE WHEN DEALING WITH HIGH TECH PROJECTS THAT BREAK ESTABLISHMENT RULES Juan Chamero, Cristina Vélez, Alejandro de Montmollin Intag, Intelligent Agents Internet Corp – Artificial Intelligence Lab, Caece University MIAMI, USA - BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA Abstract One leading American executive woman told us -in obvious reference to the American market-: “Well, you may break rules, and sometimes that is refreshing, but take care what rules you are breaking!”. This case tells you the story of a high technology project leaded by “non native” people that inadvertently broke some of those rules. As a consequence available communication channels turned unavailable soon. Facing this discouraging scenario they tried to interpret how this establishment is and behaves, to unveil the rules, and to organize themselves to succeed. KEYWORDS: American establishment, Establishment, Cultural traits, Establishment behavior model, Rules breaking, Case study, American culture, Latin American culture, simulation models, business games STORY TELLING Once upon a time a group of Argentine scientific and professional people that worked in Artificial Intelligence matters decided to organize themselves as an American corporation to create Internet AI solutions. They took that decision at a wrong moment, just when the “Dot com” bubble began to collapse. As you may know one of the reasons for that collapse was the lack of architectural intelligence in Websites, networks and databases. Many huge B2C Websites, B2B Websites, and Portals were satirized by the “motto”: nice look and feel but nothing behind!. This group, characterized as Intag, Intelligent Agents Internet Corp, entered into this market with justified illusions: they knew how to build intelligent solutions, faster, and more efficient than “dot com” conventional solutions, generally built on the rush to rank high in the “Second Klondike Rush”. However they had to face two crucial drawbacks: a) They were skilled people but probably too generalists and; b) They were alien to the American Establishment. Additionally their financial resources were scarce. They firmly believed that given a specific need if a prototype is built in time and form that satisfies it efficiently and at a reasonable cost everybody will buy it. Time and form also implies being the first with an expected product or service, the founders of a new niche of competence. So its strategy as a group was centered in “working like hell” to be the first. It sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?. They were in the mood of “How to succeed in business really trying”!. They aimed at satisfying a massive need of the world market: to build super search engines that ideally provide users with what they need in terms of information and knowledge, in only a few clicks of their mouse; and as a corollary they were absolutely convinced about satisfying another related massive need: Internet users also failed to satisfy their needs throughout B2C and B2B Websites, and Portals because of lack of intelligence of the “matchmaking process”. As a synthesis, Intag’s purpose was to create a prototype to demonstrate how to solve both problems efficiently, through some sort of “intelligent multipurpose e-membranes”. It apparently was not such a bad idea, but probably a too “wide” one as we will see along this Case analysis. In the middle of its research they discovered that these virtual “e-membranes” as real bio membranes, could also be used to communicate establishments with their people in a learning-teaching scenario enabling the transference of data and intelligence from one side to the other openly and freely!. For example, these e-membranes could be enabled to detect and to classify people behavior patterns [Stowe Boyd, 2003], [Swarm Intelligence, 2003]. Well the idea was now really too big, too wide. They spent four years working hard and at the same time expanding its original idea. In the first two years they created a general methodology to serve as the scientific and technical background of the e-membranes capabilities that was simultaneously announced in Madrid and Miami, two and a half years ago. They finally decided to build the prototype. This prototype th was built in Buenos Aires, Argentina and announced in July 8 2003 as a beta test product. It was built here because of its lower development costs. Once launched Intag’s staff started to dream expecting a boom. The beta test was finished at the end of October. From that date on they started a long journey of trying to penetrate in the American market. They worked hard in this new task but inefficiently and with scarce results. As they are expert in large and complex systems they tried to understand and to unveil the rules of the Establishment, to learn as much as possible in order to correct their actions, and to recover lost time because in these types of project time is vital. Other people may emulate and even improve their findings once they are launched. Now they are in the right path, close to succeeding commercially but with a new aim: to serve as a pilot case for people like them and perhaps a case study [KM Case Studies Hub, 2003] about how to introduce high technology in the world markets without being a big corporation or pertaining to powerful Consortiums integrated by leading Universities and Labs and big Corporations. ESTABLISHMENT MODEL In FIGURE 1 we are going to try to interpret how the main political and socio economic actors interrelate and connect amongst themselves in a conceptual graph. This model is only oriented to explain the daily ideas and projects versus Establishment survival interactions [The USA Establishment Overview, 2004] in their continuous pursue to become part of it, so only the main actors responsible of the vital renovation of the Establishment are depicted. THE BIG RINGS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT  The “Corporate Ring” formed by: Big Corporations  Universities  Research and Development Institutions.  The “Financial Ring”, abstract ring where available funds of money circulate to nurture: Technology  Incubators  Startups.  The “Media Ring”, formed by: Media  News Agencies  Media Technical Authorities  The “Professional Ring”, abstract ring where established knowledge and know-how circulates: Professional Associations Congresses/Journals  Referees (Not depicted in the figure, is a rather informal collective authority decisive for papers and publishing approval).  The “Marketing Ring”, only depicted in the figure as a block, it involves a complex structure deeply rooted in the American Establishment. Marketing is so powerful that it is perfectly possible to influence and to accelerate processes from it to all rings. The problem is that we need lots of money to fuel it. However, the “equal opportunity paradigm” is not a void “motto” in the American establishment: it is perfectly possible to succeed without too much money provided that you have a good product and that you respect the rules. THE MARKET The core of the market is formed by all the industrial and commercial companies, belonging to private and public domains, and the Consulting firms. Let’s see now the long lasting journey of one feasible idea to become part of this Establishment. FIGURE 1 HOW AN IDEA BECOMES PART OF THE ESTABLISHMENT Let us imagine the steps a person or a group of persons belonging to this Establishment would have to take in order to succeed. We assume that they act “naturally” along these steps. Some rules and regulations should be carefully followed and understood and some don’t need to perhaps because they do not even need to be explicit, and probably they are not written as well. 1. One idea that fits expectancies appears. Not any idea fits just because any establishment conditions ideas. People belonging to a given establishment know pretty well what type of ideas may succeed within it. The American Establishment is huge and stable and consequently of an enormous inertia, and the socio-economic activities are extremely micro specialized and ruled compared to the Rest of the World. So people belonging to this establishment know pretty well that their ideas should be rather “narrow” concerning the niche of the target market!. This precondition is depicted in the figure by the narrow cone. If you dare to issue an idea that encompasses a wider market it should be considered implicitly that you are breaking rules. 2. The idea is pondered and checked against market trends and “state of the art”. Some government agencies, Non Government Organizations, universities and R&D organizations periodically publish what they need, marketing trends and “State of the Art” in almost any demanded activity. Nursery, IT specialists and plumbers for instance are almost always needed and that necessity triggers and fuel ideas in order to satisfy these demands. 3. Some “small money” is collected. People know that not too much money is needed as long the idea is suitable (fits Establishment needs) because they are going to obtain financial aid as long as they start to move in the “right direction” in a easily checkable manner as we will see in step 5. . 4. A Project is launched. For instance a new corporation is created. By the way it is very easy, cheap and fast to create an American Corporation. 5. Search and review Technology Trends with available financial aid This step is closely related to step 2. You are now compromised with your idea, and the Establishment is going to help you. You have to check carefully that your idea falls within a sponsored or protected activity. If your idea is only partially protected you have the option to alter it accordingly. It’s a kind of negotiation step where actors –The Establishment and You- make mutual approaches of understanding. 6. Is your idea/Project under any “big umbrella”?. Finally to reduce risk you decide to adjust your idea/project to fit it within some big umbrella. 7. “Reengineering” of the idea. You have to reengineer your idea. Take this step carefully and wisely. You are encouraged to reengineer your idea but in the right measure. Remember that any establishment needs to be renovated and that your idea has to be endowed with some charm!. Avoid mediocrity as much as possible. You will always be trapped in crucial decisions with “Rewarding Distribution” following a sort of Logistic Bell Type Distribution. This is a hard step for many non American. Latin, Asian and European people used to love their ideas, and they frequently fall in love with hard-to-succeed projects. 8. Formal Presentation to ask for some kind of financial aid/support. You decide to formally ask for some kind of support and financial aid. You may go to see friends, family and other contacts. You are a tax payer, so you might ask about government funds and you may go to see the Small Business Administration Department people. They will probably help you out but you have to fill in many requirements in order to assure them that your project will go towards its development in the right direction 9. Establish some type of predetermined relationship with Agencies, Labs, private or public entitled as leading the technologic umbrella you choose to belong. This will be one of the above mentioned requirements. This is a very profitable step for you and for the Tutorial institutions as well. You are going to learn many useful things that will save you lot of effort and at the same time the society as a whole will benefit from your creativity, open mind and ingenuity. 10. You start to work hard to create a credible Demo, prototype, and then your “first application case” as soon as possible You may initiate your first approaches to your “alma mater” and/or Professional Institutions to see the best diffusion channel for your “development”: for instance Conferences to be held somewhere dealing with your theme within their programs. You should check in this step about formal and informal prerequisites to have your paper published!. 11. You may initiate now your “Paper Campaign”. You should envisage a feasible strategy and sets of available tactics. That’s not easy. You must be some extent socialized within the Establishment. Probably you have to belong to more than one Professional institution, and to participate in their events and conferences. Do not forget that your paper is going to be reviewed by two to three unknown referees. So your Paper Submission should be followed by your ethic “follow-up” throughout pre approval, approval, presentation, echoes, publishing, echoes, etc. 12. Once your Paper is approved and published you have overcome the middle of the battle!. If you are lucky, and did all your red tape and paper work well it is probably time to receive the financial aid that you started to ask for one or two years ago. That’s fine; you have now a promising quasi approved idea/project, and some money to initiate the commercial adventure. However many links that add commercial value to your project must be incorporated. If you are too technical take into consideration that perhaps marketing is one of your weakest links!. 13. You start to create your Business Plan. Well, at least your first Business Plan Draft!. This is a heavy task for technical and scientific minded people. A BP should be written by a Native American, following precise models and formats, applying the right expression in the right place. To make a successful BP is an art and should be commissioned, whether possible, to a BP expert. 14. With a BP and a working prototype and some cash you may go now to try to grow a little more in order to deserve respect. A BP and a working prototype are frequently not enough. You will probably need to be successful at least in one application with a real customer. For that you may start to meet Incubators and/or Startups capital ventures. The wider the applications’ spectrum of your project the lower is its credibility. In those cases you will have to reinforce its credibility by successfully solving at least one real case. 15. In the interim it would be nice to be known by the media. You need “diffusion”. That’s not so open and easy as we imagined. Newspapers, magazines and ezines, have their own approval system. Press releases sent directly to media will probably end in waste disposals. Media believes in Agencies, but agencies are still harder to penetrate. Agencies are well aware where from news are trustable. Many times you are going to need to hire prestige and well known syndicated professionals in the area of your business to advise you about the best way to approach to media. These people are at their turn in close connection with the technology and academic circuits too. It’s frequent that technical announcements are performed by one of these privileged pens, many of them having a Ph.D., and specialized in very focused areas. Remember that at large you wish to sell something new in a market where the “first impression” is decisive. You have worked hard, probably for two to three years and sometimes more, but you have now to face the challenge of impact with a good first impression to the real “authorities” of the Establishment, the people that rule, that take crucial decisions, your future partners, customers, investors, associates, etc., and you only have a few seconds of media exposition for this purpose, to capture their attention. 16. Finally after many efforts and some luck you get the eagerly and deserved “diffusion”. You are now in an excellent commercial condition: you have a nice and promising product, a published Paper, media diffusion, perhaps an approved startup and perhaps sound partners. It’s time to enter into the market. DIAGNOSIS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE AN ALIEN? You may be considered an alien by the simple fact of not respecting these rules. If you know them and you respect them, you will not have any problem to succeed provided that your project fits: is “focused”, “necessary”, and “good”. Everything will run smoothly from step to step almost unconsciously, flowing freely and efficiently, in time and without spending too much money. You may be an alien if your project is for example not “focused”, too “big”, too “general”. This type of society of huge inertia evolves by micro steps but performed continuously by a myriad of operators. Everything in this society tends to be micro specialized, and it requires that you should “professional” in very small and precisely bound niches. Nations adopt behavior models and growing strategies that proved to succeed along their history. European nations are ideology motivated, and for bad or for good ideologies are controversial. The American society succeeds pragmatically advancing rather slowly, yes slowly, collecting huge inertia, with small steps “All United”, pushing all at a time, and following very simple rules. Even when they conquered their own actual territory they behaved the same from east to west, slowly, like a swarm, each time increasing its inertia. However be careful!. We are not trying to present the American Technology Establishment as a huge but rustic establishment, full of money and lucky. We are talking about a model of expansion, and at large of people’s welfare, that proved to succeed in many and diverse circumstances. The global auto strategy of this model could be stated as follows:  First, to grow, step by step, always referred and assured, always backed up, without risking too much, without becoming attached to ideas but to the outcomes and general usefulness instead.  Second, start to grow deepening its intelligence. The trend is to consolidate its inertia by enlarging its pillars. Institutions tend to grow by assimilating smaller ones within their activity. It starts to deepen its global intelligence, merging ideas, and processes. This step is usually performed by the big organizations.  From time to time the Establishment is prone to pay attention and privilege “different” projects and ideas as long as they impact the “mother referral”, the Public Opinion. Of course nobody is authorized to state that this technology model is the best, at most to affirm that it worked well along a century and that it still works well. HOW AND WHY THIS CASE BROKE RULES From the Intag story telling we may infer some mistakes committed, and their motivations. One way to perform this analysis would be reviewing the steps that ideally Intag should have accomplished to avoid ulterior problems. Mistake 1 - The idea Perhaps the idea was too ambitious, too general the purpose. As we quoted, that’s not inherently bad as long as you are fully aware of the risks that decision carries: more time, more effort, more investment, more courage, more continuity, more tenacity to succeed. Mistake 2- Idea Feasibility The feasibility of the idea was not adequately updated. It was only performed in its beginning. We may associate this error to something we could define as “El Dorado Syndrome”. Many old Spanish Conquerors came to America to discover El Dorado, a paradise region overwhelmed with mountains of gold and silver. Once conquerors were on their way they faced problems and dangers that distanced them from their goal. Yet, each time they encountered perils, they mind-cheated themselves as to how far El Dorado was, opting to continue for they knew quite well what it meant to return back as losers. Mistake 3 - Search and Review existent technology As the idea was an IT breakthrough, related ideas/projects were almost inexistent. This was carefully checked by Intag but they committed another mistake, they where always thinking globally concerning its dominant idea. They committed the sin of being too ideologists!. If the idea would have been to split into “smaller ideas” by sure they would have found “existent competitors”. They didn’t take into consideration another crucial question “inventors” should ask themselves: what are the reasons for this supposed inexistence?. Any establishment is an archetype of power and smartness, then why some features are not present in their domains?. Intag realized this incongruence in their reasoning very recently when they decided to adjust their original Business Plan to the possible opening of the Establishment. For instance they found many points of contact with Search Engines intelligence and with Data Mining applications that relates to “parts” of its idea. Mistake 4 - Financial aid, alliances, and socialization mistakes Intag was unable to foresee the difficulties in obtaining financial aid, in ample belief that as long as you can demonstrate that you are in the track of welcomed research and developments you may easily accede to soft funds, but they weren’t. They also ignored the need of alliances and of nurturing socialization roots with referents of the Establishment. Intag still believed in the actual value of the old American Inventors and Tycoons’ myth: work hard to have something valuable that works, and success is yours!. Times have changed considerably and myths have become deformed realities. The effort and the loneliness of Inventors and Tycoons is continuously dramatized by Hollywood and by the collective imaginary. You have to be known and physically linked to the community you are trying to serve, and for that you have to dedicate a significant part of your available time to thread social links. By social roots we mean: chambers, professional associations, community organizations, participation in Conferences and social events related to your activity, etc. Accomplishing steps 6 to 9 implies growing roots within the Establishment’s society. Intag ignored these steps keeping off the Establishment’s premises, despite being an American Corporation. They concentrated in working hard, enthusiastically, with unity of thinking and action, but isolated. Mistake 5 - Paper presentation and Business Plan Paper presentation and its corresponding approval, and Business Plan were already performed but it demanded an excessive effort. To accomplish that Intag had to rethread what at that moment had been left undone and begin to enroot in the technical areas of the Establishment. This too late reaccommodation process lasted one year. From now on Intag can now consider itself well positioned in the middle of steps 14, 15 and 16. PRESCRIPTION TO THE ACTORS OF THIS CASE Instead of re-engineering the original idea, we recommend to continue working as follows: a) Establish the foundations of a new epistemology of the digitalized Human Knowledge [KM and WorkFlow, 2003] in order to have a “Scientific Body Doctrine” to justify the idea. b) Split the original idea in the following Establishment-focused “sub-ideas”: b1. How to create Super Search Engines b2. How to retrieve the Inherent Intelligence of Data Reservoirs b3. How to generate Maps of Knowledge b4. How to build e-membranes b5. How to build intelligent Websites b6. How to detect and to classify People Behavior Patterns b7. How to detect and to classify People Opinions And everything centered in the sub-idea b4: How to build e-membranes. TO ALIENS If you’re alien to a given establishment we have some general recommendations. If your idea is “too wide” review it objectively. Try to identify a “Scientific Body Doctrine” to which the idea supposedly belongs. If after careful analysis you arrive to the conclusion that such body doctrine does not exist try to propose yours and explicit the milestones and conjectures from where the new scientific body doctrine should emerge. Then review as much as possible your experience and similar ones that apparently support those conjectures. Once you are firmly convinced that your idea works despite being “too wide” you should proceed to split it in as many established sub ideas as possible, and for each of them try to make them “compete” with your new approach. If on the contrary your idea is too wide and presents serious inconsistencies you may proceed to adjust it, to reengineer it to fit Establishment expectancies. LEARNING AND TEACHING MATTERS LEARNING BY SYSTEMS SIMULATION? We presented in this case the ideas/projects like “entities” within an evolutionary scenario striving for survival versus the Establishment. It is a Game scenario, where ideas/projects try to enter into the Establishment to become part of it and the Establishment reacts against them protected by its awareness and immunity system. Good ideas/projects that fit Establishments expectation could be enabled to continue from step to step (stepwise) till their final incorporation. It is perfectly possible to build a particular Ideas/Projects Game [Gabor Csardi, 2003] to study undertaking strategies at least qualitatively, for instance: recommended versus not recommended policies. FIGURE 2 In FIGURE 2 we show the operating scheme of an Ideas/Projects Game. We may initially set the model via Establishments parameters (time spent in each step, prerequisites, penalties, prizes, stimulus, etc.), and Ideas/Projects parameters (type of project, number of new Ideas/Projects per period, characteristics, etc.). As logical core of the computation process we define the steps and its possible interrelations (Graph). The “players” are enabled to make moves stepwise in order to continue gaming until fulfillment or failure. The algorithm computes the costs for sides, Establishment and players, determines the “results” measured as “pass” - “not pass”, penalties, prizes, etc. Knowing the time that the Establishment normally takes for its standard procedures we may compute the journey time distribution of a set of “random generated” ideas/projects to progress from steps 1 to 16. We may also simulate the distribution of probabilities of success for “narrow” and for “too wide” ideas/projects. Time is money so for each journey it’s feasible to compute and to compare the money spent versus the allocated resources the undertakings have. We may also estimate factors of stress and of endurance to compute distributions of players that quit the game. Of course we are talking of qualitative models [GOCAL, 1997(?)] limited to illustrate different strategies of gaming, not models to take decisions in real cases. The uncertainty of these models [Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, 2004] concerning their use to take decisions is similar to Economy World Models like the “Club of Rome World Model”, built to study the consequences of some global policies like the influence of the concentration of capital over ecology, demography and auto sustained development [Thomas J. Holmes, 2003]. TEACHING Focusing on this case we are now going to list some teaching tips. Perhaps one of the more important is the conscious of imagining the Idea/Project as an entity that “fights” versus the Establishment to become part of it as if we were dealing with something alive. Let’s first learn how our “entity” could be defined initially. Perhaps the idea prompts in your mind like triggered by a deep need to solve some problem. At this point it is only a snapshot. You have to ponder it carefully nurturing it for example throughout the following steps [Mechanism of teaching-learning systems, 1995]:  Analyze the Originality of the idea.  Try to find similar ideas, especially those that were successfully developed and implemented.  Imagine markets and scope of applications of it.  Imagine as much as possible “pros and cons” of the idea as a function of markets and their applications.  Try to enter in a state of awareness of the idea within different establishments where you think the idea could be successfully implemented.  Analyze the feasibility of the idea, estimations of times and efforts to be done to make it succeed.  Make projections about the possible evolution of the idea  Define the actors you will have to deal with in the long journey from idea to commercial prototype.  Devise a global strategy for that evolution  Adjust your idea and/or re-engineer it to accommodate it to the market and establishment expectancies. Once all these tasks are performed you may start to embody your idea in a project. WU-WEI, A SUBTLE STRATEGY TO MAKE YOUR IDEA SUCCEED If you don’t know the establishment well it’s time to learn as much as possible about it. You may put in practice the Oriental “Wu-Wei” principle, which stands for something like “let it flow”. Even the Samurai used this old principle when fighting. Imagine your fight like a dance to live and to survive!. In fact you have a project to be sold within a given establishment, OK?. So you must be wise enough to enter into it without getting hurt, and without neither offending nor harming that establishment. Any establishment has rules that you should unveil and carefully ponder which ones could be broken. A Wu-Wei strategy could be exemplified by crossing a river near a rapid. You may try to go the other side swimming perpendicular to the current or along a diagonal of the current: the more you skew the faster you advance but you get to the other side further away from your final destiny and in more danger of being swallowed by the rapid. You have to decide your best strategy at any moment when swimming, let the river carry you a little while you advance a little towards the other side, like a continuous fight. FIGURE 3 In FIGURE 3 we depict this strategy gaming with Establishment and New Ideas “facing” continuously. In Step i a “player” is trying to pass Step i to go next. The Establishment opposes a “Virtual warrior” (red dot) to examine the player (blue dot). He/she has many tactics at hand: basically to go straight ahead frontally convinced that he/she is going to succeed (pass) or on the contrary select one out of many elusive alternative tactics. Wu-Wei is a formidable strategy for business; it permits, like in “Judo”, to take profit of the energies of your adversary. In Wu-Wei you should never get angry, never discouraged, always trying to advance as much as possible with gentleness, and always doing your best, avoiding speculations. Let’s suppose that you submit a document to an agency of the Establishment. This instance is your actual challenge. You must prepare your submission as something crucial, as the most important thing that you have to do in your life, “here” and in “this very moment”. You have to “fight” against a virtual soldier the establishment commissioned to check your knowledge of some rule. You usually do not know how this virtual soldier fights so you have to let it flow, being the “it” the ELLO of the fight. This ELLO is something like the ego of the fight; it represents the eternal fight of life. You must try to win but without stressing you too much until an opportunity appears. If your submission is accepted you were the eventual winner, and the virtual soldier the eventual loser but as this virtual soldier was commissioned to test you the ELLO conveys to improve the establishment and at the same time to improve you!. If on the contrary, your document was rejected, you were the eventual loser and the virtual soldier the eventual winner, but again the immunity of the establishment was preserved, and you learnt what not to do again. As the establishment has a huge inertia, it is not going to change, you should change. To get angry is like trying to swim against the current, it’s foolish. Any fight is experience as long as you learn something. LAMAD, A BIBLIC STRATEGY FOR LEARNING In our Western culture [State of the art of teaching-learning at Suny, 2001] we have something similar in the Lamad Education model which puts emphasis in the teaching-learning duality. The Biblical Lamad Association textually says: “Lamad is a Hebrew word in the Old Testament which is translated “to teach” and “to learn.” It is used 86 times, and it represents a style of teaching that is significantly different from Western teaching”. When you analyze the Establishment – New Ideas/Projects scenario as an observer located in the interface you may imagine yourself alternatively in one or the other side playing different roles, and in each role to properly interpret what is really happening you have to think different: When you are playing as Establishment you are always stating the Truth meanwhile when you are playing at the “people’s” side you are trying to sell your own truth. However as a player you have only one semantic way to do that: to use the words, the norms, the glossary of the Establishment!. The Establishment “teaches” and the players “learn” until they succeed. However the Establishment should learn from players, either if they fail or succeed, or the players should teach, via example, via cases if you prefer, to other players. REFERENCES Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, http://www.eolss.net/E1-26-toc.aspx , see Encyclopedia IV, SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES, 2004. Gabor Csardi, One primitive socialization game, http://geza.kzoo.edu/survey02/establishmentgame.html to learn about social network formation, 2003. GOCAL Game oriented Computer Assisted Learning system, an intelligent teaching-learning agent, from Taiwan, http://hugo.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~yjhsu/itla.html. . KM and WorkFlow, Directory updated 2003, from France, from INSEAD Business School, http://www.insead.fr/CALT/Encyclopedia/ComputerSciences/Groupware/Workflow/. KM Case Studies Hub, 2003, http://www.austrainer.com/knowledge_management_case_studies/. Mechanism of teaching-learning systems: from Ireland, http://www.ijee.dit.ie/articles/999981/article.htm, 1995. State of the art of teaching-learning at Suny: http://tlt.suny.edu/, from its tlt teaching learning and technology Unit., 2001. Stowe Boyd, Swarm Intelligence, 2003, http://www.darwinmag.com/read/070103/swarm.html, from KM Research Center – Case Studies, http://www.cio.com/research/knowledge/case.html. Swarm Intelligence, The socialization of the enterprise leads to intelligence rising to the top. http://www.darwinmag.com/read/070103/swarm.html, 2003. The USA Establishment Overview, http://www.worldlii.org/catalog/268.html, from World Legal Information Institute, updated 2004. Thomas J. Holmes and John J. Stevens†: Economic Establishment Models, http://www.econ.umn.edu/~holmes/papers/special_rev2.pdf.