An ad hoc group of several hundred federal employees and others has convened online to advocate improved “knowledge management” in the federal government.
Knowledge management refers generally to the production, preservation and exchange of knowledge in such a way as to maximize the sharing of information and to optimize its use.
“Although most federal agencies have some knowledge management activities, there is no centralized federal resource for knowledge management. There is no government-sponsored support function for knowledge management. There is no clearinghouse for data on extant activities, no library of best practices, and no consulation available,” according to the new Federal Knowledge Management Initiative.
“Over 700 Federal employees, contractors, academicians and interested members of the public have mounted a campaign to enhance collaboration, knowledge and learning in the Federal Government.”
“The objective is to establish formal knowledge management across government,” said Neil Olonoff, an Army employee contractor who started the new initiative on a volunteer basis.
The initiative is developing its developing its policy proposals along with educational and promotional materials on a public wiki site hosted by NASA.
If you’re new to the climate intervention space, welcome! The TL;DR: if we can’t stop the most catastrophic impacts of climate change with current tools quickly enough, then we need a bigger toolbox.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.
Investment should instead be directed at sectors where American technology and innovation exist but the infrastructure to commercialize them domestically does not—and where the national security case is clear.