Dr. Marcus' Room No. 5

5. Knowledge Management: The Blind Men
and the Elephant of the Nuclear Era
Gail H. Marcus, Consultant, USA

Profile (January 2008)
Dr. Gail H. Marcus is presently an independent consultant on nuclear power technology and policy.
She recently completed a three-year term as Deputy Director-General of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA) in Paris. In this position, she was responsible for the program of work and budget for the agency.
From 1999 through 2004, Dr. Marcus served as Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology. There she provided technical leadership for DOE’s nuclear energy programs
and facilities, including the development of next-generation nuclear power systems. Other responsibilities included production and distribution of isotopes for medical treatment, diagnosis andresearch, and oversight of DOE test and research reactors and related facilities and activities.
From 1998-1999, Dr. Marcus spent a year in Japan as Visiting Professor in the Research Laboratory
for Nuclear Reactors, Tokyo Institute of Technology. She conducted research on comparative nuclear
regulatory policy in Japan and the United States.
Previously, Dr. Marcus had been in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). She served in a varietyof positions including Deputy Executive Director of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards/Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Director of Project Directorate III-3, providing
regulatory oversight of seven nuclear power plants in the Midwest; and Director of the Advanced
Reactors Project Directorate, where she was responsible for technical reviews of advanced reactor
designs.
She also served as technical assistant to Commissioner Kenneth Rogers at the NRC for over four years,
providing advice and recommendations on a broad range of technical and policy issues of interest to
the Commission. From this position she was detailed for five months to Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry, where she was NRC’s first assignee to Japan, studying Japan’s
licensing of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor.
Prior to her service at NRC, Dr. Marcus was Assistant Chief of the Science Policy Research Divisionat the Congressional Research Service (1980-1985). In this position, she was responsible for policy
analysis in support of Congress covering all fields of science and technology, and played a lead rolein policy analysis and development for energy, nuclear power, and risk assessment and management.

Organization:
From 2001-2002, Dr. Marcus served as President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), an 11,000 member
professional society. She is a Fellow of the ANS and of the American Association for the Advancementof Science (AAAS). She is a former member of the National Research Council Committee on the Future
Needs of Nuclear Engineering Education, and served three terms on the MIT Corporation Visiting
Committee for the Nuclear Engineering Department. She is just completing a term as the elected Chairof the Engineering Section of AAAS.
Publication:
Dr. Marcus has authored numerous technical papers and publications. Her research interests include
nuclear regulatory policy, energy technology and policy, risk assessment and management, international nuclear policy, and advanced nuclear technologies.
Education:
Dr. Marcus has an S.B. and S.M. in Physics, and an Sc.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT. She is thefirst woman to earn a doctorate in nuclear engineering in the United States.

1

Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 5

Last October, during a visit to Japan, I had thepleasure of meeting with some staff members of
JANUS. As part of my discussion with them, I
noted that I have thought of many, many possible
topics for essays, but I only had a few more opportunities scheduled to write for “Dr. Marcus’ Room.”
I described my ideas and asked their views on
which of the topics they most wanted to hear about.
The topic of Knowledge Management was high on
their list, so I have chosen it as my topic thismonth.
With all the other possible topics I proposed, it isinteresting to speculate about why a group of nuclear professionals was so interested in hearing
about knowledge management. However, before wecan do that, we need to answer the question: “Whatis knowledge management?”

The Blind Men and the ElephantDuring the course of the last 10 years or so of mycareer, the topic of knowledge management has
become very important to the nuclear community.
However, as I have communicated with various
elements of the nuclear community, I have had thesense that everyone I spoke with had a different
idea of what knowledge management was. As aresult, in previous writings and speeches, I havesometimes drawn an analogy between the field ofknowledge management and the ancient Indian
parable about the blind men and the elephant.
In this story, a group of sightless men approachan elephant and touch it in different places. Since
the only sensory information they receive is fromtheir touch, the image they receive of the elephantdepends very much on where they touch the elephant. “Aha,” says the first man, who is touching
the massive, leathery side of the elephant, “It isclear that the elephant is like a wall.” “On thecontrary,” says a second man, who has grabbed atusk, “The elephant is very like a spear.” “No,” says
yet another man, who is holding the tail, “The elephant resembles a rope.” Likewise, the man who
touches the leg thinks the elephant must look likethe trunk of a tree, the one who feels the air currents caused by the flapping ear thinks the elephant resembles a fan, and the one who grabs theundulating trunk of the elephant fancies that it
looks like a snake.
(It should be noted that there are several versionsof this story, and sometimes different parts of theelephant are named and/or the men draw different
conclusions. I have drawn my examples from a
version of the story written in verse by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887), a poem I remember hearing
as a child. This poem can be found in its entirety at:2

http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html;
other versions of the story, as well as more information on its origins, are summarized on a number
of websites,
for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_
Men_and_an_Elephant)

What is Knowledge Management?
Let me start the discussion by identifying the twomain themes I have heard in my discussions ofknowledge management with various segments of
the nuclear community.

Data Preservation : I have spent a fair amount of
my career working on research programs, so myfirst encounter with the idea of knowledge management came from the research community. Thereis a lot of concern that much of the research datacollected in the early days of nuclear power development has not been properly archived and preserved.
There are a number of reasons for this. Perhaps
the primary reason is the waxing and waning fortunes of the nuclear power industry. In the headyearly days of the nuclear power development program, a variety of research initiatives were started
to explore different types of designs. As nuclear
power fell out of favor in many countries, research
programs were stopped, sometimes rather abruptly.
This left neither the time, nor the funding, nor theinterest to archive the material properly for possible further use.
Probably much data has already been irretrievably lost―thrown away, preserved on magnetic tapes
or other media that are crumbling with age, or
stored in unlabeled boxes. Furthermore, the people
who did the research and who might be able to fillsome of the gaps based on their recollections of theexperiments are getting old. Most are retired, andsome, unfortunately, have died or have reached apoint where their memories are no longer reliable.
If we need to tap whatever remains of what they
can recall, it must be done very soon.
Finally, many of the facilities in which the research was conducted have been permanently shut
down and dismantled. Therefore, today, as interest
in nuclear power is renewed, the facilities are nolonger available to reproduce the early results.
I have heard different terminology used for this
aspect of knowledge management: knowledgepreservation, data preservation, knowledge generation, data collection and analysis , and perhaps
others. What they have in common is that they

Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 5

deal with the generation of new information, theanalysis of that information, and the maintenanceof the information in a useful form.
I should note that this problem is most severe incountries like the United States, which had an extended gap in its nuclear program. Most likely,
countries like Japan, which had less of a gap, havea more limited problem. Nevertheless, most countries, including Japan, experienced some redirections in their research efforts over the years, soshare some elements of this problem.

Knowledge transfer and retention : Outside theresearch community, the biggest concern is the increasingly obvious need to pass the knowledge ofthe older workers on to a new generation. As in the
research community, the age of the early workforce
is at the root of the concern. Many of the workers
who built the plants and operated them for years
have already retired, and many more soon will.
Even in the world we in the nuclear community
know, which is replete with written procedures andexplicit regulations for seemingly just about everything, it turns out that there is still a significant
level of activity that is based on individual experience and is undocumented.
This kind of knowledge, usually called tacitknowledge , applies to all parts of the nuclear enterprise―to research activities, to the operations of
nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities,
to the work of architects and engineers, to theconstruction trades, and to the oversight activities
of inspectors and regulators.
Once again, the problem is most severe in countries where there have been serious cutbacks in the
nuclear industry. In those cases, the entire supply
chain of human talent has been disrupted. Academic programs in the nuclear field have been
halted, research and training reactors have beenclosed, and young people have not been attracted
into the industry. Where the nuclear power program has not been cut, the problem is much lesssevere.

Why is the Nuclear Community Concerned?
It is legitimate to ask why there is such a special
interest in knowledge management in the nuclear
community today. After all, based on the definitions above, knowledge management is somethingthat should always have been a normal, ongoingpart of all the activities in the nuclear field. Research results should always be analyzed, papers
should routinely be published reporting the resultsof the research, and important materials should be
documented and saved in a retrievable fashion at3

the end of every research project. That is a normalpart of research. New employees should always be
mentored, taught, and given on-the-job training topass on the knowledge of the experienced workers.
That is a normal part of the operation of any competent, forward-thinking company or organization.
Furthermore, all of this is common to every otherdiscipline as well. Those who build and operate
aircraft, buildings, automobiles, ships, factories oranything else one can imagine all need to assurethat research results are accessible and that operational knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next.
What is different about the nuclear community?
And why is it that we are so concerned aboutknowledge management today? I have alreadymentioned what I consider the essential difference.
It is the fact that, in a number of places around theworld, the nuclear community has suffered a severe and extended cutback. During this period,
research was stopped. Funding was often withdrawn abruptly, leaving no chance for researchers
to take the final steps in any research project―analyzing the data and producing and publishing papers to share the results. Job opportunities dried up, leaving the operation of existing facilities in the hands of an aging and dwindlingworkforce. The normal flow of “new blood” into theindustry did not occur.
If the nuclear industry were to continue to decline,
the problem would still not be severe. True, as longas nuclear power plants continue to operate, andeven as long as they are being decommissioned,
some replenishment of the workforce is needed.
However, the needs are more limited. The existing
fleet of plants would slowly shut down, and theneed for new workers would continue to decline.
Without new construction, the need for skilledworkers in those fields would be limited. There
would be limited demand for the moldering files ofresearch data.
What has made the problem of knowledge management a major issue for the nuclear community
today is the emerging revival of the nuclear industry. With the expected increase in the number of
new nuclear power plants, the need for new workers is suddenly growing rapidly. The nuclear industry requires people with specialized training
and skills, so the pool of available people is limited.
Skilled construction workers are needed to build
the new plants, trained plant operators andmaintenance technicians are needed to run them.
The simultaneous revival of research on advanced
reactor technologies raises real questions about
how to take advantage of research already done.
Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 5

partnerships with universities.
Of course, as noted, where nuclear programs havenot experienced severe cutbacks, the problem isless severe. However, we live in a global economy,
and the growing interest in nuclear power aroundthe world will likely have some ramifications, evenon those countries that have maintained strong
nuclear programs in the last several decades. In
countries like the United States, foreign students
make up a significant fraction of the student population, particularly at graduate levels in technological fields. Historically, a significant percentageof these students have stayed in the US following
graduation and have joined the US workforce. As
opportunities increase in their home countries, asmaller fraction of these students may stay in the
US. Further, some of the countries starting nuclear
programs are able to offer high salaries and attractive opportunities, and will be able to attract
workers from around the globe.
Therefore, it is important for the entire nuclear
community to think about knowledge management.

What Can We Do?
Increase nuclear engineering education andtraining programs : It is very clear that the pipeline of educated and trained workers needs to expand. That is already happening in many places.
In Asia as well, several new university initiatives
in Japan and Korea have been announced recently.
Japanese universities starting new nuclear programs include Musashi Institute of Technology (inpartnership with Waseda University) and the
University of Fukui. In addition, Fukui Universityof Technology and Tokyo University are bringing
back nuclear power specializations. The Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) and the Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology(KAIST) are offering a joint master’s degree program, particularly focused at members of the Asian
Nuclear Safety Network.
In the United States, several new academic programs in nuclear engineering and technology havebegun in recent years. Early government funding(initially from the Department of Energy, but now
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) helped
these programs get started. This support encompassed both the human element (scholarships, fellowships, grants to professors) and the infrastructure (reactors and other facilities). In addition to
government support, local nuclear industries in the
United States have supported universities in various ways. They have provided scholarships, served
as adjunct professors on local campuses, supplied
equipment and facilities, and participated in other

4

However, more support will be needed, from bothgovernment and industry, for the nuclear renaissance to continue. The exact mix of government
and industry support, and the nature of the support, will vary, depending on the country, theproximity of campuses to major nuclear companies,
and the specific needs of the schools.
I have spoken mostly of universities, but I notethat the need for more training programs forskilled workers for the construction trades should
not be neglected. This means that support is alsoneeded for community colleges and for
non-academic institutions that train such workers.

Enhance On-the-job Training : Most large companies already have established programs fortraining new workers. These may involve combinations of in-house classes, shadowing experienced
workers, formal and informal mentoring programs,
rotational assignments and other traditional
methods of conveying to new workers the specialized knowledge needed for their jobs. For companies that have begun to expand their operations,an increase in these programs will be necessary.
The cost of that increase must be factored into theplanned expansion. In some cases, provision must
be made for retired workers to continue to consult
for their former employers to help train their replacements.
Some savings―as well as likely increases in effectiveness―can be achieved by making maximum
use of technologies such as computerized self-study
modules, closed-circuit TV classes, and on-line databases of briefing videos and visual materials. These
can minimize needs for travel, allow the most effective trainers to reach employees at multiple locations, and allow the employees maximum flexibility in taking their training. Some of these capabilities have significant start-up costs, and where
feasible, companies should consider sharing resources. Some training, of course, will always be
particular to a company or facility, and there may
be other reasons that companies can’t share everything, but much can be shared. There are already organizations that today facilitate different
types of sharing among companies―owner’s groups,
trade groups, etc. Institutions like the Institute for
Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) in the US currently promote industry-wide training efforts. Suchorganizations can provide a pooled resource for thedevelopment of computer modules and othertraining aides that may be prohibitive for single
companies, particularly smaller ones, to develop
individually.

Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 5

Research Preservation : In my mind, the mostdifficult area to address is that of the use of the old
research data. Although a lot of money was spenton this research, and although the possibility of
retrieving anything will continue to diminish as
the tapes further age and the original researchers
become unavailable, even today, the difficulty ofrecovering much of value from the past work is
problematical. There are a variety of potential difficulties: incomplete data and experimental information, lower levels of precision or fewer data
points in some early experiments than would be
acceptable today, and in some cases, research on
materials or processes that are no longer of interest.
This is not to say that there is no value to the old
research, and it is certainly not to say that no efforts should be made to preserve any of it. It issimply a call for reason to prevail in selecting what,
and how much, to preserve. When I was first confronted by the issue of the need for the preservation of old research results, I was working in the
Department of Energy. Two things quickly became
clear as I talked to people who wanted my office tofund data preservation efforts: 1) no one could articulate a clear plan for deciding what was worth
preserving, and 2) preserving everything would
cost a lot of money, and would, in fact, take all ouravailable funds, leaving no money for new research.
What is needed is a structured, disciplined approach for deciding what old research to preserve.
Factors that should be considered include: Did theresearch cover materials and conditions (such astemperatures and pressures) of interest today?
Research that is relevant to facilities that are still
operating are obviously the most important, but
research results may also be useful in cases where
facilities are being decommissioned. Research on“new” technologies that we are looking at today
may be a third priority, but advances in materials
and other developments may make old work lessrelevant.
Are facilities available to reproduce this work?
Although research may be expensive to conduct,
the building of new facilities is probably the most
costly and time-consuming obstacle to conducting
new research. Therefore, the preservation of research data in areas in which it is impossible toconduct research today should have higher priority
than areas in which the results can be repeated.
The assessment of research capability today should
be undertaken on a global scale, with the expectation that research facilities and experiments can beshared at a considerable savings to all parties.

5

Are the available materials sufficiently complete
and of sufficient quality to enable them to be used?
The real problem with old data is that it is often
incomplete. Data collected by different researchers
were stored in different places, so some may be lost,leaving gaps in the data base. Experimental setups
and parameters recorded in laboratory notebooks
don’t end up stored with the data printouts, so
critical information about the data may be missing.
Badly degraded storage media may make full retrieval impossible or prohibitively expensive. As
noted above, the equipment that exists today may
mean that the precision and resolution of old data
would render it of limited value.
My guess is that, if the tests above are rigorously
applied, we will end up with a relatively small andmanageable set of old research data that is likely
to be worth our effort to process. If this material is
not immediately needed or can’t be processed immediately, efforts should be made to assure that itis stored so that it doesn’t decay further, so that all
relevant materials stay together, and so that the
documentation on, and labeling of, the files is clear
for future researchers.
Finally, we should again take advantage of technology wherever we can. It should be possible todigitize a lot of the research files to reduce the needfor physical storage, assure preservation, and allow
the sharing of the data among interested researchers. The major caution here is that, as astorage mechanism, digitized data is not necessarily permanent either. Some of the media (CDs,for example) may be subject to age-related or environmentally-caused decay, and advances over theyears in technologies and in programming havealready rendered early electronic files obsolete.
Provision will need to be made to assure that digitized files remain usable. Such efforts carry somecost, both initially and on an on-going basis, making it imperative that the selection of such material
be based on a rigorous process.

Conclusion
The changing fortunes of the nuclear industry inmany countries over the last several decades, andthe increasing global interest in nuclear power today have created some problems for the entire industry in the preservation and dissemination of theknowledge essential for all nuclear activities. The
nuclear industry is already addressing the needs
with expanded educational and training programs,
and by other means. Further efforts in these areas
will be needed to help facilitate the nuclear renaissance in the most efficient and effective way.
***

Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 5

As always, I welcome your thoughts on this topic.
I can be reached at:
ghmarcus alum.mit.edu.
（ An image charactor is used intentionally for@-sign. Please cut the image and put a keystroke@-sign.)May 2009

6

Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved