Dove Lane

Just added a new long page of good KM related quotes. Look for the link in the right sidebar.

Perhaps standards for each major component of KM are possible, but I don’t think we are at a point where “KM standards” in a universal sense make any sense at all. Let’s not put it into a box before we know how big that box should be.

There’s a new master listing of KM certification programs and educational offerings on this site. (http://dove-lane.com/index.php/knowledge-management-training-programs-and-conferences/)

Frank Guerino, CEO of TraverseIT, offers some insights from 18 high level executives in large organizations as to why they don’t “buy” KM. Is he mixing knowledge management with information management, or are the executives? Read what they had to say.

Discussion boards are like the fast food drive through restaurants of KM. On some days they may choose to go into the restaurant to eat, and may participate/contribute to the discussion. But most days workers are usually on their way to somewhere else, they drop in for some nourishment, they scan the menu and choose items that appeal to them that day, they take the items they want (prepared by someone else), and they drive away.

The process of creating my own taxonomy of information made me think again about information silos, and think about them differently — not as rigid organizational structures, but as a dynamic way to make sense out of chaos.

After having had several good months to think about and delve into theoretical KM, I had a breakthrough last fall about what KM is and how all the components work together. I decided to put it to the test, so I started looking for a “real” job. It’s interesting to note that despite the efforts of many capable, thoughtful and talented people in my network, for me finding a job came down to finding an open posting.

Doesn’t this get it? “Knowledge management is a discipline that uses a variety of methodologies to connect people to people and people to information to improve decision making.” What KM activities are not covered by this definition?

As I’ve said before, the jury is still out as far as I’m concerned about the long-term value of Wikipedia. It’s widely cited, but is it good? How do we know?

Here I go again. The fact that so many capable people cannot seem to define…and agree on a definition of…knowledge management bothers me. How can we solve problems if we can’t even define what’s in scope or out of scope? How can we use a tool we don’t understand? Here’s what I mean…

For a while now, I have observed the ways in which KM practitioners and consultants conceptualize KM, its components and their relationships. The most popular ways to represent KM are “four-blockers” and Venn diagrams with three interlocking circles. I’ve wondered why. Perhaps the language of numbers can help us finally to define what KM is and what the model really looks like.

Everyone in the KM field has different favorite texts that they use or cite as sources. Here are the ones I value for various reasons and have recommended to others.

I need names for a KM initiative! Here are some from various sources. Give me some to add to it!

There is a fallacy in all discussions of ROI for KM. KM is not a manufacturing process with people substituted for widget inventories in a financial spreadsheet. As long as accounting systems (and financial managers) reject the so-called “soft” or intangible values of KM and treat KM like they treat software or a new piece of equipment, the true ROI of KM will never be shown or appreciated. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying to determine its value!

Intellext’s personal search bot Watson looks like it could be a researcher’s dream come true. I can’t wait to try it!

For more than 20 years the topic of who owns and/or can use the content created by online communities. Over years of participating in and leading communities, I have come to believe that the authors of the postings, not the “community”, own their own postings, although I believe the community has the right to retain for its private archives all the discussions that transpire in the community space. Do moderators have a right to retain or delete whatever they choose without consulting the community? Who does own the individual messages posted to a community discussion board? Are forums nothing more than a conversation between members that anyone can use/reuse freely? It’s still a hotly debated topic, and community members should take care to read the terms of use statements on any web site before they start posting!

Recently I was talking with a friend about knowledge transfer, and he made the comment that in his organization, the management team seems to be trying to create “plug and play” people. Their goal is to be able to move people from one job to another seamlessly, assuming that somehow employees will be able to adapt to any new role because there is documentation. While I can understand management’s goal to bring efficiency to the organization and create a more agile work model, this approach is counter-productive and demoralizing. Even if exiting employees attempt to write everything they know about their jobs and processes, research shows that they will probably capture only 3/4 of it. When business process flows are well-defined and have predictable results, how do you capture the “intuitive” knowledge that differentiates what an expert knows from what a newcomer knows?

After two very heady weeks of discussions about information, knowledge, data, reality, applied knowledge, personal knowledge management, tacit/explicit knowledge, and a wide range of other related topics, I came away with new insights about KM and what it is. But I haven’t given up on believing that knowledge requires a knower” and that knowledge is not the same as information, and it can’t be “captured”. This short musing about data, knowledge and information pulls it all into focus.

Knowledge transferred to another person can be called education. Knowledge that is transferred to a database can be called data. Maybe I’m missing something here, or maybe we need to create a new term for expressed or explicit knowledge. To me the definitions all resolve to “all knowledge is information, but all information is not knowledge.” Maybe it used to be knowledge, or maybe it continues to be knowledge in the heads of the people who know the information, but explicit knowledge/information itself — is it just another type of data or something more?

KM thought leader Joe Firestone recently posted a message that supports my recent rants on the need for definitions in KM before meaningful conversation can occur. His point is KM cannot be captured by a definition, and I disagree, but it’s all part of an ongoing dialogue that we should be having.

Internal links that were broken are now fixed, and the site should work properly.

Spam is a four-letter word!

Part 2 of my risky look at a wild and wonderful way of working! This part describes the 3D interactive environment that could change everything about online learning and knowledge management.

Looking ahead is always fun, wrong, fascinating and ridiculous, but I’m going to give it a try anyway. Here’s my own vision of a wild and wonderful place to work 10 years from now…assuming there are still such things as corporations and we don’t all work from home! If you’ve been wondering what an immersive learning/knowledge management system might look like, read this!

The fact that we are still struggling with explaining KM is a testimony to the complexity of something that seems on the surface to be so simple. In order to simplify it, since most of us can’t agree on a definition, we use metaphors when describing it to co-workers or customers or funding managers. Here are a few.

It looks like the knowledge management “profession” is not the only group to have definition problems creating confusion in the rank and file. Game developers face the same problem.

I know a lot of KM practitioners are excited about blogs and wikis and such, but, practically speaking, I just don’t see it working. There are too many organizational issues around them (privacy, control, guidelines and standards, ownership of content, etc.). Most organizations rightly will see them as a lot of extra work for very little, if any, additional value and a lot of potential risk…no matter how inexpensive the software is.

Right now the planning is on for the big fall conferences. I hope that the organizers for all of them can rise above the competition of proprietary interests, and the demands of financial backers to have sponsors, and put the best people on the podium to talk about the real issues and the creative solutions. The way to make the KM field grow and gain meaning and respect is collaboration — building upon what others have contributed. It doesn’t take a Wiki. It takes a willingness.

Is it possible to predict whether a community of practice will succeed before it is started? Here’s a quick check Shawn Callahan suggests that can be a good predictor.

Part 2 of a three-part series on the relationship between knowledge management (KM) and learning in organizations.

Reprint of a conversation I had with a good friend about the difference between knowledge and learning. Part 3 of 3.

KM value comes from the narratives of credible business people. Quantifying hard benefits is not easy, since KM is one of multiple contributors to business growth or efficiency. Business leaders who have stories to tell about how KM has helped them succeed will be listened to and believed throughout the organization. Let the people with the story tell their story, and it will enhance the KM program.

I’m intrigued with the human dynamics of knowledge management. One of the fuzzy areas to me, and I think to many people in the field, is how learning and knowledge are related. Everyone has a subjective view based upon their own personal experiences, and thinks they know the answer, until asked to define them. To move KM forward, we need to be able to build upon a base of…knowledge…we all share. That base needs some definitions, and I’m offering some here.

Why, after nearly 15 years of more or less organized thinking, debate and studying of KM, haven’t we collectively been able to define what knowledge management is, create an unassailable model of how it works, and perhaps more importantly, sell the KM value proposition to organizations that clearly need it? Here are some penetrating insights into the state of the profession.

Following up on my previous post about Fahey and Prusak’s 11 Deadliest Sins of KM, I decided to offer two more views. First, an example of the 11 Deadliest Sins being cited in a research paper. Secondly, my own suggested Axioms and Corollaries of KM.

This list by L. Fahey and Larry Prusak from 1998 gets a lot of replay in KM circles, but I find it confusing. I believe it was a straw man, and not a rosetta stone for KM eight years later. Here is my suggested revision.

Before you begin a KM program, it’s helpful first to understand the context of the KM challenge you are attempting to master. Is it content, collaboration or process? Your own organization will have its specific barriers and challenges; however, some barriers are universal. Here’s a list of some.

I believe the concept of knowledge hoarding is largely a myth. We’ve all heard stories about how some go-to people in organizations refuse (overtly or covertly) to write down what they know in order to make themselves indispensible to the organization. So-called knowledge hoarders are strong indicators of other organizational issues that need to be resolved for KM to be successful. We need to understand the root cause of any hoarding behaviors and how widespread they really are in order to elevate the problem to the organizational level where it can be addressed.

This morning I reread an article by Don Moyer I first read nearly two years ago called “In Favor of Messing Around.” Moyer’s messing around means working with freedom. Playing with a purpose. Exploring a topic with no rigid goals, no particular agenda, no clients, no deadlines, and no specific deliverables in mind. It can lead to what some educators call an “ah-HA!” moment. To knowledge and innovation. And you own it!

One of the most difficult challenges I faced in trying to establish a new KM initiative was the lack of understanding among the managers and executives I worked with about KM and what it could do. Using a systematic approach, we educated them individually about why KM is useful, what it is, and how others were benefitting from it. During the course of these meetings, we made extensive notes on their comments, reservations, concerns, interest and ultimately, their understanding of what we were suggesting. Many interesting things emerged, including what managers perceive the risks of KM to be — both business related and personal.

A 50,000 foot view of knowledge and why it can’t be “managed.”

A while back I participated in a “branding” exercise to help define the purpose, describe value, and create an approach for a new KM initiative. These are my notes and the results of the session. Perhaps it will be helpful to someone else!

In a knowledge management initiative where communities of practice are used to create and validate best practices, it’s possible to use a lifecycle approach to formalize the process, using something along the lines of peer reviews used in science. A single person, however, needs to have the final editorial authority over each best practice written, and that person is also responsible for distributing the final document to all interested parties.

Is there any research that proves there are benefits to problem solving in a group, rather than individually or in pairs? What especially intrigues me at the moment is the actual value we can ascribe to having additional people help answer a question, and the parameters around getting the optimum answer from a group. How do we quantify the value of having additional people engaged in solving a problem or making a decision? What’s the right number of people to involve in the discussion? Do you hit a point where the incremental value of new thoughts is so low that it becomes too costly to add more voices? It’s an interesting topic.

Here’s an interesting analogy between knowledge management and party planning. The point is that KM is not a new social science. It’s not new and it’s not science and the social component is like party planning. There’s some truth here.

If we don’t know how ‘knowledge work’ is defined, then how can we know if we are successful at it? Yet, if a knowledge worker’s boss says they are doing a great job, does it matter whether what they do qualifies as ‘knowledge work’ at all? The more important question is whether improving worker effectiveness and the bottom line are the purpose of KM or whether they are potential outcomes of KM. It’s an important distinction.

Here are some citations for how much knowledge management can save an organization. I like to keep track of claims like these, because they are valuable when talking to financial people in an organization. There are probably some newer ones around, and if you know of any that aren’t here, please do comment or send me a message, and I’ll add them!

Can grassroots KM work? Does it work? Here are some learnings from my personal experience, presented at KMWorld 2005.

Communities of practice, communities of interest, and any other type of online community have basic rules to keep them functioning well. Here are some of the things I believe about communities.

Based on my own experiences, here are a few of the things I believe to be true about KM.

A very nice paper by Irish authors called “Theory Building in Knowledge Management” discusses the implicit and explicit assumptions that guide theory and practice, and analyze the major schools of thought within KM. They define KM as being in a “pre-science” state…which certainly explains the differences of beliefs, values and fundamentals expressed by practitioners.

The closing keynote presentation by Dave Snowden of the Cynefin Centre was thought provoking. Whether you agree with his point of view or methodologies or not, he is always an interesting presenter who challenges the status quo. This presentation echoes others who say KM is about sensemaking that can be used to improve decisionmaking in organizations.

Human Systems Dynamics (HSD) applies complexity science and chaos theory from math and physics to the interpersonal challenges that plague individuals, institutions, and communities today in an attempt to make them more coherent and facilitate organizational change. Like HSD, KM is a relatively new field, with a growing number of tools, models and techniques that can be confusing. A matrixed taxonomy of KM tools could be helpful to practitioners.

KM World 2005 reinforced two important points for me: we are a profession crying out for a new name, and we need to be looking for our next generation leaders. Surely there are some new thinkers out there, some risk takers, some people who are trying new things, and cobbling new thoughts together for the next evolution of KM. Who are they? Where are they? We need to continue to evolve the field or be permanently brushed aside as irrelevant to the real issues of complex organizations.

Verna Allee’s keynote presentation discussed various pieces of “the KM puzzle” and asked, What are you missing? Her background in social networks, value networks and living systems theory provided a background for comments on the need to integrate knowledge into the business language, the need for transparency in organizations, the high cost of not finding information when needed, the role of communities of practice in centralizing knowledge, and the need to initiate conversations that enable knowledge networks to form.

Tom Davenport delivered a fine opening keynote presentation at KM World on his current pet topic “Thinking for a Living: Keys to Knowledge Worker Productivity.” Knowledge workers have a high degree of education or expertise, and their *principle* objective is the creation, application or distribution of knowledge. Knowledge workers are at the core of our economic competitiveness. They are at the core of value creation and top-line growth. They drive the future. It’s important to make them more productive with tools and measures that help the organization to assign value to what they do. Different types of knowledge workers should be identified and treated differently (i.e., a segmentation scheme is needed). Any thoughts on knowledge work and knowledge workers?

It’s always interesting to hear what Richard McDermott has to say about communities. This time he spoke instead on the the latest buzzword in KM — knowledge work, and the need to make expertise an available resource. Experts solve problems through seeing patterns. They almost instinctively match the current situation to stored situations in their own brains, and can then see options for actions in the current environment. Knowledge transfer is so difficult because no other person has the same set of experiences against which to evaluate the current situation and determine appropriate actions. So how do we communicate expertise?

Established guilds in MMOGs share the features of healthy, mature communities anywhere. These are described by Richard McDermott. What’s often overlooked, especially in gaming communities, is the importance of charismatic leaders.