Networking vs. Notworking
Yet another gem from PHDcomics below, which comments on the ‘value’ of facebook.? As a member of Gen-Y I think I’m supposed to be ashamed of the fact that I don’t have or want a facebook account, but my general feeling is that the time spent on facebook is inversely proportional to the amount of time I could spend doing more valuable/interesting things.? Does that make me an online networking troglodyte, or is there actually something valuable/interesting about facebook that I’m missing here?
I wonder what the comic would look like for a Social-Notworking-Analysis…
Perkins Eastman: Practice Area Communities
Congratulations again to Perkins Eastman and all of my former
colleagues in the Knowledge Resource Team for winning gold in the
Intranet Innovation Awards .? Working with the various Practice Area
Communities (PACs) was one of the things I enjoyed most working there.?
I only wish that I could have shared some of the tidbits I learned
working with the PACs on the video as well, but alas, I ended up opting
out since I had a severe allergic reaction to nuts only a couple days
before (and I’d prefer not to be on video looking like the Stay Puft
Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters), but I digress…
James did a great job editing the video and I think a lot of great
points for working with Communities of Practice are captured.? Since I
was sidelined with an injury at the time (ha), I’ll share a few of my
own thoughts here about why I feel PACs work so well:
- Having gatekeepers who are passionate about sharing knowledge is
critical for that attitude spread to the rest of those working in the
practice area - Also, having those gatekeepers work closely with passionate KM
team members who can propose new concepts or ideas for constant
improvement of the PAC methodology is key - Using the intranet as a vehicle for not just codification, but
collaboration and communication as well gives the PACs more than just
one dimension - Having community members set goals for a PAC, in terms of new
deliverables or just more opportunities to share knowledge in
person/online, can be a huge motivating factor - The practice of pollinating new concepts and ideas by showing one
PAC what another is doing can also be a catalyst for action.? The idea
that, “Hey - we should do something like that too!” can produce great
results
Talking about KM
I recently re-discovered a whitepaper written by some of the folks over at Anecdote titled, “Our take on ‘how to talk about knowledge management .’”? The paper itself is a nice primer on KM and one part in particular really jumps out at me:
“The way we talk about knowledge affects what we do about it. Many KM efforts get bogged down because people have a different understanding of KM.”
When looking at reasons for success or failure of a KM initiative I think that this is one of the factors that is absolutely critical.? If KM is to succeed in an organization everyone needs to be on the same page about what KM is.?
This also becomes relevant when going to conferences and the like.? The more I meet folks involved with KM, or claiming to be involved in one way or another, the more I find myself wondering what they really mean when they talk about it.? It’s easy enough to weed out vendor-speak (can I have a side of KM with my jargon, please?) - but have you ever had a conversation with someone about KM and walked away knowing that you were talking about something totally different?
I talk about this issue briefly in my dissertation but I’m thinking about exploring it a bit more.? Feel free to add to the list, but doing a bit of research on the origins of KM you can quickly find support for it arising out of MIS, EIS, DSS, HRM, TQM, AI, IT, fields like psychology, sociology, organizational management, philosophy, librarianship, etc.? I don’t think any of this is really wrong, as KM has emerged atheoretically as a field of practice, so the conceptual confusion when implemented in organizations is to be expected if it isn’t explicitly managed from the start of a KM initiative.?
Trying to simplify the origins of KM, I think Carrillo* does a good job when talking about the dominant perspectives in KM having either an HR or IT-heavy slant, but I enjoy the description of the integrated perspective of the two; which really boils down to the common People-Processes-Technology model of KM.? Coming from the integrated perspective that Carrillo suggests, and tying this back into the quote I mentioned from the Anecdote whitepaper above, I think that one of my favorite definitions of KM is from Robert Logan**:
“Knowledge management is about using information strategically to achieve one’s business objectives. Knowledge management is the organizational activity of creating the social environment and technical infrastructure so that knowledge can be accessed, shared and created.”
For me personally I like this definition because I first because interested in KM from the strategic management perspective.? I like it also because it touches on the People-Process-Technology model without necessarily framing it that way, which I think is helpful.? There are a few other KM definitions I’ll use for a quick elevator conversation, but if I’m allowed to speak for a few minutes on the subject to those relatively new to the concept, this definitely is great for framing the discussion.?
What elevator definitions do you have for KM?? Is there a definition or line of thought that you use to cut away at some of the conceptual confusion?? When a vendor tried to sell you their ‘knowledge base’ solution do you just start hearing ‘wakka-wakka-wakka’?
*Carrillo, P. (2004). Managing knowledge: Lessons from the oil and gas sector. Construction Management and Economics, 22, 631-642.
**Logan, R. K. (1997). The fifth language: Learning a living in the computer age. Toronto: Stoddart.
Individualist vs. Communitarian Cultures in KM
The other night at KM Chicago Ann Lee presented a summary of the CKO Summit from last October. There were a few interesting things that came out of the presentation, one of which was a slide discussing how globalization is impacting KM. Specifically, as organizations become truly global, how do those in the KM field account for differences between cultures that are more individualistic versus those that are more communitarian.
A graph was presented which identified the UK and US as more individualistic societies while China and India were more communitarian. This is a big question – how do you design KM initiatives so that it works for all cultures encompassed within a truly global organization? This ties in with something that emerged from my dissertation (which I’ll hopefully be posting a summary of the results in the next couple of months – stay tuned).
When asking participants of various geographical backgrounds to rank/rate Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for KM, the majority of participants found the listed CSFs as successful.? However, there were some differences that emerged between participants.? Although not statistically significant, participants that indicated that their primary geographic location of work was Asia ranked the CSFs slightly lower than participants of any other geographic region.
One possible explanation for this is linked to the potential North American bias that exists in the current literature on CSFs for KM, as well as other disciplines which the CSFs in my study were drawn from.? Not surprising considering there are a few publications suggesting that the design of KM initiatives and especially the design of KM systems have a heavy North American bias.
This brings about a new question which I would love to know the answer to: What CSFs for KM exist in Asian companies that don’t exist (or at the least aren’t as prominent) for KM initiatives in companies based in other geographic regions?? If we know what different CSFs for KM exist and can account for the relative weight of importance in each culture, can we then design better KM initiatives and systems?? I’m also curious if there are any organizations out there now that are bridging the gap successfully and how they go about it…