Oct 20
Folksonomies and Rich Serendipity
In my post last week on “How to Killl a Knowledge Environment with a Taxonomy” I made fleeting reference to “rich serendipity” provided by folksonomies. I’d better explain what I meant by that.
What makes folksonomic tagging activity different from “free text” keywords entered into optional metadata fields by publishers of content into content management systems? Why does the serendipity afforded by such (user contributed) keywords seem less powerful than folksonomic tagging? The answer lies in people as knowledge aggregators.
The real difference between uncontrolled keywords and folksonomic tagging is that in closed content management systems, the “free text” keywords usually sit unobserved behind the scenes, waiting for a search engine to match them to a search term. In the classic folksonomic sites, the tags are exposed to everybody and they become social property. I can do a random search on Delicious or Flickr and find a piece of content I like. I can see the tags, and chase those, to find other items tagged by the same person with that tag, or items tagged by other people using the same tag. If I have permission, I can tag their content with my own tags. If I want my items to come up in the same searches as other peoples’ items that I like, I’ll adopt and use their tags.
Oct 16
Hobby Turned World Record
The first Singapore International Salsa Festival was held at Downtown East last weekend, a 3-day event featuring salsa workshops, performances and some really nice Latin bands. Why am I telling you this? Because although I only planned to attend the party on Saturday night, I ended up with my name, along with some 351 others, in the Guinness Book of Records.
Oct 11
How to Kill a Knowledge Environment with a Taxonomy
We frequently encounter clients who are eager to apply their taxonomy structures to a variety of uses, including navigation structures in websites, general search and browsing in an intranet, and application to specialised content repositories. The taxonomy becomes a standard vocabulary to which all applications must conform. They have, after all, invested considerable effort in developing their taxonomy, and now they want to get as much value out of it as possible.
Now while there is considerable benefit to be gained from developing consistency and standards in vocabulary and categories across an organization (because it underpins knowledge sharing and coordination), too much standardization can be a very destructive thing. It is, in fact, the Linnaean trap of assuming that a single system can support all knowledge needs.
Oct 02
Technology, The Real World and Social Etiquette
Recently Dave Snowden raised the issue of the virtual and the real in one of his blogs and the impact of technology on family and community life. In commenting on the post, Peter Stanbridge said “When I am in the same room as someone else I can see, touch and smell that other person. My engagement is much stronger than possible in a virtual world.”
The comment reminded me of a little hang-up I have about people glued to their mobile phones and blackberries and how it has impacted etiquette and common courtesies. Here are some of the recent encounters.
Sep 28
Of Conferences, Chatauquas and Boundary Objects
This last week has seen a vigorous, sometimes passionate debate on actKM about the role of KM conferences within the professional community. This document gives a summary of the contributions made 22-28 September 2006.
One of the main insights for me was the view that emerged of a complex ecosystem of conferences, from the big commercial conference trade, which flies keynotes around the world, and brings vendors, thoughtleaders, novices and practitioners together in large diverse groups, to the smaller “indie” conferences, often self-organised by local professional communities, which tend to be richer, deeper, more experimental and collegial, and closer to the ground.
Sep 27
The Mobile Phone is a Knowledge Retention Tool
In KM, one of the reasons we say why we need to capture and share knowledge is that it could walk out the door. It seems though that even when that knowledge has walked out the door, the connection may not. If the parting was indeed on cordial terms, then some organisations still consider the exiting person accessible as a resource, although somewhat less so. A simple phone call to the individual’s mobile phone is all it takes. It appears easier to connect with the individual for JIT answers, as and when the need arises, than to plough through all the documents the person had left behind. While some degree of “thick-skin” has to be exercised here, it has to be said that the benefits work both ways in that the individual could also connect with his ex-colleagues for past information and resources, if these were considered still appropriate for disclosure.
I had visited an office once and found that the fairly senior person I met had been left with several boxes of files which he had inherited from his predecessor three months earlier ie. when he arrived on the job. The boxes were still sealed with masking tape and he said he had not the time to open the boxes to see what was in them. I recall having inherited a whole cabinet of files from a colleague who had resigned, yet although I knew more or less what were in these files, I never had occasion to have to refer to them.
So, is the argument of knowledge walking out the door still valid?
Should KM look for ways to keep connections intact when people leave the organization so that the knowledge is still fairly accessible, rather than to collect it all when they are around?
Sep 25
A Simple Knowledge Sharing Ritual
It was wonderful when someone I knew said to another recently “That’s knowledge management, making knowledge explicit. I learnt that from Pauline.” Pauline is moi!
This person is an employee at the a local hotel here in Singapore. Recently, she started a practice with her group of staff. Each day, one staff member got to share in about 5-10 minutes a topic of interest just before roll-call which happens at the start of a new shift. The staff get to pick the topic and the day they would like to do the sharing. The topic could be on anything of interest or an incident they considered useful for others to learn from such as how to check-in baggage, how to deal with “weird” guests, where to buy foreign magazines, what Deepavali which is a Hindu festival coming up in October is all about, and so on – in short, topics that would help them deal with their guests better.
What was really nice though is she told me that the staff were excited about making the “presentation” as it was not something they typically do. They were a mix of housekeepers, concierges, bell-hops, front desk staff, etc. Some really took extra efforts to prepare what they were going to say.
I liked this simple, easy and light knowledge-sharing ritual. No painful documentation, no sophisticated collaboration tool, just a couple of words every day about topics that people wanted to talk about and others could learn from.
While “making it explicit” is not the end-all or be-all of KM, I am glad that she got at least this bit of the iceberg, and to me, it was just the sweet beginning.
Sep 21
Selling KM
Dave Snowden’s post yesterday reminded me of this great website called Gaping Void... and so I revisited after a long absence and discovered a cartoon that perfectly expresses why sometimes… no matter how hard you try…. selling KM just ain’t gonna work.
Sep 20
A Brief History of Arrangement
This article is a “prequel” to the blog post in July on ”Building Information Neighbourhoods“. It tries to demythologise the undue influence that Linnaeus had on how we define the forms that taxonomies take. It’s also an extract from my forthcoming book.
----------------------------------
A brief history of arrangement
In his well known book The Geography of Thought, Richard Nisbett argues that Western cultures tend to think in categories, while East Asian cultures tend to think in contexts. So if an Asian and a Westerner are asked to group associated things from a list comprising Monkey, Cow, Banana and Grass, the Asian will tend to connect Monkey with Banana and Cow with Grass, while the Westerner will tend to connect the animals with animals, and the foods with foods. Asians see connections and contexts, while Westerners see categories (Nisbett 2003).
Now Nisbett rather over-argues his case, and himself admits that Westerners can think in contexts and Asians can think in categories if they are primed to do so. But his distinction between categorical thinking and contextual thinking is a useful one to pursue. In the history of taxonomy work, this distinction turns out to be a critical one.
Sep 19
Sartor Restartus
I needed a suit. I was on a long transit in Amsterdam airport. The Hugo Boss suits looked like a really good deal, and the assistant suggested a size that fitted nicely. I bought it. I went to Dublin. The same suit was 150 euros cheaper. Saul Carliner sent me a link to this website. Even cheaper. Perfect for video conferencing. Might buy one for the actKM conference.
