Jul 24
Sacred and Profane
Last night on my way home I passed a migrant from mainland China of the deeply blue collar variety being very expressive on the phone in the way that only those unshackled by higher academics can be, and for some wayward reason I started reflecting on the “softening” (I hesitate to say feminisation) of the workplace when it comes to knowledge work.
I can remember working in my university holidays in a chemical plant, and it was rough, in a masculine, John Wayne kind of way (think the “let’s make friends by getting into a fight in the bar” technique without the fisticuffs). Knowledge workers don’t seem to have that kind of gruff fun and trust building. We’re all supposed to be very genteel and polite to each other, and in the process we keep our distances.
And then Matt posted this very short and very funny podcast on swearing in the workplace, and how it can actually facilitate a more sharing environment. Dr David Vaine MUST have something to say about Matt’s APOD idea (Ambient Profanity Optimisation Device). There is, sadly only one profanity in the whole two minutes. Brilliant.
There must be a training workshop idea in there somewhere…
Jul 24
Will You Come to My Pre Mortem?
This puts the idea of the pre-mortem into a whole new light. Thanks, Liam.
Jul 22
On Staying Grounded
This question from John Tropea gave me pause this morning. He’d been viewing the Is KM Dead? video and concluded:
“Imagine there was no such thing as knowledge management. And all through the 1990’s there was only information management, and collaboration spaces, and then 10 years later social computing happened. When you think about it like this, what actually is knowledge management?”
Only for a moment. Because I’m not sure we would have found our way into the social computing groove if we hadn’t made the mistakes of indiscriminate structure and control, and big planned systems that didn’t fit local working needs. I’m taking a leaf out of Henry Petroski’s book Success through Failure here: “No matter how well developed a thing or system becomes, however, it will never be without limitations. There are no mechanical utopias. Therefore, there will always be room for improvement. The most successful improvements ultimately are those that focus on the limitations – on the failures.” (p.3)
That was just stuff we had to go through. We are in danger now of erring too far on the side of fragmentation, millions of chaotic walled gardens which are great for transient awareness but with very few tools or good practices for building solid infrastructure and preserving memory.
The reason why KM happened was that the problem of how organisations can operate coherently and swiftly on large scale became critical to survival. The more connected, competitive, uncertain and fast moving our environment is, the more this problem rears its head. This includes being able to sustain our slow, deep knowledge structures and memory, not just our fast moving current awareness.
Information management and collaboration are just pieces of the puzzle, they don’t get anywhere near its core. It seems to me that unless we collapse into a lower economic energy level, that problem will still press us hard and compel us to respond with a whole slew of practices currently bracketed under KM and associated disciplines.
I’ve been surprised at the popularity of the video discussing the demise of KM with Larry Prusak and Dave Snowden. It’s running at about 300 views per week, not counting the direct downloads. It – and the discussion it has inspired – suggest two things to me:
(1) there is a terrible uncertainty and sense of insecurity within KM (characteristic of thankless infrastructural work, perhaps) leading to perennial self-examination at the risk of neglecting the problems that KM is there to try and solve
(2) that old jackal instinct to distinguish ourselves in the tribe by tearing down the incumbent on the throne, and declaring ourselves as new and different, still survives.
We’re not different from our predecessors. If we survive in the market at all, it’s not through the artfulness of our distinctions or the awesomeness of our weapons, or the perfection of our doctrine. It’s because the market needs something difficult solved, and seeing us, senses something that might help, and however imperfectly, grasps at it. If we all hang in there long enough, expose our experience to critical peer review, and look outward at the problems a little more than inward at self-referential justifications and marketplace powerplays, we might just learn how to get better at addressing the real problems behind knowledge management.
Jul 16
Wai Kong for President
Wai Kong has been with us for just three and a half months, and then this happens. Why do all the best people get snapped up? (Hat tip to David Weinberger).
Make your own version here.
Jul 16
Fragmentation Shmagmentation
Dave Snowden has a nice piece in the latest edition of KM World entitled “Everything is Fragmented”. The piece itself is an interesting hypothetical recipe for building naturalistic patterns of collaboration and sharing as an alternative to the formal methodologies (and platforms) for building CoPs. I’d really like to see some examples of this (NOT best practice case studies, but some nice, diverse examples showing this working), because it sounds both plausible and very human, if you’re into sitting with people and coaching them into new modes of inter-relating. It reminded me of Edgar’s post a while back on “doing KM one person at a time”.
But the title is niggling at me, in the same way that David Weinberger’s book Everything is Miscellaneous niggles at me. And given I’m likely to be at several conferences this year where Dave (S) is likely to be spinning this theme, I’d better get it out of my system.
So what’s the beef with Dave (W)’s book? It’s an enjoyable and extremely well-written book. If you look at it as a series of brilliantly portrayed tableaux illustrating the tensions between taxonomy work and the workings of the real world, it works perfectly. The problem is the title, because it suggests an argument, and so you read the book looking for that argument to be introduced, developed, deepened, with some consideration of alternative viewpoints and a triumphant, thought provoking conclusion. What you get is a series of brilliantly portrayed tableaux used to illustrate a claim “everything is miscellaneous” which is repeated over and over again, with no substantive reasoning to connect or develop the thought. It’s a bimbo of a book. It just doesn’t go anywhere beyond the obvious and then the mantra of the title. And it’s all the title’s fault and the expectations it sets up. Very frustrating. (I’m not the only frustrated party by the way – see here and here).
Back to Dave Snowden’s article. It’s a nice article. But the title makes a claim that invites an argument. There’s no argument to follow it through, and you need an argument because the claim is overweening. Not everything is (or should be) fragmented, no more than everything is miscellaneous. Some things are. Other things are (and should be) structured and ordered.
Jul 16
Wisdom: It’s Been Cracked
We’ve had the answer to the problem of how to change knowledge into wisdom for almost a decade, apparently.
“To address this question, the author [Dr Esaki Michihiko] developed a method for changing knowledge into wisdom in March 1999, using the Advanced Project Management Methodology (Methodology of DTCN/DTC) [in this book], which he developed between 1979-1997. Using this methodology, it is possible to relate knowledge management (the accumulation and management of knowledge), with ‘wisdom management’ to change knowledge into wisdom.”
Who would have thunk it… advanced project management can lead to wisdom… actually not an unreasonable leap if you switch your attention from the methodology to the experience-base of really good, seasoned project managers. Unfortunately, Dr Esaki is really interested in a mechanistic breakdown, and so this paper is really depressng.
Jul 09
More on Method Cards
We’ve had a few more nice reviews of our new KM Method Cards with some really good ideas about how to deploy them. Kim Sbarcea says:
“I can see these cards being really handy for KM brainstorming or strategy sessions and for educational purposes or as quick reference guides. I plan to use them to just visualise KM nirvana – cluster them around themes and talk about how to get there.”
Maish Nichani says the pack of cards “provides an easy way to quickly navigate through ideas and to try something out. It is also a good learning tool for those who aren’t familiar with KM approaches and techniques.”
James Robertson has a whole list of possibilities!
“There are so many uses for these cards, including:
- reviewing current techniques used, to identify gaps and opportunities
- learning about new approaches, using the cards as a “table of contents”
- sparking conversations amongst stakeholder sessions
- supporting facilitated discussions and other group formats
- underpinning formal training and skill sharing programmes
- breaking teams out of ruts or narrow fields of practice”
Go on, buy a pack today!
Jul 08
KM in Asia
Larry Prusak pointed me last week to this new book produced by the Asian Productivity Organisation and edited by Serafin Talisayon on KM in Asia: Experience and Lessons. It’s a combination of case book and survey of the state of KM across the APO’s member countries, with some extremely insightful cases and very astute commentary. A really valuable addition especially for KM practitioners working in Asia. Serafin Talisayon told me the hard copies sold out within days, but the soft copy is available for download (warning: 6MB!).
Jul 04
Dead KM Walking
In the land of taxonomy there are only two species: the Lumpers who gather related things together and look for their commonalities (these are the categorisers), and the Splitters who look for the distinctions between things and separate them based on those distinctions (these are the classifiers).
After a fascinating, robust and sometimes sharp discussion with Larry Prusak and Dave Snowden a couple of days ago in Kuala Lumpur on the topic “Is Knowledge Management Dead?” I have come to the conclusion that I am a Lumper and they are Splitters, when it comes to the utility of the over-arching label of knowledge management. Plus they think that KM as a field has been irredeemably corrupted by the many false plays and hijacks it has been subjected to, while I still have hope. Watch the podcast for the full story, and a million thanks to Larry and Dave for a great conversation. (I’m probably going to get a lot of flak from librarians about a comment I make near the end).
Jul 03
Tools for Knowledge Sharing
At the same iKMS session as Gabriel Szulanski (previous post) we aired a pre-recorded podcast with Prof Eric Tsui from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s KM Research Centre. He was sharing some interesting work he’s been doing with the KMRC’s clients, around identifying appropriate knowledge sharing tools. The content is great, though the quality of the audio is a bit iffy. Eric’s group is maintaining a Google spreadsheet evaluating a whole range of knowledge sharing and collaboration tools, so if you’re interested in collaborating on this, drop him an email at eric.tsui-at-polyu.edu.hk.
You can download the video file here.
You can download a full set of Prof Tsui’s slides here
