Kevin Shea -- Process Collaboration

More on Is KM Dead?

The idea Is KM Dead? was introduced during an interview with Larry Prusak , and since then the conversation about the question has been a hot topic among those of us blogging about KM.

Luis Suarez, Social Computing Evangelist @ IBM, pulled together related Is KM dead? blog content in a recent post , in which he asked if he should rewrite his job description… although I think somewhat tongue in cheek.

Here is my comment to his post.

I think the bigger question is “Is IT Dead?” something posited by Nicholas Carr a few years ago in his article "Does IT Matter?"

He was pooh-poohed then, but maybe he was only a few years too early. I have written that KM is the last great “killer app” that remains after years of isolated task solutions solving problems in selected business areas. …. but this “new KM” will be owned by the business, not IT.  (post)

Knowledge management is a process activity .. unlike document management which is a task activity. Knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and using the knowledge to advance a company’s product is more the domain of a business unit. It's fundamentally what a business is all about.

As a knowledge manager, I think you should be writing a new job description, not something completely different, just shifted more toward process and the business. You will have to shift to servicing the business and moving away from focusing on delivering IT tools and solutions. You will have to learn to deal with tacit information and how people “package” their thoughts. You will have to deal with the business when, soon, they will begin to see all this stuff as an asset and begin to accept more and more responsibility for all things currently IM/KM. You will have to focus on integration if you wish to remain a player, and working within a dynamic, recursive process. To be relevant in the future, IT (and a knowledge manager) has to fundamentally know how the business operates.

As you are rewriting you JD, I suggest that it is time to dust off Carr’s writings and begin to re-evaluate his question “Does IT matter”?

Thanks for the trackback and taking the time to further the discussion. This is fun!

A simple slide show consolidates my thinking.

Enterprise2.0 Adoption - Getting Management Support

In my post “Institutionalizing Enteprise2.0”, I asked:

If one believes that you can lead from the bottom (ala emergence/SIP), then why is it the many people suggest that "getting management support" is a key to success to an emergent model?

“Getting management support”, in my opinion, is a tip of the hat to the standard, hierarchical model which has built in mechanisms to drive usage and awareness. For emergence practitioners to be successful, it is in their best interest to stimulate rapid usage and maximum awareness as a means for users to accept the benefits that the practitioners know to exist. It also is a means to get some level of agreement that the vision of the practitioners serves business goals. And, it can be looked at as getting an okay to lead from the bottom, or as a means to avoid negative management support that could easily kill or stall the initiative over the long run

It appears to me that the management support of an emergence model is a hybrid collaborative approach that is an agreement between practitioners in two different models. When an emergent model is coupled with management support, one gains benefit of both models, that together, offers the best chance of success.

The request recognizes that there are benefits that exist in the standard model that can be leveraged to introduce a SIP or MIP model. The request may also recognize that there are built in organizational barriers to viral spreading that could limit the reach of deployment.

Lastly, I believe that leading from the top does not necessarily lead to success, and that leading from the bottom is more likely to result in success, since participation is a choice, not a directive. In short, “It’s mine.”

For a related content, check out the previous post “Is Management the Problem? “

Institutionalizing Enterprise2.0

In my post on adoption models, I suggested that there are 3 types: standard (hierarchical), single initiation point (SIP) and multiple initiation point (MIP).

In considering institutionalization of enterprise2.0 ( that is, getting successful deployment and use across all corporate activities, not just small groups) ask yourself this question. If one believes that you can lead from the bottom (ala emergence/SIP), then why is it the many people suggest that "getting management support" is a key to success to an emergent model?

You may also be interested in my paper "Moving From a Need to Know to a Need to Flow: Information Flow in Hierarchical Companies.

Enterprise2.0 Adoption models

I have been involved with successful adoptions of collaboration software and have gained considerable insight into best practices. I have also seen numerous examples of failed adoptions, ...the adoptions didn't really fail, the implementation just degraded to the point that the results were unsatisfactory and didn't achieve much. I was going to say didn't achieve the goal, but in many ways, the problem originates as the goal was undefined.

Here's a short message regarding adoption models.

EDIT: In this post Michael Idinopulos VP at Wiki company SocialText pretty much agrees with my message.

"What I'm saying here, and what I think a lot of the standard talk about virality and network effects misses, is that User Virality all by itself does not generate enterprise-wide adoption. User Virality may result in some nice, contained pilot successes, but in order to go enterprise-wide you need Use Case Virality as well."

| View | Upload your own

Support for Dynamic Knowledge Processing

In a previous entry Thoughts in Knowledge Management, I presented the idea of Dynamic Knowledge Processing as a more appropriate  model for knowledge creation.

Well, it seems that others agree.

In his blog entry Dynamic Knowledge Transfer Capacity, Dale Arsenault notes the works of others in Knowledge Management and suggests that their work is "thought provoking". The authors not only support the idea that knowledge is a system (process) but that it requires selected behavoural characteristics to make it work effectively.

For some more insight into how dynamics systems work, take a look at Lessons Learned and my paper, Why Lessons Learned Databases are a Bad Idea.

Is KM Dead?

In response to my Thoughts about Knowledge Management I was forwarded this video, in which KM experts discuss the topic Is KM Dead? Much of the discussion mirrors that of my short presentation

Larry Prusak, KM speaker and author of KM books, takes dead aim at it and suggests maybe not dead, but certainly limping. He goes on to suggest that KM is morphing as new discoveries are made about what KM is needed for.

It is my contention that KM required document management as a prerequisite, and now that many organizations have introduced shared document management, new questions arise about what is next and what more can be done to improve business practices. Furthermore, I believe that these new questions focus on process issues and ideas of how to integrate and execution.

Here's the video.. it is rather long. Prusak's the guy in the tie.

Thoughts about Knowledge Management

I've always been troubled by the phrase Knowledge Management and how one goes about doing anything about it. My views stem from the fact that I believe that Knowledge = Information + Experience + Wisdom. (see What is Knowledge? ) Knowledge Management surely isn't just "good Information Management" or collaboration.

Others possess views that knowledge and learning are closely linked. That is, how one learns directly impacts knowledge creation.

Knowledge management was borne out of the frustration IT had in trying to explain that there was something more than information management. IT could deal with managing stuff, but failed in effectively addressing how knowledge was created. I believe that knowledge is a process based activity, and that there is a system and method that supports it. I don't think that task-like thinking can be applied when addressing knowledge related matters.

My view is that what is needed is focus on Dynamic Knowledge Processing. Take a look at "Knowledge Management in Black and White" for my idea on dynamic knowledge processing.

Let me know what you think!

| View | Upload your own

Is Management the Problem?

Harvard Professor Andrew McAfee, asked the question Is Management the Problem?  at a recent Enterprise2.0 conference. I wasn’t surprised at the question, but at what appears to be his expectation that management is the problem. He was advised by conference panelists that current issues have less to do with managers and more to do with users.

He also asks, "If Enterprise 2.0 tools and approaches really are so beneficial and powerful, why haven’t they spread like wildfire?"  Which I believe is rather presumptive statement, given that the number of Enterprise2.0 installations is still rather quite small.

The fallacy may lie in this presumption and may have something to do with excessive early stage optimism.  I think Professor McAfee’s question may be self fulfilling. Again, he ponders,  "If Enterprise 2.0 tools and approaches really are so beneficial and powerful, why haven’t they spread like wildfire?"

Maybe it is because not everyone senses the benefits or power.

As one follows along with current writings and conference presentations, Enterprise2.0 suffers slightly from understanding of “what it does for me” and what problems it solves. Some evangelists suggest that you just take a leap of faith and let the discovery process determine how best to use the technologies.

In “Is Management the Problem?” McAfee expresses some interesting insight into management within a hierarchical organizations, although with somewhat of a negative slant. To me, more time is necessary to answer the question, since I believe that there is insufficient information available to managers regarding real benefits, problems solved, changes to business operations, links to business goals, integration with current systems, etc.

So, let’s first explain Enterprise2.0 business benefits and power to managers, and then let’s see if “management is the problem”. Things take time, and we are barely at step 1.

Enterprise 2.0; a Simple Roadmap

A lot of what is talked about in Enterprise2.0 adoption has to do with capturing, sharing and exchanging knowledge. But, once those needs are fulfilled: What do we use this knowledge for?, How do we work the knowledge into the workflow? or more specifically, How do we process this knowledge in order to create a competitive advantage within our businesses?

If we plan on using Enterprise2.0 as a new technology, what outcomes are anticipated?

Do we create better products?

Do we institute new and move advances processes?

Do we undertake better practices?

It is my opinion that Enterprise2.0 practitioners must consider not only getting people to use the technologies but have a clear vision of how the company will reap the benefits of the introduction.  In considering an Enterprise2.0 adoption, do not look at just the technology, or at the initial condition, but at the state of the company 5 years after the introduction.

What is knowledge management? A courtroom analogy

Some of my clients have shown confusion with regard to what Knowledge Management is. So, I use the courtroom as the analogy to explain it.

In the courtroom, the lawyer presents material in the form of papers, records, witness accounts, finger prints, and other items related to the crime, etc. These are the evidence. Most project or business work tasks have a similar compilation of evidence. In fact, in one company, we created the term “evidence book” to highlight the idea.

In the courtroom, the lawyer weaves a story around the evidence suggesting what happened, and possibly why. The stenographer captures every word assuring that the entire “story” is recorded and can be recalled at any time.

So, in the courtroom, knowledge management = evidence + “the story”

To be effective, the evidence and the story must exist together as an integrated record.

The evidence is virtually meaningless without the story. If the story is not captured, any future activity will have to try to recount the events, generally resulting in something very different.

In business, knowledge management = business record and documents + the story

If a business stores its evidence (business record and documents), but cannot relate what it does with the evidence, the impact will show up in lower quality in its product.

If the business does not store its evidence, and has no story, it is definitely in trouble.

Consider the result of a business with good evidence and a full story, fighting it out in a courtroom with another company with uncontrolled evidence and no way to recall the story. I know who I would bet on.

(Also from the courtroom), businesses can spend huge amounts of money if they are called to court and must produce the evidence and story required for a defense. In a poorly run operation, this “cost of discovery” alone can easily exceed the cost of implementing a knowledge management system.

So, if you are wondering about knowledge management or what it means, think about the courtroom.