I am sorry for the delay in my responding to the discussion on the Draft ISO 30401 KM Standard as I have just become a member of this group.
I have been made aware of recent discussion posts concerning my personal position in the development of the Draft ISO 30401 Standard and as the Chair of BSI KMS/1 Committee.
I am the founder of Knowledge Associates and I have been working with KM since 1995.
Concern has been raised about a training masterclass being advertised in Russia that suggests that the basis of the Draft ISO Standard is the proprietary IP for Knowledge Associates, Knowledge Asset Management Methodology (KAM). Also, that this organization is associated with Knowledge Associates.
This is indeed a totally incorrect claim.
Firstly, if you study the Draft ISO 30401 Standard, which is currently in a public consultation phase, you will see that there is absolutely no mention at all of any definition or description of ‘knowledge assets’ or a ‘knowledge asset management’ approach whatsoever.
Secondly, Oleg Lavrov who is promoting the Russian masterclass, attended our Knowledge Associates, KAM consulting programme at Kings College, Cambridge several years ago as a participant. He also runs a Russian KM community of practice called KM Alliance where I have been invited to speak.
It was also a total surprise to me as I do not know, or have any connection with the organisers www.fa.ru, which seems to be a school / university?
When I was invited to Chair the BSI KMS/1 Committee again (I was also Chair in the early 2000’s that produced a BSI Position Statement and various BSI published PAS 7500 documents.) I gladly declared my interests again as a KM practitioner for Knowledge Associates. At the stage of inviting different approaches and developments in KM, I gladly reported our approach to Knowledge Asset Management and my KM experiences. Indeed, other KM practitioners also declared their KM interests and approaches and experiences, as expected.
As the evidence in the Draft KM Standard clearly shows today, through consensus decision making by the BSI committee and the ISO workgroup, and available to everyone interested, there is no mention at all of a knowledge asset management approach or Knowledge Associates approach.
This certainly reinforces the case that this Standard has certainly been developed by the ISO and BSI committee/workgroup members, and healthy debate, and that consensus decision making took place, in the right and proper way in the best interests of all.
Sadly, this Russian masterclass has ‘muddied the water’.
Concerning my behavior throughout, and future Standard development, I will willingly take proper action concerning my participation, and do whatever is necessary in the best interests of ISO, BSI and its committee members/workgroups, for the development of, what I consider to be, a much needed and valuable Standard for KM.
I will certainly answer any questions and/or post again, more fully, as needed.