toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I had a very similar conversation when I was at Panviva. This was a tool that documented workflows (esp. in contact centres).
Some of my colleagues said: “All organizational knowledge should be documented!”
My response was: “That sounds very, very expensive”
The amount of “controlled” knowledge you want to have will depend on the size, maturity and risk appetite of your organization. But generally it is between 0% and 100%.
This also links back to frameworks like Cynefin and the levels of knowledge control working in each domain requires.
Really, these aren’t questions about search but they are questions that search highlights. Enterprise search is a bit like turning on the light in a stoned teenagers bedroom. You may decide to clean things up. Or you may decide just to turn off the light.
+61 423 784 504
On Mar 3, 2021, at 11:42 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:
I think you've put your finger on an irreconcilable problem with
Enterprise Search. In an organisation, we can divide our knowledge
artefacts into three basic buckets:
- Corporate knowledge - an explicit representation of
organisational knowledge about processes, practices, values
and/or decision making priorities which are meant to be acted
upon by employees regardless of their personal feelings on the
topic in question
- Pooled knowledge - a composite of information artefacts
representing knowledge from a range of people and teams with
some form of quality assurance or validation applied. Unlike
corporate knowledge, pooled knowledge isn't definitively right
or wrong but is shared to improve productivity and quality of
outcomes. It is expected that people will use their own
judgement on how to apply it correctly.
- Situated knowledge - information artefacts tied to
knowledge primarily relevant to a single individual or team.
Attempts to interpret this knowledge from outside the team
without active mentoring or training is likely to fail due to
missing context or capability factors.
Since "enterprise" search by its very definition assumes a single
interface to access all three kinds of content, it's no wonder
that users get confused about the purpose of results.
More to your point, I agree that it makes sense to have a class
of corporate knowledge that is unambiguously definitive, because
you want people to act as part of the whole, not individually. But
removing all autonomy in knowledge search is a very "command and
control" mentality and pretty brave in a world where localised
knowledge assessment and decision-making is pretty-well agreed to
be a more resilient option.
Executive, Information Management
M: 0401 829 096