Date   

September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes #monthly-call

Doug Madgic &#92;(dmadgic&#92;) <dmadgic@...>
 
Edited

I think it has been mentioned before, but in case anyone missed it, the
Economist 2020 article (referenced towards the end of today's call) can
be found at the following url:

http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=eiu_Cisco_Foresight_2020

A couple interesting data points from the survey relevant to today's
discussion of communities, collaboration and intangibles: Senior
executives polled report that as basic business processes become more
and more automated, the value and competitive advantage "will lie in
hard-to-replicate personal relationships between employees, customers
and suppliers." Collaborative relationships will take on a higher
competitive importance and getting high value interactions right will be
an imperative challenge. The Foresight authors predict that generally
the "focus of management attention will be on areas of the business,
from innovation to customer service, where personal chemistry or
creative insight matter more than rules and processes."

Regards,

Doug


Re: September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes #monthly-call

Chris Riemer
 

Greetings, all...
 
Way back in 1998, I attended a Delphi Group conference that was billed as the first International Knowledge Management Summit. Some of you were likely there in San Diego; Peter Drucker was the keynote speaker.
 
In his Q&A, someone asked if those of us who were hoping to ride this "nascent megatrend," as Gartner had described it, should be worried about the fact that "Knowledge Management" sounded so impossibly high-falutin' and fluffy. In those days, if you told someone you were in KM you were most likely to get either a blank look, or a snicker. (And it hasn't changed all that much, really...)
 
Drucker's response was that it probably would be better if it were called something else, but there wasn't anything to be done about it. KM was what it was, and nothing short of armed revolt would be able to change it.
 
So while I think it's interesting to consider what is correctly meant by "knowledge," and perhaps to set the scope of that discussion, I ultimately need to tell the story to clients and potential clients (or in an earlier life, to my managers, and my managers' managers). In that context, the definition of Knowledge is going to derive more from what the audience already believes it to be, than from what I want to tell them it is.
 
Just my two cents,
 
Chris
 
Chris Riemer
Principal
Knowledge Street LLC
+1 973 292 2949



From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Matthew Moore
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:02 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Agenda for Sep 19

Steve & Co,
 
I cannot make the call as it's dark here in Sydney but I will offer the following comments & further questions:
 
1. Yes it does but does the prevalence of half-truths & complete nonsense in other areas of management theory & practice prevent them from continuing?
 
2. Ban the use of the word "knowledge". I am a Blank Manager. From a practitioner point of view, the focus should be on getting a clear understanding of the business need & the effectiveness of different initiatives to meet those needs. There is now a lot of evidence & experience about the effectiveness of different initiatives but much of that does not seem to be used. How do we get better at learning from other people's mistak- er, experiments.
3.Drucker is right in that work patterns will be different in the 21st Century - but he's probably wrong the specifics (as most management science fiction writers tend to be). Given that most public corporations work on a quarterly basis - my primary concerns are about October rather than the rest of the 21st Century.

4. I suspect there will not be Knowledge Managers in 20 years time - but there will be people creating taxonomies, communities & social networks, doing work ethnography, using narrative - and lots of new cool things too. The critical question for me is: Will our organizations be any less paradoxical & intermittently dysfunctional than than they are now?
 
Have fun y'all.
 
Matt
 
-----Original Message-----
From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Denning
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2006 12:40 AM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Agenda for Sep 19

Further to Stan's message today about the discussion tomorrow: on September 4, I had proposed the following tentative agenda for the discussion:
 
1. Does it matter that the concepts of KM are fuzzy, or that we have a variety of half-truths masquerading as truths?
 
2. Do the radically differing concepts of "knowledge" floating around in KM pose a practical problem for KM? If so, what if anything should be done about it?
 
3. What about Peter Drucker's view that the 21st Century will be "the knowledge era", where "fluff" will replace "stuff" and where the changes will be as “as profound, devastating, far reaching, and unimaginable as the Industrial Revolution"? Is it still valid? Is it already happening? If so, where? If not, will it ever happen? When? How?
 
4. What role will KM play in Drucker's "knowledge era"? Will it be a major or minor role?
 
So far, I haven't received any additional questions for the agenda.
 
ONE COMMENT: I did get one off-line comment. It said: 'I read your attack on Polanyi a couple of times and couldn't figure it out.  I know he can be rough to read.  For example, I stumbled several times in the first 15 pages of his "The Tacit Dimension," but then it rolls.  And his statement, "we know more than we can say," (his tag line) is so very true.  And we feel more than we can say, and we know and feel more than we can really put together.  Therefore, the "putting together" of this is really a process, and not a "think."'
 
MY RESPONSE: I don't see myself as attacking Polanyi (apart from noting his tortured prose and the fact that his notion of knowledge is in some ways at odds with that of other groups). Rather I am pointing out that different groups of people talk about "knowledge" in radically different ways. I "get" what Polanyi is trying to say, in his agonizing fashion, just as (I think) I also get what the philosophers and Nonaka are saying. Each seems to be saying that it is "obvious" that their view of knowledge is right and the other views are wrong. So who's right? I don't know who's right. My conclusion is the same as Plato''s: "beats me!" But I do believe however they can't all be right in their different claims to say what knowledge "really" is. So I'm noting the ambiguity in the terminology. My question for the KM discussion tomorrow: does this cause practical problems in KM? Or is it just an irrelevant academic squabble?
 
INVITATION: If participants have suggestions for the agenda, they might send them to me and I can adjust it accordingly.
 
Steve Denning
Discover the discipline of business narrative
and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
Phone: 202 966 9392
Fax:   202 686 0591
 



From: Garfield, Stan [mailto:stanley.garfield@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 8:59 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Reminder: SI KM Leaders Monthly Con Call - September 19: Steve Denning leads an interactive conversation about KM themes

To: Consulting & SI KM Leaders Community Members

This is a reminder of tomorrow's monthly con call.  This call will feature Steve Denning leading an interactive conversation about KM themes.

There are no slides for this call.  Instead, please read Steve's message at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/message/267 and his two papers, "Making Sense of the Knowledge Era: 13 Myths of Knowledge Management" at http://www.stevedenning.com/slides/SIKM-MythsOfKM.pdf and "Getting Business Value from Knowledge Management" at http://www.stevedenning.com/slides/GettingValueFromKM-Final-Aug06.pdf to prepare for the discussion.

Here are the results of the poll on changing the time of future monthly calls:

·       Keep the time unchanged (11 am USA Eastern) - 4 votes

·       Change to 3pm USA Eastern  - 9 votes

·       Rotate between 11 am and 5 pm USA Eastern  - 5 votes

·       Rotate between 3pm, 9pm and 5am for each region - 2 votes

Based on this feedback, and starting with next month's call, we will change the time from 11am to 3 pm Eastern.

However, tomorrow's call will be at 11 am EDT.  There is no change in time until next month.

Regards,

Stan


September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes #monthly-call

Steve Denning
 

Stan asked: "About the fifth 'myth' in your paper: what are some other examples of when knowledge sharing is not a good thing, and what do you suggest be done about each one?
 
My reply:
 
Hi Stan,
 
Another area would be in disruptive innovation where "the experts" know that what is being proposed isn't going to work and have studies to prove it. e.g. all the sstaff at Sony apart from the CEO who "knew" that the Walkman was a dumb idea and wasn't going to sell. What to do about this? You have to tell the experts that in disruptive innovation, "knowledge" of the experts isn't necessarily the answer.
 
And some people, particularly in developing countries, would argue that some of the economic "knowledge" embodied in "the Washington consensus" view of the world as espoused by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank is the problem, not the solution, and hence shouldn't be shared. What to do about this? My sense is that the mainstream economists do tend to talk only to each other and often seem unwilling to listen to other disciplines. My personal recommendation would be for the World Bank and the IMF to be more open to debate the merits of their "knowledge", particularly with their clients who must live with the consequences of this "knowledge" and particularly with people outside the mainstream of economics.
 
Those are a couple of examples.
 
My point however is not that any particular "myth" or "half-truth" is crippling, but rather that, taken together, they tend to create a blur.
 
Does that matter? If not, I suggest we drop the whole subject. :-}
 
But if yes, then should something be done about it and if so what?
 
Steve Denning
Discover the discipline of business narrative
and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
Email: steve@...
Phone: 202 966 9392
Fax:   202 686 0591
 


Re: September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes #monthly-call

Matthew Moore <matthew.moore@...>
 

Steve & Co,
 
I cannot make the call as it's dark here in Sydney but I will offer the following comments & further questions:
 
1. Yes it does but does the prevalence of half-truths & complete nonsense in other areas of management theory & practice prevent them from continuing?
 
2. Ban the use of the word "knowledge". I am a Blank Manager. From a practitioner point of view, the focus should be on getting a clear understanding of the business need & the effectiveness of different initiatives to meet those needs. There is now a lot of evidence & experience about the effectiveness of different initiatives but much of that does not seem to be used. How do we get better at learning from other people's mistak- er, experiments.
3.Drucker is right in that work patterns will be different in the 21st Century - but he's probably wrong the specifics (as most management science fiction writers tend to be). Given that most public corporations work on a quarterly basis - my primary concerns are about October rather than the rest of the 21st Century.

4. I suspect there will not be Knowledge Managers in 20 years time - but there will be people creating taxonomies, communities & social networks, doing work ethnography, using narrative - and lots of new cool things too. The critical question for me is: Will our organizations be any less paradoxical & intermittently dysfunctional than than they are now?
 
Have fun y'all.
 
Matt
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]On Behalf Of Steve Denning
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2006 12:40 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Agenda for Sep 19

Further to Stan's message today about the discussion tomorrow: on September 4, I had proposed the following tentative agenda for the discussion:
 
1. Does it matter that the concepts of KM are fuzzy, or that we have a variety of half-truths masquerading as truths?
 
2. Do the radically differing concepts of "knowledge" floating around in KM pose a practical problem for KM? If so, what if anything should be done about it?
 
3. What about Peter Drucker's view that the 21st Century will be "the knowledge era", where "fluff" will replace "stuff" and where the changes will be as “as profound, devastating, far reaching, and unimaginable as the Industrial Revolution"? Is it still valid? Is it already happening? If so, where? If not, will it ever happen? When? How?
 
4. What role will KM play in Drucker's "knowledge era"? Will it be a major or minor role?
 
So far, I haven't received any additional questions for the agenda.
 
ONE COMMENT: I did get one off-line comment. It said: 'I read your attack on Polanyi a couple of times and couldn't figure it out.  I know he can be rough to read.  For example, I stumbled several times in the first 15 pages of his "The Tacit Dimension," but then it rolls.  And his statement, "we know more than we can say," (his tag line) is so very true.  And we feel more than we can say, and we know and feel more than we can really put together.  Therefore, the "putting together" of this is really a process, and not a "think."'
 
MY RESPONSE: I don't see myself as attacking Polanyi (apart from noting his tortured prose and the fact that his notion of knowledge is in some ways at odds with that of other groups). Rather I am pointing out that different groups of people talk about "knowledge" in radically different ways. I "get" what Polanyi is trying to say, in his agonizing fashion, just as (I think) I also get what the philosophers and Nonaka are saying. Each seems to be saying that it is "obvious" that their view of knowledge is right and the other views are wrong. So who's right? I don't know who's right. My conclusion is the same as Plato''s: "beats me!" But I do believe however they can't all be right in their different claims to say what knowledge "really" is. So I'm noting the ambiguity in the terminology. My question for the KM discussion tomorrow: does this cause practical problems in KM? Or is it just an irrelevant academic squabble?
 
INVITATION: If participants have suggestions for the agenda, they might send them to me and I can adjust it accordingly.
 
Steve Denning
Discover the discipline of business narrative
and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
Phone: 202 966 9392
Fax:   202 686 0591
 



From: Garfield, Stan [mailto:stanley.garfield@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 8:59 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Reminder: SI KM Leaders Monthly Con Call - September 19: Steve Denning leads an interactive conversation about KM themes

To: Consulting & SI KM Leaders Community Members

This is a reminder of tomorrow's monthly con call.  This call will feature Steve Denning leading an interactive conversation about KM themes.

There are no slides for this call.  Instead, please read Steve's message at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/message/267 and his two papers, "Making Sense of the Knowledge Era: 13 Myths of Knowledge Management" at http://www.stevedenning.com/slides/SIKM-MythsOfKM.pdf and "Getting Business Value from Knowledge Management" at http://www.stevedenning.com/slides/GettingValueFromKM-Final-Aug06.pdf to prepare for the discussion.

Here are the results of the poll on changing the time of future monthly calls:

·       Keep the time unchanged (11 am USA Eastern) - 4 votes

·       Change to 3pm USA Eastern  - 9 votes

·       Rotate between 11 am and 5 pm USA Eastern  - 5 votes

·       Rotate between 3pm, 9pm and 5am for each region - 2 votes

Based on this feedback, and starting with next month's call, we will change the time from 11am to 3 pm Eastern.

However, tomorrow's call will be at 11 am EDT.  There is no change in time until next month.

Regards,

Stan


Re: September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes #monthly-call

Steve Denning
 

Tom,
 
You raised a question about John Seely Brown's point that knowledge sometimes seems to be both sticky and leaky, giving the example of Xerox PARC as an example where knowledge leaked out the door with astonishing rapidity to the benefit of Apple and others.
 
You say: "Yet it could be argued that what 'leaked' out of PARC was not knowledge, per se, but rather an idea which could be considered intellectual capital' which in turn could be considered a type of 'content.' The knowledge that gave rise to the idea was embodied in the scientists. And *that* knowledge is sticky, and difficult to transfer."
 
I would agree that in a formal sense all knowledge is sticky in that it can't strictly speaking be transferred, whatever the definition of knowledge you adopt. Only information can be transferred. It only becomes knowledge in someone else once it is internalized by that other person.
 
What JSB is referring to, I think, is that the relative speed by which knowledge starts in one person and ends up in another person can sometimes be very slow ("sticky") and sometimes amazingly rapid ("leaky").
 
The knowledge involved in repairing Xerox machines didn't fly out the door at all, and even travel at all from one part of Xerox to another. It stuck right where it was until there was an elaborate knowledge sharing scheme in place -- the Eureka program.
 
By contrast, the high value knowledge that started out in the minds of scientists in Xerox PARC and ended up in Apple and elsewhere didn't need an elaborate knowledge sharing scheme at all for the "transfer" to occur. It flew out the door with the speed of light. All that had to happen was for Steve Jobs to see what they were up to in Xerox PARC and realize in a flash, "That's it!" -- a solution to the very problem he was working on.
 
I have seen this phenomenon occur in other contexts, so I don't believe it is merely an urban legend.
 
It's in this sense that I think JSB has a point when he says knowledge can be both sticky and leaky.
 
Steve Denning
Discover the discipline of business narrative
and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
Email: steve@...
Phone: 202 966 9392
Fax:   202 686 0591


Re: September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes #monthly-call

Steve Denning
 

Tom,
 
Thanks for this helpful note and the link to Larry's paper.
 
I certainly don't want to propose a semantic discussion today.
 
I am pointing out that there seem to be quite different concepts of knowledge floating around out there.
 
My question for the group is a pragmatic one: does this cause practical problems? If not, let's forget the whole issue. But if so, what, if anything, should be done about it?
 
Larry's paper is helpful in noting the four Greek concepts of knowledge:
 
"The Greeks had Episteme, from which we derive Epistomolgy. This word meant repeatable rules, codified and universal. In other words, Science. Then they had Techne, from which we get technology. This term meant something like craft, or capability The though being that person so endowed would be able to DO something that was neither pure thought or pure manual activity.A third term was Phronesis, which we would probably understand as emotional intelligence, or social skills. Its what good managers, therapists, and teachers have,. A very interesting fourth term was Metis, which has no current term but is closest to savvy, cunning or street smart."
 
These terms can be (roughly) mapped on to the matrix I drew up, as follows:

 

Episteme

Techne

Phronesis

Metis

Know that

x

 

 

 

Know how

 

X (technical)

X (social)

X (smarts)

Both know that and know how

x

x

x

x

Does it matter? Larry's note argues that it does matter: that tens of billions have been wasted on building knowledge systems, and that this could have been avoided with a clearer understanding of what is meant by "knowledge". Is that correct? Are billions still being wasted? Are billions more at risk?
 
I'll be interested to hear what the group thinks: particularly, if it does matter, what if anything should be done about it?
 
Steve Denning
Discover the discipline of business narrative
and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
Email: steve@...
Phone: 202 966 9392
Fax:   202 686 0591
 


Re: September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes #monthly-call

Tom Short <tom.short@...>
 
Edited

Steve, group - I have downloaded, printed, read and marked up Steve's
two articles in preparation for our discussion tomorrow. I see
within Steve's articles inconsistencies in the use of the
term "knowledge." For instance, is an idea knowledge, information, or
something else?? The PARC example is used to illustrate how "leaky"
knowledge is, as opposed to being "sticky", as is often claimed.

Yet it could be argued that what "leaked" out of PARC was not
knowledge, per se, but rather an idea which could be
considered "intellectual capital" which in turn could be considered a
type of "content." The knowledge that gave rise to the idea was
embodied in the scientists. And *that* knowledge is sticky, and
difficult to transfer.

To bring more focus to what could devolve quickly into a semantic
argument, I therefore submit the following very brief online item
written by Larry Prusak about a set of definitions around knowledge
given to us by the ancient Greeks.
http://www.babsonknowledge.org/2005/12/the_four_names_for_knowledge.ht
m

Looking forward to the discussion.

-Tom Short
Principal, Knowledge Management CoE
Pacific Gas & Electric


Re: September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes #monthly-call

Steve Denning
 

Further to Stan's message today about the discussion tomorrow: on September 4, I had proposed the following tentative agenda for the discussion:
 
1. Does it matter that the concepts of KM are fuzzy, or that we have a variety of half-truths masquerading as truths?
 
2. Do the radically differing concepts of "knowledge" floating around in KM pose a practical problem for KM? If so, what if anything should be done about it?
 
3. What about Peter Drucker's view that the 21st Century will be "the knowledge era", where "fluff" will replace "stuff" and where the changes will be as “as profound, devastating, far reaching, and unimaginable as the Industrial Revolution"? Is it still valid? Is it already happening? If so, where? If not, will it ever happen? When? How?
 
4. What role will KM play in Drucker's "knowledge era"? Will it be a major or minor role?
 
So far, I haven't received any additional questions for the agenda.
 
ONE COMMENT: I did get one off-line comment. It said: 'I read your attack on Polanyi a couple of times and couldn't figure it out.  I know he can be rough to read.  For example, I stumbled several times in the first 15 pages of his "The Tacit Dimension," but then it rolls.  And his statement, "we know more than we can say," (his tag line) is so very true.  And we feel more than we can say, and we know and feel more than we can really put together.  Therefore, the "putting together" of this is really a process, and not a "think."'
 
MY RESPONSE: I don't see myself as attacking Polanyi (apart from noting his tortured prose and the fact that his notion of knowledge is in some ways at odds with that of other groups). Rather I am pointing out that different groups of people talk about "knowledge" in radically different ways. I "get" what Polanyi is trying to say, in his agonizing fashion, just as (I think) I also get what the philosophers and Nonaka are saying. Each seems to be saying that it is "obvious" that their view of knowledge is right and the other views are wrong. So who's right? I don't know who's right. My conclusion is the same as Plato''s: "beats me!" But I do believe however they can't all be right in their different claims to say what knowledge "really" is. So I'm noting the ambiguity in the terminology. My question for the KM discussion tomorrow: does this cause practical problems in KM? Or is it just an irrelevant academic squabble?
 
INVITATION: If participants have suggestions for the agenda, they might send them to me and I can adjust it accordingly.
 
Steve Denning
Discover the discipline of business narrative
and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
Email: steve@...
Phone: 202 966 9392
Fax:   202 686 0591
 



From: Garfield, Stan [mailto:stanley.garfield@...]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 8:59 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Reminder: SI KM Leaders Monthly Con Call - September 19: Steve Denning leads an interactive conversation about KM themes

To: Consulting & SI KM Leaders Community Members

This is a reminder of tomorrow's monthly con call.  This call will feature Steve Denning leading an interactive conversation about KM themes.

There are no slides for this call.  Instead, please read Steve's message at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/message/267 and his two papers, "Making Sense of the Knowledge Era: 13 Myths of Knowledge Management" at http://www.stevedenning.com/slides/SIKM-MythsOfKM.pdf and "Getting Business Value from Knowledge Management" at http://www.stevedenning.com/slides/GettingValueFromKM-Final-Aug06.pdf to prepare for the discussion.

Here are the results of the poll on changing the time of future monthly calls:

·       Keep the time unchanged (11 am USA Eastern) - 4 votes

·       Change to 3pm USA Eastern  - 9 votes

·       Rotate between 11 am and 5 pm USA Eastern  - 5 votes

·       Rotate between 3pm, 9pm and 5am for each region - 2 votes

Based on this feedback, and starting with next month's call, we will change the time from 11am to 3 pm Eastern.

However, tomorrow's call will be at 11 am EDT.  There is no change in time until next month.

Regards,

Stan


Change Artists - Stories from the real world: CEOs, CIOs and Change #video

Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...>
 

HP offers video interviews, case studies, and white papers from industry leaders.  See "Change Artists - Stories from the real world: CEOs, CIOs and Change" at http://www.hp.com/changeartists for details.

 

Regards,

Stan

 


Re: Time for the monthly call #monthly-call #poll

steven.wieneke@...
 

Let's agree to have Steve Denning's teleconference at 3pm USA Eastern on
September 19th. If someone wants to create a rotating schedule for the
future, go for it!




"Kaplan Bill"
<Bill.Kaplan@acqs To: <sikmleaders@...>
olinc.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders
sikmleaders@yahoo
groups.com


09/06/2006 08:13
AM
Please respond to
sikmleaders






I’m flexible








From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On
Behalf Of Patrick Lambe Green Chameleon SG
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 21:41
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders





Speaking at -2 hours from Shawn, I agree.. a rotation would be fairest.





Patrick

----- Original Message -----


From: Shawn Callahan


To: sikmleaders@...


Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:06 AM


Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders





Sorry to be a pain. But isn't there another obvious question for the
poll? Rotate the times between 3pm, 9pm and 5am for each region. This
would be a fair approach where everyone had good and bad times.





Cheers





Shawn








From: sikmleaders@...
[mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 6 September 2006 6:21 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders



Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
sikmleaders group:

Shawn Callahan wrote: "While I would love to join everyone
on the 19th for the conversation with Steve Denning, people
in Asia Pacific like myself will need to be on the call at
1am or later. Is there any chance of rotating the times to
take account of sikmleaders becoming a global network."

Steve Denning replied: "Other groups that I have
participated in have found that 3pm US Eastern time is the
least-bad global compromise. It means 9pm in Europe which is
late and 5 am in Australia, which is early, (but arguably
better than 1 am.)"

Question: What do the members want to do?


o Keep the time unchanged (11 am USA Eastern)
o Change to 3pm USA Eastern
o Rotate between 11 am and 5 pm USA Eastern
o Change to some other fixed time (please send to Stan)
o Change to rotate between some other times (please send to
Stan)

To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/surveys?id=1675798

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo!
Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!


Re: Time for the monthly call #monthly-call #poll

Patrick Lambe
 

Speaking at -2 hours from Shawn, I agree.. a rotation would be fairest.
 
Patrick
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:06 AM
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders

Sorry to be a pain. But isn't there another obvious question for the poll? Rotate the times between 3pm, 9pm and 5am for each region. This would be a fair approach where everyone had good and bad times.
 
Cheers
 
Shawn


From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 6 September 2006 6:21 AM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders


Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
sikmleaders group:

Shawn Callahan wrote: "While I would love to join everyone
on the 19th for the conversation with Steve Denning, people
in Asia Pacific like myself will need to be on the call at
1am or later. Is there any chance of rotating the times to
take account of sikmleaders becoming a global network."

Steve Denning replied: "Other groups that I have
participated in have found that 3pm US Eastern time is the
least-bad global compromise. It means 9pm in Europe which is
late and 5 am in Australia, which is early, (but arguably
better than 1 am.)"

Question: What do the members want to do?


o Keep the time unchanged (11 am USA Eastern)
o Change to 3pm USA Eastern
o Rotate between 11 am and 5 pm USA Eastern
o Change to some other fixed time (please send to Stan)
o Change to rotate between some other times (please send to Stan)

To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/surveys?id=1675798

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!


Re: Time for the monthly call #monthly-call #poll

Shawn Callahan
 

Sorry to be a pain. But isn't there another obvious question for the poll? Rotate the times between 3pm, 9pm and 5am for each region. This would be a fair approach where everyone had good and bad times.
 
Cheers
 
Shawn


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 6 September 2006 6:21 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders


Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
sikmleaders group:

Shawn Callahan wrote: "While I would love to join everyone
on the 19th for the conversation with Steve Denning, people
in Asia Pacific like myself will need to be on the call at
1am or later. Is there any chance of rotating the times to
take account of sikmleaders becoming a global network."

Steve Denning replied: "Other groups that I have
participated in have found that 3pm US Eastern time is the
least-bad global compromise. It means 9pm in Europe which is
late and 5 am in Australia, which is early, (but arguably
better than 1 am.)"

Question: What do the members want to do?


o Keep the time unchanged (11 am USA Eastern)
o Change to 3pm USA Eastern
o Rotate between 11 am and 5 pm USA Eastern
o Change to some other fixed time (please send to Stan)
o Change to rotate between some other times (please send to Stan)

To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/surveys?id=1675798

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!


Time for the monthly call #monthly-call #poll

sikmleaders@...
 

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
sikmleaders group:

Shawn Callahan wrote: "While I would love to join everyone
on the 19th for the conversation with Steve Denning, people
in Asia Pacific like myself will need to be on the call at
1am or later. Is there any chance of rotating the times to
take account of sikmleaders becoming a global network."

Steve Denning replied: "Other groups that I have
participated in have found that 3pm US Eastern time is the
least-bad global compromise. It means 9pm in Europe which is
late and 5 am in Australia, which is early, (but arguably
better than 1 am.)"

Question: What do the members want to do?


o Keep the time unchanged (11 am USA Eastern)
o Change to 3pm USA Eastern
o Rotate between 11 am and 5 pm USA Eastern
o Change to some other fixed time (please send to Stan)
o Change to rotate between some other times (please send to Stan)


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/surveys?id=1675798

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!


Time for the monthly call #monthly-call #poll

Shawn Callahan
 

Hi Stan,

While I would love to join everyone on the 19th for the conversation
with Steve Denning, people in Asia Pacific like myself will need to be
on the call at 1am or later. Is there any chance of rotating the times
to take account of sikmleaders becoming a global network.

Thanks for your great work in keeping this group running.

Regards

Shawn Callahan


September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes #monthly-call

Steve Denning
 

Hi all,
 
As you may know, I'm the designated "presenter" for September 19.
 
But what I'd like to propose is that, rather than my giving a presentation, that instead we have an "interactive conversation" about KM themes prompted by a couple of papers I've written recently.
 
In other words, I would like to invite people to read at least the first paper in advance, so that I won't have to spend time grinding through the material on the telephone at the session. In this way, we would have time for a discussion.
 
One paper is entitled "Making Sense of the Knowledge Era: 13 Myths of Knowledge Management". This paper is aimed at KM practitioners and is intended to be provocative. It raises questions rather than providing answers. It can be downloaded from:
 
The other is entitled "Getting Business Value from Knowledge Management". This paper is an advance version of an article being published by Strategy & Leadership. It was commissioned by the S&L editor to be read by senior managers who are trying to make sense of knowledge management. I'm not sure that the KM practitioners in this group will find anything particularly new in this paper, but it might be useful to have it in the background as a paper that summarizes some of the fairly conventional wisdom about KM and that one might give to senior managers who want to get started in this field. It can be downloaded from:
 
If people can read at least the first paper, then we might have a conversation about the broader practical questions that emerge. (Any nitpicks on points of detail could be dealt with on the list itself.)
 
For instance, some of the broader questions that I'm interested in discussing include:
 
1. Does it matter that the concepts of KM are very fuzzy, or that we have a variety of half-truths masquerading as truths?
 
2. Do the radically differing concepts of "knowledge" floating around in KM pose a practical problem for KM? If so, what if anything should be done about it?
 
3. What about Peter Drucker's view that the 21st Century will be the knowledge era, where "fluff" will replace "stuff" and where the changes will be as “as profound, devastating, far reaching, and unimaginable as the Industrial Revolution"? Is it still valid? Is it already happening? If so, where? If not, will it ever happen? When? How?
 
4. What role will KM play in Drucker's "knowledge era"? Will it be a major or minor role?
 
If participants have other questions, they might submit them on the list and we can make up an agenda of issues that people want to talk about on September 19.
 
Thus on September 19, we would have a list of questions to discuss. I would talk for about five minutes on the first question and then throw the floor open for discussion, which might go on for about 10-15 minutes. Then we might tackle another question. And so on.
 
I hope you'll join me for this conversation.
 
Steve Denning
Discover the discipline of business narrative
and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
Email: steve@...
Phone: 202 966 9392
Fax:   202 686 0591
 


Accenture publishes book - "Return on Learning" - request a copy here #books #learning #value

Matthew Moore <matthew.moore@...>
 

Thomas,
 
Got my copy of Accenture's Return on Learning. Very interesting read. The section on KM ended with a reference to Tad Whittington's work on ROI. How far has that got now?
 
Regards,
 
Matt


Re: Query about recognition and drivers for sharing #motivation

Tom Short <tom.short@...>
 

Hello Diana -

Some approaches to consider:

1. After Action Reviews: US Army, Center for Lessons Learned (CALL);
and the US Forest Service's Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center
(www.wildfirelessons.net)

2. Chrysler Engineering Books of Knowledge (no pointers for this)

3. As others have mentioned, anything that provides recognition.
McKinzie (the consultants) used a system of highlighting the most
popular downloaded consulting briefs from their intranet - posting
the titles and authors on the top10 or top20 list on their enterprise
portal. This can work well as it incents not only contributions, but
also recognizes popularity of the item (which could be thought of as
a proxy for reuse).

Which is another often-overlooked aspect of k-sharing attempts:
don't forget to focus on reuse. Sharing only puts it out there.
Value is generally not gained until someone a) finds it; and b) re-
uses it. These are distinctly different challenges - and people tend
to focus heavily on a) and not a lot or at all on b). Unfortunately,
without reuse, nothing good happens.

Metrics and reuse awards are some ways to track and incent reuse.

Good luck.

--- In sikmleaders@..., dianna.wiggins@... wrote:


Does anyone have any learnings or best practices to share in regard
to the
drivers for sharing best practices and knowledge? As an adjunct to
this,
what types of recognition have worked for other companies to
initiate and
continue momentum toward a sharing culture--i.e. programs in place,
events, special business cards, points systems, etc.

Thanks to all for input on this,

Dianna


Note that our email path has changed to dianna.wiggins@... Please
update your records accordingly.

Dianna K. Wiggins
Global Consumer & Business Insights, COB 1 South
McDonald's Corporation
office: 630.623.2258
fax: 630.623.7141
dianna.wiggins@...

"A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much
knowledge
that is idle."
--Kahlil Gibran (1833-1931), Lebanese-American Poet, Philosopher
and
Artist

Visit Business Research site at
https://www.mcdwmi.com/content/mcdonalds/wmi/smas/businessresearch/gbr
.html

The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying
documents is
confidential, may be privileged, and is intended solely for the
person and/or
entity to whom it is addressed (i.e. those identified in the "To"
and "cc"
box). They are the property of McDonald's Corporation. Unauthorized
review,use,
disclosure, or copying of this communication, or any part thereof,
is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in
error,
please return the e-mail and attachments to the sender and delete
the e-mail
and attachments and any copy from your system. McDonald's thanks
you for your
cooperation.


Re: Complex Knowledge #research

William Ives <iveswilliam@...>
 

Not the firm but here is the reference - Cross, Parker, Prusack, Borgatti - "Knowing what we know... in Organizational Dynamics, Elsevier, Vol. 30, Issue 2, 2001 - Maybe Rob, Larry or Steve might tell you. 


On Aug 31, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Valdis Krebs wrote:

Does Patti mention the company/industry and year of the Cross study?   

There is the popular meme out there that everything is done by email and Google these days... which of course is wrong.  Google is great for background, but actual knowledge transfer [excluding very simple info/data] is best done real time, face-to-face... IMHO.

Valdis


On Aug 31, 2006, at 9:38 AM, William Ives wrote:

Nice study. Patti Anklam, in her excellent Ark report on social networking, quotes a study by Rob Cross and others that found 85% of mangers in a well known company received the knowledge for important projects from other people. The 15% who looked to information systems (such as formal KM) were new to the organization and had not yet developed their social networks. 

I also frequently find the most interesting new stuff by looking into the trackbacks and comments in my blog. Bill


On Aug 25, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Valdis Krebs wrote:

I often discover neat new knowledge by looking at who points/links/refers to my web site. 

This morning I was reviewing who visited my web site and saw a link from a Scottish govt organization. Reading the page that linked to my web site I saw this interesting study...

Research reveals how knowledge is accessed within organisations:
       • Employees brains 42 per cent
   • Paper documents 26 per cent
   • Electronic documents 20 per cent
   • Electronic knowledge bases 12 per cent

(Source: The Delphi Group)

The complex knowledge held in people's brains is what gives an organisation its competitive advantage. It is context sensitive and cannot be codified, written down and stored.


Not a good study for those who believe I/T solves everything. Too bad the year of the study was not given. But, given the source of the study, I would guess it is not before the internet became popular. 

Valdis


 


Re: Complex Knowledge #research

Valdis Krebs <valdis@...>
 

Does Patti mention the company/industry and year of the Cross study?

There is the popular meme out there that everything is done by email
and Google these days... which of course is wrong. Google is great for
background, but actual knowledge transfer [excluding very simple
info/data] is best done real time, face-to-face... IMHO.

Valdis

On Aug 31, 2006, at 9:38 AM, William Ives wrote:

Nice study. Patti Anklam, in her excellent Ark report on social
networking, quotes a study by Rob Cross and others that found 85% of
mangers in a well known company received the knowledge for important
projects from other people. The 15% who looked to information systems
(such as formal KM) were new to the organization and had not yet
developed their social networks. 

I also frequently find the most interesting new stuff by looking into
the trackbacks and comments in my blog. Bill


On Aug 25, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Valdis Krebs wrote:

I often discover neat new knowledge by looking at who
points/links/refers to my web site.

This morning I was reviewing who visited my web site and saw a link
from a Scottish govt organization. Reading the page that linked to my
web site I saw this interesting study...

Research reveals how knowledge is accessed within organisations:
• Employees brains 42 per cent
• Paper documents 26 per cent
• Electronic documents 20 per cent
• Electronic knowledge bases 12 per cent

(Source: The Delphi Group)

The complex knowledge held in people's brains is what gives an
organisation its competitive advantage. It is context sensitive and
cannot be codified, written down and stored.
http://engage.comms.gov.uk/knowledge-bank/internal-communication/
successful-internal-communication/5-creating-a-knowledge-sharing-
culture.html

Not a good study for those who believe I/T solves everything. Too bad
the year of the study was not given. But, given the source of the
study, I would guess it is not before the internet became popular.

Valdis


Re: Concept Products & KM? #knowledge-sharing

Tom Short <tom.short@...>
 
Edited

Hello David Smith. Do we know each other? Do you know Dan Ranta?

In any case, two thoughts:

1. Scenario Planning (viz, Global Business Network)
2. QFD (Quality Function Deployment)

Good luck.

9761 - 9780 of 9974