|
September 2006 SIKM Call: Steve Denning - interactive conversation about KM themes
#monthly-call
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
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
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
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: Time for the monthly call
#monthly-call
#poll
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: to the drivers for sharing best practices and knowledge? As an adjunct tothis, what types of recognition have worked for other companies toinitiate and continue momentum toward a sharing culture--i.e. programs in place,knowledge that is idle."and Artisthttps://www.mcdwmi.com/content/mcdonalds/wmi/smas/businessresearch/gbr .html documents is confidential, may be privileged, and is intended solely for theperson 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. Unauthorizedreview,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 inerror, please return the e-mail and attachments to the sender and deletethe e-mail and attachments and any copy from your system. McDonald's thanksyou 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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: Complex Knowledge
#research
Valdis Krebs <valdis@...>
Does Patti mention the company/industry and year of the Cross study?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: Concept Products & KM?
#knowledge-sharing
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|