Date   

Re: PKM solution using SharePoint & other MS tools #PKM #SharePoint

Jack Vinson <jackvinson@...>
 

My first reaction is that I can't think of much "personal" about SharePoint, but there are some possibilities if you can hook intelligently into Outlook (where people spend FAR too much of their time).  Like the widgets that show network activity of people in an email - both within the SharePoint network and in the larger network, such as on LinkedIn.  Maybe there is something similar for Yammer?

And SharePoint does have capability for blogs and personal file shares. But I don't know how effective people are finding these tools - and how likely they are to use them, even if they do exist.



Regards-

-- 
Jack Vinson
(m) 847.212.5789



On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Andre <andregalitsky@...> wrote:
I'm working on developing a Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) solution for a potential client.  They're a Microsoft shop and want to leverage SharePoint 2010 and other MS tools (OneNote, etc.).  Just wondering if anyone can share their thoughts/experiences on doing something like this.

Thank you for your time.

Andre Galitsky
Richmond, VA



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    sikmleaders-digest@...
    sikmleaders-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    sikmleaders-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Murray Jennex
 

I'm in the process of validating a KM success model that will satisfy the below question (at least in my mind it does) but it is a good question and one I've been working on for a few years, even hosting a KM value symposium at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences and a special issue on the topic in the International Journal of Knowledge Management.  An interesting observation on the below is that when I first started researching KM success measurement I had several tell me to stop as it defines KM too much.  Personally I feel you have to be able to measure when something is successful for it to have any value.  Thanks...murray
 

In a message dated 1/4/2013 2:35:19 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, km@... writes:
Hi Gordon & Chris,

You're right that a tailored roadmap is obviously less prescriptive than
an approach with defined endpoints.  But the problem with KM is getting
beyond method to evidence.

It's all very well to say "B is a better state to be in than A", but
where's our proof?  Bluntly, what basis do KM practitioners have for
many of their recommendations beyond faith?  It's very difficult to
generalise cause and effect beyond the anecdotal success of individual
organisations at the moment.

Realistically, in most cases our only way forward is safe-fail
experimentation.  KM techniques like positive deviance are a good
starting point (identifying a demonstrated improvement on what is
possible and using as a candidate for broader adoption) since the
evidential component is baked in to the technique itself.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

On 4/01/2013 9:04 AM, Gordon Vala-Webb wrote:
> "I use predefined maturity models  - / . . /with clients where it's
> helpful to them to have some explicit statements of "what's possible""
>
>
> My sense is that you use maturity models (among other things) to
> generate discussion. I can see the attraction of doing so.
>
> However I do think it is not what maturity models are intended to be. My
> understanding is that they are about "what should be" (rather than "what
> is possible") along some linear, hierarchical, path. That is - that
> there is a fixed number of states, organizations go through each state
> in sequence, and each state in the sequence is "higher" than the one
> before. Furthermore, every outside observer would agree as to what those
> stages are and which stage the organization is at. And so maturity
> models are typically used to assess where the organization is along that
> path (i.e. to see how "mature" or "immature" according to the model) -
> and to identify what they need to do next to move to the next stage.
>
> I just don't think we have - for KM - a robust and validated maturity
> model. And the danger of presenting them is that it may suggest a
> "maturity" that doesn't exist (or an immaturity) and leads organizations
> to follow them blindly.
>
> The solution is simple (if you want to generate discussion with
> organizational leaders): retitle "maturity models" and call them
> "Possible road map". And give organizations a couple to look at (all,
> obviously, related to their industry, size, etc.).
>
>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    sikmleaders-digest@...
    sikmleaders-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    sikmleaders-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


PKM solution using SharePoint & other MS tools #PKM #SharePoint

Andre <andregalitsky@...>
 

I'm working on developing a Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) solution for a potential client. They're a Microsoft shop and want to leverage SharePoint 2010 and other MS tools (OneNote, etc.). Just wondering if anyone can share their thoughts/experiences on doing something like this.

Thank you for your time.

Andre Galitsky
Richmond, VA


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Gordon & Chris,

You're right that a tailored roadmap is obviously less prescriptive than an approach with defined endpoints. But the problem with KM is getting beyond method to evidence.

It's all very well to say "B is a better state to be in than A", but where's our proof? Bluntly, what basis do KM practitioners have for many of their recommendations beyond faith? It's very difficult to generalise cause and effect beyond the anecdotal success of individual organisations at the moment.

Realistically, in most cases our only way forward is safe-fail experimentation. KM techniques like positive deviance are a good starting point (identifying a demonstrated improvement on what is possible and using as a candidate for broader adoption) since the evidential component is baked in to the technique itself.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

On 4/01/2013 9:04 AM, Gordon Vala-Webb wrote:
"I use predefined maturity models - / . . /with clients where it's
helpful to them to have some explicit statements of "what's possible""


My sense is that you use maturity models (among other things) to
generate discussion. I can see the attraction of doing so.

However I do think it is not what maturity models are intended to be. My
understanding is that they are about "what should be" (rather than "what
is possible") along some linear, hierarchical, path. That is - that
there is a fixed number of states, organizations go through each state
in sequence, and each state in the sequence is "higher" than the one
before. Furthermore, every outside observer would agree as to what those
stages are and which stage the organization is at. And so maturity
models are typically used to assess where the organization is along that
path (i.e. to see how "mature" or "immature" according to the model) -
and to identify what they need to do next to move to the next stage.

I just don't think we have - for KM - a robust and validated maturity
model. And the danger of presenting them is that it may suggest a
"maturity" that doesn't exist (or an immaturity) and leads organizations
to follow them blindly.

The solution is simple (if you want to generate discussion with
organizational leaders): retitle "maturity models" and call them
"Possible road map". And give organizations a couple to look at (all,
obviously, related to their industry, size, etc.).


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Murray Jennex
 

I did research on maturity models for DHS and reviewed many.  One pattern that became apparent is that they are all essentially the same with respect to organizational culture, the organization starts from a chaotic, unmanaged/unplanned state and moves through a series of steps to where the organization is working together to manage whatever activity you are evolving.  KM really isn't any different so I have to disagree with you when you say that KM doesn't have a valid maturity model.  Some specifics may be off, some processes mis-identified, but the basic model is there....murray
 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 2:04:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:


"I use predefined maturity models  -  . . with clients where it's helpful to them to have some explicit statements of "what's possible""

My sense is that you use maturity models (among other things) to generate discussion. I can see the attraction of doing so.

However I do think it is not what maturity models are intended to be. My understanding is that they are about "what should be" (rather than "what is possible") along some linear, hierarchical, path. That is - that there is a fixed number of states, organizations go through each state in sequence, and each state in the sequence is "higher" than the one before. Furthermore, every outside observer would agree as to what those stages are and which stage the organization is at. And so maturity models are typically used to assess where the organization is along that path (i.e. to see how "mature" or "immature" according to the model) - and to identify what they need to do next to move to the next stage.

I just don't think we have - for KM - a robust and validated maturity model. And the danger of presenting them is that it may suggest a "maturity" that doesn't exist (or an immaturity) and leads organizations to follow them blindly.

The solution is simple (if you want to generate discussion with organizational leaders): retitle "maturity models" and call them "Possible road map". And give organizations a couple to look at (all, obviously, related to their industry, size, etc.).


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Chris Jones
 

Hey guys,

I knew something interesting was up by the rapid-fire SIKM posts. The thread piqued my interest. Great thinking and solid samples shared by all. Call me crazy, but I think we can find common ground ..

As intuitive and popular as it may be, to me, the challenge with the traditional, linear stair-step maturity metaphor ("up and to the right" is good) is that it oversimplifies the complexities of KM .. the source of Gordon's heart burn .. ? 

Any model, by (my) definition, is a rough approximation of reality that, if well designed, helps explain it. 

No harm no foul .. but considerable complexity is left of a linear maturity model.

So I love where Kate went on the dimensional approach, because adding multiple dimensions is a better fit to help us understand people, knowledge, and any would-be learning organization. Areas like language, culture, trust .. each defined in the local, org-specific context .. are unique dimensions, each with a unique start-point, potential, and maturity horizon. 

This point was made by virtually everyone: each organization is unique, and has unique KM challenges.
There's our common ground .. our start point ..

How might we model this? Draw a circle. From the center, draw a vector for each dimensional factor you care to track, arbitrarily set the end point for each at 100% achievement, and plot a point on that vector showing progress. The gap on each vector is "work to be done."  Connect the dots, and you end up with a simple spider graph.  Area in the "web"is maturity.

Here's the model in concept ..

And here it is applied, showing how it might look "in-use" 

I developed this model to track work that a collaborating task force needed to improve their collaboration potential. 

Some interesting features:  Vectors can be changed to suit needs of the group, which addresses the customization requirement mentioned. 100% is usefully arbitrary, defined/owned by the team as well, and can be moved or left alone, as expectations and capabilities evolve. Ownership is key here. A team that sets their own capability horizon will be more invested in working towards it.

If there are still open issues here, I'd be tempted to cite Wittgenstein on "failure to agree on terms" .. because much of the debate in this thread has been on terminology .. which is why I always put semantics in my maturity (or better still: "readiness") web .. 

Would love your feedback on this.  
Hope it helps.

Chris

Chris Jones
CIBER | Senior Delivery Manager
Charlotte, NC
t: 704-612-0317
m: 919-604-0371
Posting: Learning Organizations (blog) | Collaboration DNA (G+C) | @sourcepov (Twitter)



--- In sikmleaders@..., murphjen@... wrote:
>
> it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of
> maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted,
> experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at
> least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the
> maturity model I designed for security organizations. If the KM maturity models
> aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray
>
>
> In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> gvalawebb@... writes:
>
>
>
> I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
> - roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
> - that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
> - and that draw on related-other's experiences
> - and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy /
> culture / technology base . . .
>
> Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.
>
> G
> Sent from my BlackBerry
>
> ____________________________________
> From: murphjen@...
> Sender: sikmleaders@...
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)
> To:
> ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
> Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model
>
>
>
> Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't
> been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing
> management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a
> hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use
> knowledge. I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed
> to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty
> good for that purpose...murray
>
>
> In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> plambe@... writes:
>
>
>
> I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high
> level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide
> knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that m
> aturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM
> Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be
> able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or
> address extremely weak capabilities (to the business).
>
>
> The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very
> good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of
> (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling
> instruments.
>
>
> P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Patrick Lambe
> Partner
> Tel: 62210383
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> website: _www.straitsknowledge.com_ (http://www.straitsknowledge.com/)
>
>
>
>
>
> weblog: _www.greenchameleon.com_ (http://www.greenchameleon.com/)
> book: _www.organisingknowledge.com_ (http://www.organisingknowledge.com/)
>
>
>
> Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?
>
>
>
> _http://store.straitsknowledge.com_ (http://store.straitsknowledge.com/)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> < div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon
> Vala-Webb.
>
>
> Gordon, thanks for your reply. I agree with you.
>
>
> As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for
> it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other
> organizations. It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others
> are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities
> such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not
> necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.
>
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
> --- In _sikmleaders@... (mailto:sikmleaders@...) ,
> "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
> >
> > I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes
> a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let
> alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of
> "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the
> hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a
> simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That
> is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place
> within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
> >
> > For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a
> government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite
> different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients.
> And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
> >
> > You are better off to start from an understanding of your own
> organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help
> influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or
> from experts y ou work with.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > --- In _sikmleaders@... (mailto:sikmleaders@...)
> , "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program -
> one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing'
> activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,,
> content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model
> that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > Terry
> > >
> >
>


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Gordon Vala-Webb <gvalawebb@...>
 

"I use predefined maturity models  -  . . with clients where it's helpful to them to have some explicit statements of "what's possible""

My sense is that you use maturity models (among other things) to generate discussion. I can see the attraction of doing so.

However I do think it is not what maturity models are intended to be. My understanding is that they are about "what should be" (rather than "what is possible") along some linear, hierarchical, path. That is - that there is a fixed number of states, organizations go through each state in sequence, and each state in the sequence is "higher" than the one before. Furthermore, every outside observer would agree as to what those stages are and which stage the organization is at. And so maturity models are typically used to assess where the organization is along that path (i.e. to see how "mature" or "immature" according to the model) - and to identify what they need to do next to move to the next stage.

I just don't think we have - for KM - a robust and validated maturity model. And the danger of presenting them is that it may suggest a "maturity" that doesn't exist (or an immaturity) and leads organizations to follow them blindly.

The solution is simple (if you want to generate discussion with organizational leaders): retitle "maturity models" and call them "Possible road map". And give organizations a couple to look at (all, obviously, related to their industry, size, etc.).


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Dave Cerrone
 

…I’d say all this dialog reflects on the effectiveness of this and other communities…to leverage collective knowledge from the members experiences/perspectives/opinions…to help others shape solutions to given situations/challenges, when a predefined solution is not available to “take off the shelf”. So long as trust exists for community members to continue asking for inputs, and there are community members motivated to share their knowledge, I’d say things are OK…



- Dave



Dave Cerrone
Knowledge Management Leader, Commercial teams

GE Power & Water



T 1-518-385-0196

M 1-518-605-6539
cerrone@... <mailto:david.cerrone@...>

www.ge.com <http://www.ge.com/>



1 River Road, Schenectady, NY 12345



Twitter <https://twitter.com/davecerrone> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davecerrone>







From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Katrina Pugh
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:39 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model





Murray (et al)

I think it says that we are perpetually curious!



(And, that we have a love-hate relationship with models that describe best-practices, because we know all-to-well that those practices play out so differently... and some cannot be best all the time... it's messy.)



We are curious and optimistic about people getting better, and we groan at the messiness of it all :)



Katrina Pugh

Academic Director, Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Masters' Program

President, AlignConsulting
Author of Sharing Hidden Know-How <http://www.amazon.com/Sharing-Hidden-Know-How-non-Franchise-Leadership/dp/0470876816/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295578223&sr=1-1> (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2011)

katepugh@...

www.alignconsultinginc.com <http://www.alignconsultinginc.com/>
617 967 3910 (m)
781 259 0340 (l)

-----Original Message-----
From: murphjen <murphjen@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model



Kate,



I tend to agree with you, I'd never look at a maturity model and say I have to do it exactly, it is a roadmap, every organization has its own eccentricities and you tailor the model to fit the organization.



The interesting thing is that maturity models themselves are examples of KM in that they tend to reflect best practice and lessons learned and I find it interesting to see such debate on their worth. What does that say about the KM community?



murray



In a message dated 1/3/2013 6:41:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, katepugh@... writes:



Hi, Murray et al -



A way you could look at it is as "dimensional" maturity. What I mean is that an organization may have higher or lower capacity to achieve based on the industry, competitive environment, talent, and psychological profiles of the employees. (Even the contiguous technologies, like a terrific socially-enabled CRM.)



That way, if there is some "breakaway KM" it's not hindered by the maturity model.



For example, an organization may be stumbling on the notion of identifying, exposing and tagging project content, but they love to TALK and have insatiable curiosity. I would encourage them to race ahead in the tacit knowledge-sharing initiatives, and let them defer (read: "stay immature"?) in content management.

,

(Patrick Lambe, perhaps that would also reduce the politicism of maturity.)



Kate



Katrina Pugh

Academic Director, Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Masters' Program

President, AlignConsulting
Author of Sharing Hidden Know-How <http://www.amazon.com/Sharing-Hidden-Know-How-non-Franchise-Leadership/dp/0470876816/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295578223&sr=1-1> (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2011)

katepugh@...

www.alignconsultinginc.com <http://www.alignconsultinginc.com/>
617 967 3910 (m)
781 259 0340 (l)

-----Original Message-----
From: murphjen <murphjen@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 6:36 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model



it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations. If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray



In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:



I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


________________________________


From: murphjen@...

Sender: sikmleaders@...

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)

To: <sikmleaders@...>

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model





Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge. I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray



In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:



I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business).



The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.



P



Patrick Lambe

Partner

Tel: 62210383



website: www.straitsknowledge.com <http://www.straitsknowledge.com/>

weblog: www.greenchameleon.com <http://www.greenchameleon.com/>

book: www.organisingknowledge.com <http://www.organisingknowledge.com/>



Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?



http://store.straitsknowledge.com <http://store.straitsknowledge.com/>















On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:









< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.



Gordon, thanks for your reply. I agree with you.



As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations. It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.



Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Katrina Pugh <katepugh@...>
 

Murray (et al)
I think it says that we are perpetually curious! 
 
(And, that we have a love-hate relationship with models that describe best-practices, because we know all-to-well that those practices play out so differently... and some cannot be best all the time... it's messy.)
 
We are curious and optimistic about people getting better, and we groan at the messiness of it all :)
 
Katrina Pugh
Academic Director, Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Masters' Program
President, AlignConsulting
Author of Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2011)
katepugh@...
www.alignconsultinginc.com
617 967 3910 (m)
781 259 0340 (l)

-----Original Message-----
From: murphjen
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 
Kate,
 
I tend to agree with you, I'd never look at a maturity model and say I have to do it exactly, it is a roadmap, every organization has its own eccentricities and you tailor the model to fit the organization. 
 
The interesting thing is that maturity models themselves are examples of KM in that they tend to reflect best practice and lessons learned and I find it interesting to see such debate on their worth.  What does that say about the KM community? 
 
murray
 
In a message dated 1/3/2013 6:41:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, katepugh@... writes:


Hi, Murray et al -
 
A way you could look at it is as "dimensional" maturity. What I mean is that an organization may have higher or lower capacity to achieve based on the industry, competitive environment, talent, and psychological profiles of the employees. (Even the contiguous technologies, like a terrific socially-enabled CRM.)
 
That way, if there is some "breakaway KM" it's not hindered by the maturity model.
 
For example, an organization may be stumbling on the notion of identifying, exposing and tagging project content, but they love to TALK and have insatiable curiosity. I would encourage them to race ahead in the tacit knowledge-sharing initiatives, and let them defer (read: "stay immature"?) in content management.
,
(Patrick Lambe, perhaps that would also reduce the politicism of maturity.)
 
Kate
 
Katrina Pugh
Academic Director, Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Masters' Program
President, AlignConsulting
Author of Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2011)
katepugh@...
www.alignconsultinginc.com
617 967 3910 (m)
781 259 0340 (l)
-----Original Message-----
From: murphjen <murphjen@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 6:36 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 
it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray
 
In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:


I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 
Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 
In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Murray Jennex
 

Kate,
 
I tend to agree with you, I'd never look at a maturity model and say I have to do it exactly, it is a roadmap, every organization has its own eccentricities and you tailor the model to fit the organization. 
 
The interesting thing is that maturity models themselves are examples of KM in that they tend to reflect best practice and lessons learned and I find it interesting to see such debate on their worth.  What does that say about the KM community? 
 
murray
 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 6:41:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, katepugh@... writes:


Hi, Murray et al -
 
A way you could look at it is as "dimensional" maturity. What I mean is that an organization may have higher or lower capacity to achieve based on the industry, competitive environment, talent, and psychological profiles of the employees. (Even the contiguous technologies, like a terrific socially-enabled CRM.)
 
That way, if there is some "breakaway KM" it's not hindered by the maturity model.
 
For example, an organization may be stumbling on the notion of identifying, exposing and tagging project content, but they love to TALK and have insatiable curiosity. I would encourage them to race ahead in the tacit knowledge-sharing initiatives, and let them defer (read: "stay immature"?) in content management.
,
(Patrick Lambe, perhaps that would also reduce the politicism of maturity.)
 
Kate
 
Katrina Pugh
Academic Director, Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Masters' Program
President, AlignConsulting
Author of Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2011)
katepugh@...
www.alignconsultinginc.com
617 967 3910 (m)
781 259 0340 (l)
-----Original Message-----
From: murphjen
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 6:36 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 
it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray
 
In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:


I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 
Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 
In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Douglas Weidner
 

Chris,

 

Excellent contribution, especially use of models to spark in-depth discussions.

 

Douglas

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Chris Collison
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:56 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Hi All,

I agree with Katrina on this.

 
I use predefined maturity models  - there, I've said it!   [...and breathe] - and self-assessment tools with clients where it's helpful to them to have some explicit statements of "what's possible"  - even if they disagree with the levels and detail.  It's great  if they do. What matters is that they have a place to start their dialogue.

 I also use statements of "what good looks like" (http://chriscollison.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/can-you-tell-what-it-is-yet/), use storytelling to draw on their own experiences and build their own models, selectively introduce good practices from inside and outside their sectors through examples, site visits and facilitated peer assists, work with them co-create a shared vision of the future...

 

The point here is that in helping a client to articulate their own roadmap for improvement through KM, there is a whole spectrum of tools available.  Some are prescriptive, some are diagnostic, some are collaborative, some are creative, some are emergent, some are disruptive and some are inspirational.  Surely our responsibility as consultants is to introduce the most appropriate methods for each client to assist their progress?

 

For some reason, whenever they come up in these kind of discussions - on sikmleaders and LinkedIn, Maturity Models work as a lightning rod for charged forks of self-righteous-consultant-indignation!

I guess it's because they exist at the explicit end of the above spectrum, and hence reveal more of their underbelly for others to disagree with.   Yet, it's in the disagreement that much of the learning is discovered, because there are times when the existence of a straw-man model can provoke dialogue that methods won't.  We just need to be smart at understanding then to use which method, and how to coach people in their use.

 

If people are instructed use maturity models in a painting-by-numbers style and are corralled unthinkingly into a gap analysis which (quelle surprise) happens to match the consultant's favourite bag of KM tools  - then I think we would all suggest that they are being milked, rather than advised.   

But the blame should be with the workman rather than the tool.

 

 




Chris Collison, Director & Founder,  Knowledgeable Ltd.

 Consultancy    ●    Strategic Advice    ●    Training
Because all of us are smarter than any of us...

Mobile:  +44 (0)7841 262900

___________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Katrina Pugh
Sent: 03 January 2013 14:42
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 





Hi, Murray et al -

 

A way you could look at it is as "dimensional" maturity. What I mean is that an organization may have higher or lower capacity to achieve based on the industry, competitive environment, talent, and psychological profiles of the employees. (Even the contiguous technologies, like a terrific socially-enabled CRM.)

 

That way, if there is some "breakaway KM" it's not hindered by the maturity model.

 

For example, an organization may be stumbling on the notion of identifying, exposing and tagging project content, but they love to TALK and have insatiable curiosity. I would encourage them to race ahead in the tacit knowledge-sharing initiatives, and let them defer (read: "stay immature"?) in content management.

,

(Patrick Lambe, perhaps that would also reduce the politicism of maturity.)

 

Kate

 

Katrina Pugh

Academic Director, Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Masters' Program

President, AlignConsulting
Author of Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2011)

katepugh@...

www.alignconsultinginc.com
617 967 3910 (m)
781 259 0340 (l)

-----Original Message-----
From: murphjen <murphjen@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 6:36 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray

 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:



I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray

 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:



I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

Tel: 62210383

 

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:




 

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 

 






No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5998 - Release Date: 12/30/12


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6003 - Release Date: 01/02/13


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Chris Collison <chris@...>
 

Hi All,

I agree with Katrina on this.

 
I use predefined maturity models  - there, I've said it!   [...and breathe] - and self-assessment tools with clients where it's helpful to them to have some explicit statements of "what's possible"  - even if they disagree with the levels and detail.  It's great  if they do. What matters is that they have a place to start their dialogue.

 I also use statements of "what good looks like" (http://chriscollison.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/can-you-tell-what-it-is-yet/), use storytelling to draw on their own experiences and build their own models, selectively introduce good practices from inside and outside their sectors through examples, site visits and facilitated peer assists, work with them co-create a shared vision of the future...

 

The point here is that in helping a client to articulate their own roadmap for improvement through KM, there is a whole spectrum of tools available.  Some are prescriptive, some are diagnostic, some are collaborative, some are creative, some are emergent, some are disruptive and some are inspirational.  Surely our responsibility as consultants is to introduce the most appropriate methods for each client to assist their progress?

 

For some reason, whenever they come up in these kind of discussions - on sikmleaders and LinkedIn, Maturity Models work as a lightning rod for charged forks of self-righteous-consultant-indignation!

I guess it's because they exist at the explicit end of the above spectrum, and hence reveal more of their underbelly for others to disagree with.   Yet, it's in the disagreement that much of the learning is discovered, because there are times when the existence of a straw-man model can provoke dialogue that methods won't.  We just need to be smart at understanding then to use which method, and how to coach people in their use.

 

If people are instructed use maturity models in a painting-by-numbers style and are corralled unthinkingly into a gap analysis which (quelle surprise) happens to match the consultant's favourite bag of KM tools  - then I think we would all suggest that they are being milked, rather than advised.   

But the blame should be with the workman rather than the tool.

 

 



Chris Collison, Director & Founder,  Knowledgeable Ltd.

 Consultancy    ●    Strategic Advice    ●    Training
Because all of us are smarter than any of us...

Mobile:  +44 (0)7841 262900

___________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Katrina Pugh
Sent: 03 January 2013 14:42
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 




Hi, Murray et al -

 

A way you could look at it is as "dimensional" maturity. What I mean is that an organization may have higher or lower capacity to achieve based on the industry, competitive environment, talent, and psychological profiles of the employees. (Even the contiguous technologies, like a terrific socially-enabled CRM.)

 

That way, if there is some "breakaway KM" it's not hindered by the maturity model.

 

For example, an organization may be stumbling on the notion of identifying, exposing and tagging project content, but they love to TALK and have insatiable curiosity. I would encourage them to race ahead in the tacit knowledge-sharing initiatives, and let them defer (read: "stay immature"?) in content management.

,

(Patrick Lambe, perhaps that would also reduce the politicism of maturity.)

 

Kate

 

Katrina Pugh

Academic Director, Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Masters' Program

President, AlignConsulting
Author of Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2011)

katepugh@...

www.alignconsultinginc.com
617 967 3910 (m)
781 259 0340 (l)

-----Original Message-----
From: murphjen <murphjen@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 6:36 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray

 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:



I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray

 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:



I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

Tel: 62210383

 

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:



 

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 

 





No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5998 - Release Date: 12/30/12


Suggestions for organizing resources on social impact #request

Katharine Bierce <kbierce@...>
 

Hi there,

Along with others such as Belinda Chiang and Bert-Ola Bergstrom, I have compiled a pretty comprehensive online resource for social innovation and impact investment platforms.
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1uSbfCbZg5_tjKWJYNV38SrYdZrlbgrO8R7E866Iw3uA&hl=en

The social innovation community needs to build something better than a Google Doc, though.  It should be searchable, with a good taxonomy, updatable and editable by each participant in the ecosystem, with appropriate quality controls and metrics.

Do any of you have suggestions on how to best organize this knowledge?

Thanks,

Katharine

--
Katharine Bierce
kbierce@...
914-262-0314 cell
my blog
Twitter: @kbierce


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Douglas Weidner
 

Gordon,

 

One would hope a methodology is robust, despite technology evolution.

For instance, one would expect major components such as strategic planning and change mgmt to apply regardless of industry and organization size.

 

Clearly, appropriate KM initiatives would vary depending on organization characteristics.

We use a KM Solutions Matrix™ to compare organizational characteristics to proven KM applications.

 

Douglas

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Gordon Vala-Webb
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:40 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

To be useful as diagnostic "assessments" KM maturity models must be based on a validated methodology that applies to all (most?) organizations over all (most?) time.

In my view we don't have that validated methodology. We have claims to it - but none with independent, third-party, confirmation.

I suspect, given how context-specific K is - and hence its management - we are a long way from it.

I could imagine that you could develop a proposed industry-, size- and strategy-specific KM model (e.g. for large, global, consulting firm pursuing IT implementation work) that could then be validated. But even there new technologies (e.g. mobile, social networking, big data) are likely disrupting any current models.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


From: "Douglas Weidner" <douglas.weidner@...>

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:06:50 -0500

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Note: Blatant sales pitch follows, but it was prompted by the continued interest in KM Maturity Models.

 

Most maturity models are mere assessments, a diagnosis.

 

To be effective, they must be both diagnostic and prescriptive.

 

To be prescriptive, they must be backed by a robust KM Methodology, including strategic and change management considerations as has been done in the US DoD, starting back in 1994.

 

At the KM Institute we designed a Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™ in 1999. It was premature.

 

Over the last few years it has been updated and enriched with the KM Methodology. The methodology starts with A11 Understand KM, which points to our existing rich certification curriculum.

 

Stir all that together KMM, KM Methodology and curriculum, and you have what I think is the more expansive future need, a KM Transformation Solution™.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Douglas Weidner, Chief CKM Instructor

Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute

Best in Blended KM Training & Certification

Home of the KM Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)™

Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™, and

KM Transformation Solution

O: 703-757-1395

douglas.weidner@...
www.kminstitute.org
 



      

 

KM Institute Corp. Video

Course Catalogue Video

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:36 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray

 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:



I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray

 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:



I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

Tel: 62210383

 

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:




 

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 

 


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6003 - Release Date: 01/02/13


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6003 - Release Date: 01/02/13


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Gordon Vala-Webb <gvalawebb@...>
 

To be useful as diagnostic "assessments" KM maturity models must be based on a validated methodology that applies to all (most?) organizations over all (most?) time.

In my view we don't have that validated methodology. We have claims to it - but none with independent, third-party, confirmation.

I suspect, given how context-specific K is - and hence its management - we are a long way from it.

I could imagine that you could develop a proposed industry-, size- and strategy-specific KM model (e.g. for large, global, consulting firm pursuing IT implementation work) that could then be validated. But even there new technologies (e.g. mobile, social networking, big data) are likely disrupting any current models.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

From: "Douglas Weidner" <douglas.weidner@...>
Sender: sikmleaders@...
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:06:50 -0500
To: <sikmleaders@...>
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

Note: Blatant sales pitch follows, but it was prompted by the continued interest in KM Maturity Models.

 

Most maturity models are mere assessments, a diagnosis.

 

To be effective, they must be both diagnostic and prescriptive.

 

To be prescriptive, they must be backed by a robust KM Methodology, including strategic and change management considerations as has been done in the US DoD, starting back in 1994.

 

At the KM Institute we designed a Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™ in 1999. It was premature.

 

Over the last few years it has been updated and enriched with the KM Methodology. The methodology starts with A11 Understand KM, which points to our existing rich certification curriculum.

 

Stir all that together KMM, KM Methodology and curriculum, and you have what I think is the more expansive future need, a KM Transformation Solution™.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Douglas Weidner, Chief CKM Instructor

Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute

Best in Blended KM Training & Certification

Home of the KM Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)™

Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™, and

KM Transformation Solution

O: 703-757-1395

douglas.weidner@...
www.kminstitute.org
 



      

 

KM Institute Corp. Video

Course Catalogue Video

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:36 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray

 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:



I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray

 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:



I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

Tel: 62210383

 

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:



 

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 

 


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6003 - Release Date: 01/02/13


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Douglas Weidner
 

Note: Blatant sales pitch follows, but it was prompted by the continued interest in KM Maturity Models.

 

Most maturity models are mere assessments, a diagnosis.

 

To be effective, they must be both diagnostic and prescriptive.

 

To be prescriptive, they must be backed by a robust KM Methodology, including strategic and change management considerations as has been done in the US DoD, starting back in 1994.

 

At the KM Institute we designed a Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™ in 1999. It was premature.

 

Over the last few years it has been updated and enriched with the KM Methodology. The methodology starts with A11 Understand KM, which points to our existing rich certification curriculum.

 

Stir all that together KMM, KM Methodology and curriculum, and you have what I think is the more expansive future need, a KM Transformation Solution™.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Douglas Weidner, Chief CKM Instructor

Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute

Best in Blended KM Training & Certification

Home of the KM Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)™

Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™, and

KM Transformation Solution

O: 703-757-1395

douglas.weidner@...
www.kminstitute.org
 



      

 

KM Institute Corp. Video

Course Catalogue Video

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:36 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray

 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:



I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray

 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:



I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

Tel: 62210383

 

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:



 

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 

 


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6003 - Release Date: 01/02/13


Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Katrina Pugh <katepugh@...>
 

Hi, Murray et al -
 
A way you could look at it is as "dimensional" maturity. What I mean is that an organization may have higher or lower capacity to achieve based on the industry, competitive environment, talent, and psychological profiles of the employees. (Even the contiguous technologies, like a terrific socially-enabled CRM.)
 
That way, if there is some "breakaway KM" it's not hindered by the maturity model.
 
For example, an organization may be stumbling on the notion of identifying, exposing and tagging project content, but they love to TALK and have insatiable curiosity. I would encourage them to race ahead in the tacit knowledge-sharing initiatives, and let them defer (read: "stay immature"?) in content management.
,
(Patrick Lambe, perhaps that would also reduce the politicism of maturity.)
 
Kate
 
Katrina Pugh
Academic Director, Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Masters' Program
President, AlignConsulting
Author of Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2011)
katepugh@...
www.alignconsultinginc.com
617 967 3910 (m)
781 259 0340 (l)

-----Original Message-----
From: murphjen
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 6:36 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 
it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray
 
In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:


I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 
Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 
In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Murray Jennex
 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray
 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:


I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

From: murphjen@...
Sender: sikmleaders@...
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)
To:
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 
In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Gordon Vala-Webb <gvalawebb@...>
 

I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

From: murphjen@...
Sender: sikmleaders@...
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)
To: <sikmleaders@...>
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Re: KM Maturity Model #maturity

Murray Jennex
 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>


6681 - 6700 of 9977