|
Re: Big data for information managers
#data-science
Steve Ardire <sardire@...>
Hello Matt - inline below
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Matt Moore <innotecture@...> wrote:
Yes that's what I stated plus a bit more you left out
You really don't need to be cute or coy because it's amateurish ;)
Then you did a poor job at due dligence on Enterprise Data World sessions http://edw2013.dataversity.net/ and completely ignored SemtechBiz SF http://semtechbizsf2013.semanticweb.com/ because it would have make you look more foolish
Yikes this is so lame and ignorant I'll pass on commenting more.
Hehe Smart Data is becoming an accepted term so you should be the one to knock yourself out to get up to speed !
No cheers from me ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Big data for information managers
#data-science
Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
Steve,
"These people are pretty clueless and sorry not an opportunity because many players i.e. startups to big established players are already exploiting" Maybe things are different in Australia but many people with analytics roles in large organisations do not have deep knowledge of either the semantic web or unstructured information. I am happy to be told that the US is completely different. I would note that out of over 100 sessions at Enterprise Data World 2013, only 5 included semantics or taxonomy in the title (including some familiar names) - and most of those seemed to be starting at a basic level. So I reckon that the US is a year or two ahead but my impression remains that it's still early days there too. By "opportunity", I mean the opportunity for those who work with unstructured data to work with those who work with structured data. I am aware that there are a lot of start-ups in this area. I am also aware that many of the auto-categorisation tools out there are getting better but we still don't seem to have hit the realms of magic yet. As for creating new buzzterms, I'm a bit over that to be honest. But feel free to knock yourself out. And I have never been to KM World so can't comment on that. Cheers, Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Big data for information managers
#data-science
Steve Ardire <sardire@...>
> One interesting point of crossover was an analyst using semantic web approaches to map together different data sources. He was giving a presso to a bunch of analytics guys about what he'd done and none of them had ever heard of semanticweb/ontologies/taxonomies before - which struck me as an opportunity actually.
These people are pretty clueless and sorry not an opportunity because many players i.e. startups to big established players are already exploiting
Big Data architectures are now the rage to give organizations the ability to access broader more complex data sets with more flexibility. But simply joining, consolidating and managing these volumes of data is not enough.
This year Big Data will be usurped by Smart Data and here's a definition I generated since I actively consult in Big Data, Information Mgmt, Semantic Technology and much more.... Smart Data is web and enterprise data with explicit semantics (e.g. annotation, entity & metadata extraction, natural language processing, taxonomies ontologies, linked data) combined with implicit semantics (e.g. machine learning, inference) that leverages behavioral actions of users to better understand intent and drive business processes for smarter decision making. A 'smart data' management platform can extract taxonomy and meaning using both rule based and 'automatic' contextualization algorithms that can be integrated into predictive analytics, knowledge collaboration, collective intelligence and other information management applications to allow faster time to insight with better predictions and decisions.
I suggest you peruse programs of these conferences ( yes there's more like Strata, Giga, et al ) all of which blow away KM World Enterprise Data World http://edw2013.dataversity.net/ April 28 - May 2
SemtechBiz SF http://semtechbizsf2013.semanticweb.com/ June 2 - 5 Cheers....Steve Steve Ardire
Twitter: @sardire skype: sardire
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Matt Moore <innotecture@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Big data for information managers
#data-science
Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
Thanks Nick,
There is a tendency for vendors to sell Big Data as "magic" - and corresponding desire among execs to believe that magic exists (similar to enterprise search in many respects). In talking to analysts, one thing that comes out is the effort required shaping the data to the point at which it can be analysed. One interesting point of crossover was an analyst using semantic web approaches to map together different data sources. He was giving a presso to a bunch of analytics guys about what he'd done and none of them had ever heard of semanticweb/ontologies/taxonomies before - which struck me as an opportunity actually. Cheers, Matt ________________________________ From: nick risti <nickristi@...> To: sikmleaders@... Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Big data for information managers Matt, Very timely and to the point. The approach (for Information Mgr.) is interesting because so many write ups treating Big Data as somehow detached from human intervention except when it comes to the analytics stage. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Big data for information managers
#data-science
Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
Steve & Laurie,
My article does discuss the Target teen pregnancy story. I think the Target story in the NYT is reasonably well-supported by the journalist but not bullet-proof. And it is a great story. As for retailers identifying when women are pregnant before they know themselves - I suspect the panellist was making stuff up based on hearing the Target story (or some version there of). I know one woman who went thru her entire pregnancy not knowing (or not admitting to herself) that she was pregnant. I know of several woman who know if they are pregnant 2 weeks after conception. The Target story is fast shaing up to the "beer 'n' nappies" parable of the 21st century: http://www.dssresources.com/newsletters/66.php Cheers, Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Big data for information managers
#data-science
Steve Ardire <sardire@...>
How Companies Learn Your Secrets http://nyti.ms/QbbTyS How Target knows when its shoppers are pregnant - and figured out a teen was before her father did http://bit.ly/A1IYis via @MailOnline
How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did
Cheers....Steve
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Laurence Lock Lee <llocklee@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Big data for information managers
#data-science
Laurence Lock Lee
…I was at a conference yesterday where a panel member indicated that one of the UK retailers (not mentioned) could predict pregnancies BEFORE even the woman knew…..not sure of the truth in this story but it certainly got the attention of at least half the audience :)
Laurence Lock Lee PhD Learn to network, then network to learn
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Big data for information managers
#data-science
Nikola Ristivojevich
--- On Tue, 3/12/13, Matt Moore wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big data for information managers
#data-science
Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
This is an article that I wrote at the end of last year on "big data" and information management. Enjoy. http://innotecture.com.au/2013/03/12/big-data/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Personalization KM" Vs "Personal KM"
#PKM
Jack Vinson <jackvinson@...>
Never heard of "Personalization KM". A lot has been written and thought about Personal KM. As with "standard" KM, definitions range all over the place from a version of Personal Information Management to being intelligent about how you acquire, hold, and pass along knowledge. In this view, the network is clearly an important aspect of it. I suggest having a look at Harold Jarche's thinking http://www.jarche.com/pkm/. I've written on it too, but Harold has been continuing to think about this topic.
-- Jack Vinson (m) 847.212.5789
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, jeevan kamble <jeevan_km@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Trends in Knowledge Management
#hot-topics
Neil, words starting with "c" are often used in frameworks and lists. See "N Cs of topic X" at http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddj598qm_11hp3sd9hp . So your list fits right in. I recently created a list of about 70 words starting with "c" which are leadership attributes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Trends in Knowledge Management
#hot-topics
Neil Olonoff
Stan -
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I agree it could be a problem. I stopped at 5: Content Collaboration Community Competencies, Knowledge Work Change Management -- although agree with Fred that others share this This framework has been in use 2 years with pretty good success; all it lacks is overt recognition of processes. neil Neil Olonoff
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:43 PM, StanGarfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Trends in Knowledge Management
#hot-topics
Neil, the problem with expanding from simple groupings (e.g., people, process, technology) to more elaborate ones is that you can continue expanding and defining forever. For example, my recent KMWorld presentation included 80 KM specialties (see http://conferences.infotoday.com/stats/documents/default.aspx?id=7374&lnk=http%3A%2F%2Fconferences.infotoday.com%2Fdocuments%2F159%2FA105_Garfield.ppt ), and you can make the case that it is missing many others.
People can try to use a few simple categories to group specialties, or many categories, but such efforts will always be imperfect and incomplete. So use the ones that are meaningful to you, and others may choose to adopt or adapt your approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Trends in Knowledge Management
#hot-topics
Neil Olonoff
Birgit and all,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Lately I've been writing about the deficiencies (as I see them) of the "People, Process & Technology" framework. To me, it does not explain or support KM very well. First, PPT is so general and high level, you can use it to explain anything at all. Think about it; you could discuss the "people, process and technology" aspect of tiddly-winks. Second, it seems to me that almost all KM initiatives / programs partake almost equally of all three aspects. There's a people, process, & technology aspect to almost everything, to include: - content management - collaboration systems - communities - competencies improvement - change management - knowledge embedding in processes / workflows Since early KM doctrine use PPT, it's almost impossible to eradicate. I've noticed that people are very possessive of it and resistant to change. It's akin to a religious belief. I've started using a different framework specifically for KM Initiatives: Content, collaboration, Community, Competencies & Change Management. I also have a suspicion about PPT, and wonder if it's true: I suspect one of the early uses of it was by IT folks who were compensating for programs that failed due to inadequate attention to people and process, hence their insistence that they did, really and truly care about processes, and yes, by the way, people too! With that pedigree, if true, it's another reason we should seal PPT into its coffin and drive a stake in its heart. But do you agree, or violently disagree? What are your thoughts? Neil Olonoff
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Gobi, Birgit (HP Technology Consulting Knowledge Management) <birgit.gobi@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Trends in Knowledge Management
#hot-topics
>How you would define Knowledge Management these days? Knowledge Management is the art of transforming information and intellectual assets into enduring value for an organization's clients and its people. The purpose of knowledge management is to:
KM provides people, processes, and technology to help knowledge flow
>What you think the most important trends are? My top 3 KM trends today:
>Any outstanding success stories in your experience?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Trends in Knowledge Management
#hot-topics
Gobi, Birgit (HP Technology Consulting Knowledge Management) <birgit.gobi@...>
Hello, As a Knowledge Manager (practitioner for more than 10 years) in HP (in the Technology Consulting Business for the EMEA Region) and external consultant I still define Knowledge Management as the “systematic approach to help information and knowledge flow to the right people at the right time so they can act more efficiently and effectively in their daily job. The KM program relies on three main components: People who are the producers and consumers of knowledge, Processes that guide the management of the knowledge and Tools to facilitate access to knowledge assets. “
This definition has still worked for us for years.
I see that document management and collaboration are becoming more and more blurred. Also smartphones, etc., help to access knowledge from everywhere and everytime (companies plan to provide this type of access to employees, also for internal knowlede sources). I also see the trend to connect innovation with knowledge management (which was more or less separate in the past). Also, the role of a knowledge manager is assigned.
We have many success stories on KM here in HP. In my business unit and region we are collecting these from the employees on a quarterly basis and promote them (to show the value of KM to the business)
Hope this helps.
BR, Birgit (Gobi)
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
On Behalf Of amakkaychambers
Sent: Sonntag, 03. März 2013 17:29 To: sikmleaders@... Subject: [sikmleaders] New Trends in Knowledge Management
Dear All
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Personalization KM" Vs "Personal KM"
#PKM
Jeevan Kamble
Dear All, Wanted to understand some basics on exact definition or difference between "Personalization KM" (other than codification KM strategy) Vs "Personal KM". Personalization KM focus on People to People connection and does Personal KM focus only on using social media to learn or even giving back to recipients i.e. sharing knowledge OR both are one and the same? To me title "Personal KM" is just as a user but not a contributor or participant. Looking forward to hear from you. Thanks & Regards Jeevan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Comprehensive "21st Century Organization Science"
#name
gordonvalawebb <gvalawebb@...>
I agree heartily that the question that faces large, complex, organizations is how to be "smart" - and that this requires an inter-disciplinary approach - in my view a design-based approach rooted in integrative thinking and starting from a wicked problem perspective. I just posted a slide deck on why our organizations are not smart and what you can do about it. To see it go to the homepage of my website: http://www.dynamicadaptation.com/ . There is other info there in my blog and under the resources tab (including a recorded webinar on the topic). As to what to call this science? and practice? I'm not sure; how about organizational management (for really it is about how best to manage organizations). Gordon
--- In sikmleaders@..., Neil Olonoff wrote:
> > * > <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed=&gid=1824723&memberID=10338086&goback=%2Egmp_1824723> > * > Stan, and all: > I posted this question to the Federal KM Initiative LinkedIn group, and, > since I respect this group, would like to have your reactions: > *Can we create an enlightened "21st Century Organization Science" that > includes Knowledge Management, Org Development, Teamwork, Coaching, > Interpersonal Communications, & Meeting Management? * > > In my opinion knowledge management, though broad, is just one piece of the > "smart work" puzzle. In other words, it is not a silver bullet or panacea. > After all, if all the platform and infrastructure pieces are in place, but > there is no trust, information will not flow. Similarly, teamwork, > coaching, etc., listed above are "necessary but not sufficient" to achieve > a truly "smart" organization. Not surprising, since organizations are not > designed to be good at teaming and knowledge sharing. They are designed to > be efficient at 1) allowing management visibility into actions 2) > permitting upward reporting, and 3) similar "scientific management" > concerns. Brains at the top, worker bees at bottom. > I can envision a future, holistic organization science curriculum that > brings all the pieces of the puzzle together in a grand synthesis. > > As a starting point: what would this future organization science be > called? > > Neil Olonoff >
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Comprehensive "21st Century Organization Science"
#name
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
I totally agree, Stephen.
Al Simard
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A Comprehensive "21st Century Organization Science"
#name
Stephen Bounds
Hi Neil,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
My view is that Knowledge Management practitioners should consider all of the components you list as within their remit, ie KM should also concern itself with Org Development, Teamwork, Coaching, Interpersonal Communications, & Meeting Management. Therefore, finding a new name for the above would also be replacing the term "Knowledge Management" with something else. The term is quite capable of being all-inclusive; the problem lies more in KM's often-noted image and reputation problem. Cheers, -- Stephen. ==================================== Stephen Bounds Director & Principal Consultant knowquestion Pty Ltd E: sb@... M: 0401 829 096 ====================================
On 6/03/2013 4:16 AM, Neil Olonoff wrote:
*<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed=&gid=1824723&memberID=10338086&goback=%2Egmp_1824723>
|
|
|
|